Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 27

On Bad Communication

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on February 23, 2016.

You have probably heard this complaint before. And probably more than once: “the decision was poorly communicated,” “No one really understood what was decided,” etc.

How can this repetitive problem, complaint, and excuse that people use when not performing well be dealt with?

First, there must be an agreement within the capi group as to what exactly we are talking about.

For example, take the following case:

“The financial model and expectations of product X was badly communicated.”

First, we have to define what a financial model is. Some people say we have a model. Other disagree, saying that we do not have one.

Well, stop the discussion and define what it is that you mean by the words you use. Accumulate, deliberate, and illuminate what a financial model entails.

In doing the exercise, you might have to differentiate between what needs to be the ingredients of a financial model versus what is nice to have.

Now that it has been defined, treat it as an illumination. It is operationally working when it is well understood by all who are supposed to use it.

Now present it for QDD (questions, doubts and disagreements).

Go over questions first. Repeat accumulation and go over new questions. Repeat. After three, max four, repeat exercises, there will be no more questions, no doubts, and no disagreements.

When that happens, you have a well communicated decision that will deal with change.

Anytime that a decision is made which is supposed to cause change, there will be complaints of bad communication. Either people truly do not understand the decision, it is new and thus not tested yet, or they are using it as an excuse to not implement the change, i.e. it is one way to resist change.

The continuous discussion of defining the words we use and then QDD-ing the illumination breaks down resistance to change and really clarifies what has been decided and how will it be implemented.

Come to think of it, it is common sense. When you decide to do something new, ask those that are supposed to implement this new decision that will cause change, if they have questions, or doubts, or disagreements. It is better to have those questions and doubts and disagreements upfront and deal with them, rather than later on during implementation, as those questions, doubts, and disagreements block implementation and waste time and resources.

Some leaders do not like to ask for QDD. They might get disagreements that they might not be able to respond to, and that might derail their decision.

How deluded is this?

Not discussing disagreements does not make them disappear. People who disagree will find ways to undermine the decision either by malicious obedience, or by inaction, or by claiming they did not understand the decision, and then go and do something else.

Hiding from disagreements does not make them disappear. Facing them does. You can decide to fire the ones who disagree. Or maybe they have a good reason to disagree, and after you listen to them, you change your mind.

How lucky, or should I say smart, you are to avoid making the mistake proactively.

Go for it.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Ghost Towns

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on February 16, 2016.

For health reasons, I have to walk four miles every day. I hate the treadmill. I prefer walking in the neighborhood. As I lecture around the nation, I’ve had a chance to see many neighborhoods.

I noticed something as I walk the small towns of America, the suburbia, and away from downtown.

Ghost towns.

I walk and see no one. No people on the street. No one sitting on the porch and conversing with the neighbor across the street.

That is not what I see in other countries if they are not developed.

Narrow streets. People sitting on the porch and shouting and conversing with the neighbors. Children playing. Women shouting from windows for a child to come home for supper.

In America: silence. Ghost towns. No people. From time to time, a car will pass by. Someone jogging will pass you without saying a word.  What saves the day are the people walking their dog. They might smile. Some say hello. Thank God for the dogs or we would have no human contact.

I remember my childhood. Came home from school. Ate and hurried down the stairs to play soccer on the street. No money for a ball? No problem. We made one from old torn socks. Came evening, mothers appeared at the windows of their homes and started calling for the children to come home for dinner.

It was a noisy neighborhood. Alive.

I walk miles in America. Ghost towns.

Where are the children? Watching television? Playing computer games?

Not allowed in the street. Someone might snatch them away.

Where are the people? Working. They come home exhausted from fighting the traffic and the long strenuous day in the office. They take a drink. Watch the news, have dinner, and off to bed. Day after day. Month after month.

I remember my childhood. The house was always filled with people. Friends. Neighbors who came visiting. Or to borrow sugar or oil or whatever.

I remember our meals. No one dared to eat by himself. He had to wait for the whole family to gather around the table. And Friday night was for the extended family to gather and sing after the super. And laugh. And kid each other. You could hear the laughter and the music coming out of different homes if you walked the neighborhood.

In America? Silence. Ghost towns.

Rich but so lonely.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Blessings and Dangers of Vacation

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on February 9, 2016.

People like vacations. They dream about going on vacation. It sure is enjoyable but it carries hidden dangers that should be taken into account.

The joys of vacation could hide from view threats or opportunities that should not be ignored. If you are preoccupied with some innovation, some creative output you are struggling with, vacation will be the time when it will be resolved.

A vacation can be a blessing and a threat. All coins have two sides.

How come?

Energy is fixed at any point in time. If you spend it on item X you have less energy for item Y.

What happens if you have a problematic marriage, or a place of work you hate?

Many people escape from dealing with the problem by getting intensely over engaged in something else. All energy is devoted to that something else and no energy is left to deal with the problem.

It is called an escape.

For example, in a painful marriage the spouses find solace in work or in an illicit relationship. All energy is dedicated to it and no energy is left to deal with the marriage.

And what happens when we go on vacation?

Now all at once energy that was dedicated to the escape, to work, to the illicit relationship, gets freed and one cannot avoid facing the problem and dealing with it.

I find that the decision to get married, get divorced, quit one’s job, make a major strategic disruptive decision, are all done during vacation.

That is the time when a major commitment is made to innovate, to start a business, or to close a business.

Vacation time is when major disruptive decisions are made and not all of them are constructive. Instead of working on a relationship gone sour, a person might spend the vacation brooding how to get out of the relationship. Or, on a positive note, it is the time when a person garners the courage to make the move and say “I do” and make the commitment to get married.

If you have a dissatisfied employee, be ready. After his or her vacation they might submit their resignation.

In a problematic marriage if one of the partners goes by herself or himself on vacation, there is a good chance upon returning they will ask for a divorce or request some other major change.

And on a positive note, if your partner is doubting whether to make the commitment of life time, to accept or make the decision to get married, take them on vacation. For most that will probably be the time when they will decide.

Vacations are disruptive in multiple ways. They are not only disruptive to workflow. They might disrupt your life in more ways than one.  Some are a blessing. Some may be a blessing in disguise or a source of an outright major crisis.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Decision Making Pitfalls

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on February 3, 2016.

When we have a problem, an issue we are struggling with, and ask for advice, the usual approach of the problem solver is to ask us: “What do you want?” As if you are really clear about what you want, 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 clearly know what we want and express it well, but for some reason, it makes us even more frustrated because, for some reason, we are not able to implement the solution we want.

This is also evident in the consulting profession.

The consulting practice starts with defining goals and proceeds to elaborate a plan of action (at a nice fee) as to 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 was: want > should.

Why does it not work?

Because in this sequence of the decision making process, there is insufficient 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 than with the problem.

Where is the leak?

We ignored the “is,” the reality.

As we deliberate what we should do and what we want, deep inside our conscience, there are doubts as to what we can do and if this is the real problem and thus if it is the right solution.

The problem solving process should start with the “is” imperative; what is really going on; admit, confess your problem openly and clearly.

By not doing so, subconsciously, as you try to solve the problem, you are debating the problem and the limited energy is depleted, frustrating you from moving forward.

When you admit your disease and stop denying it, you free all the energy that is stuck in fighting your reality, in denying it. All energy can now be dedicated to a solution for designing it and implementing it.

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, start with what IS going on, honestly, truly, with no fear nor pretensions.

Next ask yourself: 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: is > want > should.

The mistakes are to start with “wants” ignoring the “is” or worse starting with what you “should” do, ignoring what is the reality.

Like an architect designing a house based in principles of architectural design, ignoring where the building IS located and what the clients want.

We can notice how the practice of medicine follows the right sequence.

The doctor knows you want to be healthy, nevertheless he/she always starts with diagnosis: what IS going on, and only then proceeds with what you want and thus what the medical intervention should be.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Why Trump?

Sometimes people wonder how Donald Trump, the loudmouth businessman who succeeded to offend almost everyone, Mexicans, politicians, foreigners, Muslims, succeeded to become the leading candidate of the Republican party for President of the United States.

My explanation: It has to do with the theory of lifecycles.

Every system has a lifecycle. Corporations do (See Ichak K. Adizes: Managing Corporate Lifecycles Santa Barbara: Adizes Institute Publications, 1999). People and trees do. Countries do too.

They are born grow age and die.

Where is USA on the lifecycle?

I believe that it is at the beginning of the aging stage. It moved from GoGo to Adolescence during the depression era, that is when the (A) role was introduced with the New Deal, and Keynesian economics legitimized government intervention in economic affairs.  What was functional then, to transform us into Prime, became a burden that is aging us now.

The USA, in my opinion, was in Prime after the Second World War and during the 1950’s. From then on it has been starting to “age.”

In my estimate, the USA is now in between Aristocracy and the beginning of Recrimination (No system is at one point of the lifecycle. It is in a range along the lifecycle curve. It is a bell curve along the bell curve.)

As a system starts to age, it starts to fall apart, to disintegrate. In the USA we are witnessing an increasingly unprecedented confrontational behavior between Republicans and Democrats and an increased level of social violence.  It is even noticeable in the behavior of the business community. In a January 24, 2016 New York Times Magazine article entitled Why Are Corporations Hoarding Millions, economists report that corporations are accumulating cash in unprecedented quantities. They have no explanation for this behavior. I suggest that it is the result of the aging of the system. Large companies become more risk averse as they age.

Systems require different leadership styles depending on where they are on the lifecycle. Disintegration, which is a manifestation of aging, calls for integration, for the (I) role. That explains to me the rise of Obama to the presidency.

When I analyzed his first inaugural speech (in my January 30, 2009 blog) the content analysis show he was an (I). His subsequent behavior and leadership style support this analysis. He prefers diplomacy to confrontation; community building (he was a community organizer prior to entering politics) and compromise instead of war.

The location on the lifecycle the USA is in calls for (A) and (I) because we are further down the lifecycle from the time Obama took residence in the White House. Thus, guess who is coming to the podium and considered for leadership?  Study Bernie Sanders’ agenda.  It is (I), socialism, though government intervention, (A). And he calls for political revolution. That is (E) for you, a remnant of the glory days when America was still young and with vigor to even consider revolution.

What about Hillary Clinton?

I see her as a (PE). She has a vision. And she loves action. Her (PE) style makes her subject to criticism that she is not honest. It should be expected from such a style.

I suggest a (PE) style and agenda fit better where the USA is coming from on the lifecycle. Not where it is sliding into. Not strange Hillary Clinton refers repetitively to the past, as something to look up to, especially the time her husband was the president.

What about Trump?

He clearly has no (I). The expression he is famous for is: “You are fired.” He offers no vision. His solution to immigration is to deport all illegals. Millions of them. How? No details are offered.

What about the terrorist problem? Close the borders to all Muslims.

How about ISIS?  Bomb them to oblivion.

No (A). No explanation how he will go about executing his plans.  No (I); he does not need anyone; he can do it all by himself. Trust me, he says.  No (E), no big vision. When asked details on how America will be successful again, the answer is: watch me do it.

A (P), (P), and more (P) style.

Why is he attractive then?

Because his style is called by the stage of Recrimination on the lifecycle. All (P). He is 180 degrees opposite of Obama’s (I) style.

The Republicans are sick and tired of the wishy-washiness of Obama’s leadership style, his (I) behavior of leading from behind. They are looking for someone who will take the bull by the horns, who will clean up the stables, never mind how. (P)!!!!

Sanders claims he will clean the stables too but provides the how he will do it. He calls for a political revolution, (E). Trump gives no explanation, no vision, no plans. No how.

If we place the leadership styles of Obama, Clinton, Sanders and Trump along the lifecycle, I suggest the following leadership styles fit well with the following location on the lifecycle: Obama: late Stable. Clinton: at Early Aristocracy. Sanders at late Aristocracy and Trump for the beginning of Recrimination.

 The Lifecycle of Organizations

What about the other contenders, Rubio, Christie, Cruz and Jeb Bush?

Rubio and Christie’s styles and agendas are not distinctive enough to classify in PAEI terms. They are not as attractive as the clear (P) style of Trump or the (AI) style of Sanders.

Cruz is less (P) and more (E). His (P) style makes him attractive like Trump but since his (P) is lower, balanced with some (E) he is less attractive than Trump.

Bush is trailing because he comes across as another (I); his style resembles Obama too much. The USA departed from the location on the lifecycle where that style was considered attractive eight years ago.

What about Bloomberg, if he chooses to run?

I believe he is a (PE). If he gets elected, I suggest, it is because his style is less extreme than Sanders’ or Trump’s. His style is similar to Clinton’s, but not being a real politician, he is less tarnished and more trusted.

One of the symptoms of aging is people’s resentment of their leadership. People attribute the aging problems to the failure of the leaders. At present all politicians are less popular than ever. This is another reason why Trump is attractive and why Bloomberg will be as well.

Just daring to think, and say it,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Marrying the Nanny

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on January 20, 2016.

I am reading the New York Times about the phenomena that a big number of movie actors divorced their wives for the nanny. This reminded me of a phenomena I noticed with founders of companies.

My experience with founders of companies is that the company is not a mistress that takes them away from home and the family. The company is a child they have given birth to.

They had a period of “pregnancy” when they were dreaming about what they will do. Then they took the plunge, quit their job, took a loan, and started a company.

In my lectures and my book, Managing Corporate Lifecycles, I compare that to a woman who has given birth. The baby takes all the energy: feed, rock, change diapers, rock to sleep…the mother gets exhausted. Some have postpartum depression. The not-so-smart husband comes home and wants to have fun. The wife is exhausted and that annoys the hell of him. “Since you have the baby, I do not exist anymore. You are paying attention only to the baby, etc. etc. etc.”

All over the world I ask the same question: if the pressures of the husband persist and the wife has had enough of it, whom does she give up, the husband or the baby?

I get the same answer any country I have lectured to, so far fifty-two. She gives up the husband and keeps the baby and that is what happens with a founder of a company too.

He just “gave birth to his company.” Problems galore for a start-up. Cash flow problems, inventory problems, quality problems…when he comes home exhausted and the wife wants to have fun he is not able to respond. Then she starts to complain that since he started the company he has no family life anymore, etc. etc. etc.

She sees the company as a mistress, not as a child he has given birth to.

If she puts ongoing pressure and he has a choice: the wife or the company, whom does he chose?

The company, his baby, and he divorces the wife and marries…the secretary.

Why the secretary? Because she is raising his “baby.”

Maybe that is what is happening in Hollywood? Gavin Rossdale is getting divorced from Gwen Stefani, or she is divorcing him, for having an affair with the nanny. Ben Affleck, the rumors are, had an affair with their nanny. Robin Williams did the same. Ethan Hawke divorced Uma Thurman and Jude Law divorced Sienna Miller to have an affair with the nanny. Not to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger’s very known affair?

Are the nannies so much better looking or younger in comparison to the actress wives?  Is that the reason?

I do not think so. I think that the phenomena of the founders marrying the secretary is what is happening here.

The movie actors are probably as narcissistic as founders of companies. They want someone to cater to them and the nanny is there to serve. The movie actress wife, on the other hand, probably has a career to take care of, otherwise why does she have the nanny?

And men probably still have the need to see their bloodline being taken care of, and who does that but the nanny.

So when the push comes to shove, whom do they chose? The one who takes care of the children or the glamorous beautiful famous movie actress wife??

Like the founder of a company, they fall in love with the person who takes care of their children.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Adizes Pursuit of Prime Award Acceptance Speech

The following is the acceptance speech by Costas Petropoulos, CEO of PETROS PETROPOULOS, for being awarded the Adizes Pursuit of Prime award, which is granted to companies who successfully practice Adizes over a span of many years. The award was presented at the Adizes Convention in India in January 2016.

 

Dear members of the Adizes Institute, ladies, and gentlemen,

I thank the Professional Council of the Adizes Institute for the great honor conferred upon our Company by its decision to award to us the Adizes Pursuit of Prime prize for the year 2016.

For me, this recognition has a very special meaning, for it crowns a quarter-century long continuous dedication to the application of the Adizes Methodology in my professional career as a manager.

It all started in 1991 – exactly 25 years ago – when we invited the late Adizes Associate, Aurelio Flores, to do a Syndag for our Company. Six years before that, in 1985, I had heard Ichak Adizes describe his methodology at an YPO University in Tokyo. I was very impressed, but I didn’t do anything about it at that time.

Before going into our story with Adizes, let me say a few things about us.

Our Company was founded in 1922 by my late father, Petros Petropoulos. So we are 94 years old this year. We have always been in the automotive industry. We define “automotive” in a very broad way, which means it includes not only automobiles and trucks, but also agricultural tractors, diesel generators, construction equipment, fork-lift trucks, outboard motors, two-wheel vehicles, lubricants, batteries, etc. During our history, we have been variously in all stages of the value chain, including design, manufacturing, assembling, modifying, distributing, and financing. Since 1999, the Company has been listed on the Athens Stock Exchange.

By 1990, our Company had gone through an 18-year period of go-go growth, during which sales increased six fold, but profit hovered around zero. There was a lot of conflict in the organization. Our monthly meetings were dominated by conflict of sales against marketing, sales against accounting and vice-versa, sales against production and vice-versa, sales against support functions like  logistics and vice-versa, and practically everybody against everybody else. It was a mess.

I took the initiative of recommending that we invite the Adizes Institute to help us. My brother and partner, who is a strong “PA,” asked for proof of tangible benefit from this (substantial, for our size) investment. I, being primarily of an “EI” mentality, of course had difficulty in defending my recommendation, as all “E”s do! A trusted colleague (a strong “I”) asked me “are you sure this will benefit us?” I took the risk and replied, “Yes.” This colleague helped to convince my brother. So we started the process in early 1991.

It is notable that some time after the Syndag was completed, my brother and partner, John, thanked me for insisting on my recommendation to invite Adizes! This is of special value if you know what a tough cookie John is.

After the first and second days, my brother and I experienced difficulty sleeping at night. The picture of our Company that emerged was totally different to what we believed it to be. We thought we were leading a dynamic team of first class race horses. It now appeared that our horses were tired and discouraged.

Under Aurelio Flores’ guidance, we re-structured the Company into autonomous business units, where Capi was properly rebalanced and accountability better focused. A collateral damage was that some of our key managers resigned, perhaps because the clear accountability that resulted was too much for them.

We also instituted the Corporate POC, and a POC for each business unit and for each support department. These POCs are still operational today, after 15 years. PIPs have dwindled from a fairly large number (40-50) to two or three now. We wonder what this means.

We worked hard on MT&R.

Greek culture does not promote Trust and Respect. There was a lot of doubt when we set out to establish MT&R in our organization.

Ichak Adizes teaches that it does not matter if mutual respect resides deep in the mind and soul of the individual. We have no way of knowing or measuring this. But it doesn’t matter, he says. What we are interested in is BEHAVIOR – that we can see, measure, and control. So we started punishing disrespectful behavior. For example, one manifestation of disrespect is to interrupt someone while she is speaking. So I, then CEO, used a wooden gun I had bought from a street peddler in New York, which fired rubber bands. I carried it to every meeting and declared that I would shoot only a person who interrupted. I made it clear that you were allowed to say anything, shout, even curse, but you were not allowed to interrupt. Pretty soon, interruptions, a frequent phenomenon in Greek public and private life, all but disappeared from our Company.

Another way to show disrespect is to be late at meetings. We follow religiously the Adizes practice of doing as many pushups as minutes of tardiness. The rule applies to everybody. I’ve had to do many pushups. At the end of the pushups, the rest of the group applauds, thus accepting the apologies of the latecomer.

It has worked, thus confirming Aristotle, who made the astonishing claim that virtue is not an act, but a habit. You have to practice virtue in order to become virtuous!

We also worked on building Trust. First of all, we declared that ours is an Open Book Company. Financial Statements are true, there are no hidden items. Everything is known by our trusted employees. For example, we discuss the latest financial performance at all POCs. Secondly, we set the rules that apply to everybody without exception, including the Chairman and CEO. And we implement this policy religiously. This is very unusual for the average Greek family business.

For example, when I recently described to a friend, a prominent Greek businessman, the institution of “bitching day” in our Company, he nearly had a fit! Let me explain.

In our Company, managers’ income is based mainly on the financial results of the business unit they run. For this reason, they have complete freedom in managing their expenses. The only part of their expenses that they have zero freedom on is the part that refers to the expenses of top management (CEO and Chairman) and of the accounting department, both of which are allocated to them. Aurelio Flores suggested, and we agreed, that although the business unit managers do not have the right to reject these allocations, they should have the right to complain about them. This is done on “bitching day”, in November every year, after the allocations for the next year have been announced. During the bitching meeting, we have made it clear that it is legitimate and indeed desirable that business unit managers question every line of the allocated expenditure budget (which we call “Red” expenses). During that session, the CEO, the Chairman, and the Accounting Manager have to defend why each expenditure item is necessary for the Company’s survival and growth.

“Ha!” said my friend. “You mean that I would have to explain to my employees why I have the expenses of my yacht and my house maids on the Company books? This is ridiculous!”

But bitching day has contributed to the building of Trust in the Company. Incidentally, it has also helped us keep overhead down. In the beginning, we had a lot of complaints. But as we became more and more careful in constructing our budget, complaints have dwindled to practically zero.

As you know, Greece has gone through a major economic crisis after 2010. During this crisis, our Company has had to institute, for a limited period of time, part time work. During this, and up to now, the CEO and Chairman reduced their salaries to €1 per annum. And of course, the salaries of business unit managers have been automatically reduced, because of the reduced financial performance of their business units.

All of this has contributed to the building of Mutual Trust in the Company.

Trust can be costly. For example, some time ago, an aggressive competitor started hiring our sales persons by offering very much increased salaries, because they knew that our sales force had a lot of valuable information: They knew our costs and our whole client base, including pending quotations. We started losing orders that were about to close. Things became so bad that at some point, we wondered whether our policy of complete trust in our sales people should be changed. We finally decided that the benefit the Company got from granting trust far out-weighed, in the long run, the short term risks of leaking information to competition.

Today, if you walk through our Company, you will see in the corridors confident young women and men who evidently respect themselves and their managerial profession, with a look of optimism on their face. It is joy for me to walk through our Company. And we owe this, largely, to Adizes.

After 1992, a period of sales stability ensued, with strong and increasing profitability. Sales dropped from about €70 million in 1992 to €55 million in 2002 but profit climbed from €0.8 million to about €4-5 million in 2002. It was our period of Adolescence. Predictability went up, as our budgets came much closer to outcomes, and systems were adopted in many important areas, like determination of salaries based on job values and credit control. Our cash flow improved tremendously. The Company was in control.

E returned after 2002. Sales began to rise rapidly as new businesses were added. By 2007, sales rose from about €55 million in 2002 to over €130 million. Profitability continued to climb to record heights, a sign that the Company continued to be under control. Prime had arrived!

Then in 2010, the big crisis arrived in the Greek economy. Between 2008 and 2012 we saw almost all our markets drop by an average of 80%! But because the Company continued to add new product lines to its portfolio – a sign that E was still very much alive – sales only dropped by about 50%. In 2015, sales compared to 2008 were only about 35% down. In the same year, 65% of our sales came from product lines we did not have at the outset of the crisis in 2009. And our profitability continued to grow, predictably. A confirmation that the Company continues to be in Prime.

I have described to you how our Company, with the help with Adizes, has moved from Go-Go to Adolescence to Prime. I think it is a textbook case proving the wisdom of Ichak’s insights into the life cycle of corporations.

I would like to conclude by sharing with you some thoughts on Adizes. I believe that Adizes is to organizational understanding and treatment what Freud has been to individuals. He led the way towards a totally new direction in diagnosing and restoring health to social organizations like the corporation. Like most great innovators in history, the true value of Ichak’s contribution to the art and science of management will be appreciated many years later. And recognized it will be. I consider it a great privilege and luck that I have met and learned from Ichak in my lifetime. I consider him my teacher and, in the ancient Greek tradition, I feel gratitude and love for him.

Costas Petropoulos

Prostate Cancer – A Lesson to Learn

Some years ago I had a visitor from Israel. A friend. He told me he had prostate cancer and had traveled to the Mayo Clinic for an operation.

“How was it discovered?” I asked.

“My PSA test results were growing and my doctor told me it was a sign that I might have prostate cancer. The biopsy confirmed his suspicion.”

So I started taking the PSA test and, whoa, my numbers were growing from test to test too.

So I went to an urologist. “What to do?” I asked.

“Oh do not worry,” he said. “You are too old. Prostate cancer grows very slowly. You will die from old age before it causes damage.”

Hmmm. I was not at peace with his answer. My son’s music teacher just died from prostate cancer. He was older than me.

Back to the urologist. Please do a biopsy. I was firm.

He repeated his earlier assertion: I should not worry because of my age. He shows me an article from the Wall Street Journal which says that people over sixty should NOT even do a PSA test. It was not necessary.

Hmm. I am still worried. My client from Greece, my age, is going through chemotherapy for prostate cancer.

I called him. “How come you are undergoing chemotherapy? My urologist claims old people die of old age, not of prostate cancer.“

“Do not listen to him,” he began to shout, “take the prostate out.”

Back to the urologist. I request surgery to take the prostate out.

“I can’t do it,“ he says.  It is against the law to perform surgery unless there is proof of need. And since we have not found cancer, he all but shrugs his shoulders.

“Then I insist you do a biopsy,” I say. “Let us see if I have it or not.”

He was still trying to convince me not to go forward. “In a biopsy, we take at random twelve pieces from your prostate. Since they are random, we might miss the cancer cell by a millimeter. The biopsy is not very reliable.” On the other hand, he informs me, there is a possibility of infection. It happens one in a hundred thousand. It is a concern.

I insist. I will take my chances.

He does a biopsy. Finds nothing, but I get the infection.  Pain galore and I can’t pee.

I had to be admitted to the hospital. A week of drugs fed via tubes into my veins.

The PSA keeps jumping.

I decide to change doctors. I go to UCLA’s department of urology which specializes in the treatment of cancer.

They do the biopsy and find nothing again.

And again I get an infection. Again I go to the hospital. More drugs into my veins.

Time passes.

I open the WSJ. Dick Pratt, another client, this time from Australia, has died. I call his wife to express my condolences.

“What did he die of?” I ask.

“Prostate cancer.”

How can that be? He was my age. But I am damned if I will undergo another biopsy. I have had enough pain.

Time passes. Maybe a year.

I visit the True North Residential Health Center in Santa Rosa, this time to lose weight. The doctor performs a general check-up. I tell him about the jumping PSA and the ill-fated biopsies.

“You should go to the University of California San Francisco. They have a new technology. Only four years old. They perform a Doppler biopsy which has a higher probability of finding the cancer.”

A Doppler biopsy is a computer aided biopsy. It is a heat-seeking device, thus not a random biopsy.

I am scared. It might mean another infection. Another hospital stay.

My wife insists I do it. She is worried.

Wives always win, no?

So, I go. And they find the cancer. It was close to the rim of the prostate.  And they do another test of the cancerous cell, called the W test, which tests how aggressive the cancer has become.

In most people it is relatively passive. So they die of old age. In my case, and the case of the music teacher, my Greek and Australian clients, it was aggressive and needed removal of the prostate before it spread.

Not all people have a non-aggressive cancer. Some do, so for them to wait for old age to die is wrong. But we do not know if it is aggressive or not till it is found. And only then should the decision be made to operate or not rather than to presume it is ok and automatically not operate.

In my case, there was a chance the cancer might spread across the rim into my lymphatic system and then move all over my body; in which case it meant good-bye life.

They offered to do the surgery right away.

I decided I wanted to investigate the best place to go under the knife.

Some friends told me that John Hopkins was the leader. Or Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

I called everyone I knew who had prostate cancer and asked for his opinion. Monroe Price, my good friend, suggested I call a young MD who had just graduated from medical school, a friend of his son. He knows the latest in technology, he advised me.

I called.

“Should I go to Mayo or John Hopkins?” I asked him.

“No, no, no!!” He started screaming on the phone. “They are the leaders with the old technology and because of that they resist new technology. They will perform radical surgery which is outdated. There is a high chance of incontinence. You cannot control your urine discharge and will have to wear old age diapers. And lose your erections.”

“Go to UC Irvine. See Dr. Ahlering who performs surgery with a new technology called robotics. It is computer aided. Very new technology.”

I did. Wheeled in at 7 am and out by noon. Walked by 5 pm and went home next morning without taking even a Tylenol for pain. No incontinence.

But the cancer DID spread. I lost a year getting bad advice.

Moral of the story:

Men: take periodic PSA tests.

If it is jumping or just high, find a hospital with a Doppler capability to do a biopsy.

Find what the W test score is. If it is low, go donate money to some just cause, thank God, and go home. If it is high, investigate the best technology for you. Whom should you consult? Two doctors. The old and experienced one and the young and up to date on technology one.

The technology is advancing so fast that not all doctors know what is going on. Some are stuck with what they learned at medical school years and years ago. You need to know the experience of the old one nevertheless, but find what the latest technology is from a young doctor.

I hope this will save some lives.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Unnecessary ‘Thank You’

This blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on December 15, 2015.

How would you like to meet a mother who tells you she is frustrated? She complains: Her child never thanks her for feeding it, and raising it. And it is hard work, she says.

Strange, no?

What do you expect from a mother? To do it out of joy of motherhood. Right?

Why is she mothering her baby if the baby never says thank you? Because she is acting out of love. And it better be that way.

The baby will not grow well if she is doing it with resentment and only because it is a job to be done. Right?

Love is when in the giving is the taking; in the act of giving you get a reward. It is rewarding just to do it. No need for a “thank you” now or ever in the future.

And that is how work should be and not only in motherhood.

I, for instance, need and expect no “thank you” for my lectures. I love to lecture so much that I should thank my audience for letting me speak to them.

I write my blogs and if they are read I am thankful that someone cares to read them. The reward is in writing them.

Is it not interesting that artists on stage, when the show is over, bow to the audience and even clap to the audience? And if they are given flowers they toss them back to the audience.

What is going on?

They thank the audience for being given the chance to show their talent as actors. The audience in its presence enriched them.

I always feel kind of uncomfortable with people who do things for me and then complain that they did not get enough appreciation, that I did not say thank you enough, etc. To an extent, they emotionally exhaust me. Sometimes, if it is done in a pushy and demanding way, it feels like emotional extortion.

I prefer people who do what they do out of love. They enjoy what they are doing so much that a thank you is unnecessary. It is in the realm of nice to, not need to.

You should take a task that you are willing to do even for free. Getting paid is not a need to event, but a nice to event.

It is true one needs to earn a living. To bring the bacon home. To feed the family. So there should be a payment but it is not the goal. It is a collateral benefit.

Working for money is slavery. It is never gratifying enough. No matter how much they pay you, you will want more for the job you are doing and that you do not enjoy.

This conclusion applies to economic theory. Do not work for profit. Profit is not, and should not be the goal. It is the collateral benefit. The goal of a company should be to serve the market, to cause clients satisfaction…profitably. Profit is a condition not a goal.

In 2016, I wish you a year where you do not work for money but for joy.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Power of the Narrative – The Need for a New War Doctrine

This week’s blog post was contributed by Shoham Adizes, Director of Training and Certification at the Adizes Institute. I hope you enjoy it.

-Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

A war doctrine provides a common frame of reference which defines, among other things, who the enemy is and what general strategy will be used to deal with that enemy.

There is a need for a new war doctrine to deal with the current war we are, and have been engaged in, as most recently demonstrated in the attacks in Paris.   To win this war we must reframe the way we look at the war including our understanding of who the enemy is and what strategy we should be using.

The most powerful weapon in the world is not the nuclear bomb.  The most powerful weapon in the world is the narrative.  The narrative is the “the story” that is presented to the public. The narrative is powerful because people tend to believe what they are told if they are told it enough times. If people believe the narrative, and beliefs drive behavior, then it is the narrative that wins or loses hearts and minds, the very hearts and minds that would legitimize the use of violence, perhaps even the use of a nuclear weapon.

Thus to win this war we must win the war over the narrative.  We must promote an alternative narrative to the narrative of our enemies. We must pay very close attention to how we frame the war in the media and in the minds of all involved.

What is terrorism?

The term terrorist has been thrown around as in “the war on terrorism.” But what is terrorism? Merriam-Webster’s defines terrorism as “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”   I suggest that this definition is far too general. This definition fits any military action since the beginning of time.  When US troops engaged with the Vietcong in the Vietnam War, were they not using violent acts to frighten the enemy as a way to try and achieve a political goal? Can’t the same be said about any other military engagement since the beginning of time, including the storming of the beaches of Normandy on D-Day during the Second World War?  I apologize to Merriam-Webster, but I refuse to equate the actions of the allies during the Second World War with the atrocities that recently took place in Paris. Clearly there is a difference between the two.  Thus we need a new definition for the word terrorism.

I submit the following definition: terrorism is a strategy for war. It is a strategy that moves away from traditional set-piece military against military to a non-military (civilian) against non-military (civilian) configuration. To put it another way, terrorism focuses on killing innocent non-combatants.

To declare war on terrorism is to declare war on a strategy.  How and why would you declare war on a strategy?  By doing so we are only denying reality and inhibiting our own ability to adapt to a new format of war.  The enemy is not the strategy being used but rather the enemy is the enemy no matter what strategy it uses.

One of the reasons we are not equipped to fight terrorism is that our traditional war doctrine does not allow us to attack civilian targets.  The people who commit terrorist acts do not do so in uniform.  Terrorists are civilians.  We can see this issue arise in the news when they say that a drone killed X number of civilians.  OK, but if that drone only killed those people actively involved with terrorist activities, would they not also be killing civilians?

In the new war doctrine we must forego the Golden Rule in favor of the Platinum Rule. The Golden Rule says, “treat others the way you would like to be treated.”  The problem with this is that it assumes all people want to be treated the same.  In the field of Spiral Dynamics1, which provides a model for the evolution of human value systems, we learn that people with different value systems want to be treated in different ways.  So trying to treat everyone the same way you want to be treated is assuming everyone has the same value system you have.

The Platinum Rule is different.  The Platinum Rule is “treat others the way THEY want to be treated.”  The Platinum Rule takes into account that different people with different value systems want to be treated in different ways.  The limitation of the Platinum Rule is how do we know how others want to be treated?  My answer to that is, assume they are following the Golden Rule.  So assume they are treating you the way they want to be treated.

So where does this take us?  If the enemy attacks us using terrorist tactics then we can use the same military vigor with them.  It is OK according to their value system.

It is important to remember that we are talking about the narrative.  In no way do I suggest we should target innocents the way terrorists do but we need to change the narrative.

Drones kill innocents.  War kills innocents.  While we should never target innocents, we should never apologize for how we wage this war. That only makes us look weak in the eyes of our enemies within the framework of their value systems. Rather we should explain that we will treat our enemies the same way they treat us.  We should legitimize, for the sake of the narrative, what we are doing. Without this alteration to our war doctrine we seem like hypocrites who, on one hand are outraged at the killing of civilians, and at the same time kill terrorists who are, de facto, civilians.  No wonder we are losing the war over the narrative.

Next, if terrorism is not the enemy but just a strategy being used by the enemy, then who is the enemy?

Whom exactly are we fighting in this war?

The current narrative, as defined by many in the media, present the enemy as Muslims or the Muslim religion of hate, but this framing of the narrative does more harm than good.  A better way to frame this issue would be as an extremist problem rather than a Muslim problem.  The war that we are engaged in is not a war between religions but rather a war between those who accept that it is OK for people to be different, with different beliefs and different ways of life, and those people who do not accept this (extremists).  Again, the enemy is not a set of people, it is not a religion, rather it is the belief that if you are not like me, if you do not believe what I believe, then I have the right to kill you. That is what I call extremism, and do not kid yourself there are extremists on all sides, not just in the Muslim religion.

–        In 1995, Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building killing 168 people and injured 754 others because he disagreed with the federal government.

–        In 2011 Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda stated in his manifesto.

–        Joseph Kony, a radical Christian, founded the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda in 1987 and has called for the establishment of a severe Christian fundamentalist government in that country. The LRA, according to Human Rights Watch, has committed thousand of killings and kidnappings.

And the list goes on…

Extremism begets extremism. It is like there is a natural balance. Look at France. The far right Front National political party just dominated the recent elections. This is a political party that wants to secede from the European Union, stop immigration and repatriate non-ethnic French. Having been attacked by extremists, France is moving closer to the extreme itself.

To rein in extremism we must rein it in from all directions, not just the Muslim direction even if they are currently the most active and extreme. By painting all Muslims with the same brush we only create more extremists on both sides: obviously, when people feel attacked they will defend themselves. Thus if we paint all Muslims with the same brush, those who are not extreme in their views will be easy recruits for anyone able to tell the narrative that “our religion is under attack.” If we can change the narrative from religion to extremism, we can stop alienating secular Muslims and stop pushing non-Muslims to be extreme in their way of thinking against the Muslims.  Changing the framework of who is the enemy is the first step to winning this war over the narrative.

Compare this to the current narrative.  The Muslim extremists are bad (which implies that that non-Muslim extremists are not bad), and terrorism is the enemy (which means any time the West attacks a terrorist target, which is de facto civilian, the West is using terrorism, which means it is hypocritical).

Now that we understand who the enemy is let’s talk strategy.  If we accept the power of the narrative as a tool, then our strategy must include the creation and propagation of our own narrative. Thus we should be seeking out those who are familiar and disenchanted with the organizations we are at war with, like ISIS.  We should be encouraging and even funding the creation of a counter narrative in the language that our enemies speak and investing heavily in platforms to spread that narrative.

By clarifying that it is the ideology of extremism (not the religion of Islam) that is the enemy and by legitimizing our actions, sending the message that we will treat our enemies the way they treat us, we can change the narrative creating a new war doctrine that will be the first step to win this war. For he who controls the narrative controls the future.

About the Author: Shoham Adizes is the Director of Training and Certification at the Adizes Institute and co-author of the book Empowering Meetings.

1Beck, D. (1996) “Spiral Dynamics, Mastering Values, Leadership and Change,” Blackwell Publishing.