Factors Affecting Organizations in the Global Landscape of 2020/2021 and Beyond

The Concept of Globalisation

Using relevant course material and wider reading, present a literature review that critically evaluates the key factors currently facing and influencing organisations operating in the global landscape of 2020/ 2021 and in the future?

How to potentially address the task / question – a suggestion only!

In attempting to answer the question, remember that views of globalisation have changed over many years up to 2020 e.g. Yip 1989, Dicken 2012 & O’Sullivan 2019 and other views too.  The point here is that the global landscape may have changed significantly around the range of macro disruptions and distortions that could be categorised in a ‘STEEPLE analysis’.

(Ref. Lecture 4 – the drivers of Globalisation & the introduction to the module handbook, CW1 rational including extracts from Dicken and O’Sullivan. Plus, the HSBC outlook documents 2019 & 2020. All of these are in ‘learning materials’).

So, ensure that the data that you collect and the arguments you make, are current and link to theory to conceptualise those structural and macro disruptions, changes and influences that you find. This is where wider and current reading and referencing can help answers. Current examples will also help, such as such as those in the ‘introduction section’ of the module handbook and in the assignment rationale too for CW1. N.B. but please use any referenced examples that you might know too.

I have highlighted in yellow above in the question for CW1, what you might focus on as the aim of your paper for CW1. Please note that this is the question.

N.B. Do not change it or substitute it with another statement. This is the question, so answer it (please!). 

Within that question I have highlighted key words such as, ‘key factors’ and the date, i.e. 2020/ 2021 and in the future’.  These parts of the question are significant and are meant to keep you focused on the key issues to ensure that you answer the question accurately.

As a brief context to your answer, you could present the current status and definition of a phenomenon known as ‘globalisation’. 

That is why perhaps in a view by Dicken (2011) regarding the possibility for organisations (i.e. small, medium or large, MNEs, etc), who operate an integrated global strategy in a diverse range of countries across the globe in 2020 / 2021 and in the future, might be a good starting point for your answer?

Key Factors Influencing Organizations Operating in the Global Landscape

Dicken (2011) suggested that an integrated global strategy “….will depend on what we mean by globalisation” (Lecture 1a, plus Dicken case study handout).  This makes an answer to the question set in CW1 rather subjective and interpretive and hence this is why a number of different perspectives and approaches could be considered to address that question?

Dicken (ibid) (in lecture 1a and also in a handout in learning materials ‘Dicken Case Study’ – read this!) is distinguishing between TWO broad meanings of globalisation using the views of Chase-Dunn et al (2000) to underpin this assertion.

So, a basis for an answer for CW1, arguably involves developing a set of views of globalisation around 3 ‘key factors’ which are currently raging in the debates around globalisation and global strategy: -

One that refers to the actual structural changes that are occurring in the way the global economy is organised & integrated” (Dicken, 2012) and therefore impacted by a different set of macro dynamics and influences.

Think here of economic life-cycle analysis. Any phenomenon including globalisation, will go through a range of phases, changes and forms over the years or its life cycle.

These ‘structural’ changes are continuous disruptions and distortions impacted by a range of issues, i.e. STEEPLE factors as drivers of globalisation, plus the perceived benefits and drawbacks of globalisation for all firms, who chose to pursue this type of a ‘market development strategy’ (ref. the Ansoff matrix).  The Ansoff matrix (in lecture 7), can also be used to evaluate a global strategy (existing product / service in a new market territory). 

These changes in the life cycle are caused by continually distortions in the ‘external drivers’ in lecture 4 which can be referred to across the  factors – lecture 7, impacting positively and negatively on firms in the global landscape, who arguably have no control over such macro drivers and distortions.     

In the context of CW1, arguably there is a wide range of current global macro environmental drivers that we can relate to the STEEPLE framework. 

Again, please examine the current examples that I have provided in the introduction of the module handbook for some of these drivers and any other current referenced examples that you can find or know of?

All of these examples influence the development of globalisation in its ‘life cycle’. Hence all global and national economies and firms enter stages of ‘boom’, ‘recession’, ‘depression’ and ‘recovery’ within their economic life cycles. 

First Key Factor - Structural Changes

In late 2019 and early 2020, we WERE arguably experiencing a period of global recovery in the global and national economic life cycles? However, any periods of recovery or even stability in the economic global life cycle have been ‘punctuated’ drastically by Covid-19. 

Key macro dynamics and disruptions always change and punctuate any  firms recovery and stability, but Covid-19 has been particularly threatening and damaging, especially to certain sectors and firms across the world. 

Refer to Bill Gates’ predictions of a virus in 2015 in learning materials and also ‘the patterns of strategic Development’ / ‘Risk of Strategic Drift’ model in lecture 7, to also help illustrate the impacts of the range of structural changes influencing globalisation currently.

This 2nd key and current factor focuses upon the different views that support and / or challenges the existence of globalisation.  How these views benefit or disadvantage economies or regions, as well as organisations who might pursue a ‘total global strategy’ as a method of market growth (ref. Ansoff again – lecture 7).  This builds upon ‘key factor 1’ above regarding how might current macro environmental disruptions and distortions influence and impact these contrasting views?

To develop this key factor a little more, explore some of the arguments and complexities in lecture 1a which outlines some of “the perspectives on ‘globalisation “Hyper-globalists’ to the right & to the left”.   Plus, the ‘Washington Consensus’ where there are two papers outlining how this links into this 2nd Key factor in learning materials on Blackboard – please check out the ‘Washington Consensus!! 

‘On the left of the argument’, Dicken (2012) argued that you have the ‘anti-globalists. These stakeholder ideas concern challenges and questions for globalisation.  Challenges such as “how can firms ever operate an integrated global strategy in a diverse range of countries across the globe today in 2019 and in the future? 

Whilst ‘on the right of the argument’, we find the ‘neo-liberalists’ or the ‘pro-globalists’.  These stakeholders might argue in favour of “the probability that firms can always operate a global strategy in a diverse range of countries across the globe today in 2020 / 2021 and in the future. They just have to adapt it i.e.to take a non-totalist approach (Ghemawat & Peng’s view)?  

Examine also some views such as Zuckerberg and Branson, plus a paper outlining Dicken’s challenge ‘if globalisation still exists’.   All can be found in learning materials on Bb.

Plus, the views of the likes of the WTO & IMF and other stakeholders who attempt to ‘govern’ globalisation and its practices.  In addition, any other examples that you might also find from your research to support either side of this debate?

Both sets of stakeholders on both sides of this hyper-globalist debate or ‘key factor’ obviously have conflicting views and in some of the issues that they argue, the anti-globalist might use some of the drawbacks and myths of globalisation in their argument (from Lecture 5).  They might acknowledge some of the global drivers too (in Lecture 4?), whilst the pro-globalists will promote both the drivers and benefits of globalisation in their arguments (in Lecture 5).

Lecture 1a also identifies some other ‘myths of globalisation’, which are different myths from those offered by Rangan (2000) in lecture 5.

In overview, some of the key hyper-globalist views and arguments are summarised below from lecture 1a: -

The Hyper-globalisers of the Left (Lecture 1a)

These are the anti-globalisers, who present arguments such as: -

• Globalisation is the problem & not the solution.
• Market forces claimed by the right are ‘the crux of the problem & malign & destructive forces’.
• Free markets inevitably create ‘inequalities’ & the globalisation of markets increases the scale & extent of such inequalities.
• Unregulated markets lead to a reduction in well-being for all but a small minority in the world & creates massive environmental problems.
• Markets MUST be regulated in the wider interest
• For some the only logical solution is the complete rejection of globalisation & return to the ‘local’.

The Neo-liberals of the Right (Lecture 1a)

• Globalisation is an ‘ideological project’, one if asserted would bring the greatest benefit for the greater numbers.
• Simply ‘let free markets (whether trade or finance) rule & all will be well.
• The ‘rising tide’ of globalisation will ‘lift the boats’; human material well-being will be enhanced.
• Neo-liberals do recognise that the such ‘a state of perfection has yet to be achieved’
• The major problem is that there is ‘too little, rather than too much, globalisation (Friedman, 1999; 2005: Bhagwati, 2004: Wolf (2004).
• Globalisation is the solution to the world’s economic problems & inequalities
• This view is the manifestation of the ‘Washington Consensus’ – i.e. the ideology of free & efficient markets regardless of national boundaries.

This involves two main schools of thought, i.e. Yip, Levitt and others who argue a ‘total global strategy’ or ‘integrated strategy’ can exist (ref. Lectures 1a, 1b & 1c), which means that a standard or ethnocentric approach is adopted when designing and implementing a global strategy.

Contrasting this is against others, i.e. Ghemawat, 2007, Peng, 2006 and others, who argue that a total global approach cannot exist in the ‘real world’? (Again, explore lectures 1a, 1b & 1c). The latter argue the ‘non-totalist’ or non-integrated’ view of global strategy design and implementation. Within this these ‘non-totalists’ argue that an adaptive global strategy must be considered when entering new economies, markets, regions and cultures, i.e. a geocentric or polycentric view of global strategy design and implementation.