Purpose Organizational trust is often professed to be communication-based, yet organizational research rarely provides methodological frameworks exploring how orientations to trust are articulated in communication. This paper therefore aims to help unpack how positions on trust are articulated in qualitative, conversational data in a way that can be useful for future qualitative research into organizational trust. Design/methodology/approach The study contributes methodologically by introducing an untapped resource, appraisal analysis, and applying it to focus groups evaluating the pandemic response in Scandinavia. Findings The analysis suggests that the emphasis of previous research on rational justifications of trust, commonly via assessments of ability, integrity and benevolence, leaves unexplored stances on trust that are taken more straightforwardly with potential effects on power relations. The study draws attention to such alternative ways of realizing trust/distrust, with the concepts of simple-assertive evaluation and prescriptive evaluation, which still empower (or oppose) organizations and leaders. In addition, the study disentangles some of the "messiness" of qualitative data by demonstrating how stances on organizational trust involve activity-, agent-, and results-centered evaluations, as well as mixed evaluations. Originality/value Through the suggested analytical framework, common challenges with qualitative data, involving ambiguities regarding power, agen