JPMorgan Chase Way off the Mark

Shareholders of JPMorgan Chase bank voted today to retain the joint office of CEO and Chairman, with Jamie Dimon remaining in the posts.
Many larger clients had triggered the debate over splitting the jobs, in the wake of the London Whale investment scandal that cost the bank some $6.2 billion in trading losses. The bank and Dimon had argued that letting Dimon keep both jobs was the most effective form of leadership.
Dimon and the bank are way off the mark.
In the short interview below, McKinsey & Company consultants speak with Harvard’s Gary Hamel, well known leadership professor and writer. Hamel lays out a concise and logical argument for how leadership must be redefined going forward if organizations are to gain the flexibility, agility, and resilience necessary for success. He submits that the traditional pyramidal organizational structure cannot sustain the speed, pressure and knowledge demands in a timely manner. He correctly notes that by the time (if at all) that the next idea, opportunity or threat reaches top management’s radar, it’s too late; the window has closed. In the case of Dimon, either he knew about the activities around the London Whale trade (but that’s a topic for another blog) or he didn’t, in which case either he’s negligent, or the job is too big for one person. It would be most interesting, in my view, to hear Dimon refute Hamel’s theory and defend the decision to keep CEO and Chairman role.
Perhaps most troubling is that even if Hamel has failed to perfectly describe the future of effective leadership structures, at the very least he is correct about the general direction in which it must move: syndicated versus consolidated. How can JPMorgan Chase be so far off the mark? Hubris and the narrowest definition of shareholder maximization; Dimon’s deep belief that he is smarter than anyone else. And while he may well be, in a one-to-one context, he isn’t smarter than all the best minds at JPM. It is disheartening to see monolith companies insist on clinging to leadership models past their prime, and doing so certainly doesn’t serve stakeholders efficiently. One thing is certain: should any investment bank decide to operate based upon Hamel’s model, Mr. Dimon and his bank will fall quickly behind.
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/Organization/Leaders_everywhere_A_conversation_with_Gary_Hamel?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1305

email a comment

Pope Francis I: Level 5 Leader?

The election last week of Pope Francis I sent the media scrambling to unearth available details of his past, sordid and otherwise, in an effort to build a character profile of the new Pope. Aside from the disputed issue of failing to protect two Jesuits from the violent Argentinian political regime in the 1970′s, the main conclusion is that he is a man of genuine humility.
This conclusion was supported by his actions during the pre- conclave, and post-election periods in Rome: staying in modest quarters, travelling by bus, collecting his own baggage from his hotel and paying his own bill. While cynics may claim that this merely could have been shrewdly effective and symbolic theater, further scrutiny reveals that it is in fact a consistent behaviour pattern of many years. It is said that in Buenos Aires he lived in a modest one-room apartment instead of the “palatial Archbishop’s mansion”, made his own bed, cooked his own meals, and spent a large percentage of his time in the slums working with the poor. Pope Francis it seems, when it comes to humility, is the real deal.
What does this have to do with a blog on business leadership? Watching this Pope reminded me of Stanford management guru Jim Collins’ best seller Good to Great. In it, he identifies Level 5 leaders as rare yet highest in achieving sustainable results. Specifically, they “embody a paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will.” So far, it would appear that the Catholic Church has elected at worst, a leader with half (the tougher half to develop?) of the Level 5 pre-requisites; at best a master reformer for the organization.
Collins again:”Level 5 leaders display a compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated…are fanatically driven,infected with an incurable need to produce sustained results…display workmanlike diligence-more plow horse than show horse…are resolved to do whatever it takes to make the (organization) great, no matter how big or hard the decisions.”
While his record of church reform in Argentina and his work with the poor shows leadership authenticity and skill, those localized challenges pale in comparison to the ones currently and globally facing the Catholic Church: systemic, longstanding financial and child-abuse scandals, declining, disenfranchised membership, and perhaps most important, an entrenched, rigid and highly political Curia. The Church needs change, yet has been known for centuries as (and remains) the poster-child of institutional intransigence (albeit also the oldest continuously operating organization on the planet; they must be doing something right).
And so begins a case study in the making; one that leaders of all organizations in business, government and non-profit sectors might consider observing and learning from. The publicity surrounding the Vatican has highlighted the current problems and opportunities facing the church, and from his first few addresses, it appears that the new Pope clearly understands and holds strong opinions about them too. Whether he does indeed possess the professional will and “fanatical drive” to rattle and move that Vatican mountain remains to be seen, but his history to date would demonstrate that he is certainly not afraid to swim against the current, and to live out his strongly-held values.
Perhaps if he succeeds, it will force some broad reflection about Level 5 leadership. Many leaders at lower levels also possess professional will, and a results-oriented focus. It seems the humility factor is much more rare, and is perhaps the key factor in motivating employees, members, and all other stakeholders to embrace the values and vision of the organization, to commit intellectually and emotionally, to take ownership by placing the objectives of the organization ahead of their own. Difficult stuff; Level 5 for sure. If he succeeds, we all might do well to take a page out of his book on combining and developing the two powerful leadership behaviours.
So as the Pope starts off on this difficult journey, he can take comfort that he has already mastered the more difficult half of the Level 5 leader formula. I will watch with interest to see whether his will can withstand and dissolve the anticipated resistance, and restore the church to its original mission and faithful constituents. It’s a monumental task, and I wish him well; God bless and Godspeed.

email a comment

Strong Leadership Leverages Talent

There’s an old adage in business that says “People join companies, and quit bosses.”
In my own experience, this has proven true, and recent research supports the claim.
In a study of 1000 American executives (cited in Forbes magazine) positive psychologist Michelle McQuaid found that (only) “35 percent of Americans are happy at their job. And, 65 percent say a better boss would make them happy. Only 35 percent say a pay raise will do the same thing. A 2009 study published by the Harvard Business Review suggested, “…the majority of people say they trust a stranger more than they trust their boss.””
If we accept the premise that success in today’s hyper-competitive business environment demands the best talent, and that a majority of that talent dislikes and mistrusts their boss, the need for exceptional leadership that attracts and retains star talent becomes painfully obvious.
The brand recognition, product/service reputation, or culture of a company may initially grab the interest of the best talent, but it’s the attitude, style and behavior of their direct superior that determines the quality and pace of their growth, level of motivation and fulfillment, and possibly even their decision to stick around. Every employee’s daily reality is directly influenced by the leadership skills of their boss.
The unfortunate thing is that often a poor relationship between boss and subordinate is not intentional. Hectic pace, market pressures, and financial stress, can easily suck a manager into the vortex of minutiae that disconnects them from direct reports. It’s not necessarily that they don’t want to connect more deeply with employees or show interest in their development; sometimes it’s simply too much distraction and too little time.
Regardless of intent, the primary responsibility for keeping top talent within the fold still lies with leadership (including line managers and supervisors), which means they must take a strategic approach to attracting, challenging, engaging and inspiring employees. The most effective way for leaders to go about this is to create an environment or culture that is supportive, challenging and inclusive.
Here are a few steps leaders can take to create that environment:
1) Start with yourself: make sure you’re clear about whom you want on the team, what you expect of them, what talents each brings, and how to best leverage them.
2) Clarify corporate identity and values for your people, and make sure your actions demonstrate both. Regularly (daily, weekly) schedule specific actions that reinforce those values to employees
3) Create opportunities for employees to develop (as Dan Pink suggests) autonomy, mastery and purpose in their work. Hold firm on accountability, outcomes and deadlines, but let the ‘how’ evolve from their own ideas. Monitor, don’t micromanage.
4) Spend brief time in every meeting connecting the daily tasks to the larger picture. Remind people why everyone comes to work there; what they’re trying to accomplish in the long term. Help employees to feel part of something bigger than their own roles.
5) Recognize and reward their behaviour that supports and ‘lives’ the organization’s values; give timely corrective feedback when it doesn’t.
6) Coach people to think through problems and challenges for themselves, as opposed to instantly giving them the answer.
Employees will often gladly endure adverse circumstances such as stress, tight deadlines, and frustrating changes, as long as the relationship with their direct boss is strong. Trust and the clear communication of company identity, mission and values lets employees feel an integral part of a cause larger than them, and engender a loyalty to the boss as well as to the company. In this way, strong leadership leverages talent.

email a comment

Leadership and the Bottom Line

When deciding how to best allocate limited resources to performance improvement systems and activities, leaders tend to err on the side of factual research.
So over the years, as academic and private sector research established the reliability of such concepts as the profit impact of market strategy (PIMS), total quality management (TQM), business process management (BPM), and Six Sigma, real and perceived risk was reduced, and adoption of those practices became more mainstream. Today we’ve reached a point where Boards can even be held accountable by shareholders for ensuring their companies are applying these proven best practices.
We’re now approaching just such a time in the field of leadership development. An existing and fast-growing body of research is proving a causal link between leadership development and shareholder value. There are three connected facts that establish this:
Fact 1: Leadership development drives employee fulfillment
Fact 2: Employee fulfillment drives customer satisfaction
Fact 3: Customer satisfaction drives shareholder value
These three elements are highly interconnected, and employee fulfillment is maximized by a strong, adaptive culture.
A Strong, Adaptive Culture Impacts Profitability
Several landmark studies have demonstrated the power of corporate culture in successful companies. Agility, speed and resilience allow continuous discovery and exploitation of new products and markets. This is known as ‘adaptive capacity’, and stems from a collective clarity and commitment to shared mission, values and vision of the organization. Culture drives sustainable competitive advantage, and in one study, yielded an 8.7 percentage point difference in operating margin over a weaker culture competitor. The difference derived from higher employee and customer retention, and productivity.
The Cost of Fear and Cultural Entropy
All organizations have some level of cultural entropy, (defined as the energy involved in sustaining bureaucracy, internal competition, hierarchy, empire building, image, blame, information hoarding and the like), but research also shows that companies with weak or toxic cultures suffer from fear paralysis, and high cultural entropy. There is a concrete cost to these fear-driven behaviours, usually reflected in higher turnover and employee disengagement, lower productivity, efficiency and commitment, and lost opportunities. In weak culture companies, it is usually a big, yet hidden number.
Strong Leadership Builds Strong, Adaptive Cultures
While research co-relates high performance with strong, adaptive cultures, and excessive costs with weak ones, it also shows that adaptive cultures cannot be achieved without highly developed leaders. Expert Richard Barrett tells us that “ultimately, the culture of an organization is a reflection of the personality of the leader or the personalities of the leadership group.” To transform a culture, one must either change out the leadership, or the leaders must be willing to reflect upon and make changes to their approach.
It is the domain of the leader to:
• Be self-aware; clear about his/her own values, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, vision for the future
• Clearly understand and communicate the mission, values and vision of the organization (create the culture)
• Align their own and their employees values with those of the organization
• Create an environment of fairness, openness, collaboration, and responsible risk-taking
• Attract, retain, motivate and inspire the best possible talent to engage and deliver on the mission
• Strengthen others resolve during difficult periods by leading by example
• Build trust
Notice no mention of technical proficiency, functional skills, and intellectual superiority. Of course, at higher levels of management, those capabilities are almost pre-requisite, but the important finding of the research is that they alone are insufficient to drive outstanding results. The reason is that today, only pools of bright, highly-engaged, interactive, collaborative people will win the race.
Perhaps the leader could do it him or herself in the past; not any longer.
This is good news. Now we no longer need to speculate on the efficacy of leadership development programs on profitability. The ‘bottom line’ is: leadership development builds the bottom line.
What is the current culture in your organization? How much cultural entropy exists? What steps are you taking to ensure your best leaders are getting the development they will need to step up to the challenges of tomorrow?

email a comment

Nothing New Under the Sun

I’m pleased yet not surprised at the popularity of the TV series Undercover Boss, and it’s Canadian version. Although it’s a bit puzzling how intelligent employees (and all of the ones seen in the episodes I’ve watched certainly have been intelligent) cannot recognize the CEO or President, or even be suspect of the fact that a camera crew is filming the orientation of a new employee, the shows do bring the public’s attention to effective leadership behaviors that are transforming organizations in the fast-changing world of commerce. It’s encouraging to watch these CEO’s feel a sense of pride, and also humility, as they witness the day-to-day commitment and effort demonstrated by line employees and supervisors, and equally engaging (though at times a touch maudlin) is the employee response to the human gestures of kindness extended in gratitude by the appreciative CEOs.
Hopefully, the popularity of the series will prompt water-cooler or social media conversations that will spill over into and positively affect every company; perhaps spur CEOs to embark on similar incognito adventures within their own organizations.
But while this is an interesting and effective exercise, it is not new in any way. “Management by Walking Around” (MBWA) was cited in Tom Peters and Bob Waterman’s famous book “In Search of Excellence” way back in the early 80′s, and rumor has it that they got it from Hewlett Packard. Generals like Napoleon and Patton were renown for wandering around their regular troops to gauge morale and gather first-hand intelligence, as was apparently, Abe Lincoln during the Civil War.
When you think about it, it makes perfect sense: information reaching the top of any organization has been repeatedly filtered (sub-consciously and perhaps consciously) to the point where ‘reality’ is often quite distorted. The best way to really get a sense of what’s going on, is to go there and experience it first-hand. Why? Because one can receive information with multiple senses as opposed to homogenized data in a report. Asking a question of a line employee, a savvy CEO can see the look in their eyes, sense nervousness or hesitation in their voice, feel nuances that indicate the true state of employee morale, even if unspoken. Being there is a richer experience; more likely to reflect their true ‘reality’.
So kudos to the Undercover Boss creators for bringing to the mainstream what effective leaders have done for decades: come down from the tower and wander among the doers. As Rudyard Kipling suggests in his poem “IF”:
“If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
or walk with Kings, nor lose the common touch,”
No matter how elevated one becomes, staying genuinely and closely connected with those who execute the strategy yields the best odds for success.

email a comment

‘New’ Leadership in Action at Occupy Toronto

Yesterday I wandered down to Occupy Toronto in St. James Park, to experience firsthand how leadership principles might be in play there. While everyone I spoke with politely but firmly denied there are any leaders, they are (knowingly or not) applying the principles of new ‘revolving’ leadership, which involves individuals stepping up at the appropriate time to exercise their strengths and skills on behalf of the greatest number.
So what does this mean? Well firstly, Occupy Toronto organizers ( from what I could gather, a handful of people who were inspired by the Occupy Wall Street OWS movement) used social media to inspire and organize the rally at St. James Park. They were obviously the point people to get it going, and set the meeting times and places, yet they choose to remain anonymous. I was told that the group is in daily contact with OWS through Facebook and texting; ‘going to school’ on their successes and errors. From OWS, Occupy Toronto has adopted the daily General Assembly, working groups for Internet, Legal, Sanitation and Order (they watch for and manage any violent protesters before the police need to get involved). So necessary order and structure is being provided by this behind-the-scenes leadership
Secondly, I witnessed a smaller ‘group circle’, where a group appointed facilitator assigned speaking times to anyone interested, and moderated the discussion. There are many such breakout groups attempting to crystallize the main messages of the movement, which will be later presented at the General Assembly for adoption vote. In the circle I watched, the articulate and knowledgeable people tended to lead the way for the others, who strongly felt the same, yet found it harder to express. These leaders emerged to clarify the main issues, suggest direction, and propose action, then faded back into the crowd. This is an attempt to craft the movement’s inspired vision right from the grassroots.
I was actually moved as a homeless man was given his rightful turn to speak, and was actually listened to, and asked to clarify some of his points, by others in the group. The respect they showed him was touching and encouraging.
Thirdly, I observed individual leadership: a 29 year old man stood silently in the center of the park, with a bristol board placard that expressed his views. His view was that we fight corporate corruption and unethical business practices not by protesting, but by boycotting their products and services; that we must not be mindless consumers, but rather take our responsibility for corporate misdeeds by voting with our wallets.
He fully recognized the good value that banks and governments can add to our capitalist society, and was only protesting, he said, because a government, through irresponsible deregulation, permitted unethical banks to place outrageously risky bets with taxpayer money, resulting in global oppression and economic destruction. Turns out this guy in the Tibetan earflap hat and hole-in-the ear rings owned a sustainable junk recycling business, was incredibly grounded, positive and articulate, and wanted non-violent change that ensured a safer, more stable society. I suggested he try to get the Occupy movement to adopt his message, as it would resonate beautifully with the public and the media, and help build broader support. I walked away much more hopeful for our world, with young people like him quietly but actively leading the way.
There’s a Chinese proverb that says something like “out of crisis, opportunity”. The global “Occupy” movements could be one of the opportunities yielded by the current global economic meltdown, in that it is becoming an experiment in non-violent, participation leadership, with a view to the greatest good for the greatest number. What started as the Arab Spring has gone viral in different forms, but with the same underlying theme: that we all must live in our societies, and there is a general consensus (the 99%) that current systemic imbalances must be remedied.
I’m hoping that Occupy Toronto succeeds in its effort to clarify and express their main messages of discontent, and was encouraged to witness a new kind of leadership in action; one where common vision and goals supersede individual egos (at least for now). Systemic change is, in my view, desperately needed, and this is as good an opportunity that we’ve had in a long time to get it started. Go down and see, hear, feel it for yourself. You may be pleasantly surprised, as I was.
For some further related good ideas on the Occupy movement, Ray Brescia of the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-brescia/the-peoples-bailout-how-o_b_1013857.html

email a comment

Why No Mention of Efficiency?

As governments in the US (and to some degree here in Canada) wrestle with global financial system strains, deficits and austerity programs, the lack of attention paid to scrutiny of current system inefficiencies simply astounds me.
Remember the old story of the $125 hammer in the US military budget?
I just read that the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued an audit report criticizing the Federal government for paying out $600 million to dead former Federal employees over the past five years. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/report-govt-paid-600-million-benefits-dead-people-155600786.html
About a year ago, President Obama mentioned in a speech that digitizing medical records in the US would release $75 billion annually in medical administration expenses.
I have no idea as to the accuracy of either of these claims, and imagine there are hidden complexities involved in each case, but what amazes and troubles me is the lack of discussion (at least in the media) about how we might find relief by seeking more efficiency in current programs.
All we seem to hear about are the ‘either/or’ options of raising taxes or cutting spending, and the cutting always seems to involve the slashing of full programs. But as every private sector company knows today, a better solution is to keep effective programs but make them as lean as possible.
Effective government leadership here would involve a clearer explanation of our debt challenges and their long-term implications, and a request for public service employees (and the rest of us too) to examine their work areas for efficiency ideas that eliminate careless waste. Just as most of us have by now learned, and follow, new recycling habits (with little disruption to our lifestyles), so can we learn to operate more efficiently in other areas, with minor irritation or inconvenience.
But doing so requires personal ownership and accountability, and that comes (in companies and countries) when good leaders a) galvanize our attention around the pressing changes that are needed, and b) inspire us to want to do our part to achieve better results.
Example: the largest US trucking firm persuaded it’s 10,000 truck drivers that by raising the air conditioning temperature by several degrees for only a few hours at night (most sleep overnight in their trucks on long hauls), they’d save gallons of fuel and significantly reduce pollution, with little or no discomfort in their sleep. They tried it out, and saved $24 million a year.
Peter Drucker capsulized the essence of good leadership in two questions: “What needs to be done?” and ” What can, and should I do about it?”
If our public leaders don’t get it, may I suggest we speak to our MPs and MPPs about general efficiency within the current system, and at least prod them to explore how much systemic waste might be eliminated.
We may just discover that a large portion of our deficit can easily evaporate.

email a comment

Now is the Time

Watching the U.S. debt ceiling debacle has left me feeling both angry and concerned about the behaviour of their leaders. But also globally, there are increasing signs that the leaders we have appointed are failing to deliver, and now is the time for us to speak up loudly and ensure they understand we expect different and better behaviour. Many of us welcome the efforts of citizens of the Arab Spring countries to change or send strong messages to their leadership. Yet we remain complacent at home about our own situation.
In a recent article in Leader to Leader magazine, writer Michelle Hunt states: “the world needs leaders with a purpose that transcends corporate selfishness, individual materialism, and seduction of power. We need leaders who understand the myriad connections both among and within individuals families, organizations, communities and the environment.”
I have resolved to make sure my local MPP candidate clearly understands what I believe is needed from him/her, and to vote only for the person who most closely embodies the attributes listed above. I invite you to do the same. Now is the time to insist on positive change for our society.

email a comment

Personal Leadership and the Arab Spring

When one watches international news networks like Euronews and Al Jazeera, two distinct global patterns emerge, each with its’ own lessons in leadership.
In pattern 1, we see the Arab Spring movement: collective disgust and dissatisfaction with the historical and current status quo of rampant corruption, oppression and denial of human rights. After several brave souls, early leaders in each Arab nation, forfeited their lives or freedom for the cause, the situation reached a boiling point where individuals made personal leadership decisions to take whatever small act was possible to register their extreme discontent. For hundreds of thousands, this often meant just showing up in the town square at a designated time, yet as we’ve seen, there remained personal risk in doing even that. But people basically asked themselves “what needs to be done? and what can and should I do about it?”
As these personal leadership decisions translated into action, an interesting phenomenon occurred: first Tunisia succeeded, then the Tunisians, using social media, coached the Egyptians in what did and didn’t work for them, facilitating the Egyptian success. And then the remaining part of the Arab world ‘went to school’ on Egypt, and started their own movements; Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco, even Syria are all well underway; the outcome still to be determined.
The leadership lesson: rather than look to a hero or other leader, people instead looked to themselves and to each other to determine what needed to be changed, and then went about changing it. They took personal ownership and responsibility for their situation and problems.
Pattern 2: Witness the “anti-austerity movements” in the debt burdened countries; particularly Greece, Italy and Britain, and the deadlock in the United States over the solution to the serious deficit problem. In these cases, relatively prosperous countries have borrowed heavily to finance a lifestyle they could not afford. Now that it’s time to pay the piper, the people are blaming governments and demanding that they fix the problem. To be fair, especially in the case of Greece, some of the blame is understandable: systemic corruption at all levels of government has caused some of the problem. Nevertheless, it has been said that we get the leaders we deserve. Where was the public outcry year over year as Greek politicians scammed the system? Having our collective heads in the sand does not constitute an excuse or absolve us of responsibility.
Leadership lesson: blame of others and denial of our personal ownership and responsibility can only leave us ineffective and inefficient in bringing about the positive change we want.
In his best-selling book Good to Great, author Jim Collins cites “Confront the brutal facts, (yet never lose faith)” as a ‘must-do’ practice in achieving organizational greatness. This applies to countries as well.
In the Arab Spring, people collectively agreed on the unacceptable conditions, decided what personal sacrifice they were prepared to make in order to effect the change, and then led by example. They found strength in collaborating with others, but understood, ‘owned’, and acted out their individual responsibilities.
In the anti-austerity movements, people have yet to confront the brutal facts. Instead, they continue to blame others: government, big business, investment banks (all of which have played their part in creating the problem). A deeply ingrained, decades old, sense of entitlement blinds them to the fact that they also hold responsibility for the current mess. They seem to be saying “we don’t care what needs to be done; what are YOU going to do about it?”
In countless reports of proposed austerity measures in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and the US, not once have I heard anti-austerity movement spokespeople admit that they are living beyond their means, and are prepared to sacrifice personally in order to resolve the problems. No personal ownership; no personal leadership.
One of the basic behaviours of effective leadership is to model the way. That only happens when we each take time to reflect, to clarify our personal values, and then commit to do our part, however small, to live out those values in the interest of solving our collective problems. Let us learn from the Arab Spring leaders. We in the highly indebted, developed countries currently need to confront the brutal facts, yet never lose faith.
Happy Canada Day!! Happy Fourth of July!!

email a comment

Vote: Act During Critical Times

During the national political debates this week, one of the pols mentioned that during the last Federal election, 72% of eligible voters didn’t bother to vote.
If this statistic is accurate, it causes one to ponder relative situations in life: the bloody deaths of Tunisians, Egyptians, Syrians, Bahrain-is, Yemenis, and Algerians, adamant about achieving their basic human rights after decades of oppression, contrasted with Canadians’ apathetic, shoulder-shrugging, disengaged acceptance of our politicians and ideas about our future.
As with many things human, effective change comes only after a certain level of pain has been endured for enough time for people to shout “enough.” Egyptians have passed it. Canadians are nowhere near that pain point yet.
But we must be alert and awake to the critical times we are in. Surveying the global landscape, we find that Canada is in far better shape than many countries (Ireland, Greece, Portugal, the U.S.): lower crime, less scary deficits (although still work to be done here), a functioning multi-cultural mosaic, and a reputation for rational, humane, intelligent approaches to world problems.
This has not happened by accident, but rather (at least partially) by design, through decisions taken several years back. Twenty years ago, the Business Council on National Issues and the Government of Canada commissioned Harvard strategy uber-guru Michael Porter to conduct a study of Canadian competitiveness in the global arena, and to recommend strategies and action steps to position Canada effectively for the next 20 years. It was called Canada at the Crossroads. We’re now there again.
The report concluded that, up to 1991, Canada’s great wealth had allowed businesses, labour, and governments to achieve their respective goals without major change or sacrifice; no one had to collaborate to increase the size of the pie. Porter pointed out how dysfunctional government policies, rather than assist the private sector to innovate and grow, actually hindered our global competitiveness. Some recommendations were adopted, others not, but the details of the report are not the point.
The point is that because someone had the foresight and diligence to be proactive in 1991, we are in a better place now, and with the current serious struggles faced by many nations, there is great opportunity for Canada to leverage her relatively strong position, and to ensure a solid future as a major player in the new world order.
Critical times. Question: who is preparing us for that now? Which party or politician has the foresight and vision that will position Canada for the next 20 years? Do you care? Where is the guiding ‘Canada at the crossroads strategy’ for this point in time, and who is crafting it and how will it affect us?
There is always the huge temptation to shrug; what can my one vote do? Yet if we fail to take action as individuals, we cannot expect action from populations. And we will then deserve the results that we get. Movements start with one person.
So please, let’s each do our part to ensure Canada does not drift into the future during these critical times; missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity. Read about the issues, decide which party best reflects your vision for Canada, and then GO VOTE!

email a comment