The End of Loyalty | Ep.26

Speaker A: Employees are changing jobs faster than ever, organizations are experiencing constant turnover, and the average city manager now lasts about four years. Think about that. Four years. Four years to learn an organization, four years to build trust, four years to launch major initiatives. And in today's environment, political landscapes can change dramatically in just two years, let alone four. At the same time, elected officials face pressure from social media 24 hours a day, public expectations continue to rise, and leaders everywhere seem to be asking the same what happened to loyalty? But I think that's the wrong question. Because the more I've thought about it, the more I've come to believe that loyalty isn't disappearing at all. What's disappearing are, uh, the conditions that once made loyalty possible. And if that's true, then the leadership lessons are very different. Today we're going to explore why loyalty looks different than it did a generation ago, what that means for local government, and how understanding, incentives, alignment and human nature will help you become a more effective leader. Welcome to gov 360, your full circle view on local government leadership and now the most watched local government podcast in America. Today's episode is one that has been bouncing around in my head for quite some time. The title is simple the End of Loyalty. Now, before anyone gets upset, let me state up front that this is not going to be an episode about how you younger generations don't work hard enough or complaining about employees. It's not going to be an episode criticizing elected officials or lamenting the good old days. In fact, I think most of the people involved are acting rationally. I think employees are acting rationally. I think elected officials are acting rationally. I think city managers are acting rationally. I think organizations are acting rationally. The problem is that many of us are still operating under assumptions that were built for a different era. Those assumptions no longer match reality. Today, I want to explore three questions. First, has loyalty actually disappeared? Second, what has changed in local government and leadership over the past several decades? And third, how can we become more effective leaders in a world where the old social contract no longer seems to apply? If you've ever wondered why employees don't stay, why city manager tenures continue to shrink, why councils seem increasingly volatile, or why leadership feels more difficult than it used to, this is the episode for you. Before we jump in, if you're enjoying gov360 and want more conversations about leadership, local government, public service and professional growth, please take a moment to subscribe to the channel and subscribe. Every subscription helps us bring more guests, more perspectives and more conversations to the profession we all care deeply about. And if you're already subscribed, thank you. I appreciate your support more than you probably know. Let's get into it. There was a time when loyalty was not something people talked about very often because it was simply assumed. Someone would graduate high school or college, they would get a job. They would work for the Same organization for 20 years, 30 years, maybe even their entire career. They would retire. The organization would host a retirement party. People would talk about decades of service. There would be stories, there would be memories. There would be institutional knowledge accumulated over an entire career. That wasn't unusual. It was normal. And local government was no exception. Cities were filled with employees who had spent, uh, decades serving the same community. Public works directors, finance directors, administrative staff, planners, building officials, police officers, firefighters. Many of them spent the majority of their professional lives serving one organization. The relationship between employee and employer was built on an unwritten understanding. The employee provided loyalty, the organization provided stability. Neither side expected perfection, but both sides expected commitment. That arrangement created enormous benefits. Organizations retained institutional knowledge. Employees developed deep expertise. Relationships were built over time. Trust accumulated, long term thinking was rewarded. Communities benefited from continuity. And perhaps most importantly, people believed there was value in staying. But over time, that equation began to change. The environment changed, technology changed, economic conditions changed, career opportunities changed, expectations changed, and eventually the incentives changed. Today, if a talented young professional spends five years in a position and receives an offer from another agency that includes a significant salary increase, greater responsibility, better work life balance, and a clear advancement path, what exactly are they supposed to do? Stay out of loyalty or pursue the opportunity? Increasingly, people choose the opportunity, and frankly, it's difficult to blame them. In many cases, changing organizations have become the fastest path to advancement in some profession. It's practically required. Think about how different the world is today compared to even 20 years ago. A generation ago, job opportunities were often local. Networking was largely limited to conferences and professional associations. Information traveled slowly. People knew relatively little about opportunities outside their immediate area. Today, every opportunity is visible. LinkedIn has transformed professional networking. Job postings are available instantly. Recruiters actively seek talent. Professional relationships span states and even countries. Uh, employees can compare compensation, benefits, culture, and advancement opportunities with just a few clicks. The amount of information available to employees has exploded. And when information increases, mobility increases. That's not a moral judgment, it's simply reality. Employees have more options than ever before. At the same time, organizations have also changed. Many employees have experienced layoffs, reorganizations, budget reductions, outsourcing, restructuring, and leadership turnover. They've learned that organizations will ultimately make decisions based on what they believe is in the organization's best interest. And once employees understand that reality, they naturally begin making decisions based on what they believe is in their own best interest. Again, that's not selfishness, that's adaptation. The result is that mobility has become normal. What was once viewed as disloyal is now viewed as strategic career management. And this shift isn't limited to employees. It's happening everywhere, including at the highest levels of local government leadership. The question isn't whether people have become less loyal. The question is whether the environment still rewards loyalty the way it once did. Perhaps nowhere is this transformation more visible than in the city management profession. Back in episode 23, titled why City Managers Don't Last, we explored the increasingly short tenure of city managers across the country. The median tenure is often cited at approximately four years. Think about that. Four years. That's barely enough time to fully understand an organization, build trust with stakeholders, learn, launch meaningful initiatives, and begin seeing measurable results. Yet increasingly, that is the reality. A city manager can spend the first year learning the organization, the second year building relationships and establishing priorities, the third year implementing initiatives. And by the fourth year, the political landscape may have changed entirely. A new council majority emerges, community expectations shift, political pressure intensifies, the social media controversies arise. A, uh, controversial issue dominates local discourse. And suddenly the environment looks very different than it did when the manager was hired. Now here's the important point. Many of these separations are not necessarily the result of incompetence. They're often the result of changing incentives. Council members face reelection. Political pressure arrives faster than ever before. Public expectations have changed. Information spreads instantly. Every decision can become a social media discussion within minutes. The same forces affecting employee mobility are affecting executive leadership. The environment increasingly rewards short term responsiveness over long term stability. And that reality brings us to an even larger question. What happens when an entire governance model is is forced to operate in an environment that looks dramatically different from the one it was originally designed for? That question brings us to something I've talked about before on gov360 episode 21 titled is the Council Manager Model Buckling in Today's politicized era? Focuses on whether the council manager form of government is under increasing strain as a result of changes in our political environment. And to be clear, I remain a strong believer in in the council manager model. I believe it remains the most effective form of local government ever developed, but I also believe it was designed for a different era. The council manager model was built around the concepts of representative democracy, professional administration and thoughtful deliberation. Councils establish Policy managers implement policy. Professional expertise informs decision making. Long term planning guides the organization. The system works best when there is a reasonable degree of stability. The challenge is that we are increasingly operating in an environment defined by immediacy. Social media has fundamentally altered the political landscape. Every issue is immediate. Every controversy is urgent. Every disagreement becomes public. Every decision can generate dozens, hundreds or even thousands of comments within hours. Public officials are no longer simply responding to community concerns. They're responding to a constant stream of feedback, criticism, commentary, speculation, and all too often, outright misinformation. And let's be honest, if you were an elected official and hundreds of people were criticizing you online, it would affect you too. It affects everyone. We're all human. The result is that political incentives have changed. Historically, elected officials could focus primarily on long term outcomes. Today, they often face pressure to respond to short term reactions. Historically, difficult decisions could be explained over time. Today, leaders often feel pressure to respond instantly. Historically, strategic planning was measured in years. Today, public attention may shift in days or even hours. That doesn't make elected officials bad people. It doesn't make councils dysfunctional. It simply means they're operating within a dramatically different environment than the one their predecessors faced. And once again, we're back to incentives. The incentives have changed, which means behavior changes. This is where many leaders get stuck. They become frustrated because they expect people to behave the way they would have behaved towards 20 or 30 years ago. They expect the same degree of patience, the same degree of institutional loyalty, the same willingness to prioritize long term outcomes over short term pressures. But that's not the environment we're living in. The world changed, incentives changed, Human behavior adapted. And that brings us to what I believe is the most important part of this entire discussion. Because if this episode simply ended with observations about changing times, it wouldn't be particularly useful. The real question is this. What should leaders do with this information? How should we lead in a world where the old assumptions no longer apply? The answer starts with one of the most important leadership lessons I've learned during my career. Over time, I've come to a realization that fundamentally changed how I think about leadership. It took me years to fully understand, but once I did, people stopped being so confusing to me. The realization was this. People generally act in what they perceive to be their own self interest. Now, when I say that some people immediately hear the word selfishness, that's not what I'm talking about. Self interest and selfishness are not the same thing. Self interest can include family. Self interest can include values. Self interest can include public service. It can include protecting one's reputation, serving constituents or career advancement. It can include leaving a positive legacy or doing what a person genuinely believes is right. Every individual sees the world through a different lens. Every individual is trying to solve a different set of problems. Every individual is responding to a unique set of incentives. And once you understand that, a remarkable thing happens. People become far less confusing. Think about how often you've asked questions like, why would they do that? Why would they vote that way? Why would they leave? Why would they oppose this? Why would they resist this change? Those questions come from a place of frustration. Because we're evaluating the situation through our own lens. We're assuming that everyone should see the world the same way we do. We're assuming that if we believe a particular course of action is clearly the best choice, everyone else should reach the same conclusion. But they don't, and they never will because they're operating under different incentives. Let me give you an example. Several years ago, I was managing a city that had spent years developing an updated, specific plan for a key area of the community. This was an area that had long been envisioned for commercial growth. The city needed restaurants, it needed retail, it needed entertainment options, it needed additional housing, it needed sales tax revenue to support critical city services. The existing plan had been in place for years, but it simply wasn't producing the type of development everyone had hoped for. So the city went back to work. Over the course of a couple years, we worked with consultants, property owners, stakeholders, and the community to develop a new vision. The city ultimately invested more than a million dollars into the effort. The data was overwhelmingly positive. The plan would create opportunities for the kind of development residents wanted to see. Several projects were already waiting in the wings, ready to move forward once the plan was adopted. Those initial projects would install critical infrastructure that would open the door for even more economic development opportunities in the future. From a planning perspective, it made sense. From an economic development perspective, it made sense. From a fiscal perspective, it made sense. Yet one council member just couldn't seem to get comfortable with it. Meeting after meeting, staff would present information. Questions would be answered. Concerns would be addressed. Data would be reviewed. Sometimes we'd leave a meeting feeling as though he finally understood the benefits and was ready to support the project. Then, a few days later, he'd reverse course. It was confusing. Honestly, it was frustrating. No matter how many times we presented the facts, he simply couldn't seem to get behind the plan. At the time, I viewed the situation through my own lens. The data supported the project. The analysis supported the project. The Community benefits were clear. So I kept asking myself the same question. Why? Why would someone continue opposing something that appeared to offer so many benefits? Eventually, I came to understand what was really happening. The issue wasn't the plan. The issue wasn't the data. The issue wasn't the economics. The issue was incentives. Behind the scenes, a, uh, close friend and political ally of this council member was advocating strongly against the plan. That individual represented a property owner within the plan area who didn't like some of the proposed changes. As a result, he was advocating aggressively against the project. The council member didn't want to alienate a trusted friend and longtime supporter. Through that friendship, he had also developed a relationship with the property owner. The closer those relationships became, the more difficult it became for him to support the plan, regardless of what the data said. Suddenly, his behavior wasn't confusing anymore. I didn't necessarily agree with his position, but I understood it. He wasn't solving the same problem I was. I was focused on the long term economic future of the city. He was navigating personal relationships, political alliances, constituent pressures, and competing loyalties. The moment I understood that, the situation looked completely different. And that experience reinforced one of the most important leadership lessons I've ever learned. If you want to understand behavior, don't just look at the facts, look at incentives. Because people rarely make decisions based solely on the information in front of them. Um, they make decisions based on the incentives, relationships, pressures, priorities, and obligations that exist in their world. And if you can understand those things, people stop being nearly as confusing. One of the most powerful shifts a leader can make is, is moving from asking, why are they doing this to me? To asking, what problem are they trying to solve for themselves? That question changes everything, and I don't use the phrase changes everything lightly. That question changed the way I viewed employees. It changed the way I viewed elected officials. It changed the way I viewed residents. It changed the way I viewed organizational conflict. And honestly, it changed the way I view people. Because once you stop assuming that everyone should see the world the way you do, and start recognizing that they're responding to a completely different set of incentives, motivations, pressures, and priorities, their behavior starts making a lot more sense. You may not agree with them, you may still oppose their position, but at least you understand where it's coming from. And understanding people is the foundation of effective leadership. Let's take employees as an example. How many times have we seen a talented employee leave an organization and heard people say, I can't believe they left. They seemed happy. We just promoted them. We invested so much in them. All of that may be true, but perhaps that employee saw an opportunity to provide more for their family. Perhaps they wanted a new challenge. Perhaps they felt stuck. Perhaps they wanted to lead a larger organization. Perhaps they wanted a shorter commute. Perhaps they wanted flexibility. Perhaps they simply felt it was time for the next chapter in their career. The decision often has very little to do with disloyalty. They're simply solving for a different objective than the one you're focused on now. Let's look at elected officials. A city manager may present what appears to be the objectively best recommendation. The data supports it. The staff supports it. Consultants support it. Industry best practices support it. Yet a council member opposes it. Well, why? Many leaders immediately conclude that the council member is being political. But politics is simply another form of incentives. Perhaps the council member represents a neighborhood that will be disproportionately affected. Perhaps their constituents have expressed concerns. Perhaps they are worried about re election. Perhaps they're trying to honor commitments that they made during a campaign. Perhaps they're weighing factors that aren't captured in the staff report. Again, they're solving a different problem. Understanding that doesn't mean you agree with them. It doesn't mean you're right. It doesn't mean you abandon your professional recommendation. But it does mean you understand them. And understanding people is one of the most important responsibilities of leadership. Because leaders who fail to understand incentives often spend their careers frustrated. Leaders who understand incentives become dramatically more effective. They stop fighting reality. They start working with it. And that's where leadership becomes far more strategic. One of the most practical things leaders can do is begin mapping incentives before taking action. Before launching a major initiative, before bringing forward a controversial recommendation, before implementing organizational changes, ask yourself some simple what incentives are, uh, driving the people whose support I need? What does success look like to them? What pressures are they experiencing? What risks are they trying to avoid? What outcomes are they trying to achieve? The answers may be very different from your own. And that's okay, because once you understand those incentives, you can communicate more effectively. You can address concerns proactively. You can build stronger coalitions. You can identify areas of common ground. And most importantly, you can begin creating alignment. Another lesson I learned is that great leaders separate positions from interests. People often tell us what they want, but what they tell us is not always the underlying reason they want it. Someone may vote against a project stating concerns about traffic impacts, but the real issue may be that they're afraid of losing the support of their constituents who oppose the project. Someone may criticize a proposal. But the real concern may be trust. If we focus only on the position, we often end up arguing. If we're able to identify and focus on the underlying interest, we often find solutions. That's one of the reasons some leaders seem capable of navigating conflict more effectively than others. They've learned to identify the concerns beneath the surface. And perhaps the biggest lesson of all is never assume alignment. This one took me years to fully understand. Never assume that because people agree on a goal that they agree on how to achieve it. A council may want economic development. A city manager may want economic development. Residents may want economic development. Business owners may want economic development. Everyone agrees on the destination, but they may disagree dramatically on the route. And those differences create conflict. The best leaders anticipate those differences rather than being surprised by them. Because alignment doesn't happen automatically. It has to be built intentionally. And that realization leads to an incredibly important point. Leadership is not about demanding loyalty. Leadership is about creating alignment. I want to say that again because I think it's the central lesson of everything we've discussed today. Leadership is not about demanding loyalty. Leadership is about creating alignment. There was a time when leaders felt they could rely on loyalty as a leadership strategy. Employees stayed because they felt loyal to the organization. Employees supported initiatives because they trusted leadership. Elected officials remained committed to long term goals because relationships had been built over years. Stability itself helped create loyalty. It wasn't something most leaders consciously thought about because it was simply part of the environment. But today's environment is different. Employees have more options. Elected officials face more pressure. Information moves faster. Organizations experience more turnover. Political environments shift more quickly. If your leadership strategy depends entirely on loyalty, you're building on a foundation that is becoming increasingly unstable. Alignment, however, is different. Alignment does not require everyone to think the same way. Alignment does not require everyone to agree on every issue. It does not require blind support. It. It simply means that people understand where you're trying to go and believe that helping achieve that outcome serves the interests they care about. That's a much more durable foundation. Think about the difference. A leader who depends on loyalty often asks, why aren't people supporting me? A leader who understands alignment asks, have I clearly demonstrated why this outcome matters to them? The those are very different questions. One focuses on personal support. The other focuses on shared purpose. The most effective leaders I've observed throughout my career are rarely the ones demanding loyalty. They're the ones building alignment. They're constantly communicating. They're constantly listening. They're constantly identifying common interests. They're constantly helping people understand How a proposed course of action advances goals that matter to multiple stakeholders. That's why they're so often able to accomplish things that others cannot. Let's look at a practical example. Imagine you're proposing a significant economic development project. A traditional approach might focus entirely on the merits of the project itself. The project creates jobs, it generates revenue, it improves services. The numbers make sense, and all of that is important. But alignment requires something more. The business community may support the project because it creates opportunity. Residents may support the project because it improves quality of life. Council members may support the project because it advances strategic priorities. Employees may support it because it strengthens organizations financial position. Different groups may support the same outcome for entirely different reasons. The leader's responsibility is not to convince everyone to think identically. The leader's responsibility is to identify areas where interests overlap and build alignment around those shared interests. That's how lasting coalitions are built. That's how difficult initiatives move forward, and that's how meaningful change occurs. And perhaps most importantly, that's how organizations remain successful. And even as people come and go. Because here's another reality we need to acknowledge. People are going to leave. Employees will retire. Managers will move on. Council members will be elected and defeated. Directors will accept new opportunities. That's normal. In fact, it has always been normal. What's changed is the speed at which those transitions occur. If your organization's success depends entirely on specific individuals or remaining in place, you are vulnerable. But if your organization is built around shared vision, aligned, uh, incentives, strong systems and healthy culture, it can withstand change. The strongest organizations aren't built around loyalty to individuals. They're built around commitment to purpose. That's a very important distinction. One of the most dangerous mistakes leaders make is confusing loyalty to a person with commitment to a mission. Those are not the same thing. In fact, they're often very different. People may disagree with you and still support the mission. People may challenge your ideas and still support the mission. People may leave the organization and still believe deeply in the mission. The healthiest organizations create loyalty to principles, not personalities. When you do that, the organization becomes much more resilient. So if loyalty isn't what it once was, what should leaders do? First, stop taking everything personally. This may be one of the hardest lessons in leadership. When employees leave, don't automatically view it as a rejection. When elected officials disagree with you, don't automatically view it as a personal attack. When residents criticize a decision, don't automatically assume they dislike you. And even if they do, well, that just comes with the territory. Sometimes most of the time, people are simply responding to their own circumstances, priorities, pressures, and incentives. The moment you stop making everything personal, leadership becomes much easier. One of the great traps of leadership is believing that every disagreement is about you. Most of the time, it isn't. Most of the time, people are responding to the situation as they see it. They're solving for problems from their own perspective. They're making decisions based on their own priorities. Once you understand that, you become less emotional and more strategic. Second, invest heavily in relationships before you need them. Trust is like a savings account. You either make deposits or withdraws. Too many leaders attempt to withdraw trust before they've made sufficient deposits. Strong relationships create resilience. They create understanding. They create goodwill. And goodwill becomes incredibly valuable during difficult moments. I've seen leaders successfully navigate controversial decisions because they had spent years building trust beforehand. I've also seen leaders struggle with relatively minor issues because they had never invested in those relationships. Relationships matter. Trust matters. Relationships and trust take time. Third, communicate relentlessly. In a world filled with noise, assumptions, misinformation, and competing narratives, leaders cannot afford to assume that people understand their intentions. You must explain not only what you're doing, but why you're doing it. People may not always agree with your decisions. In fact, they probably won't. But they are far more likely to support outcomes they understand than outcomes they don't. Silence creates a vacuum, and vacuums get filled, sometimes with rumors, sometimes with assumptions, very often with misinformation. The best leaders communicate early, communicate often, and communicate consistently. Fourth, focus on building systems rather than heroes. One of the signs of organizational maturity is whether success depends on a handful of individuals or whether success is embedded within the organization itself. Build processes, develop future leaders. Document institutional knowledge, Create succession plans, invest in organizational capacity. Because people will eventually leave, the goal isn't to prevent turnover entirely. The goal is to ensure the organization remains strong despite turnover. If your organization cannot survive the departure of one person, you don't have an organizational system. You have a dependency. Strong organizations outlast individual. Leaders finally, understand that trust remains the most valuable currency in leadership. Not authority, not titles, not position. Trust. When trust exists, people give leaders the benefit of the doubt. When trust exists, disagreements remain manageable. When trust exists, organizations can navigate uncertainty more effectively. When trust exists, alignment becomes much easier to achieve. Trust won't eliminate conflict, but it dramatically improves your ability to navigate it. In today's environment, where loyalty may be less durable than it once was, trust may be more important than ever. As I think about the future of local government, I don't believe we're ever going back to the environment many of us grew up in. Professionally, I don't think employee mobility is going to decrease significantly. I don't think social media is going away. I don't think political pressure will diminish. I don't think information is going to move more slowly. Those changes are here to stay. The leaders who thrive won't be the ones waiting for the old environment to return, because it isn't returning. The leaders who thrive will be the ones who understand the new environment and adapt accordingly. They will understand incentives. They will understand human behavior. They will understand alignment. They will understand trust. And perhaps most importantly, they will understand that effective leadership has never really been about controlling people. It's about understanding people. The better you understand what motivates people, the more effective you become, the better you understand incentives. The more effective you become, the better you understand alignment, the more effective you become. And the better you understand human nature, the more effective you become. Ultimately, leadership is not about getting people to do what you want. Leadership is about helping people see how moving in a common direction advances outcomes they genuinely care about. That's a very different approach, and I believe it's the approach that will define successful leadership in the years ahead. The leaders who thrive in the years ahead won't be the ones who demand loyalty. They'll be the ones who understand incentives. They'll be the ones who build trust. They'll be the ones who create alignment. Because the leaders who understand why people make the decisions they make will always have an advantage over the leaders who simply react to those decisions. And in a world that is changing as rapidly as ours, that advantage matters. Before we wrap up, I want to share something I'm genuinely excited about. Over the past year, Gov 360 has grown into something much larger than I ever imagined. We've had incredible guests, thoughtful discussions, and meaningful conversations about the future of local government. One of the things I've consistently heard from listeners is that they want more opportunities to connect with one another. Not just with me, but with each other. That's exactly why we're preparing to launch the gov360 community on on Patreon. The vision is simple. A place where local government professionals, aspiring leaders, department directors, assistant city managers, city managers, elected officials, and public servants can continue these conversations between episodes. A place to exchange ideas, ask questions, share experiences, learn from one another, build relationships, expand professional networks, and have honest conversations about the challenges and opportunities facing our profession. We'll be sharing more details very soon, but if that sounds interesting to you, keep an eye out over the coming weeks. I truly believe it has the potential to become something special. So is loyalty dead? No, I don't think loyalty is dead. In fact, loyalty is one of the values I hold most, um, deeply. But I do think loyalty looks different than it did a generation ago. Employees are responding to a different environment. Organizations are responding to a different environment. Elected officials are responding to a different environment. City managers are responding to a different environment. The rules have changed, and leadership must change with them. The leaders who continue expecting the old social contract may find themselves increasingly frustrated. The leaders who understand incentives, alignment, trust, and human nature will be far more effective. Because at the end of the day, leadership isn't about demanding loyalty. It's about creating the conditions where people willingly choose to move in the same direction. And in a world that feels increasingly divided, increasingly polarized, and increasingly uncertain, that may be one of the most important leadership skills any of us can develop. So maybe the question isn't what happened to loyalty? Maybe the better question is how do we lead effectively in a world where loyalty looks different than it once did? Because if we can answer that question, we'll be far better equipped to lead the organizations, communities, and people who are counting on us. If you found value in this episode, please consider sharing it with a colleague and leave a comment below. And if you haven't already, please take a second to hit hit that subscribe button. Thank you for joining us on Gov 360. Until next time, govern boldly, my friends.