These are interesting. We have some accountability for criminal malfeasance or breaking the letter of the rules. But no examples of just plain old "spend a bunch of money within the rules and accomplish nothing" incompetence.
I respectfully posit, Mr. Gurney [I assume it is the male editor rather than the female editor who wrote the column - oh, dear, can I legally distinguish between male and female now?], that yes, there is an element of accountability in the items that you enumerate. But.
But what? It seems to me that there is no accountability associated the "offenses" that you list unless they became in some way publicly known and/or controversial. The lesson learned is not that one should be of good behavior but rather that one should ensure that the conduct does not become public.
Now, John Tory's example of self-defenestration is a good example of him recognizing the unacceptability of his behavior but we don't seem to see any evidence of consequences being imposed by, say, a government (or similar institution) when they come upon something that is not public but is clearly unacceptable.
What would satisfy me? Well, perhaps a thunderbolt out of the blue where a government (or some such authority) would publicly discharge folks who had clearly stepped over the line but that offense was not previously known. Now, to the extent that there may be consequences, it seems to me that they are all covered by NDA's and related mutual backside covering so that no one can either know or be embarrassed. All the better to allow one to go on to subsequent employment, you know. And to "offend" once again.
Or, perhaps, someone being fired for simple inadequate performance. You know, like an NHL coach. Publicly. Humiliatingly. In the view of the world so that one can "understand" that meeting the expectations in a contract is not optional.
So a thing that I've been chewing over goes something along the lines of this: "how do you structure an organization so as to encourage/incentivize people to take risks, while also ensuring that those same people face consequences for their failures?". It actually started with Jen's column on strengths and weaknesses. I realized that an (honest to goodness) strength of politicians, governments, and institutions in Canada is avoiding consequences for failures. Like, they're really, really good at it. But they do so by being so risk averse that nothing actually gets done. It's like a play on the old construction quip of "if nobody works, then nobody gets hurt". If no one makes a decision, then no one can be held responsible it.
“the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty cancelled plans for two natural-gas power plants in the Toronto suburbs and moved them to Sarnia and Napanee “Perhaps not accountability but karma ,likely unrealized by the public. The most technically astute location for a generating station is as close to the load as possible to ensure voltage and frequency are precisely controlled. As Mississauga’s population and therefore electricity demand had increased significantly a local source of electricity was required. Didn’t happen due to Liberals ignoring technical facts to ensure they won those local ridings. My sister-in-law lives in nearby Burlington and has mentioned the increased number of brown outs in the area. Voters exchanged a relatively small generator for an unreliable electricity supply.
These stories (and Jen's recent column on complacency) remind me of something I've ranted about before, and that is that with the loss of belief in a religious system we've also lost the belief in an objective right (vs. wrong or evil) and the sense that we even need to bother with doing the right thing (because it doesn't really exist, after all).
The case of the coast guard captain I find particularly disturbing, as (I think) it should be the underlying duty of any armed forces member (whether officer or enlisted) to do the right thing regardless without waiting to get orders to do it (or regardless of what your rules of engagement are. I don't know a whole lot about the details of what happened in Rwanda, but from what little I read, it seems that rules of engagement took precedence over doing the right thing there too). I expect there may be real armed forces personnel who will disagree, as it could be problematic having forces doing their own thing which may be contrary to an overall strategy of the higher ups.
But it seems to me that this is just the other side of the coin of the reason for the judgements at Nuremberg. You may have a duty to obey orders, but your ultimate duty is as a human being. And while it may seem here that I'm ranting about the armed forces, really the argument applies to a member of any hierarchy, whether governmental or corporate.
The following comparison may seem only tangentially related, but I recall reading in a school library book the story of Flight Lieutenant David Ernest Hornell and how he and his aircrew took turns in the water because their only remaining liferaft was too small for all of them (and Hornell reportedly taking more than his share), and then some years later reading Lifeboat (or watching the Alfred Hitchcock movie, I don't recall which), which portrayed a quite different dynamic. One portrays doing the right thing even to the point of self sacrifice, the other portrays self interest only.
If you don't know the story of Hornell, it's worth looking up. He won a VC posthumously.
I also suggest that losing our corporate respect for our armed forces has both fed and been driven by the loss of belief in doing the right thing.
Mark, you write in part "... it should be the underlying duty of any armed forces member ..."
I respectfully note that the coast guard only became part of the Canadian Armed Forces a few months ago. And, that is a fiction as the coast guard is not armed so inclusion in the CAF is, what? An oxymoron?
In any event, at the time of the offense the individual was simply a civil servant who was derelict in his duty. Good that he got fired but he was not in the CAF.
Now, as to the lack of religion being an operative reason..... I respectfully submit two things. First, whether one is or is not religious should not prevent one from doing the "right thing" for many of those "right things" are clear to any sentient individual. Second, I agree that a religious base to one's life can (not always "will" but it can) assist in understanding the "right thing." At least that is my take. "Do the right thing" is a really good way of living but, if in doubt about what is right, reference to not religious dogma but to basic religious teaching in pretty much any religion can be of assistance.
Atheism doesn't take away the duty, ability, or knowledge needed to do the right thing, but it does seem as if, for many people, it does take away the motivation. This is a problem. Even if it is factually correct.
I fully agree and I noted that. I further noted that religious observations "can assist in understanding" the right things but that is not a guarantee either. The simple fact is that doing the right thing is, well, simply the right thing to do. Circular, no? But, actually quite simple. Do what you should. A variation on the golden rule, I suppose.
For me, there is zero hope the CPC will want to address accountability (beyond the ethics commish) as they are quite comfortable using the same tools the liberals use to avoid their own accountability, I think.
As I have commented before, there is little air between the Liberals and the CPC on everything when it comes to this garbage that is allowed to fester: Both centralize power in the PMO thereby transforming MP's into sock puppets incapable of doing anything because they don't want to piss off the boss.
I should think the fifth estate would be on this, but you know how it is in Ottawa. But by Jesus, they're trying!!
Laughed out loud at the "FIRE!" Comments... Then Jen saying you'd be forced to say it in French.... Hilarious because that's exactly what my smoke detectors do...
To be fair, this kind of accountability is not often a feature of most white collar work. Sales may be the one exception, where it is tough to avoid accountability for poor performance. Non-performers are often simply restructured out, or shuffled into less damaging positions.
I think we do not fire people because … we want them gone, but we don’t want them to carry a burden or stigma of some kind. It’s that niceness thing?
I have always held that pain of some sort is the only way to correct unacceptable behaviour in any area of life. It just is. It can hit the wallet or the relationship or the job, but actual, meaningful negative consequences are the only thing that enforces that concept that change is required.
These are interesting. We have some accountability for criminal malfeasance or breaking the letter of the rules. But no examples of just plain old "spend a bunch of money within the rules and accomplish nothing" incompetence.
Which explains a lot
I respectfully posit, Mr. Gurney [I assume it is the male editor rather than the female editor who wrote the column - oh, dear, can I legally distinguish between male and female now?], that yes, there is an element of accountability in the items that you enumerate. But.
But what? It seems to me that there is no accountability associated the "offenses" that you list unless they became in some way publicly known and/or controversial. The lesson learned is not that one should be of good behavior but rather that one should ensure that the conduct does not become public.
Now, John Tory's example of self-defenestration is a good example of him recognizing the unacceptability of his behavior but we don't seem to see any evidence of consequences being imposed by, say, a government (or similar institution) when they come upon something that is not public but is clearly unacceptable.
What would satisfy me? Well, perhaps a thunderbolt out of the blue where a government (or some such authority) would publicly discharge folks who had clearly stepped over the line but that offense was not previously known. Now, to the extent that there may be consequences, it seems to me that they are all covered by NDA's and related mutual backside covering so that no one can either know or be embarrassed. All the better to allow one to go on to subsequent employment, you know. And to "offend" once again.
Or, perhaps, someone being fired for simple inadequate performance. You know, like an NHL coach. Publicly. Humiliatingly. In the view of the world so that one can "understand" that meeting the expectations in a contract is not optional.
Perhaps I am simply too cynical. Or perhaps not.
So a thing that I've been chewing over goes something along the lines of this: "how do you structure an organization so as to encourage/incentivize people to take risks, while also ensuring that those same people face consequences for their failures?". It actually started with Jen's column on strengths and weaknesses. I realized that an (honest to goodness) strength of politicians, governments, and institutions in Canada is avoiding consequences for failures. Like, they're really, really good at it. But they do so by being so risk averse that nothing actually gets done. It's like a play on the old construction quip of "if nobody works, then nobody gets hurt". If no one makes a decision, then no one can be held responsible it.
We need to define "nothing gets done, expensively" as failure.
“the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty cancelled plans for two natural-gas power plants in the Toronto suburbs and moved them to Sarnia and Napanee “Perhaps not accountability but karma ,likely unrealized by the public. The most technically astute location for a generating station is as close to the load as possible to ensure voltage and frequency are precisely controlled. As Mississauga’s population and therefore electricity demand had increased significantly a local source of electricity was required. Didn’t happen due to Liberals ignoring technical facts to ensure they won those local ridings. My sister-in-law lives in nearby Burlington and has mentioned the increased number of brown outs in the area. Voters exchanged a relatively small generator for an unreliable electricity supply.
Accountability and doing the right thing
These stories (and Jen's recent column on complacency) remind me of something I've ranted about before, and that is that with the loss of belief in a religious system we've also lost the belief in an objective right (vs. wrong or evil) and the sense that we even need to bother with doing the right thing (because it doesn't really exist, after all).
The case of the coast guard captain I find particularly disturbing, as (I think) it should be the underlying duty of any armed forces member (whether officer or enlisted) to do the right thing regardless without waiting to get orders to do it (or regardless of what your rules of engagement are. I don't know a whole lot about the details of what happened in Rwanda, but from what little I read, it seems that rules of engagement took precedence over doing the right thing there too). I expect there may be real armed forces personnel who will disagree, as it could be problematic having forces doing their own thing which may be contrary to an overall strategy of the higher ups.
But it seems to me that this is just the other side of the coin of the reason for the judgements at Nuremberg. You may have a duty to obey orders, but your ultimate duty is as a human being. And while it may seem here that I'm ranting about the armed forces, really the argument applies to a member of any hierarchy, whether governmental or corporate.
The following comparison may seem only tangentially related, but I recall reading in a school library book the story of Flight Lieutenant David Ernest Hornell and how he and his aircrew took turns in the water because their only remaining liferaft was too small for all of them (and Hornell reportedly taking more than his share), and then some years later reading Lifeboat (or watching the Alfred Hitchcock movie, I don't recall which), which portrayed a quite different dynamic. One portrays doing the right thing even to the point of self sacrifice, the other portrays self interest only.
If you don't know the story of Hornell, it's worth looking up. He won a VC posthumously.
I also suggest that losing our corporate respect for our armed forces has both fed and been driven by the loss of belief in doing the right thing.
Mark, you write in part "... it should be the underlying duty of any armed forces member ..."
I respectfully note that the coast guard only became part of the Canadian Armed Forces a few months ago. And, that is a fiction as the coast guard is not armed so inclusion in the CAF is, what? An oxymoron?
In any event, at the time of the offense the individual was simply a civil servant who was derelict in his duty. Good that he got fired but he was not in the CAF.
Now, as to the lack of religion being an operative reason..... I respectfully submit two things. First, whether one is or is not religious should not prevent one from doing the "right thing" for many of those "right things" are clear to any sentient individual. Second, I agree that a religious base to one's life can (not always "will" but it can) assist in understanding the "right thing." At least that is my take. "Do the right thing" is a really good way of living but, if in doubt about what is right, reference to not religious dogma but to basic religious teaching in pretty much any religion can be of assistance.
Atheism doesn't take away the duty, ability, or knowledge needed to do the right thing, but it does seem as if, for many people, it does take away the motivation. This is a problem. Even if it is factually correct.
I fully agree and I noted that. I further noted that religious observations "can assist in understanding" the right things but that is not a guarantee either. The simple fact is that doing the right thing is, well, simply the right thing to do. Circular, no? But, actually quite simple. Do what you should. A variation on the golden rule, I suppose.
For me, there is zero hope the CPC will want to address accountability (beyond the ethics commish) as they are quite comfortable using the same tools the liberals use to avoid their own accountability, I think.
As I have commented before, there is little air between the Liberals and the CPC on everything when it comes to this garbage that is allowed to fester: Both centralize power in the PMO thereby transforming MP's into sock puppets incapable of doing anything because they don't want to piss off the boss.
I should think the fifth estate would be on this, but you know how it is in Ottawa. But by Jesus, they're trying!!
A new one today!
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/economy/article-prescribeit-axe-the-fax-executive-salary/
Fired for cause.
I'm commenting a bit late here, but I'd like to point out that professional engineering associations across Canada continue to investigate and discipline people practicing engineering. Results of discipline investigations are available to the public. For example, https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Complaints-Discipline/Discipline-Hearings-Notices
Laughed out loud at the "FIRE!" Comments... Then Jen saying you'd be forced to say it in French.... Hilarious because that's exactly what my smoke detectors do...
"Fire! Feu!"
To be fair, this kind of accountability is not often a feature of most white collar work. Sales may be the one exception, where it is tough to avoid accountability for poor performance. Non-performers are often simply restructured out, or shuffled into less damaging positions.
I think we do not fire people because … we want them gone, but we don’t want them to carry a burden or stigma of some kind. It’s that niceness thing?
I have always held that pain of some sort is the only way to correct unacceptable behaviour in any area of life. It just is. It can hit the wallet or the relationship or the job, but actual, meaningful negative consequences are the only thing that enforces that concept that change is required.
Your “donate” button does not work on an ipad