Trust is the essence of cooperation: As Yuual Harari has so poignantly pointed out, it would not exist as a species if it were not for our superior ability to cooperate so effectively.
In the days of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, trust decisions were relatively simple when it came to appointing leaders. Indeed, our ancestors lived in small groups that were closely related and spent all their time together. In addition, the main characteristics they were interested in evaluating or judging were easy to observe: courage, practical knowledge, hunting and fishing dexterity, and physical strength. After that, psychometric evaluations, scientific tools to assess AI or leadership potential or integrity, and errors became extremely costly because if they chose the wrong leaders, the better LED would disappear at the expense of rival groups.
{“BlockType”: “MV-Promo-Block”, “Info”: {“Imagedesktopurl”: “HTTPS: \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / Imago JPG “,” Imagemobileurl “:” HTTPS: \ / \ / Images. More insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic “:” Dek “:” Doc “:” Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University and 50 books and more than 50 scientific articles, more than 250 scientific articles in “Ctatext” psychology. “Learn More “,” CTAurl “:” HTTPS: \ / \ / \ / Drtomas.com \ / \ / \ / \ / Drtomas.com \ / “Theme”: {“BG”: “# 2B2D30”, “# FFFFFF”, “Eyebrow”: “# 9A A2aa “,” buttonBG “:” # 3b3f46 “,” ButtonText “:” # ffffff “},” imagedesktopid “,” imageemobileid “: 91424800}}
But fast forward to our modern times, things are uncomfortably complicated and difficult for everyone. At work, our colleagues, co-workers, and bosses are the pixels on the screen of our zoom calls that we can’t trust, even if we’ve never met them. In politics, voters are asked to choose between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections between elections. Not surprisingly, the world is led by heads of state who, while rising to power with legitimate voter support, maintain a fragile level of popular approval. As I describe in my latest book, politicians are the ultimate example of the disconnect between the authenticity of leaders and the real integrity or perceptions of the inauthentic.
Still, there is no reason to be hopeful and give up. Fortunately, science provides some serious lessons for trusting the right person and minimizing the risk of trusting the wrong person. In fact, the scientific science of trust, hundreds of solid studies or individual differences in trusting identified individual differences, as well as practical studies of how to result in the most objective, reliable and risk-free way.
Here are five key lessons to ponder:
1) Despite the complexity of trust implications, people make trust judgments and decisions fraction of a second: As Amos Trervsky and Daniel Kahneman put it, humans may be capable of “slow” or rational thinking, but most of us think “fast,” which is a euphemism for not thinking at all. Indeed, not only do we make quick, reckless, and furious conclusions about other people’s character traits, we also attach importance to the correctness of our conclusions and stubbornly believe that no amount of evidence will change their minds. This may be the best explanation after no amount or evidence clearly reveals that voters choose their preferences in any way (at least because they are themselves disadvantaged). The solution? Well, we must learn to distrust our instincts and abandon our gut feeling. It follows that only by collecting reliable and predictive data and following the facts can we hope to focus on substance rather than style. This is especially important when we are evaluating potential candidates to be the president of a country or the head of a firm.
2) Leaders who are “only themselves” should not be trusted: As I describe in my latest book, there is a paradoxical relationship between what we think other people are and what we think we are authentically. In particular, it will feel authentic to you when you don’t block your uninhibited and zero thoughts and feelings to others and polarize, alienate and upset your feelings to others, and those who love, care about what others see of them. In contrast, they are not only reliable, but also know how to manage their reputation, not just the authority of others, how to manage with strategic impression management and go to great lengths to show only the best version of themselves, that is, elements of their adaptation to the demands of the situation and elements of their personality. In other words, they themselves have started where the ending is going and the commitment of others. Therefore, empathy, self-control, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and EQ are better predictors of leadership integrity and performance than self-perceived authenticity.
3) Charisma is a dangerous signal. While charisma is a clear force of effective leadership, at least as much as it helps people emerge as leaders, it can also help mask incompetence or unethical motives in leaders. In this sense, you can think of Charisma as an enabler: When leaders are honest and competent, they will help transform a group of people into a high-performing team; But when they are dishonorable or incompetent (or worse, both), their charisma will turn them into extremely harmful, destructive, and poisonous creatures. Because charisma is often conflated with credibility, it is helpful to be charismatic when it comes to appearing charismatic and therefore trusting them, including those who challenge them or our integrity or competence in leaders. Quiet, low-key, serious, and intelligent people make great leaders even if they don’t seem like fun. Charismatic, charming, entertaining, and attention-seeking leaders can use their social skills to manipulate, influence, and deceive, especially if they have psychopathic, narcissistic, or Machiavellian tendencies.
4) Our ability to trust is significantly reduced Stress, anxiety or pressure. This is obviously a big problem because in these situations, it is usually important to trust the right person. In other words, we should trust people as much as we should trust people, we will trust the wrong person. The lesson here is obvious: don’t make decisions about trust when your emotions cloud your judgment; First, relax, breathe, find the right moment and the right mental zone, then try to think rationally.
5) Some people are naturally more trusting than others: It depends not only on their personality, but also on the culture they grew up in. Paradoxically, because transparent and healthy cultures are less likely to show trust, free riders and reposters, it makes these cultures more sensitive and vulnerable and vulnerable to such toxic agents. In contrast, corrupt, antisocial, and failure cultures will be low because everyone is rightly paranoid about being cheated or cheated by others. However, it is not possible to cooperate and cooperate in these cultures, which further contributes to its downfall. On an individual level, it’s helpful to understand whether your bias is one of too much trust or too much skepticism, so you can focus or adjust your impressions to a more objective focal point.
In the end, trust remains the ultimate leadership currency: hard to win, easy to lose, and impossible to fake for long. Titles, charisma, or trust can help leaders build a relationship of authority that must be achieved through long-term actions rather than short-term impressions (unless they decide to keep themselves there by excessive force, power, or illegal means). In an age where appearance is routinely matter, the most credible leaders will be those who act as if someone is always watching; not because they are afraid of being caught, because there is no need to hide.