Explain the theories of convergence, divergence and crossvergence
https://ilokabenneth.blogspot.com/2014/10/explain-theories-of-convergence.html
Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 15-October-2014
Explain the theories of
convergence, divergence and crossvergence
In
any given system, knowledge is essential when the role it plays towards
increased performance and competitive advantage are measured. Researchers have
made known that the min motivating factor for MNEs’ decision to expand their
business abroad is because of the opportunity it allows them to access new
knowledge as well as transfer such knowledge across its firms with the
potential of boosting their human resources (Bjorkman, Stahl and Vaara, 2007; Ranft and Lord, 2002). In any case, it should be noted that
differences in culture does influence the process through which such knowledge
are being shared between headquarters and its subsidiaries.
In
the disadvantage theory, Ralston et al. (1997) made known that any given system
will have to drop its own value in order to fully adopt the values of other
systems (which is normally the system of the headquarter). Thus, this will
result to new issues in reference to both systems as a result of the
difficulties associated with dropping in inbuilt values as well as adopting a
totally different one (Weber et al., 1996).
Still
on the ideas of Ralston et al. (1997), the theory of convergence described by
the authors stated that convergence in the organizational sense is used to
imply that differing values existing in the system is combined to become one.
This means that the absence of convergence will result to complexity of
relationship between headquarters and subsidiaries as a result of differences
in values and it will bring about different ways for sharing information within
the system (Etzioni, 1961; Ouchi, 1980; Selznick, 1965).
As
defined by Ralston et al. (1997), the theory of convergence deals with the
development of new unique cultures, values and beliefs in any given system, and
it can sometimes contradicts with the old values. This means that the
headquarter and its subsidiary will need to drop their previous organizational
or national values and cultures in order to develop new one that will guide
their present business operations. Similar with the theory of social community (Etzioni,
1961; Ouchi, 1980; Selznick, 1965), there is the lack of high potentials for
convergence and this will result to complexities in relationship between the
headquarter and subsidiaries as a result of differences in the value of the
system.
How is this theoretical framework
similar to or different from other cross-cultural management frameworks which
you have studied in this module?
The
above theoretical frameworks does fall in line with that of localization,
globalization and glocaliation. In the approach of localization, it is the
company that brings it values to converge with that of local values of its
subsidiary when they are in a foreign market.
In
the globalization sense, the subsidiary and headquarter drop their individual
values in order to create a crossvergent values that it will adopt across its
subsidiaries independent of the market or county (more like a new global way of
business standardization).
On
the other note, globalization can be viewed as the divergence of subsidiaries
from their normal values (which is the values they had before acquisition) to
values of the headquarter (which occurs after successful acquisition).
Which theoretical framework(s)
would you apply when considering how to bring about more effective integration
with subsidiaries and minimize risk for headquarters?
As
a result of the differences in cultures, there is a need to pay attention to
dynamism involved in integrating a business process and this does include
physical, procedural and cultural integrations (Shrivastava, 1986).
As
such, I will apply the framework of convergence because this does have the
potential of increasing the level of knowledge transfer and also aid in the
establishment of common value system (Etzioni, 1961; Ouchi, 1980; Selznick,
1965). The main reason for this is because different cultures are being
combined to form a common cultures which is built around the values established
by these cultures. The convergence framework also has an advantage over
divergence (since there is no need for any system to totally drop their values
and adopt the values of another system) and crossvergence (as the systems
involved will still retain their own values while also learning from the values
of their partner system).
References
Bjorkman, 1., Stahl, G., and Vaara, E. (2007),
Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The
mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social
integration. Journal of International
Business Studies, 38 (4): 658-672.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of the
complex organization. New York: Free Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980), Market, bureaucracies, and
clans. Administrative Society Quarterly, 25 (1): 129-141.
Ralaston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H., and
Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997). The impact of national cultures and economic ideology on
managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China.
Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (1): 177-207.
Ranft, A., and Lord, M. (2002), Acquiring new
technologies and capabilities: A grounded model of acquisition implementation.
Organization Science, 13 (4): 420-441.
Selznick, P. (1965). RVA and the grass roots. New
York: Harper Torchbooks.
Shrivastava, P. (1986). Post-merger integration.
Journal of Business Strategy, 7 (1): 65-76.
Weber, Y., Shenkar, O., and Raveh, A. (1996).
National and corporate cultural fit in mergers/acquisitions: An exploratory
study. Management Science, 42 (8): 1215-1227.