Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 23

Beware of Making Decisions

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on November 28, 2016.

When companies must make decisions, there are many factors that contribute to the riskiness of the process. If the company is behaviorally young and flexible, and the founder or leader is fully in control, making decisions is not as  dangerous as it is later when the company is large and set in its ways. In a relatively small company and behaviorally young, If the leader makes a mistake, s/he can correct it promptly. S/he is close to the action and can identify the mistake and since s/he is in control s/he can take prompt corrective actions. This is not the case in large, multinational companies.

First of all, as a CEO or top executive in a large company you may be far from where the mistake is being realized. You may not even be aware of it unless the company  gets sued by clients or government. That is what happened to Ken Lay of Enron. He was truly not aware of what was happening to Enron—even his lawyers and auditors were telling him all was kosher. Even if a CEO is aware that his decision has created a mess, his capability to make corrective actions is limited. The larger a company is and the older it is behaviorally, the more political they become. As CEO you have to maneuver through internal and external power structures to make corrective actions if your initial decision was a mistake. The reality is you do not have much  room to maneuver in a highly intensive, politically ridden organization.

If a decision you made is at first resisted by the existing power structure, and you overcome that resistance, the decision now becomes embedded in the political structure of the company. The more they resisted the deeper are the roots of your decision when you finally overcame the resistance. Now, if you try to change it there is new and stronger resistance to change because the roots are deeper.  That is what I believe happened to Wells Fargo. A decision was made somewhere in the structure to reward people based on how many accounts they opened. It became clear that bogus accounts were being opened and unjustified bonuses granted.

Did the company make money on these bogus accounts? I do not believe so. How can you make money on unfunded accounts and it costs money to open and then close them because they were not funded. I don’t believe the fees charged would have covered the administrative expense of opening and closing these accounts, not to mention the bonuses paid.

So why did Wells Fargo continue doing it? I believe it continued because changing a decision was not easy. People were relying on the bonus structure; Sales goals and budgets were based on the projections of how many accounts would be opened; Top executives probably had it as part of their KPI goals. Much was involved here. It was easy to make the decision to implement this policy, but once the decision had deep roots, uprooting the tree that grew from this decision was not easy. True top management could issue an edict to stop the bonus system but it needed to replace it with something else or peoples income will be impacted and it needed to change the whole business model. Can be done but it is not as easy as it looks.

The larger and older behaviorally the company is, the more carefully it has to navigate while making decisions. Choices should be very well thought through and tested on a small scale before being implemented companywide.

The bigger you are, the slower you should move. On paper, many decisions look good, especially ones designed by consultants who have no experience in the field. Consultants are not responsible for the success or failure of their recommendations

I hope this explains why I am scared of Donald Trump becoming the President of the USA. He shoots from the hip, changing decisions when it suits him from moment to moment. I do not see him as the leader of change. I see him as the potential leader of chaos.

America is not just another hotel project, regardless of how large and tall it is going to be. (Even with hotel projects Trump went bankrupt more than once.) America is a complicated, enormous, interdependent machine, where turning one wheel turns thousands of others. It is easy to break the machine and create havoc.

Our situation is like a very sophisticated mine that needs to be dismantled slowly, carefully, and patiently.

Make fewer, carefully considered decisions, rather than rushing to make many decisions carelessly. Then one doesn’t need to rush to blame others when these decisions backfire.

Furthermore , the best remedy is to open the channels for communication from bottom  up so that the mistakes can be identified promptly and corrective action be taken promptly. Adizes program for organizational transformation is a tool designed to achieve that.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

On Getting Religious

This weekend I had a very emotional experience.

I went for an event sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Santa Barbara where I live. It was a barbeque for the community.

Standing there, I was approached by a Habad-nik , a Jewish religious missionary organization that does not try to convert non Jews to Judaism. They try hard to keep those that have been born Jewish to remain Jewish through adhering to the rituals of the Jewish faith.

He asked me if I would like to put tefilin. It is a contraption Jews puts on their hand and around forehead as they recite a short prayer. Nothing major.

I have been approached by Habad-niks in airports, on the street of Israel and have put tefilin just to get them off my back because they really insist . This time it was different. I did it willingly and as was reciting the prayer I got emotional . Almost in tears. And told the Habad-nik I want to learn how to put tefilin  every day from now on.

What happened I wondered? What happened to me? Was  I becoming religious all at once?

Here is my insight.

One possible explanation is that I was getting emotional because  in my older age I am starting to think of what the Lord will judge me for and was becoming religious to protect myself from being sent to hell for my misdeeds while alive.

No, no.  That is not the case.  I have no fear of after life . Anyway I have not sinned enough to be sent to hell. That is what I believe. So why the emotion? Why did I decide I will learn how to put tefilin from now on and do it daily.

Where did this religious interest come from?

As we age, (E) goes down. There is less time to enjoy the fruits of our investment. We become more conservative with how we allocate our time. We are not as prone to plant a tree when we know we will not enjoy its fruits. We do not invest  for the long run. We do not build new empires like we did when we were young.

But as we become seniors, not only our (E) goes down, our (P) goes down too. That is why it is called retirement. We are not working anymore. We enjoy the fruits of our past investments. What is left is (A) and (I).

Not strange the older we become the pickier we are and easily irritated with any violation of what we consider order . That is (A) in action. And what are the manifestations for the growing (I) replacing (E) and (P)? We become more family oriented. Much more than ever before in our life cycle. We care for integration and it does not stop with family. It involves integration with higher purpose. And God is a higher purpose.

For me putting the tefilin on I believe, was symbolic of being united with all my ancestors who did the same for two thousand years. Of feeling part of the Jewish nation scattered around the world and in most cases still prosecuted for its beliefs. It was symbolic of belonging , being part and parcel of all.

Interesting,

Just thinking

Ichak Kalderon Adizes.

Why Clinton Lost

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on November 15, 2016.

Thousand of pages will be written by political scientists analyzing the 2016 elections, and why and how Hillary Clinton lost a race that polls predicted she would win. There will be as many explanations as there are people who research the subject.

Here is my opinion—not substantiated by any research, just from my gut. Take it for whatever it is worth.

I think Michele Obama gave Clinton the wrong advice when she said, “When they go low, you go high.”

Watching the debates my muscles tightened. I was ready to throw up. Donald Trump was bullying Clinton and she was taking it lying down. He said, for instance, that Putin does not respect her. What evidence of that did he have whatsoever? He said she is the most—and pay attention to the extreme language he used—the most corrupt politician ever. Where is the evidence? He accused her of being a criminal. This is America and a person is innocent until proven guilty. She was neither proven guilty nor even charged. So where is this accusation coming from?

She took it lying down.

As we know from Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, if you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it. I think many Democrats did not go to vote because they could not vote for Trump and, with her character assassinated, Hillary was not an alternative either. So they stayed home. And Trump won.

Watching the campaign, I noticed that Trump’s supporters were energized. There was tension in the air. Clinton’s audience was subdued. There was no energy that I could detect.

His slogan—“Make America Great Again”—spoke to people. It meant something. It was a goal to aim for. Everyone could interpret what “great again” meant and get excited about it. Her rallying message, “Stronger Together,” has been used by many politicians before. It is old—a “so what?” message.

Yes, Clinton is a woman. True, she did not stand up to Bill when he was unfaithful. And she did not react like most human beings would when being put down and stepped on. She was too civilized. You can step on her and she takes it.

That exactly is how America behaves in foreign relations: We support the world, and the world (except Israel) hates us. We take their hatred lying down. So, in a sense, Clinton was the personification of what is wrong with America.

Trump projected strength: no bull, no fear, strength we all want to see in our country. In the difficult times America is facing, people look for someone strong, not a doormat.

I voted for Clinton. It is too bad she lost.

Just pondering,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Post-Election Pondering

This post was featured on Medium.com on Friday 11/11/2016.

Donald Trump, the vulgar bully and questionably successful real estate developer, got elected to the most prestigious and powerful position in the world: President of the United States of America.

I was not surprised.

Now there are demonstrations across the country: People are screaming at the top of their lungs, “Trump is not our president,” and there is a burgeoning movement, Calexit, to separate California from the United States.

I’m not surprised about that either.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, I believe we would have seen the same phenomenon of street marches against her; this time those who favored Trump would be marching. And if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic nominee and had won against Trump, we would have marches against him too.

It has nothing to do with Trump or Clinton. Or Sanders or Joe Schmo or whoever was elected. It is all due to where America is in the lifecycle.

When a system ages it starts to disintegrate. In our physical life, the heart might stop collaborating with the rest of the body, or a kidney fails. Notice how older people are not as social as younger people either. An old car also falls apart, as does old furniture.

America is falling apart. It did not start with Clinton vs. Trump. The disintegration is now in full swing, but it started a long time ago. I suggest it started with Richard Nixon.

America as a system is aging. Notice that the leading entrepreneurs of this country are primarily foreign born, or second-generation immigrants. We are importing entrepreneurship. Look at who attends schools of engineering, science, and math. (What are the American kids studying? Global studies, women’s studies, music, and art.) Examine R&D investments and startup company statistics. Entrepreneurship is going down while government machinery is mushrooming. These are all signs of an aging system.

After Aristocracy comes the stage of Recrimination. Major disintegration. That is when companies fall apart. That is the stage when leaders are rejected. The whole body turns against itself and against those who try to make constructive change. In a previous blog, I said that if you are surprised by Barack Obama’s low popularity, wait and see what will happen to his successor—whoever it is.

The system wants to change all right. It will attract leaders who promise change but, as they do, the system rejects them. That is what is happening here, whether that leader is Trump or Clinton or Joe Schmo.

When aging starts it proceeds quickly to the demise of the system. We grow fast; we also age fast.

America’s disintegration will accelerate. The country’s leader, whoever it is, will try to control that disintegration with a heavy hand. Notice that throughout history, dictators have emerged when there has been a major crisis.

A heavy hand does not stop the disintegration; in some cases, it can even accelerate the disintegration. When that happens, companies go bankrupt. Countries do not go bankrupt; they just disintegrate. Calexit may be the first rain announcing the arrival of winter.

Is there a way back? Can a system be rejuvenated?

Yes, it can. The theory has been documented(1) and tested successfully with corporations.(2)

Not with countries, though.

I am watching and biting my nails. I know why it is happening, I know what needs to be done, and, as it is, I cannot do anything.

Just pondering,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

(1) Ichak Kalderon Adizes: Managing Corporate Lifecycles. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publications, 2004.

(2) Ichak Kalderon Adizes: Conversations with CEOs. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publications, 2015.

Make America Great Again

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on November 02, 2016.

There are going to be millions of Americans who are going to vote for Trump come November 8. They want change. Ok. Good. But change to what?

Maybe Trump’s promise to make America great AGAIN gives us a clue as to what kind of change he is planning. “AGAIN” sounds to me like he wants to take America to what it has been. Thus, it appeals to those with a conservative band.

When was America great? Greater than now?

I suggest America was in its Prime in the nineteen fifties of the last century. Right after the second world war. Can we go BACK?  The conditions have changed drastically. Can we recreate that world? Life was so much simpler then. Our world is far too complicated in comparison now.

Ah, maybe “again” does not refer to reversing us to the past but to make America great again because it is no more.

Ok. Let us assume that is true. Let us then analyze some of the ingredients of Trumps ideas (I would not call them plans) that will make America great. How will this country look if the changes he recommends get implemented; Let us imagine and let us be sure that it will make America better off, not worse off.

Will deporting eleven million illegal inhabitants make America great again? Or will it make America a police state? Imagine what will it take to find and deport eleven millions illegals.

Ah, maybe building a wall, even if paid by the Mexicans, will make America great again?

Repeal Nafta? Ok do it. Will it provide more employment in the USA?

Are our wages competitive? If not, how would our economy do?

Stop corruption? That sounds like a great idea but how specifically does he intend to fight corruption? Good luck. There is no nation without some corruption and all efforts throughout history to eliminate corruption failed. Didn’t Jesus fight corruption too?  Did he succeed? There was and there will always be some corruption unless you create a dictatorship of unprecedented proportions. For instance he claims the media is corrupt. How will he uncorrupt it? Muzzle it? Censor it?  Is that what we want or maybe he has a secret plan he does not want to reveal yet. Are we willing to chose a president without knowing what might be the collateral damage of his enlightened plans?

It is so easy to be against something. We know plenty that he will change. But what will he change America into, so far it does not look very promising.  Are we willing to take the risk?

Ah, maybe mandatory imprisonment of repeated illegals will make America great.

We already lead the world with number of imprisoned per capita. Our prisons are over flowing as is, and judges are giving early releases to reduce prison congestion. To fulfill Trump’s plan, we will need to build new prisons and have several million more prisoners. Will that make America great?

Can Trump implement his plans democratically or is he assuming America is another corporation he is the ceo of and all he needs to do is decide and things happen. If the congress does not vote for his plans does he fire those that do not heed his decisions?

America is not a corporation. Can he fire congressmen or senators who do not agree with his “plans”? Or maybe destroying the democratic process of decision-making and implementation, will make America great again?

People that will vote for Trump want to change from what is, without fully having a clear picture of what they want to change to, or if they do, I wonder if they have analyzed the collateral results of the changes he recommends they make. All they know is what they do not want how America is run today and they do not want Hillary.

So this is all a vote against something, not in favor of something. And something is so nebulous, foggy, unarticulated that I am not sure it will make America great at all. On the contrary.

What America needs is first of all a new vision. With a new vision maybe we can develop a plan, not just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions to what we do not like; a vision we understand that will make America great. Without such a unifying comprehensive vision we are shooting in the dark and most probably our foot.

Let me make it clear. I am not enamored with Clinton either but if I have to choose even between a probable disease of Aids or an assured disease of pneumonia, I choose the latter one. .

Just thinking

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Donald Trump’s Leadership Style?

This blog post was featured on Medium.com on October 25, 2016.

As I read about Donald Trump, I recall a chapter in a book I wrote more than ten years ago(1)  about a style, PAEI code (–E-), whom I named AN ARSONIST.

Below are some edited excerpts:

“What is important to (an arsonist?) ….. What we do is not important. How we do it is not important either……they are concerned with why not. With change. With exciting ideas…… For the Arsonist, planning does not mean committing the organization to a course of action. To this type of (leader), planning means presenting a long list of wishes……

The (–E-) habitually exaggerates. He favors words like “never,” “always,” “impossible,” ….. in order to set fires under his subordinates’ (followers???)  feet………

…. Arsonists act out of emotion and nervous energy; very often it’s negative energy. They have a huge need to build something new, which often means destroying what’s already in place…. to start from scratch, (an arsonist) must find something wrong with everything………

…….. An (–E-) is always busy planning, then promoting, the brilliant innovations he’s going to make. But how much will they cost? What repercussions will there be? “These are details,” he’ll shrug…… This is why an Arsonist can build a big company and lose it overnight……… (He or she) works with a big brush on a wide canvas… The (–E-) style corresponds to an eagle, soaring thousands of feet above the ground. From up there, everything looks simple; after all, with one movement of its wings it can fly from boulder to boulder. The eagle cannot comprehend that down on the ground, in order to move from one location to another, you may have to hike up and down mountains and canyons……

(He) is like an actor, constantly performing…. desperately needs an audience……. is usually very likable, ….. is stimulating, enterprising, and full of energy….. Likes to witness the furor that his initiatives cause…… likes an atmosphere of urgency and is delighted when his subordinates are rushing in and out, trying to cope with the emergencies he’s created…

Agenda? … If there is one, he violates it, moving from subject to subject at will or raising subjects that were not scheduled to be discussed….. Hates boundaries – and those who set them – with a passion.…… marches to their own drummer, on their own road, to their own destination….  doesn’t like to finalize anything; everything can be improved; even in mid-change anything might be changed in yet another, “better” direction. Everything is open-ended…….… Because they create on the run, Arsonists often contradict themselves….. An (–E-) often says, “It’s too late to disagree with me; I’ve already changed my mind.” Eventually you can’t follow what he’s saying……. Yet not being understood upsets and offends an Arsonist, and he can react with unbelievable hostility.….. hostile with those people who haven’t understood him, deciding that it’s all their fault. Here is a typical (–E-) expression: “It is difficult to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys.…….” When a small child cannot explain himself, he might start screaming and crying and banging the table with his fist. An Arsonist is like that small child. ……. Arsonists, can be outrageously vulgar and abusive in their anger……..

……. An (–E-) …..makes all the decisions; whoever disagrees with him or is less than enthusiastic in his support becomes an enemy. “If you are not for me, you are against me,” is a typical (–E-) attitude…….. They cannot tolerate dissent.…. perceived threats can trigger rage….….. if they get disapproval…., they become hostile and sometimes destructive….. If an Arsonists loses control of a company he built, he might actually kill it, like an animal that eats its own young…… An Arsonist views a public disagreement the way an opera singer might view a heckler who boos when he is at his high C. The Arsonist holds grudges and will not easily forget this threat to his ego……

They always act like they know best. They are constantly giving advice and can hardly stand to take it. Their behavior is driven by a tremendous need for approval and applause.…… Although [they] often say that they want teamwork, what that means in practice is that they want a group of yes-men……

There are two elements that drive the Arsonist: his ego, and an intense fear of death. The (–E-)s fear oblivion and crave immortality.…..…. Arsonists cling to their dreams even after they become implementation nightmares. They refuse to wake up…….. Arsonists…… have a hard time accepting reality. … This type of manager (leader) is seldom right but never in doubt…..…. Deep in his mind, an (- -E- ) believes, “I am going to do what I want to do, and don’t you worry, everything will turn out all right.……”

….. The (—E-) is the worst listener.….. as he expands he listens even less to words of caution and advice… Rather than try to persuade those who disagree with him, he feels justified in ignoring them… is impulsive… emotional and expressive…… like a narcissist, is in love with his own work and ideas – with himself.

Maccoby, in his book: Narcissistic Leaders(2)  says: “(Narcissists assume) flagrant risk-taking that can lead to catastrophe…. Because of their independence and aggressiveness, they are constantly looking out for enemies, sometimes degenerating into paranoia when they are under extreme stress.…………” Arsonists really believe that somebody is screwing up…… the Arsonist will look for a scapegoat…… Arsonists always have a “villain on duty…….”

Summary: (Arsonists) question everything; comes with his own agenda, disregards the existing agenda……. Thrives on (change) and loves it if he introduces it; resists it when generated by others. Appraises himself by: The existence of a beehive atmosphere; the appearance of productivity, usually manifested in crisis. Most distinctive personality traits: Enthusiastic, stimulating, charismatic, creative and exciting. Wants the spotlight; charming to outsiders (those he does not know); tough with insiders; criticizes people in public; looks for the hole in the doughnut instead of the doughnut, “Bugs Bunny syndrome” – full speed ahead, in neutral, seldom right but never in doubt; personalizes problems……. Offers only negative feedback, and often. Will criticize in public. If you don’t accept his criticism, he escalates the criticism. No one is good enough….…. does not want to commit himself to anything….…. Temporary, no permanent commitments; proactive decisions, but (inadequate) follow-up.…. Brushes off problems or solutions that other people have invested time and energy into; ideas aren’t any good unless they’re his ideas, and he insists on the right to changes his decision frequently…..”

(1) Ichak Kalderon Adizes: Management/Mismanagement Styles (Santa Barbara, CA: Adizes Institute Publications, 2004) page 107
(2) Michael Maccoby: Narcissistic Leaders: Who Succeeds and Who Fails (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007)

Why Yugoslavia is No More?

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on October 14, 2016.

In 1948, the Yugoslavs created a self-management system that democratized the country’s enterprises. It required democratic decision making whereby the workers elected their leaders and approved business plans and budgets through elected workers’ councils.

It was an incredible experiment in developing a system of market economy with a socialist ideology through democratization of all enterprises. It was an attempt to create the third way, not capitalism and not socialism per se but a fusion of the two systems into a third system.

It failed.

Why?

It was democracy all right, but in most cases it was only on paper. People did not know how to manage democratically. All their experiences, starting with family life, were with hierarchical, top-down organizations.

Furthermore, it was impossible to have democratic micro-organizations within a dictatorial macro system. The systems interrelated. Because the market system was relatively controlled by political considerations and without any opposition, many economic decisions on the macro level were governed by political rather than economic reasoning. This impacted economic performance.

Moreover, because of Yugoslavia’s Communist ideology there was no recognition of capital. The self-management theory struggled with how to handle the formation of capital and how to reward longstanding employees who with long term employment created equity. Many theories on minuli rad, past work, which is how communist ideology tried to justify the concept of capital emerged, but it did not solve the problem. The result was that the country’s entrepreneurial spirit was suffocated. There was no reward for starting and building a business. It further impacted economic performance.

Another problem with self-management was that it reversed the status of the hierarchical organization. In the traditional management paradigm, management is at the top of the hierarchy with the power to decide, the workers are at the bottom and supposedly powerless. Self-management reversed this structure, making the workers all-powerful and the managers dis-empowered. Many companies were left with no one wanting to serve in a leadership role.

Because of political intervention in economic decision making, non-recognition of capital, and the reversal of the hierarchy, the self-management system was inefficient, extremely time consuming and frustrating, and did not produce exceptional economic results.

It held together while the dictator, Josip Broz Tito, was alive. No one dared to challenge the system. Self-management collapsed when the political system that protected and promoted it collapsed. With Tito’s death, the presidency was replaced by a Presidential Office, composed of leaders of the Yugoslav Federation’s republics. The central power became weak as it become managed by a committee.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was Kosovo. Kosovo was, and is still today, viewed by Serbia as central to its national heritage. Kosovo is where the Serb nation was born hundreds of years ago in a battle against Ottoman dominance.

Over the years, through demographic expansion and illegal immigration, Kosovo came to be populated by 2 million Albanians. Local Serbs felt unwelcome and moved to Serbia. The Albanians majority asked to be separated from Serbia and wanted equal recognition in the federation. Due to its nationalistic pride, Serbia refused (and still refuses today). It is our Jerusalem, they claim.

Kosovo needed financial support since it was an underdeveloped area of Yugoslavia. As long as Tito was alive, funds to support the region were provided by each Yugoslav republic. After his death none of the republics other than Serbia felt any emotional attachment to Kosovo and refused to send funds there. Serbia forced their hand by unilaterally using federal funds. That served as an excuse for all the other republics to request the dissolution of the federation.

Today, each state that was once part of Yugoslavia is in worse shape that it was when it was part of the federation. In my visits there, people lament the dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation. There was more economic success, more pride and standing in the international community then, they say. Now it is all gone. Today the hope is to join the European Union.

My heart hurts for Yugoslavia, the country of my birth that does not exist anymore.

Just sharing,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

(1) Based on my books: Industrial Democracy Yugoslav Style and Self Management, New Dimensions to Democracy ( with Elizabeth Mann Borgese.) Available from www.adizes and my consulting to the Prime Ministers there.

Sandcastles vs. Taj Mahals

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on October 10, 2016.

I have recently been preoccupied with the meaning of life, and expressed my fear that maybe all my life was spent building what amounts to a sandcastle. It was depressing.

Some of you—thank you—told me to stop and desist, that I have done a lot for the world I live in. You said that I have done my share of tikun olam, so all this self-doubt is not warranted. Stop kvetching one said. Thank you. You are probably right.

But I still hold to my point: We all create sandcastles. We climb mountains that are only in our heads. We chase imaginary rainbows we never capture. The rainbow moves. And for every mountain peak we ascended it was only to see the next mountain with the next peak.

Climbing mountains and chasing rainbows is not without benefit. That is not the sand castle I was referring to.  While alive we contribute and do good, but after we die what happens to what we have created? We are forgotten or at best, our work gets reinterpreted, and often abused. Look what the Inquisitors did with Jesus’s preaching on love. Karl Marx had the best of intentions to make a better world and what did his followers implement? Gulags, cultural revolutions, and oppressive misery for the masses.

What is permanent? What is not a sandcastle?

It occurred to me that fine art is not like a sandcastle. It is recreated each time a piece of art is viewed or music is played.

I remember visiting the Taj Mahal for the first time. I thought I knew what to expect—I had seen the pictures many times. But seeing it in real life was something else. As I turned the corner at the entrance to the tourist attraction, and it came in full view, I admit, I started crying. I was moved. What I saw was so beautiful. Why is that?

I do not get so moved, energized, or uplifted by rap music or dance music. If I do it is only for a very short interval of time. Only certain music moves me repetitively. Music my mother used to sing to me, for example. I can still feel the love in her voice years later. And certain classical music I love. I get energized by quality fine art, not by the kind of paintings found on motel walls.

What is the common denominator?

These works are produced not to serve the artist, nor to serve the audience. They are created out of inspiration, where the artist is only an honest instrument, a channel, pure as can be, for the inspiration that comes from love. My mother’s music inspires me because there was so much love in her singing to me, and to her grandchildren.  And the Taj Mahal was built to express the love of the emperor to his beloved wife that passed away. And what is absolute love? Is it not God?

Real creative artists will tell you they did not create their work; they were inspired in creating it. Pay attention to the word inspired, which is so close to “in spirit.” Real  artists are a clean channel through which higher consciousness expresses itself.

Where is this inspiration coming from? I suggest from God. And what is God if not absolute LOVE. And God is permanent.

When what is created is created with pure LOVE, true, unconditional love it is more permanent. Not a sandcastle. That is why I said previously in my blog that I am most alive when I give of myself and yield to love—not to ego, not to money, not to fame—but to do God’s work, to do what inspires me, what fulfills my heart.

How much love is there in the work you do? How inspired are you? Do you create for ego gratification? For the bank account? Or you create whatever you do, even wash restrooms, because you cannot help it. It is stronger than you. Bigger than you. You will die inside if you do not do it? And if it financially rewarded, we do not reject it but we do not chase it.

If so, you are blessed. . . I am.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Decision Making Pitfalls

When we have a problem, an issue we are struggling with, and we ask for advice, the usual question of the problem solver is to ask: “what do you want?” As if you are really clear about what you want then the solution will be self-evident. Or to say it differently, your problem is because you don’t know what you want.

It is not necessarily so.

Many times we know clearly what we want and express it well, but for some reason, we are not able to implement the solution we want which makes us even more frustrated.

This is evident in the consulting profession.

The consulting practice starts with defining goals and proceeds to elaborate a plan of action (at a nice fee) what the company should do. And what happens? The consultant recommends a horse and what emerges at the implementation stage, if at all, is a camel. What went wrong?

The sequence that has been followed is: want > should. This does not work because there isn’t sufficient energy to carry out the decision as designed. Why?

Energy is fixed at any point in time and in the sequence of want > should, there is a “leak” somewhere that robs the solution of energy. That is why we are even more frustrated with our solution that isn’t working than with the problem. Where is the leak?

We ignored the “is,” the reality. As we deliberated what we should do and what we want, deep inside our conscience there were doubts as to what we can do and if this is the real problem, and thus if we are working on the right solution. Subconsciously as you tried to solve the problem, the limited energy got depleted, frustrating you from moving forward. When you admit your disease, you free all the energy that is stuck in fighting your reality, in denying it; all the energy now can be dedicated to designing and implementing a solution.

Notice: you will not lose weight till you honestly admit that you are fat.

You will not resolve your addiction to alcohol till you publicly admit: Hi, my name is, and I am an alcoholic.”

So for problem solving starts with what IS going on, honestly, truly, with no fear nor pretentions.

Next ask yourself, in light of what is going on, what do you want?

Now a gap has been created between what is versus what you want to be.

This gap is frustrating and all energy now can be focused on what you should do to move from the is to what you want. The desired sequence for effective decision making: is>want>should

A common mistake is to start with what we want, ignoring reality, what is or worse, we start with what we should do, again ignoring the is, the reality. Like an architect designing a house based on principles of architectural design, ignoring where the building IS located. We can notice how the practice of medicine follows the right sequence. The doctor knows you want to be healthy nevertheless always starts with diagnosis: what IS going on, and only then proceeds with what the medical intervention should be.

Just thinking

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Need to Love

There are a lot of theories on human needs, like to reproduce and to feed where the common denominator is the survival of the species.

Then the McClellan theory that there is the need to achieve, to control and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from survival to self-actualization, etc.

I have not seen it but I believe someone must have identified the need to love and be loved.

We know from research that babies that are not caressed do not gain as much weight, and children that grow up in an orphanage deprived of parental love, develop all kinds of mental problems.

And we all know from personal experience, I bet, how lonely and depressing it is not to be in a loving relationship.

It is not the need for affiliation. That need is from your brain, to socialize, to interrelate. It is not the need for sexual release either. It is to love with your heart; To ache with your heart for someone.

If you cannot get it from a human, being get a pet.

Research shows that even hardcore prisoners get humanized when given a dog to raise. The love that dog gives to them changes their behavior better and faster than any talk therapy. Maybe they became criminals because they were deprived of this most basic need of all: to love and be loved.

We are trying to solve our problems with our brain, analyzing cost benefit ratios. The real, sustainable solution is processed by the heart, where we feel without having a clue of the ratios.

What interferes with this need to love or be loved is the brain with all the other needs it has to process. One of them is fear which is related to the need to survive. Another is to achieve; we are so busy with a career we have no time to feel and be loved by another person.

Calm the brain. Think less and let your heart manifest the love it naturally has.

Just thinking

Ichak Kalderon Adizes