Introduction
Multinational Corporations are complex in their operation (Jones, 2004, p.45). This arises from the fact that they involve a number of business units that are autonomous in their operation (Bohlander & Snell, 2009, p. 659). In their operation, MNCs are required to respond to diverse foreign issues such as political pressure, for example, policing issues and diverse economic trends (Palmeri, 2007, p.1). In addition, MNCs are required to respond to local customer preferences (Gooderham & Nordhaug, 2003, p. 130). According to Schuler and Jackson(2007,p.169), the need for attaining local responsiveness is a clear indication that MNCs operate as geographically dispersed firms and have different organizational goals. This underscores the need to ensure effective coordination. Schuler and Jackson (2007, p.169) are of the opinion that coordination is aimed at improving global competitiveness.
On the other hand, responsiveness enables a firm to address be flexible and meet the local needs. However, MNCs are faced with a number of challenges with regard to coordination (Daft, 2010, p.34). In addition to coordination challenges, MNCs are also faced with challenges with regard to responsiveness to the foreign market. In light of this, the researcher intends to assess the challenges of coordination and responsiveness faced by MNC’s in a global environment.
The conflict between the need for localization and globalization
According to Vance, Charles, and Paik (2010, p.105), one of the fundamental challenges faced by MNCs in the global environment relates to the existence of conflict between the need to be localized and to be a globalized firm. The management teams of MNCs are required to develop a system that is well centralized to ensure effective global coordination and integration. MNCs have to compete effectively and at the same time attain coherence in all the units. In addition, the system has to be effectively decentralized so as to attain local responsiveness. Gooderham and Nordhaug (2003, p.2) are opinions that MNCs are faced with a challenge with regard to formulating valuable organizational capabilities. This arises from the fact that the management team cannot implement effective internal structures that are appropriate for the firm to attain the strategic needs necessary to provide efficient control and coordination. Due to changes in the global business environment, MNCs have to deal with complex structures that are continuously evolving.
According to Deresky (2011, p. 35), customer needs vary from one country to another. To succeed in the foreign market, MNCs are required to deliver products and services which culminate into a high level of satisfaction amongst the local customer. This means that the firm is required to localize its products and services so as to be aligned with the local customer tastes and preferences.
Negative effect on corporate governance
Considering the increment in the rate of globalization with regard to the competitive environment, it is vital for MNCs to establish a balance between the firm’s foreign adaptation and global coordination. However, due to the existence of diversity in the global market with regard to various aspects such as strategies, objectives, and business environment, MNCs are faced with unique requirements so as to attain local responsiveness.
According to Luo (2007, p.745), the need for MNCs to implement the required adaptations in order to respond to unique foreign market demands may hinder a firm’s effectiveness in ensuring optimal corporate governance. One of the ways through which this can be attained is by hindering accountability.
Luo further asserts that if an MNC is required to integrate a high level of customization, high costs with regard to information processing are incurred. On the other hand, if the firm is required to adapt to the foreign market, the firm becomes vulnerable to foreign market volatilities. This limits the firm’s effectiveness in setting standards aimed at attaining organizational objectives.
Leadership challenges
MNCs are faced with diverse leadership challenges. This arises from the fact the firm will be required to design multinational organizational structures. In addition, the firm will also be required to identify and select organizational leaders who will ensure effective management of a firm which have culturally diverse employees (Feldman & Santangelo, 2008, p. 32). According to Meier, Perez, and Woetzel (1995, para. 3), MNCs are faced with a challenge in the process of coordinating various business units. The resultant effect is that firm’s efficiency of attaining the intended synergy is compromised.
Conclusion
From the above assessment, it is evident that MNCs are faced with a number of challenges with regard to coordination and responsiveness in the global environment. MNCs are faced with a challenge with regard to the need to operate as a global firm and also an increment in pressure to localize its operations so as to meet the foreign market demand. MNCs are also faced with a challenge with regard to implementing effective corporate governance in their operation. One of the ways through which this occurs is by compromising accountability in the firm. Due to the existence of cultural differences, MNCs are faced with leadership challenges. In order to deal with these challenges, it is paramount for the firm’s management team to formulate and implement effective strategies.
Reference List
Daft, R.L., 2010. New era of management. New York. Cengage.
Deresky, H., 2011. International management: managing across borders and cultures. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Gooderham, P. & Nordhaug, O., 2003. International management: cross boundary challenges. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jones, G., 2004. Multinationals and global capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, M. & Santangelo, G., 2008. New perspectives in international business research. New York: Emerald Group Publishing.
Luo, Y., 2007. Global dimensions of corporate governance. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Meier, J., Perez, J. & Woetzel, J., 1995.Solving the puzzle: MNCs in China. (Online). Web.
Palmeri, C., 2007. What went wrong at Mattel. (Online). Web.
Schuler, R. & Jackson, S., 2007. Strategic human resource management. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Snell, S. & Bohlander, G., 2009. Managing human resource. New York: Cengage Learning.
Vance, C., Charles, V. & Paik, Y., 2010. Managing a global workforce: challenges and opportunities in international human resource. Washington: ME Sharpe.
Artificial Intelligence And Ethical Implications
Introduction
Today, the creation of artificial intelligence is a goal that many researchers pursue. The consequences of success, in this case, have been the subject of many dystopian films and novels. I’ve always thought that the idea of creating artificial intelligence is very exciting. However, this week’s reading motivated me to think more about the possible problems of creating artificial intelligence, as well as of the ethical implications associated with the very process of its creation.
Main body
For instance, if we create artificial intelligence based on human intelligence, some of the less needed qualities will be omitted during the process of abstraction. This can potentially pose a threat to artificial intelligence not having the qualities that are considered humane, such as empathy, ethical reasoning, and religiousness. However, this is inevitable even if we let intelligent agents recreate their intelligence in other agents: the process of abstraction will be applied, again and again, thus reducing the presence of humane qualities in the created agents. Gradually, intelligent agents will become more intellectually advanced than humans, but, at the same time, their way of thinking will hardly be considered human.
This made me think about the threat that artificial intelligence can actually pose in the future. For example, could intelligent agents turn on humanity and start a war as we see it in the movies? Given that artificial agents will become more intellectually advanced than humans, would they consider us the lower race and take control over the world? At this stage, these questions seem ridiculous, but if we think about this, there is no guarantee that this will not happen. We’ve already seen the news of a robot with artificial intelligence escaping research facilities, even after reprogramming. Could this be the robot’s informed decision and not a technical fault? And what could we do in case robots pose a threat to our safety in the future? Of course, this is the worst-case scenario, but if we do implement the abstraction of human qualities, there will be nothing stopping the robots from becoming hostile in the future, whereas not abstracting humane qualities could obstruct the creation of artificial intelligence.
Nevertheless, if a threat from artificial intelligence does occur in the future, will it be ethical to destroy the creatures that are more intellectually advanced than we are? Our moral laws tell us not to kill other people, and it seems like destroying robots would not oppose that law. However, if we see intelligence as the determinant feature of humans and if robots become more intellectually advanced than us, destroying them would go against the basic moral laws of humans. Even in the case of the escaping robot, the probability that the research company would destroy it due to its ‘bad behavior’ created controversy all around the world. If people believe that killing intelligent robots is going against our ethical and moral values, does that mean that we will succumb to the power of artificial intelligence in the future?
Conclusion
Overall, this week’s reading caused me to feel differently about artificial intelligence and abstraction. I saw these concepts in a new light, both as opportunities for significant breakthroughs and a threat to the future of the human race in general. As terrifying as it might seem, I think that artificial intelligence might be the next step in the development of the universe, which would bring an end to the era of humans.
Primary Care Practice’s Strategy Implementation
Introduction
The targeted primary care practice has been growing fast. This fact explains why the practice’s partners have decided to expand their clinic and serve more clients. Unfortunately, the new office will not see patients because of a number of constraints (Wong, 2015). At the same time, Mary Jones has decided to quit as the operations manager (OM). This discussion highlights some of the major barriers that might have derailed the implementation process.
Potential Barriers
There are major barriers that might have affected the implementation of the proposed office. The first one is the lack of proper coordination throughout the process. The expansion of the primary care practice is a complex process that must be executed in a professional manner. The clinic tasked the OM with the implementation process (Chaudoir, Dugan, & Barr, 2013). Mary Jones was forced to monitor, oversee, and implement the project alone. This decision must have played a critical role in undermining the success of the primary care practice.
The second potential barrier is the lack of adequate resources throughout the implementation process. Without proper coordination and collaboration, Jones was unable to get the required resources to support the implementation process. The manager must have found it hard to acquire the right instruments and equipment (Wong, 2015). Consequently, it was impossible to have the office ready within the stipulated six months.
The other outstanding challenge that might have affected the implementation is the failure to involve all the relevant stakeholders (Chaudoir et al., 2013). In order to support the process, the institution should have collaborated with the relevant care providers, nurses, IT experts, targeted community members, and strategists. The presented scenario shows conclusively that these key stakeholders were not involved throughout the process. It is agreeable that the clinic burdened Mary Jones with the task of the implementation. Consequently, the primary practice clinic was unable to realize its goals within the stipulated period.
Addressing the Barriers
The best approach towards expanding a health care business is through the use of a powerful change model. The proposed new office can be grouped as a change in the clinic. That being the case, the primary care practice should have treated the new implementation as a powerful organizational change. This means that a powerful model such as Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory could have addressed the problem. Mary Jones would have found it easier “to introduce the key players to the proposed change through freezing, changing, and refreezing” (Chaudoir et al., 2013, p. 8). By so doing, the targeted stakeholders would have embraced and supported the proposed office.
From the very beginning, the partners should have designed a powerful strategic plan. The plan would have outlined the major activities that should have been completed within a specified period of time. The plan would have outlined the unique roles and responsibilities to be undertaken by different stakeholders (Chaudoir et al., 2013). Similarly, the right tools, resources, and finances would have been presented in order to support the project throughout its lifecycle.
The other potential strategy that might have addressed the existing barriers is the use of powerful decision-making and communication models. The absence of effective communication must have affected the project. The emerging problems were not addressed efficiently during the implementation phase (Wong, 2015). That being the case, a powerful communication channel can play a positive role in dealing with the existing barriers. This approach will ensure the office is properly licensed, fully staffed, and adequately equipped.
References
Chaudoir, S., Dugan, A., & Barr, C. (2013). Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: A systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implementation Science, 8(22), 1-14.
Wong, C. (2015). Connecting nursing leadership and patient outcomes: State of the science. Journal of Nursing Management, 23(1), 275-278.