Crystal Clear in Quebec

But not to worry, the minister responsible, Bernard Drainville, assures us: "It will be done humanely."  But of course.  They will not be told to get out in a cruel way, but with care, compassion, or what the minister calls "good old common sense."  It will simply be made clear to these people, as kindly as the occasion permits, that, notwithstanding their years of blameless service, their continued employment is incompatible with Quebec's common values - that their insistence on wearing the yarmulke or the turban, in accordance with the deepest teachings of their faith, has become a source of "tension" and "division" and that for that reason they will have to find other work.

There's a shift happening here that goes far beyond just Quebec.  Intolerance is creeping back in to the mainstreet dialogue and even Parliamentary debate in places ranging from Hungary and Greece to our very own Quebec.

I have to admit - when I wrote "I hate to say it, but I would keep an eye out for a party further to the right of the CPC gaining some presence, too" I was particularly thinking about the inevitable rift forming between hard-right social conservatives and their more electoral-win focused brethren in places like Ontario and Alberta.  It still wouldn't surprise me if some of the muzzled or turfed MLAs take their grievances as a rallying cry, turning some of their supporters against the conservative Party's that were once their home.

The angrier your foundations, the more vindictive becomes your direction.  As perhaps opportunistic politicians add legitimacy to xenophobia for their own gain, the haters of our world gain that much more credibility, plus a broader platform to speak from.  That Party's moving in the right direction, they can say in validated fashion; they just need to go further.

How the rest of us and, in particular, our leaders respond to this trend is of critical importance.  You can't ignore it - like cancer, hatred left unchecked will inevitably spread.  At the same time, you don't want to fuel the fire by creating an "us vs. them" mentality that, as in North Korea, justifies increasingly alarming decisions and actions.

This is where neuropsychology comes in.

For ages we have known, in anecdotal fashion, that courage, altruistic acts, a positive spirit and creativity are great tonics against hatred and intolerance.  Thanks to advances in how we understand emotion, behaviour and the engine that drives them, we've gotten better at influencing mind and the social matrix.  Its up to those who would represent the Canadian Idea - above all, strength through diversity - to borrow from neuromarketing and wage a hearts and minds campaign to counter the dangerous direction Quebec's government is taking.

This isn't a Quebec/ROC thing any more than it's a religious people/ROQ thing - it's a human thing.  Politicians and their policies set the tone of the province in much the same way as different corporate leaders change the entire culture of their companies.  Our ultimate goals are twofold:

1) To inoculate people against hatred and intolerance, reducing their efficacy as a populist tool.  

2) To support those within Quebec who would stand against intolerance, ensuring them the safety needed to raise their voices in opposition without fear of undue reprisal.

The main tool for accomplishing this is the same it has been throughout history - education.  

It's time Canada's leaders take their hand off the fear button and stop oppressing information which challenges them; that merely fuels the problem.

It's time Canadians start holding them to that - not narrow mandates and limited focus, but sustainable leadership.

Get informed, folks; get engaged - because, when we do, we can make a difference.

IDIC - Engaging Youth in #cdnpoli

 

Finally, the social shift to an extremely diverse, open and cosmopolitan citizenry can be a singular Canadian advantage in this century. But the greatest source of this diversity is in younger Canada — which increasingly is on the sidelines, both politically and economically. This needs to be corrected.

 

How does one engage these young, democratically-disconnected, socially wired-in Canadians?  Good question; start by listening, then creating meaningful engagement opportunities, then add value through formats that are more intutitive for them. 

 

You'll see - it's going to be fun for everyone.

On Organizational Culture (by Jason Lauritsen)

A worthwhile read.  Of course, a junior in an office shouldn't expect the world to bend to their will, either; that equally leads to productivity challenges.  The middle ground is, shockingly, found in communication - when you establish a relationship, both sides put effort into finding the sources of tension as well as the points of commonality.  When you build on the latter and take pains to understand the why of the former, you might just learn something.

Strength through diversity; it's as true of corporate structure as it is of social or biological genetics.

Is Organizational “Fit” Really a Good Thing?

inShare1

Organizational fit (or cultural fit) is a topic that gets a lot of discussion, particularly in recruiting circles. We strive to find people who will be a good fit for the organization–people who will quickly and naturally fall into the rhythm of the organization and how things get done around here.

This is no small issue. As a person who has been in a couple of different organizations where I wasn’t a good “fit,” I can tell you that there is a high toll paid by the individual when working in a place they don’t fit. The organization also pays a price and that price inceases the larger the role is where the misfit happens.

So, most organizations have decided that this is a recruiting issue. The best way to achieve a fit is to hire the right people in the first place. And I used to buy into this approach. Hiring people who fit the culture and organization right out of the shoot definitely makes for happier hiring managers and less friction around new hires in the organization.

But here’s the problem. It is easy to think of and practice cultural fit as meaning “walks, talks, thinks and acts like us.” When we start selecting and hiring on this model, we are adding more of what we already have. What we aren’t adding is diversity. And the research of people like Scott Page and others is pretty convincing that if we care at all about innovation or problem solving, diversity is a critical component. Hiring and managing for organizational fit feels a lot at times like hiring for homogeneity and that could actually be harming our organization’s future prospects.

“If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

― Benjamin Franklin

What if, instead of working on the supply side of this equation, we started tackling the other side-the culture itself. Organizational cultures operate like an immune system when left unchecked. There are cultural antibodies that attack difference. If you don’t fit, you feel it, often painfully. Rather than trying to find more sameness, what if we conditioned our cultures instead to welcome variety and difference? What if we started a program to vaccinate our culture so that it wouldn’t attack someone for not fitting in.

When I think about my own experiences where I was not a cultural fit, the friction and tension I felt was rooted in the desire for acceptance and belonging. The problem was lack of interest in these cultures to accept me as I was. To belong, I was expected to change, to learn to fit in. I think this is the norm based on the stories I hear from the people I meet. And generally, the more we try to change who we are as individuals to fit in, the less happy and successful we are. So, working to achieve cultural fit might actually be working directly against things we desire in our organizations like optimum performance.

So, as leaders and designers of organizations, I’d challenge you to step back from the conversation about cultural fit for a moment to consider what it means when we say that. Granted, cultural fit achieves short term comfort, but I think it may be doing long term harm. Perhaps what we truly need is not more cultural fit, but instead a different kind of culture that is welcoming, accepting, and creates feelings of belonging and inclusion for everyone who has the talents to help our company grow. If you are ready to try on what this might mean in your organization, stop over to my colleague Joe Gerstandt’s blog and spend some time there reading about how to make this happen.

Stephen Harper: Little Fish, Big Pond

It is all so penny-wise and pound foolish, especially for a country that once prided itself on punching above its weight and, more important, understood that this is a relatively small country with huge international interests. Now, Canada has retreated into an anglospheric worldview coupled with a focus on trade deals, but lacking any sense of a wider conception of international affairs.

Hectoring and lecturing undoubtedly appeals to the Conservative Party's core voters. It does not impress other governments, including friendly ones.

After all of his Machivellian planning, wooing ethnic voters, carefully building wedges between voter blocks and a never-ending attack on the personalities, values and family history of opponents, Harper has his majority.  That was what he was after – a chance to be The Man, get revenge for past rebukes and show those who have mocked him his whole life who’s boss.

It’s beyond tragic that as soon as he got that majority, Harper gave up his Machiavellian cunning; instead of strategically strengthening Canada’s already influential position on the world stage, he essentially morphed himself from bully to petulant.  Harper is trying to be tough in a traditional sense at a time where long-game strategic collaboration with partners is increasingly the way forward.  Because he’s so determined to not have anyone tell him what to do, directly, he is completely blind to the subtle forces leading him around by the nose.

Far from becoming a power player, Harper is turning Canada into a global farce, a shadow of what we once were.

Do Canadians care?  Not enough.  At least not yet.  None of this resonates in our daily lives in directly observable ways.  Equally, we have no alternative.

Here’s where a significant opportunity lies for a renewed Liberal Party – to step up to the plate in the global game and bring Canadians along with them.  The eventual new Liberal Leader should be unafraid to speak out about global issues that directly and indirectly impact Canada which, as the world’s most diverse country, can and should serve as a model for how the world can succeed together.

But what is the example that Canada sets?  Who are we, what do we stand for, what do we bring to the table?  We aren’t going to compete militarily with the US, let alone China.  Yes, we have natural resources, but so do many places, and Africa is going to be the big playing field tomorrow – not us, unless it’s over food security and fresh water.

Canada should exemplify the best of what the world has to offer – in terms of a diverse economic base, a rich culture that blends and builds on our rich multiculturalism and focuses on developing win-win scenarios for all nations.  In one phrase – strength through diversity.

Today, more than ever, Canada needs a leader with vision - one who isn't trying to be a small fish in a big pond, but who will serve as as a river to their people.

Don't Let It Happen Again

This picture jumped out at me from this morning's Toronto Star, sending a shiver up my spine.  Perhaps not the context, but the image itself struck an uncomfortable cord.  Then I dug around and came across this.

As economic tensions rise because there are those within the system who refuse to engage in a conscious, respectful manner, the list of groups and individuals feeling disenfranchised grows longer.  Tolerance is on the decline, with antagonism and isolationism increasing all around the world.  The Western World is far from immune. 

We cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of anger and intolerance again.  Why?

Because there are no bad people; only ignorance and fear keeps us from meeting our full potential, as one richly diverse global population.  Because the world is too small.  Because the consequences are so dire.  Most importantly, it's because conflict is so inefficient.

I still believe things are going to get worse before they get better; that we are once again going to have to skirt perilously close to the unfathomable before we regain our sense and remember the simple logic;

We can live together, or we can die alone.

Response to Comments on Tammy Hart and Diversity

As a woman in poliltics, Tammy Hart should be proud of what she's done.  There was a time where women were far more marginalized in society than they are today (though we still have a long way to go).  It would be nice to see her equally support other groups in her community that have been marginalized.

My response to a letter by James' Borer about Tammy's position against support the French community, below. 

It is nice to hear that Tammy is making the time to learn French!   As she makes progress, she’s going to find that speaking a second language in no way threatens her original tongue.  It’s the same thing with New Canadians; an influx of new ideas and new traditions doesn’t diminish what came before, but enhances the mix.  Call it social genetics.

While there’s some value in representing the fears of one’s community, politicians have an obligation to balance those concerns with building the local tools needed for success in the future.  That’s why I’m glad to see Jim Brownell’s name raised here, as this is something he was a champion of.

During his time as MPP, Jim Brownell was challenged to support an important cause on behalf of a minority of Canadians – the deaf and hard of hearing – by James Borer (I know this because I was Jim’s Executive Assistant at the time).  Thanks to James’ work and Jim’s commitment, Ontario now funds cochlear implants for both ears deaf kids in Ontario, as well as providing support services.

Now, this is all at the taxpayer’s cost.  You and I, whether we’re deaf or not, are helping deaf kids to hear.  This assistance allows for kids who would otherwise exist at the margins of society to be teachers, athletes, fully-contributing members of our society.  Watch this video to see what a powerful difference your tax dollars are making: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdz1WAtEuQ.   

As traditional manufacturing jobs leave for emerging economies like Brazil and China; places who don’t accommodate their citizens (to growing civil unrest) and the Stephen Harper government is focusing on other parts of the country to be our economic drivers, it’s up to local politicians to think big and find new ways to strengthen our communities. 

Tammy’s view of keeping diversity at bay, reducing centralized government and focusing on owning land over developing skills is not the answer.  What good is it to have no French in your community, no support for New Canadians, own a big plot of land but have to fly to Alberta every week for work?

SDSG’s growing level of diversity is what will give it an edge, if politicians like Tammy can think outside their traditional box and seize the opportunities of the emerging Knowledge Economy.  There are huge markets out there in the world that speak French.  What opportunities are they looking for?  What online services can we develop and sell to them?  Beyond that, what other emerging global opportunities can solutions be designed for right in the United Counties?

As Tammy really drills down into French, she’ll find herself blessed with not only a new way of expressing herself, but an additional world view.  This is a powerful tool to have.  Diversity, as evolution shows us, is what will keep us moving forward.

Don’t Panic: Diversity Is Good For You

“I beg of you not to do this to my daughter… and not to do this to Ontario’s children.”

Charles McVety speaking out against Gay-Straight Alliances in Ontario schools

“Whether you believe deafness to be a disability or not, Deaf cultures and communities are part of Ontario’s cultural diversity.  Thus, Ontario government has no business favoring the Hearing world over them.”

M Jordan expressing his fear of “deaf genocide”

We’ve got leaders railing against the perceived threats from foreign students and foreign workers.  In Quebec, there are language laws to protect and maintain the authenticity of an evolved dialect of Latin.  In other parts of Canada, there are staunch opponents to national bilingualism, despite the evidence suggesting that knowing more languages provides greater opportunity and can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s.

To me, these are all variations on the position of not wanting a daughter because 1) she can’t carry on a family line and b) she’s going to be taken away from you.  They imply a fear of loss, of subjugation, of losing out to another.

They are all instinctual, reactive positions.  They might feel right, but they aren’t based in fact.

Having a son-in-law is not detraction; it’s an addition, a linking of families, a provision of new opportunities for partnership, expansion and growth.  Plus, if there are grandkids, your genes get carried on anyway.

Learning more languages doesn’t steal from the richness of mother tongues – it adds to one’s capacity to think in different ways, come up with better solutions and develop competitive advantages.  In a global economy, who doesn’t want multilingual employees?

Deafness is a condition of biology that getting cochlear implants doesn’t change, only accomodates.  Having assistive technology enhances your ability and can actually facilitate cognitive development (plus, you can still turn them off when you want silence).  There aren’t separate “deaf” and “aural” worlds – there’s just one world.  The only question is how much access to it do you have?

Foreigners are the embodiment of diversity – you can feel they threaten your genetic/culture superiority, but what they really do is challenge your stagnancy.  We’re all about innovation, right?  Infinite diversity allows for infinite combinations.  We want more diversity, not less.

Gay isn’t a contagion.  Hearing about or even seeing gays kissing doesn’t impose any physical “risk” or “contagion” (even if you feel that it does).  For that matter, science isn’t a threat to religion any more than religion as a concept is inherently an impediment to science.

We all inhabit this small planet.  We all breathe the same air.  We all cherish our children’s future.

And we can only move forward when we do it together.

Diversity on Trial

In the past three and a half years, the federal government has appointed 100 new judges in provinces across the country – and 98 of them were white.

“I think as a Caucasian I have an advantage.”

   - Ron Leech, Wildrose Candidate for Calgary Greenway

In his book Blood and Belonging, Michael Ignatieff discusses how easy it is for brothers and sisters to start viewing each other as opponents, given the right external stresses.  As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, I know too well how right he is.

The conditions that breed intolerance – economic tension, contentious issues about resource use and of course, a shift in demographic trends – are upon us here in Canada. 

We’re also at a crossroads in the way we plan our society, a challenge unlike any we have faced since Confederation.  As a people, Canadians need to decide what the future is going to look like and how we’re going to get there.  We won’t get there at all if we refuse to acknowledge there is a broader “us” that extends beyond ethnicity, beyond provincial boundaries, beyond faith or political perspective.

The problem is that in our darkest hearts, we’re all bigots.  We have models of understanding that we are comfortable with; we automatically challenge that which is seen to threaten our models and most often ignore those things which we don’t see as having an impact.

Poverty is one of these.  We can decry poverty verbally, but how many of us donate to charitable causes to alleviate poverty?  What of disabilities?  I was at a major conference on Monday with some of Ontario’s brightest minds; despite the cutting edge use of social media technology, nobody thought about accommodating the fellow who was hard-of-hearing in the room with little things like subtitles on videos.  Nobody even thought to ask, “is there something we’re missing?”

Ethnic diversity is another.  When we keep an "us and them" frame in place, the "them" is either a threat to the "us" or not relevant and therefore get no consideration at all.  Women's rights, Civil Rights, Labour Rights are all examples of "didn't think of that" models that held society back until break souls pushed themselves from irrelevant to threat to eventually, integrated.  Mental health is another huge barrier we need to be breaking down to achieve a Knowledge Economy.

The Wildrose folk don’t see themselves as bigots – bigots never do.  They see themselves as understanding the world as it is and probably wonder how the rest of us are missing it.  These folk are living in Plato’s Cave.  The same is true of Team Harper when they focus on natural resources and think they’ve found “the fix” or even in Liberals and NDPers when they figure Conservatives are out to lunch.

Nobody has access to the whole social puzzle.  We all get a little comfortable with our own piece and don’t realize that, if we put those pieces together, we can put together this bigger picture of a United Canada.

We do live in a society where white people, attractive people, connected people have an advantage.  It’s not fair, but it’s reality.  The problem is, when we focus on the status quo of advantage, we miss the latent opportunities in disadvantage.  How many innovations were developed through trying to solve someone else’s problems?  The telephone is just one example.

The more close-minded  we get, as a society (and I do put extra emphasis on the firewall crowd when I talk about limited thinking) the more emerging problems – and emerging solutions – we miss.  We have to think outside of the box if we’re to get through today’s challenges.

I’m confident we will.  We just need to start being conscious in doing so.

My Idea of Canada

Today, under a glorious sun and with a fresh breeze blowing, I took a walk through the main campus of U of T.  The old, elegant stone buildings had a faintly musty smell that carried on the wind.  History brushed against each sense in turn.

The campus itself was alive, vibrant with students basking in the warm sun, tossing a ball, heading to or from class or quietly reading a book in the shade of an ancient tree.  A couple pairs of professors sat on benches, dissecting world events.  There were more than a few parents accompanying March Break Uni tour kids, eyes wide with trepidation or excitement about what the future holds for them - which is probably a bit of both.

There were youth in short shirts, tank tops or no tops,  taking the first chance to bare skin in months.  There were fashion statements galore - prep, Emo, indie, worldly.  I saw a girl in hejab riding a skate board and one fellow in formal wear.  I noticed the variety of appearance, first - the diversity of ethnicity came next.  The crowd was a rich mix of lineages; East Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, First Nation, African, even a few folk of decidedly Northern European descent.

What a wonderful thing it is, I thought to myself, to be able to walk around a place of learning, the shore where new ideas lap at established wisdom, freely.  What a gift to be surrounded by so much diversity and find it encouraging, not threatening.

To me, that's Canada.

I was downtown to see a friend in hospital.  The friend is a University student; it was thinking about her that led me to walk the campus.  This friend had been struck suddenly, frighteningly by an illness the doctors were still trying to decipher.

My friend was lucky to live in this country, and especially lucky to live in a city with so many hospitals.  I shudder to think what could have happened if she'd lived somewhere without an established, public health care system.   More than that, the open communication between our hospitals and professionals across the system means there is a good chance that, if her illness has been dealt with elsewhere, that knowledge will make its way to her doctors.  This friend takes comfort in knowing that her academic year is not automatically in jeopardy.  I take comfort in knowing her life is in good hands.  We have a system, and people in that system, who understand that sometimes, things like this happen.  The goal is to accommodate success, not punish misfortune.

That's my Canada, too.

During a recent election campaign, I managed a GOTV team on E-Day that consisted entirely of New Canadians from India.  I thought it fantastic that, even before they had wrapped their heads around a whole new culture and world view, these young men were excited to participate in our democracy.

One of our poll clerks was of African extraction.  It was the first real black person my team had the opportunity to interact with.  One of these fellows, a young Sikh with a turban and beard, bravely told me he felt uncomfortable dealing with the black man.  My advice was this: don't ever let fear define you.  Fear closes doors, cuts off opportunities.  I reminded this gent that he, too, looked different from others around him.  When you get down to it, we all do - the questions is whether we focus on those differences, or instead appreciate our basic human similarities.

He took the poll and ended up having some great chats with the clerk, breaking down a barrier and opening up a new opportunity to understand.  In so doing, my Sikh friend embraced the best that Canada has to offer.

Yesterday, I had the privilege to chat with Justin Trudeau; he'd just given a speech on an idea we enthusiastically share - the idea of Canada.  The same day, I had a brief message from Federal Minister Tony Clement, thanking me for sharing an idea on staff transition strategies with him.  How many places in the world can an average citizen freely engage with not just politicians, but politicians from opposing Parties?

   - Life-long learning, available to everyone.

   - Strength through diversity.

   - Universal health care that’s there when you need it.

   - An unwavering commitment to overcome differences and share opportunities.

   - Accessible, transparent, collaborative governance.

That’s what Canada means to me.

Trainingpedia: The Future of Life-Long Learning

Skills are important to national economic growth — and Canada does not fare well in international skills comparisons. A comprehensive skills strategy to raise Canadian students' and workers’ literacy and numeracy would help.

C.D. Howe Institute

The nature of labour demand is changing.  As traditional manufacturing jobs gravitate towards emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil, countries like Canada are being forced to diversify their options. 

Despite this global trend, the Harper government thinks it has found the golden goose in the natural resources sector; they seem determined to put all of our economic eggs in that one basket, particularly Alberta’s Tar Sands.  There are multiple reasons why this is a short-sighted approach.

While there will always be a need for natural resources, there are huge risks and lost opportunities in focusing solely on the resource export market.  Plus, as the Knowledge Economy starts to kick in to high gear, there will be an increased demand for highly trained labour that has the capacity to innovate.  Raw materials, yes, but it’s product, process and new markets that industry is focusing on now.

Labour Pains

Despite the strong evidence that Canada needs more training (and not just up-front training, but life-long learning), we are actually facing a national training deficit.  We are also failing to harness the full potential of new Canadians, immigrants bringing a wealth of knowledge and experience (but not Canadian experience) to our country.  Ontario is starting to tackle this problem head-on, but is there a broader opportunity here to reduce Canada’s training poverty and employ some of the new raw talent coming to our country to do so?

A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing

Human capital formation, through education, training and skills development, is recognized as a primary determinant of worker productivity and earnings as well as firm productivity – and, therefore, broader economic growth.

 Here’s the reality – Canada’s economic performance has fallen behind many of our major competitors.  Between 2000 and 2005, for example, the rate of Canada’s productivity growth was only 25% that of our major trading partner, the US.  One of the major reasons for this is a lack of investment in skills upgrades and training on the part of Canadian firms.

Statistics Canada tells us that “investment in human capital, that is, in education and skills training, is three times as important to economic growth as investment in physical capital, such as machinery and equipment.  This implies that investments in raising the average level of skill could yield large economic returns.”

So – if we’re falling behind and there’s a correlation between this trend and training levels, why aren’t we training more?

It all comes down to the way we look at work and how we understand motivation.  Unfortunately, our views on labour have not kept pace with the changes in technology and the solidification of the global economy; until recently, they haven’t needed to.  Businesses are still largely understood through the industrial, vertically integrated top-down model; employers give money and resource access to employees, who are then responsible for turning a profit for their employers.  Training is an initial investment in labour – not a continuing one.  Once training is given, it’s up to the employees to deliver; they are incented to do so through the carrot and stick approach.

What we aren’t noticing is that the carrot-and-stick approach informs the actions of employers, too.  Training, benefits programs, etc. are seen through the lens of direct cost/benefit analysis rather than the aggregate impact on business.    As there hasn’t been much research clearly demonstrating value for money, training programs haven’t been seen as a particularly useful investment.

This is particularly true for small business owners.  For them, the negatives associated with training seem to outweigh the positives:

-          Training employees can make them more attractive to better-resourced competitors; you could very well be serving as a grooming school for other businesses.

-          Training costs money; it also takes your staff away from productive time which is, of course, where your profit comes from.

-          Employees are employees, not partners; if they are bringing in new methodologies and ideas and push for their implementation, it’s more hassle than the training is worth.

It’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons; a bigger investment would have a greater pay-off, if everyone did it.  Insufficient positive motivation makes it harder to get excited.  The stress of managing a business and the urge to be firmly in the driver’s street of one’s own enterprise leads to a focus on keeping staff in line rather than supporting them.  Salaries are seen as expenses rather than investments; lower pay equals higher profits.  The sad thing is, the reality is the exact opposite of this – employers who pay less see higher turnover and face higher costs of credit. 

If It Ain’t Broke…     

You can’t find the best solution if you haven’t identified the correct problem.  In the case of labour, the problem we have identified is motivation – managers are constantly struggling to find new ways to get employees to do their work better, more efficiently, more creatively.  Some training gets thrown at them, but to a large degree we rely on the traditional tools of the trade:

-          bonuses, promotions, project control

-          disciplinary measures, demotions, firing

In short, we employ carrots and sticks to get workers to do what we want them to.  This more-or-less worked in the past for repetitive tasks, manual labour, etc.  For the kinds of labour we rely on in the Knowledge Economy, though, the traditional approaches can actually be detrimental.   We’re solving the wrong problem.

When we make work about something gained or something lost, we disengage people from the process of work itself.  It becomes about the reward, not the procedure; according to Occam’s Razor, people will find the easiest and quickest way to achieve their goal.  The fastest, most aggressive solutions aren’t necessarily the wisest.  The ends don’t always justify the means.  Plus, when people don’t enjoy their jobs, you don’t get their best work.  They’re also more likely to face health problems. 

This is exactly the wrong approach for nurturing the creative, out-of-the-box solutions that will define success in the Knowledge Economy.

Life is a Journey, Not a Destination

Creativity, be it in problem-solving or innovation, is not a fixed process.  While structure certainly helps channel the cognitive process, too much overt control and exerted pressure stifles it.  This point cannot be overstated; all the traditional tools in an employer’s box to make a sale, close a deal or complete a project are counterproductive to the process of innovation.  The goal of the employer in the Knowledge Economy isn’t to tighten an employee’s focus on a destination, but make sure they take in the sights along the way. 

Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty, has suggested “it doesn’t matter where you come from, but what you find along the way.”  He was referring to the diversity of Ontario’s population, but the same holds equally true for ideas.

This, then, is where we come back to training.  We need to re-brand training not as a product or a piece of paper to hang on a wall, but as a process – an ongoing process that the best employers will nurture and the best tools will facilitate.

Given the challenges employers face in justifying the skills upgrades mentioned above, how are we to convince them that such training is a worthwhile expense?  Once again, we’re identifying the wrong problem; the solution isn’t to carrot-and-stick employers into paying for training, but to build value into the process of creating and harnessing training opportunities.  The way to do this is to make training free and collaborative.

Taking Training Online

No, I’m not talking about throwing limitless sums at publicly funded post-secondary education, nor publicly-funded upgrade courses.  There’s no need for this – all the resources one could possible want, ranging from sales techniques to the latest innovations in clean energy technology to best practices in office configuration are all available online already – the trick is to coordinate these resources into an easily-accessible, open-source platform that everyone can invest in and receive benefit from.

What I envision is a new hybrid online framework that combines the best elements of existing resources like Wikipedia and Charity Village with the simple, aesthetic veneer of an Apple product.

This system (we’ll call it Trainingpedia for now, but feel free to suggest cooler names in the comments section below) would exist like a three-dimensional map online; a legend would give a user access to sub-strata more relevant to their niche area (a field of study, communications best practices, even tips on managing the work/life balance).  A search engine would help bring users directly to the topics they wanted, but with side-bar links on related material.  The whole site would be designed, like a map, to encourage exploration and, like Wikipedia, for contribution.  It could even be multi-lingual, as Wikipedia is and include a translation function.

Picture the resource power of every single employer and employee with access to a computer wired into one system.  As has been proven the case through the Wikipedia example, a broadly crowd-sourced engine like this would produce accurate, beta-tested and rapidly-updated best practices, new insights and opinions; all the benefits of paid training without the hassle of paying for it.  Think what this could do for market research.

Yes, there’s a risk that a Trainingpedia site could become an aggregate for complaints; that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  Complaints would become one section of a larger digital geography; if there was more content that was positive and engaging, it would get the focus.

For employers to truly gain the individual benefits of such a system, they would have to build in “research time” into the schedules of their employees.   Considering how many people spend part of their work day trolling the internet anyway, doing so in an encouraged fashion wouldn’t impede productivity, but increase innovation potential.

Would a Trainingpedia site take business (and profit) away from training service providers? 

This is why ardent pro-Capitalists should love the Trainingpedia model – it has creative destruction written all over it.  As generalized training services, best practices, peer-support groups, etc. get formed online, companies that get paid for training services or products will have to think outside the box, finding targeted, boutique and specialized services to sell.  Having access to Trainingpedia will make this a much easier job for them; they can even advertise themselves there by posting videos like Hill & Knowlton’s Billy Wants a Dog or contribute to various entries, like LinkedIn group discussions.  Yes, their for-sale product will eventually end up in the free system, but that’s fine; these firms will be in a continuous process of exploring new training, educating and employee-support options to offer.  Remember, it’s product, process and new markets that business is going to be looking for.

Innovative firms can even advertise competitions for new ideas and processes, imitating the success of GoldCorp.

Moving Forward Together

The traditional model of society (competing for the best grade, the highest salary, the corner office) may have gotten us this far, but to succeed in the Knowledge Economy, we need something a bit more.  Motivation must now come from within – not without.  It’s through feeling inspired by what others are doing or pieces we pick up along the way that we will come to challenge ourselves to do better.

 Success in the Knowledge Economy, then, is like building a taller pyramid; the more effort we put in collaboratively at the base, the higher we’ll all be able to reach.