Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 24

One More Time: Why Not Trump?

Let me make it clear, I am not enamored with Clinton either. Unfortunately, we have two bad options. We have to choose which of them is less dangerous to this wonderful country. I think Trump is more dangerous, and in what follows I will explain why.

According to my (PAEI) classification of leadership styles,(1) he is an enormous (E). Here are the symptoms:

He does not follow a script very well.

He listens to no one unless they are applauding him. As a big ego, he likes to surround himself with people who admire him and clap their hands for his performance. He behaves like an actor on stage. He enjoys tremendously the attention he gets. He loves the limelight and the hordes of people cheering him on, and he abhors anyone who disagrees with him.

Like all big (E)s, he exaggerates to the point of being untruthful.

He does not explain his policies. “Details aren’t important now,” he says. If he can’t explain the details now, I doubt he ever will. How will he build a wall on the Mexican border? He says he will make Mexico pay for it. We all know Mexico thinks this is a joke. They won’t pay for such a wall. But he continues to insist they will, without giving any explanation of how he will he accomplish that. He says he will expel millions of illegal immigrants. How? No idea.

He does not read in preparation for decision making. He relies on rumors to make up his mind. He even says, “It is not good to know too much.” He believes that a vague overview of a problem is enough information for him to decide what to do.

Many people who support him believe his decisions will be ok because he will surround himself with qualified people who will not let him make big mistakes.

But If I am right that he is a big , big (E) he does not listen to anyone. Especially if they disagree with him.

Like a classic (E) he believes he is surrounded by turkeys. He believes he is the eagle who knows best. That is why he says, “I know better than the generals how and when to handle war.”

He has a low coefficient of error, like all (E)s. He behaves like an eagle, to whom as any bird, change looks very simple,  effortless, flying over a mountain,  ignoring the details of the terrain that would make the same route extremely difficult on the ground. That is why he says he will destroy the so-called Islamic State in thirty days. That is why a group of top thirty security experts who know the complexity of the situation signed a petition saying that he is dangerous to the security of the United States.

Like all (E)s, he is brash and confident. He promises that he can do all that needs to be done, and that he is the change this country needs.

But is (E) leadership what the country needs now? I believe the United States is in the aging part of its lifecycle. The (A) is enormous. The bureaucracy and the centralization of decision making powers in Washington are only two of the symptoms of aging. That is the reason why the population wants to see change. This explains to me why Trump, the big (E), has gotten as far as he has in the campaign and why he is so close to the White House.

But exclusive (E) style, put on top of an enormous (A) system, is dangerous. He is going to be reckless. He will skirt the law. He will violate the Constitution; I am sure of that. A big (E) like this in charge of a big (A) system will be destroying the (A), which people may like to see, but it will have disastrous side effects if not done correctly. Dismantling a bureaucracy and decentralizing power that accumulated in Washington needs to be done very carefully like one will disarm a mine. Destroying a system is not equivalent to building a new one. I have no doubt there will be a crisis America has not seen yet. The president has authority through executive action to make decisions and bypass the legislative function. Trump will do exactly that and lead us into a constitutional crisis. He is an arsonist in his style; he will start fires all over the place, fires that he will not be able to control. These will not be small fires, as he will have enormous power. This is serious. America is not some startup country where the (E) style is effective.

Clinton is less dangerous. She is being accused of lying. Her lies are minuscule in comparison to Trumps exaggerations which are continuously proven to hold no water i.e. they are lies too. And much, much bigger.

She is being accused of supporting the war in Iraq, for Bengazi, for losses on the foreign policy arena as if she could have controlled those events all by herself.  Much of what she is being accused of I attribute to the fact the sun is setting on America and she could not have done much to stop that.

The email saga? Well, Powel did it and even recommended the practice. It is all a smear strategy of dirty politics.

Granted, she is not JFK. She is not FDR. She is not another Clinton we all know. I would have preferred someone with more charisma, with more courage to make changes and try at least to de-bureaucratize this country but in comparing the risks we will be taking with Trump’s hands on the levers of power versus her hands, she is prone to do much less damage.

Very concerned of what is happening to America,

 

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

 

(1) Ichak Kalderon Adizes: Management Mismanagement Styles (Adizes Institute Publications 2004) Ebook Available: http://amzn.to/2cSgF3t

Why the Adizes Symbergetic ™ Methodology?

As far back as we look into history, organizations have been structured hierarchically, like a pyramid. Pharaohs had their empires organized this way, and even our ancestors, the primates, are organized like this. Our families have been organized like this for ages too. The father is the head of the household and the family abides his decisions. He is the CEO, while the mother is the COO, and the kids are the foot soldiers.

In traditional society it goes further: The CEO is the grandfather, the grandmother is the COO, the children are middle managers, and the grandchildren should be seen but not be heard.

This hierarchical system has worked well, more or less, for thousands of years. It fit the needs of the nomadic lifestyle, and, later, of agricultural society. The top of the pyramid knew what to do and directed the rest of the hierarchy to execute his decisions. It worked for industrial society too. The production line required an efficiency of operations that could be best achieved through a hierarchy based on command and control.

However, it does not work well in the world we live in now: the knowledge society, the information society.

In this new world the top of the pyramid does not know better or more than the bottom of the pyramid. The top has to rely on information coming from below to make the right decisions, and s/he needs the cooperation of the bottom to efficiently implement those decisions. Think high-tech companies. Think pharmaceutical companies. Think software development companies; R&D companies.

These changes apply not only to industry. We are in the midst of a major disruptive change in our civilization. Families are in turmoil and the traditional hierarchy is crumbling. The man is no longer accepted as the one and only decision maker. Not only are women requesting a share of the authority and power, so are children. From a young age they want to be heard and taken into account. Some of them actually run the show.

The hierarchy model is not working well. What to do?

What is emerging in published books and training programs is a plan to abolish the hierarchy and replace it with a network system. Away with titles. Away with subordination. No more bosses and workers. All are equal. Holacracy. Teamwork. Away with structures, titles, and procedures that smell of hierarchy, control, and suffocation of the creative spirit.

How well does it work? I suggest that it is a passing fad.

Swinging 180 degrees to the other side of the street, so to say, has its own deficiencies. The new fad is not a response to the problem of hierarchical organizations; it is a reaction to the problems created by hierarchical organizations.

Organizations that tried Holacracy experienced major difficulties. Workers rebelled. http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-zappos...

Opening the channels from below destroyed an organization’s accountability and its capability to efficiently implement decisions for which a hierarchy of command and control was necessary. (See my own criticism of industrial democracy in my writings, starting with Industrial Democracy Yugoslav Style, Adizes Institute Publications.)

Let me be clear: For decision making we need open channels. We need democracy. But when democracy is applied to implementation of the decisions made, democracy can end in anarchy. For implementation we need command and control. We need hierarchy.

In the past there was only organizational hierarchy. Now we are attempting only organizational democracy. Both approaches, by themselves, do not work well.

We need both approaches working in unison: bottom-up information flow for decision making, and top-down power structure for decision implementation. That is what the Adizes Methodology is all about: how to create such a system that is democratic and dictatorial in the right sequence.

Creating such a system takes more than the right attitude and intention. It requires building a system based on cooperation and collaboration, for which we need a culture of mutual trust and respect.

To create a culture of Mutual Trust and Respect that is sustainable requires common vision and values; It requires the right organizational structure that recognizes and fosters diversity; It requires disciplined interaction in meetings, and people who have their egos under control. It is not an easy task.

It is an uphill battle to change a hierarchical culture into one that fosters this dichotomy of democracy and dictatorship. It takes one to three years for an organization to develop this type of culture. Once developed, it must be continuously fostered and supported, because the dichotomy creates tension; one of the two forces, democracy or dictatorship, eventually takes over and the balanced integration of the two suffers.

Why is this methodology called Symbergetic? Symbergetic is a new word I have coined combining the concepts of synergy and symbiosis.

When we have diversity interacting with mutual respect (i.e., valuing each other’s diversified contribution) we get synergy: The totality is bigger then the sum of the components. How? The interaction creates additional values because not in spite of diversity; everyone brings a different point of view thus enriching the totality..

When there is symbiosis, the parts benefit from the interaction.

The Adizes Methodology is to create a Symbergy: Capitalize on diversity, cross-pollination, so that, through interaction based on mutual respect, additional value is created that could not have been created otherwise. (In a company this is manifested in achieving a higher level of profitability and growth.) This additional value is shared—there is gain sharing, there is symbiosis. It is not a system in which the top of pyramid gets the benefits that the bottom of the pyramid contributed significantly to produce. The value created is shared. Those who contributed in creating the value benefit from the additional value created. That develops mutual trust. Mutual trust fosters mutual respect: People have a reason to cooperate. Collaboration fosters cooperation and cooperation gives a reason for that collaboration.

Although the Adizes Symbergetic Methodology is the answer to the needs of modern organizations, it is not as easy to implement as a typical consulting or training program. The Adizes Symbergetic Methodology takes strong commitment to making the necessary cultural changes: to change how meetings are run; to change how the organization is structured; to change the reward system; and more. But the results prove that it is well worth it. (See Frisa documentary on You Tube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgB-...

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Trump Phenomena Will Persist

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on September 07, 2016.

Many hope that Trump will lose the election and disappear from the national  stage. Good riddance.

Good luck. He will not.

He will not be like any other candidate that lost the election and removed himself from the scene like McCain, Romney, Gore , and all others in the same situation. Not Trump.

He knows the business value of a brand. And in his case a brand is not necessarily built with a good reputation. It can be with a bad reputation as well. It’s name recognition that builds his brand,  and that counts for a lot. A lot of money.

He turns failures around to sound like success. His companies went  bankrupt more than once; instead of admitting defeat he boasts about how much money he made out of bankruptcy. He lost millions owning the Plaza hotel in New York. He claims it was a run-away success.

Is the guy for real? Yes, he is. He believes in his own legend.

Trump’s  style is familiar to me,  the narcissistic, self-glorifying style. They cannot be wrong. They are seldom right, but never in doubt.

After losing the election, Trump will be around for a long time capitalizing on his name: the former presidential candidate, the one that mobilized more republicans than ever in history.  (Whether that is true or not it won’t stop him from saying that.) He might claim the elections were rigged. (Whether that is true or not doesn’t preoccupy him either. Truth is not his guiding principle. Name recognition is). He will make a defeat sound like a victory. And in the process sell his brand for heavy money.

In growing organizations leaders shape the country. In declining systems the people deserve the leaders they get. Trump phenomena is a manifestation of the state of disintegration of the US society. I cannot imagine Trump would have got even to first phase of being a candidate in the 1950’s. No chance.

It is a sad state of affairs and getting worse.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon  Adizes

Stonewalling Your Spouse

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on August 31, 2016.

You probably heard the joke that before getting married a woman should go and pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

Why?

To train herself to talk to a wall.

Why is this joke funny? Why is any joke funny?

Because all jokes carry a kernel of truth or they would not be funny. Jokes exaggerate reality and in doing so touch a nerve; they embarrass us and make us at least chuckle.

What is the truth in this joke? Men stonewall their wives.

I wonder why.

I talked to many men that have been married for over fifty years and when I ask what is their secret to such a long marriage the answer has been: “I don’t listen to everything she says.”

But this doesn’t apply to men only. Women told me similar things: “I ignore him a lot of the time,” or “I don’t take him seriously.”

What is going on?

A marriage is a complementary combination of styles. We all have heard the expression: “Opposites attract.”

Since we are different from each other, there is a tendency with both men and women to try to change, teach, correct and improve the other spouse. To try to make “the other” live to our expectation of how they should behave, speak, eat, dress or whatever.

So we bug each other a lot.

If we take this endless hitting over our head seriously, it can lead to such levels of frustration that it might lead to divorce. To survive, many couples just let this endless barrage of criticism pass from one ear and out the other, without stopping to listen to one another.

So choosing to be selectively and functionally “deaf” helps to remain married. Sounds pretty defeatist that the way to remain married is to ignore each other. Not all of the time, but enough time, to survive the differences in style and the attempts to ameliorate those differences by correcting each other.

Is there another way to achieve the same goal? Yes there is.

Mutual Trust and Respect.

And that means to accept each other as we are. Giving constructive feedback that can help the other person change and grow, but do it without criticism, without trying to control the behavior of the other person.

Live and let live.

Let each person take responsibility for his or her behavior. Each person should do their best to improve themselves. Not the other.

This alternative is the tougher one. Changing ourselves is enormously difficult. It always looks so much easier to change someone else.

Just thinking

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Where Are the Power And Knowledge?

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on August 22, 2016.

The common assumption is that the further up a hierarchy you go, the more power there will be and the more knowledge you will find. The belief is that the president of an organization is its most knowledgeable and powerful person. You can see this acutely in professional organizations, like hospitals, and in educational institutions. You might believe, for example, that the head of surgery is the best surgeon and the president of the hospital the one who wields the most power.

This idea is misguided.

Years ago a friend of mine, who was the second in command of the National Endowment for the Arts in Washington, D.C., told me that if you want to get a bill passed in congress you should pay attention to the assistant to the assistant of the key congressman. This is the person who can stymie or accelerate the process. This is the person who writes the bill and either pushes it through or stops it in its tracks. We usually focus on the voting congressman, but by the time the bill comes to be voted on, it is that assistant’s assistant who has to convince the congressman how to vote.

I was recently reminded of my friend’s advice. I have kidney failure, and did not want to go on dialysis. Instead I wanted a kidney transplant right away. For that I need a donor. I had sixteen people who volunteered, so I felt secure that one of them would be an acceptable match. All I needed was for the hospital where I would have the surgery to inspect the potential donors faster so I would not need to go on dialysis while awaiting the transplant.

How could I make that happen? I made the mistake so many make: I went to the top of the organizational hierarchy looking for the most powerful person in the system. I called a former client who had donated many millions of dollars to the hospital and asked him for help. I did not want to shortcut the process or violate the protocols, I just wanted to accelerate them—a small change. My client called the chancellor of the university to which the hospital belongs and asked him for help. The chancellor called me right away, and said the head of the kidney transplant department would call me and help me. What else could I have asked?

It did not work. It is not the chancellor of the university, or the head of the kidney transplant department who makes such decisions. Rather, it is a secretary who decides when and how donors will be tested, and she was not going to step out of the prescribed process. Not wanting to appear nepotistic, the department chair was not going to pressure her.

Chancellors and department chairs may have the authority to decide, but that is not where the real power is. It is the person who is supposed to implement the decision that has the power to make it happen, or not.

Where is the knowledge in a hierarchical, bureaucratic organization? It is not with the chair of a department or the dean of a university. My experience is that the people who climb to the top of a bureaucracy are not the most knowledgeable but the most politically astute. Bureaucracies are very political and people who are politically capable are the ones who win the top positions. The most knowledgeable people are often politically inept and thus relegated to the organizational sidelines.

Hierarchy does not tell you where the power and knowledge are located; you have to do some homework if you need to find where they are in an organization.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Upside-Down Rationale

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

The prevailing assumption is that that a person accumulates data, analyzes it, and, based on logical processing of the data, comes to a conclusion. Talking to people who plan to vote for Donald Trump, and based on years of consulting to top management and politicians, I have a different opinion.

People do not come to a decision with a tabula rasa, as a clean slate.

They do not look at data rationally and decide free of biases. Rather, the opposite seems to be true. First they decide, then they look for data that will support the decision they already took. Any data that do not support the decision they already made is either ignored or explained in ways that make it irrelevant.

That is why it is said that the first impression is the critical one: That is where you really make your decision. The rest is commentary.

The a priori decisions people make are based on their past experiences, which often have little to do with the decision they are making now. Nevertheless, they serve as the driving force behind making the new decision.

I find that the a prior decision is influenced heavily by the physical make-up of the person deciding. There is evidence, for instance, that being conservative or liberal is influenced a lot by an individual’s hormones.

Even in the field of science this upside-down rationale is common. We first formulate a hypothesis, then look for data to prove the hypothesis is true.

In medical research it is sometimes possible to be free of bias and run controlled experiments that might yield “the truth” because, in pure biology and chemistry, bias is limited. That is not true in politics, in social sciences, or in what matters to our day-to-day behavior.

In social sciences you can rarely design double-blind tests. When double-blind experiments are created, it is to test a very limited, simple, and perhaps almost irrelevant hypothesis, one that is often highly divorced from real life. I find a lot of the “scientific” research in behavioral science laughable.

It is dangerously amusing to listen to those who intend to vote for Donald Trump. They ignore facts that show the guy lies a lot, switches positions, and is superficial in his conclusions regarding very complicated situations. Why will these intelligent, educated, successful people vote for him? Don’t they see what I see, that the persona he projects is not the persona that his past behavior or achievements support?

I believe my insight holds: They first chose him because they were angry, or desperate for change, or fearful of something, like the direction the country is taking. They support him because they believe he is the answer to their fears and confirms their biases. Something that he said resonates with them. From there on, they ignore or explain away whatever else Trump says. They ignore the data that should lead them to change their mind.

We are not free to decide based on evidence. We are selective in the evidence we choose to use. We are, first of all, biased and use logic to support our bias. Scary.

 

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

As the Sunset of Life Approaches

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on August 08, 2016.

I am becoming ever more aware of my “perishability.” When we are children, we worry that our parents will die. As we get older, we worry that our spouse will die. But when is it that we start wondering about our own departure from this world?

For me, it started when my first parent died, but it really, truly, hit me when my second parent died. I felt that I became an orphan. Alone in this world. No one there to protect me. It is a strange feeling, especially since I was well-off financially, many times more secure than my parents. And I was in my fifties already. Nonetheless, having them around, regardless of how old or financially poorer they were, gave a feeling of security, of protection. With them gone, I felt alone and realized: I am the next in line.

This feeling of being the next one to go is reinforced by several factors. When you are working, you are too busy, struggling and handling life to have time to think about death. Retired, you have ample time to think about it and to feel the pain of old age. You are reminded of it every morning when you look at all the pills you are supposed to take. You are reminded of how old you are when you need a new hip or kidney because your body has aged to the point that its parts need replacement.

If you still do not feel that the sun of your life is setting, look at old pictures. How many people in them are still alive? When you open your contact list, how many have passed away? How many of your friends have you accompanied on their last trip to the cemetery?

As you become aware that this is it, life is coming to an end, you ask yourself what life is all about. What did I do all my life? What was the purpose of me living?

If I focus on what life WAS about, I think the answer for me is clear: It was a long list of problem solving. There was no day I did not have to solve some problem. Some were small and insignificant, some I thought were critical, but, in retrospect, what I thought was critical then I now find was not worth the time and energy I put into it.

So is that’s what life is about: Solving problems in chasing the rainbow; Trying to realize some vision or mission we developed for ourselves, whether it is to be a rich man or woman, or to save the world?

As I look at what my life was, I realize I was building a sand castle. After I am gone my work will be eroded and washed away by the realities of life’s demands. People will have their interpretation of what is needed and redo my castle to reflect their needs or values.

So is this it? Life is building sand castles?

Not so. Not at all.

When was I really alive? Not when I was solving problems, no matter how successfully. All my achievements and happiness were short lived. There was always another higher mountain to climb. I spent all my life climbing mountains that existed only in my head.

That is what life was, but what SHOULD life have been, I wonder? When was I truly alive?

When I loved. Those are the minutes that really count and I am not referring to romantic love. Yes, it has its moments of happiness, and falling in love, at least in my life, was pain and mostly belongs to the problem-solving realm. The love I am referring to is doing something of value for others, something that really mattered to them, when I gave of myself unconditionally, with all my heart. When I added value to people’s lives. These experiences gave me energy, prolonged my life. Fulfilled me. I got more than what I gave.

Life is spent in the head solving problems, but should be spent in the heart giving of ourselves to solve other people’s problems. Prolonging other people’s lives prolonged mine.

If you want to live life to the fullest, not feel you wasted this gift, filling the heart is what life should be about; To serve others unconditionally, with all your heart, enrich others’ lives to make your own life worth living.

 

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Trump or Clinton?

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on August 01, 2016.

How did Trump get so far? When he started he was dismissed as some kind of joke. But now here we are: He is the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States of America, and has a significant following, not to be dismissed.

Here is, I think, why.

We live in a time when people want something new all the time: a new car, a new dress, a new house. Ours is the age of planned obsolescence. Trump is something new. We have never seen a candidate like him. He curses. He offends. He refuses to listen. He speaks his mind without concern for what the polls or the media might say. The guy is genuine. He seems like a breath of fresh air. People would like something new in the political scene and Trump is just that. Clinton, on the other hand, is old hat. The voters have been there, seen that.

Another reason Trump is attractive is that we live in an age of Twitter. Communication has to be short. That is the secret of the Huffington Post’s success: no long articles, just bite-size messages. Trump does not give you any long plans of action. “Just trust me,” he says. That’s it. Nothing to discuss. Nothing to analyze. Nothing to debate. “Just trust me. I will make America great again.”

“Make America great again” insinuates that America is in very bad shape. This is a third source of his appeal. It is much more energizing to the masses to criticize, to tear down, than it is to build up. Clinton has a plan — it can be criticized. Trump has no specific plans (except for building a multi-billion-dollar wall along the Mexican border) so what is there to criticize? “Just trust me,” he says, “I am Trump. I am trustworthy, although I have gone bankrupt six times. But I did not bankrupt myself. My companies did that and that is legal, folks.” The fact that when he went bankrupt, thousands of other people were left holding the bag — and were not paid, and they too almost or did go bankrupt — does not concern him. “It was legal.”

People who have no political track record cannot be criticized for their track record. That is Trump. Clinton has done many things in her public life as first lady, senator and secretary of state. Those who do something can be criticized for what they did. Not Trump. Since he has not done anything in public service we are buying a cat in a bag. We have no idea what he might do or not do. It’s very risky. Would you appoint someone who never ran a company — say, a dentist, even a very successful one — as CEO of your company? Not on your life. But if Trump wins that is what it is going to be.

Without a record he offers nothing that can be criticized, and that is very attractive. Since he gives no specific plans, only platitudes, there is nothing to hang him for. And he is new, fresh. Those factors are sure to be attractive in comparison to Clinton, the old hand, with a track record and specific plans.

There is one more reason, in my opinion, why Trump is attractive. He is a typical Arsonist in my leadership typology. This kind is seldom right but never in doubt. He is so full of himself, so absolutely a believer in his own stories, lies, and promises, that it is contagious.

If he is so sure, maybe he is right. We do not want a leader who is doubtful. That scares us. This guy is absolutely sure that there is no global warming. Never mind the evidence, he is sure. He is sure that NAFTA is a disaster, although all research shows it created rather than eliminated jobs. Never mind the facts, he is sure. And he is absolutely sure that, with a snap of his fingers, he will solve the problems of the Middle East, eliminate ISIS, and end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a conflict many past presidents cut their teeth on and came out with their tails between their legs. But Trump says he will do it fast. How? “Just trust me. I am a great negotiator.” What will he negotiate? “I will decide when the time comes. Just trust me.” This kind of self-assurance is attractive to those who do not want to think, who love to follow blindly.

Trump will be a disaster. DISASTER.

Many people I talked to do not want to vote for Clinton either and will skip going to the voting booth altogether. They do not realize that not voting is voting for Trump by default because those who love Trump are not skipping out on Election Day. It is the Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders, or people who do not want a woman in the White House, or do not want a Clinton dynasty, who will skip voting and defacto give Trump an advantage and choose Trump to rule us next four years.

There is however one possible advantage to have Trump elected. (Thank you Gareth Chang for making this point).

Trump’s record is that he breaks the rules. He pushes the envelope to the limits. That works in the business world. In politics, in governing, in a bureaucracy, if he pushes the envelope , if he skirts the law, if he plays games, which he will do because that is his personality, he may find himself the third president to be impeached in American history. The country will experience a major, major turbulence, and that might be good. Finally we will have a crisis that is big enough that the political will to make structural changes the system requires will coalesce. Someone like Sanders will not be an odd ball anymore but a true and accepted re-engineer of the system. And that is good. That is what the country needs. A lemon (Trump) can make a lemonade (A better America).

In other words, before America can be great again, it needs to be worse to gain the will and the strength to make the necessary changes. And, Trump guaranteed to make it worse because he does not walk the normal path. In American politics this will not go unpunished, and the process of punishment will create an enormous turmoil that will enable a re-engineering of the system which we clearly need.

Do we want to take the chance?

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Perceptions Of Reality

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on July 25, 2016.

In my book Mastering Change (revised edition, 2016, Adizes Institute Publications) I discuss a concept called “perceptions of reality.” I suggest that there are three different ways to perceive a reality: what is going on, what should be going on, and what you want to be going on.

These three perceptions can be partially overlapping, like the Olympic Rings or a Venn diagram. The center, where all three perceptions overlap, is labeled “mine.” In that area, what you are actually saying is: What is, what should be, what I want are one and the same.

If these perceptions were about another person, we would call it puppy love. You feel wonderful because everything is perfect. That is why we say to our beloved, “You are mine.” But then, once you get to know the person, perhaps after you get married, you find out that what you want should not be, and what should be isn’t, and what is is not what you want. That’s called life.

So what’s the difference between puppy love and mature love? In mature love, you love not because of but in spite of. That’s the difference between liking and loving. In mature love you accept people as they are. You eliminate expectations and live with what is.

We are all looking for “mine” in life, for perfection — where what is, what we want, and what should be are one and the same. Good luck. Even if that happens, it can only last for a very short time because of change. What we want changes. What should be also changes — this changes slower, but still it does change. And what is going on changes all the time. So even if we achieve “mine” it will be lost over time with change. This causes pain: What is you do not want. And what you want should not be. And what should be is not.

Perfection is abnormal; normal is imperfection.

Life is imperfection because of change.

Eliminate expectations. Join the real world. Wake up. Good morning.

When diagnosing a problem do not start with what you want. Start with what is going on. Get anchored in reality. Then ask yourself what you want in light of that reality, and subsequently what should you do to change the reality you do not want.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Where Are Your Children?

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on July 18, 2016.

It is not a secret that Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana, moved to the United States.

So did Khrushchev’s son.

It does not end there.

It is little known that Putin’s daughters also live abroad. The youngest daughter, Catherine, lives permanently in Munich, Germany, and the senior daughter, Maria, lives in Holland, in the village of Vorshooten, near the Hague.

Vice Speaker of the State Duma’s daughter, Lisa, lives in the UK. So does the daughter of Svetlana Nesterova, a member of the State Duma.

The daughter of ex-speaker of the DG, one of the founders of the “United Russia” party, and now a member of the Security Council, Boris Gryzlov, Yevgenia, lives in Tallinn and recently got Estonian citizenship.

Former Education Minister, Andrey Fursenko, his son, Alexander, lives permanently in the United States. (1)

This is a partial list.

When we look at businessmen, especially oligarchs, the phenomena of sending your family abroad is even more prevalent. I know businessmen who travel every Friday morning to Switzerland to be with their family and fly back to Moscow to work on Monday morning. Or businessmen who have their family in London or Cyprus. And commute.

Compare this to how many political leaders in the U.S.A. leave permanently and live abroad rather than the USA.

Does this tell you anything?

Tell me how many people want to join your company or immigrate to your country vs. how many leave or want to leave if they could and I will tell you how healthy your company or country is.

One sign of declining health in a country or in a company or in a marriage is how many people want to join that system versus how many want to leave that system if they could.

That applies to personal life too. How comfortable are you in your own skin? Do you like your own company or are you constantly looking for opportunities to be absent from your own presence? Do you get drunk or stoned or are you a workaholic so that you do not feel or notice who and where you are?

Integration is the sign of health, and disintegration is the sign of disease whether it is in a country, company, family or individual level.

The word “healing” and the word “whole” are related. The way you heal a system is by making it a whole. The word peace in Hebrew, “Shalom,” comes from the same root as the word for “complete,” whole, “Shalem.”

When people greet each other in Hebrew the words used are “Shalom Aleychem,” peace be with you, because peace is equivalent to health, to well-being, and that happens when we are integrated rather than falling apart.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Source:

(1) http://vk.com/sibir_18