This week, I sat down with the CEO of a boutique information security consulting shop who is reading the draft of my book. What he shared with me was humbling, but worth sharing.
First, he explained to me, the author, that my book is not really about digital trust. Instead, my book explains, in an entirely new way, how human beings make decisions to trust. Sure, we make trust decisions about digital information, he acknowledged, but the book presents a valuable way of understanding how any decision to trust is made, how information is relied upon to make each decision, and how the rules for making those decisions are far more important than the emotions we often associate with trust.
Second, he explained his own analysis of who should be reading this book. “Developers should be reading this book, because it will help them make better software that their customers are more likely to trust. But CEOs need to read this book—it changes how any merger or acquisition will be planned or executed. But lawmakers and the policy wonks in DC need to be reading your book because it shows how they need to change the objectives and metrics used in writing the laws and regulations that govern our businesses.”
Another reviewer, an holistic counselor that guides her clients through relationships, job stresses, and other challenges in life, had yet another reaction: “I thought your book was all about computing, but I finished Chapter 2 and realized your book transforms how I will counsel each and every future client I serve—your emphasis on the rules that serve as the foundation for trust change everything I thought I knew about trust!”
It is interesting to write a book and discover it does not fit into a nice, neat niche. Instead, it fits many niches, and apparently responds to many different kinds of needs. So how do you get a publisher to decide to trust the potential of a book? We are desperate to overcome the crisis we are experiencing in digital trust but perhaps we are more hungry for acquiring the tools and strategies for how to make decisions to trust that are better, yielding improved outcomes. If we improve how we make those decisions, perhaps that becomes the better way to begin making decisions about digital trust be more effective as well.
Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.