The Return of Don Drummond

"You need to look at what public services you want to deliver then what's the most efficient way of providing them," economist Don Drummond said in an interview with Tom Clark on The West Block.  "You don't arbitrarily constrain a certain outcome."

Drummond's not the only one who's suggested that clear-cutting the public service isn't the best way to nurture sustainable growth and efficient service delivery.

The Mowat Centre took a hard look at structural failings within the public sector and offered suggestions on how to fix them.

Through his Open By Default report on Open Government, Don Lenihan did the same thing.

The truth is that we have a oxymoronic silo-based system riddled with duplication, gaps, overlaps where title, process, position and information hoarding takes precedence over efficiency or results. Mid-managers are downloading the innovation imperative to staff, expecting them to include metrics on how they're going to think outside the box in their self-written performance reviews.

Clearly, they haven't heard of the candle problem.  You can't pressure people into being innovative. You can't force innovation through competition.  

Worse, a complete lack of communication flow leaves our public servants in the daily equivalent of shoveling water - they don't know what they're doing, why they're doing it or what result it's expected to have.

It should come as no surprise how heavily medicated our OPS is, but doing anything about that would mean a whole lotta culture change and a great number of entitled folk recognizing they're part of the problem.  

That's not gonna happen overnight, but it won't happen at all until someone takes ownership of the problem.  That ownership doesn't necessarily have to come from government.

But he pointed to an example of a recommendation ignored: restructure business subsidies.

There is plenty of money out there.  More than this, there's as ridiculous an amount of inefficiency in the private sector as their is in the public sector (we won't even get started on the NFP sector).  Like lighting a fire when all you want is light, a great deal of energy is being wasted to create new wealth without sufficient effort being spent on internal management.

This is particularly true where it comes to HR.  

Precious little time is spent on the "onboarding" process and few employers have the slightest grasp of environmental/work design impact on productivity, presenteeism, innovation and customer experience.  They just want things to work, damn it, without having to put thought into how to get the results they want.

Fortunately, there are best practices out there - people and organizations in the private sector that are adapting to the Knowledge Economy by improving how they do HR, how they consult and how they engage with their clients and the community at large.

Just imagine if there was a coalition of the willing that banded together and told government "we want to partner with you on these big, structural solutions - but we want your help, and we want to see you setting the example.

How likely is this to happen?  Not overly, but you might be surprised how many willing parties there are already.

It's a good kind of problem to work on, and to gain brand from being part of.

Just ask Don Drummond.

CSR: Compensating Public CEOs

 

These popular misconceptions and biases have left the sector exposed to sweeping discriminations and prejudice in both the policy domain and public perception. For example, in 2009 Bill C-470 was introduced to Parliament “to revoke the registration of a charitable organization … if the annual compensation it pays to any single executive or employee exceeds $250,000.”

This is the wrong approach, based on the wrong perceptions.  That in itself isn't surprising (after all, we live in a country where Ministers of the Crown don't even know who they're accountable to) but it does mean lost opportunities.

 

By and large, the people who go for and get these Public CEO/senior whatever positions aren't in it for the money.  You can make more in the Private Sector with less scrutiny.

 

For the most part, these folks aren't in it for the money - like Don Drummond, it's legacy they're after.

 

Which is why we need to think outside the box on this and not jump to uninformed, emotionally satisfying and populist conclusions. 

 

Yes, public sector CEO positions need to have robust base salaries, but these don't need to be competitive with the Private Sector north of $400,000 or whatever.  The trick is to add value to the position beyond salary.

 

Part of the package offering can be a fixed sum of "angel investor" money that these CEOs can give to causes or charities that maybe have to apply for "organization of record" and meet a certain sniff test that ensures it's not benefiting the CEO or co-dependent in any way. 

 

Or, the bureaucracy could co-source a series of internal "fixes" that CEOs could invest in or take on as personal projects in much the same way as Toronto Community Housing sources projects from among their residents to dedicate a bit of annual funding to.  Think training sessions for staff, cultural competency programming, youth internship opportunities, maybe software upgrades.

 

It could be a matter of CEOs identifying a cause or community as part of their hiring process that gets their above-salary money - say a certain CEO had a passion for development projects among a priority neighborhood or a Firs Nations reserve.

 

Of course you'd need some carefully defined parameters on how this would work - those parameters could be co-designed with the CEOs themselves and with public input.  That's how Open Government and Open Data are supposed to work, anyway.

 

Are there challenges and challenges to innovating a new model?  Of course there are - but less, I guarantee, than there are in our current configuration.  The point is we aren't limited to wages as carrots for talented executives.  In fact, the best ones get more excited about what they can leave behind than what they can take away.

And the public would be a lot more forgiving if they understood that the intent is to ultimately benefit all of us.

 

We are social creatures, after all.

 

Committing Sociology vs Social Pruning: Liberal Vs Conservative Governments

“I don’t understand why you would allow yourself to lose the public and media relations battle when you’ve actually done quite a bit of it,” he said in an interview.

 

“I don’t think they’re doing that bad a job, but everybody else seems to think they’re doing a really bad job, and I’m not sure that’s true.”

 That's a professional economist who has actually made a living as an economist speaking.

Then, there's this from the federal level:

 

The federal government cannot account for billions of dollars that were devoted to combating terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks, Canada’s Auditor-General says in a new report.

 

Stephen Harper, the Economist Prime Minister, can't account for 3 billion dollars of taxpayer funds.  If I hire an economist to help me sort out my finances, I would kind of expect them to look backwards, forwards, under every rock and around every corner to make sure we have a good understanding of where we're at so we can figure out where we can go.

 

The Harper government hasn't done that.  What they have done, conversely, is spend huge sums on Canada's Economic Action Plan ads, muzzled dissenting opinion and attacked opponents.

 

Which is exactly what Mike Harris did when he was Premier.  They threatened and bullied opponents and spent heavily on advertising to promote the message they wanted people to hear.

 

Oddly enough, whenever Liberal governments start to focus on message over substance, that's when they start to go astray on program management, too.  Conversely, when they focus on policy implementation instead of dedicating oodles of their time to brand-building, they get whacked for it.  The more they get whacked, the more energy they need to divert from accomplishment to branding.

 

The reason why this happens is simple, but not sound-bite simple, which is probably why no one pays attention to it.

 

People rationally understand we need complex, collaborative solutions to our complex, collaborative social problems but emotionally, we respond more strongly to symbolism; messaging, branding, chest-thumping.

 

That's because we're reactive animals first, logical humans second. 

 

Aggressive, hard "C" Conservative governments function like lions on the savanna - they spend as little energy as possible on doing anything other than looking magnificent and smacking down opponents.  They aren't interested in making a system work or supporting the nation - their sole focus is on dominance.  Be it Stephen Harper or Rob Ford, the style of governance creeps ever further towards feudalism, with the King providing both judgement and direction in the absence of research, evidence or a cross-section of public opinion.

So, Harper's Canada has stifled debate, issues personal attacks on opponent after opponent, tried to threaten foreign scientists over data release and walked away from any international conversation they don't feel they can be top dog at.  Control is increasingly isolated at the top and starved of exposure to the realities of the people being governed.

 

Cynical Harper operatives pat themselves on the back for cleverly "starving the beast" by cutting off StatsCan, CIDA, national healthcare planning, etc. at the knees, thinking they've pulled a fast one on the Socialists and Separatists and irrevocably made Canada more conservative.  The actual result is that our national brand is diminishing and public confidence that government knows what it's doing is decreasing.

The solution to this, of course, is more dehumanization of opponents and more pumping of self, extending the peacock's tail a little further.  This increased focus on appearance and marketing will come at the expense of more government programming, which will result in more embarrassing slip-ups.  The Tories are painting themselves in to a corner and hastening the demise of their emperor's cloak of a Canadian conservative movement.

The pendulum will swing back and a more liberal government will take the reigns, start re-opening conversations and start rebuilding the infrastructure necessary for a complex system like a country to function.  If it doesn't happen through the electoral process, there are groups like Anonymous who will eventually make sure it happens regardless.  Post defeat, it won't take long for the Political Right to start their process all over again, focusing on self-promotion and oppositional attacks, egging progressives to respond in kind.  If and when the progressives do, they'll become more partisan, less focused on the system and start emulating the same damned mistakes that do in every Party.

 

Competition is the natural state of play - it's as true for human beings as it is for any other animal.  Competition is resource-intensive and isolationist; you work against, not with.  Progress, however, comes through collaborative efforts, planning and dialogue.  Humans are a progressive species, which is why we're not running from lions on the Savannah plain any more. 

 

Society is the result of progress, not competition.  Competition is more about branding and appearance than it is about substance.  If you doubt that, explain to me why fashion remains such a lucrative industry and why the more money people have, the more gets spent on image.  At its extremes us-vs-them competition chips away at society; wars destroy infrastructure and kill children.  We do these harmful, wasteful things because when we're reacting, we're not thinking. 

 

Progress trains children to innovate and build infrastructure.  You simply can't think ahead if you're always focused on fight or flight.

 

In a social context, the value that Hard Right Conservatives provide is again, a natural one - they act like brushfire, clearing away outdated and tangled infrastructure to make way for new growth.  Or you can call it synaptic pruning - it amounts to the same thing.

 

We're in the "clear space for new connections" part of the social cycle now, though there's a growing trend towards committing sociology.  If we took the time to understand why we react the way we do, we could accomplish this transition without the associated pain and frustration - but that takes a level of foresight we simply don't have at the moment.

 

But we're getting there.

Tear Down the Silos in Health Care

  

She said the report’s “balanced approach” addresses more than simply medical issues and takes steps towards better co-operation between agencies.

Sidsworth said social agencies, including those addressing mental health, domestic violence and addictions, tend to “work in silos” without enough interaction.

 - The Belleville Intelligencer

What we need is a broad revamping of the system that makes the parts work better together, so that the whole is greater than — or at the very least equal to — the sum of the parts.

   - The Drummond Report

Everyone, every health service provider, teacher, politician and stakeholder I have spoken to wants the same thing – an integrated system that fully serves the needs of Ontarians.  This isn’t a pipe dream; in fact, it’s completely realizable based on the tools we have available, right now.  The only piece that’s missing is our willingness to give a bit of control to support something larger than ourselves.

It’s time to break down the silos in our social service system, especially in health care.  As a society, we simply can no longer afford not to.

UPDATE: We have deficient diagnosis of special needs in our schools; these are people who the suffer a great risk of falling through the cracks of society, producing less, consuming more costly back-end health services and potentially ending tangled up with the justice system.  Our police and corrections officers are not equipped to deal with mental illness, because the how to has never been seen as important enough to rate significant comprehension and training. 

So, we are reminded of the atrocities still happening in our correctional institutions that are caused by a lack of coordination, training and support. You have upset teachers and disgruntled doctors each saying all they want is the ability to provide the best service to their patients/students and cries from all levels for systematic, structural change to the way services are organized and collaborated on.

What we need now is leadership.  We need someone who's willing to take the risk of putting the Public Good before personal interest, be it politics, profit or power.  None of those things matter when our silo-based institutions are cracking from the internal pressure of their own inefficiency.

Everyone keeps telling me there is only one way forward - if we believe that, it's time to start working together.

Conscious Capitalism – The Future of Business

“He says, for business – especially sectors that rely on the earth’s resources – it’s actually more cost effective in the long run to participate in some sort of sustainability program.  Companies are realizing that too.”

     -  Megan McIver, President of Verona Communications

The traditional tick list of salary, career development and employer reputation still matters. But of equal importance are the employer's core values, the degree to which those are lived on a daily basis, and the level of commitment to, and investment in, the relevant communities and other stakeholders.

     -  Rob Wilson, The Guardian

In the days of yore, people envied and sought to imitate those with land.  Owning property was seen as the social status symbol.  Having land meant possessing resources, which allowed the owner to attract mates and support large numbers of offspring.  As more people lived closer together (either on their own property, or someone else’s) the opportunity for individual gain through owning a specialized skill set or the means to employ it became the driver of social status.  Wealth became less immutable stuff and more liquid capital.  Personal legacy – the Horatio Alger myth of rags to riches – became the desired brand. 

Now, people live in a complex, multi-level web of social engagements both in person and online.  Everything we do has the potential to be scrutinized.  As the Kings of 20^th Century Capitalism adjust to the reality that might doesn’t make right and there are troubles you simply can't ignore or buy your way out of, they are turning to a new generation of entrepreneurs, weaned on a Facebook culture of connectivity and accountability, to navigate this new social reality.  How do we leverage opportunity in a hyper-integrated global economy?  How do we tread the path between personal success and a growing social accountability?

What these entrepreneurs – people like Megan McIver, people like the Centre for Social Innovation’s Tonya Surman and everyone engaged in CSI – get is that this social accountability works both ways.  You will get caught, period, when you do something wrong, but you will be equally recognized when you do something right.  That recognition builds legacy, builds your brand and also leaves you with a stronger, personal sense of fulfillment.

Anyone whose business it is to make money should pay attention.  The social entrepreneur movement isn’t a passing phase - it’s the future of industry. 

Anyone in the business of making policy should equally pay attention – the solutions for today’s myriad of networked challenges won’t come from those pursuing narrow, partisan interests, but from those Conscious Capitalists looking to leave behind a legacy of a better tomorrow.

Welcome to the 21^st Century; welcome to the Conscious Society.

The Concious Society: Something Beginning

It’s the other half of the challenge — building the momentum to move from talk to action — that excites him and keeps him awake at nights. “We have to demonstrate to everyone that Canadians care about this issue and want fundamental change.” Kirby said. “We have to get them to tell decision-makers: It’s time. Let’s do it.”

- Senator Michael Kirby

We can perhaps shoot for a grander goal — a province that provides the best public services, delivered in the most efficient manner, in the world. If this sounds impossibly ambitious, put the question another way: Why not? We goad our business sector to win new customers globally in the face of stiff competition. Why not apply the same standards to our government? Why not give our public servants an objective that can turn the task of transformation — which will at times be a very tough slog — into a project that becomes a source of real pride?

 - Don Drummond

It was the music

Of something beginning,

An era exploding,

A century spinning

In riches and rags

And in rhythm and rhyme."

 - Ragtime

I am an optimistic person.  I'm by no means the only one.  The evidence, the historical trends, the challenges we face today and the only possible solutions to them are mounting, converging, crystallizing.  People are slowly finding that the answers they are looking for lie with each other.  Like a snake shedding it's skin, we just need to shrug off the constraining parts of our outdated systems to allow for the realization of our full, collective potential.

We need to look at our minds as part of our bodies; we do ourselves too much harm and deny each other too much opportunity not to.  That means revisiting some key notions we have about ourselves and our society:

There are no stupid, bad, useless people - there's only the conversation and how much effort we're willing to put into understanding and being understood.

Motivating creativity and collaboration isn't about carrots and sticks - the models we rely on are proven-ineffective for inspiring the kind of behaviours our economy needs today.

Mental health and mental fitness; innovation and productivity; health care costs, service silos, workplace wellness, quality of life, bitter and short-term policy vs more thoughtful, balanced approaches, interpersonal and international relations.

They are all connected. 

People from all sectors are feeling their piece of the elephant, blindly, slowly working there way towards the centre where collectively, they'll realize they've been exploring different facets of the same animal all along.

That animal is us - we are all part of the same, complex, beautiful human social organism.

We can only move forward when we leave no one behind.

Good On Lisa Raitt: Addressing Occupational Mental Health and Safety

"Too often people just suffer in silence. As Minister of Labour, I'm looking at a range of policy and program options to better address mental health challenges in the workplace."

  - Lisa Raitt, Canada's Minister of Labour

It's happening.  Slowly, agonizingly so, but as the idea of cognitive labour and mental fitness starts to gain hold, it's gaining momentum.

I have predicted elsewhere that a broad-based move towards mental fitness promotion, particularly as it relates to work and work performance, is on its way.  It has to be; the nature of labour (not to mention society) is shifting from repetitive, physical and quantity-based to creative, cognitive and innovation-based.  Just as work design at the end of the 19th Century impeded production by fostering sickness and injury, today's work design and motivational tools actually impede the type of production the market is looking for.  We need a proactive mental fitness strategy if we're to keep moving forward.

The Industrial Revolution fostered the labour movement, which in turn sparked the introduction of workplace health and safety and benefits like health care and sick leave.  It was good business, but it also had the advantage of improving productivity and employee satisfaction.  The Knowledge Economy similarly relies on cognitive function in new, demanding ways - to help people realize their full potential (providing greater returns for their employers), we have to start accommodating mental health.  There's a reason why we have a recognized mental health crisis now, when cognitive labour is in demand.

There's only one way forward and that's to break down the stigmatic silos around mental health, which in turn means re-evaluating the way we understand what the mind is and how our biology, environments and accommodations impact mental health/cognitive function.  It will be a challenging process that will make many feel uncomfortable, but it's the right thing to do from a policy, performance and moral perspective.

This goes beyond personal interest, beyond partisan interest, beyond mandate and even the limitations of ability we set for ourselves to this notion of something called the public good.

Lisa Raitt sums it up nicely: "Let's think beyond duty. Each and every one of us has a role to play in creating workplaces where diversity and special needs are accommodated and respected."

Kudos to people like Lisa Raitt, but also Don Drummond, Michael Kirby, Kevin Flynn, Christine Elliot, Gerrard Kennedy and the countless people who work and live with mental health challenges every day. 

Let's move forward together; more importantly, let's make sure we leave no one behind.

Am I hopeful?  Certainly - but that's because I understand the way cognition produces hope.

We're finally connecting the dots between stigma, mental health, health care, social growth, diversity, education, service delivery and innovation.  It's a good time to be alive.

UPDATE:  It should come as no surprise that Lisa Raitt has personal experience with mental illness.  This isn't an ooh-ahh, we must look at her differently thing; if she had diabetes, or developed cancer, or caught a cold, we wouldn't stigmatize her.  Nor should we now.

Sidebar - there's a funny thing where people advocate for causes that they know - I sit on the Board of Directors for an organization that helps children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and the vast majority of my co-Board Members have deaf family members.  As mental health/mental fitness becomes more normalized, I think we're going to see an increase in proactive advocacy, which is how it should be.

Moving Forward: The Ontario 2012 Budget

"Delivered across dozens of ministries, the current programs are unnecessarily complicated and confusing, the government acknowledged, saying it’s working toward a “one-stop shop” approach for both employers and job seekers."

My arm is still on the mend after I was run into by a car, so I can't give you a lengthy version of my take on the Budget or how we can move forward (together, btw).

The quote above neatly sums it up, however, along with these previous posts:

  - Create digital platforms that make service tracking and access dirt simple.

  - Reduce the silos in the public service sector - feudalism died out politically for the same reason that fiefdoms must end in public Ontario.

  - Make better use of Ontario's human capital through evidence-based work planning.

  - Embrace and prepare for the Knowledge Economy.

  - Take training viral through open-sourced, easily-accessed, crowd-sourced online training resources.

  - On the training theme - really encourage life-long learning; employers and employees in all sectors should always see themselves as students.

  - "Separate but equal" is not a good model for efficiency, especially when the tech and knowledge  exists to benefit everyone in shared settings as often as is possible.

  - If we're really embracing evidence-based planning, follow it down to the deepest level - cognition.

  - Keep embracing and supporting diversity, not just because it sounds nice but because it's beneficial.

Don Drummond summed it up nicely:

“We can perhaps shoot for a grander goal – a province that provides the best public services, delivered in the most efficient manner, in the world. If this sounds impossibly ambitious, put the question another way: Why not?” 

“Such an objective could instill our politicians, our public servants and all Ontarians a sense of purpose that would help see us all through this monumental mission.”