Border Security: When Security And Secrecy Legislation Collide

Strange how paranoia can link up with reality now and then. - Philip K. Dick

Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, and sloppy thought to sloppy legislation. - Dick Cavett

The #1206 “fiction” series continues …

---

“Look, I simply cannot give up my phone for you”, Joe Salimi exclaimed in frustration, his heart rate increasing quickly.

“Sir, if you do not turn over your laptop and your mobile device, I cannot allow you to enter the country”, the border services agent said firmly but politely.

“I don’t understand this”, Joe said, “My devices have extremely sensitive information on them and I don’t think you have the security classification necessary to look at them.  I’m a Pentagon contractor for bloody sake.”

“My orders are clear, sir”, replied the border services agent calmly, “I have the right to inspect all electronic devices in the possession of people entering the country, I have the right to retain possession of those devices for as long as I see fit and I have the right to deny entry to anyone who does not comply with my request.”

“Well, can I at least call my boss to ask him about it?”, Joe asked.

“No, sir”, replied the border services agent, “No calls are permitted in this area and it wouldn’t matter what your boss said anyway as he doesn’t have jurisdiction in this matter.”

Joe shook his head in frustration, sighed and then passed the border services agent his cell phone and laptop.

The border services agent thanked him and passed the devices to a colleague who connected them to a laptop.

An hour later, Joe was welcomed home by the border services agent and allowed to enter the country with his cell phone and laptop.

---

Three Months Later

A group of angry, desperate men sat around a boardroom table.

At the head of the table, the leader of the room could not contain his anger.

“I don’t give a rat’s behind how it happened”, he expostulated, “We have traced the leak of highly classified information back to Joe’s laptop and I want his ass on a platter.”

“I’ve spoken to Joe repeatedly”, Joe’s manager responded, “And he claims that his devices have never been out of his possession.  We have inspected his devices and have not found any instance of compromise on any of them.  We have rerun his background checks and he is completely clean.  So Joe and frankly, all of us, are at a complete loss as to how information known only to his group could have been obtained by someone else.”

“Just f’ing great”, the leader exploded, “How in the hell am I going to explain this to the President?”

There were shrugs around the table as no one claimed to have an answer.

“There is one other thing”, someone offered from the back of the room, “Well, actually two more things.”

“Oh?”, asked the leader in an exasperated tone, “What now?”

“Well”, the person in the back of the room began, “We believe the information has made it to the Chinese through North Korea, likely originating from Iran.  And …..”

The person paused for a moment before the leader yelled, “And?”

“Well”, the person said hesitatingly, “The press has found out.”

The room exploded in arguments as the reality of their situation crashed down upon them.

---

Somewhere in the Middle East

In a hot, stuffy room somewhere in the Middle East, three men discussed the events of the day.

“So where are we?”, their leader asked.

“Well”, began the taller of his colleagues, “In an effort to secure the border, American authorities still require people entering the country to turn over their electronic devices for inspection.  Our brothers inside their border security service have been able to glean quite a bit of information as a result, information that commands quite good money on the black market.  Russia, China and North Korea are paying a lot of money from what we have been able to obtain so far. Beyond classified information there is also sensitive business information of interest to business competitors around the world.”

“Very good”, their leader replied.

“Yes and no”, the shorter of the colleagues responded, “There is talk that their legislation will be amended such that people of a certain security level or higher will soon be exempt from this search.”

“Oh great”, the taller of the colleagues responded, “Our sources of information will dry up when this happens.”

“Not so”, replied the shorter man, “Once this happens, our brothers within those higher security ranks will then be able to pass through border services without being checked, which in turn will enable us to get information in and out of the country undetected.  That is is ultimately our hope in the first place.”

“So you see”, replied the leader, “Either way we win. Rather than sit down and build a comprehensive strategy to defeat us, the Americans have proceeded from one knee-jerk response to another, each one creating loopholes for us as a result of a lack of careful consideration on their part regarding the situation at-hand.  Their citizens continue to be burdened as a result and continue to grow more and more agitated with their government, with larger scale unrest an ever increasing possibility.  At the same time, their country bleeds money in an effort to stop us.  We are still winning.”

The other two men nodded silently in agreement.

To be continued.

---

© 2017 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved

Blog Post Background / Supporting Data

This musing was sparked by a news item over the weekend where a NASA employee with a high security clearance was forced to reveal the contents of his mobile device to a border services agent with a lower security clearance rating.  The story is here - Border Agent Demands NASA Scientist Unlock Phone Before Entering the Country.

While it could be argued that even with a lower security clearance, border service agents are completely secure, they are in fact only human beings and they themselves can be compromised as noted here (using TSA in this example, but the example stands as a warning) - TSA Fails to ID 73 Airport Employees With Links to Terrorism.

Human beings are always the weakest link and no amount of vetting is perfect nor is incessant legislation a solution.

The more layers of security and legislation we layer onto border security, the more complexity and loopholes we create.

In the end, we will spend billions of dollars more on security and the need for ever-diminishing privacy will continue to prevail.  The ideas of perfect security and total freedom / privacy cannot co-exist, after all.  One has to defer to the other at some point – the one that loses is determined by which of the two we deem to be the highest priority.

And when highly classified material is exposed, who do we blame – the person who had it in their possession when it was obtained or the legislators who created the complexity that allowed the compromise to take place?

Securing our national borders is critical.

Securing classified data is equally critical.

And just as security and freedom / privacy dance for priority in a complex dichotomy, so too does securing our borders and our classified data.

And with anything of this complexity, there is always someone out there waiting to exploit the loopholes.

As I said, human beings are always the weakest link.

When legislators understand this, perhaps they will take the time to look more strategically at things and take fewer knee-jerk reactions that technically don’t actually solve anything but which add additional burden on the average law-abiding citizen who has nothing to do with any of this.  Meanwhile, those whose behavior we are trying to predict and prevent still have an opportunity to execute their intention.

The tail is wagging the dog with this problem.

The big question is – what is the alternative?

And does it serve to someone’s advantage to actually NOT solve this problem while promoting the problem as larger than it really is?

After all, in the last ten years, over 280,000 Americans have died through gun violence but guns are not banned.

Over 300,000 Americans have died in the last ten years in motor vehicle accidents but motor vehicles are not banned.

Over 4.5 million Americans have died in the last ten years from smoking-related illness but cigarettes are not banned.

Meanwhile, foreign-born terrorists accounted for 3,024 deaths on American soil from 1975 through 2015. But 2,983 of those deaths came on 9/11 alone, with the remaining 41 deaths resulting from terrorism on US soil in that 40-year period.

All that being said, the latter attracts a lot of time, energy and money to prevent.

Why?

I don’t know what the answer is.

Do you?

Series Origin

This series, a departure from my usual musings, is inspired as a result of conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States, senior officers in the US Military and other interesting folks as well as my own professional background as a Wall St. / Fortune 25 strategy advisor and large-scale technology architect.

While this musing is just “fiction” (note the quotes) and a departure from my musings on technology, strategy, politics and society, as a strategy guy, I do everything for a reason and with a measurable outcome in mind. :-)

This “fictional” musing is a continuation of the #1206 series noted here.

Strategic Planning, Execution and Making Chili

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

Being busy does not always mean real work. The object of all work is production or accomplishment and to either of these ends there must be forethought, system, planning, intelligence, and honest purpose, as well as perspiration. Seeming to do is not doing. - Thomas A. Edison

Failure frustrates me.

Actually, it’s not failure itself that frustrates me.

It’s how people fall into failure.

In many cases (not all), people are not victims of failure but instead, fall into it, earn it or deserve it because of poor planning or execution.  People like to blame their company failure on poor market conditions (even though other companies in the same space thrive under the same conditions), external events that knocked them over (when they should have seen them coming and had contingency plans), their refusal to accept reality (when reality couldn’t care less about unrealistic dreams), their phenomenal ego and the like.

And THAT’S what frustrates me – the avoidable failures.

A few examples ….

1. The company that, despite my pleas to them to define strategic and tactical roadmaps around measurable outcomes, went off and spent a couple of million creating something only to discover that they hadn’t defined what was really needed.  It was the only money that they had in the bank and now they are in trouble and because they are in reactive survival mode, they are once again scrambling around without a plan, having not learned the first time.

2. The company that, on its last financial legs, made an impressive pitch to investors (including myself) and secured $2 million in funding.  All that was needed were a couple of financial statements which were promised in 5 days.  When the 5 days had elapsed and the documents were requested, company representatives admitted to chasing a newer shiny object, a potential $25,000 sale so that they could pay for their upcoming Christmas party and therefore financials to investors would be delayed.  When reminded that this priority selection didn’t make sense, the response back was a very long email outlining how  “you don’t understand us”, “we are fighters”, blah blah blah.  In demonstrating lack of communication, lack of priority selection (Christmas party over company survival), lack of humility (“you don’t understand our better way of choosing short term entertainment over long term success”) and the like, the company lost a life-saving investment and has reverted back to struggling and inevitable collapse.

3. The company whose senior executive can’t pass a single due diligence exercise, can’t back up his claimed background in the military and is burning every relationship (and dollar) in sight and yet people who have been warned continue to follow him blindly.  Sadly, a lot of innocent people get hurt in such situations.

Strategic planning and effective execution is everything in my world and if you have done everything you can and things go wrong anyway, people can find little fault in failure.

But for the afore mentioned examples, failure is not only inevitable, it is, sadly (and perhaps this sounds mean), deserved.

A Different Way

One of my favorite techniques for determining strategic and tactical direction is by using a process called backcasting (a process that begins with starting at the end-result and working backwards to determine the right tasks to do, when they need to be accomplished and what resources are needed to accomplish them).

While many people are happy to go gallivanting off before they actually know what they are doing, I am not one of those.  I insist, to the intense frustration of many people, that I can’t move on a project until I know where we are going, how we are getting there and what we need to get there and then answering the whole kit and kaboodle with the questions Why? and How do We Know?.

I have mused upon this many times, including:

• Backcasting–Avoiding Disaster in Government and Business (a paper I did at Stanford)
• Why Your Business Really Failed (a whimsical look at failure)
• Strategy and Degrees of Insanity (another whimsical look at how people who aren’t strategic often end up failing)

So when making a pot of sweet and spicy chili today amidst teaching some of my team members the art of backcasting, a thought dawned on me.

Why not mesh the two together and teach them a backcasting exercise under the guise of creating a delicious meal for the guys at the office?

What was born was this backcasting mindmap showing how to use backcasting in a typical scenario (in this case, making sweet and spicy chili).  The mindmap is available here, free of charge, no email address required, blah blah blah!

The first three pages contain an explanation of the backcasting process for those who like a deep-dive, techie explanation.

The fourth page is an application of the backcasting process to create sweet and spicy chili.

The fifth page is the original recipe in plain English for those who couldn’t care less about stuff that excites the techie crowd.

Today’s little exercise reminded me of something.

Every day provides opportunities to convert mundane activities into learning opportunities.

How open are you to creating or participating in such opportunities?

After all, an opportunity missed is an opportunity lost (or wasted).

PS Eagle-eyed techie guys will notice on my backcast that the measurable (and final) outcome was the chili itself when technically, the last step is cleaning the dishes.  I would like to counter their suggestion of an error in the diagram with my assertion that I’m the strategy guy and architect – cleaning up the mess is someone else’s business (inside joke).

The Bottom Line

Failure rarely comes by accident, is rarely unavoidable and is even more rarely unpredictable.

To believe otherwise is setting yourself up for failure which inevitably becomes a success opportunity for someone else.

And no matter how beautiful the strategy looks, the following is also true:

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" -Winston Churchill

Which side of the failure / success equation would you rather be on?

Intelligent strategy and tactics are an art and a science.

So is making good chili.

Do you do what is necessary to create success, including ensuring that the right strategic and tactical roadmaps have been created, expressed and agreed upon?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Note: The backcast mindmap with the chili recipe can be found here. If you would like the backcast mindmap without the chili recipe, it can be found here.

PC Party of Alberta–The Importance of a Post-Mortem

“Survival my only hope. Success my only revenge” ― Patricia Cornwell, Postmortem

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

Cognitive psychology tells us that the unaided human mind is vulnerable to many fallacies and illusions because of its reliance on its memory for vivid anecdotes rather than systematic statistics. - Steven Pinker

There are two ways of lying. One, not telling the truth and the other, making up statistics. - Josefina Vazquez Mota

When I was a young, impressionable lad growing up in a small town in Newfoundland, I would sometimes sit spellbound as older generations would tell ghost stories designed to frighten anyone.  A theme often used was the notion of someone who had died violently and without warning and as a result, their ghost was doomed to haunt the area where they had died because their spirit did not know that the body had expired.

Watching the PC Party of Alberta go down in a stinging defeat tonight in the Calgary-Foothills election, I wonder if I am witnessing a similar type of ghost – a political party that has died but which doesn’t know it yet.

When the PC Party was unceremoniously dumped in the general election in May of this year, they were accused of many things, including being dishonest, elitist, arrogant, indifferent and ignorant of the needs of the people (and those are the polite comments).

When the by-election process began in Calgary-Foothills, the PC Party candidate had some alleged discrepancies in education claimed versus education obtained, drawing comments from many (including myself in the post PC Party and Blair Houston–Isn’t Honesty Still the Best Policy?) about the potential dishonesty of the candidate.  The comments were never responded to by the candidate or his party.

The PC Party Interim Leader routinely quoted unnamed polls which claimed the candidate to be taking the riding by storm while no verifiable poll showed the candidate as even coming close.  There were even cries of violations of the Elections Act when a robocall from the Interim Leader cited unverifiable poll results without citing the source.

And then there were insidious personal claims regarding the candidate’s past which, fortunately for him, did not make the light of day.  Had the race been closer, I have no doubt that some unscrupulous person would have used them in a desperate bid for a victory over him.

Despite numerous requests for clarification regarding the allegations against the candidate and the sources of data for the so-called poll results, the candidate and the Interim Leader remained silent.

When I questioned an MLA about the dishonesty that was apparent in the campaign, I was told that what mattered was that the candidate needed to win.

It was this level of general dishonesty and values abandonment that caused me to re-examine the PC Party’s values and I came upon these items on their website:

It reminded me that there is a significant difference between putting a lot of nice sounding phrases on a website and living them when it counts – when it is tempting to do anything but live one’s professed values.

So what happens next - the courage to examine one’s strengths and faults

The PC Party demonstrated that between the general election and this by-election, they have in fact learned absolutely nothing and repeated many of their earlier mistakes.

In the private sector, when we win or lose big, it is often of value to conduct a post-mortem, either to understand how the big win came about so we can recreate it or how the big loss came about so we can avoid it.

It is clear from how this election was conducted that this was either not done at all after the general election loss, not done well or done well but whose results were completely ignored, making it necessary to revisit the need for a post-mortem analysis to have some shot at improving the future of the Party.

A classic post-mortem has some primary elements in it, including but not limited to the following:

• Allowing the appropriate amount of time to transpire between the event being analyzed and the post-mortem itself, allowing people to catch their breath and gather data but not allowing so much time to pass that people forget the need to have a post-mortem because “the sting” has faded.
• Setting an appropriate post-mortem meeting format, including having specific time contracts and agendas that contain realistic, measurable expectations and outcomes.  Meaningless “it wasn’t my fault”, “it was someone else’s fault” or “we are completely helpless victims” messages in the form of witch hunts, gripe sessions or expressions of victimhood merely massage or destroy egos but don’t produce solutions.
• Honesty in understanding what went right without inflating one’s ego too much.
• Honesty in understanding what went wrong without destroying anyone’s ego too severely.
• Understanding the real reasons for the win or the loss and knowing how to apply the right levels of discernment in identifying useful, valid information while rejecting the rest.
• Inviting the right people to the meeting.  Not everyone deserves a voice and some voices that would prefer to be silent need to be heard.
• Ensuring that the post-mortem be conducted by an objective, outside observer who has no vested interest in the team itself but instead, has as their purpose the need to produce a valuable post-mortem.
• Ensuring that the post-mortem is respectful, honest, humble, ego-less, fact-focused and thorough, with measurable action items, assignable accountability / responsibility and delivery dates being a result of the process.
• Ensuring that the leadership, leading up to, during and following the post-mortem, clearly motivate, communicate and monitor expectations, communication mechanisms, collaboration and results.  Servant leaders who successfully cast a positive vision are much more useful than bullies and dictators.
• Ensuring that the results of the post-mortem are actually followed up on with appropriate communication and support mechanisms in place to ensure success.  Great ideas with no follow-up or success-focused mechanisms for support become sources of “I told you so” later (if anyone is left standing to say it).

Teams that are not afraid to examine themselves, to identify where they went wrong, to champion where they went right and to find a way to produce better results through intelligent strategic and tactical correction produce winning teams.

The others?

Well – they usually end up as examples for others to avoid:

Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

The Bottom Line:

Winning when the wins come easy often take little effort and little is learned from such victories.

Losing requires a lot less effort than winning and little is learned if one’s ego or resources don’t allow for analysis of the loss.

Winning after having experienced a loss (especially a potentially catastrophic or fatal loss) requires significant levels of effort, courage, honesty, transparency, collaboration, respect, knowledge, data, strategy, intelligence, wisdom and humility.  While many who have experienced easy wins often go on and on about how great they are, the true measure of greatness is in how well one comes back after a difficult or staggering loss.

Will the PC Party of Alberta bounce back from the embarrassing losses of this year or is this how we will remember them?

I guess it depends on how well they are able to examine themselves and if they are willing to do whatever it takes to become relevant again.

Do you think they are willing to do whatever it takes to turn their fortunes around?

Do you think they have what it takes to accomplish this?

Do you think they have the humility to see the importance of performing a post-mortem and the importance of executing it well based on their findings?

Does what they think even matter anymore?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Addendum – The Inevitable Spin and Closing Thoughts

Many in the PC Party of Alberta (and some columnists) are spinning this loss as a victory for the PC Party because their third place finish was so close to the second place NDP.

Unfortunately, when one takes a riding that has always been dominated by one Party (even as recently as the general election four months prior to the by-election) and that same Party finishes almost 17% points behind the winner four months later, that’s definitely not a win.

That’s an embarrassment, plain and simple.

The truth that the PC Party doesn’t want to discuss is that the Asian voters in the riding almost always vote for the PCs so the Party was guaranteed a certain percentage of the vote – a reality that will change over time as other parties begin to dominate the political landscape in the riding and across the Province.

Such a difference in how one sees such a loss is a primary example of the different lenses that a politician and someone in business use to view the world.

Meanwhile, the Interim Leader of the PC Party noted this on Twitter:

Unfortunately, this positive spin ignores a dishonest campaign but this will be forgotten in the memory of a Party striving for relevance.

But then again, this is what a politician is best at – spinning a loss into a win no matter what the data says to the contrary.

On a side note but related to the concept of “how does one spin something unfortunate”, the revelation a couple of days before the by-election that sitting PC MLA Sandra Jansen would be speaking at a Federal Liberal Party fund raiser demonstrates that the Party has lost its control over optics, message management and internal communication.  While I applaud her right to be bipartisan (we might be better off if more politicians did this), the poor timing and optics gave the PC Party more jabs to ward off in the critical days leading up to the election.  In politics and in business, we must define our own message lest someone else define one on our behalf, possibly to our detriment.

There is much to do within the PC Party of Alberta.

Do they have the will, the resources, the humility, the intelligence and the time to climb out of the death spiral that they are in?

Time will tell although history in Albert politics is not on their side, since every political party up to now has ceased to exist shortly after being removed from power and their initial stab at proving that they have changed hasn’t demonstrated much if any change at all.

Meanwhile …..

This is likely my last musing on the PC Party of Alberta – it’s time to move onto things that are more relevant.

---

Related posts:

PC Party of Alberta – Bless Me, Father, For I Have Sinned

Politics and the Mutability of Human Values

PC Party and Blair Houston–Isn’t Honesty Still the Best Policy?

PC Party of Alberta–Who Will Bell the Cat?

PC Party of Alberta–Proving Einstein and Churchill Right?

---

Due Diligence: The 7 Deadly Sins and 7 Bountiful Gifts

The first step in a person's salvation is knowledge of their sin. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Over the years, I have done a lot of due diligence of “stuff”, whether it be of individuals, teams, merger and acquisition targets, start-ups seeking investment, “fact or fiction” assessments and the like and in the process of conducting so many (and having some conducted on me), I have come up with a process that many have found intriguing and infuriating.

Due diligence in itself is pretty straight forward and pretty much any type is well documented ad nauseum.  For this reason, whenever I conduct due diligence, I am often disappointed when the basic “stuff” is not presented for review, since in absence of a business degree or vast Life experience, a simple Google search can prepare just about anybody for a positive due diligence experience.

So while I look for all the classic stuff such as cash flow, competitive analysis, business plans, sales and marketing plans, investment to-date, principal backgrounds / bios, partnerships, channels, market opportunity, blah blah blah, I ask two questions that either fascinate or infuriate.

The two questions are Why? and How do you know?

The questions matter to me.  How people respond to them provides deep insight into the deadly sins that threaten to derail them or the gifts that they have that provide the potential to create unlimited success.

Here are the 7 deadly sins I am exploring when asking my two questions:

Pride – does the entity being evaluated feel that they are just so awesome that they believe that the laws of business, ethics and morals simply don’t apply to them or applies to them in a fashion that suits them?  Do they feel that their understanding of risk and reward is so perfect that they can ignore the classic warning signs that have doomed many before them?  Do they invite people in to help them and then promptly ignore the help offered because “they know better” or tell the person whom they asked for help how the help will be provided (setting the terms when they are in no position to do so)?

Covetousness – does the entity focus more on the end result (particularly wealth or market dominance) and in doing so forget that there is much discipline, rigor, focus, intelligence and hard work necessary before “the harvest” appears?  Nothing drives me crazier than when questions for data are responded to with things like “I don’t have data but can’t you see how big this opportunity is?”.

Lust – does the entity talk incessantly about power or money as they try to sway customers, investors or team members, forgetting that there are other equally important things being created?  If power and money are the lone sources of inspiration and motivation, success will often become more elusive, especially during times of struggle.

Anger – is the entity quick to anger, especially when things don’t go as planned or when someone points out that they are doing something incorrectly?  Do they insist on “my way or the highway” even when they have gone to someone for help and then walk away in disgust when the other side doesn’t comply, only to realize later that their anger was a major reason for their demise?  Do they often blame others for their own mistakes?

Gluttony – is the entity able to share credit, success, equity, etc. in a fair and appropriate fashion when approaching customers, team members, investors and the like or do they insist on harvesting the majority of the harvest while allowing others to obtain a reward far too small for the risk they assumed or for the contribution they made?

Envy – is the entity so caught up in establishing envy in competitors that they become all form and no function, forgetting that results speak far more loudly than glitzy commercials, dazzling convention booths, slick taglines, sexy mission statements and cool swag?  Does it matter that they believe they have the coolest place to work if they go out of business prematurely because they didn’t focus on what mattered while bragging about stuff that is “neat and cool” but is not the sole reason they existed?

Sloth – is the entity so caught up in the previous sins that they feel that effort is not required where it matters in the areas of strong strategic planning, tactical execution, obstacle anticipation / resolution, communication, team building / execution, knowledge acquisition / application or any other appropriate business rigor?

Oh the pain that comes when I am conducting due diligence and see a phenomenal opportunity that will never see the light of day because of these sins in the form of ego as it empowers the sins that destroy instead of the gifts that enable.

Meanwhile … the gifts ….

While I am researching whether an entity is guilty of these sins, I also seek examples of brilliance in the following areas:

Wisdom – does the entity have the Life / business experience to accomplish what they need to accomplish?  If so, how do they leverage / share it to create breadth and depth in their team?  If not, are they able to put pride and ego aside to acquire wisdom from others and to allow others to be compensated appropriately for sharing their wisdom?

Understanding – is the entity able to process new information in a way that can be applied to make their result better?  Can they work with others (listening more than talking) in order to obtain and apply this information?  Do they show understanding when someone else makes a mistake, not forgetting that they make mistakes also?

Counsel – does the entity proactively seek / accept counsel from those who have more experience or the right data / connections, can they apply it when it is appropriate to do so and can they reject it when it is inappropriate / incorrect?  Saying yes or no to counsel for the right reasons requires courage and humility.  Does the entity have both?

Fortitude – does the entity demonstrate that they can persevere through the difficult times in a positive way that builds relationships / opportunities instead of destroying them?  Do they panic at the first sign of challenge or can they methodically, measurably, strategically, tactically, ethically and morally navigate through difficult times?  Do they keep their eye focused on what matters when weaker people would have collapsed or are they easily distracted / retasked based on the emergency / opportunity du jour?  Most people who tell you that success came quickly and easily with little or no struggle (read: terrifying moments) is either a liar or psychotic.

Knowledge – does the entity believe that knowledge is power and that one must always be attaining and applying knowledge, whether it be in the technology they use, the market they exist in, the customers they target, the competitors that exist, the regulatory changes that occur, the sales and marketing tools / channels that exist, the nature of building strong teams, the state of the investment market, the nature of how information is captured and expressed or any other aspect that can empower or destroy an opportunity?  Do they accept knowledge offered by others and more importantly, do they apply it effectively?

Piety – does the entity demonstrate appropriate levels of humility and servant leadership?  Victory cannot be achieved by being a doormat but is short-lived when one’s hubris is so strong that they run over everyone with the belief that they know / have everything they need and can succeed without the collaboration of others.

Fear – does the entity demonstrate a healthy amount of fear and respect for what they are attempting to accomplish?  I’m not referring to fear that paralyzes and makes one paranoid but rather, the right amount of fear and respect that keeps them grounded in the importance of doing the right things ethically, morally and with proper business rigor.

While none of us are sin-free, it is important that our gifts more than compensate for our sins otherwise the greatest sin is yet to be experienced – the experience of failure in the face of unlimited potential and success and when defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory because our pride or ego made it so.

Bottom Line

As a measurable outcomes guy, data is everything to me and if it can’t be created, provided and rationalized, the due diligence process is pretty much over.  If the entity being evaluated can’t explain to me what they are doing, why they are doing it, how they are getting there, who they are partnering with / targeting and when they plan to get there, they are done and the conversation ends.

But when the data aligns perfectly and the “next big thing” is clearly in front of me, I or the people I represent are still ultimately investing in people and their ability to get stuff done and that’s where understanding the sins and the gifts matter.  On a side note, I measure the sins and gifts mathematically – that’s a long story for another post.

Success doesn’t happen by accident.

The art and science of due diligence, both conducting it and surviving it, is in finding the balance between reality versus fiction and passion versus madness.

Due diligence regarding the financials and other measurables is critical.  Due diligence of the human element is equally important.

Do you live more by your sins or your gifts?

The answer is often revealed if failure comes and if it does, whether you have mastered the art illustrated below instead of the ones you should have mastered?

Blame - The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures.

Are you sure you live by your gifts rather than your sins?

How do you know?

To your success, in service and servanthood.

Harry

PS The sins and gifts are adapted from the 1962 edition of the Roman Catholic Daily Missal for those who wish to explore further.

---

Addendum – The Double Standard – February 24, 2015

In an interesting conversation with a colleague, we both laughed when we remembered cases of people undergoing due diligence who expected (or insisted upon) little process to be applied against them and yet expected to perform maximum process and oversight against entities that they were reviewing.

We also shared some funny stories about playing cliché bingo with some due diligence targets who were lacking in the areas of facts, knowledge and a basis in reality but they compensated with a superb repertoire of clichés intent on convincing someone to take action in lieu of data.

Ego has the interesting ability to fuel someone to success or to cause them to ignore the essential elements required for success.

Which way does your ego carry you?

How do you know?

---

Addendum 2 – Leadership – February 25, 2015

I have always found it important, whether on the execution or receiving end of due diligence, to make sure that the leading partners / principals reach out to the person conducting the due diligence.  Even if the partners / principals are not participating directly (which is unlikely), meeting the person conducting the due diligence, committing any resources necessary, etc., are important elements of relationship building and a successful due diligence experience.

When I or others conduct due diligence and the significant stakeholders don’t care enough to reach out to establish a relationship, when they negotiate only through their minions or when they protest results through their minions knowing that the deal may be “going south”, it tells me that those stakeholders are either aloof, lazy, incompetent, insufficient leadership material, too busy to understand appropriate prioritization or are hiding something.

I wouldn’t want to be accused of any of these things.

Would you?

Backcasting–Avoiding Disaster in Government and Business

Luck is a very thin wire between survival and disaster, and not many people can keep their balance on it. - Hunter S. Thompson

Our goals can only be reached through a vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently believe, and upon which we must vigorously act. There is no other route to success. - Pablo Picasso

This blog is not a typical blog post but is in fact a paper that I wrote that some asked to see.  It is dry and academic - if you don’t like such things, please come back later.

---

We live in a world that stands on the pinnacle of science and knowledge and yet despite our deep understanding of things such as human behavior, many things in the world, especially in the areas of business and government, continue to struggle with often-unpredictable results. Governments rise and fall despite their best intentions and businesses, despite their access to knowledge in the areas of business forecasting, customer behavior analysis and such, continue to surprise or disappoint people. Examples include the unexpected success of a small college-centric social media start-up that became Facebook and the quick demise of Blackberry, the company that essentially defined the smart phone market.

Why does humanity, with its access to knowledge, idea frameworks, best practices and technology, still appear to be executing randomly, with poor execution still as likely as strong execution? I submit that John Kingdon’s organized anarchy theory (also known as garbage can theory) explains this supposed randomness perfectly. I also submit that in understanding this apparent randomness that perhaps some of the randomness can be strategically removed to produce a better result.

In his book, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies^[i], Kingdon suggests that one can recognize an organized anarchy as having the following characteristics:

• Ill-defined goals, problematic preferences and inconsistent identities
• Unclear technology
• Fluid participation
• Independent streams of solutions, problems, participants, and choice arenas

The difficulty with such characteristics is not so much the existence of them but rather who defines them.

For example, if a business or government leader has specific goals, someone who has conflicting goals or intentions might characterize the others as having ill defined or problematic goals. The technology within the problem domain may be clear to someone with expertise in that domain but may be unclear to others who have experience with different (not necessarily superior or inferior) domains.

When one thinks about the independent streams that Kingdon describes, it almost appears totally random as demonstrated in the attached diagram (click on the image for a higher resolution image).

The diagram demonstrates the “Holy Grail” that comes into existence when all of the streams come together – the opportunity to create public policy or make decisions by governments or businesses respectively. Unfortunately, the diagram also suggests a significant amount of randomness present that makes such a Holy Grail elusive.

Some might suggest that one can simply observe progress along the different streams and prepare to execute as they coalesce, thus removing randomness from the process. Unfortunately, the streams themselves are quite fluid, shifting constantly and so predicting a coalescing of the streams is not easily performed given that the intersection point itself is not static along each of the streams.

In addition, I would like to add an additional stream to the mix, the stream being one of feelings, agendas or motives, both on the part of those whose execution will produce a result (represented as intention) and on the part of those impacted by execution (represented as expectation).

Given that all of these streams coalesce into somewhat of a random collection of events, intentions, problems and solutions, I believe the multiple streams are more accurately represented as a true garbage can as shown in the attached diagram (click on the image for a higher resolution image).

What are the possible ramifications of such random execution?

In a study conducted by Kathleen Tierney of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware^[ii], Ms. Tierney posited that:

“Of the four key disaster phases or management tasks (mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery), mitigation has been studied the least (Drabek 1986a) and is probably the least well understood.”

She went on to say that hazards to government and business that could be avoided but which are not are as the result of:

“Being at the ebb and flow of public and elite interest, and many alternate strategies, including various mitigation approaches, are available to deal with them”.^[iii]

This suggests that disaster avoidance within government and business is almost totally random at best unless an equally random opportunity to address the problem arises.

Alesch and Petak, in their study “The Politics and Economics of Earthquake Hazard Mitigation” ^[iv], noted the following:

“Windows of opportunity are essential for hazard mitigation policy to be enacted. Windows can be pried open with enormous continuing effort but they open automatically in the event of a low probability / high consequence event that demands community attention.”

In other words, the best time to come up with policy decisions within an organized anarchy seems to arrive after a similar disaster has already occurred. This is cold comfort to those who have lived through the previous disaster. It is also complicated by the fact that even when the perfect window has arrived, it must be executed within constraints that exist at the moment in the areas of time, energy and money before the political will fades or the opportunity is diverted to some other perfect coalescing of the streams as described by Kingdon.

If we zoom in on governments for a moment, this problem is exacerbated with the knowledge that the problem or opportunity participants form three distinctive camps with three different sets of problems, solutions and expectations:

The electorate – wanting good schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure and wanting it immediately. Electorate needs are often immediate and of short-term duration, with voters tending not to look at the long-term picture.

The politician – wanting to serve their constituents as well as possible (hopefully true but not always) with their primary focus still being on getting re-elected in 4 years (or whatever the term of office is). Their focus on getting re-elected makes their horizon medium term in duration, acknowledging their electorate’s needs while recognizing that a single term in office may not be sufficient to answer to those needs (or their own needs in some cases).

The bureaucrat – wanting to execute their long-term strategic intentions without interference (and sometimes knowledge) of the electorate or the politician. This reflects a long-term need, often seeing strategy in 20-year windows or longer.

The difficulty of such a partnership is shown in the attached diagram (click on the image for a higher resolution image).

So the question becomes this:

If the results of our governments and businesses are in fact truly the random coalescing of all of these streams, representing the dark complexity of organized anarchy, what can we do to avoid an inadvertent total disaster that must be statistically inevitable if our execution is reduced to luck?

I posit that we need a more strategic approach to nullify the randomness that is so well-described in Kingdon’s organized anarchy theory. This strategic approach would have an almost “return-from-the-future” type effect that provides the strategy practitioner with an opportunity to understand the streams as they played out in the future and to work backwards from the end of the streams to identify where the coalescing actually took place.

While a “return-from-the-future” effect exists primarily in the realms of H.G. Wells or Hollywood, I believe there is a way to be accurate in predicting the outcome from random participants, problems, events and the like.

It is through the use of a process called backcasting.

Backcasting is defined as:

“Defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present. The fundamental question of backcasting asks: "if we want to attain a certain goal, what actions must be taken to get there?" Forecasting is the process of predicting the future based on current trend analysis. Backcasting approaches the challenge of discussing the future from the opposite direction.”^[v]

The attached diagram illustrates a high-level mind map of backcasting (click on the image for a higher resolution image).

In the process of executing a backcasting process, one attempts to define a future state as having already occurred and then stepping backward, asking one’s self what has to have happened before the current step in order for the current step to occur. With the previous step defined, one then asks what has to have happened prior to that step in order for the previous step to have occurred and so on until one reaches one’s current state with its collection of participants, problems, solutions and other entities as defined by Kingdon.

The process of backcasting allows the strategic observer to remove the mystery from a future event by forcing the understanding of all the resources in play; knowledge, money, interdependencies and the most seemingly random resource of all, people. It forces the strategic observer to understand the motivators, intentions, intelligence, knowledge and other elements of the participants and in doing so, takes much of the randomness out of the equation.

How effective is such a process?

In March of 2008, the author of this paper, as a long time Wall St. strategy advisor, wrote a blog warning of the coming financial collapse in September of 2008. The blog, entitled “Financial Crisis”^[vi], publicly identified when the collapse would occur and named the two financial institutions, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, that would disappear as a result of the event. Financial institutions who foresaw the crash and who read blogs such as this one protected their assets while many people and organizations lost everything.

Meanwhile, in the months leading up to the crash, groups such as the US Federal Government and other organizations were predicting that the nation was on the cusp of greatness.

For example, on February 28, 2008, MSN’s real estate column wrote that “now” was the perfect time to buy into real estate^[vii] , encouraging young people and renters with this line:

“Sliding prices and desperate sellers may seem to make this the perfect time for young renters to buy their first home.”

The Insurance Journal released a study on July 23, 2008 entitled “US Entrepreneurs More Optimistic on Taking Risks”^[viii], where they noted the following outlook on entrepreneurs and business:

“Overall, their outlook is very optimistic,” added Donnelly. “People are choosing a new path of self-direction and welcoming what lies ahead.”

Less than two months later, most of these businessmen were wiped out.

And finally, the New York Times on January 23, 2008, quoted^[ix] then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she described the US and global economy this way:

“Its long-term economic fundamentals are healthy,” said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the United States in a speech Wednesday at the World Economic Forum. She declared that President Bush had provided an “outline of a meaningful fiscal stimulus policy.”

The author of the New York Time article closed the article with this prophetic quote:

“As I write this, her speech is continuing, uninterrupted by applause.”

Months later, we experienced the worst economic collapse in world history with its remnants still affecting us today.

Having sat in many Wall St. and government meetings in the months and years leading up to the events of September 2008, Kingdon’s organized anarchy theory was prevalent everywhere. We were plagued by agenda-less meetings that invited people for no other reason than to make it look like they were contributing to “something”, even though without an agenda, why many people were present was a mystery to all of us and without a problem being defined (the pending crash), their contribution was unknown anyway. We executed meetings daily in blind denial of the events that were unfolding.

In the end, some of us recognized that garbage can theory in its purest definition was alive and well, but unfortunately, critical deadlines were approaching that the participants in the garbage can seemed unaware of or uncaring about as they focused on personal agendas that were meaningless and trite (and would mean nothing once the economic collapse arrived).

It was because many of us recognized that garbage can theory was in fact leading us blindly to the abyss that we switched to backcasting theory to predict the time, scope and scale of the pending event, factoring in the same elements as Kingdon describes but doing so in such as way as to remove as much of the randomness as possible.

In other words, garbage can theory will eventually produce a result but sometimes one has to take the randomness out of it using other theories when critical deadlines appear on the horizon.

By taking the key elements of garbage can theory, namely,

• Ill-defined goals
• Unclear technology
• Fluid participation
• Independent streams of solutions, problems, participants, and choice arenas

and my optional additional element of feelings, agendas and motives and evaluating them strategically using a process like backcasting instead of leaving them to the randomness of the garbage can, one has a better opportunity to make policy or business decisions that are more appropriate, more timely and more effective to the people they serve.

More organizations are recognizing the importance of finding time-sensitive solutions and are embracing the less random, more accountable results from backcasting, including but not limited to^[x]:

• fms - The Division for Environmental Strategies Research, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
• Global Scenario Group
• Institute for Sustainable Futures
• The London Perret Roche Group LLC
• Pacific Institute
• POLIS Project on Ecological Governance
• POLIS Water Sustainability Project
• Tellus Institute - environmental research group that uses backcasting to develop strategies for sustainability
• The Natural Step
• Sustainability department at the Blekinge University of Technology
• Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, UK

Unfortunately, finding solutions to the challenges from garbage can theory increase public accountability and responsibility, something that often contradicts with the public intentions of businessmen and politicians. I wonder if this is why we still prefer the randomness of garbage can theory when more effective practices exist.

Only the writers of our history books will know for sure.

---

References (some links may be stale)

[i] Kingdon, J. W., Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, second edition, Pearson, 1995, Print

[ii] Tierney, Kathleen J., Improving Theory and Research on Hazard Mitigation: Political Economy and Organizational Perspectives (pp 367), International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, November 1989, Vol 7, No. 3, Print

[iii] Tierney , Kathleen J., Improving Theory and Research on Hazard Mitigation: Political Economy and Organizational Perspectives (pp 385), International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, November 1989, Vol 7, No. 3, Print

[iv] Alesch, Daniel J. and Petak, William J., The Politics and Economics of Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in Southern California, University of Colorado – Institute for Behavioral Science – Program on Environment and Behavior Monograph #43, Print, 1986

[v] Widipedia, Retrieved from URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcasting on November 8, 2013

[vi] Tucker, Harry, Financial Crisis, Harry Tucker – Observations and Musings, Retrieved from URL http://harrytucker.blogspot.ca/2008/03/financial-crisis.html on November 8, 2013

[vii] Editor, February 28, 2008, MSN Real Estate, Retrieved from URL http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=13107821 on November 10, 2013

[viii] Editor, July 23, 2008, The Insurance Journal, Retrieved from URL http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/07/23/92136.htm on November 10, 2013

[ix] Editor, January 23, 2008, The New York Times, Retrieved from URL http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/entering-a-no-gloom-zone/?_r=0 on November 9, 2013

[x] Wikipedia, Retrieved from URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcasting on November 8, 2013

Reaction and Anticipation–Choosing Simplicity Over Complexity

It’s not stress that kills us, it is our reaction to it. - Hans Selye

I believe that people make their own luck by great preparation and good strategy. - Jack Canfield

Some years ago when car bumpers were still metal, my uncle’s car engine had died and he needed a “boost” to restart the engine. When he and my father discovered that they had only one wire available instead of the typical two required to boost a vehicle, their initial thought was that boosting the engine was impossible.  My father came up with the idea of pushing the two cars together until their bumpers touched, connecting the one wire they had between the positive leads on the batteries of the two cars and relying on the hope that the cars were both grounded through their chassis (and bumpers). The idea was that this would allow them to coax the dead car battery back to Life.

They were right and my uncle was able to return home without further incident.

Some years before that, my father’s father was asked by a local merchant to build a chimney.  The merchant in question had a reputation for not paying for work delivered and despite the pleas of many of my grandfather’s friends to not perform the work for fear of being taken advantage of, my grandfather built the chimney anyway.

Upon completion of the chimney, the merchant hemmed and hawed about paying for it as he looked for things to point out that he wasn’t happy with.  He then proceeded to light a fire in the fireplace and was startled when smoke from the fire came back into his house instead of being carried up the chimney.  Looking up the chimney, he saw no obvious issues and went to my grandfather to express his dissatisfaction.

My grandfather indicated that if he was paid for the work he had performed, he would fix the chimney immediately and the merchant grudgingly complied with the request.  Upon accepting the money, my grandfather climbed up onto the roof with a large, flat beach rock in his hand.  Centering the rock over the top of the chimney, he released it and as it fell through the chimney, it smashed the thin pane of glass that my grandfather had intentionally placed across the chimney about halfway down when he had built it.

Both stories remind me of the beauty of simplicity in either solving a problem spontaneously or anticipating a simple solution to a problem perceived to be difficult by others.

The Bottom Line

We live in a world that seems to be filled with complexity and as a result, we either respond to problems with the assumption that such problems always require complex solutions or we go through Life ignoring the importance of being prepared for problems by having simple solutions at hand.

The belief that every problem requires a complex solution or that the anticipation of a problem forces us to avoid preparation because we don’t want to be bothered with embracing additional complexity in fact creates the very complexity that we are attempting to avoid.

As a long-time Wall St / Fortune 25 strategy and large-scale technology architect guy, I can state with certainty that even the most complex of things are nothing more than a combination of many simple things which can be more easily resolved on their individual merit.

The question around simplicity versus complexity becomes:

Why would we willingly embrace complexity in our Lives when better Paths to simplicity exist and why would we allow others to create complexity for us or convince us that complexity is necessary?

Each of us has an answer to this question.

Hopefully it is not more complicated than it needs to be.

How would you answer the question?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS For many of my clients, I recommend the process of backcasting to translate complex intentions into simple solutions.  An example of how backcasting is used can be found here and here.

---

The Ignorant Shall Relinquish the Earth

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. - John F. Kennedy

The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds. - John F. Kennedy

The #1206 “fiction” series continues ….

---

She squinted in the glare of the hot, bright studio lights, wondering why she had agreed to this interview.  Her agitation was growing as she realized that the interviewer had deftly debated her into an indefensible corner.

“So”, the interviewer pressed, “Allow me to summarize your key points.  One. That your party will win the next election because everyone simply knows you are better.  Two.  The other party can’t win because everyone knows they are led by an idiot.  Three. No change of strategy or approach is needed to win the next election because of the first two points.  Have I summarized your ideas fairly and accurately?”

She paused for a moment, realizing that she had said these points exactly as he expressed them and on live television at that and so to deny them didn’t exactly help her cause.  “What more truth and facts do you need?”, she snapped at the interviewer.

As she continued to speak, two men watched with interest from the control room.

The first of the two men glanced at his companion and noted “She has no idea what the difference is between emotion and facts.  I would think that suggests that the dumbing down of the people is almost complete.  What do you think?”

His companion smiled as he watched the interview winding down.  He chuckled and then replied, “I didn’t think you could pull this off but I have to admit it has gone far better than I thought it would. Look at the debates in progress.  The nations of the world are split on the realities and ramifications of global warming.  Nations talk peace while refusing to acknowledge that there are approximately 125 wars and local insurgencies happening at any given moment on their planet, in large part fuelled by the UN Security Council.  Legislatures and courts churn over the rights of minorities who make up a very small percentage of the population but who vehemently demand more rights than others under the auspices that they feel threatened and oppressed.”

He continued, “Meanwhile, the Earth’s ability to support an ever-growing population may have already passed the point of no return.  Governments have moved into the role of public relations instead of governing as their ability to manage ever-increasingly complex issues has long since disappeared. The list goes on and on.  The people are divided over issues where emotion, especially fear and anger, rule every dialog while solutions continue to elude them.”

He paused before continuing, “And finally, people continue to waste more time on mind numbing social media activities while their input into important items around the world continues to decline.  The ignorant and the uninformed use social media to shout down others who dare to engage in idea exchange and the questioning of unsolved issues in the world.  And because enough people couldn’t be dumbed down or intimidated fast enough for our intentions, legislation allowing more of them to legally partake in recreational drug usage has gotten us back on schedule.  A populace that thinks less or feels intimidated to ask questions, questions less.  Well done – you must be very proud!”

“I am very proud”, the first man said, “The last steps of preparation are almost complete!  There are, however, some pockets of resistance that remain that must be neutralized in order to ensure victory.”

“And how is our plan coming along to accomplish this?”, his companion asked.

Before the first man could answer, he was suddenly distracted by the chime of his cell phone.  Unclipping it from his belt, he studied the screen for a few moments before looking up and smiling.  He held his phone out to his companion to allow him to examine the screen contents.

As his companion read the screen before him, he suddenly smiled.  “The intelligence services on this planet are indeed useful”, he said.

“They are indeed”, replied the first man.  “A united Earth is not useful to us.  However, one divided by anger and paranoia – now that’s a different story!  Our plans continue unabated.”

He returned his gaze to the monitor, observing the interview as it wrapped up.

“A world ruled by fear, the inability to evaluate situations based on data and the inability to exchange ideas peacefully”, he said quietly.  “Their projection of their own inner insecurities defines their perception of their world. Their perception reveals their needs and intentions.  Their needs and intentions reveal their weaknesses.  Their weaknesses become our strengths.  They believe they are so defined by their past that they waste their present and leave their future open to be defined by someone else.”

He paused for a moment.

“By the way”, he continued, “Don’t forget that our presentation to the President is still on for 9 am tomorrow morning.”

His companion nodded, lost in his own thoughts.

Both men became silent as they stared at the control room monitors.

To be continued.

---

© 2014 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer:

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Series Origin:

This series, a departure from my usual musings,  is inspired as a result of conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States, senior officers in the US Military and other interesting folks.

While this musing is just “fiction” and a departure from my musings on technology, strategy, politics and society, as a strategy guy, I do everything for a reason and with a measurable outcome in mind. :-)

This “fictional” musing is a continuation of the #1206 series noted here.

---

Mind Manipulation–My Latest Book Collaboration

There are no secrets that time does not reveal. - Jean Racine

The real secrets are not the ones I tell. - Mason Cooley

<< Readers please note: This post was originally posted as an April Fool’s joke. I am no longer taking pre-orders. >>

Many of the readers of my blog have sent me emails over the years asking about my career on Wall St. and in particular, many are curious about a group of strategy people I worked with who were known as the “Master Manipulators of Wall St.”.

One of the things we specialized in was in the area of working with CxOs and the process of directing them to make decisions that we needed them to make for our benefit while convincing them that they had brilliantly made the decisions for their own benefit.

While many of the techniques and models used by my colleagues have been of a proprietary nature for years, a good friend of mine, Robert Sputin, has convinced me to share the most powerful techniques in a new book that is soon to be released.

Many of the techniques that we wrote about are evident in my blog posts and social media interactions anyway (making them not a secret to those who are very perceptive) and so I was delighted to collaborate with Robert to finally reveal the secrets that many of us have used for personal and professional success.

The book shares powerful techniques in such areas as:

• Deceptive information sharing – sharing information that appears accurate but which is not
• Convincing people who are actually right that they are wrong in order to end debates that may be inconvenient or problematic
• Using data to misinform people – getting them to change their mind or to knowingly spread false information that causes them to be discredited later
• Goading people into arguments under the guise of “having a dialog”, thus setting them up for potential embarrassment later
• Creating an aura of mystique in order to convince people that a secret that you have makes you important or invaluable to them
• Mind maps and other techniques to make you appear smarter and more sophisticated
• Advanced, subtle techniques in belittling and demeaning people to discourage expression of opinion
• Predictive analytics and the use of math models to distract people from the truth.

Writing this book wasn’t easy.

Our initial pass at the book was a little too dry and sterile for my taste but I think we have finally hit upon a winning formula by embracing the “For Dummies” model, making the theories more easily adaptable by practically anybody.

The publication date will be announced in the coming weeks.  I can confirm that I will be signing copies of the book on July 4th and 5th in Newfoundland and on September 6th in Alberta.  For additional information or to reserve a copy, please click here.

I am very excited about this book release and believe that it contains many useful tips to help you achieve personal and professional success in your Life.  The techniques have been a blessing in my Life and I believe that they should be shared with others to help them gain the upper hand in their personal, professional and online relationships.

I think that people deserve the best tools and techniques available as this levels the playing field and gives everyone equal opportunity for success.

This may sound ruthless but the truth is that Life is all about winning.  There is no prize for second place, for “best efforts” that fall short or for all of that phony, weak-minded, feel-good stuff about the journey meaning more than the destination or the result.

The Bottom Line

First place is all that matters!

Why criticize the 1% when you can use these time-honored, proven techniques to actually be a part of the 1% while simultaneously learning how to ignore those who are jealous of your success?

I think you deserve this.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Addendum – Book Publication Cancelled

After many heated discussions with the NSA, SEC, CIA, FBI, KGB, UN and other groups, I have been asked to pull this book from print production for fear that it reveals too many secrets.

Yeah …. right.

I was just having a little April Fool’s Day fun.  Anyone who knows me knows that I would never promote material that would enable them to take advantage of others unfairly. 

On an interesting side note, I presold approximately 6100 copies of the book in less than 24 hours.  Since 5000 copies sold makes for a best seller, I actually have a best seller that never existed and never will exist.

As for the dates I mentioned, they are the scheduled dates for the PC Party leadership selection meetings for those provinces.

However, for those who sent me nastygrams pointing out the evil that people with Wall St. experience represent, I am having a sale on tinfoil hats.

One size fits all.

---

PC Parties in Alberta and Newfoundland: What Are You Baking?

If you're trying to create a company, it's like baking a cake. You have to have all the ingredients in the right proportion. - Elon Musk

As I watch the PC Parties in the Provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador prepare to choose new leaders while simultaneously trying to run a government AND prepare for an election where their grip on power is threatened, I can’t help but think of Gerald Weinberg’s Bread Recipe Rule:

If you use the same baker, the same ingredients and the same recipe, then you will always get the same bread.

The PC Party in each Province has learned in recent months that the populace has empathically expressed that they don’t like the “bread” that their respective governments have been churning out.

But as I watch the Party in each Province execute a critical course correction that will impact their respective Party and Province for years to come, I wonder if they are really ready to change or if they still haven’t gotten over the euphoria of having written a really strong rah-rah message to their supporters with the hope that that alone will carry the day.  With apologies to a lot of well-intentioned people, the messages “we always win” or “we know we are the best” don’t sit well with a data-focused guy.  Unfortunately, questions such as “why?” and “how do you know?” are inconvenient “hot potatoes” and so should be avoided at all cost.

Consider these components of the Bread Recipe Rule:

The Baker – from discussions shared with me, each of the respective Parties is looking for a leader with many of the same traits found in the two Premiers that were chased out.  There are also many hidden bakers that the electorate doesn’t see.  While these out-of-sight bakers need to be changed also, the likelihood of that happening is slim even though their role in choosing the last leader that failed and in not removing them before irreparable damage to the PC Party was done was significant.  This time it will be different, I suppose …. just because.

The Ingredients – while the PC Party ideology is something that resonates with many, there are so many variants of it within the Party that it is difficult for members to coalesce around a unified set of principles.  I recently asked some government members in each of the Provincial Governments why they felt Progressive Conservatism best served the people and they couldn’t answer the question.  If you don’t believe it (or understand it), you can’t sell it.  Period.  Maybe they are there not because they believe in PC principles but because a popular party served their own needs at the time.  Gasp … could people be so devious or opportunistic?  Surely not!

The Recipe – I have been assured that the people in the PC Party in each Province find comfort in the same strategy, communication mechanisms, optics management and execution that has worked so successfully in the past …. well, with the exception of getting their respective leaders turfed in the middle of disastrous approval ratings and the possibility of being out of power for years to come.  Other than that last little bit, it works pretty well.

The Bottom Line

To the PC Parties of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, I offer this thought.

While traditions of history and success are powerfully intoxicating, if strategic and tactical execution doesn’t change with the times, it starts to look more like this:

Your respective fortunes didn’t die in the last two years (or in the last few months) suddenly and without warning.  Just as a large ocean freighter needs miles to make a course correction or a speeding train may need miles to stop, this seemingly sudden decline was years in the making – years of not recognizing or adjusting to the shift all around you.

And if you don’t embrace the magnitude of the shift that is occurring within your respective Parties and within the electorate and if you don’t see what is needed to adjust to, embrace and maximize the opportunities present in that shift, you may not like the smell that your recipe is producing.

In fact, it may not smell like bread at all.

In fact, it may smell like …. hang on a sec …..  <sniff> <sniff>.

Hmmmmmmm …. is that REALLY what you want to be baking?

I didn’t think so.

So you have two choices:

1. Adjust to the shift and find a way to create a win that serves the people as you honor the title of Public Servant.
2. Get used to losing.

Choose wisely.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Related Posts:

• Politicians, Diapers and Why We Need To Change Both – March 22, 2014
• Alberta PC Party – Indecisiveness, Mixed Messaging and Paralysis – March 16, 2014
• Newfoundland – A Leadership Crisis, Not An Energy One – January 6, 2014
• Newfoundland – Leadership (Or Lack Of It) In Crisis – January 4, 2014

---

Alberta PC Party–Indecisiveness, Mixed Messaging and Paralysis

The risk of a wrong decision is preferable to the terror of indecision. – Maimonides

Indecision and delays are the parents of failure. - George Canning

After the big build-up to yesterday’s leadership tête-à-tête between the Premier and PC Party executives, it appears to me that the result has left the PC Party in a more precarious position than before the meeting.

Consider these points:

1. The Premier comes out of the meeting admitting that it was a frank, difficult meeting but seemed almost relieved that with a work plan in hand, everything will be fine.  She indicated that she has learned that things like “listening to others” is important.  Most of us learn this much earlier in Life.
2. The suggestion of the existence of a work plan implies that the Premier is on probation.  Do you know of many corporations that go on to success when their board indicates that their leader is on probation?  Do you know how many investors will invest in such an organization?  Me neither.
3. The details of the work plan will be ironed out over time.  A general election is looming – time is NOT the friend of the PC Party. Several MLAs have indicated to me that even if a work plan is created, she is not the type to follow the instructions of others and won’t honor it anyway.  Ouch.
4. Some people texted me when they heard about the standing ovation that the Premier received yesterday and said that that felt like the entire Executive were “flicking the bird” at the people (their description, not mine).
5. One participant in the meeting told me afterward “Do you know what it’s like to ask a question and to know she is lying to my face?”.  He also indicated that no such work plan was agreed upon in the meeting and that the existence of one as described to the press was the first he had heard of it.
6. If the Premier is in fact on probation and 6 months down the road, fails the conditions of her probation, it will be too late to change the leader then and the PC Party will be condemned to its fate.
7. Mixed messaging about whether the ED was fired or not, whether MLAs are onside or not, etc. tells the people that the ability to provide a simple, consistent, cohesive message remains elusive.
8. Meanwhile, pockets of MLAs are having their own secret, covert meetings to understand what they will do next.  There is one taking place as I write this with attendance expected to contain as many as 25 PC MLAs.

Oh the irony ….

The PC Party has a leader who knows that she can’t easily be removed from power by the Executive while paradoxically she needs the support of the Executive to stay in power. 

On the flip side, we have an Executive who knows that they can’t easily remove her from power, to leave her in power is risky and that she must somehow transform herself in order to turn the PC Party fortunes around.

Couple a complex, difficult Party Constitution with the fact that PC Party communication, especially in the social media sphere, is severely lacking and the result is ….. paralysis (or at least as perceived by the public).

And perception is our reality.

But let’s not forget this either …..

A lot of good, passionate people who are focused on what is best for Alberta were faced with this yesterday and they deserve people’s respect.  The weight on their shoulders was heavy.  Be grateful you weren’t in the room.  As one person said to me: “Do you know what it’s like to watch someone be s__t on by 45 people for 4 hours?  It’s not easy to watch.”  It’s not and it’s times like these that people do not understand what people subject themselves to when they sign up for public office.

This is not just the fault of the Premier.

This is the failure of others in the PC Party in not seeing this coming despite warning signs for some time and for not knowing how to effectively deal with it once it arrived.  It should have been anticipated and avoided.

Maybe when you’ve been in power for over 40 years, you get complacent, soft, lazy or arrogant or maybe you just lose the skills to be strategic because you haven’t had to fight for your Life in the trenches in your living memory.

When promoting a message to the people, there are three points of leverage that must be applied:

1. What do I want the voter to feel?
2. What do I want the voter to think?
3. What do I want the voter to do?

I illustrate this in this easy to follow diagram (click on the diagram for an easier to read version):

Frankly, I have no idea what the voter should think or do at this point.

But I’ll bet I know how they’re feeling.

With the economy picking up steam, the PC Party had a gimme for another 40+ years of power.  But it seems to me that they are saying “No thank you, let’s let someone else have a try”.  In fact, the economy is going so well, it would probably continue to do well no matter who is steering the Provincial ship and with that, what becomes equally if not more important to voters are the optics of how the government behaves and not the results they are producing.

I play to win but I’m not sure if the PC Party does and because I hang out with people who will do what it takes to win, I am returning my membership card.

Here it is.

It’s too bad.  They have the best thing going for the people of Alberta.  They have some of the most brilliant, passionate, Alberta-centric people I have ever met.

They just don’t realize it and don’t know how to keep it going.

And that above all is what is most disappointing – that people can’t communicate what should be a great result and a great future.

Because both are there if we look for them.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS The other parties want the current Premier to stay in power until the election because they feel that their chances are maximized with her in place.  What does it say when the PC Party plays right into their hands?  Some say that this is the easiest way to transition in a new leader.  Maybe so … but they had better hurry up because as I noted previously, time is NOT their friend.

All of this being said, there is one other point I would like to add.

This is democracy at its best.  Let us all be grateful that we have the opportunity to express our opinions without fear of repercussions or reprisals as many people around the world do not have such luxury.  Things can only get better when opinions are expressed passionately with an eye towards making the world a better place for all.

---

Addendum – Waves of Support

My blog has been out for an hour and I rarely write addendums this quickly but I have to say this.

At last count, I have received about 2000 emails regarding this blog post.  In a quick skim, about 95% are applauding my courage to say what needed to be said about their party.  About 2% are critical and about 3% are solicitations to join other parties.

What does this say when so many PC Party members are applauding this post?

That I leave to people who like to analyze this stuff.

I was just merely sharing an opinion.

---

Addendum – The Continuing Saga (March 19, 2014)

I have received over 5,000 emails regarding this post, with the statistics pretty much the same as before (and yes, I did skim them all).  What I find intriguing is the poor strategic, tactical and communication execution that has taken place in recent days, including a press conference with the PCAA President yesterday where nothing new was offered, an intriguing letter sent to all PCAA members from the PCAA President and the curious event of Mr. Hancock stepping out of Question Period at almost the same moment that the non-eventful press conference was taking place in order to tweet support for the Premier’s run in 2016 .

Here are some excerpts from the letter and how this literalist interprets them:

Quote: I have specifically avoided using capitals because the plan isn’t meant to be a written document.

Analysis: No written document means a plan left to interpretation by provider and recipient of the plan (and the interpretation could be different).  It also means no public accountability as to how everyone is progressing with the plan.

Quote: It is about an improved way of working together to insure the members and [sic] your concerns are being heard directly by the Leader.

Analysis: I’m sure “the Leader” hears the concerns all the time.  Does her ego allow her to react appropriately is more the question at hand.  What some MLAs have told me in private suggests that the answer is no.

The rest of the short note is just a fluffy rah-rah. 

Some interesting items to note:

1. All references to the Premier in the letter are as “The Leader” and not as “Premier Redford”, an interesting disassociation.
2. When asked at his press conference if Premier Redford will be Premier in a month, he indicated that he couldn’t speak for her and then proceeded to dance around the question.  Ouch – this doesn’t require a lot of interpretation or analysis.
3. New accusations of inappropriate spending, whether for travel, for private accommodation construction requested by the Premier (at a cost of $2 million) but scuttled by others, for inappropriate non-tendered contract awarding, etc., continue.
4. When the Premier was asked in Question Period on Monday what she thought of her support from caucus, the loudest shouts of support came from the Official Opposition.  When does this happen in the parliamentary system outside of challenges that face an entire Province or Country?  It means the Opposition needs her right where she is – not a healthy sign for the PC Party.

These reflect poorly on the Party, seemingly unable to take control of the situation or at least project a message that they have it under control and that they are listening to the people.

Big changes are coming to the PC Party in the days ahead.  Denying current realities only damages the Party further and alienates them from the people even more.  Their actions-to-date are proving to be highly lacking in strategic and tactical value while still projecting an excess of ego and hubris ….. a very bad combination.

And meanwhile, the other parties desperately need Premier Redford to stay in office as they see her to be a vulnerable target in the 2016 election … the devil you know versus the devil you don’t.

Oh what complexities we weave.

---

Addendum – Premier Resigns (March 19, 2014)

After the rumor mill started churning out rumors that PC Party members were calling on the Premier to resign while other rumors started circulating that certain PC MLAs were ordering members not to sign anything that called for her resignation, the Premier has announced that she is stepping down as of this Sunday.

There is no need for in-depth analysis here.  While she waited longer than she should have and created some additional complexity as a result, she did the right thing by resigning.

She served her Province as Premier, a job that is extremely complex and often thankless.  She returns to being MLA Alison Redford.  We should thank her for her service to the people of Alberta and to the citizens of Canada.  Her decision was not easy to make and few of us would have the courage to serve publicly, to endure what she has endured and to step down as she did.

It is time for the Alberta Legislature, the PC Party and the people of Alberta to move on to what matters.

---

Related Posts:

• Coffee Shops, Premiers and Ticked Off Customers – March 13, 2014
• The Trojan Horse of the 21st Century – March 5, 2014
• Politicians, Diapers and Why We Need To Change Both – March 22, 2014