我們正在經(jīng)歷全球信任危機的陣痛。只有十分之二的美國人表示,他們認為政府“總是”或者“大多數(shù)情況”會做正確的事情。
事實上,來自28個國家的大多數(shù)人稱,在看到確切證據(jù)之前,他們默認政府是不可信的,在許多民主國家,只有不到一半的公民信任本國政府。
對某些社會群體和邊緣人口而言,信任危機并不新鮮,然而危機的擴散卻代表了一種令人擔(dān)憂的趨勢,這種趨勢源于日益加劇的社會分裂、前所未見的全球挑戰(zhàn)和肆意傳播的虛假信息。
雖然我是一名樂天派,并且一直是科技的擁護者,但科技在一定程度上加深了人們對政府的不信任。然而,科技也可以幫助解決信任危機。
兩種悲觀但似乎合理的路徑
如今,在多種因素的影響下,許多國家民眾對政府的信任度下降。日益加劇的不平等和精英階層的有罪不罰,動搖了人們對現(xiàn)行制度的信任。“快速行動、打破陳規(guī)”的心態(tài)和濫用技術(shù)進行牟利(壓制),加深了這種不信任,甚至引發(fā)了政治暴力。虛假信息泛濫,在28個國家超過四分之三的民眾說,他們擔(dān)心虛假新聞被武器化。與此同時,新冠疫情、戰(zhàn)爭、通脹、氣候變化、網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊、種族主義和日益嚴重的威權(quán)主義等諸多全球危機,讓人們對未來感到擔(dān)憂。
如果無法處理科技所帶來的負面影響,信任就會進一步惡化。在第一種情境下,傳統(tǒng)政治制度由于無法解決現(xiàn)有危機而持續(xù)衰弱,并且科技加快了現(xiàn)有制度崩潰的速度。
第二種可能是,現(xiàn)有制度繼續(xù)有效運行,但卻是以犧牲個人的自由為代價。政府掌控了由大型集中式網(wǎng)絡(luò)主導(dǎo)的科技。人與人之間的互動被嚴密監(jiān)控,人權(quán)受到壓制。監(jiān)控技術(shù)的輕松普及,使數(shù)字威權(quán)主義不斷傳播。
是否有更好的路徑?我認為更好的途徑確實存在,但它需要企業(yè)密切關(guān)注社會信任。
社會信任是商業(yè)繁榮的關(guān)鍵
雷切爾·博茨曼將信任定義為“對陌生的人、事、物感到放心的關(guān)系”。
在傳統(tǒng)社會,信任基于私人關(guān)系,始于家庭和部落。超出這些限制,信任度會降低。委內(nèi)瑞拉是低信任度社會的許多例子之一。委內(nèi)瑞拉的商業(yè)環(huán)境因為腐敗和制度缺陷而持續(xù)惡化。如今,在委內(nèi)瑞拉的首都加拉格斯,交易談判或完成交易耗時漫長,成本高昂,困難重重。
繁榮的現(xiàn)代社會需要具有高信任度。政治學(xué)家弗朗西斯·福山表示,經(jīng)濟成功的關(guān)鍵在于“自發(fā)社交性”,即建立新關(guān)系和合作的意愿。在信任度高的社會,你相信出租車司機能夠?qū)⒛闼偷侥康牡兀蛘哔u方會履行財產(chǎn)合同。這些社交規(guī)范有助于社會高效運行,降低經(jīng)商成本,并且從長遠來看,非常有助于創(chuàng)業(yè)和企業(yè)發(fā)展。
開創(chuàng)美好未來的路徑
為了改變當(dāng)前的軌跡,我們需要利用科技和更明智的治理重建信任。僅靠科技的自我修復(fù)或單純依靠監(jiān)管措施,都無法實現(xiàn)這個目標(biāo)。我們也不能等待分布式個人網(wǎng)絡(luò)從自上而下的集中式系統(tǒng)中奪回科技的控制權(quán)。相反,我們需要更好的平衡各種方法,包括開展公私合作。
對企業(yè)而言,專注于如何運用客戶和其他利益相關(guān)者的信任依舊重要,但我們也需要關(guān)注社會信任。企業(yè)了解自身行動較深層次的動力,關(guān)注外部的信任度,就可以做出更好的決策,并且有助于修復(fù)社會信任。
當(dāng)人們認為政府能夠言出必行并且做正確的事情時,就可以建立信任。
雖然我們很難避免最新爭議的干擾,但我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注的是如何完善現(xiàn)有制度,而不是只看問題。我們能夠從全球與數(shù)字民主有關(guān)的倡議中獲得啟發(fā)。當(dāng)人們感覺游戲規(guī)則清晰、公平和執(zhí)行得力時,他們就更有可能相信游戲結(jié)果。
在混亂和危險的時期,首先我們需要將信任作為一種共同價值觀,并以此為基礎(chǔ)進行技術(shù)創(chuàng)新。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者彼得·施瓦茨(Peter Schwartz)現(xiàn)任賽富時(Salesforce)的首席未來官和負責(zé)戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃的高級副總裁。
Fortune.com上發(fā)表的評論文章中表達的觀點,僅代表作者本人的觀點,不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
譯者:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
我們正在經(jīng)歷全球信任危機的陣痛。只有十分之二的美國人表示,他們認為政府“總是”或者“大多數(shù)情況”會做正確的事情。
事實上,來自28個國家的大多數(shù)人稱,在看到確切證據(jù)之前,他們默認政府是不可信的,在許多民主國家,只有不到一半的公民信任本國政府。
對某些社會群體和邊緣人口而言,信任危機并不新鮮,然而危機的擴散卻代表了一種令人擔(dān)憂的趨勢,這種趨勢源于日益加劇的社會分裂、前所未見的全球挑戰(zhàn)和肆意傳播的虛假信息。
雖然我是一名樂天派,并且一直是科技的擁護者,但科技在一定程度上加深了人們對政府的不信任。然而,科技也可以幫助解決信任危機。
兩種悲觀但似乎合理的路徑
如今,在多種因素的影響下,許多國家民眾對政府的信任度下降。日益加劇的不平等和精英階層的有罪不罰,動搖了人們對現(xiàn)行制度的信任。“快速行動、打破陳規(guī)”的心態(tài)和濫用技術(shù)進行牟利(壓制),加深了這種不信任,甚至引發(fā)了政治暴力。虛假信息泛濫,在28個國家超過四分之三的民眾說,他們擔(dān)心虛假新聞被武器化。與此同時,新冠疫情、戰(zhàn)爭、通脹、氣候變化、網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊、種族主義和日益嚴重的威權(quán)主義等諸多全球危機,讓人們對未來感到擔(dān)憂。
如果無法處理科技所帶來的負面影響,信任就會進一步惡化。在第一種情境下,傳統(tǒng)政治制度由于無法解決現(xiàn)有危機而持續(xù)衰弱,并且科技加快了現(xiàn)有制度崩潰的速度。
第二種可能是,現(xiàn)有制度繼續(xù)有效運行,但卻是以犧牲個人的自由為代價。政府掌控了由大型集中式網(wǎng)絡(luò)主導(dǎo)的科技。人與人之間的互動被嚴密監(jiān)控,人權(quán)受到壓制。監(jiān)控技術(shù)的輕松普及,使數(shù)字威權(quán)主義不斷傳播。
是否有更好的路徑?我認為更好的途徑確實存在,但它需要企業(yè)密切關(guān)注社會信任。
社會信任是商業(yè)繁榮的關(guān)鍵
雷切爾·博茨曼將信任定義為“對陌生的人、事、物感到放心的關(guān)系”。
在傳統(tǒng)社會,信任基于私人關(guān)系,始于家庭和部落。超出這些限制,信任度會降低。委內(nèi)瑞拉是低信任度社會的許多例子之一。委內(nèi)瑞拉的商業(yè)環(huán)境因為腐敗和制度缺陷而持續(xù)惡化。如今,在委內(nèi)瑞拉的首都加拉格斯,交易談判或完成交易耗時漫長,成本高昂,困難重重。
繁榮的現(xiàn)代社會需要具有高信任度。政治學(xué)家弗朗西斯·福山表示,經(jīng)濟成功的關(guān)鍵在于“自發(fā)社交性”,即建立新關(guān)系和合作的意愿。在信任度高的社會,你相信出租車司機能夠?qū)⒛闼偷侥康牡兀蛘哔u方會履行財產(chǎn)合同。這些社交規(guī)范有助于社會高效運行,降低經(jīng)商成本,并且從長遠來看,非常有助于創(chuàng)業(yè)和企業(yè)發(fā)展。
開創(chuàng)美好未來的路徑
為了改變當(dāng)前的軌跡,我們需要利用科技和更明智的治理重建信任。僅靠科技的自我修復(fù)或單純依靠監(jiān)管措施,都無法實現(xiàn)這個目標(biāo)。我們也不能等待分布式個人網(wǎng)絡(luò)從自上而下的集中式系統(tǒng)中奪回科技的控制權(quán)。相反,我們需要更好的平衡各種方法,包括開展公私合作。
對企業(yè)而言,專注于如何運用客戶和其他利益相關(guān)者的信任依舊重要,但我們也需要關(guān)注社會信任。企業(yè)了解自身行動較深層次的動力,關(guān)注外部的信任度,就可以做出更好的決策,并且有助于修復(fù)社會信任。
當(dāng)人們認為政府能夠言出必行并且做正確的事情時,就可以建立信任。
雖然我們很難避免最新爭議的干擾,但我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注的是如何完善現(xiàn)有制度,而不是只看問題。我們能夠從全球與數(shù)字民主有關(guān)的倡議中獲得啟發(fā)。當(dāng)人們感覺游戲規(guī)則清晰、公平和執(zhí)行得力時,他們就更有可能相信游戲結(jié)果。
在混亂和危險的時期,首先我們需要將信任作為一種共同價值觀,并以此為基礎(chǔ)進行技術(shù)創(chuàng)新。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者彼得·施瓦茨(Peter Schwartz)現(xiàn)任賽富時(Salesforce)的首席未來官和負責(zé)戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃的高級副總裁。
Fortune.com上發(fā)表的評論文章中表達的觀點,僅代表作者本人的觀點,不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
譯者:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
We are in the throes of a global trust crisis. Only two in 10 Americans say they believe the government will do the right thing “just about always” or “most of the time.”
In fact, a majority of people across 28 countries say their default is to distrust until they see proof–and less than half of citizens in many democracies trust their institutions.
For some societies and marginalized populations, the trust crisis is nothing new–but its expansion represents a troubling trend, one stemming from rising societal divisions, unprecedented global challenges, and the rampant spread of misinformation.
While I’m an optimist who has long championed technology, it, too, has played a role in deepening distrust. However, technology can also help resolve the trust crisis.
Two pessimistic but plausible paths
Today, a confluence of forces is causing trust levels to decline across many countries. Rising inequality and impunity among elites have shaken faith in established systems. The “move fast and break things” mentality and the misuse of technology for profit (or repression) have deepened mistrust and even contributed to political violence. Misinformation has exploded, with more than three in four people in 28 countries reporting that they worry about the weaponization of fake news. Meanwhile, a plethora of global crises–the pandemic, war, inflation, climate change, cyberattacks, racism, and growing authoritarianism–have sown fear of the future.
If we can’t get a handle on the negative forces that technology has unleashed, trust will continue to deteriorate. In one scenario, traditional institutions keep declining as they fail to address the current crisis, and technology accelerates the demise of established systems.
A second possibility is that institutions remain effective, but at a cost to personal freedom. Governments seize control of technology, which is dominated by large, centralized networks. Interactions are highly monitored and rights are repressed. Easy access to surveillance technology allows digital authoritarianism to spread.
Is there a better path? I think there is one, but it will require businesses to pay closer attention to societal trust.
Societal trust is critical to business prosperity
Rachel Botsman defines trust as “a confident relationship with the unknown.”
In traditional societies, trust was based on personal relationships, starting with family and tribe. Beyond those limits, trust was low. Venezuela is one of many examples of a low-trust environment where the business climate has deteriorated due to corruption and institutional weakness. Today in Caracas, negotiating deals or completing transactions is slow, costly, and difficult.
A prosperous, modern society requires high levels of trust. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama noted that “spontaneous sociability”–the willingness to form new associations and cooperate–is key to economic success. In a high-trust society, you have faith that a cab driver will get you to your destination, or a seller will honor a property contract. These norms help society function efficiently, lower the cost of doing business, and, over time, make a significant contribution to business formation and growth.
A path to a better future
To change our current trajectory, we need to leverage both technology and smarter governance to rebuild trust. Relying on technology to fix itself or regulatory action alone won’t get us there. Neither will waiting for distributed networks of individuals to reclaim control of technology from top-down, centralized systems. Instead, we need a better balance of approaches, including cooperation between the public and private sectors.
For businesses, it remains important to focus on how we operationalize trust with customers and other stakeholders, but we also need to focus on societal trust. By understanding the deeper dynamics of our own efforts and paying attention to how trust is experienced outside our walls, businesses can make better decisions and contribute to repairing trust in the societies in which we operate.
Trust is built when people perceive that institutions not only do what they say they will–but also do the right thing.
And while it can be difficult to avoid the distractions of the latest controversy, we should focus on fixing institutions, not just issues. For inspiration, look at the initiatives emerging around digital democracy across the world. When people feel that the rules of the game are clear, fair, and enforced, they’re far more likely to trust the results.
In chaotic and dangerous times, we need technological innovation that’s grounded in trust as a shared value from the get-go.
Peter Schwartz is Salesforce’s Chief Futures Officer and SVP of strategic planning.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.