(See full published letter here, or in the print edition of Wed. June 2.)

Those running this kids’ soccer league saw the downside of a blowout game and constructed a rule to penalize a team (with a loss) if their margin of victory was greater than 5 goals. The belief, presumably, is that winning by more than 5 goals is unsporstmanlike. I think I understand the motivation, but I question the “rules-based” approach to this. If the league had a culture of sportsmanlike conduct, the rule is redundant. If the league lacks sportsmanship, rules won’t change that (e.g. if humiliating the opposition is a motivation, there are ways to do it outside of running up the score).

In my consulting work, I get to see a lot of attempts to introduce rules that make for better working situations by, for example, instilling such values as “respect” or  “teamwork.” How such values play out goes straight to the corporate culture. Does “respect” mean “don’t waste each others time,” or does it mean “don’t create any tension here”? Does “teamwork” mean “willingly involve others in what you are going” or does it mean “attend the summer company BBQ”?

Part of my consulting work is helping clients realize the culture they have, and envision the culture they want. Sometimes, we find the two are surprisingly close together. Other times, there is a considerable amount of revelation about the current state, and some clear decisions for leadership in forming the desired state (e.g. what do we mean by “respect”?).

Policies can play a part of the migration to a “better situation,” but they can also be extremely counterproductive:

“I know that meeting was a waste of time, but we agreed that one of our rules was ‘no interrupting in meeting,’ right?”

Policy has a clear place. I fundamentally question its use as the primary means of shaping cultural dimensions. You can’t regulate respect in the office, or sportsmanship on the field. If either are there, everyone knows it. If these are lacking, it is important to be clear about what you have, and be smart about how you make the shift.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200802/20080227.html

He talks of being able to get a detailed confession and explanation out of one of the terrorist bomb “artists” by stroking his ego and calling the bombs “masterpieces.” I would argue that he created a very strong “in-group” bond with the bomber. “You see, we are alike. We are the only ones who understand your talent…” The fellow-artist bond trumped the more natural “out-group” identity of terrorist vs. Western crusader. Hunter puts it down to ego; I disagree.

Also, Mr. Hunter is fairly straightforward about how Canada could be under imminent threat of a homeland attack. This is due to the pattern of terrorist organizations attacking countries that display internal division (e.g. conflict over relevant foreign policy). The natural example would be the attacks in Spain and England that followed debate over whether or not to engage in Iraq, etc.

One would hope that given his degree of credibility that he exhibited in the interview–and presumably through the book–that this is an objective statement, rather than a soft “plug” from someone who, as counter-terrorist consultant, could benefit greatly from a perceived threat. I do not presume to say that Mr. Hunt is overstating the situation for his own good, but the temptation must be great.