Book Report Segment #5 - The World is Flat??

In the last report for this book (finally 630 pages is a lot), Friedman starts off with a section about the effect of a flat world on culture. The commonly believed effect is that globalization will cause Americanization where everyone speaks English and adapts to American culture but Friedman points out that this is likely not to be the case. I agree and understand what he is saying. He is saying that as countries enter the flat world and begin to “play” that there will be less pressure or need for people to leave their home countries in order to get proper schooling or opportunities so that culture of those people has a better probability of being retained. In the past it was only America dealing globally so their culture was being injected into other countries but now with more players in the game more countries can inject bits of their culture while protecting it by not being pushed to leave for the benefits of education and opportunity. Not only is culture being equalized and diversified but so the flow of investment. Gone are the times where it was only America and Europe investing their capital globally but other countries like India and China are now doing that as well. The next section is titled, if it’s not happening it’s because you’re not doing it. This was kind of complicated but I think it just means that in order for something to happen you have to get the initiative to do something. They talked about Wal-Mart and McDonalds and how with their respective reputations they have the ability to help the world by instilling standards that provide the best quality and safeness for the environment. Friedman also mentioned how social entrepreneurs could now with the flat world easily access the global collective that they need to get their message out there and accepted by that collective. Once the belief gets accepted by enough then it almost forces the company to make the change requested in order to stay afloat. Continuous improvement within collaborations will help to improve quality standards as well as efficiency within the companies supply chain. The next section brings up how that with so many uses of technology that we may be far away when we are very close. For example say you’re sitting right next to someone but you’re both on your phones, doing separate things when you’re really close together. It’s interesting because this can already be seen and it raises another issue, law. As the ease of access to the world increases and the ability to post your thoughts and anything to the internet, the current legal system that we have isn’t built to handle the technological copyright and infringement occurrences that are so readily seen today. Friedman stresses that as the internet and global technology continues to increase in its importance and availability the legal system will have to make the necessary changes in order to be sustainable. Friedman next talks about some of the things that are keeping the world from becoming completely flat. He labels them the too sick, too disempowered, too frustrated, and too many Toyotas. The too sick are those who can’t access the flat world because they are too sick to do so. The too disempowered are those who live within a flat world but don’t have access to the tools, skills, or infrastructure to make in impact. The too frustrated are those who feel threatened by the flat world and therefore act out, like suicide bombers for example. The too many Toyotas group is a tad different, Friedman describes this as the most crucial downside to the flattening of the world, and that is the waste. With everyone coming up to the same level then per capita consumption and waste will be at an all time high which will threaten our natural resources and environment. Friedman then turns to a theory he has developed called the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention. He states with this that if two countries are intertwined by a supply chain and that both countries rely on each other that they will never come to war against each other because of the risk of damage to their resources. I found this interesting but yet as far as never happening is hard to believe. I’m sure that under a certain set of circumstances something could cause a war between two intertwined countries. The biggest test of this theory is currently Taiwan versus China and how their economic relationship is preventing war currently.  With the book now over I just want to take a little time to discuss how I felt about the book. I thought it was highly theoretical, inspiring, and brutally honest. I believe in the content of the book and Friedman did a great job proving his points. The world is changing and America needs to be ready. We can’t let 9/11 close our doors and cause us to fight the flat world; we will be left behind. There are good and bad things that come along with the flattening of the world and while we need to embrace the good we also need to protect against the bad which I feel like as a country we can do. We just need to get our infrastructure under us to support the things that we need it to.

All About the Benjamins, I mean Goate Bucks

Well of course a simple class exercise is Goates class was more than it seemed. I was in the top group and thought that we were all together as part of an organization but obviously I was mistaken. Everything was running smoothly aside from the time constraint but when it came down to getting the order placed. We, the top group, were stabbed in the back by those below us. Although I still made some money out of the deal, I was disheartened at the lack of organizational commitment. To do this to a real employer would leave you out on the street for sure and i'm not sure of the rational behind the actions but who knows what was on their papers. Eager to see how Goates expands on the exercise cause I'm speechless to what went down.

Book Report Segment #4 - The World Is Flat?

This next section looks at how America isn’t in place to make all the advancements that it needs to so sustain its place in the world for the years to come. He refers to a scientist, Dr. Shirley Jackson, whom discusses how without the proper education systems to promote innovation and scientific advancement like we had while Kennedy was in office, we may not be able to live up to our innovative standard that we have seen in the past 50 years. The flattening of the world along with the triple convergence has allowed everyone to access information and become relevant. Gaining a sustainable edge can only be acquired by the talent which is within the company. Right now, America doesn’t have the right base tools to make outstanding wealth in this flat world. Friedman points to three things which will allow success in the flat world. They are the proper infrastructure to get information out and in quickly and as efficient as possible, proper education programs to empower innovation within our own people, and the right governance to enhance and manage the flow with the flattened world. He explains six dirty little secrets that America has which will keep us from being the head power in the flat world. The first is that all of the scientists that were inspired by Kennedy and the space race are reaching their retirement and there haven’t been enough interested people to fill their places. So, in the years to come we will see a shortage in scientists which will definitely slow down our innovative engine. The second is our lack of education. Our country doesn’t recruit enough kids into the more advanced math, science, and engineering fields to keep pace with the other countries. Friedman talked about China and how they have a fair to lead into the global international science fair. China gets around 6 million applicants just to that while we only sent 65 thousand to the international fair. Bottom line is that if we can’t change our education system and get young minds interested in changing the world scientifically, we won’t be able to rely on our own innovation. We will have to play catch up to the new powers entering the flat world; China and India. The third secret is the ambition gap. It has been proven that when companies outsource they save money and increase efficiency, but they also see an increase in the quality and productivity of the workers. The point here is that when a country is lacking in natural resources they look within themselves to make a difference by tapping into the energy, creativity, and intelligence of their own people. This means that they, in turn, work harder and use their leisure time more wisely. Instead of playing video games and falling into pop culture, the people of China and India are reading and doing more productive things so that they can better themselves and their country as a whole as well. The next secret is the discrepancy between the top and bottom of our education system. We need to find a way to better educate all of our young people regardless of wealth or demographics. The fifth secret Friedman describes is the funding gap. The main idea is that we cannot expect to compete with China and India for jobs without a well rounded and educated workforce, something we are clearly lacking in as seen in the previous four dirty little secrets. The last secret is our insufficient web infrastructure. We don’t have people connected to the web as we should and therefore we aren’t getting our educated people connected to each other. The better connected we get, the more automated innovation can become because people have more time and energy to innovate. A quote in the book from Craig Mundie of Microsoft sums this up. “If the flat-world platform makes innovation and production so much more efficient, but your people can’t take advantage of it, because they don’t have the infrastructure or the education to do so, then sooner or later you are going to get hosed.” Think about that. Moving on, Friedman lists five crucial areas to which the American government can instill in us as its people to succeed in the flat world. These areas are leadership, muscle building, cushioning, social activism, and parenting. Leadership, social activism, and parenting are self explanatory but the other two are not. Muscle building refers to building the “muscle”, or the tools within a job that allow one to retain that job. Cutting the “fat”, or the things that induce slacking off, are what we need to eliminate in order to be a power in the flat world. Cushioning means to set yourself up so that if you lose a job somewhere you have the tools instilled within you to retain a job elsewhere. Basically, Friedman is stating that the days of people working one place for a lifetime is over. The next section goes into how developing countries fit into this flat world. For developing countries it is all about knowing where you are in the world and being willing to develop in the way to success. It all goes back to the four basic things Friedman has professed throughout this whole book; infrastructure, education, governance, and environment. After those things it then is about having the right economic policies that can open your countries doors to easy import/export trade. Learn from the policies of other successful nations in the flat world and adopt what they have done. Striving to put your country alongside the world’s top flat-world countries will aid in successful development. Get your stuff straight the first time so the transition is clean and efficient. Instill within your country the correct culture and mind sight to put yourselves at the top of the chain. Your culture must be open and willing to change and mold itself into the flat world. If self interests must be put aside so that the economy and country as a whole can prosper, then so be it. Friedman sees globalization as having the potential to lift many people out of poverty if done right and this has been seen in China and India. The key is to instill within the country virtually everything discussed in this book and always be adaptable to change. The last section that I read for this part of the report is on companies and the flat world. He provides nine rules that companies will need to look to and abide by in order to stay afloat within the flat world. As I read through the section and the rules they all dealt with virtually the same common theme. Basically to sum up the section Friedman is saying that a company must be open to change, willing to change, strive to stay ahead of the curve, do whatever it must, compete with itself as well as with others, and have a sense that you are never at the full capacity of your imagination and can always, continuously improve. This section really resonated with our in class discussions lately because it all ties to proper leadership and culture. Determining which leadership roles and societal culture to run with in order to make your country/company the best it can be to flow with the flat world. The organizational behaviors of the people within the organization or country are the key pieces of the puzzle. Have the right pieces in the right place and you will succeed.

Leadership and Culture

With the recent developments from Penn State we see how culture can be turned to fool us and while all the facts are not known about the University involvement or lack of involvement, I believe that a cover up existed. The Leadership structure from the President to the Grad Assistant all squandered their right to their job when they refused to tell law enforcement about the attack. The "leaders" whose fiduciary right is to act in the best interest for the stakeholders in the university. They did not do this by shushing the information brought forward. Penn State's values are to be honest and have a strong moral code. The reality of this culture is exactly opposite by what they actually did. The Board had to clear house in order to try and recapture those morals which won't happen for a long time. Many have labeled this as a lack of institutional control which reflects how the leadership of the university had to be changed. All had to go.

The rioting of the students on the basis of Joe Paterno being fired doesn't help the university image one bit. They are rioting because their "father" has been excused of his duty. If they see him as a "father" figure then they should expect more from him and that would have been stepping up and speaking out to enforcement.

Now on a side note I believe that McCreary ( who witnessed the anal raping of a 10-12 yr old boy) should be fired as well and i'm sure he has a weight of grief and regret on his shoulders as well but hindsight is 20-20. I guess the old saying "don't shoot the messenger" applies.....

I'm not trying to spark up a debate, just trying to understand the organizational behavior behind the problem. I guess that this all goes to Leadership Structure, Culture of the Organization, and now with the clean up will include Crisis Management.

Continuation of A for B

I’m sitting in class and thinking about our discussion in class on Monday. Professor is caught in the middle of rewarding A while hoping for B. In class we are rewarded by attending when he really wants our attention. He leaves the computer unlocked for note taking but he is not rewarding us for paying attention in class in the short term. So, by keeping the computers open during lecture, and only rewarding for attendance more than half of the class isn’t paying attention to him. An easy fix is to just be the power of the class and lock the computer completely. But, because a few students emailed him saying how they take notes on the computer he succumbed to their wants when they can just as easily take notes on paper and he would attain much more of the class in his lectures. Just found that interesting while I was sitting here.

Equity Theory

In equity theory, we are motivated by a sense of fairness in our interactions and when this fairness is breached we look for reasons to why it is that way and try to recreate the equality. I found it interesting that even the side on the better end of the equality would look to make the equation equal again. And that subconsciously we go through the input output thing in our head in a matter of seconds without even realizing it. So in order to equalize the equation we change these input/outputs and balance. This is virtually impossible to use as a motivational technique because someone will always see it as unfair and someone will always be left with no motivation by money when they reach the top bracket, which is why the video we watched in class was important. It put the emphasis of motivation on Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. Take the Australian company for example and how when they were given just one day to do whatever they wanted, the most innovation was achieved. This shows the power of this system where employees on their own have a willingness to innovate based on their own inner drive. I don’t exactly understand how it works but I definitely found it very interesting.

Rewarding A, Hoping for B

When I first read the article I was baffled by the title. Why would reward something while what we really want out of it is something completely different. Then I read on and it all made a lot of sense. The politics example was great because as voters we pick candidates by what they portray to us about their beliefs and plans while in office. As we know politicians think we are stupid and it is because we allow it. Candidates realize that they don’t have to tell us all the gibberish behind their plans just the general idea. We reward for official goals but hope that issues will be discussed operatively even though we don’t reward that aspect. With the war example the difference between lengths of the stay was the key to obedience. In WWII soldiers were only going to go home when the war was won so it was in their best interests to obey their officers and fight. But instead of rewarding the victory, in Vietnam they rewarded based on tour of duty and soldiers were sent home after their tour was up. So, they were rewarding the soldiers time spent there, while hoping for obedience along the way. In medicine, I didn’t find this surprising at all, of course doctors have the pressure to not make a type II error but I’m sure the board of directors profit most from type I errors. It isn’t as bad to make a type I error in a sense because the risk is lesser, so doctors would slack in this error in order to lessen chance of type II error. These examples all show us how behavior A is rewarded, while we just expect that behavior B will follow. This is not true, and I feel that the reward should be made to benefit morality and equity like the article states. In medicine, a doctor should be held to the same standards no matter what the type of error. The soldier should be rewarded for obedience rather than just being there for their time. Politicians should be rewarded for their objective goals instead of allowing them to make us look stupid time and time again by spoon feeding us.