Planning for Disaster

As the various investigations continue, there has been an incredible amount of hyperbole and partisan axe grinding regarding the federal government’s Sponsorship Program. While the magnitude of the monies involved certainly demand our attention and concern, this is not the first time that a well intended government concept or plan resulted in disaster.  

Over thirty years ago, an American political scientist by the name of Irving Janis was reading the insider accounts of the decision-making process that led the administration of John F. Kennedy to support the disastrous invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. The men involved in this process were supposedly “the Best and the Brightest” of American society, each known for their intelligence, achievement and judgement. Yet together, they were responsible for one of the low points of American foreign policy. Janis was rightly curious as to how these talented individuals could create such a major crisis within the first three months of the Kennedy presidency.

Although the handling of the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis redeemed their reputations, a few years later many of these same individuals were advising President Johnston on American military intervention in Vietnam. As Janis began investigating further, he found similar situations regarding American military planning prior to Pearl Harbour and during the Korean War – situations that involved none of the individuals involved in the prior two examples. The process, however, of a tightly-knit and highly motivated group of individuals pursuing high stakes goals was remarkably the same. His research into this area yielded the term groupthink, which he describes as “a mode of thinking…when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Further, Janis states that “the more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink.” In the pressure-cooker of this process, individual members suppress their own doubts, discount the doubts of others, develop feelings of invulnerability and operate under an illusion of group consensus. Loyalty and belonging to the group inadvertently becomes the focus of their activities and the original policy goals of the group often become lost or obscured.

In the lead up to the vote in 1995 Quebec Referendum and in the months afterward, there was a strong outcry across the country that the federal government had to do something, do anything, to avert the potential break-up of the country. Many of the loudest calls for this “do what it takes” approach came from the opposition parties, columnists and the pundits. Certainly, a narrow victory for federalism in Quebec required that action be taken.

In response, the federal government passed The Clarity Act, the controversial legislation setting out a federal government mandate in secession referenda, and provided a veto on constitutional change to the five regions of Canada (which evolved to a requirement for near unanimity among the provinces) among other structural changes in the operation of the federation. As well, the Canada Information Office, later Communication Canada, was created to increase the presence of Canada among the people of Quebec and, hopefully, increase their attachment to the country. It is, of course, the actions of Communication Canada, specifically the Sponsorship Program, that have recently become the focus of so much political and media attention.

As the examples cited above suggest, those involved with the operation and execution of the Sponsorship Program succumbed to groupthink. No doubt they thought that they were motivated by the highest goals, the unity of the country, but they became blind to their responsibility to ensure that the money set aside for the promotion of Canada in Quebec was effectively used and that value would be received for the funds spent. Their approach to “saving Canada at any cost” was not what was intended by the Sponsorship Program.

As we consider the actions of these individuals and the commentary of the Auditor General, it is important to point out that many Canadians across the country agree with the need to promote Canada within Quebec (and elsewhere in the country). While there are those who believe that government should not be using taxpayer money for advertising or public education programs, and this view has surfaced as part of the critique of the current government on this issue, there are many others who believe that governments have an obligation to inform citizens of its actions and services and that the federal government has a responsibility to promote attachment to, and identification with, our country.

The better judgement of the individuals involved in the execution of this program became victim to the “SWAT Team” mentality that is sadly typical of groupthink. An overwhelming loyalty to the group, combined with feelings of invulnerability and a heightened need to “do or die”, results in unaccountability and irresponsibility. This is not only true with regard to the way that groupthinkers manage their affairs, but also to their obligation to their superiors in the public service. They were operating under a misapprehension of their duty, much like the four knights who interpreted King Henry’s rhetorical complaint “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” as direct orders to assassinate Archbishop Thomas of Canterbury. They thought they were following the commands of the King, but the result of their ill-considered action caused great turmoil within their country and almost cost Henry his crown.

While the current situation regarding the Sponsorship Program holds a mirror up to some of these past events, we need to be reminded that governments, regardless of how well organized or supervised they are, are composed of human beings, with all their strengths and weaknesses. Like all those who are affected by their actions, those involved are also victims of groupthink.

- 30 -

Originally published in The Winnipeg Free Press

On Leadership

You may be familiar with the story from 1840s Paris, when a fashionably dressed young man in a café, witnessing a riotous crowd heading down the street, rushed to pay his bill. “That’s my mob”, he said to the waiter, “I have to be at their head.”[1]

This mode of leadership was best put by Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, “I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?”

In contrast, Mahatma Ghandi, the founder of the world’s largest democracy – modern India, saw leadership differently. “I must lead the people. Am I not their servant?”

To me, there is a world of difference in these two models of leadership. One model panders to populist sentiment and indulges hearsay, prejudice and fear. It offers an easy route to success but leaders who follow this path are trapped in a perpetual popularity contest. These leaders exhaust themselves trying to stay one step ahead of the crowd.

The other route is more difficult. It means putting the interests of the people ahead of temporary political advantage. It means setting out a plan in front of the people, even when times are challenging, and working through the issues with them. It means having the courage to set goals and to take the necessary steps to achieve them.

This is public service and it is at the heart of everything we, as voters and as political activists, have been able to achieve. As citizens, we are not be best served by a government without ambition, without a goal. Federally or provincially, a Government that sees the status quo as the best possible outcome will not deliver prosperity, build our economic infrastructure, or stimulate job growth.

Leadership is more than standing in front of cheering crowd of supporters to celebrate a victory. It is about governing. It is about leading a team. It is about serving the people.

---

[1] Attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin (2 February 1807 – 31 December 1874)

Green Lights on the Information Highway

by Chris Baker, Krista Downey and Gary Stairs

We are living through the information revolution. Whether it is smart phones, tablet computers, social media or new user-friendly software, new information and communications technologies (ICT) are having a profound effect on our lives, our workplaces and our future. When it comes to a “green” perspective, there is a debate whether ICT will save or bake our planet.

According to Open Text CEO Tom Jenkins, one of Canada’s leading ICT innovators, the total amount of electronic data across the globe will double every two months. In one year, the amount of data that will need to be stored on servers or other storage devices will double and double again six times this year.

With this dramatic increase in storage needs, it is not surprising that data centers in the global ICT industry are due to hit the wall in 2012. Not only are we racing to keep place with this geometric explosion in data storage needs, the spiralling demand for high level computing and escalating energy costs for power and cooling converge. In some jurisdictions, power costs are exceeding the costs of hardware where the absolute energy consumption is increasing by ten percent a year. Few, if any, new power plants being commissioned in North America in the short term.

By improving energy efficiency, we decrease the need for electricity and, subsequently, have a reduced requirement for cooling capacity.  Making use of the guidance provided by the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) can help us aggressively manage consumption and promote best practices. While the Energy Star rating has been a useful guide for consumers, procurement needs to move beyond these standards. 

Certainly, there are opportunities to help curb data center energy demand while meeting operational requirements and fuelling the development of new applications and innovation. And, as the saying goes, there is nothing like an impending execution to focus the mind.

There is a retrenchment in the data centre sector in the US and across Europe, driven both by environmental concerns and operating costs. This presents both an opportunity and a challenge to New Brunswick. We could pursue the good jobs and investment that come with these centres. However, if we follow the same path as the others we will wind up in the same place – less than required capacity with escalating energy costs.

The Smart 2020 report uses the acronym SMART – Standardize (systems), Monitor (power consumption), Accountability (for cost and energy savings), Rethink (operations) and Transform (culture and systems) to prescribe how efficient ICT can make the economy more efficient. The low hanging fruit here is to look at the motor systems and logistics as well as the buildings and grids that house and supply these systems.

Smart buildings are being designed in a manner to allow for the monitoring of electrical demand, efficiency and integrated renewable energy generation. Completely programmable automation systems are being incorporated into the built environment from large scale commercial buildings right down to residential construction. Smart buildings can now be managed and manipulated from multiple locations to minimize energy consumption and maximize efficiency and performance.

On the macro level, coalitions such as the Climate Savers Computing initiative have set a goal  of cutting greenhouse gases by 32 million metric tons and are aggressively promoting smart grid development and effective building management, as well as promoting innovative new measures for Power Usage Effectiveness.

Given both our geography and our climate, not to mention technological acumen, we know a lot about innovation in ICT and building smart infrastructure for sustainable mobility. In a country of our size, or in a province with large rural and remote areas, we are crossing barriers by utilizing video conferencing and implementing e-learning solutions.

ICT allows us to rethink the workplace. Travelling from home to work adds to our carbon footprint. Companies like Virtual Agent Systems use ICT to allow their employees to work from their homes – a major advantage for the many rural New Brunswickers who work for VAS. It not only saves a commute from their communities to a central location, it reduces the carbon footprint of the overall operation.  

We also need to take a hard look at how we recycle, reuse and manage the toxic components and by-products in our digital telephones, computers and other devices. In 2002 alone, Canadians disposed of 140,000 tonnes of “e-waste” - the equivalent of 28,000 adult African elephants.

The industry is taking steps to provide for the “final phase” of cell phones and computers, which contain toxic substances such as PVCs, BFRs and mercury, among others. Just as we would not send half-empty paint cans or waste oil products to the landfill, we need to provide a safe way to dispose of, and recycle, electronic products.

Seven Canadian provinces have established regulations and/or partnerships to deal with this issue. Nova Scotia has implemented Atlantic Canadian Electronics Stewardship or ACES and there is regulatory provision in New Brunswick for a “Multi-Material Stewardship Board.” 

However, if we look at Green ICT as a whole, the solution is not just finding efficient ways to deal with waste or to be more energy (and cost) efficient. We need a shift in philosophy – from disposable to scalable. We need to create products and systems that can adapt to these changing times and get out of the cycle of tossing products that no longer satisfy our need to be on the “bleeding edge” into the waste bin.

Sustainable ICT awareness will support the smart procurement of Energy Star or Gold EPEAT LCD monitors and LED lamps for offices. But we must also look at the opportunities to “virtualize” ICT by running multiple computer configurations on one piece of hardware. Rather than letting brute computing power try to solve our problems (which it won’t), we need to be more effective and strategic in building the infrastructure that will support Cloud Computing and practicing Software as a Service.

On these latter to items, policy and regulation needs to catch up to the possibilities that these ICT approaches offer. But we also need the workforce. We need to take stock of the fact that New Brunswick has lost the leadership position we held on ICT a short 15 years ago. While we see local ICT companies grow and new out-of-province investment, we are not preparing a skilled workforce that is needed to support these initiatives. New Brunswick needs a new generation of ICT workers, especially those with skills that are scalable rather than disposable, if we are to get the economic and environmental benefits ICT offers.

The global market for ICT will hit $1.58 trillion in 2010 and surge to $1.71 trillion in 2011. Opportunity is there or NB ICT workers, product developers and consulting companies but, as mentioned in earlier articles, this requires planning, preparation and foresight from all the stakeholders. The new software development “sweet spot” may be the development of enterprise carbon and energy management software, as well as the rise of a whole new sustainable consulting industry, but we will not get there by wishing.

- 30 -

Originally pubished in the Telegraph Journal, August 27, 2010