Introduction
Globalization is not a new concept. It has always been ‘a fact of economic life’ (Carlos Salinas de Gortari 1993). However, with the lightning speed of technological advances leading to reduction in the costs of worldwide transportation and communication, never before have the consequences of this phenomenon been more apparent. To survive and thrive in the ever changing condition of business world, each organizations is forced to choose itself a fundamental attitude while reacting to globalization, which in other words, is a global perspective. While doing international business, organizations are not restricted to any only attitude. This paper is to address three global perspectives along with strengths and weaknesses of each.
In an ethnocentric organization, people consider practices and approaches from the home country – the country where the headquarter is situated in – as the most outstanding and eminent (Pearson Australia 2014). Thus, advocates of this belief carry out nothing other than their original manners no matter how the situation may change or which country they operate in. Likewise, power and technology is only placed at the hand of personnel native to the home country. According to Pearson Australia (2014), parochialism – ground for the ethnocentric attitude, is a major hindrance for any organizations in this time of world integration. First of all, the homogeneous perception of ethnocentric attitude about global market draws to its inflexibility. Then at present, when ‘one size no longer fits all’ (Vijay Vishwanath & Darrell K. Rigby 2006), markets are lost to organizations with extensive local researches and appropriate adaptations. Another grave disadvantage of this view lies in its recruitment for important roles of only people from the home country. Moore (2006) sets forth that any nation is too narrow a range for talents and forcing the border restriction on selecting process can discourage potential foreign employees who see nationality is an obstacle in their career path. However, ethnocentric organizations can retain a certain number of
From this market, organizations capture the best ways of getting things done. Regardless of origins, work approaches and human resources are utilized as long as they are valuable. Organizations of this orientation should acquire vast knowledge about cross-cultural differences. Geocentric is regarded the most advanced in three global attitudes (Perlmutter 1969). ‘Their focus is both worldwide and local, with careful collaboration between the global headquarters and subsidiaries to leverage the best universal practices’ (Albrecht 2001). The approach merges strengths and balances weaknesses of both previous ones as it responds to market needs by best quality products without going too localized. Furthermore, geocentric organizations attract the most talented employees from different cultural backgrounds. These employees enable them to reach various cultures then expand target customers, as stated by Alex and Gundersen (2008): ‘two heads are better than one, and two culturally diverse heads seeing global problems through different lenses are even better’. The main disadvantage is that a polycentric model is difficult to achieve (Pearson Australia 2014). There are many challenges, among which the greatest may be managing in a highly culture-mixed environment. ‘Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster’