Project Management

Home / Discussions / Project Management Central /

Values & Principles harbor inauthenticity, lip service, double standards, untrustworthiness

Ethics Leadership Organizational Culture

Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States

No executive overtly/openly rejects the Values & Principles of their company (or the Agile Manifesto).

But some executives covertly/quietly reject the Values & Principles of their company (or the Agile Manifesto).

Inauthenticity exists.

Lip service exists.

"For Thee and Not For Me" exists.

Double standards exist.

Double standards undermine trust ... trustworthiness.

We leave trust to chance. Competence, honesty, dependability, benevolence.

We leave trustworthiness to chance.

Untrustworthiness is common.

We are systemically tolerant of untrustworthiness.

If we choose a different leadership paradigm, we could confront untrustworthiness.

We could minimize double standards.

With the right habits, discipline, muscle memory, we could repeatedly expose ...

... incompetence, dishonesty, low dependability, and malevolence.

We could minimize the cost to detect untrustworthiness.

We could minimize the cost to reassign for untrustworthiness.

We could be systematically intolerant of untrustworthiness.

Systematically trustworthy.

Methodical trustworthiness.

A trustworthiness methodology.

Do you think it's possible?

If you like the idea and if you think it's possible, where would you start?

Would you be willing to untether yourself from a leadership paradigm that tolerates double standards?

Posted: Jul 18, 2026 6:47 AM

Sort By:

Luis Branco CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal

Excellent reflection.
Yes, I think it's possible, but I'd start somewhere different.
Trustworthiness is difficult to sustain if organizational incentives, governance and accountability reward inconsistent behavior.
A methodology can help, but it cannot compensate for a system that tolerates double standards. I'd begin by making values observable through decisions and behaviors, not just statements.
When organizations consistently reward alignment between what they say and what they do, trustworthiness becomes a property of the system, not just of individuals.

Posted: Jul 19, 2026 3:34 AM

Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States

Thank you, Luis.

Directionally (if not literally), I’m willing to equate methodology and system.

At least at the moment, I can’t defend decoupling them.

I think we are on the same page that we should not tolerate double standards, fair?

Zooming out on double standards is the notion of “untrustworthiness.”

Trustworthiness harbors some ambiguity, so we could double-click on that if worthwhile.

We should formulate habits that repeatedly …

1. detect untrustworthiness, at low marginal cost

2. reassign for untrustworthiness, at low marginal cost

Nodding about the criticality of decisions and behaviors.

Many teams are systemically tolerant of untrustworthiness.

Do you think we could formulate a system that is systematically intolerant of untrustworthiness?

You mention observable. Perhaps that the next thread to pull.

Observing.

We would want the laboriousness of “observing” to be low, agree?

Laboriousness is low marginal cost.

It requires upfront investment / upfront cost.

“Scaling” observations.

Observations require communication.

Conversations, meetings, and email are low upfront cost, high marginal cost, so low scale.

Documentation is high upfront cost, low marginal cost, so scalable.

Could we formulate the right documentation so we can scale observations (of decisions and behaviors)?

Posted: Jul 20, 2026 12:16 PM (Updated by author: Jul 20, 2026 12:19 PM)

Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa

Community Champion

Program Manager| HARPER SRL Santo Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic

I think it's possible, but it starts with leadership behavior, not new frameworks or policies. People notice very quickly when leaders hold others to standards they don't follow themselves.
For me, consistency is what builds trust. When leaders apply the same principles to themselves that they expect from their teams, trust becomes part of the culture instead of just another value on a wall.

Posted: Jul 21, 2026 4:38 PM

Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States

Thank you, Lissette. Do you think we should/must rely on the executives who weave in and out of our organizations? Would you recommend avoiding any standardization for executives?

I acknowledge that your experience has been that double standards among executives are easy and quick to detect. I have had a different experience. Double standards in executive behavior have been difficult to detect AND reassign (whistleblower at the extreme) during my career.

You mention "consistency," so you must like some form of standardization for executives?

This phrase, "just another value on the wall" ... this is such a common phrase. Companies do the same thing expecting a different result, right? Values & Principles will eternally be our primary leadership paradigm because we expect different results. 😊

Existing frameworks and standards leave trustworthiness to chance.
Existing frameworks and standards give systemic tolerance to untrustworthiness.
Treating existing frameworks and standards as sacred now makes the tolerance to untrustworthiness systematic, not systemic.

Systematically untrustworthy.
Methodically untrustworthy.

Posted: Jul 21, 2026 5:03 PM

Please login or join to reply

Values & Principles harbor inauthenticity, lip service, double standards, untrustworthiness

Sponsors

Newsletters