The World is Flat

Manfred Steger identifies five major ideological claims that are generally present whenever anyone talks or writes about globalization. They are: 1) Glogalization is about the liberilzation and global intergration of markets. 2)Globalization is inevitable and irreversible. 3)Nobody is in charge of globalization. 4)Globalization benefits everyone. 5) Globalization furthers the spread od democracy in the world. In the book "The world is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman, there are many examples and statements that support Steger's claims. For this blog I will address only numbers 3 and 4.

In stating a claim that nobody is in charge of globalization is supported by Friedman even in the title of his first chapter which he calls "While I was Sleeping". Many of the globalization concepts especially outsourcing, just "sort of happened". As Freidman states they came about as a result of many transnational companies desire to lower costs, a desire for greater speed and fewer mistakes (Friedman, 2007). This supports Stegers statement that "People aren't in charge of globalization; markets and technology are" (p.102). We do recognize that companies are run by people and it is the desire of the people that creates this change. One example that Friedman describes has to do with a conversation he had with a gentleman regarding getting his taxes done. The convesation cam about easily, also most casually. The next moment they were into discussions on outsourcing and the ease with which this sort of processing could be done and the ready market of well qualified workers, and the easy transfer of information. There are several other examples that show how these processes develop. It is spoken as a desire one statement and the next the discussion has moved on to implementation. Friedman also notes that it almost
has to be a deliberate action to not outsource. The example is from the CEO of JetBlue. He say's "we will never outsource to India" (p.38).

In Stegar's claim number four he says that globalization benefits everyone. That is a statement that is certainly up for debate. The majority of Freidman's chapter one does indeed support for the benefits of globalization outsourcing. This is especially true for the company that receives the additional work - such as India. Allowing the young adults in Indai to earn a wage well beyond what their parents earned is indeed a great benefit. This benfit has other implcations for a better life and a higher standard of living. The company that hires the workers also benfit in that it increases their profit margin since they are able to hire workers at such a reduce wage. They are also generally free from providing health and other benefits. However, for every job gained in one country there is a loss in another. I guess the key in this particular situation is balance.

One way to create a balnce would be to ensure that those that have lost jobs are provided means to increase or diversify their education and retrain for the new and upcoming industry that is being created. The problem with this is that there is so much dependance on the federal and state government to fund these initiatives. Most people that have lost their jobs due to outsourcing hardly have the money to spend on education. They are most likely already in debt. But even with that, education is still the answer. The question is who pays.

Friedman makes several good points in his first chapter. Globlization is an excellent concept and one that will most likely continue - just as history tells us that change has always occured. Major changes include the transportation, and our money sytem, the industrial revolution. The major difference is that most of these changes occurred slowly over time. The technology change has been extremley fast. Giving little time for any adjustments. Few adjustments have been pro-active; most have actually been re-active.

Steger's ideological claims about globalization are in general true. The categoreies and themes come up quite often as globalization is debated. Friedman ideas line up very nicely with Steger's claims. I would be interested in reading the remaining chapters of Freidman's book to compare his expriences with the claims made by Steiger.

Image inspired by Wheatley and related narrative

The image should actually be a tipped scale. Wheatley uses several terms in chapters 1 -5 of her book to describe open organizational sytems and how change occurs. As I was reading the term "tipping point" kept coming to mind. It is the title of a book by Malcolm Gladwell. He uses it to describe the mystery of how change occurs. It's the small increments that ultimately causes the change. Wheatley uses terms like disequilibrium, contingency and disruptive and dissapative structures. She writes about the summation of small acts and the big impact they can cause. In one chapter she talks about "space is not empty". Field theory is another Wheatley term that describes that almost spooky thing that happens that you can't put your finger on but it's a feeling of something in the air. These are intangibles that define an environment. Wheatley gives the example of an organization that has excellent customer service. She says "there was a leader who, in word and deed, filled space with clear and consistent messages about how customers were to be served". She says space is never empty!

This particular reading was very fascinating to me. I consider myself to be somewhat of a change agent on my campus. I directed a Title III project to open a new advising center. The second part of this project was to incorporate our new advsing model into the operational fabric of the college. The first part was easy compared to the second. I am frequently very discouraged as I try to bring about this new philosophy of advsing. The new philosophy is that the entire campus is responsible for advising students and that we embrace advising as a shared responsibility. I have spent countless hours and worked against a good deal of resistance trying to implment this change. This is the fourth year of a five year project - some parts have worked better than others. I can honestly say that some changes have surprised me. Space is never empty (Wheatley). I can see the results of change that I was not even aware was happening. It's a good feeling, albeit sometimes a bit mysterious. I can't pinpoint the exact event or moment when the change occurred.

There is still more to do and I will admit that sometimes I am somewhat uncertain that other changes will happen. I wish I had the exact formula to guarantee the additional changes we desire. But Wheatley does a good job of renewing my hope.

Post a symbol of organizational culture with a brief narrative explanation

Organizational culture is made up of many parts including ideas, values, symbols, rituals, assumptions and experiences. These all come together to form the organization's culture.

I selected the waterfall as a symbol of this coming together. It represents the fliud process of this coming together from various aspects and angles. Waterfalls are free flowing and develop over long periods of time - organizational culture is similiar. They both also imply the resistance any external controls - forming paths and patterns seemingly on thier own. Organizational culture is full of impressions, and legends that may or may not be true. But they entered over a period of time and can be extremely difficult to erradicate - in spite of the leader's best effort. Just like waterfalls, organizational culture can be a force to be reckoned with.

Many waterfalls flow into larger bodies of water, bringing things that were picked up along the way. Some become a permanent part of the larger body others drift away. The end result is always there, but identifying the parts is next to impossible.

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

The metaphors most frequently used to describe the human resource frame are family and community. These are terms associated with the HR frame. It supports the leaders belief that organizational goals and objectives can best be achieved when the organization is supportive of the needs of its employees. It also assumes that employees are placed in positions that allow them to utilize their skills and supports their continued growth and development. There is generally lots of support for professional developement and flexible work schedules. You may also notice that leaders with an HR frame are really concerned about relationships. They care about how people feel and are generally in favor of company or department social events like picnics and retreats. These events are an effort to promote a personal and caring environment. It is not surprising (maybe even expected) to see co-workers/leaders attend family events like weddings, funerals, or holiday socials.

Leaders in the HR frame support employee empowerment and welcome input from staff members. They may have an "open door" policy. Which implies the willingness to always hear feedback and new ideas.

The HR frame is workable and most people would prefer to work in a family or community environment where they are valued as individuals. However, for the leader of this type of organization there is the basic challenge of alligning the goals and objectives of the organization with the needs of the employees.

The HR frame is the one that I naturally gravitate towards. I make it a point to get to know staff members. It is also a part of my management style to inquire about vacations, sick relatives and other events that are important to staff. I make sure to send flowers for hospital stays, weddings and funerals. It is a part of our family environment. New employees are welcomed to the "family". I think staff members appreciate the personal touch and I believe it is an important element in helping me to reach organizational. One of the drawbacks of this frame is that it requires a good deal of time to talk to people (I do about a 20-30 minute walkaround every morning) and it can also be emotionally draining to support staff in this very personal way. But this is a style that I am comfortable with and one that has proven to be effective in my organization.

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

Like most large organizations, mine is complex and complicated. It is at times framed in one way and then another. It can be difficult to identify just one operational frame and even more surprisingly, I have watched the frame change as I've moved within the organization. Making me wonder if the frame changes or is it just my perception and understanding that changes.

As a faculty member my organization was framed as structural. The hierarchy was formal and well defined with specific divisions of labor and responsibilities. The first level was teaching faculty, then program coordinators, department chairs, deans and vice president. Instructional Services is a large division. The structural framework worked well as a means of clear order for resolving issues and accomplishing objectives. There was a clear set of objectives for each faculty member and a chain of command for handling problems and conflict. Faculty work pretty independently of each other as well as the organization. Change happened within the classroom. Any groups that did exist were based on the commonality of subject matter. Actually, I had little interest in the frame of the organization beyond my teaching.

As I have moved into other areas of the college, I am able to identify different frames. What I now see, as an administrator, is that my organization operates internally in a political frame and externally as symbolic frame. The symbolic frame is a constant - regardless of my position in the college.

The political frame is apparent in the decision making body of my organization. There are six administrators, representing six different divisions, they meet weekly to make decisions regarding the strategic direction of the college. Most discussions are driven by the divergent
interests of each division. This has a lot to do with a tight budget and the scarcity of resources. Each is fighting for his/her share of the pie. And trying not to lose anything either. There is some acknowledgement of the interdependence of all of the divisions, but that is, in general, not the overwhelming guide. Meeting days are filled with phones calls and closed door meetings as each attempts to build coalitions related to agenda items.

The common frame that I have observed, regardless of my position in the organization, is symbolic. We have a very positive presence in the community. We continue to serve as a symbol of hope and reassurance for many.