Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 35

What is Wrong With Business Schools?

Fifty years ago, when I received my MBA and doctoral degrees at Columbia University Business School, MBA programs were not yet popular. Since that time offers have grown like mushrooms after the rain, especially in Eastern Europe and the developing countries. In India, I have noticed Business Schools are everywhere, and the US business schools are making fortunes essentially franchising their programs.

What is wrong with that?

Economics and business schools teach that the purpose of business is to produce profits. Finance theory and micro-economic theory preach that the goal of business is to increase earnings per share. So do all other courses in marketing and even human resources. The profit motivation is always there as the measuring rod of success.

Granted, here and there you can find a course devoted to social responsibility, but it functions as a fig leaf for the real program, which is clearly oriented around profit: market domination for profit orientation, etc.

What is wrong with it? It legitimizes greed.

Making profit, the purpose and goal for which a business exists, validates and justifies greed. If there were no greed, profit motivation as a goal would not be as attractive.

So what, one may ask?

To make profits, companies have to create needs so they can increase revenues. Just look at the variety of products being provided just in a supermarket. We promote meat consumption and never in the history of mankind has so much meat been consumed per capita. And what is the meat consumption doing to our environment? Do you know how much water and land use is necessary for one pound of cow meat? And how much pollution of our water resources the dairy business causes?

The result is that companies are profitable while the environment is increasingly getting destroyed.  Our standard of living is going up while our quality of life is going down.

To increase profits, companies seek global sourcing of products and go where the costs are the lowest. That creates unemployment at home.

We preach democracy, go to war and sacrifice our children’s lives supposedly to bring democracy to far-away lands, only to turn around and franchise or promote business schools who teach anything but democracy in how corporations should be managed.

Representing owners, corporate governance is not democracy. Workers who are managed have no say in who their leaders will be. The reality is that we teach that benevolent dictatorship is the most-desired leadership model of corporations. That is the reality of our management education.

The search for economic returns is impacting how top managers behave, too. The gap in salaries between top management and workers is the highest it’s been since the era of the robber barons in the late nineteenth century.

The result is that we legitimize greed and then condemn it, live in a galloping consumer society that is wasteful beyond comprehension, and preach democracy but promote non-democracy in our corporate life.

Overall I would say the system, as we know it now, is producing unexpected, undesired collateral damage. Profit-seeking as the preeminent goal is a force of disintegration, which is hurting us and will hurt future generations even more. Business Schools are the swamps that breed the malaria carrying mosquitoes.

The efforts to make business leaders more socially conscious is like swimming against a tsunami. After a year of indoctrination that profits are the goal to be focused on and the basis of which we grant rewards, coupled with the natural desire to accumulate wealth, developing social consciousness is like an aspirin for cancer. It might relieve the pain (i.e. sense of guilt) for a short-time, but the damage will continue to happen.

What about the theory that leadership of business organizations should have a host of stakeholders to consider in their decision-making?  The community, workers, and needs of the environment are not to be ignored.

Nice in theory. In practice, if your competition produces better profits than you, your position as a leader of the corporation might be in jeopardy.

What about the claim that socially conscious corporations are more profitable? Maybe, but note how the profit motive is driving even social consciousness as a measure of justification for the effort.

But responsible businesses practice philanthropy, you might say.

I find it ironic that Coca Cola Company, for instance, finances a chair for social responsibility at a business school. A company that is feeding sugar millions of people with dire health consequences.  The same goes for McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC).

Fig leaf efforts.

A new theory of management and economics is being called for. One that provides new goals to be followed; where profits are not the goal, but a by-product of reaching the desired goal.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

How to Recognize Anyone’s Personality Style

There are many psychological tests to identify a man or woman’s personality. The Myers-Briggs test is the most recognized that I know. At the Adizes Institute, we have the MSI (Management Style Indicator).

Over the years, I have wondered if there was anything like the “eye ball” method that is sometimes employed informally by people. The “eye ball” method is when you skip the research, no tests, just use a fast and dirty way of determining the personality style of someone. I wondered if there was one to determine if a person is a P, A, E or I (I assume the readers of my blog know my PAEI theory.)

The most difficult personalities to classify are often those we know best. Analyzing their style turns out to be more complicated than expected. The one that is the most difficult to classify is ourselves, the one we supposedly know the best. This runs contrary to what appears logical.  Why is it true though?

When you think about it, this phenomenon should not be surprising. After all, when we know people over a long period, we see him or her in multiple and changing situations in which they exhibit a number of different styles; as the situation changes the style can change too.  Thus the difficulty to categorize clearly.

I have been searching for a short cut to identifying a particular style for some time now.  A way to categorize a style, to identify their core, independent of the situation or stimuli. I think I have found it in the Jewish Book of the Sages, which says you know a person by kiso, koso and kaaso which means: by the way they spend money, the way they drink (alcohol) and the way they behave when they are angry.

This made a great deal of sense to me.

Each of the P, A, E, I styles has a typical back-up behavior; it comes into play when anger takes over. Just watch when someone you know turns angry, and you will know their style. This will enable you to predict how they will behave when their anger recedes as well.

The (P) becomes a little dictator. Short tempered. Will not waste time. Will just order you around. He will give you no chance to argue back, to explain. Nothing. Just do as you are told and that is all.

The (A) will freeze, lock his or her jaw and say nothing. Probably gaze at you with semi closed-eyes and refuse to talk or relate, at least at that moment.

The (E) is the dangerous one. He or she will attack, demean, tear you down….and then forget it all the next day and relate to you as though nothing happened. (The (A) on the other hand never forgets and will remind you of your behavior for years to come.)

The (I) yields and tries to avoid confrontation and will say something like “Oh, never mind – it is ok,” without really meaning it.

Just watch people get angry, and you can tell their personality style.

Complexity arises because people are not pure P, A, E or I. Instead they act out a mixture of angry responses.

The most frequent responses I have encountered are combinations of the PE and AI styles.

The PE will attack AND order you around.

The AI will retreat, freeze and give you the impression that he or she is ok with what happened.  But in reality they are recording everything in their “diary” and will never forget whatever it is you did that offended them.

The AE combination (that is me I think) retreats and freezes when the confrontation occurs (that is the A in me).  But then later on after some time I angrily lash back and attack (the E coming out); it is a postponed reaction and the person I attack often does not understand why he is suddenly being criticized. What happened?

The PI combination is something else altogether. He orders you around, but in a manipulative way. He or she is nice, but you can feel the aggression in the room, and usually in their body language as well.

To know people well, you have to be present and conscious and have no agenda of your own so you can evaluate them clearly.  The “eye ball” system relies on intuition and forces you to really feel the person you are evaluating.  In a test you do not make an effort to feel the person, to sense intuitively who they are; you just “brand“ or label them. You do not actually know them.

Tests give precise results. But they may be precisely wrong when intuition is only approximately right….

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Muslim Radical Atrocities: There is a Reason for the World’s Silence

The world’s hypocrisy hurts especially if you are Jewish and even more if you are Israeli.  When Israel bombs Gaza and civilians are killed, there are international demonstrations and calls for the world to punish Israel for “a massacre” although, as Israel points out, civilian deaths are a collateral damage of any war, especially this one where Hamas uses civilian sites from which to fire missiles.

While masses all over the world are furious with Israel, they are mostly silent on the fact, which no one denies, that Assad of Syria bombed and killed at least one hundred and ninety THOUSAND civilians, and sent more than a MILLION refugees spilling into neighboring countries. Have you heard of any, I mean ANY, even one large enough to fill a Volkswagen car, demonstration against Syria? Or against Qatar which is openly financing ISIS, the jihadist group that recently publicly beheaded a British journalist?

Or a public cry raised against Hamas after it executed eighteen so-called Palestinian collaborators, in an open square, with no court, no investigation, and no trial—nothing?

Where are the denunciations of ISIS for uprooting thousands of Yazidis? Or rallies protesting the acts of radical Muslims who have abducted girls from school and hold them hostage as sex slaves?

Why the silence?

In Israel, the ready-made answer for any injustice is that the world hates Jews; that anti-Semitism is alive and thus they pick on Israel for whatever it does. Pure discrimination. Maybe this is the reason but there is more to it.

Here is my insight.

In primitive tribes if someone has a mental disorder, a mad man, he is considered a sacred person and not to be harmed.  If we have someone in the family or in our close circle of friends who is extremely opinionated, we do not waste time arguing or condemning, we just ignore him.

There is a reason for this behavior. It is related to the economic principle discovered by evolutionary biologist, William Hamilton, whose discovery says:  All human behavior, whether we are aware of it or not, is driven by a simple formula of cost value relations: All living organisms try to minimize the waste of energy so they are constantly comparing cost to value. If the cost is higher than the perceived value, they act one way; if the cost is lower, they behave another way.

Now let us apply his principle and compare the Jewish state of Israel with the radical Muslims, whatever name they carry.

Israel is a democracy. It is populated by Jews who (the world will not deny) are educated, intelligent, people with whom one can argue. To demonstrate against Israel, against the Jews, when in Israel there are leftists who agree with the demonstrators, and there are Jews who are leading the demonstrations, is like fishing in a barrel. The voice will be heard.  Netanyahu will react. Israel will respond. So let us put pressure on Israel. Let us demonstrate. They listen.

Compare that to the radical Muslims. There is nothing to talk about. They refuse to even talk to the rest of the world. It is a waste of time and energy to demonstrate or even to write a scorching article attacking their behavior. It will fall on deaf ears. Thus the silence.

But, you might ask, who cares if there are no comparable massive demonstrations against radical Muslims? Are there any negative repercussions?

Yes, there are.

We live in a democratic society where people vote and where politicians carefully follow the sentiments expressed by the media and the public.

When people demonstrate and the media attacks Israel, politicians who to be re-elected need to be popular, so they go with the stream. They denounce Israel and legislate all kinds of punishments.

The cost of a politician’s denunciation of the Jewish state is low.  The value is high. It yields votes.  Not so true when handling radical Muslims. Here the cost of action is high: The Muslims demonstrate, threaten. The value of acting, however, is low. There is little political benefit to act; the rest of the population is silent. This explains to me why politicians choose to hide behind a form of political correctness in explaining their lack of reaction to the major inflow of Muslims into their country.

The danger of this political stance is that politicians are not aggressively stopping the spreading of potentially radical Muslims presence in the world; the patients in the mental hospital have taken over the hospital because the medical staff has lost hope it can do anything about them…

It hurts to see the demonstrations denouncing Israel; particularly when Israel is trying to defend itself and its civilians, while silence greets the atrocities of radical Muslims. I understand why, but the discrimination still hurts.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Bad Diagnosis – Bad Prescriptions

When we do not understand a concept, we confuse the input with output, the cause and effect. As a result, either the diagnosis and/or the prescription are faulty.

Take, for example, the concept of love. In the spiritual arena love is an input: You love because of who you are. There is nothing to do to love. Just be. For some psychologists, on the other hand, it is an output. “Love is letting go of fear.”  It is the title of a book I saw in a bookstore.  So, if you let go of fear, you will love.

And at the Adizes Institute we have lots of discussions about another concept: Is trust an input or output?  Does trust impact organizational behavior or does organizational behavior impact trust?

I suggest to you that love, trust, respect, democracy, among many other concepts, are all both an input and output, depending where in the chain of the argument you stand. There is a chain of cause-effect.

Let us see how this applies to politics.

Those with a leftist political orientation, in Israel and abroad, consider Gaza’s “open air prison” as a cause and the missiles are the manifestation. As David Grossman, a famous Israeli author, said: “We cannot breathe deeply as long as people in Gaza are choking.”  The prescription, the solution, following this diagnosis, is to open the borders.

Those on the right side of the political spectrum in Israel reason in reverse: The “open air prison” of Gaza is an output. A manifestation. Gaza is closed hermetically (which creates an open air prison) because militant Palestinians are infiltrating Israel and terrorizing the country.  The political right’s prescription for solving the missile problem is to attack Gaza and beat Hamas into submission — that will stop the missiles and the terror attacks.

As we see from the above discourse, Gaza’s “open air prison” is an input and output, a cause and effect, and which of the two you choose, depends on your political view, left or right, and your choice will provide totally different prescriptions.

Who is right? In my opinion, neither. Or, stated differently, both, because “open air prison” is both a cause and manifestation, depending where in the means-end chain you stand.  As a result, both prescriptions for a solution will not work.

Let me build the chain to make the point clearer.

Why missiles?  Because Gaza’s citizens are in an “open air prison” so there is a need to remove the blockade.

But why are they in an “open air prison?”  Because terrorists reside there and penetrate Israel to create havoc and fear.  For its security, Israel needs to insulate them.

But why do terrorists reside there? Because Palestinians lost their land and their homes and have been unsettled refugees for over sixty years.

But why did they lose their land and homes? Because the Jewish people wanted their homeland after two thousand years of persecution and wandering the world.  And the trauma of the Holocaust made the need for a safe harbor for Jews even more acute.

Let us stop the chain here. For this analysis, there is no need to discuss why the Holocaust happened.  What is clear from this chain is that neither the missiles nor the “open air prison” is the root cause of the problem.  The root cause is this: two nations claiming the same piece of land for their legitimate reasons. The Palestinians because they lived there for hundreds of years; the Jews, traumatized by the Holocaust and always under threat of extinction, desiring a land of their own where they believe they could feel safe. Israel is that land. That is where their Jewish ancestors lived, and that particular body of land has been promised to them by God.

Cause    

 

Effect  

Jews in need of their homeland

caused

Palestinians to lose homes

Losing homes and land

caused

terrorists in Gaza

Terrorists in Gaza

caused

an “open air prison”

an “open air prison”

caused

missiles

By following the chain, we recognize the root problem: the Palestinians want their land and homes, thus the demand for the right of return and why they refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The Jews, on the other hand, traumatized by the Holocaust, want to have a country of their own, live a normal life, and stop wandering from country to country threatened by extinction wherever they are. Two thousand years of pogroms is enough.

So here we are.

The issue is not one of “open air prison” or missiles. They are manifestations of the problem. The root problem is that the Palestinians will not let go of their land, and the Israelis want the same land for their own reasons. And both nations developed their nationalistic consciousness recently.  There was no Palestinian nation until Israel was established, and the refugee problem developed. There was no overwhelming Zionist consciousness until the Holocaust galvanized the Jewish people to the realization they must rely on themselves for their security, no one else.

Now we have two nations with strong nationalistic fervor, wanting the same piece of land. That is the problem.  Missiles, terror attacks, open air prison, massive retaliation are all different manifestations of the problem. (I know I am simplifying the problem. I know. But on purpose.  To understand it well one has to simplify. )

If I am right that the conflict concerns two nations who today legitimately claim rights to the same land which neither is willing to let go, I see no solution until one of the two relinquishes its claim. Either the Palestinians honestly, truly, accept they lost their land and that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, or the Jews in Israel should release the land back to the Palestinians and return where they came from, as the late Helen Thomas, a former White House correspondent, once recommended.

Now the reality test: Neither of these solutions can happen.  It is ridiculous to imagine four million Jews leaving Israel and scattering themselves around the world. And even if the PLO acknowledges Israel as a state, it does not recognize it as a Jewish state.  And Hamas will not even grant Israel the right to exist.  The conclusion is obvious:  no solution can be reached by the involved parties by themselves. Their starting positions are unbridgeable.  As Plato said, and I am paraphrasing, the parties cannot agree on something if they disagree on everything.

How about a third solution of compromise: they live together in one state or have two states and divide the land. To live together in one state means it is not a Jewish state anymore. Back to the root cause. Israel will not give up its Zionist dream. And look at the Arab states. They do not let ANY Jews there. Not even to visit.

Furthermore, the Palestinians did not live at peace in the states that hosted them. Lebanon. Jordan. And even Egypt closed the borders with Gaza so they cannot even travel to Egypt. So, why will they live at peace in this big new one state of Palestine/Israel? Too much risk for the Israelis. Won’t happen.

Two states? How? Israel has to up-root hundreds of thousands settlers to make it happen or let them live surrounded by Palestinians in the new Palestinian state. Again, a reality test says it will not happen. Cannot happen.  Dead end.

Because the parties in the conflict have totally incompatible starting positions, and no compromise is attractive,   there is no chance the warring parties can come to an agreement themselves. The strategy that has been the only way to arrive at a solution so far is for the involved parties to agree among themselves. This strategy is WRONG. It will not happen, and the proof is self-evident: all negotiations, sixty years of continuous negotiations, so far have failed.

The only chance for a solution is if it is imposed by a strong worldwide unified third party which has the power to impose its will: proclaim the borders of the two countries and enforce that Palestine, both in the West Bank and Gaza, be demilitarized.

Will it happen? I do not think so. The world is not unified or even in agreement about a solution. Different (powerful) nations have different interests, and those interests will ultimately up-end any agreement and undermine any solution. Furthermore, Israel will not agree to externally determined borders nor will the Palestinians accept demilitarization.

So, the suffering will continue. The manifestations of the problem will continue in one form or another. Tragic as it may be. In the face of this reality, Israel needs to be strong and survive as long as it can. It will periodically pay the price for its existence in human sacrifices.  And the Palestinians will continue their intolerable suffering economically and with incredible human losses.

How tragic.

Just thinking.

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

You See What You Look For

Two guys visit Paris. One says: “Paris is a terrible place. Prostitutes everywhere. Cheap bars. Dirty streets.”

The other guy says: “Strange. I was in Paris too. I saw no prostitutes and no cheap bars. Only museums and incredible architecture.”

You see what you look for.

I have a friend whose wife speaks to him in a somewhat aggressive voice. It bothers me, so I asked him if it bothered him.

“What aggressive voice?” he said, surprised. He did not even notice it.  I do because I hate people talking in such a tone of voice. So, I look for it whether it is present or not.

You hear, see, notice, and experience what you are looking for.  If you do not look or expect, it will not be there.

The reasons behind our (compulsive) search are multiple.

Often we gravitate in one direction because of some early life experience. (Maybe an experience from an earlier life, if you believe in those things.) It might be an experience we ignored at the time, or even forgot.  But it was recorded, consciously or sub-consciously, and now it drives us in a way that is almost beyond our control.

Then there is a past traumatic experience. It is lodged deeply in our memory and today we are sensitive to anything that resembles or harks back to that experience. We are petrified that it will repeat itself.

And so we scan the horizon and its surroundings, sometimes unconsciously, on the lookout that it will reappear in one shape, or another. And since we look for it, we will find it or anything that even remotely resembles it.

I know a person who constantly complains that people offend him. “This person insulted me; that person ignored me, and that third person disrespected me.”

Did it happen? Probably. But another person would not notice it. This man, I believe, is scared that people do not respect him, so he tests people to see whether or not it is true. He might even cause situations where he will be disrespected, to validate his belief system.

We create the reality we live in.

Do you know anyone who gets into trouble all the time? The usual explanation is that he has bad luck.  A more likely assumption is that he is searching for opportunities to fail….and get into trouble.  He needs to fail to prove his belief system.

What we look for and thus what we see, experience or ultimately know is not a random occurrence.  We are pulled either by a specific link to some earlier experience or a “pre-recorded” check-list.

I like the concept of a check-list because, to me, it is attached to a personality style. By that I mean what we look for, and thus what we notice, and eventually know, depends on our style.

Take a person with the (A) style (from the PAEI model). He or she will recognize small details and deviations from the norm that an (E) would not even notice.  And an (E) will see opportunities that an (A) cannot fathom.

Predetermined check-lists crop up not only in personality styles.

A professional eye also plays a part. An architect will notice details of a building that an ordinary person cannot see. My son, the movie director, criticizes the quality of my video tapes citing details I did not believe existed.

Each of us moves through life with his own check-list. We look for different things. And in turn we experience life differently.  It depends on which check-list we use.

This insight has multiple repercussions. Particularly in corporate settings.

First, when managing companies, especially in a rapidly changing environment, how do we diagnose a situation? How do we make a strategic plan to deal with the changes?

Each executive has their own check-list, of course.  But it is a limited one. Inconclusive. And thus biased, largely because it is a reflection of his managerial style and a reflection of his past experiences and present interests.

If we want a comprehensive analysis of a situation so as to arrive at the best plan, we need to have a complementary team of managers. What one man or woman fails to notice, others will identify.

This insight has repercussions, I believe, for therapy as well.

When a patient complains about what is happening to him or her, the therapist during treatment should seek to find out WHY is this person looking for this to happen to him or her?

Take a woman who tells her therapist that she attracts only the wrong men. The point is she attracts the wrong men precisely because she is looking for them.

The therapeutic questions follow: Why is this woman looking for the wrong man in her life?  What in her previous experience has caused this “addiction” to seek and attract the wrong men?  And how can we free her from a past experience that is affecting her life now?

“I cannot find my soul mate,” says a man in search of a spouse.

I would say: “Because you are not looking for her. If you did, you would find her. What are you frightened of if you did find her?”

First we create, in our head, the world that we seek to experience.  And then we proceed to live a life defined by that self-fulfilling prophecy.

What we look for we find. Or said differently and better: what we find is what we have been looking for.

Just thinking.

Sincerely,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Middle East Tragedy – Analysis, an Opinion and a Projection

Let us first go over the theory on problem-solving and then see the application. Change causes problems.  Solutions cause new problems. The new problem caused by the solution can be worse than the problem you tried to resolve.

In medicine, it is called side effects. They treat you for one disease, but the treatment causes a bigger problem elsewhere in your system. As one of my good friends, a surgeon said: “I learned in medical school how to cut. Then for ten years when to cut. And now for the remainder of my life when NOT TO cut.”

All of this is a prelude to the profound dilemma of the day: what can Israel do in Gaza, with Gaza, about Gaza?

The change: Hamas was elected. The problem caused by the change: Hamas is determined to destroy Israel. Its leaders say so and walk their talk. Thousands of missiles focused on civilian targets rain on Israel. Hundreds of tunnels are built to infiltrate Israel and cause mayhem.

Solution A:  Attack them, destroy the tunnels and destroy their ammunition stocks and missiles inventory.

The side effect: In the process of attacking Gaza hundreds of children die. Thousands of civilians die. (I do not know if Hamas really used children as a human shield. They say they do not.  In a war, the first victim is the truth, so I do not take into account whatever is said or whoever said it. Only the dry facts.  In wars, innocent people die. In all wars. )

But it IS terrible that so many innocent people are killed. And it is painful to see those wounded children. There is an international uproar. There are worldwide demonstrations against Israel. Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey says Israel will drown in the bloodshed it is spilling and “Turkey will support Palestine no matter what the cost.”  His is not the only voice heard. There are many others. Israel is becoming increasingly isolated and shunned by a rising number of countries. Boycotted. Ostracized. Furthermore, the war is destroying Gaza.

And the more you destroy, the less the Palestinians have to lose. And when people have nothing to lose, and are not afraid to die because they will go to heaven as martyrs, you have just created a new generation of martyrs – and that is probably what Hamas wants.

So, it seems solution A has prohibitive side effects. What else to do?

Solution B: Israel should not play the Hamas game. Should not attack. Should react as little as possible to Palestinian provocations. Negotiate. Try diplomacy. Continuously seek ways to help the Palestinian economy. In that case the Palestinians will think twice about going to war. They will have much to lose which is not the case now. Build their country so their children have a future. Without a future, they are already dead. Walking dead.  In the situation as it is today, the Palestinians prefer to die heroically and take as many Israelis with them as possible.  Open the borders.  Let them go fishing. Open the “open air prison.” Free the Hamas prisoners. That will stop the missiles attacks.  That is what the Left worldwide and in Israel is preaching. That is what they are demonstrating.

This solution looks right because Hamas claims it is raining missiles into Israel to stop the Israeli blockade, and to open the borders. It is morally right too. Thus, this solution makes sense. Does it?

The side effects? Let us look at the facts. How did thousands and thousands of missiles make it into Gaza? They did not manufacture them themselves. These are sophisticated missiles.  They found a way through the tunnels. Brought in by “innocent” boats. Now open the borders. Let them go “fishing.” What will happen now? Will they stop bringing in missiles?   I let your imagination work its way…..

The international community gave Hamas millions of dollars to build their economy. Israel allowed them to bring into Gaza tons of cement to build themselves homes and factories. And where did this cement go?  Where did the millions of dollars go? To build hundreds of sophisticated tunnels to infiltrate Israel.

Israel retreated from Gaza and gave them untouched fully operational green-houses worth millions of dollars to build their economy. What did Hamas do? They destroyed them all. Israel left them untouched homes so they could move from their refugee tents. What did Hamas do? They dynamited them all.

Why? They do not want peace. They are determined to destroy Israel. They say so in their published stated goal. And they walk their talk. I know it is difficult to imagine and to digest such fanaticism, but look at their behavior.  You tell me: why would anyone adopt this stance, take these steps if they were not fanatics?

Furthermore, Netanyahu cannot do it. Israel as a nation, in my opinion, is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by the Holocaust; so its people are over-reacting out of fear. Out of despair. Out of memories of the Holocaust. The unspoken belief is that if they do not defend themselves with all their might they will vanish and die… just the way their parents and grandparents vanished in the ovens of Auschwitz.

Only strong people can afford to be weak. And Israel after the Holocaust does not feel strong, in spite of all its military might. The Holocaust memories are reinforced repetitively with museum shows and memorial days. It makes Israelis feel vulnerable. Worried. Apprehensive. And thus, over-reactive.

Furthermore, the Right wing is strong and growing in Israel because people are tired of the missiles. Tired of having no peace. Tired of intifadas. Tired of living a stressful life. Tired of not knowing if their kids will come back from school with a smile on their face or in a coffin. Tired of not knowing whether their husband or wife should take the bus and run the chance of being blown to pieces and never reaching home. And they do not trust the Palestinian leadership that they genially want peace. There is no trust. There is on-going fear instead.

Alternative B has undesirable side effects and it is also not doable in the present political climate.  So what else?

In alternative C, Netanyahu should follow the suggestions his right wing partners are making. They believe that if Israel destroys Gaza, it will make the Palestinians in Gaza vote Hamas out of power.

What are the side effects of this solution? History shows that the opposite is true. The more destruction, the stronger Hamas will be. Because people want revenge. And if Hamas falls, another “Hamas” (Isis?) might take its place. The more Israel pushes, the more Hamas (and the Palestinians) will push back. The more extreme Israel becomes, the more extreme the Palestinians will become.  The same dynamics are taking place in Israel. Why should Gaza be different?

And the Palestinians in Gaza have their story to tell too. They are tired of having no future. No home. Losing their land. Having no real freedom. How much longer? They are desperate too. The Palestinians have their own post-traumatic syndrome. They have their trauma, losing everything they had and living in refugee camps for generations. They want a solution now too. And if it means missiles so be it. In the future, if it means a nuclear device, so be it. Solution C won’t work.

Solution D: Do nothing. Just use the Protective Dome to protect against the missiles and do nothing more. This is not easy to accept. People want a solution – now. “DO something.”  “We cannot live like this…”

The government in power will lose power, and a more active party will come to power instead. This solution will not work over time. What else?

How about solution E? Since the UN is sooooo concerned with the well-being of Gaza it should walk its talk and put Gaza under a United Nations protectorate. Send UN forces there and DEMILITARIZE Gaza.  Take down the Hamas government because no government should be in power that calls for the destruction of another government that is a member of the UN.  Build the economy in Gaza. Police the terrorists. No more tunnels. No more missiles.  And after one or two years when the Israeli fear subsides, open the borders. Let the people of Gaza go fishing. Maybe develop economic ties with Israel. Stop the unemployment. I bet the UN will not do that. Because for them this solution is worse than the problem they have now.

The side effects: Sending soldiers into Gaza to deal with Hamas means hundreds if not thousands of those UN soldiers will die. Hamas means business. They will kill as well as die for their vision of destroying Israel. You better believe those guys. They mean what they say. They won’t accept UN forces demilitarizing them.

And Israel will not agree to this solution either. UN forces have been ineffective. Remember Srebrenica? They stood idle as the massacre was taking place. How about Rwanda? Same. For Israel to rely on the UN to police Gaza and provide security to Israel is not a dream – it is a nightmare.  The problem continues, but because of UN presence Israelis cannot do anything to protect themselves.

How about a two-state solution? Solution F.

Any side effects? Hamas is now member of the coalition running the West Bank too. Will Abu Mazen be able to control Hamas or will they control him?  Is there even a slight chance missiles will rain on Israel from both sides, the West Bank AND from Gaza?

OK.  We need a comprehensive solution. Solution G: One country for both nations. From the sea to the Jordan River. Looks good, no?  We need to live in peace together. Right?

Are there any side effects? There are six million Israelis, out of which two million are Palestinians.  Plus two million who will join to create this “one country for all” means the Muslims will be fifty percent of this “one country.” To understand the complexity of this solution, one has to feel on one’s skin the side effects it might create. You will know how it feels only after you walk in the shoes you recommend for others to walk in.

Take the US for example. US has problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.  Solution: add Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran as new states of the United States of America. It now becomes a country with fifty percent Muslims – i.e.  two hundred million Muslims in the USA. True, they all do not have to be members of Taliban, just as all Palestinians are not affiliated with Hamas. Take the chance. OK?  Open the borders. Let them move freely. Ready?

Israel is stuck. No alternative without some dire repercussions. It is stuck in the short run, namely today, and in the long run as well. How about the long run?

Look at the map of the Middle East. It is nothing new if I say Muslim countries surround Israel.  More than one hundred million Muslims inhabit these nations. But that is not the end. Go beyond the Middle East. Extend your radius. Pakistan and India and Indonesia have together at least another hundred million. And more.

Now turn your view to the west. North Africa. More Muslims. Look North West. Europe in the next thirty years will have a significant Muslim population. Look North: Turkey. Very belligerent against Israel too.

And smack in the middle of all of this is Israel. A Jewish state. A pebble in the middle of a Muslim sea. It is a ghetto. A ghetto nation. Surrounded by a wall. Like Jewish ghettos in Europe not too long ago. How strong must Israel be to survive when surrounded by a quarter of a billion Muslims, if not more? Oh, it has nuclear devices to protect itself. Oh,  it has one of the most advanced military forces in the world and  one of the best Air Forces.

I just read that Muslims from as far as Kashmir have joined the jihad in Syria. Who knows? Just imagine if a fraction of a percent, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of those Muslims world-wide join the Palestinian jihad instead, what will be the situation?

All that needs to happen for Israel to vanish is that the Palestinians, with Muslim extremists help, win ONE war. They do not need two. One. The extremists will literally behead every single Jewish man, woman and child without discrimination. It will be four million Dan Pearls. And the world will not move a finger. Not even say no, no, no.  Will whisper in private: “They deserved it after all they have done to those poor Palestinians.”  Anti-Semitism is already on the rise. So this prediction is not too far-fetched …. Will it happen? I am scared. It might.

The Palestinians and the Arab world in general will not forget the destruction of the infrastructure, of hospitals, of schools and the death of civilians. Those pictures will hang in their museums for generations to come. They will not forget. And vendettas, a blood revenge, is part of their culture. They have not forgotten the loss of their land for over sixty years.

Why would they forget it now?  A Palestinian told me once: “You Jews claim you have not forgotten your land for 2000 years. Why do you expect us to forget it after sixty years?” Eventually, eventually, they might garner the strength to overcome Israel. Eventually, they might get weapons of mass destruction. Eventually.

Arabs can lose many wars. Israel can lose only one. What to do?

No workable solution without terrible consequences comes to mind. Does it mean do nothing? No. It means Israel has to do something in the meantime.  Destroy the tunnels. Destroy the missiles. With minimum civilian casualties – which is what Israel did, I truly believe. And at the same time, stop looking and behaving alien to the socio-political environment that surrounds it.

Teach Arabic at school. Every Israeli must speak Arabic fluently as well as English. Teach Muslim culture as well. Stop the escalating hate.  Arab culture gives tremendous importance to respect. Treat them with respect.  Make them real equal citizens in all aspects. Not a fig leaf solution of an ambassador here and there. Yes, they have political freedom, but what they need is more respect.

I am always embarrassed by how they are being treated at security check-points at Tel Aviv airport. Does security need to be done in a demeaning way? And not just at the airport. How about the transition points in the West Bank? Stop the settlers in the West Bank from harassing the Palestinians. Taking more and more of their land. Culturally, Arabs are very attached to land. Stop expanding settlements in the west bank.  Develop positive relations with the Palestinians economically and socially.

I know it is difficult to do this when missiles rain down, when intifada is a threat. When one sees every Arab, Palestinian or not, as a potential terrorist. But if you treat them as potential terrorists, the chances are they will be converted to terrorists.

The above is not a solution. This is to arrest the problem from becoming worse and worse.  As far as a solution is concerned, apparently the time has not come to have a solution. When will it come?

When those that support Hamas with resources stop feeding the monster. When the world at large understands that well-intended solutions can have bad results. When the Palestinians, including Hamas sympathizers, come to the realization that while trying to destroy Israel they are destroying themselves. When the world stops hating Jews for a change. Why protect birds and flies from extinction but allow the extinction of the Jewish people?

Let us pray. Only a prayer might work here. Logic has failed us. In the meantime people die. On both sides. The tragedy is mind boggling. For both.

Just thinking.

Sincerely,

Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Why Argentina Lost and Germany Won – Analyzing the Game Using Adizes Theory

For this week’s blog post, I invited Carlos Valdesuso, Managing Director at Adizes Brazil, to share his analysis of the World Cup Soccer Game results using the Adizes theory. I hope you enjoy it.

-   Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Teams, whether for work or for sports, behave at a level above the individuals and, as such, are subject to system principles.

Although all the four Adizes roles (PAEI) are necessary, both for individuals and teams, the (A) and (I) functions seem to impact team performance more than the (E) and (P) ones, particularly in group sports, like soccer.

The recent World Cup Soccer games in Rio de Janeiro, where in the game Germany defeated Brazil and in the finals Argentina, is a great example of the impact of team performance over individual member’s performance.

Both Brazil and Argentina relied a lot on the performance of individual stars: Brazil on Neymar and Argentina on Messi.  On the other hand, Germany relied more on the whole team effort, and ended up winning the 2014 World Cup.

What I see happening in professional sports is that, since the Mission (E) and the Task (P) are predefined, the relative importance of the (A) and (I) functions naturally goes up. Thus, the team who can outperform in the (A) and (I) roles is bound to win.

And that is precisely what Germany did, in emphasizing (I) going to the extreme of selecting as their home base in Brazil, a small Indian village in the State of Bahia.

(I)ntegration means not to depend on any single individual  but on the interaction  and interdependence between the parts, and between members of the team.

The fact that the Germans did not depend on any single individual but on how the team performed can be seen in the fact that their star player, Miroslav Klose, was not even asked to play. Throughout the game, you could not point out one player who was the star with all the others presumably acting in a supporting role.

Not so for the Argentinian team. All the commentators kept repeating that what Argentina needs is “a Messi moment” to win. That means expecting Messi to make the difference.  And without another top player, who was injured in a previous game, Argentina was in a weaker position than the German team.

And that was also a problem for the Brazilian team. When their star player, Neymar, was sidelined with an injury and another top defender was not allowed to play because of yellow cards from previous games, the Brazilian team was like an injured animal. There was no passing of the ball. Everyone was trying to make the goal as an individual.

To have team work, (I), you have to work on it. It does not happen with good intentions, nor with short spurts of energy. It is a process that takes time and effort.

And that is what the German team did. This team has been playing together for six years. They could anticipate each other’s moves. It was very exciting seeing them pass the ball backwards as if they had eyes in the back of their head. Or sideways as if they had peripheral vision. They simply could feel each other. They had the experience.

In comparison, the Brazilian team was put together to play the world cup a few months before the game. And so was the Argentinian team. Teamwork did not happen. Simple.

This experience has its moral for soccer, but it applies as well for managing a company. If you rely on a single star for success, the founder of the company for instance, it is not as good as having a team of executives working together producing the results.  And building that teamwork is not going to happen by having three month’s leadership training. It takes years of “playing together” and seeking the common goal and not just the individual goal.

Teamwork is better than any individual star. Much to learn.

Guest blog contributed by:

Carlos Valdesuso, Managing Director, Adizes Brazil

carlos@adizes.com.br

The Events in Israel and Gaza – A Reaction

What does Hamas want to achieve by sending over one thousand rockets into Israel? It knows Israel has an “Iron Dome” shield that intercepts those rockets and destroys them in mid-air. So far not one Israeli has been killed.

It knows that eventually Israel will enter Gaza and destroy whatever little is left of the infrastructure. It knows Israel will respond with air attacks that will kill many Palestinians. Among them little children. Not that Israel aims to do so. Hamas is using the children as a human shield. Hamas knows Israel is powerful and that it cannot overcome the Jewish State. None of this is secret. None of this is unknown. So why do it?

Because the more Palestinians are killed, the stronger are the emotions; and then the more the Palestinian people will vote for Hamas. The more they will vote for those who supposedly will seek revenge for the death of their children, brothers, and daughters…

And Hamas sees to it that the suffering of the children, that the number of casualties is broadcast as widely as possible. But Hamas has another reason for upping the ante, beyond staying in power.

The pictures stop us from breathing. Our blood boils with anger that it is happening. I believe there is a strategy here: Hamas knows it cannot defeat Israel by itself. But if the whole world turns against Israel, if the world isolates Israel first culturally then economically, and eventually refuses to sell armaments to Israel, the isolation will cause many Israeli citizens to leave the country.

It is not a far-fetched idea. Thousands of Israelis have already taken foreign passports. They are entitled to them because they were originally born abroad. Israel is a country of immigrants.

So, who is winning this war? Hamas, I believe.

On the surface, of course, it looks as if Israel is winning. There are 300 Palestinians dead. Israel has five casualties so far. Buildings in Gaza are destroyed. Tunnels are shut off. Fewer missiles are being fired into Israel. But it looks that way if you count casualties and missiles fired as the measurement of success.

I believe that is not how Hamas looks at it. The more children killed, and the more wounded children are shown on TV, the stronger the anti-Israeli sentiment around the world becomes. And the stronger is Hamas’ political position in Gaza. That is what their political leaders aim to achieve.

These days’ wars are fought less with guns and more with TV cameras. Israel may be winning the battle but losing the war. But what else can Israel do?

The government had to do something to stop the missile attacks. It would have been irresponsible if it did not act. It would have been voted out of power in no time. But how do you fight an enemy that is not frightened of death? That celebrates the death of their children because they died as martyrs and went to heaven. How do you fight an enemy that wants you to kill as many of their people as possible? Hamas has put the launching sites in hospitals and schools. Doing its best to maximize civilian casualties; the more children, the better.

Could Hamas be so cynical? Put its own people in harm’s way?

It is not that rare. There are precedents in history. There have been earlier leaders with an ideology, a dream, and vision, for which they were willing to sacrifice their own people. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Napoleon did it. A whole generation of young French men died for him to achieve his vision of the French Empire. Milosevic did it. So did the Croat and the Bosnian leaders in 1991. And, as we speak, is not Assad killing hundreds of thousands of his own people in order to stay in power?

In the case of Hamas, they have one more excuse for their action. Those that die for the cause go to heaven. They are martyrs. So the sacrifice is not a real sacrifice. Dying provides a prize, a reward.

In my opinion, Hamas is calling the shots and Israel is reacting. Responding exactly how Hamas wants it to react. And in doing so, in the long run, Israel is losing the war. Could something else be done?

I believe there are intelligent people in Gaza who realize what is happening. But they cannot speak. Cannot stop what is going on and start negotiating with Israel to reach peace. Gaza could be an incredible economic success. It has gorgeous beaches. A cheap labor force; an intelligent and well educated population. But these people cannot reverse the flood of hate and destruction provoked by Hamas. Because like all totalitarian regimes, opposition is cruelly silenced in Gaza.

Hamas came to power democratically; they were elected. Now they silence any dissenting voice and destroy democracy. Hitler functioned the same way.

In Israel, many people want to stop the endless ongoing war that constantly requires human sacrifice. They are demonstrating, asking for “peace now.” But nothing is happening. In their despair, the population is becoming increasingly belligerent. Emotions are taking over. Hate is more powerful than reason.

But, presumably if Israel had stopped construction in the West Bank none of this would have happened. Do you believe it?

Presumably if Israel would remove the settlers and allow the Palestinian state to emerge, there would be no Palestinian aggression.

Maybe, but most Israelis do not believe it. They believe Palestinians want them dead and the sooner, the better. The memories of the Holocaust are still fresh in people’s mind and the slogan “never again” is not an empty phrase.

There is no trust in the Middle East. The prevailing belief is that only power works. Where does it lead?

To the destruction of both nations. Analyze the history of the conflict. It is getting worse and worse. It is like a frog in boiling water. The heat only increases.

Can this disaster be reversed? I doubt it. Not by Kerry or whoever comes after him. It is a scenario that has to play to its end. And I fear that it will eventually become a tragedy studied as part of history for generations to come.

My sister lives in Israel. My nephews. My cousins and their children. Some are serving in the army. Some are right now fighting in Gaza. My best friends. The loves of my life.

I am deeply worried about the future of the Jewish homeland. For the Jewish people who choose to live there. For the Palestinians who lost their homes. Who have no future for their children, and whose suffering is heartbreaking.

The situation is not good, and the future looks even worse.

I pray to God that I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Are We as a Society Falling Apart?

“Falling apart” is the opposite of being, or even becoming integrated.

But what is involved in integration?  Those of you who have read any of my books knows my mantra for integration: it requires mutual trust and respect (MT&R).

It took me forty years to develop and test how to build a culture of mutual trust and respect in companies and organizations.  It takes people who command and grant MT&R, a collaborative process, a diversified structure and a common vision and set of values.

The irony is that after refining and codifying all the components I have begun to realize that we, in western society, are losing MT&R; it is under threat and is declining, and here is why.

Let us start with the first variable: people. For a culture of integration we need people throughout the system, from top to bottom— managers and workers, executives and staff, parents and children— who command and grant respect.  For that to happen, individuals should have the character that generates trust and respect. Our education system, I suggest, is producing the opposite: accumulated information; we teach to know, not to be.

I believe that in more primitive societies, and indeed in many poorer societies, the elders teach the children to show respect, and to be trustworthy.  At least that is how I remember my upbringing seventy some years ago.  There was order at home and respect for our elders. I had to address my grandfather in the plural form of you and kiss his hand when first greeting him. I could not leave the table after a meal until excused. Never interrupt grown-ups when they were speaking. Release a seat in a bus to the elderly who just came aboard…..

That is all gone with the wind. Watch what children view on TV today. It is shocking what is being transmitted: disrespect for authority; for elders; for anyone, as a matter of fact.

Analyze our present day teaching curricula. There is nothing on how to be. And I am not referring to courses on ethics. I mean learning respect and trust experientially. Our education is dedicated to building knowledge; passing along information, not values. Not behavior that manifest respect and trust. In some schools, teachers are physically scared of their students.

How about the second variable necessary for integration: collaborative processes? Again our education is becoming more and more specialized.  We increasingly speak different “languages.” By that, I mean we develop different perspectives and tools to analyze and in the process also develop different expectations from life. We increasingly do not understand each other.

As far as structure is concerned, at least in the USA, the richer are becoming richer and the poor poorer. Change is a centrifugal force, and the middle class is shrinking. That is a structural change which I believe must have repercussions for MT&R.

How about common vision and values? I do not think I am revealing anything new when I say we are confused about what is or should be the right vision for society. Socialism bit the dust and capitalism is dying, only to be replaced by government intervention or so called government capitalism.  And that is under attack as a system too.

Our values are also in turmoil. Materialism is out (??) and supposedly spiritualism is in.  But on closer inspection spiritualism is only in transition. In the meantime, the situation is murky.

As a result of all the above, mutual trust and respect is in decline and as a consequence, I believe that we as a society are falling apart.  It is manifested in the lack of respect for the President of the country. No trust in our authorities.  A high-divorce rate. Declining voting rates. It is not strange that the Y generation seems lost.

Just thinking.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Value of Disagreements

People by and large find disagreement to be disagreeable. Annoying. Upsetting. And in the case of someone who is narcissistic, it is likely to engender belligerence. Why?

Because disagreements interfere with our sense or desire for control. When someone disagrees with us, we often respond somewhat abruptly in one or more of the following ways: You are wrong or stupid….and/or I will not cooperate because I do not agree with your decision.

The message conveyed directly or indirectly, verbally or in body language, says: what you want to be done will not happen. It is no surprise then that we object to disagreements.

But, are there any benefits from listening to a disagreement?

Imagine a court system where there are only a prosecutor and no defending attorney, and you are to be judged. You would not feel that justice is being served. After all, every argument has a counter-argument that needs to be heard.

For better, more educated decisions, all sides that have something to say should have a say.  Which means they should have the right to disagree and the right and opportunity to say it.

But how, when it is so upsetting?

Here is what I found might work if you have self-discipline. When someone disagrees with you, do not consider yourself the defending attorney. Act as if the defending attorney is missing and you have to confront the disagreeing person as if he or she is the prosecutor.

Consider yourself the judge who WANTS to hear ALL arguments in favor and against the subject under discussion so that you can make a reasonable and educated judgment.

So, instead of becoming defensive when someone disagrees with you, it might be wise to ask yourself not WHY, but WHAT are the reasons FOR their disagreement.  What is it he or she is trying to teach you? What is it you missed seeing or considering? You need to know that information so you can make a fair judgment.

You can and should discard any argument you find to be unsubstantiated.  You are the judge, remember. Not the defendant. So you do not have to defend your side of the story, nor should you. You are “above” the argument. If a man or woman who disagrees with you makes better sense, then you—as a judge—render the best and fairest decision possible.  And if you as the defendant (not as a judge) lose the argument, so be it.  You accede with grace…and one hopes, with good humor.

The purpose of the discourse is not to determine who wins the argument, but what the best decision is that applies to the subject at hand.

It is a process in which you—we—wear two hats. One signifies that we are the defendant; the other that we are the judge. Two very different roles…and two different hats.

But if we are aware of the two hats, it can be done. When we present our argument, we are the defendant. When our antagonist speaks, denouncing us, we quickly assume the role of the judge. We switch hats immediately.

Does this make sense to you?

It does to me.

Just thinking.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes