I was recently reading about how two different companies, Cisco & IBM are changing in order to operate more effectively in the 21st century. Bearing our current fiscal & employment crisis in mind, I have to say that I believe that IBM has the better general model when it comes to serving the national interest as well as its own business interest. Read on & decide for yourself,
Building A Global Footprint
The Cisco model reportedly attempts to examine its company from the outside-in. By way of trying to achieve this goal, it is building international satellites & training programs all over the globe, which allows them to employ the best & the brightest from places like India & the Middle East. They also are now requiring their engineers & managers to have global experience & speak a minimum of two languages. While these are certainly laudable cultural goals as they relate to business, clearly the larger one is to try to create a giant global economic footprint but at the expense of employment here at home. In my view this narrow model seems to be a microtrend that is similarly as problematic as something I wrote about in an earlier post regarding Pfizer Works.
IBM Goes Global But Comes Home
IBM however, is taking their home-grown teams all over the globe for one month. In that time, they completely immerse themselves in their host country's culture [which means no CNN or even Western food]. The goal here is to learn new skills & management ideas from these experiences in the service of building global teams gaining insight into how to be better managers of teams that are culturally diverse along the way. The people who have had this training find the experiences profoundly meaningful, for some it's even considered transformational.
Businesses Can Build A Global Workforce Right Here At Home
Of course when it comes to any specific business, the concept of "one size fits all" is a silly one. However, I would much prefer to see American companies embrace the IBM model that employs Americans [first] yet provides them with a global experience than see a US company use its resources [& get tax breaks in the bargain] for creating an international workforce in other places [a la Cisco] at the expense of our economic growth. This strategy does little to boost our middle class, enrich our educational institutions, & fill our tax coffers. I once read somewhere that there are more Albanians in NYC than there are in Albania. Now that's probably a bit of an exaggeration but the point is nonetheless still valid. Ours is one of the few nations where it is possible to build an international workforce right here at home.
Has the 'Hot, Flat, & Crowded' Train Already Left The Station
I am a huge fan of columnist Tom Friedman & believe he is 100% correct in his book The World Is Flat [& followed by Hot, Flat, & Crowded] which explains why we have to change business models & broaden our vision [by including environmental issues] ] in order to accomodate a global economy. However he also notes that other countries are beating us in areas that used to be our domain. No longer can we depend on "draining the brains" of talented people from other lands when they can be just as successful at home. If we don't get onboard bringing the American workers with us, we will all be left behind. The only question remaining is has the train already left the station?