Environmental knee jerk reactions...

OK, maybe as I get older I have gotten a little more contemplative. I focus on the long term, look at all the possibilities and then try to strike a balance between some short term gains, but building towards a sustainable future. And by sustainable, I don't just mean "green" -- because the true meaning of sustainable is to "support, hold up and endure without yielding." The word was hijacked by the environmental movement and certainly has applicability. Yet in business, it has always meant making sure that the decisions that are being made will "hold up" and be relevant in the long term.

When you look at the "green" sustainability movement, I'm wondering how many of the corporate and government decisions that are being made will actually stand this test of time. Because you see, from my perspective, many of the decisions that are being made (and note this is my opinion only) with the emphasis on how much of a media splash can you get so that everyone looks with adoration on the green halo above your head.

So a few examples. Yesterday, with great fanfare the Premier of Ontario announced that beginning in July 2010 the provincial government will provide a rebate of upwards of $10000 to anyone purchasing an electric car. Yet from my perspective, although getting a great deal of media coverage, I'm thinking why? Firstly, this is obviously a rebate for those who can afford a vehicle which will cost upwards of $40K, leaving out a significant part of the population who cannot partake of the premier's generosity. However, I thought and maybe I'm naive here is that the idea was to get more vehicles off the roads, because in Toronto as well as cities around the globe do not have the infrastructure to support more vehicles. So if there are programs to buy more cars - even if environmentally friendly - that means that more roads need to be build, meaning that all those non-environmentally friendly dump trucks, bulldozers and the like need to be used, and the wonderful aromas of tar and fresh asphalt wing their way into the stratosphere.

The cost of this program is potentially of $3Billion -- so I ask myself, why wouldn't we try to put this money into public transportation systems that span effectively out to suburbs of major cities? I would love to have take the commuter trains into the city, but because of their unreliability and minimal service in my corridor, I don't.

So I'm just wondering how this "green" program is actually helping the environment.

What else? Plastic bags. Please let me start this by saying I'm in favor of bringing my own bags. This has been a standard in Europe for years and truly it only makes sense. However, the big fanfare of saving the environment because of reduced use of plastic bags? The CEO of one of the major food retailers in Canada is the TV pitch man for this firms environmental push. The stuff that they are focusing on are the easy, big media splash elements. And they are doing this while continually buying more and more of their goods from China, where environmental standards to say the least are lax and furthermore, there is a significant amount of pollution generated by the transportation of these products ( I won't get into the health aspects but I'm sure most have read about the cautionary tales about products from China). Furthermore, shouldn't they be looking at their shelves and the massive amount of unnecessary packaging that they allow their suppliers to put their products in? To "trick" consumers into thinking they are getting more bang for their buck, they put small quantities into huge boxes -- the packaging could easily be taken down in many cases by half -- that would have a significant impact on the environment. Yet this type of approach -- although long term i.e. sustainable -- would not create the type of media splash -- because it would mostly be done behind the scenes, away from the spotlight.

So when corporations and governments get on their high horse and talk about caring about the environment -- look beyond the media hype and see if they really care or are they just enjoying the photo-op.

Is it time for more entrepreneurial thinking in Procurement?

When most think about procurement (of course that assumes that some do think about it), they often perceive a group that is so focused on the savings line and therefore misses the bigger picture. Of course, for procurement, one of the key measures of success often lies in the "savings metric", but as always, be careful about what you measure because it won't necessarily drive the correct behavior.

So why not focus on more of an entrepreneurial procurement organization -- focused on top-line and the bottom-line,with more of an emphasis of providing frameworks and act as a consultant for corporations in all matters relating to procurement, and at the same time ensuring that effective partnerships are pursued with vendors (note I mean real partnerships --walking the talk, not just talking and tripping when push comes to shove), and that the innovation within that community is utilized for enhancing the overall business model for the corporation.

Depending on where you are at in procurement's evolution within your organization this may need to be done incrementally vs. in one fell swoop. The stepping stones which I see to get to entrepreneurial procurement are:

• If mostly tactical and administrative and decentralized -- focus first on centralizing and moving the team up the ladder by developing effective processes/procedures in concert with your constituency...internal and external
• Focus on understanding the business as a whole...not from your little world. Although you cannot cut lose the savings umbilical cord quite yet (as this is what binds you to the organization)...start working with your internal business partners...try to understand the business from their perspective....then develop your strategies to align with those of the business.
  
• Reach out to your suppliers...go visit them...meet with their key people, including their procurement and supply chain folk....you might find that there are some common issues/challenges which you can work on commonly. Utilize your suppliers knowledge of the marketplace as a whole...find out what innovations they see coming up in the future...how can that potentially advance your corporations competitiveness?
• When you have gained traction within the organization and a centralized model is working effectively, it is now time to decentralize (OK stop the screaming)....There is an old adage that before you can let go, you need to take control...so the first steps here are taking control...and now...when it is in the corporation's DNA to understand the procurement protocol...it is time for procurement to become more of a high level consultant to the organization...working with the internal teams to ensure that they have effective go-to-market strategies for procuring goods and services and that all options have been considered; maintaining the relationships and tapping the innovative supplier corridor; providing high level negotiation and dispute resolution skills; acting as an ombudsman(woman) for issues/challenges;....there is more but you get the idea. The senior leader of this group would be part of the executive leadership team and actively participates in corporate strategy development and discussions.

Being the police and the savings entity is not helping move procurement to the boardroom table...

Where have all the nice people gone?

I was reading the other day about Gordon Ramsay's restaurants taking a 90% profit dip....of course those of you who may not know he is the centerpiece of Hell's Kitchen TV show, where he basically behaves like a 2 year old child with a tantrum. His screaming and ranting are his signature, but what I find amazing that today we somehow have decided to idolize these mean and nasty people.

In fact, besides the usual suspects in the media -- such as Simon Cowell, Kevin O'Leary (Dragon's Den), Piers Morgan -- we have allowed this to morph over into organizational leadership too. The Globe and Mail made Hunter Harrison (CN) last year's CEO of the Year...with the moniker "hardass of the year"....sermonizing about his take no prisoner's approach. And let's face it prior to him Paul Tellier, had a similar reputation.

There are many examples of this -- when teaching a leadership course I ask participants to provide insight into the "good, bad and ugly" of leaders they have encountered. For most, it is easier to give multiple examples of the bad -- screamers, control freaks, liars etc -- then of the good. Yet one thing is constant...when they are working for good leaders -- those who are just, fair, encourage and mentor -- their productivity goes up, as does their creativity.

Perhaps it is time that we stop making folk heroes out of those who do not know how to lead and be able to provide constructive criticism to ensure that people grow and flourish. This is not Pollyanna ramblings -- I have held many leadership roles over the years and thankfully most people would chose to work with me again -- not because I created a country club atmosphere, but because I helped them develop beyond their expectations -- by being direct, honest and above all a mentor. These people delivered amazing results and although it was their work, and they were credited with it -- they made me look good -- and for that I am thankful.

Let's make heroes out of those who have emotional and social intelligence -- a return to civility -- not hailing the bullies in the backyard.

So to Gordon Ramsay lamenting the loss in profit in his restaurants -- no sympathy hear