At the 2010 Ideas Festival, a few dominant themes converged during panel discussions, informal networking, and guided scenario planning. Themes such as striving for excellence. Regional co-operation. Focusing on strengths. And the practical need and yearning for new models to guide transformational culture change.

At one memorable session, Calgary-based sports expert Roger Jackson shared his experience creating and leading Canada’s uniquely successful Own The Podium program, a major legacy of the Vancouver Olympics held just over a year ago. Progress and 21inc. invited Jackson to continue the conversation about how such principles can be applied to organizations, or indeed, to regional thinking.

Joining Jackson at a virtual round table in January were Karen Oldfield, the president and CEO of the Port of Halifax; John Rogers, the CEO of Stewart McKelvey; and David Campbell, an economic development consultant. Here is a condensed version of their conversation, moderated by Tim Coates, director of 21inc.

Tim Coates: Roger, most Canadians are familiar with the Own the Podium (OTP) program and the success achieved at the 2010 Olympics, but can you share with us the guiding principles and how it worked in practice, and whether it’s a model that is transferable to economic development, or business, or culture change in general?

Roger Jackson: OTP was created for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. The goal of the partners—British Columbia, the federal government, VANOC—was to prepare Olympic athletes and to generate excitement across the country, so this wouldn’t be just a sports event in Vancouver.

It resulted in the Canadian Olympic teams being the most successful in history. The athletes won more medals than they had ever won before, and they excelled at a world level. But it was a five-year effort to get there, and it required structural reorganization within Canada to create a vehicle that could drive success across different independent organizations, all of which had their own way of doing things. It’s probably the first time where the federal government, every province and territory, sponsors, and the sporting community united with a single goal, a single project, with everybody adjusting or adapting.

A new co-ordinating structure, OTP, was created, and it was given responsibility for leadership, vision, and strategy. The challenge was to pull partners together to work in tandem, and because there was a very positive attitude, they did. It was my responsibility, with a small team, to capture the enthusiasm and willingness of those partners.

OTP was formed outside government, and authority was vested in it from the partners. It was recognized that tough decisions would be taken outside of existing policies or hierarchies. About $23 million to $24 million a year for five years was spread over 14 sports, but it was effectively directed. We had enormous flexibility to involve anybody we thought could help, including universities and research institutes, and we had a flexible cash flow, so we were operating more as a business than as a restricted government agency.

Visioning and culture were interesting challenges—something economic developers and corporations must face. It was important to have clear and measurable overall goals; for us that was to win the most number of medals of any of the 75 countries coming to the Games. We started at seventh or eighth in the world, so we knew what the challenge was and how many medals it would require. We had to work with 14 sports and support them effectively to be able to achieve our goal.

All parties bought in with five years until the Games, so they were committed on paper, and we could always take it back to them that this or that is what you agreed to do in order to receive support and resources from OTP. We had to see from the plans, leadership, and execution that they were worth investing in and that they could get to the finish line with a reasonable chance of being able to put athletes on the podium.

One critical difference in the operating culture from previous experience—and this affects governance in business or institutions or whatever—was the ability of OTP as a leadership group to intervene to effect improvement. Everyone had to undergo constant evaluation and demonstrate willingness to change. It sounds oppressive, but it was friendly and professional. Most required some degree of support, intervention, and mentoring in order to push forward.

Tim Coates: So the key was partly vested authority to be able to co-ordinate and influence all the disparate entities. How does our panel react to this model, and does this kind of leadership style and culture translate to economic development?

David Campbell: I would say first, the focus is on excellence. What stands out to me is the overarching ambition. In many ways, this isn’t an attitude that’s reflected in economic development organizations and infrastructure investment. I would even argue more broadly that in government there is such a push for equality; the notion of focus or trying to support elite organizations or industries is counter to the culture here. We’re getting better at it, but if a place is doing well, for example, governments tend to push resources to places that aren’t and sort of starve success. In an OTP model, you’re picking winners, because the overall goal is excellence in something.

The second thing is focus. I don’t see the same level of precision focus in terms of benchmarking against other regions or countries and saying, “Look, we’re going to grow these clusters or these industries that really have an opportunity. We’re going to lean into them. We’re going to put resources behind them. We’re going to challenge industry associations and leaders in the exact same way.” OTP challenged the associations that ran the sports. It wasn’t just about money. It was about attaching strings and saying, “Step up your game and we’re prepared to fund you, but you have to deliver.” In economic development that’s high-quality jobs, more research, more investment, and that’s what generates revenue for governments.

Tim Coates: There are challenges and opportunities to this kind of approach from an organizational perspective, whether in a business or a community asset like a port authority, for example. Karen, what’s your reaction to Roger’s and David’s comments?

Karen Oldfield: With regard to OTP, Roger’s absolutely right. It 100% translates into a business environment. He talked about having a clear goal and evaluating that goal. In the case of our organization, we’re very structured around that. 

What’s the corporate goal? How does a department support that? How does the individual support that, and we’re all measured against that four times a year. So it’s similar to the model Roger talks about. It’s entirely possible to translate the model of striving for excellence into the business setting. I totally believe that.

The second thing I’m interested in was Roger’s comment around intervention. Maybe hockey and curling could get there on their own, but other sports needed the support and the motivation of OTP. In a business setting, that’s kind of what a port authority does. We don’t run other people’s businesses; we try to encourage them and support their growth. Maybe the word I would use is “facilitation,” and in a multi-stakeholder environment that’s operating in an international context, it’s highly relevant.

I hearken back to when then premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, issued a challenge to the Pacific Gateway that was very clear, measured in X percentage in Y containers. It was across the gateway environment, so it wasn’t just boxes, it was cargo and cruise traffic generally. It was very motivating. So let’s compare that to JFK saying, “OK, let’s put people on the moon.” It’s the same thing. 

You do everything you possibly can within your organization to focus on a goal. I’d like to see the same kind of regional goal, or even a national goal, being put out there for stakeholders in my business, for example, to put shoulder to the wheel to achieve something big.

Tim Coates: John, how do you apply some of these goal-setting ideas within a professional-practice environment like a law firm?

John Rogers: Interesting themes so far. It’s also about action, or what flows from that leadership, vision, and strategy to move forward constantly. I agree that a challenge on the development side and the government side is to move toward more singular focus, then move it to action. That’s where leadership and evaluation is important.

Like OTP, I also see other models in hugely complex areas that involve multiple stakeholders, government, universities, research, not-for-profits. Take the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, for example. We can learn some real lessons from an organization like that.

But as a region, how do you move the stakes? Because I think we’ve been doing a lot of talking, and I think we have seen positive moves, but how do we move to action? The energy file, the recent announcements on the Lower Churchill, show what focus and a level of co-operation can generate.

Tim Coates: During a five-year project, there are bound to be setbacks and things that won’t go according to plan. How do you stay motivated? 

Roger Jackson: There was a looming deadline, which was February of 2010, and an awful lot of focus from the media. The team was measured annually by world championships, and we were constantly improving and increasing the number of podium finishes. There was also a buildup of pressure on the sports and on the OTP leadership. That was the good part.

The setbacks were frequent and much related to the frailties of the humans and whether they had the willingness or capability or skills to be the best. We were constantly identifying weaknesses, whether that was a board of directors or inefficiencies or lack of focus, or the inability of a chief executive, or whether it was at the coach or athlete level, which was the most critical. Then we tried to come up with solutions, or in some cases, it meant changing people.

Tim Coates: John, a large firm isn’t unlike that, because it’s a group of people working together and, in a way, running their own shops, then having to be co-ordinated. How do you deal with staying motivated?

John Rogers: Some people use the management analogy of herding cats. I prefer to look at it as aligning stars. And also what we’ve just talked about in terms of defining what it is that a firm stands for—what its own vision is. Ours is pretty simple: great work and great rewards. Everything flows from that, and excellence in terms of our values is at the top of the list. In a law firm, take litigation specifically, where you have wins or losses every day, but you’re always going to learn, and that has to be the ethos of the organization. How as a lawyer, partner, and a firm do you make sure you’re doing your best? That comes back to constant learning, evaluation, and improvement.

Tim Coates: Karen, how do you have conversations about setbacks, and how do you jump back off of that?

Karen Oldfield: Because of the type of business we’re in, we can see what’s happening long before it touches down. So we know in advance when the year isn’t going to shape up to be a great year. Yet you still need everybody to do their piece. You still need to continue to build for the future, and what goes down eventually must come up again. That’s the cycle of life.

Take the last recession. Starting in late 2007, through 2008 and 2009, every quarter we talked about financial results, what we were seeing in the business. We put it all on the table. We solicited ideas, feedback, input. By going with the strategy of engagement, people would see that we weren’t scared or nervous. Ongoing communication was key, and we did come out the other end. That’s the approach we’ve used through good times and bad.

Tim Coates: David, you’ve said that you don’t think government is good at putting it all out there and having an honest conversation about challenges and opportunity. Does it go back to your point about being relatively undefined about the dollars invested in economic development, and that by nature they have to support too much? 

David Campbell: They should bring Roger down! I mean, it has been a real roadblock for most provincial governments, defining what they’re trying to do with the dollars they invest in economic development. What we’re talking about here means we have to say no to some things, and that’s hard to do when you’re operating at the intersection of development and politics.

Tim Coates: We’ve talked a lot about being focused on a goal and about being motivated to strive for something. What should Atlantic Canada strive to be? 

David Campbell: A leading regional economy in the 21st century. A place that’s attracting more immigrants, investment, research—a place that’s dynamic and growing. That should be an overarching goal for the Atlantic provinces over a long time frame in the context of North America. At various times in the last century, the southwest has grown, California has grown, the northwest has grown. The only area that hasn’t seen significant growth over 100 years is Atlantic Canada. I think our time is now, and the time is right to focus, and we could do it if we adopted an OTP mindset.

Karen Oldfield: At the Ideas Festival I talked about food, and you can make a case that there’s worldwide expertise here, whether it’s McCain or Cavendish or Oxford or Clearwater or High Liner. The list is extensive if you dive into it and see the kinds of expertise and technology that exists. In addition, take all the add-ons, which would be the agricultural assets, the R&D in the private and public sector, and the universities, not to mention the related industries like biosciences and culinary tourism.

Second, I’m obviously partial to transportation. We’re lucky in Halifax because we have an international port and airport. There are other transportation assets that mean we have regional expertise and knowledge, and we also have the advantage of knowing our neighbour to the south very well. I think that logistics and supply-chain management is also a natural for us. 

John Rogers: I think people are our strength, and one of our challenges is that we’ve exported them for a long time. We need to focus on education, particularly higher education and research. We’ve shown when that occurs, there are significant economic spinoffs, that it attracts the right people and it grows the economy. Some of the companies Karen talked about—I’d add Ocean Nutrition and Cooke Aquaculture to that list—have shown this.

When universities and health centres have focus, we’ve seen results. At Memorial University, there are longer-term projects. Hibernia was first discovered using subsea geology and over-the-horizon radar. It took leadership from people like Jack Clark and others to succeed. Look at the amazing work going on at the IWK Health Centre in vaccinology and several other areas, or the work Ivar Mendez is doing at The Brain Repair Centre in Halifax. We’ve seen that focus and investment have huge results, which brings in amazing people and gets people to come back to our community. I’m picking up on the kinds of things Wade MacLauchlan talked about at the Ideas Festival. These things will return multiples in terms of value to Atlantic Canada.

Roger Jackson: A key thing I look for is the overall motivation in the system to want to try to achieve something. Is there energy and willingness? In a sport context, you could aspire to be a provincial champion or a national champion or make the Olympic team or set a world record. Part of the process of change and trying to do things better is being very clear what vision you have, especially for a place, that is achievable. Do you have the motivation of the partners involved? We’ve been discussing what strengths exist in Atlantic Canada based on food or transportation, based on university involvement, based on geographic location, based on whatever, and working together to build a collective vision.  

What I’ve learned with sport is that until we formed a focal point, a clear goal, a clear vision, and a buy-in to act on that vision, everyone did their own thing. There was no collaboration or co-operation, and resources were wasted. By bringing together universities, research groups, and others, we created enormous value at no new real cost because we were so focused.

Karen Oldfield: There are no right or wrong answers. Part of the challenge we run into on a fairly regular basis is figuring out what you can accomplish by keeping your head down on your own organization versus what could be accomplished by leveraging your organization across the region. This is my question, and I’d be interested in people’s thoughts. We have the Council of Maritime Premiers. They do meet from time to time and talk about some regional activities, but the missing piece is a real regional vision.

John Rogers: My unfinished MA thesis, now my retirement project, was Maritime co-operation and its institutionalization. That was in 1979.

Karen Oldfield: Business is ahead of government, but I’m not sure that business can take the people there. I think only the public sector can take the people there.

John Rogers: We know that models like OTP or others that have involved government and stakeholders with small staffs have moved the yardsticks in a huge way. Business needs to push more aggressively and encourage government to participate.

Karen Oldfield: Exactly. We have momentum right now. You mentioned the energy file, and I recently I heard two premiers talking about buying school buses together. Or we have the cruise ship business, which has been an Atlantic success story. So we can point to examples, but I would strive to take that to a higher, bigger, better level—an umbrella that we can all get under.

David Campbell: It has been a pet project of mine to understand how the four provinces could work more collaboratively on economic development. If you look at Europe and the U.S., there are cities, regions, and states that have grown together, even across borders. There are models for collaboration, but it comes down to goodwill and people understanding that they’ll benefit in the long term, even if from time to time one area might achieve more of a benefit than another. In Atlantic Canada, all four provinces can get a lift and reinforce each other to dig in and work harder. 

Ultimately, Atlantic Canada is a bit of a myth in terms of our cohesiveness. Newfoundland is moving away from the pack because of its offshore success, but the three Maritime provinces have shared challenges around fiscal, demographic, and economic development issues.

Tim Coates: If you were to give advice to Atlantic Canadians under 30 who have opportunities to travel and then come back to Atlantic Canada to start or resume their career, where would you recommend they go and why?

John Rogers: A good friend’s Cape Breton grandparent said, “Travelling makes you smart.” I don’t think anything could be truer, and it makes no difference where you travel. I wouldn’t limit it to one trip, either.

Karen Oldfield: I would send them directly to Asia, probably Shanghai. I’d send them there at least twice, six months apart, so they can see the pace of change. I’d also suggest anywhere in Europe, and I’d look at it very simply. Europe shows it has been done. Asia shows it can be done.

David Campbell: You are what you know. I just booked my 13th trip to Brazil, and I would highly recommend Latin America. What’s happening, particularly in a lot of the urban areas, is amazing—the kind of things that are attractive to young people in terms of understanding new cultures, new environments, the food, the entertainment. Young Atlantic Canadians should get out and see the world.

Roger Jackson: For individual development, any experience abroad has meaningful personal value. Being practical and coming back to a training and sports context, I recommend the most challenging and interesting learning experience a person can find. In other words, whether that’s investment banking in London or working in the oil fields in Saudi Arabia—whatever. If it’s career oriented, I would advise them to go where they’ll learn the most and progress the quickest.