BECG theblog

Into the Looking Glass: Trust, Virtual Trust, and Impostership

In honor of my upcoming attendance at the ISOC Philadelphia's session on Trust, I am reposting something I wrote on my previous blog, concerning trust and the Web (hint: trust is a big mistake if the counterparty is not trustworthy. My conclusion: to be worthy of another's trust is far more important).

Once, back in the ancient past (2002), AKMA commented on Brent Glass's question as to "why the companies that vociferously demand that we trust them are themselves the least trustworthy." My response follows:

Because they are the only ones stupid enough (in the world of emotional intelligence) to believe that trust is a commodity that can be bought and sold; that trustworthiness is a pose to strike in the service of competitive advantage rather than a stance in life. In this construction, trust is a product feature that encourages customers to do what you want them to do in spite of their better judgement or economic self-interest. Paradoxically, in urging us to trust them, they reveal an utter absence of understanding of the concept. This, in turn, lets us know they are entirely untrustworthy.

Three years later, amidst all the speeches, the debates, the attempts at definition, and the caterwauling about the cost of establishing trust online, I still believe this to be true. Indeed, it appears that the most vital question of all has received little or no attention. That question is: "Are you trustworthy?"

If trust is the willingness to place oneself in a position where one is to some extent vulnerable to another (whether economically, emotionally, or physically),trustworthiness is the willingness, ability, and commitment to honor that trust, through a combination of good will, competence, and follow-through.

In any successful trusting relationship, be it commercial or personal, the risk taken by the trustor is necessarily matched by the will and ability of the trusteeto deliver on the promise(s) they have made. Also inherent in any trusting relationship are an experience-based, mutual assumption of benevolence and a congruence of expectations. When these characteristics are present, risk is minimized and both parties benefit. The relationship in question could be either personal or professional, financial or emotional; the risk could be either large or small--but the equation does not vary.

The nature of the relationship notwithstanding, the 'contract' is that words and deeds will match. This is why, for instance, dramatic and sweeping commercial promises, when accompanied by lengthy, unreadably small caveats written in undecipherable legalese, engender suspicion....as well they should. Ultimately, exploitative aims reveal themselves in action: PR no matter how brilliant, can function only as a temporary camouflage. People can tell, instinctively, when the signs of impostership are there. Thus, David Isenberg recently asked: "Do you distrust "trusted computing" as much as I do?

Building trust is expensive. There is a good reason for this. Trust is precious. When trust is violated, the trustor typically pays a far higher price than does their MMoN (misfeasant, malfeasant, or nonfeasant) counterpart. Thus, if you or your organization are concerned with building others' trust but are not focusing with equal intensity on making sure you are trust-worthy, you are worrying about the wrong thing. This, in turn, suggests they are right to be suspicious.

technorati tags: virtual trust, trust online
permalink: posted by saraw at 9/02/2005 02:12:00 AM 
comments (2)

 

Tempus Fugit

Time Flies when you're having fun, or so they say.

As the global economy tanks and the fun fund implodes, does this imply that time slows down? Me thinks not. 

This morning, Ben Bernanke spoke to Congress's Joint Economic Committee concerning the outlook for the US economy. The unsurprising but discouraging conclusion: it's not good. 

I don't know about you, but I am not just watching the news about our lousy economy; I am experiencing it. I do not know a soul who isn't. From this vantage point it seems to me that our economic chieftains, governmental and corporate, as well as the media pundits, have got the thing all wrong.

Consumers not spending is not the problem. Consumers aren't spending because they do not have the money. Small businesses, which according to the Economic Census, make up 99% or more of all businesses,¹ cannot get credit from The Banks.

Technology illiteracy is not the problem. I can't tell you how many knowledge workers I know who can't find work and have either lost, or are on the verge of, losing everything. It's not just young people: it's everyone. People over fifty, who conscientiously undertook the slow, careful climb to greater job satisfaction, professional status, and income — suddenly find themselves out on the street, but with an expense structure that reflects their investment in their career(s). Cut back?! You can't lay off your children. It's great to fund infrastructure projects — heaven knows we need to upgrade — but that is not enough.

The problem is far bigger, and - I dare say — more sinister. Two years ago, I briefly held a consulting position at NTIA - the National Telecommunications and Information Agency. Setting aside the bizarre management climate of the place (my role was not one that required a security clearance, but I was prohibited from even speaking to any other employee at any level), I witnessed the following:

The Stimulus program (at least the part administered by Commerce) was a gigantic give-away from the gargantuan, wealthy US government (funded by taxpayers but controlled by monied interests), to its gargantuan, wealthy confrères in the ruling class. Inside deals with huge government contractors, state governments, and corporate astroturf institutions were the norm — so much so that they were assumed to be the only option. While I was not permitted to speak with anyone, lobbyists could sail in and corral the time of anyone at any level. It was highly educational, in the sense that all learning comes with pain.

It's no wonder that even the paltry "Stimulus" effort didn't work: the money merely exchanged hands within that small, coddled group otherwise known as "the 1%." To be clear, I completely, categorically reject everything the "Tea Party" stands for. That said, if the leaders of government and industry weren't busy adding (kevlar) layers to the cocoon of money and power that already encases them, they would have a clue about the nature and magnitude of the needed changes.

I don't want government to go away. I simply want it to exit the Matrix. 

¹ According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses comprise over 97% of all US businesses. The SBA's definition of small business is most closely calibrated to manufacturing — businesses with 500 - 1,000 or fewer employees fall within its definition. However, if one adds to that businesses with 20 or fewer employees and Non-employers - businesses where the owner is the sole employee as does the US Economic Census, the percentage climbs even higher. Who, then, are the "job creators?" They are the small enterprises who are being starved by the large ones.

Rhetorical Question

If you set out to write the "killer app," aren't you doomed from the start? Aren't most killer apps accidents that somebody had the imagination to put to as-yet-unforeseen uses?