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?

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.

---

PC Party of Alberta–Free Optics Management Advice

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Richard P. Feynman

Back in early March I wrote a blog post entitled The Trojan Horse of the 21st Century where I mused about how one organization could infiltrate another and through the use of this mole, bring down the entire organization.

It was a carefully worded blog post but some clever readers were able to see through it and saw that I was actually referencing the trials and tribulations of former Premier Redford and the PC Party’s inability to gain control over the messaging and optics of a Premier who had lost touch with her caucus and the people of Alberta.

When former Premier Redford requested earlier this week that her pay not be docked while she was absent from the Alberta Legislature, there was much conjecture (and some indignation) about the nature and authenticity of her illness (and possibly her audacity if the request was inappropriate).

However, as rumors circulate today that she has spent the last week in Palm Springs (a locale that has gotten her into trouble before), rabid reporters and naysayers are quick to come forward to cry foul that once again, she has pulled the wool over the eyes of the citizens.

As the story develops, I am reminded of my conjecture in the previously noted blog post that one or more of the following seem to be present when it comes to managing public optics:

1. the PC Party and/or Ms. Redford feel that they do not need to manage the message (ego or overconfidence)
2. the PC Party and/or Ms. Redford do not know how to manage the message (incompetence or inexperience)
3. the PC Party and/or Ms. Redford discover that the message has some inconvenient or problematic details in it and therefore they avoid it (evasive)
4. someone in the PC Party and/or Ms. Redford choose to wilfully not manage the message for reasons of ulterior motive (sabotage).

Here’s some free consulting advice for the PC Party.

If former Premier Redford needs to take time off for stress recovery (who wouldn’t be staggered by the public humiliation she has faced regardless of whether warranted or not), have someone face reporters and say something like this:

Former Premier Redford will be taking some time off to recover from a very difficult time for her and her family.  She may be seen at her location in Palm Springs as she seeks to avoid prying eyes and the press during this time of healing.  She asks that the press respect her request for privacy for her and her family.

It’s short, sweet, to the point and kills any sensationalism that may arise from being spotted in Palm Springs, a place she has been known to frequent in the past at the taxpayer’s expense.

It also assures her of privacy if in fact she needs time to heal from the political roller coaster of recent months.

The Bottom Line

Never given anyone an excuse or an opportunity to create sensationalism or create a message on your behalf.  Any story of her being spotted in Palm Springs would be considered no story at best and possibly an unfair or unjust intrusion of privacy if the optics had been proactively, effectively managed.

When it comes to optics management, one needs to decide:

Do I want to control the message as to how I am perceived or do I wait for others to invent a message on my behalf?

After all, modern media abhors an information vacuum and is quite content to do what it takes to find or invent a message on your behalf if you have no interest or ability to promote one of your own.

It is also often true that any message invented on your behalf is likely to be less accurate, more embarrassing and more damaging than had the message been proactively managed since the creation of such a message often brings other hidden, private or embarrassing elements into the light of day.

Until someone owns the message and manages the optics better within the PC Party, I am left to wonder which of the previously mentioned reasons for lack of optics management is the more appropriate one. 

As for those who believe that their current strategy and execution is fine just the way it is, well … better take a quick survey of the political landscape and then ask if the results and the beliefs are in alignment.

The alignment doesn’t look very strong from my perspective.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Addendum – When You Think It Can’t Get Worse – April 26, 2014

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, a number of people, including MLAs (not just PC Party members), Legislature insiders and other people have shared a number of details with me that are disturbing, disruptive, salacious and sad.

While the details of those sharings will never be revealed here, it is a reminder to me that there are a lot of people who worry about the feelings of others, a lot of people who will do whatever it takes to undermine others personally and professionally (not caring who gets hurt in the process) and a lot of people who fear that they will be inadvertently burned should certain details be revealed.

I tweeted the following 24 hours before the current issues broke in the media and I was soundly thumped by some Party faithful who said that they totally disagreed.

Today the same critics of my tweet were silent.

I wonder if they are aware of what the next unmanaged message might produce or where the next difficulty will originate from.

I wonder if they care.

Time will tell.

Hopefully too many people won’t be hurt in the process of learning the answer because when the dirt flies, the innocent are just as liable to be hurt as the guilty.

And that is what is most unfair of all.

---

Bullying and the REAL Crisis In Alberta (and elsewhere)

I can prove anything by statistics except the truth. - George Canning

Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination. - Vin Scully

In a very brief interaction with a CBC personality this morning, where he indicated that low turnout in a by-election in Newfoundland spoke poorly of the Government’s chances in the next general election, I suggested that it was impossible to infer a trend from a single data point / event.

After I said this, I thought back to my post yesterday, The Problem with the LGBTQ Agenda, and I gave some thought to the data being shared by pro-LGBTQ folks seeking to make legislative changes to protect against homophobic bullying.

Here is what I came up with:

1. 3.5% of students self-identify as LGBTQ. (Source: Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services’ presentation to the Alberta School Boards Association Conference – November 22, 2011.  Presenter: Dr. Kristopher Wells – University of Alberta)
2. 1 in 5 of those same students report being harassed or assaulted (Source: Same as previous point)
3. 64% of students in general report being bullied at school (Source: Stop a Bully campaign, citing a University of British Columbia survey)
4. 47% of parents report having a child who is the victim of bullying (Source: Stats Canada)
5. There are approximately 717,000 student-aged (high school or younger) children in Alberta (Source: Stats Canada)

Moving from there, we could roughly (unscientifically and without regard to localized variations) interpret that:

1. Approximately 25,000 students in Alberta self identify as LGBTQ
2. Approximately 692,000 students in Alberta do not self identify as LGBTQ
3. Of the 25,000 students who self identify as LGBTQ, 1 in 5 report being harassed or assaulted – approximately 5,000 students
4. Of the remaining students, reports on being harassed or assaulted range from approximately 325,000 to 422,000 cases (depending on statistics applied).

And with this information, pro-LGBTQ supporters in Alberta are suggesting that bullying is a phenomenon that is mostly targeted against them and therefore legislation must be drafted to prevent the phenomenon that is more unique to them than anyone.  Meanwhile, the statistics suggest that the problem is far larger (statistically and literally) in the non-LGBTQ community.

Even Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman was swayed by a misunderstanding of statistics, making the hateful accusation in Question Period yesterday that for the Alberta Government to not pass pro-LGBTQ legislation was proof of the Government’s “homophobic legacy”.

Tough words … and unfair, unnecessary and misinformed.

The LGBTQ community are correct in their assertion that there is a crisis in Alberta (and I would posit, around the civilized world).

Here is where I see the crisis.  For starters, either too many people:

1. Do not know how to read statistical data and accidentally misinterpret it
2. Intentionally misrepresent it for the sake of their own personal or professional agendas and actually bully people with it under the guise of ending bullying
3. React to the statistics presented to them without bothering to verify the data, including legislators who should know better before passing legislation (it didn’t pass in this case) without understanding the downstream effects of it.
4. Are not aware of how easily their emotions are evoked by inaccurate data (accidentally or wilfully).

And because we have a crisis in statistics gathering, interpretation, manipulation, presentation and understanding, the real crisis, bullying in general (which, by the way, extends well into our adult lives) is lost in an argument over who feels most affronted.

The truth is that bullying and intimidation are an insult to humanity and ways must be found to honor all people and not just specific groups.

Meanwhile, I have a new motion for the Alberta Legislature to contemplate, based on this information:

Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive. - George Bernard Shaw

Apparently, and I’ve just come to this shocking discovery, statistics also show that 100% of people who breathe will eventually die.

How can we have not seen the obvious crisis from these statistics?  Until the Alberta Legislature addresses these more heinous, obvious issues in our society, I’m going on a hunger strike (while holding my breath).

I’m being silly for a reason.  If I need to explain the reason, then we have another crisis developing that I won’t get into here.

In the meantime, in a quick survey conducted in the coffee shop I wrote this in, 100% of people questioned agreed with everything I said in this post.

It’s a statistic and so it must be right.

Right?

The Bottom Line

I think we need to honor the issues that affect all humans, recognizing all people as divine and deserving of every right, equally and without differentiation.  The longer we wait to figure out who is the most affected in any given scenario, the longer everyone is affected – potentially to their detriment and to the detriment of society.

I also think that this blog post will anger some people who prefer emotion over data or who find some data to be inconvenient unless cherry picked to suit their needs.  While data that is appropriately identified, selected and referenced rarely lies or misrepresents, the same cannot be assumed for those who would use this data.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS

Those who lead, whether in business, politics or for causes in general, need to be careful how their intentions to reduce bullying are perceived.  Oftentimes those who claim to be against bullying use bullying, demeaning words, taunting and other intimidation tactics themselves in order to manifest their own personal or professional intentions.  Such could be said about the insults hurled at the Education Minister for not giving certain people what they demanded in regards to Motion 503 or for Liberal Leader Raj Sherman in labelling people who expressed a counter opinion to Motion 503 (which is permitted) as being automatically homophobic.

To those people, I ask:

1. In such situations, do you believe that people will follow what you say (promoting anti-bullying) or emulate what you do (using bully tactics to achieve your objectives)?
2. In such situations, do you believe your actions solve the problem or merely shift the problem somewhere else, especially when one rationalizes that such actions are “ok for a just cause”?

Are you sure?

How would others answer these questions on your behalf?

---

Addendum – When Data Becomes Inconvenient - April 10, 2014

The very people who were using stats yesterday to promote their intention and whose stats I cited in this post informed me today that the use of statistics is invalid when it comes to correcting social injustice.

It is curious that when the same data in a different context suddenly looks weak that people who previously cited the data rabidly suddenly insist that the same data is irrelevant.

Speaking of data, Greg Clark of the Alberta Party went as far as to suggest this:

Suggesting that defeating the motion could damage a province’s prosperity (without citing the evidence) is unsubstantiated fear mongering.

Data that is convenient as a hammer to drive one’s agenda can often become an inconvenient weapon to weaken one’s own case.

For this reason, data should always be chosen wisely.

---

Related Posts:

• The Problem With the LGBTQ Agenda – April 9, 2014
• Bullies, Pink Shirts and Attaboys – March 16, 2013
• Lip Service–The Solution to Everything – November 19, 2012
• Mitt Romney, Bullies and Red Herrings – May 11, 2012

---

The Problem With the LGBTQ Agenda

Sales are contingent upon the attitude of the salesman - not the attitude of the prospect. - W. Clement Stone

I like to think of sales as the ability to gracefully persuade, not manipulate, a person or persons into a win-win situation. - Bo Bennett

In Alberta this week, Motion 503 was defeated in the Alberta Legislature.  The motion, with an eye towards allegedly protecting LGBTQ children, reads as follows:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to introduce legislation, like Manitoba’s and Ontario’s, requiring all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations, using any name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive, welcoming, and respectful for all students regardless of sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

As is typical with such emotionally-laden subjects, the ignorant, the unintelligent and the misinformed quickly piled onto social media with many being unable to calmly, intelligently or respectfully discuss why the motion should pass or fail.

In fact, people on both sides of the debate were happy to bash each other incessantly, both wasting their own time as well as the time of the people whose feeds were overrun by their ignorant diatribe and yet, neither side seemed able to make a good case for or against the motion.

The most curious theme of the Motion 503 supporters was along the lines of it being necessary to provide a safer environment for LGBTQ children in schools.  Being a data guy and someone who is strongly committed to the future of our children, when I hear that a safer environment is necessary, this implies that a threat exists and so I innocently tweeted the following:

It was a fair question (yeah, I know that I misspelled LGBTQ as LBGTQ by accident – people who are easily offended can stand down now). 

I honestly wanted to know what the pending or imminent threat was or is.

In the aftermath of a respectful question from someone trying to understand what the imminent threat was or is, I received social media communication along the lines of everyone knows what the issues are, everyone knows what the threats are, we all have seen the proof, blah blah blah. 

But in EVERY situation (bar none) when I asked for “the proof”, whether it be in the form of a file, a report, a link, ANYTHING, the conversation quickly turned into taunts and insults – using emotion to deflect the conversation away from the lack of data or at least data that they were citing as “proof”.

I even had a professor at the University of Alberta tweet this after I repeatedly asked for the proof he claimed to have in-hand:

He couldn’t (or wouldn’t) actually produce the proof he kept citing.  Even when I went to his U of A website bio page, many of the links he cited for research were in fact dead links.

I wish I had him for a prof for all the papers I have written over the years (and still write).  In the references section, I could simplify my Life by having one line:

Google all the references yourself.

Some data was offered …..

In fairness, one person offered a presentation that boldly stated “1 in 5 (21%) of LGBTQ students report being harassed or assaulted.”

Since context matters, I asked a few people:

1. How does the alleged study define being “harassed or assaulted”?
2. Did the alleged study point out how many non-LGBTQ students felt that they had been harassed or assaulted (for comparison purposes)?

Context matters.  I know some people who feel harassed every time someone gives them “a dirty look”.

My questions produced accusations that I was trying to confuse people or trying to bury the issue in complexity and then those people commenced to crap all over me as well.

And to me, therein lies the entire problem with the LGBTQ conversation.

As a person of influence, as a person who believes and champions the fair treatment of all people and as someone who needs data when “proof” is cited, I often ask for additional information.

I don’t ask with an intent to refute someone or to tell them that they are wrong.

I ask with the intent to understand.

When I understand something and it is sold to me in a very convincing way, as someone with a very large, influential network, I can be a very powerful ally who will then promote this same message to others.

And yet oftentimes, people without data or who are relying purely on emotion get nervous when someone asks for the proof that they cite (which they often don’t have) and they quickly jump to the conclusion that this person must be trying to discredit them.

In doing so, they go out of their way to create an antagonist (and a powerful one) when they might have had a powerful ally in their corner instead.

The Bottom Line

The message from a person trying to sell an idea to others must resonate with the target audience and it must be consistent.

When people, under the guise of demanding respect for others, don’t know how to offer respect when trying to sell their message, it’s no wonder that their “sales pitch” runs into complications or resistance.

My message to parts of the LGBTQ community is this.

The message you promote must be:

1. Data-filled (as much as is realistic).  Don’t tell people to go search for the data.  If you have proof, offer it.  Don’t cherry pick data that is useful for your purposes or intentionally use data out of context since this will cause you to be discredited once you are discovered.  You are trying to convince them – make it easy for them to be convinced.
2. Emotion-less (as much as is realistic).  Don’t chase people away with excessive emotion.  Over zealous people, whether in politics, religion or any other cause, can frighten people away or encourage them to resist.
3. Varied by target audience.  There is no “one message fits all humans” model
4. Open to scrutiny.  You ask questions of others.  Expect and embrace the same in return.
5. One that resonates.  To influence the mind, you must touch the heart and not stab it.  Stabbing it has a tendency to create more enemies than friends.
6. Respectful and understanding of the feelings and opinions of others.   You don’t want to be stepped on, intimidated or insulted – neither does your target audience.

I say “parts” of the community because within my significant network of gay friends and colleagues, the vast majority get embarrassed or angry when they see how their lifestyle is being portrayed by others who claim to be representing the entire LGBTQ community.

And doing it very poorly, at least according to my friends and colleagues.

When the elements of a cohesive message are brought together, the vast majority of people won’t need to be convinced – they will easily convince themselves.

And for those who are not convinced, the last time I checked, we still live in a democracy where differences of opinion are not only allowed but welcomed and encouraged.

Well … unless I’m not entitled to that opinion either.

Respect and the welcoming of diversity are not things that can be legislated.

They are also not limited to being learned and protected in the schoolyard.

But until we learn to stem the tide of disrespect that is taught in the home, in the media and entertainment industry and in other places as well (and, in fact, modeled by some of our business, religious and political leaders), we will always have problems typical of a society lacking in respect and civility.

To our detriment.

As for me, I am not anti-gay at all.  However, to the LGBTQ community, I ask that you stop trying to make me otherwise.  I resist disrespect no matter what the reason it is shoved down my throat, even if the cause is a fair and just one.

There will always be people out there who resist your message, whether it be through intolerance, ignorance or because they have a right to a different opinion.  In such cases, remember the rule of the 4 SWs and move on.

Some will, some won’t, so what, someone’s waiting

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Addendum – Making the Data Fit the Problem - April 9, 2014

Some of the people I dialogued with yesterday were suggesting that the primary problem (by far) of bullying these days are as a result of homophobic people assaulting LBGTQ individuals.  Again, they had no data to back this up but spouted it as the ever-constructive, dialog-encouraging, “only idiots don’t know this” type message.

In my blog post Mitt Romney, Bullies and Red Herrings (written 2 years ago), I described my own personal childhood experiences with bullying where bullies (many of them gay) dry humped me into humiliation whenever they could get the chance (sorry – there is no gentle way of describing this).

I pointed out that in that blog post that these boys had been victims of sexual and physical abuse at home for years – at the hands of broken parents who themselves were victims of abuse in their own childhood.

The sexual orientation of my bullies had nothing to do with why they were abused or why they had become abusers.

However, some people in public and private dialog suggested that the abuse my abusers had experienced was irrelevant and that their abuse of others was “merely them exercising their right to stand up to the abuse they absorbed as LBGTQ students”.

This is the type of opinion that prevents constructive, solution-seeking dialog from occurring.  Not knowing who these kids were, the people offering their opinion did not know that the kids who bullied me were in fact some of the most popular kids in the school.  The abuse they absorbed at home was some of the most insidious abuse that children have ever had to face and which children continue to face today.  The terrible pain they absorbed was expressed in their intimidation of others.

The opinion of some of the people I interacted with yesterday also suggests that revenge is a justifiable reason for bullying, even if the target of the revenge was not the original antagonist.

I would posit that if we embrace such a model of justifiable revenge, constantly attacking those who have affronted us while constantly defending against those whom we have affronted, we will spend the rest of our days fighting each other in an every-tightening death spiral of tit-for-tat.

Intolerance, anger and confrontation are never the solution for intolerance, anger and confrontation.

Well, that is unless some feel the need to be angry or feel affronted for the heck of it or for a different reason.

In such situations, maybe it is not justice and equality some are fighting for.  For those people, the cry for justice makes for a convenient banner to hide behind or to lob grenades from for reasons unrelated to the cause that they allegedly champion.

For some politicians and business leaders, it becomes a useful leverage point, a means of promoting their own agendas on the backs of others whom they may or may not even care about as long as they get what they need.

And so the dialog gets murkier – and the people who want and deserve basic rights and freedoms get lost in the noise of a dialog that is more complex than it should be.

A final thought. 

The afore mentioned professor at the U of A is now supporting a resolution to have the Minister of Education removed from his portfolio for not supporting Motion 503:

The philosophy of “do it my way or else face dire consequences” is not conducive to promoting a cause or encouraging dialog and in fact, may make some people view “the cause” as a source of intimidation or bullying and not as a just cause.  The motion followed the parliamentary process and was defeated – this is the way it works in our society.

People who act as this professor is acting are often quick to cite bullying when they perceive it as coming in their direction but less so when they are the antagonist.

Maybe for some, their projection becomes their perception and thus their reality  – that their need to bully heightens their sensitivity about receiving it.

Maybe.

Whatever the reason, “my way or the highway” rarely works.

“Educated” people should know better – but then again, education does not automatically cure people of intolerance or ignorance.

---

Coffee Shops, Premiers and Ticked Off Customers

Customer Care: If we really cared for the customer, we'd send them somewhere better. – Despair.Com

Apathy: If we don't take care of the customer, maybe they'll stop bugging us. – Despair.Com

For the last year or so, I have been struggling with a particular coffee shop whose teas were something I’ve really come to enjoy.

Unfortunately for that coffee shop, they’ve been struggling with serious quality issues.  While the corporate people I have been speaking to are very passionate about quality and are doing the best they can, I just had one too many incidents with dead flies (hundreds), dead fish, food that had gone off (are muffins really supposed to smell like rotten eggs) and staff that forget that a welcoming smile makes all the difference instead of appearing to be put out when a customer interrupts their newspaper reading.

In fairness to the fine corporate folks, the privately owned coffee shop skated just under the guidelines of what would have enabled them to take the coffee shop from the owner and so the situation remained for some time.  While it is likely that corporate could have taken action if they really wanted to, they played it safe and will now pay the price for it.

Now the owner is leaving but it doesn’t matter – the damage to the brand is complete and while the owner will move on to create success or destruction elsewhere, the brand will remain tarnished in the local area and will need some time and investment to repair.

In fact, when I see the logo, I see dead flies and fish on it.  Ahhhhh the persistence of memory when it comes to branding – Salvador Dali knew what he was doing when he painted this:

Meanwhile in the Alberta Legislature

The ongoing distraction in the Alberta Legislature regarding personal use of government aircraft by the Premier, allegations that caucus meetings often turn into “my way or the highway” sessions, lousy communication execution and other concerns have me worried about the brand being promoted from Edmonton.

When I think of the Alberta Government these days, I have a thought that keeps coming to mind that is best described by this poster:

Now the truth is that I don’t believe that elitism is the prevailing thought or belief amongst the many elected officials who work tirelessly in the Alberta Legislature.

However, the message that is being sent out speaks to the complete opposite, whether in the stand that the Premier has taken regarding use of government resources or in the bullying, intimidating, “I’m untouchable” style adopted by some of her communications staff.

And speaking of persistence of memory, when I hear warnings from the Alberta Motor Association about wide loads travelling on Highway 63 between Edmonton and Fort McMurray, I can’t help but think that maybe the Premier’s ego is travelling up the highway but then I’m reminded that she prefers to fly.

The Bottom Line

As in any organization, the attitude projected from a government to its partners and customers (i.e. voters) is often a reflection of the attitude embraced and projected from a single person - its leader (in this case, the Premier).

And just like the coffee shop corporate folks, I wonder how long Alberta Progressive Conservative “corporate” is willing to wait until their brand is severely tarnished or destroyed by the actions of this one person. 

The coffee shop corporate folks waited until the rogue owner damaged the brand and moved on and now they are left to repair the damage.

The question for the PC Party of Alberta is this:

Is the PC Party of Alberta willing to wait too long also, creating a situation of “too little too late” before they take action or will they do what’s right for everyone they serve?

I guess it comes down to how much they care about their brand and their “customers”, doesn’t it?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS This scenario presents an interesting dilemma.  A weak or crippled leader is something that an organization would ordinarily seek to rid itself of.  However, being this close to a general election and with so little time having passed since the last PC Party leadership race, changing the leader creates a potential risk for the PC Party while retaining the leader also poses a risk.

Meanwhile, most opposition parties would want such a weak leader to remain, since they would be an easier opponent to face in a general election.

So one ends up with the intriguing irony of a PC Party unwilling to change its leader even though it may wish to and an Official Opposition that seeks to disparage its opponent but not too much for fear that they will force a leadership change and possibly create a stronger opponent in the process.

It is the ultimate game of chess.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure if the people of the Province of Alberta are winning as a result.

As for the PC Party, standing still and taking no action is as risky as taking action with the hope of future success.

I think that standing still is actually more risky and plays into the strategy of the Official Opposition.

What do you think?

Addendum – March 15, 2014 – Tensions Erupt

As reports of altercations between MLAs at an Edmonton bar are revealed (Calgary Herald: Political tensions erupt between MLAs at downtown Edmonton bar) and news of the sudden departure of interim PC Party ED Kelley Charlebois is announced (Calgary Herald: Redford faces showdown with party directors), we see the unfortunate tension that is created when leadership qualities are lacking and are not addressed.

When a leader is considered too heavy-handed, too confrontational or too non-collaborative, pressure cracks develop within what ordinarily should be a cohesive team.  If the leadership concerns are not addressed, the cracks threaten to tear a team apart, a philosophy that is not new and novel nor is it limited to politics.

It is true in Life.

What happens next is anybody’s guess but I wonder if we are witnessing a pivotal moment in Alberta politics that others will look back upon and point to as the moment when Alberta politics and the condition of the Province of Alberta got better …. or worse.

Time will tell.

“Beware the Ides of March” – the timing seems almost ironic, doesn’t it?

Disaster–The Best Thing That Ever Happened

As a strategy guy, I have taken an interest in how the post-flood recovery is being handled in Alberta and I have come to a realization.

The flooding may be the best thing that ever happened to Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party. 

While the party would deny that they are taking advantage of the situation on the backs of citizens who got wiped out, any political strategist would call them foolhardy for not taking advantage of the situation.  That’s the way the game is played and historically, the common man has always born on their own backs the burden of those in power, whether it be a local event or a global war.

In a time of fiscal challenge in Alberta, Ms. Smith is walking the difficult walk of demanding that the government not spend money it doesn’t have while simultaneously insisting that citizens demand the right to be relocated by the government at the government’s expense.

Watching her in action at a town hall, it could be debated whether she is merely supporting the anger and frustration being experienced by the citizens or if she is actually fuelling it.  Anger is a very useful tool as I wrote about here Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

However, her seemingly two-faced strategy is strategically brilliant and demands an equally brilliant response from the current government.

To influence the mind, one must touch (or torch) the heart.

Is Ms. Smith ….

…. a hypocrite or a hero?

…. astute or asinine?

…. politically savvy, politically stupid or politically suicidal?

We will only know upon historical reflection.

The history books are written by the victors and within those pages, it will be revealed for whom the disaster really was the best thing …. or the worst.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

 

Addendum – July 29, 2013

A few readers reached out to me privately and asked if my comment “history books are written by the victors” was a veiled reference to Wildrose Party Press Secretary Vitor (Victor) Marciano and a future victory for the Wildrose Party.

I don’t make veiled references.  Nice try, though! :-)

Mike Allen, Politicians and Apologies

Mike Allen resigned from the Alberta Legislature yesterday after being arrested as part of a prostitution sting.

As is typical for politicians, he came forward with the standard apology (Politician Apology, Version 1.5, available at your favorite business supply store) which contained stock phrases such as:

- this is a deeply embarrassing moment

- I humbly ask for forgiveness

- I will work hard to regain trust

We’ve heard these apologies before, whether from politicians like Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer, evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

And they all came back bigger and better than ever, at least according to their followers. 

Scorned today – star tomorrow

My personal policy on apologies is based on my simplistic perception of two types of people in the world:

1. The honest type doing the best they can in a challenging world.  They trip up on occasion and make honest mistakes merely because they are human.  An apology from such individuals is unnecessary because they made a normal, human mistake which any of us may have made in the same circumstances.  Anyone claiming to have never made such mistakes is deluded, psychotic or a liar.

2. The dishonest type who make their way through Life taking advantage of others or serving their own selfish needs at the sacrifice of others.  They do things that are unethical, immoral or illegal and continue to happily do so until they are caught.  The obligatory apology that follows rings hollow since more than likely they are more upset that they were caught than for the actual act itself.  Since the apology is therefore often insincere in regards to the reason it was offered, such apologies are unnecessary and in fact, may be insulting to those affected.  Many such people use such an apology to prepare the stage for a comeback later so that they may resume their previously established behavior.

And that is why I find that apologies are unnecessary at best (from good people) and manipulative and deceptive at worst (from less than desirable individuals).

Which camp does Mike Allen fall in?

I don’t know him well enough to say.

I guess what he does in the future will demonstrate the nature of his character and will define the true intention for his apology.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – July 23, 2013

Case in point.  It was announced today that Anthony Weiner, while disgraced and chased from office in 2011, participated in a new round of inappropriate behavior during the summer of 2012.  It goes to show that people’s actions speak so loudly that you often can’t hear what they are saying.