Don't Put Brand Before Health

"The finance minister has the confidence of the prime minister," said Jason MacDonald.  "His record more than demonstrates why he continues to be considered the best finance Minister in the world.  For instance, he's already created one million net new jobs since the recession and he's on track to balance the budget by 2015."

God, this makes me sad.

First off - Ministers of Finance don't create jobs.  The only way they'd do that is by directly hiring themselves, which, given the Conservative government's disdain for the public sector, isn't likely.

But it's the rest of the statement that's absolutely tragic.  What does Flaherty's past record have to do with his current health?  It's great that Flaherty's abilities have the confidence of the Prime Minister - so, what's the PM doing to help his number one minister on the health front so he can do his job, or create the right accommodations for him?

Look, I get it - politics is all about finding and exploiting weak links.  Parties have to circle the wagons, deny anything is ever wrong (until they can't, at which point someone goes under the bus) and only ever point to successes.  To do otherwise is to let down your firewall and risk contagion or assault.

Harper's got good reason to position himself this way; if the roles were reversed, he would probably relish pointing out how an opposite member was not up to the job.  It's pretty clear that some of the existing opposition forces are looking for how best to exploit Flaherty's condition as well.

But if Flaherty's not allowed a misstep, if his Party is going to put brand before the man's health, what happens to him?

I've argued before that a good deal of the Rob Ford fiascoes that consume City Hall are related to partisan positioning, an antiquated view on wellness and poor support and training for politicians and their staff.  

Anyone that's been involved with politics has known a politicians who hid illnesses - and in some cases, had their addictions covered up by Parties - so as not to appear weak in the public/media's eye. Politics is a bloodsport, after all - if you can't cut it for any reason, you're not meant to be there.  

But politicians are human - they do a difficult, under-appreciated, poorly supported job, often far away from home.  It's noble work, but so's working in a hospice or serving with the police - but those professions take conditions like emotional fatigue syndrome seriously.  They also, in fits and spurts, do a better job of recognizing and accommodating physical illness.  

After all, it's not about the appearance of doing a good job or being able to point to a history of performance - it's about sustainability.  How do we help people continue to do a good job now and in the future?  How do we support transitions, institutional memory transfer, so on and so forth?  

Perhaps most importantly, because the whole point of work and politics is to support the social construct, thereby supporting individual well-being - how are we ensuring that individual wellness is at the centre of everything we do?

The truth is that we aren't.  We put "the economy" before the workers and "the Party" before the Members.  

It's not a crime that Flaherty is sick.  No one should be using illness as a stick to beat him with.  In fact, if he's on drugs that impact his mood, then colleagues on both sides of the House who respect him as a person and want to see him do his job to the best of his ability should be taking this reality into account during conversations (or confrontations).

I don't know Flaherty and I'm not particularly fond of his approach to politics or policy.  But I respect the fact that he is a human being, a husband and a father and, like the rest of us, mortal.

There's a lesson to be learned in this, if anyone's looking - one that ties into a much bigger, emerging picture about social stability and renewing labour in a changing economy.  We can understand the human reality and the social matrix and do both better; strong individuals can and should be the foundation of a strong society.  

But that would be a bit too much like committing sociology.

Interstellar: As Above, So Below

We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible.  

And we count these moments, these moments when we dared to aim higher, to break barriers, to reach for the stars, to make the unknown known - we count these moments as our highest achievements.  

But we lost all that.

Perhaps we've just fogotten that we are still pioneers, and we've barely begun, and that our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us - because our destiny lies above us.

I'd disagree with Nolan on a quibble - we have not always defined ourselves by our own ability to be greater than we are, to do the impossible.  Most of the time, we define ourselves by what we are not, or by who we stand against.

The Cold War was a great example of this.  People who inhabited this same small planet, breathed the same air and equally cherished their children's futures were willing to throw everything away over manufactured differences.

It was in this time of global tension that one man stood up before the world and dared to demand the impossible - putting a man on the moon.  We did that, and the world changed.  

Not every problem was solved, not every grievance was settled and equitable justice for all remains an elusive goal, but the people were given a mission of historic proportions to rally behind, rather than rally against.  

Of course, Nolan gets this.  He's not trying to tell us how it is - he's trying to inspire us with a vision of what we can be.  You see, leaders don't put themselves above the people - leaders point us in the right direction.

Our destiny lies above us... Nolan does love his metaphors.

UPDATED:

Water has existed on Mars through the lifetimes of every man and woman that has ever walked the planet Earth, and until today, we never knew. We only found out because we went looking. 

You don't find if you don't look.  

Community of Engagement

There's nothing wrong with a group of influential citizens coming together at Wynne's behest to undertake public consultations.  But when the chattering classes are just talking to themselves, it's an echo chamber.

We live in interesting times.

A whole series of political/infrastructure issues that have received band-aid solutions for years and years are getting to the point where invasive surgery is needed.  Urban transit is in dire need of a structural fix that goes beyond one-off subway lines, requires buy-in from a host of different players and likely will involve a complete cultural revisitation of commutes and work.  For folk in rural Ontario, the appearance of urban bias is distinctly troubling - they want a focus on issues more relevant to them, ranging from service access to broadband and increased economic opportunities.

Healthcare costs continue to balloon; we want to pay less, but we also don't want a reduction in care. As the silver surge begins to crest, this is going to get even worse.  Our economy is stalled - there's enough evidence as to why this would be the case (we have a risk-adverse, weather-the-storm business culture that is refusing to invest in innovation, new ventures and new talent).

On top of all this, mistrust of politicians is at an all-time high (or low).  It seems every new leader comes in promising to be transparent, accountable and honest, then become an even worse caricature than the leader's they were elected to replace.  This is particularly true among youth, who are the future - they don't trust that politicians, or their elders have their interests at heart.  They don't have much hope for the future and are planning accordingly.

Then, there's the silo-based institutional challenge.  Government was designed for simpler times; like files stuffed in a drawer, new additions of service, administration and accounting have been piled beneath what was there before, creating a series of teetering towers of Ministries and Agencies that have insufficient structural supports/information flow between them.  Oh - and no metrics.

And of course, we have political culture operating much as political culture always does; whoever is in charge tries to control the narrative so as to bolster their chances for future electoral success while opposition parties look only to point out flaws, blow them up into scandals and pin absolutely everything on the government of the day.

The problem is, people in general increasingly know how the game and know what to look for. Impossibly puffed-up brands are quickly deflated.  Underselling and over-delivering always works well, but the over-delivering part has become uncommon, as the narrative keeps coming back to the big bad structural issues that are messy to fix, hard to sell and uncomfortable for everyone involved.  There are no big-thinking giants on the stage anymore - the problems we face have outgrown the usual suspects.  

If you're in politics, it's hard to see any way out.  It's easy to avoid the need for a way out - incrementalism has, after all, worked well in the past.  If you're comfortably ensconced in the clay layer at the middle of the bureaucracy - the folk that don't get cut, don't much rise above, but control the implementation of everything - your imperative for change is minimal, too.

At the front lines, though, people are increasingly agitating for change.  They don't know what it looks like, but they know it's long overdue.  Something has to give, they feel, and it ain't them - they've given enough.  Unions are girding for battle.  Community groups are hardening their hearts and sharpening their swords.  Political operators are picking their fights and driving their wedges.  The Private Sector is staying out of it, or strategically fighting only where their interests are at stake.  Winter has arrived.

But this isn't a war any one group can win - because the opponent isn't a nation that can be disarmed, a government that can be supplanted or a community that can be oppressed.  When the dust clears, we're still all going to be here with a system that increasingly serves none of us well.

You can't fight evolution.  You can't cut out overburdened infrastructure.  We, collectively, need to solve this the hard way.  It won't be tough Boss-leaders that lead this charge.  It may not even be political leaders that provide the vision and direction.  In a flat communications landscape, you never know where leaders will emerge from.

Which brings us back to consultations.  There are always lots of consultations going on, but they're not always what they sell themselves as - there's a wealth of difference between discuss, decide, do and decide, message and defend.  The latter has always been good enough; it isn't any more.

A couple of key consultations happening right now that involve the City and the Province on issues of structural importance and, thankfully, they're being done well.  Recruited teams have broken the third wall of the echo chamber and are engaging in meaningful, demonstrable ways with regular people.  It's not easy, this, building trust where none has cause to exist, bridging communication gaps and sifting through opinion to find actionable policy - but it's necessary.  Besides, for problem solvers, easy is boring.  They relish the challenge of building something new.

And that's the key difference right there.  You don't hear about it, but there is a nascent community of problem solvers with voices at all different levels that are putting shared solutions first.  These are senior bureaucrats, the odd political staffer and lots of first-tier civil servants, but there are also lots of community activists, professionals from various fields and social catalysts of all kinds.

This community doesn't have a name, but it is slowly piecing together the foundation of a more integrated and engaged society.  You'll be hearing more about this emerging group as they become better coordinated and as the need for them to step up grows more dire.

Yet the internal forces of inertia, especially with a popular leader at the helm, will be strong.  Not an easy problem to solve.  No, but the best kind.

Interesting, even challenging times, indeed - but don't worry.  It'll be alright.  The best is yet to come.

UPDATE 19/12/13:  Chopra said Canadians were widely consulted about changes and if they read newspapers and follow the media they shouldn't have been taken by surprise when the corporation announced it was raising stamp prices and cancelling door-to-door delivery.  Chopra said 46 communities were consulted about losing daily mail service.

He's using that word consultation, but I don't think it means what he thinks it means...

Think Nobody Will Notice?

The insane part is thinking, I bet no one will notice.

Well, think again.  People don't like being lied to, they don't like being condescended to and they don't like being played for chumps.  The order varies.

Whether people mind any of these things enough to react to them depends on an irrational, sub-conscious (read: limbic) cost/benefit/irrelevance analysis. 

We are less likely to care about being called pedophiles by people half-way around the world than we are to get angry if the same is said about us by someone in our social circles.  We're more likely to turn a blind eye (or even justify) the unconscionable if it's done in a manner we see as beneficial to our interests.

This works as much for dissemination as it is for reception.  That LaBeouf thought he could get away with plagiarism and didn't feel any sort of responsibility to his audience to create original material says something about his internal appreciation for those audiences. 

The same holds true for Rob Ford and his enablers.  In fact, the same holds true for much of politics.

Much, but not all.  Smart players are recognizing that, thanks to mass-exposure through social media, a social murmuration effect is being created.  People aren't just noticing, they are feeling both compelled and empowered to reactive collectively.

It's not a good time to be inauthentic, which means it's a good time for everyone.

Doing Nothing Is Not A Strategy

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger.  Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."

  - Mel Brooks

So what do you call it when Canada's Minister of Finance refuses to recognize that his fiscally conservative, "each man to himself" approach to financial sustainability simply can't and won't work?

The Conservative ideology is based on this basic premise - people are rational actors and, left to their own devises, will make the choices that are in their best financial interest.  It's when you have things like social programs, regulation and unequal tax breaks that people and businesses get all squirrely.

Therefore, he has no interest in expanding the Canadian Pension Plan.  He isn't a fan of welfare programs.  Like his family friend, Rob Ford, Flaherty thinks that a job is a job - people should just get one.  If the opportunity is driving taxis, like he did, then do that.  If it's moving to Alberta to work in the oil sector, do that.  

The pressure is on individuals to make themselves worthy of hire by companies, who should be taking a laissez-faire approach to hiring, and innovation, and corporate social responsibility.  After all, they have to spend their money wisely - investing in something that's not a sure thing isn't wise.  

Except, he also thinks it's the responsibility of the Private Sector to stimulate the economy.  Canada's already done it's party, he said: "We've done a lot through the tax system to encourage Canadian executives, business people, to start utilizing some of the capital they have on their balance sheets."

Yeah, and?  Just as Flaherty is telling Canadians its their job to plan for their individual economic futures, Canadian businesses are planning for their future.  More money in the bank and less expenditures means better individual long-term sustainability.  Winter has come and Canada is in economic hibernation.  They intend to carry on carrying on, looking for cost savings in cuts and hiring more people on contract so as not to have to invest in their individual well-being through pension and health plans.

There is no business culture of innovation in Canada.  There never has been a business culture of innovation in Canada.  Just like Flaherty and the rest of Team Harper, Canada's private sector has largely put all their eggs in the natural resources basket (oil, mining, lumber, so on and so forth) and because it's worked this far, they expect the trend to continue.  There's no incentive for them to look ahead when what's come before presents such an appealing picture.

So, you have individuals who are either stuck in positions that don't provide benefits/don't make enough to save or don't have work at all.  The unemployed would love to get work, but the fact is they aren't trained for existing positions or worse, are over-trained; employees aren't going to invest in people they don't think will stick around, even though they'd only put them on contract anyway.

What happens when you have a risk-adverse government that's not interested in investing, a business culture that is anti-risk and anti-investment and individuals who are struggling to keep roofs over their head today and therefore unable to plan for their long-term sustainability?

When nobody is investing in long-term sustainability, you end up with long-term societal rot.  This takes the form of broken infrastructure, poverty, crime and more self-interested thinking that reduces charitable giving and leads to frayed nerves and antagonistic behaviours - not something you want in densely populated communities.

As federal administration and planning fails, provinces are looking to seize political wins and also invest in solutions; as they're closer to ground-level, they will wear the brunt of the feds failures more than the feds themselves will.  This is exactly what Team Harper want, of course - a breakdown of social systems and an increasingly feudal approach to problem solving.  For all their fiscal focus, the CPC seems not to understand economies of scale.

So Ontario is jumping in with plans to do its own pension plan, which is s starfish solution if ever there was one.  But then again, they haven't been left much choice.  Someone has to lead and when the feds ignore national problems, someone has to step up.

There's no way Ontario can afford to do this properly and besides, they've got other issues on their burner.  The Opposition Parties are going to focus on every fault and scandal they can tie to the governing Liberals and for their own interests, are stirring up resentment and hostility between their core constituencies.  Whoever wins, there will be a lot of unhappy people agitating for change.  Like Flaherty, they're looking for their own wins and aren't going to be interested in spending their own money to invest in someone else's benefit - be it unions, welfare programs or tax dollars that seem to fund corporation-friendly policies over social justice.

Fortunately, there's a small foundation of forward-thinking people and institutions starting to emerge on the social/political landscape.  Police are looking into social media and creating community relationships.  Social entrepreneurs are structural solution development ahead of personal fortune. Even some private-sector organizations are recognizing that the world is changing and are working to adapt.  Open Government is trendy, though its implementation is far from certain.

Some people are looking ahead and realizing that the road we're on leads to a dead end, so they're branching out, changing direction, looking for bridges.

But not Flaherty.  He's got his one last chance to build a positive legacy for all time, to validate all the losses of his career - if he can balance the budget by 2015, then his time in office will have meaning.  

In his defence, Flaherty is in need of something positive to cling to right now.  He's tired, his health isn't great and he has various political albatrosses, some of which are named Ford, constantly circling him. Like anyone under stress, he is becoming functionally fixed on what he's defined as a win and is less and less prepared to spare a thought on anything that doesn't get him there.

Which means he's making a choice not to look at the big picture, not to take a look at emerging trends and pointedly ignoring the consequences of his inaction.

Doing nothing theoretically creates opportunities for everyone to step up, but it doesn't guarantee it happens - nor does it guarantee coordinated efforts.  Ragging the puck doesn't get you further ahead, it simply eats up the time you have available for action.  Inaction is not a strategy and playing "wait and see" is not leadership.  We sorely need leadership right now.

We might think if funny if Flaherty falls into a career sewer because he refused to look ahead - it won't be so funny if he brings Canada's economy and our own fortunes with him.

A Filmed Life: James Moore Does A Vic Toews

1. 

   Catherine Graham @newbetweeter

   @Carolyn_Bennett @JamesMoore_org well that says it all. The conservatives see no such thing as moral responsibility #cndpoli

James Moore        

✔

 @JamesMoore_org

@newbetweeter @Carolyn_Bennett The headline is neither a quote, nor accurate of anything I've ever said. Quite ridiculous in fact

James Moore has denied saying "Is it my job to feed my neighbour's child?  I don't think so."

That is, he was denying he said it - fighting back on Twitter while deleting his own trails - until such time as it became clear that there was, surprise surprise in this day of recorded everything, evidence to the contrary.  

Does this sound familiar?  Well, if you live in Toronto, you hear regular variations on this "I didn't say what you're saying I said, but I apologize if you heard it the wrong way" theme all the time from our Mayor.  But then again, Rob Ford's a special case.

No, I'm looking back to Vic Toews who point-blank told Don Martin that he never said "you're with us or with the child pornographers" - until he couldn't get away with his back-peddling any more.

Of course we also have the ongoing Senate Scandals with our Prime Minister finding his current statements increasingly in contradictory conflict with what he's said in the past.  He's getting snippier with his message points, getting mad at the people who dare to question him.  

Why?  Why do these tough-talking leaders keep painting themselves into corners they can't tough-talk or spin their way out of?  Do they even realize how ridiculous and cynical they come across?  Yes, you can always turn to your base for defense, but your base cares less about you and more about attacking opponents - they could really care less what you do, so long as they see you as a validating champion.

It's a Plato's Desktop thing - tough, aggressive, message-and-attack oriented political people are counting one what worked before to work again.  They're assuming that the "admit to being human but always learning" approach Justin Trudeau is taking will fall flat, because people will see his occasional bit of bafflegab as creating a pattern of poor choices. 

But we're also seeing a pattern of poor choices coming out of the message-people; when they get called on it and rhyme off talking points, they sound like they're completely out of touch with reality.  Which is more disconcerting? 

Here's the modern reality - everything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.  What's more, your conflicting statements will be parodied.  If you don't take open and transparent communication seriously, people aren't going to take you seriously. 

You can opt to say nothing or stick to soundbites, but then you just look silly and unable to adapt.  You can say whatever pops into your head and then double-down when called on it - that's what Rob Ford is doing.

Or, you can actually think before you speak and be aware of what comes out of your mouth.  You can think about what other people say to you and how it makes you feel/want to respond.  You can even ask what was meant by something someone else said to establish clarity.

It's tiring and tough, I know, to be consciously in control all the time.  Consideration is not inauthentic, though - it's simply good planning.

'Cause there's this other thing about dancing like everyone is watching - when you're doing something right, it gets recognized, too.  And when you're willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, compliment others when they do well and do your best to be pro-social all the time, people will respond in kind.

Whoever thought a video of an arrest would go viral - and be viewed positively?

Do unto others as you'd have them to do, etc.

You never know when disease or accidents may take you, or when disaster may strike.  You never know when it is that you'll need your neighbour's help.  But should you expect it to be there in lean times if you weren't willing to make an effort in times of plenty?

Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead - which, of course, is what committing sociology is all about.

Employees Are Not One Night Stands

HR is becoming a big pain in the neck for employers.  They have bottom lines to meet, work to get done - they want to quickly get the talent they need, pass on work (or vague concepts that can be crystalized into work and sales - hence the "hiring talent" piece) and move on.  There's a growing frustration with these apparently needy, cheeky millennials that expect clarity of direction, recognition for work done and meaningful engagement in a company's decision-making and implementation.

Um, no.  That's not how the real world works.

In the real world, bosses are in charge and new hires have to work damned hard to prove their worth. This means overtime, grunt-assignments and developing the capacity to intuit the boss' needs without them having to waste time explaining it to you.  If you can't manage this, well, that's why the new hires are on contracts only - they can be quickly canned and replaced.

You see, bosses don't have time to hand-hold or train new staff; they've got some significant sustainability issues due to the massive uncertainty around the global economy and their own sector. Partisan wars are making the policy landscape unpredictable, it's hard to know what may be a good investment or a bad one.  In a lot of cases, the solution appears to be hunker down and weather the storm.

Which brings us back to HR.  

Hiring can be a lot like speed-dating - you read a bunch of CVs, buy a couple of kids some coffee and bring on the one who seems like the best fit (skills and personality) for your shop.  If it doesn't work, well, they're only on contract; you tell um it's not going to work out, send them on their way and move on.  And on.  And on.

The more you do this, though, you begin skewering your view of what a potential hire is all about.  Are they trying to tell you what you want to hear to get the job, or are they equally interviewing you to see if there's a fit?  Is their priority to grow in a role and maximize their potential, use you to pad their CV or do they just want to make some money?  We'll get to the money-focused piece later.

Employment isn't a transaction; to say labour-for-money is the entirety of the process is like saying that food is strictly about sustenance (or romantic relationships are strictly about sex).  If you get enough value out of bread-and-water, fine, but in a competitive, evolving marketplace I'm gonna hazard a guess and say you've probably realized you need to branch out a bit.

The employer/employee relationship is not transactional - it's multi-dimensional with a whole host of factors including management style, clarity of communication, flow and even work design impacting the productivity, health and creativity of your employees.  All of this, in turn, impacts the adaptability and responsiveness of your team.

It is absolutely true that millenials have different expectations from work than their parents did - but then, the sorts of opportunities and challenges they face aren't the same as those their parents dealt with.  

This generation will live longer and work longer than the previous one.  As the CPP discussion rages on, there's less and less sense that retirement is even an option.  Besides, if you want to make money and make a difference, you're not looking at 9-to-5 jobs, either.  

There's an expectation on the side of youth that they'll have to blog, tweet and instagram about their day jobs, take calls at random hours and spend more time at networking and other related events.  They'll be thinking about their work and the value they can add while they're out with their friends, riding on the subway or shopping.

They want more from their employers, but their instinctively prepared to give more, too.  They're not looking at employers as pay cheques, but parts of their expanding network and future plans for growth.

Here's the big irony - bosses who either don't recognize the need to change and are fighting to hold the line or those who recognize that something's gotta give and are reducing their focus on HR so they can spend more energy on exploring new business avenues are missing the point.

If you hire well and commit to your staff, you can build a lasting relationship with them that will add value to what you do now and down the road.  Like any relationship, you should not expect employees to be constantly in agreement with you or to understand everything you say immediately; the reverse is equally true.  The goal isn't simplicity or one-way message flow, it's about complimentary capabilities and healthy friction that results in innovation.

Yes, there are certain basic skills you will want to look for in filling positions, but your focus should be more on the people than what they bring to the table on paper.  Understand clearly what you're hiring them for and what your expectations are (or perhaps even make the expectations development part of the hiring process) and plan accordingly.  If you, as a leader, go in looking to empower your future hires to reach their goals through adding value to their company (instead of a linear focus on what they can do for you) you'll be surprised what they'll be prepared to do for you in return.

All it takes is commitment.

Now back to the money-focus.

We have an increasingly laissez-faire culture that puts more pressure on front-line workers to be all things to all people - they need to follow instructions, intuit direction from unclear messaging, give regular (but simple) updates without expecting the same in return, have to find clients, pitch to clients, close deals and implement the work.  If they can't do all that, well, someone else can.

The same is being taught to students/new graduates - the ability to sell is the most important skill you can develop.  You need to sell yourself to employers, make them understand why they should hire you. Always Be Closing, etc.  To understand how foolish an approach this is, you need to have some understanding of behavioural economics.

Selling is not the same as accomplishing.  It never has been, nor will it ever be.  When you're focus in on selling, you're trying to portray confidence and incite a sense of urgency.  You have a problem, I have the solution, nobody else does.

That's what politicians do.  They overstate their capacity and undermine their opponents, then create a sense of urgency pushing you to donate to them or vote for their candidate.  Attention, Interest, Decision, Action.  So, how well and universally do politicians perform?  When does the selling game stop?

It doesn't.  Errors get downloaded, spun or ignored.  Wins are taken credit for where involvements was minimal and blown up to be larger than they are.  Problems that don't look like they have clear, communicable wins to them are simply overlooked.

It's not dead - it's resting.

Selling is about controlling the narrative, keeping up appearances and making a profit - which is not what accomplishment is about.  Accomplishment is collaborative, iterative and focused on the long-term, not the quick-hit.

We have sales-driven politics that are failing to address structural problems, but doing a great job on advertising.  We have firms across the board who are investing more in superlatives than they are in innovation or HR.

With all this selling going on, we're falling behind the curve.  Other jurisdictions are spending less time on preening and more on rolling up their sleeves.  It's time we catch up and start realizing that nobody buys the spin any more - they want to see results.