Regardless of your political persuasion, or what your personal opinion is about the Federal Budget, many Australians are shaking their heads and acknowledging that we just can’t trust politicians with the promises they make.
Using the Intentionomics Trust Model as a framework for this brief discussion we start with the Intentions of the Federal Government. I have no doubt whatever political party is in office, that their intention is to make the best decisions they can to secure and develop a flourishing and prosperous life for all Australians.
Now you might also argue that their intentions would be mixed with doing whatever they need to do to ensure they get re-elected on the next polling day and that this can create short-term policy making. And this just supports the robustness of the Intentionomics Trust Model.
The first step in applying the model practically, whether as an individual or collectively as an Executive Board (or in this case as the Government), is to start by identifying your various life roles, and to list the people or groups of people you impact through those life roles. This includes ‘self’ – again, whether self is as an individual, or collectively as an executive Board or Government.
The next step is to make Statements of Intention for each of the people/groups you impact through your life roles… what you want for them, not just what you want from them. And this is where conflict of intention can be identified, and ideally dealt with.
Because again applying the Intentionomics Trust Model to the current Government, there is a question of trust that is created in the next step in applying the model. The first pillar of trust that stands on the foundation of intention is Intentional Promises (and the expectations that are created).
When promises are made that are subsequently broken… or perceived to be broken (regardless of the spin), trust is at risk. And when trust is at risk… everything is at risk.
There is some potential redeeming elements of the Intentionomics Trust Model for the Government however.
The second pillar of trust is Intentional Actions. Although we have indications of what actions the Government intends to take based on the Budget, what we’ve not experienced yet is the outcomes that will eventuate through the third pillar of trust – Intentional Results.
I think if fair to say that we are not privy to all of the Intentional Results the Government is ‘hoping’ for as a result of this Budget (which probably says something about the Governments ability to ‘sell’ their policies in general), however, this is where time becomes an important element in the trust continuum.
The platform principle of Intentionomics is People Get Your Truth: Over time, your intentions, promises, actions and results will either promote you or expose you. And it will be interesting over time, to see what results are achieved by this Government – despite the fact that they may have broken promises (perceived or real), and despite the fact that they have put trust at risk… that they may still be able to rebuild whatever fracture has been created in the three pillars of trust or the foundation of trust.
I think voters the world over will mostly be cynical about or at the very least question the intentions of politicians… and that leads us to what rests on top of the three pillars… which is Trust itself. Where the three pillars of trust are about the what, when, where and how things will get done, and Intention is WHY they ought to be done, Trust is about WHO… the character of the person or people.
It’s a robust model that can be of great assistance to any individual in their personal life, and especially as a strategic tool for any business to review the alignment of their results with their intentions, and to gauge where trust with any stakeholder may be at risk.