the.world.is.flat-第77章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


processes　demand。〃　
Amen。　We　too　have　to　do　things　differently。　We　are　going　to　have　to　sort　out　what　
to　keep；　what　to　discard；　what　to　adapt；　what　to　adopt；　where　to　redouble　our　efforts；　
and　where　to　intensify　our　focus。　That　is　what　this　chapter　is　about。　This　is　just　
an　intuition；　but　the　flattening　of　the　world　is　going　to　be　hugely　disruptive　to　
both　traditional　and　developed　societies。　The　weak　will　fall　farther　behind　faster。　
The　traditional　
280　
will　feel　the　force　of　modernization　much　more　profoundly。　The　new　will　get　turned　
into　old　quicker。　The　developed　will　be　challenged　by　the　underdeveloped　much　more　
profoundly。　I　worry；　because　so　much　political　stability　is　built　on　economic　
stability；　and　economic　stability　is　not　going　to　be　a　feature　of　the　flat　world。　
Add　it　all　up　and　you　can　see　that　the　disruptions　are　going　to　come　faster　and　harder。　
Think　about　Microsoft　trying　to　figure　out　how　to　deal　with　a　global　army　of　people　
writing　software　for　free！　We　are　entering　an　era　of　creative　destruction　on　steroids。　
Even　if　your　country　has　a　comprehensive　strategy　for　dealing　with　flatism；　it　is　
going　to　be　a　challenge　of　a　whole　new　dimension。　But　if　you　don't　have　a　strategy　
at　all。。。　well；　you've　been　warned。　This　is　not　a　test。　
Being　an　American；　I　am　most　focused　on　my　own　country。　How　do　we　go　about　maximizing　
the　benefits　and　opportunities　of　the　flat　world；　and　providing　protection　for　those　
who　have　difficulty　with　the　transition；　without　resorting　to　protectionism　or　
runaway　capitalism？　Some　will　offer　traditional　conservative　responses；　some　will　
offer　traditional　liberal　ones。　I　offer　compassionate　flatism；　which　is　a　policy　blend　
built　around　five　broad　categories　of　action　for　the　age　of　flat：　leadership；　muscle　
building；　cushioning；　social　activism；　and　parenting。　
Leadership　
The　job　of　the　politician　in　America；　whether　at　the　local；　state；　or　national　level；　
should　be；　in　good　part；　to　help　educate　and　explain　to　people　what　world　they　are　
living　in　and　what　they　need　to　do　if　they　want　to　thrive　within　it。　One　problem　we　
have　today；　though；　is　that　so　many　American　politicians　don't　seem　to　have　a　clue　
about　the　flat　world。　As　venture　capitalist　John　Doerr　once　remarked　to　me；　〃You　talk　
to　the　leadership　in　China；　and　they　are　all　the　engineers；　and　they　get　what　is　going　
on　immediately。　The　Americans　don't；　because　they're　all　
281　
lawyers。〃　Added　Bill　Gates；　〃The　Chinese　have　risk　taking　down；　hard　work　down；　
education；　and　when　you　meet　with　Chinese　politicians；　they　are　all　scientists　and　
engineers。　You　can　have　a　numeric　discussion　with　them…you　are　never　discussing　'give　
me　a　one…liner　to　embarrass　＇my　political　rivals＇　with。'　You　are　meeting　with　an　
intelligent　bureaucracy。〃　
I　am　not　saying　we　should　require　all　politicians　to　hold　engineering　degrees；　but　
it　would　be　helpful　if　they　had　a　basic　understanding　of　the　forces　that　are　flattening　
the　world；　were　able　to　educate　constituents　about　them　and　galvanize　a　response。　


We　have　way　too　many　politicians　in　America　today　who　seem　to　do　the　opposite。　They　
seem　to　go　out　of　their　way　actually　to　make　their　constituents　stupid…encouraging　
them　to　believe　that　certain　jobs　are　〃American　jobs〃　and　can　be　protected　from　foreign　
competition；　or　that　because　America　has　always　dominated　economically　in　our　
lifetimes　it　always　will；　or　that　compassion　should　be　equated　with　protectionism。　
It　is　hard　to　have　an　American　national　strategy　for　dealing　with　flatism　if　people　
won't　even　acknowledge　that　there　is　an　education　gap　emerging　and　that　there　is　an　
ambition　gap　emerging　and　that　we　are　in　a　quiet　crisis。　For　instance；　of　all　the　
policy　choices　that　the　Republican…led　Congress　could　have　made　in　forging　the　FY　
2005　budget；　how　in　the　world　could　it　have　decided　to　cut　the　funding　of　the　National　
Science　Foundation　by　more　than　100　million？　
We　need　politicians　who　are　able　and　willing　to　both　explain　and　inspire。　And　what　
they　most　need　to　explain　to　Americans　is　pretty　much　what　Lou　Gerstner　explained　
to　the　workforce　of　IBM　when　he　took　over　as　chairman　in　1993；　when　the　company　was　
losing　billions　of　dollars。　At　the　time；　IBM　was　facing　a　near…death　experience　owing　
to　its　failure　to　adapt　to　and　capitalize　on　the　business　computing　market　that　it　
invented。　IBM　got　arrogant。　It　had　built　its　whole　franchise　around　helping　customers　
solve　problems。　But　after　a　while　it　stopped　listening　to　its　customers。　It　thought　
it　didn'thave　to。　And　when　IBM　stopped　listening　toits　customers；　it　stopped　creating　
value　that　mattered　for　its　customers；　and　that　had　been　the　whole　strength　of　its　
business。　A　friend　of　mine　who　worked　at　IBM　back　then　told　me　that　when　he　was　in　
his　first　year　at　the　company　and　taking　an　internal　course；his　IBM　instructor　boasted　
to　him　that　IBM　was　such　a　great　company；　it　could　do　〃extraor

dinary　things　with　just　average　people。〃　As　the　world　started　to　flatten；　though；　
IBM　found　that　it　could　not　continue　thriving　with　an　overabundance　of　average　people　
working　for　a　company　that　had　stopped　being　a　good　listener。　
But　when　a　company　is　the　pioneer；　the　vanguard；　the　top　dog；　the　crown　jewel；　it　
is　hard　to　look　in　the　mirror　and　tell　itself　it　is　in　a　not…so…quiet　crisis　and　better　
start　to　make　a　new　history　or　become　history。　Gerstner　decided　that　he　would　be　that　
mirror。　He　told　IBM　it　was　ugly　and　that　a　strategy　built　largely　around　designing　
and　selling　computers…rather　than　the　services　and　strategies　to　get　the　most　out　
of　those　computers　for　each　customer…didn't　make　sense。　Needless　to　say；　this　was　
a　shock　for　IBMers。　
〃Transformation　of　an　enterprise　begins　with　a　sense　of　crisis　or　urgency；〃　Gerstner　
told　students　at　Harvard　Business　School；　in　a　December　9；　2002；　talk。　〃No　institution　
will　go　through　fundamental　change　unless　it　believes　it　is　in　deep　trouble　and　needs　
to　do　something　different　to　survive。〃　It　is　impossible　to　ignore　the　parallel　with　
America　as　a　whole　in　the　early　twenty…first　century。　
When　Lou　Gerstner　came　in；　one　of　the　first　things　he　did　was　replace　the　notion　of　
lifetime　employment　with　the　notion　of　lifetime　em…ployability。　A　friend　of　mine；　
Alex　Attal；　a　French…born　software　engineer　who　was　working　for　IBM　at　the　time；　
described　the　shift　this　way：　〃Instead　of　IBM　giving　you　a　guarantee　that　you　will　
be　employed；　you　had　to　guarantee　that　you　could　stay　employable。　The　company　would　


give　you　the　framework；　but　you　had　to　build　it　yourself。　It's　all　about　adapting。　
I　was　head　of　sales　for　IBM　France　at　the　time。　It　was　the　mid…nineties。　I　told　my　
people　that　in　the　old　days　＇the　concept　of＇　lifetime　employment　was　only　a　company's　
responsibility；　not　a　personal　responsibility。　But　once　we　move　to　a　model　of　
employability；　that　becomes　a　shared　responsibility。　The　company　will　give　you　access　
to　knowledge；　but　you　have　to　take　advantage　of　it。。。　You　have　to　build　the　skills　
because　it　will　be　you　against　a　lot　of　other　people。〃　
When　Gerstner　started　to　change　the　paradigm　at　IBM；　he　kept　stressing　the　issue　of　
individual　empowerment。　Said　Attal；　〃He　under283　
stood　that　an　extraordinary　company　could　only　be　built　on　a　critical　mass　of　
extraordinary　people。〃　
As　at　IBM；　so　in　America。　Average　Joe　has　to　become　special；　specialized；　or　adaptable　
Joe。　The　job　of　government　andbusiness　isnot　toguarantee　anyone　a　lifetime　job…those　
days　are　over。　That　social　contract　has　been　ripped　up　with　the　flattening　of　the　
world。　What　government　can　and　must　guarantee　people　is　the　chance　to　make　themselves　
more　employable。　We　don't　want　America　to　be　to　the　world　what　IBM　was　becoming　to　
the　computer　industry　in　the　1980s：　the　people　who　opened　the　field　and　then　became　
too　timid；　arrogant；　and　ordinary　to　play　on　it。　We　want　America　to　be　the　born…again　
IBM。　
Politicians　not　only　need　to　explain　to　people　the　flat　world；　they　need　to　inspire　
them　to　rise　to　the　challenge　of　it。　There　is　more　to　political　leadership　than　a　
competition　for　who　can　offer　the　most　lavish　safety　nets。　Yes；　we　must