CSR, HR and PR: Redefining Wealth and Maximizing Success

UPDATE 10/12/13: Scott Stinson makes some legitimate concerns about limiting Executive salaries and the impact that could have on attracting seasoned talent.  I'm sure he's aware of the additional challenges Ontario faces around frozen capital, youth unemployment and some serious innovation challenges in the province - not to mention the mammoth human/social service delivery problems we're facing.

I'm all about one stone, many targets; what if a percentage of Executive Pay (or frankly, anyone who gets on the Sunshine List) gets put into a donation by the Province on behalf of the individual to a charity of their choice/added to a fund for would-be entrepreneurs that have ideas, but no business development/sales training?  It's public dollars, but it would have been salary - now it's going back to the community.  The donor gets brand recognition and some press play out of it.  The province, which would have to jig some regulations to accommodate such an arrangement, could have a truly innovative policy win on their hands.

It'd create work opportunities, inspire youth and who knows, maybe catalyze some other clever solutions, too.

Thoughts?

Last night I attended a series of short talks on open data and open government.  Among the themes that popped up in each talk - the importance of data (and of sharing data), of trust-facilitated communications and how to motivate people to share information and participate in aggregation and shared-solution development.

On the subway ride home, I got to thinking about motivation and how we're using the wrong tools (carrots and sticks) to try and motivate cognitive labour in today's knowledge economy.  Being the lateral thinker I am, I started weighing the changing nature of PR, the prevalence of social media and the increasing trend of recognition being a form of compensation valued by youth entering the workforce.  What can I say, I like elegant solutions.

Canada is in a bit of a spot right now on the economic front; as a nation, we are failing to translate good research and out-of-the-silo ideas into innovative products and services. Corporations are sitting on capital that could go to more R&D or youth hires, but political and fiscal uncertainty have them playing a wait-and-see game that, unfortunately, means other players on the international stage are getting ahead of us in advanced manufacturing and completely new services like data framing and extra-sectoral capacity building. 

There's a growing demand for Public Relations to change its model from one that's focused on talking to one that's designed to build relationships over the long term.  It's not enough to manage crisis communications as the need arises, or even to do fun social media outreach pieces as marketing tricks - if you don't have a positive brand between campaigns nobody will take you seriously - in fact, you might find your noble intentions cause you more blowback that anticipated.

 

So what do you do?  How do you tie up a perfect Gordian knot that leaves no thread exposed?

It starts, of course, with hiring, retaining and motivating the right staff. 

There's a lot of grumbling in the corporate world about young whipper-snappers coming out of school with advanced degrees and expecting to get a ton of recognition with their first job.  That's not the way it works, these bosses will say; you have to work hard and climb the ladder, with success being the only reward you need.

This is an approach that needs to change.  The economy we're entering now is not your grandpa's economy; the labour requirements are different, as are the labour supports and incentives.  This isn't just whipper-snapper talk; study after study shows that knowledge work, creative problem solving and innovation aren't motivated by traditional financial carrots and sticks; if you take that approach you're simply creating a drag on your cognitive labour.  This a big part of why we haven't got innovation happening right now.

So if raises and titles don't motivate the best in cognitive labour, what does?  First, you do need to pay your team well - if they are worried about paying the bills then they aren't focused fully on your work.  Beyond that, you need to add value to your employees; this means building a community of experience that lets every one of them know they are part of the team and that their work matters.  It means accommodating them in such a way that they can spend less time worrying about peripheral stuff and more time producing on your behalf. 

The last point gets its own paragraph, as it feeds into the other two issues.  The big reason we value money is that it confers social status; higher salaries equate to greater personal value, but also allow for more expensive everything, the ability to buy drinks for friends or host fancy parties.  Money allows you to contribute and enhance your status.  When you have status, people want to hang around you.  That's called lekking.

Of course, it's not just the rich people that develop retinues; in fact, most founders of religious movements and many a social movement were poor.  The same thing applies to fashion trends or memes - a charismatic person or a cool idea can attract people and encourage them to contribute to a bigger brand because they want to be part of that experience.

This is where we return to corporate social responsibility.  There are all sorts of reasons why it's good for companies to give back proactively, just as there are multiple reasons for companies to properly motivate their employees.  Why not do both at the same time?

 

Picture this; you're a young person with a bag full of ideas, looking to make your mark on the world.  You're considering positions at two different firms; both have more or less the same job description, but Firm B offers a bit less direct compensation than Firm A.  That's because Firm B has a built-in bonus system that, on top of the already decent pay, ensures that value-added work will be rewarded with an additional contribution of capital that will go, on behalf of the employee and the company, to a charity of choice.  This donation will be promoted through social media and maybe even a press event. 

This brings us into PR disruption.  Instead of reinforcing the importance of what you do periodically, or solving crises reactively, you can spend some of your energy showing why you work in the space you work and how you are working with your team to make the world a better place.

You've just found one solution for your innovation, HR and PR needs.

Here's the real kicker - you don't need to just pay lip-service to social demands, you can actually realize them and strengthen your company at the same time.  People will believe in you more, feel better about buying your products and when the inevitable crisis does hit, will be that much more likely to forgive, or even defend you.

Funny how doing the right thing turns out to also be the most efficient, value-added thing to do, too.

Lessons from Haiyan for Stephen Harper and Rob Ford

"Even me, I have no house, I have no clothes.  I don't know how I will restart my life, I am so confused," an unidentified woman said, crying.  "I don't know what happened to us.  We are appealing for help.  Whoever has a good heart, I appeal to you - please help Guiuan.

If you haven't heard, the Philippines has been devastated by typhoon Haiyan.  Some 10,000 died as a result of the initial onslaught, but that is only the beginning.  It won't be long before the after-effects of the storm - disease, starvation, violence bred from desperation - begin to swell the numbers of Haiyan's victims.  In fact, an each-man-for-himself mentality is already taking hold, with people looting and fighting over what limited resources there are.

The Government of the Philippines is in no way up to the task of managing this crisis.  Left to fend for themselves, things would only get worse.  Fortunately for them, the UN and international partners, including Canada, are stepping in to offer much needed help.  Thanks to forward-thinking planning, we have well-trained, well-equipped professionals able to strike out for crisis zones at a moment's notice. 

We also have an amazing, scalable emergency management framework that is becoming an international norm.  Shared practises, terminology and professionalism are allowing Crisis Response personnel from across the country and around the world to work seamlessly, efficiently and quickly in tandem.  

Relatively new to the disaster relief game are online coordination platforms like Ushahidi that allow real-time, multi-level coordination between assets, logistics and needs.  It's amazing, really - one system can connect a concerned citizen writing a cheque in Argentina to Red Cross resources landing at a port to US military personnel on the ground in any disaster zone, anywhere in the world.  Some entrepreneurial leaders are even re-purposing war vets into disaster relief teams, ensuring they have meaningful work that harnesses their skill sets and accomplishes good.

"We are reducing the size and cost of government in a way that few residents will ever notice except for some professional activists whose jobs depend on city gravy.  To them I say 'You're upset?' They say, 'We're furious.' And I say, 'Too bad."  - Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

It's great to see new parks being built in Toronto - everyone loves a ribbon cutting, especially the governments who want nice, visible wins to sell come election time.  But the DVP is a problem still in need of a long-term solution.  The recent flooding has raised questions of just how prepared we are for the next disaster; there are still public buildings in this city without emergency lighting and with mold issues caused by the water damage.

Federally, we have a government that attacks both public servants and the information sharing process with gusto.  Leaders like Rob Ford and Stephen Harper are selling the message that the governments of which they are the leaders are oppressive creatures to be starved, rather than connective tissue that allows for circulation of resources.  Among those poor sods who feel their jobs of proactively trying to prevent the next Danzig, or the spread of infectious disease or even ensure we have sound infrastructure for the vulnerable are vital, morale is low.

One has to ask - if Canada were to face a natural cataclysm of similar scale to a Haiyan or even a Katrina, and if it were to strike more than one jurisdiction at a time - how prepared are we to manage it?  When we have leaders that are staunchly anti-society, who would the people rally behind and look to for inspiration when disaster strikes?

There is no economic reason why Canada should be expending resources in the Philippines; they're not major trading partners, we stand little to gain from supporting them.  On humanitarian grounds, though, it's the right thing to do.  There's also this little thing where, when we proactively assist others in their time of need, those acts of altruism build confidence and appreciation that can be reciprocated in things like bilateral free trade agreements or help should we ever face similar consequences.

We can play the populist card, appealing to the selfish instincts of society.  We can pillory all opponents or even potential opponents, clearing the landscape of opposition.  We can cut corners and bend rules behind the scenes in ways few residents will notice, until the aggregate fractures of these actions come to light.

But that's the approach that has landed both Rob Ford and Stephen Harper in the messes they face right now.

These, then, are the lessons Canadian leaders should take from Haiyan:

- No one of us is an island

- If we can't live together, we'll die alone

- Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead

- Leaders don't divide and conquer; they bring people together

All of these can be summed up in one neat, tidy phrase - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's not a new message, but one we'd do well to remember; after all, those who forget yesterday's lessons are doomed to repeat yesterday's mistakes - and pay the consequences for them.

Cops and Robby: Theory and Games in Toronto (Updated)

Blair's promised changes had better be good.  And the police services board must use its oversight to make sure that this time the transformation is real.  Only deeds speak.

Let's get the elephant in the room out of the way first; politics isn't about serving the public good.  It's about winning.  If it were about serving the public good, political leaders would spend time trying to establish consensus and setting the sorts of example others could draw inspiration from.

Instead, politics is about strategic manipulation of assets to create fields of victory.  Knowing that what the public wants and what they're willing to pay for it are wildly out of line, political organizers pick an choose their battles, their opponents, even their friends.  Which is why they can spin around in different directions, depending on which way the winds are blowing. 

When they get caught in doing something problematic (or not doing something which is essential, but difficult and unappealing - like structural change), political planners often turn to that age-old tactical slight-of-hand known as "bait and switch."

Thing is, political operators aren't the only players on the board.  All kinds of other stakeholders who interact in the public sphere know these tricks of the trade, too.  When they're thinking ahead, all of these players will try to suss out the lay of the land through SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analyses and plan accordingly.

Among those other players are the police.

You may have noticed that the Toronto Police have a serious reputation crisis on their hands.  It's quite possible that the public (and by Association, the Police Board) are done with platitudes and want some meat.  The G20, Sammy Yatim and an admission by a police officer that discrimination is built into the system are all very problematic for the police.  And that's just scratching the surface.

It's hard enough for law enforcement at the best of times - people tend not to follow rules they find onerous, like texting and driving or rushing yellow lights.  When the public doesn't think law enforcers are following the laws they're meant to uphold or enforcing them fairly, it gets even harder.  That's where we're at right now; that's why people are demanding change.

This isn't all on them, though.  Police aren't solely responsible for a systematic culture change; they don't write the laws and ultimate accountability for their conduct lies with elected officials.  But they do wear the blame for how internal cop culture manifests negatively in society. 

Everyone wants the easiest solution to their problem, the shortest route between challenge and comfort.  Where's the low-hanging fruit solution to this structural/branding crisis?

Enter Rob Ford. 

Rob Ford is in a spot of trouble with the law, what with the crack scandal and all.  But, he's the Chief Magistrate, so the job of the police is to support his office - isn't it?  Or is it to enforce the law equally, regardless of a person's status?  Those being stigmatized at the lower end of the social spectrum are becoming increasingly agitated by top-official abuses that aren't meeting consequences.  And the police seem to have been doing a good job of corralling around the Mayor when he gets into trouble.

Here's where it gets interesting.

At the same time as they've been helping keep the Mayor out of harm's way, Toronto's Finest have been very careful not to take a public stance on the Mayor's direct involvement in any of the allegations that are being made or investigations being conducted.  This could be a case of professional conduct, which would be nice, but in politics you always assume everyone has an ulterior motive for everything they do/don't do.  What could be the police's ulterior move here?

Now, this would be cynical politics at its worst, but from a strategic point of view very clever; what if the police, knowing they need to deliver some sort of public-assuaging deed, are setting up the Mayor for a fall?  What if the intent all along has been to bait-and-switch when the time is right, offering Ford up to the public as a distraction?

Should the Mayor of Canada's Largest City (who already gets international press) be arrested and convicted on drug-related charges and related corruption/cover-up charges, fit would hit the shan.  There would be massive, global interest and scrutiny around how politics is working/not working in Toronto.  The elected officials, the bureaucrats, the public, everyone would be in a tizzy; and the police would have their deed to tie over public/media interest for quite some time.

Where ensuing focus wouldn't be is on internal problems within the Toronto police force.  Heck, by taking down the biggest fish in their net regardless of status, they would be demonstrating their commitment to blind justice.  It would be very difficult for any politician (some of them with some overlooked criminal infractions themselves) to pry into police culture for quite some time without being accused of striking back in retaliation to the punishment of one of their own.

Is this the Toronto Police Force's play?  Do they even have people who do plays?  Beats me.

It will, however, be interesting to see how the story continues to play out.  I'll certainly be tuning in. 

After all, who doesn't enjoy a good high-stakes game of chess?


UPDATE: There've been some updates on this front.  Any similarities between my speculation and reality, of course, are entirely coincidental.

UPDATED, AGAIN: Christie Blatchford from today (Nov 15, 2013):

All that can be read like this: The police did by the back door - gave the stamp of approval to the disgracing of Ford and to the notion that this was correct and in the public interests - what for some reason they were unwilling to do by the front, that is, with an arrest and charge.

Remember when Trudeau Said He Knew What He Was Doing?

The Liberal leader has been tilling the soil in preparation for this moment for months.  Even before this week, he had made himself the champion of Quebec Anglophones, Allphones and federalists by defending the Clarity Act, and speaking out against the PQ's identity politics.  When the fault lines finally cracked, he had a position ready to go, which was published Thursday in English in the Globe and Mail.  It is a straightforward restatement of his long-held view.  The prime minister, by contrast, has yet to say anything of substance on this matter.  He will need to before long, lest he entrench the perception that he is playing catch-up.

Chortle about committing sociology all you want - I maintain that altruism is selfishness that plans ahead.  It looks like I'm not the only one to recognize this.

Fit For Conscription?

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

Thinking this morning about Syria - and the various alliances lining up on either side of the Syria equation - reminds me more than a bit of the state of Europe pre-World War I.  If supporters like the US, Great Britain and Germany are steadfast committed to siding against the Assad regime and Iran and Russia decide to support him in force things could get pretty nasty, pretty quick.  Add to that the volatility across the Middle East and in economically challenged countries with heightened ethnic tensions like Greece and Hungary and ongoing violence in hotspots ranging from Somalia to Western China, there's a potential scenario which sees the world on fire.

All worst-case scenario stuff, of course.  One would like to think we've learned from the past and won't repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.

If, though, countries like Canada find themselves further engaged in fighting for a new world of law where the strong are just, the weak secure and the peace preserved - would we have the military resources to do so?  Sure, there's lots of talk about procuring physical assets like f35s, but a story less told is how poorly we've been doing in supporting our troops, particularly where it comes to PTSD.  One must question whether we have the human resources required to sustain heavy combat in multiple theatres, simultaneously.

If we don't?  If the demands of world security (and our allies) grows more burdensome than our military can bear, would Canada ever re-introduce conscription, giving yet another generation of young men (and now, women) the opportunity to serve their country on the front lines?  Again, unlikely.  As Randian Objectivism has become today's Marxism, I don't see their being a lot of appetite for that against a backdrop of austerity, but not yet widespread desperation.

If we do, though - how prepared are Canadians to go to war?  How fit are we?  I know of a whole host of young Canadians, highly trained and extremely motivated who have spent months or years looking, unsuccessfully, for steady work.  They're becoming more psychologically fragile the longer uncertain futures loom over them.  Frankly, I wonder what sort of training supports they would need to develop the sort of emotional discipline required to run into opposing gunfire.

Then, there's the physical fitness.  Society-wide, we've gotten into a bad habit of off-loading our healthcare to healthcare providers; without the physiotherapy, the drugs and the personal trainers (if you can afford any of those things), how fit are we?  A generation of desk-workers could find themselves dying more of strain-induced heart attacks than actual combat.  

Of course, this is all speculative.  It's at the extreme end of strategic planning to consider such eventualities, but guaranteed that somewhere, military gamers are running scenarios, just as they are around water insecurity.

If it does happen though, I'd argue we aren't ready.  It would take several years of committed government intervention to get new soldiers fit and trained for combat.  More than that it would take a massive propaganda war (far more invasive than even the Economic Action Plan one) to get Canadians committed to the idea of putting skin in the game in the name of Harper's New Canada.

After a decade of "stop expecting government to hold your hand" leadership, it would be very interesting to see our current federal government turn around, commit sociology and ask Canadians to put their lives on the line for others in their name.  It'd be a bit rich for the political class to tell Canadians to ask what they can do for their country when they have visibly failed to set that standard.

I think our political leaders need to do some serious soul-searching about what they want Canada to be ready for down the road.  I think it's even more important for Canadians to have open conversations about these big questions.

War is the ultimate game-changer; Canada's identity was shaped by global conflicts past, as well as conflict solutions like peacekeeping.  War could very well change who we are and what we stand for again.

None of us can make informed choices that will impact the young feet that may fill tomorrow's boots on the ground if we don't take the time to get informed.

What's happening in Syria is a great place to start.