New Horizons

It has been four years since the last presidential campaign in which hope and change were popular slogans. Everywhere we turned there was a sign pointing to Change and Hope. Students in elementary school, high-school, colleges;  teachers, nurses, parents, taxi drivers, plumbers… all were singing hope and change.

That melodic beat gave the impression of a fresh start in the country. One could think that those who had stopped dreaming were going to start dreaming again. And those who had their hopes dashed were going to live again. We saw young, old, rich, poor; mobilize in order to embrace the change movement. The ambiance was really energizing and empowering. It was like a moment preceding the messianic advent.

Four years later when I talk with those who were excited I realize that the passion has grown cold. People are no longer as energetic as they were then. Those who were cynical have turned back to their cynicism and those who had no hope seem to have relapsed; they have no confidence in the government.  What has happened?

There is no way that that energy could have dissipated in a very short period of time like that.

Let’s make some assumptions and maybe we will be able to get an idea of what the real problem is.

1. The message was shallow and the vision was not clear enough for the people to understand

2. The issues were too complex that they require time and a very good plan in order to be able to address them.

3. The people did not fully embrace the vision. They were excited about the concept but were not really ready to move with it. Before jumping to conclusions let’s think about the message of change.

What kind of change were the people talking about? What exactly were they expecting? What were they ready and willing to do in order to make that change real and permanent? Was that change aimed at the environment (external factors such as jobs, money, houses, cars…) or the general attitude (inner condition or mindset) of the people?

As I think about the situation,  I suspect that the people were expecting to see big changes in their personal lives. They thought that they were going to have more money, better jobs, drive nice cars… in short they were dreaming a paradisiacal near future. However, the events that followed became very disappointing as the economy did not fare well: unemployment rose, foreclosure went up, poverty increased in the country… Slowly and progressively their idea for change started to dissipate and their hope for a better near future started to die.

This situation calls us to think. What really went wrong?

Was the message shallow and vague; the vision not clear or it is that we failed to make an attitude shift? On many accounts the vision was well executed because most of its major promises were kept; in education for example the investment in scholarships and financial aid was doubled; in health-care, the health-care reform act was passed; in foreign affairs, American troops were brought back home from Iraq…All these were part of the vision when it was announced. From this perspective one can not say that the vision was not clear. Many institutional changes have taken place and others are still underway.

It is fair to admit that some of the issues are very complex because different forces were involved in their making, also those issues developed over many years. Issues such as the economy require a lot of energy, time and a robust plan in order to bring them to a stable condition. In addition to time and energy there is also a need for an attitude change when dealing with economic issues such as the one we are currently faced with. However, when it comes to this issue, it seems like the people’s attitude hasn’t changed yet.  The ongoing movement of occupy Wall Street is proof to that. Instead of taking responsibility we are blaming Wall Street for all the things that went wrong in this economy as if Wall Street deals alone.

Recent statistics show how we the people have adopted the habit of consuming beyond our means. Every penny we make, we give back to Wall Street not as investments but as consumption. Savings have earned a really bad reputation in the country just like nerds in schools. With this attitude I do not see how we can make change real and permanent because we will think that change will come from somewhere out there. When we don’t see it, we will think that something or someone out there worked against us and prevented us from getting what belongs to us. If on the other hand we believe that change starts with us, we will look within to make that change a reality. And when it doesn’t work we will self-examine to see where we may not be hitting the target.

The vision is clear in this matter as it tries to deal with systemic problems which encourage income inequalities among the people. However, regardless of how successful the vision is, if change does not take place in the people’s camp, the reform that we might put in place will be of little effect. This is where the people need to play their role and that role is making an attitude shift in the way we deal with finances. Let’s support the vision as it works to make systemic changes and at the same time let us change our attitude toward money. Instead of spending every penny that we earn, let’s start saving some of that money and see what difference that will make in our lives. The rich didn’t get rich by spending, but by saving and investing. If we adopt that mindset I am sure that we will see a big change in our economic situation in a short period of time. That is the kind of change I wish to see.

The world is changing but no one knows yet what will its new face look like. At the heart of it, is Mohammed Bouazizi, aTunisian streetvendor who set himself on fire in December of 2010 protesting against harsh treatment inflicted on him by a local municipal officer. His death sparked the Tunisian Revolution which spread to other countries in the region causing regimes to crumble in Tunisia,Egypt,Libya, and the ongoing struggles in Yemen,Syriaand many other parts of that region. And all those movements cite bad governance, corruption, social and economic inequalities as the cause of their discontent

I have been watching the development of events in other parts of the world and recently theNew York Occupy Wall Streetmovement as it gains momentum in what it calls fight against corporate greed. The movement started less than 2 months ago and has seen its popularity grow as its waves are reaching other parts of the country and the world, bringing a mass of people to protest against social and economic inequalities.

Recent reports show how there is a huge gap in income growth between the rich and the poor. I would cite for example the CBO STAFF MEMORANDUM: Measuring the Distribution of Income Gains of March 1992 in which it is shown:

 …total after-tax income had grown 38 percent to $3.0 trillion, a rise of about $830 billion. Of the total rise in aggregate income, about one-third went to the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution and two-thirds to the top 20 percent. About one-fourth went to families in the top 1 percent.  Income inequality fueled by corporate greed is what seems to be at the heart of our current economic turmoil, protesters say. Unemployment rates are all time high in many countries around the world, foreclosures have beaten the records, homelessness is on the rise. As a result the common people are very concerned; therefore decide to show their frustration by installing protest camps in cities around the world.

Only 1% of the population detains more than 40% of the world’s assets and what is alarming is that the tendency seems to perpetuate itself for ever. Should I use the word perpetuate or “take the situation back to normal?” because back in time only a handful of rulers and land owners detained the majority of the assets of their society. The idea of middle class did not exist back then. You were either rich or destitute. And this condition was permanent.

With the emergence of the middle class, things changed a bit as this class served as the arbiter between the rich and poor. As time went by however, trends started to change. Many people in the middle class started to fall back in the class of the poor as income inequalities continued grow.

We can say that perhaps the formation of the middle-class was an abnormal situation, and the world could not afford seeing millions of people suddenly rise out of poverty and then start counterbalancing the establishment’s power. If the middle-class was a natural abnormality then one could say that nature is reacting in order to restore its normal order in which only a handful of people detain the world’s power.

In recent years we’ve seen rise in income inequality as big companies executives are making millions of dollars while millions of common people are languishing in deep misery (unemployment high, foreclosures high, no medical insurance, education loans unaffordable etc.). And this inequality continues to grow every single passing day; it is very alarming and a cause for demonstrations.

When I flip the coin and look at the other side of the issue, I observe another abnormality which is not talked about and that is the situation of consumer unregulated appetite. In recent years we’ve seen consumers’ over appetite increase as people were consuming beyond their purchasing power. They accumulated debt to the point where they could not afford paying their bill. The recent recession from which we are still recovering can be a good example. It is then that we saw the global financial meltdown. The flow of capital stopped because consumers did not have money to spend and businesses could not operate because they had no money to finance their daily operations. Governments all over the world had no other option but to step in with massive stimulus packages and austerity measures in order to avoid the market collapse and to kick start the market’s engine. This was a big hit to the world market and some countries haven’t fully recovered from it yet. We can see that from the ongoing Euro zone crisis as massive bailouts are being given to countries whose economies are at the brink of collapse (Greece,Ireland,Portugal, possiblyItalyandSpain…)

If corporate greed is to blame for our economic malaise, what fueled the greed?  We know that businesses are in business to make money and every opportunity they get should be capitalized. Doing otherwise would be going against economic principles. If the market responds well to their products and services wouldn’t it be a natural response for them to find creative ways of how to develop more products and services guaranteeing their profit maximization? Common sense tells me to ask this question, whose responsibility is it to check whether the buyer has the power to purchase a product or service? Is it the seller or is it the buyer himself?

In view of all this I ask myself whether it is just and fair to blame everything on corporate greed? I believe that the consumer with his unregulated appetite has a share of responsibility in this crisis. Blaming the wealthy will not certainly change the situation even if we had the power to take their money and redistribute it, under current circumstances we would end up in worse conditions. Did the stimulus plan put an end to all our problems? The results are clear and loud. Our economy is still struggling to recover. As long as the consumer’s appetite is not regulated wealth redistribution is not an answer to our current situation.

I personally believe that it is time to engage in serious talks where each side will take its full share of responsibility then move forward to fix what needs to be fixed. In my view educating the consumer is the starting point. It is the consumer who decides the pace of the market. Given the right tools helping him make good buying decisions the consumer will avoid spending beyond his ability. Under current situation it is the corporate that decides the market’s pace. ! This is an abnormality.

The corporate sector has created tools such as credit cards encouraging the consumer to buy things with no money on hand. They entice the consumer to consume and consume until he is bankrupt and can’t consume anymore. That is where we have all erred. We’ve taken those cards, used them, and now the time to pay the bill has come when we have no money to pay. And the corporate sector needs money to produce the products and services that we consume on a daily basis. But they do not have that money because we are not consuming.

We cannot blame the corporate sector for everything that went wrong in our current economic situation, because even the ordinary citizens have a share of responsibility in this situation.

What should be done then? Imposing too many regulations on the corporate side would discourage our innovative spirit and destroy our global competitiveness, which may take us even deeper in the hole by sending all our innovative brains abroad. Continuing to consume at the current rate will only lead us into the abyss. It is economic suicide to consume beyond one’s production. And that is exactly what is going on.

This is a test of our ability to work together as a nation in order to solve a problem affecting all of us. We have done it in the past; we can do it now, the only thing that remains is to do it. We can’t do it blaming each other. We can’t do it by avoiding tough questions. We will only do it by looking each other in the eye and show where we have erred. Be willing to work hard and do the right thing for a very long time. Then we will begin to see good results.

Here is a set of ideas of things that I think need to be done in order to make remarkable changes in our economy.

Regulate consumption: We can not institute laws telling people how much they can consume but we can educate them on how to make wise decisions when consuming. Financial responsibility starts at home. If families can not balance their budgets how can we blame the government for failing to do so?

Protect the consumer against predatory practices from businesses: The government needs to do its job of creating a reasonable framework within which the market will operate. We can not let the business sector make all the rules pertaining to consumption.  Yes, it is a free market, but free market does not necessarily mean lack of accountability.

The problem is that the arbiters (our leaders in government) in this issue are more concerned with scoring political points instead of coming up with real solutions to the problem. They have decided to take sides, sometimes leaning on the consumer’s side and other times on the corporate side.  There is no broker who is able to objectively look at both sides of the issue and come up with a proposal that will satisfy both sides.

All content is provided by Camarade Balinda. Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved

Some of the greatest lessons we learn in life come at times when we expect them the least. I was sitting in class last week learning about the political philosophy of Education in the US. We covered a lot of points that day including the Jim Crow legislation. At different times the professor asked questions trying to understand where students stood on the issues that were being discussed. As I kept listening one student after another, I realized how we were all complaining about the U.S system of education. Some people blamed the system to be unjust because, according to them it only favors the rich. Others called it inefficient because it has failed to accomplish that which it was intended for.  It was clear that people were upset but as they kept talking I could also sense some sort of powerlessness in the room. In light of all those issues above mentioned no one was able to come up with a clear solution to the problem. It was all about blaming and complaining. And that led me to think about the atmosphere in the class room at the time.

Let me give you a background of the school I go to. This school is located in one of the poorest neighborhoods inSan Diego,California.The school was established in this community to help its residents have an educational facility in their backyard in order to inspire them to further their education while saving on transportation and other expenses associated with going to school in a different neighborhood. For more than 15 years this school was doing just that. Unfortunately the school is being closed for reasons that remain unclear to the community.

As I mulled over the discussion in class, one question kept popping in my mind and that is the question of whether students at Yale or Harvard or Cornell have that kind of discussions. Do they complain about situations or do they think about solutions to problems? That was my main question during the class. When I got home that evening I continued to think about that question and came up with another which goes as follow: what does it mean to be powerful?

I have never been to a prestigious university such as Yale or Harvard to see what kind of discussions they have in their auditoriums (classrooms). I am not sure if all the people who attend those institutions are rich or poor. It is still something that I am looking forward to experience when I attend one of those institutions.

Let me try to answer the question about what it means to be powerful.

Being powerful has nothing to do with having money or not having money. There are people who have a lot of money but complain all the time. Every time they encounter a challenge they become unresponsive. They try to find someone they can make their scapegoat. Instead of trying to find a solution, they sit idly thinking that the problem will just go away without any efforts on their part.

There are people on the other hand who have no money, but when presented with a challenge they do not complain or find somebody to blame for their misfortune. They instead set out with confidence trying to find a solution to whatever problem they may be facing. That to me is what makes the difference between the powerful and the not so powerful.  Being powerful is believing in oneself, Believing that one has the ability to produce results of his/her choice under any circumstances. And to do this, you do not need money. Having it makes things easier but does not solve the problem. It is our mental power and the condition of our hearts that makes all the difference.

Many people when faced with a problem respond by either running away, complaining or fighting the problem without thinking as if the problem at hand is their enemy. Problems are never to be taken as enemies for they do not come to destroy us but to give us an opportunity to explore the creative side of our brain as it works to uncover the breaks hidden behind the problem.

When faced with a challenge, the powerful look for solutions. He seeks first to get a clear understanding of the issue at hand then after careful thoughts and examination of the situation, he weights the options and then decides which ones have a higher probability of yielding desired results. This is how the powerful works. In addition to thinking, the powerful has the courage to step up and implement his plans (in other words, he takes action). He does not sit idly and expect things to work themselves out. He decides to take action and in the end he gets what he has been looking for.

Those of the opposite disposition (mindset) when faced with a setback (challenge) the first thing they look for is a scapegoat (Someone to blame for their misfortune). They do not see any responsibility on their part in the current situation. Once the blame has been successfully placed, the person sits idly thinking that the problem will fix itself. While they are sitting and complaining their situation deteriorates.  That is lack of power.

Money is only a tool that helps execute or materialize our plans. When in the hands of the powerful, money creates wonders. But when in the hands of the not so powerful, money creates disasters, therefore cannot last.

Is there such a thing as having too much power? Too much power is foolishness, therefore does not exist. Too much power is abuse of power which is a sign of weakness. Power creates more power and lack of it creates more lack of power.

One can not have power over something he doesn’t know or understand; and one cannot know or understand  something if he/she has no interest in that particular thing. In this sense it is what we know that determine the level of our power.

Our education system is the way it is and complaining about it will change nothing. It is what we do about it that will make all the difference.

All content is provided by Camarade Balinda. Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved

Change is one of the common words used in the management lexicon. Change in operations procedures, change of management style, change of personnel, change of leading philosophy of the organization etc.

Organizations as well as individuals use this concept on a continual basis in order to improve their existing products and services or operation procedures; get rid of ineffective products and services or operation procedures, and come up with new ones that suit the current state of the organization.

In view of this high frequency in the use of the word, one may think that change is an easy concept to manage. However, reality proves the contrary. Over centuries, fortunes have been spent; wars have been fought as organizations try to embrace this concept in their daily operations.

Some are successful in this endeavor and their situation changes dramatically causing their output to double and in some instances triple and quadruple depending on how well they understands the concept.

Others on the other hand are not lucky enough to have a firm grip on the concept. Every time they try it is as if someone comes in and steals their ideas and plans before they  materialize. Instead of having things change, they see stagnation or in some cases the worsening of the situation All because the organization did not fully understand the concept of change.

As much as we desire it, change does not come easily; it has a price tag attached to it. It is our ability and willingness to pay that price that determines our success.

Some changes are easy to implement because they do not disturb people’s way of thinking. These are just simple adjustments to current operations procedures.

There are changes that are not easy to implement because their substances are deeply ingrained in people’s minds. Making changes in those areas involve changing people’s way of life and that can not be done without attracting a certain degree of resistance. People adopt a lifestyle because it suits them. Even if that lifestyle is limiting them in some ways or harming them, it takes a lot to convince people to leave their current lifestyle.   One clear example that comes to mind is the California law prohibiting people from texting while driving. There are many people who have been cited more than one time for violating that law, but for some reasons they fail to comply only because that law interferes with their lifestyle. Even when they see the benefits of that law, they decide to forgo it to satisfy their needs. To create change in an environment like that, management needs to think creatively on how to bring people to embrace the new idea without resisting it.

Why Change?

Sometimes the desire for change can be attributed to poor performance (yielding less than what is expected) which in turn could be linked to lousy management, lack of skills necessary to perform the job at hand, not having enough technology and other necessary expertise and tools needed to do the job, low-wages or low-return on investment, poor work environment, unrealistic goals and expectations, self-centeredness on the part of the organization… This list is not exhaustive but gives us a cliché of the motivation for change. When an organization contemplates the idea for change, before making any decision whatsoever, the first thing to do is to check the above list to find out what might not be satisfactorily addressed. If for example morale is what is defaulting something should be done to address the morale issue. If it is lousy management, do something about it, then the rest.

Sometimes change becomes necessary not because the performance is poor, but because times have changed and a need to update current products, services and operation procedures to meet current needs is a must if the organization wants to stay competitive. In this context the understanding of current trends and the ability to predict the future is what will determine the success of the organization. Successful organizations create the future. And those that are not are created by the future.

Change also can be motivated by a change of culture. A French company will not operate in a foreign country the way it does at home. One example is how the French yogurt giant The Danone Group makes an adjustment in the ingredients of its products depending on the country it is serving. This change in ingredients is not motivated by the poor performance or time change but by the culture around.  (Reference: Creating a world without poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism by Muhammad Yunus)

In the next segment I will seek to answer the following questions:

1. How do we create change without ending into intimidation or threatening those who are supposed to carryout the change? How are we to implement change without resulting in manipulation or bribery?

2. What to do when people fail or refuse to abide by the rules?

3. How do we motivate people for best results?

4. what are the characteristics of successful managers?

5. How do we best communicate change?

All content is provided by Camarade Balinda. Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved