Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 38

Insights Donations

Dear Friends,

I want to tell you about Adizes Graduate School for which i am soliciting your donation.

The school is not for profit and is approved by the State of California to grant Masters and Doctorates in two fields: Academic program for the study of Change Leadership and a Professional program in Organizational TherapyTM. Both are based on and teach the Adizes theory and practice.

Classes are with no more than 6 students, and the professor is not expected to teach. His or her role is to ask questions. It is the students that have to teach each other and find the answers. It is a unique school to learn how to think, how to debate a subject and learn from others who do not agree with each other.

We train people to lead change, to heal organizations and make a better world using the Adizes systemic management theory and practice approach.

With six students per class, it is obviously not economically viable, but a larger class size will make the learninginteraction not viablebecause the class is an ongoing debate carried through the internet. For years, I havesupported it financially. My will has it that my ownership of the Institute goes to the school. But, I am of age, and if there is not any grassroots’ support for this innovative school, which will keep my legacy and teaching alive, it might fold.

Therefore,I turn to you my faithful readers.

Any sum no matter how small, makes a difference.

If you find my blog ever making a difference for you, please donate to AGS.

I appreciate your support.

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

 

Click here to go to donations page.

 

 

 

 

 

On Insights Donations

Dear Friends,

I want to tell you about Adizes Graduate School for which i am soliciting your donation.

The school is not for profit and is  licensed by the state of California to grant Masters and Doctorates in two fields: academic program for the study of change leadership and a professional clinical program in organizational therapy. Both are based on and teach the Adizes theory and practice.

Classes are with no more than 6 students and the professor is not expected to teach. His or her role is to ask questions. It is the students that have to teach each other and find the answers. It is a unique school to learn how to think, how to debate a subject and learn from others who do not agree with them

We train people to lead change, to heal organizations and make a better world using the Adizes systemic management theory and practice.

With six students per class it is obviously not economically viable. But a larger class  will make it learning wise not viable  because the class is an ongoing debate carried through the internet. For years I supported it financially. My will has it that my ownership of the Institute goes to the school.

But I am of age and if there is no grass route support for this innovative school which will keep my legacy and teaching alive, it might fold.

So i turn to you my faithful readers

Any sum no matter how small  makes a difference.

If you find my blog ever making a difference for you, please donate to AGS

I appreciate your support

Ichak kalderon adizes

 

Click here to go to donations page.

 

 

 

 

 

Change and Its Repercussions for Leadership

Presentation made at

The World Economic Forum, Davos,

24th of January 2014

While change has been ever-present for millions of years, today, it has taken on a role in our lives that is far more formidable… and even dangerous. We now tend to find ourselves at a loss, unable to respond (to change) adequately or within a necessary time frame. In short, we are overwhelmed.

Partly, this is because the nature of change has taken on a different face. It has been affected drastically and irreversibly by three factors: speed, frequency and interdependence.

Let me start with speed. Change keeps accelerating with a kind of continuous velocity, that makes it difficult to pause so that we can adapt and adjust to, let alone embrace, the rapid new forces that have come to define us and our society.

It is different from earlier forms of change, not only in terms of frequency and rapidity, but in its very nature. It is multi-faceted. Multi-disciplinary. And very much interconnected. All macro subsystems suddenly seem to overlap, from technology to economics and politics to the socio-cultural environment. And change in one sector of our society delivers repercussions that are felt in other areas within a very short period of time.

Take the internet, a technological innovation which has changed the nature of retailing (an economic impact); of education (a social impact); and of information-sharing which has mobilized people to change governments (a political impact).

This high velocity and interdependence leads to a world that has become increasingly complex, with accompanying problems that are exceedingly difficult to solve. The solutions themselves require approaches simultaneously applied by men and women from different disciplines. Nor is that always sufficient. Timing is often of essence when making a decision today, because by the time a solution is at hand, ready for implementation, the environment has already changed. Many of the facts (and situations) have become outdated or irrelevant.

When change occurs we need to make a decision. Often quickly. What shall we do about the “new event” that was caused by change.

Since it is new, there is by definition uncertainty confronting the decision maker.

The decision made needs to be implemented and that means undertaking risk. It might work. It might not.

In this new complex environment we live in, then, uncertainty and risk are heightened significantly. They have caused the demise of many corporations. Corporate leaders, deprived of what they consider sufficient advance notice, have suddenly found themselves awash in trouble faster than anything they experienced in the past.

The same pattern applies to nation-states. I leave you to fill in the names of countries.

The result is CEO’s and heads of state alike are faced with totally new forms of complexity without past experience to guide them.

The latest American financial crisis is a case in point. The crisis came as a surprise. No one expected it. Neither the Department of Treasury, nor the President’s Economic Council nor the Central Bank.

The US Federal government was forced to change its policies every few days. Why? Because it did not have a clear road map or understanding of the complexity of the situation. There was no ready solution, or even a formula at hand. It soon became clear that economic answers to the problem had unfortunate political and social repercussions. A solution that was palatable economically was viewed as impractical, if not unworkable, because it had political repercussions.

It should be noted that the problems confronting The European Union are even more complex inasmuch as they concern multiple nations, each with a different political form of governance and set of national interests, a separate national culture and its own cycles of change. Each nation is coping separately with an economic crisis that in practical terms ties them all together.

Is there a way to decrease the uncertainty and the risk?

From my experience of over forty years in consulting to corporations and leaders of countries, I would say emphatically, yes, there is.

On the corporate level, the starting point requires a new way of thinking, particularly with respect to organizations and the structure of leadership. Traditionally corporations structure their organization around a single leader. But today’s complexity requires a complementary team of managers and collaborative leadership, rather than a single voice, joined together to find solutions to problems that can quickly cause a company to go under. This is really a profound change in our present day construct of leadership and its importance cannot be overemphasized. It involves composing a team of creative entrepreneurs, risk adverse professionals and task-oriented technocrats who are cognizant of the importance of making and  implementing the decision in a timely fashion, and of  working collaboratively to arrive at a solution.

Why a complementary team? Because their different styles, and different judgments cross-pollinate one another. They begin with different ways of knowing (and understanding); and by complementing one another they reduce the degree of uncertainty. In the end they improve the quality of the decision itself.

Compare that to a decision rendered by say a single entrepreneur presiding over a task force under his or her command. He or she will probably make a decision with less information than a risk averse professional requires. On the other hand if the corporate leader is himself a risk averse specialist making the decision alone, he will take longer to decide… and the timing itself will likely be flawed.

In brief, complementary teams rather than single leaders turn out to be a far more effective way of leading corporations in times of complex change.

Now, what is needed to reduce risk?

Usually multiple groups (within a government or a corporation) are necessary for efficient, timely implementation of a decision. The problem is each group has its own interests. If the interests collide and there actually is no common interest, the probability that the decision will be implemented correctly is drastically reduced. The greater the degree of diversity in interests   among the necessary groups, the more difficult the implementation of a solution.

Let me restate:

In a chronic, accelerated, complex, changing environment, to make effective policy decisions, a complementary, collaborative, leadership is required. It in turn needs to be capable of building coalitions to secure common interests among the necessary parties for efficient implementation.

The above factors are necessary, but not sufficient since they carry a burden. On a corporate level a team of leaders with different styles seeking a common interest inevitably means that there will be conflict. From experience we know it is bound to happen among the interested parties, in part because of their different style.

On a macro or nation state level, there will be conflict too: the opposing political parties do not necessarily collaborate constructively. We recognize this in the acrimonious relationships between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Their actions hamper the government’s ability to function. In addition the nation’s interest groups —in the US, for example, the industrial military complex, and in other countries, the Trade Unions— make it extremely difficult to reach common agreement on interests and needs…  See France, Greece. Spain.

How to make it work?

This is going to sound over-simplified. It is not. Far, far from it. I have devoted over forty years of my professional life studying what works when it comes to managing change effectively and efficiently, within corporations as well as governments. It is not a simple concept. It is simplified so it can be implemented. It has been tested successfully with hundreds of corporations worldwide and to a lesser degree with governments.

What is required at this point within the complementary team, up and down the corporate and political ladder, is mutual respect. (Respect, as Emanuel Kant said, means to recognize the sovereignty of the other party to think differently.)

When there is mutual respect there is a willingness to learn from each other. There is a greater tolerance for differences in opinion. Without arguments and collaboration shaped and governed by respect, a faulty and wrong decision will emerge and lots of energy will be wasted; or else —just as harmful— decisions will be deferred, bringing corporate and/or national decisions to a halt. Just like the latest budget debate in the American Congress.

To deal with the conflicts, which can be destructive when multiple interests are involved, is a bit more difficult. Mutual respect is not enough. Here we also need mutual trust.

Trust means that if I yield my interest now for the benefit of another group, in time I will be rewarded. It is based on a belief in a “growing pie:” there is enough for everyone and giving up now on some point is worth doing because it will help the pie grow, and eventually there will be more for us too.

When there is trust there is collaboration. Decisions are implemented in the spirit in which they were made, and the risk is thus lower. When there is an absence of trust, collaboration ceases, and decisions are made in the context of a different frame of reference, which unfortunately only increases the risk.

It bears repeating: Mutual Trust and Respect reduces uncertainty and risk in decision-making and implementation.

What is the role of leadership then?

To create an environment, to develop and nurture a culture of mutual trust and respect within the system, be it a corporation or a government.

Look at the world around us. What does Switzerland have in terms of natural resources? Or Japan? Practically nothing. Nevertheless both countries by and large have enjoyed economic success.

On the other hand take South Africa. It has enormous resources in gold and diamonds, but its economic success is limited at best.

What is the difference?

The culture. A culture of MT&R.

When there is MT&R, there is cooperation and collaboration and the system not only survives, but prospers at all levels, whether it is a family a corporation or a nation.

I was asked recently by several government leaders for a proposed solution to the latest economic crisis.

My answer was: whatever you do, do not lose the trust and respect of the nation, which is to say, the trust and respect of the people.

I believe that trust and respect are the most important assets a government, indeed a system on any level, can possess. They are the most difficult to develop, and the easiest to lose.

The reality is that trust and respect are threatened by change. Why? Because change increases uncertainty and risk, and thereby tests our trust and our respect for one other.

It appears that politicians in general are losing the respect and the trust of the populace. Worldwide. I attribute this to the rapid rate of change which politicians have deep trouble responding to with any success. For them, it is a constant struggle. The problems keep getting   more complex every day; and with the complexity their popularity keeps getting lower, falling day by day.

The repercussions can be catastrophic. Not just loss of power for the leaders; but loss of power for the state as well.

It is probably a truism by now: the greater the rate of change the more acute the conflicts. In the twentieth century more people were murdered by other people than in the entire history of mankind. What will the twenty-first century bring with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and /or weapons of mass destruction?

We should ask ourselves: Is the world marching to its destruction or to the Age of Aquarius? I suggest that it depends upon whether MT&R among nations, people and religions will be the guiding compass or not.

A related conundrum confronts us on the corporate level. Which corporations will succeed and which will go under? Again, I would say that it depends whether MT&R can help solve differences between management, workers and stockholders, and whether in the end a unity of interests can be produced. One factor that made Germany successful in recent decades was the collaboration of management and workers through the system of co-determination.

The more collaboration the better in time of change.

It is important to recognize these realities. Change is a centripetal force. Technology has brought the world closer together. But without MT&R change becomes a centrifugal force too. And not easy to control.

Today the conflicts between political parties are particularly bitter. And conflicts of interests increasingly drive people and political parties farther and farther apart, without much hope of a collaborative solution. Trust is rapidly disappearing. And disintegration within corporations, the silo phenomena, is a repetitive syndrome.

Political leaders in democratic society have for the most part become prisoners of the polls. They find themselves constrained, unable to take positions that they recognize are necessary for the health of the economy. The pressure groups within the society are too vocal, and our new social media galvanizes the voters to respond immediately and emotionally to the latest pressure. See Greece. See France.

In the face of this broad ranging decline, destructive conflicts have begun to assume a dominating role, which in turn appears to be opening the door to totalitarian leadership.

What is the solution?

The democratic system designed hundreds of years ago does not seem to be responding well anymore to the challenge that chronic and complex change poses.

The remedy on the macro level then is to reconsider how democracy should work given the chaotic environment we live in. It needs to be reconstructed. Along what lines? I am afraid that is another paper, or at least an extended talk that will try your patience. I can say, however, that the restructuring begins with developing paths towards mutual respect and trust. It will require structural and educational changes which will mean a paradigmatic shift in our value system.

On the corporate level, with respect to leadership, education and training, MBA schools need to re-design their curricula, so they move away from concentrating on individual leadership and begin to emphasize the necessity of collaborative management and team-work. So that the curriculum begin to focus on ways to construct coalitions whose main goal is to achieve common interests.

Major changes in our environment call for major changes in how we manage.

Thank you.

 

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

One More Time: On Duality

A peasant walks to the market holding a rope in his hand. Tied to the end of the rope is a cow.

People stop and ask him: “why are you tied to the cow?”

“I am not tied to the cow “; he responds, “The cow is tied to me.”

“Well if you are not tied to the cow, why don’t you let go of the rope?”

“I can’t. If I drop the rope, I will lose the cow!”

This is a Buddhist parable.

What it says is that what we control, controls us.

I repeat. Often we believe that by controlling something we are buying safety; that we have gained freedom. Why? Presumably because we now control the situation. But just the opposite is true. The more we control, the more we in turn are controlled.

Take the founder of a company who is afraid to lose his business. He or she is obsessed with the idea of control. But in reality, he has become the slave of what he is trying to master.

Interesting to me is the moral of the story: Do not try to control anything, and nothing will control you. But by letting “others” be free, you yourself are free.

Whatever you touch, touches you. So, if you do not want to be touched, do not yourself touch.

A coin always has two sides to it, but it is the same coin.

Take another case.

Cost and value are also two sides of the same coin: There is no value without cost, and every cost has a value.

Yes, every cost has a value. Think about some bad experience you have had. Now rethink what value you gained from it? Here are some possible examples: A woman is fired from her job. In retrospect, it turns out to be the best thing that happened to her. It has led her to start a business of her own and build an empire which she would not have done had that “unfortunate experience“ of being fired not occurred.

Or a man goes through the terrible, painful experience of divorce, only to “grow up“. Because of the experience he has become a wiser and more caring person. He is changed for the better in a way that could not have happened without the divorce.

And the reverse is also true: every value has a cost. Think for a moment. You are enormously successful, the beneficiary of an incredible career.

Now, analyze what it has cost you. What sacrifices you have had to make.

Life is like that: There is always duality. White is lack of color. It is not a color by itself. Hate is lack of love. Again, two sides of the same coin. It is not two different things. It the same thing, with one being the lack of the other.

The only thing which itself is one, and not a duality, is God.

Is that true?

Just thinking aloud…

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

The Ukraine Uprising: Analysis

I have been to Ukraine numerous times. Lectured there. Received honorary doctorates from their Universities. Published books and articles in Ukrainian. Worked with Ukrainian business executives and their managers. But in all my experience working worldwide, I have never heard of or come across such blatant, open, shameless, corruption as I have encountered in Ukraine.

Don’t misunderstand. I know there is a lot of corruption everywhere. Even in the United States. Even in my home city. If you want a license to build a house in Santa Barbara you need a permit, which might take a year or more before it is approved by the bureaucracy. So you hire a “middleman” who used to work at the department of urban planning and who knows the ropes. He is called an expeditor, and for a fee will make sure that your request for a license is granted in less than a year.

To me that is corruption… though everyone considers it a normal way of doing business.

There is corruption of course in every nation-state. You will find it in Israel, in India, in Brazil. Name any country and you will find traces of corruption. But Ukraine is a different story. It represents a paradigm shift in the magnitude and nature of corruption. A sizable jump to a different level of corruption that places it in a league all of its own.

I was told but did not validate that in Ukraine you could get a medical degree for a fee. Just pay a bribe. Same with a degree to parade as a lawyer. Or any other license.

Just imagine going to a doctor to be treated and you have no idea if this “professional” is really trained or just bought the degree… To me this is a nightmare. A total breakdown of trust.

But it does not end there. Government officials will not let you operate in the marketplace unless you pay a fee for protection; in this case protection from them. In its own way this is a system patterned after the mafia. If you do not pay a significant fee monthly or annually the officials will take over your business. Nationalize it or remove the license to operate. And in many cases they take ownership of the business as well.

During my last trip I was told (after one of my lectures) by a leading business leader who was in the audience how a Western bank lost its investments in Ukraine.

The bank invested a significant amount of money in Ukraine so that it could finance loans. The loans were given to businesses that were either owned directly by the state, or to people very close to leaders within the state, or to those who worked directly for the government itself.

That kind of bias is questionable but in Ukraine they took it one step further. The loans were simply never repaid.

It is useless to sue in court. The courts are corrupt and in collusion with the government.

Unable to collect, the mother bank put its branches in Ukraine for sale at ten cents on the dollar. Lost billions of dollars. And who bought the bank? A member of the President’s family in Ukraine.

It can have another variation of the scheme. The government gives loans to the banks to finance the economy. The bank loan it to businesses owned by those government officials. The businesses refuse to pay back the loans. The bank bankrupts and the government loses its loan but all the money ends in the hands of the government officials via their companies.

Nice scheme, eh? Open. Known by everyone.

The openness with which the ruling politicians take advantage to enrich themselves at the expense of the nation is mind boggling. Anyone who is able to do so takes any assets they can out of the country, and no one in his sane mind is willing today to invest in the country. Ukraine is not going bankrupt. It is already bankrupt as a system.

What to do?

A leading intellectual of Ukraine asked me that question; his name of course has to remain anonymous.

I offered a one sentence response: “The fish stinks from the head, but it is cleaned from the tail.”

In other words, the corruption comes from the leaders of the country. They set the tone. They lead the parade. They are the cause of the stinking situation. Common logic suggests they need to be changed in order for the situation to change.

Good. But who will change the leadership? They will not change by themselves.

Alas, you cannot change corrupt leaders by democratic means, by voting them out of power. Those in power will rig the votes.

External sanctions do not work either. The corrupt leadership makes itself even richer during times of sanctions. They control the black market for the essential goods the nation needs. It is rumored that Milosevic made billions of dollars importing gasoline across the border in spite of the sanctions against Serbia. Being the only supplier he could charge a fortune.

There is only one solution: clean the fish from the tail. The people must rise in protest. And not desist, regardless of the cost in lives, until they have prevailed. They must say, enough is enough and take to the streets. And remove by force the corrupt leaders. To the barricades. To the Bastille.

In Davos where I recently served on a discussion panel I was told that the President of Ukraine threatened to shoot at the demonstrators if they do not disperse.

I said I hope that he does so. The audience gasped.

But shooting demonstrators, one’s own nationals, will infuriate the people and make them even more committed to overthrowing the President and his party leaders. Just the way the Romanians got rid of Ceausescu.

It needs to get real bad before it gets better.

Changing the leadership is only one step towards the rehabilitation of the system. It is not enough. You may cut off the head, but the rest of the body is still infected.

Ukraine needs new leadership that has not been infected by corruption; God forbid the new regime is cut from the same cloth as the old one. The country will slide even further into despair… and it is not only money that will leave the country. Anyone who can walk will flee. (Maybe it was a blessing Ukraine did not join the EU. If people had the right to move freely anywhere in common market Europe, Ukraine would soon be empty of its inhabitants that have any brain to sell.)

It is important to recognize that in an uprising the goal is not only to rid the nation of its corrupt leaders but to make sure as well that their replacement are not corrupt. And the new leaders must understand that cleaning house needs to be their first priority; an end to corruption their first assigned task.

That is never easy.

I believe that bureaucracy is often the cause of corruption. “A hole in the fence calls for a thief” is a Hebrew expression and all countries in transition experience major disruptions that cause “holes” to emerge in the process of governance. That is called bureaucracy. And people are human and some do not have the strength to resist temptation and “crawl through the hole“ to steal. That is corruption.

The new leadership in Ukraine—if one comes into being— needs to re-model the system. To close the “holes” to create accountability and transparency. To remodel the present day bureaucracy rather than only punish those who continue to act corruptly. Not unlike the changes the leadership in the Republic of Georgia did a decade ago. And the changes the leaders of Macedonia are implementing today.

It can be done. It needs to be done. It must be done.

And I pray it will be done.

 

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Getting Older Younger

One of the results of the rapid change we are experiencing in modern times is that people are getting older younger.

Let me explain.

Today, if someone is forty years old in the high tech industry and for some reason is unemployed and searching for work, he (or she) will probably find it difficult to find employment. No one will tell them why, because it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of age. But, the reason is clear: old age. Too old.

My God!!! Too old at forty.

If your professional experience has been connected to the internet or to a web based field and you are suddenly unemployed, you will find that forty is not old, but ancient. Employers are on the lookout for the more recent graduates, men and women in their twenties-those with the latest, cutting edge education.

My son is a musician. At the age of 19, he left college because he claims, in new age music, electronic music (which he writes) if he does not make it by 23, he will have been passed by. Almost obsolete. No chance of making it at all. Too old.

The reason is obvious: change. Social taste in fashion and in music is changing very rapidly. And the new technology— blink and you miss some major development—is driving the change. You must be capable of learning continuously, and learning fast at that. Unfortunately, this ability to learn quickly diminishes with age, and employers do not want to cope with it; do not want the burden of retraining someone.  This is my understanding.

In the past, a generation was considered to be 33 years long.  Today, I suggest to you it is no more than ten years, if not less.

I have six kids. They are 38, 37, 36, 30, 29 and 19. My immediate family consists of five DIFFERENT generations. That’s how many congregate at home over holidays and/or birthdays. Myself is one (76). My wife is a different generation. She is twenty years younger (56). The three oldest children 38, 37 and 36 are the third generation. The 30 and 29 year old are the fourth, and the “baby” at 19is the fifth generation.

How do I know? We speak five different languages. Have five different value systems. Different expectations from life. Different life styles. I am not the only me who says this. The children say that about each other.

This phenomena that we are getting older younger has many repercussions.

Alas, just because one is older does not necessarily mean anymore he is smarter or even more knowledgeable.

I feel like an idiot when confronted with the new electronic devices I can barely handle. I turn sheepishly (or in frustration) to my teenager son who has to explain to me what to do and how to do it. In the process, I feel my authority as a parent slipping away from me. Instead of father teaching son, it is now the reverse: son teaching parent.

Authority gets shaken, if not undermined. And, the hierarchy within the family is fractured.

Nor is it necessarily easier on the younger generation. Today, the pressure on young professionals to make it early or be left behind is much heavier than when I was young.

This generational divide defines major changes which used to take thirty years to unfold and be recognized. Now it takes ten years.

What does this bode for the future? Every five years a new generation? Three years? Being considered too old and “over the hill” at 23… and not just in music, but in fashion, and science and who knows what else? What is the future? Teenagers running the world?

They might know the technology and the latest fads, but emotionally they are not grown up yet.

What we are seeing and experiencing, is the imbalance between emotional maturation and career development.

In my analysis of this phenomena, this roller coaster change is detrimental to us as a society. But, it cannot be stopped. We need to find ways to accentuate the spiritual and emotional development of our children, sooner and faster.

Or else.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

What is the Biggest Asset to Have in a Marriage?

In one of my previous blogs, I quoted professor Tice from Berkeley who said that the most valuable asset a company has is what it cannot sell. And, I totally agreed. Among other things, I believed it reinforced my theory that the most important asset of a company is its culture of MT&R.

I think, however, he operationalized the concept so that it seemed stronger:  the most valuable asset is “what you cannot sell” that works for you.

This phrasing works better for me.  It can be used to analyze the value of an “asset,” but that asset can extend to include an individual’s personality. And his system of values as well… That is not saleable.

Now it occurred to me this morning that I can apply it to a marriage too.

Why get married?  Some people, especially women, marry because the clock is ticking and they want to have children. So a man is a (not necessary but convenient) tool for reaching that goal.

Some marry because they are sexually attracted and want to have a monopoly over their sexual interest.

And some decide to marry because they are lonely now; or are afraid of being lonely when they are old.

Another reason of course is to marry for financial security. Find someone who can be a provider.

All the wrong reasons if we use the formula: “what cannot be sold”. Because what cannot be sold can nevertheless be bought.

You can “buy” your biological children, you do not need to be married for that. Just go to a reproduction center and acquire someone’s sperm.

Marrying for sexual gratification is the most expensive alternative. Sex is easy to buy.

Marrying because one is lonely is also an expensive alternative.

And financial security can be purchased too.

Being alone is easy to solve now; or in old age.   You can do now what most probably your spouse is going to do when you get old: put you in an old age home with a nurse. You can do that yourself, no?

So why be married?

What is it you cannot “BUY”?

It is LOVE.

Love cannot be bought or sold. Affection. Attention. Sex. They all are available on the market, all can be bought and sold. But that feeling of deep, real, honest affiliation, of real belonging cannot be bought. It is not sold anywhere. There is no potion that can do it. Even God cannot give it to you. God can order you to love, which is the first commandment. But He cannot make you do it. God does not even say “love your parents.” Impossible even to order that. God says “honor your parents.”

Love is the quality which is not available from the outside. It has to be available from the inside, and it is the most important quality in a relationship called marriage. It is the most valuable asset.

Everything else… at best, is a passing reason. The kids grow and leave the house. Money comes and goes. Friends scatter around the globe. What is left at the end of the day? Why be married if there is no more love? Pure love. True love.

And how do we know if it is pure, honest love?

Remove from your head all the other reasons why you are married to your spouse.

If you had no children (and no pets you were attached to) and you were broke, or your spouse went broke and stopped being a provider, and there were people to take care of you like a maid or a nurse, would you still be married? If all the reasons disappear, what is left?

All the other reasons for being or getting married are based on FEAR.  Marriage should not be a response to fear. It can and should be only entered into because of LOVE. And only LOVE.

And think of it, love applies to children too. Why have children? In developing countries, they are a source of income for the family. Or they are the insurance that someone will be a provider and caretaker in old age.

These are also reasons based on fear. Unfortunately fear is a reality, completely rational, within a developing country. But it—fear— is not a reasonable response for a man or woman in a developed country. Not with health insurance and an available retirement system.

As for companionship, it is becoming more and more sporadic. In today’s open borders world, especially in the USA, kids scatter all over the globe so that form of companionship is limited to periodic skype calls.

So why have kids? Because they are the expression of your love with your spouse. Because you cannot help it. It is an urge driven by love. (Psychologist say it is a need to reproduce and secure our human continuity. I challenge that. There are too many of us already…)

Is it not sad when kids are conceived out of hate or pure sexual intercourse without love?

So love it is. It is what cannot be sold or bought. But it can be destroyed in a flash. In a second of rage, disappointment or reality testing.

Like all most important things in life, you know their value not by their existence but by their absence.

You do not know the worth of love, health, democracy, until they are absent.

Wish you love in your life.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

“IF”

In my consulting experience, I come across many instances when people in the meeting say “IF” so and so happens than…

And, I find this “IF” to be disempowering. It also does not point or direct us to think actively, proactively at what we will do.

“If” sounds so iffy. It gives me the feeling that the person speaking is not taking responsibility: “If it happens than we will see, who knows…”

Take a wall flower girl. She has no dates. She is lonely. And she might say “IF” someone asks me out than I will…”

“IF” did not built hope. It gave control to the outside world. To external forces, we have nothing to do just wait…”IF…”

Instead of using the word “IF”, I request my clients to use the word “when.”

“When I am asked out I will…”

Can you feel that this second sentence has hope in it, that it empowers…?

This is especially important for bureaucratic organizations when they discuss competition. “IF” competition increases its pressure than we should…” The word “IF “makes the probability of competition eating their breakfast less imminent. Now use the word “when”: “when competition increases its pressure we need to…” The word when is already one of the four imperatives of decision making. When you use the word “when “ you are already planning to do something… The word ”when“ feels much more threatening and thus the probability of the company getting off their seats and starting to do something is much more probable.

Words are not just words. They evoke maps in our consciousness and cause behavior. We have to be careful which words we chose and pay attention if they generate the behavior we want or not.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

On Forgiving Wishes for the New Year

Do you realize that it is easy to forgive someone you do not know very well, while it is very difficult to forgive those you are close to. The closer emotionally that person is, the more difficult it is to forgive. That is why family feuds are so painful and prolonged. That is why divorces are an emotional disaster. And fights among siblings are a war.

Psychologists say that we finally mature when we forgive our parents. All of us have some grudge against our parents. Welcome to the club.  And we hold on to this grudge for years. We see a therapist, maybe several therapists, for years, trying to forgive. It is not easy.  Why?  Because we loved them. Or expected to be loved by them.

Now, who is the person closest to us? Closer than our spouse or child? Closer than brother, sister or parent?

Of course, it is ourselves.

It is very difficult to forgive oneself for whatever we feel guilty about. We suffer the most. The longest.  And if our refusal to forgive persists it can turn into self-hate. Not a pretty picture.

Interesting that all religions promote the idea of “forgiving” and at the same time preach love. How to reconcile those opposing prescriptions since if we love, we will have difficulty forgiving?

But is it always true? Some loving couples do forgive each other. Which means it is doable, to love and forgive, but how?

Apparently the way to reconcile is the sequence by which we love and forgive.

Here is the first sequence: Forgive first. Love second. (“I will love you if I can forgive you “.)

Difficult. It is conditional love. Would not work.

How about the second sequence:  Love first. Now forgive those you love. It works, if it is a true, honest, non judgmental, non needy love.  Like a loving mother forgives a child for whatever…..love is above all transgressions. She forgives because there is no other way; She loves her child unconditionally.

And who is it you are supposed to love first of all as a precondition to forgiving? The insight: love of yourself.

Why?

If you love yourself you will have better chance to forgive yourself and eventually others too?

But why should I forgive myself or others?

It is because of the value imbedded in forgiving.

When you hold onto guilt or blame yourself or others, you wind up spending a great deal of unnecessary and unhelpful energy. It is not positive energy. It “eats you up.”  It makes you sick. It is what I call a source of “internal marketing,” and in the process it interferes with the positive energy necessary for love to flourish.

And the worst “energy sucker,” is hate. It will age us prematurely.  We become ill … and maybe even die. Sometimes by our own hand.

So, love, and love deeply, honestly, so that you can forgive yourself and others.

Do not try to understand. Just do it.  Love without questioning anyone or anything.  No cost benefit calculations. No doubting oneself. Just be loving unconditionally.

And start with loving and forgiving yourself. Loving and forgiving others next looks more probable. 

The Jewish religion is very practical. We have a Yom Kippur. Once a year on that day we fast and pray and forgive ourselves and ask forgiveness of others, and by the time the day is over we are supposed to start the year clean and guilt free.  And during that day long fast, repetitively, we confirm our love of God.

And when we bury our loved ones we tend to be angry with God. Refuse to forgive Him for taking our dear one away and forever. But the religion orders us to give a prayer yitgadal ve yitkadash shme raba where we glorify God and reconfirm our love to God nevertheless:  Love and forgive.  

Interesting how practical the Jewish religion is. Since the religious sages  knew that it is very difficult  to love and forgive, the prayer is in Aramaic, so most people who recite it do  not understand what they are saying .…If they understood they might have difficulty reciting the prayer…..

Life tests the depth of our love each time an event happens that requires forgiveness. Life is one long test of love. Those that pass the test with unwavering love and thus are able to forgive simply live longer.

So:

Have your own Yom Kippur and start every New Year by forgiving everyone and everything. And most of all, by forgiving yourself.  Let us start every New Year free. Free of guilt and full with love.  TO LIVE LONGER.

And on that note may I wish you a long life and a Happy New Year 2014.

Amen

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes

Reflections on Christmas

Tomorrow is Christmas Eve. I am going to a church across the street to celebrate. I am Jewish and I am not converting.

So, why?

I am thrilled and excited that tomorrow night millions of people around the world will celebrate, sing hymns, appreciate, glorify… another Jew.  Jesus was Jewish. Born Jewish. He was circumcised and probably had a bar mitzvah.

We Jews have been prosecuted, murdered and burned at the stake for two thousand years, so it pleases me that at least one evening a year we are appreciated for our contribution to humanity.

And there is a lot to appreciate. Jesus preached and brought a great religion to the world of love and tolerance. Very spiritual. That Jesus believed He was the son of God born out of immaculate conception does not bother me a bit. He is entitled to believe whatever He wishes.  And so can His followers. As long as I can have my own beliefs.

What is important are the values Jesus’ beliefs promote.  And since they promote love, that is what counts for me.

The fact that over the years His followers became “bureaucratic,” stuck to the dogma and forgot the spirit, forgot love and promoted hate, is not His fault. If He were on earth when it took place, Jesus would have denounced them just as He denounced the Jews who were de-sanctifying the temple during His own time.

On that note let me wish you all a

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes