Globalization, The World is Flat

“…if you are an American, you better be good at the touchy-feely service stuff, because anything that can be digitized can be outsourced to either the smartest or the cheapest producer, or both. (15)”

This sentence from one of Friedman’s interviews defines many elements of market globalism. It is as if saying, “we see it (‘it’ being opportunity, value, money, etc.) and we’re coming to get it because we can do it cheaper.” Unfortunately, many Americans know this all to well as their jobs have been outsourced because they can be done cheaper and more efficiently overseas. Often we think of these jobs being higher-end/tech jobs (and now surgeries as seen in “Outsourcing Your Heart”), however, as noted in the Friedman text, drive-thru windows are being outsourced from communities to a central (American, for now) location. How much longer until these jobs are sent overseas? These entry level positions at local fast food restaurants are what keep some students out of trouble, and are a major source of funding for many families where parents either do not work, or are non-existent. This is a problem; however, market globalism does not address this…market globalism overlooks the person, as the decision comes down to “where can we keep our expenses to a minimum?”

The five claims to market globalism are true to an extent, and really depend on perspective. For example, claim four notes that “globalization benefits everyone.” Does it? Try to explain that to the mother of three who has a degree in accounting, has held a job with an American company for 20 years and then has it outsourced to India. Globalization does not benefit her. Globalization does not benefit the teenagers mentioned above in the McDonalds scenario. However, globalization does benefit companies that are able to reduce expenses and increase profit margins. Additionally, the phenomenon benefits countries to which the jobs are outsourced. So, in all, it comes down to one’s perspective on the situation.

Claim one states, “globalization is about the liberalization and global integration of markets.” Several times in the Friedman text he mentions that “the playing field is being leveled.” In essence, by leveling the playing field, we are bringing people/markets together. By having call-centers in other countries, parts being made cheaply in other locations, etc. goods are remaining affordable, and even becoming cheaper. Markets around the world are embracing the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” model in that, you provide us cheap labor, we’ll bring our business to you and keep prices down for consumers.

Claim 2 reads, “globalization is everywhere and irreversible.” Due to market globalism and the drive for higher profits, this is undoubtedly true. Companies are able to be more efficient and increase their bottom line, why would they ever want to reverse this? One of the most interesting quotes from the Friedman article (p. 45), summarized a UBS commercial that said, “we are in two locations, everywhere, and right next to you.” Globalization has made this true, with the flattening of the world and instant access to phone, internet, and media, nearly everything is everywhere and right next to you, simultaneously.

Wheatley Image

These first five chapters definitely required me to step outside of my comfort zone in thinking about organizations, therefore, I hope my image makes sense. Throughout the chapters, Wheatley mentions weather and other parts of nature. This made me start thinking about the water cycle as an "organization." She notes on page 85 that change is never random, this relates well with the water cycle in that if there is a change (prolonged drought, a flood, etc.), there is a meteorological reason that this occurs. Wheatley also discusses relationships throughout the text, which can relate to the water cycle as there are many facets (people, plants, animals, etc.) that have a positive/negative effect on it.

The beginning of chapter four (cat in a box) metaphor made me think about the philosophical question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? Wheatley discusses observation, data and how we must be participants in organizations.

Lastly, for some reason, I continued to go back to the strategic planning process in an organization as I read through these chapters. I kept being able to pull certain elements (relationships, ownership, dis/equilibrium, un/structure, data, views, interpretations, the power of participation, etc) from the readings and relate them back to how and why strategic plans are created.

Organizational Symbol

Post a symbol of organizational culture with a brief narrative

I have thought about this all week, and have tossed several ideas around along with various explanations.  However, today, as we were headed to the soccer game, we passed a FedEx truck.  Taken by itself, the FedEx logo is simply words on the side of a truck, a building, on boxes, etc.  But, if one looks closely, there is a deeper, more symbolic meaning within the word.  When put together, the capital 'E' and 'x' create an arrow.  One site* I found noted that this symbolizes "speed and precision of the courier service."  Also, an arrow represents movement which is the ultimate goal of Federal Express.  Given the fact that FedEx has stiff competition from UPS and the USPS, I'm assuming they are willing to try anything to gain an advantage, including using illusions in their advertising campaign.

*Vurdlak, (2006) FedEx logo optical illusion. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from www.moillusions.com/2006/05/fedex-logo-optical-illusion.html

-------

In another blog, someone mentioned symbols associated with universities.  In reflecting on this, I thought back to the late 90s when Nike created a new basketball jersey that moved well away from the traditional uniforms.  This did not go over well with Tar Heel nation, and was a one and done design.  Nike quickly went back to the traditional look which shows that money talks, as fans refused to buy into the new style.  Carolina is steeped in tradition, back to the Old Well (another organizational symbol), and to move away from the decades old Carolina blue and argyle was unthinkable.  

Question 3

In light of our readings and discussions, what are the strengths and limitations
of the structure you inhabit?

In thinking of schools, and after writing about the human resource frame last week, of course, people must be considered when dealing with the strengths and weaknesses. The cliche, "the chain is only as strong as the weakest link" resounds when dealing with this issue. A leader must surround him/herself with strong/knowledgeable supporters in order to be effective. We do not want any weak links in the chain. In schools, leaders must make sure everyone buys into the vision that is decided upon by the institution and that proper measures are put in place to keep everyone focused. A good leader that has strong motivational skills can be very productive. If s/he can get those around him/her to buy into the system, the sky is the limit.

However, that leads to a limitation as well. Some people are so set in their ways, change can be drastic. When some people in an organization are not willing to change, it can hold the entire organization back and create rifts within the organization. This is a very difficult situation for all involved and can take a lot of time to overcome.

Question 2

What metaphors do educational organizations typically use to describe their approach to human resources? How well do those metaphors work?

After combing through our system’s website, and the sites of neighboring systems, it is apparent that the primary metaphor is that of a family or team. Some sites say this explicitly, while others offer verbiage that make it an implied concept. In large, blue font, one school system’s human resources site reads “come work with us!” The operative word in this sentence is with. The system did not use ‘for’ or ‘under’ but ‘with’ to signify that everyone (teachers, administrators, district office leaders, etc.) is working together to meet a common goal: creating well-rounded, globally competitive students.
It can be hard to judge/evaluate how well these metaphors work. Would one look at turnover rate? job-satisfaction? how quickly vacancies are filled? I think it is more about putting these words into actions and making employees feel like they are a part of a team, part of something special.
In early 2008, I attended a job fair and spoke with an HR representative from one of NC’s larger school districts. This lady could have sold me oceanfront property in Oklahoma; she was very good at her job. She got me excited about the possibility of working in that system, so after further researching the system, etc. I made the move. However, the excitement stopped at that point. The school system had a wonderful HR department, but there was very little follow-up/support anywhere else to make me feel as though I was part of a team/family.

Question 1

What type of frame is most commonly used by leaders in your educational system? Why?

Although I believe it is imperative to blend all four frames in order to have a successful system, after completing the readings, taking part in the class discussion and the activity, I believe the human resource frame is the most commonly used in our system.

As teachers and leaders we are here to serve people, be it students or parents. Relationship building and sustaining are key in order for schools to be successful. This must not only take place between colleagues, but between students:teachers, educators:parents, schools:communities, etc. When the lines of communication are open, possibilities are endless.

One focus of our district is on customer service which fits nicely into the human resource framework. We must consistently work to satisfactorily meet the needs of those we serve and maintain a positive perception from the community standpoint. On page 21, the text notes that "the human resource lens emphasizes understanding people, their strengths and foibles, reason and emotion, desires and fears." This definition adequately describes the mission of many school systems, schools and individual classrooms.

The leadership component of the HR frame is that of empowerment. In the educational system, this must occur on all levels, from the top-down and bottom up. Employees, students, leaders, etc. must consistently work together to achieve goals and meet/exceed expectations.