international business essay

Anonymous

Question Description

  1. The topic of this entire course is understanding the global business environment. There are both proponent and critics of international business/globalization. Please explain both sides of the argument and give your final opinion on whether international business helps or hurts the world.
  1. One the most notorious failed international mergers in history is that of Daimler (Germany) with Chrysler (United States). Please read the attachedWall Street Journal article “DaimlerChrysler: The Divorce” and, given what you learned in chapter 4 about how differences in culture affect international business, please explain why you think this merger was a failure. You should use outside sources to support your claims.
  1. Summarize the following articles (about 1.5 pages each) discussing topics discussed during the duration of the course. The article can be downloaded using Milner Libraryonline sources.
    1. Ensign et al. “BlackBerry in Red China: Research in Motion Navigates Institutional Barriers in an Emerging Market.” Thunderbird International Business Review, 2008, 50(2): 129-142.
    1. Luo and Rui. “An Ambidexterity Perspective towards Multinational Enterprises from Emerging Economies.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 2009, 23(4): 49-70.
  1. Self-reflection Essay: explain how you would use in your future international business career two concepts learned in this class. Devote at least 2 paragraphs for each concept. Don’t forget to explain the concepts first (one paragraph max. for explaining each concept). Cite page numbers of the textbook where the concepts are highlighted or discussed.

To answer this question think like a senior manager. Specifically, focus on your long-term career and not just immediate job assignment upon graduation.

Submission Guidelines

Page limit: 25 pages, 1.5-spaced, 11 point Times New Roman font.

The cover page of the submission should include course number, “IB 225: Capstone Assignment” and your first and last name. The second page should be the table of contents. The last page should be the reference page.

Please also note:

  1. This is an individual assignment. Collaborative work is easily detectable and will result in all parties failing the course.
  2. There is no need for typing out the questions, only the solutions.
  3. No figures, charts, tables etc. are required for his assignment, but they can be used to illustrate your points.
  4. Your answers should be numbered clearly. Major concepts included in the solution can be identified via bold, underline, highlighting, etc.
  5. Correct grammar and concise business writing will be factored into your assignment grade.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

IB 225: Understanding the Global Business Environment Capstone Assignment 50 points Deadline Monday, June 3 at 12pm uploaded to ReggieNet (MS Word or PDF document) No late work will be accepted. Assignment 1. The topic of this entire course is understanding the global business environment. There are both proponent and critics of international business/globalization. Please explain both sides of the argument and give your final opinion on whether international business helps or hurts the world. 2. One the most notorious failed international mergers in history is that of Daimler (Germany) with Chrysler (United States). Please read the attachedWall Street Journal article “DaimlerChrysler: The Divorce” and, given what you learned in chapter 4 about how differences in culture affect international business, please explain why you think this merger was a failure. You should use outside sources to support your claims. 3. Summarize the following articles (about 1.5 pages each) discussing topics discussed during the duration of the course. The article can be downloaded using Milner Library online sources. a. Ensign et al. “BlackBerry in Red China: Research in Motion Navigates Institutional Barriers in an Emerging Market.” Thunderbird International Business Review, 2008, 50(2): 129-142. b. Luo and Rui. “An Ambidexterity Perspective towards Multinational Enterprises from Emerging Economies.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 2009, 23(4): 49-70. 4. Self-reflection Essay: explain how you would use in your future international business career two concepts learned in this class. Devote at least 2 paragraphs for each concept. Don’t forget to explain the concepts first (one paragraph max. for explaining each concept). Cite page numbers of the textbook where the concepts are highlighted or discussed. To answer this question think like a senior manager. Specifically, focus on your long-term career and not just immediate job assignment upon graduation. Dr. Trimble, May 2019 Submission Guidelines Page limit: 25 pages, 1.5-spaced, 11 point Times New Roman font. The cover page of the submission should include course number, “IB 225: Capstone Assignment” and your first and last name. The second page should be the table of contents. The last page should be the reference page. Please also note: 1. This is an individual assignment. Collaborative work is easily detectable and will result in all parties failing the course. 2. There is no need for typing out the questions, only the solutions. 3. No figures, charts, tables etc. are required for his assignment, but they can be used to illustrate your points. 4. Your answers should be numbered clearly. Major concepts included in the solution can identified via bold, underline, highlighting, etc. 5. Correct grammar and concise business writing will be factored into your assignment grade. Good luck! 2 2009 Luo and Rui A R T I 49 C L E S An Ambidexterity Perspective Toward Multinational Enterprises From Emerging Economies by Yadong Luo and Huaichuan Rui Executive Overview In this article we present an ambidexterity perspective on the international expansion of emerging economy enterprises, highlighting the unique strategic behavior of emerging market multinational enterprises (EM MNEs). Specifically, we conceptualize ambidexterity as a multidimensional term comprising co-evolution, co-competence, co-opetition, and co-orientation. While all firms need and maintain some degree of ambidexterity, EM MNEs have stronger motives and abilities to build and leverage such ambidexterity to offset their late-mover disadvantages. They behave co-evolutionarily to deal with the external environment they face at home and abroad, leverage their co-competence (transactional and relational) to compete against their global rivals, develop co-opetitive (simultaneous cooperation and competition) ties with their business stakeholders, and maintain co-orientations (leveraging competitive advantages to bolster short-term survival and compensating competitive disadvantages for long-term growth). This article uses several cases from China to detail this view and provides theoretical and practical implications of ambidexterity in the context of global business. It sets a foundation for discussion and examination of the critical domain of multinational enterprises from emerging economies— one that is yet to be widely examined. E nterprises from emerging markets and developing countries have been increasingly active in outward foreign direct investment (OFDI). According to the World Investment Report (2008, pp. 37, 208), OFDI by emerging and developing economies reached $304 billion in 2007, while its stock exceeded $1.4 trillion, or 11% of the world total, by the end of 2007 (compared to $20 billion, or 1%, in 1990). This results in many new multinational enterprises (MNEs) whose business attributes, dominant motivations, evolutionary trajectory, and strategic behaviors contrast with The authors would like to thank the two editors, Professors Chung Ming Lau and Garry Bruton, and anonymous reviewers of AMP for their insightful comments. those of older (North American, European, and Japanese) MNEs. Accordingly, there has been considerable research examining the uniqueness of emerging market multinational enterprises (EM MNEs) from various perspectives. For instance, Luo and Tung (2007) and Mathews (2002) delivered the springboard view, depicting international expansion as a compensatory response to EM MNEs’ late-mover position on the global stage. Child and Rodriguez (2005) and Rui and Yip (2008) developed the strategic intent view, suggesting that outward investment by EM MNEs is a proactive pursuit in search of strategic assets that redress their competence deficiencies. Cuervo-Cazurra and Genc (2008), along with Witt and * Yadong Luo (yadong@miami.edu) is Professor of Management and Emery M. Findley Jr. Distinguished Chair in the Department of Management, School of Business Administration, University of Miami. Huaichuan Rui (huaichuan.rui@rhul.ac.uk) is Senior Lecturer in Strategy and International Business in the School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London. Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only. 50 Academy of Management Perspectives Lewin (2007) and Yamakawa, Peng, and Deeds (2008), unveiled the institutional escapism notion, postulating that EM MNEs go global to avoid poor institutional environments at home. Finally, Deng (2004) and the United Nations’ World Investment Report (2006) offered the government steward logic, arguing that outward investment is a political mandate for EM MNEs to acquire scarce natural resources needed for economic and social development of their home countries. Each of these views has merits and insights, and each has limitations to its applicability. For example, the government steward logic holds true for many state-owned EM MNEs but may not be true for private or entrepreneurial enterprises seeking international growth. The institutional escapism view is plausible for those businesses that are clearly exposed to institutional constraints at home. Not every business is equally affected by the same institutional environment, and those subject to less hindrance from this type of environment may not fit the escapism assumption. In addition, while these perspectives shed more light on why EM MNEs go global, they give little indication of how well companies will succeed when investing and operating overseas. A more overarching perspective addressing not merely “why go global” but “how to succeed” seems necessary to advance the research on internationalization of emerging economy enterprises (Lau & Bruton, 2008). We supply such a perspective based on “ambidexterity”—viewing EM MNEs as ambidextrous organizations pursuing simultaneous fulfillment of two disparate, and sometimes seemingly conflicting, objectives. This article formalizes this new perspective and demonstrates its application using several case studies. We suggest that EM MNEs’ ambidexterity has at least four dimensions or properties: co-orientation, co-competence, co-opetition, and co-evolution. Each “co” entails two distinct or contrasting elements that occur simultaneously for a given EM MNE. Co-orientation means that EM MNEs simultaneously seek short-term survival and long-term growth in a balanced manner. In doing so, they need to leverage their existing competitive advantages for short-term survival and reasonably rapid returns on investment while acquiring assets that promote November longer term growth, organizational scalability, and resilience to external shocks. These assets are technological (e.g., patents), intellectual property (e.g., brands), operational (e.g., labor skills and local knowledge), and organizational (e.g., experience). They can be acquired from longer established companies or developed internally. Co-competence means that EM MNEs deploy, exploit, and utilize both transactional (marketbased) and relational (network-based) capabilities as they navigate and operate internationally. Possession and exploitation of relational capability is generally more salient or significant for EM MNEs than for advanced country MNEs. Co-opetition denotes the situation in which EM MNEs simultaneously compete and cooperate with their international business stakeholders (such as rivals, partners, suppliers, distributors, and home and host country governments). This enables them to benefit from collaborative competitive advantages and use them to overcome the constraints of foreignness and lateness. Finally, co-evolution occurs when EM MNEs simultaneously respond to and actively influence the external (especially institutional) environment they face in both home and host countries. Thus, co-evolution emphasizes both compliance/ adaptation to external constraints and influence/ change over those constraints as ways for firms to deal with the external conditions. Our model here captures the ambidextrous property of EM MNEs’ motivation, orientation, capability, and context. An Ambidexterity View of EM MNEs What Is Ambidexterity? S ince Duncan (1976) coined the term “organizational ambidexterity,” research on the topic has spanned several disciplines, including organizational learning (e.g., simultaneously pursuing double-loop and single-loop learning,1 organizational design (e.g., efficiency and flexibility), 1 Single-loop learning emphasizes the detection and correction of errors within a given set of governing variables and is linked to incremental change in organizations. Double-loop learning involves interrogating the governing variables themselves and often involves radical changes such as the wholesale revision of systems, alterations in strategy and so on. 2009 Luo and Rui and technological innovation (e.g., incremental and radical innovation). The term is currently taking shape as a research paradigm in organizational theory but still suffers some limitations. Ambidexterity is currently defined rather narrowly: “to be aligned and efficient in the management of today’s business demands while simultaneously adaptive to changes in the environment” (Duncan, 1976; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Conceptualization of ambidexterity in every field has treated it as a single rather than multidimensional concept, neglecting its richness and limiting understanding and application. Our first task is to extend this definition. Organizations face both trade-off (either/or) and ambidextrous (both/and) decisions. Ambidexterity is distinguished from trade-offs in emphasizing the simultaneous fulfillment of two disparate (and sometimes competing) ends rather than forcing a selection between two alternatives (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000; March, 1991; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Organizational ambidexterity often deals with a firm’s ability to pursue two disparate things at the same time, such as exploitation and exploration, efficiency and flexibility, low cost and customer responsiveness, global integration and local responsiveness, stability and adaptability, and short-term profit and long-term growth. These features are applicable in the context of international business. For EM MNEs, we conceptualize ambidexterity as a multidimensional property. Co-orientation is the temporal dimension of ambidexterity, co-competence is the within-organizational capability dimension, co-opetition is the stakeholder dimension, and co-evolution is the contextual dimension. Collectively, these four dimensions comprise a new perspective on why and how emerging market enterprises expand internationally. Despite differing individual foci, the four dimensions are integrated so that they (a) interact and reinforce one another, (b) share some multilevel, common antecedents that determine the form or level of the four dimensions, and (c) jointly and interactively influence the firm’s global success and growth. The four dimensions of ambidexterity are detailed later in this paper. 51 Why We Need the Ambidexterity View Facing an unprecedented competitive environment, EM MNEs have become more ambidextrous. In the quest to survive and compete more effectively against global rivals, EM MNEs need not only to possess certain operational advantages, as conventional MNE theory suggests, but also to embrace a learning mentality and flexible strategic options (Child & Rodriguez, 2005). Ambidexterity is particularly consistent with the cultural, institutional, and economic conditions facing EM MNEs. Culturally, many emerging economies have a long tradition of upholding harmony (e.g., East Asian yin-yang philosophy) and valuing interpersonal and interorganizational relationships for business transactions (Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000; Peng & Luo, 2000; Yiu, Lau, & Bruton, 2007). Due to frequently weak legal protection and limited property rights, and the absence of large well-regulated markets, business enterprises in many emerging economies have to rely on such relationships to gain access to resources or markets (Meyer, 2004). In these conditions business and environment need to co-evolve and coadapt, aiming to achieve not merely short-term returns but long-term growth. Business relationships with external stakeholders (e.g., rivals, suppliers, governments) must in these conditions be both competitive and collaborative, requiring an ambidextrous balance between the two. In addition, EM MNEs are better prepared than Western MNEs and dragon multinationals to adapt to and operate in institutionally “difficult” environments both at home and abroad. This strength arises from their ambidextrous approach (i.e., balancing the short- and long-term goals of international expansion) to dealing with the external environment in a host country. For firms with a long history of operating in less developed, less stable economies, experience in handling external uncertainties and competence in cultivating complex relationships—including those with local lawmakers enabling improvement of the commercial environment— constitute a valuable capability for exercising and benefiting from ambidexterity. The ambidexterity logic extends some existing 52 Academy of Management Perspectives perspectives, such as the OLI (ownership, location, internalization) paradigm (Dunning, 1980, 1995) and the LLL (linkage, leverage, and learning) framework (Mathews, 2002, 2006), providing a new way to understand the strategic behaviors of EM MNEs. First, the ambidexterity logic explains how OLI or LLL advantages can be generated. For example, without a certain degree of competitive competence, latecomers will find it difficult to establish connections (relational competence) with incumbents. While leveraging better resources from incumbents is important for latecomers, the firms themselves must excel in their own competitive strengths. Similarly, learning can be achieved through repetition of linkage and leverage, but such learning processes are generally slow. Hence, EM MNEs often aggressively acquire knowledge through more risk-taking acquisitions instead of traditional partnerships. Second, the ambidexterity view offers specific channels through which OLI or LLL advantages interactively emerge and subsequently promote global success over time. Leveraging ownershipspecific advantages for short-term survival necessitates largely transactional competence, while acquiring new capabilities for long-term competitiveness depends in part on the firm’s relational competence in cultivating new ties with partners and competitors. Third, the ambidexterity view delineates, in more detail than other theories, EM MNEs’ distinctive behaviors and strategies at the operational level. It explains not only motivation and capability associated with international expansion but also temporal orientations (co-orientation) and business-environment linkages (co-evolution) for EM MNEs, these last two being inadequately explored by OLI and LLL perspectives. Finally, the ambidexterity logic offers insights into winning strategies for EM MNEs competing not only in established markets but also growing under institutionally and operationally “hard” conditions (e.g., Africa and the least developed Asian countries). Ambidextrous orientations enable them to tap a large geographic scope and to undertake both incremental and radical international expansion activities (e.g., acquisitions). November Why Ambidexterity Is Unique to EM MNEs While ambidexterity should be a good practice for all MNEs, EM MNEs have a greater incentive and a stronger capability to be organizationally ambidextrous. In addition to the cultural, institutional, and economic reasons explained above, the learning advantage of newness (LAN) also fosters EM MNEs’ ambidexterity. Organizational ecologists (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) have argued that established MNEs often suffer from structural inertia, which deters ambidexterity (Shimizu & Hitt, 2004). The LAN perspective (Autio, Sapienza, & Almeida, 2000) suggests that new ventures that enter international markets early in their life cycles have inherent learning advantages over established firms. Its central rationale is that early-internationalizing firms tend to possess fewer deeply embedded routines and face fewer initial constraints; thus they can more easily recognize new opportunities in international markets that lead to successful expansion, growth, and performance advantages. Hence, they are more likely to achieve the full potential of ambidexterity in international expansion. Regarding co-orientation, for example, EM MNEs are less strongly pressed by a myriad of shareholders seeking short-term gains and more capable of aligning short-term objectives with long-term growth, compared to counterparts in advanced countries, due to different ownership and governance structures. Many privately owned EM MNEs are either family oriented or niche entrepreneurs that view outward FDI as a channel for long-term growth (Luo & Tung, 2007). Those publicly traded or state-owned EM MNEs are still under heavy-handed governance and influence from the home government through ownership sharing and/or bureaucratic control (Young, Peng, Ahlstrom, Bruton, & Jiang, 2008). Executives are guided to seek long-term growth by the government, which influences these executives’ political and professional careers. Similarly, co-competence is more typical of EM MNEs than Western MNEs. Relational competence is generally portrayed as a supplement to transactional competence for Western MNEs, but it is at least equally important as transa ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

EXMenWriter
School: Boston College

Attached.

Surname 1
Name
Professor
Course
Date
International business essay
Abstract
International business is the trade of goods, services, knowledge, capital, and technology
across national borders and at a global level. This is a very important concept in business in this
generation and mainly the dream of every company to go international. International business
involves cross-border transactions either between two or more countries but most importantly is
the engagement between either two companies from different countries or even countries. For the
last decade doing business at the global level has proven to be one of the most difficult yet
profitable adventures to any company. There are hundreds to multinational companies that have
been successful in the global marketplace while others have failed in the same marketplace.
There are very many factors that a company should consider before going international and more
so the culture difference between different countries among other issues. The essence of this
paper is to outline the concept of international business including its proponent and critics and
whether it is beneficial or not. The paper further discusses several international companies and
their respective performance on the global market place.
Introduction
International business is defined as the study of the internationalization process of
multinational enterprises. A multinational enterprise is a company that has a worldwide approach
to the market, operations, and even production in several countries. Going international is a very
difficult decision since there is always no guarantee for success considering there is very high
competition not just from local companies but also well-established international companies
(Feliciano, 141). Multinational companies range from any kind of business and each has their
own issues and threats to deal with depending on the country to invest in. Culture is one of the
biggest obstacles to international business and many companies have gown down due to cultural

Surname 2
differences between different countries. Some of the important cultural issues that should be
considered before investing globally include; time, communication, workplace, and
organizational etiquette. Each of these cultural factors is very important to consider before
investing globally since it can determine the success or failure of the business.
Proponents of international business/globalization
There is no doubt that globalization has brought many benefits not just multinational
companies but also to different countries. There is no country that can sustain itself and so
international trade is important to all countries. Different developing countries are not able to
access markets in developed economies thanks to globalization. There is a section of scholars
who argue against the concept of international trade and it’s not advisable to water down their
arguments. International business has some shortcomings but most importantly the benefits
outweigh those disadvantaged. Proponents of international business/globalization believe that
there is something good with the entire concept of globalization. Their argument is based on the
benefits of international business both to the multinational company involved and also the
countries. Globalization has been necessitated by agreements between countries to ease trade
barriers and open their economies to the rest of the world. It is through dropping of trade barriers
that have boosted the support for multinational expansion and economic gains. The main
question is what exactly the benefits of globalization are and why countries should support it
(Doh & Jean, 56).
First, globalization is very important considering that it has made the world a better place
than it used to be three to four decades ago. Globalization is the answer to many problems that
different countries are facing including unemployment and poverty. This is not just a third world
affair but even developed countries are struggling with the ever-increasing unemployment rate
among other diverse issues. International business reduces barriers such as value-added taxes,
tariffs, and subsidies among other barriers that different countries have imposed on each other.
The global economy is different to enter because of tariffs and other barriers that literally make
investment impossible. For the last decade, the G20 has imposed more than 1,200 restrictive
measures on both exports and imports. International business has enabled different countries to
arrive at different and friendly agreements on how to engage in business together.

Surname 3
Globalization also promotes global economic growth through the creation of jobs,
lowering prices in different countries for consumers, and making companies both local and
multinational more competitive. This is made possible considering that globalization represents
free trade and this is how it has necessitated economic growth. The essence of competition
between different countries should be to drive prices down but in reality, this is never the case
considering that many countries manipulate their currency so as to get a price advantage over
their competitors. Globalization has and still helping many of the poor countries to develop
through technological and capital transfer from developed countries. Globalization has given
developing countries the opportunity to enjoy economic development through spreading of
prosperity. It also creates the condition through which democracy, as well as respect for human
rights, may flourish. It is amazing to note that this is a goal that many Asian and Africa countries
have not achieved so far.
For the last two decades, many countries across the world had never enjoyed the fruits of
democracy but now they do thanks to globalization. Democracy and globalization ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors