U.S. Organizations Operating in the Global Environment - Research Paper Example

U.S. Organizations Operating in the Global Environment Introduction The global environment is a place with substantial level of complexity. In this environment, people may be able to interact based on socio-political context, economic and other relevant aspects of the human life prior to survival. Biologically speaking, the global environment is home to diverse species with complex organizational hierarchy at some point. Without question, this hierarchy at the most specific level is reflected to various organizations that try to operate in the global environment. There are many organizations in the US operating in the global environment. They can be political organizations, business organizations, and other relevant form of organizations. The list goes on. However, what they all have in common is that they all operate in the global environment where there is a need for them to have constant attachment with the environment. This concept brings forward to the thought that organizations eventually relate strategically to their environment. Furthermore, this also leads to the idea that organizations may be capable of shaping their environment. On the contrary, the environments may also shape organizations. Therefore, there is a prevailing thought that organizations also choose which environments they enter and exit. In other words, organizations have the choice which way or part they should place themselves. In order to understand these relevant perspectives, some appropriate organizational theories are included in the work at hand to justify if organizations have all the flexibility to affect the environment or be affected by their environments on the contrary. The depth of this point of view can be significantly illustrated by taking the case of US Organizations operating in the global environment. The case of US Organizations There are many organizations coming from the US that are freely operating across the world. This must be a significant observation considering that the US is considered as one of the world’s most powerful nations in terms of its political and economic influence. At some point the country also has become the center point of socio-cultural change, as it tries to successfully bring the whole world into the Western culture. However, whatever may be the reason why the US together with many of its organizations prevails and manages to stand out in the world, one essential argument in line with this will always lead to the idea of how it was able to bring influence to its environment. Concerning this point, it is important to take into account first how the organizations relate strategically to their environments. There are many cases that can be used to support this claim and even some ideas pertaining to organizational research and theory. According to Aldrich, organizations have the power to strategically influence their environment (Gal & Schmid, 1992). One thing that comes to mind in understanding this point is the idea that every organization has the power to influence the environment because it has the relevant strength to implement strategies. In fact, the implementation of strategy can change the environment and this makes the latter a constant subject to change (Nilsson & Rapp, 2004). Therefore, so many changes have taken place within the context of US organizations. These organizations are subjects of the cultural upbringing of the country. Many organizations in the US are trying to adhere to the ultimate culture of the US. The country’s culture adheres to the value of competition (Kitayama & Cohen, 2010). It brings individuals a sense of fulfillment and accomplishment when they become a cutting edge above the other as they try to compete individually. Common to this is the actual observation how each individual organization in the US tries to compete with the other key players particularly in their specific industry. Take the case of Apple Inc. for instance. The company is a firm believer of the idea that moving towards differentiation strategy will bring the organization to its competitive edge. Apple Inc. sets the culture of competence, and remarkably it has all the vital energy necessary in order to compete. This has become the major contributing factor why there is an intense competition involved in its industry. Many organizations or companies alike try to mimic what Apple Inc. has just started. In fact, after Apple created the former and the latest model of smartphones, the industry is already flooded with various choices. This is an upshot on how Apple Inc., an organization coming from the US, has influenced the whole world particularly in setting its industry under a tough spirit of competition. Also take the case of Wal-Mart. The firm believes the ideal that consideration of the scale will lead to its competitive advantage. Big stores have the chance to avail of big discounts from suppliers and this means that they can give low prices for their customers (Haig, 2011). Wal-Mart has substantially internalized this idea that allows it to flourish today in the retail industry. Today, Wal-Mart establishes the same business model as it tries to expand its scope beyond the US. However, the bottom line of this can always lead to the actual point that Wal-Mart as one organization coming from the US has become subject of the country’s culture that adheres to the value of competition. On the other hand, the NASA, another organization coming from the US, has substantially led in the field of astronomical findings. Its exploration of the space has been remarkably considered a cutting edge. With this, China, Japan, Russia, and some European nations are recently inspired to do some space explorations too. Again, the US has remarkably set the atmosphere of competition in here. Powerful nations like the US do not want to be left behind and this mindset was actually triggered by the US, especially within the context of space exploration program. The above illustrations so far justify the point that competition establishes or creates the environment, more so with the existence of rivalry (Okada, 2000). It is clear that competitors continuously keep their eyes out for new sources of differentiation, allowing them to find an ultimate source of their competitive advantage that will make them a cut above the other in the competition. This sounds intuitively true especially in the case of the US organizations that are truly influencing the world. This substantially creates an environment that has significant drive for change, competitive advantage and a sense of superiority. In fact, various organizations in the world today have come to realize the same pattern like what the US does. For instance, China has now become one of the leading key players in the economic arena, an upshot of the actual mindset that just like the US, they can also obtain economic excellence. Various organizations in China have clearly identified the importance of employing strategies in order to obtain their goals. The common pattern that is obviously found within the context of most of the US organizations is their actual implementation of strategy. However, in this strategy, the US organizations do not overlooked the important link among policy, resources and the environment. The neoclassical concept of strategy places significant highlight on the relationships among policy, resources and the environment (Rose, 1991). As observed, most of the US organizations do not certainly perform right away without consideration of putting up a policy first. This is a remarkable component of their actual strategies, because they perform things with excellent organization of everything required and this is for them to be able to achieve a more meaningful output in the end. This dexterity they have for organization of things allows them to implement the necessary policies and procedures as their bases of the right courses of actions that they have to initiate or perform. On the other hand, many of the US organizations always put into account their actual resources prior to the actual implementation of their strategies. More resources would mean easy way for them to implement their actual courses of actions. On the contrary, a less number of resources will have to encourage them to innovate possibilities and explore new creative ideas in order for them to achieve the actual output that they so desire. They try to make use of the opportunity from the environment and as a result, they might have truly influenced it in the long run, even to the extent of changing its prevailing design. Resources are everywhere. Pure environmental selection models begin with the “assumption of dispersed resources, with no environmental elements more important than any other” (Aldrich, 2007, p.111). Finding for resources is a matter of understanding their actual sources. This is the reason why many organizations from the US like the multinational firms are trying to expand their territories. Their ultimate goal is to optimize their actual access to a huge amount of resources for their advantage. This might be one of the reasons why various organizations go with merger and acquisition strategy. The strategy at some point increases the chance of an organization to optimize its access to resources. In fact, the wide expansion of many global firms from the US like McDonalds and other renowned organizations is not only to generate gain or profit, but to establish a high control and access for resources like the human resource, and the raw materials. The bottom line when these organizations will have access to various resources is they will generate their competitive advantage and eventually create profit. From biological standpoint, organisms create and define the environment in which they live (Dimas et al., 2008). In other words, this view when applied in the context of organization means that the people, firm and other organizations have the potential to influence or recreate their environment. As already stated so far, many of the US organizations in varying industries have tried to influence their environment. This is a relevant proof showing that organizations particularly those coming from the US have affected the environment. However, the above argument can be contested by looking at it some other case. Take a look at it in the case of global warming issue. The case of Global Warming In the advent of global warming issue, various companies around the world are now designing their strategies that in one way or another will have to protect the environment. As observed, many organizations from the US are leading in this cause. McDonalds for instance is trying to go for environmental sustainability, and the same way with Apple, Wal-Mart, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other renowned organizations coming from the US. The changing global weather pattern has become alarming to the people. Various organizations are using this as opportunity for them to create advantage. The point of this leads to the idea that the environment has substantial force to establish as to what action should be implemented by the organization. The global warming issue is a controversial one. It affects almost all organizations especially those that need to control their emissions. Unfortunately, many of the US firms have to minimize their green-house gas emissions. In this regard, they have to embrace the consideration of policy, resource and the environment. They have to established relationships among these three essential components that affect strategy formulation. The case of the issue of global warming alone is a literal proof that the environment essentially affects the organization, especially when it comes to their policy formulation, the consideration of their resources, and the actual impact of their actions on the environment. In fact, it is not only the US organizations that are trying to employ this concept, but many organizations out there across the world. However, the US organizations are quite influential on the matter of establishing and implementing the appropriate policies especially for the protection of the environment. However, what is clear is that the actual events taking place in the environment have substantial impacts on the actual actions that need to be employed on the part of many organizations. This in reality is a common observation, and eventually stands against the principle that the organization affects its environment. The context of environment involves the surrounding entities that can have potential impact on the prevailing actions of the organizations. For instance, a manufacturing company will have to manufacture products that are currently in demand in the market. The manufacturing company will leave away the production concept and embrace the marketing concept by which all it needs in order to succeed in business is to understand the customers’ prevailing needs and how it can provide high value for the customers. This is another relevant illustration showcasing the point that the environment has the essential strong influence on the actual action that has to be initiated by the organization. In other words, the environment affects the organizations in many ways and this is an observation that can hardly be contested at some point. Analysis As discussed so far, and based on the case of the major organizations from the US, it is clear that organizations eventually relate strategically to their environment, leading to the idea that they may be capable of shaping their environment. However, it is also revealed that the environments may also shape organizations. Strategically speaking, organizations can shape the environment on the ground of establishing something that may have to stand for their competitive advantage. The reason why many organizations for instance are trying to adhere to the prevailing policies in order to protect the environment is to achieve a remarkable opportunity prior to achieving their competitive advantage. Many organizations operate in a way that they will have to gain control and a remarkable opportunity in the long run. To cite an instance, establishing the right courses of actions especially in the advent of global warming is an opportunity for major companies to differentiate. This therefore means that organizations relate strategically to their environment. The actual response of the organization to the changes taking place in the environment is a strategic one. Therefore, the prevailing thought that organizations also choose which environments they enter and exit has a substantial truth to it. In reality, organizations eventually respond to the environment for the sake of obtaining a remarkable advantage. This allows them to differentiate, establish more opportunities for them and ensure achievement of their goals in the long run. Conclusion In a nutshell, it is found that organizations relate strategically to their environments. They change not because the environments have important impact on them, but they have important points of consideration for establishing their competitive advantage. In a way, one may be able to see it as a way of the environment to influence the organizations, but on the contrary, the organizations respond strategically to the former. In this regard, it is of vital consideration that the organizations have become flexible enough as where they should place themselves and to which paths they should take or essentially follow. The bottom line, they do not initiate a move without a purpose. The environment may be a constant factor for them to initiate the right courses of actions that may stand on their favor. Many of the US organizations can be depicted for this, and most of them employ the culture that encourages competition. After all, as also stated, it is the culture of competition that encourages remarkable change in the environment. References Aldrich, H. (2007). Organizations and Environments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Dimas, S., Press, H. G. A., Dean, J., van Ginkel, H., Spring, U. O., Shiva, V., Tofer, K. et al. (2008). Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century. Berlin: Springer. Gal, D. B., & Schmid, H. (1992). Organizational Change and Development in Human Service Organizations. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Haig, M. (2011). Brand Success: How the World’s Top 100 Brands Thrive and Survive (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (2010). Handbook of Cultural Psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Nilsson, F., & Rapp, B. (2004). Understanding Competitive Advantage: The Importance of Strategic Congruence and Integrated Control. Heidelberg, NY: Springer. Okada, Y. (2000). Competitive-cum-Cooperative Interfirm Relations and Dynamics in the Japanese Semiconductor Industry. Tokyo: Springer. Rose, J. (1991). Environmental Concepts, Policies, and Strategies. Berkshire: CRC Press. Outline Introduction: Thesis: Organizations have the choice which way or part they should place themselves. Body: The case of US organizations The case of Apple Inc. The case of Wal-Mart The case of NASA Consideration of policy, resources and environment The case of global warming The environment affects organizational goals and decisions Analysis Organizations relate strategically to their environment. Conclusion: Organizations change not because the environments have important impact on them, but they have important points of consideration for establishing their competitive advantage. Read More