{"id":16744,"date":"2016-05-29T17:05:10","date_gmt":"2016-05-29T21:05:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=16744"},"modified":"2016-05-29T17:12:32","modified_gmt":"2016-05-29T21:12:32","slug":"the-leadership-crisis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/the-leadership-crisis\/","title":{"rendered":"The Leadership Crisis"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"TheIn his latest book, The Leadership Crisis<\/em><\/a>, Gord Hume defines seven characteristics<\/strong> – the Seven Cs – of great political leadership*<\/span>. See how many you can recognize as attributes within our own council:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Competencies<\/strong>, including people, organizational, business and strategic.<\/li>\n
  2. Character<\/strong>, and its traits, values and virtues; integrity.<\/li>\n
  3. Commitment<\/strong>, including aspiration, engagement, perseverance and sacrifice.<\/li>\n
  4. Charisma<\/strong>, that unquantifiable attribute that political leaders either have or don\u2019t.<\/li>\n
  5. Communication<\/strong>, through effective messaging that inspires, informs and influences.<\/li>\n
  6. Context<\/strong>, an understanding of what\u2019s going on around them.<\/li>\n
  7. Culture<\/strong>, and how to develop, create, change and advance that culture<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    I think you can see for yourself that these traits\u00a0are notable by their absence in most of our council. Just take any one of the seven – say, communications. How can a council that conducts so much of its business behind closed doors communicate well, if at all? And how does it communicate? Only through poorly-designed, improperly formatted ads in a newspaper no one reads\u00a0and via\u00a0a dull\u00a0“newsletter”\u00a0riddled with mistakes but no news.<\/p>\n

    Culture? There’s more culture in a cup of yogurt than in all of council. Competencies? How can a group that refuses to learn from its peers and hand over control of policy making to staff be competent?<\/p>\n

    One can, of course, learn and grow on the job, assuming one breaks out of the ideological shell that cocoons them. Which, in 18 months in office, still hasn’t happened. But, like winning the lottery or being struck by a meteorite, there’s still a chance for it to happen. A very slim chance, but we must be optimistic, despite the odds.<\/p>\n

    There are many books on leadership on the shelves these days. What makes Hume’s book different is the context of leadership within Canadian municipal politics.**<\/span> You can read an excerpt of the book here<\/a>. As Hume\u00a0writes on his website<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    Ego, ambition, fear, doubt, passion. Politicians may have a fervent belief in the rightness of their position or a visceral dislike for another person, party or platform, but these should always be tempered by the need to inspire collective action to move any agenda forward.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Hume’s books are among the most thought-provoking, engaging books I’ve ever read on municipal\/local politics.\u00a0It’s sad to note that perhaps only one or two (at most) on our own council will read this book. It is another important publication on municipal governance they will actively ignore. This council already stopped subscribing to the Municipal World magazine because they\u00a0already know everything – despite most of them being new to the position – and doesn’t want their preconceived views polluted by advice from peers or experts. So exhorting them to read it will fall on mostly deaf ears (I have hope for two of the nine…).<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    In order to inspire, as Hume suggests politicians should do, politicians\u00a0must have a vision<\/em>. They must also believe in a collective agenda to share it with – an inclusive rather than exclusive approach to politics. You can see how we’re already losing at this game. Hume writes (p. 162):<\/p>\n

    The ability to inspire is one of the greatest attributes of leadership. People want to see a vision for their community… They want to be inspired to be part of a larger collective process or accomplishment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Inspiration and ideology don’t play well together. In fact, they are polar opposites. Ideology is not inclusionary, does not work for collective accomplishments or the greater good. Ideologues have no interest in inspiring others: they simply tell others\u00a0how, when and where to do what they are told.<\/p>\n

    The Northwest Territories<\/a> sponsors a series of workshops for aspiring municipal politicians. One of the modules is on leadership, which the website notes:<\/p>\n

    Exercising leadership and authority requires good ability to aim for results based on principles that serve the general good of communities. This also extends to getting results by motivating community members to work towards a shared vision of the future.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Note the keywords: principles, general good, motivating, shared, vision<\/strong>… and results<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    Ask yourself what results<\/em> have this council produced in 18 months? Aside, that is, from ruining our town’s reputation with our neighbours, with local developers, with our municipal partners. Aside from demoralizing staff. Aside from protecting themselves from public scrutiny. Aside from meeting in secret many, many times to decide issues that should be discussed in public. Aside from caving in to the whims and fancies of the administration. Aside from hiring out-of-town consultants and lawyers to decide our local policies and directions. Aside from dismissing our experienced and professional water utility board and replacing them with their own, inexperienced and inept members. Aside from raising your taxes and water rates… well, you get the picture.<\/p>\n

    Results should be positive<\/em> accomplishments, things we can be proud of, things that benefit the greater community. Those are, so far, rarer than hen’s teeth. True, council did pass a bylaw making it illegal to toss birdseed on the ground. And they did refuse to save taxpayers $100-$150,000 by hiring a new, permanent CAO to replace the interim one. And it gave\u00a0Councillor “Senator” Jeffrey an unlimited expense account to flit around the country wining and dining with her friends at FCM. Hardly anything we’d want to see carved into a plaque.<\/p>\n

    When several at the table refer to themselves as “The Group” – as the Block do of themselves – and communicate among themselves without including the rest at the table, meet in secret, even going out of town to meet, you know there will never be any cohesive, collective agenda.<\/p>\n

    These members immediately\u00a0polarized the table into a stark us-vs-them split that allows\u00a0no compromise, no broad picture, and certainly nothing for the greater good. It’s exclusionary politics, based on a very narrow ideology and an exaggerated\u00a0sense of self-entitlement. Very Trumpian, if I might suggest.<\/p>\n

    And a vision isn’t\u00a0something cobbled together by outsiders –\u00a0certainly not\u00a0by a group of friends, sycophants and supporters euphemistically labelled a “committee” and risibly\u00a0called a ‘strategic plan’ when it contains neither strategy nor plan. Vision should have come to the table with the winners of the election. It can’t be pasted on later, like some bumper sticker. Hume writes (p. 115):<\/p>\n

    Developing solid strategic plans are usually an early focus of the new mayor and council. There are some pitfalls\u00a0waiting, however, One is allowing a staff-led process, where the administration brings in\u00a0its\u00a0own priorities in a long list of “wants.” Another is to end up with a bland, generic, mushy plan, simply in an attempt to be all-inclusive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Wow. Sounds like he was watching this council from the start and read our “strategic plan” (aka the committee-based wishlist) for his book. He also writes (p. 117):<\/p>\n

    Too often, it seems government is hindering progress, rather than supporting it… Decisions often don’t reflect creative, new or\u00a0elegant solutions. They simply continue safe, traditional, and hidebound practices – or the hardline positions espoused in political dogma.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    He nailed Collingwood Council again. Hidebound, hardline, political dogma… fits our council to a “T”.<\/p>\n

    Leadership isn’t confined to one or two people at the table. The mayor and\u00a0deputy mayor are both expected to lead the process, but\u00a0the community elects a council as a whole and expects – demands, even – that they provide collective leadership. Merely lurching from meeting to meeting with no goals, no vision, no strategy, is not leadership. It’s governance by accident and by incident.<\/p>\n

    And it has also become governance by crisis, as this council destroys the relationship with our utilities, our neighbours and local developers in order to meet its ideological goals.<\/p>\n

    Like the Soviet show trials of the 1930s, this council has haul its perceived enemies over the coals in order to raise their own self-esteem, although everyone in the audience – as they\u00a0did in the ’30s – knows the score and the fraudulent manner in which it was done. No wonder they have so many meetings behind closed doors.<\/p>\n

    Hume comments about something that faced our previous council:<\/p>\n

    For politicians, one of the thorniest challenges can be voting for something that will not bring them immediate credit or votes in the next election, but will leave their community better in the long run. (p.10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Last council voted not to fund the proposed $35 million ‘Taj Mahal’ rec centre and instead to pursue better, more economical options to satisfy community needs. It was done for the greater good, not for votes, not for self-aggrandizement. That’s<\/em> leadership: doing what you think is best for the community instead of for yourself.\u00a0Trying to secretly sell our assets, destroy our utilities, ruin staff morale, and drive good employees away isn’t.<\/p>\n

    That pretty much sums up the difference between the last and the current council. Well, that and the obsessive subservience of this council to the whims and wishes of administrative staff, and to the wild and often hurtful advice of out-of-town consultants and lawyers. And the relative willingness of the former council to learn, to expand our horizons, to accept peer advice, to seek public input and to do our business in public, not in secret.<\/p>\n

    Can you imagine a worse situation than one where the majority of council is very much despised by whole\u00a0town departments and staff? That speaks volumes about the difference between this and the former council. No wonder most of this council avoids visiting town facilities. They aren’t welcome.<\/p>\n

    Hume speaks of a survey (Chap. 3) of the public attitudes towards municipal leadership in Canada. The top seven characteristics Canadians identified as desirable in their municipal politicians are:<\/p>\n