The issue of global justice in the context of international environment is the central theme in Arnold’s article. According to him, global justice is seen to happen if the concerns of those who happen to be in the lower part of the pyramid are addressed (Arnold, 2013). Arnold argued that some models such as the deliberative democracy advanced by theorists of political aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are not satisfactory. Furthermore, he believes Rawlsian theoretical failed to provide a clear obligations on how corporations execute the global justice. International business has been used to refer to both the local and multinational companies. The author’s view is that the business community has a significant role to play in uplifting the standards of those vulnerable people in the society. The author based his arguments by reference to other literature and theory by other scholars. Some of the challenges faced by the people in the bottom of the pyramid include famine due to poverty. The strategy according to the business community is to formulate strategies aimed at assisting the communities while at the same time trying to remain profitable. While there has been a gradual reduction in the world’s poorest due to globalization, the author feels that there has been no meaningful improvements in the developing world.
A study of the definition and practice of management show that it means one thing in America and another thing in other parts of the world. According to Hofstede (1993), management was invented in America. The American version of management contain idiosyncrasies that are lacking in management concepts elsewhere in the world. For example, the American system stresses the individual, the market processes, and greater focus on managers rather than workers. His conclusion is based on the premise of sampled definition of management from various parts of the world. Evidence gathered showed that the rest of the world define management differently from Americans. For example, Americans believe in the need to have a manager around to motivate the workers. However, employees who possess experience and highly skilled do not need a manager to motivate them in the case of a German set up. Furthermore, the German system does not view the manager as a hero. People with experience and technical skills like engineers are viewed more as heroes than managers. In a typical German enterprise, the work of the manner is just to assign tasks to workers and remain to be an expert in solving of technical problems. Even in the educational system, German schools have no business schools. The highest rate of personnel in Germany is concentrated on productive roles while the lowest is observed in both staff and leadership roles. While the American view managerial class as the core of the enterprise, the Japanese view the core of the enterprise as a permanent worker group. Peer groups, rather than managers control Japanese workers. When it comes to payment, seniority matters more than position. So it is very likely to find somebody who holds a higher position in a Japanese company earning less than a senior person holding a lower position.
Hofstede further found out the Japanese theory of management is totally different from that of the American. Just like in Germany, the management style typical of the American does not exist in France. In Holland, there is more emphasis on modesty than assertiveness when it comes to leadership. However, in USA there is no room for modesty. Further differences reveal that while the Dutch stress consensual relationship, the Americans attach more importance to career opportunities and earnings after graduation. Modern management is non-existent in the Chinese models of business. Unlike the western concept, businesses are owned by families in Chinese businesses with no separation between management and ownership. Decision-making is centralized and is a preserve of one dominant member of the family. Their focus is mainly on the market or product with a great flexibility where opportunistic diversification fuels is seen as one approach to growth and expansion. Low cost approach is one of the management features of a Chinese enterprise is their ability to remain very conscious while maintaining a low profile; effectively utilizing their virtues of Confucian ideology of thrift and persistence. To explain the concept of management well, Hofstede contend that there is a need to model the explanation on five independent dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term orientation.
Organizational change is inevitable. Businesses do implement organizational changes by various approaches. While some go for downsizing, others go for change in behaviors. Still, some businesses use a combination of two or more approaches. However, the bottom line is that as much as the changes are being implemented, the organizations has to remain profitable. Organizational changes might require search for new markets due to dwindling returns in traditional markets. Remaining competitive in such situations might require a company close business and reopen elsewhere where market conditions are favorable. To survive, such actions require businesses to embrace disruptive innovations. Capital intensive industries that are not fully utilized may not be sustainable to run. While downsizing is one of the most frequently mentioned action in businesses with dwindling returns, most managers have been found to prefer re-engineering or restructuring their organizations to carrying out downsizing.
The question as to why some companies successfully implement downsizing while others fail has been a subject of investigation among some scholars. Previous studies show that operational performance was dismal following a downsizing. Failure to execute a successful downsizing has been attributed to a number of factors. The first one is lack of good management during the transition to retrain employee on new jobs. The second reason has been associated with the departure of specialist managers who leave a huge void to new inexperienced managers who need to acquire new skills. The third reason has been linked to overstretched management where managers not only manage more people but also work for longer hours. In most circumstances, there is more emphasis on short-term decisions than long term decisions. Lastly, employees who survive the downsizing may not trust management anymore, register low productivity due to low morale, and become risk averse.
While so much has been documented regarding on why some companies fail during the transition of downsizing. Studies conducted by Butler, Crundwell and Sweeney (2011) revealed that successful transitions during downsizing involves effective management of behavioral change during the transition. Many employees might be surprised to hear news of imminent downsizing. Their individual reactions might not be the same. While some feel stressed, others might find better ways of coping with the changes. A bereavement process that has been postulated involve the stages employee effectiveness (just before announcement of downsizing), then stage 2 is characterized by shock and denial, followed by defense, before fourth stage of frustration and anger. The fifth stage is adaptation and finally internalization is the last stage. They observed that controlling the emotions of people during a transit is key to successful downsizing. Their inquiry further led to the development of a model that guides in successful downsizing. The model involves the execution of the plan in stages. The first stage is managing corporate brand name and/or legacy. Besides determining the overall reason for downsizing, companies also need to come up with a policy aimed at protecting corporate reputation and brand. The second stage is management of communication and it involves announcement to start planning for downsizing, corporate aims motivating closure, and ensuring that regular progress reports such as quality and assurance are carried out. Managing closure is the third stage and involve supervising the closure, production plan, and hiring of experts. Fourthly, they identified the need to invest in managing investment employees. All employees need to be counseled while new managers are trained before they assume new responsibilities as well as survivors. The fifth and final stage is about effective and efficient managing continuity of operations. This involve management of teams across various functions, incorporation of flexible working practices, consultation with other stakeholders such as trade unions, and performance management (in the context of productivity and/or quality).
One of the measures of success for a multinational corporation is global leadership. However, Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque and House (2006) argued that although so much has been written about the topic, there has been little regard addressing the key issues except generalizations based on scanty research. Given that culture influences nearly every aspect of human life, the authors argued that culture also plays a significant role in the success of a multinational corporation. Global leadership requires that executives who work for multinational corporations have global mindsets with a demonstrated competence in cross-cultural leadership. Understanding other cultures requires a comparative analysis with own cultures in order to know what is similar to both cultures and what is different. Different things does not mean the same thing to different people. However, not all cultural values are significant to business performance. It is therefore important to narrow down the most important values that matter most to a cross-cultural leader. Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque and House referred to these priority areas as cultural dimensions. They described a cultural dimension that every global leader should be conversant with. Among the cultural dimensions suggested by the authors include performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. While assertiveness may mean one thing to an American, it might mean a totally different thing when applied in the context of the Asian markets. The same applies to the other eight dimensions. However, still similarities abound.
In the pursuit of profits and success, businesses also has obligations in the communities they operate at. They have to use part of the profits in improving social welfare in what has come to be known as corporate social responsibility. In poverty-stricken communities, sometimes the priority is about how to uplift their living standards or provide them with social amenities. There has been different views regarding how multinationals should give back to the communities as part of the corporate social responsibilities. Rawlsian theories came up with a model for framework which proved weak. However, Arnorld argued that an ethical conception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) executed with a suitable set of duties linked with corporate relationships is the best alternative. Downsizing is one of the business approaches that has been used as a solution to challenges facing corporations. It is executed as part of the survival tactics. However, in such periods, corporations also have obligations to ensure global justice. This is best achieved by laying out of a plan to handle employee concerns during such tough times. Poorly executed downsizing can spell doom to a corporation. Butler, Crundwell, and Sweeney (2011) proposed a model for implementing a successful downsizing strategy with minimum impacts on the employees. Luthans and Sommer (2013) found out that poorly implemented downsizing affects the attitude of employees. However, their findings suggest employees of different categories respond differently to news of downsizing.
The importance of understanding multicultural context of management was also emphasized in the works of Hofstede and Gomez-Mejia and Palich (1997). According to him, the practice of management is not defined or described using the same approach in various world. While an American defines management to mean one thing, the Chines and Japanese have their own version of definition. This view was further elaborated by Weihrich (1990) when he compared management practices in China, USA, and Japan. Using an approach of what managers do, Weihrich demonstrated that there exist big differences between the way Americans, Japanese and Chinese plan, organize, staff, lean, and control their business in the context of management. However, globalization has resulted in the birth of multinational corporations where success is measured by global leadership in profits and market share. Successful multinational corporations ensures their executives and employees are very competent in cross-cultural issues. Just like the definition of management, cultural issues are not the same globally. However, there could be a few similarities but the nine cultural dimensions suggested by Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque and House is the best starting point.
References
Arnold, D. G. 2013. Global Justice and International Business. Business Ethics Quarterly; 23(1), pp.125-143.
Butler, M.J.R., Crundwell, D. and Sweeney, M. 2011. Rethinking change: downsizing businesses, changing behaviors and still managing to come out on top. London: Chartered Management Institute
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., and Palich, L. E. (1997). Cultural diversity and the performance of multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, pp.309-335.
Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints in Management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7 (1), pp.81-94.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. de Luque, M. S. and House, R. J. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), pp.67-90.
Luthans, B. C. and Sommer, S. M. 1999. The impact of downsizing on workplace attitudes differing reactions of managers and staff in a health care organization. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), pp.46-70.
Weihrich, H. 1990. Management practices in the United States, Japan, and the People's Republic of China. Industrial Management, 32(2), pp.3-7.
