Why World Is Not Flat

We live in a world that is Not That Flat

OB - II Project Report

Submitted by:

Manish Saluja
Mayank Kapoor
Mayank Tyagi
Manik Jhamb
Manish Srivastava

Contents Introduction 3 Objective 4 Historical Evolution of Globalization on Organizational Structure 5 Case Studies – Showcasing successful organizational structures 6 Nike Model 6 Microsoft Model 7 Globaloney – Unraveling the myths of Globalization 11 Problems with Traditional Globalization Theories 11 Reasons for overlooking these obvious data points 12 Ideal Globalization Approach 12 How medium scale enterprises which are not really fully integrated globally can restructure their organization in the context of globalization? 13 Conclusion 15 References 16

Introduction

Organizational structure pertains to the way in which companies arrange their departments. Smaller companies tend to have flatter organizational structures with few management levels. Larger companies use tall organizational structures with many echelons of management and employees. Companies use several types of organizational structure for specific roles. Certain organizational structures come with different advantages and disadvantages. Thus, considerations should be made before choosing a structure there is no perfect formula because the nature of the company will determine what is best. Duplicating raw materials or job duties is wasteful and inefficient. That is why determining the structure of the organization early on is vital to the growth of the company, keeping in mind the needs of which. Organizational structure in a company also enhances the communication process, which in turn is important to decision making.

The size of a company is sometimes the determining factor as to organizational structure effectiveness. As efficient as organizational structure can be, it can also create problems that can lead to loss of productivity and internal conflict. A strong company framework needs to identify suitable structure for their business. Factors such as company size, span of control, technology and tasks should be considered.

“Structure follows strategy.”Organizational structure is important because managers coordinate and organize to implement strategies. The form of organization influences how labor, knowledge, and skills are allocated to tasks; establishes how information will be channeled and affects the efficiency and sentiment with which individuals perform.

We tend to view organizing a matter of decision-making: we decide to arrange the people, jobs, and positions that we have available to meet management’s needs. But, there are real constraints on the forms of organization available to us. Hospitals tend not to be structured like fast food restaurants, and banks are not organized like a manufacturing plant. The task (or type of work to be done), the technology (the way we know how to do something), and our knowledge of what has worked and what does not work influence and limit our choice of organizational design.

Objective

To measure the actual Globalization levels and what effect it might have on organization structure
Conventional Belief – We live in a flat world
The concept of globalization today has invaded the globe and the national boundaries have been virtually eliminated. So what is the effect of this? Simple, the world today has become a small but a very complex and dynamic neighborhood. Today we live in a global village and this means that our activities have crossed the national boundaries to become global.
Globalization symbolizes the structural making of the world characterized by the free flow of technology and human resources across national boundaries presenting an ever-changing and competitive business environment. A vital aspect of globalization is the way diverse challenges are being faced by nations in an increasingly inter dependent world. No country can meaningfully progress today without efficiently responding to demands and pressures generated by international organizations and processes.
When going global, an organization has to reconsider the following factors: * Employment Laws * Culture * Terminology * Corporate Social Responsibility
The future success of any organizations relies on the ability to manage a diverse body of talent that can bring innovative ideas, perspectives and views to their work. The challenge and problems faced of workplace diversity can be turned into a strategic organizational asset if an organization is able to capitalize on this melting pot of diverse talents. With the mixture of talents of diverse cultural backgrounds, genders, ages and lifestyles, an organization can respond to business opportunities more rapidly and creatively. More importantly, if the organizational environment does not support diversity broadly, one risks losing talent to competitors. This is especially true for multinational companies (MNCs) who have operations on a global scale and employ people of different countries, ethical and cultural backgrounds.
Globalization has facilitated technology transfer and contributed to efficiencies in production. High-productivity employment opportunities have expanded and structural change has contributed to overall growth.

A tall organizational structure has multiple layers of management between the executives and the front line employees. The long chain of command runs from the top down. The larger the organization is, the taller the hierarchy grows and the more complex the movement of information between the layers becomes. However, tall structures rarely exceed 8 levels of management. This is firstly because the number of layers decreases the span of control. Secondly the disadvantages of the tall structure begin to outweigh the advantages of a tall structure. Tall organizational structure is one which has many levels of hierarchy. In these organizations, there are usually many managers, and each manager has a small span of control – they are in charge of only a small group of people. Tall structures tend to be more complicated and complex, and may be slower to respond to market changes than organizations where managers have a larger span of control. This kind of structure results to a narrow span of control. Meaning, the employees under one manager will be considerably smaller compared to that of a structure with a wide span of control. There are many managers or divisions, but few subordinates each manager.

“The corporation ‘de-layered’, throwing off entire levels of management; it ‘disaggregated’, ridding itself of its extraneous operations; it embraced ‘flexibility’, making it easier to replace career employees with (zero-benefit) temps; it ‘outsourced’ every possible piece of work to the lowest bidder; it ‘reengineered’ its various processes in a less labor-intensive way; it ‘dis-intermediated’, using new technology to cut out middle-men and move back-office jobs to wherever wages were lowest”

Historical Evolution of Globalization on Organizational Structure

Post – Fordism & Post Industrialism

Before describing the impact globalization has had on work and organizations, it may be useful to briefly speak about the central ideas of Post-Fordism and Post-Industrialism. Fordism refers to ideas and principles propagated by Henry Ford: mass production of uniform goods and a market for this, rigid technologies like the assembly line, unvarying work routines (Taylorism), and increasing productivity through economies of scale, deskilling and intensification (Ritzer, 2000). It is believed that Fordism began to decline in the 1970s, replaced by Post-Fordism. The distinctive characteristics of it are as follows: declining interest in mass products, growing interest in customized products, consumers willing to pay more for high quality and easily noticeable goods, shorter production runs, flexible production, flexible management, more capable workers with greater autonomy and responsibility, and greater differentiation in society and the workplace.

Focus has shifted from producing goods, like steel and automobiles, to producing services, like fast food and health. There has also been an increase in new technologies and in knowledge and information processing, while scientists, technicians and professionals are growing in number and importance. This means that creative knowledge workers will take over routinized workers. The post-industrial organization is characterized by: flattening in hierarchy, blurring of boundaries between organizations, an organization structure that is more integrated and less specialized, lack of rules to govern behavior, selection of employees based on their potential for creativity, and customized work and products. Despite the fact that Post-Fordism and Post-Industrialism has emerged, there has been no clear break from either Fordism or Industrialism, as elements and aspects of it are still present in work, and even though it may be contradictory, they co-exist.

Multinational corporations have begun to focus principally on brands and brand management, believing that while products are made in factories, a brand is made in the mind and bought by the consumer. A brand is an idea, a lifestyle, and an attitude. The result is innovative ad campaigns, superstores and corporate campuses, but also a change in the face of global employment. Superbrand companies focus on first creating the ‘soul’ of companies and then removing the burdensome bodies of employees, factories and machines. Making a superbrand is costly: after money is spent on sponsorships, ‘cool hunters’, ‘marketing maverns’, and branding, removing cumbersome bodies is crucial for cost effectiveness, or more clearly, profit. Priorities have changed; the logic of the new priority is not to spend money on machines that will rust, factories that need constant upkeep, and employees that will age and die; resources should be used on sponsorships, packaging, expansion, and advertising as it is this that will help to build superbrands. This increased resistance to investing in labor and factories has led to the inevitable devaluation of the production process, producers and employees.

Case Studies – Showcasing successful organizational structures

Nike Model

It was Team Nike that initiated the no-limits spending on branding, together with complete disinvestment in its workers. As Phil Knight says: “There is no value in making things any more. The value is added by careful research, by innovation and by marketing”). Nike is the epitome of the product-free brand. Major companies embraced the very successful Nike model: “Don’t own any factories, produce your products through an intricate web of contractors and subcontractors, and pour your resources into design and marketing”. Mass layoffs are necessary shifts in corporate strategy, the focus is on the needs of the brand over the workers. One company that followed the Nike model was Levis, with the same explanation: “The future belongs to companies that own little but sell much”. But, factories do not disappear to rematerialize, they become something completely different: an ‘order’ placed with a subcontractor who in turn pushes it off to ten more subcontractors, who passes it on to workers who work from basements and living rooms. Because of this procedure, once the sub/contractors take out their own profit, all that is left is the worker – at the bottom of the chain – receiving a paltry paycheck: “When the multinationals squeeze the subcontractors, the subcontractors squeeze the workers”. This change is so extreme that superbrands refuse to disclose locations of production sites, using competition as an excuse, and stating that they, like us, are “bargain hunters in search of the best deal in the global mall” (Klein, 2000, p202). But all they are interested in are materials, delivery dates, designs, and low prices, paying no attention to how low the prices are, the workers, or working conditions.

Microsoft Model

Microsoft model: “maintain a tight control center of shareholder/employees who perform the company’s ‘core competency’, and outsource everything else to temps”. Temporary workers and outsourced divisions began in Microsoft, where there is a two-tier workforce: at the center are permanent, full-time workers with benefits and stock options, and around this are the temporary workers, who provide the company with the flexibility to “expand and contract its workforce at will. ‘We use them,’ says Microsoft personnel officer Doug McKenna, ‘to provide us with flexibility and to deal with uncertainty.’”. Thus, another effect of globalization on work and organizations, another result of the ‘brands, not products’ revelation, and another way of cutting ties to the workforce: the upsurge of temporary contracts.

Modes of Lateral Organization

In order to enhance their absorptive capacity, an increasing number of large transnational corporations build on cooperative modes and networks. Through these strategic alliances (consortia), leading technology multinationals have found a way that allow rapid and flexible networking of institutionally and regionally dissipated centers of knowledge. However, aligning the interests of the strategic partners to the firm’s own strategy and corporate culture is no trivial matter, even in the age of global information and communication systems. Consequently, the awareness of these coordination problems have led back to more globally centralized restructuring in eminent multinationals as Ford, General Motors or Hoechst.

Organizational and Fiscal Consolidation

Even large multinational enterprises are confronted with strong financial restrictions and have difficulty in keeping pace in race in order to avoid lags vis-à-vis competition. Organizational associated with fiscal consolidation are solutions that allow corporations to surpass the barrier of financeability. However, fiscal consolidation has some consequences: a stronger application-oriented performance and a limitation (hence deterioration) which led to a much stronger division structure inside each corporation.

Changing Relationship between Basic Research, Development and Innovation

Traditionally, there has been an institutional separation of applied research, development, production and application. Since firms are now more and more thinking in terms of integrated process chains of innovation, basic research is also consider as a cornerstone in these process chains. Therefore it needs to be organized with a strong interaction to production and marketing. These trends are giving rise to decisive alterations in the management within firms (e.g. multidisciplinary projects, coordination of multinationals, etc.) as well as between independent corporations (e.g. joint ventures). In a nutshell, transnational firms are no longer simply optimizing production in search for low-cost locations, but also trying to create knowledge , searching for options at the leading competence centers of the world and converting these as fast as possible into successful businesses.

Multinational corporations pursue the following diagram

* First, they define the basic decision-making unit, for which a coherent strategy and clear responsibilities are outlined * Second, they define the center(s) of gravity for this unit at a global scale; it typically comes down to the location where critical knowledge and key resources are located

Focusing on Competence Centers

The specialized area of competence that a corporation longs to acquire and the more important its links with complex knowledge (e.g. research, product competence, user competence) the fewer high performance centers tend to arise worldwide. Firms distinguish between:

* Leading-edge or pre-eminent locations; only one or two centers in the world classified as such * Advanced locations (typically the major market and research systems in the industrialized countries) * Less developed locations; i.e. less sophisticated and non-dynamic markets and research

Firms tend to emphasize on a few leading centers of research, advanced manufacturing and lead-market. The key criteria for this choice are:

* Which location has the most advanced status of development and the best reputation in a certain field worldwide? * Where do R&D requires strong inducements from highly sophisticated lead markets and customers requirements and where can these activities receive sustainable impulses for further lead performance? * Where do manufacturing plants and business units generate the cash flow for leading edge research? * Where is it possible to exert influence on regulatory regimes and dominant designs by participating in research consortia and standardization networks, consequently gaining early advantages in the worldwide innovation competition? * Where does the competition stimulate the search for successful new business and sustainable innovation?

Polycentric organizations

Polycentric organizations not only tame but even capitalize on global complexity because of three noteworthy attributes:

* They operate as a network. Polycentric organizations eschew hierarchical structures and silos, the death knell for developing empathy and harnessing diversity. Rather, they operate in a networked configuration, integrating creative talent and ideas from employees, suppliers, and customers across regions to meet the global demand for innovative products and services.

* They are highly adaptive. Flexibility is key to learning dynamically and succeeding in extreme diversity. Polycentric organizations aren 't wedded to a single European or U.S.-centric business model or organizational practice, but employ a diverse portfolio of strategies and approaches that allow them to quickly learn and adapt to new opportunities and threats in different regional markets.

* They boast a global mindset. Polycentric organizations don 't believe in a single "corporate culture," and allow multiple perspectives and value systems to co-exist within the same enterprise. They are also open to external ideas and actively collaborate with a rich network of partners. This diversity in thinking and action is reflected in the heterogeneity of their leadership team and how they make and execute their decisions.

Both General Electric (GE) and Cisco Systems (CSCO) are de-Westernizing their firms and creating networked organizations by giving leaders in emerging markets global R&D remit and global profit-and-loss (P&L) responsibilities. John Chambers, Cisco 's CEO, dispatched his top lieutenant, Wim Elfrink, to Bangalore to launch and run Cisco 's Globalization Center East, which now works closely with the U.S.-based research and development teams to co-create affordable and sustainable solutions for both emerging and developed markets. Likewise, GE 's CEO Jeffrey Immelt has made John Flannery, till recently the president and CEO for GE Capital in Asia, the head of GE 's India operations, reporting directly to GE Vice-Chairman John Krenicki. For the first time in its history, GE now has a senior vice-president heading India, which from now on will be treated as one single, integrated business with its own P&L on par with any other global business unit of GE.

Next-gen multinationals from emerging markets like Tata Motors (TTM) and Lenovo (LNVGY) are diligently cultivating a global mindset by increasing the diversity of their leadership teams. For instance, Lenovo 's chief marketing officer, chief operating officer, and many senior vice-presidents are all non-Chinese. Similarly, Ravi Kant, vice-chairman of Tata Motors, quoted that the leadership team of recently acquired Jaguar Land Rover continues to make decisions and operate pretty much as before, and together with other Tata Motors units they are learning to operate with a global mindset. Finally, Suzlon Energy (SUEL:IN), India 's wind energy pioneer, is tapping into globally distributed creativity thanks to its global innovation network with R&D hubs in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Globaloney – Unraveling the myths of Globalization

Globalization is a primal term used to explain much of contemporary economic and social developments, from the prevalence of outsourcing to the popularity of fusion cuisine. However if we dive into some data points we might understand that much of the world is not as connected as it is portrayed to be.

In fact we are far short of full integration. The point is people have been talking about the world becoming one since Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. However, when you look at things that could happen domestically or across borders, and look at the cross-border component as a percentage of the total. When you do that, if you really believe borders don 't really matter, you would expect numbers in the 95% range.

Even if socially active nerds formed their friendships on Facebook randomly, given the Indians are major users of Facebook, most Indians will have other indians for friends just through random processes. So that 's the complete integration benchmark? For Facebook, it might be that 95% is what we might expect. The actual number is 16%. And that 's actually quite high, compared to other cross-border flows.

If we analyze international phone calls, voice-calling minutes is 2%. If we look at online news sources, the number might be 1 to 2% international sources. The same thing applies to non-informational flows; if we look at trade statistics, exports are about 30 % of GDP, and a lot of that is double or triple counting.

An iPod component shipped from Japan to China and then shipped to the U.S., it ends up getting counted twice. So nobody really knows how bad the problem is. It 's a major project with the World Trade Organization [WTO].
If we look at foreign direct investment and the most recent year we have data for (2011), it 's 10% of all the investment going on all over the world. If you look at people flows, they tend to be very localized as well.

One of the things we talk about a lot in business school is the globalization of students. The answer is 2%. One should look very differently at higher education when you realize it 's 2% rather than 30%.

Those are the kind of data that propel us to make the point that world is more semi-globalized completely globalized.

Problems with Traditional Globalization Theories

The problem is that traditional globalization theories fail to account for the very real distance factors (geographic and cultural). These factors can fall into a distance coefficient similar to Newton’s law of gravitation. For example, according to experts, “a 1 percent increase in the geographic distance between two locations leads to about a 1 percent decrease in trade between them,” a distance sensitivity of –1. Or, economists estimate that, U.S. trade with Chile is only 6 percent of what it would be if Chile were as close to the United States as Canada. Likewise, two countries with a common language trade 42 percent more on average than a similar pair of countries that lack that link. Countries sharing membership in trade bloc (e.g., NAFTA) trade 47 percent more than otherwise similar countries that lack such shared membership. A common currency (like the euro) increases trade by 114 percent.

Reasons for overlooking these obvious data points

Dearth of data

While there is absolutely no denying the fact that world is becoming increasingly globalized yet there are very few real time indicators which are able to explain the extent of globalization. Its simple too complicated.

Peer Pressure

Its cool to talk about globalization. When the entire world, media and peers are talking about globalization, then it seems to be foolish to question this judgment. After all elites would have done some research to come to this conclusion

Techno Trances(if we listen to Techno music for long; we tend to sway without music)

The revolution in information technology all around us has led to eager speculation about the ways in which business practices may be fundamentally transformed. The promise of the “New Economy” has excited the imaginations both of young people seeking careers with a bright future and investors hoping for dazzling capital gains. It is widely believed that institutions of the “old economy” may soon be rendered obsolete. However, reality is that we are still old school in non-metro areas.

Excellent Marketing

Consultants/KOLs need to come up with a catchy yet compelling theme to create an atmosphere which not only sounds logical but also continues to create business for them. Globalization serves both the objectives. If repeated continuously, it starts feeling real

Ideal Globalization Approach

* Why Go Global? * Economies of scale * Economies of scope * Cheaper production costs * Organization Structure * Global Product Structure(Eli-lily) * International Division(P&G) * Global Matrix(McKinsey) * Global Geographic(HUL)

Implications of 10-20% globalization for Medium Scale Enterprises

* Significant gains from additional integration * No fear on increased globalization and additional integration is going to drive them out of business immediately

How medium scale enterprises which are not really fully integrated globally can restructure their organization in the context of globalization?

1. Anticipate bumps and detours even if you do believe that the world will eventually become much more integrated. Even if you remain convinced that the apocalyptic vision of close-to-complete integration will be realized sooner or later, recognize that the road from here to there is unlikely to be either smooth or straight. There will be shocks and cycles, in all likelihood, and maybe even another period of stagnation or reversal that will endure for decades. (It 's happened before!) Volatility of this sort is particularly worth allowing for in relation to the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies that Thomas Friedman and other writers have recently emphasized as centers of value creation in the twenty-first century. But even companies that are supposed to be sophisticated about emerging markets trip up on this point. Goldman Sachs—the leader in investment banking in most major markets, the first major Wall Street bank to commit resources to post-Soviet Russia, and one of the institutions responsible for popularizing BRIC countries as an opportunity set—ranked twenty-fourth among investment banks in Russian equity and debt underwriting in 2005.
Why so low? Because Goldman, like a number of other investment banks, exited after Russia 's 1998 financial crisis and debt default, and let several years go by before trying to reestablish its foothold there. Note that strategies such as this often entail buying in at the top of the cycle and exiting at the bottom—usually not a recipe for financial success.

2. Pay attention to other "predictable surprises" as well. Bumps are just one manifestation of "predictable surprises," a term coined by Max Bazerman and Michael Watkins to describe situations where "leaders had all the data and insight they needed to recognize the potential, even the inevitability, of major problems, but failed to respond with effective preventative action." A number of predictable or at least possible surprises are in the air as far as the general global environment is concerned: global warming; different kinds of meltdowns in the Middle East, China, India, and the United States, among other possibilities; a global liquidity crisis; a general sociopolitical backlash against globalization; and so on.N otions of a global governance gap reinforce the idea that a shock of this sort might have a persistent effect. How many such shocks is your company prepared for? At a minimum, I suggest articulating one or more deglobalization scenarios and analyzing their implications for your company 's global strategy, as a prelude to thinking, possibly, of alternatives.

3. Add to predictive power by taking things down to the industry and company level. Shocks, cycles, and trends, even when they have crosscutting implications, vary greatly across industries and companies in their effects, in ways that greatly reduce the usefulness of trying to fit one world-historical conception to all of them. Focus on the risks and, more broadly, trends that are most likely to affect your industry or company, and how they are actually to do so. Thus, even the effects of something as potentially far-reaching as global warming depend on whether one looks at the issue from the perspective of a financial investor, a construction firm, an automaker (whose reaction would also depend on its focus on large versus small cars), or a potential supplier of cleaner energy, to cite some varied examples. And depending on the setting, other risks or trends may well be more salient and therefore worth prioritizing. For example, when I first started working with Indian software firm TCS on building useful scenarios about the future, we figured that it made the most sense to start with avian flu, given the nature of the company 's business.

4. Recognize the importance of business in shaping broad outcomes—including those related to the future of globalization. The preceding discussion might have seemed to suggest that outcomes will unfold independently of what businesses decide to do. But for many key uncertainties, that is clearly not the case. Consider the broad process of globalization itself. Some of the concerns voiced by antiglobalizers include the following: * A declining share of wages in total national income in developed countries at a time when the share of profits is at a multidecade high in many of them. * The lack of a globalization safety net in many of those countries (the United States, for instance, is estimated to gain $1 trillion per year from trade, but to spend about $1 billion on retraining). * The creation of a two-track world. As Muhammad Yunus, the microcredit pioneer, put it in his speech accepting the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, if globalization "is a free-for-all highway, its lanes will be taken over by the giant trucks from powerful economies ... [at the expense of] Bangladeshi rickshaws."

It is neither principled nor practical for companies to stick their heads in the sand in response to an issue as fundamental as the distribution of the globalization dividend. In terms of public discourse and action, in particular, I 'd recommend the following steps for companies that favor greater integration (note that not all will do so): * Be careful about your choice of words. Outsourcing often triggers negative vibes, as former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw discovered; so does globalization, which, according to U.S. pollster Frank Luntz, "frightens older workers."(Luntz recommends talking about the free-market economy instead—although one suspects that this might work less well in continental Europe.) * Try to be concrete rather than abstract about economywide benefits of globalization. Findings such as the McKinsey Global Institute 's calculation that for every dollar the United States sends abroad through outsourcing, it gets about $1.12 back are more useful than appeals to the process of market equilibration described in economics textbooks.8 * Dispel globalization bogeymen that don 't have a scientific basis, such as the myth that increased global integration necessarily leads to increased global concentration. * Support job-retraining programs and, more broadly, social insurance. History shows that support for free trade tends to be fragile in the absence of such programs. * Emphasize upgrading and productivity growth as the focus of public as well as business policy. These are what really matter in the long run for the wealth of nations as well as companies.

5. Don 't let a focus on the future crowd out consideration of the here and now. The future, including whether the direction of globalization creates headwinds or tailwinds for global strategies, certainly has a bearing on the success or failure of those strategies. But it should not be allowed to crowd out consideration of other factors that also matter, including those in the here and now. A refrain throughout this book is that the current state of practice of global strategy leaves significant headroom for improvement. One way of exploiting that potential is to get started.

Conclusion

Through this study, all we are saying is that world is not flat yet and there is ample opportunities for organizations for increased integration and it should not fear increased globalization

References

* http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/27/globalization-and-globaloney-pankaj-ghemawat-at-tedglobal-2012/ * http://www.ghemawat.com/books_world-3.0-global-prosperity-and-how-to-achieve-it * http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/27/globalization-and-globaloney-pankaj-ghemawat-at-tedglobal-2012/ * http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/arabic/article.cfm?articleid=2860 * http://www.ghemawat.com/blog/ * http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/drodrik/Research%20papers/Globalization,%20Structural%20Change,%20and%20Productivity%20Growth.pdf * http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/trendsin.htm * http://www.michaelshermer.com/2011/08/globaloney/ * http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JrrcbPCojmkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true

References: * http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/27/globalization-and-globaloney-pankaj-ghemawat-at-tedglobal-2012/ * http://www.ghemawat.com/books_world-3.0-global-prosperity-and-how-to-achieve-it * http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/27/globalization-and-globaloney-pankaj-ghemawat-at-tedglobal-2012/ * http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/arabic/article.cfm?articleid=2860 * http://www.ghemawat.com/blog/ * http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/drodrik/Research%20papers/Globalization,%20Structural%20Change,%20and%20Productivity%20Growth.pdf * http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/trendsin.htm * http://www.michaelshermer.com/2011/08/globaloney/ * http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JrrcbPCojmkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true