The new CEO of RIM blew it in his first interview heard on CBC Radio this morning.
Instead of speaking about his vision, the new guy got caught defending RIM with statistics and arguing that today’s unexpected ousting of co-chief execs Mke Lazaridis and Jim Balsille wasn’t a sudden change but part of a organized plan.
Right. Bet the plan was that the new investors in the privately held company said if you want our support you’ve got to get rid of co-chief executive officers Lazaridis and Balsillie (who is reported to be claiming that his new direction will give him more time with the kids. Imagine going from running RIM to looking after Romper Room) and do it now.
Former chief operating officer Thorsten Heins is now the sole CEO.
Unfortunately he was poorly prepared by his public relations team (if he actually hired one). For example his argument with the interviewer that the RIM Playbook didn’t fail is jaw-droppingly weird. It threw him off his script and made him look defensive and out of touch with reality.
Back in my public relations days with government and a national public relations agency where I was a vice-president, we would have run the new guy through two or three days of mock interviews and practiced scripts until such time as he or she could repeat the party line with absolute sincerity. (Such are the ways of PR. It’s a black art folks.)
So what’s this got to do with RAC?
Those of us who are still RAC members have got to come to the realization that change, while painful, is inevitable.
Success is not.
But change will continue to come in agonizing waves until success is realized. Unfortunately it just may not come in our lifetime. BTW The ARRL seems to have figured this out. After years of fractious relations with members a calming trend has come about.
All positive change comes from vision. (This form of change is something that bureaucrats, technical-focused guys like the new CEO at RIM and military guys fear.)
Change does not come from being defensive or ignoring the reality of what is actually happening. It certainly doesn’t come from long reviews of the past which some special advisors in RAC are so prone to fall back on when pressed. It doesn’t come from more of the same. And it doesn’t come from retreating into report writing or the production of operating manuals or other indirect methods of communicating.
Sooner or later the leadership group at RAC has to step down for the organization to succeed.
It’s come to that.
By remaining in place, these well-meaning men are simply prolonging the time it takes for our national organization to move toward an agenda that serves the members.
And who would replace them? Perhaps no one. We are getting the RAC that we deserve. But all is not lost. I am aware that there is a dialogue that is taking place in clubs across Canada.
A signal is being sent and is being heard. Now we await to see if there is a reply to this signal. Will the members begin to talk among themselves? Is there a conversation that is starting? And if there is, then what would the members like to see happen?
Well of course we don’t know.
The current system as it stands does not appreciate (or in some cases tolerate) either input or dissent. Communication is all one way and this is ironic coming from an organization of communicators.
Argument can be raised that regional directors (who including a new one for Quebec are almost universally acclaimed which provides us with no concept of their abilities — which in the past has varied greatly) and the level of support they have from their own Amateur Radio communities) may not have their finger on the pulse of their local clubs and we’re getting new directors only because no one else will step forward. Some new directors of our national organization are also still new hams and may not realize the situation they’ve stepped into.
One would wish that new directors would be up to speed but past experiences, especially in Ontario, of regional directors visiting clubs have been unmitigated disasters that alienated clubs and inflame relations with members and non-members alike. Unprepared for discussion, let alone criticism, these fireside chats have exploded into fractious and worse situations.
So going to the members with the old message hasn’t worked. How about letting the members come to you!
What a novel thought! Let’s listen instead of talking!
Don’t take it from me. Here’s a link to Canadian futurist Don Tapscott’s 20 big ideas for 2012 that was published in a series on the Reuters website. Notice how many have to do with openness and communications. Notice how few (if any) are being embraced by RAC.
Moving toward transforming any organization requires leaders who are not afraid of change. They welcome and do not shun criticism. They exhibit an open and trusting manner in which to foster this communications. They don’t hide behind reports and statistics and rhetoric.
Mostly, they get out of the way of change and progress.
Finally, why do some hams like myself continue to care?
It’s because we do see a better future for RAC. We do see a national organization with clearly articulated goals that include creating a national dialogue.
Who knows, maybe we’d get back to encouraging new hams into the hobby, building a stronger national organization, re-establishing relationships with IC and government, utilizing new technologies to increase communications among members and acting like a national advocacy group that doesn’t shun non members but represents us all.
Speaking up and actually communicating (listening, listening, listening and then talking), welcoming criticism and ushering in change are immensely painful processes for people who have grown up thinking they’re in charge of something.
Letting go of the reins of power is intensively difficult for some and as RIM is discovering, living in the past will never create a better future. This is the RIM lesson for RAC.
It will take new leadership armed with great courage and vision to take RAC into the future.
Tapscott says it best: “the future is not something to be predicted, it’s something to be achieved.”
