Discuss International Configurations using the parameters of Exhibit 7.9, Global Efficiencies and Local Responsiveness.
It is important for firms that want to become international to understand configurations. Carpenter and Sanders (2008) described through the text and a chart the opportunities and the local responsiveness (p.223). Transnational configuration as described by Carpenter and Sanders (2008) is the development of “global efficiency, flexibility and worldwide learning” (p.223). Similarly, to transnational configurations, there are also multinational configurations. Carpenter and Sanders (2008) described multinational configurations as the ability to respond to multinational differences through the use of resources, entrepreneurial and operations (p.223). While on the other hand, global configuration “builds cost advantages through centralized, global-scale operations” (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008, p.223). Similarly, to global configurations, international configurations “exploit parent-company knowledge and capabilities through worldwide diffusion, local marketing, and adaption” (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008, p.223). Birkinshaw and Morrison (1995) state “The impact of the “environment” on the structure-strategy configuration is equally complex” (para.3). The parameter and the examples presented by Carpenter and Sanders (2008) help visually understand what each of the configurations has the capability of doing.
Discuss the four effective tactics for developing a Global Mind-Set (see How Would You Do That? 7.2, pages 228 – 229.
The four effective tactics for developing a global mindset are as Carpenter and Sanders (2008) described, travel, teams, training, and transfer (p.228). The first tactic is travel. As described by Carpenter and Sanders (2008) managers must get first-hand experience to understand the needs and wants of the current population that the firm will be serving. Carpenter and Sanders (2008) mentioned when managers learn about the culture, they are more involved and are able to connect with the customers (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008, p.228). Another tactic that is is essential for the development of global mindset is teams. Teams need to be created from different cultures to gain experience and work together with experienced group members (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008, p.228). The third tactic used is training. Regardless of what area of work or if it is the development of global mindset, training is essential. With training, the company can grow in many different directions. According to Carpenter and Sanders (2008) training can help with cross-cultural communication and in the overall transition to the new area (p.228). The fourth and last tactic described by Carpenter and Sanders (2008) is transfers (p.228). Out of all the four tactics, according to Carpenter and Sanders (2008) transfer is the most effective and most expensive tactic (p.228). As mentioned by Begley and Boyd (2003), global mind-sets make a huge as they make a significant difference in globalization (para. 3).
Nolan, Norton & Co (2002) shared the concept of strategic supremacy by sharing the three main concepts as a sphere of influence, competitive compression, and competitive configurations (p. 11). Within the three main concepts, all of the concepts also consist of zones. In the case of the sphere of influence, there are five different zones that need to be reviewed and analyzed. Competitive comparison takes a look at various zones and compares it in differentiating the wasted resources along with other things (Nolan, Norton & Co, 2002, p.14). The third concept is competitive configuration as described by Nolan, Norton & Co (2002)and that is used to assess balances from other networks and/or players (p. 16).
The article Corporate Spheres of Influence by D’Aveni (2004) states that the “sphere of influence is a concept borrowed from geopolitics and the subject of recent research in the management literature” (p. 39). It is my understanding from the readings that the sphere of influence has been used for many many years. D’Aveni (1999) described the relation with disruptive turbulent environment of hypercompetitive markets (p.129). Throughout the years, business strategy has evolved and through all the articles shared this week, there was great information that shows the evolution of strategies.
Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (2003). The need for a corporate global mind-set. MIT Sloan management review, 44(2), 25.
Birkinshaw, J. M., & Morrison, A. J. (1995). Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of international business studies, 26(4), 729-753.
Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders, W. M. (2008). Strategic management: A dynamic perspective—Integrated StratSim simulation experience. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
D’Aveni, R. A. (2004, Summer). Corporate spheres of Influence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 38-46.
D’Aveni, R. A. (1999). Strategic supremacy through disruption and dominance. Sloan Management Review, 127-135.
Levine, J. H. (1977). The sphere of influence. In Social Networks (pp. 433-446).
Nolan, Norton & Co. (2002). Strategic Supremacy: Operational excellence is not sufficient; your firm needs a power strategy.