Recently I attended a human resources conference in Jamaica. The focus was on the growing impact of globalization. The topic is not a new one. We have encountered it close to home before in the impact of NAFTA and the exporting of jobs to cheap labour markets. Although we talk about living in a global village, have we ever considered the total impact of making the world a smaller place? From the American and Canadian perspective our concerns are very parochial and focused locally. Shouldn’t participation in the global village give us the privileges as well as the rights of citizenship?
For instance, don’t we in the developed world not take as fundamental rights such benefits as social insurance and social assistance? Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, the question is not if but to what extent. Yet, our fellow citizens in the global village are barely aware that these rights even exist. They have limited social assistance and no social insurance. They have some access to education and yet the illiteracy rate of the working population is officially set at 35%. Indeed, experts in the educational and human resources groups say those are “adjusted” figures, and that the actual number is higher.
What issues would we face if the working age population within our community was confronted by the four perils that are impending in their community? Unhealthily high levels of unemployment coupled with those who are unemployable. Perpetual crises created by a never-ending cycle of natural disasters. An incidence of HIV/AIDS verging on pandemic. A lack of personal security manifested in high crime and violence linked with the drug trade and international terrorism.
When the United States was in the process of pulling itself out of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the concept of the “Four Freedoms”. The impact on the morale of the American people during those persistent tough times was devastating. Consider the even greater impact when our European neighbours did not accomplish the same recovery. The disaster was total when nations turned to dictatorships promising a panacea for all socio-economic problems.
The question then becomes, if are we members of the global village, are we not our brother’s keeper? A wise sage once put it this way: “If I am not for myself alone what am I, but if I am for myself alone who am I?” This concept, I suggest, applies to the problems facing our current world community and its nation states.
What is our responsibility as people who benefit form the resources of the global village? Are we allowed to take from others without ensuring all members freedom from the four fear enunciated by FDR? While there are a variety of means for doing this, we still need to provide a foundation so that the citizens of our neighbourhood can become productive and successful within a social framework that enables them to be less fearful of the powers of nature. What impressed me about the human resources community leaders in Jamaica was that they are, for the most part, concerned about the present as a pathway to the future. From our perspective, what contribution can we make to that future?
Let’s agree that social responsibility means “taking action to assist others to stand on their own feet”. If the world is a global village, and if the impact of suffering leads to stress and downward mobility for an entire region, is it not the responsibility of one’s brothers not merely to extend a “safety net” but to provide the resources and support so that we ensure that our brothers can achieve success through their own self sustaining efforts? If this includes improvements in literacy, health care, social insurance and other foundations that a healthy and motivated individual needs for productive, quality work, the impact of this type of stabilization could only mean a win-win for all people in our global village.
Many of the behavioural profiles we have written over the past year refer to or directly indicate an expectation of senior leaders and middle managers to “think globally and act locally”. As corporations expand, and benefit from the riches of that expansion, reinvestment into the local will probably significantly benefit the global company in the long run. In North America, in the near future, we will soon have more jobs available than people to fill them, and will require a mobile global workforce. From where will we draw these capable and entrepreneurial employees? We will look first to the Western Hemisphere and those who speak English. Ultimately, if for no other reason than the prudent investment in our own future, the efforts we make in bettering conditions among our neighbors will help abate our own impending employment resource problem.
As the trade agreements of the West begin to take root, they have already crumbled to a large degree through the efforts of special interests obtaining permission for bi-lateral conversations leading to one-off agreements. Too frequently, these conversations are between successful corporations and North American interest groups. Unfortunately, the potential exists that this could well make those who are rich today richer tomorrow without any reinvestment in the community.
What is the legacy we will be leaving for our global-village children if we continue to take from others while providing them little social support in return? If I am for myself alone who am I?
My concern is that the drive for profit, or short term ROI inculcated by the 90 day pressure from Wall Street, will focus those who can be for others solely on themselves. It compels us to short-term self-interest instead of the longer-term well-being of our neighborhoods.
It was not so long ago, in the great historical perspective, that the Jamaican economy was stronger than the American and Canadian economy. Perhaps we should listen more carefully to the words of the poet song writer of my generation: “the slow one now will later be fast as the first one now will later be last; for the times they (will be) changin’.”
