Introduction
In his paper entitled “Capital Mobility and Economic Performance: Are Emerging Economies Different?”, Edwards (2000) explores whether capital mobility influences different factors related to economic growth or not. His preliminary analysis focuses on arguing viewpoints of his colleagues that prove that capital mobility and the expansion of a country’s markets lead to significant improvements in its economic system.
The author used the quantitative methodology in his work to refute the theories of other scholars and prove that of his (that appeared to be more reasonable and realistic than other papers suggested in the text). The estimation process developed by Edwards (2000) is based on the comparison of other scholars’ arguments and their evaluation of what has happened in real conditions of the economic environment after their presumptions. Also, the author explored whether their statements were applicable in practice or not.
Discussion
The main results and ideas that Edwards (2000) had a chance to find include that “the positive relationship between capital account openness and productivity performance only manifests itself after the country in question has reached a certain degree of development” (p. 16). Also, it is obvious that countries that do not have many distortions appear to develop faster and more effectively than their competitors in the global arena with certain regulations that somehow influence different operations in local financial markets (Edwards, 2000).
This article and the research developed by its author constitute a contribution to the professional literature by observing and analyzing the functioning of several economic theories in practice. Particular events in financial markets with the use of these assumptions were evaluated to understand their effectiveness and impact on different countries’ economic growth.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the article developed by Edwards (2000) refutes the theory of a country’s capital mobility and the positive impacts of its openness on both development and expansion in the sphere of economics. Instead, the fact of owning profitable markets and occupying beneficial positions on the platform of international trading operations becomes available only when a particular Commonwealth is stable enough.
Also, the paragraph of the conclusion explains that it is almost impossible to reach the point of capital mobility without being a financially successful state. Moreover, the first object that various developing economies must aim at implies their domestic markets as operations with foreign partners might not be permanent. Although the claims of the author seem to be reasonable, relevant, and trustworthy, the context of the article has to be reconsidered by contemporary professionals in the sphere of economics because it has been 18 years since the publication.
Bibliography
Edwards, S. (2000). Capital mobility and economic performance: Are emerging economies different? National Bureau of Economic Research, 1(1), 1-16. Web.
Google Company: Leadership And Motivation
Abstract
At the heart of every competitive firm is an efficient organizational culture. This fact explains why many corporations have been focusing on organizational theory to create the best working environments that can support their business objectives. The practice has led to diverse organizational behaviors, leadership processes, and project management procedures. This paper uses the case of Google to explain why business and leadership models are usually supported by admirable organizational cultures. Google’s model focuses on fitting approaches to produce desirable products, apps, and services that can support the needs of its clients. The discussion will also address the opportunities and challenges that can be considered by Google to come up with superior practices and eventually become successful.
Introduction
Organizational theory has been developed to explore how business firms maximize efficiency, solve emerging problems, and pursue their objectives. The model focuses on a wide range of attributes that must be examined to understand how companies can be managed efficiently. Many corporations have understood how organizational behavior and human resource theories can be utilized to improve performance, leadership, and motivation.
At Google, the relationship between people and organizational culture has presented new opportunities that can drive performance. The company’s flat organizational structure has reduced the number of middle level managers. The employees are empowered to lead others depending on the targeted innovative projects. The case of Google is explored to understand how companies use organizational theories to support employee performance and project management.
Literature Review
Successful organizations launch and complete a wide range of projects within the shortest time possible. Mullins (2013) indicates that companies must develop apposite cultures and structures to empower their workers. When employees appreciate their companies’ leadership structures and cultural attributes, they will be ready to support every agenda. Human resource management theorists have presented numerous concepts that can be applied in different settings to increase productivity. However, managers must be aware of the unique hurdles that make it impossible for workers to achieve their objectives.
Bessant and Tidd (2011) assert that organizational theory fails to offer a concrete definition of culture in the working environment. This is the case because organizational culture is characterized by various assumptions, beliefs, behaviors, and norms that influence employees’ practices. Some companies have expanded the concept to include attributes such as work ethics, practices, and artifacts (Pettinger 2000). This analysis explains why it might be hard to understand the nature of culture implemented in a given organization. Hofstede and Hofstede (2010) acknowledge that companies promote specific behaviors and beliefs to ensure various goals are achieved. In project management, culture becomes a vital factor that determines the success of a given team.
Organizational behavior is a model used to study how practices within a firm affect people’s actions. The role of behavior in businesses explains why it is a critical attribute of organizational theory (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis 2008). Micro organizational behavior is a concept used to analyze the group dynamics and individual attributes in a given company. This element is studied by theorists to come up with adequate models that can support organizational performance.
To begin with, motivational theories have emerged to explain how employees can be guided to form teams, communicate efficiently, and establish a positive culture (Hofstede & Hofstede 2010). One of these theories was proposed by Abraham Maslow (Dulaimi & Ang 2009). Maslow’s theory asserts that individuals’ needs can be organized in such a way that they form a hierarchy. The theorist indicates that every level within the hierarchy should be considered in a systematic manner. The needs at each level must be considered before focusing on the next stages (Dwivedulaa, Christophe & Bredillet 2010). Organizational managers and leaders must meet such expectations if the workers are to continue supporting the company’s aims.
Human resource theory has emerged as an expansion of various organizational concepts and notions. The theory describes how organizational structures and behaviors have the potential to influence employee performance. Managers who understand the relevance of various HR theories can apply the right leadership structures to ensure the targeted goals are realized. Dulaimi and Ang (2009) acknowledge that there are numerous aspects that dictate the nature of employee behavior. Organizational leaders should be aware of such attributes if they are to record positive outcomes.
Group mechanism is a concept stemming from organizational behavior and structure. The nature of leadership will influence the responsiveness of different employees. Similarly, the established teams will echo the existing structure within the organization. This understanding explains why HR theories have been used in many corporations to come up with appropriate leadership models. Several structures have emerged over the years (Bessant & Tidd 2011). In a flat organizational structure, individuals are empowered to pursue their goals while at the same time focusing on the vision of the targeted company. According to Pettinger (2000), the model is beneficial because every worker is empowered to focus on the best outcomes.
Communication is streamlined since employees can liaise with their superiors depending on their levels of expertise. Managers offer insights to ensure the targeted results are realized (Dulaimi & Ang 2009). The structure has been supported by many scholars because it presents opportunities such as teamwork, motivation, proficient leadership, and decision-making. Individuals associated with the leadership model will make decisions and address customers’ concerns much faster.
On the other hand, hierarchical organizational structures are embraced in the military and corporations that follow rigid instructions. This kind of leadership makes it possible for workers to execute orders and deliver tangible results within the stipulated time (Mullins 2013). Unfortunately, the model has been losing touch in the world of project management. Companies pursuing specific projects might not benefit from it since it reduces collaboration and efficiency (Dulaimi & Ang 2009). Decisions are presented by topmost leaders, thereby impacting teams’ performance. Companies associated with this kind of organizational structure will develop an inflexible culture that affects profitability.
Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis (2008) believe that companies should establish appropriate cultures, structures, and environments depending on their business goals. Since such aims differ significantly, managers should promote desirable organizational structures and behaviors to achieve the right results (Robbins & Judge 2013). This fact explains why companies implement unique managerial patterns and structures to achieve their goals. This knowledge encourages business leaders to embrace the power of organizational theory.
The model guides leaders to focus on various changes experienced in their sectors. Such observations can inform new developments, innovative tendencies, and organizational behaviors to drive performance. The main goal should be to promote organizational development and produce superior practices that can support the company’s agenda (Pettinger 2000).
Group mechanism theory has been expanded to catalyze new practices that can foster teamwork. This concept focuses on the nature and role of culture in every working environment. The existence of a desirable culture and leadership will promote new behaviors and improve functionality. Individual characteristics such as innovativeness, personality, values, and ethics will also emerge (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis 2008). Consequently, the individuals will make decisions much faster and solve emerging problems.
When the microenvironment within a company is desirable, it becomes easier for workers to promote the best strategies to deliver positive results. The attributes of the macro environment are also addressed by different stakeholders. Macro organizational theory asserts that companies should adapt to the changes experienced in their industries using appropriate structures, cultures, contingencies, and strategies (Robbins & Judge 2013). From this analysis, it becomes clear that top management should promote concepts such as leadership, motivation, team building, problem-solving, and job satisfaction to produce desirable organizational practices.
Application of Literature in the Business of World
Google is a leading provider of Internet-based services, software, applications, and computer hardware. The company is a leading innovator and marketers of products such as Android, Google Play Store, and Internet-based advertisement services. Its search engine, email, and cloud computing services continue to meet the unique needs of many customers across the world. These products and services explain why the company dominates these three industries: Internet, computer hardware, and software (Henderson 2017). Google serves customers across the globe, thereby making it one of the most successful corporations today.
The company has acquired many firms to maximize its objectives. Google’s products have transformed the way many people across the world live. Some of its leading products include Google Chrome, Google Translate, cloud storage, Google+, Google search engine, and Google Maps. It currently employs over 70,000 people globally (Henderson 2017). Google was also ranked as the best company to work for by Fortune Magazine in 2008 and 2012 (Travica 2015). It still remains one of the most admirable corporations across the globe. These statistics show conclusively that Google has a unique and admirable position to the world. Its services, products, and business model appear to meet the needs of every global customer.
Travica (2015) indicates that Google attracts employees much faster because of its effective organizational culture. The company treasures, guides, and empowers its workers using desirable strategies. For instance, the working environment is redesigned in such a way that different workers can focus on their personal needs and promote the company’s goals. The environment has childcare centers, gyms, free snacks, and complementary massages. The company offers friendly and competitive packages to its employees.
The corporation has established values that guide its workers and encourage them to establish meaningful teams. Members of every group are required to respect one another and emulate the practices exhibited by their managers. The workers are required to share their ideas with each other. For instance, the company has something known as “Thirsty Thursday”. This concept means Thursdays are used by workers to share their experiences and concepts that have been learned (Travica 2015). This practice has resulted in a successful workforce that remains innovative and creative.
Groups and teams are empowered to embrace the concept of transparency. Google’s employees communicate with each other effectively, ask relevant questions, and promote honesty (Baiden & Price 2010). Feedbacks are presented in a timely manner to ensure mistakes are identified and addressed immediately. Topmost leaders portray similar behaviors by liaising with their followers employees. Managers admit whenever they are wrong and encourage others to do so (Henderson 2017).
Humility and honesty have become consequential attributes that define Google’s workplace culture. These evidence-based practices have produced loyal employees who focus on new innovations to meet every customer’s needs.
Teams are empowered to pursue their innovative projects that can support the company’s business model. Project teams are supported using the right incentives, resources, and ideas. The managers at Google offer timely insights to ensure innovative projects are completed successfully. The company’s positive organizational culture encourages workers to share their ideas and address every problem (Travica 2015). Communication is decentralized to make sure feedbacks and suggestions are received instantly. The culture has been reshaped in such a way that individuals can pursue their personal projects without including their workmates. However, they are encouraged to borrow ideas from their superiors and teammates to maximize their potential.
The role of leadership has led to positive cultural practices at Google. For instance, leadership is a driving factor whereby employees are motivated and empowered to focus on their personal goals. They are also guided to embrace the company’s values and objectives.
Effective communication, teamwork, and empowerment are powerful drivers that have supported the company’s micro environment. Similarly, such strategies make it easier for the company to develop appropriate models that can be utilized to make it competitive in the macro environment setting (Henderson 2017). The move also sustains a powerful business model that meets the needs of external stakeholders such as business partners, customers, and community members.
Google’s promising performance cannot be understood without examining the role of work-life balance. In order to empower its workers, Google supports various exercises and sporting activities within the workplace. Employees can complete their roles at home depending on their needs or schedules. There is also adequate time for bonding and association. These practices have made it possible for the workers to learn from one another and achieve their aims. Leadership at the corporation has become a shared concept whereby individuals contribute equally to decisions and projects (Henderson 2017). Change is always encouraged in an attempt to achieve the intended goals and identify new opportunities that can maximize performance.
Challenges and Opportunities
The above analysis indicates that the success of Google is attributable to the nature of its organizational culture. The company has established a meaningful structure whereby leadership is a shared concept. The strategy makes it possible for employees to identify innovative ideas and implement project teams to achieve them. The individuals receive timely feedbacks and insights from their leaders or workmates. Decisions are made much faster, thereby making it easier for every project to be completed in a timely manner (Travica 2015). It can be appropriate to have a clear understanding of some of the challenges project teams are likely to encounter in their endeavour to deliver meaningful and timely results.
The first possible challenge arises from the nature of organizational structure. A flat hierarchy creates an environment whereby individuals tend to have similar influences. When the levels of disagreement and distrust increase, the employees might abandon their respective projects and eventually disorient the company’s business model (Travica 2015). The second challenge arises from the company’s best practices whereby projects are pursued randomly.
Employees are empowered to identify and focus on their specific projects. The main goal is to ensure every successful project is embraced and included in Google’s offerings. This kind of approach can affect the success of various projects. This might be the case when some groups decide to abandon their projects.
Project teams might be unable to deliver their goals within a specific period. This is the case because the organizational structure lacks adequate checks and balances. Some members of a given team might decide to focus on their personal objectives instead of those of the company. The issue can have significant impacts on the company’s resources and goals. Additionally, the issue of leadership might result in numerous troubles (Henderson 2017). It is notable that the organizational behavior and human resources model implemented at the company promote participation and empowerment. When individuals fail to respect one another, the project team might not complete its activities successfully.
Despite these challenges, the case study presents numerous opportunities that will continue to support Google’s business agenda (Henderson 2017). It is agreeable that the past years have been successful for the company. This achievement indicates that the existing organizational culture and structure are opportunities that can result in improved performance. Every project team can consider these opportunities in an attempt to achieve its goals much faster.
Leadership, communication, decision-making, and problem-solving are some of the best practices associated with the company’s working environment. These strategies present opportunities that can guide, empower, and make it possible for different project teams to achieve their objectives. These organizational attributes create an environment whereby every employee is willing to be part of ongoing projects (Travica 2015). The best thing is for companies to understand how to manage people and establish apt cultures that can maximize performance.
Recommendations
Several recommendations can be embraced by Google to become successful and remain a leader in its segment. To begin with, the corporation should sustain its business model through the use of its organizational culture. The approach will ensure the workers are empowered to pursue their goals and support the company’s business model (Travica 2015). The leaders should empower the workers and encourage them to pursue their goals.
The decision to improve some of the best practices such as leadership, communication, work-life balance, and collaboration can deliver better results. The workers will be empowered to embrace such behaviors and support one another (Travica 2015). Identification and implementation of new projects will be completed much faster.
The organization can implement effective timeframes and guidelines to dictate the manner in which different teams pursue their innovative projects. The move will ensure various projects are monitored and completed in a timely manner. Additional resources and ideas will be presented to deliver meaningful results (Robbins & Judge 2013).
A new practice can be implemented without adjusting the company’s culture (Baiden & Price 2010). The practice can be designed in such a way that new leaders are appointed to coordinate projects and teams. The move will minimize levels of laxity, improve decision-making processes, and ensure the targeted objectives are realized (Henderson 2017). The move will increase the level of participation and problem solving. When such aspects are taken seriously, the company will develop a superior culture and ensure every project is completed successfully.
Conclusion
The case of Google explains why organizations and people are inseparable within the realm of management. The company applies pertinent organizational theories and concepts in an attempt to come up with the best culture and structure. The strategy has created a successful corporation that competes in different market segments and sectors. Google boasts of a powerful business model that is supported by an admirable organizational culture. Project teams use the model to pursue their goals and make the company successful. Employees promote evidence-based practices such as continuous learning and sharing of ideas. The recommendations presented in the paper can be tapped to empower every worker and eventually make the corporation more profitable.
Reference List
Baiden, B & Price, A 2010, ‘The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 129-136.
Bessant, J & Tidd, J 2011, Innovation and entrepreneurship, 2nd edn, Wiley, West Sussex, UK.
Clegg, S, Kornberger, M & Pitsis, T 2008, Managing and organizations: an introduction to theory and practice, 2nd edn, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Dulaimi, M & Ang, AF 2009, ‘Elements of learning organizations in Singapore’s construction industry’, Emirates Journal of Engineering Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 83-92.
Dwivedulaa, R, Christophe, N & Bredillet, C 2010, ‘Profiling work motivation of project workers’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 158-165.
Henderson, F 2017, Software engineering at Google. Web.
Hofstede, G & Hofstede, G 2010, Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, 3rd edn, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Mullins, L 2013, Management and organizational behavior, 10th edn, Prentice Hall, England, UK.
Pettinger, R 2000, Mastering organizational behavior, Palgrave, England, UK.
Robbins, S & Judge, T 2013, Organizational behavior, 15th edn, Prentice Hall, Boston, MA.
Travica, B 2015, ‘Modeling organizational intelligence: Nothing googles like Google’, Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-18.
Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal And Ethical Theories
Introduction
After President Bill Clinton got involved in a love affair with Lewinsky, people had mixed reactions about the affair. At the time of the scandal, Lewinsky worked as an intern in the White House. Her perceived friend at the time, Tripp, had been recording phone conversations between Clinton and her. It later emerged that the two had an affair, which led to a court suit and later prompted the President to be impeached. Although at first, Clinton denied the charges, he later admitted that he was involved in an affair with Lewinsky and made a public apology.
Discussion
Lewinsky’s scandal attracted a lot of attention since it involved an intern in the White House and a sitting president. Another factor that made the scandal attract many opinions from the public was the fact that the president was a married man (Pierce, Byrne, & Aguinis, 1996). The scandal involved morality and ethics, and this paper will discuss three principals of ethics held by different people in relation to the scandal.
One famous ethicist was Kant. Born in 1724 in Germany, Kant became a formidable philosopher. He came up with the Kantian Ethics theory, which states that; one should do well as an obligatory duty or responsibility, instead of relying on the end goal, or any emotions attached to the act. Kant believed that one performed an action based on obligations.
Utilitarianism seems to disregard the importance of moral elements like individual rights, human dignity, and the protection of minority views. According to utilitarian theory, all things are converted to happiness or pleasure, and this gives leeway for maximizing overall happiness. The theory is much concerned with the happiness of the greater majority and tends to neglect the views of the minority, who also deserve to be respected. According to this theory, any action is regarded as a right if it results in the happiness of the majority in society.
Non-consequentiality theory evaluates whether an action is right or wrong. This is based on properties that are fundamental to the action, but not on the consequences. Contractarianism and libertarianism are good examples of the theory. Contractarianism dictates that any action that may cause harm and whose value may be considered uncompensated should not be allowed. On the other hand, libertarianism suggests that people should be given the freedom to do what they feel is right.
These theories are different and, therefore, are differently used in explaining Lewinsky’s scandal. If Kant handled the case, he would have used his ethical theory to assess the situation, as well as the repercussions emanating from the actions. Since his theory is based on what one is supposed to do irrespective of the consequences, it would have been an enthralling case to handle. As long as one is led into doing good by a certain obligation, the said action should be performed irrespective of the consequences (Shaw, 2010, p. 63). There has to be a duty to do right, which should be implemented. It is thus probable that Kant’s theory would not have been sufficient for the case. This is because it does not show the presence of an obligatory duty for Lewinsky’s actions. She was at liberty of doing the right thing even if it caused unhappiness to Clinton. She knew that Clinton was a married man, yet she continued with the affair.. According to Kant’s ethical theory, she was wrong with her actions.
If, on the other hand, Kant’s ethical theory is used to assess the case, Clinton was wrong. This is because; there was no obligatory duty driving Clinton to get involved in an affair with Lewinsky. He never upheld ethics in the workplace (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994).
Kant’s theory states that; a person is compelled to do right because it is an obligation. Clinton did not have to betray his wife. This was what was supposed to be done, even if those actions could have hurt Lewinsky. Another reason that could have found Clinton guilty of Kant’s theory is the fact that Clinton lied. According to Kant’s theory, telling a lie is highly prohibited, irrespective of the circumstances. When Clinton was answering against charges of the affair, he denied the fact that he had a relationship with Lewinsky. This is despite the fact that there were tapped phone calls of his conversation with Lewinsky. Only much later did Clinton come to admit about the affair and gave a public apology. Kant’s theory is absolute on lying, and Clinton had gone against the theory. He had broken the law, and Kant would have found him guilty. Kant proceeds to explain what makes an act right. If an act can be used as a universal law, then it is right (Shaw, 2010, p. 62). Not all people could accept the scandal by Lewinsky as a normal happening in the universe. This is because the act was between a young employee and a married man. Universal law has to be accepted by everybody, and if not, then it is not right. Revisiting the scandal, not everybody would like her husband to be involved in an affair with another woman, whether young or old. Since not everybody would like such a scenario, the actions were not right. For this reason, therefore, according to Kant’s ethical theory, the relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton was morally wrong.
Utilitarianism theory seems to disregard the views of other people and concentrates on the happiness of the majority (Shaw, 2010, p. 57). This means that one’s actions, which can pass the test of ethics, have to result to the happiness of a larger group of people. On the contrary, the result should not be celebrated by the individuals performing the action but should be of immense benefit to a larger mass. By trying to define utilitarianism, the theory’s founders, Mill and Bentham, argued that the ultimate goal of utilitarianism was to produce or elevate happiness. If the result of an act did not increase the larger majority’s happiness, that action was not to be encouraged. Another explanation from the ethicists was that if an act brought happiness for one party while causing pain to another party, the act did not qualify to be utilitarian.
Lewinsky’s actions were not meant to add joy or happiness to the great public. On the contrary, her actions brought joy to herself and not to a greater population. The results of her actions with Clinton brought much pain, especially to the family members of Clinton. Having to hear all that was happening in the affair brought pain to the family members. This is contrary to utilitarian ethics, which call for, the joy of the greater multitude. Therefore, going by utilitarian theory, Lewinsky and Clinton’s actions were contrary to the expectations of the theory, since they were the beneficiaries of their actions.
Non-consequentialist theory states that the nature of an action dictates its morality and not the consequences. There are two branches of non-consequential theory, namely; contractarianism and libertarianism. Having the scandal in mind and going by the main definition of a non-consequential theory, Lewinsky’s relationship scandal was contrary to the theory. The theory is much concerned with the inherent properties of the act itself and not the consequences. The act itself was wrong as it involved an affair between a young woman and a married man, who was expected to uphold high moral standards as a leader. Non-consequentialist theory takes into consideration the inherent factors of the action (Shaw, 2010, p. 49). The mere act of having an affair was morally wrong, irrespective of the additional consequences.
Conclusion
The case against Lewinsky attracted a lot of attention from the media and the public at large. This was because the scandal involved a sitting president. The scandal became a discussion in the country as it meant that the president was going to face impeachment. There was need to uphold ethics in the workplace irrespective of the situation (Wempe, 2008). The scandal led to ethical issues especially on the willingness of leaders to uphold work place ethics. Upholding ethics is a prerequisite in any department in the work place and it is, therefore, shocking to witness the highest office in the land going against ethical values that the citizens are supposed to uphold.
References
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 252-284.
Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996). Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17, 5-32.
Shaw, W. H. (2010). Business Ethics: A textbook with cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Wempe, B. (2008). Contraction Business Ethics: Credentials and Design Criteria. Organization Studies 29 (10), 1337-1355.