Archive for August, 2007 Page 3 of 3



Modern Globalization: The Perversion of the Word Free

Earth from Apollo 17Although Wayne Ellwood considers the transatlantic journey of Christopher Columbus the initiation of globalization, it’s true origins may lie even deeper in human history, dating all the way back to the origins of humanity in Africa, and their subsequent journeys to other continents. Though technology at the time prevented these early humans from creating vast networks of commerce and information exchange, it does show a desire by humans to explore and seek resources. This resource-seeking is exactly what led to our modern globalization, as individuals and companies seek to take advantage of nations’ unique characteristics and resources to improve economic efficiency.

The efforts of globalization to connect nations in a free, global economy has led to many disruptions and changes in countless societies, perhaps even every society. Outsourcing hurts the top economic nations but provides cheaper products, while an influx of jobs helps the poorest nations but also creates harrowing work conditions and has potentially harmful effects on the local environment. Countries in the middle of the scale benefit and are negatively affected by all of the above consequences of globalization.

However, these benefits and problems do not arise out of just globalization, rather globalization, especially today in our easily connected world, magnifies existing inequalities between nations. Growing up, I never thought we’d have a trade deficit with Mexico, but the vast difference between the two countries was immensely utilized by American companies to produce vast amounts of goods cheaply. Is it even really a trade deficit if much of the production is by or funded by American owned and based corporations?

This inequality also arises in the rationale behind globalization and the reality of the economic integration. While, I wholeheartedly agree that free economic trade between nations will lead to benefits for all nations, the current globalization strategy does not promote free trade, but rather institutes pseudo-free economies with control shifting out of individual nation’s hands and towards global organizations with the interests of the most prosperous nations as a priority.

Free Trade Satirical Cartoon

As Ellwood points out, global markets are not free but rather are influenced by corporate interests. For example, the governments of the “Tiger Economies” desired to maintain control over their economies, but the International Monetary Fund repeatedly insisted that the they free their economies. Eventually, the Asian governments complied, and a few years later went through a financial crisis that sent shock-waves around the world. This sort of persuasion by large organizations goes against the very principles of freedom of nations from outside influences (who have purely their own interests in mind). The IMF and World Bank and other globalization promoting organizations do not allow for freedom to reign, but rather promote their ideals onto other countries. Many third world nations, thirsty for capital seek funds from the World Bank, but have to accept such stringent requirements and restrictions that these funds end up perpetuating their poor economies, rather than helping them grow out of them.

As noted in Multinational Corporations and Government Relationships, free trade is promoted as the ideal market, until a prosperous nation’s key industries are attacked by foreign competitors. At this point the governments institute tariffs and import quotas to protect their industries, while hampering free trade. Even today, America promotes the benefits of free trade but refuses to perform any exchanges with Cuba, who have a supreme competitive advantage in rolling the finest cigars on the planet.

Although it would at first prove harmful to prosperous nations, the best strategy to properly implement global free trade, would be to actually implement global free trade. Removing tariffs, quotas, embargoes, and other restrictions to free trade would allow each country to utilize it’s natural resources and focusing on creating the best products for the world, without worries that they will be unable to obtain required goods in exchange.

Our current system simply does not follow what is written on paper, and instead prosperous nations utilize their vast resources to maintain advantages, thus limiting the benefits they and other countries can receive from globalization. In the grand scheme of the universe, our earth is not as large as we make it out to be, and for all nations to survive in the future, we will have to rely on trust and freedom to reign across all nations, without restrictions.

Assigned Readings:

Ellwood, Wayne. The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization London: Verso, 2001.

Steiner, George A. and John F. Steiner. Business, Government and Society: A Managerial Perspective 9th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2000 [Note, linked version is to 2005, 11th edition].

JSL: Just Substitute for Leaders

The Toyota corporate strategy is one of the most studied models in the business environment; this is the fourth (that I can remember) time I’ve studied Just In Time and the Toyota Production System in a business class. Before reading the articles, I knew Toyota was extremely efficient at producing quality products with a minimum of mistakes or material waste. Having read the article on Kiichiro Toyoda, I see his emphasis on genchi genbutsu (a trial and error method of finding the best process by being hands on) inspired Toyota’s efficiency. As Kiichiro was very hands on and detail oriented, any gains in efficiency would markedly improve his work time.

While reading the articles, the leader-member exchange, normative decision, Fiedler’s contingency, and the Path-Goal theories and models popped into my head. Looking through my classmates posts, it seems there is a wide variety of theories discussed, but a heavy emphasis on the models I listed above. There is one more model I see aspects of at work at Toyota and will thus discuss, the Substitutes for Leadership (SLM) model.

Though it seems counter-intuitive given the articles’ notes on the Toyota strategy and culture, there is evidence of follower, task, and organizational characteristics which act as leadership substitutes and neutralizers. From the pro-Toyota viewpoint, the use of family members as leaders shows a very rigid structure which discourages the average employee from seeking a leadership position at the top of the company. Otherwise, the family leadership is a betrayal of the substitutes for leadership model, as the family members breed a cult of personality that revolves the company around their way of thinking. As the Liker article [pg. 4] states:

With this system of beliefs and values, it would be unimaginable to hand over the company to a son, cousin, or nephew who did not get his hands dirty and truly love the automobile business. The company values shaped the development and selection of each generation of leaders.

This focus on the top leadership’s style, does neutralize the power of leaders below them, as they are expected to emulate the family-leaders style and belief, rather than being encouraged to critically analyze their leadership situation and act accordingly. This organizational rigidity, as evidenced by the family leadership at the top, and their commitment to their beliefs, as well as the seniority based ranking system discussed in The Darker Side of Lean article, neutralizes the need and effect of a structuring leader (at all levels one below the CEO).

We also see standardization and formalization acting as a substitute for structuring leadership. The essence of the Toyota Production System is to encourage efficiency in production time and resource use, as well as conformity in product quality. The TPS is set up in such a way to remove any need for creative analysis from the factory workers. The factory workers know how to use the equipment to make the necessary parts and need very little guidance on manufacturing processes. The engineers likewise are affected by standardization. The attempted perception of Toyota to the outside world is that they are leading innovators, and I too assumed this viewpoint before reading Darius’ personal experiences. Toyota has exemplified creativity in their Toyota Production System and Just In Time methods; however, in day to day engineering, creativity is substituted for by proven designs. Managers constantly denounced ideas engineers had and instead would focus on using existing designs which had proven successful at other companies.

The layout of the office discussed by Darius Mehri also points to neutralizing effects on leadership consideration and structure. For one, the way the desks are set up, with the managers on the outside and the followers on the inside points to a lack of respect for privacy, and is constantly used by the managers to humiliate the followers on the inside. It also eliminates the need for the managers to institute formal structures on who outranks who, because you can simply see where they sit to know how much power and respect they command.

In the pro-Toyota viewpoint, we see an emphasis on the Japanese team mentality being a big part of the TPS and a leading reason for its success. In the anti-Toyota viewpoint, Darius states that the team mentality is merely a perception, and in reality there are no teams and every individual works on their own work. In the pro-Toyota viewpoint, team cohesiveness acts as a replacement for both consideration and structuring needs from a leader. By giving employees kaizen (a participative say in decision making), Toyota eliminates the need for managers to dictate how a team should operate and eliminates the need for managers to actively engage employees, as they are expected to add their opinions. The reality, according to Mr. Mehri, is that kaizen is simply not used by leaders and that teams do not exist. The SLM structure is awkward to apply here, as the appearance of a cohesive team, indicates a substitute for leadership, but the reality shows a severe need for leaders who will actually work to improve worker safety, and ensure good people are promoted.

It seems there is a trend, where the pro-Toyota viewpoint and the tatemae encourage a structure where leadership is substituted by a cohesive team, standardization, professionalism (quality control and belief in the Toyota system) and direct feedback from a task (the getting your hands dirty approach). However, the honne and negative view of the Toyota system show that leadership is neutralized by organizational rigidity (seniority and the informal ranking of all employees), physical distance between leaders and followers, a leader’s lack of power (to encourage followers to act creatively, as they must have hard data to institute changes), and lack of value for goals (seen in the way safety is touted as a priority but never truly focused on).

Although there is clear leadership in place at Toyota, as seen by the family leaders and their beliefs, it’s also quite interesting to see how the rest of the organization falls into a substituting or neutralizing pattern depending on if you are viewing the tatemae (perception to outsiders) or the honne (the reality of the situation). We can even see the Substitutes for Leadership model in place in how employees discuss their work; while on company grounds, they maintain a positive attitude, but once they are engaging in their personal lives (at drinking parties), they are much more apt to criticize the strategy and philosophy at Toyota.

The above post is my response to discussion assignment 3B for the School of Management 697PP: Perspectives on Leadership course at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Assigned Readings:

Mehri, Darius. The Darker Side of Lean: An Insider’s Perspective on the Realities of the Toyota Production System. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 20.2 (2006) : 21 - 42.

Liker, Jeffreky K. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Nahavandi, Afsaneh. Art and Science of Leadership. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.

The assignment was to:

…compare these readings using one of the contingency theories discussed in the textbookÂ’’s Chapters 5 and 6. Choose a theory and try to apply it to each perspective on Toyota, and then in your analysis see what that application reveals about the two points of view on Toyota, and why they are so different.

Done: Time for Beer

Though both my summer classes were enjoyable and educational, I’m wicked glad that I’m now officially done with both of them and can relax a little bit over the next month and a half.

During the coming weeks you’ll see some assignments from these classes that I’ve been holding back (until they’re all posted). I’m also considering taking a few free classes from UC Berkley via their podcast lectures (the Computer Science classes also post the syllabus and textbook online), so look out for my experience with public domain learning. Now, after nearly ten months of continuous classes, I’m going to crack open a well deserved, ice cold, beer (UFO Hefeweizen with a lemon, to be exact). Ten more classes to go! Cheers everyone!