Why I Won't Be Calling For Rob Ford To Resign

"I was taken aback," said Morris.  "It was over the top.  That is not his job."

Clearly, we're in uncharted territory here.  Under circumstances as incriminating as Ford's are, most politicians feel compelled to show at least some contrition, even if it's only to mend their reputations rather than preserve the integrity of their office.  

After initially saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Bill Clinton eventually conceded he'd acted inappropriately; it didn't hurt his reputation any.  It's become trendy for politicians to admit to pot-smoking - as that's something a lot of average citizens due regardless of the legality, these confessions humanize the politicians and suggest it's the law, not the people that need adjustment.

But this isn't the case with Rob Ford, is it?  Crack cocaine smoking isn't such a common vice.  The production of cocaine is complex and tied to vast illegal operations that pose a significant threat to civil society.  Beyond that, Ford appears not to have any instinct for reputational defence; intransigence is his singular method of operation.

And there are still those who love him for it; he's a man on a mission, functionally fixed and steadfast in his position, no matter how ludicrous it becomes.  It's the same approach Stephen Harper is taking to the Senate Scandal, like so many of the scandals that have preceded it; stick to the messaging and wait for the whole thing to blow over.  

Both men still have their admirers, even among those who are completely frustrated with their approach and apparent lack of ethical compasses.  Ford and Harper have survived no-win scenarios before; you can't count either of them out yet. 

Which is a significant problem.

There's this crazy thing where we have begun to associate survival with leadership.  The ability of Ford and Harper to hold onto the reigns of power no matter how egregious the actions they themselves or the people they have hired commit isn't a sign of strong management skills, it's testament to their capacity to do wrong and get away with it.

Survival is inward-focused, selfish and all-to-often, detrimental to the well-being of the broader community.  Criminals who kill their enemies, catching civilians in the cross-fire are extreme examples of skilled survivors.

Leadership, on the other hand, is about obsolescence;  it puts the long-term interests of the community first.

Which trait do we tend to reward among our politicians?  It's the bombast, the story-telling, the heavy focus on bullet-point marketing and micro-targeted messages that win votes, not a thoughtful dedication to policy and a focus on accomplishment over sales.

Rob Ford has proven himself a political survivor, but his survival has come at the expense of the well-being of his office, his institution and the reputation of the city itself.  Reporters and Police Chiefs have been caught up in a net of "I know you are, but what am I" - completely unprecedented situations for professionals to find themselves in.

Were Ford a bureaucrat, Ford the Mayor would fire him with the full support of the public.  Ford the Mayor wouldn't care about why Ford the Civil Servant was a mess; that wouldn't be his problem.  That kind of scenario plays out all the time in the real world; people grappling with performance-impacting mental health issues, personal crises and familial challenges get fired irregardless of the added strain losing a job will place on them.

The system, in aggregate, is being given preference over the people who allow that system to operate.  Is it any wonder why we have such massive structural challenges in Canada?  Does it start to make sense why mental health is quickly becoming the civil rights issue of our time?

Rob Ford isn't an average employee who can be let go of easily; he's the Mayor of the biggest city in Canada.  There are no mechanisms to force him from his office between now and the next election - if he refuses to go on his own, it becomes the responsibility of everyone else to figure out how to deal with him.

That means it's up to us to lead the way forward.

I'm a big believer that every challenge provides an opportunity (which is why I tend to be good at problem-solving).  Toronto will unquestionably survive in the long-run; dare I say it's too big to fail.  

As we have a broader recognition that we need to do a better job at mental health comprehension and accommodation and as it's now very clear the Mayor has mental health-related concerns, let's make that our focus.  After all, if we can successfully remediate and accommodate a Mayor, supporting lower-level employees should be a cake-walk.

Project Remediate Ford needs to target his inner circle of enablers, chiefly his brother.  I'm sure Doug has Rob's best political intentions at heart and sees that as his appropriate focus, but come on - his brother is a heart attack waiting to happen.  You can't celebrate political wins from the grave.  It should be Doug's fraternal imperative to put his brother's health first.

Same goes for Ford's key Council supporters and financial backers; put the man ahead of the interests they see that man representing.  Empathize with him a little bit, help him onto a more sustainable path.  

That requires a big shift, though, from a "what can you do for me" enabling approach to a "what can I do for you" supportive approach.  That requires revisiting priorities, even putting one's own interests and relationship with Ford the Mayor at risk in support of Ford the Man.  Mark Towhey has already demonstrated it's possible; if enough people follow suit, we may actually be able to convince Rob Ford that intransigence isn't a strength and seeking help isn't a weakness.

To be fully comfortable in this approach, Ford's enablers will need the support of the community at large; they will by default have to become strong advocates in the vein of a Michael Kirby, pushing for a paradigm shift in how we look at mental health.

In other words, to fix the Ford Problem in a sustainable way requires everyone to change their view about the nature of mental health and the purpose of personal relationships.  If the people at the top communicate with the people at the bottom and create a shared vision of what an improved perspective could look like, that is absolutely doable.  It also happens to be critically necessary.

This is why I am not in favour of sweeping the social challenge that is Rob Ford under the carpet - there are too many mental health-related problems under there already.  We are actually fortunate to be in a position where we have no choice but to revist our beliefs if we want to clear the barrier before us and keep moving forward.

We've gotten into a bad habit of removing people who are symptoms of a structural illness instead of holistically and collaboratively seeking to fix the problem.  If Rob Ford is the tipping point that catalyzes a different approach, that's not a bad legacy to leave behind.

Occupational Mental Health Now

Nurses know changes are needed. Hospitals across the country are at overcapacity. A generally accepted standard of safe hospital occupancy is 85 per cent, yet most hospitals are working at a 100 per cent or higher. The results of overcrowding include compromised care, high rates of hospital-acquired infections and unnecessary rates of hospital readmission. Another result is dangerous levels of workload, and the resulting vicious circle of working short staffed.

The sheer pressure being placed on our national healthcare silos (because there is no system, not nationally, not provincially) is unsustainable.  The people delivering our health services are cracking at the seams, but the burden just keeps growing.  Plus, the cost keeps rising, too.  Something has to give.

When you need to deliver more, but can't afford more, you need a third way.  You need structural change.  The question we need to ask ourselves is, why is there such high demand?  What can we do to reduce demand rather than attempt impossible service increases?

If you want to find ways to keep people out the healthcare system, you have to do two things - give them more knowledge and access on the front end (education, health promotion) and reduce the factors that aggrieve illness in the first place. 

How do you do that?  We've looked at obesity and smoking, promoted healthy eating and exercise.  There's decent health and safety standards in place, some going to far as to impede people from developing resistance and resiliency. 

What's left?

Everyone's acknowledged there is a global mental health crisis that impacts poverty, quality of life and illness - all of which increase the burden on our healthcare system.  There is an appreciation of how "management styles" and work flow can exacerbate or even cause illnesses like anxiety and depression (if it frustrates you that I call those illnesses, ask yourself, why?)  Now, we need to connect the dots between mental health, occupational health and health care.  It's a pretty easy link to make; it's the implications that give us pause.

There's an appetite for changing the way we look at mental health, work and healthcare - there's also a dire need.  The politicians who seize on this topic and run with it can not only score major social wins; they can achieve some major political wins, too.

We're going to be hearing a lot more about cognitive labour as the engine that fuels the information economy.  It's something the smart business and political folk are already becoming conscious of.

The Concious Society: Something Beginning

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

- Senator Michael Kirby

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

 - Don Drummond

It was the music

Of something beginning,

An era exploding,

A century spinning

In riches and rags

And in rhythm and rhyme."

 - Ragtime

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

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

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

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

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

They are all connected. 

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

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

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

Good On Lisa Raitt: Addressing Occupational Mental Health and Safety

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

  - Lisa Raitt, Canada's Minister of Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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