Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 33

Abusing Anti-Semitism

One of the laws of economics is that if you flood the market with printed money, the value of that money will decrease.

This law I believe applies to what is happening with Israel’s ubiquitous claims of anti-Semitism.

Israel sees itself as a victim of anti-Semitism each time it gets criticized for how it is handling the Palestinian conflict. Even when the criticism is justified.  As a result, the cry of anti-Semitism has a reduced value as a deterrent.  Israeli government employs the words as if to shield itself and deflect any criticism.

Having the Holocaust as a ready-made explanation to its actions, and anti-Semitism as an excuse why it does not need to heed to criticism, puts Israel in denial to take constructive steps to ameliorate the situation. On the contrary, it eases the country’s slide to self-destruction.

I am deeply disturbed by what is happening there. And my sentiment is not fed by foreign anti-Semitic biased media. I watch the Israeli news daily.

The decisions the government is taking increasingly are ghettoizing Israel, insulating its citizens from the world and antagonize the Palestinian population to bellicose actions of despair.  For instance, Arabic is not an equal language to Hebrew anymore but is recognized now as a second language. Nor do Jewish kids have to learn Arabic anymore; nor do they have to learn Muslim history and culture. It is leading, I believe, to further disintegration and mutual alienation.

Israel has a serious security issue. True. The Sharia requires that believers be willing to die to remove the infidels from Arab land. No Palestinian leader is willing to go down in history as the one who gave up the land of Palestine to the infidel Jews. That is why any time the Palestinians get close to signing an agreement with Israel its leaders retreat and find an excuse to break off negotiations. Barak ceded practically everything that could have been offered to achieve peace. So did Olmert. And the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss the opportunity. Why? Because they have Sharia. Their “manual” that instructs them to go on a jihad and fight and die to free what they believe is their land. They are not allowed by their religion to settle.

Period.

There cannot be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Let us stop living in a dreamland of illusions. There will be no peace till the Palestinians become more secular than religious, and that is not going to happen. On the contrary.  Religion is becoming more and more the driving force in the Muslim world and the Palestinians are becoming more and more radical. Soon you will see ISIS flags in the Palestinian territories. And this global radicalization is not driven by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It accentuates it. It does not cause it. It is caused by the clash of values between Muslim world and the West.

It is part of our human psychology that we cannot accept a problem without a solution. All problems must have solutions. Well, welcome to real life. Some problems do not have a solution. This is one. The “solution” is how to survive without a solution.  Which means, yes, Israel has a serious security issue, but its actions are not making security better. They are aggravating the situation.

How does making Arabic a second language improve security?

How does humiliation at checkpoints make security better for Israel?

Respect is a cornerstone of Arab culture.  And we humiliate them left and right.

Arab culture is attached to the land. Arabs are not primarily bankers. They are not internet entrepreneurs. They are people who plant olive trees and make olive oil and toil on their land. These are agricultural people, emotionally attached to their homes and the land in which they dwell.  And what stance do the right wing Israeli settlers take? Swoop up the land. Burn the olive trees. Withhold permits for Palestinians to build new homes while Israelis get permission in the thousands to expand their settlements.

How the hell does this help the security of Israel?

How does it help security to give a fraction of a fraction in municipal services in health, education and a sewer system to East Jerusalem where the Arab population lives, while the Jewish side flourishes?

The Palestinians see it. They are not blind. They work on the Jewish side of the line. They build those homes for Jewish settlers while they cannot build a home for their own expanding family.

How, please tell me, does this help the security of Israel?

So, yes I am aware of what the security issue is. But what does that have to do with making the life of the Arabs we have “adopted” by default miserable?  Or is it that we take the land but not the people.

I am not anti-Semitic….I am pessimistic………

More than thinking, actually praying…..

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

What Is a Macho Man?

I wonder what the difference is between a “macho man” and a so-called “real man”? Macho men are accused of being controlling, insensitive, dominating people whom women, by and large, cannot stand.

One day I was walking my dog on a leash on the beach next to my home. My dog was barking and trying to attack every dog that came across our path. My friend who was walking with me asked, “Why don’t you let the dog off the leash?”

“What?” I replied. “He will be out of control.”

“The opposite,” my friend continued. “Dogs on a leash feel constrained, insecure. So, when another dog approaches, they attack proactively to defend themselves.”

The macho man reminds me of a dog on a leash. Men who are scared of women put on a show of bravado, put on a mask of being tough and strong and non-compromising, all in order to defend themselves from women they fear.

What they are scared of is of being castrated by a woman, that she will hang their balls around their ears and humiliate them in public. That women will take their freedom away. That they will be criticized and disrespected. So, they create an environment where they believe this cannot happen by being very “macho.”

They became macho probably either because their mother was a ball-busting woman or their father was weak and hurt by women and told his son to watch out for women, that they are snakes, that he should keep them barefoot and pregnant so they do not run away….and do not let them work. If they start earning, they do not need men anymore. You will lose any control over them and you are dead as a man.

So who are those macho men? They are scared little boys who puff themselves up to look like formidable men to scare women into submission.

A “real man” is not scared of women. He knows he can hold his ground. Women will test him from time to time, complain, accuse, bitch, and moan, to check if they are safe with him. That he will not run away. That he really loves her and is committed to her in spite of her changing moods.

When a woman raises her voice a real man does not get panicky and upset. He probably assumes she is testing her vocal cords or something. Nothing to be upset about. He is confident about his power, his position, and his capabilities to handle the emotional rollercoaster behavior of his woman.

So my insight is: Ladies, if you have a macho man in your life—a husband, a lover, or a significant other—first of all get rid of your own fears that you need to control the man. Let go of the leash. The worst that can happen is he will run around a little bit, smell some asses, and come home and be a poodle.

Analyzing the Russian Situation

The media reports that the ruble is in a free fall. In the open market it has reached 100 rubles per dollar. People are panicky, rushing to stores to buy products and get rid of the local currency.

It is expected that billions in foreign exchange will exit the Russian market; the capital is moving out of the country while investments from abroad are drying up.

In an effort to stop the outflow of money abroad, the Russian central bank raised interest rates to 17 percent which will seriously impact the economic growth of the country.

In other words, Russia is in a downward economic spiral.

The Obama administration is trying to take credit for this by claiming the crisis was brought about by the sanctions imposed on Russia, and the American strategy to unseat Putin is working.

I beg to disagree.

The sanctions have hardly made a dent in their economy. The impact on Russia for refusing visas to Putin cronies is laughable. Moreover sanctioning the transfer of technology in the energy area could have an effect on Russia but only in the long term; therefore it cannot be seen as playing a determining role in the present crisis. The only noticeable impact on the crisis today can be traced to the prohibition of financial transactions with Russia.

The major cause of Russia’s economic difficulties is the decreasing price of oil. It is going down and will continue to plummet. But it has little if anything to do with sanctions. It has instead a great deal to do with the cost of producing fractional oil, the new technology that is threatening the dominance of OPEC.

The major producers of oil want to make it prohibitive to extract oil from shale which threatens their monopoly. So they are allowing the price to go down and will let it fall all the way to 32 dollars a barrel, a price at which producing oil from fraction is prohibitive. There is simply not enough revenue to justify the investment in this new technology.

So, what is causing Russia’s economic crisis now?

As usual when we look for the enemy we find that it is us. The troubles confronting Russia at the end of 2014 are being caused by Russia itself.

Let me explain.

Russia did not diversify its economy fast enough away from oil and gas. The strategy of diversification is like the weather. Everyone talks about it but no one does much….True, Skolkovo was built to encourage high tech developments, but the effort failed. It needed Putin’s blessing which he refused to give.

Why?

Because it was perceived as Medvedev’s project. Without Putin’s backing, it had no chance. Among those who know the internal working of the government, it is an open secret that these two are not working together smoothly.

Russia’s problems today are not caused only by the low price of oil. True it is affecting government operations; after all the oil business is the Russian government’s major source of revenue. But Putin could still have reduced Russia’s expenses and accommodate to the new reality. Instead, not only did he not reduce expenses, but he increased them significantly in a show of pride called the winter Olympics in Sochi, which cost the Russian government over fifty billion dollars.

The assumption that such a show would attract investors was a naïve one. Investors need to feel secure if they are going to part with their money and Russia is not perceived as safe for investments. One dramatic example that made international headlines involved Khodorkovsky who was put in jail and his company Yukos Oil taken over by a corporation owned by the government.

We really do not know whether the charges against him were trumped up or justified. But if investors believe that they were politically driven then facts and the truth are irrelevant. Perception is as good as reality as a driver of behavior. In this case many people (along with the media) believed the asset was taken away from Khodorkovsky so as to benefit the government.

Now it is Yevtushenko’s turn. Yevtushenko, one of the major oligarchs of Russia, has been placed under house arrest, accused of fraudulently taking control of an oil company. Again the perception on the street is that the government wants to take over his oil company.

Then there is the case of British Petroleum. It lost its shirt in a partnership within Russia and pulled out.

The over-all climate then is one of suspicion and fear. The perception is that at any point the government might come and arbitrarily seize your company and throw you into prison.

The legal system is messy. Many overlapping laws. Moreover Russia has three different accounting systems. The result is that by and large every business man is guilty of something, and it is only a question of whether the government wants to nationalize his assets and send the entrepreneur to jail. It is not strange than that investors shy away from putting their money in Russia. Who can blame them when the Russians themselves, those who can afford it, are taking their money out of the country? Many oligarchs do not even have their families in Russia. Their wives and children are either in London, Switzerland, Barcelona or Cyprus.

Add to all of this the chronic, rampant corruption of the judiciary, the bureaucracy, and the law enforcement system. What you get is not a very encouraging environment for investments.

Russia does not have an economic problem. The economic issues rather are a manifestation of a systemic deficiency in how the country is run.

And it is a mistake to diagnose Putin as the cause of the problems: blame the leader and conduct a witch hunt.

Instead it is important to look at Russia’s culture. The national leadership is autocratic and has been like this forever. Putin cannot change his style, even if he wants to, and survive politically.

Furthermore, he is surrounded by a group of cronies who benefit from their proximity to him and who feed him the information he wants to hear. And as expected, their recommendations are self-serving to the detriment of the nation. But he needs their support to survive politically and they need him to prosper economically. How does one cut this Gordian knot?

Let me be clear: The sanctions imposed by the West are a political step not to be ignored. But they are not the cause of Russia’s crisis.

We need to look instead to the economic, legal, and cultural system. Russia has an environment of cronyism and corruption. The sanctions and the defensive strategy of the OPEC countries exacerbated the problems which are inherent in the system. They were the catalyst not the cause of Russia’s problems.

This present crisis should be perceived by the leadership of Russia as a cry for soul searching: A spotlight on the systemic changes the country needs to undertake. Some of these would include: establishing the rule of law; creating an environment of participation and self-criticism which should lead to continuous improvement; restructuring the economy so as to remove government ownership of major industries; and finally, putting an end to cronyism as part of national decision making. Such moves will inevitably decentralize authority and in the process heal the system for future success.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Fallacies of Pure Thinking

The joke goes like this: A physicist, an engineer, and an economist are stranded in the desert. They are hungry and find a can of beans. They want to open it, but how?

The physicist says, let’s start a fire and place the can inside the flames. It will explode and then we will all be able to eat.

Are you crazy says the engineer. The can will explode; all the beans will scatter, and we will have nothing. We should use a metal rod, attach it to a base, push it in and crack the can open.

You are wrong too, says the economist.  Where the hell do we find a rod in the desert? The solution is simple: Assume we have a can opener…..

The joke implies that the economist, like the other two, assumes what should be happening, ignoring reality.

I was reminded of this joke because of the tremendous interest in behavioral economics that claims that economic theory ignores reality. That people are not necessarily logical.

What is going on?

Economics assumes rational behavior on the part of people; how they SHOULD behave.

Behavioral economics, on the other hand, looks at how people actually behave.

I suggest both provide a purist outlook at life as if one perception explains behavior. One explains behavior through the “should” prism.  The other through the “is” or “want” prism.

Who is right?

Neither.

In my theory of perception, the way in which we each look at life provides the reference point for differentiation. According to my view, our behavior and decisions are driven by a composition of the three categories: either by what we want to do, and/ or by what we believe we should do, and/or by what needs to be done, i.e, by what is going on; by reality.

Prof. Kahneman, the founder of behavioral economics, provides purist theory, namely that psychology, not logic, explains behavior. I suggest he is making the same mistake the economists make.  Both are purists who believe that only logic or only wants and/or reality explain behavior.

Our behavior is not totally logical, i.e. driven by the should, nor totally hedonistic, i.e. focused solely on the want, nor are we pure realists driven only by the is.

Life is messy. All three perceptions play a role in decision making, and the result is that we are often confused and conflicted about what to do.

Do we do what we want to do, what we should do, or what the situation dictates us to do?

Theories to be elegant need to be pure. I suggest life is not elegant. It is a mess.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Combating Anti-Diversity

We are all in the midst of a third world war, except we do not recognize it by that name because it is different in nature from the previous world wars.  Then it was between nations; today we are confronted with a war between religions. It is a war between world-wide radical Muslims and Judeo Christian nations. It is a war of values.  (Professor Huntington from Harvard made this point in an article in Foreign Affairs).

I have claimed, however, and continue to claim that it is not very different from the previous world wars. There is a common denominator. All the wars were waged by those who believe and support diversity against those that negate and fight against it. Not strange at all that Stalin signed an alliance with Hitler; and that Japan joined Hitler.  The same reasoning applies to Mussolini as well.

It was democratic regimes that believe in diversity against totalitarian regimes that prohibit it.  And that is what is happening now too, only it is Muslim extremists who reject diversity on religious grounds pitted against nations whose religions allow and support different views, beliefs and behaviors.

This schism has a long history.  It was also between Athens and Sparta in ancient times.

So nothing is new except “the cost” of the confrontation is escalating. Just imagine what will be the scenario when (not if) the radical Muslims get their hands on tactical nuclear devices….

How might we defeat those who are against diversity?

Let us analyze the dynamics of those that hate diversity.

I contend that belief in diversity or non-diversity is an organic concept. It is not fixed. Either belief either grows or decays. Those against diversity always find something that is different; they do not stop rejecting others.

Take, for example, the Nazis. They started against the Jews. Then they were attacking and criminalizing gays. Then their fists were raised against the communists. Then another addition to the enemies list: those who were not pure enough Nazis.

And so it continued.

The circle whom to reject becomes bigger and bigger and who is acceptable smaller and smaller. They do not simply reject one group and stop.  There is always one more person who differs by something that gets to be demonized and the differences and “faults” become smaller and smaller.

The government of Canada realized this and took a historic step by signing the Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has noted:  “Those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people would ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as well.”

If anti-diversity sentiment is not fixed but organic, it gives me an insight how to combat the phenomena.

If we isolate and insulate dictatorial regimes, those that oppose diversity, and do not allow them to spread, what will happen?  They will start destroying themselves from within. They will find inside their own ranks diversity, and since they oppose it, they will start fighting each other.

Look at radical Muslims. Shia against Sunnis. And if one of them wins, I believe they will find internal differences that they will begin to reject as well. And by doing so self-destruct.

I believe that is how the Soviet Union collapsed. It was isolated, and Stalin and his followers attacked more and more those they considered not loyal enough and eventually the country crumbled.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Pondering On Love

I have probably written a blog about this subject already. More than once. But today during my meditation I had new insights on the subject I want to share with you. I was meditating on the prayer that the Sajag Marg, the natural way meditation, prescribes.

The prayer goes something like this:

                 Oh, Master, you are the ultimate goal of human life,

                 But all we are is slaves to expectations that undermine our way.

                 You are the only power/God that can advance us.

Here is my interpretation of the prayer and a discussion that leads to illuminations.

“Master, you are the ultimate goal”:  The Master is God and that is the one we are praying to. It is God who is the ultimate goal of human life.

This is a strange goal, right? To be like God?

We need to interpret what God is.

God is ultimate love.

So, the goal is to be ultimate love.

But how can we be love?

By living a life of love.

That makes sense to me because I think everything we do is in order to experience love. Why do we create, work, do whatever we do? It is to experience love. I even believe that all this crazy chasing after money and status is a neurotic way to “buy” love; how much money we have is in order to be appreciated, and where we are on the totem pole is an unconscious way of trying to get others to respect us. Both are   attempts to get to love.

It makes sense to me that the ultimate goal of life is to experience love continuously, permanently. Love is the ultimate integration, harmony.

And it makes sense that expectations bar our way to experience love.

They mar the road. They block the experience. They undermine the feeling.

Why?

Because expectations often—if not usually, depending how big our ego is—end in disappointment and disappointments negate and undermine the experience of love.

Now a dilemma from the prayer:

If love is our ultimate goal, how can love be the only power to get us there? Sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem.

There is an answer?

Love is like a muscle, says the guru Chariji. The more you use it, the more you have of it; that is, the more love you give, the more love you have.

Love is not a mechanistic concept. It is organic. It grows and it decays. It grows if you feed it. And you feed it by experiencing it; if you do not experience it, it atrophies.

Start loving and keep going.

Just show up and be it.

Now a doubt.

To say, “You are the only power to advance us” sounds very debilitating. If love is a muscle, then we cannot be passive. We need to be active. If it is a muscle, we have to take action and do something, right? Then this prayer giving the power to somebody else does not make sense.

Yes it does.

Love happens when you do nothing. Just let it be. Like Gurudev, another guru, says, “When you resist nothing, you automatically experience love.”  Just stop thinking. Just let it be. Be like a…dog.

A dog?

Yes, a dog.

Look at how your dog behaves when you get home.

It runs to you wiggling its tail and rubbing its body against you. It is so happy to see you. Did it sit and wait to see whether or not you would show your love? Did it weigh the pros and cons?

The dog lives in the moment. It does not think, “Oh, I got rejected yesterday so I’d better wait and see what is going on today before I dare to show my love.”

There is no tomorrow, either. The dog does not wonder, “If I show my love today how will you pay me back tomorrow?” None of that. It sees you, it runs to you, and loves.  The dog loves to see you unconditionally. Period.

In other words, it has no fear of love.

Fear of love?  What is that?

Well, love is scary.

Why is it that we think so much before we dare to express love? Because it hurts. It bloody hurts. It is like a fire. It burns. When you love you open your heart, and when you get rejected, or you think you were rejected, it hurts. It hurts badly. Your heart bleeds. And to think your love was rejected is as painful as if it actually had been rejected.

Aha. The source of the pain?

To think.

If you want to experience love, stop bloody thinking. The dog does not think. It just loves. So, be like a dog. Or like the clown in the movie “The Seventh Seal” by Ingmar Bergman. In the movie there are two main characters. The first is a crusader who plays a chess game with death, and the day he loses the game he dies. The other main character is a clown, married with a child, living very frugally and spending his time laughing and playing with his toddler son and hugging his wife. At the end of the movie the crusader loses the game and departs to heaven or hell, I do not know which, and the clown is in a field of flowers hugging and kissing a laughing toddler. He is left to live.

The clown clowns around all day long. He just laughs and makes people laugh. He is not the serious, thinking, brooding crusader crusading for a higher goal. The clown just lives and loves.

I saw the movie when I was in high school, and when the teacher asked me with whom I identified, I said the crusader. She said, “That is because you are still young.”

How right she was.

Now, as I have lived long enough to realize, I hope, what life is about, I think the crusader just wasted his life playing the game of chess with death. Fighting death by crusading for a cause. The one who lived was the one who just loved, just laughed, and just let it be.

So, dear friends, the more you experience love, the more you will experience it. (This sentence is not an editing error.)

Just let love take hold of your life. Just let it be. Stop thinking and judging and wondering and weighing pros and cons. Just let it be. Be like a dog. With no fear. Just take the plunge and love. And if you are rejected go sulk for a moment or two and then love again. Like a dog.

Love everybody and everything.  Without expectations. Without prejudging. Without fear. Without wants. Without nothing. Just experience it like you experience nature or good music or good art.

Love your clients. Love the products you produce. Love your workers. And, yes, love your boss. Just love fully, and you will love like God and it will feel like you have lived forever.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Adizes Therapy From Birth

For this week’s blog post, I invited Anna Gurariy, Owner and Director at the Guranya Montessori School, to share her analysis of how the Montessori method and the Adizes methodology are interconnected. I hope you enjoy it.

 -  Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

My name is Anna Gurariy. I live and work in Moscow, Russia. I am the owner and director of Guranya Montessori School, which I established 12 years ago. Now the school has two branches – Montessori kindergartens.

I am a musician. That was my first education. But later I got interested in the Montessori method that changed my life. It all started when I decided to find a kindergarten for my two-year old daughter that could provide such universal values as trust and respect to the whole world and people around us.

I discovered a passion for the Montessori Method and later went for Montessori teacher training program. I obtained AMI Montessori Assistant to Infancy (ages 0-3) credential in 2013, and now I operate 2 Montessori kindergartens, teaching a toddler group, and run methodology projects in my company.

I learned about Ichak Adizes’ methodology in 2007 when I was working on my Executive MBA degree at the Academy of National Economy (Moscow, Russia). Ichak Adizes was a scientific adviser in our group. So, at that time I got, I would say, an “injection”… and in all these years I have been “ill” for his methodology, which seems so brilliant and simple at the same time.

Since 2007, I have been using tools of the methodology. At this moment, I have read all books written by Ichak Adizes I could find in book stores. By applying his methodology in my company, I have realized that it is one of the real therapies for improving any organization, and allowed us to achieve extraordinary results without wasting much time and human energy.

I also realized that the Montessori method and Adizes methodology are very interconnected with each other. I was astonished when I understood that it was the Montessori method, as no any other methods can provide Four Roles of Startup Management.

A few words about the Montessori method. Dr. Maria Montessori is a world-known scientist. She was the one who became the first woman doctor in Italy in 1896. Her educational method is based on scientific pedagogy and stresses the importance of observing and guiding children in a prepared environment where they experience a combination of freedom and self-discipline.

Montessori’s idea of the prepared environment was that everything the child came in contact with would facilitate and maximize independent learning and exploration. She created and designed materials for the prepared environment that help a child explore and follow his own natural impulses, developing his potential and increasing his knowledge of the world around him. Guided by the prepared environment, the child experiences freedom of movement, freedom of exploration, freedom to interact socially, freedom from interference from others, and freedom of choice.

The adult (the guide) is also a part of the Montessori environment. Their role is to facilitate the child to teach himself by following his own internal urges that will lead him to take what he needs from the prepared environment.

Discipline and freedom are the two sides of the same coin in a Montessori environment. It encourages freedom, but with the Montessori method the child learns to respect the rules.

Those who attended Montessori school became successful in their life.

So, how does the Montessori Method provide the Four Roles of Management?

The ‘P’ role can be formed easily because the children work with materials using certain logic and they are short-term result oriented.

For example, a child wants to work with the Pink Tower. He has to follow a certain pattern: first, he needs to understand what he would like to do with the Pink Tower, then decide whether he is going to work on a mat, on the floor or at the table. Then he brings the material, does certain manipulative movements working with the Pink Tower, and finally brings it back in place.

The ‘A’ role is also there because the Montessori method provides strict rules from the very first day a child steps into the classroom. For instance, if he takes material he should put it back in place. Order and rules are always maintained in a Montessori classroom. Order is in a prepared environment, in a sequence of movements, in interacting with other children and adults. And due to that we can get efficiency. When the children are used to those rules, little by little they start getting normalized.

The ‘E’ role is also performed there because there is a lot of room for creativity, and for making brand new things. After the child has gotten a presentation with new material, the guide encourages him to do a set of new exercises with the same material. The children are involved in numerous creative projects in Montessori schools.

The ‘I’ role gets constant development. Dr. Maria Montessori created certain rules for the children to be able to get along with each other. The child who is the first to take material should bring it back in place for another child to take it. Maria Montessori brought a lot of materials to the prepared environment and they are all different to one and another. And that is the great idea, because the children get the possibility to start communicating with each other through using materials. If a child wants to work with the same material another child is working with, he cannot drag it from her. Instead, he has to think of another possibility. He can choose: either to ask another child to let her join him and work with the material together or to wait until she returns the material back to its place. Thus, the children have a need for integration.

When is the time to implement the Adizes methodology? My answer is from birth.

Observing children and learning more and more about their nature, I can see that children from 0 to 6 have a unique gift – an absorbent mind that allows them to take in information from the world as a camera does. And what gets in will last forever in their minds. We can find the same in the Adizes methodology that says that we must not ignore what is going on with a child between the ages 0-6.

I also plan to open a Montessori school for ages 6-12 and 12-18. And I would like to implement the Adizes methodology tools in the children’s education from the start.

I believe that it is good to introduce the methodology not only to grown-ups but also to children because our main goal is to teach children to respect themselves and the whole world around them. The Montessori method and Adizes methodology are the tools that can help us to achieve this noble goal.

Guest blog contributed by:

Anna Gurariy

Director, Guranya Montessori School

In Defense of Dictatorship

I can see you frown reading the title of this blog. How can anyone support dictatorship? Democracy is like a sacred cow and to support dictatorship is tantamount to slaughtering the cow. Unthinkable.

But there are some models from the past. The old Romans in time of war appointed one of their leaders as a dictator because the war required total adherence to discipline. Nor even today is the military run democratically, and few if any would oppose this.

Are there any other situations that justify the presence of a dictator?

Let us see.

Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, was considered a dictator. So is Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and Putin of Russia, among others.

Being a dictator means the head of state does not allow opposition. He runs a single man show.

Is this good or bad?

It depends.

The founder of a new nation is like a mother or father looking after a new baby. The new country, like a new born baby, has a whole host of crises. Like protecting the new nation’s borders, generating enough economic success to feed the people, meeting financial needs, quelling internal quarrels or maybe even preventing a civil war between factions or ethnic groups or religious movements fighting for power as the new nation forms itself.

I would argue that dictatorship for a new nation where democracy has not been part of their history might be the right answer. That nation needs a strong, unifying leader, unifying even by force.

Are there any other situations where a dictator might serve as a positive functional solution?

Imagine a country in crisis. One where major strategic decisions that will cause essential change in direction are needed. A strong, decisive leader who does not allow dissent is needed. Right?

Russia during Boris Yeltsin was in that situation. The country was falling apart. The Soviet Union was disappearing. That enabled Nazarbayev to define the borders that became today’s modern Kazakhstan (the ninth largest land size nation in the world). Russia was in such disarray that no one could stem the different parts of the union from falling away.

The messy situation called for a dictator who could install order, starting with withdrawing from Afghanistan, solving the Chechnya uprising and somehow putting an end to the frenzy of how companies were being “privatized.” Putin was the answer.

I wish Israel had a dictator today. Then it would be possible to make peace with the Palestinians. Netanyahu cannot make the concessions Abbas wants. His coalition would dissolve itself instantly. Naftali Bennett would quit.

Same with Abbas. Hamas would not accept concessions he needs to make to satisfy the Israeli.

I would say that the price of democracy in the Middle East is the absence of, and inability to secure, peace. Both Israel and the Palestinians need a dictator.

Democracy is not a panacea for all problems. In this case of the Middle East I believe it is the problem.

I am arguing here that there may be optimum times when a dictator is needed. True, he is called in time of crisis and then often stays too long. For him, there is always a crisis or no one else seems adequate to replace him.

Usually, dictators who come to power do not know how to yield their power. It is very similar to the problem founders of companies have. Succession is a serious issue for them too.

The price a nation often pays for coming into being is that it will have to live with a dictator most probably for his lifetime. The founding father, if he is a dictator, does not change his style over time. He usually turns more rigid to combat opposition. (How to deal with the succession issue requires another blog).

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Jewish Armageddon?

“To trace something unknown back to something known is alleviating, soothing, gratifying, and gives moreover a feeling of power. Danger, disquiet, anxiety attend the unknown – the first instinct is to eliminate these distressing states. First principle: any explanation is better than none….The cause-creating drive is thus conditioned and excited by the feeling of fear….”

–Friedrich Nietzsche

What Nietzsche is saying is that people naturally seek an explanation to the unknown. To live with the unknown is a cause for anxiety and an explanation has a gratifying aspect to it. The psychologists tell us that knowing or believing we know releases chemicals of pleasure in our mind.

How interesting. That explains why love is difficult. It is accompanied by anxiety. We do not know why we love and if it is true love. Hate on the other hand uplifts, excites. WE KNOW why we hate and whom we hate. And to get that gratification, that uplifting experience, a simple explanation is the most gratifying one because it is instant and simple.

Behavioral psychologists say this act of resolving the uncertainty releases chemicals in our brain that make us feel good. The fact that what we “know” (the explanation for the unknowable) is irrelevant or even wrong is not important to the chemical release.

This explains to me why the first thing people do in explaining a problem is to personify the cause, to have a witch hunt. It is so simple. Fast and no sweat to hang the bell on someone’s neck and say he is to blame. To study the system and find where the fault is, is complicated, confusing and not gratifying.

Well, this could also be one of the causes of anti-Semitism.

There is disease spreading? Aha, the Jews did it. This kind of explanation happened in Medieval times. In modern times, since there is an explanation for diseases, thank God, it is not the Jews who caused it. But if there is an economic crisis that is hard to explain, or the ignorant cannot explain it, or understand the explanation, no problem, the bankers did it and who are the bankers? The Jews.

There is Muslim terrorism? It is the Jews of Israel that caused it because of the Palestinian conflict although the terrorism is in ….the Philippines. Never mind. Simple explanation does it: the Jews.

I am really worried of a big, big anti-Semitic wave looming in the future, because of a big, BIG, huge, global disaster that will be difficult to explain and will cause the biggest wave of anti-Semitism ever: earth warming. Typhoons. Floods. Heat of unprecedented degrees. Millions of people losing their homes, businesses getting destroyed, people dying of diseases caused by atmospheric warming.

It is a disaster that will be difficult to find the culprit for because it is none of us alone who caused it. It is all of us together; it is called human activity.

But it is tough accusing everybody. Not a simple explanation. Not a simple solution. So here is one: it is the business world that did it and who are the leaders of business, who runs the world? The Jews. Here we go again.

If the Jews did not exist, they would need to be created to let the people have an easy explanation to their suffering.

Darn it.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

 

(A) and (I) Substitutions

I am back to the question of deciding on a just and effective hiring policy; namely to evaluate the practice of employing relatives, friends, and political associates to managerial positions, an accepted form of staffing that is common in many developing countries.

Western managers and consultants tend to recommend this practice be discontinued because it staffs the organization with incompetent people.

I have a commentary on the subject.

It is a common practice, mostly in developing countries, for a reason: there is no managerial sophistication. No job descriptions, no Key Performance Indicators by which people are monitored for their performance, no 360-performance appraisals, no tight budget controls.

Instead, the salient question/factor when deciding on a hiring policy in these countries is related to trust. Who is it that you can trust?

Trust becomes the key to decision making here and replaces managerial staffing and controls.

Removing trust as a determining factor in hiring and promoting without substituting it with professional controls leaves managers feeling vulnerable. How can I turn my back without feeling exposed?

Obviously the best policy is to satisfy both worlds, professional staffing and personal security.

In my consulting experience, I find that once the company learns about professional staffing and has performance controls in place, the practice of hiring by blood lines becomes minimal.

A company needs to regulate interdependence. If it can not do it by (A-Administration) it has to do it by (I-Integration). Removing the (I) without developing the (A) leaves the company vulnerable.

Just thinking.

Sincerely,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes