GLOBALIZATION: THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION.

ABSTRACT

The debate over the use of the term "globalization" is in a state of flux. In the business world, globalization has become the fashionable term for CEOs to use in presentations and in their annual reports. The topic of this article provides an understanding of the concept

of globalization. It sheds light on certain strategies that aimed at limiting worldwide access to globalization benefits. In addition, a well-defined concept of globalization is introduced to enhance the quality of the discourse on globalization of business. Furthermore, the essential elements of globalization are identified.

INTRODUCTION

Globalization represents a major leap forward in the history of humankind. Throughout history, people have witnessed serious setbacks, wars, and hardships. Conflicts and misunderstandings have been the hallmarks of previous generations. These characteristics accentuated by the fact that ethnocentric thinking and attitudes were the norm rather than the exception. In today's society, access to information and opportunities to interact with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds ease communications and sensitize others to the realities and the contributions of different groups to civilizations and their progress. Indeed, people, in general, have become more tolerant of others' points of view and have simultaneously raised their expectations regarding civilized behavior.

Furthermore, the belief in democracy, pluralism, and human rights appears to be gaining acceptance globally. In the last two decades, many countries have adopted specific measures to enhance the transformation to an open society and to strengthen the rules of law. Other countries have shown a willingness to join the international community in minimizing power abuse and to ease access to power and opportunities for wealth creation.

The above developments find their roots among people in almost every corner of the world. Many business people and scholars, along with ordinary citizens, now believe these developments provide the foundation for progressive thinking and a prosperous world. That is, there is optimism that the future will be brighter, not only for the few established elites, but for every group in every quarter of the world. This optimism has far reaching implications for world trade and business conduct and operations. Optimism means hope and hope induces motivation, energy, and a commitment to a better work environment and quality of life.

Certainly, globalization sustains both optimism and opportunities. Globalization, however, is not without serious roadblocks that could frustrate humanity's progress and reduce hope to a mere dream. This is because there are certain forces (e.g., lobbyists & politically oriented intellectuals), on the international stage, that seek to steer the benefits of globalization to special groups, while releasing any responsibility to the world community. These forces are well organized and have at their disposal the intellectual machines and justifications to seize opportunities for themselves and clients. Their familiarity with market conditions and their worldwide network and mastery of information technology give them an advantage over a majority of the world's populations. Consequently, they appear to steer the discourse on globalization to serve their interests. Therefore, this paper is designed to shed light on certain strategies that are aimed at limiting worldwide access to globalization benefits, and to identify the essential elements of globalization.

In their effort to restrict the benefits of globalization for themselves, the above forces tend to embark on at least three strategies: spreading confusion about the meaning and intent of globalization; inducing fears among CEOs that global trade and business will not flourish without maintaining some type of world conflict and military intervention; and promoting the proposition that the cost of allowing participation and inclusion on a global stage outweighs the benefits.

The first strategy eases the implementation of the other two strategies. It has been effective in academia, as some scholars have begun to view globalization as a form of internationalization. Others treat globalization as "the production and distribution of products and services of a homogeneous type and quality on a worldwide basis" (see Hodgetts & Luthans, p. 91). In the business world, however, it appears that the majority of today's executives do not subscribe to such conceptualizations. For example, Harry Stonecipher (1996), President and CEO of McDonnell Douglas views globalization as "the whole movement toward a single world economy and a single world society." (p. 251) Previously, Edwin Artzt (1990), Chairman and CEO, P&G, provided a more comprehensive definition of globalization in the business world:

   Globalization means doing a better job than your competitors at satisfying
   consumers' needs and their demand for quality, no matter where they live.
   It means creating the network and infrastructure to efficiently compete in
   the increasingly homogeneous worldwide marketplace. Globalization has
   special meaning with Proctor & Gamble. It means that we will continue to
   change from a United States-based business that sells some of its products
   in international markets into a truly world company. A company that thinks
   of everything it does -- including the development of products -- in terms
   of the entire world. (P. 1)

The second strategy targets business people. It promulgates fears among business executives that globalization is not possible without the use of force and military intervention abroad. For example, Friedman (1998) asserts that the hidden hand of the global market will not work without the hidden fist: "The hidden fist that keeps the world safe for the Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps." Therefore, advocates of this strategy always call for increasing military expenditures and readiness. Dictators in many countries find this appealing as a means of sustaining power, accumulating wealth through various schemes, and depriving their citizens of important educational and economic opportunities.

Among powerful nations, this strategy is promoted in order to maintain access to vital natural resources (e.g., oil) or to rally the support of the business community to otherwise unpopular policies. For example, Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, argued (1993, p. 162) that England's withdrawal of its forces from the Arab East was regrettable. She stated, "I always regretted, even at that time, the decision of Ted Heath's Government not to reverse the Wilson Government's withdrawal of our forces and the serving of many of our responsibilities east of Suez. Repeatedly, events have demonstrated that the West cannot pursue a policy of total disengagement in this strategically vital area."

A more serious flawed approach to the second strategy has been demonstrated by the pronouncements of William Cohen, U.S. Secretary of Defense, at Fortune 500 Forum in 1998. He stated, "As American business and the American military move about the world, we are relearning the old wisdom that `business follows the flag.'" This philosophy is a setback to globalization thinking and invokes an outdated slogan from the colonial area. Certainly, global economic integration and world interdependence must not be based on a conceptualization that is patently offensive in today's civilization.

The third strategy serves to rationalize the exclusion of the majority of the world's population and countries from active participation in the globalization process and its benefits. That is, there are temptations to project the existing superpower's design, priorities, and culture all over the world. For example, Waltz (2000, p. 47), among others, view globalization as domination or homogenization. This eventually leads to resentment, chronic conflict, and sub-optimization of world resources, opportunities, and benefits. Gorbachev (2000) warns that the temptation to pursue, for example, "American globalization" would be "something devoid of meaning and even dangerous." Perhaps excluding others from the benefits of globalization appeals to some quarters. In fact, there are many self-promoted "experts" residing at various think-tank institutions who profess, introduce, and defend globalization as a new exclusive club. These "experts" consider the participation of the non-elite in the strategic planning and decision-making progress as a threat to their power and prestige. Often, they view non-elite segments of the world's population as insignificant and even a liability.

Many of the politically oriented experts at think-tank institutions may be concerned that in a world focused on civility, democratization, trade, and technological advancement, they would loss their influence on world affairs. This may explain why they appear to reinvigorate cold war terminologies, advocate a hegemonic world, and ridicule inclusive and participative modernization programs. These experts' intellectual and economic justifications, however, will not likely withstand the wave of globalization and the worldwide progressive view. In the end, inclusive globalization is the only practical path destined to eradicate abject poverty, inequalities, and backwardness.

Indeed, inclusive globalization maximizes benefits and ensures shared responsibility worldwide. It not only energizes activities, but also stimulates creative solutions for solving serious problems that previous generations had experienced. In its focus on collective involvement and responsibility, inclusive globalization builds a sound foundation for just, fair, and open economic and political systems. The primary characteristics of inclusive globalization are equal access to opportunities, and full participation and involvement for all people regardless of their race, religion, or lifestyle. That is, the concept of inclusive globalization includes the proposition that no groups or regions are left behind.

It is worth mentioning that the forces that work to steer globalization towards serving the few elites hope to confuse the public regarding the true meaning of globalization. These forces are effective and dynamic in promoting their model of globalization and in deterring corporations and progressive CEOs from fully engaging in socially and globally rewarding activities. So far, the business community has been receptive to the principles and aspects of inclusive globalization. It appears that more and more executives have come to view globalization as a qualitative step in the journey of humankind. In fact, many executives are actively engaged in alleviating poverty and chronic health and environmental problems (e.g., Bill Gates, William Ford). Others loudly defend human rights and stand against child labor, racism, nuclear proliferation, land mines, and economic sanctions (e. g., Ted Turner).

An extensive review of the corporate literature reveals that in the business world, globalization conveys interdependence, integration, and connectivity of the world community (for detail see Ali, 2000). Based on this review and familiarity with the latest conceptual developments in the areas of global and competition studies, the following definition of globalization is suggested: Globalization is a set of beliefs that fosters a sense of connectivity, interdependence, and integration in the World community. It highlights commonalties without overlooking differences, and it extends benefits and responsibilities on a global scale. In terms of business operations, globalization means the ability of a corporation to conduct business across borders in an open market, the maximizing of organizational benefits, without inflicting social damage or violating the rights of people from other cultures.

There are certain elements in the above definition that are important for understanding the linkage between business operations and societal development.

Interdependcnce

This refers to the fact that in the globalization era, events that take place in a given country have an immediate and direct impact on other countries. Countries and societies no longer live and operate as isolated self sustained entities. In addition, these events influence the business operations and market position of corporations. For example, Procter & Gamble on February 26, 2001, cited the economic crisis in Turkey and the devaluation of its currency, the lira, as the reason for the possible decline in its profit.

Connectivity

This is a qualitative aspect of the human journey across time. People are aware, regardless of their geographical space, of the existence of a world community. Connectivity refers to the tact that today's communities, groups and individuals across the globe share a common set of expectations and principles. That is, these forces across the globe anticipate civility in behavior and conduct. In fact, civility becomes the foundation for global transformation. Likewise, connectivity means that geography and times are no longer a major constraint for people to interact, participate, and be involved in activities globally. Information technology, openness and corporate activities render many of the psychological and physical barriers obsolete.

Integration

Minimizing the impact of negative events and maximizing benefits become more than ever a collective endeavor. Fighting AIDS, corruption, money laundering, drugs, poverty, economic crises, and environmental and terrorist threats, for example, is no longer confined to one government. Governments all over the world along with non-government organizations and corporations, have to join resources together to design programs and strategies to eliminate or reduce threats to the well-being of the world community. World economic and trade activities clearly accelerate interdependence and integration. At this time, these activities have been accompanied by cultural and political transformations that have profoundly altered world realities and intensified connectivity.

Awareness of Commonalities and Dissimilarities

This is one of the most misunderstood elements. Some think-tank intellectuals suggest that the globalized world must be created according to the image of the existing superpower(s). That is, there must be a global unification of cultural, economic, and to some degree political orientations. Globalization, however, neither seeks unification nor promotes convergence. Indeed, globalization, in its spirit and aims, appreciates differences and treats them as a foundation for human self-expression, creativity, and co-existence. Globalization provides a fine balance between pragmatism and idealism. Thereby, it lays the foundation for civility and for genuine tolerance and diversity. It is worth mentioning, however, convergence around effective organizational practices and in areas of trade rules and regulations, and human rights may as a result take place.

Global corporations and executives advance diversity and consider differences, be they ethnical or otherwise, as a foundation for open markets and competition. Global corporations, therefore, do not support or promote global cultural and economic unification. They understand that the world's diversity in all its forms manifest opportunities and dynamism. For example, Caterpillar (1992)asserts,

   It isn't our aim to remake the world in the image of any one country or
   philosophy. Rather, we hope to help improve the quality of life, wherever
   we do business, by serving as a means of transmission and application of
   knowledge that has been found useful elsewhere. We intend to learn and
   benefit from human diversity.

Similarly, Cot Herkstroter (1996), Chairman of the Dutch/Shell Group, argues that "[t]hose who would impose one standard on the whole globe, the moral imperialists are clearly wrong." Global managers, unlike politicians, are not comfortable with hegemony. William Holland (1996), Chairman and CEO of United Dominion Industries, asserts that businesspeople should "question the so-called `facts' that politicians and media send out." He calls for nurturing understanding among citizens of the world rather than dominating others. This signifies a fundamental difference between hegemonic and global managers' orientations toward global affairs. Global managers perceive globalization as an inclusive process that maximizes participation and induces access to global economic and technological benefits.

Shared Benefits and Responsibilities

Previous world systems condoned benefits for the hegemonic power and giant corporations but released them from any moral or economic obligation to the rest of the world. In the globalization era, benefits and responsibilities go hand in hand. Not only in an open market system do goods and services cross borders with minimal or no barriers, but also rules of law are observed. Furthermore, corporations view the whole globe as the arena for their activities. No market or region is ignored or left behind. Corporations pursue opportunities in every corner of the world and simultaneously consider the present and potential consequences of their activities on the communities and regions where they operate. All global actors' activities are scrutinized and transparency is normal.

The preceding elements highlight the nature of globalization as a concept that will enable the world community, to step forward with optimism to overcome formidable obstacles. More importantly, however, globalization provides the key for understanding the transition, as a world community, to a new millennium. Therefore, the nature of these elements strengthens the belief that the future is brighten than was once thought.

REFERENCES

Ali, A. (2000). Globalization of business: practice and theory. New York: Haworth Press

Artzt, E. (1990, May 21). Strategies for global growth. Speech delivered at a meeting for leading financial analysts at Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Caterpillar (192). Code of worldwide business conduct and operating principles. Peoria: Caterpillar.

Cohen, W. S. (1998a, Oct. 16). Remarks at Fortune 500 Forum Dinner Keynote. Pittsburgh, PA. Defense Issues on the web: www.defenselink.mil.

Friedman, T. (1998, April 18). Techno-nothing. The New York Times, A27.

Gorbachev, M. (2000, December 25). Dear Mr. Bush. Washington Post, A45.

Herkstroter, C. (1996, December l), Dealing with contradictory expectations: Dilemmas facing multinationals, Vital Speeches of the day, 100-105.

Hodgetts, R. and Luthans, F. (1994). International management. New York: McGraw-Hill

Holland, W. R. (1996, May 12). Citizens of the world -- Building bridges across boundaries. Vital Speeches of the Day, LXII, 562-64.

Rothkopf, D. (Summer 1997) In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Foreign Policy, 38-53.

Stonecipher, H. (1996). At what price peace. Vital Speeches of the Day, 62 (8), 250-251.

Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing street years. New York: Harper Collins

Waltz, K. (2000). Globalization and American power. National Interest, Spring (59), 46-56.