With the release of Future, Inc. in Korean and Chinese, I’ve had the great opportunity to do interviews with Asian business magazines. I find that they ask more interesting, more insightful questions than many of their Western counterparts, so they are often fun interviews. The only problem is, once they are translated, I have NO IDEA what they said.
I just finished an interview with Korea’s KRX Magazine, which covers the Korean stock market and business in general, and I decided to post the whole text in English, so someone can appreciate it.
The questions:
The most important trend is away from the philosophy of growth at all costs. For years, particularly in the United States, management has followed a typical playbook – get big, quickly, through borrowing money from private venture capital or public offerings. Then, you can go national or international, reaching bigger markets and gaining leverage over vendors and distributors. Once you have leverage over vendors and distributors, you cut costs by firing excess employees and force downward price pressure on the market. With the extra cash from operating expenses, you buy more national or international companies. For around forty years companies have repeated this formula.
The theme here was BIG BIG BIG. The problem with “big” is that it sometimes comes at the expense of “smart.”
The financial crisis in the United States illustrates this theme perfectly. Financial institutions were merging at an unprecedented rate, devouring already huge national banks until only a few savings banks, investment banks, and insurance companies remained. The international approach leaves managers little room to be creative or to make exceptional strategies. Once you are at a global size, you are less able than ever to adapt to a changing world. All these companies had the same goals and the same risk models. To obtain profits for their international stock holders, they felt obligated to balloon the size of the housing market – even though this ultimately destabilized the world economy. Presumably, smaller companies would have had the agility to choose different strategies in response to these unprecedented changes.
As a result, I believe the counter-trend of the next couple of decades will be SMALL, ENTREPRENEURIAL, and LOCAL. This is the opposite of many of the trends we have seen in the past decades, which is why I believe we are in such a critical moment in history. This point should be of particular interest to Koreans, since this change will have important implications for the chaebol system.
The pharmaceutical industry illustrates why small and smart companies may likely beat large organizations in the future. The past decade has seen unprecedented mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical sector, making enormous global corporations like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKlein, and Novartis. The thought was that large corporations could combine their research and development budgets and make new, maybe even revolutionary drugs faster and more profitably. That simply hasn’t happened. New drug applications at the Food and Drug Administration appear to be unchanged since 1999. The strategy today, as a result, is to find small, innovative companies and to buy their intellectual property while it’s cheap. The implication is interesting - it says that size is not the benefit it has been assumed to be.
The future of economic prosperity will be dependant on a number of social, economic, and political factors, but there are some characteristics that will make the winners of tomorrow.
INFRASTRUCTURE: A country’s infrastructure – railways, airports, roads, hospitals, electrical grids, telecommunications, etc. – leads the way for entrepreneurial companies to create new business. Look at Asia versus Latin America. The Western countries have moved significant portions of their manufacturing sector to Asia in the past twenty years. The theory behind this is that companies wanted to take advantage of lower labor costs – after all, China is a long way from France and the United States!
But wait, if all America needed was cheap labor, Latin American countries featured low-cost labor forces, all of whom speak a language closer to English than Mandarin, and much, much closer. The difference was infrastructure – the port of Shanghai can process container ships in a few hours, while the ports of San Salvador can require WEEKS of wait time. Interconnected rail, roads, airports, and seaports made the difference in the economic fate of nations.
You can thus see the potential winners of the future today. China is investing 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. The Korean government’s “Vision 2030” program focuses heavily on infrastructure investment, which you can see in that it has the best Internet connectedness in the world (I believe.) Meanwhile, the United States is investing less than 2% of its GDP in infrastructure – and our levies are bursting (Hurricane Katrina) and bridges are collapsing for no reason (Interstate 35 in Minneapolis.) Europe is fixing bridges and building more high-speed rail.
Another part of infrastructure is EDUCATION. This will be particularly interesting in light of the trend in online education, which could bring all sorts of training to the developing world. We’re evolving into a knowledge economy, moving to higher value-added products. Education and job skill training will determine who will win and lose in the coming decades. Once again, I am particularly worried for the United States, which has been increasing the cost of education at a rapid pace without increasing the quality. As a result millions of our young people enter the job market with thousands of dollars in debt.
Also part of national infrastructure is HEALTHCARE. Since the population of the developed world is aging at such a rapid pace, success will come to those countries who can provide their citizens with good quality healthcare without overly taxing businesses and citizens.
ANY plan for the future would be nice. I think that a professional approach to foresight must be standard skills for every leader of business and government. I travel the world talking to executives, and it shocks me how few leaders are able to answer the following question: “What are three major trends in the world, and how will they affect your organization in the long-term.”
So I don’t have specific recommendations for future blueprints – I simply recommend that leaders learn how to make them.
My prediction is for an increase in trade barriers, slowing of globalization, and increase in national regulations.
Globalization is positive in the way it has increased prosperity and alleviated poverty – but the downside is that it is very hard to manage. We can trade together, but it quite difficult to manage multi-national problems such as global warming and the credit crisis because all leaders must answer to their own citizens, each with a special set of values and goals. The credit crisis has been particularly toxic, since so much of it began in the United States and its decisions about regulations in finance and housing. What do you do if you are affected by one set of decisions, but you can’t really influence them? I think the answer will be to insulate nations from the decisions of other countries, at least in the short-term.
The challenge is to regulate while allowing innovation. It’s not fair to any one president - an incredible task in the face of decades of policy that lacked foresight – but I believe the Obama Administration can set the stage for decades of success or failure in its reaction to this crisis.
Many American policymakers, unlike their Asian and European colleagues, have been operating under the assumption that private industry can act in its own interest with minimal guidance from national policy and regulation and that the result will be positive for both individuals and nations as a whole. The financial crisis shows that actually, companies can act in their individual interest and lead both individuals and the nation off a cliff.
The answer is NOT the establishment of giant national regulatory bureaucracies that remind us of Soviet-era politburos – it was a disaster then, it would be a disaster now. So this government has to strike a very delicate balance – it must set up a strong national economic and industrial policy, accompanied by regulators who can exact penalties on companies that commit transgressions. But it must allow those companies to be started quickly and easily and to choose innovative strategies, to keep the spirit of American entrepreneurialism alive and well.
I think the Obama Administration has a lot of work ahead of it.
First, it will be difficult to directly compare China directly to the United States in the post-Cold War era. The United States had an economic, industrial, political, and culture advantage in a way that might not ever be duplicated. The rest of the world has been developing economically in the meantime, and the United States is unlikely to disappear from the world.
Also, language will change how China can extend its power in the 21st century. English is currently the international language, and that is unlikely to change no matter what China does. There are already billions of people who use English as a first or second language.
One of the biggest issues is AGING POPULATIONS. Japan, China, and Korea all have unprecedented proportions of their populations reaching old age in the coming decades and an insufficient number of young people of working age to support social programs. This is no different than Europe and the United States, but both of those regions will benefit from more liberal immigration policies to attract talent workers. The future of Asian economies will depend significantly on the responses to this issue.
Otherwise, I’m interested to see how China will balance its rural populations and its newly urbanized industrial population on its east coast. The difference in the values and needs between both populations will cause much difficulty for the Chinese government, and there is already the spectre of unrest that threatens growth in the country.
Entrepreneur. The future belongs to those who can create new businesses quickly in respond to rapid change. Nations need to create a culture and an infrastructure to encourage entrepreneurial activity, or these changes will appear very unwelcome.
Maintain your national identity! The age of undifferentiated global brands and mass manufacturing seems to be coming to an end, and those who are thriving (nations and companies) have a competitive advantage because they do something very well that nobody else does. France still does luxury very well, as does Italy. Japan and Switzerland excel at ultra-complex manufacturing because as a people, they love details.
Besides if you give up kim chi, bulgoki, and tae kwon do, I’ll be very upset.
This is the official trend blog of Competitive Futures, a management consultancy that provides trend research and analysis for business and government around the world. Here, we update you on interesting trends we see as part of our work for our clients.
For managing partner Eric Garland's new author and speaker blog, please consult and bookmark http://www.ericgarland.co