User:Geletaw Zeleke Beyene

==== A Theory of Trust ==== By Geletaw Zeleke Editor Magill Martini Dyess The idea of trust as social capital can be seen through three distinct points of view. These three separate interpretations of trust include the religious, the conscience and the systemic perspective. (1)	Religious Perspective In the Christian religion trust is one of the expected behaviors of believers which can be understood as religious social capital. For example we can see the idea of trust as a religious social capital in the Bible the Book of Acts, Chapter 4 verses 32 -36. “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Joseph a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas which means “son of encouragement”, sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet” The general doctrine for the concept of trust or the thing that the members of each religious group lay their trust in is a supernatural force. That supernatural force is the ultimate source of trust in their minds. That supernatural force subsumes risk taking in their belief. In this doctrine members are expected to show other members and other human beings unconditional love. The value of trust is much more driven from undermining their physical world and giving more value to the other state of mind or the second world. The stimulus to trusting one another is that by trusting others they expect positive rewards from the supernatural force or from other group members. Christianity, Buddhism and Islam alike value trust in the same way. In general trust in this context is a moral question and it is a commandment of their spiritual scripts. Critical reasoning or questioning is not encouraged in this philosophy rather simply trusting in others and having confidence in one another without critical reasoning is prescribed. The motive of the doctrine is meant to create healthy communication amongst the group members and to attract non-believers. For some highly devoted believers trust is most likely unconditional. Bottom line trust in this doctrine is getting positive rewards from the superpower. In addition the guarantor to taking risks and trusting in their groups, members and organization is the superpower. Members have very low participation in leadership. They are not interested in auditing their churches and they do not worry about the terms of their leaders. Further, members have relatively high trust in their leaders. Members are not usually curious about the work flow of their organization because they believe that risk is very low.

(2)  The Conscience Perspective Non-religious people and groups also encourage trust. Many groups have their own norms and values. They have a demarcation between “good” and “bad”. These relative terms will have life in the social system through the power of trust. Members of the group convince themselves that one thing is good and another bad according to their norms. There is no superpower which they revere but for the sake of their oath or their conscience they always try to do what is in their mind “good”. Conversely, when they do “bad” things or they violate their group norms or values they feel guilty. Their view of trust is based on their social or organizational mission, its core values and norms. In both the religious and the conscious perspectives trust at the level of individuals is governed by the logic of: Person X trusts in person Y and person Y trusts in person Z. Therefore, Person X trusts person Z. If person X trusts in person Y and person Y trusts in person Z then, in this philosophy, whether X and Z have intimacy or not, the probability of trust between person X and person Z is relatively higher. This doctrine doesn’t worry much about the personal intimacy of persons X and Z. Because of this multidimensional relationship of trust we see more worthy trust relationships among group members. In this doctrine the flow of information is faster and more likely healthier. Further their vertical trust which means their trust in leaders is relatively higher, in addition. Especially in the religious perspective group members have relatively higher trust towards leadership since they believe that risk is very low. Members will invest their time, money and energies non-discriminately as a result of their high levels of trust. (3)  Systemic Perspective In this perspective trust is not an independent variable rather it is more likely a dependent variable. The driving motive of people from a systemic perspective is to ask at the organization or individual level, “trust in what?” They satisfied their need for trust in a strong and reliable system. These people do not simply accept preached trust. No matter how much they may have heard someone talk about trust they still yearn internally for a system to trust in. They want a strong and reliable system. Whenever these kinds of people want to invest their money, skill, knowledge or property in a given organization or group they need transparency, accountability, apparent managerial skill and a clear work flow across the system. People who want to deposit their money in a bank, for example, will not do so because they trust in bankers but because they trust in the banking system. These types of people do not rely on their government systems when they see, feel or believe that the system is corrupted or unhealthy. The level of trust or confidence will decrease as the transparency decreases. This lack of trust in extension may affect other positive values of the group. Values such as respect, love, compassion, integrity and responsibility may be eroded as the result of lose of trust. Systemic individuals lose trust and ultimately their social capital may deteriorate if the system is not good enough which means if there is no transparency, accountability, audit or participation of the group members. This system of trust does not necessarily govern itself by the following logic, ironically.

Person X trusts in person Y and person Y trusts in person Z. Therefore, Person X trusts person Z. From this trust perspective if person x trusts person y and person y trusts person z then, there will not necessarily be trust between person x and person z. The level of individual trust relies instead on intimacy or on how well the persons get to know each other. Systemic individuals are much more interested in getting to know each other before they trust. Of course, in some cases person x and z might trust each other by relying on person y or a mediator but in that case the degree of trust can be measured by the level of trust they have in person y. In this case person y is the guarantor and the person taking the risk and their agreement will rely on written agreements with officialized signatures, stamps or seals. Systemic people when it comes to group life yearn for a strong and reliable organizational work flow. Within that kind of system it will give them an opportunity to invest their skill, knowledge, attitudes and property. In this perspective the power of trust is highly dependent on the quality of the system. It is for this reason that we say trust is a dependent phenomenon in the systemic perspective opposed to the religious and conscious perspectives. Good quality of system generates trust and other moral values of societies in this perspective. In order to build trust there is no need to preach to people on how important trust is rather by establishing a trust worthy system it attracts the confidence of systemic individuals.

To be continued The writer can be reached at geletawzeleke@gmail.com