Much Needed Change ...

It is salutary for organizations to undergo periodic renewal and reset. Pruning away obsolete concepts, shedding contradictory values, and eliminating improper activities help the organizational tree grow healthier and stronger. Organizations that resist change are doomed to live a mediocre existence, and eventually join other relics in the dustpan of time.

The Vietnam War unleashed pent-up demand for reforming our social, economic, and political system. Since then we have made inroads in our search for a more equitable society and a more transparent political modus operandi. But change has been too slow and the job is far from complete. Much remains to be done. And for many, progress, in addition to being too slow, has been uneven.

Organizations, similarly to humans, evolve. Attitudes change and laws are amended to reflect contemporary realities. What worked before may not be appropriate today. Folks have no stomach for repression, unfairness, cruelty, and dogma. They clamor for real change, and they demand it immediately. Reforming the entire system, however, can be a daunting effort.

For the past 50 years, the country has slowly shifted away from the founding vision of “to each according to his/her capabilities” toward a more egalitarian vision of “to each according to his/her needs.” Some argue that nirvana is not in either, but it might be in melding the two. Rather than attacking each other’s vision, we might be better served to examine the benefits of each and construct a new paradigm that benefits all.

The Founding Model

Based on the free enterprise model, America was built on the strength of the rugged individualist. This terrain was perfect for the capitalist model to flourish. Along with its many benefits came major abuses.  Profits became the end rather than the means to success. People soon became suspicious of the capitalists’ motives and offended by what they saw as excesses.

The emphasis prior to 1960 was on integration. Newcomers were encouraged to assimilate, to learn English, and to be self-reliant. They were promised the American Dream. You work hard and you have a chance to advance. There would be minimal economic and social barriers to advancement. It was all based on merit.  Sure, pockets of little Italy, little Poland, little whatever existed, but patriotism was extolled. Racial discrimination however was swept under the rug.

Experience in other countries has shown that it does not have to be that way. In the face of the total collapse of the Marxist/Leninist model, folks realized that there might be a middle ground where the two opposing visions could merge and give rise to a more equitable and compassionate model. Scandinavia was the laboratory where these two competing models have come together to provide a more balanced approach. Is this reconciliation perfect? Possibly not, but it has moved the yardstick forward.

Emphasis has lately shifted to differentiation. Fissures in the meritocratic model exposed racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance. Whites have been accused of privilege over other races. Women have bumped into artificial ceilings. Unregulated immigration has given rise to a large pool of residents with nowhere to go for refuge except their ethnic barrios. While many espoused the benefits of diversity, in practice, diversity might have hurt those who have not learned to speak English or assimilated. Diversity seems to have morphed into separation.

Changing the System

Changing a large system before we fully understand it is a folly. Yet many so-called proponents have suggested just that; moved by impatience perhaps or urged by political opportunism. Large systems change when they are ready to change.

Examples abound that illustrate this point. The civil rights movement continues its battle 50 years after Doctor King’s death. Its job is not yet complete. Women have been clamoring for equal pay for equal work for decades, yet the issue is not fully resolved. Harassment based on gender is not new. As the gap between rich and poor grows so has anger toward what people perceive an unjust and unfair system.

Change management theory teaches us that there are three main strategies for change; each has its pluses and minuses. Some people advocate the incremental, go-slow method. Contemporarily people clamor for transformational change.  The problem for many is that both methods are way too slow. So what’s left might be a third way … revolutionary, albeit peaceful, change. The downside with the latter is that revolutionary change is hard to control.

Oscillation versus Advancement

In my view (I could be in the small minority), our political system, as it has existed for much of our history, is responsible for slowing the change process.  Every eight years or so the other party takes control. The incoming party shaves off any gains made by the previous party that do not conform to its ideology. Advancement of the agenda is immediately followed by reversal. This periodic oscillation reduces the forward movement made by the prior administration.

We have witnessed this phenomenon this year. The incoming administration has erased or diminished any advancement by the prior administration in climate change, education, foreign policy, regulations, healthcare, immigration, and so on.   The only period in our history where substantial change took roots was during the 1930-1940’s. The party in power was able to maintain control of Congress and the White House for twenty years, thus enabling the nation to digest and institutionalize significant changes.

Lessons from China

Revolutions are chaotic and messy. They unnerve people, and often lead to instability and unintended consequences. Once they reach the tipping point, revolutions are hard to stop. They breed another form of intolerance … against those who think or behave differently. Although peaceful in name, impatience often leads to autocratic and violent acts.

The Cultural Revolution in China divided families, elders from the younger, and led to many despicable acts. Old men and women were sent to re-education camps. Professionals were demoted and relegated to menial jobs. Perceived bourgeoisie was punished with exile or jail. The dogma of the little red book became the ruler of the proper way to interpret events or make decisions. Another form of PC? Symbols were erased. So-called privileges negated.

Resistance as a form of opposition can be a zero-sum game. Relativism takes over … the ends justify the means. Experience has shown that revolutions breed counter-revolutions, and the winners over time might become the losers. What goes around comes around …?

Fast Forward

In the past few weeks we have witnessed the dam bursting, triggering an avalanche of accusations, mea culpas, and sordid details. Luminaries, movie moguls, politicians, company executives, union executives, actors, famous sports figures, TV personalities, and religious persons have been accused of sexual harassment and assault. Members of the Congress have been on the receiving end of 260 accusations, silenced by more than $ 17 million dollars of the people’s money.

In short time, hypocrisy by the political and economic elite has been exposed and pilloried. Some folks suggest that it is only the tip of the iceberg; that major revelations will come out regarding similar abuses in our campuses and other institutions.  Others suggest that the opening of floodgates will usher much needed transparency.

For many women, on the receiving end, it is a time for catharsis and cleansing. Purging the system of unwanted sexual advances is long overdue, many say.  Women have suffered in silence for violation of their person and dignity.

Suspected perpetrators have been shamed and ridiculed.  A few have taken responsibility for their boorish behavior while others retreat to the familiar Sargeant Schultz defense of “I know nothing.” Looking for redemption for their inexcusable behavior, a few elites have sought the refuge of four-star “treatment” or “rehab” centers or taken a long sabbatical searching for redemption.

Dante, the author of the Divine Comedy, had a special place in hell for hypocrites.  They were condemned to walk around carrying heavy capes made out of solid (heavy) gold. The cape was a metaphor for cover-up and phoniness. This metaphor is most appropriate today.

Much hypocrisy and “I am holier than thou” pronouncements by our politicians, religious leaders, and other officials have shielded offenders from prosecution, shaming, and ostracism for years. It is their silence and cover-up that must be rejected. They were complicit in hiding unspeakable acts of abusive and perhaps criminal behavior. 

We are all guilty of this in the end.  Finger pointing is a diversionary tactic. We cannot escape to the sidelines … time to man-up? We must admit that we knew that it was happening and that we chose to look sideways. You can say that Pontius Pilate behavior in most of us is alive and well.

It is time for immediate change … we have run out of excuses.

Where Next?

We need to expose all our blemishes and defects if we are to construct a more perfect union. Reformation brings many benefits, addresses many inequities, and heals our wounds. But it is a painful process.

There are many overarching goals that can bring us together as a nation. We need to shift our focus to things that matter, where common ground and common purpose can meet.

We need better paying jobs. We need more equitable taxation. We need a better health system. We need to improve our infrastructure. We need to rationalize our immigration system. We need better ways to protect our democracy and way of life.

We need, we need, we need…

There is much that can bring us together! Instead, divisive parochial interests entrap us. We use identity slices of race, age, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual preference to expose differences.

Let’s remember that we are all Americans, and travel on the same boat.

Why People Hate The Rich ... My View

A little background

I was brought up in a middle class family of modest means in a small hilltop town in Sicily. My father had a sixth grade education. His dad emigrated to the U.S. when he was 6 years old. He never saw him again. At age 13 he started his first business to support his mom and younger brother. He just worked, dreamed, and tried numerous ways to improve his station. An avid reader, he was current on many subjects and he was fascinated by the intricacies of real estate law.

My mother came from a better economic station. Her dad passed away three months before her marriage to my dad. Her father put aside the local tradition of not sending female children to school by insisting that she and her older sisters learn how to write and read. As a result, a novelty for their time, my mother and her older sisters were permitted to go to school through the third grade. She was a worker bee. I don’t remember ever hearing her complain or resent our humble circumstances. She was deeply in love with my dad, and my dad with her.

When they both passed away, they had been happily married for 66 years. A novelty, I might add, by today’s standards.

Growing up, I never heard my dad complain about his dad who pretty much abandoned his family, although he would occasionally send them money. He did occasionally lament that he did not have the opportunity to continue his formal studies. He wanted to become a real estate lawyer, a profession he highly admired.

Thanks to his photographic memory, he managed to learn every detail of real estate law, and he spent his final active days working as an assistant to a real estate lawyer (notaio). Notaios in Italy must be degreed lawyers, and go through a three-year specialization course. Notaios are the highest paid profession in Italy earning on average 5 million dollars per year. The number of notaios in Italy is a closed number, therefore positions are often passed from one generation to another, and one has to wait for a notaio to die to aspire to replace him/her.

This lawyer for whom my dad worked told me once that my dad knew more about the law that he did, and that he soon learned to seek his advice during complex real estate deals. It was his way to let me know how smart and hard working my dad was.

Growing up in Sicily right after the war was hard. The country had lost the war and its infrastructure was devastated. The currency was worthless. People had to resort to barter. Most goods were hard to find, and very expensive to purchase. My dad was able to navigate through this period by finding local needs and filling them. He imported and exported goods, he co-founded a power company, and he co-founded a mill to provide flour to the local town.

Dad was strict and demanding. He would not accept excuses or tolerate mediocrity. He rejoiced in others’ success bringing them up to my younger brothers and me as examples of what hard work or an advanced education can do for you. He admired anyone who was able to rise above everybody else through sheer determination and smarts. My two brothers and I have pretty much inherited the same philosophy.

How do people become rich?

The easiest way to become wealthy is to inherit it.  You don’t have to do anything else, just be in the family's line of succession. In the U.S. we have many famous extra-rich people who got their wealth this way: Kennedy, Rockefeller, Mellon, Walton, Koch, Mars, Lauder, Du Pont, Goldman, Hunt, and Gallo to name a few. If you are not wealthy by inheritance, you can become rich by marrying someone who is already rich. These super-wealthy folks often avoid inheritance taxes by setting up perpetual trusts benefitting their progeny thus escaping inheritance taxation.

A more difficult way to get rich is to make it. You start a business, the business thrives, and you get rich. The majority of rich people in America become rich this way. Small businesses and family farms, by and large, comprise this group. You don’t need to be born into family wealth or have advanced education to join this group … just the willingness to take risks, access to start up capital, and a positive market response.

An harder way to get rich is for folks to become a star. They earn it.  They include corporate executives, litigators, medical doctors, movie and television stars, athletes, and Wall Street traders. These individuals earn millions every year. Retired U.S. presidents and first ladies occupy this space as well. It has been said that this group is  the crème de la crème; they are the statistical outliers. As wage earners they are affected by the income tax top rate. Other rich folks pay a much lower rate because dividends and interest are taxed at a much lower rate.

Another way to get rich is to steal. This wealth is ill-gotten, meaning as a result of nefarious and illegal means. It is a small percentage but it shows that greed and malfeasance are at play.  MSNBC devotes several hours per week featuring greedy characters that run amok of the law and wind up in jail after ripping off naïve investors. I submit that this is the smallest group but one that evokes strong reaction by the public. One of the bad habits of this group is that they often engage in lavish life styles that bring unwanted notoriety to them.

The last group falls in the category luck. It is not a big group, but it is larger than the previous group. These folks happen to be at the right place at the right time.  They joined a company whose shares took off on Wall Street. They bought shares in an emerging company in its formative years and suddenly gained popularity and growth. They bougth real estate and the market prices boomed. It was not their genius or their greed that brought financial success, just pure luck.

O.K. why the hate?

Some folks resent that so few have so much. It is unfair! After all we are all created equal as humans. They do not seem to differentiate between different types. They assume that all the rich have gotten rich as a result of unscrupulous behavior at the expense of the poor. They discount or ignore that some people might have had a better idea or that the person worked harder and sacrificed much, or that he was more competent. No! It was all ill-gotten and should be taken away.

Many are motivated by envy. They aspire to become wealthy but wealth has eluded them, therefore they resent that someone else, perhaps not as smart, or as well educated managed to do so. Some intellectual elite fall in this group. They feel entitled to wealth based on their superior education, and have a hard time accepting that Joe Bloe with a high school diploma or less should rise above their financial station. Minorities might bring up white privilege, and forget the fact that skin color, gender, sexual preference, and religion do not count that much. In the five categories discussed earlier, you will find folks from every walk of life. Money has one color, and it is green.

A small number hates the rich out of sheer ignorance. They don’t know the facts but eagerly accept the notion that if you got rich you did so at someone else’s expense. This notion has history behind. It is a fact that during the industrial revolution and for part of the post industrial revolution, it was common for ‘barons” to exploit their workers. That is how some fortunes were built during the 1800’s and 1900’s.  Labor laws enacted since have outlawed many such practices and provided remedies to workers, including collective bargaining.

Folks resent the lavish lifestyle that the rich and famous engage in. The mass media bombards the public with anecdotes of excess and sheer extravaganza. Much damage was done to Romney during the 2012 Presidential Elections when news leaked out that he was building an elevator for his cars in his La Jolla estate. The public finds excesses gross and unworthy of admiration given that there are people around the world who are poor and disadvantaged. Some folks will often quote the Scriptures to confirm that the rich have few, if any, redeeming qualities.

When you combine the five categories, you have a strong cocktail of hate hurled at the rich, typically the top 5% of the population. It does to take long for the posse to form and for mob rule to take over. Sock it to the rich ... Increase their tax rate, impose a heavy death tax, it is only fair that they pay more, and so on. The bandwagon gets many converts ... wealth redistribution after all benefits the other 95%. Never mind that the top 20% pay 80% of the income tax collected by the IRS. 

Summary

Money, it has been said, is the source of all evil. I disagree! Most money is put to good use. America has many foundations started by super-wealthy folks to provide resources for many projects helping those in need domestically and abroad. Many super-rich (top 1/10 of 1%) are donating 75 to 90 percent of their wealth to charities. Investments create jobs, and employ people. 

An interesting factoid of yesteryear: the top 10 rich U.S. Senators got rich by inheritance while the top 10 rich Representatives made theirs. Those who inherited their wealth advocate laws that shift payments from one group to another. Those who made their wealth advocate the opposite intent on sheltering their wealth from the greedy hands of government.

A miniscule number of the rich have gotten there by devious or illegal means. Not every rich person suffers from greed, just a few. 

Rejoice in others’ good fortune. Let it be a source of inspiration if you are so motivated to want to join their ranks.

I am not aware of anyone aspiring to be poor. I know many who aspire to become rich the old fashion way: earn it or get lucky.

My thoughts on diversity and inclusion ...

I must admit that much of the narrative in the news media about this subject has left me a bit confused. Raising questions is at one’s own risk. You may be labeled racist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobic, fascist, or worse. At my age, I don’t have much to lose and a great deal to gain from a much-needed dialogue.

Let me start by saying that I support both notions. Much richness can come from diversity of ideas, philosophy, and approach. Similarly, inclusion ensures the encouragement and support of diversity. However,  not everyone is on the same page when it comes to what these two words mean.

Diversity

Merriam-Webster defines diversity as “the quality of being composed of many different elements or types.” Without diversity, sameness leads to boredom and lack of excitement.

There is ample organization research that highlights the benefits of groups and teams with different thinking and learning styles. Groups and teams diverse in thinking and learning can be more productive and produce more creative and perhaps more innovative solutions.

David Kolb created the well-known model that describes and measures the cycle of four learning elements: concrete experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts, and testing in new situations.

The celebrated Johan Wolfgang Goethe was quoted to say:  “thinking can be more interesting than knowing but less interesting than looking.” Robert Bramson identified five thinking styles: Synthesists, Idealists, Analyst Thinkers, and Realist Thinkers.

Kolb and Bramson suggest that the more we know somebody, the better we can adapt our style.  Each of these styles makes a unique contribution to group and team problem solving. A team or group that lacks one or more of these learning and thinking styles will often produce less creative and innovative solutions. In my 30 plus years of practice as an organization consultant I saw this principle in action numerous time.

The great Albert Einstein reminded us that politics is more difficult than physics. I could not agree more! The Politically Correct have morphed these concepts to include team or group members’ color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and religious background. I have yet to see empirical studies that prove the notion that these factors by themselves make a group or team more productive, more creative, or more innovative.

Statements and pronouncements by academics and corporate leaders that these factors contribute to better results are not supported by any studies that I have read. I would welcome someone to point them out to me, if I have overlooked them.

Diversity

Diversity, in my view, is primarily an issue of legal compliance. That is, it measures the extent to which an organization is socially responsible when it comes to hiring, selection, promotion, and the distribution of rewards. It is common for corporations to have a management position responsible for monitoring the corporation’s demographics and taking actions to remedy low representation in any of the EEO categories.

The law requires equal opportunity. I wholeheartedly support the law. The government will penalize lack of compliance. Managers or leaders that are suspect of discrimination can be punished or dismissed.

Inclusion

Inclusion to me is more than a compliance issue, it is a cultural issue. The legal justification, if any, might be to encourage equal access. Company strategy encourages and supports a harmonious work environment where people of all kinds work together collaboratively to achieve company objectives. Management commitment and dispensation of rewards reinforce this notion. It is then about teamwork, collaboration, and trust, essential ingredients to candor and openness in communications.

Inclusion is pursued not in the name of productivity or improved quality of problem solving; instead it is encouraged for its own intrinsic value and contribution to employee satisfaction. As a result, inclusion can produce better employee retention. High turnover has many undesirable consequences ranging from higher costs, disruption, and possible quality glitches by replacement staff.

Implications

Doctor Martin Luther King encouraged us to judge one another not on the basis of the color of our skin, but on the quality of our character.  I fear that corporate practices can drift to the opposite direction where emphasis is not on merit, but on color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, and religious persuasion. If my observation is correct, we are moving backwards not forwards.

By focusing on external variables such as the demographics we risk dumbing down the organization. If we de-emphasize performance, capability, and motivation, we risk the benefits that come from competition.

Social and cultural experiments can have unintended consequences. Professor Jerry B. Harvey, in one of his popular books The Gunsmoke Phenomenon warns us about groupthink and the mob rule. Groups, when locked in this mode, can drive out folks with differing ideas and perspective by labeling them racists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and worse.  Purging folks who disagree with us is totalitarian and the opposite of what our pursuit of inclusion implies.

I fear any kind of police in the work place. I have seen the cultural police and EEO police in action in several client companies. They devastate candor, openness, and trust, and they leave behind a trail of devastation in people’s career path.

What are your thoughts on this subject?