Please help me set my #OGT14 table! (UPDATED)

I am going to be an "Official Speaker" at the September 16 close of #OGT14: Open Government on the Open Road at City Hall in Ottawa. 

Events take place starting at 6:30PM in Jean Pigott Hall at Ottawa City Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa. The doors will be open at 6PM.

I have to fill a maximum of 8 minutes of speaking time saying something poignant about why you can't have Open Government without a Responsible Society.

What I wasn't counting on was this - I've been assigned a 2 x 6 table that I need to populate with something.  Here are my directions:

Remaining décor is up to your imagination. Bring your own displays, banners, posters, props, pamphlets, swag ... Etc, but be aware that they will need to be free standing or on the table.

Here's where I need your help.

My firm Wakata Inc. is dedicated to public affairs with a social purpose; I like to frame my partner Jen Li and I as the stone in the soup, bringing people and organizations together and facilitating shared solutions.  While I'm going to #OGT14 as me, not as Wakata, I want to hold true to what I believe in.

So - what should I display on my table?  Who can I promote, what shared solutions can I hint at in my space?

M first thoughts were that I'd like to promote the following:

Samara - democracy renewal

Why Should I Care - civic engagement

Exhibit Change - improving communication and comprehension

SoJo - a cool web platform that will create community and help individuals turn ideas into action.

MaRS Solutions Lab - anyone planning policy past the four-year cycle deserves some space!

I would have included Make Web Not War, but I imagine they have their own table, being the patrons of #OGT14 and all.

Those are my first thoughts, though I would need some resources from them to put on my table around the stone I just asked Richard Pietro to pick up for me somewhere between Vancouver and here.

What do you think?  All cool suggestions are welcome - and feel free to share them on Twitter using #OGT14!

UPDATED Sept 2 2014:

And the gold star for first carrot goes to Samara!  Samara has offered materials about their Everyday Political Citizen project for my #OGT14 table.

Samara is a perfect compliment for what OpenGov and Responsible Society are all about - our politics can do better, but not without an informed, engaged public.  Their Everyday Political Citizen project is designed to recognize and celebrate the democratic catalysts in our midst; the people who ask questions, who encourage you to get informed, who believe that it's through direct engagement that we can make a difference.

My #EPCitizen nominee for this year, as it happens, is Richard Pietro.

Richard has picked up a stone out west for me to use as the centrepiece of my table, the thing that brings groups like Samara (and hopefully, SoJo, WSIC, Exhibit Change, MaRS) together.  This is appropriate, because his #OGT14 tour has served the same role this summer - bringing together an incredibly diverse community from across the country around one shared theme:

Open Government.

Richard's brought the stone, Samara the first ingredient - but there's lots of space left!  Who's up next?

Why You Want to Be Where Worlds Collide

Open Government.  Open Data.  Open Communication.  It all leads to an Open Community of the willing who are informed, engaged and collaboratively making a difference.

That's what it's all about.  That's what we're gunning for next Tuesday, July 29th starting at 7pm at 67 Yonge Street, 16th Floor.

In collaboration with the brand-new ThinkData Works, Wakata Inc (that's me and the amazing Jen Li) is hosting the second Where Worlds Collide, this time with a twist.

The first outing was to see who would come out and what they were interested in.  It was an amazing turnout of public servants, community catalysts, private sector players and a whole lot of big ideas.  My favourite two were Jabullah Murray's Basketball/Leadership program, PUSH Elite and the My SoJo platform.

Where Worlds Collide even attracted a couple of Mayor candidates in David Soknacki and Morgan Baskin.

The conversations were amazing - new connections were formed, new ideas raised; the energy was palpable.

And now we're upping the game.

As Open Government continues to build like the falling of small stones that start an avalanche, initiatives like #OGAP2 and #OGT14 are changing the way we engage and, hopefully, the way we do both government and civil society.  We want to build on and add to that.

Where Worlds Collide is just that - a collision of events, of styles, of people.  It's going to be part concert, part consulting session, part networking, part reality show (with Richard Pietro updating us on his OpenGov on the Open Road adventures.

Here's what's in the works:

First - what says open more than a rooftop patio?  Thanks to Bryan Smith and the ThinkData Works team, that's where we're going to be.  Space is limited, so if you wanna come - sign up now, here.

Keith McDonald will bring the music, his own compositions about Open Gov and Open Data.  Picture a perfect fusion of data geekness and head-bopping tunes and you get the idea.

We'll also have some chart paper scattered about the place that'll look like a prettier version of this:

The point is to encourage people from different sectors to comment on what they think the pros and cons are for peers from other fields.  What does, say, the Private Sector have to offer Open Government?  What will they get out of it?

As I've learned from the Design Thinkers at Exhibit Change, the perspectives we hold about ourselves and each other are hardly universal.  Exploring these points of view is key to determining where both our communication challenges lie and where open ground can be found.

Of course, there'll be networking - a chance to pitch your idea, suss out new talent, find the partner you've been looking for but unable to find anywhere else.  Courtesy of ThinkData Works, there'll be some snacks and beverages, too.


We'll get a LIVE FROM SOMEWHERE IN CANADA update from Richard on his discovery of Canada and chats about Open Gov.  You can get a bit of a teaser here.

Lastly, we'll have a panel discussion about what Open Government is and what it means for Canada.  Who'll be on the panel is a bit of a surprise, as will be the direction of the conversation.  The goal is to start somewhere and see where we go from there.

It's gonna be different, it's going to be helpful and I have no doubt it'll be fun.

Hope to see you there.

On Youth Employment, Chow is Half-Way There

Her Tuesday plan said she will "approach our city's business community" to ask them to "match the city's efforts."  Chow said her proposed interactions with business would be different than Tory's because they are attached to a "very specific proposal" while his are not.  Tory's campaign suggested Chow is proposing the same thing he did.

Let's skip past the candidate fun and games, because there's a real challenge here with tangible solutions that are pretty awesome.

Here are the facts:

- Particularly in the work culture we have now, employers want low-risk, low-commitment and cheap hires.  Only a few firms are getting ahead of the curve and recognizing that "spend money to earn money" applies equally to investing in your workforce

- What are the training opportunities that exist for youth out there?  We can talk about a specific trade - construction, for instance, or programming - but we're moving back towards a top-heavy, laissez-faire market where would-be employees are expected to do all the sales and convince the employers of their value (on the golf course, as an example).

- Customers, for their part, are looking for more than products - they want experiences.  They want to engage with firms, products and services where they get to be a bit of the process and can tell that the teams love what they do and feel empowered to take ownership of their work.

- Canada's corporate culture is largely stuck in a 20th Century, Industrial Economy mentality; they don't get the dynamism, interactivity and post-transactional relationships that are defining modern HR practices and economic opportunity.

- One-off employment opportunities for youth, especially marginalized youth, isn't translating into full-time offers; too often it's companies taking the matched, cheaper labour costs for a short-term project then moving on, which doesn't help youth at all

That's all the bad news.  The good news is that the tide is turning.  

- There's a move towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) not just as a branding exercise, but a means to add value to a companies work, empower employees and develop in-kind partnerships

- User Generated Content (UGC) is a growing thing - corporations, political parties and a growing host of organizations are making users part of their solution and part of their team, with engaged staff serving as the interface - this is what the whole Open Data and Open Government building a city that thinks like the web thing is about

- Many organizations, such as Make Web Not War, are looking at doing CSR through in-kind donations of time and expertise rather than just donating cash.  It's a bit of the teach an individual to fish mentality 

- instead of a lump-sum grant, dedicate staff hours to do organizational, communications and other activity while teaching the tricks of those trades to members of the team being supported

- youth with great ambition but less access to specialized skills training or traditional job opportunities are trying to strike out on their own through entrepreneurial efforts - what they lack, more than anything else, is the refined skills to excel at and sell what they do

So, with all that in mind, here's something for Team Chow to consider:

Don't just hire youth for government infrastructure projects; match those contracts with entrepreneurship/life skills training opportunities.  Find partners (maybe Swerhun, Exhibit Change, Canadian Training Institute - build up some vendors of record) you can put on retainers that get funded by successful applicants to go in and provide life-skills, communications, etc. training for hired youth.

A company landing a city contract will have access to a cheaper pool of youth labour, but those youth are going to walk away with more than just a line on their CV; they'll be spending some of their time in class, at events or in the field learning and applying the value-add skills that will really help them succeed in the future.

Start wiring these engaged, empowered youth into social movements like SoJo, Girl Geeks TO and Open Data TO, you're actively shaping the next generation of community leaders, and they will remember you for it.

There's a market for this; there's precedent for this; there's a need for this.

Chow's half-way there, it seems; just imagine how much further she could go if she committed to bringing Toronto's youth along with her.

Problem Definition and Political Ice Cream

Often, in our everyday, we get told what the problem is and then everyone goes straight to solving for the problem without taking time to really understand what the problem is.

Bingo.

This has been readily identified as a key problem within our bureaucracies, political parties and how our very democracy functions.

But are we identifying the right problems?  Or are we viewing everything as a nail because the only thing we know how to do is hammer on our own interests?

Leaders don't tell people what the problem is and how to fix it; they bring them together to properly identify the problem and design a sustainable solution.

It's a forward, together kind of thing.

We began to recognize a tension where participants felt if they weren't engaged with the problem, they had less motivation.

The user knows the way As groups worked on understanding the problem, one of the greatest task is thinking of who the users are beyond what you as the designer want to achieve.  When we can let go of our designer ego, and let the user guide you to the solution then we can be responsive and human-centered.

2014: The Year of Open Data and Responsible Citizens

 

 

 

The Toronto Star declared 2014 the "Year of the Idea."  But we can't keep turning to the same sources for innovation.  We can't keep having the same debates about the same questions.  It's time to think outside the box and turn to unexpected sources for new ideas.

 

 

Which Political Leader is the only one who can beat the other guy and single-handedly heal our community?  Exactly - but that's how we're sold our politicians, isn't it?  More and more resources are being spent in promoting people at the top of a given silo while at the same time, competing organizations keep taking pot-shots at each other's foundations.  Meanwhile, closed internal cultures are coming into conflict with social media and the emergence of Open Data and a newfound appetite for real accountability.

 

The Star's idea isn't new.  Versions of it have already manifested with Samara's Everyday political citizen project; from a different angle, organizations like Maytree with their non-partisan GOTV training and civic engagement groups like Why Should I Care are seeking to open up information, access and the confidence to reach out and lead from the front within non-traditional political/policy actors.

 

In other words, empowering everyday citizens to become hidden experts. 

 

These are exactly the sorts of people the catalysts of the Open Government/Open Data movement are looking to partner with and co-design processes and platforms with, using techniques and methodologies like those of Swerhun and Exhibit Change.

 

Open Data for a Responsible Society consisting of engaged citizens.  There isn't anything revolutionary about this idea, but it is good to hear it coming around again.

 

Disney Bold and Open: Something to Marvel At

"It's almost like we have a built-in GPS system for storytelling," Disney exec Bob Iger said, adding: "They live and breathe Marvel full time just like the Pixar folks live and breathe Pixar full time."

Do I fully believe that Marvel has a mapped-out plan for movie into 2028?  Absolutely.  Do I think it's fully populated with detailed content down to the characters to be highlighted and Easter Eggs to be embedded?  Not in the slightest.

But that isn't the point - that's no the genius of this announcement.  By creating even a framework that lets them credibly encourage fans to imagine a temporal journey into an expanding universe with them, Marvel has given them cause to voice their thoughts on who and what they'd like to see on the big screen.

This, folks, is what's known as co-designing.  It's a bit like parenting - do parents ever get bored of watching their kids grow up?  Nope.  When you invest so much of your time and energy into a product, a brand or an individual, it becomes an extension of you - literally, you live through it.

I've been watching Disney with a suspicious eye ever since they cancelled The Clone Wars, but as it is emerging that they've thought their actions through, taken into account various fan bases and are really interested in sustained profit through an ongoing relationship instead of a series of bombastic one-offs, they're starting to win my trust.

Bob Iger was wise to reference Pixar, because that's a firm audiences have come to trust, too.  We know the folk at Pixar are as invested in their creations as we are, meaning they will always, always focus on the little value-added pieces that turn products into experiences.

Disney has Star Wars, too - and is bringing it back to life in a massive, carefully-orchestrated way.  

Marvel and Star Wars?  Frozen and Pixar?  

Theme parks, toys, teacher resources, Corporate Social Responsibility?

Re-read that last one.  Disney, along with firms like Microsoft, is a world-leader in social support and sustainability.

Disney is providing massive amounts of content through various platforms, each honest to their own unique brand and loyal to their own customer bases, yet integrated into one seamless, efficient, powerful whole.  It's like a random bunch of blocks put together through collaboration to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

Their partners trust them.  Partners who produce content that countless fans around the world love and believe in.  By empowering their team members, Disney is giving their new end-users cause to trust them, too.  It's funny how that happens.

Just imagine that government worked that way.  Heck, Disney could even help support the movement that will get us there.

"You've become part of a bigger universe, you just don't know it yet."

Socratic Governance and the Truth of #WhatLeadershipIs

"They will not design a budget to get the NDP onside... so the chances for an election increase dramatically," he said.

The Budget, like all policy positions, messaging campaigns and various political chicanery are all designed (to varying degrees of efficacy) with one goal in mind - winning elections.  Sometimes a Party will think a couple elections out as they aim for their Big Win.  

Until recently, the NDP both federally and provincially has often mirrored the disenfranchised Canadians they claim to be the voice of - never aiming too high because they knew there was no hope in hell they could get close numbers sufficient enough to form government.

But in all of this, all scenarios, all permutations, what isn't being put first is the well-being of the province entire.  A focus on winning urban seats results in a focus on urban policy; ambitions to secure senior votes will target issues that matter to them.  Opposition Parties will look for whatever faults they can find and hammer those, with a focus on what will turn off government's base and help mobilize their own.

I get that this is how politics works - but it's also how governance fails.

I get that these political operators are telling themselves this is how the game is played and that it's their job to take down their opponents, blasting their positions to smithereens and undermining their intentions in the eyes of voters - you know, in Socratic fashion.

Socrates - yes, that one - introduced the philosophical method we now call Socratic, which involved systematic doubt and questioning of another to elicit a clear expression of a truth supposed to be knowable by all rational beings.

In theory, this is what politics does - poke at the actions both publicized and obfuscated of opponents, holding them to account and revealing the truth.  In theory, the constant, over-the-top attacks are about forcing accountability.  Socractic debate isn't about undermining people or blowing up positions, though - it's about collectively finding the truth by challenging each other to rationally, objectively explore all facets of a given issue in a way we simply couldn't do on our own.

But let's be serious - people aren't rational actors, nor are we objective in the sense that we put a non-partisan truth first.  If anything, the more competitive become, the less rational we are.  

Think about it for a second - let's say you're driving a car down the highway, lots of other cars all around you, and unexpectedly a truck on your left veers into your lane.  There's no time to contemplate a course of action, you have to act now.  What do you do?

Odds are pretty good you'd instinctively veer right, not looking to see what's there until you're already in motion, if at all.  Knee-jerk, instinctive reaction; anyone could do it without thinking.  People do do it, which is why we have so many traffic accidents.

The number one cause of all our social problems ranging from car accidents to poor healthcare to poor healthcare systems and yes, up to poorly-conceived policy is human behaviour.  We don't look far enough ahead, we don't take the time to grasp the entirety of a given context and we focus on the notion of us being in the driver's seat rather than being just one more car on the road.

It's great to say politics is Socratic and political operators are poking and probing to land on the truth, but that isn't what they're doing.  They're poking and probing for selfish opportunity or antagonistic attacks.  All this talk of finding coalitions of voters?  That's not about identifying structural challenges and shared solutions, it's about picking fights and deferring consequences.

The goal of politics isn't sound policy, it's political wins.  Winning is as much about helping your opponent lose as it is about seeking out just the people who will help you succeed.  When individual wins come first, the well-being of the whole comes second, if at all.  This is why we have such massive, structural challenges in the first place.

Look, the goal here isn't to shame and blame anyone - in a tragedy of the commons, everyone is to blame.  The politicians who've put self-interest first, the political operatives who've elevated the aspirations of their Parties over the well-being of their province, the media who've put selling copy over serving as aspirationally impartial communicators to voters who've opted not to invest time and energy into understanding the political landscape are all at fault.

Noted, great, let's move on.  

None of us is going anywhere so unless we want a perpetual swing of the pendulum until the cord breaks entirely, we have to get over ourselves and who's in the wrong and start focusing on how do we make things right.

There are good, even great models of consultation out there that could, if implemented in the political arena, completely change the dynamic of our system and start developing real, honest-to-god shared solutions.  Design Thinking is one such practice that needs to be incorporated into bureaucratic operations and civic engagement from the top down and the bottom up.  Swerhun's Discuss, Decide, Do is another great primer for how to create better, more representative policy.

We'll never get there, though, so long as we keep looking at the world from an inside-out perspective.  Individual politicians need to care less about whether they get a Minister's job and more about serving as conduits for their constituents.  Call it public service.  

Political Parties (which are a key part of our system by convention only) need to back off entirely or reclaim their original purpose, which was to ensure shared value sets and aspirations got a public airing - not fighting over slices of the pie.

The best we could hope for is real Socratic debate, where Elected Officials focus on bringing the realities of their constituents to the conversation and partisans employ a "yes, and" model for weighing the merits and disadvantages of given positions.

Of course, if the consultation process was done correctly, there'd be no need for Political Parties at all; instead, true leaders and real representatives would go the distance themselves, bringing their stakeholders together to co-design the best (but not perfect, 'cause that's not possible) and most sustainable solutions for all.

I've been told I'm dumb, idealistic and naive for thinking this way, but I've also been told I'm a thought leader with an uncanny ability to see social trends before they become trendy.  What matters most to me is that I've seen the right kind of framing work in practice; I have seen implacable enemies find common ground to stand on and share tools to build with. 

It works.  It's hard work, it demands a certain level of delayed gratification, discipline and empathy, but that's the whole point.

Far too many "progressives" are aping their conservative brethren, focusing on lateral, oppositional combat instead of figuring out where we go from here and how.  They will find all kinds of creative ways to justify this cognitive dissonance and change the channel so as to redirect focus on the faults of others, but again, that only proves the point.

If we want to talk about #whatleadershipis, let's start with what it isn't.  Leaders don't place blame.  They don't incite fear.  Leaders aren't interested in wins, they're interested in results.  For true leaders, moving forward together means leaving no one behind, no matter their partisan brand or what "coalition" they belong to.  

Leaders don't put others down to reaffirm their position; they actively seek to make themselves obsolete by growing other leaders to take their place.

Governance isn't about picking fights - it's about understanding the truth of challenges and developing shared solutions to address them.  

When the Masters work is done the people say "amazing, we did it all by ourselves."

And that's the truth.

OpenGov: Want Structural Solutions? Quit Funding In Silos!

Part of the push behind the whole Open Government/Open Data movement is that policy advisers and makers have realized they simply can't solve all the problems that lie before them.  

That's nothing new, of course; what's changed is that, thanks in no small part to social media gaffes, mistakes and ignored policy pieces are coming to light in rapid, viral fashion.  Add to this a toxic, hyper-partisan political climate where every gap, overlap or oversight is pilloried as the devil's work and you've but an unsustainable dynamic.

One of the key problems identified in actually solving structural issues in jurisdictions at all levels is internal bureaucratic culture.  Decisions are made at the top and instructions are flowed down with little explanation and no context.  Differing departments can be working on a piece of a bigger puzzle without any idea what the end picture is supposed to look like.  

Even worse is what's called "the black hole" phenomenon, where results collected at the front end get flowed to the top without any comment or indication of what worked/what didn't/how that information is informing the decision-making process.

Add to this the "clay layer" of middle managers who are in a state of stasis - probably never going to go up the ladder, but damned if they're going to take challenges from below.  Fresh ideas from the bottom and any exposition from the top gets stopped in this layer that traditionally hoards knowledge like it's their ticket to survival.

Sidebar - this identified cultural problem is what the political culture is increasingly trying to resemble.  Always a step behind, they are.

A perfect example of why this is a failed model is program funding.  Governments, as you know, fund programs.  Some new programs are developed from within the bureaucracy while others come from the political government of the day (and as often are not, have political motivations).

So the process works like this:

Political Side has an idea - let's say it's that cutting down on incidences of Type II Diabetes will cut healthcare costs (and improve lives).  They give money to Ministries with narrow mandates of how to allocate these funds down the chain.

Ministries turn that money into funding streams - they will give it to health agencies, but with narrow mandates of what kinds of programs they can create and flow funding to front-line service providers for.

Front-line service providers will apply for funding - which means tailoring their ask to perfectly match the requirements of the proposal, which has been increasingly narrowly defined from the top down.  It's no wonder grant-writers get paid so well; knowing how to frame a proposal to meet the desires of the program (rather than the needs of the community) is tricky business.  If you're an organization without money to hire a good grant-writer, sucks to be you.

Funding and information flow one way.  The people at the top never get their feet wet.

There are a couple of problems with this model.  

One - how do the people at the top make their decisions on what and how to fund?  What informs the parameters they set?  Good question - it's not always clear.  When it's all about the money, though, it's not in everyone's best interests to ask.

Two - what if the parameters set are wrong?  What if the front-line has identified needs that aren't matched by any program, or are best matched through a shared-solution that fits into more than one funding bucket?  

This is where advocacy comes in.  It's possible to advocate for changes and promote differing interests; we see this happen all the time.  The problem is, again, that advocacy/government relations is a specialized and costly skill.  If you don't have the money, you not only can't get grants, but you can't promote your clients' best interests with decision makers.

Hence, Open Government and Open Data.  The goal is to open the decision making process so it's clear to everyone how and why certain choices are made - and, in theory, make it easier and more affordable to influence the process.  

The same applies to Open Data - if people on the front line see that the choices being made aren't going to work, they can formulate and pitch alternatives.

But all of this is moot until the internal culture changes.  So long as it's accepted practice for information to flow one way and the assumption is that the people at the top know better than the people at the bottom, we won't have Open Government.

What government should start doing is co-designing funding streams with partners all along the chain. 

This way, the programs offered will be clearly designed to support the ground-level needs and realities of communities and the big-picture agendas of government.  There are good firms out there who do consultative co-designing this way, like Swerhun and Exhibit Change.  They're even local.

But to get there, government needs to do some co-designed structural changes to how they do business internally.  Break through the clay layer with some grassroots, as it were.

The fact that the federal and provincial governments are paying for a Human Resources cultural competency program suggests to me they might have twigged on to this need to change perspectives internally and that it's not just about top-down management.

That's an excellent place to start.  If government were to fund an internal co-design process that seeks to address the structural problems of a strictly hierarchical and silo-based organizational structure, they could vastly improve the efficacy, impact and adaptability of their operations and planning.  

They'd also set a good example for non-governmental players, too, including those capital-hoarding companies that are missing the boat on catalyzing internal innovation and stemming the massive costs related to occupational mental health/presenteeism.

A focus on cuts reduces your bandwidth and flexibility. 

Systems, not silos, is the way to sustainability.  

And if they don't believe it coming from me, that's fine - I'd be more than happy to connect decision-makers with folk up and down the ranks and in every sector who feel the same way. 

But you'd want to start with these young folk who will inherit whatever system (or mess) we leave behind.  Believe me - they've got ideas you should be open to.

This Just In - Preston and I Agree!

Mr. Manning also urged government to set aside money to train parliamentarians and staff, while changing the law - his second proposed amendment to the Fair Elections Act - to make it clear that training of political candidates, staff and campaigns should not be counted as an election expense.

Get some vendors of record, put training materials online and make the whole thing reflective of open government/open data.  There are lots of partners, co-designers and facilitators waiting to help, plus models for materials, online platforms, etc.  It just needs to be aligned and kicked into gear.

It's a good idea - whoever it comes from.  :o)

Garden the Heights: Building Up vs Tearing Down

I'm shamelessly cribbing these pictures from Exhibit Change's website.  I know they won't mind.

The photo above lays out the stone in any planning soup, the heart of leadership - it begins with purpose.  If you don't know why you're doing something, you can't possibly know if you're doing it as well as you might, or if you're even on track.  Your why is your compass; if you lose the thread or get stuck in the weeds or mud, your compass will always point the way forward. 

When you have clarity of destination, you open yourself up to different paths to get there.  There are many ways to the top of the mountain, after all.  This means that if a better or more interesting avenue presents itself, you can take it; if a selected path doesn't work, you aren't married to it.

When you have confidence of direction, you don't fear losing your way and come to a standstill.  You also are less tempted to settle for anything less than your final destination.

Then there's this general thing that when you know where you're headed and confident you can get there, it almost becomes a sin not to invite others on the journey.  Why on earth would you want to hold anyone else back?  Especially when someone else may hold the bridge you need to overcome a gap you find along the path.

I'm speaking in metaphors, of course - for a life, for a corporation, for politics.

When we define ourselves by what we stand against, do we really know where we're going?  Not really.  Nor do we care - so long as no one else gets there first.

There's a reason why companies and politicians who stand against tend to atrophy, or at the best turn into idea scavengers.  Creativity is not a competitive process.  The closest it gets to that is one-upmanship, which isn't the same as winner-take-all.  In all its forms, though, creativity is a collaborative process that involves design, risk and iterative failure.

Why has Canada Post failed?  Why did RIM fail?  Why do we have a democratic deficit?

Competing for market share doesn't bridge new ground.  Creativity and engagement does.  Political attacks don't generate new ideas - the discourage them, and discourage engagement, too.

If you don't know where you're headed and your world is no more than the ground you stand on, you will keep pushing people off of it.  You'll also find yourself rapidly losing ground in the big scheme.

If you tear down everyone around you and everyone else does the same, then nobody gets ahead.

This is why leaders don't tear down, they don't attack and they don't compete.  

Leaders rise above, explore new heights and empower others to join them on the journey - to a better life, a stronger business or a healthier society.

It's time we stop digging trenches and start planting seeds again.  It's the only way we'll grow forward.

Mental Health and the Knowledge Economy: Where I'm Going Today and Where We're Headed Tomorrow

 

Today, the Economic Club of Canada will be discussing the economics of mental health:

 

The cost of mental illness in Canada is at least $50 billion per year – or 2.8 per cent of our gross domestic product. Over the next 30 years, mental health-related costs will climb to more than $2.5 trillion.

From promoting mental health in the workplace, to working with families and children at risk, to helping people stay out of hospital, the Mental Health Commission of Canada has put forward practical and proven solutions to improve mental health for Canadians while taking some stress off our economy.

There is a growing movement out there (Thanks, Senator Kirby) which recognizes that while mental health has traditionally been the "forgotten orphan" in healthcare funding, it's actually one of the greatest underpinning issues of our time.

 

Why do people commit suicide?  Why do people bully?  What sparks innovation?  How do we motivate productivity in the Knowledge Economy?  Can an understanding of cognition make marketing (and politicking) more effective?  How do we nurture resilience?  What information do we need to make the best decisions and what's the best way to absorb it? 

 

These and countless other questions are all tied to how our grey matter interprets and operates in the world.

 

As it stands, society doesn't do mental health well. 

 

We have standardized education models that still struggle with differing learning styles - even the end goal of education (A certificate? Knowledge? Critical thinking, entrepreneurialism, occupational flexibility?) is in question.

 

Workplaces tend to work on the good-behaviour, poor-behaviour model, too; people are resources motivated by carrots and sticks.  It worked throughout the industrial age when widget-making relied on set skills employed quickly, so surely it will work in an environment where communication, big-picture thinking and attention to detail matters - right? 

 

We're hammering away at today's problems with yesterday's tools and getting mad at people, not the paradigm, for failing to deliver the results we expect.  Why?  The answer to that also lies in our cognitive hard wiring. 

 

Just as we learned through fits and starts to do physical labour better at the turn of the last century, we are on the brink of a significant social transformation that will fundamentally reshape the way we live and enhance the health and productivity of our cognitive labour, empowering individuals to perform better and leading to a stronger, more sustainable, more entrepreneurial economy.  Pieces of the picture are already emerging through initiatives like the National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace, Social Emotional Learning, innovative student-centred post-secondary education models and design thinking. 

It's a vast, complex picture that needs lateral thinkers who can visualize how the pieces fit together.  These are the kinds of folk that don't always do well in traditional models of education and work.  Sometimes we call them "behavioural" or "underperformers"; given the right conditions and supports, they become known as visionaries, leaders, world-changers - outliers.

 

Here in Canada, we have all the raw material we need to become a global hub for innovation and a Knowledge Economy leader - we won't get there, though, using conservative approaches around science, diversity and accommodation.

 

To be the best in the emerging economy, we need to start thinking outside the box. 

 

Tomorrow's leaders will be the ones who set that example, today.  On the left-hand side of this blog is a list of background reading I'd encourage you to consider.  You'll be surprised and perhaps a bit unerved at what you learn about society and yourself, but don't let that stop you.

 

After all, knowledge is power.

Collaboration Soup: Inspired Teamwork and the Secret to Innovative Success

 

But she wonders if in seeking the Holy Grail of innovation, companies (and authors) are actually looking in the wrong direction.

 

“Perhaps it is a culture of collaboration that we should be seeking as the Holy Grail.”

 

Contents:

 

A Proven Recipe: Collaboration Works

Why Competition Doesn't

The Profit Paradox

Ingredients for Success: Start with a Stone

Why WAKATA

 

Everyone is trying to motivate innovation.  The standard method of increasing incentives and fostering competition doesn't seem to be doing the trick - Finance Ministers and Prime Ministers are growing frustrated with the lack of results.

 

So - how do you foster innovation? 

 

A Proven Recipe: Collaboration Works

 

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is famous for her campaigns and her office culture - everyone loves working with her.  They have a good time, they get recognition (frequently and intentionally from Wynne herself) and they do work that matters.

 

My former boss, retired Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry MPP Jim Brownell, was famous for his Brownell Nights - pub evenings where ideas were shared and bonds formed over food and drink.  These nights not only boosted staff morale and encouraged team-development, they also resulted in some cool ideas, a few of which resulted in policy and regulatory action.  Brownell Nights weren't just about drinks, they were a conscious effort to create a collaborative space under the Brownell banner that got things done and in the process, strengthened the brand.  It worked.

 

Why Should I Care is a civic engagement event/speaker/series/pub night started by Terri Chu, a wickedly smart engineer who embodies the 7 traits of successful entrepreneurs to a tee.  From humble beginnings in Terri's kitchen, WSIC has grown into a monthly event that attracts the kind of speakers you generally have to pay big bucks to hear at The Canadian Club, including Art Eggleton, John Tory, Rosario Marchese and Dr. Ilse Treurnicht of MaRS.  The reason the model works so well is that it empowers the audience to participate, it gives speakers an opportunity to engage with a different crowd and of course, there's food.
 

Over the recent Ontario Leadership Race, my friend James Borer organized a Rural Roundtable - a tweak on the typical debate format that challenged participants to bring forward ideas, not criticisms.  Everyone loved it - the conversation was positive, everyone gained new insight and a couple of cool ideas were introduced to the discussion.

 

In each of these cases, everyone from the organizers to the staff to the volunteers to the attendees have walked away glad to have been part of something special.  The reason for this that in each of these cases, everyone involved, from all angles, felt like actual participants. 

 

Why do Political Parties have trouble with membership?  Why is voter turnout on the decline, with a resulting shrinking of the policy idea water hole?  It's because people don't feel engaged, don't feel their participation is respected and don't believe they can truly contribute.  Oh, and there's not enough food, either.

 

Collaboration works.

 

Why Competition Doesn't

 

The prevailing theory is that competition drives innovation - the desire to beat the other guy or to make oodles of cash through the selling of something new is what encourages entrepreneurs to work harder and develop the exciting, innovative ideas and products.  Key to this notion is the myth of the lone innovator, the creative stalwart who gets hit by idea lightening, out of the blue, birthing fully-formed ideas that will change the world.  It's a compelling myth, this, despite being one that has no basis in fact.  

 

Nothing comes from nothing, especially ideas.  The lone innovators we idolize in actual fact have stood on the shoulder of others, just as today's innovators stand on theirs. You can't make soup without raw ingredients - if you've never made a soup before, having someone else's recipe gives you a starting point to add your own flourishes to the mix.  Why should we ever think innovation would be different?

 

To a large degree, it's because we associate innovation with profit and to lesser degree, problem-solving.  The evidence doesn't support this, either - most exciting innovations stem from whimsical inspiration, not a planned outcome.  This isn't to say having a "why" in place doesn't matter - you need a destination if you're to recognize the paths that will lead you there.  If gravity wasn't on Newton's mind, he might have viewed that apple as a pain, not an opportunity.  It's a glass half-full/half-empty thing; if you think you're having a bad day, you will invariably notice only the things that back up that premise.  The same holds true for a positive demeanour.  Innovation works the same way - you could have a billion ideas connect in your head, in passing, but its the ones that illuminate your pervasive theme that will stand out and be noticed.

 

But I mentioned profit.  Standard wisdom once again provides an intuitive, counter-factual perspective on innovation - people are motivated by greed and fear, which is why a carrot-and-stick approach works best in keeping people productive.  If it works for widget-making, it must equally apply to creativity.  This is the labour-management equivalent to wielding a hammer and viewing every problem as a nail - we are deluding ourselves that our existing tools are fool-proof and misattributing failure.  Pollsters do it.  Stock-pickers do it.  Politicians do it.  It's everywhere.

 

The fact is, carrots and sticks are good for motivating physical work, because they target our reactive mind.  Innovation is all about being proactive, adding value to what already exists.  You don't motivate creativity by making people think reactively, but by incentivizing legacy.  This is a simple truth that is backed through rigorous testing, lived experience and even neuroscience.  Whimsy, not necessity, is the mother of invention. 

 

And as the best innovations aren't developed with profit in mind, they also tend to be free.

 

The Profit Paradox

 

This puts us in a bit of a spot - why on earth would conventional wisdom be so wrong about the role of competition and profit in motivating innovation?  Surely any idea that off-the-mark would be weeded out, wouldn't it?

 

Do you read your horoscope in the newspaper?  Do you accept the results of polls as indisputable fact?  Does fortune-telling persist?

Yup. 

 

“But the methodology does work,” Wright told the Star in a telephone interview from the Ipsos head office in Paris. “We do $2.6 billion of research a year out of this corporation, and if it was all broken no one would be using it.”

 

I always nod and smile when anyone tells me confidently, aggressively that they're good at what they do.  Then I do my homework to see if that's actually the case.  Surprisingly, it often isn't.

 

If innovation is whimsical, cause-driven and relies on curiosity and collaboration, financial competition is all about a lean focus on profit and promotion.  If you want to sell, you have to market and you absolutely have to have the tenacity to close a deal.  Like physical labour, it's the carrot-and-stick system that motivates the aggressive, competitive, successful sales people.

 

Confidence sells.  Aggressiveness sells.  Bluster, charm, great hair or a brilliant smile sells.  A complex understanding of the associations between cognitive labour motivation, workspace design and fostering innovation?  You've lost 'em at A.

 

The reason the Myth of the Lone Innovator persists is because the people who are successful at selling innovation want it that way.  They want it believed that only they have the ability you want and you're going to have to pay to get it.  Quite frankly, they're so good at what they do that nobody can challenge them on their presentation; those who do will be put-down, dismissed or threatened with law suits.  The great patent fights of history are what this looks like in practice. 

 

Intellectual property is only profitable when it's supported by law, force or that same sales ability - which is why the greatest innovators always have partners - there's the brains, then there's the business.  Sometimes, you get the two in one package, but not often.  Nowhere near as often as we'd like to believe.

 

By the same token, the great sales agents are great at never failing themselves - blame will always, always rest on someone else's shoulders.  It's a form of narcissism, really - brand over substance and a blatant refusal to accept responsibility.

 

So what does that leave us with?  The really innovative people are driven to do.  The best sales people are motivated by what they get out of the deal.  It's therefore the latter that control the narrative of the former for the general public.

 

 

Ingredients For Success: Start with a Stone

 

 

What's the best work or volunteer experience you had? Was it the one that paid you the most money? Was it the one where the rules were rigid and everyone was obliged to stay within their boxes? Or was it the one that was fun, engaging, collaborative?  What sort of ideas did the team come up with?

 

Back to Kathleen Wynne.  As mentioned, her campaigns are always fun, engaging, meaningful experiences for her teams.  They also came up with some cool material, varying from collector's item swag, a dance introduction for her convention speech and an award-winning website designed by Taylor Scollon.  Oh yeah - they also won.

 

What makes Wynne's campaigns work?  She embodies the parable of stone soup - the idea that something - a person or a vision - is required to bring disparate elements together to create a whole that's more than the sum of its parts.  Call it inspired teamwork.

 

Most teams are teams in name only - in practice, they function more like a series of canoes paddling side-by-side; each faces the current alone instead of collaboratively pulling together.  It's less complicated, maybe, but it's also far less efficient.  Plus, when you give people a mandate to paddle together and challenge them to figure out how, that's when you come up with ideas like the horseless carriage.

 

I have four rules that guide my work with any sort of team, but volunteers in particular:

 

1) Keep them fed

 

2) Make sure they get the chance to do meaningful work - this means rotation and the opportunity to provide input

 

3) Acknowledge their contributions

 

4) Make sure they feel as part of the team - not tools of a core group of organizers.  To treat people as team members, though, you have to actually see them as team members.

 

This approach takes time, involves a lot of emotional validation and time spent listening instead of doing, but it works.  Greta Hoaken is a great example of the sort of talent you can find if you give your people half a chance.

 

When you include your team members, you encourage them to put their skin in the game as they get to share the glow of the end product.  It allows them to feel truly part of something larger than themselves - they will thank you for that.  Engaged people also tend to be more willing to share and play with ideas - the more ideas you have to start with, the better your end solutions are going to be. 

 

There's another key benefit to this approach that makes a difference - respecting people and letting them participate breeds loyalty.  This is important, because most people seem to think loyalty is owed to a brand and therefore, volunteers (or employers) can be manhandled in any way the top dogs want.  In fact, this discourages innovation, disenfranchises volunteers (making them more likely to walk) and makes existing team members less productive. 

 

One of Canada's most respected political organizers once told me that campaigns invariably end up being run by a small group of organizers who are the only ones who get stuff done.  This individual has a habit of domineering a room and disregarding ideas that don't originate in their circle, a trait all too common in organizations across the political, private and Not-For-Profit spectrum.  Chris Mazza provides a good example of just how well this top-down, closed-communications approach works.  Worth noting - this person did not work on Team Wynne's campaign.

 

Why WAKATA 

 

The idea of collaboration leading to stronger, more sustainable results might be somewhat foreign to traditional capitalist culture, but that doesn't mean it's foreign to everyone.

 

No, I don't mean communism - the Great Socialist Experiment wasn't about collaboration, either; it was all about caste and silos.

 

I'm referring to Talking Circles in particular, although there are plenty of cultural examples to chose from.  Some of the most innovative, enterprising people I know have a mixed bag of ethno-cultural background themselves.  Their exposure to different perspectives has fueled their growth as critically-thinking, creative individuals.  Some of them have even turned their experience into a new model for post-secondary education.

 

There are shared workspace models out there that allow people of different backgrounds to work together.  There are a few exceptional work models that actually nurture collaboration, rather than sticking people in a room and hoping it happens or worse, pitting people against each other in a futile attempt to nurture innovation.

 

But what does a truly collaborative work and workspace model look like?  What would it require to function, to produce tangible results and contributions and empower people to shine?  How could you make this concept more than just a matter or work, but a lifestyle?

 

Understanding is the place where diversity meets and innovation happens.  WAKATA is the pot. 

 

There's money to be made from the concept - there's legacy to be created and brand that can be built.  Most importantly, there are solutions out there waiting to happen - they lack only the right connective tissue. 

 

It's something worth having a conversation about, don't you think? 

 

POST SCRIPT

 

If a culture of open, respectful collaboration is the Holy Grail for innovation and productivity, would that make a culture of top-down management fueled by fear the Golden Calf?

 

If so, it's no wonder Stephen Harper is so frustrated with the lack of innovation and job development coming out of his government.  It's not too late for him to change his approach and get back on track - he simply has to be willing to actively listen to others and just maybe have a bit of faith in people.