Why relationship management matters – even in the NHL

Leave a reply

So a few months ago I wrote this piece and this piece hypothesizing what went wrong in the hockey negotiations between Ryan Smyth and the Edmonton Oilers. It’s been a favourite example in negotiation workshops because it symbolizes how frayed relationships and poor process can scupper a deal that both sides would like to close. It has all the dynamics of a great business case.

What I’d love to know is if there was something Ryan Smyth felt the Oilers organization did that frustrated him, or left him feeling disrespected. One possibility – or at least a symptom of a larger problem – is the press conference the Oilers allegedly held before the negotiation in which they announced they would not reward “emotion.”

One can imagine the message the franchise sought to send: We intend to protect the franchise’s financial viability, and not yield to unreasonable demands.

The message Smyth likely received?: We don’t value the intangible leadership qualities that make you an important part of this team.

Is it any wonder the negotiation got off to a bad start and faltered over 100K a difference (out of $5.4M).

Rather publicly devalue the players that work for you, and with whom you negotiate salary, it might pay to manage relationships effectively.

Take a look at the Ottawa Senators general manager Bryan Murray. He recently re-signed centre Mike Fisher to a five-year contract extension worth US$21-million. According to the National Post:

Fisher’s new contract represents a huge increase over the US$1.5-million he will earn this season, but he may have left some money on the table. If he had tested the market next summer, he might have attracted an offer worth another US$4-million to US$5-million.

Fisher, however, wanted to stay in Ottawa.

“I want to be here and I want to show the team this is where I want to play, and I’m very happy with the contract and being here for another five years.”

Is Bryan Murray carefully managing the Senators relationships’ with its players? I don’t know. But I do think it is interesting that Dan Heatley, another Ottawa player who could command a big pay raise recently commented that “Communication has always been open.” Maybe that’s why he’s gone on record stating he isn’t opposed to taking a “hometown discount” to stay in Ottawa.

It would appear that at least some managers, even in the macho world of NHL franchise management, are dragging themselves into the 21st century and taking seriously the benefits that managing relationships can have on negotiations, morale, success and, the bottom line. Interesting, eh?

Hollyhock hangover…

2 Replies

So many good things to share. But at the moment, I’m hung over and tired from 5 days of conferencing at Web of Change.

In the meantime, I’d like to share my first musical recommendation on this blog. As my sister’s fiancé know, I’m no music buff – and the idea of sitting (or standing) and watching a band never climbs high on my “to do” list. However, this weekend, I couldn’t have felt more differently. The conference organizers brought in Delhi2Dublin – an electro-acoustic blending of traditional North Indian and Ireland sounds with cutting edge dance rhythms and DJ aesthetics.

A Celtic-Indian-Electronic fusion rock band?

It sounds like multiculturalism gone mad. Heck, it is multiculturalism gone mad… in a distinctly west coast way.

If you are in Vancouver and you are looking for a great band to power your party… consider hiring these guys. Their energy was out of control.

I have no idea how they will sound on CD, but live, they blew my mind (along with pretty much everybody else in our small concert hall).

Great job postings

Leave a reply

For those interested in the social sector, two great job postings come across my email yesterday

Online Organizer Job with ForestEthics

ForestEthics is seeking a creative and talented individual to be our Online Organizer who has at least 3 years experience in cutting edge online organizing campaigns. The successful candidate will play a key role in developing and implementing strategies to effectively use online organizing to help protect endangered forests and strengthen ForestEthics.

Since 1994, ForestEthics has played a leadership role in defining sustainable environmental practices for corporations and industry and has stopped the logging of more than seven million acres of Endangered Forests, including five million acres in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest; 1.2 million acres in the Inland Rainforests of British Columbia and a million acres in Chile

ForestEthics flagship public campaigns against industry giants Staples, Office Depot and Victoria’s Secret have resulted in dramatic new industry standards, as have the environmental commitments it has procured from some of the largest corporations on the planet, including Staples, Home Depot and Dell computers.

ForestEthics is an organization that engages people in North America in our campaigns to protect endangered forests. Without our volunteers, allies, activists, and our donors we would not be able to protect millions of acres of forests. We realize that effective online organizing is the key to increasing our impact by engaging more people in our campaigns and our organization. We are looking to find the person who can maximize our impact through online organizing.

Major responsibilities:

  • Develop the strategy and implementation plans for online organizing for ForestEthics and all of our winning campaigns that build our impact over the long term
  • Write and edit compelling, concise, and engaging pieces that translate our complex issues into something that can be easily understood and acted on
  • Develop a strategy and manage ForestEthics blog and social network presence which includes reaching out to other blogs and online communities to promote our campaigns
  • Develop and Implement strategies to use our online organizing to increase the recruit offline volunteers, to develop new leaders, to create new donors and increase existing donors, and create offline pressure on our campaign targets
  • Develop strategies to integrate online organizing with each campaign and initiative
  • Train staff members on best practices for online organizing
  • Work with the development team to create and implement strategies to raise funds online
  • Establish specific goals and benchmarks for online activist growth, leader create, and funds raised
  • Work with people from our campaign department, communications department, development department, and other members of the organizing department
  • Produce reports on recruitment, fundraising, and advocacy campaigns
  • Participate in ForestEthics staff meetings, organizational planning and training sessions as necessary

Qualifications:

  • Excellent analytical and strategic thinking capabilities as well as the ability to communicate clearly and compellingly to a wide range of audiences in writing.
  • Demonstrated expertise as a leader in online organizing and advocacy campaigns
  • Results oriented and strong strategic planning skills.
  • 3 years of relevant work experience.
  • Excellent project management skills
  • Excellent interpersonal skills
  • Must have strong skills using online advocacy systems and databases. (ForestEthics uses Democracy in Action and Salesforce)
  • Demonstrated track record in collaboration in a multidepartmental organization .

Other Qualifications:

  • Passionate commitment to environmental issues, knowledge of forest issues and markets campaigns an asset.
  • Innovative entrepreneurial attitude
  • Self-starter capable of working both independently and in groups
  • Comfortable working in an ever-changing environment …

ForestEthics is an equal opportunity employer

Salary Range: DOE with competitive benefits package.

Application Process

Send a cover letter and resume to onlineorganiser@forestethics.org. Please include your name in the subject line and include a sample piece that you have written.

No phone calls, please. Only those who will be interviewed will be contacted.
—–

Ashoka Canada Director

Ashoka Canada is looking for senior social entrepreneurs willing to take the challenge to build an
entrepreneurial, competent and globally integrated citizen sector.

Challenge description:

Find and engage leading social entrepreneurs in Canada

  • Build diverse cutting-edge nominator network
  • Engage Fellows and nominators to grow the program
  • Draw on media as a source of nominations and to source journalists who will be interested in social change
  • Help innovations grow and expand globally
  • Connect Fellows with Fellows and support group entrepreneurship initiatives
  • Connect Fellows with decision makers in the private and public sectors and with social investors
  • Link Fellows with media
  • Link Fellows with our partners and other Ashoka initiatives (Changemakers, Youth Venture, CBI, FEC)
  • Place individual innovations into larger whole
  • Dialog with Fellows to analyze social change trends
  • Map social change ecosystem in Canada
  • Catalyze global collaborations
  • Build Business Social Bridges
  • Take every opportunity to create new bridges between Entrepreneurs and Social Entrepreneurs
  • Design and manage a streamlined operation
  • Mobilize resources needed to support the operation

About Ashoka:

Ashoka Canada is membership in something global.

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, is an international community of business and social entrepreneurs who are actively changing the fields in which they work. Ashoka lays claim to over 2,000 Fellows across 60 countries. Using a cutting edge nominator network, Ashoka chooses its applicants, locating the most innovative entrepreneurs with the strongest prospects for impact locally, nationally, and globally. Candidates are asked to stand for a rigorous qualification review addressing accomplishments, impact, creativity, personality and ethical fibre. In Canada, an exemplary Fellowship has emerged, made up of award-winning social entrepreneurs affecting change from Newfoundland to Victoria. This strategic selection process makes Ashoka an excellent
resource for Canadian policymakers, private funders and social investors interested in investing in massive, positive change.

Ashoka’s lifetime fellowship supports individuals, their ideas, and their organizations through the full cycle of social innovation. A three-year living stipend sanctions full-time devotion to projects, driving innovation evaluation and evolution. Strategic partnerships provide free training and consulting services for our Fellows to increase awareness and implementation of their innovative programs through McKinsey & Co., Hill & Knowlton, and the International Senior Lawyers Project. An international Fellowship network links citizen sector projects nationally and facilitates the export of proven models across continents and around the globe.

Our recruiting team looks for people who are entrepreneurial and collegial; who have a conscious dedication to ethical fiber, self-scrutiny, and empathy; and a strong self-image to effect positive change on a big scale. We also look for people who are broadly and passionately interested in the questions Ashoka addresses, and the historical change it seeks.

Applicants must have experience founding and leading organizations that have gone to scale.

Interested please send CV and presentation letter to canadainfo@ashoka.org before Sep 30th.

Canadian Technophobia: Privacy Commissioner vs. Google

4 Replies

How is it that, as individuals, Canadians are such avid internet users, but our institutions, governments and companies are somewhere between technophobic and luddite?
Take for example the recent story Alison L. sent me from Stephen Taylor‘s blog in which he comment on this CBC news story. The story? That Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has written Google about her concern that Google Maps’ Street View functionality may violate Canada’s federal privacy legislation if it is implemented here.

For the uninitiated Google (and/or a partner firm) creates this street map feature by literally driving a car along a street with a camera on its roof and it takes a photo about every 5 seconds. This allows the user to “see” what the street looks like from various 5 meter increments. The commissioners concern is:

“Our Office considers images of individuals that are sufficiently clear to allow an individual to be identified to be personal information within the meaning of PIPEDA [the privacy act]”

One wonders where the Privacy Commissioner has been for the last 5, 10 or even 25 years (ok, ok, I concede that the privacy laws are relatively new… but still!). As Stephen points out – why hasn’t the Privacy Commissioner shut down Flickr? Indeed, virtually all Web 2.0 content could be suspect. It might be safer to shut down whole swaths of the web.

What’s interesting to me is that it is a website that has prompted this discussion. When this problem existed in traditional forms of media – ones’ presumably the commissioner is more comfortable with – it didn’t bother her.

City TV and Muchmusic are famous for doing interviews while showing live streetscapes in the background. Given the bar the commissioner has set, isn’t this footage illegal? And if we really want to take it to an extreme… what about the street level cameras on apartment buildings that enable people to see who is ringing their doorbell. Many of these camera’s are always on and can be watched from tenants TVs… if the Privacy Commissioners above statement is the standard we are to use… isn’t this a violation of privacy as well? Shouldn’t all these cameras be unplugged?

The above example highlights the prevailing attitude many organizations in Canada have towards the internet: move slowly, move cautiously, and, if possible, don’t move at all. Don’t believe me? Or perhaps we can hope the problem is limited to government? Well… Katie M. recently sent me this survey of Canada and the internet. According to it Canada is on par, and even ahead of, the United States when it comes to internet – and in particular broadband – access and usage. Even our blogosphere is strong. And yet, despite all this, e-commerce in Canada lags far behind the US. Name a single Canadian retailer with a strong online presence. Many Canadian stories don’t even allow people to shop online.

Why is this? Who knows. Could it be a weak tech sector in Canada? A business culture that is shockingly conservative? A brain drain of tech savvy people to San Francisco, Boston and other technology centres? A lack of venture capital? I don’t know.

What I do know is that this should concern Canadians. Individually, we are leaving our government and large corporations in the dust. At some point our capacity to innovate, to seek social change, to capitalize on economic opportunities will be limited by their narrow vision and understanding of the internet phenomenon.

Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to hollyhock I go…

4 Replies

Very excited over here as I’m about to head off to the Web of Change – an annual gathering connecting senior leaders working at the convergence of online strategy, technology, and social change.

I’ll be giving a talk on online collaboration, and community management in open source projects – I’m looking forward to test out the ideas with an experienced audience. I’m continuing to try to refining my thinking in this space, especially in preparation for the talk I’ll be giving at the Free Software and Open Source Symposium at Seneca College a month from now.

Of course one of the best parts of Web of Change is its location: the secluded Hollyhock conference centre on Cortes Island, near Campbell River, British Columbia. (see map)

I’ll admit it is not easy to get to, but once there… rumour has it that it’s pretty magical. Combine that with some evening yoga sessions, the healthy food on offer and the abundant fresh air, and this could be the most personally renewing conference I’ll ever attend.

In addition, my internet addiction will not be tested as apparently there is an internet room where one can get online. Phew!

As for my blackberry… it will probably be good for me not to have it working for a few days.

New York Times tears down its walled garden

4 Replies

Serendipity! Taylor and I just submitted a op-ed piece in reaction to Kathy English’s Toronto Star Editorial Journalism is Job 1 – As Always in which we question her vision of the Star’s role within an online enabled community.

One of the main thrusts of our piece is that it is not enough for newspapers to move their content online – they have to integrate with the online community they are a member of.

Not 24 hours has passed since we’ve submitted it (no word as of yet if the Star will run it) and the NYT has announced it is tearing down its firewall. No more exclusive, pay to view online content.

I’d make a comment but Andrew Sullivan has already done it justice (h/t to Taylor for passing along the link).

I do have one question though… what does the Globe and Mail know that the New York Times doesn’t?

Alan Greenspan – too smart to speak

2 Replies

Taylor and I were hanging out on Sunday wrestling for control of the remote control – I was interested in watching the Pats destroy the Chargers, he in Chris Matthews – when on came the 60 Minutes Interview with Alan Greenspan.

It was all very interesting until boom – the 10th minute of this clip reminded us why Jon Stewart’s job is so easy.

In the interview Leslie Stahl berates Greenspan for a speech he gave in March where he publicly suggested there was a one in three chance the US economy could go into recession. Although Greenspan – then retired from his role as Federal Reserve Chairman – gave the speech as both a private citizen and business owner soliciting clients, Stahl suggests that Greenspan’s critics were correct in asserting he should keep his mouth shut since his voice is influential.

So let me get this right. Greenspan is so smart, so reliable, and so trusted on economic matters, that we shouldn’t let him speak about the economy.

You know, just in case he may have bad news to deliver.

And this from 60 minutes! Yes, the press is giving Greenspan a hard time for not sufficiently self-censoring himself.

Needless to say, we went back to watching the ball game.

The past 7 years have been for censorship, and in particular self-censorship, particularly in the US. From discussions about weapons of mass destruction in the Oval Office, to the presses efforts to talk about the Iraq war, to transparency in the US economy, censorship is on the march… sponsored, apparently, by your national news broadcaster.

Let’s hope Stewart picks this one up…

Responding to David Carment

3 Replies

David, thank you for posting your comment yesterday. It is clear we both care strongly about the future of the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA).

In some places – such as the role of fellows – we have an honest difference of opinion. For example, I sense you see the role of fellow as a university does: academics with research agendas. In contrast, I’m advocating for a role similar to that of the Yale World Fellows: a diverse set of interesting people who have an important perspective to contribute. Might this include government officials on leave, former political staffers, or social entrepreneurs? Absolutely.

In other places, it is unclear to me if we agree or disagree. In your original comment you argue the oped was flat out wrong, or “more caricature then valid description.” However, in yesterday’s comment you state “we all know it (the CIIA) has had it problems even its members recognize that, so what you have said in that regard is not new.” I’m not sure you can have it both ways. Either I was wrong and failed to accurately portray the situation or, I was right, and not adding to the debate.

I also don’t mind you being harsh – debate is essential to uncovering truth. However, what concerns me is that you seem less interested in debating my thesis than trying to point out typos in an effort to mock me. You may “not want to debate about the vitality of the CIIA”… but this was the subject of the oped. If we aren’t discussing that, then what is the subject on the table? I’m happy to discuss the immaterial differences between the Embassy and blog versions of my oped, and to acknowledge I identified your university incorrectly, but these discussions won’t weaken or alter the validity of my argument – which I sense is the source of your discontent.

I acknowledge that a number of CIIA members and supporters – including yourself – are upset with the piece, and so in turn with me. However, the decline of the CIIA has been going on for some time, and the window of opportunity to act and renew it is shrinking. Feedback from friends, colleagues and CIIA members suggests I simply pointed out the large elephant in the room. If this prompts a larger rethink about the goals and directions of the organization, then some discomfort among its members is a small price to pay.

What I fear however, is that some people wish to instead circle the wagons – an understandable, but counterproductive reaction. Those of us who are fans of the CIIA, but concerned about its future, will keep wondering… what will prompt the renewal and soul searching the CIIA needs?

Finally, I too was disappointing to see that Ben Rowswell and Farouk Jiwa not included in the Embassy’s list of suggested fellows. Both are exceptional individuals and their respective experience in Iraq and Africa are ones more Canadians should here about. I’m not sure why that happened and will follow up with Embassy – but my suspicion is that it was a matter of space (they were the last two bullets in the list). As for your concerns about my list – they are worse then you feared. I know each of them! But you misunderstand its purpose. I did not propose it as the definitive list, but as an example of the type of fellows I’d like to see the CIC appoint. Moreover, nominating someone I know and have worked with an old boys network does not make. Having the power to limit nominations to a select group and/or control the appointment process to favour long time colleagues does.

Also, I do wish to apologize for getting your university wrong (I’ve corrected it). One of the great things about having a blog is that when genuine errors occur, there are an army of readers – such as yourself – who are kind enough to point them out, which I’m all too pleased to fix.

Reactions to the CIIA post/Op-Ed

3 Replies

First I want to thank friends – old and new – for your warm emails regarding the CIIA post and subsequent Embassy Magazine op-ed.

I have however, received one critical comment. Ottawa Carleton University Prof David Carment or at least someone posing as David Carment posted the following comment on my blog yesterday.

Did any of you read the Eaves piece in yesterday’s Embassy magazine? I thought it was a bit harsh and more caricature then valid description. Had he sat in on the various Ottawa chapter meetings that CIIA has organized on Failed and Fragile states the picture he portrays would be much different. These meetings have been a nice mixture of young and old, diplomats and practitioners and academics mixed with pragmatism and idealism. I also thought his selection of fellows a bit odd. To my mind a research fellow is someone who has an actual research programme and at least in a few of cases this doesn’t hold. A friend and colleague JS Rioux hasn’t been at Laval for over two years – he now works for the federal government.

He even gets the affiliation of Cohen wrong – he is cross appointed with our school and journalism at Carleton.

Does the CIIA still sponsor a journal or two? It’s worth mentioning. that to rebuff the claim that it is/was out of touch.

A few friends pointed out that curiously, the comment reads like a letter, suggesting it might actually be from an email. So I thought I’d repost it here and see if anyone might be willing to forward along the entire (hypothesized) email chain. If you have a copy please send it to me here.

Just to respond to the letter’s criticisms… If Prof Carment has been attending CIIA meetings that have a good cross section of people (age, background, political perspective) then great! It is my sincerest hope that the CIIA has broadened its membership. However, I’m fairly confident that if we could look at its membership rolls, I’m not sure we’d find the distribution Carment describes.

As for my selection of fellows… I think Carment and I have an honest difference of opinion on who and what the fellows could or should be for. While some of the people I highlighted are academics or emerging academics (and so might have a traditional research agenda) others are very much practitioners whose work affects Canadian foreign policy or sheds light on interesting aspects on international affairs. Others, like JS Rioux and Ben Rowswell, are a little bit of both.

Almost none are from the comfy old-boys network of diplomats and academics (indeed this is why I selected them) but I suggest that each has a unique and important experience to reflect upon and share with the Canadian public (as well as the foreign policy elite).

I used JS Rioux old Laval webpage as a link because it was the only site I could find with at least a partial bio. Apologies that the info is out of date, I thought it better to supply something rather than nothing.

As for the failure to get Cohen’s affiliation wrong, this addition was made to the piece made by Embassy Magazine. I’m sure they regret any error.

I suppose there are those who think the CIIA is fine the way it is… but years of deficit spending and a declining membership tell me that it is not. Yes, my letter was blunt, but at least it asks the tough questions. The CIIA in its present form was unsustainable. Now that it has a saviour, it be a shame if it landed back in its current crisis because it didn’t use the opportunity to evolve.

Note: The David Carment responds in the comment below and then the discussion continues the following day here.

Exploding the Myth: MMP and Inceasing Voter Turnout

9 Replies

A number of web sites (such as this one, this one and this one) in favour of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) claim that one reason to vote yes in the upcoming Ontario electoral reform referendum is because MMP will arrest the decline in voter turnout. At best, this claim is problematic. At worst, it is flat out false.

Let me be clear. I’m deeply concerned about the decline in voter turnout. Moreover, I wish MMP would help. But the evidence shows that it doesn’t. Specifically, New Zealand and Germany, the two countries that use MMP, have both experienced a decline in voter turnout equal to that experienced here in Canada.

Probably the best example for this is New Zealand, a country which, in 1993, voted to transition from a First Past the Post electoral system (which we use here in Canada) to MMP. In effect, the Ontario electoral referendum is asking if Ontario should follow in New Zealand’s footsteps.

The problem is, that after adopting MMP in 1993 the decline in New Zealand’s voting rate accelerated. Consider the following chart, courtesy of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. MMP did reverse voter turn out, but only for the first election. After this point voter turnout declined faster than before the adoption.

Participation Rate in New Zealand Elections

1960 85.6%
1963 83.3%
1966 79.3%
1969 85.6%
1972 85.3%
1975 81.7%
1978 82.3%
1981 88.9%
1984 87.4%
1987 81.4%
1990 78.6%
1993 79.6%
1996 83.0% (first MMP election)
1999 76.1%
2002 72.5%
2005 n/a

Although Germany continues to enjoy a higher absolute voter turnout rates than Canada, it is also experiencing a decline in voter turn out similar to that of Canada.

Participation Rate in German Elections

1949 76.5%
1953 80.6%
1957 87.6%
1961 86.9%
1965 80.9%
1969 79.9%
1972 88.7%
1976 83.8%
1980 81.8%
1983 81.0%
1987 75.0%
1990 73.1%
1994 72.4%
1998 75.3%
2002 73% * (conservative estimate, divided total votes by Germany’s 1998 population, more likely 72%)
2005 72% * (conservative estimate, divided total votes by Germany’s 1998 population, more likely 70%)

Finally, some pro-MMP sites discuss how countries with MMP have higher electoral participation rates than Canada. This is true. However, this is based on only 2 data points (Germany and New Zealand). However, it is worth noting that New Zealand experienced higher voting rates than Canada even when it had the FPTP system and that, as noted above, participation rates declined faster after the adoption MMP than under FPTP.

So is it the voting system in Germany and New Zealand that creates a high voter turnout? In New Zealand – whose political culture and history is more similar to our own, the answer is definitely no. In Germany, it is possible, but hard to ascertain. What is known is that Germany, New Zealand and Canada are all experiencing a decline in voter turn out at the same rate, and based on the experience of New Zealand, whose switch from FPTP to MMP had no impact on this decline, there is little reason to believe that electoral reform would have a different impact here in Canada.

There may be good arguments in favour of voting for MMP but improving voter turn out is not one of them.

Isn’t it time we put this argument to bed?