muniBLOG: Administration

You’re Getting the Behavior You Designed

The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Centralized, hierarchial organizations work about as well as the old Soviet Union. Despite all the evidence, I am still appalled by the number of variations on the centralization themes I still keep smacking into. What makes things even worse is how senior managers in these dysfunctional organizations proclaim empowerment, participation, teams, leadership, trust, and the like. Then they take partial measures while expecting total success. They liberate parts of their organizations while limiting other parts. They push hard with one foot on the accelerator while also pushing hard with their other one on the brake. Their words say “you’re empowered”. Their actions say “you’re empowered as long as you get approval first”. These dysfunctional organizations end up trying to go in two opposing directions at once. I once halted an executive retreat and everybody went home after the group of seven division presidents and corporate staff vice presidents couldn’t agree on whether their values were centralization or decentralization. Trying to do both at once was ripping the organization apart. The CEO never could decide which direction he wanted to commit to. He was eventually fired as frustrations and infighting rose while organization performance fell.

Most centralists don’t set out to deceive anybody. In their heads they know that high degrees of involvement, participation, and autonomy are key elements in high organization performance. But in their hearts, they still crave orderliness, predictability, and control. That’s why they cling to such anachronisms as strategic planning. It’s part of their futile search for a master plan that can regulate and bring a sense of order to our haphazard, unpredictable, and rapidly changing world. Our equally outdated accounting systems give centralists plenty of reinforcement. For example, hard financial measures can clearly show that consolidating and centralizing support services and functions saves money and increases efficiency — at least on paper. What don’t show up are the alienation, helplessness, and lack of connections to customers or organizational purpose that mind-numbing bureaucracy brings. The energy-sapping and passion-destroying effects of efficiencies may save hundreds of thousands of dollars. But traditional accounting systems can’t show the hundreds of millions of dollars lost because of lackluster innovation, mediocre customer service, uninspired internal partners, and unformed external partnerships.

I am an extreme (some might argue dangerous) decentralist. Since I began my management career, I’ve given people high degrees of autonomy. I’ve run even small organizations to the point of such inefficient decentralization that people are running their own show. It works. Here are some of the reasons:

  • Everyone can see and manage their work as part of a whole, interconnected system, not as one in a bunch of parts and pieces.
  • People are trusted and treated as responsible, caring, and committed adults — which is how they then behave.
  • A collection of small, self-contained teams or business units are many times more flexible and responsive at meeting threats and capitalizing on opportunities.
  • Ownership, commitment, energy, and passion levels are much higher.
  • Everyone focuses on meeting customer/partner — not the internal bureaucracy’s — needs.
  • People have more control over their work. The vicious cycle of learned helplessness is replaced with a virtuous cycle of hopefulness and leadership.
  • Bureaucratic committees become entrepreneurial teams.
  • Feedback loops are much clearer, shorter, and closer to the customer and markets.

High-performing organizations that are thriving in today’s chaotic world are adapting and pioneering a wide variety of highly decentralized structures. They are giving up control of people so that people can control their own and the organization’s destiny. This is creating an explosion of organization structures and models with such names as network, shamrock, pulsating, jazz combos, adhocracy, horizontal, hollow spider’s web, flat, meritocracy, modular, cellular, cluster, inverted, starburst, federal, pancake, and virtual … to name a few.

The Shape of High Performance

The search for an ideal or perfect structure is about as futile as trying to find the ideal canned improvement process to drop on the organization (or yourself). It depends on the organization’s vision and values, goals and priorities, skill and experience levels, culture, team effectiveness and so on. Each is unique to any organization. We are also in the midst of a major transition from organization and management practices that began around the turn of the twentieth century. My cloudy crystal ball won’t allow me to see which organization structure or model will dominate the twenty-first century. Because we’re no longer in an age of mass production and standardization, I sure there won’t be just one type. Rather, we’ll see our top organizations grow and shed a variety of structures and models to suit the their changing circumstances.

However, the shape and characteristics of a high performing organization structure is coming clearly into view:

  • Intense Customer and Market Focus – systems, structures, processes, and innovations are all aimed at and flow from the voices of the market and customers. The organization is driven by field people and hands-on senior managers in daily contact with customers and partners.
  • Team-based – operational and improvement teams are used up, down, and across the organization. A multitude of operational teams manage whole systems or self-contained subsystems such as regions, branches, processes, and complete business units.
  • Highly autonomous and decentralized – dozens, hundreds, or thousands of mini-business units or businesses are created throughout a single company (I’ve split business units of twenty five people into smaller business units). Local teams adjust their company’s product and service mix to suit their market and conditions. They also reconfigure the existing products and services or develop new experimental prototypes to meet customer/partner needs.
  • Servant-Leadership –Senior managers provide strong vision, values, purpose, and strategic direction to guide and shape the organization. But very lean and keen head office management and staff also serve the needs of those people doing the work that the customers actually care about and are willing to pay for. Support systems are designed to serve the servers and producers, not management and the bureaucracy.
  • Networks, Partnerships, and Alliances – organizational and departmental boundaries blur as teams reach out, in, or across to get the expertise, materials, capital, or other support they need to meet customer needs and develop new markets. Learning how to partner with other teams or organizations is fast becoming a critical performance skill.
  • Fewer and More Focused Staff Professionals — accountants, human resource professionals, improvement specialists, purchasing managers, engineers and designers, and the like are either in the midst of operational action as a member of an operational team, or they sell their services to a number of teams. Many teams are also purchasing some of this expertise from outside as needed.
  • Few Management Levels – spans of control stretch into dozens and even hundreds of people (organized in self-managing teams) to one manager. Effective managers are highly skilled in leading, (creating energy and focus), directing (establishing goals and priorities), and developing (training and coaching).
  • One Customer Contact Point – although teams and team members will come and go as needed, continuity with the customer is maintained by an unchanging small group or individual. Internal service and support systems serve the needs of the person or team coordinating and managing the customer relationship.

Structure Shapes Behavior

If you’re not happy with the behavior of people on your team or in your organization, take a closer look at the system and structure they’re working in. If they behave like bureaucrats, they’re working in a bureaucracy. If they’re not customer focused, they’re using systems and working in structure that wasn’t designed to serve customers. If they’re not innovative, they’re working in a controlled and inflexible organization. If they resist change, they’re not working in a learning organization that values growth and development. If they’re not good team players, they’re working in an organization designed for individual performance. Good performers in a poorly designed structure will take on the shape of the structure.

Many organizations induce learned helplessness. People in them become victims of “the system”. This often comes from a sense of having little or no control over their work processes, policies and procedures, technology, support systems, and the like. “You can’t fight the system” they’ll say with a shrug as they give the clock another stare hoping to intimidate it into jumping ahead to quitting time. These feelings are amplified by a performance management system that arbitrarily punishes people for behaving like the system, structure, or process they’ve been forced into. “Empowering” helpless people without changing the processes, structure, or systems they work in is worse than useless. It increases helplessness and cynicism.

Structure is a very powerful shaper of behavior. It’s like the strange pumpkin I once saw at a county fair. It had been grown in a four-cornered Mason jar. The jar had since been broken and removed. The remaining pumpkin was shaped exactly like a small Mason jar. Beside it was a pumpkin from the same batch of seeds that was allowed to grow without constraints. It was about five times bigger. Organization structures and systems have the same effect on the people in them. They either limit or liberate their performance potential.

Reprinted with the permission of Jim Clemmer. For over three decades Jim Clemmer’s keynote presentations, workshops, and management team retreats, and seven best-selling books translated into many languages, articles, blog, and newsletters have helped hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The CLEMMER Group is Zenger Folkman’s Canadian Strategic Partner, an award-winning firm best known for its unique evidence-driven, strengths-based system for developing extraordinary leaders and demonstrating the performance impact they have on organizations.

http://www.clemmergroup.com

 

Share

7 Top Common Bidder Issues – #2 – Who to Contact?

Who to Contact?

Simply put, “who to contact”, really depends on the size of the municipality and at what stage of the procurement process you’re wanting to contact someone.

While procurement itself is governed by statutes, municipalities have the authority to put the processes and people in place to administer and manage the purchasing of goods and services on behalf of their taxpayers. Therefore, the responsibility for municipal procurement varies with each municipality.

All municipalities are required to have procurement policies and/or purchasing by-laws. Larger municipalities have more formal centralized procurement processes. This means their procurement by-law will be much more detailed and it will usually set out the roles of municipal staff in the procurement process. Larger municipalities usually will have a procurement department with a head of procurement – most likely a Chief Procurement Officer.

Other municipal staff (CAO, Finance, Legal, IT, etc.) and Councils all play roles in the process. Generally once Council has passed the budget approving the procuring of the goods or services for the year, it then becomes the responsibility of staff to administer the procurement process in accordance with the statues and their own purchasing by-law.

The purchasing of goods and ensuring adherence to the awarded contracts will be the responsibility of the purchasing department with oversight by the CAO, Finance, Legal and Department Heads. Generally, if you need to contact someone in a large municipality about procurement you would contact the Purchasing Department.

Smaller municipalities practice more of a de-centralized procurement model. This means there is generally no dedicated purchasing department and therefore no one person in the municipality who is responsible for administering the municipality’s procurement for all departments. Generally, the CAO will have oversight of all procurement but there are still many municipalities who have a Clerk, not a CAO so the Treasurer may take on the procurement role. In certain cases, Council itself may have a further role even after the budget has been approved.

In the de-centralized procurement model typically found in smaller municipalities, each department head develops their budget and once approved by Council, they are then each responsible for the procurement of the approved goods or services outlined in their budgets. While this works in theory the difficulty is that procurement is complex and individual department heads may not have thorough knowledge of the municipality’s procurement policies, so compliance with them may be jeopardized, which can place the municipality at risk of legal challenges from unsuccessful bidders.

Who to contact in a smaller municipality is sometimes more difficult to determine. If you want information on the municipality’s procurement process it may be best to acquire a copy of their purchasing by-law off their website which should identify who is responsible for procurement. Alternatively, you could contact the department head in charge of procuring the goods or service for their department, or the Treasurer.

With respect to “who to contact” about a particular bid opportunity, regardless of whether it’s a large or smaller municipality, there will be a designated person on the bid documents and you should always address questions to the individual named within the period of time specified.

Susan Shannon, Principal

muniSERV.ca

[email protected]

Share

What does Bill 132 (Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act) mean to you and your workplace?

One in four women and one in ten men say they have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. Of the reported cases of workplace sexual harassment, 55% were committed by co-workers; 39% of which involved a supervisor or manager. 8% of those who are sexually harassed at work report the harassment.

Recently there have been some changes made to Bill 168 – Violence in the Workplace, which gives employers’ statutory obligations. Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, which received royal assent on March 8, 2016, requires all employers to have policies and programs including an investigation procedure. The essential changes brought by Bill 132 include: an employer is required to create a workplace harassment program; the program must include reporting and investigating tools for incidents of workplace harassment and violence; the employers must ensure that all complaints are investigated, and investigations are completed in a timely fashion and a new power to the Ministry of Labour (MOL) to order an independent workplace harassment investigation at the employer’s expense.

September 8, 2016, now looms for companies as the date for compliance with Bill 132. The amendments stand to change dramatically how workplace harassment is addressed in Ontario. The new OHSA obligations and expectations have been set and are accompanied by expanded government oversight. Harassment in the workplace is already a challenging issue that could engage multiple forums, with complaints possibly being advanced through a grievance, civil claim, complaint under the Human Rights Code, and, depending on the severity of the conduct, the criminal justice system.

Also, and particularly, the Bill amends the OHSA to require an employer to conduct an investigation of a workplace harassment complaint that is “appropriate in the circumstances.” The phrase “appropriate in the circumstances” is not defined. Further, the Ministry of Labour has not published any guidance material to communicate what factors will be considered by inspectors when determining whether an investigation meets this standard. Assuming that the inspectors could be evaluating investigations against expected best practices which would include such things as an impartial investigator, a collection of all relevant information, and procedural fairness to the alleged harasser could create challenges for employers as the appropriateness of an investigation may be evaluated in hindsight.

Consequences of flawed investigations would impair or prejudice the employer’s ability to establish just cause for termination or discipline. There would also be an issue of due diligence under the OHSA and Human Rights Code. Consequences would include aggravated, punitive or Code damages; penalties from the Ministry of Labour under the OHSA and reinstatement in unionized workplaces. Some of the critical mistakes some employers are making include: failing to act at all; taking the complaint seriously; failure to train investigators; inability to plan, improper or inadequate files; and retention of evidence.

Many situations happening in the workplace may prompt the necessity for an investigation, such as allegations of discrimination or harassment, workplace bullying, inappropriate use of the internet or social media, policy breaches, or statutory violations. Often, employers attempt to resolve minor issues informally through discussions with the employees involved. When the allegations are more serious, employers may depend on managers to conduct internal investigations. However, in many situations, having an organization deal directly with the problem is not necessarily the best approach – informal discussions may rapidly collapse, and basic investigative steps may be overlooked by inexperienced managers, making matters worse. A vital skill for any employer is identifying when a formal investigation by an external investigator is appropriate.

Note: meeting the requirements of Bill 132 could lead to mistakes that can be costly to your organization.

Be prepared. Be proactive.

Contact Monika Jensen, Principal Aviary Group at [email protected]  or (905) 683-9953 if you need a complaint investigated or mediated.

Share

Embracing Civility for a More Satisfying WorkPlace

Complaints of harassment, discrimination, bullying and now violence and disrespectful workplaces have become a standard concern for managers and Human Resources specialist. As we cope with the many arising situations, I have found the word incivility is becoming frequently used. So what does incivility mean? To define it, let’s look at how the Institute of Civility describes it. Civility is about more than merely being polite. Civility requires a profound self-awareness being characterized by true respect for others. Civility involves the tremendous hard work of remaining present even with those with whom we have inherent and perhaps fierce differences. It is about continuously being open to hearing, to learning, to teaching and to changing. It pursues mutual ground as a start point for discussions when differences may occur, while at the same time be aware that differences are heartening. It is persistence, grace, and strength of character.

Recently research has expanded our practical understanding of incivility by identifying behaviours which employees have deemed disrespectful. The most frequently occurring forms include: neglecting to turn off cell phones; talking behind someone’s back; doubting someone’s judgement, using demeaning or disparaging language, gestures or behaviours; communicating with the intent to belittle or degrade, eye rolling, giving the silent treatment and using sarcasm; gossip and slander; paying no attention or ignoring someone; taking credit for someone else’s work or ideas; intimidation by intentionally using fear to manipulate others. It may also include yelling, invading personal space, throwing things, slamming things and losing one’s temper; and sabotaging by setting someone up to fail or intentionally creating a situation to make another person look foolish or incompetent. Also may include hate-ism by deliberately pointing at a victim based on age, gender, race or sexual orientation are instances of profiling because of an “ism.”

Many examples include blaming others rather than accepting responsibility; checking email or texting during a meeting; using email to send a difficult message to avoid facing the person, which may be misunderstood and misinterpreted; not saying “please” or “thank you”; not listening and talking over or down to someone.
The cost of incivility is high. It is not only about money! There is research to support impacts on performance through lost time and absenteeism, lack of creativity, less helpfulness and less likely to assist another employee. The impact of teams is on the level of energy, emotional engagement, and performance. The conduct reaches into our physical health; impacts our customers and commitment to the organization and willingness of employees to stay with their companies. All affecting the bottom line of productivity.
So how do we address these issues? I would like to explore some recommendations for your consideration. It starts with us as individuals. Managing ourselves. How? If you throw a ball at the wall…it comes back. It works with people too. If you are, mean…it comes back! People will be mean to you.

How can you be kind and patient all the time when life is so stressful—and just plain hard? You do it by embracing civility! Civility requires self-awareness.

With self-awareness you can:
 Control your attitude
 Manage your moods
 Choose behaviours that do not negatively impact your life or disrupt those around you

Can you…
 Feel and express annoyance, irritation or frustration without hurting others— and then let it go?
 Accept and even appreciate that other people have needs and opinions which are different from your own?
 Encourage and enjoy the successes of others?
 Recognize when someone else feels irritated, upset or frustrated and keep yourself from reacting impulsively in response?

As leaders, we need to model. The Russian novelist, Leo Tolstoy wrote: “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing themselves.” Employees look to leaders for guidance and someone to aspire too. What are they seeing? Watch your language and put away your smartphones when engaging with your staff. Be mindful of the perils of emails and other electronic communication. Pick up the phone or set up a face to face meeting instead. Take immediate and corrective action when warranted. Rude and disrespectful behaviours emerge quickly and sometimes without warning. As the leader, you need to respond at the moment. By delaying a reaction or action, it sends out mixed messages to the offender as well as the entire team. Take all complaints seriously, realizing that coming forward by the individual is difficult, and they need to know they are supported.

We attend seminars and workshop on harassment prevention, Creating Respectful Workplace and Violence in the Workplace. I have put together a workshop on “How Embracing Civility can Create More Satisfying Work Environments”. The agenda is:
• Why Civility Matters
• It Starts with You!
• Do What You Say and Say What You Mean
• Good Fences Make Great Neighbours
• Working in the Salad Bowl
• Eliminate Gossip and Bullying
• You Can’t Always Get What You Want
• Taking It to the Extreme
• Paving the Path to Civility

Contact Monika Jensen, Principal, Aviary Group, at [email protected]  if you are interested.

Share

You Can’t Build a Team or Organization Different from You

We can’t build a team or organization that’s different from us. Successful team or organization leadership begins with successful self-leadership. The first step in improving my team or organization is improving me.

 “The management of self is critical. Without it, leaders may do more harm than good. Like incompetent physicians, incompetent managers make people sicker and less vital.“

— Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders (in a chapter entitled “Leading Others, Managing Yourself”)

Too many managers who aspire to lead and develop others haven’t learned how to lead and develop themselves. They are trying to build organizations or provide services that are different than they are. These well-intentioned managers are trying to improve their teams or organizations without improving themselves. Many seem to be living along the lines of Mark Twain’s observation, “Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits.”

Here are some examples of these all too common disconnects between organization and personal performance:

  • Pessimistic managers push their companies to be market and industry leaders while blaming external factors like the economy for their poor performance.
  • Managers with stunted personal growth set strategies to build a “Learning Organization.”
  • Managers produce team and organization vision, values, and mission statements without having clarified and aligned their own personal preferred future,      principles, and purpose.
  • A major program to improve customer service is initiated by managers who boss, direct, and control rather than serve their organization’s servers.
  • Managers with weak levels of continuous personal improvement implement change and improvement programs — for others.
  • Strict Techno managers (bureaucratic or technical experts) oversee rigid systems and processes while trying to encourage risk taking and innovation.
  • Management groups comprised of turf protecting departmental managers, fighting like three kids in the back seat on a long hot drive, try to get others to build stronger teams.
  • Disorganized managers with poor time management habits are setting goals, priorities, and disciplined processes for everyone else.
  • Although they have no personal improvement plan, process, or habits, managers develop extensive organization transformation and improvement plans.
  • While avoiding (and shooting messengers of) personal feedback, managers construct extensive performance appraisal systems and talk about the importance of accountability — for everyone else.

 

A Team or Organization Can’t Rise Above the Level of Its Leadership

“Organizational change begins with leaders who walk the talk by transforming themselves.“

— Stratford Sherman, “Leaders Learn to Heed the Voice Within”, Fortune

It just doesn’t work. We can’t build a team or organization that’s different from us. We can’t make them into something we’re not. But I’ve watched countless managers and management teams try. There are two major reasons that this disconnected approach doesn’t work. First, unless you’re a superb actor, you can’t be a split personality and teach or lead others to do something that’s out of basic alignment with your own habits, skills, and characteristics.

Second, everyone’s “phoniness radar” or “BS meters” are getting ever more sensitive (from overuse). We’re getting fed up with sanctimonious church leaders charged with sexual abuse, fat doctors telling us to get into shape, politicians giving retractable promises to get elected, executives drawing big salaries and bonuses while their company’s financial value declines, municipal transit managers who don’t take their own buses to work, training and consulting companies who don’t practice what they teach, and the like.

I once wrote a scathing note (which was never answered) and quit a speakers’ association because I kept hearing “the old pros” telling people who wanted to get on speaking platforms and tell others how to be successful to “fake ’til you make it.” (The personal and organization improvement field has its share of aspiring speakers and consultants who don’t practice what they preach). One of those speakers also asked me to provide a jacket quote endorsement for a “motivational book” he bragged he’d written “on a six hour airplane flight.” And that’s about how much research and thought the warmed-over platitudes, old jokes, and generalities he’d pieced together obviously had. I declined his invitation.

We loathe phoniness and crave genuineness in our leaders. If I aspire to be a leader, the authenticity (being the real thing) that stems from aligning who I am with where I am trying to take my team or organization will inspire trust, cooperation, and forgiveness in the people who’ll help take me there. Nobody expects us to be the perfect role model. But they do expect to see a close connection between who we are and the direction we’re pointing the team or organization toward.

Or they at least need to see that we recognize our shortcomings and we are working hard to improve ourselves so we can close the organization-personal performance gap. Otherwise they’ll shrug off all our team and organization improvement rhetoric and planning with a sense that this is just Kidney Stone Management — it will hurt for awhile, but this too shall pass. “Watch out, he/she has been off to another seminar (or read another book). If we lay low long enough, he/she will move on to the next fad”.

Successful team or organization leadership begins with successful self-leadership. The first step in improving my team or organization is improving me.

Reprinted with the permission of Jim Clemmer. For over three decades Jim Clemmer’s keynote presentations, workshops, and management team retreats, and seven best-selling books translated into many languages, articles, blog, and newsletters have helped hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The CLEMMER Group is Zenger Folkman’s Canadian Strategic Partner, an award-winning firm best known for its unique evidence-driven, strengths-based system for developing extraordinary leaders and demonstrating the performance impact they have on organizations.

http://www.clemmergroup.com

 

Share

Celebrating Member Successes – Congratulations DocuPet!

Brockville backs online dog tags

(Photo – RONALD ZAJAC/The Recorder and Times)

DocuPet picture wdp

By Ronald Zajac, Recorder and Times

Wednesday, August 24, 2016 5:45:22 EDT PM

An online pet registration firm will try to convince wary or indifferent Brockville dog owners to register their pets.

City council on Tuesday backed its finance, administration and operations committee’s recommendation of a five-year deal with with DocuPet Inc. for Internet-based pet registration and identification services.

Councillors approved the deal after removing a clause in the motion, by councillor Jeff Earle, requiring DocuPet to put pet owners’ phone numbers on the tags.

Kingston-based DocuPet expects to take over the services in the fall. 

Brockville, like other municipalities, has a low compliance rate for dog licensing.

A staff report notes the city has sold some 700 to 1,000 dogs tags annually in recent years.

Planning director Maureen Pascoe Merkley told council she estimates Brockville’s pet license compliance rate at 12 to 15 per cent.

That’s in spite of a city bylaw providing for the licensing and registering of dogs and prohibiting their running at large; it requires dog owners to register their pets and get an annual license, or dog tag.

Dog tag costs vary depending on the animal’s circumstances, but the average is about $28.50 a year for the owner. 

DocuPet is proposing to boost compliance with its services. Pascoe Merkley said she hopes compliance will increase by 10 per cent a year. 

Advantages of the online outsourcing include increased license revenue, decreased operating costs and benefits to dog owners such as a “lost pet alert” service and a rewards program DocuPet would work on with local businesses.

The proposed deal with the city is to determine a “baseline” of current licensing compliance. The city gets to keep all revenue within that baseline, in effect keeping what it already makes, while DocuPet takes half of all new revenue above and beyond that baseline.

The tags DocuPet proposed to use include an alphanumeric code for use online, as well as the city’s phone number for people who do not use computers. 

Earle reiterated his point that using the numbers of the pet owners is a simpler way of dealing with errant animals and eliminates the middle man.

Offering that option to users would make the difference between pet licensing being a service to residents, as opposed to simply a tax, said Earle. “It’s up to us to get them the best value for that service,” added Earle. He held up examples of other dog tags that included the phone numbers of the owners. “This is a much more user-friendly system,” said Earle.

City and DocuPet officials have said such an approach is impractical because the tags become invalid if the owner moves.

City clerk Sandra MacDonald also confirmed municipal protection of privacy law would require the city to get special consent from pet owners to put their numbers on tags.

DocuPet’s plan is for a custom-made tag, whereas designing specific tags for each owner would be logistically difficult, said Pascoe Merkley.

Councillor Phil Deery said he sees the licensing process as a tax. “The purpose of the tax is to off-set the costs of animal control,” he added.

Earle, clearly in the minority with his argument, then added another reason for his objections. “I don’t see a reason the dogs are being taxed and not the cats,” he said.

The city has in the past explored the option of registering cats but found it too onerous.

As he did at last week’s committee meeting, councillor Jason Baker stepped out on a conflict of interest because his employer makes animal tags.

Share

7 Common Bidder Issues

At a session I attended a couple of years ago the City of Mississauga’s procurement department identified these common bidder issues.

  • How to find bid opportunities
  • Who to Contact
  • Onerous Requirement & Lengthy Bid Documents
  • Not enough information
  • Not enough time permitted to respond
  • Bid Rejections – doing all the work only to have it rejected
  • Perception of Secrecy

Sound familiar? I imagine you can all relate to these concerns and they are often the very reasons why many consultants and professionals shy away from, or simply no longer respond to, price-based RFPs for professional services. Detailed pricing just takes a lot of time and responding to a RFP can cost respondents a lot of money in lost time alone.

This is the first in a series of informational articles/blogs on these common bidder issues.  I will be tackling each of these issues separately and will be offering suggestions on how you can address them throughout the series.

The first one:

How to Find Bid Opportunities

Municipalities have limited advertising budgets so the days of posting their bid opportunities in the local paper have all but disappeared, except perhaps where required under a trade agreement or their own procurement by-law. The reason is that hard copy advertising is probably the most costly way for municipalities to advertise bid opportunities – plus it’s not a very effective way either because the ads don’t necessarily reach their target audience – which is the professionals they want to respond.

Most municipalities now have a Bids/Tenders section on their own municipal websites and they will post any bid opportunities they have in that location of their own website. This works well if you’re a local consultant who only wants to work in a geographic area near your business but it would be far too time-consuming to check 444 individual municipal websites daily for new bid opportunities.

To get broader exposure for their bid opportunities, and ultimately to acquire more competitive quotes, many municipalities now post their RFPs on outside websites – like muniSERV.ca, specifically designed for RFPs for consulting/professionals services, or bids&tenders, etc. for construction and other RFPs.  This enhances openness and transparency in the procurement process, helps municipalities target their advertising directly to the professionals/vendors they’re trying to reach and increases the number and quality of quotes they receive.  Bidders pay a fee to use such sites but they do help professionals/vendors find and access hundreds of bid opportunities daily – plus they offer automated email notifications that will notify members when a RFP has been posted that matches the service they provide.

How a municipality advertises their bid opportunities varies but it should be set out in their procurement or purchasing by-law, or in a policy that forms part of their procurement by-law. Most municipalities will have their procurement/purchasing by-law posted in the by-law section of their websites, so if you want to check how a specific municipality in which you’re looking for work advertises their bid opportunities, you can get a copy of their procurement by-law from their website.

Larger projects with certain value thresholds which are subject to certain trade agreements will have specific advertising and notice requirements. Under such agreements procurement opportunities must be advertised for a minimum number of days, irrespective of the advertising method used. Again, the project value thresholds, the number of days and how they will be advertised can be found in the municipality’s purchasing/procurement by-law.

In the municipal sector procurement is a dynamic, sometimes complex process. It is governed by contract law as well as various statutes.

But as you can see there are a variety of ways to find bid opportunities. It all comes down to your preferred method and the time and money you want to spend on finding them.

Susan Shannon is Principal of muniSERV.ca.  Earlier in her career she was a municipal Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and as a result she understands first-hand the challenges faced by both municipalities and professionals/vendors in public sector procurement.  Connect and follow her on LinkedIn, join the muniSERV LinkedIn Group or reach her at 855 477 5095 or [email protected].

 

Share

What is IoT (Internet of Things) and How can it help government?

GovLoop Resources has produced a free guide on the Internet of Things (IoT) in Government.

What is IoT? How can it be used for impact in gov? How can you deploy it? 
 
Check out their new guide to move beyond the surface implications of IoT and understand the real value it can bring to government organizations. You will learn:

  • Key issues about the IoT by answering the most-asked questions.
  • Best practices from gov experts who play a critical role in IoT programs.
  • Valuable insights from interviews with various organizations using IoT.
Share

Traditional versus Strengths-Based 360 Assessments

Joe Folkman is a global expert in psychometrics or measuring psychological factors. He wrote his PhD dissertation on data he collected from 360 assessments. Over the decades he’s developed feedback and measurement tools around a growing database now compromised of over a half million assessments on almost 50,000 leaders. Long-time feedback, executive coaching, and leadership development clients include AT&T, General Motors, Boeing, ConocoPhillips, CIBC, General Mills, Wells Fargo, and many others.

Recently I asked him to reflect on what he sees as the biggest difference between traditional 360 assessments (where he began his career) and the strengths-based 360 he developed and has used for the past 14 years:

  1. Traditional 360 has a very powerful message — focus on weakness — identify problems — find the losers.  Introducing a 360 process and letting people know we’re looking for strength takes the threat out of the process. The surprising thing is that those with fatal flaws are much more willing to acknowledge that they have a fatal flaw because we framed the conversation around strengths.
  2. Traditional 360 assessments typically ask “what does this person do well?” and “what areas could this person improve?” The list of improvement areas is long and compelling. Weaknesses are huge distractions. Even the best leaders have weaknesses. Great leaders are not perfect. The process of working on weaknesses encourages people to work on the wrong issues. Instead leaders need to know how others perceive their strengths and align those with “what does the organization need you to do to be successful?” and “what are you passionate about?” These questions identify the most powerful things for leaders to focus on.
  3. The Gestalt or overall feeling that is created by weakness-based 360 surveys is, “what is wrong” while the gestalt of the strengths-based approach is “what is right.” Weakness-based approaches equates with failure, faults, problems and pessimism. Strengths-based equates with success, strengths, what is right, and optimism.  The body of research on how optimists are happier, more effective, and stronger leaders is compelling.
  4. Basically organizations are successful because of how they stand out, what differentiates them, basically their strengths. They are not perfect. Organizations fail because they do something terribly wrong. People are the same.

If you’d like to explore the compelling research behind Joe’s reflections see Focusing on Strengths or 360 Assessments.

Reprinted with the permission of Jim Clemmer. For over three decades Jim Clemmer’s keynote presentations, workshops, and management team retreats, and seven best-selling books translated into many languages, articles, blog, and newsletters have helped hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The CLEMMER Group is Zenger Folkman’s Canadian Strategic Partner, an award-winning firm best known for its unique evidence-driven, strengths-based system for developing extraordinary leaders and demonstrating the performance impact they have on organizations. http://www.clemmergroup.com

Share

Changing Workplaces Review – Interim Report Issued

Changing Workplaces Review – Interim Report Issued

July 27, 2016 By: Paul E. Broad, Craig S. Rix

FTR Now

Changing Workplaces Review – Interim Report Issued

Date: July 27, 2016

Since May 2015, two government-appointed Special Advisors – Mr. Justice John Murray and Mr. Michael Mitchell – have been undertaking the Changing Workplaces Review (Review) to consider the changing nature of the workplace, the causes behind those changes, and whether the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA) and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) need to be amended to meet challenges created by the changes.

As reported in our FTR Now of May 15, 2015, Ontario Begins Consultations on Labour and Employment Reform, the Special Advisors were tasked with considering non-standard working relationships, the expanding service sector, globalization and trade liberalization, technological change and workplace diversity.

Earlier today, the Special Advisors released their long-awaited Interim Report. In this FTR Now we discuss some key issues identified by the Special Advisors. We will be providing further updates on the Interim Report by next week.

The Interim Report is a wide-ranging document, over 300 pages in length. After reiterating the context of the Review mandate, the Special Advisors emphasize that their recommendations will focus primarily on vulnerable workers engaged in precarious employment. The Interim Report does not generally identify specific recommendations. Rather, it serves several purposes:

  • identify the substantive areas of the LRA and ESA that are being considered as part of the Review;
  • outline the current state of the law and employee entitlements in each of those areas, drawing on context from other jurisdictions within Canada, as well as differing approaches in foreign jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union and Australia;
  • summarize the submissions made to the Special Advisors, identifying areas where submissions may have been lacking;
  • identify the key options for recommendations that the Special Advisors are considering; and
  • seek further input on those key options.

The range of options being considered by the Special Advisors is very broad and potentially far-reaching.

Labour Relations Act, 1995

A wide range of options are canvassed that have the potential to fundamentally alter the current labour relations landscape.

One option canvassed is a return to a card-based certification process. This would mean the end to the current fast vote, secret ballot process (in all sectors save for the construction sector) and the return to a process that hasn’t existed in Ontario since 1995. Under a card-based certification process, an employer could find itself unionized if a defined percentage of employees in the union’s proposed bargaining unit signed a membership card.

Beyond the Interim Report’s analysis of the certification process, many other options are explored that were once a part of Ontario’s labour relations laws in the 70s and 80s:

  • requiring employers to provide an organizing union with a list of their employees before an application for certification is filed thus enabling the union’s organizing efforts;
  • expanding the basis upon which the Ontario Labour Relations Board could issue a penalty certification in the event of a breach of the LRA during a union organizing campaign;
  • reintroducing the Bob Rae government’s Bill 40 notion of automatic first contract interest arbitration; and
  • prohibiting an employer’s current ability to utilize replacement workers in the face of a strike.

Employment Standards Act, 2000

With respect to the ESA, the Special Advisors are considering options related not only to the substantive employment standards, but also the ESA’s scope of application and how it is enforced. Some key issues identified by the Special Advisors include:

  • whether the ESA should be extended to independent contractors and dependent contractors;
  • an expanded scope of who is an employer – for example, making franchisors liable for ESA violations of their franchisees, or implementing an expanded joint employer test;
  • a recommendation to review the ESA’s various exemptions, with an anticipated recommendation that certain hours of work and overtime exemptions be narrowed or eliminated (e.g. IT professionals, and managers and supervisors);
  • whether changes should be made to the ESA’s leave provisions, with a special focus on Personal Emergency Leave, and whether there should be an introduction of paid sick days; and
  • further amendments to the regulation of Temporary Help Agencies, including potential restrictions on the use of assignment employees and potential increased entitlements for assignment employees.

Next Steps

As noted above, one of the purposes of the Interim Report is to solicit further input on the key options identified by the Special Advisors before a final decision is reached on the recommendations. The government has announced two (2) separate timelines for making submissions:

  • August 31, 2016 for submissions on the Personal Emergency Leave options canvassed in the Interim Report; and
  • October 14, 2016 for submissions on all other options on all other topics canvassed in the Interim Report.

We are in the process of reviewing the Interim Report in detail, and will be providing further updates by next week, including how submissions may be made to the Special Advisors. In the meantime, if you have any questions related to the Interim Report, please contact your regular Hicks Morley lawyer.

Published with permission of and Thanks to Hicks Morley.

Share