BUILDING UP LEADERSHIP SKILLS
Elmira Kiwanis Club getting good response, strong feedback from participants of leadership program
OFTEN, WE THINK OF leadership as a naturalborn talent – something that shines through an individual innately, under the right circumstances. But, just like with publicspeaking or playing a musical instrument, the qualities that make a good leader are ones that can be learnt and practiced and taught.
At least that is the idea behind the Leadership Woolwich program. Cosponsored by the Kiwanis Club of Elmira, in partnership with The Achievement Centre (TAC), the program is designed to teach universally applicable skills in management and self-governance that extend beyond just the business world.
“There are 12 lessons, so we meet once a month for a year. And it’s designed to help individuals become better leaders on a personal level, so become more personally responsible, set goals for themselves, motivate themselves, understand people and how they work,” explained Wayne Vanwyck, past-president of the Elmira Kiwanis chapter and founder of TAC.
The lessons are structured with a heavy emphasis on getting real and distinct results, says Vanwyck, whether that’s in a professional or in a personal capacity. Participants are encouraged in the earlier parts of the program to identify the results they would like to achieve, and then work towards realizing those goals.
“Our goal is to find ways to help them to get, at least, a four-to-one return on investment. So we’re not looking at just training people or educating people or giving them knowledge. What we really want them to do is help them to get better results,” he said.
For Cheryl Fisher, general manager of Kiwanis Transit and a key figure responsible for the creation and operation of the rural transit service, the convenience of having the program based in the townships has been immensely helpful. Fisher has been with Kiwanis Transit for 26 years in a leadership capacity, but nonetheless found value in joining the program’s inaugural session, which launched last year.
“It’s been amazing,” said Fisher. “First of all, it’s a very high quality training session which is something that I was looking for. Secondly the fact that it’s local: I originally was looking at maybe having to drive into Mississauga or into Toronto once a month or a couple times a month. And having something like this local was perfect.”
The timing of the program’s creation was ideal, says Fisher, as the Kiwanis Transit has recently undergone an expansion in services, including the addition of a new bus route to Elmira. Classes covered subjects from dealing with stress to providing performance evaluations of employees, but Fisher notes that, for her, the biggest draw of the program was its results-oriented
They know how yields have grown thanks to breeding technology. They know how traits like disease resistance have led to greater profitability.
But the gene controversy runs deep. Here’s what it’s all about.
Gene editing involves removing or inserting genes that are responsible for specific traits, related to the likes of taste, appearance, and performance, among others. With advances in scientists’ understanding of genetic make-up, identifying certain genes’ roles is easier than ever.
Transgenic technology, on the other hand, involves transferring genes from one species into another, that would not occur in nature. In the plant world, the textbook case here is Monsanto’s RoundupReady soybeans. They contained a gene that made them tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, also made by Monsanto. It very effectively killed weeds, but not the glyphosate-tolerant soybeans growing beside them in the same field.
The science community hoped regulators worldwide would take a softer line against gene-edited organMartin isms. Earlier this summer, the United States did, which is not surprising, given how North America has pioneered genetically modified crops.
But in late July, the European court ruled that crops created using gene editing would be subject to the same stringent testing as genetically modified crops. It’s estimated such testing costs around $35 million per crop. That means only the biggest companies will be able to afford it, and that only crops with the highest returns will be involved.
The story is much different here. A few weeks ago, a company called J.R. Simplot Company, one of North America’s largest potato, avocado and strawberry processors, announced it was pursing gene-editing technology.
It says gene editing technology could reduce potato bruising and browning, and cut some of the 3.6 billion lbs. of potato food waste annually. Other advantages it said were higher yields on less land, meaning fewer pesticides, water and labour.
It’s being pursued with the support of United Potato Growers of Canada.
“I’ve followed their research very closely,” says the organization’s general manager Kevin MacIsaac. “The science is there; it’s now more about getting the acceptance in the consuming public and the retail chains to recognize that … most of the public is interested in knowing where food comes from and how it’s made. Any time there’s new technology involved in food production they have questions they want answered.”
Agriculture is trying to get out in front of this so gene edited doesn’t get lambasted like transgenics did when they were introduced decades ago.
The Coalition for Responsible Gene Editing in Agriculture, which has varied stakeholder interests (mainly industry), is developing a framework that it says will “provide assurance to the food system and other stakeholders that those using gene editing within the framework are doing so responsibly.”
For Canadian farmers, the bottom line is that they’ll have technology available to them that Europeans don’t – again. Whether consumers accept it and trust it will depend greatly on how the industry rolls it out.