Internal vs. External CEO's: What's the Right answer?

In a story today in the Globe and Mail, a study by the executive recruiting firm Spencer Stuart indicates that CEO's who are external hires tend to boost the market value of the company....in the first three years.

I wrote about the three-year CEO cycle on my blog last August "The Three-Year CEO Cycle...for Better or Worse". Basically I gave a compelling (at least I think so) indication that when corporations bring in outside CEO's and they stay for three years or less...then yes...the shares go up....and because of the PR spin...it seems like the corporation is doing well...Yet, time and time again, when these external CEO's stay for more than three years..the "Hawthorne effect" wears off and many corporations have seen that gutting the soul of the corporation has consequences.

When I see this kind of study, I first question the motivation. Spencer Stuart is an executive recruiting firm and as such has a vested interest in corporations hiring externally. This is not to say that their study is false in anyway...I am just pointing out a potential conflict of interest.

Secondarily, when you look at a three year cycle...it is like looking at what is to be a long term investment...say for retirement...and judging your investment solely on the last three years. If you look at mutual funds and the like...you can be misled by considering only the short term returns. A five to ten year retrospective gives you a lot more insight.

So I personally don't think that three years as a CEO enables anyone to state that external is better than internal. Personally I believe it is the quality of the leadership and that can come from within or externally.

I hope that corporations and shareholders won't be looking at this study and say, "well maybe we should consider an external hire" the first step should be to outline what the leadership qualities are and what short and long term outcomes are desired.

I am all for change and I don't think there is a good or bad approach....unless the only focus is short term shareholder value...I've seen the devastation caused by this and it is not pretty.

Kijiji and how buying and selling keep morphing...

I am moving in a couple of months and have gone to the internet to sell my excess goods. What a difference from when I moved five years ago and the real only choices you had were garage sale, charity, put a posting on a board (which for me would have been akin to putting your phone number on a bathroom wall) or just giving it away for free.

Mostly 5 years ago I did the latter and we all know that if you put things into a garage sale...well, if it has a value over $5 don't expect to sell it for anymore.

But on Kijiji and Craigslist, within a couple of weeks I have sold quite a lot of things...not anywhere near what they are worth (and don't we always think our things are worth more) but certainly I have sold many things for basically what I was asking for them....and I continue to do so. I find this process so much better than eBay, because on eBay, you pay a percentage to eBay and then you have to incorporate shipping costs -- in fact with the likes of Kijiji and Craigslist, I would suspect eBay will have its own comeuppance soon.

It made me begin to wonder about how there should be a Kijiji for corporations. Not only would it be fiscally responsible, it would also be environmentally a sound approach.

Just think about it...instead of buying all new stuff, all the time...you can scan for items at a significantly reduced cost and you just go get it. In fact, the first step would just to be able to do this within the boundaries of a corporation and then expand between corporations.

I think this could truly revolutionize how business is done...result in a more collaborative approach between entities, reduce costs and save the planet...all with one simple process.

Yes, of course there is always a downside....if "new" stuff isn't bought, then it isn't made, which results in lost jobs...but I think the upside trounces the downside.

Maybe it should be called COjiji or some such for corporations...anyway...I'm off to sell more of my personal stuff on Kijiji...but think about your organization and how much you could benefit from such an approach!

Thinking about tomorrow, today!

This is just such a great deal...let's do it now!

How many times have you heard someone say that? And yes, often it is a great deal if all you do is look at the item at hand. But what is often forgotten is the cost of consumables, services contracts etc., not necessarily by procurement folk (although under pressure to "close the deal" they may sometime capitulate) but from those who can only see two feet in front.

If you look at some of the offers held out for consumers....there is not a great deal of difference on how sales folk wave the magic wand that eliminates rational thought.

Why are printers relatively low in price? Because the cost of the ink is where the most money is made.

Why do telcos offer "free" cellphones when you lock into three years? Because that $100 that you saved (and remember that is not their cost, that is retail price...their cost for the phone is a lot less) is going to make hundreds of dollars for them in revenue.

Extended warranties to protect you? That is the biggest cash cow for many retailers and suppliers alike...

So as always, it is buyer beware. The good deal is good for today. But if you haven't calculated in the tomorrow, chances are this is a wolf in sheep's clothing deal.

Olympics and the need for input

I have been watching the Olympics...cheering my country on and I've been known to yell at the TV every once in a while. Yet I'm not going to write here about the athletes or the medals...because from my perspective any athlete who has the skill and dedication to make it to the Olympics deserves a medal.

What I'd like to address is the insular thinking that seems to have marred some aspects of the Olympics...which is in my home country and thereby causes concern.

Yes, there have been glitches and quite honestly the Olympic organizers do not control the weather...although I think given the warmest winter on record some of them might have sold their soul to be able to do so...

What irks me is some more fundamental things that quite honestly have caused me to cringe to date.

The first thing was the opening ceremonies....I like our national anthem....so why did we allow a sixteen year-old singer to make it jazzy and provide her own rendition as opposed to belting it out...strong, proud and free! This is not American Idol, where you get praised for making it your own...this is our identity...what were the organizers thinking...oh well, let's just make the anthem a little more contemporary? We will show the world ...that hey, we don't really like our anthem...we will bastardize it to show we are hip? Strike one for the organizing committee...had they spoken to any regular folk they would have been told flat out that you don't mess with the anthem...

The second thing....opening ceremonies again....every stereotype that every one in the world has about Canada was reinforced....certainly there is the historic perspective and I am a big fan of showcasing the native culture in our country....but we have a multicultural mosaic second to none in the world...we are so inclusive and proud of that and we have amazing cities to showcase...not just the wheatfields and snow...come one...first you try to make us hip with the anthem and then you make it look like we are stuck in some sort of 19th century backwater...Strike two.

Strike three is the Olympic cauldron....the Olympics are to be about inclusion and harmony. So what do they do? They put the Olympic cauldron behind a ratty chain link fence...to keep the ne'er-do-wells away....reason...because they chose to put the cauldron in an area where they media has their outlets and as such it is a security perimeter...Huh? Why would they put it there and keep the key symbol of the Olympics away from the people....and the attitude from the organizing committee has been nothing short of arrogant in this regard....somewhat of the "too bad, so sad" attitude, until today...where they realized they had a mounting public relations disaster on their hand and needed to deal with it...But once again..had they asked the general public what they would like to have access to and see (that doesn't cost anything) it would have been the flame.

In reality this is also what happens in corporations....the "group think" from senior leadership that doesn't seek input from those most impacted by potential decisions. As I noted in my previous entry about the Undercover Boss series....same thing....wow, what a difference when the CEO sees what it is like to be on the ground...

Perhaps next Olympics...the organizing committee should team up with Undercover Boss and consider themselves as tourists...as opposed to putting something together that seems to smack of insular thinking.

Undercover Boss: Mandatory Leadership Training

After seeing my team the New Orleans Saints win the Superbowl last night, I though I'd watch the new CBS show Undercover Boss. The premise of the show is that the CEO/President of a major corporation goes "undercover" to act like a new employee, doing entry level jobs, and finding out what the reality is of the "workers" and how the decisions from corporate effect the workers.

I found the show quite interesting, because in this first episode you have the President of Waste Management, Larry O'Donnell picking up garbage, cleaning toilets, sorting recycling etc. What I found amazing (and perhaps I shouldn't have) is his constant statements of (and I might be slightly paraphrasing here) "I didn't know how my decisions at head office were affecting the workers. This experience has changed me."

Good for Larry, but the issue is that had CBS not come along with this show (and let's face it, the company probably agreed to it because realistically it was one hour of free advertising for Waste Management) Larry would still be making ivory tower decisions without a thought to the ripple down effect -- and of course there is no saying how long Larry's epiphany will in fact effect corporate directives.

I have often said that if you consider an organization like a bunch of cog-wheels...if you have a big one at the top, they make what they consider a decision that in the grand scheme of things they think is small. So this "big wheel" moves one click. The couple of smaller wheels below, end up clicking twice to keep up. Now if you think of the next row of wheels...they are clicking several times...and so on. By the time you get to the bottom "little cogs" they are just spinning trying to keep up with that one, "minor" decision that the upper echelon made.

We need, as leaders, keep in mind that every day we are dealing with people's lives...and not just theirs...all the other people that depend on them in their lives....for Larry O'Donnell to say "I didn't know about how my decisions impacted the worker" is a sad testament to top leadership. He should have known, and cared. (and by the way, it was interesting that none of the workers remotely recognized him)

Now I am realistic....the CEO can't know about every person's issues...but every corporation can set up some method to get input from every level. I used to have monthly coffee meetings with a cross-section of folk who worked at all levels, just to get them comfortable with me and having the opportunity to put forward issues/concerns. Also the opportunity exists to have facilitated sessions, again with all levels, to determine how decisions are impacting them, but also get their input before you even go down that path.

Every organization will have in its mission statement something about valuing people and people are our most valuable asset. Well, most corporations don't walk that talk. When the going gets tough, they usually downsize on the people part, heap more work on those remaining, and then say, "well you should be glad you have a job!"

Wouldn't it be better to be honest with the employees in a corporation and tell them you need them to give you ideas....you need them to step up to the plate to help reduce costs or enhance efficiencies, so no one loses their job?

It might take a little longer, but the changes would be sustainable over time and the loyalty you would buy from your team would be immense. As Undercover Boss showed....the top leadership doesn't quite know what is happening downstream....it is about time for corporate leadership to step up to the plate and recognize that they aren't the only one's with ideas!

STATE OF THE UNION -- COUNTRY AND CORPORATIONS

I was struck the other day by the visible partisan split during Barack Obama's State of the Union address. And what struck me, was that this wasn't about what was good for the country...it was about self-interest.

Now please understand, I am not here to make a pronouncement on either side of the coin...Democrat or Republican. I have been around long enough to know that making a political commentary in writing has very few upsides....but what I was struck with was how the "what's in it for me" as evidenced by the clapping or lack thereof during Obama's address, is very much what we see in corporations as well.

As a consultant, I bring leading edge ideas, challenge the status quo, show clients new ways of approaching old problems and the like. But you know it wasn't like I went into some sort of self-actualized metamorphosis when I became a consultant....I was providing the same insight and approach when I was an executive in corporate. Yet, as a consultant my ideas are readily accepted by all parties, and seen as a road map for the way forward.

While in corporate, as I said, I did the same thing...and yes, often times I was able to move an agenda forward because of following the same principles as I do in consulting. But, you know, it was never as easy. Because when you are working in the corporate environment as and "employee", your ideas are taken with a grain of salt, because others may believe that you have an "agenda", not quickly obvious to them, or, worse, that by moving forward on your proposal, even though it is better for the corporation, it may put you in the limelight and potentially, from this colleague's perspective, diminish them....or they see it as turf encroachment...or...or...or....

As a consultant, you are not a threat, you don't seemingly have an agenda and as such your thoughts and ideas are more readily acceptable.

But it causes one to wonder, if individuals in corporations, as well as the government, could put their partisanship aside and agree to a go-forward strategy, putting the business or the country ahead of their own egos and agendas, how much better both the country and those corporations would be!

Change Mis-management and the NBC Fiasco

I have always been a proponent of stuff happens and as a corporation you've got to figure out how to fix it. Fixing it, however, does not mean having a heavy handed, this is the way it is approach. It is not about knee jerk reactions and it is also about getting buy-in.

Hence we get to the NBC Leno/O'Brien fiasco. Obviously NBC just came down with dictates and in the ivory tower back rooms decisions were made. Not only that, the easy decisions were made and again...although I understand the here and now of this media type of decision making, I don't believe a lot of thought was given to the demographic shifts, technology shifts etc.

You see, I like Jay Leno on at 10pm. I never watched the tonight show because quite honestly it was on too late...the time slot was great and I actually enjoyed having something on at 10pm that I could turn off if I wanted to, and made me go to sleep laughing. Yup...I'm one of those boomer types who needs my 8 hours sleep.

Yet beyond the shifts in how we lead our lives (those with young children are also often too exhausted to stay up that late) there is also the increasing use of PVRs and show "taping". So I tape all of the drama shows, watch them at convenient times and then reserve my before bed TV to light fare like Jay Leno.

And although I know I'm not alone...let me bring this whole discussion back into the realm of corporate and the mess that has been made of this.

I'm not sure what went on in the backrooms, but I have seen too much hammer-headed moves by the ivory towers when it comes to implementing change. The thought process goes only a few feet out, and the collateral implications are never considered. People are told, not consulted beforehand and as such, revolts begin, reputations damaged and businesses become unproductive because the staff are spending most of the time lamenting the change and not working with the leader or corporation to provide input, insights and assist in a proper implementation.

The whole NBC drama smacks of this type of approach. I'm sure there is a lot of hand-wringing happening, and as well I wouldn't be surprised if a few corporate scape-goats are handed their walking papers...Change can be implemented extremely effectively, but it can't be done with such little foresight, and dare I say arrogance.

So sorry Conan and sorry Jay....I won't be watching either of you (unless of course Conan...you get a 10pm time slot)

CONSTRAINING SUPPLY AS A MARKETING ADVANTAGE

Surprise ... there is enought H1N1 vaccine available to inoculate everyone. In fact there is more than enough supply...but guess what...no one is showing up anymore.

From the hours and hours line ups...vaccine inoculation centers are now shutting down, because why have a party if no one shows up?

So what changed? Surely the so-called hyped up threat of this flu didn't change...there is still a reasonable amount of fear mongering out there. But what did change is that the supply is now abundant...so the cachet of being able to say, "I got my shot even though there is hardly any out there" is gone. If everyone can have it, then it isn't special anymore.

Marketers have long known constraining supply is a great way of creating frenzy and sales. Just look at the Christmas insanity of people lining up each year for the particular "must have" toy of the season. Whether Tickle-Me-Elmo, Nintendo Wii or this year's Zhu Zhu pet....constraining supply, creates hyped up demand, and so the braggarts among us can lament about the hours spent in line, or bragging about how they got the "last one" of something.

But truly, there is a tremendous amount of manipulation that goes into this. As someone who understands demand forecasting...don't tell me that the official line of these companies "well, we didn't know how popular this would be" is true.

Think of the psychology behind this. When you go into a store and a sign says "Only 2 per customer", don't you immediately think...well this must be a great deal if I can only have 2, and so even if this item wasn't on your list, there it ends up in your cart. Or how about "Limited Time Only", or "If you buy this is the next 90 minutes, you also get this never to be repeated again deal"...of course never has a whole new definition in the marketing world.

So before you go loading up on things you don't need, understand that advertisers have psychologists on call and they are capable of manipulating you into buying things you don't even want.

And as the Borg said on Star Trek Resistance is Futile!

Single Sourcing May Kill You

I have never been a proponent of single sourcing. I also don't believe in having an endless number of suppliers for every product.

Yet what I've always strongly recommended is having a primary and a strong secondary vendor, because as seen particularly in the last year with the economic downturn, that as a buyer, you can be left swinging in the wind if you only have one supplier and that supplier goes belly up. Your business could be compromised to the point of bankruptcy.

The powers that be have always argued with me on this point. "Oh...we can get better pricing by consolidating volume! We win -- our supplier will do anything to keep the business." Well that's a nice naive thought that doesn't take into account the fact that firstly there is an a limit to volume pricing....for every 1000 let's say you add, you don't get a tremendously better deal, because there is a limit to the profit that a supplier can give up. Secondarily, you may actually get better pricing by ensuring that you continue to have some competition going on by keeping at least two suppliers in the game. And thirdly? One that the government of Canada is now seeing -- there is a tremendous risk relying on just one supplier.

In the paper today it says that Ottawa is "rethinking" their sole source to GlaxoSmithKline for the swine flu vaccine. No kidding! The inability to supply the vaccine after the federal, provincial and local governments have created a panic of "if you don't get the vaccine you will die" is almost criminal. But what is worse is the fact that bureaucrats who don't understand the implications of lack of supply and who inherently put their misguided trust into one supplier are those that gave in to the "powers that be" whom I argued with often in my career.

As I said in my previous blog....the lack of supply and quite honestly the logistics surrounding getting people vaccinated should have been put into the hands of a competent supply chain professional. By the time now that the vaccine will be available..the flu season will be mostly spent...I for one am not getting the vaccine, because I also have never bought into the Chicken Littles out there...and I used to work for a vaccine manufacturer!

Swine Flu and Supply Chain

Quite honestly, I never thought that I would be referencing these two items in the same blog, but as the disaster of the logistics surrounding the distribution of the swine flu vaccine escalate, it begs the question...where is any thinking surrounding supply, demand and distribution.

In Toronto, people have lined up for upwards of 6 hours, just to get the swine flu shot. No opportunity to book times, just show up like for rock concert tickets and good luck. Beyond the fact that most of those in these lines will probably get sick with the flu now given the cesspool of germs that they were inhaling along with hundred of other people -- because let's not forget that it takes 10 days for the vaccine to be effective -- it seems to me to be an unconscionable that this could not have been organized better.

I mean it is not a surprise...this has been in the planning for months. And now when enough vaccine was going to be delivered next week, all of a sudden there are only 1/4 of the expected amount being made available, because, we are told, of the manufacturers shortage. Makes you wonder who paid more for the vaccine so it is getting delivered elsewhere first.

If there was a logistics expert hired to manage this process, this whole fiasco wouldn't have happened. Would there have been unexpected issues? Sure, but there always are. However, if you are an expert in supply chain and deal with these types of logistical issues day to day -- you can figure out better options pretty quickly.

So yes, the swine flu vaccine situation is a supply chain issue. Hopefully at one point in time, those in charge will see that and get the proper assistance.

The 5% solution

The Ontario Government is struggling with a 24 Billion dollar deficit...and they are looking at a 5% solution for cutbacks, but are not quite sure how to attain this.

Having worked in the public sector at one time and knowing others who do today, I will honestly tell you that there is way more than 5% the government could be saving without affecting services.

Firstly, let's get rid of "March Madness". This is still occurring in all areas of the public service, whereby if budget monies have not been spent, there is a mad rush to do so prior to the end of the fiscal year of March 31st. I have lived this first hand, having all sorts of ludicrous purchases made just to spend the money...because if you don't spend it, you won't ever see it again...such is the mentality of many in the public sector. It would be interesting to see what would happen if starting February, all government purchases would have to be scrutinized for "worthiness" prior to purchases being made.

Secondarily, some of the processes within the government are so arduous (like issuing 164 page RFPs) that you need a small army to executive. If these were simplified, then you would be able to implement solutions faster and moreover reduce the number of personnel required....which is where most of the dollars are spent today.

But you know that this would actually require some planning and thought. Not something that is in high supply these days when dealing with politicians.

Corporate Social Responsibility

I am quoted in this article recently appearing in Inside Supply Management. The article Calculating TCO for Intangibles is interesting. I gave a lot more insight than what appears in the article, however, suffice it to say this is an important topic that requires a lot of dialogue amongst the C-suite and other levels of all organizations.

The Incredible Shrinking Customer Service

This title may not be the best grammar, but I think it brings the point across. Do you remember the 1957 movie, The Incredible Shrinking Man? The plot was that a scientist gets contaminated with radiation until basically he is microscopic. Well, that is what is happening to customer service today.

As corporations put millions of dollars into marketing and saying how they are the best, the have chosen to forget about the fundamentals, which is after the flash causes the buy, then the crash can cause the burn. That is, once you buy, what is important is after sales service and particularly how a firm deals with an issue.

I have always, in my corporate and private buying roles said, every supplier will encounter issues...so I never judge them on that, but on how they deal with it and how they move forward to resolve it and ensure it doesn't happen again.

You would figure in these recessionary times there would be a significant focus on maintaining your current client base -- that is keeping your clients "happy". Yet it seems in many cases the opposite is true...once the sale is made, damn the torpedoes, there off to the next potential victim.

This last weekend on a personal note, I've had two extremes...the good, followed by the ugly/bad. Yet even though this is a personal anecdote, this is also highly applicable in business to business transactions.

First, the good. I have been looking to buy appliances for quite a while and although I had always bought them previously from a major retailer, I chose to go to a appliance distributor. They have ads on the radio and I started going there about 6 months ago, trying to find the right 3 appliances -- issue was space. Well, over 6 months, dealt with the same sales person, and finally this last weekend I made the buy. At this point the sales rep, gave me the name of the installer this distributor uses, and said to save money go direct to him. (and he is the best) He also asked that I call him when I am told that the appliances are ready for delivery and he will coordinate drop off, pick up etc. He also said anytime if I have a question or issue to call him, because he would hope that he'll get referral business...well you can bet he will.

Second, bought some new light fixtures for outside the house. When the electrician was here..it became obvious the fixtures were manufactured crooked. The electrician and I went to the store (he had recommended this store) and they said well the others are a little crooked but perhaps good enough...no way ..said I. So I bought two others, slightly more expensive, but a known brand. To compensate for the issue, they gave me two tiny chandelier bulbs, which are too small for the fixture. Well got them back to the house...the first one was OK, the second, not so much. So the electrician went back, got a new one, and suggested they give me light bulbs for free that would properly show in the fixture...you know what they said to him...sorry, that will cost us $7 so we aren't going to do it....they didn't care that the electrician lost time, spent gas etc. and as well my day was shot...for $7...so do you think that I will be recommending this lighting store...no, in fact I will be trashing them at every opportunity.

I have many other examples, and it seems recently things have gotten worse. If it keeps going like this, we will have to chase customer service into the next dimension, because just like the incredible shrinking man, customer service is soon to be microscopic in many organizations.

Good Consultants Vs. Bad

Ok, it might seem a little odd for me, a consultant, to be writing a blog on how to procure consultants, but let's not forget that my specialty is in procurement and consultant and contract labor spend is often a major category for most public and private sector companies, except most often, there are no controls, consistent processes, or benchmarks surrounding pricing/disbursements. Furthermore, everyone knows someone who is in the "body shop" or consulting business.

So it is very difficult for organizations to actually know the value of the spend, because there is so much leakage surrounding it. And furthermore, often, during the contracting phase, the issue of disbursements is often overlooked. If you read the headlines in the newspapers, this is often what gets press.

I am getting a little tired of consultants taking the bashing for poor procurement practices...such as the media reports at eHealth and now Cancer Care. Interestingly at no time has anyone said that the consultants haven't done their work. The issue mostly is how the contracts were awarded, the pay rates and the disbursements (or in other words expenses).

Now personally, when I do a contract for a client, unless I have to travel outside of a 60 KM radius, I don't charge mileage; I certainly don't charge for meals (I have to eat anyway); and lord knows, I'd never even think of billing the client for coffee. The only extraneous expense that I charge is parking -- because that is directly related to the client and in a major metropolis it can get quite expensive. And as an independent (highly skilled I might add), I don't charge what other independents do nor big firms...because I recognize I don't have overhead like the latter do. Why the former charge $3K plus rates, who knows.

So how do you procure consultants...Firstly, you don't need to tender everything, particularly if it is a smaller project and you need specific expertise. But what you do need to do is ask for a proposal that outlines approach and expected deliverables. You should know what the market pricing is, and you need to have a clear understanding of the costs of disbursements...don't pay for meals, mileage and the like...because this is a boondoggle. Make sure as well that any travel outside a specified area follows your corporate guidelines....not theirs.

I'll spec out full disclosure below, but this needs to be identified for any sole source arrangement. Also there should be some documentation that supports why this individual/company has the skill set required and why a tender was not required.

Make sure that there is a hold-back of 15 to 20% which will only be paid at finalization of contract. Oh and this brings me to another point. If you actually have a pretty clear project scope, have the consultant bill you on a fixed price vs. per diem base. Most consultants can pretty much figure out what a project will cost, and it will save you from having to pay for non-productive time.

If it is a larger project, of course you need to tender, but make sure there is no pre-conceived thought as to who to award it to...as my previous blog said, don't tender for the sake of tendering. Make sure that all conflicts of interest are clearly stated up front...that is has this person/company worked for you before, do you have a personal relationship with this person/company or anyone else (such as a wife/husband etc); have you ever accepted any service/good from this person/company greater than $100...well you get the idea.

I could rant on about this for a long time, but the reality is don't blame the consultants...there are always people who will try to take advantage of a situation -- but don't paint everyone with the same brush. If the appropriate procurement was done on this category...many issues could be avoided even more than those stated...because there is also risk, intellectual property, liability, not to mention what I have seen several times is that two different groups hire consultants for the same work, or a year later a consultant is brought in to do the same work someone had done before.

I'll stop now. But as you can see I could go on for a long time.

Deceit and Misdirection...the Ontario Way.

This entry is not about procurement or supply chain. It is actually about deceit and misdirection.

In today's Toronto Star, there is an article about civil servant salaries that made me believe that the current provincial mandarins should be put in the "Dr. Phil House" to understand what is meant to be truthful and above all open with the constituency it is serving -- the taxpayers.

The article, entitled Bureaucrats skirt rules to hide huge salaries speaks to salaries being paid to high ranking civil servants that are significantly outside the agreed to bandwidth for the positions that are held by these individuals. But beyond being outside the bandwidth, the government chose to pay them in a circuitous manner, not out of the budgets in the ministries for which they work, but through another almost hidden methodology, that quite honestly looks like minions skulking behind closed doors figuring out how they can pull the wool over those that the government serves.

The reason given? Well we have to be competitive to attract top talent. OK, I don't necessarily dispute this, yet there are three factors that I think are quite important to consider here.

• Firstly, if it is the case that the salaries are too low to attract "top talent", then why isn't the entire salary grid being reviewed to ensure that this is the case across the board, or is the "top talent" only those who have been deemed to be anointed by the politicos.
  
• Secondly, again, if the attraction of "top talent" is true, then why try to hide it? Why not put it out front that these people are worth the money being spent on them and they more than earn their keep? In my experience, people try to hide things that they can't defend.
• Thirdly, government workers have pensions the like of which private sector employees don't have. So, when trying to "attract top talent" isn't this a selling feature?

So perhaps we can get the Premier and all the cabinet ministers into the Dr. Phil house and see if the he can get to the underlying reasons for the intense deception that has become the norm vs. the exception in the corridors of the Ontario government.

The recent movie The Invention of Lying is probably used in training videos for the political mandarins....but they have moved well beyond the inventing stage. From what I can see they will be starring in an upcoming movie ... The Masters of Lying.