Thomas Friedman, one of my favorite columnists from the New York Times, argues in his new book, The World is Flat, that we have reached a point where the physical and mental walls that barricaded individuals from partipating in a global community and accessing information and knowledge have come tumbling down, resulting in a flat world.  He supports his theory by describing the enabling technologies and the shift in people's beliefs all around the world that contribute to the massive globalization we are witnessing today.  This is far beyond outsourcing white collared jobs overseas.  This 500 page book articulates how the attitudes and thoughts of people all around the world have changed.  The rest of world is no longer trying to play catch up to the US; they are trying to get ahead of the US.  Globalization 3.0, he claims, is when everyone right down to the individual level, everywhere, can compete on a level playing field.

Before reading this, I had several threads of thought that closely mirror those presented.  But they were loose and unorganized.  And even though, through my own background, I am already familiar with most of the "ten flatteners" Friedman describes, I appreciate his taking out the time to organize and present these current events in such an informative and enjoyable read.  He summarizes those loose thoughts of mine nicely into a congruent theory, replete with anecdotes, statistics, and insight. 

One of the author's perspectives that resonated was on what the US should do in education and attitude towards the surrounding competition.  He conveys the point of how fewer students today find science and engineering an attractive field of study compared to just a few decades ago.  Not only that, but our government has done little to attract both homegrown and foreign talent to research and development in those fields.  Back in first grade when I declared my intent to become a scientist, it was met with sound approval and encouragement all around.  But nowadays, it's treated as nerdy and uncool, thanks to a sense of complancency and misportrayal by the entertainment industry.  I wonder at what point in our society did being "cool" and having an analytical, quantitative mindset become mutually exclusive.  Regardless, if you haven't been paying attention, the gap between US and the rest of the world is becoming surprisingly thin.  I couldn't have found a better analogy to compare this to than the one Friedman conjures - the recent failures of the US basketball team in international competition.

Many critics claim he oversimplifies.  But Friedman does in fact present the many potential obstacles in the world, such as terrorism and political instabilities, that could erect the walls back up again.  He even describes how people with the intent of creating chaos can and will use the very same flatteners to bring those walls back up.  Nonetheless, he shares my view, which is to approach the future with grounded optimism and to spread the ideal of creating something positive for others.

My decision to undertake my studies abroad has been reaffirmed by Friedman's ideas.  When you read his book, you will understand why I find my upcoming education at INSEAD so exciting and so crucial.

Just finished reading A Slight Trick of the Mind for the second time, and it really struck a cord.  The conclusion was no surprise to me, but coincidentally, I just watched House of Sand and Fog earlier tonight. At this point, I'm not certain what to make of the theme I found in both pieces:

I believe that the manner in which people deal with this notion reflects the meaning they attach to their lives.  In both cases, the protagonists respond to a gaping loss of meaning, spawned so suddenly and unexpectedly.  Yet while I refuse to ever allow the significance of my being to be defined by the placement of hope and attachment on external and uncontrollable outcomes, I can't help ponder how many people unintentionally end up in hopeless situations guided by societal and cultural expectations, and obviously by the very human emotion of love.

Given my relatively young age and focus in life, my dismissal of people's lack of meaning can appear condescending and outright insensitive.  But I think what I really want to question is whether people as a whole lose their love for living as a result of societal expectations, aging, or the gradual diminishing of the spark that ignites one's reason d'etre.  Why cannot parents attach the same passion and curiosity to their lives as do their children?  Responsibilities, unfulfilled dreams, physical breakdown?  I suppose we can make any of these (and more) an excuse, but then again, we can also choose not to.

Instead of adding my own review of this best seller, A Slight Trick of the Mind, for which tons of reviews already exist, I'm just scribbling some of my initial reactions after my first reading.

As I kid, I loved to read the adventures of Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr Watson.  Needless to say, those memories made this book very enjoyable to me, as Holmes' character is close to my heart.  But in allusion to the rave reviews on how Cullin succeeds at portraying his human frailties, part of the famous sleuth's attraction for me was his superhero-ness, the persona that was beyond ordinary humans.  The deft presentation of this humanity leaves me wondering which I would've preferred.  Do I cling to Sherlock Holme's invincible aura I was so accustomed to reading about as a kid, or do I feel more connected to the being that I can better relate to, one with weaknesses and faults?  Due to the moroseness of these frailties presented, I am tempted to say the former.  But I hesitate to declare this choice unequivocally.  In making me squirm as I read about my hero and question how I really want to remember him, the author demonstrates his mastery in touching the reader on a personal and intimate level, perhaps uncomfortably so.  As I put the book down with mixed feelings about the story, I invite you to enjoy the superb writing and come to your own conclusions on how you feel about it.

Spent the last few nights before hitting the sack reading through former GE CEO's latest book, Winning.  It was easy enough reading but the values he espoused were insightfully presented in the context of his experiences.  I expected it to be more of a blueprint for running a corporation but there was unexpected candor about how people need to figure out what they are really going after, be it money, work-life balance, or becoming the head honcho.

Several points that stood out:
To get a promotion, you have to deliver surprising results above what your boss normally expects from you.  Say you're an engineer, you can't just complete your component on time with quality.  You have to actively seek out additional projects, such as putting in new features or processes that help the team.  In many ways, I did this in my career but didn't see it the way it was explicity spelled out in the book.  I viewed my actions as just doing a great job, but not as a way to force a promotion.  Instead, I would ask my boss what needs to get done to reach the next level, and when I delivered and sometimes still didn't get the promotion, I was frustrated.  Jack Welch points out that if you only deliver the expected, then you're just "doing your job" and you don't get rewarded with fast promotions for that.

Another thing he said, "I don't know if it's good or bad, but the world generally favors people who are energetic and extroverted.  That's also something you learn young, and it's reinforced in school, at church, at camp, in clubs, and usually at home too..."  He goes on to describe that while not a requirement for success, this helps tremendously in many aspects of life and career.  Again, something I always implicitly understood but never thought about explicitly.  Back in the high school days, the intellectual nazi in me would confuse being outgoing and extroverted with boisterous and juvenile.  Later, I came to see it differently, but seeing it in print really cemented that realization.

Apparently he's gotten a bunch of flak for touting GE's practice of differentiation, where people are ranked in the three groups of 20-70-10, the numbers denoting percentile ranking.  I see that at our company, but we don't even come close to GE's candor and transparency of the ranking process and how to move within it.  Welch also mentions people actually do get let go from the bottom 10 group, whereas at our company, I always felt that the bottom five percent (BFP) was just an empty threat.

Many other nuggets of goodness included in the book make for great light reading before bed.  If you get a chance, read it and learn something new and interesting about making it in the corporate world.