<p>When leaders violate employees’ trust, they are expected to engage in trust repair using combined strategies. However, existing research has offered limited understanding of how various combinations differ in their effectiveness and underlying mechanisms, largely due to the dominant form-based categorization of strategies. To address this gap, we introduce time orientation as a novel perspective to compare the effectiveness and emotional mechanisms of different combinations. Across two vignette-based experiments (Study 1: <i>N</i> = 369; Study 2: <i>N</i> = 350), we test six dual combinations of four common trust repair strategies: apology, promise, financial compensation, and regulation. To examine effectiveness, we propose a time orientation–form framework and two principles that operate along both factors: the incremental (combining strategies that are individually more effective) and complementary (combining strategies that are complementary in function) principles. Findings demonstrate that the combination of apology and promise and the combination of promise and regulation are consistently less effective in repairing trust than the other four combinations, which yield comparable trust repair outcomes. These findings support the significance of this framework and suggest a substitutive effect between the incremental and complementary principles. To examine emotional mechanisms, Study 2 draws on cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and reveals that discrete negative emotions mediate the effects of strategy combinations: combinations including present-oriented strategies mitigate anger, disappointment, and disgust, while combinations including future-oriented strategies alleviate anxiety and fear. In sum, these findings offer a theoretical framework for comparing combined strategies and provide practical guidance for leaders repairing employee trust.</p>