I don’t understand the model here. IMO, trust is multidimensional (prediction robustness to do or not do different things can be different, even for the same trustor and trusteee), and varies over time and with change of circumstance. It may be useful to talk about the distribution of trust factors or levels, but I don’t think this post gives enough basis to start with such.
There seems to be an upper limit to how much any randomly selected individual would trust another randomly selected individual
What makes you say it’s an upper limit, rather than a contingent value? What’s the limiting case? Do you mean randomly selected, or mean or median, or something else? and are you measuring trust for the distribution (before resolution of the random chance) or for the individuals (after randomly selecting)?
And before you specify any of that, what does this tell us in terms of actions or our own trust behaviors? Say there’s an upper-limit of “would kill or die to prevent a given decision from being made by any given individual”. So what?
IMO, trust is multidimensional (prediction robustness to do or not do different things can be different, even for the same trustor and trusteee), and varies over time and with change of circumstance.
The expression of trust is reliably measurable along a single dimension, such as monetary units. At least for activities that involve money.
If it is in fact multidimensional this would imply it can be reduced to a single dimension when individuals find it expedient, at least in terms of evaluating potential business partners. Whether or not it actually is multidimensional in practice, or merely claimed to be when convenient, is an issue I will elide.
What makes you say it’s an upper limit, rather than a contingent value?
The upper limit isn’t set in stone, it varies with time and culture, as I think was pretty clearly stated, so it is also contingent on various factors.
I have a policy of responding to a maximum of two questions per comment, with some exceptions, to keep replies easily readable. If you desire to clarify some additional points you can post it in a separate comment.
It’s possible to trust a business partner to deliever on the contract but not trust them to appear on time for meetings. It’s also possible to trust them to be on time for meetings but not to honor a contract.
With business partners it’s important to think about the different kinds of expecations you have on your business partner and which of those who can trust them to fulfill.
I highly doubt there’s any question of being on-time for meetings for the principles involved in a billion dollar handshake deal.
Maybe for small business owners dealing with other small business owners, where the stakes are lower, though even then it seems unlikely unless they’re doing it as a favour for family or a friend or something. In that case it wouldn’t be reliant on the mutual trust between the business partners but on a trusted intermediary’s reputation.
Most business deals are not billion-dollar handshake deals.
For a billion-dollar handshake deal, a person might trust that the deal gets completed but not trust that the other party doesn’t leak the sales price.
When a startup gets acquired the startup founder usually has ideas for how they want the startup to evolve under the new leadership and the trust in the leadership upholding their promises about what they will do after they brought the startup is distinct to the trust in whether they are actually wiring the money.
When a startup gets acquired the startup founder usually has ideas for how they want the startup to evolve under the new leadership and the trust in the leadership upholding their promises about what they will do after they brought the startup is distinct to the trust in whether they are actually wiring the money.
This isn’t the case in my experience, every successful startup founder I’ve heard of had, at the very least, ambivalent thoughts about their company’s future prospects post-acquisition, in private of course.
Many folks may ostensibly claim that they believe wholeheartedly in the post-acquisition future, but it’s likely everyone past the age of 30 or so, startup founder or not, has had some experience with moral mazes.
So it’s unlikely the ‘trust’ is anything more than nominal for the vast majority of older founders who got acquired.
Maybe someone really young could genuinely believe that all promises will be kept post-acquisition.
Trust in post-acquisition leadership is certainly far from the default. That’s what makes it valuable for a funder who actually cares about the post-acquisition future.
I don’t understand the model here. IMO, trust is multidimensional (prediction robustness to do or not do different things can be different, even for the same trustor and trusteee), and varies over time and with change of circumstance. It may be useful to talk about the distribution of trust factors or levels, but I don’t think this post gives enough basis to start with such.
What makes you say it’s an upper limit, rather than a contingent value? What’s the limiting case? Do you mean randomly selected, or mean or median, or something else? and are you measuring trust for the distribution (before resolution of the random chance) or for the individuals (after randomly selecting)?
And before you specify any of that, what does this tell us in terms of actions or our own trust behaviors? Say there’s an upper-limit of “would kill or die to prevent a given decision from being made by any given individual”. So what?
The expression of trust is reliably measurable along a single dimension, such as monetary units. At least for activities that involve money.
If it is in fact multidimensional this would imply it can be reduced to a single dimension when individuals find it expedient, at least in terms of evaluating potential business partners. Whether or not it actually is multidimensional in practice, or merely claimed to be when convenient, is an issue I will elide.
The upper limit isn’t set in stone, it varies with time and culture, as I think was pretty clearly stated, so it is also contingent on various factors.
I have a policy of responding to a maximum of two questions per comment, with some exceptions, to keep replies easily readable. If you desire to clarify some additional points you can post it in a separate comment.
It’s possible to trust a business partner to deliever on the contract but not trust them to appear on time for meetings. It’s also possible to trust them to be on time for meetings but not to honor a contract.
With business partners it’s important to think about the different kinds of expecations you have on your business partner and which of those who can trust them to fulfill.
I highly doubt there’s any question of being on-time for meetings for the principles involved in a billion dollar handshake deal.
Maybe for small business owners dealing with other small business owners, where the stakes are lower, though even then it seems unlikely unless they’re doing it as a favour for family or a friend or something. In that case it wouldn’t be reliant on the mutual trust between the business partners but on a trusted intermediary’s reputation.
Most business deals are not billion-dollar handshake deals.
For a billion-dollar handshake deal, a person might trust that the deal gets completed but not trust that the other party doesn’t leak the sales price.
When a startup gets acquired the startup founder usually has ideas for how they want the startup to evolve under the new leadership and the trust in the leadership upholding their promises about what they will do after they brought the startup is distinct to the trust in whether they are actually wiring the money.
This isn’t the case in my experience, every successful startup founder I’ve heard of had, at the very least, ambivalent thoughts about their company’s future prospects post-acquisition, in private of course.
Many folks may ostensibly claim that they believe wholeheartedly in the post-acquisition future, but it’s likely everyone past the age of 30 or so, startup founder or not, has had some experience with moral mazes.
So it’s unlikely the ‘trust’ is anything more than nominal for the vast majority of older founders who got acquired.
Maybe someone really young could genuinely believe that all promises will be kept post-acquisition.
Trust in post-acquisition leadership is certainly far from the default. That’s what makes it valuable for a funder who actually cares about the post-acquisition future.
Possibly. How does this relate to the prior comment?
If you know the outcome of how the company will fare post-acquisition you don’t need trust. You need trust when it’s uncertain.
How do the selling folks acquire knowledge of how their company will fare post-acquisition?
Do you mean ′ if they are convinced by the promises of the buying party’?
The whole point of trust, is that you don’t have the knowledge. If you would have the knowledge you wouldn’t need trust.
So how do they acquire this knowledge in the first place?