In a recent report 'The future is not what it used to be' McKenzie takes as its first premise:
1. Distance is back
What McKenzie said:
"In the mid-1990s, the idea of the “death of distance” gained currency. The thinking was that new web-based and telecom technologies had made it possible to communicate and work in new ways that dramatically reduced the value of physical proximity. As the flow of information became cheap and seamless, global supply chains of bewildering complexity were able to deliver just-in-time products as a matter of routine. Cross-border trade reached new peaks. And the world’s burgeoning middle class took to travel and tourism with something like abandon.
Even before COVID-19 hit, there were signs of unease, expressed in calls for protectionism and more restrictive immigration and visa policies. In these ways, people sought, in effect, to create more distance from those unlike themselves.
Such attitudes were far from universal, of course. But to deal with the pandemic, governments around the world have imposed restrictions on people and goods of a severity not seen for decades. According to one study, more than three billion people live in countries whose borders are now totally closed to nonresidents; 93 percent live in countries that have imposed new limits on entry, because of the coronavirus. If a modern-day Hannibal wanted to cross the Alps peacefully, his elephants would be turned away. Eventually, the tourists will come back and the borders will reopen, but it is certainly possible that the previous status quo will not return.
Indeed, for businesses, the prospect of more border restrictions; a greater preference for local over global products and services; the need for resilience across supply chains driving a move to bring sourcing closer to end markets (see element 2, “Resilience AND efficiency”); and perhaps renewed resistance to globalization, are all possible second-order consequences of the actions being taken now to cope with the coronavirus. Technology continues to shrink physical distance, but in other ways, it could be set for a return."
What I said:
I couldn't help but remember a paper I had given to the European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) colloquium in Lyon, France in 2001.
Paper title: 'Distance, space and isolation: An organisational research agenda'
Abstract:
Conclusion:
1. Distance is back
What McKenzie said:
"In the mid-1990s, the idea of the “death of distance” gained currency. The thinking was that new web-based and telecom technologies had made it possible to communicate and work in new ways that dramatically reduced the value of physical proximity. As the flow of information became cheap and seamless, global supply chains of bewildering complexity were able to deliver just-in-time products as a matter of routine. Cross-border trade reached new peaks. And the world’s burgeoning middle class took to travel and tourism with something like abandon.
Even before COVID-19 hit, there were signs of unease, expressed in calls for protectionism and more restrictive immigration and visa policies. In these ways, people sought, in effect, to create more distance from those unlike themselves.
Such attitudes were far from universal, of course. But to deal with the pandemic, governments around the world have imposed restrictions on people and goods of a severity not seen for decades. According to one study, more than three billion people live in countries whose borders are now totally closed to nonresidents; 93 percent live in countries that have imposed new limits on entry, because of the coronavirus. If a modern-day Hannibal wanted to cross the Alps peacefully, his elephants would be turned away. Eventually, the tourists will come back and the borders will reopen, but it is certainly possible that the previous status quo will not return.
Indeed, for businesses, the prospect of more border restrictions; a greater preference for local over global products and services; the need for resilience across supply chains driving a move to bring sourcing closer to end markets (see element 2, “Resilience AND efficiency”); and perhaps renewed resistance to globalization, are all possible second-order consequences of the actions being taken now to cope with the coronavirus. Technology continues to shrink physical distance, but in other ways, it could be set for a return."
What I said:
I couldn't help but remember a paper I had given to the European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) colloquium in Lyon, France in 2001.
Paper title: 'Distance, space and isolation: An organisational research agenda'
Abstract:
The ‘death of distance’ is but one of the many claims associated with information technology and other forces of globalisation. But it is a significant claim and one, which, until rather recently, has gone, unchallenged. Is distant really dead? Or even dying? In this paper, I assemble some interdisciplinary views on the topics of ‘space’ and ‘isolation’ and then put forth the argument that distance and ‘isolation’ are relevant and deserving concepts for more extensive organizational research. I also suggest a list of organizational research questions which might be asked in the pursuit of an enhanced understanding of distance, place and isolation.
Conclusion:
An Odyssey usually means going to far away places. But, in the complex connectivity of global culture and organisational life, has the ‘isolation’ of far away places become a thing of the past? Is distance ‘dead’? I would argue that distance, place and isolation are still part of the Odyssey of organizing. And, if distance is not dead, perhaps we are oversimplifying its role in our studies of organizations and management. I believe that while we are increasingly drawn closer together by technology, spatial relationships, especially ‘isolation’ deserves research attention. There is clearly much more we might learn about this phenomenon as it applies to individuals, groups and organizations. The purpose of this paper was to reiterate the fact that distance is still a valid concept, to highlight various disciplinary angles on the topic and to outline areas where further research is needed. Indeed, distance may not only be manageable, it may be a good thing for organizations. It is hoped that this research agenda will, in some measure, be accomplished, not to ‘shrink’ the planet, but to further our understanding of our shared Odyssey upon it.
The full paper is available upon request. Just email me d.kolb at auckland.ac.nz
