Québec City: Labeaume harshly criticized

Written by Bernard Brault on 14/01/2011

Harsh criticism, but little content.

The staggering outbursts of some “political gurus” towards the Mayor of Québec, and the arguments of the three signatories (Francine Bouchard, former city councillor of Québec, Michel Héroux, former chief of the Rector’s office at Laval University, and Pierre Boucher, former president of the National Capital Commission) of the open letter published in Le Soleil, on Thursday, January 7, 2010, seem rickety, or even chlorotic.

Of course, since we can’t put forward the embezzlement, the mafia connections, the brown, yellow or white envelops, the unfair advantages, the strategic real estate connections with the “corruption” industry, the water meters, and the financing of the political parties, we really have to find something to revile a much too noisy mayor. Still, criticizing the style and the personality to gain political capital has become a fashion, at least unpleasant.

For instance, the three signatories wish that Mayor Labeaume learn in 2011 how to “handle his excesses, control his impulsiveness, speak less, and listen more.” “If not,” as they said, “he’ll be seen more and more as a high talker and a little doer.”

They also added, “the Mayor’s verbal excesses, his innumerable projects, his various fantasies reveal more and more a darker reality, that of his partial successes, or even failures.”

According to Pierre Boucher, “the Mayor is an improviser. He is also a grave digger of democracy in his manner of treating those who don’t share his opinions… The mayor plays this game by himself. He plays his game by himself. He even insults the people…”

It’s quite evident that the three signatories lack real proofs and management vocabulary. Does Mayor Labeaume have a problem of Transparency, Continuity, Efficiency, Balance, Fairness, or Abnegation, or it’s just a problem of decency? Maybe, the Mayor just needs to learn some diplomacy rules to express what he feels about all these people who keep trying to put a spoke in his wheels.

According to some, the bitching and the autoflagellation could be the consequences of our lost referendums. What do we want in fact? Some boring and phlegmatic technocratic managers with thick tongues? The democracy doesn’t imply the opposition be “unbridled and popularity-seeking” to simply gain the power. The opposition should be aware of its prerogatives for the accountability and expose the exemptions from the Sound Management principles.

But, pay attention! We aren’t ready to give our complete blessing and trust to Mayor Labeaume or any other public manager. The Sound Management Institute intends to take this conversation to another level, that of the Sound Management, which means a framework including the accountability of the administrative act and not of the management style, or of the leader’s appearance and extravagance.

Leader and manager

It’s about time to demand our leaders to be also managers, that they account both for the means as for the results of their administrative acts. I’ve already cited professor Henry Mintzberg (McGill University). In one of his latest articles, he debunks one of the most ancient myths on leadership.

“Leaders do the right things, Managers do things right.”

What narcissism! What omnipotence! What horror! To bypass control and accountability, we only had to cite these phrases socially powerful, but somehow stereotyped and with a heavy meaning. This is, however, what we’ve been told for 20 years while we were trying to explain, with reference to the Sound Management concept, that leaders are also managers and that they have to submit to a Sound Management obligation.

Documentary analysis offered by the Sound Management approach

The matrix approach and the combinations of the Sound Management functions with the fundamental principles give the possibility to the leaders to account for their management and to make sure that the managers comply with their policies and directives. The model is a large file including the “what to do” and “how to do it”, as we have already mention it.

With reference to the Sound Management, the smallest common denominator of the manager’s profession is the administrative act. This act or its absence is exactly what needs to be analysed in conformity with the GASMP, the same as in accounting.

We suggest to our readers a short summary of the methodology used for the documentary analysis which is part of the 2^ndlevel of training offered by the ISM.

1) Identify the act of management to be analyzed (documentary aspect). What fact has to be discussed?

2) Identify the consequence(s) of the act taken on the organization and its mission (materiality)

3) Identify the origins of the act: who took the act in the organization?

4) Identify within the matrix the principle(s) in question and the fundamental functions.

If you feel like it, you can send us examples of management situations similar to the following case. We’ll post on line the analysis of conformity with the GASMP.

Let’s take as an example a very simple situation:

You find out from the executive director of a municipality that neither the city council nor the mayor have proposed or prepared a contract of employment stipulating or clarifying his mandate, authority, and remuneration.

Example of documentary analysis and answers:

1) Identify the act of management: Answer: Omitting to prepare a contract of employment.

2) Identify the origin of the act (or its absence): Answer: The city council.

3) Identify the consequence(s): Answer: Possible conflict of interest, abuse of authority, etc

4) Identify the principle(s): Answer: Transparency and abnegationIt will be my pleasure to read you.

Bernard Brault F. Adm.A F.CMC

____________________________

(1) The Best Leadership Is Good Management, Businessweek, 6 août 2009