The Post American World

I recently finished reading this book by Fareed Zakaria titled "The Post American World". It was an interesting read since it presents a pragmatic perspective about the current seemingly volatile, uni-polar world we live in. In the face of a growing sense of a rise in religious fundamentalism, wars, and heightened unilateralism; the author refuses to predict an alarmist and radical future. Instead, he argues, and i quote, "today we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species existence."

He says this is because:

- Between 2000-2007, the world economy grew at its fastest pace in four

decades. Income per person across the globe rose at a faster rate (3.2%) than

in any other period in history.

- Politics is troubled, but markets panic only over economic and not political

news. For example, Turkey which shares a border with Iraq has averaged more

than 7% growth since the war.

- Religious fundamentalism is fueled more by a "cottage industry" of

scaremongering flourishing in the west that tends to extrapolate every trend

that they dont like. In reality, he argues, it is a persistent problem, but one

involving a small number of fanatics.

Today, he says, there’s a mismatch between reality and our sense of it, primarily arising out of a revolution in Information Technology that brings us news from around the world instantly, vividly, and continuously. In short, he say's it feels like a very dangerous world. But, it isn’t. Instead, it’s a safe world with the US in charge.

And firmly in charge as well. Since the middle of the 1880's, the US Economy has been the world’s largest and by 2025, most estimates suggest that it will still be twice the size of China (in terms of nominal GDP). Its defense expenditure is more than the next 14 countries put together (current wars represent less than 1% of its GDP, so there's no drain to speak of!). A recent newspaper article put this value at $540 billion, compared to $68 billion for China and $28 billion for India. At the same time, it leads in the industries of the future. In biotech for example, revenues for US firms were $50 billion in 2005, representing 76% of global revenues. Its educational institutes are the best in the world. According to a Chinese study, eight of the top ten universities of the world are in the US. Innovations in Information Technology? Here is a sobering statistic. In India, university graduates 35-50 computers science Phd's each year; in America the figure is 1000!

The authors point is, unlike popular belief, a dramatic and tectonic shift in the balance of power to the developing world led by China and India is not going to happen. The US influence is not disappearing anywhere fast. Instead, its just that in today’s world, apart from the US, there are countries like India who are playing the competitiveness game equally well. For example:

- In 2005, 24 out of the 25 of the world’s largest IPO’s were held in countries

other than the US.

- By 2050, estimates say India’s per capita income will have risen to 20 times its

current level.

- Indian companies are becoming far more competitive and use their capital

more efficiently, in part because they do-not have access to unlimited supplies

of it. Over the last 5 years, more of the Deming Awards for managerial

innovation have been awarded to Indian companies than to firms from any

other sector.

More than anything else, he says this rise of India is unlike a quiet, controlled, quasi authoritarian country slowly opening up according to fixed diktats. It’s a noisy democracy that has empowered its people economically. Taking three steps forward and then two backwards. Boisterous, colorful, open, vibrant, and ready for change. With a commitment to act based on public opinion and no unfinished aggressive business to complete with neighbors. And this is something that governments in the west understand and appreciate. And this is why he says, countries would not only stand back and applaud this rise but would also support it. Particularly countries like the US.

Interestingly, in this influential book, the chapter on China is titled “The Challenger” and the chapter on India is titled “The Ally.” As a summary, I believe the author himself puts it very succinctly in the very first sentence of the book. He says, "This book is not about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else."

Conrad and the concept of work

I had not read Joseph Conrad at all. Though references to his works have been plenty in a lot of what i read. So the other day i was glad to pick up a copy of his acclaimed short story Heart of Darkness in my regular bookstore. Of course, before reading it i had a good idea of what the story would be about-the abject pretence of high moral rectitude by perpetrators of the folly of colonialism, told through the eyes of an insider. The actual story was just that- and more. It had an interesting insight into why people indulge in the act classified as "work". An act that my profession happens to be terribly interested in.

To my mind, being an "HR guy" today largely means dealing with:

a) People issues- motivation, maintenance, grievances, development etc
and
b) The classification of work - understanding roles, differential pay, fitment etc.

Sometimes it can also mean grappling with people issues arising from the classification of work- organization structuring for example. However, it is about the definition of work itself that Conrad had an interesting insight on. His protagonist, the cynical-colonial sailor, when faced with a particular bit of unsavoury task says:

"No - i don't like the work. I'd rather laze around and think of all the fine things that can be done. I don't like work- no man does- but i like what is in the work, - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality, for yourself and not for others- what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can really tell what it really means."

If this be true, it does throw up some interesting questions for my profession. Excluding the part of lazing around mentioned in the definition, if the only objective of people working is to be guided towards self discovery, to uncovering self reality- does HR realize it? Or does it choose to look at work only in its economic equivalent and and structure all its policies accordingly.

The concept of self realization, which perhaps comes closest to what Conrad was talking about, has been placed at the topmost hierarchy of needs as being practiced currently. What this means is, as a legitimate aspiration, this need will only be catered to by my profession for the senior most professionals in the organization. But Conrad's protagonist was a mere steamboat sailor! And his aspiration to traverse the heart of Congo for self realization was very natural. Maybe a parallel to the millions of today's skilled migrant worker. What, are we as a profession doing to address this basic need of work at this level?