The Value of Trust in Institutional Times

Trust is a function of belief systems held by peoples, either individually or collectively.  The age old adage "trust must be earned", is a path for such participants to demonstrate, qualitatively, that they "say what they mean, and mean what they say" or that they "walk their talk".  That is they "they do what they said they would do" and "actions speak louder than words."  At an individual level these euphemisms are likely very familiar.   As the scale of participants engaged in discourse rises and grows larger communications science becomes more and more relevant.  The precision with which concepts are conveyed becomes critical if communications is to actually take place.   Too often these days we take words we all hear too often for granted.  The word "communications" is a great example of exactly that situation.  Just because someone stands at the front of a room and speaks for a period of time does not mean they communicated with the audience witnessing the talk.  The audience may speak a different language than the speaker.  The speaker may have used jargon no one in the audience understands.  Leaders, real leaders, know how to communicate.  Trusted leaders know how to communicate in a manner that engenders consent and common understanding not just of concepts but of principles.  Beloved trusted leaders do not just communicate empathy, compassion, shared common values and morals; they engender those facets of humanity with their actions.  Any sufficiently large group will have some rotten apples in its proverbial barrel.  Those are people whose lack of actual empathy is exceeded by their intellect in a way that allows them to articulate the parameters of empathy without incurring the feelings of empathy themselves.  Consequently they don't feel guilty for having lied, as an example. 

Anyone speaking to anyone else must, if communications and trust are to be achieved, work to assure that the words, concepts and paradigms all have deep commonly shared recognition.  Failure will result otherwise.   A PhD in quantum mechanics for example would likely not make a detailed forensic analysis of 'probability of a system in unpreturbed k state in unity' to a group of kids three years old.  All the reasons one would not do that are, or should be, obvious and self-evident.   Individuals preparing to attend any presentation from which they desire to learn and integrate into their lives may want to prepare.  But even the best autodidact cannot read everything ever printed.  We must be selective and know how to pursue which material to review.  The ability to select is key.



We begin to understand how much work is involved to actually assure comprehension of honest communications in order to actually communicate.  Paradigms within a belief system though are not easily dissuaded in anyone, much less adults.  To have any hope of communicating in a way affecting a paradigm shift which modifies behavior, an adult must "experience" the new concept at least seven times.  For deeply held paradigms, individuals too likely must too suffer "a significant emotional event" along the way as well or there is no hope of modifying their belief system to a reorganized or new system.  Belief systems are organized into stacks of paradigms or little models about various concepts.  And humans have a maximum capacity.  That is no human can know everything.  They would have to be the entire universe for that to be true.  Obviously, that isn't going to happen.   Institutions of any kind, especially long lived ones, like national governments, enduring universities, successful corporations like DuPont, IBM, Ford Motor Company, and the like, have acquired "institutional knowledge".  There in lay a conundrum for society and it comes in the form of "institutional knowledge" vs "trust".

The founding fathers of the United States in writing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights established a crucible intended to burn away distractions of chaff to deliver the kernel that is truth to we the people.  More than the cannon of legislative laws, the body of judicial interpretation manifest ours as a "nation of laws."  When any in government; in any branch, at any level, parses policies, orders, and communications in a manner that undermines that cannon it becomes seditious.  It is so because it ignores the declared, intended, process defined as much by tradition as by documented deed and word.  When anyone, in any position, is so caught in such acts, they should be held in contempt of their respective oaths of office.  That is after all - why we the people demand they recite those words in the first place.  They are not empty words and we the people demand that those reciting those words "walk their talk."

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Papers No. 65, said: "The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."

Historical Rome is a great example of an institutional organization we called a city-state, which grew larger than its capacity to effectively communicate in an effective manner engendering the trust necessary to govern.  The effect was to affect a loss of the consent to govern.   When government officials, elected or appointed in recent times begin to deliberately obfuscate the facts in order to gain or protect the power they possess over the people they do great damage to the institution of government in whose office they hold.  They have perverted and otherwise corrupted the public trust for that office for whatever purpose.  It does not matter whether those reasons are power or ideological in nature.  While a generous person might excuse Barack Obama for his statements about not losing your health care plan, not losing your doctors, or your insurance premiums going down - not up; no one recognizing the holistic message here would ever excuse Kathleen Sebelius for making the same statements.  And for the record I do not excuse BHO either.  The reason to hold her, in particular, to a higher standard is that she was once the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Kansas.  She knew better.  She knew she was obfuscating the facts before an innocent public.  She deliberately manipulated communications for ideological reasons.

In a room full of similarly knowledgeable people, parsing and reconciling the concepts of "plan churn", "plan enrollment periods", and "plan standards" (minimum or otherwise) is one thing.  Having an expert stand up and make statements they knew the audience did not understand undermines the integrity of the office in which they hold.  They exemplify the kinds of people that Alexander Hamilton warned us about.  Bad as all this may or may not be, depending on your ideological affinities.  They actually are not the point.  There are already too many espousing the various points of view in that regard.  No, the point of this entire article is how we value "trust" in "institutional times".  The reason this article is not just important but it is crucial.  One might say exceedingly salient.  It is so vital because institutions, like government, take actions.  They have lives of a sort.  Like Rome they can fail, likely in just as a dramatic fashion.  Given the intertwined global economies today the systemic implications are likely just as dramatic.  These actions can accrue wealth just as much as it can incur debt.   Adam Smith when he wrote The Wealth of Nations told of a world producing goods and services that was not nearly as interdependent as we are today.  Today he would likely be stunned into paralysis by the level of interlock systemically interlocking nations.

Given what I know about knowledge management, and the background behind the concepts above; observation about POTUS's stance and word, one must remember his words to "Joe the plumber."  Barack Hussein Obama, is leftist socialist almost to the point of being communist.  Some in the media have publicly called him "a tin pot dictator".  Interesting euphemism, but I digress.  The innocent among us confuse words like wealth, assets, income, revenue, margins, profit, and for all those reasons are why anyone entering into the financial industry is required, by law (not policy or order, but by law), to be licensed and accredited in their respective endeavor.  There are ethics by which they must abide.  That's why brokers must conduct themselves above and beyond reproach.  Judges in the judiciary are held to the same standard of ethics for all the same reasons.  Those reasons can be summed into to two words: "Public Trust".

Because no human can know everything, those placed in positions of "public trust" must be held to a different standard.  They must not be allowed to violate or obfuscate their positions or as many have noted "freedom and liberty are a generation away from destruction."  The velocity of the acts of the institution of government that is the United States, places high burden on its citizens to act with informed deliberation and consent.  We cannot afford to tolerate insubordination nor obfuscation of the facts.  Not when the situation is as grave as this:

(click here to see the US National Debt Clock)

These days we often here folks acting in the official capacity of their offices talking not about the debt but about the deficit, as if that makes things better.  It doesn't.  What do all these numbers mean?  Simply put, but on a global scale, they measure the ability of, in this case, the United States as a nation to "walk its talk".  It is a measure of whether or not we are doing what we said we would do.  The more "in the red" those numbers are, the less likely it is we are going to do what we said we would do.  It does not matter in the slightest how well intentioned a given social program, law, or action is if, and that's a salient word there "if", one cannot financially fund the intent.  If you cannot pay for it, it doesn't matter how well intentioned it is.  The proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions.




The guy who did the above analysis and I both worked at the same company, though I do not recall if we ever met.  It was a big place.  Though given our respective assignments I would not be surprised if we shared an auditorium or meeting at one time or another.  Having made that disclosure I have to point out that this is bigger than orations, and eloquence.  Nor is it about emotions or about "being human".  We're all human.   Individuals act within their respective capacities and nature.  The national debt clock is a direct measure of the effectiveness of those collective acts relative to every other nation on Earth.  The GDP of this nation matters.   The words spoken matter, especially the words spoken when taking the oath of office where you are held in a position of "public trust" and that is especially true in "institutional times".

Any government employee, swearing an oath to the Constitution and knowingly signing unconstitutional legislation into law, issuing orders or communications, or any other unconstitutional act; in the official capacity of the office they hold undermining the Constitution are fundamentally in breach of their respective oaths of office.  We the people have every right and authority, indeed the obligation, to remove that official IMMEDIATELY from that office by whatever legal means necessary in order to defend the crucible that is our nation." Breach of these people's "oath of office" is illegal and we the people have every right to hold them accountable to that oath. Why? Because we're American Citizens. That's why. Don't tread on me.  It is after all, why those people are asked to take that oath in the first place.

• Those who seek to undermine the constitution by infringing on its rights are seditious.
• Those who seek elected office should be held "beyond reproach" by we the people.
• If you cannot abide by the Constitution of the Nation and your State, we the people strongly encourage you not to be in an office elected by we the people. If you are already in office and cannot perform your oath of office - step down, now. Right now. Let someone who can and will, take your place. We're in charge - not you and if you forget that... we're going to remind you in whatever means are required to render transparency, truth and restore integrity to the republic for which these documents stand and the crucible that is this nation.

While it might be simplistic to blame me for these opinions they are in fact a product of centuries of precedent by:

• The Declaration of Independence
• US Constitution (especially):
• 1st Amendment
• 2nd Amendment
• 4th Amendment
• 10th Amendment
• 14th Amendment
• Title 18 USC 241 & 242
• and The Federalist Papers.

There is a problem with those in positions of institutional power who claim that it is acceptable to pass unconstitutional legislation because the Judicial Branch will "straighten that out".  This is wrong headed and a fundamental breach of that persons oath of office.   And as such knowingly taking such action should be held as a high crime and misdemeanor treated as an impeachable offense.   Some argue these are strong words.  I would argue that they are simply an attempt to curb behavior so that our acts are within our means to execute.

There is too a looming danger on the horizon and if we don't fix the above problems this one is absolutely going to destroy us.  And it is the simple fact that no human being can know everything and we are working to instantiate institutional knowledge into computer systems that rule our lives.  I have no desire to live under the rule of a computer.  And for the same reasons I have no desire to live under the rule of a dictator.