Ichak Kalderon Adizes's Blog: Insights Blog, page 42
May 31, 2013
Denying Death
My good friend Ivan Gabor had back surgery. Done badly enough that he could have sued the surgeon for malpractice. He did not.
When I asked him why, he said: “I do not have much time left to live. Why would I spend the little time I have left in court?�
He did not deny his death. He knew it was coming. Soon. So he spent his life on what counts.
I, on the other hand, I am in denial of death.
When my mother was dying, I ran to be next to her the last days of her life. But, I was not next to her while she was alive.
What is going on?
I deny death. I do not consider it as a possibility to the degree that it affects my actions. It is as if I assumed that since life was forever, what is the rush ? There is time. I will see my Mom sooner or later…I rushed to be with her only when there was no more “later.� Only when told that death was imminent, did I spring to action .
If we do NOT deny death, if we recognize it is coming, our actions will be totally different.
For instance, ask yourself , if the doctor told you today that you have six months to live, would you do what you are planning to do the next six months, or would you say, stop: I have only six months to live, and I do not want to spend them in court, or at work I hate, or with a person I cannot stand?
Our actions depend on whether we project death as a possibility or not.
We fail to do that. At least, I fail to do that.
I think it is too scary to imagine death. And thus, I direct my actions based on a scenario that projects death as being very, very far off. Far enough to be ignored.
It is much more convenient to assume, we will live forever, that there is time, and there is no pressure to make choices . Just let it be and live life as it comes�
Natural but not smart.
The saying “life is short� is not a stupid saying and should be taken seriously. Life is short, and it is not a general rehearsal. There is no second show. That is it. So are we “spending our time in court,� or squeezing the most out of the minutes left being alive?
And when we argue, consider how important is it to win the argument if we are going to die soon anyway. All at once all those interpersonal fights, ego trips, money chasing…everything is dwarfed if death is at the door.
Maybe that should be a thought that governs our behavior. Maybe by accepting the reality of death-truly accepting it, behaviorally acknowledging it-we will make better choices and derive more peace from our life.
I should read and re-read this blog myself and learn it by heart.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
May 24, 2013
The Benefits of Diversity
There is a saying that the most beautiful girls in the Soviet Union were in Ukraine and the most beautiful ones in Ukraine are in Odessa.
Now assume that is true.
Why Odessa?
And why has Israel very beautiful people? And Belgrade as well?
Sweden has beautiful people too, but…and here is the insight.
In Sweden they all look the same. Not true for Odessa. Or Belgrade. Or Israel. Exotic looking. Each one different and more beautiful than the other.
What is the difference and what is the common denominator?
Diversity.
Odessa is located geographically in a place where multiple cultures and ethnic groups passed through or settled. As a result there was considerable inter-marriage and, guess what, exotic, beautiful people emerged.
Same for Belgrade, which is where Turkish influence (five hundred years of occupation) and European culture met.
And Israel is another petri dish of diversity, where the Jews from seventy countries migrated. You have black immigrants from Ethiopia intermarrying with immigrants from Europe.
Diversity creates beauty.
Sameness is boring.
Think of a jungle and compare it to a desert.
What is more alive? Beautiful? Exciting?
Now imagine a jungle penetrated by a foreign aggressive weed that destroys all indigenous flora. Eventually diversity is destroyed and a lifeless environment dominates the scene.
Is radical Islam the foreign weed that is threatening our diversity?
And this dangerous weed analogy does not apply only to radical Islam. It applies to any radical movement that objects to diversity.
Without diversity there is no ecology. And without functioning ecology there is no life.
Aggressive weeds need to be pulled out so that diversified flora can flourish.
We do this when we garden. Does it apply to managing our country?
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
May 17, 2013
The Relationship of Uncertainty, Risk, and Mutual Trust and Respect
I have been wondering for years how those concepts are related to each other.
Here is my insight.
If you will pardon the play on words,, change is constant…which means that something new always makes an appearance; it comes into being.
And, that new entity-I will use a consulting term and call it a “new phenomenon�-needs to be addressed.
We usually call the new phenomenon “a problem� because we need to deal with it, one way or another.
And what does it mean, “deal with it?�
First Step: We must decide what to do, and the emphasis is on decide, and doing nothing counts as a decision.
Second Step: We must implement our decision.
It sounds simple, but do not be fooled.
Sometimes we decide but fail to implement. Think of dieting and exercising.
And sometimes we act, i.e. implement, without deciding. Like becoming angry. We are just angry. We did not decide to be angry.
The point I am making is that these two actions, deciding and implementing , are two separate behaviors.
What is involved in making a decision? Let us assume, for example, there is a problem caused by change. A new baby enters the family; or a new parent. Change the venue. A new CEO or plant manager. Or a change in the market because of increased competition; or new technology.
All of these constitute what we might refer to as change, which produces a new problem.
So now it is decision time.
And when it comes to making a decision about something new, there is almost always uncertainty.
Why uncertainty?
Because there are few guides and less information than we would like. We want to know everything available before we act, before we endeavor to solve a new problem caused by change.
Alas, it is never available until after the fact. Thus, uncertainty.
And what is involved in implementing a decision? Risk. Even if we try to play it safe, some percentage of risk is present. In effect, a decision is not risky till implemented. And I need to repeat, not to act is a form of action and thus risky too.
Why is there risk? Because we are trying to solve a problem that is new, and there is no proven track record guaranteeing success.
The presence (and pressure ) of uncertainty and risk often leads to the conclusion that change is stressful. So it is not strange that we try to resist change as much as possible.
Is there a way to reduce uncertainty and risk and thus make change more palatable?
There is.
Adopt a problem-solving strategy where decisions are made by a complementary team, complementary not only in know-how, but also in their style(s). It is a significant way to reduce uncertainty. For one, the team members will teach each other. They will share experiences and knowledge and a variety of judgments.
For effective implementation they will explore and look for common interests among those whose cooperation is necessary for implementation.
If there is common interest risk will be lower than if there is no common interest. Without common interests there is the possibility that some of those needed for implementation will not cooperate or maybe even sabotage the solution, thus increasing the risks involved.
But, it is not that simple. This is not the end of the diagnosis.
Complementary teams who should learn from each other, and should have a common interest, will certainly have conflicts. After all learning from others who disagree with you is stressful, and an ongoing common interest is a utopian expectation.
Unless there is Mutual Trust and Respect. That is the key.
If there is trust, a culture of give and take, interests will balance over time. There will be faith that common interests do exist.
Respect for each other’s differences is necessary; the willingness to listen to and honor the opinions of others. As we learn from one another, the process reduces uncertainty. Only through such respect can we learn from diversity.
The end result is that Mutual Trust and Respect reduces uncertainty and risk� and in the process enables faster action and paths to change.
Those companies that have a culture of MT&R will adapt to change faster and better than those that do not. They will succeed and flourish in times of change while those without MT&R will stagnate and eventually disappear.
The purpose of the Adizes Institute is to provide the tools for organizations to transform their culture into one that develops and nourishes Mutual Trust and Respect. And in so doing, make the company the champion of its industry and nation as measured by profitability and by loyalty of the employees to the company.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
May 10, 2013
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
If you imagine on your way home that you will have a fight with your wife, when you arrive home and she opens the door, you are already so worked up arguing with her in your head, that it is very probable you will “bark� at her as soon as she opens the door. And guess what. There will be a fight. You predicted it. You caused it.
I have been thinking that this illumination has repercussions for investing in the stock market . Do not study the trends. Do not try to predict the economy. You are opening the wrong door.
Read what the various gurus are predicting is going to happen to the market.
If there is a consensus that the market will go up you can bet it will . Why? Because if people believe the gurus that the market is going to go up, they will start buying stock and as they buy more and more, guess what? The stock market will go up.
A self-fulfilling prophecy.
And that is what is happening to the New York real estate market.
The newspapers, the media (which can be manipulated�), project an upswing in real estate prices. And what happens? People start raising the prices of what they ask for their properties and voila: the real estate prices go up.
What you project-if you believe in it enough-will actually happen. And if we as a society believe in it together, we make it happen too.
If we believe that global warming will happen, it is bound to occur. But if we are convinced we can stop it , our mass inclination will prevail.
What occurs in personal life follows what we individually believe is going to happen; while what occurs in communal life follows what we jointly believe as a community.
Why would I personally try to cut emissions of my car if I believe no one else will; or not enough people will do so to make a difference?
This has repercussions for leaders and leadership. Our leaders or heads of state need to project hope and trust, and in the process build a communal expectation that what is desired will actually happen.
Even if you do not believe it, as a leader you must project belief and expectation if you want change to occur.
Leadership is not designed to reinforce where we are coming from, but rather to project confidently where we should be heading.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
May 3, 2013
Tody que es demasyadu no valle
The above title is a Sephardic, Spanish expression from the Middle Ages, which means : “All that is exaggerated is no good.�
Once I had dinner with a prominent medical doctor. Since I am interested in organizational health, I asked him to define health in one word, if he could.
He said: ”Moderation�.
“Berries are healthy, right? But if you eat only berries you will get sick,� he said.
Now think about it.
To be healthy, we need sleep, exercise and a proper diet.
Now let us exaggerate and over-exercise. Push it further, and then still further, and you can see how a person might become sick.
Same with sleep. Overdue it and you turn into an Oblomov, a fictitious character from 19th century Russian literature who spent most of his life in bed.
How about exaggerating with “the right food?�
Let us start with vegetarians. Now move to the next extreme and you have…vegans; men and women who are like vegetarians, but in addition refrain from eating any animal products, such as eggs and milk.
Push it to another level of exaggeration and you are suddenly in the land of the SOS Vegan, a vegetarian who (on top of animal products like milk and eggs) cuts sugar oil and salt from his diet.
What is next? The raw food enthusiasts who are like SOS Vegans, but will not cook anything, including their vegetables.
Now we are down to the raw food enthusiasts who refuse to eat tomatoes and eggplant because they are considered to be poisonous ( tomatoes in the middle ages were considered poisonous).
If you progress any further, you will wind up eating only berries and the next thing you know, you are anorexic.
In short, pursue health to the extreme and you will become sick.
The wisdom of the Sephardic Middle Ages has its own form of repercussion in politics, as well.
Take the concept of democracy. Free speech. Free political affiliation. Freedom of assembly. And, carried to an extreme, what can result? That an un-democratic party can gain power in democratic ways and destroy democracy. That is what Hitler did.
I believe that is what is happening in Europe today, specifically in the Scandinavian countries, and particularly in Sweden.
In the name of being anti-racist, the Swedish government has changed the constitution so that it is now illegal to have a single Swedish culture. Multiculturalism is now required; it’s the order of the day.
Sounds good. Very liberal. Humanistic.
But does it mean fanatic Islamists can flourish, protected by the constitution and slowly but surely change the country until there is only a single Islamic cultural?
I have a specific concern. The Scandinavians are chasing the Jews out. There are very few Jews left in Norway today, and the same thing is happening in France, where Jews feel increasingly threatened.
Why this phenomenon of moving to extremes?
I believe it is because people want a formula, do not want uncertainty, do not want to think and handle the uncertainty that comes with making a decision. As if saying: just tell me what to do, give me instructions so I do not have to think; (A) behavior. They do not use common sense.
Where is this coming from?
The rate of change.
The greater the rate of change, the greater the uncertainty, people need rules to guide them; to tell them how to behave. Simple rules. Simple directions which provide security and certainty, although when pushed to an extreme, it often leads to results that are opposite the ones intended.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
April 26, 2013
Duality and Oneness
I am intrigued by the concept of duality and oneness.
It appears to me that there is no duality. It only appears that way. There is only oneness. This has interesting repercussions for diagnosing and solving problems.
Look at the moon. It appears that there is the lighted moon and the dark moon. Two moons. Not so, right? It is the same moon. The dark side is where the light does not shine.
By the same token, there is no hate � love dichotomy. Hate is where there is no love. Put love into the relationship and it will diminish hate. Like bringing light to the dark side of the moon; it suddenly turns into…moonlight.
There is no cold-hot dichotomy. It is cold because heat is missing.
There is no rich-poor dichotomy.
Now a question:
Are people poor because they do not have money? So all we have to do is give them money to become rich?
You heard about poor people who won a lottery. For how long were they rich?
Now take a rich person, not one who inherited the money but one who is a self made man. Now take his money away. Does he become poor?
I suggest to you that he is broke but not poor. He has what it takes to regain his financial footing. Being poor is a frame of mind, not only a bank statement.
This approach has repercussions for policy making, for how we treat poverty.
I was just talking to a prominent and knowledgeable man who was recently in Haiti. He says that foreign aid has done damage. All the food coming in as aid is destroying the indigenous capabilities of people to feed themselves.
So giving fish to a hungry man does not make him full. You need to teach him to fish.
The difference between rich and poor is not how much money one has. But rather it is how one relates to money. The frame of mind is as important as possession of tools and information.
There is no effective-ineffective differentiation.
Think: What would you eliminate to make an effective system ineffective? Or better: What would you add to an ineffective system to make it effective?
Take the problem of crime. The dichotomy is crime versus righteous living.
If we agree with the hypothesis of oneness, where one side is the same as the other, but without an ingredient, then crime exists because there is no conscience that governs behavior. In that case, you do not fight crime by punishment. It is almost as if you were saying ,you fight illegitimate crime with legitimate “crime�. You fight fire with fire.
You have to inject what is missing. Crime should be treated by increasing conscience? That is what is missing�
Is it not what Jesus preached: Fight hate with love?
Then there is no God � Devil dichotomy either. The Devil rules when God is absent. It is one and the same conscious energy. One is the absent mirror of the other. When one force is missing the opposite force will take its place. As if the energy is fixed. When positive energy is missing negative energy will take its place. When air is missing a vacuum will replace it.
The more I think about this concept of oneness the clearer the concept becomes. But its application is still elusive to me.
What do you think?
Pick any opposites.
Think what is missing in one opposite that creates the other.
Think whether putting the missing part will change the phenomenon, like bringing light to a dark moon. Or bringing God to chase away the Devil.
Does it work?
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
April 19, 2013
A New Paradigm on Leadership?(1)
I have been observing over the years how the concept of solving problems for organizations has changed its name. First it used to be called administration. Thus the first journal in the field was Administrative Science Quarterly and schools that were training corporate and organizational leaders were called Graduate Schools of Business Administration. The degree granted, MBA, still stands for Master in Business Administration.
When the training apparently did not produce the desired results, the concept of administration was relegated to a lower level or rank within the organization. Administrators just coordinated and supervised, and a new concept was born: management. Gradually at first, and then rapidly, schools changed their name to Graduate School of Management.
Apparently that did not work well either and management was relegated to the middle level of the organization. It lost its appeal and a new word was created: EXECUTIVE. Graduate programs for executives and the concept of Chief Executive Officers was born.
It did not produce the desired results either so once again a new concept emerged: Leadership. And books are now published describing how leadership is different from management.
I believe Leadership is just another fad. Soon, we will have another word.
We are spinning our wheels, searching for an all encompassing concept that will cover the necessary roles for running an organization. We are all looking for the concept, a model that will describe and identify the specific kind of person who can jump start an organization so that it is effective and efficient in both the short and the long run.
The mistake in this way of thinking lies in the expectation: All the roles are expected to be performed by a single individual, whether he or she is called the administrator or the manager or the executive; or now the leader. In reality one person, even someone extraordinary, can perform only one or at most two of the roles required to manage/lead/direct an organization.
For instance, administration focuses on making an organization efficient in the short run. But while administration is necessary, it is also not sufficient if an organization is to perform at the top of its game over the long haul. It’s fine when it comes to efficiency, but fails to account for corporate effectiveness. So the verdict on Administration: Necessary but not sufficient.
The word management was born to address this deficiency. But management excellence falls short as well. It helps make organizations effective and efficient, but only in the short run. The need for long term effectiveness, for entrepreneurship, is all too evident.
Enter executive action. Presumably the entrepreneurial executive makes the organization effective in the long run by being proactive. But soon it was recognized someone needed to reign in the entrepreneur. He was too far out front of the organization. Teamwork is needed and the concept of Leadership became the flavor of the day.
The common denominator for all these failing attempts to define the process correctly is a basic one: The paradigm is wrong. The paradigm assumes that a single individual can make any organization function effectively and efficiently in both the short and long run.
It is this notion of individual mastery on which all theories of management are based, whether we call it leadership or management or whatever new word will emerge in the future.
Let me make the point clearly: An individual who can make decisions that will cause an organization to be effective and efficient in the short and long run does not and can not exist. The roles that produce those results are internally incompatible . The ideal executive does not exist.
In the same way a perfect single parent does not exist.
There is no individual who can excel in performing the whole parenting role all by himself or herself. One person alone cannot be both a father and a mother. It takes a family to raise children well. A complementary team. And if for some reason there is a single parent, that person needs an extended family to help raise the child.
A single leader, no matter how functional, will at a particular point in time eventually become dysfunctional. Over time, as the organization moves its location on the life cycle�- proceeds from early stage success to a booming position within the corporate field�- that single executive will falter; what made him or her successful style wise in the past can be the reason for failing in the future.
Just like parenting. The style that works when the child is a baby does not necessarily succeed when the child is already mature.
The parenting style has to change.
How about changing the leader?
It is a solution, but I suggest it is a second prize choice.
Changing leaders is disruptive. It is like having a string of divorces. What is needed is collaborative leadership. Who leads at any point in time depends on what needs to be accomplished.
Look at a functional family. Who leads, husband or wife, depends on what is required at that point in time.
Same reasoning for companies: To build a company requires a complementary team. It needs collaborative leadership: A team of leaders who differ in their styles but complement each other.
But here is the problem:
A complementary team, by definition, since it is composed of different styles, generates conflict. So although conflict is good, although it is necessary and indispensable for good leadership, for good management, it can be destructive and dysfunctional.
What is needed to avoid this potential dys-functionality and destructive conflict is collaborative leadership based on mutual trust and respect.
Collaborative leadership will work only if it is really collaborative, which means that there is mutual trust and respect.
Our management development programs and training of future managers or leaders or executives are all based on the wrong paradigm. They concentrate on individualism when what is wanted is to train people how to work in complementary teams; how to harness conflict with mutual trust and respect.
We are still trying to develop and train and create this elusive perfect executive, manager, leader. It can not happen. It will not happen. It has never happened.
Our management education needs revamping. Needs to be reengineered.
And our managerial, leadership culture needs redirecting as well.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
__________________
(1) Dr Adizes� books that cover the arguments made here in depth are : The Ideal Executive: why you can not be one, and How to solve the Mismanagement Crisis, both available from Amazon or the Adizes Institute:
April 12, 2013
Life is a Game of Cards
I recently heard the expression “You have to play the cards you’re dealt,� and it reminded me how true that is––how similar life really is to a game of cards––in multiple ways.
First, you can’t control how many cards there are, or which ones you get. Any attempt to control it (like hiding a card up your sleeve) is cheating. You have to play the cards given to you. Sometimes you get good cards. Sometimes they are lousy.
And, just like in life, evaluating each card alone will not give you an accurate view of what you have. The cards are interdependent: The value of each card is determined by its importance to the whole hand.
And isn’t that like life? Every new situation has its threats and its opportunities. There are strengths and there are weaknesses. See the totality. Do not overlook the forest by focusing on a single tree.
Now, what happens when you get lousy cards? You fold and wait for the next round, right? That is how life should be taken: Fold and wait for the next round. There’s no use complaining to the dealer (in the case of life, that would be God almighty). It’s not productive to get depressed or angry about the cards you’ve been dealt. They are what they are; if necessary, fold and look forward to the next round. As another expression goes: “Whenever a door closes, a window opens.�
Here is another moral we can learn from cards. If you get bad cards in one round and decide to fold, make sure you don’t also fold your spirit. If you make the mistake of getting all worked up, you might be given a good set of cards in the next round, yet be so distracted by the last round that you miss an opportunity to win.
Remember: Each round is brand-new.
Come to think of it, how many people have difficulty developing a bond with someone new, because they were hurt in a previous relationship? How many people have difficulty starting a new job because the last one was a disaster?
Life presents you with a series of “hands.� Just play the ones you’re dealt, and remember that each round is a new round, with brand-new opportunities to win––as well as new opportunities to fail. Enjoy the game. Enjoy life, in spite of its ups and downs––or, perhaps, because of them.
Another lesson: Always make sure to look around and ask yourself, “What game are we playing? What is at stake here? What are the rules of this game? What does it mean to win?
Think about the many military people who retire and go to work for a business corporation––neglecting to make a crucial switch in their heads: to realize that now they are playing a different game. Or businessmen who go into politics. It is not the same game. The rules are different, and so are the criteria for “winning.�
Furthermore, you must always know who the players are and how many of them are playing. You cannot play solo, in cards or in life, so it is crucial to identify the players and the stakeholders.
How many times have we lost a “round� because we were dealing with person A at the table, only to find out later that the one who was actually calling the shots was someone else––someone who was not even “at the table.�
Last analogy: Once you identify the players, learn their style. Find out what drives them. Observe their strategy; often that will tell you what cards they have and what they are looking for. After all, they, too, must play the cards they were dealt.
Some people do not like to play cards. That’s okay. You can skip playing card games, but you can not skip playing the cards of life.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
April 5, 2013
On Jesus Christ
(Written during Easter Sunday)
I believe that Jesus Christ existed. And I am Jewish and not a member of the Jews for Jesus movement.
What is it that I believe?
Throughout the history of mankind, a person is born, man or woman, who genetically and/or by upbringing, is more sensitive to values, to justice, to truth, to integrity. Much more than even the most sensitive person. They are at the right edge of the distribution curve: The 0.0000000000001 percent of the population at the time. (Please do not take the number literally).
Their (I), from the PAEI code, is the largest of all. They listen to different “music� than normal people and have “a fire in their gut� that compels them to speak what they see and feel.
Because they are a deviation from the norm, from the statistical mode, they are not accepted; They are burned to death (Joan D ‘Arc), or executed (Jesus Christ), or they try to escape their destiny, unsuccessfully (Yonah).
They are called Prophets.
The Jewish religion says that Malachi was the LAST prophet. It must have been some (A) in Jewish history who decided “to close the book� and stop change.
I suggest to you that whenever there is change there are going to be people who have a message to deliver, a new or a refurbished one about how to survive, emotionally and spiritually, the confusion and the pain that change brings about.
Moses, who according to the Jewish religious tradition was the greatest prophet of them all, lived during the emancipation of the Hebrews from slavery.
And Jesus lived during the Roman times when the Hebrews were experiencing major turmoil.
And Mohamed was a prophet too, who lived during a time of change.
Prophets are born all the time and prophesize in times of social change. Major change.
There are minor prophets today, each one with a message of his own. Deepak Chopra is one. The different living Masters who come to us from India are another group.
There are also “false messiahs�, false prophets, too: The different gurus, the flavor of the week, the best sellers, who make a fortune and disappear into oblivion.
Jesus was a most DOMINANT and SIGNIFICANT prophet, because he channeled a message that was not only appropriate for his times, but as it turns out, it was a message for eternity. It was all about love.
Who can be against that?
And he died. Not for our sins. (I take responsibility for my sins and no one else should die for them.)
He died because he deviated from the behavior accepted at the time, which in turn looked as though he was starting a revolution that threatened those in power.
What is so strange about that? This story repeats itself all the time. Throughout history�
Was he the son of God? Not figuratively. Not literally. We are all sons of God. He was the chosen son. From the chosen people. Chosen in the sense that he served as a conduit, a channel, for a message from the eternal value system I call God.
Did resurrection occur?
Sure. Anyone with a powerful message lives, especially someone who delivers a message that has validity throughout time. Not figuratively. Not physically. But in spirit. They live as long as their message is still valid.
For me, Karl Marx as a prophet is dead. His message also delivered during a time of major social change (the industrialization of Europe) was not valid. It did not survive. (Thank God.)
Jesus Christ lives because his message continues to impact people’s lives..
I do not only accept Jesus, but I have no difficulty following the words that Jesus Christ brought to people.
I support those words, those sentiments.
I do not support the (A) part of the religion. The rituals. The rejection of those who do not follow the rituals.
We all share the same values. That is what counts for me. Not the form. Not the rituals. Not the symbols and stories that people recount and believe occurred. They believe that those stories literally occurred while for me they were metaphors, analogies.
It is the (A) in our mind which prevents us from comprehending the (I) message.
It is the (A) of the religion that separates us from each other.
If we focused on the (I), we would find we are all ONE.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
March 29, 2013
Life is Conflicts, Frustrations and Pain. Necessarily So.
I do not know if it is true for you, but I often find myself in considerable pain because of conflicts or because life does not yield what I want.
One day lecturing about management I suddenly realized I was not lecturing about management and corporations. I was also lecturing about myself; I was talking about my life
It was borne home to that life is pain; and filled with conflicts. And all of that is inevitable.
Here is the insight.
We all know there is change. Has been here forever and, I hope, will continue to be here forever. Change is life. Only death halts change.
Change by definition means that something new has happened. There is a new event that impacts us. Now we need to decide what to do. It is like coming to an intersection we encounter for the first time and are forced to choose: left, right, back, or stay in place.
Making decisions in the face of a new fact or situation necessarily means deciding under the stress of uncertainty: Not all the relevant information is available. The whole picture only becomes clear after the fact.
The result is that when we try to deal with uncertainty we are confronted with conflicts : WHAT to do, HOW to do it, WHEN to do it; and of course, Who should do it. Each of these variables requires individual attention even though they are interdependent.
A decision is not real until implemented, and to implement a decision we must be willing to take risks.
How do we handle risk? It is self evident. By debating it in our head which acts like a mini-parliament: Liberal thoughts tell us to go ahead and take the risk while conservative thoughts tell us to beware and slow down.
All in all we do not sleep well at night as we face life’s turbulence.
If making the decision requires contributions from other people, and the implementation requires the cooperation of other stakeholders, the conflict, the frustrations and the pain are all magnified.
What is the answer? How do we find comfort in life and avoid the pain life pushes on us?
Easy. Go to an ashram or find a cave and meditate all day long all your life. Stop change. Disassociate from life. Disassociate from doing. Stop contributing to this world.
But that is not a life most of us know or choose to live. Nor one I wish to live.
What other choice do we have? Accept life’s pain and the conflicts that accompany it…In short, accept life. Embrace it. And stop dreaming about some Garden of Eden where there is no pain. The moment we ate from that tree of knowledge we chose pain and conflict in an effort to know and understand the life around us. That is part of the package. Of choosing knowledge.
Let me repeat. The expression: “Life is a bitch and then you die� is not a joke or a funny statement. It is a fact of life one has to accept.
Can the pain be made more bearable? Can the conflict be constructive?
Yes, and the answer is present in MT&R.
If there is Mutual Trust and Respect, the conflict between people is not just bearable, but it enhances growth. And if there is self trust and self respect, the conflict inside ourself becomes an opportunity for learning and growing.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes
