Book Review: Thomas L. Friedman Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations and Niall Ferguson The Square and the Tower: Networks,Hierarchies and the Struggle for Global Power

Introduction: Two Perspectives on Current Global Challenges

Given the increased complexity of our global world, many authors have been trying to make sense of the numerous challenges that we face (Fiss & Hirsch, 2005). In this review, we take two different, but complementary perspectives, on these challenges. To this end, we review two very important recent books on this matter that are written by two of the keenest observers and commentators on today’s world developments, Thomas Friedman and Niall Ferguson. Friedman’s book Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations (2016), and Ferguson’s The Square and the Tower: Networks and power, from the Freemasons to Facebook (2017), offer very different interpretations and guides to doing just that, making sense of today’s increasingly complex challenges. Friedman identifies three major accelerations (technological change, digital globalization and climate change) that disrupt and displace our global reality. And, although he acknowledges that these accelerations challenge our social structures, which are not ready to deal with them, he remains optimistic about the opportunities these challenges provide us. Ferguson, on the other hand, draws on a detailed historical analysis in what he conceives to be a major theme in human history; i.e. the interplay between social networks and hierarchies. He makes the point that human history can be characterized as long epochs, where hierarchical structures dominated humanity, and more dynamic eras, where networks had an advantage over hierarchies. Following a rather pessimistic approach, he argues that many times in history, times disturbingly similar to the current ones, networks have run amok, plunging their societies into bloodshed.

At least partly these different interpretations can be attributed to the different backgrounds of the authors. Thomas Friedman is an American political commentator, New York Times columnist and three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, whereas Niall Ferguson is an academically-trained British historian and is a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and the Center for European Studies, Harvard. However, in spite of their different backgrounds and the major differences that their books have in matters of method, style, attitude and other respects, they both share the common goal of trying to make sense of the same complex global challenges. Making sense of these challenges matters for the readership of Organization Studies because, in different ways, both authors aim to provide us with a better sense of the global context within which we, as organizational researchers and scholars, try to understand how organizations function and how they could better succeed or be prevented from failure within this global context.

In this review, we lay out their similarities and differences and identify issues ripe for future research that emerge from viewing together their diverse perspectives on the same topic. We proceed by first discussing Friedman’s work, followed by Ferguson’s work. Then, we compare and contrast the works of these two authors, and finally, discuss the research implications of these two perspectives of current global challenges for the field of organization studies.

Friedman: The Optimist

In his 2016 book, Friedman builds on his earlier work The World is Flat (2005), where he addressed how the world was getting interconnected through the internet. He identifies three major accelerations that interact with each other to disrupt and displace our global reality: technological change, digital globalization and climate change. What Friedman conceives as disruptive is that the accelerating speed of scientific and technological innovations and natural changes outpace the capacity of people and our societal structures to adapt to and absorb them. As he notes:

What we are experiencing today, with shorter and shorter innovation cycles, and less and less time to learn to adapt, is the difference between a constant state of destabilization versus occasional destabilization … There is a mismatch between the pace of change and our ability to develop the learning systems, social safety nets, and government regulations that would enable citizens to get the most out of these accelerations and cushion their worst impacts. This mismatch is at the center of much of the turmoil roiling politics and society in both developed and developing countries today. (p. 34)

In short, Friedman sees these disruptions as happening faster than our societies can adjust to them. In a series of provocative chapters, he lays out a statement of topics and consequences resulting from this mismatch. He identifies and discusses the social, economic and organizational consequences of these accelerations, consequences that include subjects like increasing inequality, more transient employment, less trust in the system, fewer marriages and more single-parent families. Moreover, drawing on solid data about disruptions in the paradigm of continuous employment, from high school or university to retirement, he offers a number of insights about how employment has and will be affected by these disruptions in the future. For example, given the productivity increases due to the introduction of many more machines, robots, software and artificial intelligence algorithms (Fleming, 2019), he notes that the need for unskilled or even moderately skilled workers is substantially decreasing. During the 20^th century, the largest share of national income went to wages. In 1980, it was 76 percent. It fell in the 1990s to around 65 percent. By 2005 it further decreased to the low 60s and has dropped further to the middle or high 50s. Americans, he says, discovered that working hard and playing by the rules was no longer enough to ensure them the American Dream.

However, in spite of all the challenges that follow from these accelerations, faithful to his book’s title, Friedman remains optimistic about the future and makes a number of suggestions about how we should (or in some cases should not) try to deal with them. For example, he acknowledges that compared to the evolution of our social systems, technological innovations have been speeding up, to the point that he is afraid of the moment when his grandchild will ask ‘What is a typewriter?’ But he insists that we should resist an instinctive reaction to take a hammer to the machine. Instead, he argues that we have no option but to engage with changes and work with technology rather than against it. Instead of seeing certain jobs from the point of view of a machine replacing a human, we should see them from the point of view of how we can retrain the human to work with the machine to achieve new heights. Friedman mentions a number of websites and companies that focus on ‘life-long’ learning. With the support of their employer or on their own, employees are able to continue acquiring new skills at low cost via sites like LearnUp, Utube and other sources of online education. ‘Let’s get one thing straight: The robots are not destined to take all the jobs’ (p. 203), he says at the beginning of a chapter dealing with the impact of AI on skilled jobs. He acknowledges the impact of technological developments on middle-skilled jobs, which are no longer characterized by high wages, but he believes that through constant reinvention one can remain in the middle class. In other words, while in an earlier era one could just play by the rules of the game and achieve a reasonable level of prosperity, now one has to repeatedly learn and utilize different rules and skills, not particularly easy from a psychological perspective. Moreover, this could be seen as an intensification of what has been referred to as ‘the rat-race’, not a very pleasant social development, one could easily argue. But, true to his optimistic approach, Friedman does not delve into such issues. He notes the problems that arise because of the accelerations he has identified but emphasizes the opportunities they provide and how they can act as antidotes to the problems they bring with them.

Ferguson: The Pessimist

On the other hand, Ferguson foresees fewer solutions and opportunities, drawing on a very detailed historical interplay between hierarchies and networks. He sees human history as characterized by long epochs, in which hierarchical structures dominated humanity, and more dynamic eras, where networks had an advantage over hierarchies. According to Ferguson, four main characteristics capture this historical ‘battle’ between hierarchies and networks: (1) networks are more creative than hierarchies; (2) without networks, the world would be a harsher, bleaker and crueller place; (3) (but) when hierarchies fall, and networks carry all before them, the result, too often, is an anarchic war of all against all — like Hobbes’ state of nature; and (4) there are many historical examples of triumphant networks that have run amok, plunging their societies into bloodshed. For example, he argues that the rise of the printing press allowed the extensive distribution of books and particularly the bible, but instead of this development leading to the creation of a unified network of believers, it encouraged increasing factionalism which led to bloody religious wars, including the 30-year war in Europe (1618 to 1648). The main reason behind such a development, he says, is ‘homophily’, which can be captured in the old saying ‘birds of a feather flock together’ (p. 53). In other words, increased networking abilities allow individuals to seek out and associate with others similar to themselves. This facilitated Martin Luther’s reformation in 1517, and the subsequent creation of a number of Christian sects and sub-sects that ferociously fought with each other. Disturbingly, Ferguson sees similarities between that era and our present one with the emergence of the social networks of today, enabled by websites like Facebook, Twitter and Google that allow speedy diffusion of information to like-minded recipients. He acknowledges that this increased networking has created many beneficial networks, but also identifies a number of negative ones, such as the possibility for terrorist organizations to emerge and the interference and destabilization of democratic processes. Drawing on extensive historical examples, he argues that the social networks of today will become increasingly more destabilizing towards stable western democracies. In illustrating this, he points to events like the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, and the Brexit referendum.

In the concluding chapter, Ferguson provides seven insights, drawn from a rather long and, true to his background as a historian, detailed history of networks and hierarchies. The first insight he offers is that ‘no man is an island’ (p. 78), where he notes how individuals may be understood in terms of their relationships and location in networks. His second insight is that ‘birds of a feather flock together’, in which social networks encourage situations where like attracts like. His third one is that ‘weak ties are strong’ (p. 79), which is an old insight from network theory, going back to Granovetter (1977) and his famous book Social Networks. Ferguson deepens this insight by illustrating it through many historical examples from the Illuminati, to the Cambridge spy network, and wars of the British Empire. Fourth, he says that ‘structure determines virality’ (p. 79), wherein ideas go viral not because of their content, but because of the ‘structural features of the network through which they spread’ (p. 80). Fifth, ‘networks never sleep’ (p. 81), enabling dynamic networks to evolve and adjust to changing situations, better than hierarchies. Sixth, he identifies a ‘networks network’ (p. 81), where different networks interact with each other, resulting in innovation, invention and disruption. His final insight is that networks allow ‘the rich to get richer’ (p. 81). Ferguson sees networks as profoundly inegalitarian, which he considers as at least a partial explanation for the increasing economic inequality in our era.

Juxtaposing the Two Perspectives

In comparing and contrasting Friedman’s book with Ferguson’s, we see above all else that while Ferguson has a rather pessimistic interpretation of future prospects, Friedman is quite the optimist. In other words, both authors frame very differently the global challenges we face today. According to Snow, Rochford, Worden and Benford (1986, p. 464) frames are ‘schemata of interpretation’, which ‘organize experience and guide action’. In this instance, both authors do just that; they provide contrasting interpretations of our current global challenges. Friedman frames our current reality by drawing on three global trends, technological change, globalization and climate change. He views these trends as accelerating and problematic while at the same time he sees solutions at work and on the horizon. On the other hand, Ferguson frames these issues by drawing on the historical interplay between hierarchies and networks, which he says have been fighting with each other for centuries. He even scolds himself and his fellow historians for not having paid adequate attention to this fight.

Within their respective frames, both authors try to make sense of the world we live in, or, as Friedman puts it, try to make sense of ‘how the machine works today’ (p. 35) and what it means for us. Such sense-making (Weick, 1995) encompasses how people create some sort of explanation for what they are up against and how they should respond. In other words, how people conceive meaning for the different events around and how these events impact them. Both authors use different frames to come to terms with this complexity and give us some sense of what it all means (for us). In summarizing the meaning of what each author is telling us, we interpret Friedman’s view as:

We are faced with three accelerations that impact (or will impact) people and societies globally. They create a lot of problems, but also provide us with many opportunities for innovative solutions. Given that these accelerations cannot be stopped or reversed, we have to work with them to take advantage of them and flourish as much as we can.

By contrast, we paraphrase Ferguson’s message as:

In the past, we have repeatedly seen conflicts between networks and hierarchies. Historical evidence shows that when networks gain power and disrupt the stability of hierarchies, tensions rise, and war and calamities can follow. As things for the future do not look good, we have to learn from history and try to avoid similar catastrophes.

Another difference between the take-home points from these books lies in the level of their immediate practicality. Friedman leaves us with a better understanding of the managerial challenges we face, and directs us toward practical solutions to adapt to this new reality. On the other hand, Ferguson, coming from more of an academic background, provides insights, which one can say come closer to theoretical propositions that in turn we have to translate into more practical suggestions. Both of their contributions have the potential to provide for topics, and open new venues for organizational researchers and theorists. In the following paragraphs, we identify a few that we see as ripe for future research. Of course, this sample is not exhaustive, since these two books provide a multitude of possible research venues. We call attention to just a few which we envision for organizational researchers, ourselves included, to explore in the future.

Implications for Organization Studies Research and Conclusion

From Friedman’s Thank You for Being Late, we identify three such research venues. First, he points out how scientific and technological development often outpace the rate of social developments and policy. This has significant implications for business corporations and how they compete. How do corporations create and sustain competitive advantage in such an environment? For example, Friedman notes that the pace of scientific innovation is faster than the time it takes to write a patent application and get it approved. How can corporations, which have been depending on patents for their competitive advantage, handle this? What measures can arise to better address this issue?

Second, Friedman lauds AT&T for its use of the internet to train and provide employment continuity for workers and managers. How widespread is this, and are HR consultants and departments moving ahead on it? The traditional notion of employee training that most HR departments have supported is clearly not adequate for this new reality. Researchers can examine how employers and their HR departments and career counsellors are dealing with this new challenge and opportunity to help employees reinvent themselves and their jobs. What programmes are in the forefront of innovatively addressing these needs, and which national and state governments are developing policies to address them? Third, the outpacing of social development by technological innovation has a number of implications for governments to take into account and update their policies. In this ‘era of accelerations’, regulatory frameworks that were designed for a bricks and mortar economy are inadequate. In this gap, corporations often need to take a lead in self-regulating before major societal problems occur and a social backlash damages the good and the bad that comes from these new technologies, along with the legitimacy and reputation of these corporations.

However, a bigger and more fundamental issue, we might add, is why do we as a society continue to pursue technological innovation to the point that we cannot adapt to, which creates problems. Is it that we do not recognize the dangers? Or, perhaps that we find ourselves in a situation reminiscent of a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, where what benefits us individually might not benefit us collectively? Friedman, an acute observer of world events, identifies this fundamental gap between technological innovation and societal adaptation but does not explore it further to better understand its causes and drivers. Future research, then, could and should try to identify such drivers and better understand why we all, like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving Day, pursue and create paths that exacerbate the situation.

In terms of Ferguson’s work, we think his most important insight is that social networking, instead of facilitating social cohesion and communication, generates unexpected polarization and conflict by enabling more homophily as more ‘birds of a feather flock together’. This consequence allows previously weak, marginal groups to become powerful, access more resources and offer more resistance to established bureaucracies. It invites further studies and investigations by organizational researchers. For example, an interesting strategy question is how companies address polarizations when reflected in their customer base. Given the increased polarization in society, it is quite possible for certain well-meaning social responsibility initiatives to also become ‘red flags’ for parts of the population and some of its customers. Avoiding such traps and still engaging with social issues invites further consideration.

Second, how can business corporations, especially those specializing in online communities, avoid being used by nefarious networks? For example, the inappropriate use of Facebook and Twitter by foreign agents to influence the American (and other) elections since 2016 is well established (Mueller, 2019). This has led not only to a loss of reputation and legitimacy for these companies, but also to calls for more government regulations to offset and reverse the potentially substantial damage to their elections, referenda and democratic procedures.

A third valuable insight from Ferguson’s book that invites organizational research and investigation is his characterization of networks as ‘never sleeping’. This focuses our attention on their dynamic capacity to change and adapt enormously fast, and on the question of who guards these networks if they never sleep. Is it humans, other networks, or artificial intelligence? It invites studies into how this affects such organizational areas as change management, marketing strategy, crime and other fields that rely on and benefit from the increasing speed and capacity of network technologies. Researchers can examine how organizations can (or already) engage, use and incorporate networks to take advantage of their innovativeness and dynamism. On the other hand, as a recent study by Yu, Kang and Rhodes (2018) suggests, researchers can also examine how large corruption networks operate and adjust to regulation and exposure, with the ultimate goal being the eradication of such networks.

In conclusion, Friedman and Ferguson have contributed sharp analyses and suggestions worthy of our attention. Neither presents a complete picture of the global challenges we face and, most likely, such a complete picture cannot yet be drawn. However, taken together, they provide two complementary frameworks that allow us to capture much of the important complexity of the global challenges which our organizations, citizens and societies face. In short, they provide us with an excellent beginning on the road to understanding. And, as Plato said in his Republic, when asking the right questions, ‘the beginning is the most important part of the work’ (377b).