Commitments and Trust

Recently, I have had the opportunity to reflect on this. When dealing with people, it is necessary to have a certain amount of trust. But what is trust and how is it applied? I’m going to frame this from my perspective as a unit owner in this association.

Frequently, trust is something that we say is present in a relationship with people having similar positions, beliefs, or mores. So if I am in a conversation with you and you make statements that fit into my views, I may have the thought that I can “trust” you. If we are discussing politics, religion, the state of this association or whatever, and I make statements which fit your perception of the facts, such as “the board is terrible” or “the board is really doing a great job” you may decide that I am worthy of your trust, as I have the same views you do. I also am reinforcing your perception of reality. In other words, my view and your view are aligned, and that means that you have found agreement and I am reinforcing your thoughts or beliefs that you are “right”.

If you think the world is really screwed up, and then in a conversation I am able to provide many examples of that, which might include your belief that we have a dysfunctional congress, inept President, failed banking system, corrupt local politicians, local and national budget deficits, etc. then you and I could bond. This isn’t about the facts, it is about establishing agreement about a situation or circumstances. In doing so, you may have found another sympathetic soul, in the journey of life. That’s wonderful if you and I are going to sit on my patio and drink coffee together. We can discuss the world or the association and everything in between and feel comfortable that we have a handle on things.

Consider that there may be a less obvious and deeper possibility for trust. In American politics, and politics in general, organizations and individuals spend a lot of time, effort and money on polling the voters. This is supposed to be a means of determining the issues facing the voter, so that our elected representatives can better operate in accordance with the desires of their electorate, the people who put them into office. Sound good, doesn’t it? We the voters, then elect the politicians or candidates who best express and articulate those problems and convince us that they, truly, are the best candidates to solve these issues and problems.

However, is it possible that this system and method is flawed? There is evidence that this is so. The problem we are facing in our electoral process, is that while we are voting on the issues, we aren’t voting on commitments. We can and do vote for the candidate who seems best qualified, who seems to communicate our issues and concerns. We have decided that clearly, these are trustworthy people, because they so mirror our concerns, fears, wants, needs and desires.

But what are the commitments of the candidate? That is to say, what is he or she committed to? And what are ours?

Why would these commitments be important? Well, consider that who a candidate is once elected to office, and the invisible hand that will guide them in how they conduct themselves will, in part, determine the issues they resolve while in office. Who they really are and the results they achieve may be based more on their commitments than on any other quality and that includes how they appear and what they say. A candidate may make statements about what they will do, or what they think needs to be done. This all occurs in anticipation of how it will be once they are in office. Once elected, however, circumstances may change, and their anticipations will be altered by external forces that dictate their actions. For example, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Financial Crisis of 2008 have definitely altered two U.S. Presidencies. President Obama was aware of the financial crisis during his campaign. However, his agenda is and will continue to be altered by the circumstances that are present today, present next year and the year after.

So who can we trust? That question is framed in a context and the real question may be “Who can we trust to get the result we desire?” However, to answer that we also need to come to grips with the result we want achieved. That also requires an awareness of our individual commitments. What are we committed to? To answer that question, we need to look a bit deeper than the usual answers about what it is we want.

One definition of commitment is those things that we are willing to achieve. By willing, I mean that we will take actions that are a correlate to, and necessary to achieve that to which we are committed.

So what are we truly committed to? Each of us can only answer that question for ourselves. Some of my commitments may be identical to yours. Others may be similar, and still others may be totally different or contrary to yours. My personal commitments may include a commitment to health and well-being. They may include a commitment to life affirming relationships. They may also include a commitment to living happily and achieving satisfaction in my life. The list can be endless, and it may change. But usually, on reflection I can whittle my personal list to 10 items. This is not an easy thing to do, and over time, I have found other commitments underlying the visible ones. Commitments can also be subjectively classed as positive and negative. It is possible to have a commitment to mayhem or disorganization. There are people on the planet who seem to take that to extremes and are committed to death and destruction. I am not suggesting or advocating that people act out of their destructive or non-life affirming commitments. If we have such commitments, it might be useful to work on constructing a new list by taking on new commitments and discarding some of the old ones. Commitments also work together, and can form complex patterns. Having a commitment to harmony, for example, in concert with other commitments, does allow for creating disruption from time to time. People are complex and perfectly imperfect beings.

I shouldn’t confuse what I want or expect, to be my commitments. For example, in our association, I may want the lowest possible assessments. But that is not a commitment, even though I may say I am committed to achieving the lowest possible assessments. It is likely that my position regarding assessments is based on some larger, deeper commitment. Usually there is overwhelming evidence of that underlying commitment, if I am willing to look for it. What could this be? For example, I might be committed to living my life at the lowest possible financial cost. That would be evidenced by my frugality in all areas.

Once I have determined my list of commitments, I know what I stand for in my life, and the life I am living should be an expression of my commitments. What does this actually mean? Well if, for example, I am truly committed to being monetarily rich, then all of my actions, each and every day, should be consistent with that. So nearly everything I do should be for the purpose of increasing my wealth. That may include the friends and circles I choose, it may include designing a life that includes access to those with the keys to the halls of power, etc. It may simply mean that I hone my skills in hacking, larceny and theft and become the greatest internet thief in history. There are different ways to achieve an end.

But how does this apply to trust? Is it possible that the people to whom I relate and elect, should be those who share commitments similar to mine? Why would that be important? If I am truly committed to something, which is to say achieving that result, such as something as nebulous as “the elimination of global warming” then shouldn’t I work, strive, vote and elect leaders who are absolutely committed to that? And of course, I would live my life out of that commitment. So the only politicians I could trust were those whom I was convinced and assured would share that commitment, and who lived their lives in accordance with that commitment.

This poses some additional problems. First, I need to be aware of my true commitments, and they may be interlocking or overlapping, but some may not be. Right now, I have not yet had breakfast. I’m pretty hungry and if my neighbor called and invited me over for sweet rolls, I might drop everything and do that. However, I’m not committed to eating sweet rolls, but I am committed to a healthy lifestyle and that requires that I eat several meals a day. Completing this post might take precedence and I might complete it before taking breakfast. Why might this post be important? It might be an expression of a commitment to free and open communication, or to workability as in “organizations that work” or any number of other things. Secondly, it can be really difficult to determine the commitments, or underlying commitments of others.

If a better basis for trust is to find others with similar commitments, or have commitments I can align with, then one of my tasks is to find those people, and associate with them. This returns us to the beginning of this post. In American politics, it is frequent to divert attention away from the actions of our politicians to their appearance and statements. A lot of time and money can and is spent on honing the image of our politicians. Focus groups define what it is we, the voters are looking for in our candidates. So do the polls. Politicians present that to us, on a plate. We then vote for that image, unawares of the underlying commitments that exist. Unfortunately, the representative thus elected, will act out of their commitments, not their speeches or image. Over time, we will get a glimpse of their true commitments, even if we are unawares that they exist.

During campaigns and elections, politicians mirror our wants and needs back to us. They campaign on issues such as lower taxes, national security, the economy, etc. Here at BLMH, we have similar but much smaller concerns, such as lower assessments, the condition of our grounds and buildings, safety, our reserves, and so on. All of these are based on our commitments, which may include a commitment to our well being.

We are now approaching another election. As is the case with all elections, this is an opportunity to hear the things we want to hear, and elect those whom we say we can trust. But will we be voting from our wants and needs for those with the best slogans and appearance, or will we be voting based on our commitments, which is to say those things we personally are willing to take action on and are a true expression of how we intend to live our lives? Will we be looking for candidates who share those commitments? Or not?

So one question that needs to be asked, is what are our candidates truly committed to? Do we really know?

We all want beautiful and well maintained grounds, well maintained buildings, low costs and good neighbors. But under that, we may really be seeking happiness, satisfaction and well-being in our lives. This election will be another expression of that which we say we want. However, to what are we truly committed? Perhaps we should take responsibility for the outcome of our elections and if we are dissatisfied, re-evaluate our commitments and our basis for trust.