CEP — Capital Erosion Profile

Shared purpose drives behaviour here more than financial incentives

Trust-based coordination has held steady or strengthened relative to compliance mechanisms over the last three years

When trust breaks down, the response typically involves repairing relationships rather than adding process

The institution achieves compliance through culture and shared understanding rather than monitoring

Coordination between teams happens primarily through relationships and direct communication

New initiatives typically build on existing relationships and networks rather than requiring new funding

When we lose key people, we rebuild capability through relationships and development rather than substituting with spend

The organisation relies on relationships and trust as much as or more than formal processes

Functions primarily produce value rather than monitor or enforce

Operational capacity has grown at least as fast as compliance capacity

Incentive structures reinforce intrinsic motivation rather than substituting for it

Core functions could continue effectively if external funding reduced by 30%

The institution actively invests in deepening relationships with key stakeholders

Relationship maintenance is budgeted and resourced, not treated as overhead

Former staff, alumni, and past partners remain positively engaged with the institution

The institution creates more relationships than it consumes in any given period

Partnership arrangements generate mutual value rather than being extractive

Community relationships have deepened over the past three years

The institution has explicit programmes for rebuilding trust after disruption

Relationship capital is discussed as a strategic asset in leadership forums