Why do so many global strategies fail—despite companies’ powerful brands and other border-crossing advantages?
Seduced by market size, the illusion of a borderless, “flat” world, and the allure of similarities, firms launch one-size-fits-all strategies.
But cross-border differences are larger than we often assume, explains Pankaj Ghemawat in his new book: Redefining Global Strategy
Here’s Ghemawat’s take on globaloney >>
Here’s his globaloney quiz:
Do you basically agree or disagree with the following statements:
1. Competing the same way everywhere is the purest form of global strategy (Uniformity)
2. The truly global company has no home base (Statelessness)
3. Globalization tends to make industries become more concentrated (Consolidation)
4. Globalization offers virtually limitless growth opportunities (Endless Growth)
5. Global expansion is an imperative rather than an option to be evaluated (Act of Faith)
Give yourself—or your colleagues—1 point for each yes answer, and add them up to get to the total score. Zero implies an absence of globaloney. A score of 1 or 2, while indicating some globaloney, is still better than average. A score of 3 puts you at the average for several hundred managers who responded to an online survey—see below—but note that the average is pretty unhealthy given the number of problems it can lead to (think Coke). And a score of 4 or 5 rises beyond globaloney to the level of globalmania.
One wonders whether Tom Friedman will read this book…