Life sometimes places us in the uncomfortable position of having to regularly interact with people we know aren’t trustworthy. Maybe it’s a colleague whose promises mean nothing, a family member who twists your words, or a neighbor whose version of events rarely matches reality.
Navigating these relationships requires skill and strategy. While cutting ties might seem ideal, certain circumstances can make that impossible. Perhaps you work together, co-parent, or share important social circles.
So, what can you do? Well, you can develop practical approaches to manage these interactions without sacrificing your wellbeing. Finding a balance between necessary engagement and self-protection is possible, even when trust is impossible.
Let’s explore ten effective strategies for handling those unavoidable relationships with people who have proven they can’t be trusted.
1. Practice emotional distancing.
In my experience, the first and most important approach to dealing with untrustworthy people is to create emotional distance that prevents their actions from cutting too deeply. This doesn’t mean becoming cold or robotic, but rather, maintaining a healthy detachment during interactions.
When you disengage emotionally while remaining functionally engaged, you reduce your vulnerability. Your mind stays clear and objective, allowing you to recognize untrustworthy words or actions that might otherwise slip past your defenses. This balanced approach means you can interact when necessary without becoming overly stressed, upset, or angered by them.
It’s helpful to think of conversations with these people as transactions rather than connections—you exchange necessary information without sharing your emotional energy.
By mentally categorizing this person as a functional contact rather than someone with access to your inner world, you create a protective boundary. Their actions become less personal and more predictable.
2. Focus on facts, not intentions.
When dealing with someone who is trustworthy, giving them the benefit of the doubt comes naturally. With untrustworthy individuals, however, this generosity often backfires spectacularly.
Their explanations might sound convincing. The stories about why they couldn’t follow through might seem plausible. But patterns reveal truth more reliably than promises or explanations ever will.
I’ve found that tracking what actually happens rather than what was promised provides a much clearer picture of reality. Did they complete the task? Did the information they shared prove accurate? Did they respect the boundary you established?
The behavioral evidence speaks volumes, and by focusing exclusively on observable actions and measurable outcomes, you ground yourself in reality rather than hope.
Looking at the indisputable facts also prevents the emotional rollercoaster of repeatedly believing excuses that never translate into changed behavior.
3. Minimize personal disclosure.
Your personal information becomes ammunition in the wrong hands. Untrustworthy people often collect details about your life, preferences, fears, and vulnerabilities, not to connect authentically, but to gain an advantage.
The practice of “going gray rock” offers a solution here: becoming as uninteresting as possible to manipulative people by sharing minimal personal information.
When conversation partners become overly nosy, having ready deflections helps. What works well is redirecting questions back to the asker or pivoting to neutral topics. Responses like “Nothing exciting to report” or “Just the usual” satisfy social expectations without revealing anything meaningful.
Many of us were raised to answer questions directly and honestly. With untrustworthy people, this social conditioning needs adjustment. Remember that your personal information belongs to you, and only you decide who earns access to it.
4. Communicate directly.
Ambiguity creates fertile ground for manipulation. When dealing with untrustworthy people, vague requests or unclear boundaries leave dangerous room for “creative interpretation” of your words.
My approach has evolved to use simple, specific language that leaves minimal wiggle room. Instead of “Could you maybe help with the project soon?” try “Can you complete the financial analysis by Friday at 5pm?”
The SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) used in goal-setting can be transferred remarkably well to communications with untrustworthy people. Each SMART component reduces ambiguity and increases accountability.
In conversations, summarizing agreements aloud and following up in writing creates clarity for both parties. And, no, this isn’t controlling; it ensures shared understanding and prevents the frustrating “that’s not what I meant” scenarios later.
5. Develop a “Plan B” mindset.
Preparing backup options isn’t pessimistic; it’s prudent and practical when dealing with consistently unreliable people. Having contingency plans ready reduces stress and prevents their unreliability from derailing your responsibilities.
The difference between preparedness and anxiety lies in your approach. Rather than worrying about what might go wrong, simply ask: “If X doesn’t happen as promised, what’s my next step?” Then create that option in advance.
For shared responsibilities, backup plans might include identifying others who could step in, extending timelines, or having ready-made alternatives. Your contingencies should remain private—there’s no need to announce them, especially to the untrustworthy individual you are dealing with.
This approach allows you to engage without naivety. You can accept their commitments at face value while privately preparing for other outcomes. The peace of mind this creates is invaluable when navigating relationships with chronically unreliable people.
6. Have witnesses present.
The presence of observers fundamentally changes interaction dynamics with untrustworthy individuals. Behaviors like manipulation, misrepresentation, and commitment-breaking become far less likely when others are watching.
When planning important conversations or negotiations, arranging for appropriate third parties to be present creates accountability. This might be colleagues in work settings, mutual friends in social contexts, or even professionals like mediators in more formal situations.
If having others physically present isn’t possible, digital alternatives exist. Having conversations via email rather than phone calls creates automatic documentation. Video calls can be recorded with proper consent, depending on your location’s laws.
What I’ve noticed is that simply mentioning that others will be involved or informed often improves behavior dramatically. The knowledge that their words and actions will be witnessed by multiple people can motivate better conduct from even chronically untrustworthy individuals.
7. Adopt “strategic documentation”.
Creating records doesn’t require obvious note-taking or formal documentation that might escalate tensions. Subtle approaches work better and maintain relationship functioning.
After conversations, sending friendly follow-up emails that “summarize our discussion” creates documentation while appearing helpful. “Just to make sure I understood correctly…” allows you to confirm details while creating a paper trail.
Digital tools like shared project management systems create automatic documentation in professional contexts. Suggesting these tools as efficiency measures rather than accountability mechanisms prevents defensiveness.
The goal isn’t creating evidence for confrontation but rather preventing gaslighting and establishing clarity. Good documentation protects your reality from being rewritten by someone with different motives or memory.
8. Learn to redirect conversations.
Knowing how to steer a conversation is an art worth mastering when dealing with untrustworthy people. The ability to smoothly shift topics away from sensitive areas prevents information mining and manipulation.
When uncomfortable questions arise, bridging techniques create natural transitions. Acknowledging their question briefly before moving to related but safer ground works well: “That’s an interesting question about my finances. Speaking of money matters, have you seen the new budget proposal?”
The broken record technique from assertiveness literature proves valuable here too. Calmly repeating your redirection despite continued attempts to return to sensitive topics signals your boundaries without creating conflict.
Your timing matters when redirecting. Waiting too long after a problematic question can make your redirection obvious and awkward. Quick, natural-sounding transitions work best before the conversation deepens in problematic directions.
9. Indirectly verify their words.
Verification doesn’t require confrontation. Subtle fact-checking protects you without damaging workable relationships with untrustworthy people.
The technique of “triangulation” that investigative journalists use can come in handy here. Triangulation involves seeking information from multiple sources, and it creates a more accurate picture than relying on any single account.
When someone makes claims about deadlines, policies, or facts, quietly checking with other sources reveals the full picture.
In professional settings, “just double-checking” emails to others who might be involved in a project or role creates verification while appearing thorough rather than distrustful. Questions framed as clarification rather than challenge maintain the effective functioning of the relationship.
I find that developing independent information channels pays dividends when dealing with untrustworthy people. Having your own direct connections to other stakeholders means never relying solely on potentially distorted information.
10. Manage your responses to their behavior.
How you respond to problematic behavior sets the tone for future interactions. Reactions that protect your interests without unnecessary confrontation preserve relationships while maintaining boundaries.
The “gray rock” technique mentioned above is once again helpful. When baited into emotional reactions, calm, brief responses deny the drama the other person might seek.
The timing of your responses matters too. Immediate reactions often contain more emotion than thought. Building in short pauses before responding allows your rational mind to engage so that your emotional brain cannot act rashly.
Behavioral reinforcement principles apply here: what gets rewarded gets repeated. When they act appropriately, your responses should reflect this so as to “reward” their good behavior. When they behave problematically, neutral, minimal responses avoid inadvertently reinforcing those actions.
The Freedom Of Realistic Expectations
Living with untrustworthy people in your regular orbit challenges even the most emotionally intelligent among us. The strategies above are about protecting yourself while maintaining necessary relationships.
Emotional freedom in these relationships comes from acceptance paired with strategic action. Accepting that some people cannot or will not change liberates you from the frustration of expecting different results from the same person.
And by implementing these practical approaches, you create a protective framework that allows functional interaction without unnecessary vulnerability.
