awesome comment. Identification of the central issues are critical to shifting our focus from superficial factors to the intention and values behind these movements.

Could your reference from Mill be used to respond to party politics? Maybe that left-right similarity can be visualized as a mobius strip. Anyone interested in more on this should check out Philip Seymour Hoffman's "the Party's Over" documentary...

I also like the point you mention in the end about identification of central issues and developing the shared vision. Though, I do wonder if the central issue needs to be the same for each person.

I often think about this and major corporations going green. Is it that they suddenly had a change of heart and want to save the planet? Or is it more likely that they are interested in financial sustainability? Creating a business capable of sustaining itself and it's owners into the future. Does it matter? Perhaps the issues can be different, but the vision is the same? It's fascinating to me to watch the change in societies view on sustainability. Why did the movement fail for so long? Was it the message? Or maybe the messenger?

Friedman fascinates me. He has packed more living, more observation, more risk, and more prolific commentary into his lifetime than I can imagine. Like Nan, I consider occasionally that we drank the same water in roughly the same span of years, yet he seems to have metabolized it differently. I envy his abilities to fathom the mega-trends and imagine the consequences on such a dynamic, global scale.

I had a thought of my own to start, but let me jump into this dialogue about horizontal work (incorporating citations nicely, by the way), and ask a question back to the thread behind me as well as the class.

What about the 25 percent of the world's population (World Bank statistic) that does not even have fresh drinking water? Where is their access to participating in this innovation of Flat World technology, and how could that help their survival rate?

What about the people who don't talk like we do? I'm thinking about real people who don't access the reach of the internet with a noble purpose or a cause or thought about the true intentions of the stakeholders in a central issue? They just get online, buy stuff from e-Bay, participate in a few FaceBook chats, send e-mail, and maybe participate in online commerce. They aren't change-the-world people.

Or will they be? Do you think this ties right back to Art Harkins' theory that the technology will begin leading the innovation cycle by teaching people how to do something new in real time with no prior knowledge?

See you in class.

Nan,
I too have struggled with Friedman's assessment of the world. My concerns have more to do with the way he seems to praise all of the innovations that have flattened the world. Granted the new technology has made microloan internet sites like Kiva.com possible, with great results throughout the world. The flip side is outsourcing and the loss of American jobs.

I may be reaching an age where I may be considered old and crotchety, but I think innovations should be evaluated in terms of what is lost as well as what is gained. A few years ago I attended a hockey game where the UofM's mens' hockey team won the national championship. It was a great game, but an unusual aspect of it stuck with me. At the conclusion of each period, a time when you traditionally get up, stretch, get a bite to eat, and chat with those you are at the game with, about 1/3 of those in attendance got out their cell phones and ignored those they were there with. Are we ignoring those we should be communicating with only because we can communicate with others?

I do see the value of instant communications that we now have access to. It is nice to know that both of my children, who are at colleges across the country, are only a few button presses away when I have my cell phone with me. I just think that Friedman really leaned too heavily on the benefits of a flattened world.

Globalization will profoundly affect the economic, society and political life in various aspects, also change everyone's way of life and working methods for survive. In this trend--the strength of individual increasing--the individual not only can participate directly the global cooperation, also to take part in global competition. The only ways to participate the competition are software technology and leadership. Competition and cooperation are the main features of innovation society.
To us, we must learn to compete in collaboration and to collaborate in the competition. Therefore, we have to keep learning, working hard in the flat world to have our own place to live.

I fully concur with Wendy's observation - "What about the 25 percent of the world's population (World Bank statistic) that does not even have fresh drinking water? Where is their access to participating in this innovation of Flat World technology, and how could that help their survival rate?"

Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel winning Economist and foremer Chief Economist at the World bank) said while on a trip to India, that 600 million people from India (out of the one billion!) have been left out of the “development� fold of globalization. So, obviously, all India is not going to migrate into middle class, if anything the inequality is far, far worse now, after the advent of globalization. Similarly newspaper reports have pointed out how Chinese workers are working in apalling conditions, to chhurn out the low cost products, with poor pay, cramped rooms, no accident or health insurance benefits, no job security, no overtime, long working hours - so who is actually benefiting from this sort of globalization? Corporates ofcourse, and the few privileged people of India and China who have been able to get educated in engineering and technology! Not the vast majority of population.

So,I would much rather the discourse on Globalization came from economists like Joesph Stiglitz (Nobel winner for economics and was Chief Economist at World Bank), Paul Krugman (Princeton), Pankaj Ghemawat (Harvard)etc. Ted Koppel interviews Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, who ofcourse doesnt find a mention in Friedman's book!
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/opinion/25friedman-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

The small, but interesting book, by Aronica and Ramdoo, "The World is Flat? A Critical Analysis of Thomas Friedman's New York Times Bestseller," offers a counterperspective to Friedman. It is a small book compared to the 600 page tome by Friedman, and aimed at the common man and
students alike.

"Globalization is the greatest reorganization of the world since the Industrial Revolution," says Aronica. Aronica and Ramdoo conclude by listing over twenty action items that point the way forward, and they provide a comprehensive, yet concise, framework for understanding the critical issues of globalization.

You may want to see www.mkpress.com/flat
and watch www.mkpress.com/flatoverview.html
for an interesting counterperspective on Friedman's
"The World is Flat".

Also a really interesting 6 min wake-up call: Shift Happens! www.mkpress.com/ShiftExtreme.html

There is also a companion book listed: Extreme Competition: Innovation and the Great 21st Century Business Reformation
www.mkpress.com/extreme
http://www.mkpress.com/Extreme11minWMV.html

Thank you, Concerned Citizen, for networking these resources through to our threaded discussion. Question:

Can you offer our class some insights into the capabilities you believe public leaders need to develop in order to participate in discussions about globalization, from those who serve at the very local level to those with international responsibilities? Just curious -- WWW

I don't think Friedman doesn't recognize inequities or other complicating factors about globalization. He just chose to focus more on other aspects of globalization. It would be impossible for anyone to compile all facets of globalization into one book. Why does everyone love beating him up?

On a different, but similar note...I think that it's obvious that corporate globalization is bad and has only improved the lot of a small handful of people at the expense of millions of others. There's no argument there.

What I think what we're missing in the discussion is how globalization (beyond the economic frame) is creating a social network with enormous power. I used to only see globalization in the context of the market and that lens was ugly and unjust and I was completely against the flattening and homogenization it promoted. Now I'm seeing the power of social globalization; the unification of diversity to heal what western hegemony has done to the globe.

Globalization is an unavoidable force compelled by our natural interconnectivity. We are Gaia's immune system compelled to connect in order to heal our collective disease. This is the science of synchronicity or self-organized criticality.

There is no point in arguing against globalization. We have always been globalized because we've always co-existed on this one planet. Globalization as a rhetoric of modernity simply means we are beginning to actually understand our co-existence.

For any leader at any level, this means understanding that everything is about "we," not "us" and "them."

Another thought on leadership based on Friedman - we need to "stimulate positive imaginations."