I am intrigued by the question you pose. There is no doubt that human interaction — whether commercial or personal in focus — requires at times a leap of faith. This is as true of arms-length negotiators as it is of new friends. There would be neither marriages nor business deals without some element of trust and optimism for the future, some willingness on all sides to be vulnerable.

It’s true as you point out that vulnerability can trigger the reciprocal action. But I don’t think “be trustworthy, not trusting” contradicts that — I think it reminds us that we can be vulnerable but that we should be strategic and purposeful in the moments when we show vulnerability. Vulnerability — showing trust in others — is best tempered by judgment and reflection.

For example, in Cialdini’s most recent book, “Yes: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive”, he and his co-authors describe how touting one’s weaknesses creates the perception that one is trustworthy (think, “Avis: We’re #2, but we try harder!”). Yet one must be strategic: as the co-authors write, “you’re going to be able to use this strategy effectively only if your weaknesses are genuinely minor ones. This is why we rarely see ad campaigns with mottos like, ‘Ranked last in its class by J.D. Power and Associates, but once we get these wrongful death suits taken care of, we’ll try harder.’”

Thank you, Charlie, for taking the time to post such a thoughtful comment and to raise such a fascinating question. I’m going to continue to reflect on it.

It is best stated in a quote attributed to Henry Stimson, Secretary of War under Roosevelt, who said, “”The best way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him.”

I think there’s some intuitive truth here. For one thing, the willingness to make oneself vulnerable (sort of the definition of trusting), is what Cialdini describes as the basis for reciprocity–his number one prescription for influencing. If I do for you, you will do for me, is how he puts it. And that offering of vulnerability is what triggers the reciprocity.

That said, your point also makes intuitive sense–be trustworthy but not trusting.

How do you reconcile them?

Thanks,
Charlie Green