No. This time, it is not one of those hate-postings by a laid-off worker from an American corporation. It is straight from the Op-Ed of New York Times, written by an equity analyst and one academician who, through cold logic, call for what they call is “taking outsourcing to its logical conclusion.”

In a column, The Corner Office in Bangalore, Lawrence Orlowski, an equity analyst and Florian Lengyel, Assistant Director of Research Computing at the City University of New York Graduate Center, argue that it is time to seriously consider hiring a chief executive from India or China for the large American corporations. This, they say, “would unlock tremendous value for shareholders.”

They write…

So far, outsourcing manufacturing and services has led to higher chief executive compensation, at the expense of shareholder profit. For example, IBM.’s chief executive, Samuel J. Palmisano, who has been moving jobs to India, last year saw his total compensation rise 19 percent to $18.9 million — even as the total return for his company’s stock fell 16 percent.

“That’s proof,” they say, “that globalization hasn’t gone far enough.” [See my earlier posting, Nandan Nilekani’s compensation and the flatness of the world…]Their solution:

China, India and other emerging markets offer shareholders a virtually unlimited talent pool from which to draw chief executives. With an increased supply of candidates, a truly independent corporate compensation committee would be easily able to hire superior leaders at salaries and benefits that are a small fraction of what their American counterparts in those fancy corner offices demand.

While like typical outsourcing cycles, they start their argument to offshore with cost, there are more reasons they offer.

It would make sense for the chief executive of an American corporation to come from, and be based in, those areas of the world where the potential for market growth is the greatest. It would be reassuring to have a chief executive who understood the local business practices, the country’s cultural underpinnings and the language.

The authors also believe that the strong techical background of potential CEOs to be recruited from China and India would make them better chief executives. They don’t explain why.