WEEKLY WAITE-O-GRAM (RELEASE 55.0)

SIMPLE BEATS COMPLEX... EVERY TIME

From a pure communications perspective, the recent debate and vote regarding Palestine's status at the United Nations was very instructive. If one can put aside personal emotions and beliefs regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations (which, granted, is almost impossible for most of us to do), the lesson I took away was that the Palestinians went with a very simple message and drove it home effectively, while Israel and its allies, specifically the US and Canada, had a much more nuanced and complicated argument... one that mostly fell flat with the media and other stakeholders. The Palestinians stressed the "fairness" of their position and the incremental nature of their ask; Israel, the US and Canada needed to move the conversation beyond the simple granting (or not granting) of enhanced status to a discussion of what it might mean to the peace process. At the end of the day, the simple message resonated; the complicated message did not. For better or worse, by the way, this is nearly always the case.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PALESTINE, EITHER

I thought twice about even commenting on the communications issues surrounding the UN vote. This despite it being the top news event of the week.  A few years ago I attended a "Second City" review in Toronto. One of the sketches was called "We're Not Talking About Israel". And basically that was the point of the sketch - talking about Israel was not something you could comfortably do in North America... any more than talking about Tibet would be welcome in China. An extreme posture? Sure - "Second City" takes everything to the extreme; that is the essence of their brand of satire. I worked for two staunchly pro-Israel Senators (Ed Brooke and Bob Dole) and one staunchly pro-Israel President (Ronald Reagan); I have personally visited Israel and seen what has been accomplished; and I have family members who are Jewish. One would think it would be fair game to comment- as a professional-  on what looked like a pretty botched communications strategy. We shall see. But were I advising Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Baird and Ms. Clinton... I would suggest they either need better messaging... or a better strategy.

LINCOLN FINDS HIS VOICE

For those who haven't yet seen Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln", with Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role, you are in for a treat. And for those of you who think about communications for a living (or as a component of your job as a manager), it is a revelation. Based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals", the film focuses specifically on Lincoln's efforts to get the US House of Representatives to pass the 13th amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude. While we do not have any recordings of Lincoln's speaking voice, there are sufficient first-hand accounts to tell us he did not sound like Raymond Massey (or even Hal Holbrooke). Indeed, according to those accounts, he sounded like Daniel Day-Lewis... at least when Day-Lewis is trying to sound like Lincoln. And that's what is so seductive about this movie - Day-Lewis not only inhabits Lincoln... he disappears entirely into the character. And he reminds us of Lincoln's genius with both the written and spoken word. There are, of course, his great set-piece orations - the Second Inaugural Address; the Gettysburg Address (quoted to him by two young soldiers from memory). But Lincoln was equally compelling and persuasive in conversation, making his case simply when he could... or by the use of instructive stories when he needed a softer, more elliptical format to make his point. Interestingly, he did this all without the help of press aides, speech writers, spin masters or media advisers. 

FIVE THINGS CANADIANS DON'T GET ABOUT AMERICANS

One of the stranger aspects of being a dual citizen and floating frequently back and forth across the border is that people on both sides...often ask you to comment on the other... or express an opinion about the US or Canada.  I am not exactly sure why I am a target of these pronouncements... nor am I very good at responding to them. But I have informally kept track of the more common comments, questions or assertions over the years.  This week I will give you the Five Things Canadians Don't Get About Americans". (Next week I'll go the other way - the Five Things Americans Don't Get About Canadians). Here goes (in no particular order):

1. THE FEAR OF ENDING THE DOLLAR BILL - Canadians chucked the dollar bill years ago; they later did away with the paper two-dollar bill. The Loonie and Toonie, as they are called, are popular and because they don't wear out, they save billions. So Canadians scratch their heads and wonder what's the big deal?

2. ICE HOCKEY IN PHOENIX, NASHVILLE AND POINTS SOUTH -  Canadians like to visit warm places, but they don't expect to watch a hockey game there. Nor do they expect anyone else to. If there is a most hated man in Canada, it is NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman for his southern expansion strategy (and player lockout). Everybody in Canada knows that the NHL should move those southern teams to where they belong - Quebec City; Hamilton; and Moose Jaw! 

3. THE US DEFENSE BUDGET - Sure, the US helped win two World Wars and outlasted the Soviets during the Cold War - but does any nation need to outspend the next eight combined? The only rationale Canadians can think of is that those aliens at Roswell left a message that they're coming back... and we'd better be ready. Or George Lucas is planning another Star Wars sequel.

4. REFUSAL TO ADOPT THE METRIC SYSTEM - This is a kind of cousin to the refusal to convert paper currency to coin. Jimmy Carter talked about doing it...and we all know what happened to him. Canadians made the switch years ago, joining virtually every other country in the world. They wonder if the fact the system originated in France might have doomed it. Or just that it is more logical, easier to use and precise.

5. LOVE OF SATURDAY POSTAL DELIVERY - Again, the Canadians gave this up in the 1970's - Americans seem to think the Republic will fall if the postman doesn't at least ring once on Saturdays. Of course the Republic might fall instead from the billions the US Postal Service loses annually...but that's apparently neither here... nor there.

HEIR TODAY... STAMP TOMORROW?

It has been reported by Buckingham Palace that Prince William and Kate Middleton are expecting their first child. Considering the fact that their Royal Wedding provided Canada Post with one of its more popular (and profitable) stamp issues in history... can a crown prince or princess stamp possibly be in the works? Better still, perhaps they could come to Canada for the blessed event...giving the child dual citizenship...and an opportunity to compile his or her own list of "Five Things Canadians Don't Get About the Brits". Stay tuned...

AND FINALLY...

Employee engagement guru John Stanek, ever the wit, offers that it is perhaps time for Generals - US and Canadian - to stop taking orders from their privates.

( The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, who is responsible for any errors, omissions or typos. To get the most out of this communications vehicle, imagine the writer speaks like Daniel Day-Lewis... inhabiting Robin Williams.)   

WEEKLY WAITE-O-GRAM (RELEASE 54.0)

BLACK FRIDAY BACKSLIDING

With America's Black Friday creeping up to mid-day Thursday...and rapidly becoming a fixture on the Canadian retail calendar...it is perhaps time for the US to rethink Thanksgiving altogether. Let's face it, the current date (the fourth Thursday in November) wasn't selected until 1939, by FDR. Thanksgiving previously had been observed on the last Thursday of the month... but in some years, like 1939 and 2012, November has five Thursdays. With the country still suffering the effects of the Great Depression, Roosevelt decided to move the holiday up by a week to help out US merchants. In retrospect, Roosevelt was far too timid. He should have moved Thanksgiving all the way back to the second Monday in October... like the ever-clever Canadians subsequently did.       

GOODBYE COLUMBUS?

When you think about it, US Thanksgiving's timing makes no sense. First of all, it is on a Thursday. Any sensible holiday should be on a Monday. Second, Thanksgiving is supposed to be a Harvest Festival. The only things being harvested in late November are hot house tomatoes-- and, seriously, are you really grateful to the All Mighty for those? Third, eating two gigantic feasts, Thanksgiving and Christmas, so close together probably accounts for the American obesity rate being 41% higher than that of Canada. Fourth, the weather in late November is often dicey...not to mention icy. You may start out going over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house...but you'll likely end up in a snowbank. This is not to say there would be no downside. Columbus Day would likely have to go. Or perhaps be merged - Thanksgivingbus anyone?    

NOT TO MENTION 'GRANDMA GOT RUN OVER BY A REINDEER'

But think of the upside! US retailers would go into the black by mid-October... instead of late November. Electric utilities would experience a surge in usage six weeks earlier to power outdoor decorative lighting...leading to more clean coal and nuclear projects. Congress would have more time to deal with the Fiscal Cliff. And, best of all, we'd be surrounded everywhere we go for an extra six weeks with the sounds of Alvin and the Chipmunks... singing "The Christmas Song". In short, the Great Recession would end... the deficit would evaporate...and social security and medicare would be saved. Who knows, maybe this was the very economic plan Romney refused to divulge...until after the election.

MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN WALTER ISAACSON?

A good deal of my work over the past several decades has revolved around the broad topic of reputation. Corporations, educational institutions, governments, individual leaders...all have a brand tied to their ability to deliver on what they promise with integrity. Reputation is like an exotic, delicate plant... it can take years to cultivate, but be destroyed overnight by a hard freeze (or a careless indiscretion). All of this came to mind with the recent Petraeus affair. As a West Point Grad and a General in the US Army, Petraeus was subject to a strict code of conduct. But even putting that aside, it is hard to imagine he wasn't given the same warning by his communications staff...that virtually all of us give to our clients and superiors - "Would you want your mother to read about this on the front page of the New York Times (or the Globe & Mail)?"  Perhaps because many of my clients have gotten older (and no longer have mothers... or have mothers who can read even the large-type edition of the Times), I have taken to putting the same point...in a different way. "What is it that you'd like to see in the first two paragraphs of your obituary?", I ask. Which is basically asking them how they'd like to be remembered - the legacy issue that has obsessed leaders throughout the ages. At the moment, the best General Petraeus can hope for is that he lives a very long time...and does some very noble things...circumstances that might... just might... push Paula Broadwell into the third paragraph.

SPEAKING OF REPUTATION...

I had the great pleasure recently of attending a ceremony honoring Moya Greene, former head of Canada Post and current CEO of Royal Mail Group in the UK. Moya, a former colleague at CIBC and my boss for almost six years at Canada Post, was being presented with the 2012 Hennick Medal for Career Achievement by York University. The award is presented annually to a "distinguished leader who has earned international recognition in the business and legal communities." Moya, who is a graduate of York's Osgoode Hall Law School, is certainly deserving. She was a tenacious and focused leader at Canada Post, tireless in her efforts to engage employees and deliver superior results on behalf of customers. Running a postal organization might be the single toughest CEO job in the world (although running a public university might finish a close second.)  The fact that Moya has gone on to the Royal Mail speaks to her reputation...and the fact that she was recently able to eek out a profit at a time when the US Postal Service was dropping a cool $15 billion...speaks volumes (in a time of shrinking letter mail volumes).  So well done, Moya... not at all bad for the first non-Brit (and non-male) to run the Royal Mail in its 300+ year history.

MAYBE YOU CAN WIN TWICE?

Moya got a laugh when she opened her acceptance remarks by saying, "When I was notified, I thought, 'but wait... I'm too YOUNG to win a Career Achievement Award!' ". And she might have a point. In her mid-50's...and having a track record of successful stints behind her, Moya may well have greater accomplishments ahead. But my advice is always "grab the hardware and run!"

PUTTING A STAMP ON A GREAT MAN

As Chair of the Canadian Stamp Advisory Committee, the folks who recommend stamp subjects and designs, I occasionally get to take part in special ceremonies around the introduction of a stamp. That was certainly the case this past week, when I got to participate in an event at the Canadian War Museum honoring Raoul Wallenberg, who will appear on a Canadian stamp in January.  Wallenberg, it will be recalled, was the Swedish businessman turned diplomat who was personally responsible for saving tens of thousands of Jews in war-time Hungary. He was captured by the Soviets and disappeared into the Gulog...his final fate unknown to this day. Canada some years ago made Wallenberg an honorary citizen... in the hope that the Russians would pursue the matter. They didn't (and still haven't). As 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Wallenberg's birth, it seemed  fitting to honor his heroic efforts with a stamp. In addition to the Swedish and Israeli ambassadors and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney, representing Canada, the event was graced with the presence of Louise von Dardel, Raoul Wallenberg's neice. She helped with the "unofficial" unveiling of the stamp...and pronounced it very much to her liking.

TOUGH WORLD FOR TODAY'S GRADS

Our son Joseph today headed out for Washington, D.C., to take up a five-week internship at a policy center during a break between semesters. The opportunity is a good one and we are grateful that he's getting the opportunity. But, like many internships today, it is unpaid. When I was at university I returned home each summer to paid jobs, the first at a local seaside beach; the second at a local chain of newspapers. In each instance I was paid - indeed, I was paid enough (and university was that much more affordable) that I was able to cover off fully half my annual school fees. At the time, I of course thought I was underpaid...but today I realise just how lucky I was. So while I don't worry so much about my son specifically - we put long ago money aside for these types of things and he'll be staying with family friends in Washington, keeping his expenses low- I do think about kids like myself 35 or so years ago, who needed to make money summers to stay in school. Unpaid internships seem yet another subtle instance in today's world where the less affluent... potentially lose out. For a non-profit, it probably makes good sense. But I wonder if for-profit enterprises that offer only unpaid internships have thought about the potential reputational fall-out.

(The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, who is responsible for any errors, omissions, typos or references to chipmunks, living or dead. The Waite-O-Gram may be cascaded, forwarded or disseminated by post. If mailing, please use twice the normal postage - it won't get there any faster, but it will do wonders for their bottom line.)       

Would Mitt or Obama Make the Better CEO?

With the coming election less than four weeks away, let's pretend the United States is a large national company, and, putting politics and policy aside, let's look at the two candidates in the same way executive recruiters do when searching for top talent for client companies. In our case, as a global firm headquartered in Canada, we can do this with the distinct advantage of being at some distance from the fray.

In our business, the client in a chief executive search is typically the board of directors. In this case, the board of directors of America Co. is the US electorate.

Through the head-hunter's prism, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bring to the table very different pros and cons. Business and politics are different in many, many respects. However, a chief executive and a President share certain attributes to be successful.

Those attributes include the ability to lead others and the intestinal fortitude needed to make tough, sometimes unpopular, decisions.

Good CEOs (and Presidents) succeed by drawing upon relevant experience, exercising honed technical skills and exhibiting a personality that ignites passion and motivation in others. One quick caveat to this analysis: Although we are presenting the candidates to the board of directors of fictional America Co., under normal circumstances we would have executed exhaustive pre-search due diligence and extensive research before coming up with at least three -- not two -- candidates.

In American politics, this stage is called "the Primaries." One could argue that the major parties might well gain better results from an executive search at this stage -- a modern "smoke-filled room" approach (but without the smoke).

Often the initial list of CEO prospects exceeds 100 before we start paring it down to the truly excellent candidates. In this case, the client demands different skills at different times. The need to adapt to the times is similar to business, with perhaps shorter time frames. For example, America Co. demanded the skills of a Dwight David Eisenhower at one time; and then, shortly thereafter, it wanted the very different abilities of a John F. Kennedy. This is not unlike Ford Motor Company, which looked to Bill Ford to steer the iconic auto company during one period, but soon called upon a very different type of CEO, Alan Mulally, to take the helm when circumstances demanded.

THE QUALIFICATIONS

Today the board of directors of America Co. demands a leader, or CEO, with:

-- Strong and impeccable ethics;
- A defined and unwavering vision of the country to allow the formulation and implementation of policy that spurs economic growth and, most particularly, job creation;
- The capability to reach out to others to form strategic alliances and coalitions;
- An ability to enhance company morale.

THE CANDIDATES

Through the eyes of executive recruiters, who best fits the bill? Let's take a look at what each brings to the table:

Barack Obama, while decidedly light in terms of work experience prior to 2008, obviously can now list almost four years of presidential incumbency to add to his brief period as a United States Senator. But while four years of incumbency would seem the ultimate resume-builder, perceptions around performance matters, as one-term Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush can attest to.

Obama's strengths include superb set-piece oratorical skills; the ability to attract and assemble a competent team, including the successful integration of a former rival, Hillary Clinton, into his Cabinet; a strong ethical foundation; and decisiveness in the projection of US military strength in the role of Commander in Chief.

Under "significant accomplishments" he can list the demise of Osama bin Laden; passage of a health care bill; passage of a financial services reform act; executive action abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the granting of legal status to individuals parented by non-citizens, but born in the US. (He also claims to have saved the US and world economies from complete collapse, but provided insufficient evidence for us to definitively assess this.)

Obama's weaknesses include a projection of detachment and passivity that sometimes comes across as Spock-like (the Vulcan, not the pediatrician); a seeming disdain for those he considers intellectually inferior; a track record of inability to build coalitions or strategic partnerships with those outside his own party; a deteriorating balance sheet; and the lack of a clear narrative as to where he might take the country if given a second term. Under his watch company morale is low, although most of his references describe him as "likable" (or at least "likeable enough").

Mitt Romney has extensive previous work experience, including stints as CEO at Bain and the 2002 Winter Olympic Organizing Committee. Given that the US presidency is an executive branch position, his experience as governor of Massachusetts is highly relevant. The fact that he has been running virtually non-stop since 2007 means he is fully vetted regarding past ethical lapses, of which he apparently has none that are serious (save those of the canine variety).

Romney's strengths include a track record of reaching across the aisle in an overwhelming Democratic state to pass significant health care legislation and wipe out a $3 billion deficit (although reference check with Massachusetts Democrats weakened this claim somewhat); Impressive turn-around experience, both at Bain (the parent company was struggling mightily in 1991 and he took on both CEO jobs for Bain and Bain Capital) and the Salt Lake City Olympics, which looked headed for disaster until he came aboard; strong analytic skills, which he marshals well in presentations or debates; the ability to make difficult and controversial decisions when facts warranted, as demonstrated at Bain Capital; the ability to present a positive vision that includes job creation and economic growth.

Romney, like Obama, also has a myriad of weaknesses. He often seems wooden and stiff and is apparently allergic to delivering stirring rhetoric; his views on many issues, including abortion, gay rights and even his own health care bill, seem to shift-shape like snow drifts in a Saskatchewan blizzard; he comes across as lacking sensitivity regarding the plight of those who lie outside his socio-economic comfort zone; and, while he does have a plan in terms of job-creation and deficit-reduction, an examination of the specifics leads to the conclusion that at some point he will have to rely on extraordinary external circumstances or blind luck (known in business forecasting circles as the "then, we add pixie dust" factor) to actually make the numbers work. When asked about Romney, his references say "Which one?"

RECOMMENDATIONS

After reviewing the candidates' strengths and weaknesses, we would recommend deferring the hiring of America Co.'s next CEO. During this period, the board should commission a detailed and comprehensive search to scour the country for other, potentially stronger candidates.

Extensive search, anchored in research, always optimizes the quality of candidates by locating and recruiting candidates who may not be actively looking for a change of mandate but in the end could be the ideal CEO for the job. Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton come to mind.

WEIGHTING THE CANDIDATES AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS STARTS WITH THE BASIC RESUMES:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA BORN: Honolulu, Hawaii August 4, 1961 EDUCATION: Columbia College B.A. 1983, Harvard Law School, J.D. (magna cum laude) 1991 CAREER: Community Organizer, Chicago, 1985 - 1988; Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School, 1996 - 2004; Illinois State Senator, 1997 - 2004; United States Senator, 2005 - 2008; President, 2009 - OTHER: Nobel Peace Prize, 2009

WILLARD MITT ROMNEY BORN: Detroit, Michigan March 12, 1947 EDUCATION: Brigham Young University, BA 1971; Harvard University MBA, JD (cum laude) 1975 CAREER: Missionary, 1966 - 1968; Boston Consulting Group, 1975 - 1977; Bain & Company 1977 - 1984; Co-Founder, Bain Capital, 1984 - 1999 (also CEO, Bain & Company, from 1991); Republican nominee, United States Senate, 1994 (defeated by Ted Kennedy); President and CEO, Salt Lake City Olympics, 1999 - 2002; Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2003 - 2007; Republican Nominee, President, 2012 OTHER: Baker Scholar, 1975

WEEKLY WAITE-O-GRAM (REL. 53.0)

IT’S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

Now that the dust has begun to settle on the US election, it is increasingly clear that the Republican Party needs to move beyond its aging, sagging and shrinking base – white males – if it is to ever again win nationally. Hispanics and Asian-Americans are two of the fastest-growing segments of the American electorate, yet, putting aside courting Cuban-Americans in Florida, the GOP has done little to connect with these voters. This has led to the loss of once-reliable states like New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. Left unchecked, even rock-ribbed Republican states like Arizona and Texas could tumble into the arms of the Democrats.

TAKE A PAGE FROM THE CONSERVATIVE PLAYBOOK

As Republicans regroup, they would do well to look north of the border, to their ideological cousins, the Conservative Party of Canada. Much of the credit for moving the Tories from minority status to majority government stems from a conscious strategy from 2004 onwards to reach out to key immigrant and ethic blocs, including South and East Asians. Recent immigrants for generations had been the almost exclusive constituency of the Liberal Party, to the point that the Conservatives essentially gave up trying. Today, thanks to the tireless efforts of Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the active support of Stephen Harper, the Conservatives now attract significant support from the Indo-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, Korean-Canadians and Filipino-Canadians, among others. That support has translated into seats in Parliament. The GOP would do well to borrow the Conservative playbook – or draft Mr. Kenney!

CALL ME MAYBE

At about 6 PM on American Election Day I received a frantic call from my California-dwelling daughter Emily – from the voting booth! “Dad”, she whispered into her cell phone, “How should I vote on Proposition 30?” A little stunned – and not even knowing if advising a voter over the phone is legal or not – I finally whispered back “Vote Yes on 30. It raises taxes ¼% for education...and maybe your tuition fees at UCLA won’t go up so fast.”  She thanked me...and was gone. And I am not sure why I whispered at my end – the only set of ears in the room belonged to our yellow lab, Tashi, who has exhibited zero interest in politics or much else, excepting dinner.

PROMISES, PROMISES

Every four years, like clockwork, I get calls or e-mails from friends, family-members and colleagues in the US – folks whose politics by the way vary from far right to far left – claiming that they will DEFINITELY be moving to Canada if one or the other of the major candidates is elected.  Over the years, had all the people who told me they were coming...actually come...it would have filled a city the size of Mississauga. In reality, not a single person has made the move. Maybe they checked out our weather. Or our tax code!

BRIDGING THE GAP

The US contest of most relevance to Canadians was an initiative on the ballot in Michigan to change the state’s constitution...to force a vote on building a second bridge from Windsor to Detroit. The initiative was the brain-child of Michigan’s Matty Moroun, who owns the aging and often clogged (but highly profitable) Ambassador Bridge. Mr. Moroun, who has never met a lawyer he didn’t want to hire, cooked up the constitutional change as a way to slow up the wheels of progress. And why does all of this matter to Canadians? Windsor-Detroit is the busiest crossing in the world - $120 billion in goods pass across it annually. Ease of passage effects productivity for hundreds of Canadian companies and businesses. Mr. Moroun by the way spent $32 million of his own money trying to get his initiative passed – which it didn’t. Hopefully he won’t try to recover that loss...through higher tolls!

MONEY ON THE MOVE

While none of my friends, relatives, etc. moved to Canada after the election...quite a number have been moving their assets. November and December are typically a time of financial assessment and rebalancing anyway...but things seem to have taken on added urgency with the re-election of President Obama and the approach of the dreaded “Fiscal Cliff”.  And that’s the thing about money – it can, legally, move to where it will be most productive (or least taxed). Anyone with a good financial planner can at least explore various options. And this is of course where bureaucrats and revenue agencies often stumble. In the UK, for example, the government once decided to raise revenue by setting a top rate of 91%. All they got out of it was a pittance of revenue...a mass exodus of talented people...and the Beatles song, “Taxman”.  

AND FINALLY...

The best thing about American elections is that we have a free ring-side seat to the spectacle...without having to pay a penny of the $2 billion cost!      

WEEKLY WAITE-O-GRAM (Rel. 52.0)

NOW... WHERE WERE WE?

 It has been several weeks since the last Gram. A trip to Hawai'i created the gap, specifically to the Big Island for some needed family R & R. The trip was eventful from the start -- news of the great Japanese earthquake and tsunami reached us our second evening, when a civil defense signal interrupted radio programming as we were driving from a local restaurant to our inn. Soon afterwards the tsunami sirens began to howl...and evacuation of the coast began. Fortunately, at this point in our trip we were up at 2,500 feet, in the Hawai'ian cowboy town of Waimea. So no need to evacuate (later in the trip we camped at beach-level, which would have been a very different story). In fact, much of the island evacuated to Waimea, which created an almost festive atmosphere as the town of 4,000 temporarily quadrupled in size. Even the long line-ups the next morning at local breakfast spots were cheerfully tolerated.  

 A LITTLE LUCK... AND A LOT OF PREPARATION

Although little reported on the North American mainland... the Hawai'ian islands were significantly affected by the tsunami. A seven-foot surge hit the Big Island at approximately 3:59 AM local time and did measurable damage, especially in Kona and adjacent coastlines north and south. Several hotels, including The Four Seasons, had to close for an extensive period due to the inundation and Kona's main pier (used for cruise ship docking) was rendered so unstable as to eventually be condemned. The damage was in the hundreds of millions of dollars... but of course compared to Japan... it was nothing. Most importantly, there was no local loss of life. Hawai'ians, unlike those living in Japan, had several hours warning (people in the Sendai area of Japan had 10 - 20 minutes) and they made good use of it. Memories of deadly tsunamis in 1946 and 1964 meant that virtually every last individual moved themselves up above the island's well-marked "Tsunami Evacuation Zone".  In this case, practice made perfect -- the island had run a full-scale simulation within the past six months. As visitors, we were impressed with the efficiency of the entire exercise... and found ourselves agreeing with Hawai'ian Governor Neil Abercrombie, who said afterwards, "Folks, we dodged a bullet!"  

 LESSON FOR US ALL

Japan is a good reminder to any C-Suite executive of the importance of keeping their firms business recovery plans fresh... and investing the time and effort needed to make sure everyone understands what to do... and where to go... in the event of an emergency.  I happened to be at CIBC in 2001 at the time of 9/11. CIBC had more than 2,000 employees at One World Financial Center, just kitty-corner from the World Trade Center.  When the first tower went down... it blew out virtually every window in the CIBC building... completely gutting the central lobby and the trading floor above. But, thanks to good preparation and training (and the heroics of floor marshalls and monitors), not one CIBC employee was killed... and only eight were injured (by flying debris as they fled down the street.)  So whenever I hear someone suggest cancelling simulations or training exercises... or delaying an update to the business recovery plan.... due to recession or "lack of time"...  I say, think twice. Emergencies and disasters... probably won`t wait for a strong economy.

 A SMILE IN THE MAIL 

 Flipping through three weeks of accumulated mail when I returned to Ottawa, I came to one item, a six-page brochure, that brought an instant smile to my face. It was from Otter Bar Lodge in California, a place run by a former high school classmate of mine named Peter Sturges. The front page announced  ``Thirty Big Ones!```-- the 30th anniversary of North America`s (and probably the world`s) premier kayaking school.  The reason I smiled is that I knew the full arc of Peter`s life...and that his story provides living proof that re-invention-- even redemption-- is indeed possible. I first met Peter at a boarding school in Maine. His most notable attribute (for which he was teased incessantly) was that he did not have a stitch of clothing that did not come from Brooks Brothers. Perhaps this should have been expected from a guy who talked about his ``Uncle Doug`-- C. Douglas Dillon, the Secretary of the Treasury under John F. Kennedy. The school we attended...was ruled by a Headmaster, Claude Allen, who was determined to take boys of high promise...but dubious achievement... and forge them into ``successful`` young men. In retrospect, he was something of a cross between General George Patton... and Nurse Rached. Which apparently worked for some... but not so much for Peter. He was a great skier... and a great guy... but he did not burn up the academic track. Upon graduation, he ended up at the University of Denver, the great repository of independent school ``anchor men`.  In my day, people went to DU to play hockey, ski, or indulge their senses. I am pretty sure Peter never laced up skates... but I am pretty confident he covered off the other two possibilities in fine style.

RISKY BUSINESS

 Somewhere between boarding school and the end of his time at Denver... whatever family resources had been paying for Peter`s trips to Brooks Brothers... completely dried up. To his credit, Peter was never afraid of hard physical work... which was good, because of course he needed to work. And so he did... for fishing fleets off the coast of Alaska. For the uninitiated... working on the salmon or king crab fleets off the Alaska coast... make the fishermen in ``A Perfect Storm``... look like Opie in ``Andy of Maybèrry``. They are either courageous... or crazy... but very well paid.  The downside is that they also often pay for this with their lives... or their livers. Peter made very good money... but he also lived the life of too many of his fellow fishermen... which included waking up during time on shore... not quite knowing what day it was... or how he got to where he was. It was after a particularly disconcerting experience of this kind...involving a close encounter with the previous evenings` imbibements... that he decided it was time to make a major change in his life.

 TRULY BUILDING A BUSINESS FROM THE GROUND UP

 Armed with a whack of cash from his fishing endeavors... and determined to create a living on his own terms... he bought 40 acres along the picturesque, wild and scenic Salmon River in  northern California`s far north. (The land had previously been owned by a religious cult that had expected to be transported from that very spot to some sort of utopia by aliens... at a date certain in the late 1970`s. When nothing happened... the leader`s credibility... and his followers... quickly melted away.)  Peter, who loved the out-of-doors, and recognized that kayaking was an emerging activity, set about digging a suitable training pond... and building a rustic (but very comfortable) seven-bedroom, seven bathroom lodge.  That was in 1981. In the years since, thanks to unstinting attention to the quality of the product, some good marketing (much of it positive word of mouth), and in no small part to the efforts of his partner and spouse, Kristy, the Lodge and School became wildly successful. More importantly, when you visit Peter, you cannot escape the felling that he is hugely happy in what he does.

DEFINING SUCCESS 

When I think about it, Peter  may be the most ``successful`` of all of my high school classmates. This is not to take away from those who became doctors, lawyers, ad executives or actors .. or whatever... but instead reflects my appreciation for the efforts he initiated... following a life both of fleeting privilege... and youthful dissipation... to reinvent himself as a self-made man. Peter, happy 30th anniversary!  If any of you want to learn more about his place, just go to www.otterbar.com  And if you visit, don`t believe anything Peter has to say about my Odyssey!

O, OTTAWA!

 As I sit here, we still have snow on the ground in Canada`s capital (at least in piles in front our our home), even as everything was blooming in Augusta, Georgia at the Masters. I used to think that the Masters was a golf tournament... but I have come to realise, broadcast as it is in early April, the event is actually meant to be a huge taunt to all of us who live north of the Mason-Dixon line (and especially above the Canadian border).  Still, I like the Masters. It creates an irresistible illusion at a time of year -- April, the cruelest month -- when it is most needed.

 AND FINALLY...

 I have not given up on the Red Sox. But I am in great danger of losing $20 to my sister-in-law.

(The opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the writer, who is responsible for any errors, omissions or out-of-bounds comments. For any Australians, please note that I did not dwell on the fact that a Canadian has won the Masters but no Australian has yet to do so. I thought about it... but then you`d probably bring up Wimbledon... and every other tennis tournament. But not to worry...you`ll get there.)