Thinking Outside the Partisan Box with @GHoakz + @ZPaikin

 

We live in an era in which centralization around party leaders has made it less evident to the public what potential prime ministers wish to do with power.  After nearly 15 hears of hyper-partisanship and absence of big ideas, national coalition governments could reinvigorate our country at a time of major global change.

 

Now is an opportune time for both the Canadian people and its political leaders to ask themselves whether we want to do what it takes to become a serious global player in an evolving world order, and whether we believe it is time to reject politics as usual in favour of something better.

 

 

Full confession - I consider both Zach and Greta to be friends (though one of them still owes me a non-coffee). 

 

The first time I had a serious chat with Zach, we ended up talking philosophy, politics and occupational mental health - in about four different languages.  I consider myself a polyglot, but Zach's facility with language (right down to regional accents) is awesome to behold.

 

I've got a particular soft spot for Greta.  I first met her on the last Ontario Liberal Leadership race, where we both were part of Team GK.  17 at the time, she first walked into the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It didn't take me long to realize that behind those bright eyes was a burning intellect, a passion for positive change and a wicked organizational mind.  It wasn't 'til later that I learned she'd been an entrepreneur since she was 13.

 

Both Zach and Greta are part of a growing movement that doesn't see gaining power through the existing system as the only means to effect change; they see the as-is system as part of the problem to be addressed.  You can see this movement reflected in organizations like Samara, civic engagement groups like Why Should I Care and of course, all things Open Government.

 

I love the fact that they're willing to challenge the status quo and present an idea that transcends partisan politics.  I would argue, however, that they need to dig a bit deeper to discern the core problem and then work out from there towards a viable solution.

 

A couple of key quotes that stood out to me:

 

- centralization around party leaders has made it less evident to the public what potential prime ministers wish to do with power.

 

- a theoretical Liberal prime minister would have a tough time explaining to his caucus why he was putting a handful of Tories and New Democrats in cabinet in place of some of his fellow Grits.

 

- A theoretical Liberal prime minister would have a tough time explaining to his caucus why he was putting a handful of Tories and New Democrats in cabinet in place of some of his fellow Grits.

 

- establishing a coalition-government norm would reaffirm the fact that we elect Parliaments, and not governments, in this country.

The role of Parliament is to hold government to account on the people's behalf - such has been the case since Magna Carta.  Government is the Crown and the Crown's Ministers.  It's not part of our constitution that Ministers need to be selected from among elected Members of Parliament; that's convention, not law.  The Party system evolved as a way to ensure broader interest groups had sufficient voice for their collective concerns to impact policy.

 

Understanding where we came from helps in seeing why things have gone so screwy.

 

When politicians elected to represent specific, geographic constituencies become subservient to the interests of political parties as a means to ensure support in their riding, but also to build the brand necessary to get "promoted" from the Parliamentarian side to the Crown's side - who is serving who?

 

As Samara's MP exit interviews demonstrated, Parliamentarians don't know who they're supposed to answer to or even have a clear sense of what their role is.

 

While I commend the idea of increasing the plurality of voices and views at the decision-making top, I wonder if opening up all Parliamentarians to compete for higher position would make them more, not less subjective to centralized power (the PM and the PMO).  From a real-world perspective, if I'm the guy/gal making choices about who's in cabinet from a broader range of players and I know that "getting the promotion" is a key motivator for MPs, I'm playing them off one another to get more of what I want across the board.

 

That's the opposite direction of where we need Parliament to be heading. 

Knowing how clever and committed Greta and Zach are to strengthening our system of democracy, I would encourage them to turn their energies towards Open Government, participatory budgeting, etc.  Also, the emerging field of workplace culture change is worth considering; the House of Commons is all-too-often a toxic environment that hinders rather than supports the development of shared solutions as we focus on stopping what we don't like rather than collaboratively creating things we do like.

 

That, and civic engagement.  Perhaps the best thing that bright, engaged and thoughtful leaders like Greta and Zach can do is share their passion, networks and understanding of the system with other Canadians of all rank and file.

 

The kind of structural change we need isn't going to be flowed from top to bottom; it's got to be grown from the bottom up.

 

 

The Peaceable Revolution for Open Government: The Youth Shall Lead

I did a presentation today on Open Government and Open Data to Grade 10 students at Humber Collegiate.

As part of the presentation, I talked briefly about Magna Carta and Responsible Government - the historical process that has led us to having a government that's accountable to Parliament.  I walked with them through the difference between Constitutional responsibilities and political conventions.

We also talked about the increase of rabid partisanship and the role increasingly visual, accessible and real-time media have played in this trend.  

This led into the harsh reality of modern politics - that those within the system who recognize there's a problem and those that are fine with the increasingly partisan competitiveness of our system are equally trapped.  It's not about them, after all, nor what they leave behind - it's about our society and the world our children (like the youth in these classes) will inherit.

I closed by drawing a comparison between Magna Carta and Open Government, suggesting that society has grown so complex that, in addition to responsible government (answerable to Parliament) we need a responsible democracy (answerable to the people).

Referencing a plaque in Nova Scotia that commemorates the first responsible government in the British Empire, I told them that this is our "peaceable revolution."

These classes had been present at Open Data Day TO, one of hundreds of Open Data/Open Government events that happened globally.  They understood that what's happening out there is a movement - and they want to be part of it.

I asked them what message they would like to convey to government, Parliament, the bureaucracy and the media.  I promised them I wasn't just asking because it was the traditional thing to do, but because I wanted to connect their voices with whatever ears I could.

They gave me three powerful messages to pass on.  Here they are:

   1) Youth are people too - and they have a voice

   2) Don't underestimate them

   3) They will be holding the collective us accountable

I expect to be hearing more from young, engaged, powerful voices like these, from a growing number of sources.  So should you.

Leadership Off the Links: Women Who Don't Complain, But Act (UPDATED)

I've learned to deal with setbacks and heartaches like an adult.  I know what I like and what I don't like.  I know what makes me tick, and what and who deserves a kick.

It's funny in a sad kind of way; on the one hand, we have Old Boy Network folk like John Tory suggesting that it's up to women to push for more money and encouraging young women to learn golf so as to cozy up to the rich white guys.

At the same time, the solution being proposed to our youth unemployment (and general disaffection with the way our system works) by these folk is suck it up and sell harder.  It's not the job of bosses to look for talent any more than it's their responsibility to proactively support and reward good work - laissez-faire capitalism and all that.

These are the same wealthy insiders who are discussing the failure of Capitalism at Davos and discussing Canada's innovation deficit at high-priced luncheons and bemoaning the fact that young people don't get the way the world works.  Oh - and then there's that whole social sustainability thing, crippled by a burgeoning mental health crisis.  Dysfunctional government doesn't help matters, either.

It's too bad the elites don't believe in committing sociology; if they did, they'd actually understand the problems we're facing and see that the solutions are already being developed and implemented.

Some of the brightest, most dedicated, innovative and solution-oriented people I know don't play golf, don't wear suits and certainly aren't interested in complaining.  To them, that would be a waste of time.

Instead, they are focused on getting things done. 

They're not afraid to give stern words to the sales-oriented laissez-faire loafers who are getting in the way of progress.  After all, when the bosses abdicate responsibility, someone's gotta lead.

And you know what else?   These emerging leaders seem to overwhelmingly be women.

The Master doesn't talk, she acts.

When her work is done,

The people say "Amazing,

We did it, all by ourselves!"

UPDATE:  The best swag for women coders according to Goldman Sachs?  Compact mirrors and nail files.  Read the comments to see the psychology of why this sort of thing persists.

I'm sure some women love to be condescended to and subjected to sexist stereotypes.  We'll see how's that approach helps the Goldman Sachs' of the world recruit women.  If it's the company's culture rather than the individuals' sensitivity that's the problem, I'm sure they'll evolve with the times.

It'd only be logical, right?

No Partisan Wall Too Tall

One of the greatest advantages of youth is that they have yet to learn cynicism.  I'd say "and the children shall lead" but Greta's got an older soul than most people I know.

While many people view the House of Commons as a waste of Members of Parliament’s breath, I see it as an opportunity to have great discussions with people who you do not agree with, but who you can hopefully still respect. I hope that MPs see this opportunity and can work towards it.

 

I’m so lucky to have all the people I have met in politics in my life – regardless of their political affiliations. Our views constantly evolve, and if they’re not strong enough or we are not certain of ourselves enough to be willing to debate and discuss them with others, then maybe it’s time for re-evaluation.

 

I’d encourage everyone to reach across sometimes trench-like political lines and extend their hand. Perhaps not in agreement on principles, but rather in understanding that by doing so, you are taking the first step towards working together and expanding your horizons.

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.

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.

7 Things That Set Real Entrepreneurs Apart (Steve Tobak)

Love this description.  I know a few folk who match it - and there's no question in my mind that they're going to change the world.

7 Things That Set Real Entrepreneurs Apart

Just because you wear a black turtleneck, jeans, and sneakers doesn't make you Steve Jobs. This is what makes an entrepreneur.

 

Lou Dematteis/Corbis

 

A VC whose name escapes me once said, "There are entrepreneurs and there are Entrepreneurs!"

I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but I'll tell you what I think. I think the term "entrepreneur" has become more than a little overused, watered down, diluted.

 

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This is supposed to be the era of the entrepreneur. Practically everyone has a business, a brand, a blog. Everybody's a CEO of one. And yet, relatively few actually embody the true meaning of the word "entrepreneur." So what does it mean?

 

To me, it means assuming significant personal risk in forming and running a business.

 

And of those real entrepreneurs, few manage to create a profitable, growing enterprise that delivers unique products, meaningful employment, and shareholder value. What makes those Entrepreneurs unique? What sets them apart from the pack? That's a very challenging question. And the answer may surprise you.

 

They defy characterization. You really have to get to know these people, work with them for years, maybe even get inside their heads a bit, to understand what they're really all about. Here's one thing I know for sure. They're each one of a kind. The real deal. They don't try to be unique. They just are. And they don't try to be like someone else, either. They know that wearing a black mock turtleneck, jeans, and sneakers doesn't make you Steve Jobs.

 

Money means little to them. It's sort of ironic how little money matters to those who are true entrepreneurs at heart. After all, the really successful ones end up with so much of it. For them, money is just a means to an end. And since money's not a distraction or a temptation, they can truly focus on what really counts: doing what drives them, what they're passionate about. Challenging themselves, proving it can be done. Building a company, wealth and all that are secondary.

 

They're on a mission from God. No, they're not really. But when they speak about their vision or idea, you'd swear they've been possessed by some sort of demon that, instead of inciting chaos and mischief, inspires innovation and creation. There's definitely an aspect of fanaticism in their zeal for whatever has captured their imagination. That could be because they truly think they're special or need to prove something. Interestingly, that aspect can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

They don't take risks for the sake of taking risks. Just as they don't set out to make money, true entrepreneurs don't usually set out to take risks, either. They just don't let anything stand in the way of whatever it is they're driven to do. They'll pursue it come hell or high water. Risk just comes with the territory. Despite being driven to do what's never been done, I just think that motivation is stronger than their fear of what might go wrong. Or maybe they just don't think about it.

 

They weren't born that way. Most of the successful entrepreneurs I've known started with nothing or at least from modest beginnings. Some had parents who did their own thing, but most didn't. They usually had mentors or people who inspired them to trust their gut and have confidence in themselves. That, to me, is a key ingredient in the making of an entrepreneur: the motivation to go for it despite the odds and conventional wisdom.

 

They're not iconic leaders. Our society loves to create heroes. We hoist them up on impossibly high pedestals. But in my experience, the entrepreneur as iconic leader is a myth. Successful founders usually have partners. Bill Gates had Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer. Steve Jobs had Steve Wozniak. Larry Page had Sergey Brin. Also, entrepreneurs are often better at founding and creating than they are at running and sustaining companies.

 

They're not very patient. Whoever said patience is a virtue was definitely not a VC or anyone in the startup business, for that matter. Successful entrepreneurs don't usually care much for social convention. They have little patience for convention. They don't want to hear how things are done, have been done, or should be done. They do things their way. But here's a twist. While they will fight you tooth and nail over a key decision, as soon as they realize they're wrong, they'll turn around in a heartbeat.

 

To me, it all boils down to this: If you want to become an entrepreneur for the sake of becoming an entrepreneur, that's probably not going to work out so well. If, on the other hand, you're driven to accomplish something cool and unique without a safety net, then I think you should go for it.

Steve Tobak is a management consultant, executive coach, and former senior executive of the technology industry. He's managing partner of Invisor Consulting, a Silicon Valley-based strategy consulting firm. Contact Tobak; follow him on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. @SteveTobak

Letting Youth Lead in Ontario

In her first jobs roundtable discussion with members of Ontario's Jobs and Prosperity Council, business leaders and young entrepreneurs, Premier Wynne reiterated her commitment to create jobs and build a stronger economy and a fair society by ensuring our young people have the tools and confidence they need to succeed.

 

 

Good lord, but Premier Kathleen Wynne is off to an exciting start! 

There are established, successful business leaders out there in search of new ideas.  Social entrepreneurs, many of them young and without track records or well-positioned contacts, are cranking out innovative, value-add solutions to our modern problems.  The thing that's been missing is some way to connect these folk and give them the comfort they need to take a risk and trust each other enough to collaborate.

 

What we need is a stone in the soup, a leader who can serve as a conduit of opportunity for all these groups.

 

With a background in both education and mediation, Wynne's got what it takes to be the rock for an innovative Ontario.  She's proving as much right now, walking the walk and leading by example.

 

Something else, too - by empowering the private sector with opportunity to access new marketplaces for ideas, Wynne is building business sector confidence in her leadership.  By proactively creating opportunity for youth to develop the tools and contacts they need to succeed, she's demonstrating a deep understanding of what teachers do - helping to give them faith that she can be an ally, not an opponent.  This doesn't mean higher salaries or increased benefits, but ensuring that our education sector, too, has the tools needed to succeed.

 

Poor leaders divide and conquer to protect their own position.  Exceptional leaders invert the pyramid and see themselves as servants of the people - making leadership a form of public service, as it were.  When the goal is collaborative accomplishment rather than personal wins, everybody moves forward.

 

Call me biased, I'm incredibly hopeful about where Wynne will take us - we now have not just the leadership we want, but the leadership we deserve.

 

 

 

Greta Hoaken: Volunteerism, Talent and Maximizing Personal Contribution

Because I know I can contribute, I therefore believe I can volunteer my contribution.

                     -Preston Tulay, former Peace Corps and UN Volunteer

One of the great joys of working on political campaigns is the people you meet along the way.  Depending on your role, you might interact with media or stakeholders looking to flag an idea or a concern; perhaps you'll have the chance to debate with representatives of other camps over competing visions.  Ideally, everyone gets the chance to interact with the candidate they support and some of the voters they're there to court.  The most inspirational folk you'll encounter, however, are invariably the volunteers.

 

This certainly was the case for me over the recently-concluded leadership campaign.  Team GK attracted a wealth of talent and dedication; volunteers committed their free time (or all their time) to the vision and cause we supported.  Gerard and his senior team wove together individual skills and lineages into a tapestry that was more than the sum of its parts - it was something I was humbled to be part of. 

 

What was even more humbling, inspiring and daunting was the chance to work alongside the wickedly sharp minds that were attracted to Gerard's liberal vision, best exemplified by Greta Hoaken.  Greta is a 17 year-old high school student; she first came in to the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It would have been easy to dismiss her as "student," but that's not how we operated - everyone got a chance to explore their potential and maximize their contribution to the campaign.  Even if a child knows her science project won’t win the science fair, she still gets that moment to perform.

 

Not that it would have mattered.  Greta's not a light that can be hidden under a basket; behind those wide eyes and bright smile burns an organizational and communications genius. 

 

One memory of many that sticks out clearly - Greta offering to help build delegate kits for the convention and within minutes, restructuring our system into one twice as efficient and better presented while confidently directing some seasoned pros to get the job done - and still working at it herself.  When people who make their living giving orders comfortably follow the lead of a 17 year-old, you know something special is happening. 

Beyond this, Greta offered solid communication ideas, helped manage traffic on the convention floor and did a televised debate on the Team's behalf, holding her own with some experienced communicators like Zach Paikin.  All very impressive from a fairly young woman - then you learn that she's also a journalist and CJPAC blogger who was already a news-making entrepreneur by the time she was 13.  I don't think I even had a paper route by that age. 

Best part - Greta, like so many of the volunteers on the GK Team, is unwaveringly dedicated to the vision we all took on: that government must be accountable, open and accessible to the people and that we must proactively provide people with the tools they need to succeed.  Despite her maximum potential being light years beyond what relative dotards like me can ever hope to reach, Greta remains humble - which is why she's only going to keep getting better as she grows into her place in society.  Just imagine what she will accomplish down the road.

 

So, yeah, I'm a big fan of Greta's and hope that she'll still remember me when she's running global campaigns in a couple of years.  The thing is, Team GK would have lost the value Greta brought if we had dismissed her based on first appearances - which would have been easier to do than we might comfortably like to think.  It was Gerard's commitment to inclusion and respect that helped hold us to a standard that ultimately benefited the Team's work.  With a little more time, who knows what we could have accomplished.  Of course, we all have the future ahead of us and the maximum potential of that liberal vision has yet to be realized.

 

There were other volunteers that offered value in unconventional packages; one fellow had a propensity to talk long and in circles, but when he hit his points, they were incredibly insightful.  Again, it would have been easy to dismiss him entirely, but we would have missed some important opportunities had we done so.  Two of the people on the team (one of them being me) deals with ADHD, which provided both a communications challenge to the rest of the team, but also an opportunity to kick the tires on any given plan before implementing it.

Guided by Gerard's vision we took the challenges, the frustrations the easy dismissals and looked at them all through the lens of opportunity.  Our constant question was "how do we bridge the gap efficiently and respectfully, gaining and sharing in equal measure through the process?"  How do we (to use the well-worn phrase) move forward together?

 

Kathleen Wynne is another leader like Gerard who doesn't waver from what she believes in, including respect, communication and collaboration.  The reason liberals who supported all leadership candidates are so comfortable with Wynne as our leader is that she represents the best of what we all believe in.

 

This, then, is the challenge that faces Premier Wynne and her team; to take the time to respect and foster the contributions of everyone who wants to be part of the vision, wherever they come from or whatever they bring to the table.  I'm confident that this will happen, because I believe in Kathleen Wynne as a leader.  When people see that their contributions will be welcomed, respected, solicited and honestly considered, you'll see more Gretas popping up in all kinds of unexpected places.

 

Everyone has value to offer - they just need the chance.  When they get it, everyone wins.