Friday, October 19, 2012

Never Waste a Crisis - A real Leadership Opportunity


Never Waste a Crisis - A real Leadership Opportunity Henrik Scheel
Level: Basic

As the Vice President for IBM Software Group in North Europe, Middle East and Africa. Contact details: Hsch@ch.ibm.com or H_Scheel@yahoo.com

How can one use the Crisis - A Leadership Opportunity
The leadership during crisis is increasingly important because in today's arena, crises are less predictable, longer lasting, and infinitely more costly. From the corporate boardroom to the modern battlefield, spanning city hall to small business, leaders around the globe grapple with the challenges of crisis. A highly mobile society geared for efficiency and individual freedom is more prone to attack from contagious diseases, anarchists, and terrorists. Globalization of mass media, transparency in organizational operations, and the dizzying pace of technological advancements reduces the time leaders have to employ decisive action. Consequently, they are forced to survive intense public scrutiny while weathering the disruptive forces of crisis. Leaders must be prepared for the inevitable, unexpected, and unprecedented.
The cornerstone of understanding how crisis effects organizations is to view the crisis as a continuum, without beginning or end, using a typical Life cycle approach adapted to crisis, a Crisis Life cycle would have three phases (preparation, emergency, and adaptive) and distinct zones (comfort, learning, and danger) of the crisis model.

To seize the opportunity that a crisis provides Leaders need to refined set of "Leader's Strategies" that can be implemented to not only stabilize an organization. The leadership strategies include: Lead from the Front, Focus on the Core Purpose, Build the Team, Conduct Continuous Planning, Mitigate the Threat, Tell the Story, and Profit from the Crisis.

Understanding the life cycle of a Crisis
As we see all around us is crisis a universal reality, nothing that just came up with the economic crisis we are going through. Simply put, it is an indelible part of the human condition. Its forces are like tectonic plates. One plate represents an organization's values, beliefs, culture, and behaviours; while the other reflects its changing environment. In the beginning, as the plates imperceptibly diverge, small tremors or vibrations begin to signal the organization of an emerging problem. But when the plates eventually reach an intolerable stress level, they readjust, sending out a cataclysmic eruption, called crisis.

When I attended a coaching course last year, the coach Mark Von Rosing described how crisis begins. He stated crisis begins when "existing organizations have ceased to adequately meet the problems posed by an environment that they in part have created ... the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis..." Our failure to heed the initial signals or tremors and recognize that our relationship with the environment has changed is what causes crisis. Yet just as conflict is necessary for growth and development, crisis provides us the urgency, attention, and opportunity to adapt our organization when there was no previous mandate. I agree and believe that many organizations refuse to acknowledge a problem until it is a full-fledged crisis. Sadly to many legislative bodies will not react to a problem until it turns into a recognized crisis.

To many organizations and people wrongly believe that crisis is a random, cataclysmic event that can strike without warning. However as mentioned before, crisis occurs when an organization's values, beliefs, culture, or behaviors become misaligned with its operating environment. Until they are realigned, crisis will continue ... indefinitely.

Crisis can be broken down in a generic crisis life cycle model. This model is representative of a single event. However, it needs to be understood that crisis organizations face a continual barrage of overlapping conflicts or minor-crises. Similarly, most crises can't be defined by one event and the underlying challenge may resurface multiple times, overlapping its beginning and ending phases. But, for purposes of clarification, our discussion will focus on that single, cataclysmic crisis event, one that threatens the organization's very existence.

Crisis Life-Cycle Model
A crisis life-cycle model could be divided into three phases: preparation, emergency, and adaptive. Prior to any crisis, an organization is in the preparation phase. During this time, leaders should be cognizant of tremors or signals of misplaced values and behaviours. Complacent organizations are ripe for crisis. Unexpectedly, almost every crisis is preceded by signals and tremors. Leaders who are listening or are in tune with them may avert or mitigate crises.

The transition point from the preparation phase into the emergency phase begins with an eruption followed by institutional awareness of the crisis. Stress and disequilibrium become intolerable and the organization's very survival may be at stake. The transition point from the emergency to adaptive phase is often hard to recognize and occurs when the immediate danger is contained. Unfortunately, leaders and followers often don't want to face these hard challenges, especially after overcoming the immediate crisis. They ignore the urgency, attention, and opportunity gained. Staying in the learning zone after crisis is the most difficult, least understood and largest delineator of leaders who successfully navigate crisis.

Another illustration of the crisis lifecycle is a typical human response to heart disease. Imagine a young man (representing an organization) who is told by a doctor (the leader) that he has a family history of heart disease and should alter his present lifestyle. Since he was a child, he was aware that smoking, excessive alcohol, fatty foods, lack of exercise and being overweight could lead to an early heart attack; but chooses to ignore this information. As he aged, he could feel warning signs or signals of clogged arteries. He was tired, lethargic, and even had tremors in the form of light chest pain. He might treat these problems with technical solutions like fad weight loss programs, blood pressure medication, or even surgery.

The technical solutions deal with the immediate problem, but fail to address the long term adaptive lifestyle change required. Unfortunately, by not addressing the lifestyle changes, the man eventually has a heart attack. Now, as the man's life is threatened, the doctor must use technical responses in the form of life-saving actions to stabilize him and mitigate the immediate crisis. Once stabilized, the doctor finally has the man's attention. Knowing this small "window of opportunity" is fleeting, the doctor prescribes a major adaptive lifestyle change.For the man, this is tough. Not only did he just survive a heart attack, but he has to give up all his secure routines or habits that defined his comfort zone. Changing his lifestyle will mean enduring further loss and pain. However, if he successfully adapts, he may avoid a recurrent crisis.
During the preparation phase, adaptation or change is difficult if not impossible, because organizations prefer equilibrium and the status quo.
The Preparation Phase
Understanding why leaders are ineffective at adapting their organizations during the preparation phase is crucial to understanding crisis. The ability to move an organization from where if feels comfortable, without the urgency of crisis, is extremely difficult. Change means threatening stable relationships, balances of power, standard operating procedures, or current distribution of resources.
"People have a natural aversion to conflict in their families, communities, and organization. But deep conflicts, at their root, consist of differences in fervently held beliefs, yet differences in perspective are the engine of human progress." Even when leaders are aware of their organization's need for change, they struggle with the paradoxical requirement to provide direction without causing pain. Also, leaders must continuously balance the intense pressure to remove stress from their organizations while fighting the urge to return to the status quo. Therefore, in order to facilitate adaptation or change prior to crisis, leaders must establish credibility and create an atmosphere that allows people to face change in relative safety. It requires them to Lead from the Front.

Another way of preparing for crisis is to recognize, prioritize, and mobilize awareness for needed change. They must understand and Focus on the Core Purpose of the organization. This strategy is necessary to understand how an organization's values are related to a changing environment. Unfortunately, positive illusions, self-serving biases, and the tendency to discount the future often prevent leaders from listening to their environment. Sometimes leaders cannot overcome the state of denial or the awareness of indicating tremors.

Organizations need structured dialog, systemic decision analysis, and they must Conduct Continuous Planning to ensure actions are prioritized toward long-term organization health. For reasons discussed above, leaders often choose to ignore problems and avoid making hard choices; this is why it is important to Build the Team. Leaders who build effective teams are able to rapidly respond to crisis in a unified manner. Leaders who overcome these obstacles and mobilize resources toward learning, may avoid crisis altogether.

Emergency Phase
The emergency phase begins as the crisis erupts. September 11, 2001 reminds us that if we fail to examine our fundamental assumptions of the world, connect the dots to see the big picture, or think out of the box, we risk experiencing devastating tragedy and crisis. The most important factor during this phase is to Mitigate the Threat and reduce disequilibrium to a safe level.

A leader can use the institution's high expectations for security as capital for autocratic and technical solutions that reduce immediate stress; however, without addressing the underlying misalignments, crisis is sure to return. Timely intervention is key to mitigating the immediate threat and limit long term danger."

This is a perfect time for leaders to use quick-technical fixes to reduce stress to a tolerable level. However, the need for action must be weighed against the accompanying uncertainty that surrounds the event. During the emergency phase, leaders have a small window of opportunity to drop the organization's disequilibrium in order to stabilize the threat.

First impressions are usually accompanied with limited factual information that often misses the underlying causes. Therefore, it is advantageous to Focus on the Core Purpose when formulating initial responses. Leaders must not be overcome by the urgency of the crisis, but step back and draw from the guiding principles from the guiding principles of the organization. They must carefully weigh quick decisions against the realization that stress tends to reduce cognitive abilities. Using standard operating procedures, even when they don't perfectly apply, may help lower tension since routine is calming and reassuring to members.

As clarifying information develops, action and communication become even more essential, it is essential to Tell the Story. Leaders must rapidly explain the facts of the situation and actions being taken. Similarly, the leader must go to "ground zero" to provide needed empathy. People begin to relax when they see a calm, poised leader relating to their loss. All of these responses are crucial to seizing the initiative during the emergency phase.

The Adaptive Phase
Once the organization is stabilized, the adaptive phase begins. Although the immediate danger is under control; the leader must take advantage of the fleeting organizational mandate to address the underlying cause of the crisis, to avoid repeating the event. During this phase, the leader has an opportunity to change and grow, develop new procedures, alter the culture of the organization, and essentially Profit from the Crisis. Technical solutions may still be required, but during the adaptive phase, a leader must focus on reorienting the organization to face tough choices. This adaptation phase requires a crucial balance between maintaining the urgency to change while reassuring safety and security.

In conclusion, crisis provides us the ultimate signal that we have ignored, avoided, or failed to recognize the most pressing issues of our changing environment. As situations worsen, signals and tremors foreshadow impending disaster, giving us an opportunity to prepare for or adapt to it.

Unfortunately, most institutions resist change and prefer the safety and security of the status quo. When disaster strikes, the leader must refocus organizational resources and attention on survival. They must use this small window of opportunity to seize the initiative. However, just when survival seems assured, leaders face a crucial choice. They can either harness the urgency and attention provided by the crisis to align their organizations with the environment or risk a return of crisis.

Strategies for Leading through Crisis
For years crisis management has been synonymous with reactive leadership. While this type of leadership is often an unavoidable reality, this paper introduced a model that may be used to understand the general life cycle of a crisis, but what is the utility of such a model?

Applied to specific situations, this model can serve as a lens through which leaders may view their organizations. This lens, introduced as the Crisis Life cycle Model, can frame the crisis and help leaders understand the situation they are facing. Further, the model provides the leader perspective and context during a crisis. This perspective helps the leader gain a "birds-eye" view of the situation. The crisis life cycle model addresses the theory of crisis analysis, but the strength of the tool is put into practical terms when the crisis leadership strategies are applied to the model. The strategies represent the prescriptive portion of this paper. Knowing were an organization is in a crisis is not helpful unless a leader also knows how to manage this new reality.

To help navigate a crisis, this paper also addressed appropriate actions or strategies that leaders may chose to pursue in each of the three phases of a crisis. These strategies are not necessarily exclusive to a particular phase and in fact may span several phases of crisis. The crisis leadership strategies were developed by gleaning the most consistently effective actions leaders have used to successfully navigate through crisis.

There are seven essential strategies that leaders must apply to successfully lead organizations through crisis.

1.    Lead from the Front
2.    Focus on the Core Purpose
3.    Build the Team
4.    Conduct Continuous Planning
5.    Mitigate the Threat
6.    Tell the Story
7.    Profit from the Crisis

Our Leader's Strategies were developed by reviewing the existing body of research and identifying successful strategies from historical crisis situations. Not every strategy is equally applicable to each crisis; the strength of the strategy varies with the crisis. Similarly, a strategy is not confined to use during a specific phase in the crisis life cycle model. A strategy may fall squarely in one phase of a crisis, or it may span several or all phases of a crisis.

Each strategy can be viewed as an arrow in the quiver of crisis leadership, the strategies show that it is not important to hit a bull's eye with each arrow; however it is important that each strategy hits the target in some fashion.

Finally, in developing and reviewing each of these strategies, we applied them to specific historical corporate and civil sector crisis situations. This application helped to validate the theory and the prescribed actions. The leader in each case successfully implemented some or all of the seven strategies

We believe that every crisis situation is unique and therefore it is impossible to develop a checklist that can be universally applied. However, the theory and strategies addressed in this paper may serve leaders well, if used to think about were their organization may be in the life cycle of a crisis and the appropriate strategies to be employed to meet their unique challenges.

Key Thoughts for Crisis Leadership

(A) UNDERSTANDING CRISIS
Conflict, and its subset crisis, is an indelible part of the human condition, and necessary for change and growth. It applies to all systems universally, whether personal, social, organizational, or national.
Because we live in a more complex, interconnected, and interdependent world, crisis is more prevalent than ever before. For this reason, it is critical that we understand why crisis represents both danger and opportunity.

People wrongly believe that crisis is a random, cataclysmic event that can strike without warning. Although "acts of God" sometimes happen, more than likely crisis occurs when an organization's values, beliefs, culture, or behaviors become misaligned with its operating environment. Until they are realigned, crisis will continue ... perhaps indefinitely.

Unexpectedly, almost every crisis is preceded by signals and tremors. Leaders who are listening or are "in-tune" with them may mitigate or avert crises.

During the preparation phase, adaptation or change is difficult if not impossible because organizations prefer equilibrium and the status quo. Leaders struggle to get their organizations to accept change because of the loss and pain that accompanies it.

During the emergency phase, leaders have a "small window of opportunity" to decrease the organization's level of disequilibrium in order to mitigate the threat. This is accomplished by decisive leadership, understanding the organization's core purpose, empathetic communication, and other "technical remedies."

The adaptive phase begins when the threat has been stabilized. At this point, leaders must focus the urgency and attention on the underlying causes of the crisis. If the organization returns to its original equilibrium (status quo), the leader will be unable to solve underlying issues and crisis is likely to return.

1. LEAD FROM THE FRONT
During periods of crisis, people defer to a strong leader who is visible, poised, courageous, committed, and attentive. Organizations under crisis want leaders who provide assurance, direction, and inspiration. Leaders must be careful not to get so caught up in the action that they lose their perspective and wisdom; this may be referred to as "leaving the dance floor to get on the balcony."

2. FOCUS ON THE CORE PURPOSE
People who understand their core purpose can weather any storm. Successful leaders understand their organization's core purpose. Organization's that succeed during crisis rely on their values, based upon their core purpose, as the foundation for every action and decision.

Leaders must ensure their organization's values, beliefs, and actions remain aligned with its core purpose and environmental reality. Once misaligned, a leader's primary job is to realign them. This adaptation may be extremely difficult, often causing organizational disequilibrium, loss, and pain.

Leaders must communicate their vision, grounded in the organization's core purpose, to help reduce anxiety and ensure long-term organizational stability and security.

3. BUILD THE TEAM
No leader is smart enough to single handedly solve all the challenges an organization encounters when in crisis. He must build teams inside, across, and outside his organization.

Personal relationships are the building blocks of all teams. A leader must continuously nurture his personal relationships to develop a shared identity or bond with every team member. It is this bond that keeps a team member engaged and committed when faced with danger or the impulse to flee.

A leader should also promote trust and understanding and foster an open and forgiving environment. He must provide feedback to his people.

Leaders must not forget the "external" stakeholders to the organization. If they feel a sense of connectedness and shared identity, they will be willing to support and sacrifice on behalf of the team.

4. CONDUCT CONTINUOUS PLANNING
To deal with the ever present crisis potential, leaders must conduct contingency planning, making as many decisions before the crisis as possible. Continuous planning begins by identifying the major categories of risk and prioritizing them with their probability of occurrence.

Every crisis sends out a trail of early warning signals. A leader must ensure that the organization is "tuned-in" to these signals. Leaders must ensure their organizations have a detailed crisis action plan which identifies the members, facilities, and actions to be conducted during a crisis. The leader must then test the plan under realistic and demanding conditions.

5. MITIGATE THE THREAT
When a crisis presents itself, leaders must take decisive action to facilitate damage control and move the crisis out of danger. People will feel that the danger is retreating when they see the leader is paying attention. People want to see their leaders during a crisis. The leader must be physically on the scene as soon as possible. It gives him the opportunity to embrace his central leadership role, capture the initiative, seize power and take control.

During a crisis, a leader should consult with experts and focus on fresh, critical thought; but be constantly vigilant that conventional wisdom may be what allowed the crisis to unfold.

6. TELL THE STORY
If a leader can communicate effectively, he can help frame, if not control, the story. Failing to communicate quickly may result in negative and unanticipated long-term consequences. Rapid, honest, and transparent communication often limits long-term media scrutiny.

The correct spokesperson is critical to communication effectiveness. The spokesperson must display poise and discipline. Whenever possible, it should be a identifiable leader, usually the CEO. The leader's message must reduce fear and contain empathy for the victims. The message should remain grounded in the organization's core purpose and values.

7. PROFIT FROM THE CRISIS
As soon as the danger is averted, the leader must declare the crisis over. The longer a crisis drags on, the more likely people will associate trouble and conflict with the organization.

Leaders should ensure that lessons from the crisis are documented and resolutions are implemented.

Finally, leaders should avoid the temptation to return the organization to the status-quo. He must take advantage of the urgency and attention to address the underlying issues that caused the crisis in the first place.

CAN WE SOLVE THE CRISIS?


CAN WE SOLVE THE CRISIS?
Learned from the past on Economy

Economics, as we know it today, is a cultural phenomenon, a product of our civilization. It is not, however, a product of our civilization in the sense that we have, intentionally, produced, or invented it, like a watch. The, difference lies in the fact that we understand a watch —we know how it works and we can deconstruct them into their individual parts and put them back together. However, we still don’t really know what, matter as such, is made of? We understand watches, so to speak, from a certain level up. Nor do we know what the real essence of time, is? So we, understand the mechanics of a watch, the parts that we have, ourselves, constructed. This is not the case with economics. So much, originated unconsciously, spontaneously, uncontrolled, unplanned, not under the conductor’s baton. Before it was emancipated as a field, economics lived happily within subsets of philosophy - ethics, for example - miles away from today’s concept of economics as a mathematical- allocative science that views “soft sciences” with a scorn born from positivistic arrogance. But our 1000 year “education” is built on a deeper, broader and oftentimes more solid base. It is worth knowing about.

THE STORY OF OUR ECONOMY
To understand the story of our economy we need to search our entire history for answers, from the beginnings of our culture to our current postmodern age and examine the moments that helped change later generations’ (and our current) economic perception of the world; it is to look at the stops in the development, either at certain historical epochs, like the age of Gilgamesh and the eras of the Hebrews, and Christians, etc. or at significant personalities that influenced the development of man’s economic understanding such as Descartes, Mandeville, Smith, Hume, Mill, et al. In other words, we seek to chart the development of the, economic ethos.

We ask questions that come before any economic thinking can begin—both philosophically and, to a degree, historically. The area here lies at the very borders of economics—and often beyond. The more important elements of a culture or field of inquiry such as economics are found in, fundamental assumptions, that adherents of all the various systems within the epoch unconsciously presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming, because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them, as the philosopher Alfred Whitehead notes in Adventures of Ideas.

What exactly are we doing? And why? Can we do ethically all that we can do technically? And what is the point of economics? What is all the effort for? And what do we really believe and where do our (often unknown) beliefs come from? If science is “a system of beliefs to which we are committed, ” what beliefs are they? As we has become a key field of explaining and changing the world today, these are all questions that need to be asked. In a somewhat postmodern fashion, we will try to have a philosophical, historical, anthropological, cultural and psychological approach to meta-economics.

THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG OF ECONOMICS
All of economics is, in the end, economics of good and evil. It is the telling of stories by people of people to people. Even the most sophisticated mathematical model is, de facto, a story, a parable, our effort to rationally grasp the world around us. The story told today, through economic mechanisms, is essentially about a “goodlife, ” a story we have born from the ancient Greek and Hebrew traditions and that mathematics, models, equations and statistics are just the tip of the iceberg of economics; that the biggest part of the iceberg of economic knowledge consists of everything else; and that disputes in economics are rather a battle of stories and various meta-narratives than anything else.

People today, as they have always, want to know from economists principally what is good and what is bad. We are trained to avoid normative judgments and opinions as to what is good and bad. Yet, contrary to what our textbooks say, economics is predominantly a normative field. Economics not only describes the world but is frequently about how the world should be (it should be effective, we have an ideal of perfect competition, an ideal of high-GDP growth in low inflation, the effort to achieve high competitiveness…). To this end, we create models, modern parables, but these unrealistic models (often intentionally) have little to do with the, real world. A daily example: If an economist on television answers a seemingly harmless question about the level of inflation,  in one blow a second question will be presented (which an economist will frequently add himself without being asked) as to whether the level of inflation is,  good or bad ,  and whether inflation should be higher or lower. Even with such a technical question, analysts immediately speak of, good and bad , and offer, normative, judgments: It , should , be lower or higher.

IS ECONOMI GOOD OR EVIL
Is there an economics of good and evil? Does it pay to be good, or does good exist outside the calculus of economics? Is selfishness innate to mankind? Can it be justified if it results in the common good? If economics is without any deeper meaning, it is worth asking such questions.

Despite this, economics tries, as if in a panic to avoid terms such as “good” and “evil.” It cannot. For “if economics were truly a value-neutral undertaking, one would expect that members of the economics profession would have developed a full body of economic thought” (Nelson, Economics as Religion). This, as we have seen, has not happened.

In my view, it is a good thing, but we must admit that economics is,  at the end of the day,  more of a normative science. According to Milton Friedman (Essays in Positive Economics), economics, should be, a positive science that is value-neutral and describes the world as it is and not how it should be. But the comment itself that “economics, should be, a positive science” is a, normative statement. It does not describe the world as it is but as it should be. In real life, economics is not a positive science. If it were, we would not have to, try for it to be.

By the way, being value-free is a value in itself,  a great value, to economists anyway. It is a paradox that a field that primarily studies values wants to be value-free. One more paradox is this: A field that, believes, in the, invisible hand of the market, wants to be without mysteries.

A HOLISTIC VIEW
Since economics has dared to imperialistically apply its system of thought to provinces traditionally belonging to religious studies, sociology, and political science, why not swim against the current and look at economics from the viewpoint of religious studies, sociology and political science? As long as modern economics dares to explain the operation of churches or conduct economic analyses of family ties, which often results in new and interesting insights, why not examine theoretical economics as we would systems of religions or of personal relationships? In other words, why not attempt an anthropological view of economics?

To look at economics in such a way, we must first distance ourselves from it. We must venture to the very borders of economics or even better, beyond them. Following Ludwig Wittgenstein’s metaphor of the eye observing its surroundings but never itself to examine an object (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, section 5.6), it is always necessary to step outside of it,  and if that is not possible,  at the very least to use a mirror.  We will employ anthropological, mythical, religious, philosophical, sociological and psychological mirrors—anything that provides us with a reflection. Here, at least two apologies must be offered. First, if we look at our own reflection in anything and everything around us, we often get a fractured and disparate picture. Importantly, we only deal with the legacy of our western science culture and civilization and ignore the other legacies such as Confucian, Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hinduism, and many others, although we would certainly find a great deal of stimulating ideas if we did.

Let´s focus on Hebrew and Christian thought that concerns economics, but we will not study the whole of ancient and medieval theologies. Our goal will be to pick out the key influences and revolutionary concepts that created today’s economic modus Vivendi. The justification for such a broad and somewhat disjointed approach is the idea Paul Feyerabend explained longago, that “anything goes”.

The beginnings of economic belief, the genesis of these ideas and their influence on economics

THE NEED FOR GREED
The history of Consumption and Labor, here we start with the most ancient myths, in which labor figures as the original human calling, labor for pleasure,  and later through insatiability as a curse. God or the gods either curse labor (Genesis, Greek myths) or curse too much labor (Gilgamesh). The birth of desire and lust or demand. The asceticism in various concepts and Augustinian contempt for this world dominates; Aquinas turns the pendulum and the material world gets attention and care. Until then, care for the soul dominated and the desires and needs of the body and the world were marginalized. Later, the pendulum would again swing the opposite way, in the direction of individualistic-utilitarian consumption. Nevertheless, from his beginnings, man has been marked as a naturally unnatural creature, who for unique reasons surrounds himself with external possessions. Insatiability, both material and spiritual are basic human meta characteristics,  which appear as early as the oldest myths and stories.

PROGRESS, NATURALNESS AND CIVILIZATION
Today we are intoxicated by the idea of progress, but in the very beginning, the idea of progress was non-existent. Time was cyclical and humanity was expected to make no historical motion. Then the Hebrews, with linear time, and later the Christians gave us the ideal or amplified the Hebrew ideal, we now embrace. Then the classical economists secularized progress.

How did we come to today’s progression of progress, and growth for growth’s sake? The Economy of Good and Evil, does good pay economically? In the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the morality of good and evil, it would appear, were not connected; on the other hand,  later,  in Hebrew thought,  ethics ruled as an explanatory factor in history.

The ancient Stoics did not permit the calculation of the yield of good and the Hedonists,  on the other hand,  believed that anything that paid in its results was good as a rule. Christian thinking broke a clear causality between good and evil through divine mercy and shifted reward for good or evil to the afterlife. This theme culminates with Mandeville and Adam Smith, in the now-famous dispute on private vices that produce public benefit. Later, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham built their utilitarianism on a similar Hedonistic principle. The entire history of ethics has been ruled by an effort to create a formula for the ethical rules of behavior.

The development of the economic soul from the very bedrock of written human memory on this planet all of this left traces, even in today’s times. We all have in ourselves the stories we live and the ones that our ancestors have passed on to us. We have also inherited others, often unknowingly. There is a piece of the wild Enkidu in everyone of us, a bit of the tyrannic and heroic Gilgamesh, a large piece of Plato’s influence,  mechanical dreams shared with Descartes,  and others. There are the words and deeds of Jesus and the prophets that we hear resonating in our heads from millennia past. They help us make our own life stories and give reason or meaning to our own deeds. And these often unknown parts of our life stories and the story of our civilization, shine forth and reveal themselves, especially in times of crisis. The ancient Greeks devoted much of their philosophy to economic issues. So did Christianity. Their keywords and principles in the Gospels are of economic or social origin. Also Thomas Aquinas and others have contributed greatly to principles that were later attributed to Adam Smith, who elucidated on them at the right time in history. The riddle of consumption has always been with us, that humans are naturally unnatural, and that we will always strive for more, no matter how much plenty there is around us. That hideous want has been with us since Pandora and Eve, and it is connected to the toils of labor. Even the most ancient civilizations knew what we are - at great pains - (re) discovering today. The quest of self-control is up to us. It is not for nothing that it is written in the Old Testament, that “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty”

REDISCOVER AND RETHINKING
It appears that contemporary economics should leave some new ideas and - on the other hand - return to many of the old. It should abandon the persistent dissatisfaction, artificially created social-economic shortcomings, while it should rediscover the role of sufficiency, resting,  and gratitude for what we have. And, by the way, we really do have a lot; from a material-economic standpoint the most in the history of Western Greek-Jewish-Christian civilization . . . or any civilization known to ever walk this planet. We should therefore leave behind this material daintiness and the excessive emphasis on the happiness material prosperity can provide.

The reason for this rethinking is that economic policy following the material goal only inherently runs into debts. Any economic crisis will become much worse if we were to constantly shoulder the burden of this debt. This burden should be repaid fast —before the next bigger economic crisis hits our system and finds us unprepared: having not learned our lesson and being pampered.

LIVING ON THE EDGE
Those who constantly live on the edge should not be surprised when that edge cuts. Those who cut the competitive edge should not complain when that edge cuts them. Those who fly too high and too close to the sun, like the fabled Icarus, cannot be surprised when their wings sometimes melt; the higher he flew,  the farther he fell. And we have skated too long on an edge that was very sharp. Skating and flying moderately were not enough for us; perhaps the time has come to return to safer and more pleasant altitudes.

It appears to me that we have given politicians and mathematicians too large a role at the expense of philosophers and own values. We have exchanged too much wisdom for exactness, too much humanity formathematization.

FOUNDATIONS BUILT ON SAND
It brings to mind an extremely detailed ivory tower, but one that has its foundations built on sand. It goes without saying that one parable speaks of how a wise builder pays more attention to his foundations than to the baroque decorations on the tip-tops of his building’s towers. When the rain comes, the cathedral will not fall like a housemade of sugar. While we are speaking of towers, isn’t the confusion of scientific language—the inability for understanding between individual scientific fields—also a result of each of the fields climbing up to the highest heights, where it tends to be empty and lonely, leaving the common lowlands empty? Isn’t the confused scientific language similar to what happened long ago during the construction of the Tower of Babel? True, staying low to the ground does not offer such a view to a distance, but, on the other hand, this is the place where people live.

And isn’t it better—as is often said—to be roughly right than precisely wrong? If we let up on our sophistication and speak clearly and understandably, more simply,  we may understand each other more. And we would be more aware of how much these isolated disciplines mutually need each other so that the building would hold together fast.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE STORY OF OUR ECONOMY
If I have written about what we should abandon, the question of what to return to should come more easily. Here the answer appears as follows: Step down from the ivory Babylonian tower before the confusion of languages (no one understanding anyone or anything) is completed. I do not reproach the progress that science has made till now, but as economists, we must constantly repeat what we know and what we do not know—and what we believe. We know much, but there is no doubt that there is ever more of what we still do not know and probably never will.

Too happily have we run away from these moral principles, principles on which economics should stand. Economic policy has been set loose, and a deficit psychosis in the form of gigantic debt is the result. Before setting out to seek new horizons, however, it is time for economic, retro. Ultimately, if a mathematician reveals an error in a calculation, he does not continue with it. That would not cover up the mistake nor resolve it. He must return to the point where the error occurred, correct it, and then calculate further.

OUR ONLY HOPE
Learning from the crisis appears to be our only hope. In good times, it is not an appropriate time for scrutiny and reflection, let alone for a substantial, change of direction, in the original spirit of the word, repentance. The truth appears in a crisis—frequently in its unpleasant nakedness (the emperor wears no clothes!).

The debt crisis is not just an economic or consumer crisis. It is much deeper and wider. Our era lacks moderation. I am not calling here for a turn to nature or to the natural state of things, nor am I urging the denial or rejection of the material. The material has its role and it is one of many sources of happiness. We should therefore be aware of our own situation; become aware that we must be grateful for what we have. And we really have a lot. We are so wealthy and strong that we do not have external limits.

We have overcome nearly everything and have long been able to do as we pleased. The fact that we did not do very much good in recent years with