Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 21
April 21, 2017
Seeing vs Loving
April 14, 2017
On Mental Disorders
April 7, 2017
Sexual Escapades
March 31, 2017
The Forthcoming Crisis
March 24, 2017
The Sixth Sense
March 17, 2017
Why We Need Mutual Trust and Respect?
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on March 13, 2017.
There is need for a culture of mutual trust and respect, a culture of cooperation and collaboration.
I am talking about the introduction of synergy, where two plus three is not five but six. In the interaction of diverse entities, two being different from three, something new is created through cross pollination; it is a value that couldn’t have been created unless there was an interaction among diverse opinions or know- how’s. For collaborative interaction to exist in diversity, there must be mutual respect.
This interaction however must be based on perceived commonality of interests. If the diverse parties do not share interests, do not share in the value they have created, why would they constructively interact? It must be symbiotic. There is, however, a problem: Since over time, as conditions change, commonality of interests get threatened, to endure, mutual trust is required.
But Mutual Trust and Respect (MT&R) seem to be internally incompatible. For mutual respect there must be disagreement, a byproduct of diversity. On the other hand for mutual trust, we should be in agreement. How to resolve this Catch-22?
What should we agree on?
On our common interest.
And what can we disagree on?
On what to do and how to create value for the benefit of us all.
Let me repeat: we should agree on what we are prone to disagree about (what are our common interests) and we can disagree on what we are prone to agree in order to avoid the pain imbedded in arguing (disagree on what and how to do).
MT&R is the foundation of a true socio-democratic system. It is Democratic, which means we learn from each other’s differences of opinion. It is Socio, in the sense, that there is a social consciousness to share obtained added values with everybody, not just a certain part of the society at the expense of other parts of the society.
So, how should we grow as a society, or as a company, or as a family? By growing jointly. By capitalizing on each other’s differences for the benefit of everybody. That is what Adizes Methodology is all about. That is why I call it a Symbergetic™ system. It is Sym from symbiotic, for mutual interest and it is bergetic from synergetic, which means growing.
How do we make that happen? Not just with good intentions. There is a tested well documented program. (I have published more than twenty books about the subject and there are over thousand pages of manuals providing protocols on how to do it.) It takes between one to three years to bring companies to full utilization of the system. The results have been exceptional. It produced exceptional sustainable growth.
If you have the right people who: 1) welcome disagreements because they learn from them, people who have controllable egos; 2) the right collaborative disciplined team decision-making process; 3) the right organizational structure that fosters diversity and not sameness, and 4) have unifying common vision and values, you will create and foster a culture of mutual trust and respect.
It has been proven with evidence, working with thousands of companies in over fifty-two countries, from start up to the largest on earth. It will minimize disintegration and maximize the freed energy from internal destructive conflicts to be devoted to the external market for a competitive advantage. It applies to any system, whether it’s a country, a business, a family, or an individual human being.
Just sharing,
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
March 10, 2017
On Happiness
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on March 7, 2017.
The pursuit of happiness is a right given to us by the U.S. Constitution. Is there any sane human being who does not yearn to be happy? But be careful. Not all roads to happiness are functional. There is evidence that seeking pleasure as a way to be happy could actually be the wrong focus in life.
A new book by Emily Esfahani Smith presents the research that inspired this post. It is called The Power of Meaning: Crafting a Life That Matters, and it was published by Crown Publishing in January 2017.
Seeking and living a life of pleasure might make you happy in the short run, but without deeper meaning it could make you miserable over time. Like sugar, it is sweet and gratifying while consumed, but has undesirable side effects in the long run.
Drugs, sex without love, and rich food all provide short-term gratification, they might make you happy for a while only to be followed by a feeling of emptiness over time.
Why?
People who pursue happiness are takers. They take from life as much as possible, in any way that will gratify them, and as soon as possible. When a person who is dependent on instant gratification, when he or she is not given the pleasure they insist on having, they feel like a baby who is pulled away from their mother’s breast. They cry with or without tears. Depending on the age.
So, what does make people happy in the long run?
A meaningful life, the author says.
People who have a meaningful life are givers and not takers. At times they may be miserable. Giving and sacrificing are hard work, but in the long run it fulfills. Take parenting as an example. It does not make you happy to have a rebellious teenager, but over time there will be moments of absolute happiness, like when grandchildren arrive. You know the joke: Grandchildren are the reward you get for not killing your children.
So, pursuing happiness by seeking immediate rewards is instantly gratifying, but can make you miserable in the long run.
Pursuing a meaningful life can be difficult and full of sacrifice at times, but can be extremely gratifying in the long run.
This insight helps explain to me why people who had an active and productive work life often die soon after retiring. They feel useless. Meanwhile, people who continue to contribute to society have a sense of purpose and something to live for. Have you noticed older retired people volunteering to be receptionists at hospitals or to direct people to the right elevator? There appears to be a need to be needed.
The longer you feel needed, the longer you live.
People who have a purpose in life, beyond their immediate happiness, behave as if possessed. And they are, by the purpose of their life. They do not get annoyed by little things that can drive those seeking instant gratification up the wall.
They have deeper meaning to their life, they have a sense of purpose. Their eyes are focused on the horizon and not on the pebbles at their feet.
To live a meaningful life, do not ask yourself why you exist. You won’t find the answer. Ask yourself what for you exist. There must be a purpose. What will you dedicate your life to?
Be a giver. Give as a parent, a worker, a lover, or as a son or a daughter. Give to the community. Give to the weak and needy. Give to art. Give to anything that inspires you. Fill your life with a purpose beyond your own needs.
Have gratitude that life enables you to make others happy. In the happiness of others you can find your own.
Just thinking,
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
March 3, 2017
Kazakhstan’s National Business Magazine Interviews Dr. Adizes
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on February 27, 2017.
According to your theory, every company has a “life cycle” – the path from birth to death. At each new stage of development, each organization faces a unique set of challenges and difficulties. At the same time, the organization’s success depends on the ability of managers to manage the transition from one stage to another. What are the difficulties facing companies in Kazakhstan?
I believe that in Kazakhstan companies are in two places of the lifecycle. Either there are in the “Go-go” stage still running entrepreneurially by owner as a manager, which are usually small companies privately owned. They have a problem of becoming more professionally managed. The other place in the lifecycle, is the big companies, like Samruk-kazyna, managed by government. And they have different problems. They are, on the one hand, still trying to run professionally, at the same time they are very bureaucratic. So, there is a lot of work to be done to change the culture in these companies in both stages. By the way, it is not only in Kazakhstan. All developing countries have the same problem… Either bureaucracy or small companies.
Not so long ago you met with Nursultan Nazarbayev and shared views on key aspects of the interaction between government and business. You mentioned the importance of further implementation of the transformation program of “National Welfare Fund” Samruk-Kazyna “. Can you mention the main directions for reform that you recommend to national companies?
Samruk Kazyna is going to be privatized. In my judgment, it is an attempt to debureaucratize government companies by making them profit-oriented and the belief is that if they and privately owned they will be more profit oriented and thus less bureaucratic. In my judgment, there could be a major side-effect, collateral damage. When privately owned PROFIT becomes THE DRIVING GOAL. Especially if they are owned by foreign investors. Because they are mainly, if not exclusively profit-oriented, they are going to fire a lot of people. They do not have as a goal social responsibility to provide employment and retrain people etc. That means that there is going to be a lot of political risks. May be social unrest.
There are other ways to debureaucratize., You can have a company which is government owned and it is very, very efficient. I think it is depends on management. My suggestion to Nursultan Nazarbayev was to debureaucratize the company without selling it off, because the new owner will have a different goal than government has. The country needs to keep employment, but new owner could fire people.
How long does it usually take, in countries like Kazakhstan, to debureaucratize corporations?
It depends on the president, on the CEO. If they are really COMMITTED, you can do it in one or two years. It usually takes three years, but if really really pushed you can do it in one-two years.
Should changes occur in people’s minds or in corporate culture?
You have to change the environment, and people will open up. I don’t believe we can change people, we can change the environment. We can change the organizational structure, the reward system, your measurement goals, and measurement performance. If you do those things you debureaucratize the company. You don’t change people, you change the environment to make people open up.
In one of the interviews, you said, you have skeptical attitude to business schools, MBA, as they try to grow perfect leaders, which is impossible. Every manager is good in two roles maximum of four, you described, the other two are usually not effective. How to improve those weakest two?
You cannot improve your weaknesses; do you realize that? All this attempts to change a person, it is impossible. You don’t change people. What you need to do is when you know that you have weaknesses, acknowledge it, make your team COMPLEMENT your weaknesses. Get someone, who is strong in what you need to fix out. Together you can do better. Business schools are derived from schools of economics. In the schools of economics there are all theories, based on assumption. All business schools train a manager how to be a perfect manager. They don’t teach you togetherness, they teach how to think and how to be independent. Not how to work as a team. They teach individuals, and individuals cannot manage very well.
How to deal with nepotism?
Ok. Look. I told that to Nursultan Nazarbayev too. Kazakhstan historically is nomadic society and they survive by mutual helping. What you call nepotism is the outcome of a culture of helping each other. Now, when you don’t have professional management, when you don’t have budgetary control and systems, what do you do? You rely on people you trust. Whom do you trust? You trust your family. Thus, nepotism is a really cultural outcome and the result of the LACK of managerial sophistication in Kazakhstan. Let’s assume we prohibit it by law. It will stop the country. It will paralyze the country. So, nepotism is necessary evil in light of your tradition, in light of your managerial sophistication. The way to eliminate it is not to legally prohibit it, it would be dangerous to prohibit it. Instead, we should focus on managerial training and professionalization of management. Then you don’t have to trust your brother or sister to do your job, you can hire somebody, and supervise if they did a very good job. So, we have to substitute trust with professional management. As long as you hire people who are qualified and trustworthy, it’s ok. The danger with nepotism is that we hire and trust people, who are not qualified. So, you hire people you trust, but they cannot do the job. The problem is not nepotism. The problem is that you hire people nepotistically who are not qualified. If I hire someone who is qualified, that I trust and he is from my family, what is the problem?
Then how to motivate people to improve their qualification?
The problem of nepotism is that you hire people who are not qualified, because they are family. You cannot fire them, and now the company IS suffering. So, the problem, how to make them qualified. I think the best thing is to offer training. People will study, Kazakh people are smart, intelligent and capable. They will do it. We need TO provide enough training.
The second and third stages of the program Adizes, transmitted by you on the Forum of Transformation of “Samruk-Kazyna” in October 2014, says – “it is necessary to give all the staff the opportunity to share their views and make their contribution to the common cause. But at this stage we should focus on discipline, because we are dealing with people who for long time had no opportunity to speak, so when it introduced, to speak all they want. ” Given the shortage of qualified staff to make this step effective? How is the transformation now? What are your plans for the next stage?
Kazakhstan like all other CIS countries suffer from the Soviet Union legacy of authoritarianism. People are not participating, they are not sharing their brain. They are not sharing their knowledge, because of that they are not working as intelligently as they could. So, they are not using their brain. The company is not encouraging people to express themselves to yield better result. The same problem in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus.
You saw our government and top management; do you think they will follow your suggestions?
I don’t know. (Laughing)
Are they ready for those kinds of changes?
I hope so. In Kazakhstan people are very open and I was really encouraged to work in Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, I got sick, otherwise I would move there to help the country. I love Kazakhstan, I liked people. I wish I moved for two years to Kazakhstan. People are looking to change, they are very eager to change, eager to move forward. And I wanted to be part of it. I found all the conditions for success, they just need to do it. too bad i got sick. but may be in the future it still can be done.
February 24, 2017
When to Trust
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on February 20, 2017.
How do you know whether or not you can trust someone? Usually we test them: We give them an assignment or a loan and wait to see what the future brings. This method might work but might turn out to be costly too.
What else can you do? Many people think you can trust someone you have known for many years, using the past experiences to gauge whether they are trustworthy. This also can be misleading, though. There are people I have known for fifteen years, and they were trustworthy all that time; now, however, I would not even loan them a dollar. What has changed?
Trustworthiness is not in how a person speaks, or the “vibes” you get from him or her. Those factors can be misleading. There are conmen who seem like the most trustworthy people on earth. Hollywood street wisdom says that if someone tells you, “trust me,” that’s the best sign that you should be extremely careful—they are already putting their hand in your pocket.
How can you tell, up front, without additional testing, whether to trust someone or not?
Well, what is trust?
I suggest to you that you can trust people who share your interests. In other words, the people with whom you have common interests. The moment there is no common interest—regardless of how long you have known someone and how trustworthy they have been in the past—if your interests are no longer shared, you should not trust them. Be careful. The past is not the present. In the past you had common interests, but now you do not.
The reverse is also true. Perhaps in the past you had conflicting interests, so you each had to watch your backs. But now the situation has changed and you have common interests. Trust should be alive.
Trust exists when there are common interests. It might exist without common interest, with people who are spiritual or altruistic, but that is not business. Even in these instances, I suggest that you look for what is motivating the other person. There is no smoke without fire, so look for the fire. What is driving the other person, and does it fit your interests or not?
Just thinking,
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
February 17, 2017
Best is Not Necessarily Right
It is natural, I think, that we want to get the best service possible especially in medical care or education. So, we seek the best hospital or the best university.
I learned how wrong that is.
Years ago, when I consulted for the government of Ghana in Health Delivery Planning, I learned that there are three types of hospitals: research, teaching or service.
Usually hospitals are a combination of the three types. The difference is in the degree of emphasis given to each goal: research, teaching or service.
What makes the reputation of a hospital or a university is their research, hardly ever the level of their service.
So, if you go to “the best” hospital, you are going to a hospital that is known for its research, the service there takes a back seat. If you do not have some rare disease that they are doing research about, if you have a garden type of a disease, going to the “best hospital” might mean you will get second class service, i.e. treatment might not be possible. They just do not have time for you.
And that applies to education too. We all want to send our children to “the best” university. I did. I sent one of them to Berkeley. What a name!!! Reputation!!!
A friend of mine who had a PhD from Berkeley warned me “this is a great University to get a PhD from but not for undergraduates. “It is a research oriented University, that is what gave it its fame. Undergraduates do not interest them. They do not add to the fame of the University. And he was right. My son was taught mostly by teaching assistants in large crowded classes.
I sent the other two to a local community college. Very good teaching. Excellent attention to students.
The best solution was to send the undergraduate to a small school that cares about its teaching and then for the Masters and or PhD to a famous, “best “university”.
Same with medical care. If what you have is a run of the mill disease start with local community care. If it does not work, escalate to a teaching hospital who knows what is the latest in protocols and medicine. If that does not work, now you are ready for what is called the most reputable, the best name hospital.
If you have a problem with your car where should you go first to? To a university where they do research about mechanical engineering or should you go to a neighborhood car mechanic?
Obvious answer.
I wish I knew this years ago.
Just thinking,
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
