INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#219 GddZ
Trust.
Part 3 – The price of trust
Disadvantages, risks, downsides
In conversation with Prof Dr Guido Möllering
Prof Dr Guido Möllering, received his doctorate from the University of Cambridge in 2003 and habilitated at the Free University of Berlin in 2011, has been Director and Chair of the Reinhard Mohn Institute for Corporate Management (RMI) at the University of Witten/Herdecke. Under his leadership, the RMI's areas of specialisation include: Cooperative relationships, network and alliance strategies, managing openness and transparency, trust in and between organisations, new forms of leadership and work in the digital age and corporate responsibility.
- Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity (2006)
- Production in Networks (with Jörg Sydow, 3rd ed., 2015).
Small series: Trust
Contents
Chapter
0:03 Introduction to the topic of trust
1:57 Risks and downsides of trust
8:01 Deception and disappointment
9:58 Trust and social dynamics
16:16 Trust in relationships
22:22 Trust and pressure in the work context
26:18 Good nature and blind faith
32:48 Trust and loss aversion
36:51 Identity and trust
40:51 Trust and reputation
43:59 Reflection on trust
47:34 Blind faith and scepticism
49:52 Summary and outlook
Summary
In this episode of the podcast "Gut durch die Zeit", I join Prof Dr Guido Möllering in examining the risks and downsides of trust - the third and final topic in our series, which began with episodes #169 and #172.
First, let's take a look at what we've discussed in previous episodes about the concept of trust and what it means for social interactions. Trust is a complex assumption that has both positive and negative implications. It allows us to reduce uncertainty and strengthen social relationships, but it can also lead to disappointment.
We discuss how trust acts like a tranquiliser that protects us from the unpleasant reality of insecurity and vulnerability. This metaphor illustrates that excessive trust can also lead to dependency and obscure (potentially) negative aspects of a relationship or life. It is important to consider the two faces of trust: One is the useful component of trust that connects us and opens up room for manoeuvre. The other is the potential danger of (self-)deception and inappropriate reassurance - for example by looking away, repressing or even manipulation and abuse.
A central theme of our discussion is the phenomenon of blind trust, which also makes us blind to warning signs. Here we look at how people in trusting relationships are often inclined to ignore small signs of mistrust, which can ultimately lead to major conflicts. We also talk about the dynamics in relationships where trust leads but also puts pressure on those involved - for example, when an employee is faced with excessive expectations because they have been trusted a lot in the past.
We also address the social power that can be exercised through trust. We show how expectations associated with trust can be misused as an instrument of pressure. This can lead to a vicious circle in which people no longer dare to express doubts in a relationship for fear of betraying trust or, worse still, jeopardising the relationship.
It was therefore important for us to explore the social cost of trust and to think about when trust is used positively or negatively. We also reflect on what trust can do in social and business contexts and when it can be used to our disadvantage. The listener is encouraged to develop a sense of the complex relationships between trust, power and responsibility.
The whole episode is a fascinating exchange about the nuances of trust and the balance that needs to be maintained in interpersonal relationships. Social interactions are characterised by a constant balancing of trust and caution, which is also very important in a business context. We invite the audience to reflect on their own experiences and what trust means to them in their relationships.
Complete transcription
[0:00]That's crazy, because we always have to think about it,
[0:03]
Introduction to the topic of trust
[0:02]What assumption are we making now? Are we assuming that the other person is really doing something untrustworthy? Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. And today it's the third instalment in the short series on trust. And that's why I'm welcoming Prof Dr Guido Möllering back to the podcast studio.
[0:33]Yes, hello, I am pleased that we are also talking about this side of trust. Yes, because this page already heralds that. Today we want to look at the risks, the disadvantages and also the downsides of trust. In the first two episodes, we looked at what trust actually is. That was in episode 169.
[0:56]Trust, so to speak, as the assumption of the occurrence of events or the absence of events, although one knows or could know that this assumption is risky and cannot really be justified.
[1:09]We simply trust in it and they had formulated it so beautifully. We had also explained it quite explicitly or in detail, this cancelling out of the knowledge that it can go in both directions, that we no longer feel it and don't have it directly in our consciousness, but can put it in a drawer. We can get it out again, but it is also well stored there for the time being, packed away. That was the highlight of the approach, so to speak. And in the episode shortly afterwards in 172, we also looked at what is possible or necessary for others to trust us. In other words, how we can create trust. How we can develop trust without having direct access to this decision to take action.
[1:57]
Risks and downsides of trust
[1:54]of our fellow human beings. Exactly. And today we want to look at what is risky about having trust? It's a very colourful term in itself and trust as a lubricant for social interaction, as an absolute necessity for a differentiated society to function, has a very good reputation. I would guess, I don't know, you really referred to it in your research. Is trust as colourful a concept as communication in general?
[2:28]So it is of course very important to say at the beginning that we do not suddenly deconstruct trust today and suddenly realise that it is actually something very, very bad, that it is actually undesirable. So of course, all in all, trust remains very attractive, is very helpful in relationships, and whether these are economic relationships or others, it has a high value and even a value in itself. But if we think of it a bit like a medicine or a drug, there are the usual package inserts with the possible risks and side effects. And I mean, I don't want to overuse this metaphor, but if we say, for example, that trust is like a tranquilliser.
[3:10]Because it allows us to somehow endure this insecurity and vulnerability that we actually have, which realistically everyone has, then of course you can also become dependent on such a drug. So you always have this need to keep it and take it again and again and then you really become dependent on it in the sense that you no longer realise, for example, that certain things are going badly because you keep calming yourself down with the drug. The other thing is that you can also be deceived. In other words, people can figuratively give you things that act like a tranquilliser, but do so unfairly and dishonestly. And you yourself have the calming effect, but you don't even realise that you're being taken advantage of or that people are giving you this sedative, but they themselves want to deceive you and ultimately take advantage of you. You don't even notice this effect, precisely because you're taking this tranquilliser, you no longer notice that you're being deceived and that the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. Just like with medication, this can also happen with trust, which is actually very desirable, functional and great. From the starting point, I'll go back to Niklas Luhmann, who described the function very clearly. It reduces complexity.
[4:35]So if I trust, I don't have to put in the effort that I would otherwise.
[4:41]I would do a lot of things myself if I didn't trust others and, by doing them myself, I would always have to make sure and ask questions, get information myself, keep my eyes open, etc. And I find this function quite helpful with the analogy of a medicine. And I find this function quite helpful with the analogy of a medication. You become a little sedated, so to speak, and life becomes a little easier, because you can just let yourself go.
[5:08]And then it quickly becomes clear that, yes, there are also disadvantages to trusting others. Certain competences are perhaps less needed, less effort is put in. So how can we categorise the disadvantages or put them in order, saying that if I trust, it costs me something, it has a price. So if we take trust seriously as a concept and use it consistently, then there is always uncertainty and vulnerability involved. And that ultimately means that trust can always be disappointed. So this is a basic statement that the concept of trust includes the possibility of being disappointed. And that gives me the first negative effect. It can also turn out badly. It could be that I am disappointed. I don't have the absolute certainty in advance that I won't be disappointed. And that is still a relatively undramatic level of side effects, that you say, yes, it could just happen that it doesn't work. Yes, just as it could be that you take a medicine and it doesn't work. We don't need to overuse this analogy.
[6:21]And that means it simply might not work in itself at first. But this very thing that could, you don't really know, also opens the door to deception.
[6:31]So the fact that someone, from a con artist or marriage fraudster to simply someone who promises you more than they can deliver in the end, even though they actually wanted to and meant well, opens up this expectation of trust that cannot be fulfilled. And this ranges from criminals to those who actually mean well but then fail to deliver for reasons that they may not have been able to control themselves. All of this can lead to people feeling deceived. And it's a nice story that you've also deceived yourself in the process, because you contribute to the trust yourself. And then you think, "Wow, I was wrong. Not even the other person, I think we've already talked about that. So this deception and therefore also disappointment, which has to do with the fact that there is uncertainty involved. But the downside of trust is that it's not so difficult to deceive people because trust is so attractive. So it is precisely the attractiveness of trust that increases the risk of being deceived, by malicious people, mind you. It's like the marriage con artists. They fulfil this need that someone wants to be loved and adored so much that it's all just a deception. You only realise that later. It's very pleasant at first.
[7:52]And the other thing is journey dependencies. Just to categorise this briefly, once you're in there, it can lead to journey dependencies. We should talk about that separately.
[8:01]
Deception and disappointment
[8:01]And also negative effects for others. In other words, everything can be great in the relationship and work well. But through the relationship itself, for example through a cartel in which everyone trusts each other very much, someone who is not part of the cartel is harmed. And that's another negative story, that trust can also create relationships that are trusting but harmful to others. So let's take the classic two-person relationship, so to speak. And everyone realises intuitively or from life experience that there is a risk. When I trust, I take a risk. There's always that childhood joke, the last words of the passenger.
[8:42]Or he says the right is free and you don't pay attention as a driver, but trust that he's right. And if they're not, then there's a bang. That's what everyone knows, so to speak, that's the hot hob. Trust, I trust, I don't trust. What you also bring into play is the social three-way relationship, so to speak. Two people trust each other very well and form an alliance against a third party, so to speak. And this, as you say, is a cartel. So there is a social cost when the inclusion of two people who are in agreement goes against a third party or to the detriment of a third party. So this tripartite relationship is perhaps more of a separate issue or a secondary issue. Or it can also be summarised as follows: whether trust is good or bad, to put it bluntly, actually depends on what it is used for. What makes trust possible? And if it enables criminals to work together better, then it is socially undesirable. If it enables hospitals in the region to work together better, then it is perhaps very desirable and so on. So you have to look at trust as a neutral mechanism, which is desirable for those who work with it in the first instance,
[9:58]
Trust and social dynamics
[9:57]but not necessarily for others. And what is actually interesting is when trust becomes an undesirable state, even for those who actually want to use it positively for themselves, because, for example, you are in a relationship that is very trusting.
[10:12]Or it should be. It no longer works well, it no longer produces good results, let's put it simply, but you still can't get out of it, precisely because you trust yourself. So that's also where it's similar with the drug. Precisely because it has such a strong effect, trust, you can't get away from it. Let's take this concretely, because I have a specific example in my head of two managing directors. Or rather, one of them wasn't the managing director, but that doesn't really matter.
[10:38]After many years of things going well and running like clockwork, suspicion had grown as to whether one colleague was doing something for himself that was problematic. This other colleague couldn't just bring it up. So it's very difficult to say, hey… I mistrust you because he wasn't sure either. He didn't have enough information. But he wanted this information and needed access to certain rooms, documents, etc. to get it. And knew full well if he wanted that, if he claimed that, that he was crossing a line.
[11:16]And the colleague then said the same thing, the other one, what's going on? Don't you trust me any more? He couldn't just say yes. He didn't trust, but trust had a social requirement, had an effect where you couldn't just tell the truth. There was a price to pay for saying that. And that, I thought, was a nice dark side. I realised that when I read your notes about it. The case immediately popped back into my head. What happens there? The case is really ideal for showing different aspects. For one thing, as you said, I'm not really waiting for sure. So it's always a question of weighing up whether to jeopardise the relationship, which is another aspect if you're not sure at all, or do you wait and see? It's typical of trust that when you get the first signs that things aren't quite right, you tend to try to find reasons why it's not a problem or that it's okay after all. So that's typical. People always say that trust takes a long time to build up and is then destroyed very quickly. But that's not just a one-sided view in psychology either.
[12:26]Because there is this effect that trust, once it is there, you hold on to it for a very long time and have a confirmation bias, so you tend to look for the confirmed things and not for those that speak against it. So when the first signals come in, especially when it's not so clear, you're initially inclined to say that everything will still be right. The absurd thing is that in a trusting relationship, you should be able to criticise. You should also be able to question things. Assuming that the other person knows that I mean well. That I don't mean him any harm, but listen, I've noticed something. And that should be possible in a trusting relationship. If that's no longer possible, then the crack is already there. So the moment he thought, I have a suspicion, but I don't dare ask, his trust was actually already, shall we say, damaged. And then you have to weigh up whether this relationship is right for me.
[13:24]In itself more important than perhaps the minor damage I'm currently suffering. We have to keep at it, because it could be that if you jeopardise the relationship, you lose a lot more, emotionally as well as materially, than if you stay in the relationship. And as long as it doesn't clearly favour one side or the other, you'll stay in the relationship. That's typical addiction. What I find interesting from the perspective of the person who now harbours doubts or at least wants to make sure that these doubts are unnecessary is that they have to consider whether my doubts are worth jeopardising the relationship. That's a very irrational consideration in itself. He actually wants to push aside the doubts he has about it, at least at the beginning. But the other person can now claim that it would be a disadvantage for him if he is no longer trusted.
[14:22]So when he says, why do you want to do this now? Have you never done it before? Don't you trust me any more? He's bringing up something where he can exert pressure, where he can exercise power, so to speak. The person who was trusted then has a social power over the other person to say that it's not okay for you to trust me to do something stupid. I didn't give you any reason to do that. That's crazy, because we always have to think about exactly what assumption we're making now? Are we assuming that the other person is really doing something untrustworthy, but is trying to get away with it and even reinforcing it by then.
[14:58]This is also typical of a marriage cheat, saying how can you just assume that and so and so, thereby reinforcing his whole deception. Or let's now assume that this suspicion is not justified and the other person is really offended because he really hasn't done anything. None of this is valid, so to speak.
[15:14]And then you are really offended and say, really, you thought I did that. It's precisely this danger that the other person is then offended, unnecessarily, ultimately unnecessarily offended, so to speak, that you can't get rid of. And that's why it's so difficult and why you tend to fall into this spiral of staying in the relationship until it's very clear and perhaps comes from the outside and is clearly exposed. So the person has somehow embezzled money or something or has been caught doing something and then you can no longer deny it because it's clear. But as long as you still have this doubt and of course you have to differentiate again between those who are trusted, i.e. those who deliberately deceive and we think in our last episode.
[15:59]Who also do a lot to ensure that the other side trusts them because they are interested, but ultimately zero in on this trust and deliberately deceive, to distinguish this from those who do not deceive, but who are themselves of very good will in the relationship and perhaps also
[16:16]
Trust in relationships
[16:16]sometimes make a mistake. But that's actually one of the positive effects of trust, that every little mistake immediately leads to a huge drama, that you can put up with things because you assume that the other person is trustworthy and also has an interest in the relationship. And that's what makes it so difficult to recognise these downsides of trust, these negative effects in advance and to put a stop to them. And that is not, but in trust itself, the interesting thing.
[16:44]That the function of trust already implies that you only realise late on that something is going wrong. Yes, so that means up to this point, just looking at this situation, it is unavoidable to pay the price of trust. And it's not just a gain to say, I'm taking the risk, I'm cancelling my mistrust, my assumption, it's radically open, but I'm now of the opinion that this is actually only going in one direction. We will work together, we will live together, we will do other things together, but it will go well. This realisation that, in principle, it can go in both directions or in all directions. I have just realised that there is also an interesting development in the literature on trust. In other words, in research on trust preservation, i.e. the preservation of trust. And the research approach there is that in some relationships, now especially in economic relationships, you can sometimes see bad times coming. And you know that things will be difficult next year or next week. And that this is also a very important phase in the relationship of trust, to address this and say, my dear, my love.
[17:51]Something is coming up and I don't want our relationship to suffer as a result. Of course, it's best if it's not your fault, but comes from outside. Or you say, I've got something coming up and unfortunately I have to go away next week, even though you actually wanted me to be there. And I'm going to bring it up now because I know it's not great, but I'm going to bring it up myself and let's talk about what it means for you and how we can get through it so that everything is great again when I get back. And I also find this variant of rebuilding trust, anticipatory rebuilding of trust so to speak, very exciting from the point of view that you can also avoid getting into a situation where nothing can be discussed because it has somehow already happened or you are already past that point and have become very suspicious. It's better to say early on that something is coming up, it's not going to be so nice, but let's make sure we get through it together. Yes, that reminds me of a family mediation where the parents told the adult children that something was coming up that didn't directly affect them, but which would somehow put a strain on the relationship. And then there was the reaction that one of the children had grown up, a young man, who then said, "But that goes without saying. I don't know why you bring it up like that. It's completely natural for me. And I found that an interesting reaction, because paradoxically it wasn't just a matter of saying, yes.
[19:12]You can rely on that, of course, we can take it, but it was also suggested again, how does he look at our relationship if he has to say that specifically? And again, there were quiet doubts that I found interesting, because they were intended to have the exact opposite effect of the father's or parents' approach in this case, to say that something is coming our way that will put a strain on us. In these close relationships. I have to rewind again. Yes, please. For this one dark side, otherwise I'll lose this case from my mind again.
[19:42]So we got to the point where there was a price to pay for trusting in relationships of two or three, because you can't just go back on it or withdraw it. You can't just say that it was my process of cancelling, that I trusted you and now I'm quietly having doubts. It has something to do with you and therefore it's not so easy to address. A second one.
[20:06]A downside or interesting consequence became clear to me in another company. In a coaching session, a colleague said that I always have to do the most difficult tasks. I always have the challenge, nobody else in the team gets these tasks. And I find it difficult to say no. It was clear to see from the outside that the boss trusted him. And that's the best way, in other words the best, most effective way in the company to overload yourself is to do a good job. Because the boss or bosses then say with such confidence, yes, you're my best man, you'll do it. A very important task. And you don't want to let it down. And there was this pressure to perform. And it wasn't just based on personality, so to speak, but also on social interaction. He didn't want to disappoint the trust that was also expressed through this and said, yes, I'll do it, boss. Yes, I'll see you tomorrow. That was a dark side that was immediately clear to me. He couldn't accuse the boss of anything bad, but it was the consequence of trust. This category of trust, so to speak, of unwanted or undesired trust or trust that is too much. So in principle, you always find yourself in a relationship of trust.
[21:19]Which, as you said in the example, overwhelm you or which you don't actually want. Because it always takes two people. When someone says, I trust you.
[21:30]Then you can take it as a compliment, but also as an expectation that you are not necessarily prepared to fulfil. My students are familiar with this. I always use the example of the mafia, where the boss says, Luigi, I trust you. And then Luigi says, for God's sake, I'm as good as dead now. Because this kind of trust is really poisoned or at least involves consequences that are so strong that you are forced to accept the trust or fulfil the expectations. And we would hardly call that a really good relationship of trust, because Luigi doesn't say, yes boss, I trust you too or anything like that, but he realises perfectly well that it's an asymmetrical relationship and that one side has to trust the other.
[22:22]
Trust and pressure in the work context
[22:21]that puts additional pressure on others. And that really is a toxic form of trust. But it doesn't always have to come about in such a mafia-like and radical way, it can also simply… creep up over time, so that expectations continue to rise to a level where you actually say that I can't do any more. And that would be the case with an employee who says, I've always done 150 per cent here and now 160 really isn't possible. So you get to a point where you question whether there is mutual trust.
[22:59]In other words, whether you really trust the person who is still giving you additional tasks. And it's certainly not a classic relationship of mutual trust, in which you can say that it's getting too much for me now. That really was a blind spot. I also got to know the line manager during the job clarification meeting. He simply hadn't learnt from the person that he had his limits, but had learnt that he always did everything to his complete satisfaction. In this case, it was a bit naive to have the blind spot. Not only could things turn out differently, but there are also consequences if I repeatedly claim trust in this way. It was also done with good intentions. It was just that it was a permanent situation of proof that the employee thought he had to fulfil, although it was completely clear to everyone that he was the best man and the right-hand man, so to speak. But it was clear, so to speak, that the trust also exerted pressure, despite the positive appearance it had. And I found that an interesting thought, that it also arises with trust. It also comes up in mediation. Mediation as a rational process, you can talk about anything and find solutions. That also builds up pressure.
[24:19]Hey, you here listening to this podcast, if you like it, why don't you hit five stars and leave some feedback so that others who haven't listened or found the podcast yet can do so. And now we continue with the episode in the podcast, briefly through time.
[24:39]But it's also the identity of the employee who was overwhelmed, i.e. to say I'm not going to say no. So that's also a bit to do with self-image. And that brings us back to the point that trust is a value in itself or, in this case, one's own trustworthiness. So I don't let the boss down. So it also takes on a form that ultimately harms you. So wanting to fulfil this expectation at all costs because you have your own self-image, I'm the one who doesn't say no or I'm the person who doesn't need sleep or something.
[25:15]Sometimes you get carried away with such an image of yourself. I thought it was important that you said that the boss didn't mean any offence, that he somehow said that I was going to put him under pressure to see how much he could take, but that somehow, out of his own interests, he always thought that I would give it to the person I found most reliable. And then didn't consciously build up this pressure. But of course that also says something about the other colleagues or about how reflective the work there was and that you also realised that there was a lack of capacity, for example, and could then simply address that. So I suppose that in this case, because it was a coaching session, I wasn't able to find out the overall circumstances in depth. It was really just a matter of making a clear announcement and thus, to a certain extent, what you mentioned, a relationship of mutual trust and the imposition of really allowing the boss to realise that I have my limits. The blind spot, so to speak, that's what I'm getting at, which is also the result of good nature.
[26:18]
Good nature and blind faith
[26:14]can arise from trust, that this also has its limits. And I thought that was a nice categorisation, so to speak.
[26:23]Good-naturedness, i.e. that a blind spot arises from naivety or good-naturedness in the context of trust that has grown in a stable way, so to speak, and where you would also immediately reach back, there is nothing malicious in it, when you realise what you are doing with it. On the other hand, there is the possibility of using trust in a functionally abusive way, as the mafiosi does in your example. I can control someone with trust. So I have power over them if I can say in a social context, hey, we're in a trusting relationship, aren't we? There is also a rule of thumb, so to speak, that if trust is actively addressed as a concept, then something is usually a bit strange. For example, when people talk about trust-based working hours and then add the word, you have to be a bit sceptical. Why do they explicitly call it that?
[27:23]Apparently, this is not a matter of course or there is somehow an expectation that it should be handled responsibly and so on. So just calling it trust-based work implies a certain amount of pressure, that there is an expectation to fulfil. You really like being in the material. So maybe it's a prejudice in my head, but it's true that with trust-based working hours, people work more. Out of this fear that I can't work even one minute too little, I'd rather do three minutes more.
[27:53]Yes, to remove the impression that this is being exploited and then to counteract it. That is precisely the effect that then occurs. And here, too, you could say that yes, the intentions were the best, but by labelling it as trust-based working hours, you've actually built up pressure and perhaps taken a bit of pressure away, but also maintained the pressure of having to fulfil expectations. It doesn't mean do what you want, but perhaps do it how you want and when you want, but in the end you have to deliver, otherwise we might no longer trust you. It's the same when you write trust so explicitly on a banner and say that trust is one of our three or four most important corporate values.
[28:36]This can also somehow trigger the fact that you should no longer do certain things under this banner, or at least no longer openly address them, but which would then be somehow important in practice in everyday life. For example, questioning things or actually being clear about what you actually mean by this trust. This is often not said in more detail and that's dangerous, because then all kinds of expectations arise and you might behave in a certain way, like an employee, for example, when you think it's expected, but it's not that clear. Yes, I think the example of trust-based working hours is a very good one, because it makes it clear that there is a message in it that has unequal obligations. There is working time fraud, of course, and now you are trusted to fulfil your duties. So you can happily work longer.
[29:33]Soaked enrichment is not a criminal offence if the employee works more. But as soon as he works too little, it is immediately said that trust is not justified. That is not okay. And that leads to the employer actually exerting pressure between the lines. And you can always say that it's not wanted. So it can be seen as unintentional, a prioritised message of this trust-based working time, so to speak, because many advantages are also granted in return for the fact that the employee works through his time independently and on his own responsibility, which he was also prepared to give in the employment contract. That is also the question of where the reciprocity comes from. You can also just call it flexible working hours and then you don't necessarily have to use the word trust. As an employer, I would say, okay, I can plan less. But perhaps it's also the case that you say that if someone works under trust-based working hours, then perhaps these are positions in which you are also given responsibility that goes beyond the normal level. So you actually say that you also recognise that the other person has a certain independence and willingness to take responsibility. And that is also a sign of trust. So not necessarily in the organisation of working hours, but rather in the sense that, yes, we are now somehow giving you a management function or real responsibility for an important project.
[30:58]And how you then manage this in terms of working hours, yes, we also trust you in the sense that you get some additional powers or what should we call competences or something that you wouldn't have in a different relationship. So I would always question that, if you simply say that trust-based working hours means that you don't write down any hours or anything like that, then that's not really an expression of trust. It only really becomes genuine when you say that a task is assigned that requires a high degree of autonomy. And it's also a form of recognition to give someone this task, but then combined with the pressure to perform and fulfil it. But here too, I hope the point has come across correctly, that the person who is then given this task, so to speak, hopefully also wants it and also says that it is actually a professional goal for me or a personal goal that I am allowed to take on such responsibility. Then it becomes more of a reciprocal relationship and not just a kind of distanced control that can be reasserted at any time. That also emphasises the social element. There is something entrepreneurial about flexibilising working hours. The person now has to act on their own responsibility, they can act entrepreneurially. But the difference is, so to speak, as an entrepreneur, if I make mistakes.
[32:19]I don't have anyone above me in the hierarchy pointing the finger at me. I might have it on my balance sheet or something, of course I have to bear the consequences, but these are different consequences than as an employee, because I don't have to fear the withdrawal of trust as a social consequence if I make a mistake as an entrepreneur, but as an employee, then I show my contractual partner, I can officially say that you are not to be trusted.
[32:48]
Trust and loss aversion
[32:49]You have counterfactuals. And this withdrawal of trust, the dissolution of the bond that you enter into with trust, I think, is a strong social element that you want to prevent. And that means you are to a certain extent at the mercy of others if you trust them or if you have proven yourself to be trustworthy.
[33:08]Yes, but I believe that you can also reconstruct this in a similar way in the situation of an entrepreneur, only then there are other social relationships or other relationships in which trust can be withdrawn. So perhaps with investors or business partners or the mother-in-law. Yes, I always say that everyone has someone above them, even if it's their mother-in-law. Exactly, I only have the employer relationship now. So you can also feel the corresponding pressure by disappointing expectations. And I wouldn't neglect the fact that even if you disappoint your subordinates, there is also a trust that can be withdrawn. And that can happen even in a relatively small company, a start-up or something like that, where the founder has big goals and then suddenly has to announce that it hasn't worked out, that trust can be withdrawn from below. And that also has to do with the founders' self-image and can make it really difficult to work together and get through this difficult phase. So here we are again with this preservation and repair, because the founder may not say, yes, I deceived you all, we don't have any investors. I only told you that to keep you working here and now I have to tell you, unfortunately, that was a lie, but now I'm really trying to find some. That would be a real scam.
[34:34]Just to say that we have done everything we can, but the investors have not taken the bait. We now have to try again. So here too, trust can be disappointed, it can be broken, or it can be broken by the way it is handled, trust preservation.
[34:49]Actively speaking up yourself, so to speak, affirming your own intentions, that you weren't being deceitful or deceptive, but rather trying to find the best path together in a world characterised by uncertainty. So that's exactly where we are, that it doesn't just depend on your position of power whether you can afford something or not. Would it be jumping too far, because the thought just occurred to me as I was listening to you, that a dark side, which I believe in economics or psychology as loss aversion, is that losses weigh more heavily than gains, that a dark side, so to speak, is when I enter into a trusting relationship and make it clear to the other person that I trust you and I am, so to speak, cancelling out my fundamental uncertainty about our future. That I give trust, I give something, but if I withdraw it, I cause a greater loss or a greater perceived loss than I gain through the trust itself. So the aversion to loss weighs more heavily psychologically and socially than the gain. Do you have to take that into account? I would definitely include that.
[36:06]Involve them, because it is rather typical that when you are in a difficult relationship that is breaking up or that you perhaps even want to consciously end yourself, you don't usually know, let's say very carefully, what will happen afterwards. So two things are very important. One is, for example, let's take these two business partners who have founded a company together, it's no longer running, they no longer trust each other, now they could say we're ending our relationship, our business relationship and dissolve the company or something. But then they still don't know what will happen next. Or even if one or both of them already have the next business partner in mind and say, okay, this will end here and then I'll continue there, they still don't know for sure,
[36:51]
Identity and trust
[36:49]whether the next thing will work better. It's always the green grass on the other side. That is actually greener too. Or the feeling of loss is simply less when you can already see the green grass on the other side.
[37:01]Then you're prepared to give up something for it. But somewhere you still don't know whether it's really as green as it looks from afar. And that's why it's crucial whether you actually say, I have certain switching costs now, but at the end of the day it's better for me if I get out here and get in there. What's more, when it comes to trust, your own identity and self-image may really be attached to such a business relationship. And you also founded this company with such a personal drive and such a mission that it fails, so it's about more than just this small relationship. You haven't just moved from one relationship to another, but you remain the person who failed in the other relationship or whose other relationship failed. You are then simply the divorced man and no longer just a single man.
[37:50]And so that also has a lot to do with your self-image. And that also contributes to the fact that if you are actually attached to this relationship and the relationship itself has made things possible in good times, then it is not just a simple, simple economic change from one transaction to another, but then there is much more to it, namely the value of trust itself and the entity creation that then arises in the relationship. Yes, I can illustrate this with my own experiences, entrepreneurial experiences. In the case of a GbR that I founded with a colleague, we were able to make it very clear to each other when we split up, and it was also based on trust, that we have no trust in this company that we have. It wasn't going to work out the way we thought it would. But as people we were able to approach, trust was always there and unbroken. Just the company, the business idea, the product, so to speak.
[38:51]We lost confidence that this would work and were able to separate and continue working together in other constellations.
[39:00]That wasn't the case with another GbR. The trust in the person was destroyed, on both sides. So the loss bore completely different fruits, so to speak. You couldn't just say, well, we're just two individual colleagues again and we can co-operate temporarily or not. That was simply no longer possible, nor is it. In the first case, I wouldn't even speak of trust, but rather of confidence or even stronger confidence. So we lost the confidence that it would work and that's why we stopped. But now there is still a high risk that people will look to see where we made mistakes. Where did we not realise this earlier or perhaps one of us did not do everything to make it work and that is why the prospects are now so poor? And that brings us back to uncertainty and insecurity. So when you start looking for the cause, it becomes difficult. And then it's actually a remarkable achievement in the relationship to manage that, not to take it personally, but simply to say that it just couldn't work and to find technical reasons or economic reasons.
[40:10]Why people say, well, it's actually a great idea, we've done everything we can for it, but it just can't work, we have to realise that. Of course, we found the main reason in our inimitable entrepreneurial uniqueness. We were simply too early with our idea. Yes, of course, that's the best thing. That was credible for both of us.
[40:31]I don't want to use strong language now, but parties where you even celebrate the fact that you have failed, but have still learnt a lot and therefore that it wasn't really a failure at all. And that's probably how people make sure that a single
[40:51]
Trust and reputation
[40:47]project, beyond a single collaboration. And I think that's also very important. I could also mention entrepreneurial fuck-up. Exactly.
[40:57]But then it was clear to me, so to speak, that compared to the other venture, the image of what she says has a greater price. Afterwards, you're not just who you were before. The mistrustful person who once trusted is a different person to the one who didn't trust at all. And I find that an interesting aspect. There are also shadow effects that you don't realise at the beginning. I think that's an important point. And of course you also have, oh, it goes much further than that, of course we also have overall reputation effects. So that brings us back to the third parties who look at the relationship and where something can stick to you. So to speak, the person who has not behaved correctly has deceived the other person. That can be major reputational damage that you…
[41:48]You also want to prevent this by presenting it differently yourself or by suddenly blaming each other, which doesn't help either of you. We have addressed the issue of naivety, but also the question of willingness to take risks or, I would say, how guileless you are in relationships of trust. That's the difference between being perceived as a person who is willing to trust, who can manage this suspension of uncertainty and vulnerability and also accepts that things can go wrong. Or a person who is simply seen as guileless and naive, who stumbles into all sorts of things and makes promises that are not at all tenable and who is then not seen as a trustworthy or desirable partner, simply because people trust too easily. And that's a bit of an absurdity. There have also been recent articles in a journal called Acta Sociologica, which is an English-language journal published in Italy, as you can undoubtedly see. But in a really great sociological journal, we also had a little controversy about the extent to which trust should not be guileless and the extent to which, as someone who gives trust, you always have a kind of small accountability as to why you have done so. I think that this idea actually moves away from the core of trust, but in practice it is still part of the practice of trust.
[43:17]So you have to provide some justification as to why I trust. And then it is clear that these reasons are never perfect and that there is never zero risk. But if you no longer trust at all, if you can explain why you actually think that this relationship of trust works, then you have this guileless, blind trust, totally blind trust, and that's not what I mean by what I always call the Leap of Faith and so on, that you simply jump in blindly somewhere. Rather, the message here is perhaps even that these dark sides, these risks and side effects.
[43:59]
Reflection on trust
[44:00]And that, just like with medication, you ultimately have good reasons to look at the package leaflet and also have a sense of these downsides without completely refusing to take this medication. In other words, I'm basically saying that I don't trust it because something could go wrong. Of course, that would be just as absurd as having clear medications and then saying I won't take it because it could possibly be a stomach ache in one in 100,000 cases. It's similar to that. If one person can explain and demonstrate their trust, so to speak, this creates trust in the other person who is trusted. So if A says, B, I trust you for such and such reasons, I've learnt this, it's been a process and I trust you there, then that also creates trust for B in A, that there is someone there who can be trusted. And if someone just says, well, but it's quite natural that I trust you, it's God-given, so to speak, then it's more like, who am I dealing with? If this is a completely naïve approach, it will at best psychologically save a potential victim role, so to speak.
[45:21]I have to take care of him. If someone trusts so naively, I have to look after them. It's practically like a small child who simply places a basic trust in a relationship with a stranger, where you have to deal with victims and saviour roles psychologically, so to speak. And if you don't want to take on a saviour role, you're more likely to be repelled and say, wait a minute, I can't understand that. I would be a bit more cautious about this and, above all, I wouldn't want to suggest that you should carry a kind of checklist with you that you can present if necessary and say, yes, I have, you fulfil these and these points, so you are trustworthy for me. I would still describe that as preparatory work, so to speak. The actual trust is what goes beyond that. So what I find more important is that you continue to radiate in the relationship of trust that you care whether the trust is honoured and that you care whether it works. And it would be dangerous if a person is virtually impossible to disappoint because, no matter what happens, they keep saying that it will have been right. And the person doesn't mean me any harm, so now I'm out of luck.
[46:28]This idea of no longer being disappointable in a relationship is naive and dangerous, and we can clearly make the big leap back into current politics and into quasi-American conditions, where no matter what crazy things Mr Trump does, his supporters keep saying, no, no, that's right. So we can no longer be disappointed in this respect. And that's also worth a separate episode on why that can happen. But it's precisely this situation of quasi blind trust, unquestioned trust, where no matter what happens, you simply say, I'll carry on. Only intention and effect are no longer coupled, but the conviction that he means well, then every effect is decoupled from it and says, that's just bad luck or that's just the way it is or is due to other things. In any case, it's not down to the person's intention.
[47:25]And that's why I can rely on it. The intention is stable,
[47:34]
Blind faith and scepticism
[47:30]even though I have no direct access to the other person's intention. It's very important that I don't really know, i.e. that I only think I know what the person wants. And that I no longer realise that I'm being deceived because I completely block out the effects. In the sense that I no longer look to see whether the trust is justified. In the end, positive experiences or being able to say that you've had a very satisfactory or even excellent relationship with each other so far is actually always the best reason to continue trusting. And that brings us back to this self-reinforcing story. So the fact that things have gone well so far is the best reason to keep going. And yet trust actually looks to the future and assumes that you won't be hurt in the future. Yes, that's another reason why trust can have its downsides, because it's actually a kind of self-reinforcing story by definition, but then it's inherent in the fact that the future can be different and circumstances can also mean that expectations are no longer justified. So you don't want to go back to the state of uncertainty once you've found trust. It really seems to me that we should make a separate episode about this.
[48:51]But I would like to postpone that, so to speak, and finish here first, because we have already covered a lot of ground, where we have named the price and the costs and the risk of trust and where we have perhaps encouraged one or two people to think again about whether trust is such a good thing and whether it is simply justified. It needs to be carefully considered. It doesn't help to have a checklist, you can't just go along with it, because, and here I close the circle of our little series, the other person can't cause the upheaval as an inner decision, even if they come off well on the checklist. It's a decision that has consequences and you can also clarify these afterwards.
[49:40]Of course. Mr Wollering, we have been on a tour de force, a rollercoaster ride of possibilities in the last hour on the subject of trust and, above all, on the risks and downsides.
[49:52]
Summary and outlook
[49:53]How often do I always end up asking, when we've rushed through and rushed through, whether we've overlooked something and not addressed the issue at all. I have the impression that we have definitely recognised the two major downsides. Firstly, that we are subject to a blind spot because we are hiding something that is possible in principle and that has advantages, which is why we are doing it. On the other hand, it also has social consequences. We can be put under pressure or we can exert pressure without realising it, because we claim, and this also goes in two directions, I trust you and then I overtax someone or I force them to do something they don't want to do. I think that's important to have summarised again. But to you, maybe we've overlooked something. We haven't overlooked it, but perhaps we haven't made it so clear that we have this idea that trust can be instrumentalised.
[50:52]Good-willed, but also malicious. However, that again requires a different level of reflection, in which I look at my trust and my relationship of trust. But that is also very presuppositional, because that naturally leads to a further regression, that you keep saying, okay, then I'm on a higher level of reflection, what level is there above that and so on. But that you look at trust in general, look at your own relationship, like an outsider, and then say, yes, I'm going to use trust in one way or another.
[51:29]Perhaps it also exploits it. This is again very presuppositional, psychological, philosophical, sociological and then shifts the problems to another level, but there is still another level behind it. So it should also be said explicitly that we have assumed that it is possible to reflect on what is actually happening in this relationship and that this opportunity for reflection can be used for both good and bad. Mr Möllering, thank you very much. That was exciting, stimulating and informative. We discussed not the right thing today, but a bombardment of probabilities. Thank you very much. I can also only thank you and I can only say that I am still coming across aspects in trust research that were perhaps already discussed somewhere in the literature many years ago, but where you now realise once again that there is a lot more to it.
[52:27]And from therefore is it also for me a Topic, the always again interesting is and where I also itself always still again through such Conversations like between us also much learn. Mr Möllring, and I have the in the Ear. We have still one Additional sequence already times ins Eye summarised. But there leave we still a little Time ins Country go, because the actually one exciting Question is. Where to Trust, so as beautiful, pleasant, cosy Situation, someone to trust, like wide the carry can and like much Effort one itself also give can, the other not to See and also good Reasons in favour has. And the observe we simple still one While and then come we on it to speak, because we not then only about large Politics talk must and need, but also about the whole own Experience, the own social Environment in the Company, but also in the Family so that ins Eye grasp can. And there indulge we us simple still a little Time, before we there radical the Possibilities view. Many Thanks to, the sounds very exciting. Until there, one good Time for You and until to the next Times.
[53:35]Until to the next Times. The was my Conversation with Guido Möllering. My final third Conversation to the Topic Trust, the we herewith rounded and also finalised have. We have about the Risks and Disadvantages from Trust spoken, but also about the Downsides, so Things, the we not absolutely in the View have first. We have Cases in the View taken, with those the Consequences, that Persons itself each other Trust or one Person the other familiar.
[54:08]Effects in time, the problematic were. The Employees, the with Tasks showered becomes, because be Boss him really familiar, that he the Things good makes and the other stop not so very familiar, then has the but also overloading Effects, the clarified become must. And these Clarification work also under the Fear stands, like looks he me then on? Familiar he me then always yet, when I here now times his Expectations, the resonate, not fulfil? And this Swing along from Expectations in the Trust are a more important Point, because the can also abused become. The means, Trust and his Consequence can instrumentalised become and social Power, so Possibilities of influence on the Behaviour from others, can so to speak also aware with the Topic Trust controlled become. That certain Things as irritating perceived become and the also expressed becomes. We had the Example, that the one, the there Insight grant shall, the fend off can to the Motto, so why want you the know, trust you me about not and can so to speak one certain Outrage there be or the Mafia example, the Mr Möllering brought has, where Luigi not simple say can, no, because the Expectations of the Mafia bosses natural Effect has.
[55:31]And Effect have shall. Many Thanks to, that you and her here with thereby maintained at the Podcast to the Topic Trust. And when you it please has and you the a or other Thoughts also had, the you stimulated has, one yours Labour problems to solve or again new to tackle, then let it us know. Leave behind one Rating, a Feedback also, what you helped has and one Star rating for the Podcast. The Helps us actually also, the Podcast People known to make, that the him Find can, this Podcast, the the still not know. And the is in turn for us one large Help. Therefore the Please, snap you yours Smartphone or the Laptop or iPad, where you straight on it work and this Podcast listen, so that you there in yours Podcast catcher the Feedback give can. Many Thanks to in favour. Until to the next Times. Here comes good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coaching training programmes. And when you times here in the Podcast one Person or a Topic listen would like, the you so far Missing have, then let it us know, write me and us here at INKOVEMA, that we the take up should. Make we with pleasure, when it to the Concept fits and I happy me also about Ideas. Until there, Yours Sascha. Ciao.
Leave A Comment