The Post Mortem–Creating Life From Death

Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be. - John Wooden

It's fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure. - Bill Gates

Now that the municipal elections are over in Calgary, there is still an important task remaining for those committed to continuing their political career.

It is the uncomfortable and often overlooked task of conducting a post mortem to understand why they won (or lost) and to understand what can be done to at least maintain the result in the future (for those who won) or to improve their result, for those who lost or those who won but face tougher competition moving forward.

There is one difficulty in participating in a useful post mortem.

While it takes courage, perseverance, confidence and audacity (in addition to sharp data, strategy and tactics) to win an election (or any competition for that matter), it takes an additional skill to analyze where things went wrong.

It is a skill that is not as common as it used to be and is often much harder to develop.

It is the skill of humility.

When I look at campaigns that went wrong, such as Calgary Ward 12 candidate Stephanie Kusie, it becomes clear what happened.  Obvious hints exist in my posts Is Calgary’s Crime Rate Out of Control? and The Vatican Effect–Attracting the Undesirable.

The challenge with post mortems is that while it is easy as the objective observer to point out where things went wrong, it is a pointless exercise if the dialog is one-way.  The lessons don’t “stick” unless the person who needs to learn them accepts the observations, learns from them as well as from their own self-analysis and invites a personal transformation to take place as a result.

People who believe that they can overcome anything with positive affirmations while ignoring the lessons of Life merely end up learning …….

When post mortem questions are asked that sting or hurt, such questions are inviting the “seeker” to explore the subject deeper.  The pain tells the seeker “There is a valuable lesson contained within – keep moving towards the source of the pain”.  To move towards the source of the pain and to embrace it allows powerful lessons to be burned indelibly upon one’s Soul.

Those who do so later point to past stumbles as powerful, transformational moments on the road to success.

Those who believe they can brazen through Life while ignoring the lessons offered often find that they keep repeating their mistakes, burning the lives of others as well as their own.

Do you have the humility to examine the difficult moments in your Life, to identify corrective actions and to be able to answer the questions “why?” and “how do I know?” in regards to how well those corrective actions will produce better results in the future?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I became very critical of Ms. Kusie’s campaign during the Calgary election.  My requests for clarity, for a candidate to answer the questions of “why” and “how do you know” when it comes to explaining election intentions were responded to with emotion, lack of data and attempts at intimidation by some members of her campaign team.  Some of those people felt that it was better to create antagonists amongst the electorate instead of alliances. 

If you’re going to choose enemies over friends, at least know who you are provoking before proceeding.

Who knows – maybe some day, Ms. Kusie will sweep an election at the municipal, provincial or federal level if she takes the opportunity to learn from this campaign.  It takes courage to step out into the public space and for that, I applaud Ms. Kusie.  Few people have such courage.

And besides, most of us can look back on our lives, look at mistakes that we’ve made and shake our head, reliving memories that are so bizarre that we feel like we are looking upon the Life of someone else and not at our own mistakes.

Few of us were perfect then.

Few of us are perfect now.

Whether we choose to learn from our mistakes is what determines if we are moving closer to perfection or further away from it.

The Vatican Effect–Attracting the Undesirable

The Vatican Effect (aka the Streisand Effect):

The more noise someone makes trying to hide or refute something, the more Life they give it, requiring a closer investigation as a result.

As a student of the human experience, I am always fascinated by the ways we strive for success as well as the ways we strive to create complexity (or even failure) in our lives.

The name of the Vatican Effect originates from the process by which Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” went from obscurity to sensation practically overnight.  It would probably have  died in obscurity had the Vatican not set up a committee to investigate and stymie the potential popularity of the book.  Of course many people wanted to see why the Vatican would do such a thing and the rest is history regarding Dan Brown’s success.

In striving to create success or to avoid creating failure, we need to be careful that we don’t inadvertently create our own version of the Vatican Effect.

Some fun examples from this week.

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post, The Power of the Four-Poster Interview, where I mused about a Minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and potential conflict of interest allegations with an alleged lover of hers.

Naturally a blog post with such controversial subject matter will attract a lot of attention.  However, in observing how the blog post was being shared, there were as many people who were upset by it as there were who supported it.

Of course in sharing it, their anger was amplified as readership of the blog post grew very quickly, making it instantly one of my top blog posts of the week.

So while some people complained about how quickly the blog post was gaining popularity, they were in fact equally responsible for its rapid distribution.

No rain drop believes it is responsible for the flood

A couple of weeks ago, in making what I thought were benign musings about a local election campaign in Calgary, Alberta, I wrote Is Calgary’s Crime Rate Out of Control?, discussing one candidate’s use of negative emotion and hype (without data to back up her assertions) in order to “scare” voters.

The blog post had its surge in readership as new posts do and then faded into what I refer to as “idling mode”, not scoring higher or lower than other blog posts that were being read.

Earlier this week, a person self-described as her marketing and social media lead thought it would be a good idea to instigate a little argument with me on Twitter, sending readership of this blog post through the roof and drawing much condemnation of this person and the candidate she represented.

And then things went quiet again with this blog post until today when the same person surfaced with this tweet:

For those not familiar with this expression, it is a literal translation of a Polish phrase which, depending on what part of Poland you are from, the context of the situation and how the expression is used, can be interpreted to mean:

Not my problem.

F___ this shit.

F___ off.

I was amused by this since I knew what such a spontaneous tweet without any instigation on anyone’s part would do and so shortly after this tweet appeared, I checked my blog stats.

Sure enough, people were back to reading the blog that had created some damage to the candidate’s campaign and which had died down again (for the second time) earlier this week.

Third time’s a charm, I guess.

Insatiable curiosity can be an interesting and devastating weapon when used correctly (or misused accidentally).

It can be fatal from a career perspective when such a message is delivered to a potential voter on behalf of someone seeking my vote.

The wisdom of the ancients

There is a reason that our vernacular is filled with old adages such as “let sleeping dogs lie” or “beware of self-fulfilling prophecies”.

I think it is because they originate from the sum of many truths in the collective human experience.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

Curious as to whether the person in my second story still represents the candidate I referred to, I took a look at her LinkedIn profile.

Yup.

Addendum 2

Shortly after this blog was published, the LinkedIn profile was revised:

Whether the change reflects an actual change in duties or is meant as a deflection technique is irrelevant.  We always have to be cognizant of who represents us and whether anything we say or do alleges to represent someone else.

There is a final irony in that she has asked people to stop bullying her as noted in her final tweet.

The use of social media does not change a basic concept of human interaction:

Respect earned is respect given.

When one instigates a conversation as noted earlier in this blog, one has to expect a strong reaction and cannot subsequently claim to be a victim.  One cannot travel through Life looking for trouble and then complain when trouble arrives.

Is Calgary’s Crime Rate Out of Control?

You can have data without information, but you cannot have information without data. - Daniel Keys Moran

I attended a forum last week between the two candidates for the role of Councillor (Ward 12) for the City of Calgary and it represented, at least to me, the sharp contrast between Canadian and US-style politics.

The incumbent, Shane Keating, discussed his family, his ties to the community, his record within the Calgary council chamber and his plans for the future.  He insisted on keeping the campaign above-board and indicated his desire to campaign on the issues and not by bashing the other candidate.

The challenger, Stephanie Kusie, opened by attacking the incumbent for allegedly producing no results of value and for implying that he was unable or unlikely to produce any results of value in the future.

To quote from her opening remarks, after her obligatory thank-yous to the host, the incumbent and the attendees, she said:

What I'm really excited about with this forum is that this forum, as Peter indicated, is about ideas but the truth is that ideas can be meaningless if there is no action and there are no results and I think that Ward 12 deserves better action and better results ……

And with those opening remarks, I knew that I was in for a contest between calm sharing of data and emotion-based, fear-laden rhetoric.

In essence, I was watching the clash of the Canadian and American political systems respectively.

Now in truth, anger, fear and indignation sell as I described here in Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation and as was so well described in the excellent book Trust Me, I’m Lying – Confessions of a Media Manipulator.

And the American political system, which Ms. Kusie has been immersed in for years as a diplomat and which I have spent most of my Life in, would be the system that she has witnessed the most in her recent history – a system where emotion over facts is used very effectively.

But I’m a data guy – not an emotion guy

As a data guy, I have noticed over the years that the more emotional a candidate gets and the more evasive they are regarding questions such as “why?” and “how do you know?”, the less likely that the candidate has any factual foundation for their campaign at all.

For example, Ms. Kusie indicated during the debate that there is increasing concern about crime and vandalism in her ward and implied that many constituents are becoming fearful of their neighborhood.

I was intrigued by this as I am active in the community and I wasn’t aware of any heightened crime concerns.

However, I’m a data guy.

So when Ms. Kusie tweeted this yesterday (along with the Facebook post), beating the crime drum again, I thought I would explore the statistics.

Since Ms. Kusie discussed or implied in the forum last week that in regards to crime her focus was on the crimes of assault and vandalism, I went to the Calgary Police Service website that tracks such crimes.

And since she named Cranston specifically in yesterday’s tweet, I selected the data slice for that neighborhood for the last 6 months (the largest slice available on the website).

Here’s what I came up with.

Choosing the crime stats she was interested in last week, specifically assault, attempted murder, homicide, robbery, sex offences (the personal attack categories) and vandalism, I came up with the astounding number of 13 violations for the last 6 months.

Is this a crime rate out of control?

Hardly.

But people without data need to fall back on emotion, fear and hysteria because that’s all they have.  Her tweet discussed “unreported crimes”, a subjective topic that can be easily hyped up in absence of real data.  It also implies that she has alternate sources of information that are not readily available to others.

Sadly, voters who don’t rely on data will easily fall susceptible to such a ploy.

Meanwhile when the tough questions come her way

Despite my requests for her to answer “why” and “how do you know” when it comes to her assertions and intentions, I received the classic response often provided by people who can’t answer to the data.

I didn’t get an answer at all.

Her website has this interesting opening line as to why she should be the choice of Calgarians in Ward 12.

When I asked her at the forum how she would make “Calgary the best city it can be”, in other words how did this line translate into measurable actions, she denied that it was on her website and we argued over it.

A week later, it is still there.

And I still don’t know what it means.

If I can’t translate rhetoric, emotion or “feel good” into a measurable future, I don’t know how I can vote for her either.

Now if she can convince me that the current crime wave in our ward is about to overwhelm us and she knows how to fix that, I might change my mind.

But somehow I don’t think she cares about data.

And so we become the classic paradox of the irresistible force versus the immovable object, with people like me becoming a major source of irritation that needs to be ignored, buried or neutralized.

The Bottom Line

I wonder if elections like this are a litmus test, on a micro level, of the future of politics in Canada.

Are Canadians still the type of people who care about the issues and who demand that candidates demonstrate how they will address the issues in a respectful way?

Or have Canadians fallen to the US model, where whoever shouts the loudest, appears to be the most intimidating and avoids answering the questions using data will be the winner?

I think this election will answer that question.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I have great respect for Ms. Kusie and anyone else who puts their name in the ring to run for politics.  It is a difficult, often thankless job for the candidate and their family and it takes great courage (in addition to other resources) to submit one’s self to a living, 24x7 “Whose Line Is It Anyway” regimen where no matter how well you do, half the people will not like your answers or results.

And we must never forget that good human beings run for office in every election.

However, even good human beings have to remain accountable in terms of what they are offering, what they intend to do for their constituents and how they intend to do it.

Rather than merely tear their opponent down, they should take their passion, wrap it around facts that have context for the voter and take that to victory.

We should be able to elect the person who lifted themselves up the most and not the person who tore the other person down the most.

Because when we elect the person who won by tearing the other person down, we all lose eventually.

If they will tear others down, what does it say about their ability to negotiate and collaborate – to “play well” with others?

And what does it say about what they will think of their constituents if our feelings or demands for accountability get too “inconvenient” for them once they are in office?

What indeed?

Addendum – October 1, 2013

For those who missed the forum, it can be viewed here.

 

And as a final note to close this subject, here is Mayor Nenshi’s thought on the concept of crime in Calgary.

Addendum – October 7, 2013

In an interesting back and forth with one of her campaign staff today, Ms. Kusie’s failure to answer questions was explained as follows:

to which I replied:

This is disappointing.  One looks for new candidates to bring in fresh concepts in ideation, expression, collaboration and execution.  Defensive or deflective postures suggest otherwise, either in the candidate or perhaps in the people who are advising the candidate.

The end result is the same.

The other funny thing to note is that for all the time these fine people have to entertain “intellectual exchanges” defending their candidate, they never get around to answering the questions. :-)

If I were running for office, I would spend more time creating alliances and less time creating self-perceived antagonists.  Life tends to be easier and more successful that way.

In closing, one of this individual’s closing comments strengthens my argument that facts and data are essential to dialog.

The author of this tweet is attempting to plant a seed of deception, lack of transparency or lack of honesty on my part by suggesting that I am covertly connected with her candidate’s competitor’s family.

When I indicated that I have no association with her candidate’s competitor’s family (I’ve never even met them), she tweeted this.

So emotion, confrontation and misinformation are fine from her perspective.

But when one stands up to this by demanding transparency, facts and truth, she withdraws from the conversation, citing issues with “the other person”.

As I said … disappointing.

One final addendum (hopefully) – October 7, 2013

There was an amusing moment that occurred later when someone from the Keating (Ms. Kusie’s opponent) campaign stated unequivocally that I was not associated with his campaign or his family at all, to which Ms. Kusie’s staff member replied:

With this tweet, there was a suggestion, as inferred by some people who commented on this tweet, that @NOYFB_Sith was the alleged son of Councillor Keating that I was covertly connected with.  I think people came to this conclusion because @NOYFB_Sith wasn’t part of the conversation at all but was suddenly named in the “conversation wrap-up”.

The funny thing is that he is not related to Councillor Keating either.  His hilarious response to this inference cannot be repeated here – it is a family-friendly website after all. :-)

Closure – October 8, 2013

I was grateful that Ms. Kusie reached out to me and apologized for my experience with a member of her campaign team, indicating that the person above does not speak on behalf of her or her campaign.  Time and actions taken moving forward will serve as evidence of the authenticity of the apology.  Almost 24 hours after that apology, the individual above is still self-described as:

Given that the person above initiated conversation with me claiming to represent the campaign as the social media / marketing advisor, this should serve as a warning to all people with public personas that our reputation is built not only upon what we say and do but upon what others claiming to represent us say and do as well.

Closure – For Real :-) - October 9, 2013

I see 24 hours later that this person no longer references the Kusie campaign on her Twitter profile but still does on her LinkedIn profile (perhaps in response to this blog).

It doesn’t matter at this point.  Damage to the campaign has already occurred, with people I don’t even know stopping me and asking me if I’m the guy that they saw on Twitter having “an interesting conversation” with this person.

Some free advice

It reminds me of the following key behaviors for any politician or their supporters to observe when in the public eye (not an exhaustive list):

• You should always endeavor to guide the conversation without letting it get out of control.
• If you can't control it, keep it positive or at least neutral.
• Don't make it personal.
• Don't let anything get under your skin – never let them see you sweat.
• Never get angry.  It reflects poorly on you and may be used to your disadvantage as I noted in Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.
• Anything said on social media lives forever – remember this before making an angry or embarrassing comment publicly.
• Seek to create alliances and not antagonists.
• Never attack a voter or belittle their questions or efforts to obtain clarity or information.
• Pursuant to the previous point, don’t confuse (intentionally or otherwise) a request for information with being attacked.  You may think it is a useful strategy but it can be leveraged to make you look weak or stupid.
• You may invite a pile-on in social media if you attack others – don’t claim to be a victim if this occurs.  This lowers your credibility even further.
• If the issue is dead, let it remain dead.  Don’t deliberately bring it back to Life, especially if the previous incarnation created problems for yourself or the people you work with.
• Be aware of the Vatican Effect (aka the Streisand Effect as I described in The Voice of the Rebel).  Specifically, the Vatican Effect states that: The more noise someone makes trying to hide or refute something, the more Life they give it, requiring a closer investigation as a result (named after Dan Brown’s sudden success with “The DaVinci Code” when the Vatican set up a group to destroy its credibility). The traffic to this blog post had pretty much died down until this person’s actions caused a lot of people to revisit it – creating elevated readership and bringing unfortunate information back into the conversation.

Bottom line: We must always be careful of people who speak (or claim to speak) on our behalf.

The damage they produce may be irreparable.

Choose your support wisely.