On the way home from a chat with some public servants and allies about behavioural economics, employee engagement and how to really motivate innovation in the public sector, I read this:
BREAKING for #onpoli fans Hudak to quit July 2 amid Tory revolt | Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/tim_hudak_to_quit_july_2_amid_tory_revolt.bb.html …
The one and only time Hudak budges; sadly, it has to come at the end.
Some reflections on the Star piece and lessons to be learned by the future PC leader, and their team, and all Political Parties:
Tim Hudak was never going to win. If it hadn't been his promised job cuts, faulty math or whatnot, it would have been something else. Good for him for being true to what he believed in, but what he had to offer was never going to be what Ontarians wanted. Keep that in mind as you vote for your next leader.
Now, from the article itself:
Really? I can't even begin to count how catastrophically bad an idea that was.
Just joking - of course I can.
Number one - have the Ontario Tories not read up on the Federal Tories' national occupational mental health standard? Considered the whole OHRC respect for dignity thing? What about basic behavioural economics and presenteeism?
If you promise to fire a bunch of public servants if you get elected, you send a massive chill throughout the entire public sector. That's probably what the Tories wanted, but in terms of actual management, they would have killed what little morale was left, crushed what little innovation is already being ignored internally and reduced service quality to minimum.
Why?
It's simple - people who are afraid don't perform well, especially when it comes to customer service. They freeze up, they turn bitter and what they feel gets passed on to the end-user. This is why smart leaders are taking employee engagement seriously.
Number two - Ontarians would never have thought handing out a swath of pink slips to people for just doing their job was a good thing. We might want justice when a couple of CEOs expense muffins, but it's an affront to our ethics to cut the livelihood of 200 people and make it a photo-op.
Especially as a campaign tactic. The message that gets sent is that with that guy in charge, nobody is safe - and he'll be happily dancing on the grave of each person who gets culled.
I could go on, but we've other pieces to cover. The key question is - how did Hudak's brain trust ever think stuff like this was a good idea?
They aren't dumb. This isn't their first kick at the can. It's not that they don't care, either. Clearly, they thought such moves were a good idea for a reason.
My guess is that they did one of two things, or possibly a combination of both:
1) they misjudged public opinion because they hadn't really consulted enough.
They wouldn't be alone in this. Politics isn't about real consultation, after all - it's #DecideSellDefend, not #DiscussDecideDo. Partisans message, do fundraisers with friendly audiences and above all, gravitate to the opinions that agree with their own. Then they pick fights with those who disagree with them.
The problem is that when you only read the Sun because you agree with what it says, you start to think everyone else must feel the same way, except for a smattering of partisan opponent die-hards. When you think most people agree with you, it's easy to dismiss opposition.
Which is a grave mistake. We'll come back to this later.
2) Hudak's braintrust built a campaign plan that was reflective of their leader.
This is a variation on the same theme. Hudak is the poster-child of the audience the Sun wants to appeal to; by creating a campaign that works for him, they were digging their own grave.
Honestly, though, this isn't a bad thing. Hudak ran a solid campaign that was reflective of his values. We'd all be better off if more political leaders followed his example.
Call it the political free market - by honestly presenting their authentic vision, leaders and Parties provide voters with a choice. If the voters don't like one choice, they don't have to pick it. It's easy.
This is how democracy is supposed to work.
When leaders and Parties put the win before the policy, they bake in poison pills, issue platitudes or make commitments they not only can't deliver on, but aren't reflective of their priorities. The result is the downward spiral of policy and civic engagement we're just really starting to twig on to now.
Take a look at @TalentCulture and #TChat on twitter for some conversation on why authenticity, engagement and actual communication (which implies listening and empathizing) matter.
With us or against us isn't leadership. It leads to employees who are more committed to keeping the boss (or shareholders) happy than actually serving the end-users, which is all around a dumb idea.
I couldn't agree more. This is why I like Wynne; it's why I also feel the time might be right for some of the structural changes that can only be achieved through collaboration.
Hillier, who has no leadership aspirations and isn't backing any challenger, said he and his caucus mates were "completely astonished and bewildered" at Hudak's stubbornness.
Good lord, why? This is one of those times I wonder if I'm watching the same movie as everyone else is. Hudak has always been stubborn; he's always acted in a delusionally confident, boss-like manner.
If the PC caucus was astonished and bewildered, they shouldn't have been. Hudak's been remarkably consistent.
The question, again, is why? Why did the PC caucus miss the obvious - and how can they avoid doing so again?
There is a way forward for the PCs, which is a good thing - we want as many perspectives in policy-making as possible. They don't even need to stray from their core values of fiscal responsibility and conservation of resources.
In fact, by promoting initiatives like open government and, say, district energy systems, they can even be innovative and progressively conservative.
Folks like me can present options and provide advice, but it's up to them to listen. If they don't, well - they won't be able to blame Hudak any more, will they?
Leadership is about taking ownership - which, ultimately, is a lesson for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment