4 ms·
The article defines what it means by trust in this way. > Trust, as defined by organizational scholars, is our willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of o
by jhanschoo 7y ago
The article defines what it means by trust in this way.
> Trust, as defined by organizational scholars, is our willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of others because we believe they have good intentions and will behave well toward us.
By the definition, there are many circumstances where rational, selfish individuals can trust each other: when their interests align in a way that communicating honestly and working together is optimal for their own selfish profit.
So, there is room for trust. In addition, the game-theoretic space is large enough and the lack of global information is severe enough that it is not certain in many situations whether betraying trust is indeed the optimal decision in the long run.
Hence in many situations even in the most supposedly rational institutions there is a lot of leeway for its people to decide how the institution should communicate, and its strategy for profit.
On the other hand, the reality is that many institutions aren't rational at all but heavily embody the culture and motivations of its decision makers. You can even think of it rationally like this: letting X person make decisions, regardless of their irrationality, has Y and Z assets, and it is in the company's best interests to secure Y and Z assets by letting X make decisions.
In any case, I think that viewing institutions as rational machines optimizing for profit is hopelessly naive, and likewise for the conclusion.
- paulddraper 7y agoYes, I trust them to act in their own selfish interest. If my interests align with theirs, then I also trust them to act in my interests. If my interests do not align with theirs, then I do not trust them to act in my interests. --- Individually, people have things like religion, families, love interests, mental disorders, etc. There is no singular, easily definable reason for their existence. Each is driven differently. Trusting an individual is a case-by-case thing. Capitalist businesses, on the other hand, have essentially one universal, defining purpose: to add financial value to their owners. They exist insofar as they accomplish that purpose. --- FWIW, Adam Smith had enormous trust/faith/whatever that groups of people in the market would act in their own interests. It's why he thought of the invisible hand as so reliable.
- choward 7y ago> If my interests align with theirs, then I also trust them to act in my interests. Your interest would have to be making them money, so you would have to be a shareholder. Otherwise there is a 0% chance your interests will align with their interests.
- paulddraper 7y agoFor our interests to align 100% always, yes, I would have to be a shareholder. But if a business provides, say an online marketplace and I am a seller, then we do in fact have some interests in common: we both want me to sell successfully. And insofar as that goes, we are aligned. If a business benefits financially from manufacturing environmentally harmful products, and I care about the environment, then I have zero expectation that I should trust them to act how I would like.
- perl4ever 7y agoBeing a shareholder of a company doesn't mean your interests align any more than being an employee, and probably less. If you benefit from a company, as an employee, shareholder, customer, or whatever, that doesn't mean that it's in your interest for them to damage the rest of society. If you have 100 shares of XYZ company, do you want them to be permitted to pollute the river where you live in order to get 0.02% more in dividends per year? Of course not. Neither do you want them to sabotage other companies that you might interact with, or the government that everyone relies on.