Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.

Description of the video:

So Global Mindset Index, what is that? Can you explain that? Well, I joined so in 2000 and I went back from Transcana Pipelines to University of Cagory in 2000. 2002. I started doing a lot of work for In Sia, which is a business school a France. Manfred was there for Yes. Yeah. M Manfred and I used Interesting. Ieting man. Very interesting I used to actually visit him in his apartment in Paris with his wife. Fun people. A little quirky, but fun. And then so in 2002, I was spending a lot of time doing executive education workshops for In in Singapore and in Fontainebleau in France. In 2003, they made me an offer, come and join us. So I moved to Singapore. I accepted, but I told them on a temporary basis because I wasn't sure I could live outside of North America, not me, my wife. She wasn't too excited about that. So I told them, Hey, I'm come I'm coming. I'll join you in Singapore. I'll work for you, wherever you want. But I'm not making a final commitment. They said Oh, that's fine. Coming join. So I did. I moved to Singapore. My wife stayed in Calgary and then joined me and then went back. She just wasn't very comfortable in Asia. And what I was doing was just traveling all over the world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China for working for Inside back to Paris. And my wife wasn't happy by that evening. I was on the plane really a lot of a lot of time. So then I got a call from a head hunter at that time, I happened to be in Calgary. I remember. And the head hunter said, I'm calling to let you know that you've been shortlisted for a position at Thunder. And I said what are you talking about? I never applied for. What is the position? And he explained that, yeah. One of the members of the committee told us about you told the committee about you. We gathered information about you without contacting you, we shared with them, and they shortlisted three people to interview your one. And I said, You know, I've just recently accepted the position. I didn't say, I'm not sure. I don't want to be unfair to you guys. And he said, well, let me talk to the dean at Thunderbird and explain and communicate to them what you just told. Okay. So a couple of hours later, the Dan called under Bird and he said, and I didn't know him. He's not in my field, I wasn't in his field. David Bowen is his name. We're still very good friends. And he said, Well, what's the problem? Why wouldn't you come and spend two days with us? I said, but I want you to know my position. This is my situation right now. He said, okay, that's fine. We just want to know what you're doing. And we want you to know what we're doing. And of course, under Bird has always been ranked number one in international manager. I knew them. So in March of 2004, I agreed to go there for two days. And did my interview, met with people and they told me they had already met with the first person on the short list. And the day after I leave the person number three is going to show up, and I happen to know who that person was. And they said, we'll let you know probably in a week B committee has to get together with. Okay. That's fine. And again, I reminded Don't be upset if I decide not to come. So that's fine. So I had my meetings, went back to Calgary in the afternoon of the next day, the dean called and said, I want to send you my offer. I said, Wait a minute. You have your number three over there? He said, Yeah, we've already decided. There's no point in waiting. So we're going to make you an offer, and we're going to let you think about it. Okay. So as soon as the offer was received, I shared it with my wife, who said, it's time to go. Don't even debate it. You're going to be happy there. That's your go, do not collect $200. I want to go back. Let's go. This is how I ended up at Thunder Ber. Now, there is a reason why I'm giving you this feedback. The number one reason why they approached me and the position was, Garden Distinguished Professor and director of the brand new Garden Center for cultures and languages. They said, we're going to give you $5 million. You're going to build a new brand new research center, cultures and languages. Garvin Sam Garvin is one of the owners of Phoenix Sos. He's a very rich guy. Very dear guy. And he gave $60 million to Thunderbird five of which was allocated for the center, which they wanted me to build. So it's okay. That sounds good. So you can spend that. That wasn't an dowment. It was cash. I do. Right. Yeah is per bed. Yeah. I was per. Yeah. So Thunderbird, one of its unique features of Thunderbird is it's so practically oriented. It is so focused on bridging, knowledge, and research to real in classroom, in executive education, anything. So as soon as I arrived, my wife and I first arrived in Phoenix mid July of 2004, to do some house hunting, look around. It was 112 degrees. Pendi Actually, you know what I mean. I lived in West Texas. I do know. Heat. The heat is amazing. And then we officially started August 1. So August 1 of 2004, I started as a full professor at under and a chair professor. And then within the first six months, I started wondering. Okay. Globe shows us that there's a lot of diversity. All of. In terms of culture, in terms of leadership. So why is it that some managers work so successfully with people from different parts and some managers fall a part. What are the individual differences that would facilitate or impede your success in the global role as a manager? That was the question that came to my mind. So global mindset is that package is the answer to that question. Global mindset is a collection of individual characteristics. If you have a high level of those characteristics, it makes it easier for you to work in global roles. If you have a low level of those characteristics, it makes it harder for you. So it's an assessment mechanism. It's assesse if somebody who's going to be a good fit for So what I did was I sent an e mail to my colleagues at Thunderb. That's my research question. Anybody interested? In the next 15 minutes, I got eight professors. We won't be part of this. Okay. So we divvied up the work. Everybody did leisure review in the because they were from different fields. Then we interviewed probably 15 of our own professors at underpin, Professor of global strategy, global finance, global economy. Just asked them. Well, in your mind, what does a management need to be or to do or to know in order to be successful? So collected all of that information. Added. Then we interviewed 217 global executives in 23 cities in Asia, in North America and in Europe. Same idea. Trying to understand. These are very senior people. Trying to understand what does it take? So we Mary Teagarden, my colleague, At Thunderbird and I distilled the learnings. Then we invited 30 of the most distinguished professors that has something to do with international nature. Thought the paid all the expenses for three days. And when I welcomed them, myself, as you all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So you're going to work hard for this. And they did. It was fantastic. So we shared with them what we had heard. It was fantastic, just watching all kinds of people coming at it from different angles. So we ended that workshop with me summarizing what we had learned on a huge white board. And again, we had conversation. The most interesting part of it was on day one, one of my friends, who was a very distinguished scholar, stood up and said, I don't believe in any of this. I got to tell everybody. I'm here because man so invited me, but I don't think this has any merit. When we ended, he stood up again and he said, I want everybody to know I was wrong. Good for him. There was a lot of bad I I mean, it was not it's hard to admit you made a mistake. Yeah. In a guys fake. Age. So he said, yeah. I want to know I was wrong. There's a lot of really interesting stuff here. This is very bad work. So based on that framework, Mary K garden and I started creating questions using our own MBA students to create questions. We ended up with 700 and some items. Then I hired the consulting firm whose expertise is in instrument design. Give them all the ques questions, and they went through their work we did two pilot tests with probably in total 5,000 managers? And we ended up with an instrument, which is called Global Mines Send. And that instrument has now been completed by over 70,000 people all over the world. And basically helps to predict whether somebody can be successful? Yes. And that. And how we can help that, how we can help the co. So for example, one of it has three dimensions, we call capital intellectual capital, psychological capital, social capital. So if your profile is reasonably high on these three capitals, you have a higher probability of success. If you have a low profile on intellectual capital, We can provide workshops, do we help you develop action plans, et cetera on how you can So it's not just an assessment, but those development. Developmental mechanism. Me assessment. Yes. So I read what I thought was an interesting piece co authored by yourself and David Waltman titled the False decadomy globalism and Nationalism. Harvard Business Review, June 18, 2020. Yeah. Now, I'm going to admit in public that I don't read the Harvard Business review on a regular basis, but I know what it is, and I read it from time to time. I really like this piece. So I'm going to just quote a couple of things to get it in here and then get you to comment. You and your co author said for years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. In recent years, however, national sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more expedient to search for solutions for their own citizenis, instead of combining efforts to find a global one. At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be diametrically opposed. We believe that this is that this either or approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes, a paradox mindset, one that merges both globalist and nationalist views, and then you go on to talk about that, and that's what I want to ask you about. So Did you what did you see as the purpose of a paradox in my in st? Okay. Well, let me start by saying that that article is really a practitioner version of complexity theory. We don't we didn't use those words. But it was really an application of paradox and complexity theory, which argue that it is always easy for human beings to go either or. But the world is more comp That a paradoxical situation is where you can bring two seemingly conflicting contradictory concepts together at the same time. Now, why we came up why we decided to write this article was, Trump was in power, and the US government under his leadership, was using a lot of language of national nationalism, and politicians were using that language, which always resonates with population. I mean, it's proven throughout history. Unfortunately, what we felt was even though it is so desirable politically, it can have very serious dysfunctional consequences, not just for the country, but globally too. At the same time. We understood because of me mostly, David is an incredibly sharp theoretician. He is the number two most impactful professor at all of Arizona State University. That's how powerful this guys. And I've had the privilege of working with him a number of years. So he was the theoretician on the complexity theory. I understood how executives think. And American executives and corporations for years, had no interest in national issues. They're just making money. And globalization provided more opportunity, more expansion, more profit. So the world, the business was moving so fast towards ignoring borders, ignoring political realities, making decisions such as, let's move all of our production in the auto industry to Mexico and shut down our operations in Ohio, in Michigan, I actually visited was shut down. Okay. But in the eyes of the decision makers who were making those decisions, the idea that hey, we're dealing with people's livelihood here. Didn't even come into consideration because the assumption was, that's a problem for the government. That's not a problem for us. Our challenge as a corporation is to be produce the best product, provide the greatest share of the value, provide jobs in a global. And take maximum advantage of talent, no matter where it is. So Mexico, for a number of years, had the highest rate of growth in auto industry manufacture. While the US was going down, Mexico was going up. And the executives in the auto industry didn't see anything wrong with that because in their mind, that's their incentive system. So on the one hand, you have these business executives who are thinking only globally because that's where the money is, and you have politicians on the other side that are now figuring out, oh, there is a community in our society that is the loser. And if I can connect to them, I'm going to get votes. So now you have these globalists and these nationalists, and they can't even speak together. So our point in that article was this will get you nowhere. Yeah, the voter the politician is going to get the both, the executive is going to get their bonus. But the society and that voter is going to fail and is going to be damaged because there's no solution. I take it from that perspective. There's no su. All of those boarded up neighborhoods in Detroit are not going to change. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. My son used to live there and he took me on the tour of all those boarded up and I in that area. Yeah. So our approach was, it's time for executives to understand and to take into consideration the nationalistic issues? Because their decisions have real life impact on real people. To them, it's just numbers. Right. But to the guy who loses their job, it's not a numbers, the livelihood. Right. And it's not just the government's c. And the point that I made to one executive was, when you say it's government's prot, what do you expect the government He said, well, you know, they have to provide training, et cetera. He said, what if the government decides to nationalize you? Yes. That's that's always a possibility? No. That's not possible. What do you mean? When you say it's the government's problem, you're giving the solution to government. You're ceasing your role. So what do you expect? So when you talk to executives, you know, global companies, do you tell them that a concern for these intended and unintended consequences of their actions matter, and that's a part of leadership? The language I use is partly that, that it's about your leadership to understand that your stakeholders go beyond your normal stakeholders the person who loses the job in your town is also a stakeholder. So I use that language, but very carefully because executives that I know of have been trained not to consider anything other than business criteria. So based on that understanding, I use a language that they understand. So this point about nationalization, this point about a governments start doing missy things, and then you're going to start complaining. So I tried to get them to understand that it is in their own interest. May not look like it in the short term, but it's definitely true in the longe term by taking steps at a minimum to expand the scope of their decision making criteria to include these social issues that they usually shy away from.