Stale Incumbents Perpetuate Distrust
Low trust levels in America benefit groups like “stale incumbents,” who maintain their positions by fostering distrust and resisting change.
In a society where trust levels are low and have been falling for decades, have you ever wondered who stands to gain from this pervasive and persistent distrust?
My hypothesis is this: low trust isn’t just a social ill—it’s a profitable venture for some. Over the years, I’ve noticed different groups that seem to benefit from distrust, both within organizations and across our culture. In this post, I’ll share my observations and explore who profits from distrust. If you have your own observations or data, please share them as we delve into this critical issue together.
Adversaries
The first group that benefits from low trust is straightforward: our adversaries. Distrust and infighting often go hand in hand. It’s much easier to defeat a rival, whether in the market, in an election, in a war, or in a race for positioning, when they are busy fighting among themselves and imploding from within.
Brokers
Another group that profits from distrust are brokers. Though they often don’t have bad intentions, brokers make a living by filling the gap that distrust creates. By “broker,” I mean someone who advocates on our behalf in an untrusting or uncertain environment. This could be a real estate agent, someone who vouches for us as a business partner, a friend who sets people up on blind dates, or someone whose endorsement wins us favor with others.
Mercenaries
Mercenaries are a less well-intentioned version of brokers. These people paint a dark picture of a distrustful world and then offer to fight for us or provide protection—for a price. Mercenaries never portray themselves as such, even if that’s what they really are.
Aggregators
Aggregators are people or organizations that build a reputation for being consistently trustworthy, especially when their rivals are not. Essentially, they aggregate trust and communicate it as a symbol of value. A good example of aggregators are fast food brands. When traveling abroad, people trust an American fast food chain to be clean, consistent, and reasonably priced. Many brands across industries thrive because they’ve built a trustworthy reputation.
These groups are fairly straightforward, and many of you might find these categories intuitive and relatable. However, they didn’t seem to cover enough ground to explain the persistent low trust levels in our culture. As I thought more about it, I realized that the largest group benefiting from distrust might be hidden in plain sight…
Stale Incumbents
Now, let’s consider the largest group that might be benefiting from distrust: stale incumbents.
Imagine someone you’ve worked with who always slows down projects. They resist learning new things and believe in sticking to the old ways. They’re nice, but their team never meets deadlines or finishes projects—they always have a believable excuse. This person is a stale incumbent.
More specifically, a stale incumbent is someone in a position who is out of ideas or motivation to innovate. Their ability to keep their job depends on everyone being stuck in the status quo. Here’s how it works:
They get into a comfortable position.
They stop learning and trying new things.
They run out of ideas because they stopped learning.
They try to hide and let new ideas fade.
They allow distrust and low standards to settle in.
When new people ask questions, they blame distrust: “It’s not my fault; others aren’t cooperating.”
They make the status quo seem inevitable, doing the minimum to keep their position and discourage change.
They repeat steps 4-7.
Stale incumbents need distrust to hide behind. They want to keep their comfortable position but have no new ideas because they stopped learning. A culture of distrust is the perfect scapegoat: it can’t argue back, and people think it can’t be changed, so they stop asking questions and give up. The distrust also makes it harder for new people to show up, innovate, annd expose the stale incumbent.
Ultimately, stale incumbents can keep their jobs while delivering mediocre results. This staleness spreads, making the culture of distrust harder to reverse because more stale incumbents depend on it. It’s a cycle of mediocrity, not anger and fear.
I don’t have experimental data, but I do have decades of regular observation draw from. I believe stale incumbents help explain the persistent low trust in America. Many people started with energy but never found allies, and the stale culture assimilated them.
The good news is there’s hope. If distrust is due to stale incumbents rather than malicious actors, we may not face much resistance in bringing about change. The path to change is clear: bring in energetic people and help them bring others along. It’s hard, but not complicated. By fostering a culture of learning, innovation, and trust, we can break the cycle of mediocrity and create a more trusting and dynamic society.
Doing Strategy in Politics
Don’t give me a platform without a vision first!
Here’s my thought experiment for how we might do political visioning in America, grounded in the aspirations of the entire polity.
The first bit is a good illustration of how I think about the American Dream. But for what it’s worth, I mean this post more as an exercise in how to “do” politics differently than just having a platform on 50+ issues that matter to the polity and shouting about it as loud as you can - not an unpacking of my own vision.
My main consternation as a citizen is this: I don’t want a policy platform unless you’ve shared a bona fide vision first! Rather than just griping, I figured I’d actually explain how I think things could work instead.
And, for what it’s worth, this is how I’ve seen great organizations function across sectors. This sort of discipline around strategy and execution is one of the things I most wish the public sector would adopt from private sector organizations and business school professors.
To start, let’s assume a visionary political leader believes these are the three overarching questions that unify the largest possible amount of our polity:
On average, do people have enough optimism about the present and future to want to bring children into this world?
On average, once someone is brought into this world, do they flourish from cradle to grave?
Overall, the simplest and most comprehensive way to measure the health of a society is Total Fertility Rate vs. replacement rate. Is our long-run population stable, growing, or declining?
Thinking about the fundamental need gripping the polity is key. I think whether or not people want to reproduce is a good bellwether of a LOT and therefore a good framework for contemplating political issues at a national level.
A vision statement based on these questions could be:
I imagine a country where our citizens believe it’s worth bringing children into the world and have reasonable confidence that those children will flourish during their lifetimes.
A vision statement statement has to describe the world after you’ve succeeded from the POV of the citizen, not the work itself.
A pithy slogan / mission (which does sharply focus and describe the work itself) to capture the essence of this vision statement could be:
“Families will thrive here.”
Let’s assume this is a vision / mission statement that the polity believes in. If so, then the political leader can translate their rhetoric into action by asking two simple questions:
Is the vision true today?
If not, what would have to be true for the vision to become reality?
From there, a political leader can create an integrated set of mutually reinforcing policy and administrative choices that they believe will allow the polity to make disproportionate progress toward the vision state.
Put another way, by working backwards from the vision, you can place bets on the initiatives that are more likely to succeed rather than wasting resources on those that won’t get us to where we agreed we want to go.
The problem with this approach is that you actually have to articulate a vision, understand the root causes that are preventing it from happening without intervention, do the extremely abstract work of forming a strategy, and then communicate it clearly enough so that people get behind it. That’s really hard, and you have to have major guts to go through this exercise of vision -> strategy -> priorities -> outcomes.
This is quite different, I think, than simply articulating a pro-con list of policy preferences across a widely distributed set of issue areas that aren’t contemplated in an integrated way. But the thing is, having focus and priorities tends to work much better than “boiling the ocean” or “being all things to all people.”
To be fair, I’ve seen some contemporary politicians operate this way. Not many though.
In a nutshell, one of the biggest lessons I’ve learned from observing the leadership of private-sector companies is that it’s a big waste to just start doing stuff in a way that’s not integrated and focused—as if every possible initiative is equally impactful. It works much better when you start with a specific end state in mind and work backwards. It’s an idea that’s useful for political leaders, too.
My Dream: Bringing CX to State and Local Government
Bringing CX to State and Local Government would be a game-changer for everyday people.
My number one mission for my professional life is to help government organizations become high performing. If every government were high performing, I think it would change the trajectory of human history for the better in a big way.
One way to do that is to bring customer experience (CX) principles pioneered in the private sector and some forward thinking places (like the US Federal Government, the UK Government, or the Government of Estonia) and bring them to State and Local Government.
It is my dream to create CX capabilities in City and State Government in Michigan and have our state be a model for how CX can work at the State and Local level across the country.
Dreams don’t come true unless you talk about them. So I’m talking about it.
If you have the same mission or the same dream, I want to meet you. If you have friends or colleagues who have similar missions or dream, I want to meet them too. We who care about high performing, citizen-centric government want to make this happen. I want to play the role that I can play to bring CX to State and Local Government and I want to help you on your journey. Full stop.
I have so much more to say about what this could be, but I had to start somewhere. I had ChatGPT help me take some thoughts in my head and convert them into a Team Charter and a Job Description for the head of that team.
What do you think? Have you seen this? What would work? What’s missing? Maybe we can make something happen together, which is exactly why I’m putting a tiny morsel of this idea out there for those who care to react to.
The country and world are already moving to more responsive, networked, citizen-centric models of how government can work. Let’s hasten that transformation by bringing CX principles to the work our City and State Governments do every day.
I can’t wait to hear from you.
-Neil
—
Team Charter for Customer Experience (CX) Improvement in City or State Government
Purpose (Why?)
To transform and enhance the quality of government services and citizens’ daily life through CX methodologies. High impact domains include touchpoints with significant impact for the citizens who are engaged (e.g., support for impoverished families obtaining benefits) and those touchpoints affecting all citizens (e.g., tax payments, vehicular transportation), and touchpoints with high community interest.
Objectives (What Result Are We Trying to Create?)
Increase citizen satisfaction
Strengthen trust in government
Elevate the quality of life for residents, visitors, and businesses
Scope (What?)
This initiative will focus on the top 5-7 stakeholders personas driving the most value to start:
Improve how citizens experience government services, daily life, and vital community aspects
Drive change cross-functionally and at scale across interaction channels
Foster tangible improvements in the quality of life
Create and align KPIs with community priorities and establish ways to measure and communicate success
Activities (How?)
Segment residents, visitors, businesses, and identify top personas and touchpoints
Develop customer personas, journey maps, and choose highest-value problem areas to focus on for each persona
Prioritize and create an improvement roadmap
Partner with various stakeholders to drive change
Measure results, gather feedback, and align with community priorities
Share progress regularly and communicate value to stakeholders to gain momentum and support
Team and Key Stakeholders (Who?)
Leadership: A head with experience in leadership, CX methods, data, technology, innovation, and intrapreneurship
Department Liaisons: Individuals driving CX within different governmental departments
External Partners: Collaboration with other government agencies, citizen groups, foundations, the business community, and vendors
Core Team: A mix of professionals with expertise in relationship management, digital, innovation, leadership, and related fields
Timeline and Next Steps (When?)
0-6 Months: Segmentation, personas, and journey mapping
6-12 Months: Problem analysis and a prioritized roadmap creation
9-18 Months: Tangible improvements and iterative changes in focus areas
Ongoing: Continual refinement and adaptation to changing needs and priorities
—
Job Description: CX Improvement Team Leader
Position Overview:
As the CX Improvement Team Leader for City or State Government, you will drive transformative change to enhance citizens’ experience with government services and improve quality of life for citizens in this community. You will guide a cross-functional team to create innovative solutions, aligning with community priorities and creating tangible improvements in quality of life.
Responsibilities:
Lead and inspire a diverse team to achieve objectives
Create and align KPIs, establish methods for measurement
Develop and execute an improvement roadmap
Engage with stakeholders across government agencies, citizen groups, businesses, and more
Regularly share progress and communicate the value of initiatives to gain momentum and support
Collaborate with external partners and vendors as needed
Foster an innovative and responsive culture within the team
Qualifications:
Minimum of 10 years of experience in customer experience, leadership, technology, innovation, or related fields
Proven ability to drive change at scale across various channels
Strong communication and relationship management skills
Experience in government, public policy, or community engagement is preferred
A visionary leader with a passion for improving lives and a commitment to public service
Photo by NordWood Themes on Unsplash
The potential of Government CX to improve social trust
Government CX is a huge opportunity that we should pursue.
Several times last week, while traveling in India, people cut in front of my family in line. And not slyly or apologetically, but gratuitously and completely obliviously, as if no norms around queuing even exist.
In this way, India reminds me of New York City. There are oodles and oodles of people, that seem to all behave aggressively - trying to get their needs met, elbowing and jockey their way through if they need to. It’s exhausting and it frays my Midwestern nerves, but I must admit that it’s rational: it’s a dog eat dog world out there, so eat or be eaten.
What I realized this trip, is that even after a few days I found myself meshing into the culture. Contrary to other trips to India, I now have children to protect. After just days, I began to armor up, ready to elbow and jockey if needed. I felt like a different person, more like a “papa bear” than merely a “papa”. like a local perhaps.
I even growled a papa bear growl - very much unlike my normal disposition. Bo, our oldest, had to go to the bathroom on our flight home so I took him. We waited in line, patiently, for the two folks ahead of us to complete their business. Then as soon as we were up, a man who joined the line a few minutes after us just moved toward the bathroom as if we had never been there waiting ahead of him
Then the papa bear in me kicked in. This is what transpired in Hindi, translated below. My tone was definitely not warm and friendly:
Me: Sir, we were here first weren’t we?
Man: I have to go to the bathroom.
Me: [I gesture toward my son and give an exasperated look]. So does he.
And then I just shuffled Bo and I into the bathroom. Elbow dropped.
But this protective instinct came at a cost. Usually, in public, I’m observant of others, ready to smile, show courteousness, and navigate through space kindly and warmly. But all the energy and attention I spent armoring up, after just days in India, left me no mind-space to think about others.
This chap who tried to cut us in line, maybe he had a stomach problem. Maybe he had been waiting to venture to the lavatory until an elderly lady sitting next to him awoke from a nap. I have no idea, because I didn’t ask or even consider the fact that this man may have had good intentions - I just assumed he was trying to selfishly cut in line.
Reflecting on this throughout the rest of the 15 hour plane ride, it clicked that this toy example of social trust that took place in the queue of an airplane bathroom reflects a broader pattern of behavior. Social distrust can have a vicious cycle:
Someone acts aggressively toward me
I feel distrust in strangers and start to armor up so that I don’t get screwed and steamrolled in public interactions
I spend less time thinking about, listening to, and observing the needs of others around me
I act even more aggressively towards strangers in public interactions, because I’m thinking less about others
And now, I’ve ratcheted up the distrust, ever so slightly, but tangibly.
The natural response to this ratcheting of social distrust is to create more rules, regulations, and centralize power in institutions. The idea being, of course, that institutions can mediate day to day interactions between people so the ratcheting of social distrust has some guardrails put upon it. When social norms can’t regulate behavior, authority steps in.
The problem with institutional power, of course, is that it’s corruptible and undermines human agency and freedom. Ratcheting up institutional power has tradeoffs of its own.
—
Later during our journey home, we were waiting in another line. This time we were in a queue for processing at US Customs and Border patrol. This time, I witnessed something completely different.
A couple was coming through the line and they asked us:
Couple: Our connecting flight is boarding right now. I’m so sorry to ask this, but is it okay if we go ahead of you in line?
Us: Of course, we have much more time before our connecting flight boards. Go ahead.
Couple: [Proceeds ahead, and makes the same request to the party ahead of us].
Party ahead of us: Sorry, we’re in the same boat - our flight is boarding now. So we can’t let you cut ahead.
Couple: Okay, we totally understand.
The first interaction in line at the airplane bathroom made me feel like everyone out there was unreasonable and selfish. It undermined the trust I had in strangers.
This interaction in the customs line had the opposite effect, it left me hopeful and more trusting in strangers because everyone involved behaved considerately and reasonably.
First, the couple acknowledged the existence of a social norm and were sincerely sorry for asking us to cut the line. We were happy to break the norm since we were unaffected by a delay of an extra three minutes. And finally, when the couple ahead said no, they abided by the norm.
We were all observing, listening, and trying to help each other the best we could. In my head, I was relieved and I thought, “thank goodness not everyone’s an a**hole.
It seems to me that just as there’s a cycle that perpetuates distrust, there is also a cycle which perpetuates trust:
Listen and seek to understand others around you
Do something kind that helps them out without being self-destructive of your own needs
The person you were kind toward feels higher trust in strangers because of your kindness
The person you were kind to can now armor down ever so slightly and can listen for and observe the needs of others
And now, instead of a ratchet of distrust, we have a ratchet of more trust. Instead of being exhausting like distrust, this increase in trust is relieving and energy creating.
—
At the end of the day, I want to live in a free and trusting society. If there was to be one metric that I’m trying to bend the trajectory on in my vocational life - it’s trust. I want to live in a world that’s more trusting.
This desire to increase trust in society is why I care so much about applying customer experience practices to Government. Government can disrupt the cycle of distrust and start the flywheel of trust in a big way - and not just between citizens and government but across broader culture and society.
Imagine this: a government agency, say the National Parks Service, listens to its constituents and redesigns its digital experience. Now more and more people feel excited about visiting a National Park and are more able to easily book reservations and be prepared for a great trip into one of our nation’s natural treasures.
So now, park visitors have more trust in the National Park Service going into their trip and are more receptive to safety alerts and preservation requests from Park Rangers. This leads to a better trip for the visitor, a better ability for Rangers to maintain the park, and a higher likelihood of referral by visitors who have a great trip. This generates new visitors and adds momentum to the flywheel.
I’m a dataset of one, but this is exactly what happened for me and my family when we’ve interacted with the National Parks’ Service new digital experience. And there’s even some data from Bill Eggers and Deloitte that is consistent with this anecdote: CX is a strong predictor of citizens’ trust in government.
And now imagine if this sort of flywheel of trust took place across every single interaction we had with local, state, and federal government. Imagine the mental load, tension, and exhaustion that would be averted and the positive affect that might replace it.
It could be truly transformational, not just with what we believe about government, but what we believe about the trustworthiness of other citizens we interact with in public settings. If we believe our democratic government - by the people and for the people - is trustworthy, that will likely help us believe that “the people” themselves are also more trustworthy. After all, Government does shape more of our. daily interactions than probably any other institution, but Government also has an outsized role in mediating our interactions with others.
Government CX is a huge opportunity that we should pursue, not only because of the improvement to delivery of government service or the improvement of trust in government. Improvement to government CX at the local, state, and federal levels could also have spillover effects which increase social trust overall. No institution has the reach and intimate relationship with people to start the flywheel of trust like customer-centric government could, at least that I can see.
Photo by George Stackpole on Unsplash
Measuring the American Dream
If you set the top 15 metrics, that the country committed to for several decades, what would they be?
In America, during elections, we talk a lot about policies. Which candidate is for this or against that, and so on.
But policies are not a vision for a country. Policies are tools for achieving the dream, not the American Dream itself. Policies are means, not ends.
I’m desperate for political leaders at every level - neighborhood, city, county, state, country, planet - to articulate a vision, a vivid description of the sort of community they want to create, rather than merely describing a set of policies during elections.
This is hard. I know because I’ve tried. Even at the neighborhood level, the level where I engage in politics, it’s hard to articulate a vision for what we want the neighborhood to look like, feel like, and be like 10-15 years from now.
Ideally, political leaders could describe this vision and what a typical day in the community would be like in excruciating detail, like a great novelist sets the scene at the beginning of a book to make the reader feel like they’ve transported into the text.
What are you envisioning an average Monday to be like in 2053? I need to feel it in my bones.
Admittedly, this is really hard. So what’s an alternative?
Metrics.
I’m a big fan of metrics to help run enterprises, because choosing what to measure makes teams get specific about their dreams and what they’re willing to sacrifice.
Imagine if the Congress and the White House came up with a non-partisan set of metrics that we were going to set targets for and measure progress against for decades at a time? That would provide the beginnings of a common vision across party, geography, and agency that everyone could focus on relentlessly.
This is the sort of government management I want, so I took a shot at it. If I was a player in setting the vision for the country, this would be a pretty close set of my top 15 metrics to measure and commit to making progress on as a country.
This was a challenging exercise, here are a few interesting learnings:
It’s hard to pick just 15. But it creates a lot of clarity. Setting a limit forces real talk and hard choices.
It pays to to be clever. If you go to narrow, you don’t have spillover effects. It’s more impactful to pick metrics that if solved, would have lots of other externalities and problems that would be solved along the way. For example, if we committed to reducing gun deaths, we’d necessarily have to make an impact in other areas, such as: community relationships, trust with law enforcement, healthcare costs, and access to mental health services.
You have to think about everybody. Making tough choices on metrics for everyone, makes the architect think about our common issues, needs, and dreams. It’s an exercise that can’t be finished unless it’s inclusive.
You have to think BIG. Metrics that are too narrow, are more easily hijacked by special interests. Metrics that are big, hairy, and audacious make it more difficult to politicize the metric and the target.
Setting up a scorecard, with current state measures and future targets would be a transformative exercise to do at any level of government: from neighborhood to state to nation to planet.
It’s not so important whether my metrics are “right” or if yours are, per se. What matters is we co-create the metrics and are committed to them.
Let’s do it.