Daily Archives: October 8, 2012

Federalist No. 8

In Federalist No. 8, while addressing the people of the State of New York, Hamilton continues his discussion of the insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve the Union by addressing the consequences of hostilities between the states.

Hamilton starts off by noting that war between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses
than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. This is because the states would lack the disciplined armies that render sudden conquests impracticable and prevent the rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The fortification they provide tends to mutually obstruct invasion. As a result, in these circumstances, the history of war is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition. But, in America, the scene would be altogether reversed and the populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbours and war, therefore, would be desultory and predatory.

And while standing armies are not provided against in the Constitution being proposed, they must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant
apprehension, which require a state of constant preparation, will infallibly produce them and the States or confederacies that made use of them [would gain] a superiority
over their neighbours.

And we also have to consider that there is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal
invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. In the latter, the perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. And when armies become numerous, a continual state of war becomes inevitable.

But, if we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation instead of being prey to the means of defending ourselves against
the ambition and jealousy of each other.

In short, if a Union is not formed, the confederacy will soon fall apart as the smaller States get wiped out by the larger states in war. In other words, division only leads to tension, strife, and inevitably war but union leads to understanding and peace.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

The Other Five Reasons People Resist Change

Change is important, as every Supply Management organization should be constantly improving, and some improvements will require change, which could be significant. But change is not always easy as it is often resisted by individuals who fear the loss of control, excess uncertainty, unfamiliar situations, additional work, and surprise that change represents. This is something we know all too well, and something that has been discussed many times before.

But these are not the only reasons people resist change, and in a recent post over on the HBR Blog Network on Ten Reasons People Resist Change, the author does a great job of pointing out the other five reasons, which are often overlooked.

  • loss of face
    Change is a departure from the past, a shift away from the current process or strategy which was created, and instituted, by one or more individuals. As a result, you’re not just moving away from a process or strategy, but from the people who created it, who might get the impression that if there is a need to move on, they must have been wrong. And since they may not be able to accept the stigma of being wrong, they will be forced to defend their process or strategy and resist change, even when it is needed. As a result, a good leader will have to point out that the reason for the change is that the world has changed and the organization needs to keep up. They will have to make it clear that the shift has nothing to do with the process or strategy, which worked well when it was instituted when the world was different, but everything about keeping up with the shifting times.
  • competence concerns
    If the individuals who will be responsible for implementing the change are questioning their ability to do so, they will resist the change (as no one likes to feel incompetent). Unless the leaders provide sufficient education, training, and support, this reason for resistance will be hard to overcome.
  • ripple effects
    Like a pebble tossed into a pond, the effect of a change is never localized. The ripples produced by a change will inevitably affect other processes, departments, and even customers. These people will, in turn, rebel against the change they had nothing to do with that they perceive as interfering with their activities. Unless all stakeholders are included, and a plan collaboratively constructed to minimize their disruption, at some point, significant resistance will spring up seemingly out of nowhere.
  • past resentments
    The ghost of Change-mess past is always lying in wait to haunt us when the next change is introduced. If past errors are not corrected, and past hurts are not healed, they will return to plague our efforts and curse our prosperity.
  • a real threat
    Let’s face it, when new processes and technologies come into play, jobs can be lost, prices can be cut, and investments can be wiped out. Leaders have to make sure to be honest, transparent, fair, and fast to address the issue — and have a plan to retrain and reallocate displaced workers (who are interested in staying with the company).

There’s a reason change management is all the rage. It’s often much tougher than one thinks.