Discussing trust paradoxically acknowledges the existence of uncertainty. In fact, one thing that investors and CEOs share from the outset is doubt. While agreements aim to clarify ambiguities and specify rights and duties, contracts are inherently incomplete. They cannot compel attitudes, goodwill, or sincerity. Signing a contract is an act of trust—a bet on the quality of future cooperation beyond its legal codification.

When an investor and a CEO agree, they are largely interdependent. For the entrepreneur, selling equity means relinquishing autonomy. The investor, eager to convince, presents objective elements—figures and references—to argue their suitability. But the decisive question remains: personal trust.

It’s essential to distinguish between competence trust and intentional trust. Competence trust can largely be based on objective evaluation (degrees, experiences, and past results). However, we are less equipped when it comes to assessing trust in others’ intentions, their willingness to act in the best mutual interests, and their commitment to loyalty. In such cases, we must trust the person—the individual.

One CEO marveled at having met such an investor and then choosing him over others:

“We are almost the same age. His children study in the USA like mine. He kitesurfers; I do too. That creates bonds.”

How can this interpersonal trust be fostered? By presenting oneself as a trustworthy person! While this answer may seem simplistic, its behavioral implications are far from trivial.

Recently, during a management presentation, I witnessed a seasoned investor eloquently discuss the management company, the various funds managed, and the resources mobilized to support their investments—without even realizing that his counterpart, the CEO, was sharing personal anecdotes: his youth, the region where he grew up, his aspirations post-deal. Our unperturbed investor continued to focus solely on factual, objective information, neglecting the personal dimension.

Presenting oneself as a person! The person is more than the social personality or the persona. In Latin, the word persona refers to the mask worn by actors. These masks were limited in number and corresponded to archetypal characters. For the audience, they predicted each character’s behavior. When making a decision, do you rely on masks? Neither do your counterparts! Who will trust you—humanly—if they don’t meet you as a person, if you don’t remove the mask?

Building interpersonal trust requires each party to meet the other as a whole person, not reducing them to their economic role or social function.

You can facilitate such encounters by increasing informal exchanges—moments of conviviality where you set aside your sharp focus on objectives, engage in conversations unrelated to your financial project, and share personal stories. This encourages your counterpart to also remove their mask, to discuss their interests, their life in general, and themselves. This is the “small talk” cherished by Americans: you will learn much about the other—you have much to gain—and they will learn much about you—what do you have to lose? Aren’t you a person worthy of trust? Who stands to gain from being known?

It’s not intuitive, yet not concealing your weaknesses from a counterpart is an act of trust—it simultaneously inspires trust! But to show vulnerability or imperfection, to discuss past mistakes, one must possess strong self-confidence.