International Management: Google Company in its operation in China - Assignment Example

? Topic: International Management International management deals with variegated strategies and mechanism to produce and deliver products or services in the international market to gain more valuable competitive leverage by diversifying its business operations geographically. Business organization would often invest at larger market depending on its industrial attractiveness, resource capacities and management dynamisms to meet customer satisfaction amid global systems and pressures (Bartlett & Sumantra, 1987; Bartlett etc., 1989; Lane, DiStafano, & Maznevski, 2000). Companies with wide market do not only leverage for comparative advantage and adhere to strict regulations (Doz, Bartlett, & Prahalad, 1981). They are also sensitive in cross-cultural matters and thus, redefine its business ethics too as part of strategic management (Dunning, 1992; Porter, 1987). This essay will discuss international management (Levitt, 1983), its correlation to business ethics centered on either moral universalism or moral relativism, and citing the ethical standards practiced by Google Company in its operation in China. Business Morale Business morality deals about ethical standards needed in purposively directing and leading the company toward optimized operation, strategic efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with its subsidiaries (Porter, 1990). Company would therefore pursue the scale of economies with needed flexibility (Prahalad & Doz ,1987); enhanced cross-border communication; and extol operational innovation (Volvo,1995). Business operation explores international dimensions either by acquisition, merger or alliances. In either of this cases however, the company would face risks in the global market, within its country, of monetary institutions, its industrial relations, and other coordinative activities (Bartlett & Sumantra, 1987; Bartlett etc., 1989). Thus, it should be interested too of protecting itself from these dangers either by hedging, creating options, diversifying, transforming risk drivers, considering residual risks and practicing business ethics in business management (Bartlett & Sumantra, 1987; Bartlett etc., 1989; Beamish & Inkpen, 1987). Moral Universalism vs Relativism However, business ethics is a broad moral theory. Depending on values advocated by corporate managers, leaders could adopt a wide range of moral system to systematize business relations among employers-employee, as well as with clienteles or customers (Connick, 2011). But for academic curiosity, the discussion herewith on ethical standards will orbit around moral universalism and moral relativism (Connick, 2011). Moral Universalism is also prominently considered as moral objectivism which posits the theory that there is an evident universal ethic (Connick, 2011). As a standard of behavior, it likewise considers that certain behaviors could be inherently wrong albeit surrounding circumstances. Moral universalism was explicated by post-modern philosopher as a precept that what is right for someone, could be right too for anyone; what is wrong for anyone, could be wrong too for everyone (Connick, 2011). Applied to specific moral principles, say, utilitarianism, if such does maximum good for maximum number of persons, therefore its provides happiness. If this is true, then it could be morally correct (Connick, 2011). Moral universalism is also applied to human-right sensitive corporate ethics too. This means that Multinational Corporation upholds the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and the Geneva Conventions. Such meant that the company promote and uphold human rights in all workplaces and violations thereof would be condemned as an immoral act (Connick, 2011). Moral Relativism, on the other hand, respects the distinction of culture of peoples in a multicultural nation. People with varied beliefs and systems have distinct standards of what is morally right or wrong (Connick, 2011). They also perceived that moral system change overtime as society evolves and nations are enjoying democratization processes. For instance, many decades ago (Connick, 2011) slavery was an acceptable relation in workplaces until the proletariat fought from such oppressive bondage. Moral relativists contend that there is no absolute universal rule which defines right and wrong. They uphold the belief that morality is determined by individual’s moral preference of specific standard or by authorities with whom they subscribed (Connick, 2011). The latter may include authorities from government, religious group and family values. Citing slavery as an example, a moral relativist is pragmatic in approaches and would contend that slavery could either be right or wrong, depending on workers and corporate values (Connick, 2011). Lacking appreciation of moral measure, moral relativists believe that slavery is either ethically right or wrong (Connick, 2011). The succeeding topic will explore the business ethics utilized by Google in China, a nation which has not totally liberated its systems and thoughts to provocative liberal ideas of other civilization. Google & China: ethical standards The business ethics adopted by Google in its operation, as leading search engine in China, is recently undergoing serious discussion if it has ethically attuned itself to its general business standard or has deviated its company policies when it limited the search engine access of Chinese people by optimizing its application (Google, 2011). Information technologists argued that Google’s decision to limit Chinese internet access is baseless and have promoted world inequities in the access of global information. They contend that Chinese were denied parity rights to enjoy the freedom of sourcing unlimited information worldwide, like how Americans are enjoying their Google. For them, Google reneged its motto “don’t be evil” when it limited Chinese access to information and that it allegedly violated its corporate mission to organize the world's information as universally accessible and useful (Google, 2006). Critic likewise perceived that “limited access” from Google meant its an invisible barrier of trade and an apparent censorship too of information from e-sites that are offering information that are believed destructive of Chinese systems and culture. Invisible trade barriers also refer to hindrances in accessing information on governmental regulations, both domestic and abroad, due to cultural considerations (Google, 2006). Such is believed restrictive and may possibly obscure regulatory requirements and policies. Google however counter argued that China is not a democratic country and its decision to restrict access or limit access to information is in consonance to the policy of the Chinese government which adheres to communist ideals. Hence, instead of displaying information that “page is unavailable,” it rather explained that “information is not available due to Chinese law” (Google, 2006). As such it can be inferred that Google is practicing moral relativity by restricting information or by censoring anti-Chinese websites and thus have aided the populace to gain better access to information with great values. Google’s search engine is customized in accordance to traditional business ethical standards in China to regulate values that are inherent to information that are surfed and accessed in websites. Liberal information users however misconstrued this Googles’ business ethics in China as irreverent to its generally adopted moral standards in other nations and that the company is counter productive of its vow to produce unrestricted and unlimited information as a leading search engine of internet database. They argued that such censorship reneged from its primary obligation and therefore, the company lacked ethical considerations to satisfy the needs of its consumers. There were those who specially used the universal theory of liberty, freedom and right to information to extinguish external control, interference and policy restrictions to enable them to access information free from the regulation of Chinese government (Pratt, 1991). For them, these are essential for human growth; hence, they felt they are berated as responsible user of internet information and criticized Chinese national policy on internet use as anti-democratic (Pratt, 1991). This critic however was immediately retorted as disrespectful, insensitive to Chinese rules and brazenly arrogant for Google to introduce radical reform on Chinese policy relating to censorship. It adheres to its corporate decision to respect existing rules and regulations in China while pursuing its business interests to maximize the leverage to gain share and profit (Dean, 2010; Pearson & Entrekin, 2001). . Albeit its position, Google was steadfast too in considering all these criticisms, American officials likewise explored the potentiality of drafting laws that would restrict or limit the compliance of internet companies on censorship within communist nation (Weinstein, 2006; Pratt, 1991; Adler, 1997). They recognize that while their universally adopted principles were compromised in communist country, yet it has positioned itself in a distinct advantage because the same rule were applied to other competitors of Google and yet they still expect Google to lead the changes (Bennett, Aston, & Colquhoun, 2000; Budhwar & Baruch, 2003). Conclusion Experts mentioned that there were more than 30 million gmail accounts in China and about 30% log to google per week among 340 million internet users (Zhu, Bhat, & Nel, 2005; Adair, Brett, & Okumura, 2001). Censorship in the long ran would not be healthy for Google consumers. But albeit these pressures from legislators and consumers to remove restrictions, the Google employees ought to practice multicultural understanding and appreciate diversity of thoughts and system to ensure rationalized mechanisms to gain competitive leverage in conducting business as leading SEO company (Lane, DiStafano & Maznevski, 2000; van Nimwegen, Soeters, & van Luijk, 2004). They ought to be trained and educated on the opportunities offered by cultural diversity, albeit experiential restrictions. References Bartlett, Christopher, and Sumantra Ghoshal (1987). Managing Across Borders: New Organizational Responses, Sloan Management Review (Fall) Bartlett, Christopher, and Sumantra Ghoshal (1989). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Beamish, Paul W. & Inkpen, Andrew(1987). Knowledge, Bargaining Power and the Instability of International Joint Ventures. Academy of Management Review, Vol 22, No 177-208. Doz, Yves, Christopher Bartlett, and C.K. Prahalad (1981). Global Competitive Pressures vs. Host Country Demands: Managing Tensions in Multinational Corporations, California Management Review 23 (3): 63-74. Dunning, John (1992). The Competitive Advantage of Countries and the Activities of Transnational Corporations, Transnational Corporations. 1(1) (February), pp. 135-168. Levitt, Theodore (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review 61(3) (May-June 1983), pp. 92-102. Lane, H; DiStafano, J; Maznevski, M. (2000), International management Corporate social behavior in a global economy in International management behavior: text, readings, and cases, Blackwell Press, p423-445. Porter, Michael (1987). Changing Patterns of International Competition. In The Competitive Challenge. Edited by D. J. Teece. Cambridge: Ballinger. Porter, Michael (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press. Prahalad, C.K., and Yves Doz (1987). The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision. New York: The Free Press. Volvo (1995). Internationalization Project: Business Organization and Processes. Connick,. Wendy (2011). Opposing Viewpoints: Moral Universalism versus Moral relativism http://www.tailoredcontent.com/library/metaethics.php. Accessed: September 20, 2011. Google, 2011. Company Overview. http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/index.html. Retrieved September 18, 2011. Weinsteion, Lauren (2006). Google’s Search Query Log Battle vs. China Censoring—Perception Matter! http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000167.html. Accessed. September 20, 2011. Weinsteion, Lauren (2006). Google, China and Ethics. http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000180.html Accessed: September, 20, 2011. Dean, Jason (2010). Ethicla conflicts for Firms in China. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126335402591827235.html. Accessed: September 20, 2011. Adler, N. (1997). Do Cultural Differences Affect the Organisation? in International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour (2nd ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp.39-59. Bennett, R., Aston, A. and Colquhoun (2000) Cross-cultural training: A critical step in ensuring the success of international assignments, Human Resource Management, summer/fall, 39 (2-3), pp.239-249. Budhwar, P.S. & Baruch, Y. (2003) Career management practices in India: an empirical study,  International Journal of Manpower, 24(6): 69-719. Lane, H., DiStafano, J. & Maznevski, M. (2000). Corporate social behavior in a global economy: competing with integrity in International Management Behavior: text, readings, and cases (4th ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Business, pp.423-445.  van Nimwegen, T., Soeters, J. & van Luijk, H. (2004) Managing values and ethics in an international bank, in International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(1), pp.101-121 Zhu, Y., Bhat, R. & Nel, P. (2005) Building business relationships: A preliminary study of business executives’ views, in Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 12(3), pp.63 84. Adair, W., Brett, J.M. and Okumura, T (2001) 'Negotiation behaviour when cultures collide: The United States and Japan', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 86, No 3, pp 371-385. Pearson, C. & Entrekin, L. (2001) ‘Cross-cultural value sets of Asian managers: The comparative cases of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore’, in Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), pp.79-92. Pratt, D.D. (1991) ‘Conceptions of self within China and the United States: Contrasting foundations for adult education’, in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol.15, Issue 3,  pp.285-310 Read More