Harris v Trump: which is the trusted leader?

Kamala Harris looks likely to be the Democrat contender for President. How does she compare to Trump if viewed through the lens of the Trust Triangle, an effective way to judge if she would make a high trust leader?

‘The Trust Triangle’ is the central idea in the book 'Choose Trust' written by Kevin Vaughan-Smith and I, and due to be published by the Economist next year. It defines trust between people as having three dimensions, and these are the areas where intentional, conscious and consistent effort pays real dividends, and builds higher value relationships.

Clarity

The first dimension is Clarity. This is about a clear narrative of what those involved are trying to do together; a focused ambition that everyone understands. In elections, it's always 'time for change' versus 'stick with the plan'.

The Biden/Harris slogan was 'Finish the Job'. Will Harris' be similar? Trump is of course 'Make America Great Again'. Again.

The reason this is a central trust dimension is that if those involved in a relationship misunderstand what is to be achieved together, then distrust is created because they are trying to do different things.

Trump: in many respects he is clear. He sets out some very straightforward ambitions in simple terms. Build the wall. I'll stop the forever wars. 'Drain the swamp' (ie tackle Washington and what he sees as the deep state.) And so on.

He often speaks in short, sharp sentences that have one idea in them, expressed with certainty. Not rambling ones with sub-clauses and caveats. This is great communication.

He killed Joe Biden with two simple sentences. 'I don't know what he meant at the end of that answer. And I don't think he did either.'

True, he often then negates this with his own ramble, off-message stream of consciousness. However, even his rambles are consistent to the themes he sets out in his campaign. They're just peppered with often offensive, but always quirky, Trumpisms.

Trump is clear. He is authentically himself. It's why he inspires such devotion and trust among his followers. The problem is that at least half of America doesn't share his ambitions. His narrative is not one they would choose, and the clarity of his vision means they want almost anyone but him.

(It's an interesting lesson for businesses. Even if you dislike Trump - if you could capture half of your marketplace, would you care if the other half would never choose you? Being clearly for something is a powerful way to be chosen.

However, if you're a leader, alienating half of your team is not the way be highly trusted and therefore followed. Organisational leadership requires greater levels of collaboration, persuasion and consensus building, so that those involved are genuinely a team).

Harris now has to quickly define her own narrative. What is that she stands for and why? What is her ambition for the US, and the world, and why? 'Finish the job' feels wrong with a new candidate - as Vice President she can't really claim ownership of the Biden programme. More importantly, the part she was tasked with - the southern border - is widely seen as a gross failure and so 'finish the job' doesn't really cut it.

If she is to gain trust, she needs to have clarity about her vision and ambitions, and set them out in a way that persuades more than half of Americans to buy into them. This task isn't helped by her notorious 'word salads', where she uses long words and sentences to say not very much.

In this area, Trump is way ahead.

Character

Here's where it gets really interesting. And confusing, to be honest. The Harris campaign will want to contrast the fierce prosecutor against the convicted felon. If she can make this stick, then character could be the defining factor in this election.

The character dimension is about behaviours, and the character of Donald Trump should be one of the biggest issues in this campaign. Yet the Christian right love a man who on the face of it breaks every tenet of their belief, while many working-class Americans adore a billionaire who made his money demonstrating gross flashiness.

The Democrats have consistently failed to make all of this stick, and many Americans have simply priced his character flaws into their view of Trump. To those Americans he may be a rascal, but he's our rascal!

What that means is that he is a contrast to the east/west coast cozy consensus behind what are seen as woke ideologies and contempt for what Hilary Clinton called 'the deplorables'. The Democrats are seen as the establishment party, Trump as a revolutionary outsider. This is the core character Trump supporters see, and every move against him is part of an establishment plot against them. Those are the behaviours which hit home and through this lens, Trump is seen as someone whose behaviour is rational and - here's the key - demonstrate that he's the one to be trusted.

His survival of an assassination attempt, and the iconic image of him standing up and saying 'fight, fight, fight!', feed into the view of him as the fierce rebel 'they' are trying to silence.

In this view of the world, Harris is a cozy establishment insider, just like Biden and the Clintons, who benefited from the patronage of the Democratic leadership and reflects the east/west coast consensus views. Her character and behaviours are seen to be those of this tribe, and so are rejected by those who are not.

Of course, there is a complete 180 degree view that sees the exact opposite. We are in the world of Stranger Things - with the world and its upside-down equivalent in which everything looks different. From this perspective Trump's behaviour and his character is the number one issue. He is the ogre who will become a quasi-dictator, reflecting his egomaniacal tendencies and thirst for revenge. Harris is the virtuous lawyer who will cut him down to size.

For those that know Stranger Things, he is the Demagorgon. Or is he Vecna? Stranger Things nerds, please discuss below!

Here's the point. This leadership contest demonstrates just how much character and behaviour impacts trust. If you stripped away the Trump character from his policies, many of those who hate him might agree with some of what he wants to do. But they cannot separate the person from the actions. So they do not trust him. They know events will occur which require responses by someone whose character they buy into. That is certainly not him.

This is true of all leadership - and of course also key when building commercial relationships with key clients or suppliers. Who you trust will depend on character as much as clarity.

This is the key area where it is totally unclear who has the upper hand right now. It's all to play for.

Capability

The third trust dimension is about the collective capability of those involved in the relationship. It reflects the governance of the relationship, and the combination of competencies of those involved.

I think the governance issue is the really interesting one here, and the one where trust is the most relevant. In our model, agreed governance of the relationship (not the delivery project) is a key part of sustaining a high trust partnership, whether that is between leaders and their led, or between firms and their clients.

In the US, governance is a contested issue. The Trump camp believe that 'lawfare' has been used against them and openly pledged 'retribution' against all the pillars of the establishment if they gain power. Arguably they are looking to centralise greater power in the office of the President and will be helped if the Republicans get majorities in both houses - which seemed likely if Biden was the opponent.

The Democrats, on the other hand, argue that they stand behind law and order and the Constitution - which is why they used it so widely to try to hammer Trump in the courts. If you view them as the party of the establishment, this plays into your prejudices. If you see Trump as a wide-boy crook, then law and the Constitution are the shields to protect the people.

This is such a divisive issue it will remain one whoever wins, just as the result of the 2020 election remains a reference point for those who think the system is rigged. In turn, this lack of consensus hampers the capability of the US to unify behind a leader and so reach its full potential.

Critically, it means whoever loses does not trust those who win. They have no confidence in them and remain implacably opposed to everything they do. We've seen this in the past 4 years. The next 4 are likely to be the same.

There are no winners in this scenario, only a hugely distrustful population with half furious and antagonistic to the new President, and both tribes looking darkly at the other. Perhaps worse in some doomsday scenarios. It is a trust-free zone.

Lessons for leadership

I'm sorry to conclude on a dark note but, looked at through the prism of trust, the situation in the US is not a happy one. Whoever wins, the nation will not have clarity because the narrative will be contested, the character of politics will remain poisonous and the capability of the national leadership to unite the country behind their vision will be limited, not to say impossible.

The lack of trust is a crippling situation, whether we're looking at a country, an organisation, a team or a commercial relationship. People increasingly behave from a position of distrust - ruthless procurement demonstrates that between companies; the cynicism of employees who rent their labour temporarily shows how that can be true in the workplace; supposed partnerships between businesses collapse because of finger-pointing and blame.

The opposite is true. When trust is consciously established, nurtured and actively grown it is an empowering and powerful force that creates value for everyone involved.

If this resonates, and you’d like to know how your organisation and leadership can build greater trust with clients and colleagues, get in touch.