 |
| Home |
| T3 Mission & Team |
| Partners & Projects |
| Publications & Activities |
| Events |
| T3 Trust Theory |
| Trust across Disciplines |
| References on Trust |
| Contact T3 Group |
| Newsletter |
| Site Map |
Home
> Trust theory > Trust and delegation
Trust and delegation
We need to define delegation and to
clarify differences between delegation and trust.
In delegation, the delegating agent X needs or likes an action of the
delegated agent Y and includes it in his own plan: X relies on Y. X plans
to achieve his goal G through Y. So, he is constructing a multi-agent
plan and Y has a share in this plan.
To do this X has some trust both in Y's ability and in Y's predictability, and X should abstain from doing the same task and from delegating it to others.
In weak delegation there is no influence from X to Y, no agreement: generally, Y is not aware of the fact that X is exploiting his action. In stronger forms of delegation (mild delegation) X can himself eliciting, inducing the desired Y's behaviour to exploit it.
Depending on the reactive or deliberative character of
Y, the induction is just based on some stimulus or is based on beliefs
and complex types of influence.
Strong delegation is based on Y's awareness of X's intention to exploit
his action; normally it is based on Y's adopting X's goal (for any reason:
love, reciprocation, common interest, etc.), possibly after some negotiation
(request, offer, etc.) concluded by some agreement and social commitment.
We claim that trust is the mental counter-part of delegation,
i.e. that it is a structured set of mental attitudes
characterising the mind of a delegating agent (trustor). However there
are important differences, and some independence, between trust and delegation:
trust and delegation are not the same.
Moreover, the word "trust" is also ambiguous, since it denotes
both the simple evaluation of Y before relying on it (we will call this
"core trust"), the same plus the decision of relying on Y (we
will call this part of the complex mental state of trust "reliance"),
and the action of trusting, depending upon Y (this meaning really overlaps
with "delegation" and we will not use the term "trust"
for this).
Trust is first of all a mental state, an attitude towards an other agent (usually a social attitude). Delegation necessarily is an action, a result of a decision, and it also creates and is a (social) relation among X, Y, and the action A. The external, observable action/behaviour of delegating either consists of the action of provoking the desired behaviour, of convincing and negotiating, of charging and empowering, or just consists of the action of doing nothing (omission) waiting for and exploiting the behaviour of the other.
There may be trust without delegation.
Either the level of trust is not sufficient to delegate, or the level of trust would be sufficient but there are other reasons preventing delegation (for example prohibitions). So, trust is normally necessary for delegation, but it is not sufficient: delegation requires a richer decision.
These are exceptional cases in which either the delegating agent is not free (coercive delegation) or he has no information and no alternative to delegating, so that he must just make a trial (blind delegation).
The decision to delegate has no degrees:
either X delegates or does not delegate. Indeed trust has degrees: X trusts
Y more or less relatively to A. There is a threshold under which trust
is not enough for delegating too.
| Home > Trust theory > Trust and delegation |