The world might look flat if you are privileged enough to be peering at the world from above. The world might look spiky if you might be feeling the insecurity of being left behind or if you have a slight case of FOMO (fear of missing out). In terms of which countries get to the finish line first regarding innovation and who has the largest market size, does it really matter? Where is the regard for the individuals who work behind the scenes on the factory lines or the people who farm the produce enjoyed by those pretending they could create a level or fair ecosystem for them? These people utilize the technology created for optimization and yet have no voice in the process of globalization. Yes, globalization has facilitated the availability of innovative products and services worldwide. Globalization has supposedly increased healthy competition, diversified markets, increased the flow of trade, information, people, and facilitated the sharing of knowledge and technology, according to the article by Globalization partners (2020) and Thomas Friedman. Whether we relish the positive benefits of globalization or condemn its unfortunate implications, in terms of disparities in the valleys, as noted by Florida (2005) and even Friedman (2007) in his vision of a flattening world, we cannot ignore it is happening.
The pandemic highlighted the flattening effect of uploading or live streaming Church services. The pandemic highlighted the flattening force of Amazon and Instacart (a grocery delivery service) in supply-chaining, and the flattening effect of Google and other search engines as a personal supply chain of knowledge, as described in Wired (2005). The pandemic also increased the necessity of been “plugged in” — increasing connectivity and leveling the educational experience for people such as myself who thrive better in an online classroom environment rather than a brick and mortar building sitting in a classroom wondering if I fit in. I suspect that is due to my introversion, but that is no consequence. However, these so-called flatteners, as Friedman (2007) would call them, have also exposed the peaks, valleys, and hills in the form of a digital divide (Roese, 2021). The pandemic also highlights something conveniently ignored in Friedman’s updated thesis on globalization: gross poverty and misery, even on the streets of so-called first world countries, leadership, and the importance of the global geopolitical hierarchy (Ikenberry, 2005).
In his book, “The world is spiky,” Richard Florida highlighted two things that resonated well with me: the importance of ecosystem and the productivity advantage of attracting a critical mass of top creative talent. These can be appreciated and understood by any effective leader. Regardless of which country is on top of the cutting-edge innovation heap or which country has the most impressive economic horse-power, the statistics do not matter as much as the discussion on what feeds the needs of the people in any given country. We must exercise caution when estimating, categorizing, and oversimplifying the effects of innovation without an in-depth understanding of leadership constraints in countries other than America. We must also dialogue on a good solution to the digital divide and effectively manage other disparities.
As Nick Bostrom alludes to in his 2015 TEDTalk, when we seek to optimize X, make sure the definition and nature of X are clear if there is no confidence in controlling the innovation “genie” once it is out of the bottle. Globalization is meant to optimize; the online experience of the classroom optimizes; wireless access optimizes; workflow software optimizes, and the vaccine optimizes our chances of survival. However, have we clearly defined X, which could be seen or experienced as fundamental needs of humankind.
In summary, there are two central issues here: Power and the genie-on-the-lam, innovation. Who wields both? Is it realistic to expect a level playing field, as Friedman would propose? Also, there is an assumption gleaned from both books that America and a solution fitting for America would be suitable for other countries. This is a gross assumption; it is a flat assumption instigated by linear thinking. Both authors submit conclusions based on the American lens. In terms of who got it right, I would say neither. In my opinion, both Friedman and Florida have oversimplified the globalization phenomenon and its subtle effects on shaping the world. Permit me to submit a different image; the world is shrinking. We are more connected than ever, and people are more aware of the world around them than ever. The edges are visible now, which makes us more sensitive to disparities, more aware of our privileges, more desperate to compete, and more eager than ever to acquire more.
Leadership Dialogue in Changing Times 
An insightful post! I a glad that you highlighted the USA-centric viewpoint of both authors…and I agree, we are at the same time more connected and yet – to quote one of my Masters students on Twitter this morning, “…how many tools we have to connect, collaborate, and create something together, but at the same time feeling more disconnected, fake, and alone than ever.”
In some ways, I am not worried about the machines taking over, because machines do not get the very human aspects of life on this earth!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Dr. Watwood.
I also agree with the quote from your student.
On the flip side, a good friend of mine who lives alone has frequently referred to her Instagram, YouTube, Netflix, and Facebook accounts as her companions. She does not do very well in social settings and finds she is less anxious sitting behind a computer screen chatting away with people she has never met and would have probably never had the courage to speak to in a real social setting.
The Netflix or YouTube video goes on when she is winding down for the evening, giving the illusion there are several people visiting and keeping her company. Her apartment is suddenly alive and buzzing with voices without the anxiety of interaction. Technology might disconnect some; technology might make those already fake in some sense more aware of their fakeness; or make those who do not know how to connect with others with deeper conversations rather than just emojis even more alone, but technology can not fix internalized human emotional problems. Not yet anyway. It still fills a gap, especially in countries that have lost the art of seating around the fireplace outside and storytelling, or with people who have lost, or never had the skill of active listening.
Nick Bostrom’s TED talk made me wonder what my friend would pay for an artificial intelligence that looked like a person, asked nothing in return, could keep her company, and if she is very lucky, do the house chores as well. Would she care about the AI’s programed values? Would she wonder if the world could be more fair and flat enough so that everyone would have the same access to the artificial intelligence companion she has? Would she be aware or grateful to be on the “peak” in terms of a spiky world? I doubt it. She would be in her own world….her bubble, living her best life. That is, until the robot does not let her into the house any more when it malfunctions. But that scenario is a product of my over active imagination and too many Sci-Fi movies.
Regarding machines taking over the world, I am also not worried….much. Any worry I have is a symptom of watching too many apocalypse movies.
Thank you for your comment Dr. Watwood.
Vivian
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love how you summarized the two authors in your final two paragraphs. That was powerful! I am glad that you brought up the American lens. With half of our employees in the Philippines, I have been thinking about how they view the situation. I think they are so grateful for the opportunity to earn more income than they would at another local job. Still, I wonder if they feel guilty for exporting their contribution to society. With a “shrinking” world, do you see local communities on the “edges” falling off? Or does the visibility from the rest of the world help keep them on and grow them?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cameron,
In my opinion, it is almost inevitable for some local communities and small businesses on the edge of a shrinking world to fall off, as can be see in this article: https://smallbusinessmajority.org/our-research/survey-more-1-3-small-businesses-won-t-survive-past-next-three-months-without-additional-financial-relief?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIw7vilLTF8gIV-W1vBB065Ai7EAAYASAAEgLwwfD_BwE
Stimulus packages could keep them afloat, but if they do not find creative ways to grow and remain visible, they end up at the cliff edge of a shrinking world. However, this is where transformational leadership comes into play for those communities and small businesses. Effective leadership will stimulate the creativity needed to make them visible and sustainable….at least that is my hope.
Thanks for the follow up questions Cameron.
Vivian
LikeLike
Vivian,
I like the way you were able to connect this to leadership. Thanks for your insight.
Cameron
LikeLike
Hi Vivian,
I found my self in deep-thought after reading your response to this week’s discussion board. I really liked how you communicated your ideas in the first paragraph–how sometimes your view of the world depends on your perspective. I never really thought about the privileges I experience from up top. The digital world has always been important to me and sometimes I can be bias on just how effective it is to humanity. As a millennial, most of my life has always included a digital gadget, application, or software–or two! To me, while it has done some harm on society today, I cannot help but think about all the ways it has helped to bring some parts of society together from all walks of life.
I did watch this video that mentioned the same as Dr. Watwood on how AI does not fully understand human aspects of life, especially in regards to our emotions. Check it out when you have the time and let me know what you think:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/03/16/this-hot-robot-says-she-wants-to-destroy-humans.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brandi,
thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your comments.
I watched the video link you shared about the the robot trying to express emotions. It was creepy until I realized that the robot was only just mimicking facial expressions that went along with certain emotions. Mimicking would be very different from actually feeling any emotions.
It was quite interesting to consider a time when a robot such as that one might even be called someone’s friend or a legal person. With the additional capabilities they would have of lightening speed information processing, super strength, inability to age, and other capabilities, it would be absolutely impossible to view the world as flat because there will no longer be any chance of being on the same level. They would be faster and more productive at their jobs making them better in terms of hiring in organizations, even though their present inability to have genuine relationships or be true agents of change would be a handicap. What a scary thought! I would prefer a world where humans and robots/machines could just live in partnership for a common good. They can help us make the world a better place and we could help them oil their joints.
Interesting video. Thanks for the link.
Vivian
LikeLike
It’s funny that you mention being a millennial… I didn’t have a cell phone or a computer (on my desk with a floppy disk for a boot up…) until I was about 23 years old. I learned to type on a MANUAL typewriter, not even electric.
However, as new tech became popular, I gravitated towards it, so I’m much more adept than many people my age.
But all this to say that the internet has allowed us to see and know things much more quickly before, and everywhere in the world at once. However, it’s also made news and information much less reliable and true. The world is shrinking for some people, those privileged enough to have a smartphone, access to the internet and other technologies, but for many others, the world is exactly the same as it’s always been, but for you (as a millennial) the world has always had technology available, and so it’s always as it’s been your entire life too. It’s all about your world-view, and whether or not you’ve been privileged enough to travel outside of your circle of influence. Not just travel and see the sights, but talk to the people, see the non-touristy places, see how others truly live. Many times, you don’t even need to venture too far to find it.
Perspective sure does influence how you live your life 🙂
Beth
LikeLike
Vivian, I agree with other comments that your summary and thoughts are insightful. The fact that both perspectives represent a ethnocentric viewpoint is important. Definitions and assumptions are really important up front for any endeavor, so I definitely agree. The idea of AI and emotions is super interesting. Right now, it is really all machine learning. There is a lot of debate around terminology, where AI is more broadly about executing tasks smartly and machine learning is adaption through experience. This is where self-driving cars get interesting because which is better?
LikeLiked by 2 people