Conversation 5: The Incompatibility of Roles

I’ve been thinking a lot about our last conversation. Let’s summarize it again:

In order to manage the problems caused by change, we need to make good decisions and implement them efficiently.

How well we manage is a function of the quality of the decisions we make and the amount of energy we have to spend in order to implement those decisions.

To make quality decisions, we must focus on the present services that need to be (P)erformed in order to satisfy the reason for which the organization exists. This is the (P) role. It makes the organization effective in the short term.

We must also perform the (A) role, to (A)dminister, ensuring that the right things are done at the right time. This process makes the organization efficient in the short term.

The (E) role, (E)ntrepreneuring, makes the organization proactive by positioning it, in the present, to deal with future clients’ needs. This role makes the organization effective in the long term.

The last role is the need to (I)ntegrate. This role transforms the organization’s culture from mechanistic, where all stakeholders and clients feel isolated, to organic, where people share their sense of interdependence because of mutual interests and values.

We need all four (PAEI) roles, which are like four “vitamins.” Any time one of these “vitamins” is missing, a certain predictable organizational disease will occur. Depending on which role is missing, the organization could be ineffective or inefficient in the short and/or long term.

Now, what are those managerial diseases, please?

You must understand the (P), (A), (E), and (I) roles very well before we start diagnosing systems, whether we diagnose people, organizations, or societies. Try to answer a few questions.

Assume your two children, say five and six years old, are playing in their room while you are reading the Sunday paper. After a while, there is a commotion and you hear them yelling, “Daaaaddy!” They are fighting over a xylophone.

On this day they both want the same xylophone. The first question is, if they’re calling for Daddy to come and solve their problem, is their interdependence mechanistic or organic?

Mechanistic. They are not resolving their own problem; they expect somebody from the outside to step in.

Right! Now what would the (P) solution be?

To take the xylophone away.

Stop! How should you go about finding the (P) solution?

You need to identify the clients and identify their needs. You should analyze how to satisfy those needs and then do it. That is the (P) role: (P)roviding the present needs of present clients.

Right! However, if you took the xylophone away, who was the client whose needs you were satisfying?

Mine, I guess. I wanted some peace and quiet.

Yes! This is a typical mistake. Many times in solving a problem, managers satisfy their own needs, not the clients’ needs. Try again: Who should the clients be in this example?

The kids.

Then what should the (P) solution be?

Buy them another xylophone.

That may be the right solution, depending on what you assume to be the children’s needs. If their true need is to play the xylophone, to make music, then the solution to buy another xylophone is a good one. But do you believe the two kids are fighting over a xylophone because they really want to play music?

They might be fighting because they want to make noise.

Then the solution is to give them some pots and pans from the kitchen to bang on and make noise.

Maybe they’re fighting because of sibling rivalry. Then they’ll fight over the pots and pans too, because they need to fight until someone yields. The solution to the sibling rivalry could be to let them fight it out, and, unless it gets out of hand, leave them alone. If they’re fighting because you’re reading the newspaper and they want your attention, then they will fight until you give them your attention.

Please hear what I’m saying: The (P) solution is not easily identifiable. First you have to identi- fy who the clients are. Then you have to try to determine their real needs, because you cannot know the need for sure.

I could ask them.

Yes, you can, and many companies do market research and statistically validate what clients needs are, but be careful. Clients often do not know what they want. They know only what they do not want.

What do you mean?

The last time you bought a car or a suit, did you know what you wanted and simply purchase it, or did you look around and try different suits until you found what you liked?

I went shopping.

In order to have a (P) solution, you have to offer the clients alternative solutions until the clients are satisfied. You will identify the need and verify it only by the fact that the clients are happy, in this case, when the kids are quiet and playing.

It’s like selling dog food. You don’t know if the food is any good until the dog eats it. The dog does not speak; it votes with its behavior. The same is true of humans. Don’t just listen to what they say; watch what they do. Are they buying? The best proof that there is value in what you are providing is if they actually buy it. Never assume what the needs should be and then get upset when clients don’t have those needs. Don’t patronize your clients. Try and try again until you succeed and you succeed when the clients come for more. You need to try over and over again because—I repeat—clients do not know what they want. They know what they do not want. I mean when they are looking for something new, I do not mean repetitive buying like buying vegetables or bread. I mean something like buying a car. You have to try a few times until the client says, “Aha, that is what I want!” It is like looking for a spouse.

People do not buy a product. They buy satisfaction of a need.

So we haven’t found the (P) solution to the xylophone problem until the kids are quiet and doing something that satisfies their needs, as expressed by their struggle for the xylophone.

Right! The kids are not fighting for the xylophone. They are fight- ing to satisfy certain needs that the xylophone represents. The need could be to make noise, to express their sibling rivalry, to get their parent’s attention, or perhaps to fulfill an aesthetic need to play music.

People do not buy a product. They buy satisfaction of a need. To make a (P) decision means to a solution that satisfies the clients’ immediate needs. To identify what that need is might take several tries.

How about (A)?

The (A) role makes an organization efficient. Tell me what the (A) solution to the problem between the kids could be.

Have some law and order.

Right, but how?

Well, we know the (A) role is to make the organization efficient. That means systematizing the organization so we do not have to reinvent the wheel each time we need to wheel something around. In an (A) decision, we should have the same solution for the same problem. That makes us efficient. So, the (A) solution would be to say that one brother gets the xylophone for ten minutes, then the other one gets it for the next ten minutes, and we toss a coin to see who gets the xylophone first. We apply a family rule we can apply in all similar cases.

But what happens then? When you apply that solution, ten minutes to each child or whatever the rules of the family dictate, who is the client now and what is the client’s need?

The family, and it needs some peace and quiet. Now the needs of the family come before the needs of any individual in the family.

The family is the client, and this solution ignores the children’s particular needs.

That happens in many organizations. When an organization is young, it looks for the (P) solution, how to satisfy client needs. It satisfies the clients and because of that its sales grow bigger and bigger, and the organization gets messier until it hits a crisis. Then management says, “We need some order here.” The organization itself emerges as a needy client. So, the company hires a professional (A)dministrator to organize the place. This person sets up budgets, information systems, organizational charts, and incentive programs. The old-timers might get upset, because the professional manager is not selling, not serving the customers.

They do not understand, do not realize, that the (A)dministrator has a different client in mind. The organization and its stakeholders are his clients, not the customers. In other words, first the organization develops its capability to satisfy its customers, then its focus shifts to satisfy its stakeholders. Then it (I)ntegrates both into a working totality. When this happens, the organization is in the Prime of its lifecycle.

Ready to gain a deeper understanding of your company's current stage of development? Take our Lifecycle Test and discover where your organization stands on its journey.

If the switch in focus from clients to stakeholders is abrupt, it can create antagonism within the organization, because the professional manager’s focus is different from what the rest of the organization is used to. Now, the long-time employees resist all this internal orientation, and often, the professional manager is fired for doing the job he was hired to do in the first place. “He just sits in his office and works on his computer all day,” the old-timer (P)s might complain. “He never sells anything!”

How about the third role? What is the (E)ntrepreneurial answer to two kids fighting over a xylophone?

Would you like to try to answer?

Let me see. In order to be (E)ntrepreneurial, I have to be proactive by positioning myself now for the next need. So what do I have to do? I have to find a new need other than the one the children are fighting over. I’ll say, “Let’s go to the movies!” I bet they’ll stop bickering immediately and get ready to go.

That’s what businesses often do. When they note that sales of a present product or service are going down—that client needs are not being satisfied—and when they can’t reverse the situation, one solution is to identify and satisfy a newer, stronger client need, the develop- ment of a new product or a new market.

What about the (I) solution?

My guess is to tell them to play together.

The moment you tell them the solution, you are intervening, you are coming from the outside. Is that mechanistic or organic?

Mechanistic.

That’s why telling them to play together would be an (A) solution, not an (I) solution.

What do you suggest?

You should not step in and order the kids to play together, because you would reinforce their mechanistic consciousness. They would continually rely on you to resolve their problems. In the (I) role, the task of management, leadership, or parenting is, as Ralph Ablon, CEO of Ogden Corporation, said, “to create an environment in which the most desirable thing will most probably happen.”

How do you do that?

In the case of the xylophone, here’s what I would do: I would say, “How dare you two fight? Brothers should not fight. I will not be here forever to solve the problems between you two. Who will solve your problems after I’m gone? Lawyers and judges? The punishment for fight- ing is that you must give me the xylophone. Neither of you will have it. Now go to your room and don’t come out until you have solved the problem.”

But you ignored their needs.

No. Ignoring them would mean not being conscious of my clients, which, in the case of being a parent, are the children. If I ignored their needs I would have probably screamed at them to be quiet and let me have some peace at home and walked away. That would be ignoring their needs. I focused on their needs but did not solve the problem myself. I created a situation in which they had to satisfy their needs by themselves, not by relying on me. A parent can’t make a child be anything. A parent should create an environment in which a child can become the best he can be.

I see. You created an environment in which the most desirable thing would most probably happen. What you are saying is that next time my vice presidents start fighting over a budget I should refuse to resolve the conflict. Give none of them the budget they want. Send them to their “room” and request that they solve the conflict among themselves.

A parent can’t make a child be anything. A parent should create an environment in which a child can become the best he can be.

Yes, but what happens if the kids come out of their room and tell you that their solution is to burn the house down?

I will send them back until they come with a solution that is acceptable.

You should do the same with the two vice presidents fighting over a budget. Send them to redo their solution until they find a solution that is best for the company, not a compromise between the two of them. They should think about what is good for the company, and the kids should think what is good for the family.

But wouldn’t the kids cry and resent the fact that you refused to solve their problem? And would not the vice presidents consider me a weak leader because I refused to solve the problem, and even abdicated my role as a leader?

You are right; expectations get in the way. People often prefer that someone else makes a decision and then they can resent and criticize the person who made that decision, object to the decision, and complain endlessly about how bad the decision was. It is so much easier for people to do that than to take responsibility and make the decision themselves. In that case, there is no one to complain about or to.

Get the printed copy of this book or get it for your Kindle!

Do not fall into this trap. Force them to take responsibility. They will not like it, sure. They might resent it, but that’s the price they have to pay to develop their relationship. That is how they will grow.

Now, how long do you think it would take for the kids to resolve their problem and come out of their room?

Probably thirty seconds.

How long do you think would it have taken them if I had said, “Take the xylophone and go to your room to solve the problem?”

A lot longer! But why?

Because the (P) and (I) roles are incompatible. It’s very difficult to (P)rovide for a need and (I)ntegrate simultaneously. I know this from my own experience. I have attended seminars where they taught us teamwork, interdependence, respect, and listening tools. I always resolved to practice these concepts. But guess what? When I returned to work and suffered about twenty minutes of time pressure and conflict, I decided I’d had enough (I)ntegration. Trying to be (I)ntegrative and at the same time task oriented, especially under time pressure, is extremely difficult. My (I) role declines when my (P) role increases.

Ah, I know this from my own experience. I have attended seminars where they taught us teamwork, interdependence, respect, and listening tools. I always resolved to practice these concepts. But guess what? When I returned to work and suffered about twenty minutes of time pressure and conflict, I decided I’d had enough (I)ntegration. Trying to be (I)ntegrative and at the same time task oriented, especially under time pressure, is extremely difficult. My (I) role declines when my (P) role increases.

(P) and (E) Incompatibility

Any combination of the four roles is incompatible, not just (P) and (I). (P)roducing and (E)ntrepreneuring are incompatible too. How many times have you said, “I’m working so hard, I have no time to think?” What does that mean? Pushing the rock—satisfying present demands—is so overwhelming that you have no time to think about future opportunities. The (P) role actually endangers the (E) role.

At some point, you have to freeze the planning, the changing, so you can proceed with the doing.

Yes, I know. I’ve heard the saying, “People who work too hard have no time to make serious money.”

Conversely, (E) threatens (P) too. (E)ntrepreneur- ing means change, and that threatens the (P) role. People in production often complain about devel- opment engineers or designers, saying, “If you guys don’t stop changing things, we’ll never get anything done.” At some point, you have to freeze the planning, the changing, so you can proceed with the doing.

Any examples?

This happens in some countries. There is too much change in fiscal or monetary policies to control a high rate of inflation. In a democratic society, governments might rise and fall frequently, and because the socio-political orientations of different parties vary, these changes in power bring changes in fiscal and monetary policies. At one point, Argentina had a new finance minister making new policy changes every six months. What can people do? People hedge their commitments, and the fewer people committed to a plan of action, the less productivity, savings, and supply there will be. People might even transfer their financial resources to countries with more stability. The result is that inflationary pressures will con- tinue to rise. This in turn encourages more flights of capital and further shaky commitments.

You mean to say that to control inflation, stability is necessary.

Right. The Adizes Methodology was used in Brazil during the Cardozo presidency to stop inflation. Clovis Carvallo, who was the de facto Prime Minister of Brazil in his role as Ministro de Casa Civil, and who has been certified in Adizes, told me so.

That is impressive.

To control inflation, stability is necessary.

This incompatibility between (P) and (E) has another application. You cannot have economic growth without political and economic stability. Too much (E) undermines (P) and too much (P) undermines (E). Watch countries with continuous economic performance. They have stable continuous political leadership.

Like Turkey under Prime Minister Erdogan.

Or Israel under Netanyahu. Conversely, countries that have turbulence in leadership do not fare well.

Like France?

But I don’t see how too much (P) could undermine (E).

If there is a crisis for survival and you have to (P), you do not have the energy or interest to invest time and money into preparing for the future. You just want to survive the present.

(P) and (A) Incompatibility

Now let’s look at another combination: (P) and (A). They are also incompatible. Remember the tennis analogy we used in our previous conversation? When you want to be very effective, you have difficulty being efficient. In your eagerness to hit the ball, you might ignore how you are hitting it.

That is why, during training, your coach might say, “Ignore the score.” In training you focus on how you hit the ball regardless of where the ball lands.

Thus, sometimes if you are very efficient you end up being less effective. You focus all your attention on how you are doing something and you miss the purpose of what you are doing.

We talked about this already, I remember: You hit only the balls that come to your racket rather than bring the racket where the ball is. You satisfy only those needs that fit your standard operating procedures or policies. You ignore the changing needs of the client. As if you are saying to the opponent in the tennis game, send me the ball only here, because this is where I am organized to hit it.

Yes, these are the companies that say “It would be a wonderful business to run, were it not for the changing needs of our customers.” They are a bureaucracy. The reverse is also true: Too much (P) can undermine (A).

That happens in startup companies, I bet. They are so busy trying to make ends meet, (P), that they have no time to get organized, (A).

Exactly.

(A) and (E) Incompatibility (A) and (E) are also incompatible, right?

Sure. We know that policies, rules, and institutionalized behavior inhibit change. Thus (A) endangers (E) and vice versa; too much change, too much (E), hinders systematization and order.

Yes, it is very difficult to innovate, be creative, think outside the box, and take risks when the organization is run by (A), where you must follow rules and predetermined routines and adhere to policies.

If you manage by (A) do not be surprised that there will be little innovation in your company. Look at Russia today. They want innovation. People are very creative, but somehow innovation and entrepreneurship are not catching on. Why? The reason is the culture of fear that historically prevails in that country. (A) is implemented through fear. I have lectured a lot in Russia and told them that in order to have more entrepreneurs, more middle class, they need to change the culture of fear.

How did they react?

I believe their leadership is in a trap. If they remove management by fear, people will not understand how to behave in the new reality. They will dismiss the leader as being weak. So the leader must behave in the way people expect him to behave.

It is not easy to change that culture. It’s not easy to take a culture that is used to dictatorship and make it democratic. If you remove dictatorship you do not necessarily get democracy. If the foundations of the society are not already culturally democratic, you’ll get anarchy.

You mean to say that only a strong, committed leader can establish democracy?

Yes.

Is that all?

Corruption is the result of disruptive change.

No. There is another manifestation of the incompatibility of (A) and (E), and it is corruption. Show me a country with high rate of disruptive change and I will show you a lot of corruption.

Like the CIS countries, those that used to be part of the Soviet Union?

Yes, but not only them. There are also the developing countries in Latin America and Africa, as well as India and China. Come to think of it, America was quite corrupt at the beginning of its industrialization stage, with the railroad barons. Change can give birth to corruption.

Why is that?

When there is disruptive change the (A) becomes a mess. Russia, for instance, has three dif- ferent accounting systems. Some of the laws are from the Communist era, some are from the Tsarist era, and some are new, from the post-Communist era. Businesses suspect they must be guilty of something, but they do not know what. The court system is overwhelmed.

Then how do you operate?

You seek protection. You pay someone in government not to sue you, not to hurt you, or to give you preferential treatment.

Imagine a wall. When there is an earthquake—disruptive change—what happens? The wall develops cracks. Holes. There is a Hebrew expression that says a hole in the fence invites the thief.

Corruption is the result of disruptive change. (E) destroys old (A) and no new (A) has been established. In the murky water people go fishing, taking advantage of the situation. It doesn’t matter whether the change is from Communism to a market economy, or from an agrarian economy to industrialization, or decolonization.

They try to find the guilty party and sentence them, sometimes to death. Punishment should stop corruption, right?

Killing the mosquitos that carry malaria does not solve the problem. New ones are born. You need to dry the swamp where they breed. The same is true here: You need to reengineer the (A) system, clean up the messy (A), bring transparency to the system, improve the court system, and then watch corruption go down.

Another example of (A)-(E) incompatibility, and the disasters that can happen because of this incompatibility is anti-Semitism. Jews are culturally very (E). They train to be (E)s from a young age. In studying the Talmud, they are encouraged to challenge everything all the time, not to take anything for granted.

In a society where (A) is culturally dominant, people resent (E) style with a passion. If there is a crisis in (P), the (A)s accuse the (E)s of being the culpable ones.

Germany is culturally very (A). See how easily anti-Semitism took off in Germany with the rise of the Nazi party. Now in the beginning of the twenty-first century, as Europe is having prob- lems with economic growth—declining (P)—Rightist parties are growing and Right parties are more (A) than (E). (The liberals are the (E)s.) What is happening? Anti-Semitism is on the rise. In which countries? Those with a strong (A) component in the their culture. The UK is more anti-Semitic than Italy, and in France (A) is growing at the expense of (E), and you can see anti-Semitism on the rise there too.

What about Greece? Anti-Semitism is very high there, but they are strong in (E).

It is the disastrous decline in (P). Greece is in a terrible economic mess that causes resentment of any (E)s, including Jews.

(E) is threatened any time (A) is on the rise or (P) is on the decline. (E) stands out and is noticeable, thus it is an easy target to blame for all the ills of society.

Are you concerned for the Jewish people?

Yes, I am worried but it is not just anti-Semitism that concerns me. It will be anti any (E)s. The Chinese in Indonesia or Malaysia, the Indians in South Africa, the Armenians in Turkey. All ethnic (E)s are in danger when significant (A) is on the rise or major (P) on the decline.

(P) and (I) Incompatibility

Another combination is (P) and (I). We have talked about this incompatibility already. While trying to (P)roduce and (P)erform, that is, satisfy client needs, we might have to compromise the needs of some stakeholders. Perhaps we demand more from employees and get the unions upset. That can hurt (I)ntegration. Or if there is time pressure to satisfy an immediate need, attention to interpersonal needs might suffer.

You are right. No one falls in love while chasing a bus. They fall in love on vacation, walking on the beach at sunset.

Notice that when seduction is attempted the lights are low, candles, soft music—relaxed. For (I) you need to reduce the (P).

Does this explain why people claim that in big cities it is more difficult to establish intimate relationships. Finding love is tougher in big cities than in a small city or village.

Yes. The bigger the city, the more hustle and bustle there is, the more alienation and loneliness. The more people, the lonelier you will feel.

To find lonely people craving love and a sense of belonging, go to big cities. Show me a city with a rapid pace of work, with lots of stress, and I will show you lots of lonely people. The bigger the city the lonelier the people are.

Finding love is tougher in big cities than in a small city or village.

And the more pets they have. They get someone to love them unconditionally.

When there is no pressure from (P), (E), or (A), then (I) comes up and you will be able to experience love more easily.

Note that (I)ntegration or dis(I)ntegration occurs not only between people, or inter-people— we should look at dis(I)ntegration intra-people too.

Intra-people?

Yes. I use that word to describe (I)ntegration within a person, because there is more than one “me.” There are several: mind (A), body (P), emotions (E), and spirit (I). Frequently they are in conflict. The mind (A) makes decisions that damage the body (P), and people often push their bodies to extremes while building a career. They work so hard (P) that their emotions (E) suffer.

The spiritual is best expressed when the body, mind, and emotions are quiet.

In modern society the mind receives most of the attention. The mind goes to school and earns a degree. If you mea- sure what percentage of the day is allocated to the mind, you will find it gets the majority of our waking hours. Luckily, we sleep, so our body, emotions, and perhaps spirit enjoy some attention. However, the mind often robs them of their share with sleepless nights spent worrying about something.

Even if the body enjoys exercise, rest, and good food, while the mind goes to school and earns a degree, and the emotions enjoy heart-to-heart communications, the spiritual part could still be deprived. The spiritual is best expressed when the body, mind, and emotions are quiet. If you fast for a while, the body becomes quiet. If, at the same time, you meditate, the mind and emotions become quiet. Then you will get a deep sense of who you are. Your spirit will express itself. You will have a sense of unity within yourself and with the world around you. This could be a spiritual experience.

Experience love without trying to understand it.

Notice that spiritual leaders like Moses, Jesus, and the Buddha all had fasted and meditated when they discovered God.

On a smaller scale, going to church or synagogue or a mosque does that too. There is no (P), (A), or (E) activity while praying. It is all (I).

I still do not understand the (I) role, or how to get it.

The (I) role is difficult to explain because understanding one’s spiritual nature is 100 percent experiential. For now, why don’t you enjoy some poetry, music, or art? Or just watch nature. Experience something that doesn’t speak to your mind, something that you don’t try to understand. Experience something that makes you feel part of it. Experience love without trying to understand it. Love is not a cerebral, physical, or emotional experience. In its true form, it is a spiritual experience, expressed in intimacy with something, someone, or oneself.

What does this have to do with (PAEI)?

Well, the mind, body, emotions, and spirit correspond to (PAEI).

Mind?

(A).

Body?

(P).

Emotions?

(E).

And spirit is (I).

Since these four roles are frequently in conflict, one of the roles might emerge as dominant in our behavior. We might focus mostly on our body, mind, emotions, or spirit—whichever wins the internal battle—at the expense of the others.

Change fuels our internal conflict. The more hustle and bustle in our lives, the less the four roles are in balance. The higher the rate of change we experience, the more the mind, body, emotions, and spirit get scattered.

Depending on a person’s preference, usually expressed as habit, one of the four roles might win, while the other three are neglected. For example, some people make their mind the master. These are the technocrats, the robot-like people with no emotions or spirituality. There are others who dedicate their lives exclusively to their bodies. Exercise and healthy food are their religion.

And the third group dedicates itself to some form of art, feeding mostly their emotional side. What about the exclusively spiritual group?

They flock to the religious orders. The higher the rate of change in society, the more we see of such groups.

Where does this lead us?

The higher the rate of change, the more inter- and intra-dis(I)ntegration, and that is expressed in lack of inter-and intra-love.

Lack of inter-love—what is that?

Aggression, hostility toward others.

Then lack of intra-love is aggression and hostility toward oneself?

Yes. The higher the rate of change, the higher the rate of depression and suicide.

So should we stop change?

No one has ever succeeded in doing that. People have slowed down change only to have it erupt with a vengeance later. Don’t try to stop change. Learn how to deal with it instead.

How?

You should love your friends as you love yourself.

That’s what our conversations are about. To start, note that (I)ntegration in its highest form is love, and loving others starts with loving yourself. That does not mean loving your mind or body or emotions or spirit, but loving your mind and body and emotions and spirit. Next, it means caring for the needs of others as if they were your own. You should love your friends as you love yourself. This is the essence of the Bible, says one of the Jewish sages: Ve ahavta le reeha kamocha, love your neighbor as yourself. It is also one of the foundations of Christianity, Buddhism, and all truly spiritual religions.

Religion is supposed to be providing the (I) role for society.

Unfortunately, religions also have a lifecycle and, over time become an organized religion. Over time (A) grows to the degree that (I) declines and spirituality is lost all together. That brings us to discuss the (A)-(I) incompatibility.

(A) and (I) Incompatibility

Let’s explore this one with an example. Which country has the fewest lawyers per capita?

Japan, I think.

Correct. That means their need for (A)dministration is low, and that is because their (I)ntegration is high. In Japan there is a great deal of loyalty and interdependence in business. Corporations offer lifetime employment and a family environment. They take care of each other; they are guided by their culture, not as much by their legal institutions.

Now which country has the most lawyers per capita?

The United States?

Yes! It seems as if everyone is suing someone. (A) is very high and growing; our court system is overloaded. We rely on external intervention to solve our interdependency problems. Our (I) is lower than that of the Japanese.

Years ago, when Japan was the envy of American business and Japan was very competitive, I recommended, tongue in cheek, that the way to beat them is to export our (A) to them. That would undermine their (I), which is their competitive advantage.

Gain the skills to navigate and lead change effectively in your organization, family, government, and personal life. Get certified here.

How would you export (A)?

To (A)dministrate a problem is so much easier than to (I)ntegrate a relationship.

Teach them American traditional management theory on hierarchies, span of control, the role of the CEO as a sole ruler, etc.

By the way, the United States doesn’t have to export (A). It can grow indigenously in Japan. As change accelerates, dis(I)ntegration could occur and they might attempt to control it with (A)dministration. They are not immune to such development because they have not articulated and systematized their cultural advantage of (I) to the point that they can nourish and reproduce it. They are enjoying it while it lasts.

Why would they use (A) to control dis(I)ntegration and not (I)?

Because to (A)dministrate a problem is so much easier than to (I)ntegrate a relationship. With (A), you make a set of rules and your task is finished. Expression of (I) involves educa- tion and nourishment of culture and values.

It is easier to punish children than to teach them values of cooperation. I can see that.

(A) and (I) serve the same function. They are the “glue” of organizations. (A) is the mechanistic glue and (I) the organic glue. We can use one or the other and often confuse the two. People should not substitute one for the other.

Give me an example?

Where do you find more crime? In large cities with no community spirit or in small places where people know each other?

In metropolitan areas.

If large cities where people are alienated suffer more crime, is it due to a lack of (P), (A), (E), or (I)?

(I), I presume.

What is usually the attempted remedy?

More (A).

Right! More law and order. More punishment. More prison time. Isn’t it bizarre that they give people three or four life sentences when a person has only one life to give? They electrocute or hang or inject lethal chemicals into the sentenced criminal. Does this approach work to reduce crime?

No, it doesn’t.

Because crime is not an (A) problem. It is an (I) problem. It is not a legal problem. Inter-and intra-dis(I)ntegration are causing it, whether it is the individual who is dis(I)ntegrating men- tally or emotionally, or the surrounding socio-economic and political subsystems that are disintegrated.

Show me a country with a high rate of change and I will show you a high rate of divorce.

Get the printed copy of this book or get it for your Kindle!

(I) and (E) Incompatibility

What about (E)-(I) incompatibility?

The more change, the less time and energy we have to pay attention to each other. There is a psychological test that measures stress. Each life event is assigned points of stress, losing a job, so many points, divorce, so many points, going on vacation, so many points. The common denominator is change.

The more change, the more stress, and the less integration within ourselves and with others. Show me a country with a high rate of change and I will show you a high rate of divorce.

Right. There are more divorces on the east coast and west coast of America than in the middle of America. And the higher the rate of change, the more people will be in prison, and the more acute the problem of crime will be.

All are manifestations of dis(I)integration. (E), change, causes disintegration, i.e., negative (I), which people attempt to solve with more (A).

Instead, solve disintegration with integration. For instance teach prisoners to meditate and see how they change. Let them raise puppies. Let them experience love and see how that impacts them.

(PAEI) Code to Analyze Organizational Structures

How does this code relate to business?

Can you give me the (PAEI) code for the marketing function?

Well, first it should have an (E). Marketing has to analyze the future, how the clients and their needs will change. And since you focus on needs to be satisfied, the next in the code is the (P) role. So it is (PaEi).

(E), change, causes disintegration, i.e., negative (I), which people attempt to solve with more (A).

Right. Notice that there are no zeros in the code. There must be some (A) to deliver the marketing message well, and some (I) to be sure all those necessary to deliver the new strategy are aligned. Moreover, a large (I) is even better. You try to in- tegrate the company with more than its market.

Take the Body Shop chain of cosmetic stores under the leadership of the late Anita Roddick. They were not just selling soap or shaving cream. Every store was an outlet for social activ- ism, caring for abused children or battered women or exploited people, etc. They were not selling a product. They were promoting who they were, their values. They were integrated with a bigger vision than just making money or selling good products.

Were they successful?

For a while, but by ignoring commercial (E) they had no marketing department. They consid- ered marketing to be a dirty word, akin to exploitation. They lost their competitive advantage to a better merchandizing company who copied their (I) but added better (E).

Without consciousness of needs, without a spiritual sense of interdependence and oneness, without caring for the clients’ needs as if they were our own, we satisfy pseudoneeds. We might satisfy the client with pseudoneeds, and in the process we could make money, but we would also sabotage the total system. In the end, our efforts would come back to sabotage us.

See Adizes, Managing Corporate Lifecycles.

Drug pushers are extreme manifestations of this phenomenon. How many people push something they know is damaging, but continue to do so nevertheless? The proof that they know it is damaging is that they would not give it to their own children. The owner of a factory that pollutes the air does not let the family she loves live near the pollution. But we pollute the air for each other don’t we? We must not do to others, what we don’t want others to do to us, or to those we love.

Without consciousness of needs, without a spiritual sense of interdependence and oneness, we satisfy pseudoneeds. Our efforts would come back to sabotage us.

“Love thy neighbor as thyself,” right?

Yes, and: Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done unto to you. Thus, true marketing, to be effective in the long term, has to be (I) based.

The (I) is in the heart. (I) is love and love dwells in our hearts. It is very important that business leaders do not work only with their brains but with their hearts as well. It is not only good for the world in which we live, but it is good for the company as well.

Unfortunately, leadership training is focused on the brain, on the mind, and very little on the heart.

What else? Can you give me the (PAEI) code for the sales function?

Can you do it?

First, it should be (P). Second, (E). Why do you have (E) second? Don’t we want creative, forward-thinking salespeople?

Yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We are not talking about a trader, contractor, or developer. We are talking about the sales function. On a personal level, a salesperson’s personal style should be (PaeI): sensitive, client-focused (I) and still sale-oriented (P). Since (P) and (I) are very incompatible, outstanding salespeople are rare.

Now, what is the (PAEI) code for the sales department? The sales function?

(P) is the most important role because in order to produce sales, a sales department has to demonstrate how the product or service satisfies needs.

What should the second role be? Should the sales function be flexible (E), sensitive (I), or efficient (A)?

Efficient. That’s why we have sales territories, scheduling, itineraries, and routes. We want the maximum bang for the buck.

Right! That’s why the sales function should be (PAei), like a production function.

An excellent marketing person does not necessarily make an excellent sales person.

Come to think of it, sales is like production. Marketing designs the plan—what should be sold at what price and how it should be sold. Sales goes out and implements the plan. Stylistically, marketing is like process engineering and sales is like production.

This (PAEI) code shows you the incompatibility between the styles and functions of marketing and sales. Marketing should be (PaEi), while sales should be (PAei). Marketing should look at the long term and make requests regarding what should be done to prepare for the future. Sales should be short-term oriented and efficient.

Marketing is change oriented and can disturb the order sales needs for short-term efficiency. So it’s normal to have conflict between the sales and marketing departments in an organization.

You mean an excellent marketing person does not necessarily make an excellent sales person, and vice versa?

Right.

Then we sure make mistakes! In my company we usually promote the best salespeople into marketing.

To avoid conflicts, many companies put marketing and sales under the same manager. When that happens, which orientation, which role dominates do you think?

When marketing is put under the same vice president that is also in charge of sales, marketing has difficulty performing its function of providing leadership for change. It ends up performing mostly a support function, such as preparing sales collateral material. (P) will take precedence over (E).

Why is that?

Because when you have a choice—should you do long-term impact work or short-term—the short term pushes the long term out.

Right, when you have one VP for marketing and sales, most probably there is no marketing function. There is the name but not the function. The marketing department does sales-support functions and calls it marketing.

When production and engineering are combined, the same phenomenon is repeated. (P) dominates at the expense of (E). Engineering usually performs a maintenance function. Thus, don’t have one VP for sales and marketing, or for engineering and manufacturing. The (P) orientation will kill the (E) orientation.

Any other examples?

How about the (PAEI) code for motivating?

(- - - I)?

Why just (- - - I)? That says you don’t care what we do, or how or why we do it, just as long as we agree? That’s not motivating. That’s surrendering.

Is it (P) and (I)?

Don’t have one VP for sales and marketing, or for engineering and manufacturing.

What about the (A) and (E) roles? It’s important that you not forget any role. Any deficiency will haunt you, because all four “vitamins” are necessary. Whenever one role is missing, one of the desired outcomes won’t happen. The organization is going to be either ineffective or inefficient in the short or long term. Sooner or later, you will have to address the absent role if you wish to produce a healthy organization.

The Little League “one game” coach who inspires the kids with rah-rah-rah motivation saying, “Let’s win this game!” is using a (P - - I) approach. Without (A), there is no systematized plan for how to win the game. Without (E), there is no plan for how to deal with future games. It is only, “Let’s unite, play hard, and win.” Obviously, that could be enough for winning a game, but not the season.

Okay. All four roles are necessary. Got it. What about (pAeI)? What kind of motivation would that be?

You tell me.

It would be a system that motivates people, like a bonus or an incentive program.

Right! How about (paEi)? What kind of motivation is that?

When people have a vision of the future or a mission that motivates and unites them.

What type of motivation do we use most in the Western world?

I believe (pAeI).

Right again. Modern society is becoming increasingly (A) oriented. Jacques Ellul elaborates on this in his book The Technological Society.14 Think about it, there is a manual for every- thing—how to listen, talk, dress, eat, or make love. There is hardly a field of human endeavor for which there is no how-to manual. Even these conversations of ours can be converted into a manual on how to manage, lead, parent, or govern.

The strongest motivation is not (pAeI); it is (paEI). That’s what people go to war for and die for. That’s one of the reasons why Japanese productivity is so strong. People are hired there for the long term, so they identify with the long-term vision. They know they will benefit from achieving the goals. They are motivated and thus dedicated.

This code is like shorthand, like the DNA of any organization or any system. What I’ve learned is that although all four roles are necessary, they are incompatible, and because of that, what?

A role could be missing, squeezed out, threatened into extinction, or never fully developed.

Happiness is not a destination, nor is it a journey. It is the condition of your journey.

Got it. And what happens then?

Now that you understand the code, we are ready to explore one of its applications, to understand and predict managerial styles, the difference between management and mismanagement, and management and leadership. Management is when all (PAEI) roles are dispensed. Mismanagement is when one or more of the roles is missing. Leadership is when three roles are present one of them is (I).

Got it. But you have not told me yet how to predict the quality of decisions, the four questions I have to ask.

We will get to it, and when we do, you’ll see the trip was worth it. Happiness is not a destination, nor is it a journey. It is the condition of your journey, to be precise. The same is true of learning.