Challenges ahead for the Indian manager, as emerging Indian MNCs go global.

1. VIKALPA • VOLUME 33 • NO 4 • OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2008 61
Going Global and Taking Charge:
The Road Ahead for the
Indian Manager
Achal Raghavan
KEY WORDS
Emerging Indian MNC
Middle and Senior
Management
Global Mindset
Coping Strategies
Cultural Integration
I N T E R F A C E S
Executive
Summary
presents articles focusing on
managerial applications of
management practices,
theories, and concepts
Till a few years back, the term “MNC” (Multinational Corporation) in India meant
an organization with its headquarters located outside of India, and having a pre-
sence in India as a part of its global network. In other words, in Indian eyes, “MNC”
meant a “foreign” company which has come into India.
In recent times, however, the business world has seen the emergence of a new breed
of companies which is beginning to be referred to as “Indian MNCs.” The Indian
MNC is a company which is Indian in origin, now spreading its wings to set up
operations in various markets around the world. Increasingly, Indian MNCs have
resorted to mergers and acquisitions (M&As) as a favourite method for jump-start-
ing their global expansion. Tata Steel, Hindalco, Suzlon, Bharat Forge, and Sundram
Fasteners are typical examples of such Indian companies.
As more Indian companies push ahead with their aggressive global growth strate-
gies, many middle and senior management personnel in these organizations are
faced with significant challenges. They have to “go global and take charge” in a very
short time, and learn how to manage complex businesses on a global scale. They
need to acquire the managerial skills needed to deal with varied customer needs
and diverse competitive forces; learn to work with team members from different
cultural backgrounds; and also learn how to manage the companies that have been
acquired through the M&A route.
In this article, we take a look at these new challenges the Indian manager has to face
in this era of globalisation of emerging Indian MNCs, and suggest some strategies to
cope with them. We examine the elements of the “global mindset” that is becoming
essential for the Indian manager’s success, and explain the key dimensions of three
research-based models that will help him understand cultural differences that pre-
vail across the globe. We also examine some real-life examples of the strategies that
Indian MNCs have begun to adopt, as they pursue their vision of becoming global
leaders in their industries.

2. 62
THE EMERGING “INDIAN MNC”
I
n recent times, the business world has seen the emer-
gence of a new breed of companies which is begin-
ning to be referred to as “Indian MNCs.” The In-
dian MNC is a company which is Indian in origin, now
spreading its wings to set up operations in various mar-
kets around the world. Increasingly, Indian MNCs have
resorted to mergers and acquisitions (M&As) as a fa-
vourite method for jump-starting their global expansion.
2007 was a record year for out-bound M&As from In-
dia. A total of 223 deals, worth $33 billion, were trans-
acted. This represented an increase of 300 per cent over
the previous year. The average deal size increased from
$58 million in 2006 to $150 million in 2007. Europe topped
the list as far as investment destinations were concerned,
accounting for 54 per cent of the total value. The US fol-
lowed in second place, accounting for 27 per cent. In
terms of sectoral composition of these M&A deals, met-
als led the way with 56 per cent of the total value, fol-
lowed by engineering (7%), IT (7%), oil and gas (4%),
pharma and healthcare (3%). Other sectors contributed
the remaining 23 per cent.
In terms of size, the five largest deals were the follow-
ing:
• Tata Steel’s acquisition of Corus, UK for $ 12.1 bil-
lion
• Hindalco Industries’ acquisition of Novelis, USA for
$3.3 billion
• Suzlon Energy’s acquisition of REpower Systems,
Germany for $1.8 billion
• Essar Global’s acquisition of Algoma Steel, Canada
for $1.6 billion
• United Spirits’ acquisition of Whyte & Mackay, UK
for $1.2 billion
While the subsequent global credit crisis (in 2008) has
impacted the enthusiasm for such mega-deals for the
moment, smaller acquisitions of strategic importance
continue to be finalized, with an eye on long-term
growth. In addition to the M&A route, many compa-
nies have also gone ahead and established 100 per cent
wholly-owned subsidiaries in overseas markets. A typi-
cal example is that of Sundram Fasteners setting up such
a subsidiary in China to manufacture fasteners and bear-
ing housings for the Chinese and global markets.
These trends go to show that the “Indian MNC” is here
to stay; and in each of these instances, the companies
involved will have to work through the challenges (and
the inevitable mistakes) involved in transforming them-
selves into truly global organizations. Let us now exam-
ine what this means for the operating managers in these
organizations.
INDIAN COMPANIES “GOING GLOBAL”:
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INDIAN MANAGER
The Dominance of the Customer
A key feature of today’s global markets is the emerging
dominance of the customer over the companies that com-
pete for her attention and business. Through informa-
tion media like the internet and global television
channels, today’s customer has instant access to a wealth
of information on any product or service that she may
be interested in. Supply chain efficiencies have made it
possible for companies to make their products available
at competitive prices across world markets.
This has resulted in a vast shift in power – away from the
companies, and towards the customer. The Indian man-
ager has to understand and accept this fact, and discard
any beliefs to the contrary that he may have acquired
over time in the Indian market – where the customer
still does not enjoy this dominance in many cases. In
any case, with increasing globalisation, competitive
forces in the Indian (domestic) market itself are getting
more intense by the day, pointing to the rising impor-
tance of the “Voice of the Customer” (VOC) in today’s
business.
The Importance of the Brand
As the customer gets used to making choices on a glo-
bal basis, the brand of the product has become signifi-
cantly more important than the country of origin or
manufacture. Many brands have succeeded in shedding
their “nationality” – that is, the country from which they
originally emerged. Examples are many— MTV, Nike,
IBM, and so on.
Consequently, the manager in the emerging Indian MNC
has to have a game-plan ready for building brands on a
global scale, which will enable the company to compete
with established global brands. This initiative requires
a deep understanding of local customers’ needs in dif-
GOING GLOBAL AND TAKING CHARGE: THE ROAD AHEAD FOR THE INDIAN MANAGER

3. VIKALPA • VOLUME 33 • NO 4 • OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2008 63
ferent markets, and significant investments in brand-
building over long periods of time. In scale and com-
plexity, this exercise will test the Indian manager’s
capabilities like never before.
The Need for a Global Mindset
Faced with the global customer, and global competition,
the Indian manager in the emerging Indian MNC has to
work on developing a “global mindset” which is essen-
tial for getting a good understanding of today’s busi-
ness dynamics, and developing suitable growth stra-
tegies.
In a speech on “globalisation” delivered by Tarun Sheth,
management consultant, at the Ingersoll-Rand (India)
Leadership Conference a few years ago, he spoke about
the need for today’s manager to develop a “global mind-
set.” Some key elements of this global mindset are as
follows:
• Being open-minded – so that the manager does not
act impulsively on first impressions, but takes the
time to try and understand something that is alien to
his experience till date.
• Comfort with diversity – which will enable the man-
ager to work cohesively and harmoniously with peo-
ple from different cultures and value-systems.
• Interest in history, geography, and global phenom-
ena – which will give the manager the ability to look
for global trends and cause-and-effect patterns in ap-
parently unconnected events in business.
• Integrity – in both intellectual and ethical matters so
that the manager can be trusted by the corporation
to do the right thing in various business situations
across different cultures and countries.
• Abstract thinking – which will assist the manager in
conceptualizing and executing strategies which do
not have any precedent in her prior experience.
• Risk-taking capability – to make quick and effec-
tive decisions when the information available is less
than complete.
• People management – where the members of the team
have to be challenged and motivated by the man-
ager to achieve group goals.
• Cultural sensitivity – to understand the behaviour
and attitudes of personnel from different parts of the
world, and develop an operating culture for the team
which builds “bridges” across the cultural differences
that will inevitably surface.
While it is unrealistic to expect that every manager en-
tering the global arena will exhibit all of the above ele-
ments of a global mindset, it is important for the manager
to recognize that these requirements do exist, and make
efforts to develop and strengthen areas where he is rela-
tively weak.
Cultural Differences and Integration
Global business brings people from different cultures
together. They need to overcome cultural differences and
collaborate with each other, in order to succeed. The fail-
ure of the Daimler-Chrysler “merger of equals” tells us
that cultural integration is a key pre-requisite for global
managers to be effective and successful.
While there could be several exceptions to the rule, most
Indian managers – especially those employed in the
brick-and-mortar industries – exhibit some common
cultural traits. Here are some examples:
• He is very comfortable with clear, well-defined or-
ganization structures, where reporting relationships
are explicit, and there is no ambiguity as to who the
manager’s “boss” is. The organization is the classic
pyramid.
• Compared to simpler organization structures in In-
dian firms, large global corporations routinely resort
to complex matrix organizations to drive their glo-
bal business strategies. The Indian manager is rela-
tively less effective in (and less comfortable with)
matrix organizations, where vertical and horizontal
“relationship” lines cut across functions, businesses,
and geographies. The resultant ambiguity is some-
thing that he finds difficult to manage.
• In spite of the introduction of holistic performance
evaluation systems and processes, the average Indian
manager is still more comfortable with the traditional
concept of “seniority.” Grey hair still matters, in spite
of many organizations pushing ahead with merit-
based decisions when filling senior positions. This
contrasts with the US practice, for example, where
age is not allowed to be used even as a criterion in
such situations.

4. 64
• In India, public “face” (i.e., the person’s standing and
image among colleagues) is crucial at individual
level. Feedback of the negative kind – even when
couched in the most objective terms – is best given
behind closed doors, and not in a group meeting. The
West is less cognizant of such sensitivities.
• Deadlines and commitments are still reasonably
“elastic” – missing a target date for a response by a
day or two is not seen as a major issue. In Germany,
this would be seen as unprofessional.
As stated earlier, these are generalisations about India,
and many of these are getting modified under the re-
lentless pressure of globalisation; but given that these
traits are widely prevalent, the Indian manager now
“going global” needs to recognize that managerial be-
liefs and behaviour in other cultures – e.g., in Japan, Ger-
many or the US – are likely to be very different from
what he or she has experienced in India.
Once these differences are understood, the Indian man-
ager can work out ways and means of integrating him-
self into a hybrid “global” culture, where the group goals
take precedence over individual differences. Many In-
dian organizations have now started giving their man-
agers specific training in this vital area of cultural
integration, before exposing them to the dynamics of
the global business environment. This minimizes the
cultural shocks, and pre-disposes the Indian manager
to expect and manage cultural differences.
UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES: MODELS AND TOOLS
When asked to deal with a fuzzy, hard-to-define con-
cept called “culture,” it is natural that the practising
manager from India would say, “All this is fine. I am
prepared to be culturally sensitive, and adapt my ways
in the interests of team-work. But how do I start getting
a handle on this vague subject? How do I measure the
cultural differences?”
Fortunately, considerable research has already been con-
ducted in this area, resulting in the formulation of mod-
els and tools to assist the manager. In this article, we
will highlight three approaches which share a large de-
gree of commonality in the way they look at cultural
differences, organizations, and teamwork.
Approach #1: Geert-Hofstede™
Cultural Dimensions
Prof. Geert Hofstede (2001) of Maastricht University,
based on his research across different countries and or-
ganisations (starting with IBM, and extended subse-
quently to include other organisations), has postulated
four cultural dimensions, with a fifth dimension – long-
term orientation – getting added to the model at a later
stage:
• Power Distance Index (PDI): This dimension deals
with the degree to which less powerful members of
a society or a group accept, and indeed expect, un-
equal distribution of power, e.g., “That’s the way it
is.”
• Individualism vs. collectivism: Is the individual a
lone person, who is expected to look after his inter-
ests by his own efforts? Or is he a member of a col-
lective group which looks after its members, in return
for loyalty shown to the group?
• Masculinity vs. feminity: This refers to the distribu-
tion of roles between the genders. In “masculine”
cultures, there is a significant difference in the val-
ues exhibited by men and women, with men being
seen as assertive and dominant and the women,
modest and caring; in “feminine” cultures, this dif-
ference is less stark, with men also showing caring
traits.
• Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): This pertains
to tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; the de-
gree to which a “culture programs its members to
feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstruc-
tured situations.”
• Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation:
This dimension deals with values that people exhibit.
Values associated with long-term orientation are
thrift and perseverance, whereas those associated
with short-term orientation are respect for tradition,
fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s
‘face.’
Approach #2: Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s
Cultural Dimensions
Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner (1997)
identified several dimensions along which cultures vary.
GOING GLOBAL AND TAKING CHARGE: THE ROAD AHEAD FOR THE INDIAN MANAGER

5. VIKALPA • VOLUME 33 • NO 4 • OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2008 65
These dimensions can be summarized as follows:
• Universalism vs. particularism: This dimension
deals with how people look at actions of others.
Universalism depends on specific rules and regula-
tions; particularism, on the other hand, relies more
on relationships.
• Individualism vs. communitarianism: This deals
with the balance between an individual’s interests
and the group’s interests.
• Achievement vs. ascription: Is status something that
we get through achievements? Or is it something that
is “given” – through attributes such as seniority and
hierarchy? This is the key question in this dimension.
• Neutral vs. affective: Neutral cultures avoid open
display of emotions, and try to stay focused on the
subject at hand whereas affective cultures use ges-
tures and animated conversations.
• Specific vs. diffuse: People from specific cultures tend
to keep business and personal lives separate and dis-
tinct. There is very little mixing between the two.
Diffuse cultures permit intermingling of the two
spheres.
• Internal vs. external: Internally focused cultures are
likely to have a strong belief in their own actions,
and are resistant to changes induced by the environ-
ment; in contrast, external focus promotes the belief
that the environment is the dominant force, thereby
encouraging a more ready acceptance of changes and
events.
• Time as sequential vs. time as synchronized: Does
one see time as something linear (that is, sequential),
where discrete elements follow one after the other?
Or is it something where many things happen simul-
taneously? This will determine whether the culture
encourages “one thing at a time,” or will permit par-
allel-processing.
Approach #3: The Cultural Orientations Model from
Walker, Walker and Schmitz
Walker, Walker and Schmitz, in their book (2004), Do-
ing Business Internationally, have postulated a “Cultural
Orientations Model” (COM), which is a framework for
understanding cultural differences between people from
different countries and cultures.
This model consists of ten cultural dimensions along
which the beliefs and actions of different people or cul-
tures can be mapped. Here is a brief description of each
of these ten dimensions:
• Environment: This dimension deals with how the
person relates to the environment in which he oper-
ates. Does the person believe that he has reasonable
control over the future, or is it all ‘written’ – decided
by a higher force? Is harmony important? Is the en-
vironment seen to be full of constraints? And so on.
• Time: Is time seen as something fixed, to be meas-
ured and tracked? Is “being on time” of paramount
importance? Or is time something fluid, something
secondary to higher priorities like taking care of your
relationships?
• Action: Is the emphasis more on action that leads to
measurable results? Or is it on building relationships
and caring for one another?
• Communication: Does the meaning of words depend
on the context? Does “yes” mean “yes”? Does silence
mean something? Are conflicts dealt with through
open communication? Or in an indirect fashion?
• Space: Is space (physical and psychological) seen as
public or private? Is the office designed on an “open
plan,” or is it full of cabins and cubicles? Do people
stand close to each other while talking? Or at a dis-
tance?
• Power: Is power driven by hierarchy, or is it more
decentralized and equal? How are decisions made?
By consensus, or by the boss?
• Individualism: Is a person’s identity determined by
individual achievements? Or does the group’s iden-
tity over-ride that of the individual? Is loyalty to the
group important?
• Competitiveness: Is the individual encouraged to
take aggressive action on his own? Or is it a co-op-
erative working style that is valued? Is the reward
structure designed to emphasise individual achieve-
ments?
• Structure: What is the degree of comfort with change,
risk, ambiguity, and uncertainty? Does the culture
value predictability and order? Or does it permit
some degree of flexibility and chaos?
• Thinking: What is perceived to be more important –

6. 66
The abstract, and the ‘principle’? Or large volumes
of hard data? Is the approach holistic, or is it tuned
to breaking the issue down to small manageable
chunks?
BUILDING BRIDGES
As mentioned earlier, these three approaches exhibit a
fair degree of commonality in the way they look at cul-
tural differences. These models show that people from
different cultures think and act differently while oper-
ating on the same dimension–e.g., on communication,
or time, or status. Once these cultural differences are
recognised and understood, the global manager has a
greater chance of succeeding in getting a set of people
from different cultures to work together reasonably har-
moniously. Lack of sensitivity to deep-rooted cultural
differences is likely to result in misunderstandings and
diversion of energy into negative directions.
The key to success in global business lies in building
bridges across the cultural gaps, and not seeking to
achieve “one size fits all” homogeneity in the team. The
global manager has to collaborate with the team in es-
tablishing “cultural ground rules” for day-to-day work
that focus on the common tasks and goals, rather than
try to eliminate the individual cultural differences. It is
a two-stage process: understanding the differences in
culture among team members, and then building bridges
across the differences. These bridges can be built on a
simple, but powerful principle– which is to place the
customer’s needs above individual cultural preferences.
STRATEGIES FOR GOING GLOBAL:
SOME CURRENT INDIAN EXAMPLES
While in-depth research output on specific strategies
adopted by Indian MNCs is still not available, there are
sufficient examples, at company level, to show that In-
dian companies are fully capable of drawing up and
executing strategies that are sensitive to customer needs,
culture, brand equity, and teamwork.
The Tata Group’s approach to its acquisitions—in terms
of cultural integration, branding, and customer focus—
has been based on very pragmatic considerations. The
top management teams at Corus, Jaguar, and Land Rover
have been pretty much left intact, with the Tata head-
quarters getting involved primarily in long-term direc-
tion-setting and large investment decisions. The global
brands that have been acquired are getting careful nour-
ishment for the long run. There have been no abrupt
attempts at implementing drastic changes. Overall, as
seen from the outside, the philosophy seems to be one
of encouraging continuity and growth, while ensuring
adherence to the Tata group’s core values.
In the case of Sundram Fasteners, a trend-setter in the
auto component industry in India, the approach has been
similar. The UK and German companies that have been
acquired in recent years have been allowed to retain and
strengthen their brands and identities. Fresh investments
in equipment have been made where merited, thereby
overturning conventional wisdom that such acquisitions
are always followed by loss of jobs and “hollowing out”
of manufacturing assets. There is continuity in senior
management staff. Global customers — whose needs can
be met from Sundram Fasteners’ multiple manufactur-
ing units in India, Germany, UK, and China — are be-
ing managed as single “accounts” globally, through
coordinated marketing and sales efforts. Best practices
in operational excellence are being transferred from one
unit to the other through horizontal deployment, with-
out implications of superiority or inferiority between
countries, companies, and cultures.
Bharat Forge, with its headquarters in Pune, is another
aggressive player in the engineering industry, with the
goal of becoming one of the top players in the global
automotive forging industry. The company has made a
series of acquisitions in Germany, USA, Sweden, and
Scotland, and has also formed a JV in China. The com-
pany follows a strategy of “dual-shoring” where its glo-
bal customers’ needs can be met from at least two of its
plants worldwide. This allows the company to satisfy
its customers’ requirements with fast, possibly “local”
responses, while at the same time meeting the constant
demand for more competitive prices.
IMPACT OF CULTURE AT OPERATIONAL LEVEL
While the above instances are examples of clear think-
ing, planning, and execution at the strategic level, it is
important to recognise that individual managers need
to be sensitive to each other’s cultural expectations, when
working at the operating level on a daily basis.
While this might seem like stating the obvious, real-life
experience shows that this is not something that comes
naturally to operating managers. Since globalisation has
GOING GLOBAL AND TAKING CHARGE: THE ROAD AHEAD FOR THE INDIAN MANAGER

7. VIKALPA • VOLUME 33 • NO 4 • OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2008 67
been a relatively recent phenomenon in India, most
managers have not had the opportunity to get in-depth
exposure to different cultures. Correspondingly, the
manager from the other culture (say, from Europe or
the US or elsewhere) also has had no opportunity to
observe and understand how the Indian mind works.
This results in a gap, which needs conscious effort from
both sides to bridge. The following caselet will make
this point clear.
A Real-life Caselet: The Meaning of “Time”
In this example, a manager from a German company
had given a project for the development of a new prod-
uct to his counterpart in the Indian company (in the same
group of companies) at a significantly lower cost. The
German was getting increasingly frustrated with re-
peated delays in the delivery date. He took this to mean
that the Indian manager was not serious about his com-
mitments, and that he was insensitive to the negative
impact that was created with the end customer. In real-
ity, the product was inherently complex, and repre-
sented something of a challenge to the Indian team.
If the Indian manager were culturally more aware, he
would have said, “Look, this job is more complex than
what we have done in the past; but I am reasonably con-
fident we can pull it off. Tell your customer this is being
attempted in good faith, and that it will take a few itera-
tions before we get it right. We will keep you updated
on the progress, and let’s target six months for the whole
process to get completed.”
Instead, the Indian manager had said “yes” to the project,
and had taken on an unrealistic deadline, because he
was operating in a culture where people were encour-
aged to take on difficult challenges. The hard work be-
ing put in was considered important; and the slippage
of dates – while seen as not good – was not a matter of
life and death.
Where are the cultural differences? The Indian was com-
fortable with ambiguity (of the outcome); the German
was not. The Indian saw “time” as something fluid and
continuous; the German saw a finite date, and a discrete
period. The Indian was used to dealing with other cus-
tomers (Indian), who were, by and large, forgiving of
slippages. The German saw his (German) customer
walking away. The Indian valued the input, i.e., the ef-
forts being put in to develop the product; the German
was focussed only on the output, i.e., the date of com-
pletion. To the Indian, saying “no” or “may be” meant
an admission of lack of capability and a perceived loss
of “face”; to the German, receiving a “no” for an answer
would have been equally acceptable, and more profes-
sional. He would have found another source for the
product, and got on with his life.
Ultimately, the two sides evolved a working method for
future instances, by which they agreed to discuss the
risks and assumptions explicitly before the start of any
new project so that the ambiguity was sharply reduced,
and everyone “was on the same page.” The commitment
to be made to the end customer was agreed to be held
sacrosanct.
Learning from such examples, Indian MNCs can pro-
actively implement cultural sensitization programmes
at both ends of the ocean, so that such gaps and prob-
lems are minimised, if not avoided altogether. Many
specialist organisations, which offer expert training in
this relatively new and fuzzy area, have come into ex-
istence in recent times. Given that the financial logic for
many M&A decisions is based heavily on achieving sig-
nificant synergies in a short period of time, such train-
ing should become a mandatory part of the corporate
M&A playbook.
CONCLUSION
As more and more “Indian MNCs” go global, their man-
agers would need to gear up, in a very short time, the
knowledge base needed to face the new challenges they
would inevitably face in multiple global markets. Indian
MNCs are beginning to show that they are second to
none in coming up with aggressive growth strategies
which involve putting down roots — for the long term
— in many countries around the world.
But the success of these strategies would depend on the
ability of their managers to understand the dominance
of the customer and the importance of the brand. Addi-
tionally, Indian managers should develop a “global
mindset” that would enable them to understand and
manage cultural differences, and lead their multinational
teams to success. Ultimately, business people from dif-
ferent cultures need to work together in an atmosphere
of mutual respect and trust. This is where the cultural in-
tegration models, and the need for a global mindset,
come in as essentials.

8. 68 GOING GLOBAL AND TAKING CHARGE: THE ROAD AHEAD FOR THE INDIAN MANAGER
Achal Raghavan is a strategy and business excellence consult-
ant based in Bangalore. Till recently, he was Head–Interna-
tional Operations at Sundram Fasteners Limited. A graduate
of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras and the In-
dian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad, Raghavan
brings with him over 33 years of work experience in the auto-
motive and engineering industries. During this period, he has
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Ohmae, Kenichi (2003). The Borderless World, London, UK: Pro-
file Books.
Walker, Danielle; Walker, Thomas and Schmitz, Joerg (2004).
Doing Business Internationally, New Delhi: Tata McGraw-
Hill.
Hampden-Turner, Charles and Trompenaars, Fons (1997).
Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diver-
sity in Global Business, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Val-
ues, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations,
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Sirkin, Harold L; Hemerling, James W and Bhattacharya,
Arindam K (2008). Globality: Competing with Everyone from
Everywhere for Everything, New York: Headline/Business
Plus.
held Board-level positions for 10 years in organizations such
as Delphi Automotive Systems, India and Ingersoll-Rand (In-
dia) Limited. He teaches as guest faculty at IIM Ahmedabad
and IIM Bangalore, and also writes for management journals
and business newspapers.
e-mail: achalraghavan@yahoo.co.in
We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly
shared values and practices that reflect global social needs,
and that all the world’s people share the benefits of
globalization.
— Kofi Annan