As part of my Degree in Business Management I have had to research globalisation and the 3 waves of globalisation; Hyperglobalists, Sceptics and Transformationalists.
Here are my thoughts:
Hyperglobalism: Hyperglobalists believe in a single, global economy and that globalism will bring a new era to the world that will see the end of states as we know it. They believe that states cannot run their own economies and global organisations like the world bank, WTO and the IMF are required to run this new, stateless, global economy.
Sceptics: This side of the argument believe that the effects of globalism are overstated, and believe that globalisation is only happening within richer countries. Sceptics also believe that the world is being split into economic blocs and that the end of states will not happen via globalisation.
Transformationalists: My personal opinion most aligns with Transformationalism. This wave of globalism believe that it is the main force pressing political, economic and social levels and that there is a new world order that requires adapting to.
Personally I believe that globalisation will influence international regulations that require changes due to the change in trade across the world. Globalism is not new - metals, spices and tea have been traded internationally for centuries - however, with the assistance of technology and scale, this will be more prolific. I also believe that a global economy does exist (such instances such as the global crash show this) but states are still important and it is the role of states to govern their section of this global economy.
A self-confessed geek and an inquisitive kid looking for answers, I am constantly pushing to find out new knowledge and information. My blog is all about my views / experiences on the subjects of Technology, Business and Engineering. Thank you very much for reading.
Thursday, 10 October 2019
Tuesday, 8 October 2019
Fieldler's Contingency Model
This blog aims to briefly explain what Fieldler's Contingency Model is.
Fiedler's model states that a managers effectiveness will depend on the situation that they are working in. The situation is defined using: the level of leader-member relations; the level of structure the tasks have and the amount of position power that the leader has.
Fiedler believed that the style of a manager was fixed, and could not be changed. He judged whether a manager was task or people oriented by a scale called the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale. A high score on the LPC meant the leader was people/relationship oriented and a low meant that the leader was task oriented.
Fiedler predicted that task oriented leaders would give better results in both favourable and unfavourable ends of the scale. However relationship oriented leaders would perform best in a 'middle of the road' scenario.
Fiedler's model states that a managers effectiveness will depend on the situation that they are working in. The situation is defined using: the level of leader-member relations; the level of structure the tasks have and the amount of position power that the leader has.
Fiedler believed that the style of a manager was fixed, and could not be changed. He judged whether a manager was task or people oriented by a scale called the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale. A high score on the LPC meant the leader was people/relationship oriented and a low meant that the leader was task oriented.
Fiedler predicted that task oriented leaders would give better results in both favourable and unfavourable ends of the scale. However relationship oriented leaders would perform best in a 'middle of the road' scenario.
Sunday, 6 October 2019
Elon Musk's Master Plan!
Elon Musk has a master plan... this sounds just as creepy as some of his interviews. However this master plan is not as secretive as you may think. It's on the Tesla website.... see.
The summary of this master plan is as follows:
In my opinion, yes and no.
On the yes.
Companies that can adapt can survive. Had Blockbuster or Kodak read the situation better, would they still be in business? Business leaders need to look at the environment in which they operate to look for risks and opportunities. This helps gain advantage over their competition and stay in business... but its not everything.
On the No.
Tesla has had a hard time of late. If its not for Elon's disagreements with the SEC causing him to be forced down as Tesla's Chairman, it's a repetition of poor numbers and crises. Tesla are still struggling to turn a profit because of the complexity of the automotive industry. Yet they (and Google) have every automotive company looking over their shoulder - the incumbents are definitely concerned. Tesla are succeeding at Mr Musk's master plan.... but are they succeeding in the regular business sense?
The summary of this master plan is as follows:
- "Build sports car
- Use that money to build an affordable car
- Use that money to build an even more affordable car
- While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options"
So, does an organisation that adapts to its environment perform better than one that does not?
- - Elon Musk (2006)
In my opinion, yes and no.
On the yes.
Companies that can adapt can survive. Had Blockbuster or Kodak read the situation better, would they still be in business? Business leaders need to look at the environment in which they operate to look for risks and opportunities. This helps gain advantage over their competition and stay in business... but its not everything.
On the No.
Tesla has had a hard time of late. If its not for Elon's disagreements with the SEC causing him to be forced down as Tesla's Chairman, it's a repetition of poor numbers and crises. Tesla are still struggling to turn a profit because of the complexity of the automotive industry. Yet they (and Google) have every automotive company looking over their shoulder - the incumbents are definitely concerned. Tesla are succeeding at Mr Musk's master plan.... but are they succeeding in the regular business sense?
Example of Factors within the DESTEP Model
As part of my Degree in Business and Management at the University of Derby, I have to give examples of factors to be considered in a DESTEP analysis. DESTEP stands for Demographic, Economical, Social (Cultural), Technological, Ecological and Political (Legal) - my examples are below:
- Demographic: The ageing population in Japan.
- Economical: The weakness of the pound due to Brexit.
- Social (Cultural): The growing adversity to plastic straws etc.
- Technological: The advancement in Drone technology.
- Ecological: Tsunami/Earthquake prove areas such as Asia and the USA.
- Political (Legal): The legalisation of recreational marijuana in Canada/states of the US.
Friday, 4 October 2019
Business Philosophy - Motivational Theories Part 6
Douglas McGregor (1906-1964)
McGregor is mainly known for being a management professor at the Sloan business school, MIT. His X and Y theory is the most famous of his works, where he described 2 types of employees and the best way to motivate them. This post is part of both my Motivational Theories and by Business and Management Degree series of blogs.
McGregor argued that there were 2 types of workers, X and Y. Type X workers were lazy, avoided work and needed to be pushed in order to gain any output of work. Type Y workers were motivated by the standard of their work and would motivate themselves without any intervention by management.
My experience is in manufacturing, an industry that theory X managers are prominent. From my own work as a shop floor level employee, I did not believe in the theory X (reward and punishment) management style. I was motivated by my own workmanship, striving to produce the most components at a high quality. I am obviously a Type Y employee.
Since working in team leader and management team positions I have come to the conclusion that both Type X and Y employees exist. In the manufacturing industry there are certainly employees that will do as much as possible to get away with doing as little as is required in order to obtain a dependable living. The contrary is also true, there are also people that would be motivated regardless, so long as they had produced good work to their own high standards.
In conclusion, I believe that Theory X and Y is still well and truly alive today. Managers must adapt and adjust the way that they treat individuals depending on their motivations. This may result in a 'carrot and stick' leadership style or a Laissez-faire style. In reality, the management style will never be the extreme of one of the other but a fluid and ever changing leadership style that is decided by the intuition of the leader.
McGregor is mainly known for being a management professor at the Sloan business school, MIT. His X and Y theory is the most famous of his works, where he described 2 types of employees and the best way to motivate them. This post is part of both my Motivational Theories and by Business and Management Degree series of blogs.
McGregor argued that there were 2 types of workers, X and Y. Type X workers were lazy, avoided work and needed to be pushed in order to gain any output of work. Type Y workers were motivated by the standard of their work and would motivate themselves without any intervention by management.
My experience is in manufacturing, an industry that theory X managers are prominent. From my own work as a shop floor level employee, I did not believe in the theory X (reward and punishment) management style. I was motivated by my own workmanship, striving to produce the most components at a high quality. I am obviously a Type Y employee.
Since working in team leader and management team positions I have come to the conclusion that both Type X and Y employees exist. In the manufacturing industry there are certainly employees that will do as much as possible to get away with doing as little as is required in order to obtain a dependable living. The contrary is also true, there are also people that would be motivated regardless, so long as they had produced good work to their own high standards.
In conclusion, I believe that Theory X and Y is still well and truly alive today. Managers must adapt and adjust the way that they treat individuals depending on their motivations. This may result in a 'carrot and stick' leadership style or a Laissez-faire style. In reality, the management style will never be the extreme of one of the other but a fluid and ever changing leadership style that is decided by the intuition of the leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)