Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 34

The Secret of Success of any System

It took me fifty years of trial and error to realize my mother, who did not have even an elementary education (not customary for women to attend school and get an education at that time), was absolutely right. More about that later. But it starts with a question.

What is the secret of success of any system?

There is a formula:

Let me explain.

External integration is the way in which the organization, any system, is integrated with its environment. No system, person, family, business or country, exists in a vacuum.

We measure external integration in business by market share, profit margins, repeat sales, EVA, ROI, earnings per share…..When we refer to individuals, we calculate external integration by their career success as reflected in status, earnings, or rate of ascending in the hierarchy of the organization. For a nation the determining factors are balance of payments, average income per citizen, trade conditions and economic growth. Same concept, different forms of measurement.

Internal DISintegration is all the internal fighting that occurs in organizations: The rumors, misunderstandings, back stabbings, frustrations with the job and turnover of people, among other manifestations of disintegration.

In our personal life Internal DISintegration is a function of all the confusion in our head — the self-doubts, self-disrespect and mistrust coupled with some of our most destructive behavior. In a nation the DISintegration is marked by a society where discrimination frequently occurs and where confrontations are the norm whether in terms of gender, creed, religion, nationality or color.

The question is: why does this formula predict success?

Let me offer an explanation.

We know from physics that energy is fixed. I discovered that the fixed energy is allocated in a predictable way in every system. It moves first to deal with Internal DISintegration and only then does the surplus overflow to external integration. For example, if you are ill and falling apart you will have little energy available to discuss, plan or organize how to handle the changing market.

In a company riddled with Internal DISintegration most of the energy is dedicated towards protecting one’s back, preserving one’s political and managerial power along with a place in the system. For instance, a manager decides to sit in committee meetings he does not want to attend in order to protect his interests.

So what is wanted is less Internal DISintegration. When that occurs there is more energy available for external integration and much greater opportunity for success of the system,

But what does “Internal DISintegration” mean?

Let us understand it through its opposite.

How do you minimize Internal DISintegration?

By integration.

And what is integration? What is an integrated organization?

A HEALTHY SYSTEM.

Integration is synonymous with health and DISintegration with sickness.

What do we say about a mentally healthy individual?

He is all together.

What do we say about a physically or even mentally sick person?

He or she is “falling apart.”

Same for a sick family or a “sick” country.

Falling apart.

Disintegrating.

So, now, what is the secret of success?

Not external integration. That is the result of having success. That is the output. We need to understand what makes success? Which is to recognize the value of the input?

Success is internal INTEGRATION i.e. BEING HEALTHY.

Don’t we say in all languages (at least the ones I know): “be well” when we wish something for the other person as we part company?

Don’t we raise a glass of wine and wish each other “l’ hayeem” “na zdravlje,” “salud,” “to your health,” – the same expression in different languages.

What is the value of having lots of possessions, or whatever success we might measure ourselves by, if we are sick?

Have you ever been very sick? You were probably most willing to surrender all your possessions just to become healthy again.

The real secret of success resides in health, HOW HEALTHY YOU ARE. You personally, your family, your business, your country?

Measure your success by the denominator of the success formulae, not the nominator. Focus on the input that creates the output. Not on the output, ignoring the input that creates it.

Focus on the health of your organization and how integrated it is. How aligned the subsystems are. Profits are a measurement of how well you have perfected aligning the inputs. It is the scoring board of the tennis match. It tells you how well you played. Focusing on the scoring board and ignoring the balls will not help you win the game. The point rather is to focus on the game, which in turn reflects positively on the scoring board.

So, what is the role of management? Of leadership? Of a parent? Of a national leader?

To make and keep the system they are managing, or leading, or parenting…..“healthy.”

My mother, whenever I would tell her about some incredible success I had with a client or with my book, would sigh and say, “ha ikar ha bruit,” ( “what is most important is your health” ), as if to say, it is nice all you are telling me about your success, but watch it son. What is really most important is your health.

Thank you mom.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Life is Change

To start with, can we agree that life is change? We are born, grow and age. Constantly changing physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually among many other dimensions.

Life is change.

And what happens when there is change? There are problems.

Why?

Because change means something new has happened, and now decisions have to be made – what to do? Because the phenomena is new, making a decision about it involves uncertainty, and when we implement the decision, there is a risk that it might somehow backfire.

To act in conditions of uncertainty and risk is identified as “we have a problem.”

But what happens next, after we decide and implement our decision? Not surprisingly, new change occurs, which causes the next problem to emerge. And that new problem can be worse than the one we tried to solve in the first place; the side effects of our solution can be worse than the malady we were trying to cure.

So here is the question: How do we know if our solution is for the better or the worse?

Everything in this world is a system and by definition every system is composed of subsystems, which in turn are composed of their own subsystems.

And what happens when there is change? The subsystems do not change synchronously. Some change faster than others. Take a young start-up company. Its marketing and sales subsystem changes on a dime. It will make promises to clients and agree to whatever they ask for because the start-up desperately needs money. Meanwhile, the production or operational subsystem changes more slowly; it takes time and energy to change production subsystems. The accounting systems changes even more slowly and the human resources subsystem is probably not even in existence at this point.

Those asynchronous changes create gaps, cracks in the system. Those cracks are manifested by what we call “PROBLEMS.”

The bottom line?

ALL PROBLEMS ARE A MANIFESTATION OF DISINTEGRATION

CAUSED BY CHANGE.

Example: If you are sick and go to the doctor, he or she will ask you when it started (change). And then will use his or her medical knowledge to understand what has fallen apart; which part of the body is not working right (disintegration).

If disintegration is the cause of all problems, what is the therapy?

INTEGRATION.

That means that if your solution leads to integration it will work for the better. If it leads to more disintegration, it will result in undesirable “side effects” or so called “collateral damage.”

Now, what is perfect, ultimate integration; what is at its core?

LOVE.

Hate disintegrates. Love integrates.

And here is the rub: Hate happens by itself because disintegration happens by itself. Change is happening all the time and continuously.   Which means disintegration is going on. We do not need to act or to stimulate the process. It happens by itself. We start dying the moment we are born….

Life is disintegration and our role in life is to swim against the stream, to work on integration. To LOVE. Our role is Tikkun Olam (to heal the world).

While disintegration, hate, happens without effort, to Love (integration) is a choice we make.

So what is life all about?

It is change, which means having on-going problems as long as we live, and having to make choices how to solve them: with hate or love? Living out of fear, which creates the hate, or out of hope and faith which enables love.

We choose the life we live.

Just thinking,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Nepotism vs. Materialism

I am in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. At the Forum for a sovereign state fund, Samruk Kazyna, to discuss organizational transformation.

A distinguished British leader of a company with 350,000 employees speaks before me. He is focusing on what he believes is a major fault with the managerial practice in Kazakhstan.  It is, he says, the appointment of people to leadership positions in the company not by qualifications but by blood lines and friendship lines.

He claims that this is the main reason companies are not performing well.  His recommendation is to discontinue this practice. It is absolutely mandatory, he says.

The facts are that during the collectivization of Kazakhstan by the Soviet Union regime, where land and animal stock were nationalized, millions of people died from starvation and people learned to take care of each other. Furthermore, this is a society of tribal connections.

In the name of more profits, he was proposing to stop this mutual caring, this love for one another and holding tight to family connections. I felt that he was wrong.

It occurred to me that this is precisely what we have done in the West.  In the name of more profits, we have caused people to disregard blood lines and friendship along with relations based on trust; and we have exchanged these values for some “objective” measurements of competence like education and experience.

Wait a moment, I thought to myself. Is the exchange worth it? Should we actually “cool off” deep relations for more profits? Do we need to throw the baby out with the bath water?

The problem is not “blood lines.” The problem is non-performance.

There are people who do not perform well who are not connected by blood lines.  And there are people with blood ties whose performance is quite exemplary. So let us focus on how to increase and improve performance and not on how to forbid hiring because of relational ties.

As a matter of fact, discontinuing this nepotistic practice would be dangerous for developing countries.

In developing countries, they do not have the sophistication of management. No job descriptions, no 360 appraisals. No control systems. So, what keeps the organization working is trust. Trust based on family relations. Remove that and the system will collapse.

For those who know Adizes theory I am referring the (A) – (I) exchange.

In a developing country, they use (I) to make the company interdependencies work. Removing (I) without having (A) will make the system collapse.

Focus on improving performance; Build (A) without destroying (I).

Just thinking

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Dr. Adizes’ Speech at the Samruk Kazyna Transformation Forum in Astana

I am in Kazakhstan. I have been invited to speak at a forum on how to make a holding company with 350,000 employees and assets of 100 billion dollars competitive in the global marketplace. The goal is straightforward enough: meet or exceed global indicators of success like EVA or ROI.

Here is an edited version of my ten-minute speech delivered at the Samruk Kazyna Transformation Forum[1] in Astana on October 6, 2014, in the morning.

The Soviet Legacy in Management

Your honor Mr. Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan

Ladies and Gentlemen.

In order for Kazakhstan and Samruk-Kazyna to achieve economic results that meet world standards it needs to be market-oriented, flexible, innovative and aggressive.

What are the barriers to being one?

There is a common denominator to them all: the Soviet legacy.

What is the Soviet legacy? Three main components: Production orientation, witch hunt and command and control style of leadership.

Production Orientation

The Soviet Union was not market oriented in its multi-year central planning.

Production was central to the system. So, for example, the sales unit sold what was produced. For the company to be competitive, it needs to have a marketing orientation, production to produce what the marketing department predicts the clients want or need.

As a result of this production orientation, the power structure in companies, at least the one we worked with, resides with the production function. Marketing departments are either non-existent or very weak. Thus the marketing orientation is weak too. That obviously affects results achieved in the competitive market environment.

The Witch Hunt

It is very interesting to watch a Russian manager, or a manager in any of the CIS countries we worked with, diagnose the problem. The solution to a corporate problem somehow always seems to deteriorate into finding the guilty party, nailing the culprit. That person personifies the problem although often the fault has nothing to do with any single individual, but rather is buried within the system.

As a result of this blaming culture, managers and workers are very compliant and keep a low profile. This impacts innovation, corporate flexibility, entrepreneurship…..and eventually culminates in poor corporate results.

Control and Command Style

If you sit in a meeting in Russia led by the top person in the organization, whether he or she is the president, the managing director or a director of a division, there is one common denominator: silence.

The top person in the hierarchy does all the talking. The rest are silent. Never a challenge to what he or she says.

Democracy was never a feature of Russia. Never in its history. So for people to challenge authority is not the appropriate thing to do. You can undermine it in the darkness, stealthily, but never in the open.

As a result of this management by fear, the attribution of mistakes to an individual and a diagnosis of a problem that ends as a witch hunt, it causes people to not stretch themselves; there is little motivation to excel; or emphasis on outstanding performance. The result is that being average is fine, and even then it pays to keep a low profile.

Transforming Companies in CIS countries

How to proceed?

First, create a safe environment for people to discuss problems openly and do so without attributing fault to any single individual. (The Adizes Syndag does that.)

Next, lead the group discussion with everyone encouraged and allowed to participate and contribute. This has to be done in a very disciplined way because once people who were never allowed to participate are given free rein, all hell breaks loose. It is like allowing depressed gas out of the bottle. The process of discussion must be highly organized and disciplined. (Phase 2 and 3 of the Adizes program do that.)

Next, we need to move power from production to marketing. With this adjustment, the organization becomes marketing oriented. (Phase 4, 5 and 6 of the Adizes program do that.)

Transforming organizations in a culture that has not known participation requires a systematic program where barriers to effective management are being overcome.

Thank you for your attention.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

 

Dr. Adizes continues his presentation in the afternoon. The following is an edited version of his comments delivered at the panel session at the Samruk Kazyna Forum.

Your Honor, Mr. Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan,

Your Honor Mr. Massimov, Prime Minister of Kazakhstan

Mr. Sukeev , CEO of Samruk Kazyna

Ladies and Gentlemen.

This morning I presented some points about transformation of a company or society to achieve exceptional economic results and how it should be led without creating dysfunctional, destructive, conflicts which certainly can occur when change is present. And—it cannot be emphasized enough— transformation is ….change.

I could not do justice to the subject in the ten minutes allocated this morning so with your permission I would like to expand on what I said and describe the points in more detail.

The organizational or social culture that is necessary for smooth transformation, for effective change, is one of mutual trust and respect.

A participative system based on mutual trust and respect on the part of the different entities that comprise the organization produces transformation with minimal side effects. Without MT&R, change that is the essence of transformation, is painful, resisted, slow, inefficient and often ineffective. Instead of a horse being delivered as planned, a camel will arrive, a product of endless compromises as different people and interest groups maneuver to protect themselves from each other.

What is MT&R? What is “respect?” To paraphrase philosopher Emanuel Kant, respect means to recognize the right of other people to think differently. And that will happen when we accept diversity of opinion because it enriches us. We learn from it. We do not learn from people whose opinions and ideas are similar to ours. We learn from those who disagree with us and have something to say. And for mutual trust there must be faith in common interests.

Change is much easier when there is mutual trust and respect and it is difficult, painful without it.

MT&R is the foundation of democracy. Without mutual trust and respect between the different parts that comprise society, there cannot be a functioning democracy.

The best transformation is done in a democratically run organization where MT&R exist.

The role of leadership for a successful transformation then is to create and nurture a culture of mutual trust and respect for diversity; to integrate workers with management; and to integrate management within itself so it is on the same side of the street, so to speak. Unite the system so that it can jointly advance the changes the company needs.

If one asks any person, at random, what kind of leadership is called for to create such a culture, they would say democratic leadership to provide a behavioral model, to provide an example.

Are they right? It depends.

In countries that have never experienced democracy, never witnessed participative engagement in decision making, in such cultures, democratic leadership does not create democracy. It creates chaos and anarchy. Something akin to children who have never before taken responsibility for their actions and now are suddenly let loose.

Example? Look at Iraq. The West replaced Saddam Hussein, and the result is chaos followed by the Islamic Caliphate where dissent is punished by beheading. How did this IS movement grow so big, so rapidly? Because people in the region are used to dictatorship and will gravitate to what feels familiar, and oddly enough, as long as you comply, it feels safe because it is predictable. Plus, as I said this morning, many people with traditional, religious values resented, and did not want, the changes the West was installing. I know I am over-simplifying what is happening in Iraq because there are many other factors at play, but we should not ignore culture as an important factor in helping to undermine transformation.

Creating a democratic culture cannot be done democratically. It requires dedicated, committed, strong, unyielding leadership, to overcome resistance in creating such a culture. One might call it, a dictatorship.

To CREATE a culture of mutual trust and respect, to create democracy, requires having a disciplined process of interaction in decision making, which people do not necessarily accept easily. It requires having a common vision and values which could lead to the dismissal of people who do not share the vision and the values. It requires structural changes that impact people’s present interests adversely. To bring such changes requires dictatorial leadership because all these changes are painful, and if people are asked to accept them democratically, people will naturally object to the pain and turn them down or undermine them.

You do not create democracy democratically unless the ingredients of democracy already exist in that culture to begin with.

There is a problem in this prescription that leadership style clashes with what is attempted to be achieved. It requires leadership to be clear what the goals of the transformation are. Not for more control, but more control to eventually have less control.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

[1] A Kazakhstan Sovereign Fund with 100 billion in assets and 350,000 employees.

Why Lie Down and Why Drink Water?

When you have a cold, the doctor tells you to lie down and drink a lot of fluids.

What does being horizontal have to do with your nose running? And why drink fluids for a running nose?

Do you realize when a dog is sick, it stops eating and it will lie down too.

What is going on?

Here is my insight.

Energy is fixed at any point in time. It is allocated, predictably, first to take care of your health and then (with whatever energy remains) to engage in any physical action you desire or can sustain.

Look at people sick in the hospital. The sicker they are the more they sleep.

Sleeping a lot when you are sick concentrates all the energy for healing.

But how specifically does the healing happen?

I’m glad you asked.

All diseases come from disintegration.  Something is falling apart that manifests itself by pain, fever and a general complaint of feeling lousy and sick.

If disintegration is the cause of all disease then integration is, of course, the solution.

So how to integrate?

Start with oxygen. It relates to everything and is everywhere except in a vacuum. Thus it relates to everything; It is an integrating force.

Many forms of therapy are designed simply to make the patient breathe oxygen. Look at the emergency room and you will see a patient with a mask on his face. He is being provided with oxygen to prolong his life.

Water is another way of getting oxygen. Just a different chemical combination, CO2, which contains oxygen. ( (A) – water and (I) – air are interchangeable).

So, when the doctor tells us to drink lots of water it is as if he or she is telling us to take in a lot of oxygen.

Lying down and thus doing nothing stressful frees the liquids to provide for healing.

At True North Health Center in Santa Rosa, California, they do just that. They use water fasting to successfully treat diabetes, high blood pressure, lupus, arthritis ….immune disease problems. And while drinking lots of water you are not allowed to get out of bed. Just lie down and let your body heal itself. That is what the doctors order.

Now let me make a quick jump to change.

The world keeps changing, faster and faster, almost in the blink of an eye. And we know change causes disintegration. We might posit the axiom the more change, the more stress in our lives. And what follows?

The more water we should drink.

Now I hope you know why.  At least six glasses a day.

If my insight is right.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

What Connects Us To The Past

I am in Istanbul on my way to Astana the capital of Kazakhstan. I stopped for few days to acclimate myself to the time changes and so as not to arrive for a consulting assignment with my client feeling like a zombie.

As expected, I cannot sleep. And when I cannot sleep I read and write and think. All of which usually leads to insights. This time my thoughts turned to the past; more specifically, to ideas about what connects us to our past.

The answer seemed suddenly obvious. Memories.

But how are these memories triggered? What mechanism causes us to feel nostalgic or fearful?

I believe that it is the five senses.

The most obvious trigger is sight that is recalling images from the past. That is why we take pictures of what we want to remember.  Years later when we look at those photos the past becomes vividly alive. It is as if we were transported to that past and our emotions quickly rise to the surface.

Our sense of smell also transports us back to the past. We might smell something familiar and it might remind us of something we experienced in an earlier day. And it does not have to be joyful.

I know a woman who was raped by a man with a distinctive smell. To this day she cannot tolerate that smell on anyone who comes in close proximity to her.  It brings to mind memories of the rapist and she gets panicky. The memories are still very much alive, stimulated by that recollection of the smell.

How about the sound of music? We all have sensations that are stirred by the chords of a particular song.  In my case I am flooded with the memory of a past love whenever I hear the music from the movie Dr. Zhivago. Years ago I went to see that movie with a girl I loved very much. It was in high school. It was sixty years ago, and she is long since gone from my life, but each time I hear that music my heart skips a beat.

What about the sense of touch? For sure. If someone touched you a certain way and it was very pleasurable, and the touch is repeated even fifty years later, it will bring the memories back.

Interesting, no? But does any moral follow from this?

I think so. For one, the more we activate our senses in the present, the more we will have memories in the future. And if the senses are positively activated, the more likely our memories will be pleasurable.

To say it differently, the more our senses are activated, the more we are alive.

What occurs when we read a book?  I suggest our memory will be clearer and sharper in direct relation to what was visualized as we read it. Right?

But how about a book where there was neither sound, smell nor visual stimulus?  And no recalling of touches or taste either?

Like learning math.

How would we remember the experience?

We will remember the subject matter but not the experience.  Unless we were punished for missing a lesson and a parent screamed at us.

Now if anyone raises his or her voice the way our parents did, then we will remember that math class very well indeed.

In the Jewish tradition, it is interesting that learning was associated with something sweet. There was a sweet reward for learning.  Thus, learning was not to be remembered as something negative, but positive, and we became a nation of lifetime learners.

When we raise our children today and want to create a future memory for them, perhaps the best strategy is to activate their senses. After all, we remember our mother who may be long since gone by the comfort food she fed us. And if our father used to yell at us, that tone of voice probably still haunts us today, evoking the same discomfort felt as a child.

So we have a choice. How do we want to remember? Or how do we want to be remembered?

Perhaps by the senses we are able to activate.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Not All Rejections Are Negative

My friend, Jack Canfield who co-authored Chicken Soup for the Soul told me years ago that the manuscript had been rejected by, I think, twenty publishers before they found someone who finally agreed to publish the book. It became a world sensation. Millions of copies printed and translated in dozens of languages.

What happened? Why did so many publishers reject it?

Before answering, another example:

I recently spoke with a very gifted artist. Her paintings hang in my home next to works by some of the most famous American artists. When guests visit, they are invariably attracted to her paintings first. Only later do they drift over to the works by other artists. Still Yale’s art school rejected her for her Master’s degree.

What is going on?

My insight: There is “the establishment” in the community of arts and letters and if you do not belong you will often find your work rejected.

By “establishment” I do not mean some class of people. I think more generally that there is a school of thought, a prevalent market taste and a sense of comfort people have with a work of art that feels familiar.

If the new work of a writer or artist deviates from the accepted contemporary school of thought, or the present market taste or if it is not very familiar, it will often be rejected.

Was not Stravinsky’s Firebird booed the first time it was performed?

And the artists we today admire whose paintings hang in museums   were they not often unappreciated if not scorned? In their day, some were starving artists; to purchase one of their works today requires vast sums of money.

My insight is that artists should not perceive being rejected as the final evaluation of their work.  The rejection might be a sign that the work itself falls outside the accepted norm, that it is really out of the ordinary.  My suggestion to the artists: Keep going. Let time catch up with you. You are just too far ahead.

Of course, not every new work of art is ahead of its time, breaking the mold and moving in a new direction.  Some creations are justifiably rejected.  They are not meritorious, are superficial or poorly executed. Bad art.

How to know the difference?

I believe motive may play a part here. If an artist created something to please the public or the commercial consumer and it was rejected, it probably was rightly dismissed.

Why?

Because he/she tried to hit the mark and missed.

The work failed on its own terms.

But if the artist created something that represented HERSELF, that is an extension of her imagination and professional gifts, an attempt to take a new and innovative stance within the discipline, then silence or rejection should not necessarily be a measure or sign of lack of value.

Why?

Because they were not trying to please anyone but themselves. If it met their criteria of success and their attempt to advance their craft, vision and form, then they have succeeded by definition.  Now let time do its job and wait and see if eventually he or she is recognized. And if not in their lifetime, or perhaps ever, still no harm is done.

Because the artist did not try to please anyone but herself. It was an effort on her part to be bold and original and to advance the world of art. At the very least a noble effort.

As an innovator, an artist has to be true to the calling. Have met her and his criteria of success.  And the above insight does not apply to artists only. I believe it applies to any innovator; anyone that tries to express themselves in any form or shape.

The way to break a pattern, to innovate, to lead, is not to fear rejection. Indeed, rejection might be a sign that the artist is on the right path. Silence might be the worst response one that tries to innovate can endure.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Types of Hunger

There are many types of hunger.

The first one is a calorie hunger. You want calories. You are starving. It hurts. Your stomach makes noises. You will eat anything you can find. In extreme cases, your glands get swollen and then your stomach get swollen too. Have you seen the pictures of starving children in Africa???

This kind of hunger is rare in developed countries unless it is in areas of extreme poverty. In developed countries, I suggest we have “pleasure hunger.”

What is that?

It is when you feel hungry for something. Anything. Salty or sweet or sour. Like a pregnant woman you get anxious and feel hungry, but in reality you have enough fat on your body to last you some time. So the real need for calories is not there.

You are hungry for…..pleasure.

It is the taste buds that want pleasure. And like a spoiled kid they nag you and demand satisfaction here and now. And when that happens we behave like an addicted person. I am one of those. I will cheat and lie, but must get a fix because “I am hungry.” At night, I tell my wife I am going to the bathroom while I sneak to the kitchen looking for something, anything that will satisfy my need for tasting pleasure.

And that is how I get fat, or why I cannot keep the weight off no matter how many different diets I try.

It is a hunger to please my taste buds.

How to know which type of hunger has taken over?

Easy.

Ask yourself: would I eat anything or am I looking for something specific, even though I do not know what it is?

If the answer is anything, you are really hungry and it is hunger for calories. If, on the other hand, you are searching for something specific, you are experiencing pleasure hunger.

What to do?

Willpower does not work. It will not overcome pleasure hunger. At least not in my case.

Carry something with you all the time that is small, tasty and non- perishable. When the urge comes, and those terrorizing taste buds start hounding you, just pay the price and satisfy them with the fewest possible calories.

Now watch it. What you are experiencing might not be pleasure hunger but weight loss hunger and the solution above will not work.

What is weight loss hunger?

When you are on a diet, there comes a time when you do start losing weight. You start consuming your fat reserves. The brain does not like it. The brain feels “hey, hey, we are using the reserves here which we need to survive. Stop this reduction of calories. This is dangerous. Get food immediately.”

In this case, if you consume something to reduce your hunger, you are defeating your attempt to lose weight. You have to fight the urge off and hold on. As a matter of fact, you should enjoy the experience. You are losing weight.

There is one more type of hunger. It is the comfort hunger. It is when you are stressed and anxious and start looking for something that will reward you. Usually it is something that is rich in calories.

Go get a massage. Reward yourself differently.

You should know which hunger you have because each one requires a different strategy to deal with it.

Good luck. This is not easy.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Dear andrei and all of you asking what is REAlY bothering...

Dear andrei and all of you asking what is REAlY bothering me and if profit as a goal is wrong what is the alternative

The answer is another blog or a whole book

Bottom line:

Marx was right in diagnosis. Wrong in the prescription

Capitalism leads to destructive disintegration

Socialism to debilitating paralysis

As churchil said: capitalism is unequal distribution of wealth ;socialism equal distribution of poverty

The answer is not in either or but in integration of the best of both:

Capitalism in market place socialism inside companies ( to be elaborated in a book when i have time to write)

As to what should be the goal of management if not profits?

Profit should be a constraing goal

A company should have no less than x to have for future growth to attract capital

The deterministic goal is to have a healthy well aligned company

What does it mean to be a healthy system? it

Means to be both effective and efficientnin short and long time which means all PAEI roles performed and capi in place which means all components comprising the company have shared interests

Since this is utopian to expect we need a culture of MT and R

( another book to be written)

When?

I should live long enough

Best to all

Just thinking

Dear Andrei and all of you asking what is really bothering me

Dear andrei and all of you asking what is REAlY bothering me and if profit as a goal is wrong what is the alternative

The answer is another blog or a whole book

Bottom line:

Marx was right in diagnosis. Wrong in the prescription

Capitalism leads to destructive disintegration

Socialism to debilitating paralysis

As churchil said: capitalism is unequal distribution of wealth ;socialism equal distribution of poverty

The answer is not in either or but in integration of the best of both:

Capitalism in market place socialism inside companies ( to be elaborated in a book when i have time to write)

As to what should be the goal of management if not profits?

Profit should be a constraing goal

A company should have no less than x to have for future growth to attract capital

The deterministic goal is to have a healthy well aligned company

What does it mean to be a healthy system? it

Means to be both effective and efficientnin short and long time which means all PAEI roles performed and capi in place which means all components comprising the company have shared interests

Since this is utopian to expect we need a culture of MT and R

( another book to be written)

When?

I should live long enough

Best to all

Just thinking