Category: Uncategorized

Matthias Ripp via Compfight

Conceptualizing Responsible and Humanistic Leadership within the Asian Context- and Why

Leaders around the world are faced with pressing challenges. Growing levels of inequality, corruption and poverty, and challenges of peace, justice, and sustainable economic growth are complex and widespread. It is within this backdrop that disappointment with ‘how organizations and societies are being led’ has been growing globally. The 2017 Edleman Trust Barometer, an instrument that has been measuring global confidence in institutions, businesses and governments since 2012, indicated general public distrust with all 4 major institutions, business, NGO, media and the government. Many commentators and academics have attributed the worldwide rise of populism to this distrust (Khilji, 2017). People’s concerns with the social challenges they face, have begun to show up as their fears and in their anger.

The ground beneath us has been shifting steadily. As management scholars, we have tolerated and oftentimes perpetuated a gap between society and organizations and their leaders. For decades, we have held on to misconceived assumptions about good leadership, which has been focused primarily on personality or psychological traits and their development. Pirson (2017) in his book, Humanistic Management, argues for a ‘fundamental rethinking of how we organize at the global political level, the societal level, the economic level, and the organizational level’ (p. 1). Kempster & Carroll (2016) contend that the problems we face today require a ‘big picture, multiple party, long term-process’ (p. 1). Inherent in these statements is the call for business leaders to consider social problems. Pless (2007) defines leadership as the ‘…motivation and commitment for achieving sustainable values creation and social change” (p. 438).

In recent years, the idea of responsible leadership, with its emphasis on values-based and principles-driven relation between leader and the stakeholders, has gained prominence, particularly because of the enactment of UN Global Compact (UNGC) (Stahl & De Luque, 2014). One may ask: in what ways are responsible leadership and humanistic leadership relevant in Asia; and how do Asian organizations/ leaders contribute to the idea of global responsibility. In my address, I adopt a romantic view to emphasize responsible and humanistic leadership as a multi-level practice that connects individual, organizational and institutional factors, while highlighting the need for a paradigmatic shift in leadership. In conclusion, I present a variety of questions for the audience to engage them in research and informed practice. 

This keynote was presented at a conference in March 2018. For a complete paper, please contact the author directly at sekhilji@gwu.edu 

Framework of Talent Management: Example of the United States 

Interest in talent management (TM) in the business context and the macro (global) context increased significantly in the 1990s when a group of McKinsey consultants coined the phrase, ‘war for talent’ in late 1990s to emphasize the critical importance of employees to the success of top performing companies (Michaels, Hanfield-Jones, & Axelford, 2001; Scullion & Collings, 2016). While certainly important, it tends to focus mainly on the individual and organizational levels, and minimizes several macro or country factors of the global environment that are proving to be invaluable for TM at the individual and organizational levels (Khilji & Schuler, 2017; Khilji, Tarique & Schuler, 2015; Oxford Economics, 2014; Strack, et al., 2011). This is despite the long-standing interest in talent management in the global context, or the macro (country) level. In particular, non-governmental organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), IMD’s World Competitiveness Center, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development began publishing reports about the importance of talent, education and quality of a country’s workforce in the 1980s.

Since then several studies have highlighted the macro, country, view of talent management (Khilji and Schuler, 2017; Sparrow, Brewster & Chung, 2017; Cooke, Saini & Wang, 2014; The Economist, 2013; Heidrick & Struggles, 2007; 2011; Khilji et. al, 2015; Oxford Economics, 2014; WEF, Human Capital Reports, 2013; 2015; 2016; Lanvin and Evans, 2014; 2015; 2017). These studies and reports showed that many governments have joined the hunt for global talent by developing immigrant friendly policies. Some governments have also been luring back skilled diaspora, and many others have been making serious investments in education and human development of their own citizens with the purpose of spurring economic growth by upgrading local capabilities and building innovative capacities for the firms in their countries (Lanvin & Evans, 2014; 2015; 2017; Evans & Lanvin, 2015; Khilji et. al., 2015; Ragazzi, 2014).

Active involvement of various governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and several consulting firms, in attracting and developing talent makes TM truly a global issue, which reaches beyond a single organization and its talent management activities. It draws attention to complexity of the macro environment within which organizations develop their talent management systems, and individuals make career choices (Khilji & Schuler, 2016; Khilji et. al., 2015; Khilji & Keilson, 2014). It incorporates cross border flow of talent, diaspora mobility, and government policies to attract, grow, develop and retain the talent nationally for innovation, productivity and competitiveness, which facilitates talent management activities within organizations.

It is, therefore, important that the scope of talent management (TM) extend beyond an individual and organizational analysis to incorporate the macro level in order to fully comprehend the complexities of managing talent in today’s globalized world, where organizations are not only competing with each other but where governments, organizations and their societies have also joined the race (Sparrow, et al., 2017; Lanvin & Evans, 2014; 2015; 2017; Ragazzi, 2014; The Economist, 2011;). As such, we propose definition of macro TM (MTM) as:
Factors such as the demographics, the economic, educational, social and political conditions of countries and the policies, programs and activities that are systematically developed by governmental and non-governmental organizations expressly for the purpose of enhancing the quality and quantity of talent within and across countries and regions to facilitate productivity, innovation and competitiveness of their domestic and multinational enterprises for the benefit of their citizens, organizations, and societies for long term advantage.

By promoting the macro perspective, we want to broaden the scope of TM beyond its current main focus (on the individual and organizational levels). What we are describing, therefore, is not “global talent management” (which is focused on the individual and organizational levels), but talent management in the global context, which is focused on the macro level, or country level (it is both within a single country and/or across countries). At this macro level, talent is defined to include a large majority of a country’s population, similar to companies that pursue an inclusive approach in their talent management activities. However, research has also shown that many countries also pursue an exclusive approach to target a small portion of the portion (such as youth programs and assistance for high performing citizens in Bangladesh and Pakistan- Khilji & Keilson, 2014).

Excerpt from: Khilji, S.E. & Schuler, R. (2017). “Talent Management in the Global Context,” in D. Collings, K. Mellahi, and W. Cascio (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Talent Management, Oxford University Press: Oxford, England

Steve Baker via Compfight

Globalization and its Disconnects 

I continue to make a case for recognizing the complex, dynamic and evolving reality of international business, based on my academic and research background that focuses on exploring the paradoxes of globalization and how that impacts individuals, societies and organizations around the world. Here, I would like to focus upon leadership, while explaining the context within which we operate- i.e. globalization which has a direct influence on everything we do and consider. In my work, I merge the ideas of globalization and leadership to describe the immense responsibility that leaders face today for a better tomorrow for people, communities and the entire planet. Elsewhere, I use the global context to argue for leadership approaches that focus on developing a more responsible and humanistic understanding of organizing and leading, which may require paradigm shifts but I believe these approaches hold promise (please refer to my work on responsible and humanistic leadership).

Let me begin by offering the context within which my research is laid out and why I think globalization and its disconnects matter in discussing leadership.

Although roots of globalization can be traced back to the 10th century (or even earlier), it is its unprecedented growth and rapid technological advancements, in the past few decades, which have made globalization a popular concept. Globalization has many definitions, but if one were to ascribe one-word meaning to the concept of globalization, a majority would agree with me in choosing ‘inter-dependence’ as its simplest meaning. Globalization and inter-dependence have become synonymous in many circles. It is true we are more connected than ever. We are increasingly mobile- thanks to the Internet- Facebook and alike. Paddy Ashdown, a veteran British diplomat, summed up this interdependence as, “Today, everything is connected to everything else. We are now interdependent. We are now interlocked as nations, as individuals, in a way which has never been the case before.” (Mutual Responsibility, 2017)

However, the idea of globalization has also evolved. What started out as sweeping and unprecedented phenomenon has mellowed over time and morphed into regional, and gated (The Economist 2010; The Economist, 2012). Osland (2003) argues that many business organizations may “accept globalization as a fait accompli whose presence and benefits are largely unquestioned” (p. 138). But in other circles, globalization has become more of a controversial topic, as evidenced by protests around the world, including Korea, France, Indonesia, Canada, and USA. In addition, a growing number of respected economists, sociologists, and political scientists have started to vehemently criticize the current practice of globalization. While some may wonder why- because globalization did (after all) connect us and created a larger middle class in many emerging countries. However, others contend that it has widened gaps between “haves” and “have-nots” – or winners and losers of globalization. Branko Milanovic in his new book entitled, “Global inequality: a new approach to the age of globalization” offers an explanation. Looking at the income levels between 1988 and 2008, he demonstrates that among the big winners were the world tycoons, merely 1% with more than 99% of the world’s wealth, and the middle class in newly emerging economies. However, among the big losers – or those who gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom, and the middle working classes in the developed countries. This odd distribution of income has been referred to as the elephant curve. Stiglitz (2016) has argued that the current phase of globalization may not be the only reason for this widening gap, but it is one of the major reasons.

Emphasizing the ‘social’ in global
I want to make two observations about globalization here. First, it is proven itself to be paradoxical in many ways. For example, while globalization connected us (and in many ways, made us interdependent), it has also been driving us apart. Second, globalization is an inter-disciplinary concept that is multi-dimensional in its nature and impact. How? Let me explain in simple terms:

1. Globalization has its economics, in terms of changing income levels, trade surpluses or deficits etc. Economics is the ‘global’ in the idea of globalization and most often addresses convergence.
2. It influences and is influenced by the political discourse, which is very local. Oftentimes, politics has taken a center stage around the world, thereby emphasizing divergence or even parallel trends.
3. Finally and most importantly, globalization relates to the individual and the societies they form. This is its social side. Khilji (2016) argues that globalization, by reducing boundaries and increasing global mobility, has brought about major cultural shifts. However, it is still the case that, while many scholars and practitioners have paid most attention to the economics and politics of globalization, social aspects of globalization, in comparison, have received scant attention.

Unfortunately, the result of a fragmented view of globalization (where some have focused on the global economics and others – may be- on the local politics) is that we have not completely understood globalization’s deep impact. By isolating local from the global- or convergence from divergence, we have ended up heightening dissatisfaction among the general public. Interestingly, while we described it as a concept that brings inter-dependence, we have failed at adequately connecting the many dimensions of its diverse impact.

As I said before, levels of inequalities have grown globally, and the gaps between rich and the poor have resulted in a global backlash, in terms of protests and varying degrees of nationalistic political discourse around the world. Contractor (2017) believes we have been witnessing an “our country first” mentality displaying skepticism or outright hostility toward globalization. Let us look at the United States as an example. Khilji, in an article published in 2016, argues that the recent angry political rhetoric in the US can be attributed to economic erosion in the rust belt (mentioned by Milanovich) as well as cultural shifts. She (and many others) note the rising levels of values-differences within US, where a predominantly younger, affluent and more educated population in cosmopolitan cities has transitioned towards progressive values, favoring social responsibility, human rights, inclusion, and gender egalitarianism. This urban cultural shift has prompted a backlash, especially from the white, uneducated, low skilled and the older generation in depressed and homogenously white cities. Khilji argues that the fear of becoming a minority (from a majority), or what has been referred to as the white identity crisis, has been aggravating and may have contributed to the current political rhetoric in the United States. The situation is no different in other developed countries, including the UK (as seen in Brexit), Spain (as seen in Catalonia) and France (as witnessed in their recent election campaign). We have also been witnessing rise of extremism in other countries around the world for many years now. Let me explain the basis of this populism on cultural changes- their convergence and divergence, to highlight importance of social aspects of globalization further.

Highlighting ‘within country’ difference
In the past few decades, globalization and technological advancements have brought about many cultural and value changes, leading politicians, economists, businesses and sociologists around the world to debate the question of “value change” with fervor. Overall, we have witnessed the growing impact of the western values globally (or convergence). At the same time, we have debated the enduring influence of local cultural values worldwide (i.e. divergence) as well as the emergence of global cultures. While, scholars and practitioners primarily focused on value changes and shifts across nations in analyses, relatively little attention, has been paid to value differences within countries. For example, while NY City, Washington DC, and Tokyo may have appeared to be globalizing, smaller segments within these bigger cities or other smaller cities, in fact, stayed in the shadows. Gradually, cities and communities started growing apart. Over the course of time, we (as management scholars) concluded that societies change the way they want to and at a pace that in unique to them (thus establishing the idea of crossvergence). True. However, we mostly adopted an outside perspective and viewed cultural change as broad and macro phenomenon- thereby neglecting the within-country differences, which continued to widen. For example, if you think about the American culture and how it has evolved for the past few decades, it is important take generations, educational levels, gender, race, Midwest, East coast, West coast and Southern states into account?

Based upon my research and observations, I believe that we can identify at least four cultural groups at the global level (Khilji, 2017). These groups highlight the “within country’ differences that I have just mentioned- and are very relevant to the overall divergence, convergence and crossvergence debate. Quite paradoxically, these cultural groups are also illustrative of what we consider to be the ‘irreversible’ impact of globalization. Distinct value systems of each group clearly demonstrate existence of tensions within countries, which have begun to play out in politics and economics quite significantly:

1. The first cultural group, which I refer to as the Global Elite, is the highly skilled and educated individuals who are globally mobile. They are global citizens, partake in the knowledge transfer globally and contribute to the phenomenon of brain circulation. They are advocates of integration of worldwide markets. Research indicates they have financially, intellectually and culturally benefitted from the recent phase of globalization.
2. I refer to the second group as the Global Eager. These are the growing middle-class mostly in emerging economies, which has also benefitted financially from the globalization. Their standard of living has been raised. They aspire to continue to advance their skills and raise healthy progressive families.
3.  I refer to the third group as the Global Angry. These individuals have lost their jobs to low-wage workers elsewhere and are feeling lost. They may also be angry because of loss of their identity and ways of living. Milanovich’s (2016) elephant curve clearly identifies this group.
4. I refer to the final group as the Global Neglected. These are the poorest of the poor, living below US$ 1 a day. Although globalization promised to lift these people out of poverty but has failed to do so. They are also referred to as the BoP communities.

The rise of populism is fueled by the global angry (for example) in France, and USA as elsewhere. Their expectations, experiences and values appear to be in direct contrast to those of the global elites in their own countries. I believe it is disconnects among these groups that has been fueling internal tensions, influencing policies, moving politics and making headlines. What is interesting that the global angry in USA may have a lot more in common with the global angry in Russia and Saudi Arabia. I think this commonality is worth making a note of- because journalists, oftentimes, highlight a very angry anti-global and anti-all-other sort of rhetoric from them.

A complete version of this paper was used as a keynote address at a conference in Spring 2018. For full paper, please contact sekhilji@gwu.edu 

Highlighting ‘within country’ difference

In the past few decades, globalization and technological advancements have brought about many cultural and value changes, leading politicians, economists, businesses and sociologists around the world to debate the question of “value change” with fervor. Overall, we have witnessed the growing impact of the western values globally (or convergence). At the same time, we have debated the enduring influence of local cultural values worldwide (i.e. divergence) as well as the emergence of global cultures. While, scholars and practitioners primarily focused on value changes and shifts across nations in analyses, relatively little attention, has been paid to value differences withincountries. For example, while NY City, Washington DC, and Tokyo may have appeared to be globalizing, smaller segments within these bigger cities or other smaller cities, in fact, stayed in the shadows. Gradually, cities and communities started growing apart. Over the course of time, we (as management scholars) concluded that societies change the way they want to and at a pace that in unique to them (thus establishing the idea of crossvergence). True. However, we mostly adopted an outside perspectiveand viewed cultural change as broad and macro phenomenon- thereby neglecting the within-country differences,which continued to widen. For example, if you think about the American culture and how it has evolved for the past few decades, it is important take generations, educational levels, gender, race, Midwest, East coast, West coast and Southern states into account?

Based upon my research and observations, I believe that we can identify at least four cultural groups at the global level (Khilji, 2017). These groups highlight the “within country’ differences that I have just mentioned- and are very relevant to the overall divergence, convergence and crossvergence debate. Quite paradoxically, these cultural groups are also illustrative of what we consider to be the ‘irreversible’ impact of globalization. Distinct value systems of each group clearly demonstrate existence of tensions withincountries, which have begun to play out in politics and economics quite significantly:

1. The first cultural group, which I refer to as the Global Elite, is the highly skilled and educated individuals who are globally mobile. They are global citizens, partake in the knowledge transfer globally and contribute to the phenomenon of brain circulation. They are advocates of integration of worldwide markets. Research indicates they have financially, intellectually and culturally benefitted from the recent phase of globalization.
2. I refer to the second group as the Global Eager. These are the growing middle-class mostly in emerging economies, which has also benefitted financially from the globalization. Their standard of living has been raised. They aspire to continue to advance their skills and raise healthy progressive families.
3. I refer to the third group as the Global Angry. These individuals have lost their jobs to low-wage workers elsewhere and are feeling lost. They may also be angry because of loss of their identity and ways of living. Milanovich’s (2016) elephant curve clearly identifies this group.
4. I refer to the final group as the Global Neglected. These are the poorest of the poor, living below US$ 1 a day. Although globalization promised to lift these people out of poverty but has failed to do so. They are also referred to as the BoP communities.

The rise of populism is fueled by the global angry (for example) in France, and USA as elsewhere. Their expectations, experiences and values appear to be in direct contrast to those of the global elites in their own countries. I believe it is disconnects among these groups that has been fueling internal tensions, influencing policies, moving politics and making headlines. What is interesting that the global angry in USA may have a lot more in common with the global angry in Russia and Saudi Arabia. I think this commonality is worth making a note of- because journalists, oftentimes, highlight a very angry anti-global and anti-all-other sort of rhetoric from them.

For full paper and comments, please contact at sekhilji@gwu.edu