Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 30
July 31, 2015
Understanding vs. Accepting
I assume this has happened to you too. It happens to me when having a disagreement with some people and, increasingly so, with some readers of my blogs.
It goes something like this:
We have a disagreement.
The other party says to me: “You do not agree because you don’t understand,” assuming that if I could understand, I would agree with him or her. Or to say it differently, the person claims that the reason why I do not agree with him or her is because I do not understand either the situation, the opposing argument or both. As soon as I do I will agree.
This is usually false.
I understand. I just don’t agree.
The collateral argument is more interesting:
If I try to understand something and claim to have understood it, then some people believe it means I agree with what I have just understood.
False again.
Take my recent blog on the decline of the USA.
I was trying to understand how the western sanctions are affecting the global power structure. My understanding was that it might marginalize the USA. It might backfire on the U.S. If true, then the sanctions were making Putin stronger rather than weaker.
Does it mean I support Putin?
Understanding does not mean supporting; and not supporting or not agreeing does not necessarily mean not understanding. They are related concepts but not synonymous.
It gets more complicated.
One reason for not understanding is not knowing enough. Not having enough information. So the person arguing with me levels the accusation that we disagree because I do not understand and I do not understand because I do not know enough, don’t have a grasp of the facts. Or the history. Or the background.
As if they know more.
Obviously it is a put down.
Who really knows more? Who has more command of the background and knowledge? Of the historical perspective?
If you know something I do not know, please speak up and tell me. Teach me and I will do the same for you, but don’t shut me up claiming that I do not agree because I do not understand and I do not understand because I am ignorant. As if you are the knowledgeable one.
Do you see the arrogance?
The lack of respect?
If you disagree with me, explain why. Enlighten me. Inform me about what it is you know that I do not and I will do the same for you.
And if there is nothing more to learn, and we still disagree, maybe it is because we have different priorities; we give different weight to the same factors. And that is all right.
We agree to disagree; no put downs, no hard feelings.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
July 24, 2015
Misdiagnosing the Iranian Problem
The problem has been stated: Iran might be producing a nuclear arsenal.
The solution: have an agreement that will stop them from having nuclear military capability.
I think both the problem and the solution are wrongly defined.
I do not consider Iran with nuclear capability to be a threat. It will not dare to use it against Israel although it repeatedly makes noise that it wants to destroy that country.
Why?
Because it is a known secret that Israel possesses about two hundred nuclear devices. It has a nuclear submarine permanently positioned in the Strait of Hormuz, facing Iran, armed most probably with nuclear armaments.
If Iran drops one nuclear bomb on Israel, Iran will cease to exist.
I have never been afraid of the Masada syndrome that if Israel’s existence is threatened it will commit suicide. No way. I believe, if such a situation develops it will be a Sampson’s revenge. Samson from the Samson and Delilah fame in the Old Testament. He was tortured and then did commit suicide but in such a way that he took all the Philistines with him by destroying the temple they were in.
Here is the Armageddon scenario: Iran attacking Israel with nuclear devices and Israel reacting back with nuclear capability. That will trigger the Muslim world to react against the West and that will start worldwide nuclear conflicts that even imagination will have a difficulty to describe.
I believe Iranians are smart people. They know what we know about the Israeli nuclear capability. About the nuclear submarines. None of this is secret. And they know Israel will not take a nuclear attack lying down. So, I trust them to be smart enough to shout, threaten but not to act.
I do not think Iran will use the nuclear arsenal it wants to develop to attack anyone. It is needed to deter anyone from attacking them. Furthermore, nuclear capability provides power that the Muslim world will look up to them and thus it will facilitate their ascension to leadership of the Muslim world.
So what, then, is the problem?
Iran is one of the strongest nations in the Middle East. It is belligerent. It has a proven record that it supports belligerent movements around the world: the Hezbollah, the Hamas and others that we do not know their complicated names.
That is the reason the other Arab nations in the area are dismayed at the agreement Obama has pushed through. Iran is undermining the regimes of the area by supporting terrorists. And not only those that terrorize in the region. They bombed a synagogue in Argentina. How much further can you get???
Removing sanctions will make Iran rich and flush with money. Money with which they can support terrorists and not only those that will terrorize Israel. Or the Jews in general. Are they not screaming “Death to America!!’ America the Satan.
Iran is dangerous not because of their nuclear devices. They are dangerous with their intentions and after the removal of sanctions they can use their money, lots of money, to subvert regimes, to support terrorists. To destabilize the democratic world.
Iran’s credo. That is the problem. Iran’s intention. Declared intentions. Intentions they carry out.
By misdiagnosing the problem, we have come to some agreement that might, at best, delay them from developing and producing a military nuclear device, but by removing the sanctions we make them strong enough to threaten us with terrorists.
What then?
Redefine the problem.
If the problem is their religious zeal to destabilize the western world, the solution should be to increase the severity of the sanctions until the religious junta that is ruling Iran falls. Use the military nuclear capability not as the problem but as an excuse to impose those sanctions.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
July 17, 2015
The Agreement with Iran: How Solid?
Years ago when Japan was an economic power house and Americans were negotiating with Japan, a certain confusion occurred. The Americans would feel they had an agreement only to find out there was no agreement.
Where did the confusion come from?
The word “yes” in Japanese is “Hai,” but it does not mean the same thing as “yes” in English.
In English “yes” means “done deal, there is no need to talk more. We have come to a final agreement.” In Japanese, “Hai,” their “yes,” means: “I did not say no,” “we can continue talking.” It is more like a “maybe,” or a “yes” said with an upward intonation sound “yeees…,” not a “YES!!”
This confusion has caused many American business men a lot of headache. They believed there was an oral agreement and they could proceed to write the contract when in reality there was no agreement.
Is something similar happening now with Iran?
I used to live in Los Angeles where there is a large Iranian expatriate community. Real estate dealers would tell me that it was very difficult to negotiate with Iranians. They start to negotiate AFTER the contract is signed.
How can that be?
Well, the signed contract only tells them what you would agree to. Now they start to negotiate further by giving endless interpretations to what was agreed.
Real estate brokers used to tell me that negotiating with Iranians was the toughest negotiation for them ever because they never knew what the Iranians were REALLY agreeing to.
This is apparently part of the Iranian culture. A thousand years of Middle Eastern bazaar trade practices, where a price of an item is not what is being demanded nor one that is being offered. It is all negotiated and then renegotiated over and over again.
If you go to a Turkish bazaar, never agree to pay what the seller is asking. If you do, you would practically offend him.
How can that be? Did you not agree without discussion to pay whatever he asked?
Well, they expected to negotiate and that you will offer to pay less and you two will go back and forth. You will show how dismayed you are at the price requested and walk away and he will chase you, and you will come back etc., etc. It is a big show. Eventually you come to an agreement on the price, which is usually around fifty percent of what he initially asked for, and then he would offer you something else to add to what you bought. If you agree he would further reduce the price etc…
If you agree to whatever he asked without negotiating and making the show, he feels like an idiot. He should have asked more if you are so easy going.
I remember going to bazaars with my American friends. They would feel embarrassed by my behavior of negotiating back and forth, offering to pay twenty percent of what the seller asked for. They found my behavior demeaning to the poor salesmen. That I was taking advantage of him. They wanted me to be fair and pay whatever asked.
Ah. Those cultural differences.
The American culture is based on fairness. In the Middle East, Yankees are considered naïve, pushovers, because they seek fairness and can be manipulated with little effort.
Do we REALLY have an agreement with Iran or is the real problem going to be now the interpretation of what was agreed to and enforcing it?
I read in the newspapers that the Iranian government does not trust the USA.
Should the USA trust Iran?
The agreement says that if Iran violates the agreement, sanctions will be re-imposed. Looks good. On paper. But by the time violations are verified and confirmed, and the Western powers come to an agreement to react to the violation and impose new sanctions, the period without the sanctions will make Iran stronger than it is now. So what did we earn? What benefits did we earn short of hope that they will honor the agreement?
In the Sephardic tradition, there is an expression, which when loosely translated means, “Those that live expecting die sitting on the toilet.”
I wonder?
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
July 10, 2015
What to Do and What Not to Do?
I do not drink much water. I do not like to drink water even though I should drink a lot because I have a kidney problem. Still, I do not drink much water. Irresponsible but true.
The other day I needed to take a blood test and was told before the test not to eat nor drink water for eight hours.
Not to drink water!!!!!! My God. I became very thirsty all at once. I was going around the room looking for a bottle of water.
What is going on?
I do not know if it applies to all people, but for an (E) type, the creative imaginative style, which I am, tell them something is not allowed, and it is like an invitation to seek it anyway.
We need to break the rules. To cross the boundaries.
What happens when someone tells you DO NOT THINK YELLOW? For me, it is like an invitation to think about yellow non-stop.
Why is that?
Maybe because crossing a boundary, doing the forbidden thing, provides some benefits.
A Hebrew expression says mayeem metukim yimtaku (stolen water tastes sweeter). Hmmmmmm. Maybe this explains why forbidden sex feels more exciting too, or as a therapist once told me, no wife can easily compete with a paramour. And the same applies to a forbidden lover providing excitement to a married woman.
According to this insight, the conclusion should be: To cause a certain behavior, do not tell people what NOT TO DO. Tell them only what TO DO. Blanchard made a career out of this rule when he wrote “The One Minute Manager.” And this could have repercussions for dieting. Do not tell people what NOT to eat. They will suffer. They will seek and dream about the “forbidden fruit.” Instead, they should have a list of all the food they CAN eat. Just do not put the food they need to avoid on the list.
Is that it?
I do not think so.
I think both instructions are needed; people need to know what to do and what not to do.
If you only know what to do and not what you should not do, you really do not know what to do. You wonder if the next thing you want to do is allowed or not. You do not know where the boundary is. And by the same token, if you only know what not to do, but not what is allowed, you do not know what to do either: Is the next thing permitted or not?
In order to know what to do, we need boundaries. What we should and should not do, which is the essence of education. And of training. And of living a less confusing life. And for business people, this is the essence of GOOD strategic planning.
I have seen many strategic plans outlining what to do but not what not to do. Then, people with initiative and enthusiasm over-extend themselves, or their actions go beyond what they are not supposed to do because they did not know where the boundary was. The strategic plan was designed to be a horse and they delivered a camel.
Sharon was told at the war on Lebanon to go into Lebanon to beat the Hezbollah. He went in, but was not told how deep. Where to stop. He almost ended in Turkey…and it had serious repercussions for Israel.
I believe religious people have less stress in their life because they have a “manual” on what to do and what not to do. It is the Bible or the Torah or the Quran. Not like us, the secular people, who believe we are free to do whatever we possibly can, while in reality, we are slaves of having no boundaries and thus slaves of limitless opportunities.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
July 3, 2015
Architecture and Power
Years ago, I was doing some consulting for a Mexican company, and they decided to conduct our meeting in Taxco, a little town known for its silver mine.
We were on the terrace of the local Holiday Inn, looking at the city in front of us: lots of small houses and an enormous cathedral in the center of town.
“Look at it,” said my host. “That is our problem. Little houses, big church. Where is the power? Where is the money? You Americans,” he continued, “Did you see Wall Street? Big commercial buildings and a small church in the middle.”
Since that experience, in my travels I started noticing where the big buildings were and who inhabited them.
In developing nations, it is obvious that the church has the best location in the city and is the largest structure. In countries where Kings or Queens still rule, their palaces dominate the scene.
But in developed countries, ignoring palaces of the royalty, the best places in town are government offices and/or shopping malls.
What does it tell you?
To me, it means that they are the institutions with the money and power to choose the prime locations and build the imposing structures. It tells me where the society has advanced today: to a big government bureaucracy and to a consumer economy going wild.
I think the size of the buildings, the prominence of the architect, and the architecture, manifest the power structure of our generation. It all but announces that big government is supplanting royalty, while consumerism has replaced the church and spirituality.
I am not saying this is good or bad. Just noting the IS without making judgments on the WANT and SHOULD.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
June 26, 2015
No One Is Perfect, Really?
No one is perfect.
What is new in saying this? Everyone knows it.
Ok, so everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Some of us are creative. We see the big picture, but not the details. Others are detail oriented to the point they miss seeing the forest, but take in each and every tree. Some of us are liberal, while others are conservative. Some are people oriented, sensitive. Some are not.
So? What is new?
My present insight is that although people say that it is obvious no one is perfect, they do not walk their talk.
There is a whole industry of life coaches and business consultants, men and women who teach, preach, plead, and push you to work on your weaknesses. Be a better person. Improve. (I am not referring in this blog to pathological deficiencies of character or mental disorder. Just normal imperfections that we all have.)
What is wrong?
If you work on your weaknesses, it means you believe that if you succeed in removing them, you will be approaching perfection. In other words, you say no one is perfect, but you nevertheless try to become so, probably like your mother pushed you to be.
Working on your weaknesses means you harbor the hope, you have faith that you might succeed and be perfect.
Since none of us are perfect no matter how hard we try, those fruitless efforts make us feel like a failure. And no one likes this feeling. So we become defensive. Then, when someone points out our limitations, we become furious or defensive. We are offended, upset, because we have this hidden assumption that we can and should be perfect, although we say the opposite.
If we accepted that no one is perfect, including ourselves, criticism would be nothing more than pointing out the facts. So when someone points you to your weaknesses next time, say: “Thank you for sharing” and keep going.
Anything else?
If you truly accept that you are not and cannot become perfect, work on your strengths. Capitalize on them, and for your weaknesses, get yourself someone who complements you, someone who is strong where you are weak. Together you achieve the elusive perfection. Alone it cannot be done. Don’t we introduce our spouse: “Please meet my BETTER HALF.”
It is in teamwork that we find the perfection no star can provide by himself or herself.
Building a team of people who complement one another is easier when each member of the team knows and accepts his weaknesses and cherishes the corresponding strength that someone else provides.
That requires breaking down managerial elitism created by hierarchy. If you complement yourself with someone who is strong in what you are weak, it means that the person “reporting to you” might be better than you are on some aspects. Thus, he or she should not be working FOR you but WITH you, a true colleague.
With mutual trust and respect based on knowing and not fighting our weaknesses, in appreciating those who complement us, a team is built and success is forthcoming.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
June 19, 2015
“Soapy Fish” by Nature?
I picked up the metaphor of “soapy fish” in Mexico. It describes a person who is like a soaped fish. You can’t catch him. It looks as if you had coaxed him to agree, or you finally understood what he or she meant to say, only later to find out he wiggled out of your hands like a soaped fish – i.e. he actually disagreed or did something totally opposite of what he said he was going to do.
And this behavior does not only refer to agreements. It applies to commitments too. You shake hands. He gives you the impression of making a total commitment. Only later on you discover it did not mean a thing. No signed paper, no commitment. And in many cases they do not honor a signed paper either.
These people lose the respect of others.
They are called liars. Manipulators.
And, surprise. They get elected to office.
I am referring to politicians.
You read the newspapers and watch the polls. Disaster. The criticism. Sometimes expressions of hate. Some people outright despise them. Obama. Hollander. Bibi.
What is going on?
In my humble opinion and experience, they are not bad people.
It is not necessarily part of their character to lie, to hide facts, to manipulate.
So what explains their behavior?
The “technology” of ruling in a democracy requires them to behave that way.
It is much the way a fighter plane pilot must be decisive, fast on the trigger; and a heart surgeon steely, with an unflappable opinion bolstered by an enormous ego. They have to. To open a heart you need to not be in doubt. If you are, you will not be able to cut.
Tell me your profession and I will tell you your behavior.
To gain and keep power in a democratic system, you cannot show all your cards. And sometimes you might need to bluff, just the way you would in a poker game. And you have to do it in the most pleasant way, otherwise the population will not vote for you.
If politicians open their cards, those who want their chair will exploit every opportunity possible and use any information they can to unseat them.
So politicians bluff. Like in poker.
Once we understand the reasons for their behavior, it is important to stop listening to what politicians say and analyze their interests instead.
What drives them is getting and holding to power. Try it. It explains it all.
Why is power so critical? Because without it, they cannot drive forward their agenda, how they see the country should advance. And, in my opinion, they all have an agenda. It is dictated by their ego as to what history books will say about them.
Dictators are different. They have the power, or as long as they do, they are less of poker players. They do not need to play games. You can trust that what they say, they mean to say, and they will act according to what they say.
People make the mistake and put dictators in the same basket with politicians and ignore what the dictators say, as if it is a bluff, to the peril of those that are the target of the dictator.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
June 12, 2015
Too Much Can Be Too Bad
Early in my consulting career, I found myself constantly impressed by what I called, for lack of a better word, “geniuses.”
These were men and women who were incredible scientists or first class students who earned “A” grades in all their classes. Or they were extremely creative people who came up with innovative ideas. Or they were people who were very sophisticated and won most of the arguments in debates.
I thought that in their exceptional talent, or intelligence, or creativity, I had found a gold mine. I started investing my money with them. I thought with my consulting experience and money, and their genius, we were going to make it big.
Just the opposite.
I lost a lot of money and lots of time.
What was wrong?
When I compared these geniuses to the successful entrepreneurs I came across in my consulting experience, I realized that those who really made a lot of money were not that knowledgeable. The successful entrepreneurs I discovered were not that articulate. Not that sophisticated. Not even very educated. Some were even pretty poor students. There is a joke about it that goes like this: “A” students work for “B” students that are bought out by “C” students.
What is going on? It defies logic. Why did these less educated people become successful entrepreneurs while the “geniuses” failed miserably?
My insight is that to know too much hinders your ability to see the essence.
The entrepreneurs are not ordinary people either. But they are not geniuses in an educated way. What makes them stand out is that they have common sense. They possess the knack of identifying what is critical. The educated and very talented geniuses tend to complicate things. They “over engineer” the subject. They know so much they often fail to see what is really critical, what is essential. Or they are geniuses in their field but have no business orientation where it is essential to understand and evaluate cost versus value. I found the “geniuses” ignored cost and focused only on value.
This discussion brings me to a controversial recognition: studying entrepreneurship CAN be detrimental to becoming an entrepreneur. It does not have to be so. But it often turns out that way.
Knowing too much hinders the ability to take risks, which is critical and essential for entrepreneurship. Most important of all — to start a business, you need to be fearless, and that comes from not knowing too much. If you think too much or know too much about what you are going to do, you probably will not do it. Real entrepreneurs quit school or they were “C” students.
If you have a very talented son or daughter who paints exceptionally well, has incredible talent, DO NOT send your offspring to an art school. Their talent will be destroyed. They will be taught what is right and wrong to the point that they begin to paint what the school deems appropriate and not what their talent directs them to do.
Once I got myself a dog, a Doberman Pinscher, and bought a book whose title was “Training a Doberman Pinscher.” The first page surprised me. It said: “Do not train the dog to attack.”
Whoa…
I kept reading to find out why.
Imagine that you train the dog to attack someone who raises his hands in a menacing way.
Next time an Italian guest visits you – Italians like to use their hands to gesture as they speak – the dog might attack.
What happened?
You blocked the dog from using its built-in intuition. By training your Doberman, you programmed him.
The same thing can happen with an artist. The school tampers with his/her intuitive talent, and now the art student paints what “the establishment” claims is right, often producing commonly accepted art rather than what could be exceptional art.
The same thing, in a different way, I believe applies to entrepreneurs. Knowing too much can discourage them from taking risks. People with entrepreneurial talent know little, but feel intuitively what is right or wrong. They are people who have no fear because they lack too much knowledge that might deter them. But notice, what makes them a gifted starter of a business is what causes them to fail later on. Their lack of knowledge, lack of a systemic view of the enterprise can ultimately lead to the business going broke. They make decisions on the fly and their lack of fear results in actions that entail too much risk. They can lose everything. They can start a business, but cannot manage it.
To manage requires a more sophisticated, educated leader. That person could not start the business, but he or she is extremely effective running it. The entrepreneur on the other hand can start the business but often fails at managing it.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
June 5, 2015
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What to Do? A Vision
A shorter version of this blog post was featured in the Huffington Post on May 29, 2015.
From the USA, it feels as if Israel is doomed.
Pessimism runs in Israel too. People I talk to are worried. There is a sense of helplessness; they feel that there is nothing Israel can do differently. Israelis go on with their daily work and joys, and they have kind of accepted that every few years, there will be a war, some people will be killed, and there is nothing Israel can do to change that.
The causes for this inaction, I believe, are: Israelis externalize the problem; they attribute the problem as being the Palestinians’. There is no one among the Palestinians to serve as a trusted partner in an effort to reach peace. Or, the problem is that the world is anti-Semitic, and there is nothing Israel can do to change that. In other words, the problem is “out there,” and thus the solution is “out there.” There is nothing more Israel itself can do – nothing new or different.
And for the religious people, there is nothing to do because God will save Israel. God did it many times in the past. Will do it again now.
Another cause, I believe, is that the Jewish people, for two thousand years, learned to live with problems and threats. So, unless it is a major crisis that threatens their survival here and now, they do not act. They just live with the problem. And that is what is happening now in Israel. The politicians are more worried about getting power or staying in power than dealing with the Palestinian issue.
There are five potential solutions, or better said, scenarios, that might remove the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only five, including the present default one:
1. Israel disappears from the map; the problem becomes a non-issue
2. All the Jews go back to where they came from (reverse history)
3. One state for all
4. Two states
5. Keep the status quo, the default solution
In my judgment, there are no more choices, no other scenarios, so one of these five has to be the one. Has to be.
Let us analyze them, starting from the least desirable:
Israel can disappear from the map if overcome by war or if Iran drops the bomb.
Iran cannot destroy Israel. They might drop the first nuclear bomb, but if they do, it will be their last. It is believed that Israel has over two-hundred nuclear bombs, and has a nuclear-driven submarine positioned in the Strait of Hormuz, close enough to bomb Iran undetected. If Israel is attacked, Iran will cease to exist.
I think the Iranians know this. So all their talk about how “We will destroy Israel” is bravado.
Why?
To become the leader in the Muslim world.
Overcoming Israel by war will not be easy either. Israel has nuclear armaments, and if the situation gets to the point of despair, they might use them. (It was considered in the Yom Kippur war.)
In this scenario #1, whether Iran attacks or there is a devastating war, Israel will suffer but not disappear.
Scenario #2, to reverse history, returning six million Jews back to the countries they came from, is an alternative that any person, not overcome by alcohol, can easily realize is not possible to execute. (Strange enough, it is what the radical Palestinians are demanding.)
We are left with three alternatives: one state, two states, or status quo.
One state is the end of the Zionist dream of having a Jewish state, and in fact, might even make Israel an apartheid state, or Israel might end up resembling one big Belfast. Thus, this alternative #3 is not an attractive solution and thus, it is not mobilizing sufficient political mass to be selected.
It leaves us with the two states alternative. It is a solution the world community is pushing Israel to undertake, but it will not be easy to implement. Thousands of settlers will have to be removed from the land. Those settlers have a religious-messianic ideology. They will not be removed without resistance. Maybe armed resistance. It could lead to a breakdown of Israeli society. There is no Israeli political leader who can pass this resolution of two states without significant major turmoil. And in the present state of animosity between the parties, there is the danger of the west bank Palestinian state becoming another Gaza, showering Israel with rockets. Israel would be surrounded: Gaza in the south, a Palestinian state on the east, and Hezbollah from Lebanon in the north. Not a pretty picture. Thus, this solution is not driving Israeli strategic initiatives either.
This leaves us with the status quo, and that is what is happening. That is the solution by default. By not doing anything else. The result is that Israel has no strategy what TO DO. It has only a strategy of what NOT to do. The result is that Israel is perceived as being against peace. And the world community is increasingly getting tired of Israeli negativism, and is turning belligerent towards Israel.
But what is so bad with keeping the status quo?
There is no such thing as status quo, because the situation either has to be better or IT WILL BE worse. The situation does not freeze in a status quo. And the situation is getting worse. Why? Because it is not getting better. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian populations are turning more extreme in their posture and their demands. Less compromising. And Israel has become increasingly isolated from the family of nations. So staying as is and letting the situation become worse and worse can naturally only lead to a major, major crisis.
It does not have to be so, and that is the purpose of this paper.
It can be made to be better. And by doing so, create a climate where peace negotiations can produce results. In the present climate, no solution can be accepted; thus, the status quo. Thus, the deterioration in relations. Thus, the potential doom scenario.
After writing the vision of what can be done, I realized it has zero chance of even being considered. And if I publish this, I will be a subject of ridicule. I will be called a naïve dreamer. Anything but a serious thinker. I decided to publish it anyway, so that a discussion can start.
What I have is NOT a solution. I repeat it for emphasis. Rather, it is designed to create the conditions for finding a solution. To prepare the ground.
In today’s political and social atmosphere, real peace cannot and will not emerge. In the present climate of animosity and mistrust, no solution, whether it is status quo, two state, or one state, will work. None.
My suggestion is to first create the conditions for peace, and only thereafter, have peace negotiations, which could end as one or two states or keeping the status quo. With a better climate, whatever is decided might have a better chance of success.
Here it is as a vision, to serve as a basis for a discussion that might produce some action in the right direction.
Here is what I believe needs to be done to create conditions for peace:
1) Pass a law forbidding any expression of intolerance. It would be punishable by law. Establish hundreds of citizen courts elected by the people to judge anyone that has exhibited intolerant, discriminating behavior, such as refusing housing because of someone’s origin, or not accepting children in a school because of the color of their skin, or screaming obscene racist calls from the stands in a soccer game. And this law would apply not only to Ethiopian Jews or Arabs; no discrimination would be tolerated toward any immigrant group. No expressions of intolerance, even against the settlers – the Israeli men and women who are in the so-called “occupied” areas. By having hundreds of such courts, I expect to spread the message: intolerance, racism, and discrimination, are not acceptable.
Force tolerance and mutual respect by law.
2) Announce that Israel will stop new expansionist construction in areas that Palestinians consider as part of their state, IF and WHEN the Palestinians stop the hate literature in their schools, clean up their textbooks, and legislate that expressions of hate against Israel are punishable by law.
Trust-building initiatives have to be mutual.
3) Bring the Arab political party into the governing coalition. I believe they support the survival of Israel, as long as they can feel like equal members of Israeli society.
I believe in this because if the hostile Palestinians win the war, the local Arabs will, one way or another, be punished as collaborators. Furthermore, in Israel, the Arabs have better standards of living and more political freedom than the Arabs in neighboring countries. They will lose it all if Israel disappears. As evidence, I submit, when it was suggested that Umm al-Fahm, a big Israeli Arab settlement, would be transferred from Israel to the potential Palestinian state, the majority rejected the plan.
4) Pass a law requiring that an Israeli Arab be elected Vice President of the country. Should anything happen to the President so that he or she cannot perform assigned duties, the Arab Vice President will assume the office of President till the mandate expires.
5) Announce that XYZ sum of billions of dollars be put in escrow in a Swiss bank for the Palestinians. This would be compensation for the land they lost in all the wars. But, this is done without Israel admitting guilt. It is more a show of empathy for the Palestinian suffering and a willingness to help them rebuild their lives.
I know that billions were already given to the Palestinian authority and nothing happened to bring peace. The above alternative is different. The money would be given to those who agree to cede their right of return. To avoid corruption and the disappearance of the money, and also to make sure that the funds are not used for rearmament, the money must be assigned only for building industry or commercial enterprises in collaboration and co-ownership with Israeli or foreign entities.
Israel needs one way or another to build their economy, so that in case of war, they have something to lose. As it is now, they are so desperate, without a future, that their only hope is to go to heaven and find happiness there. And in the process, take as many Jews with them as they can.
The sum would be put into escrow because we do not know if and when the Palestinians will accept the money and agree to cancel their right of return demands. But, that will put some moral pressure on them to be reasonable in their negotiations.
6) To overcome what I think is a subconscious fear of assimilation in time of peace, or a general fear of rejection of the Arabs, Israel has to feel strong spiritually and religiously. I would make Jewish religious education mandatory in all Jewish schools. No one can graduate without knowing Jewish prayers, customs, and traditions.
And, 7), I would make knowledge of spoken Arabic and the study of the foundations of Islam requirements for graduating high school.
I would do all of the above before going to any negotiations for peace.
Before negotiating peace, there must be a climate that can make peace possible.
To sign a peace agreement, without at least some trust and without minimal mutual respect, is only to have it on a piece of paper. In reality, peace will not happen. It cannot happen.
Now imagine if all of the above, or even parts of the above vision were applied. What would be the climate in Israel? How would Israel be supported by the family of nations? And would it be easier to negotiate peace for one or two states? Or even to maintain the status quo?
Or would it be more difficult?
I am cognizant of the Israeli political climate. And of Israeli culture to criticize and negate anything. To always find what is wrong and not what is right. But I hope I made the point that, as is the situation now, if things do not get better, they will only get worse. Second point: one role of leadership is to give hope, to point to a direction to take in time of crisis. As it is now, Israel has no strategy one can identify that is positive and leading anywhere short of incoming disaster. And the strategy should not be one it had in the past. It relied too much on Palestinian cooperation. Since there is no partner who can sign a real peace agreement and carry it through, the strategy should be one that Israel can do on its own, not depending on the Palestinians. It is a strategy to give hope, to have a peace initiative, one that can hopefully start the movement in the right direction.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
May 29, 2015
What is Wrong With Business Coaching?
Coaching is the latest craze in organizational development. Thousands are calling themselves coaches and making a living from it.
There are dangers in this practice – what are they and why are they dangerous?
My first year, freshman year, at Hebrew University Jerusalem. The class: International Relations Theory.
The professor enters the class and the first sentence out of his mouth is about what is ethical between people is not necessarily the ethics that govern international relations. (Inter-people relations are ruled by what we might call fairness. International relations are ruled by interests and not by fairness).
I have been reminded many times of this class in my work as a consultant to companies and to governments.
What I have learned is that systems have different levels and each level has their own rules of what works and does not work.
For instance, what works in personal, individual therapy does not work in family therapy. The therapeutic tools have to be different. You are not treating the components that make up the family, or the individuals, but the dynamics between them.
And then I learned, in my own skin, that what works in family therapy does not work in organizational therapy, also called organizational transformation.
I once hired a very famous family therapist to help me with a certain client. He agreed to coach one of the vice presidents. The direction his consultation took was structured around helping the VP. But the repercussions for the company were dysfunctional.
The VP complained to him that in the company, people had their own armies. What he meant to say is that the organization was in fact organized around silos. So my famous family therapist asked him why didn’t he mobilize his own silo?
Maybe it would have made the VP happier and solved his personal problem, but it sure undermined my efforts to integrate the company.
And what works in company level therapy, or integration, I found to my regret, does not work in doing countrywide, large-scale social transformation.
I thought I could use my experience leading corporate organizational change in my consulting with leaders of countries who professed a desire to introduce social change. Not a chance. It required starting from zero to develop different tools and concepts that work.
So, now, what is wrong with coaching?
It is the assumption that if you make an individual more effective, especially if it is the CEO, you can make the organization more effective.
Good luck.
You might make the individual more effective, more at peace with himself, less stressed, etc., but the organizations won’t change much.
It might, I repeat, might work somewhat with a company in the growing stages of their lifecycle because in those stages, the style of the leader impacts heavily on the style of the company at large. But in the aging stages of the lifecycle, organizational dynamics and culture are stronger than the style of the leader, particularly when it comes to impacting organizational behavior. So changing the style or behavior of the leader does not change the behavior of the organization. Not at all.
What is wrong with coaching is the expectation that if managers are coached well, the organization will be more effective and/or more efficient, i.e. better managed. Not true.
The danger lies in the assumption that something is happening, when in reality it is not happening. It is analogous to having insufficient strength antibiotics.
The patient believes he or she is doing the right thing when in fact nothing or very little is happening at all.
Just thinking.
Ichak Kalderon Adizes
