Trust

The Federalist Papers, the classic series of essays explaining and defending the proposed United States Constitution, was authored by Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804), James Madison (1751–1836), and John Jay (1745–1829). In “Federalist Paper 64,” Jay presents a perfect illustration of the problem of trust and leadership. His topic concerns the treaty-making process under the new Constitution, which stipulates that while the Senate would have final approval of any treaty submitted by the president, the president and his assigned negotiators would have some latitude along the way to engage in secret and candid negotiations and reach agreement with international partners. The people could not themselves sit around the bargaining table; rather, their representatives would have to act on their behalf. On what grounds could the new government, which owed its very existence to a fear and mistrust of previous leaders, justify such discretion in their new leaders?

Jay argues that leaders have to be trusted. The founders designed the Constitution, Jay notes, so that it would recruit to political office individuals of wisdom and keen judgment with no interest other than the well-being of those they represented. If the system worked according to plan, the government would consist of the most able, the most virtuous, and the most trustworthy individuals. Towards the [Page 1574]end of his analysis, however, Jay makes an abrupt shift: If citizens are worried about the discretion granted to leaders, he calmly points out, they should be reassured by another provision in the Constitution, namely, that of impeachment of a president who abuses his power.

We trust our leaders in modern life—whether corporate, political, or social life—but only so far. Trust is conditional, bound by the principle of accountability and the limited power and discretion granted to leaders of any stripe. John Locke (1632–1704), the British philosopher, wrote in 1690 about “prerogative,” the necessity for leaders to act with wide latitude when the laws are silent or even when the laws prevent leaders from acting in the best interest of the citizens. The authority of leaders to act in such circumstances is legitimate only if a leader's acts ultimately benefit the public. That zone of discretion—the amount of trust given to leaders—expands or contracts depending upon the degree to which citizens believe leaders are fulfilling their obligations to those they serve rather than attending to their own self-interests.

Trust is an extremely complex subject, made all the more confusing by the elasticity of the term. Trustworthiness, a personal characteristic that engenders trust, arises from a complicated set of factors. In a leadership context it may include, as Locke implied, a conviction that the leader is acting in the interest of followers rather than personal self-interest. Or it may come from a set of skills and talents that convince others the leader is competent and able. Followers may trust leaders because they perceive in them certain personal virtues, and because they believe their leaders share their own values or are at least mindful and respectful of their values. Or followers may base their trust on the belief that a leader can get the job done. Modern discussions often confuse these distinctly different meanings of trust.

...