Catching Fire, Importing Nuts

The agent gave her a signed document which stated that "the system checks" had found she "had a medical episode in June 2012" and that because of the "mental illness episode" she would need a medical evaluation before being accepted.

Quite frankly, this is nuts.  

First, let's recognize the fact that both Canada and the US (and countless other countries, and the private sector) have recognized there is a global mental health crisis, largely because we're doing mental health wrong.  Despite the tools, drugs and practices ranging from workplace accommodations to cognitive behavioural therapy, we still think of people with mental illness as either weak or contagious.

We've been stigmatizing mental health in the same way we used to stigmatize leprosy, causing pain, loss and suffering where it could be easily avoided.

Beyond that, though, does the US seriously want to stop people who have been diagnosed with mental illness from crossing their borders?

Sorry, Russell Brand - no more working in Hollywood.  Too bad, Catherine Zeta-Jones; you don't belong here.  Hey, future Einsteins, you're not welcome in the US - take your crazy notions elsewhere. Foreign leaders are welcome, so long as they aren't hounded by black dogs like Winston Churchill was.

If they disqualify the crazies from entering the country, they surely don't want them in the Oval Office - it's a good thing Abraham Lincoln wasn't diagnosed in his lifetime.

The drivers, the innovators, the leaders in society all have something abnormal about their psychology.  If they didn't, they would be normal and we'd still be questing for fire.  

We celebrate the cognitively disparate just as much as we vilify them.  We eat them up on Homeland and Dexter and Community and Monk.  People with mental illness are our new superheroes.  

You know how Jennifer Lawrence keeps talking about being crazy and weird and craving a diagnosis?  Note the brilliance of thought and performance that comes out of her?  Exactly.

"Mental illness" is a gift, a divergence, a disruption, a catalyst.  Like any naked flame, it can blaze out of control and cause a brushfire, but with a bit of structure and the right fuel, you can get both heat and light.

We want access to these cognitive forces of nature; we want to help them reach their maximum potential safely, not watch them burn out and fade away from afar.  If the US had so stigmatized their exceptional people for the entire course of their history, well, they wouldn't be such a loved/hated power today, would they?

But it gets even worse.  From the same article:

MP Mike Sullivan said what has happened to his constituent is "enormously troubling... How did U.S. agents get her personal medical information?"

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212, denies entry to people who have had a physical or mental disorder that may pose a "threat to the property, safety or welfare" of themselves or others.

I wonder how they define "threat to property, safety or welfare?"  Through their own ignorance about mental health, US Customs (granted, following US law) have threatened the financial investment Ellen Richardson made for her trip (property) and caused potential harm to her safety and welfare by rubbing salt into her pre-existing, but well-managed condition.

Beyond that - how did they get Ms. Richardson's information?  It's private, in someone else's hands.  They would have had to either do some serious espionage to get information like that on average citizens, or have been provided access to that information by someone else equally paranoid about the masses.  It's obsessive, it's compulsive, it's anti-democratic.

Why would they do such a crazy thing?

It could be the general anxiety about the economy.  Perhaps it's residual fear from 9/11 or connected to the rash of domestic shootings.  It might have something to do with the increased radicalization of their Political Right.  Either way, there's definite paranoia in position.

Either way, it's worth taking a look at symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) - mistrusting, believing others are always out to get them, uncomfortable with sharing information, habitually blaming and distrusting others.

Sounds a bit like the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it?

Perhaps that's why the US is trying to firewall themselves off from the crazies - they've got enough problems dealing with their home-grown nuts.

3 Things

Three things that inspire me:

Creativity

Talent

Enthusiasm

Best part is, I don't have to limit myself to just going online to find them.  They're out there, every day, in places you'd least expect.

Want your employees to be creating content?  Get your learnin' cap on...

4 Tips To Empower Employees to be Content Creators

by Jason Miller | shared from Linkedin

Do you have content writers on your staff? You probably do and don’t even know it. Every one of your employees is a content creator and can be an important part of a successfulcontent marketing strategy. They were hired because of their expertise in a function that relates to your business and it’s your job to help them get their domain expertise out of their head and onto your blog. It might not be obvious to them that everything they know about a particular function or industry or business practice might be valuable insight to your customers and prospects. But with a little encouragement and communication of the “what’s in it for them” (e.g. good for their career/professional development, management recognition, etc.), you can help allay their fears.

Here are 4 tips to creating an employee content engine for your company:

1. Break Down the Barriers to Writing

One of the most common barriers to getting your employees involved in content creation or contributing to the blog is the fear of writing a blog post. Those who have never done so before can be intimidated by putting their thoughts out into the world for all to see and comment upon. It’s your job as a marketer to encourage them to get their thoughts and expertise out there.

One very useful resource that I have used to overcome this challenge is from what I like to refer to as “the bible” of content marketing, Content Rules by Ann Handley and C.C. Chapman. This book is the essential guide for all content marketers, and it includes some very useful tools for getting new bloggers up and running. They have put together a blogging template that outlines the blogging process, making it easy for newbies to jump right in. Put that into place along with a few brown bag lunch blog training sessions at your office and you are primed for success

2. Incentives Work Wonders

Now that you have the essential playbook (Content Rules) in hand and the helpful templates, it’s time to incent participation. I recommend putting together a point system with tiered prizes for blog contribution and have seen these types of incentive programs work wonders when coordinated by a smart content marketing manager. For example,Marketo has a fantastic incentive program in place for internal bloggers which the following is based upon. Level 1 can be something simple such as a branded T-shirt or Starbucks gift card. Rewarding writers after just one contribution can really get the ball rolling. Level 2 could be a much more significant prize, such as X, for three blog contributions, Level 3 for six, and so on.

3. Don’t Forget the Editorial Process

With all of the new content coming into your blogging pipeline, it’s essential to have a quality check in place. The template will help out with any formatting issues, but remember quality always trumps quantity in the world of content. You will need to have a final reviewer in place for grammar checks and to add a bit of SEO optimization along with scheduling for the editorial calendar.

4. Ongoing Fuel for the Content Machine

Programs such as these are vital to a successful content marketing strategy. Once the ball gets rolling you will start to see new ideas and topics along with fresh opinions and writing styles begin to come out of the woodwork. It’s an internal content awakening of sorts, but just as with any program it’s going to need some TLC to keep it going strong.

Celebrate those who contribute to your blog and call them out in a company newsletter after they get their first blog post published. Publish their blog contributions to your LinkedIn company page, then take the top performing posts and run a Sponsored Update. It’s just another way to reward your internal content creators while making sure they know that their voice and expertise are contributing to the overall humanization of your brand online.

Your employees are the lifeblood of your business. Empowering them to contribute to such a powerful medium will help deliver the most difficult kind of content to create; the organic kind.

The Disney Goliath Strikes Again

"Moreover, by making her skinnier, sexier and more mature in appearance, you are sending a message to girls that the original, realistic, teenage-appearing version of Merida is inferior; that for girls and women to have value -- to be recognized as true princesses -- they must conform to a narrow definition of beauty."


First, they took their scalpel to Star Wars - now, Disney is retooling Brave's Merida for standard market appeal.  They have standardised her beauty, taking some of the individuality out of her face for a more "classic" look.  The curves are slightly accentuated, a fact highlighted by the new colour contrast between the dress (now dripping with glimmer) and belt.

Yes, Disney has sexed up Merida.  As they know well, sex and standardisation sell.  To a narrowing audience, though - with other, more realistic media models to look to, how much longer will the classic, Victorian-style (and very Caucasian) princess continue to appeal to the masses?  Given the rise in Asian demographics, is Disney pitching outmoded standards to an audience weaned on different expectations?

Enter this piece on Big Media (like Disney) being something of a blip in the long annals of human communication.  Disney Spinsters may tell us that audiences want standardised, predictable, formulaic, but is that really the case?  Or is it just possible that it's positioning on their part, trying to reduce pressure to think up new, out-of-the-mouse-trap characters and stories?

Successful shows ranging from Game of Thrones to The Big Bang Theory are playing with Joseph Campbell archetypes, giving us broader ranges of characters that are more human, more fallible and yet more relatable to normal, non-standard people.  Industry might prefer the professional soldier (they're easier to manage and more predictable in terms of results) - but audiences don't.     Anne Hathaway was derided for a very professional approach to Awards Season while the awkward Jennifer Lawrence won new fans with her rough but sincere approach.  It's this same approach that has helped maintain a functioning Ford Nation despite the numerous failures of the Mayor.

Of course, this isn't a message folks like Disney want to hear.  Much like Political Parties who ignore negative reaction to attack ads as a minor factor that can be ignored,  Disney is quite comfortable doing things the way that they do - it's worked thus far and requires no structural creative thinking on their part.  The growth process is always a painful one as each generation is doomed to discover.

 

Oh, and to the commentators who say the changes to Merida are "no big deal" - let us know if you're still smarting that Wolverine didn't wear yellow spandex in the X-Men films, then we'll talk.

Carol Goar, Susan Delacourt - We Should Talk

 

Dear Carol Goar and Susan Delacourt:

 

Loved your pieces on political spin and the need to try something different!  We're on the same page, as you'll see in a moment; first let me make it clear why it is I'm writing to you:

 

I know what that "something different" looks like and I can tell you, it's pretty cool.

 

But you deserve to know why you should trust me on this.  After all, I'm not a top political organizer; nobody pays me big bucks to do presentations, nor am I on any politician's speed dial.  I'm just a social entrepreneur, bringing people together to build something  greater than the sum of its parts.

 

I'm not overly fond of tooting my own horn (which probably explains a few things) so I hope you'll indulge me if I use an anecdote to shed light on what it is I offer:

 

I was out for coffee with an old Queen's Park friend yesterday when the topic of mental health came up.  With a wide-eyed look, she recalled a chat we'd had three years ago where I suggested mental health (specifically in how it relates to cognitive labour, political engagement and how it's mirrored in the growth of online platforms like e-government) was going to be a hot topic in short order.  She'd given me the verbal equivalent of a pat on the head and politely told me to keep dreaming. 

 

She wasn't the only one. 

 

At the same time I doing rounds of major and minor Government Relations firms, explaining to them how the broader social application of mental health was soon to be a big deal and that, if they started laying track early, they could get ahead of the curve in both creating shared solutions and leading their competitors.  None of them could see the emerging picture; every last one of them told me they didn't see where the Return on Investment could be; they encouraged me to give up the pursuit and focus on something more tangible.

 

Today, my friend can't escape mental health as a topic - The Agenda is dedicating time to mental health, the Economic Club of Canada is exploring the critical impact of mental health on the economy, the Federal government has implemented voluntary Psychological Health and Safety Workplace Standards.

 

My friend was less politely condescending yesterday.  Instead, she asked: "How did you know?"

 

 

End of anecdote.  Now, here's an example of where our thought processes align:

 

 

“When 40 per cent of the population isn’t voting, the results are wildly unrepresentative of the people,” he acknowledged. “But we don’t know what the driver of that is.”

 

WAKATA: Tragedy of the House of Commons

 

 

If it is true that the communications pros and advertisers have taken over politics, I am intrigued by how they have failed to come up with new ideas in the business of explaining politics and government to the public.

 

WAKATA: Political Delusion

 

 

So maybe it is time for the pros to come up with some new ideas, a spark or two of creativity and yes, maybe even a few laughs.

 

WAKATA: Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty brought value add to his last campaign with a brilliant Bollywood-styled rally that delivered on his themes of diversity, strength and moving forward together while also wooing target audiences and creating a memorable experience for the province. and The Best Consultants Are Yet To Come and The Party That Listens

 

 

There’s an obvious reply, I guess, to this complaint about no new ideas in political spin. Creativity is risky, and politics can be remarkably risk-averse.

 

WAKATA: Why Society Needs Stones , Collaboration Soup: Inspired Teamwork

 

 

It’s not just Liberal-leader-to-be Justin Trudeau, either, and his advocacy of Wilfrid Laurier’s “sunny ways.”

 

WAKATA: by fully letting go of the methodology of a Stephen Harper or a Tim Hudak or even a Thomas Mulcair, other avenues will reveal themselves to you.

 

And my favourite:

 

The session that most intrigues me, though, is on the “electoral alchemy” of political advertising, communication and spin.

 

WAKATA:  Political alchemy (converting the staunchest of conservatives into progressives) is a tougher challenge requiring a greater dedication of self - but it is possible.

 

 

As you can see, I've spent some time thinking about the issues that sparked the Spur Festival, both directly and indirectly.  There's a lot of material, to be sure; the reach of your pyramid is limited to the size of your base.  I feel this depth has given me some pretty good perspective on what comes next; given my past experience I'm pretty confident in that insight, too.

 

If I've learned anything, though, it's that you can't force people to connect the dots; fear and anger can be forced, but hope has to emerge from within.  The best one can do is open the door.  It's kinda why the quick and easy path of political attacks dominate the field.

 

There is much to be hopeful about in the picture that's emerging; many of the challenges we're hung up on will in fact turn out to be powerful opportunities for growth and innovation.  We three could have a fascinating but challenging conversation about this that would benefit both of us.

 

I could give you a call but I can't force you to answer, so we'll leave it at this - whenever you're ready, I'm not hard to find.

 

Sincerely,

 

Craig C-E

 

UPDATE

 

Apologies to Susan - I opened her link, read her piece and then immediately started looking for additional pieces.  Because the idea that got me thinking was tied to Carol's name and I wanted to whip this off before a meeting, I missed a significant detail. 

 

Lesson learned!  It just goes to show why taking the time to study the broader context is so important.

1. Susan Delacourt‏@SusanDelacourt4h
2. Good piece by Carol Goar on @spurfest event re: spin and strategy in #cdnpoli: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/04/17/debating_dark_arts_of_political_campaigning_goar.html

1. Craig Carter-Edwards‏@__CCE29m
2. @SusanDelacourt @SpurFest here's an open response to the Twitter-shy Ms. Goar: http://cce-wakata.blogspot.ca/2013/04/carol-goar-we-should-talk.html … there's a fascinating convo to be had!

 

1. Susan Delacourt‏@SusanDelacourt27m
2. @__CCE Except, uh, you're quoting *my* article, not Carol's.

 

 

 

Branding: How to Bake a Good Impression

       

 

After three years of baking elaborate cakes part-time, Holmes decided to leave his passport control job at Stanstead Airport and devote himself to his business and his new family. Son Benjamin was born March 7.

 

A friend reposted his picture on the social network Instagram and suddenly the new dad was a new celebrity.

 

People love feel-good stories.  They also love to be inspired by talent.  This applies to baking, singing, even political engagement.  Employers and clients love talent, too, but especially these days, they don't want to take it on faith that you're as good as you say you are.  What better reference than a demonstration of your own skill in creative, engaging ways?

 

Chris Holmes clearly loved baking and worked hard to build his business on the side of his day job.  That dedication and a bit of proactive support from some friends has made him an international celebrity who might just have to start thinking about shipping.

 

It wasn't just the talent that helped Mr. Cake go viral - it was the love and detail he put into his work that carried over into how he lived his life:

 

“I wanted to leave on good terms. I enjoyed my time there. But this is something I really love, food and cooking.”

 

He didn't want to let his former employers down, so he relied on his talent to leave on good terms - and in the process, an inspirational story was born.  Oh - and think of the example he is setting for his new baby Cake.  Just gives you goosebumps, doesn't it?

 

There's a lesson in here for people trying to build a brand.  Taking cheap shots at opponents inspires nobody - vision, dedication, creativity and empathy are things we can all feel good about.

Why Creativity and How to Foster it

 This article on how creativity works is brilliant, mind-boggling, but also long.  If you want the Coles Notes cribbed from the bottom of the article, here they are:

 Putting it All Together

Research suggests that it might not have been intelligence, but creativity, that separated us from the Neanderthals. It’s a vital part of our humanity, a crucial aspect of society, an important part of our individuality, and the source of all progress. Without it, we descend into boredom, stagnation, and repetition.

But can it be fostered, or do we just have to sit back and wait for it to happen? The research points to evidence that we can, in fact, encourage creativity, both as organizations and as individuals. When we put all this research together, what have we learned?

• No universal definition. If the studies above have taught us anything, it’s that every time we measure creativity, we are measuring something unique. Without a universal definition, we should avoid rushing to conclusions based on any particular piece of research.
• Foster a sense of security. Individuals become fearful of creative ideas when they are uncertain about the future. When rewards and punishments seem arbitrary, or when we are told that problems only have one correct solution, we become uncertain. Not only do we become fearful of creativity, we are blind to this fear, and we justify the results by believing that creative ideas are not, in fact, creative.
• Embrace paradox. Foster a culture or a mindset that understands how apparently contradicting concepts can somehow compliment each other. It’s especially important to understand that ideas can be different and connected at the same time.
• Stay positive. Despite the tortured artist archetype, all the evidence suggests that people become more creative when they are in a good mood. Finding ways to keep yourself or your teams happy is one of the most effective ways to stay creative.
• Be cautious with incentives. The evidence surrounding incentives and creativity is mixed, to say the least. It’s clear that if incentives create uncertainty or become a distraction, they are detrimental to creativity. Rewarding people for productivity or simply for completing a task may reduce creativity. But explicitly rewarding people for creativity tends to increase creative output. Despite this, there appear to be some circumstances where rewarding creativity does not increase creative output, but instead causes less creative ideas to be filtered out.
• Encourage individual brainstorming. Most research suggests that individuals are better at brainstorming than groups. Inevitably, any kind of collaborative project requires group meetings in order to keep things synchronized, and there are many ways that these experimental settings differ from real world settings. But at least some of the brainstorming should be done in private. Studies suggest that any benefits provided by group brainstorming sessions only manifest afterward, when individuals take this inspiration into a private brainstorming session. Computer brainstorming appears to be most effective since participants can work at their own pace. For the same reasons, a practice known as brainwriting, where collaborators write down their ideas on cards and share them during a live session, is highly valuable.
• Encourage criticism and debate in group sessions. Common sense would tell us that people will be less likely to share their ideas if they are at risk of being criticized. Experiments suggest that people are more afraid of being in the minority. Encouraging criticism and debate causes people to feel more comfortable in the minority, allowing more ideas to make their way into the conversation.
• Consider using facilitators. The presence of a trained facilitator can cause a traditional group brainstorming session to beat even a group of individuals by a factor of three in sheer number of ideas. When facilitators train a group and join in on a brainwriting session, they can beat individuals by a factor of eight. Unfortunately, many experiments have failed to replicate these results, some of them not doing any better than groups of individuals, indicating that not all facilitators are created equal. Whenever possible, a facilitator’s abilities should be tested against a group of individuals.
• Foster diversity. Creativity appears to be the result of the combination of ideas. Groups with limited mindsets are less likely to combine ideas, since they already share the same set of ideas. This means that individuals should have time to delve into their own ideas, and that these ideas then need to be brought back together and shared. The ideal brainstorming group, based on an analysis of real world institutions, appears to consist of about 22 percent creatives, 16 percent conformists, and 11 percent detail oriented people.
• Allow the mind to wander. New ideas and insightful solutions are more likely to arise when people are out of focus. This means that there must be time for daydreaming, moments where the mind isn’t constrained by a need to focus on any particular task or goal.

While this advice is backed by some of the best research in the field, it’s also important to recognize that experimental settings and studies only apply with certainty within the same setting. What works for a remote association test, a candle problem, or an academic brainstorming session might not necessarily apply under other conditions.

We are, unfortunately, nowhere near a unified theory of creativity.

What I want people to absorb most from this discourse is a mindset. We often make assumptions about what will help or hinder our creative impulses. It turns out that those assumptions are often wrong. Whenever possible, we need to test them.

Does this affect how you think about creativity? Have you tried incorporating any of these ideas in your own life, or organization?

How Fit is Rob Ford?

“We must use every legal means to make life for these thugs miserable, to put them behind bars, or to run them out of town,” Ford said in a statement. “We will not rest until being a gang member is a miserable, undesirable life.”

Ostracize.  Contain.  Punish.  These are Rob Ford's solutions to gang-related crime.  The underlying principle is that some people are bad seeds and need to be removed from society to prevent harm to everyone else.  It's not an a-typical social conservative position to have.  It goes along with the idea that government is oppressive to the individual and that taxation disincents people from working and innovating; if they got to keep more of their money, they'd work harder to get even more money.  Greater prosperity will result in greater demand, more jobs, and more prosperity for everyone.

So - on the one hand, we need to remove bad apples so as not to spoil the bushel.  On the other, we shouldn't regulate behaviour, because that impedes good behaviour through resentment, etc.  Some people would say that taking away social services and regulation (minimum wage, education requirements, etc) but punishing people for crimes that are fostered by socio-economic conditions is ridiculous; you're punishing people, essentially, for their lot in life.  It's not fair.  It makes more sense to be proactive, to educate, accommodate, etc and avoid crime in the first place.  Reactive behaviour comes too late.

It all depends on what kind of society you're trying to build.  There actually is a case to be made for the Rob Ford model of society - it's called "survival of the fittest."  It's basic evolution - the strong will rise to the top no matter what and the weak or unruly will be eliminated (or locked away/run out of town).  By culling the weak/unprosperous, only the successful will be left.  It's not trickle-down economics; it's cut-the-bottom-off economics.

There's a problem, though - consciously or not, social conservatives are applying biological evolutionary rules to society.  Society is a different animal entirely, with different rules.  See, if society were designed for the "fittest" to survive, it would actually the ones who kill, steal and cheat that would get ahead.  They're the toughest; they're willing to do whatever it takes to win.  Think about it - do back-stabbing and dog-eat-dog competition result in the smartest, most social, most innovative people climbing corporate or social ladders?  From a different angle, does wealth make one immune to the impact of a riot, or an epidemic? 

Despite what laissez-faire free-marketers would have us believe, we actually have had a Rob Fordesque society in history - just look at medieval Europe, or before that, Rome for two examples.  People aggregated where there was opportunity, but when they're solely out for themselves, they aren't looking after the interests of their neighbour; waste goes into the street, work gets done to the lowest price and the least amount of work, etc.  Disease, fires, looting, etc were significant social problems.  The challenges of many people living in close quarters actually fostered the climate of centralized coordination and regulation that is government.  The "free market" model isn't what we're moving towards - it's what society is moving away from.

The only way for a truly free market society to thrive is if people live at a distance from each other - each to their own plots, free to make and enforce their own decisions without being impacted by the actions of their neighbours.  A feudal society, in short, with everyone lord of their own castle.  That's the position of the Ontario Landower Association folk.  There's a problem with that model, too - when people are left to their own devices, independently, they actually don't need to innovate as much or share their innovations; after all, new ideas aren't going to be picked up until someone proves them, and where's the profit in the proving process?  The reason that innovation has continued to pick up speed is due at least as much to social density as it is to any other factor.

Innovation is a social phenomena.  Literally; the part of our brain that motivates pro-social behaviour is the same one that allows for innovation and executive function (the ability to proactively plan).  The part of our brain that is the seat of emotions (biological drives that motivate us to react, like locking people up after a crime is already committed) stores memory, but doesn't foster connection-making or active solution-creating.

Social conservatives don't trust hope, because hope implies change.  They're thinking with their reactive brains, primarily; there's no way to quantify hope and really, there's no evidence in the world that can convince them you can reform a criminal through education and restorative justice.  By the same token, progressives get frustrated with the "with us or against us" mentality of the socons; why can't they see where progress can take us?

Evolution isn't a ladder - neither the reactive nor proactive brain are better than the other.  Both have their uses, context-determined.  It just so happens that in an increasingly dense social context, the ability to plan is a really useful tool to have.

Ford says the best social program is a job - but you can't get a job unless you can prove you're able to do the work.  How do you get the training, the experience, the dare I say it, social skills?  Through social programs.  The more educated a society is, the more equitable resource access is, the more prosperity there is for everyone and less violence.

It's not that Rob Ford's model is wrong; it's just that he hasn't followed it through to conclusion.

The Carly Rae Jepsen "Call Me Maybe" Meme: This is What Innovation Looks Like

Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes.

Who takes the time to make a Star Wars clip-collection to add to the Call Me Maybe meme? 

For that matter, who takes the time to crowd-source clips recreating the Star Wars movie?

What makes a person go to those whimsical lengths?  How many internal memory files, how much cognitive capacity to connect dots do you need to devise and follow through on something like this?  More to the point, what is it that makes Star Wars a social phenomenon that people want to be a part of?  Boiled down - what's the connection between creativity and society?

There are those who will say it's profit that drives us.  Seriously, though, are there not easier ways to make money?  Are initiatives like streetpianos.com really about making individual profit, or are they about something a bit more inclusive?  We human beings are hard-wired to feel part of something larger than ourselves.  At some level, we all have an inkling there's some force that penetrates us, binds the galaxy together.  We want skin in that game; we want legacy.  We want to consciously be part of the whole. 

Live theatre builds an audience of experience out of a group of individuals.  Movie theatres, concerts, political rallies or religious and social ceremonies do the same thing.  Social media is the latest, broadest conduit, a social neural net that's connecting us and our collective lineages in ways never experienced before.  There is conflict from this clash, a hormonal reaction to challenge - but there is unparalleled neuro-synaptic creativity as well.  IDIC - the more diversity we're exposed to, the more tools we have to select from. 

The very process of wrapping our heads around the impacts of this diversity results in us connecting what we know to what we learn, bridging new gaps and expanding our cognitive puzzles a bit further.  That puzzle is what Don Tapscott would call Networked Intelligence - not the creation of a uniform culture under a one-world government, but an active harnessing of the fullness of human collective potential.  The whole, the social organism, is more than the sum of its individual parts.

We don't need to be afraid.  We don't have to get angry.  There is good in this world, and it's worth collaborating for.  When we work together, there's nothing we can't accomplish - we can even move mountains.  We just have to believe it.

The Conscious Society: Branding Tomorrow

"Integration means communicating a consistent identity from message to message, and medium to medium, and (more importantly) delivering consistently on that identity. It requires not only the identification of a powerful, unifying strategy and compelling voice for your brand, but the discipline to roll it into every aspect of your organization—from advertising to sales, customer service to customer relationship management programs (and beyond). It’s not for the faint of heart."

Funny thing - you can only reach that level of commitment, forsight and passion if you do so consciously.

Strategy, Creativity and Discipline

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”   

      - Sun-tzu

They say all is fair in love, war and politics, yet in each field there are certain rules that apply, almost like social gravity.  The history of military (or political) strategy is the attempt to determine and understand these rules.  Students of strategy study the lessons of successful predecessors; they also seek to learn from the failures of others. 

A good recent example of this is Rob Ford’s winning mayoralty campaign; it has been reverse-engineered by governments across the country, looking to capitalize on Ford Nation’s best practices and avoid his pitfalls.  This isn’t a stand-alone process; Ford’s success at the polls has not translated into broader political success with council.  Why is that?  The answer to this question is relevant to strategists, too. 

A standard weakness in strategic development, particularly in light of success, is a singular focus on control.  You want to duplicate what worked previously, which means managing all the variables as closely as possible to ensure repeatable outcomes.  In politics in particular, message control is key; campaign communications are worked out far in advance, with one message-of-the-day building on the next, all timed to inflict maximum damage on one’s opponent and draw maximum focus to your own platform, vision, leader, etc.

The problem is, realities change; what worked previously isn’t guaranteed to work the next time around.  Tight control leaves little room for innovation or seizing-the-moment; look at Tim Hudak’s messaging-fatigue during the recent Ontario election as evidence of this.

On another previous Ontario campaign – the by-election that saw Rick Johnson defeat John Tory in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock – a great campaign slogan (vote local) was the product of an innovative staffer who, seeing a “buy local” sign at a grocery store, put two-and-two together and created a winner.  It wasn’t part of the plan, but that bit of proactive creativity made a difference.

For campaign strategists, then, a rewording of Sun-tzu’s famous advice might read like this:

What’s worse:

-          To have members of your team who are unpredictable

-          To be unable to predict the actions of your opponents

-          To be predictable to your opponents

Conversely, what’s better:

-          To have members of your team be entirely scripted

-          To understand the actions and motivations of your opponents

-          To be unpredictable to your opponents

The best deployment provides troops (be they soldiers or campaign teams and candidates) with defined parameters, a definition of success and as many resources as possible.  The best resource in any campaign is creativity; how to do more with less, out-of-the-box solutions, etc. 

Every campaign I have ever been involved with, someone somewhere has said “be creative” when faced with some dilemma or opportunity.  Good campaign managers will seek out creative individuals for their teams; generally these are known or referenced commodities, though, people you can count on to be quick to respond and capable of independent idea generation, but not to the point of risking the general trajectory of the campaign.

If creativity is desired, how do you nurture it?  If self-discipline is beneficial (allowing for creativity to happen within comfortable parameters), how do you foster it?

The answer isn’t as complicated as we might think.