Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 37

On Loving Yourself and Others

There is a common saying: “You cannot love others till you love yourself.” It just occurred to me that in order to love others, it is not enough that you love yourself. You have first to allow others to love you.

I noticed that people who have difficulty showing love to others also have difficulty accepting love from others. They squirm when someone shows affection. They are uncomfortable with intimacy. When a man or woman tries to get close, they find ways to undermine, or even flee the situation. It is too threatening. Too “hot,” and so too dangerous. They invent some lame excuse that leads to escape.

This to me looks like “do not show me you love me, so I do not have to reciprocate.“ The whole experience of a loving relationship here is “outside” the comfort zone.

The result is a most painful dilemma. On the one hand, there is a great desire for love. After all love is a basic human need that we all have. But at the same time, it is frightening: Desperately wanting… and desperately pushing away what we so desperately desire.

One unfortunate result of this conflict we have is that knowing but not knowing, we edge away and marry the wrong person, a person who cannot show love either. Or we marry someone who loves, but we push him or her away and reject his or her love repetitively… In both cases, it is to the detriment of having an intimate, caring marriage.

What is the cause of this behavior? In my experience, it is fear. Apparently, in the past to love or to be loved (for some of us) was an exceedingly painful experience. Not at all filled with joy. But marked by deep wounds and permanent scars.

Of course, I am not speaking hypothetically.

I am afraid this is my case.

I watched the people I loved the most and that loved me endlessly, my grandparents, taken to the trains of Treblinka never to return. We have a name for it: “The Holocaust.” But, the name itself is distancing. My mother as a consequence of the Holocaust had repetitive, periodic heart attacks, which proved not to be a real heart attack but something that resembled one, but who knew. Not I, a child, who only feared that he, would lose his mother as well.

So love for me is very scary. People you love, or who love you, disappear. So, better to close your heart to survive. Or treat those that show love with suspicion.

But is this just my problem or the problem of holocaust survivors in general? And if so, what are the socio political repercussions of this trauma? Any impact on the so called peace talks Secretary Kerry is trying to mediate now?

Just thinking ….

 

Sincerely…

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Analyzing Vladimir Putin’s Style

I remember years ago reading about a research project that tried to assess the effectiveness of different styles of leadership. I was a graduate student at the time working for my MBA degree at Columbia University.

The experiment was built around two groups of children and two school teachers. A very stern teacher, a real taskmaster, led one group; a more laissez faire teacher led the other.

In both groups the children had to put some toys together and the researchers measured which group was more productive.

At the end of the experiment they found conclusively that the children led by the stern, autocratic teacher produced more toys. The test was over; the results tabulated. And then something unexpected happened. When the teachers left the room the children taught by the autocrat destroyed all the toys they had made.

I was reminded of this research during my recent consulting experience in Russia.

I was working with a very authoritarian corporate president. At every meeting, he was the only one to speak. Occasionally one of his managers or staff members would ask a question. But never ever did anyone in the room disagree with him; or even show any discomfort with what he said.

I should add these were not some low level executives. They were in the multi-million dollars annual compensation level. Nevertheless, absolute silence. They never argued with him, Never challenged. Never ever disagreed.

When I developed the president’s trust I dared to coach him. I asked him if it would be ok in the next meeting to try something different. He would remain silent and give his managers a chance to speak. To see what might happen. Let us capitalize on the brains of Russian managers, I said. After all you do not use their knowledge if you do not let them speak.

He agreed.

And then all hell broke loose. I literally could not control the group. I have been able to control the cabinets of several nations, and, in more than one instance a Prime Minister. But not here. The participants constantly interrupted each other, and refused to follow my rules of how to conduct the meeting. It was not group dynamics as I have known it in the past. It was chaos. Worst group experience of my life.

The President took over the meeting. He immediately screamed at everyone in the room and order returned. Instantly. Than he told me: “You see. People here are not used to working as a team. Democracy is not in our DNA.”

Russia has never had democracy. Participation based on mutual respect and trust, which are the values and cultural platform on which democracy operates, is alien to its culture.

The fact is the transition from an autocratic style to a democratic style is not a simple two-step. The transformation can even be dangerous if not done correctly. Chaos and anarchy are likely to follow. I mean, the result can be disastrous; it can lead to a dangerous disintegration.

Last year, President Putin opened a seminar at which I was a speaker. I sat about ten yards from him and watched him speak. Felt his energy.

I would not like to be on a dark street with him unless he were on my side. The man does not smile. He vibrates energy that says: “do not mess with me or else…” Basically he is very powerful and thus dangerous, if he is an adversary.

How much of his style is related to his personality and how much is it a reaction to the culture that demands it, I do not know. But there is an interplay between his personality and the fact that to maintain leadership he has to act in a way that “the crowd” expects.

In Russia they do not respect non-authoritarian leaders. The late President Boris Yeltsin is considered a clown, and people I spoke to in Russia have no respect for him. They view him as the leader who destroyed the Soviet Union. Gorbachev who is another “friendly” leader (in style) is not respected either. Medvedev, who is open and seeks democratization within Russia, is considered a lightweight and weak.

It is Putin people respect. He is strong. He is decisive. He is tsarist.

How much of Putin’s dictatorial, autocratic style can be attributed to his genes, to his innate personality, and how much is a response to what people expect, is not yet clear to me. But I believe that Putin is caught in a trap. Even if he wants to change, he cannot do it easily.

From my vantage point working often in Russia the past two years, the West is judging him harshly, ignoring the culture within which he operates and the limitations it places on him.

Just thinking

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Growing and Fixed Pies

Okay, the title is a bit of a teaser. “Pies”, in this instance, are a serious business. When I use the term “a fixed pie,” I am referring to a belief system that assumes that if someone has a bigger piece of the pie, others have less.

Have you ever seen children fight over a piece of pie? When one child’s slice is larger, the others complain. (Mostly observed in countries where abundance is rare).

A “growing pie”, is based on a different assumption. Here the reasoning is, “you can have more of the pie if you contribute to make it bigger.” Presumably, the greater the effort and contribution, the larger the pie; and therefore the more there is for everyone.

Look at the culture in America. At least in the past, it was “a growing pie” culture. One was not suspicious or resentful if someone succeeded financially. On the contrary, people viewed “the winners” as models to emulate. Why? Apparently, the culture was one of a “growing pie.” Their efforts and performance increased “the pie”, and more was now available for everyone. Thus, the expression, “in America, the sky is the limit.”

Compare it to a nation where scarcity dominates; or has dominated in the course of its national history. There, if you are an entrepreneur, others try to place sticks in your wheels. To derail you. To demote you. Why? Because if you are too active, too successful, you will take a bigger piece of the pie and there will be less for others. At least that is the perception. (I am aware that the culture in America is changing from “growing pie” to something that more resembles a “fixed pie”, culture).

It does not seem strange then that entrepreneurs immigrate to countries where a “growing pie” culture is dominant, fleeing a society defined by “fixed pie” attitudes.

The concept of “a fixed pie” is not just played out in competitive business circles. It appears to me it stretches all the way to personal relations between the sexes.

It occurred to me recently that men who need their women to be submissive, —macho men— probably believe, subconsciously, that  “the pie is fixed.”

If a woman, for example, attains more success and receives more plaudits, the macho man suddenly fears his stature has dwindled. Less “pie” for him. He probably thinks that if he treats her with respect, he will be less of a man. He tries to conceal his emotions and show no vulnerability. And at all costs to keep the woman under control. Do not let her feel superior in anything and if possible “keep her pregnant and barefoot.” (This form of machismo is often conditioned by cultural experience.)

A man who believes instead that life consists of an “emotional growing pie”, rather than a fixed one, recognizes, or perhaps assumes, that the more we do for one another, the more there is for each one of us. The result: he is not afraid to admire or serve or show love; he is not apprehensive about supporting his partner. None of this makes him less of a man. Deep inside he believes the same treatment will be reciprocated. (Probably the same analysis applies to macho women in their relations to men).

It appears to me that the “fixed pie” syndrome is more prevalent among men while the “growing pie” characterizes more women.

But what happens if one partner believes in a “growing pie” and the other in a “fixed pie”?

The “fixed pie” person will suspect the love and attention; something will nag at him. There is something wrong here. He becomes confused. He asks himself, why do I deserve this treatment, all this love? My partner must be a weakling; or worse, a sucker. I wonder what she is planning. I had better be on my guard.

I have seen a variation of this pattern in Russia where I have been working the last few years. In Russia where a “fixed pie” culture seems to prevail, if a salesperson smiles while serving customers in a store, the customers become suspicious. Why is the saleswoman smiling? What trick or hidden agenda does she have up her sleeve?

A society or a couple can change their attitudes from a fixed to a growing pie culture. But it requires trust; “I let you make change happen, and as a result have a bigger piece of the pie, because I trust the pie will grow.” “I trust that because of your efforts I eventually will have a larger share of the pie too.”

Without trust the reverse can happen, the culture can change from a “growing pie” to a “fixed pie“ culture. Fear rather than faith controls behavior. And the greater the fear, the more obstruction to entrepreneurial initiatives and the pie suddenly looks not only fixed but as though it is becoming smaller and smaller which only increases the fear to the point where social warfare takes place. And in personal relations it leads to an acrimonious divorce.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Meaning of Money

What is “money”?  For some people, “money“ is a means of survival. It enables them to place food on the table, provide for shelter and pay for medical expenses when the need arises. Often these are the people who earn very little and struggle to make ends meet.

However, what about those who have much more than what is needed for food, shelter and medical care? Here money plays a different role. For some, it becomes a measurement of self-worth: “Can you believe how much they are willing to pay for my services?” For others, money serves as a form of displayed wealth, a way to gain respect and status in the eyes of others.

Money can also function to allocate scarce resources, like time. You raise your fees so that only those who can pay receive the desired service. Money serves as a screening vehicle. This is done with any scarce resource, not only time: jewelry, diamonds, gold etc.

Money can be used also to secure people’s cooperation. You can use money to solve a problem, which without money, would be difficult to attempt.

The above are the usual explanations of money’s value. I came across two meanings given to money that I was not aware of before that I want to share with you.

Ladd, a friend of mine who is quite wealthy, though you would not know it because he does not display it gives the following “meaning“ to “money:”

“It gives me the freedom to choose”, he says.

Hmmmm. The more money you have the “free-er” you can be to choose what you want to do, when you want to do it, and with whom you want to do it. More money means having more choices.

However, there is a catch in this interpretation. The more choices you want to have, the more money you need. However, to have more money means to work more hours and expend more time and effort to earn it. It can consume you, which of course can cut down on your choices; time is no longer at your disposal and with less time, your choices narrow considerably.

This meaning of money has validity then –to my way of thinking– for those men and women who have the strength of character to say: “Enough. I have enough money to make freely the choices I desire. No more choices. Thus, no more money needed. Enough.”

Sounds good but not easy to do because money has an addictive character: those addicted, the more they have, the more they want to have; therefore, they are enslaved to money.

A very rich client (one of the five hundred richest men in the world) told the meaning of money that I find particularly appealing to me. He explained that for him the value of money is determined by how much he enjoyed something; thus, this determined how much he spent.

Think about it. Money’s value is related to how much pleasure you derive from it. Therefore, to enjoy it, you have to spend it.

Take someone who made millions, but in his heart feels poor. He has great difficulty spending his money. Therefore, he lives very, very modestly at a standard of living commensurate with a person who has one hundredth of his net worth. How much money does he have? Only as much as he enjoys it. For that, he has to spend it.

Money in the bank has no meaning unless you derive pleasure simply from counting it and getting a sense of satisfaction and self worth by the magnitude of your assets.

Tell me how much you are enjoying your money, and I will tell you how much you really have. Money not used is like money not had. It is just a number. When you die, it will go to the government and to your children who will enjoy it. So who is really the rich one here? Who really has the money? Those that enjoy it.

Once in a private airport, I met someone who had an enormous hangar for his planes. He had a large executive plane and a small one as well; and then there was his small helicopter and this grand one… I asked him why he needed so many flying machines. He looked me in the eye and said, “If you do not spend it, they will.”

However, is the only answer than to spend the money for self-enjoyment? Or maybe, you can spend it in a way that you will enjoy it doubly.

Yes, there is a way to enjoy money by giving it away that can be highly gratifying. I refer to philanthropy. It gives you an opportunity to change people’s life for the better. And to make a difference. Now not only you are enjoying your wealth but others too. Money has now a multiplying effect.

You are as rich as how much you give to others who need it more.

My Conclusions: Money should be a measurement of self-worth, should give you the choice and freedom to do what your heart wishes, but how wealthy you really are is a function of how much you enjoy using your money, and the most gratifying use is when it is used to meet other peoples’ needs too.

Just thinking…

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Travel Report: Russia during the Crimean Crisis

When the Maydan revolt started, I published a blog applauding the revolt and called for the impeachment, if not imprisonment, of the corrupt president.

This blog went viral in Ukraine. Subsequently, translated into Russian, it went viral in Russia.

I received e-mails from American friends telling me they were worried about my safety, particularly if I visited Russia now. My support for the revolution was against the official line of the Russian government, and my friends felt my dissention will put me in danger if I go.

I made the trip anyway.

Upon arrival, I found Moscow busy as usual. No evidence of stress due to the Crimea crisis. The Russian opposition was dissenting and the political climate was not much different from my previous visits.

During the course of my lectures in Russia, I met over 300 executives. I was not only in Moscow, but also in Samara, a city two hours away by air. So, I had exposure to more than just the Muscovites.

What did I learn?

The Russians are concerned about what the world thinks of their country. The questions constantly repeated to me were: “What do you think of Crimea? Will the world isolate us? How long do you think this criticism of us will last?”

People throughout Russia do not want to be ostracized and do not want to be perceived in the way that they were during the Soviet era. Rather, they wish to be members of the world community. And, they are very much concerned about their economy.

Some young people I talked toeven participated in a march against the annexation of Crimea. They felt all this nationalistic talk was anachronistic; they did not consider it a big deal if Russians were part of Ukraine.

Overall, the common denominator was that rank and file Russians were now more concerned about their material well-being and their standing in the world community (they fear they will need now more visas to travel than they had to secure before) than about political convictions.

But, pride is still a major force.

It is pride that drove Putin to annex Crimea. He even said it in his speech: Russia would not lower its head in shame and abandon the Russian population of Crimea if Ukraine chose to join the EU. And that pride itself played a major role was indicated by the polls which showed that his actions were supported by more than seventy percent of the Russian population.

Crimea annexation was not meant as primarily restoring the Soviet territory back to Russia. I find Russia not interested in geographic expansion. Russia has enough trouble with the territories it already has. It is also big enough. It was a reaction to what the Ukrainian government did. They forced Putin’s hand. He had no choice but to act the way he did.

Why?

Because the Crimean Russians would not join the west and NATO against their homeland. And Putin, for his part, could not abandon them. It is a matter of Russian pride; of Russians unwilling to be humiliated.

If the new government of Ukraine would have announced that Ukraine would not join the EU, there would not have been a Crimean crisis. I am convinced of this. The Maydan revolution was against Yanukovich, not against Russia. And, the Ukrainian government should have said this.

It is water under the bridge now, and the confrontation is in full swing. The west is sanctioning Russia and western politicians are full with condemnation of the Russia move.

Why this attack on Russia by the West? Is it for breaking international law? Violating territorial integrity? This certainly did not prevent Western powers from encouraging the breakdown of Yugoslavia. It did not discourage the recognition of the separation of Kosovo.

Ah, history is written by the winners… And, here the powers, the Western powers, dictate which disruptions of international law are acceptable and which are not…

I attribute the Western reaction to Crimea as a remnant of the fear dating back to the Soviet era. It is a lingering anxiety that is related to the past, a time when Soviet communism threatened to bury us, and when its political leaders had the zeal to destroy our way of living. Old memories do not die easily.

Americans and Europeans still equate Russia with the Soviet Union, although most of the Russian populace tries to shed as much of that past as possible. They want to disassociate from it. Expanding the communist credo is for them passé. However, the warmongers in the west miss the excitement of the cold war. And, they recognize that it is easier to harvest votes when they drum on old fears.

It is time the world realizes Russia and the Soviet Union are not one and the same. I myself made this mistake as well. As a child in Yugoslavia, I learned many what I thought were Russian songs (Yugoslavia at that time was aligned with the Soviet Union). When I first came to Russia, I offered my hosts to sing some of them. They froze. They showed they were not too happy. I wondered why, “These are Soviet songs they said, not Russian.”

Overall, I think that there is a peculiar imbalance in the relationship between Russia and the United States.

Russians neither reject nor fear America, but Americans still remain hostile to Russia. In Russia, I find everyone is eager to learn English. Business schools that copy American business education are appearing everywhere, just like mushrooms after the rain. American music dominates the urban environment, blaring away in every restaurant. American culture is everywhere. American movies show on multiple channels on TV. Stores carry American products and young people follow American fashion.

In addition, today’s Russia recognizes private property and has a stock market. Everyone is chasing opportunities to earn more. I find Russia culturally more capitalistic than USA; the eagerness to gain materialistically is overwhelming. True, the economy is dominated by several major holding companies; economic concentration is high, but the same was true for the United States during its era of industrialization. It will be a passing period for Russia too. And, the corruption everyone talks about will pass as well. I find there is a correlation between corruption and change. Any country experiencing disruptive, major change, has some degree of corruption. It is present today in China, India and Brazil. So, it is in Russia and so too was corruption ever-present in the United States at the beginning of its industrialization in the nineteenth century. It will pass for Russia as it did mostly for the USA (Why change and corruption are correlated calls for another blog. Look out for it soon).

Culturally then, and in terms of market mechanisms, America’s system has won. This Americanization will spread to the political arena too. Just give it time.

What then is so un-American about Russia that makes it “the enemy?”

True, people are not free to criticize the government too much, but it is not that different from Singapore where one party dominates the scene and criticism is not welcome. Nor is China much different.

Is it the authoritarian regime of Putin? But, Russia has been authoritarian throughout its history. It will take some time for the Russian bear to change. But a very long period of time? I doubt it. Today’s Russian yuppies were born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is a different generation from those who were fed communist slogans and principles. Russia’s young people do not even recognize songs from the Soviet era. And now a new generation changes not every thirty, but every ten years. So give Russia ten, max twenty, more years and within two more generations this authoritarian culture will change. It has to. The TV, the movies, the media, the Internet will see to it: a democratic culture will spread.

So, we are back to the puzzle of rejection (of Russia) by America and Americans. Why? An authoritarian regime in Russia? This does not seem to stand up either, for the rejection or the fear. Has not America supported other totalitarian leaders? So, why single out Russia so much?

Perhaps, it is the human rights violation record. But let us be honest. How good is the American human rights record with Guantanamo prison still active? And, has the USA not supported regimes that had a terrible human rights record anyway? How about Chile during the Pinochet regime?

So, where is this anti-Russian sentiment coming from? Why single out Russia as the devil incarnate?

Is it that Russia does not always support American interests and has its own political interests? Syria and Iran would be two examples.

But, is it not some kind of arrogance to insist that we can follow our interests but others cannot? That whoever does not vote with us is against us? And even that does not hold as a convincing argument. China does not vote with the United States all the time at the Security Council and neither does France. But, they are not viewed with the same scorn or animosity as Russia.

I truly believe it is the old Western fears of communism that stand in our way. Fears have a way of becoming internalized, and in the process, shape our attitudes and drive our behavior even though the reasons for those fears have disappeared.

Annexation, or should I say unification of Crimea, had to happen because of the way the Maydan revolution unfolded. The American rejection of Russia because of a past that is not relevant anymore only delays it becoming a democratic society governed by the rule of law (I will eat my hat if Russia expands more).

Bottom line, being in Russia during the Crimea crisis was not as exciting as one would expect. It was bloody cold in Moscow. Below zero. And my knees do not react positively to changes in weather. So, I did suffer on this trip; but I also discovered a delight I did not expect. I found a better cuisine than the French or Italian and, to my surprise, better than even the Turkish cuisine, which is my favorite. It is the Georgian, Gruzinian cuisine. It is so tasteful that it defies description. Full with tasty spices. Healthy food. Lots of vegetables. Strongly, strongly recommended.

I am now on my way to the USA for my surgery… and then on to Mexico City for more work.

Be well, and hasta la vista!

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

What is Truth

Is there “Absolute Truth”?

The expected answer is: for sure!

Science is all about finding and proving The Truth.

But Newton physics was the truth only at its time. It is challenged today. So is Einstein’s theory of relativity.

So, is there an absolute sustainable truth?

I would say the truth is any concept agreed upon by all humanity at a point in time. It is sustainable only if and when we can freeze time.

Assume we assembled every human being into one large hall. They debated the meaning of x and came to an agreement. And then time froze. Nothing could change. I would say they found THE truth on that subject.

Since time cannot be frozen, and all humanity cannot debate a subject and arrive at a consensus, there is no absolute truth. Only subjective and temporary truth.

I am always intrigued when a person in a debate claims a monopoly over truth. “That is the truth”, he asserts.

We do not know what the truth is. No one knows. We each have our own belief about what constitutes the truth. But that belief can change over time or when confronted with compelling arguments.

All “truths” are subjective. Absolute truth is a theoretical construct which will never be realized.

If you agree with the above it should make you more flexible, open to opposite points of view, during an argument.

You cannot and should not sequester yourself in a “bunker of self-righteousness.”

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Video: Dr. Ichak Adizes speaks at the 2014 Sberbank Business Breakfast , Davos

 

Watch this video on YouTube.

 

 

Ignoring Culture in International Conflicts: the Case of Crimea

Some time ago, I was watching a YouTube video where General Zeira, head of Israeli military intelligence during the Yom Kipur war, was testifying and de facto confessing, why he made the mistake of not alerting the military command of the impeding surprise attack of Arab countries.

He said that a major mistake of Israeli intelligence analysis was not to take into account Arab culture. And the culture he was referring was Arab pride.

The Arab countries were defeated and humiliated by the Israeli in the Six Day War and the wars before. They could not live with this shame. They had to do something.

Kissinger understood this well. When during the Yom Kipur war the Israeli crossed the Suez Canal and were advancing into Egypt proper, he threatened Israel with withholding further American support. He requested Israel to stop the humiliation; must give Egypt a way to leave the war without shame.

I am told a certain country, whose name now escapes me, as a strategy, when they surround enemy forces, leave some section open for the enemy to exit and escape. The defeat than is not such that for generations to come the defeat will become embedded in their culture causing the people to demand a replay and revenge.

Now let us analyze the Crimea situation. (I am publishing this blog out of its religiously followed date of publication which is Fridays, because the events in Ukraine are moving faster than I can type…)

Crimea has been part of Soviet Union and given to the Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Khrushchev, an Ukrainian, was in power in Moscow. It is populated sixty percent by Russians. People who speak Russian, identify themselves as Russians.

Kiev, Western Ukraine, without any doubt leans towards joining European Union.

Now let us talk about pride and culture.

Who in his right mind would imagine that Russians in Crimea will agree to join the European Union and turn their back to their homeland, Russia?

Russian people are proud people. Have strong historical, ethnic, cultural ties: Pushkin, Tolstoy, national songs, dances…

I would say it is arrogance for Kiev to believe the Russians of Crimea will go along with Kiev plans for EU that may be even include joining NATO.

Totally unacceptable. It will be viewed by Russians in Crimea and in Russia proper as an act of treason against homeland.

Who could imagine that Russia will allow their ethnic brothers and sisters to be swallowed by EU?

And only because as recently as sixty years ago this enclave which was never before Ukrainian was given away to Ukraine.

Pride, national pride, cultural ties, play a significant role in international confrontations.

Russia has been humiliated with the fall of the Soviet Union. It is not that Russia today wants to have all Soviet Unions territory back. It simply wants to regain its self-pride. To regain its foot. To straighten its back.

What do you think were Sochi Olympic Games all about if not to regain some sense of self-esteem.

To let Crimea and its Russian population be part of EU which is belligerent to Russia is to suffer more humiliation. It will not happen. Cannot happen. They will not accept more humiliation. No way.

What should have happened, (I sent my suggestion on an SMS to a member of the Ukrainian new government, whom I have known for years and who by the way is certified in Adizes methodology)?

I told him: if you do not want to lose Crimea you must announce Ukraine will NOT join EU. Period. It will be NEUTRAL.

I am aware that politics plays an important role for those in power. If this provisional government wants to be elected by the Ukrainians of the western part, they must say that it is their goal for Ukraine to join the EU. But this is not the time for playing politics to stay in power. It is time to tell the truth. To look reality in the eye. To tell the people that reality.

Russia cannot; I repeat, cannot afford to lower its head and accept Crimea and its Russian population going to the West. Cannot. Will not.

It seems to me Kiev has a choice: join EU and have the country be split or keep the country united but for that to happen it has to be neutral.

Yes, I understand international law. Sovereignty and territorial integrity are sacred concepts but when pride and culture come to play, those legalese concepts pale in comparison. Assuming that those legal concepts will be adhered to and that they will save the situation is bloody naive.

I heard and hope this is a false rumor that the Kiev government asked the leadership of Chechnya terrorist movement to come and help Ukraine fight Russia.

This is not putting drops of oil on the fire. This is barrels of oil splashed on the fire. This is going to really ignite Russia and lead to real armed confrontation.

Do not stick needles into bear’s eyes. Especially when it is wounded. This is not a stupid Russian folk expression. We should listen.

Just thinking. And losing sleep.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Quo Vadis Now Ukraine?

It is Sunday, the 23rd of February, 2014. I am reading several newspapers, among them The New York Times, about the daily events in Ukraine.

I believe the commentators are missing the point. I have a different opinion. I have been to Ukraine many times for work and came back just recently after receiving my sixteenth honorary doctorate from their most prestigious university.

The revolution in Kiev is not against Russia. Or to bring the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko back to power, as they seem to imply. Nor is it a revolution that erupted because Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych changed his mind and cancelled his promise to join Europe.

His reversal of a pledge was what ignited the protests, turning vocal dissent into open revolt; speech into action, as the people spilled onto the streets. It was not the cause of all the current demonstrations. It was more like the spark that ignited the fire. All the ingredients for a fire were already in place.

The people in Ukraine were “saturated“; overcome with disgust at the unending corruption. The dire economic conditions of the country while their government was openly stealing the wealth of the country. There was no trust nor respect left for the leadership of the country.

The dissatisfaction, the anger, the hard feelings have been building for years. All that was needed for a “mutiny” was the “spark,” the final straw” that led so many voices to shout “no more” and spill to the streets.

In my opinion the reversal of signing with the European Union was that spark. It could have easily been something else. The ground was ready. The only question was what would ignite it.

I believe President Yanukovych would not have lost his position if he had not made that final mis-step, had not, so to speak, added oil to the fire. When the police started to shoot at the dissenters, the crowds got committed to get rid of him. And not just the crowds. His own party voted him out of power.

If I were to advise the Russian government, I would say embrace the people who are protesting. They are fighting for the right cause, to have a country free of corruption. To support a corrupt leader will not endear Russia to the people of Ukraine. Crimea, granted, has a significant Russian population but to claim that they are in danger from Kiev is an unsubstantiated claim.

If Russia intervenes in Eastern Ukraine, if it exploits the weakness of the West which has no strength to defend Ukraine because of its preoccupation with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, it will only confirm suspicions that Russia supports corruption, that Russia has territorial ambitions. In my judgment it will in the long run lose politically rather than gain.

As to the United States, I would add that this revolution is not pro America. It is a demand for a healthy, honest government. One that can be respected and trusted.

So to the ”cold warriors” in the United States I say, do not try to turn this into a false victory. Do not endeavor to show (falsely) how you succeeded in wresting Ukraine from the bonds of Russian influence.

It will only make life more difficult for the people of Ukraine and in the process will impede their efforts to bring some semblance of order into their own lives. In effect open western meddling and confronting Russia will only add oil to the flames causing the Russian minority in Crimea to demand succession from Ukraine.

As for the people of Ukraine, their best tactic is to remain neutral. To maintain normal, friendly relations with both sides. To choose not to choose either the West or Russia.

Ukraine should become the new Switzerland. Several ethnic groups, several religions, all living in peace, benefiting from both sides of the curtain.

In May, Ukraine should elect governmental leaders who are not politically driven or identified with the East or the West. Technocrats without the slightest taint of corruption. Leaders who can restore order and trust, and by that I do not mean imprison the crop of corrupt leaders. Vengeance addressed to the past will only take energy away from fixing Ukraine’s future.

Ukraine requires a new generation of leaders, leaders who can instill hope. A leadership that is trusted and respected by the nation.

Not East. Not West. Just Ukraine.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

What Causes Trust and its Implications?

I think I have discovered the source of respect. It is embedded in the belief that you can benefit from the person disagreeing with you, that there is something to be learned from the disagreement. As if saying: ”I will respect your disagreement so long as I believe I can learn from it… and so long as you disagree without becoming disagreeable.”

Respect is earned mostly with -and learned from -experience.

The utmost respect occurs when you believe that you can learn from everyone without the need for proof. When your personality is open and curious all the time, you grant respect to everyone.

But what about trust? What makes some people trust while others react with suspicion?

I think I found an answer.

It depends on whether you believe in a growing or in a fixed, or worse, in a shrinking pie.

Let me explain.

A belief in a growing pie is the belief that in the future things will be better. There will be more for all of us. So whoever works hard and contributes to the pie, will only make it grow (which will benefit everyone). And for that reason we will not object too much if he or she is exceptionally rewarded.

A belief in a fixed pie is a belief that what is available is limited, so if someone works hard, it does not mean the pie will grow. On the contrary, if he works extremely hard and by doing so manages to secure a bigger piece of the pie, there will be less for us. Thus, people try to undermine the ambitious worker and make it difficult for him to excel and in doing so prevent him from taking a larger share of the pie.

In a society with a shrinking pie belief system, there is an attempt even to delegitimize anyone who is entrepreneurial, anyone who might claim a larger piece of the pie for himself. (In the Soviet Union, an entrepreneur was a synonym for the word “speculant” and in danger of being sent to a gulag).

In a growing pie culture, I can afford to trust others and yield to their interests, sacrificing my own. Why? Because of my belief in a growing pie. It leads me to believe that if I sacrifice my interests now, for the benefit of the other party, it will enable his efforts to make the pie grow and I will eventually receive a larger share myself.

My point is that trust is not some altruistic and pious notion. It is a form of behavior based on a logical belief system. It is in our self-interest to trust and thus encourage others to work hard and find their reward in a larger piece of the pie because eventually we will receive a bigger piece ourselves.

Let me repeat: It is in our interest to trust.

Some musings about how this applies in my analysis of the United States and elsewhere.

American culture has been based until now on mutual trust (and respect). I am constantly amazed that the IRS at least in the past trusted people to report their income honestly for tax purposes. It does not happen in countries of my childhood, and now I know why. There the belief system is based on the concept of a fixed pie and everyone is checking on everyone else.

In the US, the culture has been defined by an attitude: “the sky is the limit,” and if you work hard you can make it big. Moreover you will be encouraged to do so.

In a fixed pie culture the opposite occurs. If you are too entrepreneurial and stand out, people resent you. They put sticks in your wheel, trying to derail you. It was typical of old Europe.

I think the belief in a growing pie system within the United States emerged out of the vast size of this country and its largely unpopulated regions… There was space and opportunity for everyone. Just work hard.

Today the belief in a growing pie is very much alive in Silicon Valley, in high tech, and on Wall Street. But less true elsewhere in the nation. We read news accounts of the one percent getting richer, while the rest of the country feels their lives are becoming meaner and narrower, and that the pie has become fixed, in fact is shrinking, for everyone else. It is creating strong antagonism against well to do entrepreneurs. Thus the occupy Wall Street behavior. There is increasing animosity against those who have made it.

With a decline in trust internal disintegration begins to set in within the body politic and the society at large. The culture becomes narrower, meaner and the political and economic system itself starts to deteriorate.

Quo Vadis America?

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes