Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 26
May 6, 2016
The Limits of Power
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on May 06, 2016.
It is difficult to get things changed in a democracy. People have different opinions as to what needs to be done and how, and since they vote, they are listened to. For a change of some significance to happen, all centers of power that need to cooperate to make the change happen need to agree to it.
How does it happen?
The situation has to get so bad that all those parties that are needed to stop objecting to the change find it of self interest to cooperate. And that will happen when the situation is so bad that the only other alternative is to yield and stop objecting.
This explains why macro social or economic change in democratic society happens slowly and is only dictated after major deterioration in conditions.
It took a depression for the New Deal to emerge.
It will take a major upheaval of sorts for the society to reduce dependence on government intervention in economic endeavors.
It took Pearl Harbor for the United States to join the war.
It is taking thousands of dead soldiers for United States to get out of Vietnam and Iraq or Afghanistan. How many more wars do we need to stop going to war to solve other people’s problems and focus on home problems?
Democracy is not an efficient system. It takes time for change to be implemented. Not so for a dictatorship. Stalin moved millions of people from one part of the Soviet Union to another part. Germans to Kazakhstan. Tatars to Tatarstan. He pushed through the collectivization of farming although it brought starvation to millions who died in Ukraine. Whoever objected was sent to Siberia.
In a democratic society, what happens does not necessarily resemble what leaders wanted to happen. Political forces come into play and what happens in reality is not what leaders have decided, but what could have been implemented politically.
So you might think dictatorship is the answer. They can make things happen. That is how corporations are run. CEO’s decide and execute their decisions. Fire people. Downsize. Integrate divisions. Sell divisions. Buy and sell basically as they wish.
Yes?
No!
Dictators have a limitation on their power too. And it is the power they have and do not want to lose. They can push only so far before there is a push back. And maybe a revolution of sorts. And they get kicked out. Or get executed like the ruler of Romania or Qadaffi of Libya.
Or a bomb is planted to blow Hitler away. Even Stalin lived in fear of being poisoned.
Much of Putin’s actions can be explained as a reaction to fear of losing power. The Maidan revolution in Ukraine was a revolt against corruption. It could have spread to Moscow which has corruption too. Putin had to do a heroic act to protect his rear end. So he took over Crimea. Then came the uprising of the people who speak Russian and populate Eastern Ukraine. He had to support them. They are Russians who live in Ukraine (or Ukrainians who speak Russian), regardless, he had to support them or he would not be the Russian Hero and his chair would start shaking.
Why go to war to Syria? To divert Russian people’s attention to the economic crisis prevailing in Russia as a result of Putin’s actions. Again, it is to prevent a threat to the throne.
There is no behavior without a reason. And the reason can be devious. But it is a reason.
There is no free for all environment, without limits. We have to understand the limits if we want to change behavior.
Just thinking.
April 27, 2016
The Destructive Nature of Entrepreneurship
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on April 26, 2016.
Within every corporation, indeed every organization, the (E)ntreprenurial role builds the company. That is the source of energy for economic growth and for advancement in the arts and in science.
It comes in different forms. It is also called innovation, change management, or change leadership.
What I would like to focus on here is the destructive collateral damage that this style produces. And not just by being creatively destructive (to borrow from Joseph Schumpeter), because it destroys the old to build the new. There is another aspect of its destructiveness.
Let me explain.
How does an (E)ntrepreneurial style person – the one who performs the (E) role – how does he or she come up with an idea to do something different, something new?
By being dissatisfied with what exists already.
It is this dissatisfaction that causes the person who performs the (E) role, the one with the entrepreneurial style, to become emotionally destructive to oneself and to those close to them.
My observation is that an (E)ntrepreneurial style has a streak of criticism buried within its center. It is basically a style that is always looking for what is wrong; the act of criticizing is what drives the (E) personality. There is even a joke that manifests this point.
Jewish people are culturally very (E).
The joke: What does a waiter ask a table seated with old Jewish ladies?
“Is anything right?”
Try being married to an (E) style person. Not easy. No matter what you provide, he or she will focus on the half empty glass rather than be grateful that the glass is half full. (E)s are not happy campers. Be ready to constantly have to explain yourself and defend yourself.
And an (E) style does not just criticize and emotionally destroy only others. He or she is driven by self criticism that never ends.
(E)s are tough on themselves. Thus, (E)s tends to be moody, become excited when creative and/or depressed, and go over the top when critical.
Working with CEOs who are extreme (E)s can be frustrating. They are rarely happy. Rarely grateful. Always demanding for more. It is not strange that they are considered to be narcissistic.
If you extrapolate from personal to national style, you will find, it is my observation, that countries with a high (E) component in their culture are countries where everyone is subject to non-stop criticism on everything. Israel is a prime example. In the daily parlance, Israel is called “eretz ohelet yoshveyha” (The country that consumes its inhabitants). You get emotionally grinded if you live in that country. My observation is that the same holds true for the Greek culture.
So, on one hand, (E)s are exciting, creative, attractive to be with, necessary for economic growth, for change, for any advancement in any field, but there is collateral damage that one has to live with; they are emotionally very demanding and often destructive.
Ah, nothing is perfect in this world; time to learn to live with it.
Just thinking.
April 22, 2016
Me and I: There Is a Difference
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on April 19, 2016.
In meditation I was watching my thoughts and not letting myself get attached to them.
Wait, I asked myself. Who is this entity thinking and who is this entity watching? I thought it was me who was thinking, but if I am doing the thinking, who is doing the watching?
The insight: There are two (maybe more) entities that make up who I am. This is not an entirely new insight granted. In the literature the entity watching is recognized as the observer or the consciousness. For purposes of communicating I will call them ME and I. (I realize the English grammar is going to be a bit crazy here.)
ME and I are not the same. I is thinking. ME is watching.
Who is I, and who is ME?
Thoughts come from the mind. That is where the I is. I thinks.
Thoughts are impacted by what other people tell me about myself and by many other factors including how my body feels that day.
But my thoughts are not ME.
ME is above my thoughts. That is who is watching. ME is my spirit, which resides in the heart like thoughts reside in the mind.
The mind produces thoughts that communicate with words. The heart nests the spirit that communicates with feelings.
While the mind thinks, the heart feels.
Which feelings are pure? No words, no matter how articulated and romantic they might be, do it justice?
LOVE. When you try to communicate love to someone, no matter how poetic your communication is, it still comes from your head. Love needs to be experienced to be understood. It has to be acted on to be realized. It comes from the heart, not the mind.
Conflicts
Thoughts come from the mind; feelings from the heart. Are they ever in conflict, ME and I?
Yes, and often.
What my mind thinks can hurt ME. For instance, if I want a bagel I should not have because of my diet, it is my mind that wants that bagel although it is not good for ME.
The same is true of anger. Who is angry? I is. Does it damage ME? Sure it does. ME gets sick afterwards.
How should I deal with this? Or is it ME who should deal with it?
If I can quiet down and shut up my mind from yack-yacking all day long, maybe my heart would have a chance to express itself. If I stop thinking, maybe I will start feeling ME.
In making decisions do not use only your mind: Use your heart, too. If the mind and heart are in a conflict you can’t resolve, let the heart win.
Feelings vs. Thoughts
What does ME feel? Does it feel sorrow? Happiness? Anger?
These are thoughts, not true feelings. Anger feels like a feeling but it is a thought. Why are you angry? You have reasons, right? The reasoning is your proof: It is a thought. Now, truly love—stop thinking and reasoning—and what happens to your anger? Gone!
Anger and love cannot share the same bed.
Is there life after death?
If ME is not who I am, if ME is not my thoughts, what about my body? Is my hand ME? How about my lungs, eyes, ears, head? Not really. They have a life of their own. With aging, my eyes are getting weak, my hearing is getting worse. If I do not take care of my body, my body does not take care of ME. We are not the same. My body is not ME.
When I die my thoughts die, granted. My body starts to die thereafter and gets eaten by worms. But what about ME? What about LOVE?
No worms can eat love. Love is not in the mind or in the body. Love is forever. Yes, forever. The feeling of love remains. People still feel you after you are gone. They still love you. And you probably feel them after you are gone too. How could they feel you if you do not feel them?
Aha: Apparently there is “life” after death. I put “life” in quotation marks to indicate that it is a different life, not a life of thinking but a life of feeling, of loving. With no body, no mind, and thus no limitations.
But if there is “life” after death there must there have been “life” before birth too, and thus much of what I feel is a carryover from past lives.
The loving ME is perpetual, ageless . The ME that has no name. No body. No mind. No identity. No past. And no future either, because if something is perpetual, forever, there is no past and there is no future. There is no time dimension. Time exists only if there is a beginning and an end. Only if there is death.
Love is what is left after we depart.
Love is what brings us to be born.
It is forever.
Where does this insight lead ME?
First, and very powerful for me, is the realization that I am not my thoughts. I must watch what I think not only in meditation but all the time, and not let my thoughts govern my life.
“Respect and suspect” the Jewish sages teach us. Respect means try to learn from others. So, in watching my thoughts, ME asks myself now what there is to learn from what I think and, at the same time, suspects whether what I think is really good for ME or not. ME should filter what I think, and discard those thoughts that are damaging to ME.
Another benefit I got from this insight is not to be scared of death. I will be finally free from the tyranny of thoughts and pains of the body. Free to only feel. To love without limitations, without expecting anything in return. Because out there, there is no return. It is a new “life” to explore.
Until now I have been addicted to thinking. I thought that if I stop thinking I am dead. So I think about thinking.
There is another ME now—the feeling one, the loving one. The one who stops thinking to feel the flowers. There is more joy, and a much more enjoyable one, in feeling than in thinking, in loving than in winning arguments.
This insight also has immediate benefits: my diet. If I want something, ME is watching like a loving parent and trying to keep this spoiled brat, the I, in control. With LOVE.
I hope…
To be tested.
Just thinking.
April 15, 2016
Integrity and Diesel Engines
Guest blog post contributed by Dr. Zvezdan Horvat, Senior Associate, Adizes Southeast Europe
Do what’s right, even when it’s hard!
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently discovered that Volkswagen had been cheating emissions tests for harmful gases – nitrogen oxide – on its diesel engines.
I think we have all seen some version of this news story, but what is it really talking about? Is it talking about diesel engines and VW or, is it, to use a modern expression, about integrity in business?
Stories like this one are nothing new of course, but when large companies are involved, companies that have a significant influence on the market and are widely regarded as a leader, then that gets the public’s attention. So how can something like this even happen when it is precisely these companies that have a plethora of clearly defined ethical codes and core values, not infrequently emblazoned on posters in every office? Perhaps they don’t read them. Perhaps they read them but don’t care. Perhaps they don’t read them and don’t care.
Could a deception like this really happen in such a huge corporation without the all-wise management knowing anything about it? I am sceptical. There is the great scene in a biographical movie about Stalin. Stalin’s wife is traveling by train through the vast expanses of the steppe and the train stops. Nearby a group of political prisoners awaits transport to the gulags. One manages to escape and makes a break for the luxury train in which Stalin’s wife is sitting, oblivious to what is happening. The man runs up, and with his last ounce of strength, before they recapture him, says, “Tell Stalin, Stalin must be told what is going on!”
And now we arrive at the question of whether it is not in fact the management style of the people in key positions, combined with the drive for success, profit, bonuses and dividends and the willingness to take short-cuts to reach those goals, which has brought about this state of affairs. This goes on at all levels, but nevertheless the danger is greatest when it happens at the highest levels – the fish rots from the head down, as they say, and so the impact is greater. Articles about VW published after the scandal broke suggested that the engineers had been in fear of the CEO and his style – specifically the aggressive emissions targets he had set. What could they do, they had no choice… That’s how it is when you have an organizational climate which does not foster mutual respect and trust but, seemingly, dictatorship. There is a tool in the Adizes methodology – the cause-effect analysis – for establishing which problems are causes and which are effects. It states that in growing companies the attitudes of key people affect the corporate climate, while in aging organizations the opposite is true. This kind of thing should therefore not happen in large organizations under the influence of a key figure, but it seems in this case it did.
A few days ago there was an update – VW said that reverting the illicit changes to a vehicle, which involves reprogramming the engine, would not take longer than one hour. But if it is so easy then the whole business makes even less sense and we have to ask “Why?” The personal style, attitudes and integrity of a handful of people, and the games they play, can mean disaster for thousands. Now this seems like an organizational climate.
Dictionaries refer integrity to sincerity, principles, ethics, morality, propriety, honesty, decency, honor, pride and virtue. Out of all these synonyms I still like “integrity” the most – maybe others will prefer other expressions. A common definition is “Doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” It is the ability to act honestly and in a principled way, regardless of whether you are doing it because of your moral principles, your values or your beliefs.
In business ethics, integrity describes the way in which people live out the moral values they claim to hold to. For a person to have integrity they need to know what their moral values are and to strive towards that model in their behavior. A key feature of integrity is that it is not about conformity with rules. Albert Camus said that integrity has no need of rules. In this sense, integrity is about understanding and acting in accordance with the spirit of the law and not just according to the written rules. Perhaps this view seems somewhat idealistic, but shouldn’t we strive towards what is right, and should leaders not be the ones taking us there? This is all closely tied up with the definition of integration, a very important management role in the Adizes approach – the desired outcomes will probably come about if we are connected and integrated, without everything being written down in black and white.
I would say that integrity grows out of trust and respect – the more of the latter we have, the more integrity there will be. People differ, and we cannot expect everyone to have high standards of integrity, but the people at the top of the organization must lead. And they must work on that. We say what we think and think what we say. If we stray outside these boundaries and begin saying things we don’t really think, then we are straying outside integrity. Real leaders never compromise sincerity and integrity by resorting to deceit. There are many examples of temporary winners who got to where they were by deceit (Enron for example). Integrity means telling the truth, even when it isn’t pretty. It is better to be honest than to deceive others, since you are probably deceiving yourself too, and others will deceive you in turn.
If there is one value you should teach it ought to be integrity – success will come and go, but integrity will remain. It means always doing the right thing, regardless of whether anyone is watching or not. This takes courage – to do the right things, regardless of the consequences. Building a reputation takes years, but it only takes a second to lose it.
To end with I would quote Chedomille Mijatovich (1892): – “Without trust, without respect for what is good and condemnation of what is evil, without respect and love for the truth and hatred and contempt for deceit – in a word, without morality – human society cannot survive. The ultimate downfall of certain nations was inevitably preceded by moral laxity and discord. This truth is self-evident, hence it has long been accepted that ‘honesty is the best policy’, both in the sphere of private interests and in the sphere of public and state interests.”
About the Author
Dr. Zvezdan Horvat, Senior Associate, Adizes Southeast Europe has over twenty years of experience deploying the Adizes Methodology within organizations around the world. This article was previously published in Adizes SEE News.
April 8, 2016
Stonewalling Your Spouse
You may have heard the joke that, before getting married, a woman should go pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Why? To train herself to talk to a wall.
Why is this joke funny? All jokes carry a kernel of truth or they would not be funny. Jokes exaggerate reality and, in doing so, touch a nerve. They may embarrass us, or at least make us chuckle. What is the truth in this joke? Men stonewall their wives.
I wonder why. When have I asked men who have been married for over 50 years what is their secret to such a long marriage, the answer has always been, “I do not listen to everything she says.”
Of course, this does not only apply to men. Women have told me the same: “I ignore him a lot of the time. I do not take him seriously.”
What is going on?
A marriage is a complementary combination of styles. We have all heard the expression “opposites attract.” Since we are different from each other, there is a tendency for both men and women to try to change, teach, correct, or improve their spouse. We try to make the other person live up to our expectations of how they should behave, speak, eat, dress, or whatever.
So we bug each other a lot.
If we take to heart these endless attempts by our spouse to make us change, it would lead to such a level of frustration that we might end up divorced. In order to survive, then, many couples just let this endless barrage of criticism pass in one ear and out the other, without pausing to listen to it. So being selectively “deaf,” as a choice, functionally helps us remain married.
It sounds pretty defeatist that the way to remain married is to ignore each other — if not all the time, at least enough to survive the attempts to ameliorate our differences in style by correcting each other.
Is there another way to achieve the same goal?
Yes, there is: Mutual Trust and Respect.
That means that we accept each other as we are. We give constructive feedback that can help the other person 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 his best to improve himself, not the other.
This alternative is the tougher path. Changing ourselves is enormously difficult. It looks so much easier to change someone else.
Just thinking.
April 1, 2016
Why is Facism on the Rise?
When there is tumultuous change, what happens?
Change means that something significantly new has happened. Decisions have to be made. Since the situation is new, the decision has to be made under uncertainty. The higher the rate of change, the greater the uncertainty. The decision needs to be implemented. That entails risk. The higher the rate of change, the greater the risks.
How do people handle increased uncertainty and risk? There are two major alternatives.
The first is to try to reduce uncertainty and risk by tightening the control over the situation; by trying to control the rate of change. That is done by autocratic decision making, rejection of diversity, reduction of freedom of speech and of the media, increase in controls by higher authorities, etc. In this alternative, risk is thought to be reduced by eliminating dissension—by all means necessary.
This alternative does not apply only to a country: When this happens in companies it is not called fascism, it is called corporatism, inflexible hierarchy, centralization, and an autocratic managerial style. It can occur in families and personal life as well. The person becomes intolerant, inflexible, and excessively conservative.
The other alternative to reduce uncertainty and risk is to encourage diversity and cross-pollination of ideas. This method reduces uncertainty because diversified points of view balance one another, shining light on the problem as different styles look at it from different angles. If this diversity is based on mutual trust and respect, which is the prerequisite for a working democracy, the respect enables this cross-pollination to occur and thus better decisions are made.
If there is mutual trust, there is faith that a commonality of interests exists. Thus, people share the burden of implementation, and that reduces risk. Without mutual trust, each party is fighting for its individual needs, increasing the risk of implementing a decision made under uncertainty.
This second alternative is the liberal alternative, the opposite of the fascist alternative.
The liberal alternative is not attractive in the short term: there is too much dissension, too much discussion. It feels as if uncertainty grows rather than being reduced. The discussions give the impression of major conflicts of interests, which also nurture the perception of increased risk.
The fascist alternative looks more attractive in the short term. There is big papa who will take care of everything. Everyone stop worrying, there is a savior to take care of it all…somehow.
The problem with the fascist alternative is this “somehow.” The autocratic, closed-minded, decision maker will eventually make a decision that reflects exclusively the biased values system of the autocrat, which eventually will be erroneous and damage the system. He can’t be right all the time on every decision in a time of uncertainty.
Throughout history dictators were attractive to populations in time of change. But eventually they made a major decision that was disastrous because they were making decisions in a vacuum. No one dared to dissent and share the information that they had. Although fascism is attractive in the short term, it is a disaster in the long term.
Liberalism and democracy may feel like a disaster in the short term because of the perceived increase in uncertainty and risk, but this approach is more successful in the long term because better decisions are made and implemented more effectively although not efficiently.
Because fascism is more attractive in the short term, individuals with those ideas might be elected to power more easily than those promoting diversity and democracy, to the detriment of society.
The faster, more acute the rate of change, the more attractive the fascist alternative appears to some.
Just thinking.
March 25, 2016
The Divisive HOW
There is One God. All monotheistic religions agree on that. Since this is so, it must be the same God, no? We are all worshiping the same God.
If that is so, how come there are religious wars?
Notice the engulfing war developing between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims. Or, in the painful past, of Christians against the Jews during the inquisition.
How can it be?
The reason for the struggle, for the wars, the killing and the dying, is not because of WHOM we worship, nor WHY we worship, but because of HOW we worship. That is all.
Imagine how many people die, are murdered, burned because of HOW they worship.
Why should anyone care if you rest on Friday, Saturday or Sunday?
Why should it be so important if someone is reading the prayers from left to right rather than from right to left?
Is it worth killing for it?
Why is it so critical if you pray facing Jerusalem of Mecca, or the floor for that matter?
Show me one, just one, so critical a difference that it is worth dying or killing for?
To make the point I went to church on Christmas Eve (I am Jewish). I enjoyed it. Enjoyed all the celebrations around Jesus Christ. So what is wrong celebrating anyone that has brought love and preached peace to the world?
If any atrocities were done in his name it is by those who focused not on the WHY and WHAT but on the HOW, by those that bureaucratized his preaching.
But that is not only true for religious wars.
Watch how many times you got annoyed, even belligerent, not because of WHAT the person was saying or WHY he or she was saying it but because of HOW it was said.
Sometimes we agree with what a person is saying (usually after we calm down and review what was said calmly) but still we do not want to interact with that person again. Because of HOW that person communicated.
Think about a person you do not want to work with anymore. You do not remember what the issue was that got you upset, you do not even remember the details, it was so long time ago, but HOW it was handled probably still causes you pain and anguish.
The HOW is extremely important.
We usually make the mistake of focusing on the WHAT and WHY and relatively downgrade the importance of HOW, when in reality, HOW is the most critical imperative in regulating interpersonal, international or inter-religion relations.
Take it to the extreme. Bismarck said: “Respectfully even to the gallows.” Even wars should be handled respectfully or the disrespectful defeat of the enemy will be recorded in their history books to remind them to seek revenge.
It goes even beyond inter-religious or inter-country relations.
Try cooking without knowing HOW. You know WHAT you want. You know WHY you want it but without the HOW you are out of luck.
In marriage, as we get emotional we forget the importance of HOW. If the “war” is analyzed calmly it can be discovered that the issue as to why the War of the Roses took place is not really that important. It can be resolved in seconds. What is causing the voices to rise, and making people get ready for divorce, is HOW the other partner is talking.
Is it respectful or disrespectful? Does it communicate faith and thus give the other party a chance to express his or her points or is there no faith, no trust, and the case is closed?
Think Yiddish act British is offered as good advice to follow.
Always watch the HOW imperative. There is no real final answer to the WHY anyway.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
March 18, 2016
Donald Trump, The Gracchi Brothers, and the Fall of the Roman Republic
The Gracchi brothers were famous Roman political figures who radically changed the face of politics in the Roman Republic starting around 133 BC. They discarded political norms, openly flouting tradition. They regularly circumvented the Senate to get their way and introduced the concept of mob rule as a higher source of authority than the letter of the law. The Gracchi brothers were populist, popular, and naturally alienated the political establishment of their time.
Sounds familiar?
More importantly, the Gracchi brothers, with the precedents they set, are attributed with having paved the way for the fall of the Roman Republic and the birth of the age of the Emperors.
At the Adizes Institute, we study Organizational Lifecycles. Organizational Lifecycles are the predictable stages that organizations go through as they grow, age and die. The parallels between the lifecycle of an organization and the lifecycle of the Roman Republic (also an organization) are obvious. Starting with its founding in around 509BC (with the expulsion of its kings and the establishment of a Senate) to 27 BC (with the consolidation of power in the hands of Caesar Augustus, Rome’s first Emperor) we can clearly see how the Roman Republic was born, grew, peaked, and then fell into decline and died, returning to monarchy.
Is the American Republic (USA) also going through these same Lifecycle stages? Let us review some of the parallels.
The Roman Republic was founded with the overthrowing of its king. The early Roman Republic was fragile and barely able to defend itself from opportunistic sovereigns who did not believe that a city state could remain strong without a king.
The American Republic was founded with a war of independence from its King in 1776. The early Republic had a weak central body. In 1812, the fragile Republic would have to do battle again to assert its independence from another opportunistic king.
The Roman Republic gained control of much of southern Italy through military conquest. It was through these battles that the formidable Roman military was forged.
“From sea to shining sea,” the USA achieved its “manifest destiny,” with the blood of pioneers and the ingenuity that ushered in the railroad, the telegraph, the combustion engine and more. This ingenuity would be the foundation upon which the nation would grow.
The Roman Republic had a power struggle between the Plebeians and the higher classes which peaked with the Secession of the Plebeians and resulted with the 12 Tables. The 12 Tables established the rule of law as being separate from the whims of a few rich men.
The American Republic had a power struggle between State and Federal governments. This struggle, which included a Civil War, established the supremacy of Federal law over State law.
Lifecycle Stage – Prime + Stable
The Roman Republic hit its peak when it defeated its greatest rival, Carthage.
The American Republic hit its peak when it defeated the Nazis and the Soviet Union.
The Roman Republic entered the Aristocracy Stage when politicians began to put their own self interests ahead of the greater interests of the Republic. Conflicting interests of senators and between the ever more polarized social classes froze the gears of government.
The American Republic entered Aristocracy for similar reasons. The USA was in Aristocracy as late as 2007. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” could summarize George W. Bush’s approach to governance. This allowed problems to fester and turn into crisis.
Lifecycle Stage – Recrimination
The corrosion of the Roman governance system created the space where the Gracchi brothers and their populist rhetoric could emerge to overturn the political establishment.
The USA entered the Recrimination stage after the financial crisis of 2008. In the very next election cycle a high number of incumbents were unseated and new phenomena, like Super PACs and the Tea Party, emerged.
++++
It was during that 2010 midterm election cycle that I started comparing Roman history with American history. I understood that the USA was entering Recrimination, but where were the Gracchi brothers of our times? Who was flouting political tradition? Who was using the mob to overcome the rule of law? Who was raising the ire of the political elite?
Today, with the emergence of Donald Trump…
It is important to note that by most accounts, the Gracchi brothers were righteous men. It was not their agenda that contributed to the fall of the Roman Republic but rather the precedents they set. The effects of these precedents did not destroy the Roman Republic overnight, or even in one generation. There were two Gracchi brothers. The second built upon the precedents of the first, and later leaders like Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and finally Caesar (106 years later) would only take the precedents set by the Gracchi to their natural conclusion.
What other factors contributed to the fall of the Roman Republic into monarchy? What signs should the USA watch for?
- Emergence of cult of personality political leaders;
- General deterioration in the level of trust and respect among political leaders;
- Super wealthy using own money to influence likely voters;
- Use of referendums to bypass the senate;
- Disregard for the sanctity or authority of a Governing Office;
- Flouting of political tradition, like term limits;
- Emergence of a privatized military;
- Emergence of mob rule as a greater political force then the rule of law;
- Use of violence to achieve political ends;
- Loss of the rule of law;
- Proscription and counter proscriptions,
- The emergence of a new political system.
It is also important to note that it is not about Donald Trump, but rather the Lifecycle stage. He is only a sign of the times. Had Donald Trump run in the 2000 Election cycle, with Bush and Gore, would he have had the same traction? Alternatively, had he not run for president in this election cycle, would some other candidate assume the mantle of the Gracchi?
Cruz?… Sanders?…
About the Author:
Shoham Adizes is the Director of Training and Certification at the Adizes Institute and co-author of the book Empowering Meetings.
March 11, 2016
The Terror of Assumptions
This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on March 8, 2016.
I do not know if it happens to you but it does happen to me: I get angry at something only to find out later that I had no reason whatsoever to get angry.
It can be more than embarrassing. People get angry back at you. You might lose friends, spouses, or the love of your children just because you repetitively were angry for something that you had no reason to get angry at. They shun you because your anger is unpredictable and misdirected.
How does it happen?
Why does it happen?
My insight is that an event triggers our anger because we assume a certain motivation drove that event. And that motivation was erroneous.
An example:
A child does not do something you have asked him to do.
Before finding out what happened, you assume the kid is showing lack of discipline, is not accepting your authority, and you get angry.
Later you find out that your assumption was wrong. He got diverted to do something else that someone else asked him to do and he could not do what you wanted him to do.
Where did those assumptions come from?
From the past.
In the past, you had some experiences that apparently repeated themselves more than once until they became your ready-made explanation to certain behavior. When confronted with a similar situation, you assume the same reasoning happened again. You have a ready-made answer to the question of why it happened. There is NO need to think. NO need to investigate. You believe you know why it happened.
Another example:
In your past, let us say, while growing up your brother or sister repetitively refused to cooperate with you and put you down. This pattern got fused into your consciousness and now you have a ready-made explanation to situations that subconsciously remind you of the same pattern.
So you ASSUME, without even being conscious of it, that your kid also refuses to cooperate. And all your stored anger against your brother is now unloaded with anger at your child.
This pattern is one of looking at the present through the prism of the past.
What to do?
I read somewhere some beautiful advice one had given: be curious before judging.
To be curious means to me to ask questions before deciding. Accumulating information and processing it before judging. In other words, stop assuming anything.
Treat each experience like it is happening to you for the first time. And come to think of it, it is for the first time. No two experiences are ever identical. There is change that happened since the last similar experience. This change is called life.
Be like a growing child. Be curious. Be willing to learn. To experience, and learn from experience.
Or be like a dog. Each time your pet meets you when you come home it treats you like you have come for the first time. It does not show anger for whatever you did to it before.
Ask questions more and use less exclamation marks.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
March 4, 2016
The Jewish Angle of the White House
The media reports that Bernie Sanders is culturally Jewish. It means he is not practicing the Jewish religion. He was raised Jewish in his youth and went to a kibbutz for the summer. He went to Sha’ar HaAmakim, a kibbutz that was established by leftist Yugoslav immigrants to Israel. Since Yugoslavia established the democratic socialist system called self-management, I wonder if Sanders got his political ideas at that time.
But not only Sanders has Jewish connections.
The second husband of Hilary Clinton’s grandmother, Max Rosenberg, was a Russian-born Jew, and Hilary’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky is a practicing Jew. You could say her granddaughter is Jewish too.
Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter, converted to Judaism and is married to a practicing Jew. They keep Kosher at home. Donald Trump’s grandchildren are Jewish.
If Bloomberg runs, we have another Jew that might inhabit the White House.
Adding Cruz and Rubio as contenders for the Presidency means that four out of six candidates to inhabit the White House have a connection to Judaism. There is a good chance a person with strong Jewish affinity might be the next most powerful person in the world.
Is this good for Israel or not?
I suggest that it is not.
Jewish people, I find, have a conflict about their Jewishness. They are defensive about it. They will bend over backwards so that no one who is not Jewish will accuse them of being supportive of Jews, or biased towards Jewish causes.
I suggest that the Jewish people feel more guilty or ashamed of being Jewish than feel proud of being Jewish. It is reflected in the decisions they make. Some hide their Jewishness. Some manifest rejection of anything Jewish so they are not identified as sympathizers of Jewish causes. Take Sanders. He is trying to downplay his Jewish background as much as possible.
As a result of this defensiveness, I expect a President with a Jewish connection to be more critical of Israel, not less. And because of their Jewish connection. Not in spite of it.
We have examples of this phenomena happening throughout history. Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of Britain, who was a Sephardic Jew by birth, was not too sympathetic to the Jewish cause. On the contrary. He converted.
The owners of the New York Times are Jewish by background too. They bend over backwards to not support Jewish causes, to not be accused of bias. As a matter of fact they show bias in the opposite direction. Often they are being accused of being anti-Israeli.
As is, the situation is tense between Washington and Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Jewish population in the United States is not united in supporting Israel. Thus, whoever is in the White House does not have to worry about the Jewish vote if he or she makes decisions Israel does not like.
A President with Jewish affinity who is not in debt to the Jewish vote is a double jeopardy for Israel.
It is not going to be easy.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
