Spiral of suspicion
The destructive unculture of "permanent pitching" harbors great social dangers. But trust can be learned - even from communication managers.
Column The destructive unculture of "permanent pitching" harbors great social dangers. But trust can be learned -
even by communications managers.
Who would deny that Lenin's motto "Trust is good, control is better" is more relevant today than ever? The economically successful cannot afford to trust. Trust would be naive. Control, on the other hand, is professional. Of course, more reflective contemporaries are aware of the extremely positive effects of trust in social contexts. This is not a romantic or idealistically glorified hope. At least since Niklas Luhmann's systems theory analyses at the beginning of the 1970s, it has been about tangible benefits in increasingly complex living and working conditions; it is about reducing complexity.
And it's not about "blind trust", but about the rational calculation that everyone involved can benefit from trust in mutual trust if everyone benefits from trusting cooperation. And this is more often the case than we think. In road traffic, for example, it is almost always the case for all of us. Using public roads would be unbearable if we didn't unconsciously trust others to abide by the agreed rules.
So why is the reference to this general virtue in business life reduced to advertising slogans such as "Trust is the beginning of everything" (Deutsche Bank)? Why can't we, indeed shouldn't we, trust when we
work together in companies? Why are we also increasingly celebrating the efficiency-enhancing effect of competition internally? And why has the pitch long since become a popular parlor game of modern management beyond the field of communication?
After all, experience teaches us that the "permanent pitch" - routinized, mechanized, ubiquitous and devoid of content - does not promote quality and is costly in the long term. And everyone actually knows that this mistrust of trusting cooperation is not rational. For decades, game theory analyses have shown that the most successful way to do something together with others is to first invest in this relationship unilaterally - and then always behave in the same way as the other party. As a result, trust ensures joint success.
Of course, building trust ties up resources that are becoming increasingly scarce. Above all, time. Because trust has to develop. It grows. And it thrives best when it is reciprocated. And so on. Distrust is comparatively inexpensive: you save yourself the effort of considering how trustworthy the other person is.
Nevertheless, measured in terms of quality in an increasingly competitive environment, mistrust is by no means expedient. Its supporters generally argue with the fear of dependency. The gain in independence is celebrated. But does it make sense to focus so much on avoiding the risk of disappointment?
Sociologist Rainer Paris recently summarized the discussion about the eternal, difficult balancing act between mistrust and distrust as follows: "The distrustful person not only forfeits gains that cooperation might have brought, but ultimately avoids all contact." He refers to the devastating political prospects of "societies of public mistrust". There, the "spiral of suspicion" almost inevitably leads to a "dynamic of destruction".
So far, we can only speculate as to which values are being destroyed in economic contexts or which values are not being created because trust is increasingly being banished from the vocabulary of the modern manager. And in any case, we should be extremely suspicious of this development.
> Jürgen Häusler is CEO of the Interbrand Zintzmeyer and Lux Group in Zurich.
even by communications managers.
Who would deny that Lenin's motto "Trust is good, control is better" is more relevant today than ever? The economically successful cannot afford to trust. Trust would be naive. Control, on the other hand, is professional. Of course, more reflective contemporaries are aware of the extremely positive effects of trust in social contexts. This is not a romantic or idealistically glorified hope. At least since Niklas Luhmann's systems theory analyses at the beginning of the 1970s, it has been about tangible benefits in increasingly complex living and working conditions; it is about reducing complexity.
And it's not about "blind trust", but about the rational calculation that everyone involved can benefit from trust in mutual trust if everyone benefits from trusting cooperation. And this is more often the case than we think. In road traffic, for example, it is almost always the case for all of us. Using public roads would be unbearable if we didn't unconsciously trust others to abide by the agreed rules.
So why is the reference to this general virtue in business life reduced to advertising slogans such as "Trust is the beginning of everything" (Deutsche Bank)? Why can't we, indeed shouldn't we, trust when we
work together in companies? Why are we also increasingly celebrating the efficiency-enhancing effect of competition internally? And why has the pitch long since become a popular parlor game of modern management beyond the field of communication?
After all, experience teaches us that the "permanent pitch" - routinized, mechanized, ubiquitous and devoid of content - does not promote quality and is costly in the long term. And everyone actually knows that this mistrust of trusting cooperation is not rational. For decades, game theory analyses have shown that the most successful way to do something together with others is to first invest in this relationship unilaterally - and then always behave in the same way as the other party. As a result, trust ensures joint success.
Of course, building trust ties up resources that are becoming increasingly scarce. Above all, time. Because trust has to develop. It grows. And it thrives best when it is reciprocated. And so on. Distrust is comparatively inexpensive: you save yourself the effort of considering how trustworthy the other person is.
Nevertheless, measured in terms of quality in an increasingly competitive environment, mistrust is by no means expedient. Its supporters generally argue with the fear of dependency. The gain in independence is celebrated. But does it make sense to focus so much on avoiding the risk of disappointment?
Sociologist Rainer Paris recently summarized the discussion about the eternal, difficult balancing act between mistrust and distrust as follows: "The distrustful person not only forfeits gains that cooperation might have brought, but ultimately avoids all contact." He refers to the devastating political prospects of "societies of public mistrust". There, the "spiral of suspicion" almost inevitably leads to a "dynamic of destruction".
So far, we can only speculate as to which values are being destroyed in economic contexts or which values are not being created because trust is increasingly being banished from the vocabulary of the modern manager. And in any case, we should be extremely suspicious of this development.
> Jürgen Häusler is CEO of the Interbrand Zintzmeyer and Lux Group in Zurich.
