Whether you’re a plumber, a doctor, a truck driver, a nurse, or a cook, you know that if you want to spend money you have to earn money. That’s Economics 101.

I recall past conversations with guys I knew who were electricians, plumbers and woodmill owners. They got it; they understood Economics 101.

Too bad that our politicians don’t get it.

First off, I’m apolitical; my voting pattern over 35 plus-years has been all over the map. So I don’t have an axe to grind with any particular political party.

Although I’m a Canadian and follow our rather mundane political events, I’m an avid fan of America’s brass knuckle, winner-take-all politics. As much as I find American politics far more fun to watch than Canadian hockey or American football (though the latter can be pretty exciting), I’m very serious when it comes to the economy and job market. Countries are playing for keeps when it comes to creating jobs and wealth. I don’t have to tell you about the incredible growth that China, India, Brazil and South Korea have experienced over the past two decades.

Canada and the United States have been asleep during this period. Canadian Prime Ministers have been absorbed with the province of Quebec and its incessant whining about how it keeps getting screwed, fighting with provincial premiers, covering up scandals and taking petty pot shots at one another. All the while Rome burns. But Canadians are a smug lot, perhaps the smuggest in the world.

South of the border Americans are still numb from the financial shellacking they took, oblivious to many of the economic events elsewhere in the world, preferring to divert their attention to the hugely partisan game of Mafia-style politics.

President Barack Obama, who knowingly inherited an escalating financial nightmare from President G.W. Bush, blew most of his political capital by insisting on ramming through Congress new healthcare legislation, which while addressing the issue of coverage for Americans, totally ignores the looming implosion of healthcare due to its exorbitant cost. Obama only recently got the “jobs” religion when he realized that unemployment was going to stick around and that a federal election was not far off.

What a mess our two countries are in. Compounding it is the apparent lack of understanding by our two national leaders, and their respective cabinets, of the imminent showdown with what are no longer “emerging economies” (the New Kids on the Block with buck teeth) but kickass competitors who are eating our lunch.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (sister to The Economist) recently published its Industries in 2012 report. Based on a survey of just over 900 executives from several countries, the report’s underlying tone is one of gloom and doom. Here are some of the report’s key messages:

• New economies, especially in Asia, will grab an expanding share of automotive and consumer goods manufacturing and back-office support services in the financial sector,
• The consumer retail , healthcare, energy and automotive sectors are expected to fare the worst for growth;
• Although telecom execs are the most optimistic, they still expressed much caution.

The automotive industry provides a compelling case for attention, given that it has played such an important role in North America’s economy for the past several decades. Automakers, as the report notes, “…understand that the focus of the global market has permanently shifted to developing countries, and in 2012 will continue their drive to establish production locally.”

The financial services sector is expected to experience weak growth in the ageing populations of the industrialized West, driven further by overly indebted households and increased regulation.

Other think tanks such as the World Economic Forum and the Conference Board of Canada have been critical of how Canada and the U.S. have let their competitiveness slide. While Canada gets fairly good marks on education, it also has a continuing problem with illiteracy. The country also ranks down in the mid-teens on such aspects as innovation, research and development, and productivity. The U.S. shows abysmal results in math, science and reading – a sad story for the world’s so-called economic powerhouse.

And both countries have irresponsibly let their physical infrastructures deteriorate to deplorable standards, not to mention paying little attention to upgrading their broadband network. If you want to see fast Internet speed, go visit South Korea or Japan.

Hmmmm.

Things could start to get tough this year and beyond.

This is a time when national leaders need to focus on their countries’ long-term visions and layout substantial industrial development strategies. Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, took a pass on that opportunity, focusing instead on building prisons and taking joyful glee in hammering the down-and-out Liberal party.

And just this past week, Prime Minister Harper had the gall to stand before an audience of multimillionaires in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum and lecture European countries about their fiscal mess. This is coming from Canada’s most spendthrift prime minister, who turned a fiscal surplus (from the preceding Liberal government) into a deficit – the prime minister who has redefined the art of petty, partisan politics.

Go figure. Meanwhile, the rest of Canada sleeps.

President Obama is hoping not to repeat history by getting booted out of office in November because of sustained high unemployment. His greatest gift is a ragtag misfit bunch of Republican wannabee presidents. Sorry guys, but you’re a pathetic lot.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama: MIA – Missing in Action.

America, the land of opportunity and innovation, will take a long time to recover. Indeed, internationally respected Bank of Canada governor Markey Carney (and new head of the Switzerland-based Financial Stability Board) recently stated that the United States will never return to its former economic power.

The slowly evolving change in attitude north of the border is prompting the Canadian government to step up its efforts to find new export markets for its goods and services, in particular energy, now that Trans Canada’s XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas has been shot in the head by the Obama Administration. China is a very appealing market along with several other East Asian countries.

We live in a no-holds-barred global economy. There are many developing and formerly developing countries that are exceedingly hungry to succeed. And they are doing just that – succeeding.

This leads me, sadly, to ask: “Where, oh where is the leadership?

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
– Sir Winston Churchill

Take a moment to meet Jim.

If you ask me anything I don’t know, I’m not going to answer.
– Yogi Berra (former New York Yankees manager)

If you’re a young person (in your twenties), what’s your preferred way to learn?

How do you engage with older co-workers (mid forties-plus) in the workplace when it comes to learning or asking for advice? Or have you written off older people as has-beens?

If you’re an older Boomer (like me), what have you learned recently from a Gen Y or Gen X?

How do you interact with younger people at work?

The workplace continues to evolve rapidly, driven by an ageing population, technology and emerging competing countries through globalization. Unemployment in Canada and the United States remains stubbornly high, with little prospect of any meaningful declines for some time. Our two countries face serious long-term issues on competitiveness and standards of living.

One of the key distinguishing traits of organizations that are adaptive to change and where innovation flourishes is learning and knowledge creation. Lots has been written and spoken about on this topic, yet real progress has been stunted. One of the main barriers to progress has been a workforce that spans four, and soon five, generations, each of which has very different values and approaches to learning and work.

Corporate leaders need to understand both their (Baby Boomer) learning styles and those of Gens X and Y (though it’s important to note that Gen X is steadily taking over the management reins). The multi-tasking learning style of Gen Y, based heavily on digital technology, contrasts sharply with Boomers who still depend on traditional methods, such as hardcopy books, print media and bums-in-chairs classroom learning – where the learner is spoken to and not engaged reciprocally.

Gen X’s learning style is more or less a hybrid of Boomers and Gen Y; call them conflicted, though they orient themselves more to people interaction than Boomers.

As much as it’s laudatory that Gen Y just wants the bottom line, to get things done through their methods, of specific concern is how they’ll cope in a complex, rapidly changing world. I’m not talking about the use of technology or Gen Y’s superior ability to network and collaborate, compared to Boomers and Gen X. I’m referring to depth.

The ability to understand history and context is crucial for tomorrow’s leaders, whether in business or government. An excellent example is the 2008-09 financial melt-down in the United States.

Very, very few of those involved, in business and government, had any grasp on what led to the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. America and the global financial system escaped disaster by the skin of its teeth. Older Baby Boomers like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke understood well financial history. The Gen Xers on Wall Street didn’t have a clue.

History matters.

Context matters.

Depth matters.

Instant pudding learning and multitasking don’t cut it in a volatile economy and geo-political world.

The shallowness that accompanies the frivolities of Gen Y’s (and in part Gen X) approach to learning and knowledge creation will undermine their efforts to effectively lead organizations in the 21st Century.

The big challenge of sharing learning and knowledge across a four generational workforce is for people to learn how to understand and respect one another’s approaches to learning. Note the key word – RESPECT, as R&B singer Aretha Franklin sang.

Ranstad USA conducted a survey in 2006 to examine the perceptions held by different generations. Three quarters of those 55-plus said they related well to younger co-workers; however, that sentiment was not reciprocated: only 56% stated they related well to older people. And of particular surprise was the finding that 77% of young people did not ask older co-workers for help or advice.

Gen Y, Gen X, Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation (66 to 83) need to appreciate how their different learning preferences actually possess significant benefits for organizations because of diversity and the different lens through which they see the world.

Younger people have much to gain, however painful as it may appear, from “older” folks. Corporate history matters, especially when learning from past mistakes and blunders. And past successes are equally important.

For older people there’s certainly much we can gain by engaging Gen Y, and not just in the use of digital technology but also in more collaborative approaches to work where trust is key. Baby Boomers have never been big on trust.

Take a moment to share your views or experiences on learning.

I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. – Yogi Berra

Take a moment to meet Jim.

It was interesting to watch the ritual at meetings, where Blackberryholics delicately placed their worshipped sidekicks on the table in front of them, awaiting the buzz (or clamoring ring) from one of their bosses. If you were a presenter you may just as well have talked to a lamp shade for the limited attention you were receiving from these B-berry worshippers.

But the Blackberry was king for a number of years, and still is the mobile tool of choice for public servants and political hacks in North America.

And then something happened. His name was Steve Jobs, and he accelerated his efforts to create a world-class wireless device, the iPhone. This was quickly followed by the iPad, a concept he conceived in the nineties.

And something even bigger occurred along the same time continuum. Its name is Google, which developed the Android operating system.

So much has taken place during the past five years in the areas of tablets and smart phones that I believe that people haven’t stopped to take a breath and say, “Holy crap! How did we ever function without them?”

Research in Motion (RIM) emerged as Canada’s premier high-tech company. Led by Greek-Canadian businessman Mike Lazaridis, who founded RIM and is the co-CEO, the company is the only Canadian technology firm that gets itself on international rankings. In short, RIM replaced Nortel has Canada’s pride and joy, in terms of R&D, its global brand and its rapid growth.

However as the saying goes, the bigger they are the harder they fall. Nortel collapsed in a massive dust cloud, though its death was prolonged far too long, and became a public spectacle of gross management greed, corruption and incompetence.

RIM’s case is very different, except for the common theme of management hubris when it came to believing that it had the world by the tail. In a remarkably short space of time, RIM went from being a leading edge innovator to a company scrambling to catch up to smart phone competitors, all the while its stock continued to nose-dive.

The rocket-fueled growth of tablets, led by the outstanding Apple iPad, once again caused RIM to react, hastily producing a poorly reviewed Playbook.

Lazaridis and co-CEO Jim Balsillie are hanging in, exploring new opportunities for RIM. One recent development is providing security for iPhones and Android devices through its Mobile Fusion program.

The pace of change in mobile computing is accelerating so quickly that unless RIM quickly finds new technology niches and markets it risks a further descent. The company is experiencing what happened to Nokia, once the wireless phone of choice. Nokia’s now infamous burning platform memo from CEO Stephen Elop articulates the challenges facing corporate leaders in a volatile and fast-changing world. There are no prisoners, just the entrails of once glorious companies.

Lazaridis and Balsillie would do well to pay heed to Nokia’s plummet to near obscurity.

We too, are standing on a “burning platform,” and we must decide how we are going to change our behaviour.

Over the past few months, I’ve shared with you what I’ve heard from our shareholders, operators, developers, suppliers and from you. Today, I’m going to share what I’ve learned and what I have come to believe.

I have learned that we are standing on a burning platform.

And, we have more than one explosion – we have multiple points of scorching heat that are fuelling a blazing fire around us.
(Portion of Stephen Elop’s memo to Nokia employees)

Take a moment to meet Jim.

Corporations that aim to succeed in the long-term, and governments that wish to maintain their countries’ standards of living, need to embrace learning and the generation of new knowledge.

However, any initiative that attempts to address employee learning and knowledge creation needs to ensure a strong link between the organization’s goals and priorities and its people– those responsible for achieving results.

To do this properly means it’s done within the corporate culture (the values and beliefs that drive behavior and performance), in which business processes, client service and employee learning are integral parts.

My blueprint outlines an integrated approach to continuous learning, knowledge creation and transfer. I want to stress at the outset that knowledge creation and transfer are not one in the same. It’s one thing to foster knowledge creation through learning and experimentation; it becomes even more of a challenge to create the workplace environment, processes and systems to capture, document and transfer knowledge.

In that context, my blueprint has been developed for a rapidly changing and unpredictable global environment. It provides a framework for enhancing personal and team learning, transition and change, and understanding the context in which people work and collaborate as they carry out their organization’s mission.

The blueprint includes methods on how to put into practice knowledge creation and transfer. One vital point needs to be reinforced: Learning is not an end in itself; it must be connected to something meaningful, whether it’s client service, research and development, manufacturing or public policy.

The intention of a learning and knowledge blueprint, therefore, is not to impose a structure but rather to enable an organization to adapt strategies and activities to its business needs and priorities.

The blueprint encompasses four cornerstones: people, processes, roles and leadership. These cornerstones are inter-related, and together focus on achieving the organization’s goals and priorities.

The essential elements of a learning and knowledge blueprint (the four cornerstones) need to be grounded. This is where a set of 10 principles is essential, serving in effect as a compass to the organization, and which is especially vital during periods of significant change and disruption.

To learn more, click here to download your complimentary copy of A Blueprint for Learning & Knowledge Creation: Staying Ahead of Your Competitors in a Turbulent World”.

What leaders are called upon to do in a chaotic world is to shape their organizations through concepts, not through elaborate rules or structures. – Margaret Wheatley

Take a moment to meet Jim.

Why do so many CEOS operate in such a harmful way?

One would think that people would learn over time. After all, we’re supposedly the most intelligent life forms on Planet Earth, though I think that my Labrador Retriever, Max, might dispute that.

Unfortunately, human history is littered with the carnage and entrails of past blunders. Pick a century or a decade. You’ll find lots of examples. The recent decade that launched us into the 21st Century had a long list of horrendous errors, which can be traced back to decisions made by those in positions of authority, whether in the public sphere or in business.

Let’s look first at the Bad and the Ugly in leadership examples, saving the Good for an uplifting finale, followed by a quick note on what CEOs can learn from Peter Senge’s Seven Learning Disabilities. I’m only using two examples per category to help illustrate Senge’s work. The list of naughty and incompetent CEOs is indeed very long. And yes, there are a number of excellent CEOs.

THE BAD:
A Once-Great Canadian Company: RIM
Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry (of Crackberry fame), became Canada’s pride and joy, especially after the spectacular collapse of Nortel Networks. RIM has been the only Canadian technology company to make it on international technology lists. RIM’s growth was exponential during the late nineties and well into the 2000s.

Spearheaded by the technology vision of co-founder Mike Lazaridis and aided by business savvy co-CEO Jim Balsillie, RIM’s growth seemed unstoppable.

But change is never-ending, and the market is constantly evolving. Steve Job’s relentless pursuit for innovation and perfection and Google’s drive to build Android’s market share caught RIM off-guard. That’s the polite way of saying that hubris on the part of Lazaridis and Balsillie placed RIM in a very reactionary position. Other events have contributed to RIM’s recent continued slide, such as the three-day BlackBerry outage in late 2011, successful hacking attempts into its operating system and disastrous sales of the Playbook tablet.

Yes, the Blackberry has proven very popular in such developing countries as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and India, for reasons of its excellent secure text messaging. But it’s getting the crap beat out of it in North America and Europe. And recent data show that RIM’s sales in emerging economies has slowed, due to wireless carriers in these countries opting not to carry older Blackberry models (hand-me-downs, if you like) in place of moving to smart phones.

As a Canadian I want RIM to succeed, particularly since it has been the country’s sole major global technology player. However, that may end in 2012. Are there any buyers out there?

The Tech World’s Golden Boy Takes a Fall: Netflix
Chairman, President and CEO Reed Hastings was viewed as a golden boy of the tech world. Hastings (50) has led Netflix since 1998 since he and Marc Randolph co-founded it. The company’s meteorite rise during the 2000s seemed unstoppable, until Hastings did something really stupid. In July 2011, he decided to charge a two-tier structure to customers as part of its move to movie downloads.

Netflix’s loyal customers erupted, promising Armageddon. Hastings beat a hasty retreat, but only to a drop in share prices and horrible media attention. Within a month, the new brand name Qwikster was put out of its misery. Whether through hubris or naivete, Hastings made a “hasty” decision, one that caused significant damage to the company’s brand.

THE UGLY
Carol Bartz of Yahoo: “These people fucked me over.”
Carol Bartz, became CEO of Yahoo in January 2009, and was fired on September 6, 2011, by Board chairman Roy Bostock. (Note: firing someone on the phone, as Bostock did, is an act of cowardice in my view).

During her tenure, Bartz became a lightning rod for business analysts who believed she was responsible for Yahoo’s large drop in advertising revenues. Never one to spare an “F” shot or other expletive-deletives, she admittedly gave herself a B- in her job performance after her first year with Yahoo. Strikingly, she was named most overpaid CEO in 2010 when she received a whopping $47 million in compensation.

Her now infamous May 2010 interview with tech blogger Michael Arrington, where she began the conversation with “So how the fuck are you,” went downhill when she became perturbed with his questions and told him to “fuck off.” Definitely not a class-act, or the behavior expected of a CEO in charge of a huge company.

Bartz’s most unglamorous exit made her 32 month stint at Yahoo all the more pathetic.


The Dualing Twins: Freddie Mac’s Charles Haldeman and Fannie Mae’s Michael J. Williams
Freddie Mac’s CEO, Charles E. “Ed” Haldeman Jr. became CEO in July 2009, stepping down at the end of 2011. Haldeman (62) became a lightning rod, along with sister mortgage giant Fannie Mae, led by Michael Williams (53, and CEO since April 2009), for questionable lending practices. Both publicly funded quasi government institutions have been bailed out by U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $170 billion, which may reach $240 billion by 2014.

What put members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into apoplexy was the obscene compensation of the two CEOs: Total compensation for the top six executives at Fannie and Freddie for 2009 and 2010 was $35.4 million, with Williams and Haldeman receiving half of that. Each could take home as much as $6 million apiece in salary and bonuses in 2011.

THE GOOD:
Courage and Perseverance: Michael Woodford
Michael Woodford was raised in poverty by a single mom in Liverpool, a high school drop-out, a camera salesman, and then at age 30 took over KeyMed’s European camera division. However, his biggest coup was becoming CEO of Japanese Camera manufacturer Olympus. Having a white British dude heading a Japanese conglomerate was unheard of.

Still new in the job, Woodford (51) caused a firestorm of media attention when he was sacked in early 2011 by Olympus’ board of directors.

His crime?

Exposing $1.7 billion in accounting irregularities. The Board was so pissed off with Woodford that it put him on a bus to the airport.

But Woodford is not just smart and competent, he’s also tough as nails. One of the outcomes of the ensuing investigations into the accounting debacle was the firing of the chairman of the board (who had hired Woodford), along with two senior executives. Watch this short media interview with Woodford from last November.

Woodford described Olympus’ corporate culture as an “emperor system” and a “regime.” But he wants his old job back, and his perseverance is admirable considering he’s living and working in an ancient culture that has ingrained practices and beliefs. As he stated, “I know what Olympus needs to be radically more profitable and successful.”

This Dude Loves Cars: Chrysler’s Tenacious Sergio Marchionne
If there were ever a basket case of an automotive company it was Chrysler. It was one thing for the U.S. and Canadian governments to bail out General Motors; however, Chrysler was in such desperate shape (financially, collapsing market share and horrible product quality) that government CPR seemed to be grossly irresponsible.

Then an Italian-Canadian rode in on his steed, a chain-smoking, no bullshit, exceptionally bright business man. Sergio Marchionne, boss of Chrysler, Fiat and Fiat Industrial, does not fit your stereotypical CEO. This guy loves fast cars, gadgets and big challenges. He knows how to align and lead people, fires managers who aren’t performing and fully dedicates himself to a cause – in this case, saving Chrysler from the joining the dust heap of past automotive failures.

While Chrysler still has a long road ahead of it, especially with mounting global competition from hungry new players, Marchionne’s extraordinary hard work and focused leadership has produced unexpected results: 23% increase (3rd quarter 2011) in Chrysler, Dodge, Ram and Jeep sales. Total sales for 2011 are forecasted to hit $55 billion. Contrast this rosy scene with 2009, when Chrysler was hemorrhaging $1 billion a month.

In Memory of the Greenest CEO on the Planet
I decided to include one more Good CEO of 2011as a way to express my respect. His recent passing was a huge loss for the corporate world.

This extraordinary CEO was Ray Anderson of Interface Inc. Unfortunately, Anderson died from cancer in August 2011. Ray Anderson died from cancer in August, 2011, at age 77. Click here to read one of my posts on Anderson.

Anderson worked relentlessly over two decades to transform Atlanta-based Interface Inc. (a global flooring manufacturer) to become a zero carbon footprint company. In other words, he wanted Interface to exert zero negative impact on Planet Earth. A key part of his journey was to constantly articulate his vision to employees and to ensure that they shared and embraced it. His leadership was exceptional and visionary.

THE GOOD for 2012?
I want to take a moment to peer into the unknowns of 2012 and suggest a potential “Good” CEO.

Newly appointed Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Bob Paulson is a possible 2012 candidate for the “Good.” Paulson has an enormous challenge ahead of him, noting in a late December 20 interview with the Globe & Mail’s editorial board, when asked about whether the public trust has been violated: “I tell you, one day, there is going to be the removal of the Stetson if we don’t get this straight. We’ve got to get onto this. This is urgent.”

Canada’s iconic national police force, the RCMP, has been rocked from scandal to scandal, an unbelievable array of incompetence, corruption and abuse. The latest was the revelations of systemic sexual harassment which hit the media big time in the fall. Paulson’s top priority is to correct this sordid problem, among many other issues.

Time will tell, but perhaps the RCMP has finally “got their man” in the name of Bob Paulson. Stay tuned.

Let’s now take a look at what corporate CEOs can learn from Peter Senge. I’d like to suggest that those leading public sector institutions would do well to listen to what Senge has to say. And more broadly all of us, regardless of our position in an organization, have much to learn from Senge.

I’m drawing Peter Senge’s Seven Learning Disabilities from his seminal management book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Released in 1990, The Fifth Discipline has not only retained its relevance to the challenges facing organizations in a globalized, volatile world, but I believe its content and key messages are even more important today.

The 7 Learning Disabilities

7. The Myth of the Management Team. This reflects the desire for management to appear as a cohesive group that is pulling in the same direction. The reality is that in most management “teams” the need to uphold their image means that dissent is frowned upon and that joint decisions are “watered-down compromises.” As Harvard’s Chris Argyris Chris Argyris has discovered through his research (and referred to frequently by Senge), most organizations reward those who promote senior management’s views. Those who pose probing questions or who ‘rock the boat’ are penalized.

Reflect on each of these learning disabilities in the context of your own leadership and work environment. If you have time, think about how they relate to the monumental errors perpetrated by a large cast of CEOs. For example, what could Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie have done differently in how they managed and led RIM?

What could CEOs learn from former Olympus CEO Michael Woodford?

Take a moment to watch this short interview with Ray Anderson from three years ago, where he talks about his leadership journey in sustainability practices.

Yes, there’s a distinction between committing stupid mistakes and ethical lapses and crimes. However, there’s indeed a strong learning element embedded within all of these types of leadership miscalculations and mistakes. They can generally be traced back to the 7 learning disabilities, perhaps with the exception of truly sociopathic CEOs.

Suggestion: Hold a lunch and learn in your organization, at which you’d talk about Senge’s 7 Learning Disabilities and your group’s experiences in the workplace and community.

Senge’s seven learning disabilities may be seen as a framework, from which people – not organizations – can start to learn from their mistakes and to cease their perpetual repetition. And the first ones in line to reap the benefits should be those leading organizations.