Things That I Wonder About

Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up. – Oliver Wendell Holmes

Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean. – Ryunosuke Satoro

In between selling a large tech company and starting up a Foundation that will “help NPO’s “do good better” through fact-based decision-making and evidence-based outcome assessments” (quoting friend and colleague, Doug P.), I often have other distractions that cross my mind that I feel merit some attention.

As a long-time Wall St. strategy guy, unsolved problems are always a conundrum for me, especially when the problems are significant in impact and are far / wide reaching in society.  Problems in society affect us all at some point, even if we don’t feel the affect directly (or believe we don’t).

However, I can’t tackle all these thoughts, nor should I (no individual is tagged as the “savior” of the world).  That being said, they are worthy of thought and action and so, with the encouragement of very nice colleagues who kindly never lose patience with me when I muse about other concerns in the world, I’m going to occasionally toss some ideas out with the idea that someone else may feel inspired to own some of them.

This is not a typical blog post for me such as can be found in the #1206 series, the Abigail / Gabriel series or any general post.  It is a grab bag of thoughts that pass through my brain in the course of leading a busy Life.

If you want to own one, I would be glad to help!

A subset of my random thoughts this week:

1. How is it that the Newfoundland and Labrador Government can have as its top bureaucrat, Bern Coffey, who, while leading the bureaucratic corps of the Government, was also a lawyer representing a client who was suing a Crown Corporation of the same Government and a few years before, while a clerk of the Government Executive council, led a case against a Government health authority (details here and here)?  While officials claim they are “just finding out”, the truth is that they knew for a while.  Conflict of interest, anyone?
2. By the same token, how is it that Tzeporah Berman can serve as a member of the Alberta Government Oil and Gas advisory team while at the same time, receive compensation for campaigning AGAINST the oil and gas industry in Alberta (details here)?  Conflict of interest, round 2.
3. Premier Ball dismissed Coffey in the first scenario but Premier Notley refuses to dismiss Tzeporah in the second one.  When such appointments with obvious conflict-of-interest are knowingly made, what does this tell us about the leadership skills of the people in the respective situations?  Is it a reflection of poor execution, low intelligence, self-serving motives or an indifference to how things are perceived (or something else)?
4. Are apologies or “sharp corrective action” from politicians acceptable because we believe that someone recognized their own mistake and want it fixed or are we being played as politicians attempt to harvest political points while continuing their inappropriate behavior?  In my companies, you are fully supportive of the organization that pays you or you are not but if you are not, you work to make us better through compromise or you leave.  You can’t play for me and against me at the same time.  Why don’t we demand this of government?
5. How is it in the Newfoundland and Labrador government, a blind trust for a politician can be run by a politician’s husband, wife, daughter, son-in-law or lover?  There is nothing “arms-length” or “blind” about such a set-up.  Who do you think benefits from this arrangement?
6. How is it that Stephen Colbert can refer to the President of the United States as Vladimir Putin’s “cock holster” when a comment such as that, if directed at the previous President, would have required riot squads to be deployed (details here)?  Why is it that the “tolerant left” has no issue when insults are issued against the one that they despise but they are quick to demonstrate in the streets should there even be the possibility that one of their own might be insulted at some point in the future?  One must respect the Office of the President and if one disagrees with the President himself, Colbert’s approach is not the way to express it.  Respect earned is respect given.  Anything else leads to significant problems in society.
7. How is it that very few people care about emergency planning, regardless of the source / scale of the emergency?  Officials routinely warn of difficulties ahead, whether it be in the form of a cyber attack, a nuclear war, climate change-induced natural disasters and a plethora of other things and yet most people would be lucky if they could survive a minor inconvenience that lasted through a weekend.  We have all seen people panic-shop at supermarkets when a storm is forecast.  What if the “storm” came without warning.  I mused about this yesterday in the post Statistics: The Mathematical Theory of Ignorance.
8. How is it that US politicians can claim a triumph in the low unemployment rate when the vast majority of jobs created in recent years are part-time / low-paying jobs with little or no health benefit plans?  When more than 50% of American families have $1000 or less in the bank, over 48 million Americans are on food stamps and over 98 million Americans are not working at all, how can we champion a recovery that benefits a small minority of people?
9. Pursuant to the previous point, personal debt is growing and more than 50% of families have less than $1000 in the bank.  Where is personal freedom and empowerment for these people?
10. If people are happier than ever, why do we have a steady increase in the need for antidepressants?
11. The next time you are in Costco, a supermarket or other place filled with abundance, ask yourself when you last helped someone who couldn’t partake in such abundance.
12. It is estimated that we will work 80,000 hours in our lifetime.  1% of that (800 hours or 20 work-weeks) is a small amount to spend in planning our work Life but we don’t teach kids how to do it.  In fact, if I told someone when I was 20 that I was about to spend 5 months planning my career, I would be told I was insane (even though it’s such a small number in the grand scheme of things).  We teach kids phenomenally more than when I was in school and yet basic skills of Life strategy (including long and short term goal setting), financial strategy, respectful dialog when ideas are polar opposites and the like seem absent from the skill-set of many young people.  We seem to insist that they learn these things the hard way.  Why?  Is it because we don’t know how to either?
13. Many not-for-profits are phenomenally wasteful in how they spend their money and many people who work for them know how to steal from them as a profession but we don’t care.  Why?
14. How is it that people put little or no effort into the things that matter in society but will spend an amazing amount of time watching videos of cats, sharing pictures of their oatmeal or losing their minds over how their favorite TV series ends?

Do these things matter or am I just over-sensitive?

Should we care that these represent symptoms of a society that is not ticking over as well as claimed by politicians or do we ignore them, saving our complaints and intention for action only when we are directly affected as opposed to when our neighbor is being pummeled instead of us?

If they matter, what can we do about them?

The Bottom Line

I’m a big believer in sharing thoughts and encouraging people to dialog about things with an eye towards taking measurable action.  Good intentions and thoughts are worthless without measurable results.

However, we can’t own everything that comes before us, even when it impacts us deeply.  Some of us who work hard to make a difference in the world need others to share the responsibility, especially when many who put little into society want to reap the harvest that comes from a better world.

It’s time for more people to be concerned about society and where it’s going …

… while it’s still a going concern.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS:You will note that I didn't mention things like privacy, surveillance and the like.  I believe that that fight is over.  You needed to care 25 years ago to have made a difference in regards to that subject.  Do you see what waiting accomplishes?  This is also, as I noted, just a subset of the things that went through my mind this week in the 5% of my brain that I have left over from the projects that consume it.

Facts – What a Pain in the You-Know-What

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

I took a break from a phenomenally hectic schedule this morning to skim the social media world and once again I was reminded “Why did I do that?”.

In skimming the world of the interesting, the dull, the respectful, the disrespectful, the intellectual and the ignorant, I happened to make an observation along the lines of “For the women who are protesting all the bad things that they know President Elect Trump will do to them, why can’t they put the same energy into all of the areas that we know for certain where women are not being treated respectfully (or live in fear of their Life)?”.

Seems like a fair enough question to me – why don’t we put our effort into EVERYTHING that we are aware of that challenges a woman’s rights to equality and safety?

The blowback from this observation tells me that I was wrong for daring to believe that all women who face difficulty should be defended and for that I apologize.

I was accosted by three people I have known for a long time, citing a lot of interesting “facts” to prove that in fact, I’m completely out of touch.

For example ….

Did you know that Trump is going to revoke all rights for woman in the US, subjecting them to second-class (or lower if that’s possible) citizenship?

Did you know that he will also do the same for all gay people and reverse all the gains the LGBTQ community has made over the years?

Did you ALSO know that he will receive a cash payment of $1 Billion from Vladimir Putin for every Baltic state that America allows Russia to take unchallenged?

I didn’t know these things and for that, I must apologize again.  I appear to be the last person on Earth to know these things.  It is difficult, after all, to live a normal, busy, productive, non-paranoid, non-conspiracy-laden, contributing Life and not be in-the-know regarding everything that everyone might do just because someone says they will do it.  I could digress into a conversation regarding projection from a psychiatrist viewpoint but alas much has been written about this by people much smarter and informed on the subject than I.

When I asked for sources to be cited (I’m a data guy, after all), then the “discussion” turned towards my ignorance of facts and that my demands for data were always inappropriate.

One person who I demanded data of insisted that he couldn’t predict the future.  When I replied that predicting a new version of the Iran Contra deal (cash for Baltic state invasion) was in fact a prediction, the conversation devolved into me being an idiot because I dared to even ask such questions without accepting everyone’s claims at face value.

I always thought great claims demanded great evidence, but again, I’m wrong and for that, I apologize again for believing that I was entitled to an opinion and for not asking for permission to share it with anyone who might disagree or be offended by it.

Data Matters

As a strategy guy, data matters to me.  People in my field use a blend of data, past performance, models and yes, emotions and biases in predicting things as best as we can.

However, no matter how strong our emotions and biases are, if we can’t find data to use, most of us have to wait before we jump up and down in elation or cower in fear just because someone or something doesn’t appear to be in alignment with our desires, interests, values, characters and/or morals.

We also believe in the checks and balances in place in the system to prevent people from going over the top and violating rights and freedoms that we hold sacred.

If someone deviates from that in a way that we consider unacceptable, we believe the system will take care of it.  If the system doesn’t want or choose to address such behavioral aberrations, we have a MUCH larger problem than just the paranoid anticipation of what one man might do.

And so as I reflected on the conversation, it occurs to me that respectful, fact-based, minimally-biased (there is not such thing as nonbiased) conversation doesn’t appear to exist much in society any more.

Why is this?

I believe it is because we don’t teach such skills, assuming that such abilities will naturally evolve in the members of our society.

However, since we are the products of our environment, the likelihood of such abilities evolving without being taught are slim to none. In fact, such people would be seen as the exception and not the norm and we all know how people who stand out make us feel.

If you don’t believe me, try saying something factual (in a loaded space, e.g.politics) on social media and let me know how that experiment goes.

However, if you want to read a great book on evidence-based, minimally-biased dialog, how to create such a dialog and how to defend against someone who abhors such dialog, I highly recommend the book How To Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass - A Critical Thinker's Guide to Asking the Right Questions.

It is brilliant, insightful and witty (and, shudder, fact-based).  If it were embraced by more people, society would be better equipped to solve the problems in the world. 

On a side note, I know that if the author, Dr. DiCarlo, were present during my argument this morning, he would have loved how I handled it and would have praised my responses.

How do I know this?

I just know – you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with me.

Calm down – I’m kidding (someone is already writing a response to me, having been offended by what I just said and unwilling to see how my thoughts unfold).

The Bottom Line

It is ok to not know everything in the world. 

But before we champion something as a truth, we should know that it is in fact true.  If we use truth as a hammer, we should at least know that we can back up our claims with verifiable data (and even then, there are more persuasive techniques than hammering people).

There’s an old “Newfie” joke (I’m from Newfoundland, don’t get offended by the term on my behalf) that goes this way:

How do you keep a Newfoundlander in suspense?

I will tell him tomorrow.

There is another joke that goes the same way.

How do you make the bully, the manipulator and the ignorant angry?

Ask them for data to backup their claims or the hammer that they are using.

Humble, normal, balanced people will acknowledge their mistakes, apologize if necessary, adjust their behavior where appropriate and the world is a little better as a result.

Others fall to the lowest form of dialog and debate, using the personal attack against someone else because they have nothing else to offer in backing up their claims and assertions.

The funny thing is that such people believe that those of us who demand data are a pain in the ass.

The reality is that these people are the real pain in the ass, creating a world where problem elimination, solution finding, collaboration and the like play second fiddle to promoting fear, disrespect, intimidation and the like under the guise of “making the world better”.

Buy Dr. DiCarlo’s book.  You will not be disappointed and will be equipped to make your world and the world of others a better place.

In fact, you’re an idiot if you don’t buy it and absolutely love it.

Just kidding.

Or maybe I’m not.

I guess it depends on what type of dialog you like to participate in – the problem solving kind or the problem creating kind.

Create a great day!  Make a positive difference – it matters.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Irony: It is ironic that the people who claim to be defending the rights and freedoms of others are often in fact the people who deny that right in others.  It is also ironic that the people who claim to be upholding the highest of moral and ethical standards are in fact guilty of things themselves.  One of my most vocal critics today was investigated for violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a fact that if revealed would prompt an immediate liable suit (even though it's a fact and not a rumor).

It's an interesting concept that we allow facts to slide when criticizing others but we demand the highest standards of others when defending our own truths. I wonder if these people put as much energy into their careers, families, friends, hobbies, service to others and knowledge acquisition as they do spreading rumor, conjecture and fear.  We must also be careful to avoid being hypocritical as in the case of Meryl Streep who applauded Roman Polanski (who plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor and fled the country to avoid incarceration) for his Oscar win while denouncing Donald Trump as a man who has no respect for women.

---

Author note: I am NOT a Trump supporter. If I have wound you up convincing you that I am pro-Trump, save your breath before sending me hate mail. However, I prefer to see what he will create and would participate in using the checks and balances in the system to stop him if he screws up. I don't have the time nor the interest to waste my brain wondering what he might do and spread hatred and fear to support such unproductive exercises.

---

PS A few years back before oil prices went into the toilet, myself and a number of other colleagues sent messages to Provincial Governments in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador cautioning them to adjust budget expectations because oil was about to fall precipitously.  We provided projections of $75 a barrel or lower, provided data and cited sources from within the energy and financial sectors.  We were told to stop fear mongering and in response, we asked for data to refute our warning.  We never heard back from them and when their economies went into the toilet, we were not surprised to hear them announce how surprised they were by the turn of events in the energy sector.

Last week, a Minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador shared some intentions with me and I asked what data supported their intentions.  I didn’t say that their intentions were right or wrong but was curious what data they used.  The reply was that if people like me were as smart as we claimed (I never claimed anything) then there would be no need for the government to have to solve problems in the first place.

I see – I guess I owe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an apology also since I am now responsible for the economic disaster in progress out there.

I’m now feeling very guilty and inadequate – maybe I should submit to those who appear to know better.

Unfortunately, they shout louder but not more intelligently.

The Bottom Bottom Line

Being caught off guard by a surprise event is forgivable.

Lying or insulting people because data suggests something politically or publicly unsavory and unpopular is about to happen (or not happen) is not forgivable.

That’s the problem with data.

It doesn’t care about how you feel about it and ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

It only makes the problem worse or creates a problem if we project using emotion or bias in absence of data

And once we know a problem exists (or we create one), WE become the larger problem if we choose not to do our best to address it as strategically, factually, respectfully and collaboratively as we can.

---

Take a Valium

Gwynne Dyer wrote a great article urging everyone to calm down regarding President Elect Trump.  It can be found here - Everybody Take a Valium.

---

When Social Media Reveals Our Character … Or Our Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is not a way of getting back to the moral high ground. Pretending you're moral, saying your moral is not the same as acting morally. - Alan Dershowitz

The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy. - William Hazlitt

Back in December of 2013, a then member of the public communication team (which in the modern era means social media team) for then Premier of Alberta Alison Redford had an interesting response to a simple question from a member of the public.

The “public communications expert” tweeted this to the citizen:

"You are a truly disgusting human being #ableg"

As a member of the same political party to which this “expert” belonged, I thought this and other tweets attributed to the team he was a member of were terribly impolite and unprofessional to citizens merely asking for accountability and so I demanded from the Premier that we choose our words more carefully when addressing the public at large.

Curiously enough, I didn’t give this individual much thought after that until last week when I was making some comments (politely as I usually do) in a political forum and the same individual surfaced again with these observations directed at me:

So yes, I can speak about good government. I was given a first hand lesson by voters. One you apparently have opted not to learn. Care to address the issue or do you just want to attack the PC's?

There was the same attitude again, confrontational and insulting, to someone merely asking questions.  When I challenged the author of the statements as to why he continued to be so insulting to people on social media, he wrapped up a reply with these words.

Do you know that after the "terrible human being" tweet I cried for hours in my office and offered my resignation three times for the disgrace I caused? For the cruelty I showed towards Michael. That it was on my suggestion that I should apologize personally because I felt it was the right thing to do?

Followed later by ….

None of this belongs on Facebook Harry, I would welcome the chance to actually sit down and have a friendly conversation with you.

And with those words, I thought “Fair enough – the guy indicated he was remorseful for that foul event in the past and had sought to make amends for his error.”

I accepted his Facebook request with an eye toward fruitful dialog, after which he then chastised me again in private.

So much for remorse.  It reminded me of this Despair.com poster of people who cannot rationally discuss pretty much anything.

Arrogance: The best leaders inspire by example.  When that's not an option, brute intimidation works pretty well too.

I don’t dwell on such stuff and so I moved on until it was revealed this week that an executive of the PC Party made an inappropriate jab at the weight of the new Health Minister of Alberta as noted in McIver to investigate after PC executive mocks weight of Alberta Health minister (the executive has since apologized when he noted on Twitter – “I recognize I made a dumb comment. I apologize to Sarah Hoffman and all who read it for my insensitive remark. Once again, I'm sorry”).

Now I could make an observation that good people should never think such things, let alone say them, but given that none of us are perfect, I let the original mistake go since we are supposed to accept apologies and move on.

However, I was surprised by the public reappearance of the afore mentioned former member of the Premier’s communication staff who made this statement on social media in response to the PC executive’s faux pas (click on the image for a larger copy – *warning* harsh language).

While much can be suggested or inferred from such a response including the need for a more positive view of himself, it is also clear that while this individual demands forgiveness for his mistakes, he is quick to judge the mistakes of others.  It is also interesting to note that when paid by the PC Party, he attacked others ruthlessly but once released from the employ of the Party, he now takes offense at others who do the same for the same Party.

Even his Twitter bio reveals some hypocrisy:

He falls into the classic trap of social media – the notion of feeling empowered to say something that:

1. We wouldn’t have the courage to say to someone’s face
2. We wouldn’t want said to us if we made a mistake
3. May not be a reflection of who we really are (good or bad)
4. Oftentimes is made before we have taken a moment to rationally think the statement through instead of letting anger carry the day.

It reminds me of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant from Matthew 18:21-34:

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.  Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.  As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him.  Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’  The servant’s master took pity on him, cancelled the debt and let him go.

But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’, he demanded.

His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I cancelled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.  Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.”

The Bottom Line

The PC Executive’s disparaging remarks against the Health Minister were not professional, ethical or fair (and not very intelligent, to be honest).

However, when we see something that needs to be fixed, how we call out the person who made the error and how we choose to address the issue reveals much about our character – possibly more than the character that we choose to criticize in others.

Demanding a higher standard is not enough.

We must live it.

Do you live to a higher standard or merely demand it of others?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum:

I didn’t share his Twitter or Facebook profiles because while I believe he serves as an example of what not to do in social media, I didn’t want to make this post about him personally.

When I pointed out to the individual in question about his inconsistency between how he expects forgiveness for himself but gives none to others, he blocked me on social media.  It is unfortunate when “blocking” is used as a shield to hide one’s ignorance, hypocrisy or lack of authenticity instead of recognizing that they had an opportunity to make things right as they expected it to be made right for them in the past.

It’s also a shame when people don’t realize that “blocking” doesn’t really block anything nor does it prevent their rants from becoming public.

But sometimes when we allow anger to be our guide, lucid, rational, respectful, solution-focused thinking takes a backseat to pretty much anything and oftentimes reveals our true character.

For those who are vehemently defending his current actions, perhaps they should review his past, lest they be corralled into something else moving forward. 

We are, after all,  the company that we keep … or “like” …. or “retweet”.

Alberta Politicians and Their Visions? How About YOUR Vision?

Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality. - Warren Bennis

The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision. - Helen Keller

The political rhetoric is heating up in Alberta as the Province gets closer to its provincial election and as usual, social media is aflame with emotion-laced, data-less pleas by politicians and supporters promoting a message of “support my party or suffer doom from your ignorance”.

There are fascinating things I see in the discussions amongst the political minions when it comes to politics:

1. Few of them understand the complexity of government and what it takes to run one even quasi-effectively.
2. Few of them understand the plans of any of the parties that are running, including their own party.
3. Few ask for data to back up political claims by any party, including their own party.
4. There’s a lot of political Kool Aid being consumed. It has some interesting side effects, including making people wide-eyed and incapable of having reasonable, rational, fact-based conversations.
5. Too many minions have very strong (translation: rabid) opinions despite lack of data or not being able to verify the data they have been provided with.
6. Too few people understand this basic truth as expressed by Mark Twain: “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable”.  Statistics may be “accurately expressed” but it may not be expressing a truth as interpreted / shared by the recipient (often done deliberately by the person delivering the original statistic).  For example, if I earned $1 last year and $2 this year, my revenue is up 100% over last year.  Sounds impressive until you realize I only earned an extra dollar.
7. Few can define a truly measurable vision for their Province.  PS – “lots of jobs”, “great healthcare” and “strong education” are not measurable – they are hopes and dreams.  Ask them about their next vacation or even their new mobile device, however, and data flows freely and copiously.
8. Practically all of them demand that politicians create a grand vision that bodes well for the minions in absence of a minion’s own definition.
9. Minions, without any data and built entirely on emotion, simply know that their leader will guide them to salvation while all other leaders will guide them to hell.
10. The amazing concept of how many people will vote for / against someone based on a single sound bite or a candidate’s appearance.
11. The number of people who blindly vote for a party because they have always done it or because “it is their father’s party”.
12. How many cowards find courage in anonymity on social media, discovering a voice of ignorance that feels encouraged to bash unfairly or spread misinformation / intimidation while hiding behind a nom de plume and a fake photo.
13. The number of people who spoil a vote, cast a protest vote or don’t vote at all with the intent of “sending the system a message”.  The only message it sends is that you don’t care if your voice is heard or not.  In an interesting coincidence, many of those people are also the loudest complainers about their government.
14. The number of politicians who get elected navigating / exploiting the nuances contained within the previous points.

It is human nature that we don’t take the time to really understand things around us unless it directly impacts us and while it is true that government does directly impact us, most of us don’t see it that way. 

It is also true that government is very complex, being too complex for almost anyone living on the planet to understand, interpret, guide or predict and if we took the time to understand all the nuances, we wouldn’t have time for other trivial, mundane things … things like living our lives, earning an income, supporting families and all of those other unimportant things.

For this reason, most of us say “you go do your governing thing and leave me to do my thing and we’re all good …. well, until you disappoint me and don’t give me what I want or need.”

Then we get angry, we pay little measurable attention to what politicians offer us in their new definition of our future and then we repeat the process.

Einstein’s Law of Insanity comes to mind, doesn’t it?

Parallels in Life ….

Few of us build a business, design a home or even plan a vacation without knowing exactly where we are going, how we are getting there, how much it is going to cost, how long it will take and how we are going to pay for it.

And yet we allow politicians to do just that when they promote grand plans with nothing measurable in them.

Imagine going to the bank for a loan, telling them that you are going to build “a structure”, you don’t know how big it will be, what it will be used for or when it will be completed.  You also remind them that at any time, you might tear down the structure and start all over or abandon it all together.  Oh … and by the way … you don’t know how or if you will ever be able to pay off the loan.  However, you remind the bank that the structure will be glorious in appearance, it will serve your needs well and will be a legacy for generations to come.

Try not to resist them too strongly as they escort you to the door.

The Bottom Line

Before we get all upset with politicians who exceed the bar in rhetoric but don’t meet the bar in reality, we need to ask ourselves this question:

What measurable vision do WE see for our Province?

If we can’t define a vision ourselves, how can we expect someone else to define one that we like and even if it is one that we like, how can we be sure that they are delivering on the vision instead of delivering a mere dream (or a nightmare)?

We don’t set out on a journey (or allow someone else to take us on one) unless we know where we are going or where we are being taken.

The same should apply to politicians.

Because if we don’t know or care where we are going or how we are getting there, doesn’t it seem a little insane to expect that a complete stranger has the interest, intention and capability to guide or take us there?

Otherwise, we run the risk of proving the lesson that Alice learned:

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to”, said the Cat.

“I don’t care much where ….”, said Alice.

“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go”, said the Cat.

“…. so long as I get somewhere”, Alice added as an explanation.

“Oh, you’re sure to do that”, said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”

Do you care where you are going or where you are being carried?

Are you sure?

How do you know ?

What are you doing about it?

Because if you choose to do nothing or you choose to make uninformed decisions, I think you receive the government that you deserve and you therefore have no right to complain about it.

What do you think about that?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – Alberta PC Party Goes Down In Defeat - May 6, 2015

Former Premier Prentice guided to the PC Party to a crushing defeat in the Alberta election on May 5, 2015.  Those of us in the PC Party who warned the leadership about the importance of being honest with citizens, about being respectful and to use data instead of fear mongering were told to mind our own business.

I guess a few voters felt the same way also and made it their business to tell the PC Party what they thought of them.

To know the difference between confidence and arrogance is to walk the fine line between great results and embarrassment.

The PC Party just learned the difference.

The Alberta Budget–Revenue, Spending and …. Productivity?

Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. - Paul J. Meyer

The productivity of work is not the responsibility of the worker but of the manager. - Peter Drucker

The productivity of a work group seems to depend on how the group members see their own goals in relation to the goals of the organization. - Ken Blanchard

As the noise dies down from the Alberta budget, the experts have weighed in for and against and the coffee shops have been filled with opinions (with various degrees of intelligence behind them), there is something missing from the dialog that I think someone needs to have the courage to lay out in the open, expose to the light of analysis and address.

Some say the thing that is missing in the conversation is a lack of diversification of Alberta’s revenue streams and there is some merit to this.  Alberta’s revenue engine could stand for some improvement / diversification / isolation from the boom-and-bust budget cycles that are common with primary dependence on oil as a source of revenue.

Some say spending is out of control and needs to be reigned in or slashed mercilessly but running a government has never been known to be a cheap venture and random or across-the-board budget slashing has rarely been known to produce a positive result of any long-term value.

Meanwhile, public sector unions (whose members, by the way, account for 50% of Alberta’s government spending) say the real issue is not money but the fact that they are overworked and need more people to make government more efficient.

Yeah – right.

Blind hiring has never been known to fix anything in the public or private sector.

There is, however, a four-letter word that people either ignore or in the case of this budget, give lip service to but do little to address.

That four-letter word is productivity.

The mere mention of assessing productivity in the public sector draws a cacophony of protests from the public sector as they attempt to drown out the people who correctly point out that cost is not the issue – the real issue is the nature of the ROI (return on investment) on the money that is spent.

And as a long time observer of human productivity (I cofounded and IPOd a company that specialized in the capture, expression and prediction of human productivity mathematically), I have always been fascinated by the hot potato that is public sector productivity.

Now to be fair, there are a lot of public sector employees who provide exemplary performance and results.  It is that group of people who keep governments moving and who provide the services that citizens require.

However, this high level of dedication, performance and results are not the norm and as someone who has consulted at municipal, provincial / state and federal levels (in multiple countries), I wonder when Alberta’s government will have the gumption to tackle issues around enhancing the ROI of the public sector.

Here are a few examples from my own personal experience (the entire list is too long to include here):

• Senior municipal IT workers who freely admit that they switched from the private sector to the public sector because the pressure to deliver is less, they can work less and they get a better pension.  They are building a complex infrastructure for which no customer has been identified as being interested in it but it looks good on their resume.
• The lady with the Absorbine Jr. addiction (she drinks it) who walks around zonked out of her mind all day but cannot be touched for a variety of politically-loaded (read: union) reasons.
• The lady who had spiders in her office and when facilities management showed up to remove them, blocked their entry to protect the spiders.  The standoff lasted a week, tying up a lot of resources almost full time, until the manager forced her to relent (much to the protest of the spiders, I’m sure).
• The lady in a hospital blood testing center who played solitaire on her computer while two people waited for a blood test.  The phlebotomists wandered around inside waiting for someone to be admitted while she played for a high score.  After an hour, she called a colleague and indicated that she needed to be relieved because she was run off her feet.  The people waiting in the room looked at each other, shrugged and shook their heads.
• An emergency room that shut down for hours and took no patients while staff waited for lab work to come back for a specific patient.  Timbits and the like were brought in as nurses and doctors laughed and cajoled in the back.  When I asked the receptionist if it was normal to take no one from the waiting room while waiting for lab work to return for a particular patient and when I noted that it was insulting for a room packed full of tired, sick people to listen to a party going on behind the door, I was informed that if I asked again, I would be escorted out of the emergency room by security.  The lab work took approximately 6 hours to complete.

While these are extreme examples (and I state again that there are many dedicated, professional, hard-working public sector employees), we have some room for improvement.

Whether we have a little room or a lot of room is matter of perspective, insight and analysis.

When it comes to such analysis, the perfunctory self-analysis often conducted by many groups is of little value as is many of their recommendations.  It is ironic that oftentimes, such analysis either produces extra processes and procedures that hinder people and diminish their productivity even more or it results in a recommendation that more people need to be hired “just because”.

Unfortunately, self analysis has rarely been shown to be effective in any public or private sector scenario.

And in fairness, there is a lot of abuse within the system, both by people who work in it and by the citizens that they serve, and this adversely impacts the productivity of the public sector workers (the good ones and the bad ones).

Are we getting ideal ROI from our public sector employees?

How will we know unless we have the courage to ask?

The Bottom Line

Voters get caught up in the game of analyzing the budget from a spending versus revenue perspective and politicians and unions can skilfully and artfully dodge the equally important (and expensive) issue – the issue of lost or diminished productivity.

The dilemma is that to ignore it is expensive from a financial perspective but to tackle it is expensive from a political / PR perspective.

But if we don’t have the courage to tackle the productivity side of government spending / investment, the fiscal scenario of government will continue to get worse with every budget since spending is guaranteed to increase over the years while revenue will constantly be an unpredictable beast of boom or bust.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where our leaders don’t have the courage to tackle the issue, they don’t have the interest to do so or it serves their one personal interests and purpose not to. 

If it was their money, the sense of urgency would be greater, I’m sure.

In addition, by not addressing productivity issues, we are also ignoring those public sector employees who give their all every day to provide the services that citizens need.

Citizens and private sector businesses cannot survive with infinite borrowing while productivity lags, either marginally or precipitously.

Neither can governments.

Does it matter to you?

Are you sure?

Because if people don’t demand these conversations from politicians, then maybe the people don’t care enough either and would rather merely vent in coffee shops.

If that’s the case, the people get the government they deserve and are as much responsible for difficult times as the people in power that they criticize.

And then the demand for better is merely a wish:

Wishes: If wishes were horses then dreamers would ride. But they're much more like cattle, so best grab a shovel.

What do you think of that?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Related Posts

• The Alberta Economic Summit and Tough Decisions
• Alberta Bureaucracy - Spending Versus Productivity

---

Addendum – Addressing Some Comments – March 29, 2015

I have received a lot of email from public sector employees who asked me to address specific issues.  Rather than answer them individually, I will respond to all of them in this addendum.

1. Why don’t you address issues in the private sector?

This post was intended to identify concerns in the public sector – concerns that are front and center given the discussions around the Alberta budget.  For those who claimed that this post praised the private sector as being perfect, if they read the post carefully, they will see that it does nothing of the sort.  I have noted concerns in the private sector in other blog posts.  The private sector gets many things wrong as well.  However, in the private sector, when an organization executes its productivity poorly, its reward is diminished profits, diminished market share, a diminished stock price and if it continues for too long, the company ceases to exist.  The public sector has no such worries or concerns – it has a safety net that the private sector does not have (with some exceptions).  The private sector is thus, for the most part and with some exceptions, self-correcting – the public sector is not and has no motivation to be so.  What is important to note is that just in the private sector, it is important to find what works well and find ways to emulate that in areas that need improvement.

2. Don’t forget the management of the public sector workers

A solution for assessing productivity strengths and weaknesses includes all levels, from the lowest level right up to politicians and bureaucrats (and even how citizens consume services).  Everyone contributes to strong or poor productivity and thus no one is exempt from analysis of productivity.

3. You can’t measure ROI for government entities because they don’t earn money

The return on investment is not only measured in dollars returned as is commonly expressed in the formula ROI = (gain – cost) / cost.  While this is a simplified measure for investment or capital spending, a return on investment can also be expressed in other forms, such as quality of service provided, the number of services provided versus what can / should be provided, the number of people providing a service versus how many are needed, the time required to initiate a service request response, the turn-around time required in providing services, etc.  There are a number of ways to measure and express this mathematically (non subjectively).

4. Assessing productivity is not as easy to do as you claim it to be

I never said assessing productivity is easy.  I said it was important.  There is a big difference.

5. Why don’t you offer solutions in your post – that would be more useful?

I don’t offer solutions here for three reasons.

1. The solution for each area may have unique aspects to it.  There is no “one size fits all” solution that can be blindly applied to everyone in ignorance of data / analysis that must be derived first.
2. Any solutions that could be provided would likely be lengthy and too academic for a simple post.
3. The analysis and solution would likely be complex and require considerable time and resources.  Do you work for free?

I appreciate people who send me comments in a constructive or interactive tone. Rants or insults from people that such a blog is meant to disparage public sector employees come from people who resist change and thus resist the opportunity for positive growth.

The former serve the people of Alberta well.

The latter exist to delay change or to serve their own purposes – whatever they are.

The Sucking Sound of the Leadership Vacuum in Alberta

A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way. - John C. Maxwell

The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves. - Ray Kroc

I was amused and disappointed the other day when it was announced that 1700 private jets were being used by attendees of the upcoming Davos conference on global warming and income inequality.  The disconnect between the verbally stated intentions of the attendees and their demonstrated actions sharply demonstrates the old adage:

Let my actions speak so loudly that you can’t hear what I am saying.

When one wonders why such an obvious disconnect can take place for a conference so important, it is important to realize that such leadership (or demonstrated lack thereof) starts on a much smaller, local scale.

The roots of leadership capability start at home and with that I turned to examples of local leadership in the Province of Alberta to observe leadership in its incubation stages.

After all, the leaders on the local scene eventually become our global leaders.

After taking a quick scan of the leaders on a local scale, it is easy to see why leadership by example is missing in Davos.

It’s because it doesn’t exist at the local levels either.

Last week, Mayor Nenshi of Calgary allowed Councillor Druh Farrell to make unsubstantiated, unverified claims of alleged wild, alcohol-fuelled parties by councillors at City events.

A real leader recognizes that unsubstantiated claims should never be made in public.  A real leader also doesn’t allow his or her colleagues to be skewered publicly with such unsubstantiated claims.  There is a time and a place for such claims and action is taken using facts that allow corrective action to be taken if necessary.  If unsubstantiated, such allegations never see the light of day.

The Mayor not only allowed Councillor Farrell to make such vague, unsubstantiated claims, he exacerbated the situation with his own references to councillors getting “blotto” at community events, to inappropriate drinking by councillors in their offices and to the use of illegal drugs by councillors.

By his own admission, he has no evidence or proof.  He claims he was merely reporting what he had heard and in doing so, he as the leader of City Council invited and encouraged an unfair, unprofessional, public smearing of many hard working councillors who sacrifice everything in order to serve their community.

In other words, he threw his colleagues under the bus without facts of any kind and he doesn’t seem to care.

It appears that he enjoys the merits of being the Mayor when it is convenient and he often plays the card of “I’m just one vote of many on council” but for some reason, he is unable or unwilling to assume the position of the leader of the City Council when the presence of such a leader is critical.

It is a sad reality that politicians are rarely real leaders and this smear probably serves a political need of his.  Well ….. that is giving him the benefit of the doubt and is assuming that he is an astute strategist.  It is a known strategy for those who don’t know what they are doing to encourage disagreement amongst their colleagues to keep them distracted from recognizing the lack of leadership at the top.

Then again, maybe he or his advisors just don’t know any better. 

In the real world, such allegations without merit or proof get a “leader” fired or potentially sued for slander.

But the world of politics is not the real world and therefore, such unprofessional, unethical behavior is rarely punished.

A real leader also knows how to apologize and regain control of matters when things get out of control under their watch.  At the time this was written, no such apology is forthcoming from the Mayor.  He has informed some councillors that as far as he is concerned, this is a dead issue but if they wish, they can call a point of privilege to pursue.

So instead of apologizing to the people who have been unfairly smeared and instead of killing the issue once and for all in the absence of facts, he is letting allegations stand while more fuel is poured on the fire.

If he put as much effort into leading as he does with meaningless, fluffy tweets, maybe Council could spend more time addressing important concerns such as the economic downturn that is coming due to collapsing oil prices. 

Tens of thousands of layoffs are expected. 

I wonder what his strategy is for this.

Maybe it will fall out during one of the alleged wild, alcohol-fueled parties.

And speaking of apologies …

Danielle Smith, the former Wildrose Party leader and now opportunistic PC Party ladder-climber, apologized on her Facebook page about the decision she made in leaving the Wildrose Party of Alberta. Intriguingly enough, she apologized for angering people with her decision but then went on to criticize the people who allegedly forced her hand.

It sounded like “I’m really sorry but it was someone else’s fault anyway so …..”.  Sounds like an authentic apology to me.  It is generally accepted that the “take action and beg for forgiveness later” apology is never authentic since the original intention was still achieved while the underhandedness and dishonor behind it falls into the shadows and is soon forgotten.

She went on to say how she would be honored to serve her community if elected as an MLA again.

Translation: Having demonstrated that she can dishonor the many who supported her in the past, she would like the opportunity to pull the wool over a whole new group of supporters.

It’s pretty easy to see whose interests she is serving.

Can you guess?

I’ll make it easy for you.  The list is very short.

The fact that she didn’t see betrayal as something that would upset many speaks volumes of either her intelligence to understand the will of the people or her belief that the people are not very intelligent.

Neither reflect well on her as an alleged leader in her community and province.

Goals: It's best to avoid standing directly between a competitive jerk and his goals.

Accepting people like this as a senior player in the PC Party speaks volumes of Premier Prentice’s character as well but that’s a subject for another day.  Alberta will get a taste of his character in the next year or so as difficult times engulf the Province with the recession that has been predicted.

But it’s not just in Alberta ….

Last week in the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature, a member of the Official Opposition made a comment during Question Period that Minister Judy Manning’s best position when it came to cost cutting was “under the table”. 

I’m surprised that women’s groups didn’t storm the legislature as a result but then again, they choose fights that suit their own needs, motives and timing.

It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century that we could have such derogatory comments made by a government official who alleges to serve as a servant to the public and as a role model to many.

What does that tell you about the state of government these days?

The Bottom Line

The world has reached a juncture where real leadership is needed to solve challenges in the areas of government spending, the economy, climate control, arms control, terrorism and other areas.

Is it any wonder that the leaders at the global level can’t seem get it done when one sees what we have at home in the form of leadership (or lack thereof)?

Do we care that such leaders form role models for our children?

Do we care that as the world burns in certain areas, that our leaders are the best we can come up with when it comes to guiding us out of difficulty and towards our unlimited potential or do we merely accept the message they are constantly espousing?

Excuses: If you keep asking others to give you the benefit of the doubt, they'll eventually start to doubt your benefit.

I think we should expect and demand better before things really hit the fan locally and globally (if it’s not too late already).

I also think we need leaders who serve the people and are not merely mouthpieces who serve their own interests or the interests of those who use them in return.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood.

Harry

The Poison Pill in the Wildrose Defection

I'm a traitor, but I don't consider myself a traitor. - Aldrich Ames

“You lose your voice for your constituents and you lose your voice to advocate,” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

“We’re here to just make sure that Albertans are taken care of and that when the government makes mistakes they’re called out on them.  They make an awful lot of mistakes so it keeps us pretty busy.” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

As news breaks of the potential defection of major players from the Wildrose Party to the PC Party, including Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson, Jeff Wilson, Gary Bikman, Jason Hale and Blake Pedersen (maybe more to be announced), I can’t help but think of the poison pill this represents to the PC Party.

The fact that leaders of a political party could abandon their party when “the times get tough” is a major reflection upon their character and their dedication to their former organization and the people within that organization.

The fact that one of the defectors, Rob Anderson, has done this more than once (having defected from the PC Party to the Wildrose and now is attempting to return to the PC Party) is a damning conviction in regards to his character and his opportunistic nature.  In doing so, he has slammed both parties and therefore is worthy of neither.

When one considers the venomous attacks against the PC Party by this merry band of roving politicians, one has to wonder what exorcism, voodoo or other transformational process was imparted upon them that converted their hate into love.

Do they suddenly believe (or want us to believe) that the party they hated is suddenly worth embracing in order to meet their constituent's needs or should we call it for what it probably is – a selfish or self-serving gesture that suggests that they believe that they cannot beat Jim Prentice in the next election and so it is better to join the winning side early rather than go down to defeat.

Why would the PC Party accept them?

It would make sense if the PC Party were desperate to increase its control of the Legislature but the Legislature is already well in-hand, so the extra votes aren’t needed.

Do the defectors bring any skills to the PC Party that the Party does not currently have?  If the defectors’ public actions are to be used as the litmus test, the answer would be no.

However, absorbing them into a Party that has its future well in-hand opens the door to internal rifts as Wildrose-leaning insiders and original PC Party members begin to clash on policy, platform, candidate nomination / selection, etc.

The rumor that the defectors will be provided with uncontested nominations for their ridings in the upcoming election will also alienate long-time PC supporters and deepen this rift.

To add insult to injury, what happens if some of the defectors are offered plum ministerial portfolios while long-time members of the PC Party who stood by the Party when times were difficult are passed over?

And let us not forget that the existence of a strong opposition (as far as it is) ensures transparency and accountability in government.  The Wildrose Party has created more insight into the workings of the Alberta PC Party than has been seen in the Province for many years.  The fact that receiving the defectors would even be considered by the PC Party is a warning that there would be no solid opposition remaining to question the action, something that should concern the citizens of Alberta.

The Wildrose Party has also contributed to the overthrowing of two Alberta Premiers so their track record is actually not too shabby.

The Bottom Line

Once someone demonstrates that they can’t be trusted with another party, why would you suddenly believe they are trustworthy in your own camp, unless you are so desperate for their support that you can look blindly past the obvious as politicians often do in order to accomplish their objectives.

And so with no obvious upside and plenty of opportunity for downside, the PC Party should reject the Wildrose defectors as being of insufficient character and values for the Party and being a potential poison pill in the future.

If they are rejected and return to take over the helm of the Wildrose Party, it would be justice for that Party to reject them also for once a self-serving traitor’s motives have been exposed, can you ever really trust them in the future?

After all, this is what this event is all about – an evaluation of character, values and trust of both the PC and Wildrose Parties and the question of whether these attributes can be found in the people who serve the Province.

Let us not forget that in the end, the constituents must come first.

Do the elected officials in question remember this?

If the Wildrose Party does take them back (should they be rejected by the PCs), maybe the Wildrose Party should be renamed something more appropriate … maybe something like the Benedict Arnold Party.

Because that name appears to be a more accurate reflection of the character and values of many (not all) of the players leading it.

I think that the people within the Wildrose and PC Parties and the people of Alberta deserve better.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS When I see actions such as those taken by the defectors, I think of posters like this:

or this:

Addendum – Maybe Not What It Seems - December 17, 2014

Watching some PC MLAs say that they can “look beyond the past” implies that said MLAs don’t care about the company that they keep as long as the company that they keep appears to serve their own needs.

I wonder if the backlash against the defectors would be so great that they would go down to defeat in the next election anyway (regardless of the party they serve) and if that were to happen, is acceptance of the defectors just a waste of time and energy or is it part of a masterful plan to skewer the Wildrose Party, using the self-serving nature of the defectors against themselves?

Or …. is this the greatest political takeover in Alberta history, with in fact the Wildrose policies becoming the PC Party policies, bringing true conservatism back to the PC Party and making the Wildrose experiment one of the more brilliant ones in Canadian political history.  This scenario would bode well for the defectors with potential plum ministerial positions being offered to them but would alienate the left-leaning members of the PC Party, thus encouraging them to move on if they don’t like what they see. 

Time will tell.

Final Addendum – The Deal is Done – December 18, 2014

As the dust settles at the time I write this, 9 members of the Wildrose Party have joined the PC Party, simultaneously gutting the Official Opposition, practically wiping out the Party that stood in opposition and providing guaranteed jobs to the 9 self-serving individuals who put themselves above their Party, their colleagues, their friends and the people they serve.  The backlash from both PC and Wildrose Party members has been strong.  However, to the many who donated significant time, energy and money to the Wildrose Party, the feeling of betrayal appears to be especially strong as Ms. Smith and company stabbed them in the back without remorse.

It doesn’t matter to the floor crossers.  They are, after all, politicians.  Should we have dared to expect anything better from the people who dared to insist they were different than the team they have just joined?

Shame on them or shame on us?

While the gushing, positive language in Ms. Smith’s press presentation was all around “like minds coming together”, the words sounded empty and hypocritical.  She carefully evaded providing specific answers to any questions posed by the press and successfully said a lot about nothing (or nothing about a lot, depending on your interpretation).  She is a politician first.

In business and in Life, I believe that a large part of how people perceive me is based on the company I keep.  I personally wouldn’t take anyone on any team of mine whose selfish needs destroy others in the process.  Not only would that person’s character reflect poorly on my own character, but the reality is that I would never know when the person would do the same to me.  Some of these floor crossers have demonstrated such repeat behavior already.

The world of politics is very different.  While people can campaign on things like character and values, such attributes take second place to accomplishing the needs of the politicians, needs that hopefully intersect somewhere with the needs of the people. The Premier didn’t need to accept the floor crossers, having the legislative weight to accomplish his intentions but he did so anyway, accepting people of lesser character into his team.

If it is a reflection on the Premier and the PC Party, at this point it doesn’t matter.  He has a legislative juggernaut that doesn’t need to pay attention to the people and is no longer faced with the challenge of answering to an opposition. 

These events also send a message to the members of the PC Party who stuck it out when times got difficult.  The message is two-fold:

1. Your ongoing support is appreciated but may not be rewarded as the floor crossers secure plum positions in lieu of those who worked hard for the Party.
2. Character and values are optional, except when being promoted to the electorate at election time as essential attributes that differentiate the Party from others.

While people insist that this is not a merger of two parties, I have read confidential documents from unhappy participants in this event that suggest that the PC Party is about to move much further to the right.

Where does that leave Red Tories, both candidates and the people who support them?

Time and the level of electorate amnesia that is common with such events will prove to be very revealing.

And finally, while I was never a fan of the Wildrose Party, I did admire their tenacity in being a strong opposition despite their small size.  Their ferocity and perseverance accomplished a lot within the Legislature that benefitted the people of Alberta.  Are the days of someone holding the Government accountable and responsible gone for the people?

Time will tell.

Newfoundland / Alberta Ballot Boxes – Bring Your ID and Your KY

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. - Joseph Stalin

Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. - Joseph Stalin

As I watch the leadership campaigns wind down for the PC Parties of Newfoundland and Labrador and Alberta, I have to wonder if politicians have finally lost their grasp on any basic understanding of what leadership is all about (or if they have given up pretending that they had any grasp in the first place).

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, former Premier Danny Williams, in a move reminiscent of former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin, systematically destroyed any leaders who might have had aspirations to compete against him for power.  When Stalin needed leaders for military campaigns during World War II, he discovered that he had wiped out an entire generation of leadership necessary to lead his troops to victory. 

By the same token, then Premier Williams gutted the PC Party of potential successors and then when he suddenly resigned, the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador was plunged into a death spiral, first with the failed Premiership of Kathy Dunderdale and the debacle that followed when Premier-designate Frank Coleman suddenly stepped down.  Meanwhile, the leadership candidates currently competing for the title of “Last PC Premier For A Long Time” do little to evoke any form of confidence in much of the electorate.

Great leaders groom their successors, which didn’t happen in this case.  The legacy of a great leader is in large part based on how well prepared and enabled their successors are.

In addition, the PC Party was not strategic or astute enough to see the problems that this strategy created and thus allowed the seeds of their death spiral to be planted.

Meanwhile, sitting ministers in the Newfoundland Government continue to resign as they recognize the gravy train (aka public service) is drying up for them.

Which brings me to the four types of politicians that are prevalent in today’s political spheres in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are politicians who truly see their vocation to serve the people and do the best they can in this capacity.  These are extremely rare in occurrence and need to be treasured when discovered.

There are the well-intentioned and the unqualified who step into politics with the intention to change the world but who are quickly brought into line by the bureaucrats, the real albeit non-elected power within government.

There are opportunists who jump into politics when the thoughts of certain election victories, nice pensions and the like are plentiful and easily obtained.

And then there are those who bail when the going gets tough for a political win  - when said win needs to be fought in the trenches while the people that the opportunists claim to serve are crying out for solutions for the difficult challenges facing the province.

I wonder what word best describes the latter group.

Perhaps you have a suggestion.

Meanwhile in Alberta ….

In another amazing lesson in leadership, the leadership candidates are spending their time undercutting each other (some more than others) and frankly, by the time they are done tearing each other apart, I wonder if any of the leaders will be left untainted enough to lead or if the divided PC Party caucus can be rallied around the leader that survives the leadership selection process.

We are used to dirty political campaigns when different candidates tear each other apart but when the tearing apart is taking place within the same party, one cannot help but wonder if so much damage is being done that victory is being handed to another party in the next general election.

Organizations can support healthy, vigorous debate to choose a new leader but when those candidates within a single party are focused on discrediting others within the same party, they forget that they may be destroying the future of not only their opponent but themselves and the Party at large as well.

The Bottom Line

Not voting is not an option.  I am a firm believer that in a democracy, the right to vote must always be exercised lest we lose that right.  That being said, too many politicians appear to be intent on proving that not voting is better than voting for the lesser of many evils.

The way things are going right now, the PC Party may not offering much to choose from in either Newfoundland and Labrador or Alberta in the next general election.  When the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador focused on destroying its leadership depth, they planted the seeds for their demise and are about to harvest the fruits of their labor.  The Liberals will sweep to victory and the NDP will continue to wallow in whatever they wallow in.

Meanwhile in Alberta, it appears that the leadership candidates of the PC Party are still sowing the seeds of their own destruction.  The crop they produce depends on how strategic, intelligent and opportunistic the other parties can be in the next general election.

I don’t know what’s worse – killing leadership candidates in advance or having the leadership candidates kill each other.

In either situation, if the PC Party expects voters to vote for them anyway, I wonder if they are expecting the voters to bring their own KY as well.

If nothing else, it will make voter penetration that much easier to accomplish.

That being said, no amount of KY is going to help if the voters resist the advances of the PC Party too much and the result will be much less pleasurable than desired by the PC Party or the electorate.

After all, there still needs to be some love in the end otherwise the people who need the love the most, the electorate, will be hurt the most instead.

I think we need better examples of leadership in a world hungry (desperate?) for strong, enabled, intelligent, selfless leaders.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS While I slagged the PC Party of the two provinces, I wonder if the other parties offer candidates or platforms worthy of replacing them or maybe all politicians are merely PR mouthpieces in front of the real people in power – the unelected bureaucrats whom we will never see.

Should we lower our expectations as low as possible to avoid disappointment?

I’m not certain - what do you think?

What I do know is that we need strategic, tactical, intelligent, unselfish leadership to solve many difficult problems right now on a provincial / state, federal and international level and that such leaders are becoming ever-increasingly difficult to find.

Here’s a small example of why this matters.  According to data released on September 5th, 2014 by Stats Canada, the number of unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador is up over 26% from the same point in 2013.  In addition, there are over 58,000 people collecting E.I. and income support in the Province, producing an actual unemployment rate of over 22% when one considers a labor force of approximately 259,000 people.  Those are pretty ugly numbers to me.

Factor in additional things such as the fact that Brent Crude oil prices are still tracking below what the Province needs in order to meet its budget requirements (as I explained in Newfoundland–Should We Just Shoot It And Put It Out Of Its Misery?) and the following questions come to mind:

• “Does strong, intelligent, strategic leadership exist anymore within the political sphere?”
• “Should we demand better of our political / government leaders (and if so, why don’t we)?”
• “Are today’s government challenges just too complex for anyone to solve?”.

Don’t ask me for my answers.

What are yours?

The Wildrose Party – Just the Facts, Ma’am

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

I was intrigued to see this little invite issued by the Wildrose Party pass through my inbox yesterday.

I found it intriguing given that since it appears to be a Wildrose Party fundraiser for the constituency of Calgary SE, it would suggest that one of the “hogs to be booted from the trough” would be Calgary SE MLA Rick Fraser, Associate Minister - Public Safety and Associate Minister - Recovery and Reconstruction of High River.

While it is the role of political parties to whip up controversy or “live on the edge”, we as citizens should insist that they stick to the facts and the data.

Unfortunately, we have a basic law of democracy that pervades our political culture:

Governments in power rely on facts, data and results while opposition parties rely on emotion and never the twain shall meet.

Also unfortunately, emotions sway people much more easily and effectively than facts.

If one examines Associate Minister Fraser’s record, whether it be in regards to new schools being built in Calgary SE, his tireless efforts in High River (very few people would have wanted this difficult job) and his contributions in other areas, I would posit that his commitment to results and to the people he serves are as good as or better than any politician we will find.

If you examine his expense disclosure reports, they are extremely modest at best, especially given the portfolios he holds as Associate Minister.

And so I would suggest that if other parties are going to take on any incumbent, especially one with a strong track record and a commitment to service, that they do so with specific, measurable counters to the actions, intentions and results of the incumbent and not imply that “dirt” is present when there likely isn’t any for the individual in question.

I also understand that Associate Minister Fraser was allegedly confronted by senior Wildrose Party officials in regards to allegations of corruption and when he reacted strongly about the perceived personal attack, the Wildrose officials backed off and said “We’re not talking about you.  We are referring to members of the PC Party”.

I don’t know about you, but when someone slags a private citizen as being potentially corrupt, it sounds like the basis for a slander or liable suit to me.

And while we’re on the subject of revisionism or accusations

I posted on a Wildrose Party official’s Facebook page, asking if the “hogs from the trough” campaign was legitimate and while he admitted that it was, he also altered part of the content of my message.  I questioned why he did it and he responded that he found it interesting that it was possible and that it was good to know such things.

While I’m not sure that the ability to do this is useful (or should even be allowed) and while his alteration was in gest, it caused me to think about social media and it’s powerful influence in the political sphere.  With this in mind and with the intention of proving a point, I in turn changed a Facebook interaction I had with him (with names blanked out for privacy) from this:

to this:

I’ve transformed him from an innocent commenter on a benign post into a traitorous tool against his own party (which I know he is not but subsequent posters to this post will sure be surprised to see his sudden political reversal).

The Bottom Line

We all know that emotion is a more useful and valuable tool than any amount of facts and data.  The sad reality is that most people are so busy making their way from one day to the next that they don’t have time to listen to, understand or comprehend the overwhelming amount of data thrown at them daily (although curiously enough, many of these same people can cite an amazing amount of info regarding the next iPhone).  I mused about the power of emotion in regards to manipulating people in my post Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

However, if we don’t take the time to actually pay attention to the information being sent our way (or to the words that people are putting into our mouths as in my fun little Facebook experiment), then anything is possible.

And the fact that anything is possible does not imply or guarantee that the result is necessarily a positive one.

Nor does it come with a money back guarantee when we cry foul that we didn’t pay attention the first time nor did we read the fine print.

Remember this when someone comes to your door with emotion-laden rhetoric (regardless of the party affiliation) but with no data:

Propaganda: What lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies right to our faces.

As the great philosopher Elmer Fudd once said:

Be ve-w-w-wy, ve-w-w-wy careful.

Especially when it comes to information, its sources, the medium used to deliver it and the intention behind it.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

PS My unwitting accomplice in my Facebook example is a good family man, a strong volunteer in his community and believes strongly in his political ideals.  He is what I believe to be a strong contributor to society.  My example was meant to demonstrate how social media can easily twist a good person into something else.  Be cautious about how you embrace social media. 

It is important to define how you use social media – don’t allow it to use or define you.

It is also important to avoid generalizations, especially when describing individuals.  Efforts to tar everyone with a single brush often do more damage to the person wielding the brush than it does the intended subject.

---

Alison Redford and the Danger of Mutually Assured Destruction

"It was a perfectly beautiful night, as fall nights are in Washington. I walked out of the president's Oval Office, and as I walked out, I thought I might never live to see another Saturday night." - Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, recalling the Cuban Missile Crisis

Those of us old enough to remember the Cold War will recall that what kept us from melting the planet with nuclear weapons was the knowledge that regardless of who fired first, the missiles fired back would assure that neither side would win – the idea of mutually assured destruction.

While we know that there can be no winner in such a conflagration, according to my former father-in-law (Colonel – USAF and Strategic Air Command, now deceased) we came a lot closer to disaster than the general public will ever know.

It took the courage and insanity of Ronal Reagan to break the cycle of madness that the world was engaged in when he called upon Gorbachev to come back to the negotiating table. Whether or not the resulting disarmament (and I use the term very lightly) has actually saved us or postponed the inevitable is another matter.

Meanwhile back in Alberta ….

As I watch the current media buzz over former Premier Redford being spotted in Palm Springs while claiming that she deserves full pay for reasons usually reserved for illness or bereavement, I am reminded of how mutually assured destruction in politics works.

A number of insiders, including MLAs on both side of the Legislature, have privately shared stories that are amazing and disgusting and include not only salacious stories of a personal matter that would make a Penthouse editor blush but which also include tales of inappropriate spending that have not seen the light of day.

And I’m not talking about former Premier Redford.

But no one dares make them public.

One party knows that to come totally clean in admission of their sins opens up Pandora’s box and the resulting firestorm will wipe them out in the next election.

The other party knows that to expose someone’s “dirt” invites the other party to reveal “dirt” about them in return and their hopes of winning the next election are next to zero, either because of the nature of the information exposed or because the party that fired the first shot would be crucified for having taken “the low road”.

And so we are left with political detente.

Meanwhile, the media feeds the public with tidbits and tasty morsels of gossip that in the grand scheme of things mean nothing but which incite citizens to anger and indignation while the complexities of the truth remain unseen.  In addition, those who are not without sins themselves seem to cry out in indignation the most.

As in the Cold War, the public dialog and the private dialog are miles apart.  And as with the Cold War, if the citizens actually knew what was going on, they would be angry and afraid simultaneously. 

However, if they removed their lens of judgement, they would discover that even they might not have been able to do any better.  We all have our weaknesses, our frailties and our price, no matter how pure and perfect we believe ourselves to be.

The Hazards of Public Service

Political detente creates a lot of complexity.  The good politicians (and there are some) are left second-guessing a lot of things, including how their values, morals and character fit into such a system while at the same time, their call to service compels them to continue participating.  They know that if they speak out too loudly, citizens will question why they remain while party members will feel betrayed and in both situations, their position becomes difficult to defend.

The almost-good politicians, the ones who are doing their best but who have a few skeletons in their closet, are upset with the ongoing trials and tribulations of former Premier Redford but commiserate with her at the same time knowing that they are not perfect.  They also know that if they speak out, their own skeletons will be revealed and their sins, once put behind them, will be put front and center for public analysis (aka public hanging).

And then you have the other politicians who know that this is how the game is played and that when the game is played well, there are many rewards available.  For those who play the game poorly and get skewered in public … well … that is the nature of any high risk / high reward game, isn’t it?

Is it any wonder so many good people won’t step into politics?  How many of us would willingly step into such a world?

The Bottom Line

In many situations of detente, one side or the other occasionally thinks they have discovered the perfect offense or defense and that a first strike will assure them of victory.  However, every time they are ready to push the button, they uncover a new piece of knowledge at the last minute and they pause, realizing how close to the brink they actually came to destroying themselves.

Unfortunately, this fear of mutual detente partially paralyzes all parties involved and they spend more time managing the detente or looking for a weakness in the other side than they do taking care of more important things for the people that they represent.

I wonder if one of these days, “the button” will be pushed before cooler heads prevail or might be pushed “by accident” and then we will have a problem that makes our current media morsels pale in comparison.

This is a disconcerting thought that we need to pay more attention to.

Wait …. I am referring to global affairs.

What did you think I was referring to?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS All of this being said, the PC Party of Alberta must still publicly and substantively address the matter of former Premier Redford, both for the sake of transparency and for the sake of strong strategy (defining its own message rather than having one be defined for them by Ms. Redford, the media or others).  Silence on their part is not healthy as I noted in the blog post PC Party of Alberta–Free Optics Management Advice. While it is possible that she is holding down her seat until Jim Prentice makes his decision, she is holding out for a judge appointment, etc., continued silence wounds the PC Party more than it helps them.

In the meantime, people on social media should remain calm and not appear as the locals do in this famous Monty Python skit.

---