The CCCC personality profile methodology (PAVF1) is used to predict the behavior of individuals, departments and of complete corporations. Beyond that we have demonstrated how PAVF can be applied to form a comprehension of political states and their histories with the last two months’ newsletters describing where the United States and Russia are heading. In this newsletter we apply the PAVF approach and the Evolution Pyramid1 to gain an understanding of where Canada presently lies and, predict, where it may be going – i.e. the connection between a corporate nation and its evolution. Consider your company, your competitors and your ‘corporate nation’ within this context.
The Old Kanata
Before the arrival of the ‘white man’ in the 15th century, the territory identified as Kanata (by the
European explorers, who are reported to have mistakenly interpreted ‘group of tents’ [kanata]
as the name of the new land), the country, like the rest of North America was peopled by
natives with strong social ties. Tolerance and respect for neighbors, homosexuals, the infirm,
and the ‘weaker’ sex were all indicators of a strong F. Decisions made at the grand councils
were group-oriented, hence stressing the strong F of the societies. Progress in Kanata, by European standards, was slow suggesting that Visioning, V, in Kanata was not as powerful as in Europe. Fierce territorial wars between the Hurons and Algonquins and amongst other native tribes would lend one to believe that P,
the aggressive-producing characteristic, was strong on demand (i.e. when needed) but not strong enough to lead to continental dominance by any tribe. Result: PAVF societies. The lack of a strong P (aggression), V (innovation) and A (organization) meant the indigenous peoples’ response to the European invasion would probably not be up to the task. The clear advantage in weaponry, strategy, numbers along with an arguably unintentional biological warfare (smallpox, etc.) of the ‘white man’ [reference C] all contributed to the natives being unable to hold back the invasive European tide.
The New Canada
Both France and Britain, dreaming of a new North American empire, were clearly in the Wooing stage (PAVF), imagining the conception of another territorial entity (V). Willing to take action to do something about it (P), shifted the imperialists’ profiles to PAVF2. With France and Britain competing for dominance in the distant
land (now softened in name to Canada), one should have expected a single winner. But something amazing happened. Although on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City, the British under General Wolfe defeated Montcalm’s French troops (disadvantaged by the unexpected scaling of the cliffs adjacent to the St.
Lawrence River), a truce was arrived at that permitted the co-existence of the French under
British rule. Although not an ideal arrangement as viewed from the French perspective, requiring constant adjustment and fine-tuning over the following years and centuries, from an historical perspective, the compromise was politically rare – safeguards put in place to preserve the culture and language of the defeated peoples. Treaties withwith the natives also included safeguards for preservation of, and co-existence with, the old cultures. F was alive and well in the new Canada. It is interesting to observe that despite ongoing difficulties or misunderstandings between French and English and native groups, the alliance thrived for 300 years [reference D] despite the attractive alternative to, and calls from, the south (United States) for either French
or English to join the thriving union.
There was a buoyant attitude in the new land and gradually the territories, from sea-to-sea, sought to unite under one flag called Canada, forming the second largest territorial country in the world. This required both Visioning, V, and Producing, P, not to mention enough organizing, A, to make it happen. The resulting characteristic appeared to be close to the Toddler (PAVF), the country not yet quite strong enough to stand on its own two feet, tied to mother Britain in so many ways, yet with its strong F component of tolerance for all participants and laws to ensure that would happen. Result: PAVF. At that time, the stress on independence of the Americans, a manifestation of which was the Western gunslinger, never arrived in Canada because of
the dominance of F – consideration of the group and of others so a more peaceful national development evolved. That difference between the two nations, struck by the actions on the Plains of Abraham, persists to this day.
The breaking of the ties to Britain by the U.S. in 1776 was not embraced by all American citizens, especially those still holding strong allegiance to the Crown. As a result, the Declaration of Independence created an emigration from the U.S. to Canada by a group identified as the United Empire Loyalists who added significantly to British presence in Canada.
The American Threat
The Americans, proud of their achievement of independence from Britain made the next logical assumption that Canada toowould take pride in joining this new alliance. Constant entreaties for Canada or parts of Canada to join the U.S., to cast off the ‘oppressive British yoke’ flowed over the years. The most significant entreaty was an invasion by the Americans between 1812 and 1814 of parts of eastern Canada, mainly Toronto
(then known as York) and along the St. Lawrence seaway. Fierce naval battles raged on the Great Lakes with many vessels sunk on both sides. One of the most significant engineering projects of the day was undertaken to build the Rideau Canal from, what is now, Ottawa to Kingston, thereby allowing shipping from Montreal to pass up the Ottawa River and avoid the guns and soldiers stationed along the U.S. side of the St. Lawrence River. The U.S. burned York. In retaliation, Canada scorched Washington (and the state buildings were repainted
white – hence the White House). The net results were that the American invaders were repelled. This was one war that the U.S. did not win; not a single piece of turf was lost by Canada in this conflict. Much to the chagrin of patriotic Canadians today, most American tourists to Canada are quite amazed to hear the Canadian story of the war of 1812 [reference D] such an important part of Canadian history – which is told in American history lessons as a successful repelling by America of a British invasion. (We humans are proud of battles won, not battles lost.)
Around the time of Canadian confederation, 1867, a very different story was happening to the south. While Canada was coming together, the American dream was falling apart. North against South with the attempt to abolish slavery. Canada became a haven for brave escaped slaves, many of whom, via the underground railway, settled in Eastern Canada, mainly in Nova Scotia.
The more recent history of Canada is dotted, for the most part, with continued French-English tolerance and interdependence with a continual switching of English and French Prime Ministers, term after term. Canada chose to ask the monarch of England to maintain or become the King or Queen of Canada, a role willingly adorned in a fashion of somewhat mutual admiration between the crown and the new country. Irrespective of Queen Elizabeth II’s role in Britain, she is the Queen of Canada. If the British population somehow cast away the monarchy, it would not affect Canada’s legal hold on royalty. In Canada, the monarch is represented by the Governor General who resides at Rideau Hall in Ottawa. Canada’s progressive attitude is reflected in that this leading citizen of the country has thrice been female; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is also
female: signs of V, flexibility, agent of change and signs of F, tolerance for those who are different. Canada’s means of filling the Governor General role could be described as even more ‘daring’ with the racial diversity of Adrian Clarkson, the past Governor General, being of Asian extraction and Michaelle Jean, the current one, having origins in the Caribbean.
World War II cast Canada onto the world stage with an armedforces larger (in proportion to its population, and in absolute numbers) than most world nations. It declared war on Germany two years before the U.S. and on Japan before Britain did, offering unquestioned support to its two major allies, Britain and the U.S. Productive capacity increased dramatically. Canada led the world, and continues to lead, in many productive outputs, in various mineral deliveries, number three in the world in satellites in space, etc. Despite its relatively small population, Canada remained in 8th spot in GDP (in 2005) in a world populated by hundreds of nations. P was hard at work in Canada. Canada was also the first real democracy (F) in the world (reference D). V was no slouch either. Creativity and artistry were alive and well. Successful artists in movies, TV, pop singers, opera, writers, philosophers and theatre seamlessly integrated into the North American fabric that surprised Americans to discover their icons were Canadian (Peter Jennings, Michael J, Fox, John Kenneth Galbraith, Joni Mitchell, K.D. Lang, Paul Anka, etc.)
With the election of Pierre Elliott Trudeau as Prime Minister in the 1970’s, Canadians demonstrated a preference for intelligence, flamboyance and adventure, satisfying also a desire for or tolerance of bilingualism in their political leader. They forgave his flirtation with the Communist party and adopted his new policies of great egalitarianism and socialism (V and F). Subsequent Canadian leaders, more traditional in outlook, still carried on the socialist direction, regardless of the party in power. These are in stark contrast to the prevailing views of its
neighbor to the south and were often the source of differences between the two nations. A lead in international peace keeping dominated Canada’s military direction while Medicare and low crime rates reflected the caring attitude of Canadians (F). Thus Canada in modern times can be cast as PAVF, close to the arm of the Teenager known as Unfulfilled Visionary, PAVF but equally close to the Excellence stage, PAVF.
What Lies Ahead?
Is Canada at Excellence? No it is not – not by a long shot, but unfortunately many Canadians, proud of their positive contrasts with the U.S., show a dangerous level of arrogance and self-satisfaction. (While pride might be justified in some areas, the U.S. situation is not a good example for comparison.) This slips Canada closer to the Contentment stage, where the twin demons of arrogance and complacency can lead down the slippery slope to Death. (The end of this section suggests what Canada has to do to move towards Excellence.) With socialism or any group-based system comes the danger of too much A, bureaucracy, which today, in Canada, has
started to dominate government as well as the medical, educational and police enforcement systems. A is growing at an unchecked pace, creating the possibility of a quick jump to Premature Nobility (PAVF). (Note that any out-of-control aspect of PAVF will lead to dysfunctionality – not just A. The key to success is balance; at Excellence there is a balance of PAVF.) While V is also growing in Canada and should be the counterbalance to the unchecked growth of A, it is unlikely that the V of the performing arts and V of the high technology
thrusts in the country are sufficient to counterbalance the bourgeoning A. Premature Nobility leads to Nobility and that leads to Death (see chart at the end of this paper).
The vision of Canada in the 1950’s as an economic world leader has not been fulfilled. And it likely will never be. While it is possible for 35 million people to have a world voice that is listened to, Canada would have to be more outstanding to gain such an esteemed leader stature. Does it really matter? Probably not. But this consideration supports the conclusion above of Canada being in the Unfilled Visionary stage. Yet, Canada having been selected by the United Nations as the best country in the world to live in, 4 years in a row, suggests a proper
visionary role had briefly been fulfilled.
Let it not escape our observation that, historically, Canada’s population has done a rather clever thing. Pleased with the socialist aspect of their society they have allowed the leftleaning Liberals to maintain a grip on power over the past century; but just as the Liberals start to take things too far, the
population tosses in a Conservative, right-leaning government. That is, Canada’s history is Liberal with an injection of Conservatives once every decade or so to keep things honest. Probably this is the right medicine for the population’s chosen direction of its country. Today with Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in power, the
brakes on growing socialism will be applied. However, for success as a nation, Harper must understand the need to control the growing A. He probably does. However, he probably does not understand the means necessary to control A, i.e. more V creativity, curiosity, questioning. The arts sector seems anathematic to the Conservatives with reduced grants to the arts and plans to cut back on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) – although supportive of creativity in the technology sectors. Yes, Excellence is possible for Canada but not likely.
Comparing the Three Nations
A common feature of the three nations (and all countries for that matter) is how people vote according to their PAVF. P’s vote for the right – Conservative or Republican, for example.
F’s vote to the left – Democrat or Liberal (and more left – NDP in Canada). The A’s, imbued with great logic, carefully assess the pros and cons of each election platform in order to select, anyway, what their emotions have already told them – but at least they have rationalized it on paper. Most A’s, after all their assessing is done, will vote for order, rules, systems, controls and absence of flamboyance or rhetoric, namely Liberals or Democrats, slightly left of center. Because of that they do represent something of a swing vote. Vs, however, are agents
of change. If they don’t like what is going on, they’ll vote in a new group irrespective of the party. So here is the true swing vote. (Note to all politicians out there – quit preaching to the converted and focus on the V’s. First listen to them and then cater to them; the converted will vote for you anyway, regardless of what you say.) If you look at a history of voting in a country you will see the changing PAVF profile of that country.
What do we conclude about the three countries, taken from all the papers? Let’s put it in tabular form: [See Table 1].
That’s all folks! Have a great summer,
Wooing is the dreaming stage. “If only we could start a company, together we could make a fortune.”
Next comes the conception of a Baby enterprise that will have a high activity level aimed at sales in order to survive. “Busyness” reigns supreme. Like a human baby, the Baby organization cannot be left alone.
The Toddler produces its products at an increasing exciting pace, expanding its sales with little regard to gross margins. Being so young, it is extremely flexible. It now can walk on its own two feet financially.
The Teenager installs order, to gain control over growing chaos, adding seasoned administrators. The enterprise’s goal is “to optimize” – to work smarter. Struggles develop between the old staff and new.
At Excellence, every thing is in balance, balanced PAVF, flexibility vs. control, authority & responsibility.
Most companies slip from Excellence by being arrogant and complacent going to the Contentment phase.
By past accomplishments, a Nobility company has the signs of success–large, prestigious offices and lots of recognition. Growth goals have been replaced with being politically correct and avoiding risk.
A Scapegoat company’s turf wars and backstabbing lead toa focus on “who” caused the problem instead on “how” to improve. Internal warfare leaves little time for clients, who are often viewed as a nuisance.
Sluggishness phase depends on outside financial subsidy to survive. It has an oversized bureaucracy with a myriad of procedures, which everyone has difficulty with. Many controls in place, but no one is in control.
Death occurs when the subsidy, the life-support system, has been pulled away from the patient. It’s over.