Trust, Control and Autonomy: A Dialectic Relationship - Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model - page 222

Table 7.7 Reducing the trustee's autonomy

WHEN (classes of reasons):

Ag 1 believes that Ag 2 is not doing (in time) what Ag 1 has delegated to it; and/or
Ag 1 believes that Ag 2 is working badly and makes mistakes (because of lack of competence,
knowledge, control, etc.); and/or
Ag 1 believes that there are unforeseen events, external dangers and obstacles that perhaps Ag 2 is not
able to deal with; and/or
Ag 1 believes that Ag 2 is going beyond its role or task, and Ag 1 is not happy about this (because of
lack of trust or of conflict of power) 27

THEN (reduction of autonomy) Ag 1 will reconsider its delegation to Ag 2 ,and Ag 2 's level of autonomy
in order to reduce it by either specifying the plan (task) or by introducing additional control, or
constraining the interaction (strong delegation), etc.

Table 7.8 When to expand the trustee's autonomy

WHEN (classes of reasons):
Ag 1 believes that Ag 2 is doing or can do better than previously expected (predicted); and/or

Ag 1 believes that the external conditions are more favorable than expected; and/or

Ag 1 believes that Ag 2 is working badly and makes mistakes (because of lack of flexibility, or because
of too much control, etc.) and/or
Ag 1 believes that Ag 2 can do more than previously assigned, or can find its own situated way of
solving the problem

THEN (expansion of autonomy) Ag 1 will change the delegation to Ag 2 ,and Ag 2 's level of autonomy in
order to expand it by either letting the plan (task) less specified or reducing control or making the
interaction weaker, etc.

Adjusting the Autonomy of Trustee

In this preliminary identification of reasons for autonomy adjustment, we prefer a more
qualitative and simplified view, not necessarily related with a probabilistic framework like
the one we will use in the following. Of course, to be more precise, one should specify that
what changes is the subjective probability assigned to those events (beliefs). For example, at
the time of the delegation, Ag 1 believed that the probability of Ag 2 's mistakes was pm (and
this expectation was compatible with the decision of delegating a given degree of autonomy),
while Ag 1 realizes that this probability has changed (higher or lower than expected).
Let us simplify the issue in Table 7.7, Table 7.8, Table 7.9, and Table 7.10.

Trust as the Cognitive Basis for Adjusting Autonomy

What we have just seen (principles and reasons for bilateral delegation and autonomy adjust-
ment) can be considered from the main perspective of trust.

27 Notice that in all those cases the trustee's expectations on which trust and reliance were based are disappointed.