Italy ... Lessons in change management

I follow the events in my native Italy with interest and with a good dose of apprehension. Much turmoil reins the Italian political landscape. Populisms, anarchism, opportunism, regionalism, and other –isms flourish as politicians scramble to pick up votes. As it has been said, Nero is playing the fiddle while Rome is literally burning.

I watch with amusement the pronouncements that many well-known political figures make during weekly talk shows on television. It looks to me that many in Italy see themselves as experts in economics, finance, and other disciplines. The debate is so vociferous that it is impossible for the average person to hear what people are saying. The only thing that people seem to agree on is that everybody who does not agree with them is plainly wrong.

Italy has been at a crossroad for the past 20 or so years. As the global economy has changed, adjustments and repositioning have become critical for survival. Globalization forces nations to make changes they would otherwise be unwilling to make. Some nations have adjusted and others have not. The difference? Some cling to the status quo while others are clever enough to find in the emerging competitive arena niches where they hold an edge. Those nations that hone their competitive advantage have a better chance to navigate through the global economic storm.  Those who that do not give birth to social unrest and much dislocation.

It might sound pretentious for me to stick my nose in the debate. Why? Credibility, for one. You are so removed that you might not be able to understand it. Secondly, you cannot use the lens of a country to analyze another’s problems. There might be some truth to both. But I am not that far removed. I visit Italy two or three times per year, so I experience and relate to the Italian reality. I also spend much time in the local coffee shop listening to what people say about their lives, their political views, and personal circumstance. I have learned over the years that you cannot learn very much unless you are willing to listen with an open mind.

By the way, I have spent most of my professional life as a change management consultant, mostly in the organizational realm. It has been my lifelong passion to learn how organizations seek or resist change, how to create readiness for change, how to institutionalize change, and how to discern desirable from undesirable change.  I have learned along the way that there are no magic bullets or one size fits all solutions. Not all solutions are equal. Some are more painful than others, others might be less superficial, and so on. Change depends on a variety of factors, some more compelling than others. 

I devoted my post-graduate and doctoral studies to this issue.

A Little Theory

Kurt Lewin, a pioneer social psychologist, is the author of the force field analytical model. The model helps us understand change and what needs to be done to improve readiness for change and to make change stick. Lewin posited that in order to bring about change the current situation must be unfrozen, and after change takes place to refreeze it.  The critical notion is that the status quo is the result of two clashing forces: forces pushing for the change and forces opposing it.  When these two opposing forces are of equal size, the result is no change.

Lewin teaches us that there is the right way and the wrong way to change. More push, without lessening resistance, can result in more tension. Like a rubber band, when the push stops, the situation reverts to the previous level (status quo ante). So the best way is not to add more positive forces or sheer brutal strength, but to examine the opposing forces to see which ones are more amenable to change and focus on removing or weakening their strength. The benefit comes from altering the balance of forces, and by turning a negative into a positive one.

Forces Against Change

People and organizations resist change that they perceive takes away gains, benefits, or privileges. Losses are hard to swallow, albeit necessary some time. Some examples follow:

·      Labor unions, yesterday’s champions of change, are todays the most formidable resistors. They do not want to see changes that, in their mind, weaken their hard-fought gains in job security, working conditions, and pay.

·      Bureaucracies fear change because they know fully well that they might be bloated and thus targets for change. Flat organization designs scare off tall pyramids with the potential elimination of jobs or job levels. Loss of turf and power are to be avoided at all cost.

·      Vested interests of all kinds. Politicians resist attempts to reduce their numbers or privileges. Judges resist any changes that increase their workload or reduce their influence. Professors are reluctant to let go of tenure privileges that threaten their so-called academic freedom.

Forces For Change

There are formidable forces pushing for change. The primary one is the perception that survival is at stake; the secondary one is that people are dissatisfied with the status quo. Some examples:

·      Young people. They watch their elders meander about without meaningful reforms that would permit them to realize their career ambitious and desire for personal independence.  The higher the level of unemployment, the more formidable the push for action.

·      Enlightened Leaders. They are bright, well prepared, and dedicated political and civic leaders wanting a better future for their country and their compatriots. They are found amongst all political parties. Although they share the same end, they often clash amongst themselves with respect to the means and tactics.

·      The Silent Majority. People from all walks of life, varied age groups, and economic well being who are dissatisfied with the status quo and who expire to a better future. People who have watched the revolving political door and the failure to keep electoral promises. People who are tired of waste, corruption, and inaction.

Forward to the Present

Italy has a young prime minister (Matteo Renzi) at the helm. He has selected a younger group of ministers, and some respected public servants. He has an ambitious agenda. But he is encountering resistance along the way, from his political opponents and members of his own political party. Rather than looking at the merits of his agenda folks often attack his style and his exaggerated (perceived) sense of urgency.

Unions lament their lack of consultation on important legislation affecting their members. Judges try to discredit laws intended to streamline a constipated judicial process. Politicians and bureaucrats protest attempts to control multiple stipends and pensions. Members of the same political bloc are unhappy with what they perceive deviation from the political orthodoxy of their party.

World leaders, on the other hand, sing praises to the young prime minister. They highlight his ambitious reform agenda, relish his defiant style, and admire his sense of urgency. Economic trends are starting to improve. The future shines a little brighter. There is hope in the midst of chaos.

I, for one, see one of the first post-WWII political leaders whose rhetoric matches his actions. Too often politicians espouse a certain program while running for office and then proceed to do exactly the opposite. Leaders become extraordinary because they possess superior capabilities. Renzi's leadership profile includes real commitment to change, a superior intellect, results-orientation, and effective oratory skills. On the short side, his interpersonal skills need improvement -- he has a knack for belittling those who disagree with him or to talk down on those who disagree with him, thus creating resentments.  This weakness, in politics, can be fatal.

Question is: will this young, fearless leader survive? His future is in the hands of his own party. His biggest critics are failed leaders of the past, some say. His style surely has made internal enemies seek revenge.

Baltimore ...

I am totally confused …

I have to admit it. I do not understand politics, and perhaps, I never will.

The news reports concerning police brutality and racism have left me totally confused. I am a strong believer that all lives are sacrosanct, be they white, black, yellow, brown, or red. Discrimination still exists. Not only about race, but also about gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and handicap.

Some say that it is an American phenomenon, I disagree. It is part of the make-up of the human being. It exists everywhere, often morphing into many shades, ranging from the ridiculous to the sophisticated.

Some Examples

·      In Italy, it surfaces as those from the North versus those from the South, disparagingly called terroni or from the dirt. It also shows up whenever locals talk about extra-communitarians, meaning from outside the European Union.

·      In Israel, it manifests in the attitudes that the Jews from Eastern Europe have toward Jews from North Africa and Ethiopia. It also shows up vividly in the views of Palestinians and Arabs in general. Let’s not overlook the perception of some that non-believers are unclean.

·      In India, discrimination is pervasive between different casts. Some folks are even called the untouchable. Male children are preferred over female, who are often provided fewer educational opportunities.

·      In Japan, foreigners are looked down upon. A country that celebrates 97% national purity looks less favorably toward those who come from inter-marriages or other races.

·      In Mexico and Argentina, those who have European ancestry feel superior to the natives or indios or those who are of mixed race, often called mestizos.

·      In South Africa, during the apartheid days, people were categorized into three distinct groups with different rights and privileges: white, colored, and black.

·      In France, the French referred dismayingly to folks returning from the North African colonies as pieds noirs (black feet).  The French’s attitudes towards non-French are well documented.

·      In China, those who do not come from the main ethnic group, feel discriminated. Tall people from the North, I was told at a symposium in Shanghai years ago, look down on their to shorter countrymen from the South.

The case of Baltimore

It was easy to accept the notion that part of the problem in Ferguson, a predominantly Black town, was lack of representation by Blacks in the police force and in local government.

But Baltimore is another case all together.

The Democrats have been in charge of Baltimore for the past 58 years. A two billion dollars stimulus was earmarked for Baltimore during the Obama’s administration. Not a dent was made to the conditions of the poor.

Where did the money go? Some suggest that it was mostly spent to create bureaucracies to administer the stimulus, and to satisfy local union demands. Sadly, little reached its intended beneficiaries. Some suggest that corruption and mismanagement had a hand too. 

Since the launch of the Great Society by President Johnson the country has spent more than 22 trillion dollars to fight poverty.  Yet the number of poor people has grown, albeit the standard of living has risen a little.

In Baltimore, the Mayor is Black, the prosecutor is Black, and two members of the House of Representatives are Black (Cummings and Edwards). Unlike Ferguson, people expected an even-ended investigation of the death of a young Black male at the hands of the police. It has, so far, not turned up that way.

What we have witnessed to date is incompetent statements by the Mayor and a rush to judgment by the Prosecutor. Outcome? No justice and a temporary truce!

The Chain of Command

In the chain of command, we have a Back President, a Black Attorney General, a Black Mayor, a Black Prosecutor, a Black Police Commissioner, and a 45% Black Baltimore Police Department.

One would guess that they should be able to put their arms around the problem. So far, we have witnessed the actions of an F-Troop, a popular comedy of yesteryear, where all well-intended actions resulted in utter failure.

Senator Moynihan’s 50-year old analysis of the needs of the Black Community was ignored.  He had deafly isolated the issues that matter, but the politicians have ignored them. The chickens are now coming home to roost, they say.

Similar problems to Baltimore exist in all the urban ghettos of America. Democrats cannot blame Republicans for these failures. The failures transcend political parties. The solution? A non-political one, for sure!

Your thoughts???

'YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT" - MY VIEW

President Obama and other like-minded politicians have been pilloried for suggesting that if you built a business, “you did not build that.” The reaction to this statement has been vehement! The perceived insinuation was that if you succeed in America, you do so thanks to the government.  Many found this insinuation laughable!

I have been thinking about this exchange.

The role of government is to put in place policies and programs that make it possible for people to reach their goals. The national infrastructure of roads and streets, highways, railways, was built to promote commerce. The government is responsible for our national defense, ensuring a safe and healthy environment, the protection of our parks and national forests, access to affordable education, and many other initiatives designed to ensure our liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Our banking system facilitates the flow of capital to and from entrepreneurs and businesses, and public institutions. The government is the watchdog, making sure that the practices are fair and consistent.

Individuals do take advantage of these policies and programs when pursuing their lifelong objectives, be it in academia, business, or the public sector.  

We all know that no two people are alike. Some are more ambitious, some are more gifted, some are harder workers, and some come from wealthier families. Ambition, intelligence, family economics, and willingness to work harder are not distributed equally. What separates many is the willingness to take risks.  

It is true that some benefit from special circumstances such a superior intellect, inheritance, being at the right place at the right time, and/or special connections. So what? Life can be inherently unfair! If life hands you a lemon, try to make a lemonade.

Even though the government tries to level the field, some individuals are more successful than others. Their success should not be trivialized! These folks contribute directly and indirectly to our national wealth by creating good paying jobs for many, paying the lion share of our taxes, and so forth. In spite of the many hurdles and obstacles, a few will rise above to achieve more. We should celebrate the accomplishments of others rather than poo-pooing others' success. 

Is it not this the American dream? To come from humble origins and reach the top of the heap, be it financially, academically, or politically?

The landscape is full of archetypes that illustrate our history:

·      Politics -- someone like Obama, Clinton, Carter, and Nixon has had the audacity to dream to some day become president of the country and actually achieve the dream.

·      Government – you can find at least four members of the U.S. Supreme Court who are sons or daughters of immigrants or of an oppressed minority, e.g., Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Sotomayor.

·      Business – you can find  a large number of immigrants and refugees who have risen to the pinnacle of commerce such as Soros, Zaffaroni, Groves, Gupta, and Nadella, to name a few.

·      Academia –  you can attract scientists such as Einstein, Kinsey, Fermi, Teller, and Oppennheimer, to name a few.

My View:

It is mindless to engage in arguments that tend to divide people, to set one group against another, in order to score political points.  We need more, not fewer successful people.

We serve no useful purpose when we lower someone so that others might feel better for their lack of success. They say that misery loves company. Is that the point?

Fostering jealousy and envy does not serve well the larger society. 

Let's accept that government does a lot to help us without attacking those who manage to rise above others in income, prestige, or position. Both points of view are valid, both extremes are half truths, in my view.

And Your View?