The recent turbulence in the global economy generated a lot of interesting questions about the role of globalisation, the exercise of corporate power and the fragmentation of political institutions. Our latest MBA Winner newsletter focuses on some of the more recent global trends which are of direct relevance to MBA students and who are seeking to become active players for shaping corporations and for tackling such challenges in the future.
The study of globalisation and its emergent negative implications remains an interesting area of study that has received scarce attention even though it has a lot to teach us about upcoming future developments. In this newsletter we present you with how the study of globalisation a situated within three main ideological paradigms which are titled as ‘functional’, ‘interpretive’ and ‘critical’. Our insights provide you with the opportunity to address the study of globalisation differently within your MBA studies and especially your dissertation.
The Rise of Globalisation
The study of globalisation remains one of the major topics in the fields of International Business, Strategy and International Human Resource Management. Prior to the economic credit crunch the emergence of globalisation was treated favourably by traditional business study textbooks. The interconnectedness between economies and the synergies that could be created from the sharing of knowledge, the relative ease of access to technology and information, presented a very positive paradigm of economic growth. Achieving economies of scale was regarded as one of the bestcorporate strategies that organizations could use in order to improve their profit margins. Penetrating into new consumer segments and the development of marketing strategies that could enable organizations to attract new customers, were the topics of a plethora of business assignments.
The study of power within three ideological paradigms
In the business studies literature the study of power has been situated within three main paradigms which are referred to as the ‘functional’, the ‘interpretive’ and the ‘critical’ perspectives.
The Functional Paradigm
The functional perspective assumes that power is situated in the formal role and position that individuals who hold power through office. It assumes that intentions are directed by people that hold decision making power and should be followed by the less superior. The functional perspective remained the dominant paradigm that influenced how organizations functioned and developed during the industrial revolution and beyond. The work by Frederick Taylor and Henry Fayol are still considered exemplars of administrative excellence. This paradigm is still in effect in most organizations, especially in Public Sector organizations. Strong levels of bureaucracy intensify the need to exert control and to minimise risk. As power is situated with those people (e.g. CEO, Executives, Senior/Middle Managers etc) that hold the specific job titles it is difficult for other people to challenge them.
The Interpretive Paradigm
In contrast to the functional perspective, the interpretive perspective challenged a lot of the assumptions that the functional perspective had made about power. This perspective emerged out of the greater recognition that the social environment is an integral part to one’s understanding of self and others. This meant that information, knowledge and intentions could be interpreted differently between people and according to their own experience and social setting. Social relationships where not simply neutral structures for cascading decision making. Power could not be channelled according to the ‘X, Y, and Z’ intensions of superiors and be understood exactly as they were channelled!
Instead, the recipients’ prior experience for what constituted ‘power’ were exerting considerable influence onto how information was distributed but also how meaning was generated. The practical implications of this argument included the inseparable dimension the ‘self’ and the ‘social environment’ but also how the actual reality of a situation is dependent not just on facts but also on the person’s interpretation of those facts. The study of HOW ‘meaning’ was created and sustained within a social context became the principle goal behind this paradigm. It generated a lot of new questions about the impartiality knowledge of those people that possessed decision making power. This paradigm challenged the extent to which such individuals really knew what could be the best course of action and how to effectively communicate it to others.
The Critical Paradigm
The critical paradigm sought to further advance the interpretive paradigm by challenging some of the assumptions by the interpretive paradigm but also by creating new assertions. This paradigm suggested that the exercise of POWER remains a much underestimated function for understanding how decision making is actually taking place. Decision making is not rational but irrational and driven by unprecedented instincts and interests that truly govern all decision making. People do not make decisions because of what is ‘right’ but because of what complies best with their own interests. This paradigm brought to the surface the importance of language. It suggested that the ‘truth’ is always disguised behind hidden motives. Language becomes an instrument of manipulating understanding and perception in others. A situation can be presented differently according to the impressions that people are seeking to convey to others. Power is about influencing other peoples’ behaviour and this is the underlying core that mobilises all decision making. According to this paradigm the goal is to unpack how ‘power’ is constructed in the governing of human relationships.
Globalisation and the three paradigms reviewed: So what?
How does the current state of globalisation have anything to do with the three paradigms visited in this newsletter? The recent economic credit crunch has generated an important opportunity challenging the foundations on which the economic and political systems are built. It challenged how ties between for-profit organizations, non-government, but also, government and other political institutions relate to each other. The growing power of financial institutions indicates that governments are not necessarily acting towards the best interests of the members of their society because politicians can be afraid of losing public support. Institutions are struggling to act on what is right because their decision making is influenced by the decision making power of various stakeholders who exert direct and indirect pressure on them. The recent disclosure of the Panama Papers remains a clear exemplar for how most senior decision makers engaged in illegitimate activity with disguising their wealth and avoiding taxation even though they themselves set public policy. The complete absence of regulation over institutions like the Panama service provider Mossack Fonseca indicates that there is a dark web of economic and political activity that remains almost impenetrable to outsiders. How is the existing and public discourse on globalisation to be supported in the future? What are the upcoming developments following the shaking of the foundations over the existing financial and political institutions?
If you are thinking of developing your dissertation around globalisation and the different ideological paradigms discussed in this letter then get in touch with MBA Winner at our email address support@mbawinner.com
In a nutshell we will help you:
- Identify a suitable research topic appropriate of an MBA dissertation
- Provide you with the relevant academic sources so that you obtain the information you need
- Develop a methodology approach for collecting and analysing primary data
- Structure a well-supported argument that contains strong analysis and discussion that tackles a well-defined research question.
