25. Trust
Collaboration
requires management of its risks. It requires trust, but what does that mean?
Trust is a slippery concept and needs clarifcation. Here I make use of my book Trust:
forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures (Edward Elgar 2002).
Trust is a
psychological state, a disposition that can lead to trusting behaviour.
What can
one trust? The subject of trust is the trustor, the object is the trustee.
One can trust things (the car) but it becomes interesting and more difficult when
the object has a will of its own. One can trust a person but also an
organization (e.g. on the basis of its reputation) or an industry (banking) or
an economic system.
To trust
one needs trust on all levels. People with good intentions may be caught in
larger, countervailing interests. One needs trust in the people, the
organization they work for and one has to take into account the pressures of
survival on both. Will teaching ethics to bankers eliminate their misconduct?
Bankers claim that they would prefer not to misbehave (taking too much risk and
hiving it off on society; paying exorbitant bonuses) but can afford to do so
only if other banks go along, and since all banks argue like that they lock
each other up in their misconduct (in a prisoners’ dilemma). Thus one
will either have to impose a way out of that dilemma or change financial
markets to eliminate the incentives for misconduct. Ethical reform may help but
does not suffice.
A
distinction has been made between confidence and trust. With the first, one has
no choice; one cannot regret to have become dependent, it was inevitable. Thus
one speaks of confidence in the economy, or God, or the legal system.
Another
important distinction is that between trust in competence, the technical
ability to act in line with agreements, and trust in intentions, the will and
commitment to do so according to the best of one’s ability, and not to cheat.
Failure in competence requires a different response from failure in intentions.
A
preliminary definition of trust may be: one is vulnerable to actions of an
other and yet one feels that no great harm will be done. That leaves open many
reasons to have trust.
A useful
notion is that of reliance, which includes trust and control. The trustor may
exert control over the trustee, for example with a contract, or as ‘the boss’.
Trust goes beyond control, where the trustee is trustworthy on the basis of
morality, ethics, friendship or custom or habit.
A narrower,
tighter definition of trust then is that one expects no great harm to be done
even though the trustee has both the opportunity and the incentive to cheat or
to neglect the relationship, because his ethical stance will prevail. However,
it is too much to expect the trustee to be loyal even at the cost of his/her
own survival. The extent to which the trustee foregoes advantage at the expense
of the trustor depends on his/her moral strength and on pressures of survival.
In sum,
trust is a four-place predicate: the trustor (1) trusts the trustee (2) in some
respect (3, competence, intentions), under certain conditions (4, pressures).