When paranoia makes sense

On September 11, 2001, in the space of a few horrific minutes, Americans realized the fragility of trust. The country's evident vulnerability to deadly terrorism rocked our faith in the systems we rely on for security. Our trust was shaken again only a few months later with the stunning collapse of Enron, forcing us to question many of the methods and assumptions underpinning the way we work. These two crises are obviously very different, yet both serve as reminders of the perils of trusting too much. The abiding belief that trust is a strength now seems dangerously naive. This new doubtfulness runs contrary to most management literature, which has traditionally touted trust as an organizational asset. It's an easy case to make. When there are high levels of trust, employees can fully commit themselves to the organization because they can be confident that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded. Trust also means that leaders don't have to worry so much about putting the right spin on things. They can act and speak forthrightly and focus on essentials. In short, trust is an organizational superglue. Nevertheless, two decades of research on trust and cooperation in organizations have convinced social psychologist Roderick Kramer that--despite its costs--distrust can be beneficial in the workplace. Kramer has observed that a moderate form of suspicion, which he calls prudent paranoia, can in many cases prove highly beneficial to the distrustful individual or organization. In this article, he describes situations in which prudent paranoia makes sense and shows how, when properly deployed, it can serve as a powerful morale booster--even a competitive weapon--for organizations.