Entrepreneur, ESL Teacher, Traveler, and Writer

Why A Lack of Trust Is So Corrosive to Institutions

“When trust begins to erode, an institution’s ability to function effectively suffers. Increasingly, we see examples of trust being abused, leaders failing to uphold their responsibilities, and organizations struggling to maintain the confidence of the people they serve.”

Without trust, you have nothing. I’ve written before about how trust forms the foundation of any functioning institution, whether it is a government, a business, a school, or a nonprofit organization. When trust begins to erode, an institution’s ability to function effectively suffers. Increasingly, we see examples of trust being abused, leaders failing to uphold their responsibilities, and organizations struggling to maintain the confidence of the people they serve.

Some institutions manage to recover from these failures, while others find themselves trapped in a cycle of dysfunction and destruction. Institutional decay rarely happens overnight. There are warning signs that emerge long before an institution reaches a breaking point. Recognizing these signs is the first step toward understanding why institutions fail, and whether their decline can be reversed.

Trust starts with the leadership at the top and when they make mistakes and don’t acknowledge them or learn from them, break promises to subordinate employees or staff, or violate the rules without facing any consequences, people begin to question whether an institution’s stated values actually mean anything beyond the words written on a piece of paper. Consistent standards must be applied across the board from the lowest to the highest title and when accountability is absent or uneven, depending on who someone is in or who they are connected to, then the damage starts to be done to the larger institution. The damage can also become embedded when there are no consequences given because that individual occupies a certain position, has certain connections, or is politically useful to others rather than being held to the same standards as everyone else in the institution.

Communication becoming absent or less transparent within an institution can also lead to severe damage over time. When leaders don’t communicate, become invasive, or when important decisions are made without any transparency involved, trust can be eroded between members of that organization accordingly. People’s expertise or experiences aren’t taken meaningfully into account often and they are sidelined by those individuals who would rather make decisions on their own without soliciting any meaningful feedback. It is understood that not every decision can be made publicly and confidentiality has a legitimate role to protect information or identities that should not be shared, but absolutely secrecy and a lack of transparency within an institution in terms of decision making can create suspicion due to not being involved in these internal processes.

When people within an institution struggle to be heard, they will stop raising concerns or flagging any issues that could end up costing the institution later. There should be room within institutions for disagreements and debates, especially if it means that concerns or objections are heard rather than completely dismissed from the outset. This is why employees are allowed to form unions, students are allowed to question teachers or principals about a lack of resources, civil servants can share information freely with their superiors without fear of retaliation. These feedback loops are key to keeping any institution functioning for the long haul and without them, trust will erode and then completely go away with enough time. When meetings become more about listening than engagement or when directives become absolute without cause or evidence, then the internal culture will deteriorate over time. Institutions can function normally but still not be healthy when they are not engaging every member to have them contribute healthily or give feedback openly.

Institutions are known to lose their credibility when similar behaviors produce different consequences depending on who is involved or what their title is. People within the institution will then start to believe that success depends less on hard work, competence, or integrity, and that it’s more about favoritism, connections, or proximity to leadership. Morale will plummet internally, legitimacy will be seen as suspect externally, and it takes years or even decades to get back to the prior baseline.

As a response, when trust erodes or goes absent, opposition may form and reforms may happen from outside pressures, but what’s most likely is that there will be quiet withdrawal. People within the institution will not be as engaged, they will do the bare minimum to keep their jobs as they know they will not be rewarded, promoted, or encouraged to do more, because they don’t have that kind of pull within the institution. You can see this when employees ‘quiet quit’ their jobs, citizens disengage from voting or other civic engagements, and members stop participating in organizations they feel they no longer have a voice in.

Yes, the institution will still exist in some form, but it will no longer be a healthy one when the bare minimum is all that you can do because doing anything more is frowned upon or discouraged by those who hold the levers of power and influence. People may continue showing up to be part of the institution, paying their taxes, or completing their work assignments, but their willingness to contribute beyond the minimum has disappeared.

Trust, once lost, is difficult or impossible to recover. It cannot be restored through fancy slogans, public relations campaigns, or demands that people simply have faith in their institutions again. It must be earned through consistent action, accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Institutions that recognize the warning signs of declining or absent trust have an opportunity to address their shortcomings before the damage becomes irreversible. Those that ignore them risk creating a cycle in which dysfunction breeds further distrust, and distrust makes meaningful reform increasingly difficult.

Ultimately, the question is not whether institutions will make mistakes. They will and that’s okay because any institution is made up of fallible human beings. The question remains whether both the leaders and the average participants in the institution itself possess the integrity, competence, and humility to correct them when the principles and values start to erode. Without those self-correcting qualities or with pressure from the outside, an institution may retain its name, its offices, and its formal authority, but gradually lose the confidence of the people who give it purpose.

Anatomy of a Scene – ‘The Bowls of Sh*t Analogy’ (The Wire)

“He describes how, during his time as the mayor, he had to endure constant demands, pressures, and compromises from various interest groups, from business leaders to police brass to union members, each one forcing him into undesirable and often humiliating positions.”

In this scene from the HBO show, ‘The Wire’, Tommy Carcetti, having just been elected as the mayor of Baltimore, seeks advice from Tony, a former mayor of Baltimore, who has since left city politics. At this scene’s beginning, Tony’s anecdote about “eating sh*t” conveys a bleak reality about the job of being mayor. He describes how, during his time as the mayor, he had to endure constant demands, pressures, and compromises from various interest groups, from business leaders to police brass to union members, each one forcing him into undesirable and often humiliating positions.

The peculiar imagery Tony uses of “eating sh*t” is deliberately crude for the viewer, emphasizing the degradation, disgust, and frustration politicians often face, especially in dealing with conflicting interests and the inherent contradictions in serving a large and diverse constituency such as in the city of Baltimore.

This “parable of the bowls of sh*t” lays bare the unglamorous side of politics—one where idealism and personal ambition are often suffocated by the practicalities of governing a community, a city, or even a country. Tony is essentially warning Tommy Carcetti that as mayor, he will be forced to navigate a landscape where decisions are rarely black and white, and success often means making choices that will inevitably upset one group or another within his constituency.

Tony’s use of the phrase of “eating sh*t” is a vivid and visceral metaphor for the compromises that politicians are forced to make, whether they want to or not, and how it can be interpreted in several ways:

Constituent Demands and Special Interests: Every politician enters office with a policy platform and promises to keep, but once elected, they must contend with the complex and competing demands of their constituents. Business leaders may push for deregulation so they can improve their balance sheet, while unions may demand better labor protections and more workers rights. Environmentalists would advocate for sustainability, while real estate developers might prioritize economic growth over conservation. Each of these groups represents a different “bowl of sh*t” that a politician must eat, in the sense that satisfying one group often means alienating another in the process. Tony’s point is that no matter what decision is made, someone or some group will be unhappy, and the politician is left to bear the burden of that dissatisfaction, often at the ballot box when it comes time for election day.
Compromising Ideals for Practical Governance: Many politicians enter office with lofty ideals, but the reality of governance forces them to compromise even when they would rather not do so. Tony’s story reflects how those compromises can wear a person down, leading to disillusionment with the political process. For someone like Carcetti, who may still hold on to a vision of reform and change as a newer politician, Tony’s words serve as a sobering reminder that idealism alone will not be enough to get the job done. The job itself will require him to make deals, water down policies, and prioritize certain interests over others. Over time, this compromise can erode a politician’s sense of purpose, leaving them, as Tony implies, burned out and ready to leave politics behind.
Bureaucratic and Institutional Challenges: Beyond the immediate interests of voters and lobbyists, politicians must also grapple with the entrenched bureaucracies of a government. Mayors, governors, and presidents are not free agents—they operate within systems that include various institutions, legal constraints, and political adversaries. Tony’s “sh*t” may also refer to the frustrations of working within this system, where change is often slow, and even modest reforms can be blocked by bureaucratic inertia or political opposition. The administrative side of governance can be just as dispiriting as dealing with special interests.

Tony’s disillusionment with his time as mayor of Baltimore is emblematic of a larger critique of politics in general. This scene from ‘The Wire’ highlights several key themes that resonate beyond the specific context of the show:

The Personal Cost of Politics: Tony’s story reveals the emotional and psychological toll that politics can take on individuals and on families. His decision to leave the office and pursue a different career suggests that the constant battles, compromises, and failures eventually become too much. For Carcetti, this scene is a warning that the personal price of pursuing higher office may be more than he expects it to be. It suggests that political power is not just about having prestige and influence—it is also about enduring constant pressures that can erode a person’s ideals and sense of self-worth.
The Limits of Power: Despite being mayor, Tony felt powerless in many respects. This is a paradox of political leadership: while politicians are often seen as wielding immense power, they are also constrained by the demands of other people. Whether it is donors, voters, or other political actors, a politician’s power is always mediated by those they are beholden to. Tony’s experience suggests that being in charge does not mean having total control. In fact, it often means being at the mercy of various outside forces that are beyond one’s control, leading to frustration, disenchantment and, eventually, burnout.
Cynicism vs. Idealism: The conversation between Tony and Tommy Carcetti highlights the tension between cynicism and idealism in politics. Tony, having gone through the wringer as a former mayor, represents the cynical view that politics is an unending series of compromises and frustrations. Carcetti, on the other hand, represents the younger and more idealistic politician who still believes he can make a difference. The scene leaves open the question of whether Carcetti will maintain his idealism or if he will, like Tony, become disillusioned over time. This tension between cynicism and idealism is a central theme in many political dramas, reflecting the real-world challenges that politicians face.

In essence, Tony’s parable of the “bowls of sh*t” is a commentary on the nature of modern political leadership. It paints a picture of politics not as a noble pursuit of justice, opportunity, or progress for your constituents, but as a constant battle to navigate competing outside interests and pressures. This scene from ‘The Wire’ offers a cynical, yet realistic, portrayal of what it means to be a politician: a job where compromises are inevitable, satisfaction is rare, and the personal toll can be significant especially on one’s family and friends, and the politician themselves.

For Tommy Carcetti, this conversation is a forewarning of the difficulties that lie ahead for him as the new Mayor of Baltimore, setting up a narrative about the price of obtaining power and the inevitable disillusionment that comes with it. Ultimately, this scene serves as a powerful reminder that politics is not just about the exercise of power, but about the endurance of hardship, frustration, and compromise that comes with it.

English Corner – On Writing Memos

“What is a memorandum you may ask? A memorandum or ‘memo’ is a type of written message passed along in a business for internal changes and review. Being able to edit, write, and understand memos is a key part of being successful in the business world.”

What is a memorandum you may ask? A memorandum or ‘memo’ is a type of written message passed along in a business for internal changes and review. Being able to edit, write, and understand memos is a key part of being successful in the business world. Memos are usually shorter in terms of written length and can range from as little as 100 words to about 1000 words depending on the subject matter. Memos are not only used in the business world, but they also carry over to governments as well as to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at times.

While memos are not as popular anymore due to the rise of electronic mail (e-mail), they are still a fast, secure, and cost-effective way of communicating with other people in the business or company. If you are to work in a business setting, you’ll need to do a wide variety of vocabulary as well as have a good understanding of formal grammar and syntax.

Some key aspects of the memo include the header or title to sum up what the memo is about, the subject line to describe the focus of what the memo’s topic is, and then you have who the memo is addressed to with the To: line and then below that is the From: line to indicate who wrote the memo and where it is from. Then, you have the body paragraph(s) where the ideas of the memo are divulged and then the conclusion which re-states the ideas and sums up the purpose of the memo.

You also want to make sure that the memo is single spaced or double spaced depending on the guidance you receive from your workplace. If there is an ‘attachment’ such as an image or a text, make sure it is attached to the memo before you send it out and that you indicate that there is an attached file when you write up the memo. Lastly, it is very important to leave your name at the bottom as well as the date at the top so that person who received the memo knows not only who it came from but when it was written to see how fresh or old it is.

Memos place a high emphasis on timeliness but also orderliness while being able to sum up a large amount of information in a short amount of space. Most memos are only a page long but can get up to no more than five pages depending upon the subject or general content you are writing about. The style of any memo you write should always be concise and succinct.

You have to show analytical clarity with your writing. (It has to make sense to the reader). It may be sensitive material so you will have to be your own editor and not rely on others in the company. The content has to be informative, persuasive, and relevant to the audience. When you write or read a memo, you should expect for it to be impactful in some manner to inform the reader.

There are main questions you will want to answer in any memo that you write such as:

What is relevant for the person reading it to be aware of from my memo?
Why does it matter to the business / company / organization?
What is the objective of the memo?
Who is my audience for it?
What is the issue that we are working on?

The most important thing to be aware of when asking these questions is what is the objective?, who are my audience?, and what is the issue I care about? If you forget the other questions, it is very important to remember OAI: objective, audience, issue. As long as you address those three main questions, your memo should be really concise and informative.

When it comes to the actual structure of the memo, the scope of your issue have to be addressed up front as well as the main points you want to focus on. The Subject of your memo should always be both descriptive and short (about 4 to 8 words)

1. Example: How to Increase Our Fourth Quarter Earnings

The ‘bottom line’ or summary sentence must be upfront or at the top of the memo. You should always have a good ‘hook’ to draw in the reader’s attention. You’ll also want to articulate the key points or the recommendations in the first or second sentences of your memo. You have to assume that the reader of the memo may only have time to read one paragraph of it especially if you are in government or in the business world for your career.

You should always be using specific facts and relevant information to bolster your bullet points. You’re going to want to paint a comprehensive picture of the situation at hand and what can be done about it. Always be able to articulate the risks of your reasoning, the possible consequences to your action points, as well as the counterpoints (additional context) if your memo calls for it. The memo should have a logical flow and is not as structured as an essay or article. Lastly, remember to utilize precise language and avoid unnecessary words.

When it comes to what you should always do in memo writing, the Do’s are quite obvious from a writer’s perspective: Choose your words carefully. Be brief and clear as much as possible. Anticipate and address the reader’s questions in them. Avoid leaps in logic and assumptions based on the memo’s content. Proofread or edit your writing thoroughly and consistently. Use correct grammar throughout the entire memo.

The don’ts of memo writing is a bit more difficult but also involve some common sense in addition to having the structure and the techniques memorized. Perhaps most importantly, don’t summarize but analyze instead. Don’t ever use either abbreviations or acronyms to save some space as it is important to spell all the words out to retain their meaning. It’s important to not have unclear terms that will confuse the reader or audience. Keeping any run-on sentences at all in the final version is also a big no-no. You also would not like to have unprofessional or unrelated jargon (vocabulary) that is not related to the memo in the text of what you have wrote.

Memo writing is an advanced form of English writing, but it can be quite useful to know how to do if you are willing to put in the work. For business, government, or NGO purposes, good memo writing will be essential to your career so please make sure to study the structure, the techniques, and the overall uses for memos even after reading this article. Good luck to you and I hope being able to write formal memos will further your business and career goals as an English writer.