Dr. Daryl D. Green

Will Father’s Day Be Different for Black America: Saving Our Sons from Destruction?

/ nuleadership / Leave a comment

saving-our-sons-graphic-cover-2013

When I wrote my book, A Call to Destiny: How to Create Effective Ways to Assist Black Boys in America, my co-author and I were able to analyze what was happening to young black boys in America.  We found some troubling trends. Without any intervention, young black boys, regardless of their social class, will not survive in the 21st century. 

With Father’s Day approaching the nation, the adequacy of fathers will eventually be dissected by media pundits and culture experts.  There are 26.4 million fathers in a traditional family environment. Yet, one of the biggest tragedies and failures of our society is the neglect of millions of black males in America that are failing in life.  One of the key problems is the abandonment of black fathers to take care of their parenting responsibilities. Over 70% of black children live with a single mother. 

The storyline for black boys is frightening. From the low social condition of black boys, it is easy to understand that every major institution has failed them and allowed to them to become the prey of urban culture. Young black males lead every negative statistic you can imagine. They have the worst test scores, the highest drop-out rates, and highest unemployment statistics. While they may fail in school, they become more successful in America’s prison system.

Reggie Jenkins, founder/director of UUNIK Academy of Tennessee, notes, “We are in a state of emergency.” While individuals may find black males missing in honors classes in most high schools, you can be assured that they will make up most of the special education students. For most involved black parents, the problems with their sons happen regardless of socioeconomic standing.

Parents must deal with the calls for medication, special education placement, or holding their child back. Many boys lack any meaningful male involvement.Therefore, an emergency call must go out to fathers! Act now or we will all regret it!  Ryan Bomb was born to a biological mother who was the victim of rape; he was adopted as an infant into a family of 13 children. 

The adoption was a positive force. In order to combat the fatherlessness, he created the Radiance Foundation.  He notes, “We’re calling out men for shirking their responsibilities.  This is not a blame game on women.  This is all of our responsibilities.”

Last month, President Barack Obama spoke at the Commencement Address at Morehouse College and attempted to speak the issues of personal responsibility for young men. President Obama cautioned them about the common issues that some men make: “We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices…Growing up, I made quite a few myself. Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. I had a tendency sometimes to make excuses for me not doing the right thing. But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years, is there’s no longer any room for excuses.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH7L6DJHRXo

America is in trouble as it witnesses millions of fathers missing from today’s homes. The black community is no exception.  Unfortunately, there are unintended consequences when men don’t take ownership or personal responsibility for being a father. 

Despite all of the government and social support available, today’s children still need a strong male role model in their homes.If we allow black boys to become an endangered species, we will be laying the foundation for all American children to eventually suffer the same fate. We must hold on to the hope that things will get better for them.

However, if good people decide to do nothing in the face of this impending danger, it will be a fatal mistake. If so-please forgive us, young brothers, for not saving you. Rest in Peace (RIP) or live.

Please share your opinion about this subject. 

© 2013 by Daryl D. Green

Dealing With Superficial People

/ nuleadership / 2 Comments

superficial-1

Who wants to work with shallow people?  Most people want to interact with individuals who have a solid core of values. In fact, can you imagine being in an intimate relationship with a superficial individual. It’s not a good thought. 

You like that person, but the superficial nature of that person is a barrier to any genuine relationship. This situation is a case where actions speak louder than words.  You see them saying the right words and attempting to do the right things. 

However, sooner or later, their superficial disposition comes out, and you can’t believe they are that way.  If you were honest with yourself, you knew that person was pretty hollow in the beginning, but you didn’t want to accept it.  

First, there are no physical characteristics that can identify a superficial person. In many organizations, teamwork is the way to accomplish my tasks.  Richard Daft, author of Management, notes the connectedness of teams:  “When people become part of a team, their success depends on the team’s success; therefore, they must depend on how well other people perform, not just on their own individual initiative and actions.”[1] 

Consequently, the best leaders want the right folks on their teams.  Clearly, shallow people come in all shapes and sizes. They have varying backgrounds. They live in every community. However, these people all have a common characteristic: They are externally-driven. This article explores the dynamics of building relationships and the nature of superficial people. 

When an individual understands the nature of genuine relationships, they will be able to foster better relationships with family, friends, co-workers, and loved ones. 

Second, an individual’s character still counts in fostering meaningful relationships in spite of power or material wealth. Leaders set the tone in most organizations. 

Gareth Jones and Jennifer George, authors of Contemporary Management, agree with this premise: “Managers determine and shape organizational culture through the kinds of values and norms they promote in an organization.”[2]  Therefore, superficial leaders often surround themselves with superficial followers which are problematic at best.

Superficial people care little about the value of other people, so they focus on themselves, always thinking, “What is in it for me?”  Because shallow individuals are constantly trying to make the world conform to them, they focus little on building good personal content. 

England’s best-known preacher Charles Spurgeon once noted, “A good character is the best tombstone. Those who loved you and were helped by you will remember you when forget-me-nots have withered. Carve your name on hearts, not on marble.” 

Shallow people are often distracted with other things besides good character. Some chase money. Others chase power or fame. Unfortunately, these things lack much substance.  Like eating frosting on a cake, these people never get a nutritious meal to promote a healthy spirit. Yes, the frosting provides a short-term boost in life, but it is not lasting.  Therefore, superficial people spend little time on good content. 

In the frantic pace of modern living, many people are in the pursuit of the wrong possessions.  The media bombards us with the notion that “We deserve it all.”  When this philosophy is believed, it creates a generation of inwardly focused people. We become a “Me” generation.

Because this person feels he is entitled to be happy, he focuses on what can make him happy now.  Obviously, it is far easier to pursue things (money, power, right clique, etc.) in terms of happiness because they are tangible to the eyes.  However, this short path is not a road to fortune, but perhaps a highway to destruction.  

If you are in relationships with superficial person, you can be assured that your intimacy will lack any significant depth. Your relationship may feel like the real thing, but over time the truth usually will reveal itself.  How does an individual then seek to surround themselves with people of good content?  In addressing this question, here are some things to consider in any relationship:

Finally, building true relationships is dependent on the right idiosyncrasies.  An individual’s character is more important than what he or she brings in terms of assets. Sadly, some people do not have this deepness of character.

They exist on the shallow end of the spectrum; they rarely make serious relationships. Why is this factor the case? These people are more concerned with what’s on the outside of an individual than what is on the inside. Clearly, this is a mistake.  Real individuals want quality, meaningful relationships and are unwilling to settle for less. 

Discuss your experience with superficial people.

 © 2013 by Daryl D. Green                                    

 

[1]Management by Richard Daft

[2] Contemporary Management by Gareth Jones and Jennifer George

 

The Human Factor

/ nuleadership / 13 Comments

man-fingers-crossed

Businesses that don’t under the value of their human capital resources are in error.  In spite of the power of technology and automation, it takes people power to make business operations work.  Failing to understand this reality will leave an organization vulnerable to their competition. This week we will cover human factor buy-in, the last element in socio-technical systems.  

Organizations must shift their paradigm to viewing workers as more than mechanical parts for their organizational objectives. Gareth Jones and Jennifer George, authors of Contemporary Management, maintain that managers have a responsibility to effectively oversee their human resources which includes the people involved in the creation and distribution of goods and services. [1] Given this reality, the ability of managers to leverage their talent is crucial.  

Talent management is the process through which employers anticipate and meet the needs for human capital.[2]  Peter Cappelli, author of Talent Management, explains how mismanaging employees in organizations is problematic for an organization’s sustainable success:  “The failures in talent management includes mismatches between  supply and demand on the one hand, having too many employees, leading to layoffs and restructuring, and on the other hand, having too little talent, leading to talent shortage. [3] 

In the United States, talent management miscues fall into the following categories:  (a) Do Nothing Mode – makes no attempt to anticipate human resource needs and develops no plans for addressing them and (b) Reactive Mode – relies on outside hiring to meet human capital needs, but this approach has begun to fail now that the surplus of management talent has eroded. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTMs3hp-LFU

Trust is the cornerstone of any meaningful relationships in organizations.  Yet, many employees do not trust their organizations due to the lack of employment security in most companies.  According to a USA Today poll, nearly half of those interviewed said that corporations can be trusted only a little, or not at all, when it involves looking out for the best interest of employees.[4] 

Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson, authors of Leadership: A Communication Perspectives, argue that a leader’s credibility is directly related to the quality of his relationship with followers.[5] Marios Katsioloudes, a researcher specializing in Socio-technical analysis, explains that as profitability of mechanization increases, the importance of technology is implied while there is a devaluation of the workers. U.S. businesses cannot point to the lack of employee performance on a global front for mismanagement errors.[6]

Japan, a long-time benchmark for American companies, is being defeated by American employees; today, the average U.S. worker puts in 36 more hours per year than Japanese workers (1,825 vs. 1,789). 

Over the last two decades, balancing work and home life have been difficult since Americans have added 200 hours to their annual work schedule.[7] Employees want to be valued. 

Jeffrey Pfeffer, author of The Human Equation, acknowledges that organization success is directly related to implementation, and this capacity comes from the workers, how they are treated, their skills, and their efforts as it relates to the organization.[8] 

Leaders should see followers as more than mechanical parts for their organizational objectives. Managers assume that giving employees new technology is enough to keep them happy. Likewise, leaders should view followers as a vital component of the socio-technical system. 

Discuss the concept of human factor buy-in for today’s organizations.

 © 2013 by Daryl D. Green                                    

 

[1] Contemporary Management by Gareth Jones and Jennifer George

[2] Talent Management by Peter Cappelli

[3] Talent Management by Peter Cappelli

[4] “Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[5] Leadership: A Communication Perspectives by Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson

[6] “Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[7] “Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[8] The Human Equation by Jeffrey Pfeffer

 

Technology Relevancy

/ nuleadership / 5 Comments

Components of Technology

We can’t survive without technology.  Are we too dependent on it?  When the computer network is down in our office, it’s a pretty wasted day because we are paperless.  Yet, you won’t find many modern organizations that can operate when their technology malfunctions. 

This week we will focus on technology relevancy as part of the three practical applications (i.e. value modeling, technology relevancy, and human factor buy-in) in socio-technical systems.  

Organizations must understand that technology needs to be relevant as it relates to benefiting the whole socio-technical system.  Technology relates to the combination of skills and equipment that managers use in the design, production, and distribution of goods and services.[1]   

Gareth Jones and Jennifer George, authors of Contemporary Management, argue the significance of technology forces on organizations:  “Technological forces can have profound implications for managers and organizations. Technological change can make established products obsolete….”  The graveyard of many businesses is littered with numerous failed opportunities of senior executives to understand market shifts and technology opportunities.   

As an engineer myself, we are taught to use theory in order to build, design, and operate technical systems, whether mechanical, digital, or otherwise. Sometimes this creates a technical superiority over the other components of this socio-technical system. 

Organizations should obtain input from employees to ensure that the organization has not only the best technology for its operations but the right technology.[2]  This sharing of information can only come with mutual trust of leaders and followers.  Gary Yukl, author of Leadership in Organizations, notes, “Empowerment is more feasible when there is a high level of mutual trust…Leaders can affect the psychological employment of followers in many ways, and participative leadership and delegation are only two of the relevant behaviors .”[3] 

There have been numerous cases where organizations have purchased new technology to solve a problem or to become more efficient when a simple conversation with impacted employees would have produced better results at a lower cost. Therefore, organizations should invest their time in identifying the relevant technologies for their socio-technical system in a participatory manner.    

Discuss the concept of technology relevancy for today’s organizations. 

© 2013 by Daryl D. Green                                    

[1] Jones, G.  & George, J. (2009). Contemporary Management

[2] “Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[3]Leadership in Organizations by Gary Yukl

 

 

Value Modeling

/ nuleadership / 7 Comments

justice-symbol

Last week, we started the discussion about socio-technical systems and its impact on today’s organizations.   In the next few weeks, we will address three practical applications (i.e. value modeling, technology relevancy, and human factor buy-in).  Understanding value modeling is a critical attribute that managers need to acquire in times of uncertainty and high risks.  Effective leadership becomes the hallmark of high performing organizations. 

Organizations must model its values to both first-line supervisors and managers in a socio-technical system.  However, it won’t happen without good leadership.  Leadership is defined as the ability to influence others toward a shared objective or goal. 

Dr. Richard Daft explains that today’s employers are looking for authentic leaders who understand them, act consistent with high ethical standards, and empowers others with their openness and candor.  Dr. Daft argues, “To be authentic means being real, staying true to one’s values and beliefs, and acting based on one’s true self rather than emulating what others do.”

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2SKTP43oRQ

Yet, some organizations expect employees to understand its culture, its values, and its principles by attending new employee orientation or by reading a company brochure. This is simply not the case. Vince Adams, who has over 20 years as an environmental manager, understands delicacy of balancing a socio-technical system.

Adams has extensive experiences with both government and private organizations that are finding themselves neglecting to outline and demonstrate its value systems to employees.[1] Adams states, “Companies must build values into their employees so that employees know what the expectations are for that organization.”

James Kouzes and Barry Posner, authors of The Leadership Challenge, have researched several thousand businesses and government executives and they outline setting the example as a critical attribute of an effective leadership.[2] Kouzes and Posner argue, “Once people are clear about the leader’s values, about their own values, and about shared values, they know what’s expected of them and can better handle the conflicting demands of work and personal affairs.”  Therefore, employees expect leaders in organizations to model these values in their organizations, and this is also true for socio-technical systems. 

Discuss the concept of value modeling for today’s leaders. 

© 2013 by Daryl D. Green                                    

 

[1]“Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[2] The Leadership Challenge by James Kouzes and Barry Posner

 

Mapping Out Socio-Technical Systems

/ nuleadership / 13 Comments

human-vs-robot-09

Another problem is presented. A worker gets injured on a subcontractor’s project. We gather around the table to dish out the blame. Everyone wants to point fingers. The project manager blames inadequate funding while the safety engineer cites an ineffective preplanning process. Nothing gets resolved. The issue moves up the line for a senior management decision. There’s a meeting to discuss the matter.  

Someone leads out and says, “What can be done to prevent this problem?” Numerous technical recommendations are offered. Standing up, I state, “Why don’t we ask the workers about this problem? Let’s get them involved so that they can help find the solution.”

The room gets quiet. Finally, one senior manager suggests that we should take money away from the subcontractor, buy new technology, and fire the worker’s supervisor. Everyone agrees. After dealing with this same problem every month, I was hoping for a different answer. I was disappointed again.[1] 

Why do we see managers make the same mistakes over and over and never want the day-to-day workers involved in the process? Executives are then shocked when their employees don’t buy-in on their latest management initiative. One of the reasons organizations do not reach peak performance is because managers do not create socio-technical systems to support organizational values.

With fierce global competition and a need for a market advantage, I found it surprising that managers move toward the quick fixes like downsizing for short term gain without analyzing the organization over the long-term. I am not suggesting that this approach is easy; however, I am declaring that over the long haul, an organization will become a stronger institution in the process. [2]  

The concept of socio-technical systems is very important in a highly competitive environment. Socio-technical systems relate to the reciprocal interrelationship between humans and machines. In fact, the idea explores how both the technical and the social conditions of work interact with efficiency and the human condition.[3]

This interaction satisfies each, but does not compromise the other.  Since the industrial age, researchers have recognized that both technical and social factors impact organizational performance.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOePJH7LYZ4

Daniel Wren, author of The Evolution of Management Thought, concludes that analyzing a social system gives management an avenue to measure conflict between the “logic of efficiency” demanded  by the formal organization and  the “logic by sentiments” by the informal organization.[4]

In profit hunting, many businesses lose focus of the importance of socio-technical systems. Given precepts, the questions for most managers becomes how to use this scholarly perspective in the practitioner’s avenue where time is money and money is time.  In the following weeks, we will address three practical applications (i.e. value modeling, technology relevancy, and human factor buy-in) so that socio-technical systems within organizations can support its organizational values. 

Discuss the concept of socio-technical systems in today’s organizations.

 

© 2013 by Daryl D. Green                                                       

 

[1] “Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[2] “Leading others while supporting organizational values” by Daryl D. Green

[3] “Philosophy of socio-technical systems” by Gunter Ropohl

[4] The Evolution of Management Thought by Daniel Wren

 

Capping Mediocre Performance

/ nuleadership / 11 Comments

Yelling-boss

Today’s organizations carry a desire to promote the concepts of high performance teams.  Yet, few managers are willing to put in the work to make this happen. According to Merriam-Webster Online, mediocre is defined as ‘of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance.’ The concept of mediocre is synonymous with being average or ordinary.  What individual worth his salt wants to be called mediocre? 

Employers know how to deal with troublemakers in the organization or poor performers.  However, how does an organization get rid of a person who is average?  Who is willing only to do enough to keep his or her job?  Perhaps, mediocre performance is generated by the lack of trust among workers.  In 2010, a Right Management study of over 4,000 employees in the U.S. showed a problem with employee trust in in their organization.

Over 57% occasionally trusted their managers to make the right decisions.  In fact, three quarters of all employees surveys had a low trust factor toward their managers.  Why should they trust their supervisors?

Today’s American workers are one of the most effective workforces across the global when the gauge is high productivity.  These workers are often greeted with deflating wages and threats of outsourcing of their jobs or company layoffs. Lee Ozley, management advisor, has been watching mediocre performance over the years as a consultant for businesses.  He has been amazed at how senior managers allow mediocre performance to continue in their organizations: “When I then get to know some of the ‘mediocre’ performers, it is not too difficult to determine what they believe to be the perception of the boss regarding their performance.”

Why don’t bosses care enough about their colleagues to ‘tell it like it is?’ Even organizations with fairly sophisticated performance appraisal systems seem to have the same problem – people simply don’t know where they stand. How can an employee be expected to continuously improve if their boss won’t level with them?” Therefore, setting expectations and having a method to ensure compliance is critical.

Richard Daft, author of Management, argues the importance of management involvement in creating higher performance: “All managers have to pay attention to costs, but severe cost cutting to improve efficiency can sometimes hurt organizational effectiveness. The ultimate responsibility of managers is to achieve high performance….” 

However, some organizations fail to understand that people are not like other resources. People can think and make different choices. Companies attempted to put their evaluations of their performance on autopilot with little regard of the individual employees. 

Yet, Gareth Jones and Jennifer George, authors of Contemporary Management, argue that any performance appraisal should include meaningful feedback to employees:  “For the appraisal and feedback component of a human resource management system to encourage and motivate high performance, managers must provide their subordinates with feedback.”  However, employees are not fool with concerns by managers.  Organizations need to build an engaging corporate culture that stimulates outstanding achievement instead of cynical employees who have mediocre performance. 

Discuss the concept of mediocre employee performance in organizations.

 © 2013 by Daryl D. Green                                    

 

Opting Out: How to Increase Worker Satisfaction

/ nuleadership / 19 Comments

baby-boomers-finances-050212

Many managers are clueless.  Some bosses think because employees have a job despite the  financial crisis, employees should be happy.  When the pressures of globalizations are upon American businesses, companies need workers to achieve high performance.

In my book, Breaking Organizational Ties: How to Have a More Fulfilled Life in Your Current Job, I researched and tracked the growing discontentment of some employees about their job situation. In fact, U.S. employee satisfaction is at a 20 year low.

Most employees do not trust their senior leadership to guide the  organization with their employees in mind.  Furthermore, cost cutting of  professional training and education and the lack of vertical advancement in organizations are creating a growing number of unhappy workers. Given these organizational constraints, employees seek to opt out by giving the organization the least amount of performance in order to keep their jobs.

Since the economic downturn, some employees are dissatisfied  with professional growth and career advancements in their jobs.  Gareth Jones and Jennifer George, authors of Contemporary Management, note that managers need to be mindful how they make decisions that affect employees.

Downsizing and outsourcing are a way of life for most organizations.  However, many times low morale in these organizations is  attributed to how employees are treated in this process.  Jones and George further suggest that managers should show compassion and empathy for layoff victims, by providing  employees with as much advance notice as possible about the layoff, and giving  clear information about severance benefits.

After the layoff, they can  also assist layoff victims in their job search efforts. These are a few of the ways in which managers can humanely manage a layoff. Richard Daft, author of Management, explains the importance of motivating employees:  “One secret for success in organizations is motivated and engaging employees. Most people begin a new job with energy and enthusiasm, but employees can lose their drive if managers fail their role as motivators.”

Therefore, managers need to inspire followers to minimize the number of individuals who ‘opt out’ in organizations.  Employees play a critical role in determining if they will ‘opt out.’ Marsha Sinetar, author of Do What You Love, The Money Will Follow, notes that the lingering consequences of employees who only work to obtain a paycheck: “Most of us think about our jobs or our careers as a means to fulfill responsibilities to families and creditors, to gain more material comforts, and to achieve status and recognition. But we pay a high price for this kind of thinking.”

Yet, if organizations are to be successful, they can’t afford their workers to be ‘opting out’ and providing less than superior performance against the backdrop of global forces. 

Discuss how managers can inspire employees toward greater job satisfaction.

© 2013 by Daryl D. Green

 

Solving the Sustainability Puzzle

/ nuleadership / 8 Comments

sustainability-boy-world

Gridlock can often derail sturdy locomotives when all the leaders are driving it in different directions.  The Federal government is no exception.  Political in-fighting is the game of the day.  President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address this month which earned mixed reviews depending on their party affiliation. 

Yet, many politicians recognize that America’s massive financial debt isn’t sustainable.   The latest crisis involves sequestration which requires automatic cuts across the government, including defense and domestic programs based on a specific deadline.

 According to a recent George Mason University study, over 2.14 million American jobs would be lost if sequestration took place.  The original concept of sequestration was to create an artificial doomsday that would force both political parties to work together.  It didn’t work!

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky made a plea for deep spending cuts and congressional term limits:  “The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of the nation.” 

If the federal government, with its massive resources, is  unable to deal with the issues of sustainability, what hope do other smaller organizations have then?  “Instead of negotiating, party leaders were busy issuing ultimatums and casting blame,” noted Washington Post columnist Lori Montgomery.

With the ever increasing chaos and complicity of business operations to achieve a profit, the concept of sustainability becomes more than an Ivy League Business School buzz word.  The speed of change and the constant bombardment of market problems continue to haunt business executives who hope to survive another crisis situation.

Organizations that do not understand this necessity soon find themselves looking at the behinds of other organizations that are in front of them. In order to survive, today’s business leaders need to understand the market environment, recognize their strengths, pursue market opportunities, and obtain continuing profitability while taking a long-view perspective of their operations to achieve sustainability.

More and more organizations recognize that sustainability is more than keeping the environment clean.  Yet, the concept of sustainability is often difficult to define. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sustainability is defined as “everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment.” 

Consequently, one person may view sustainability simply as the ability to use resources continuously without any long-term depletion.  Andres Edwards, author of The Sustainability Revolution, breakdowns sustainability in several  key components which are  ecology/environment, economy/employment, equity/equality, and education.

Some businesses executives quietly argue that profitability supercedes many other priorities such as the environment.  Edwards disagrees: “Creating a healthy environment, free of pollution and toxic waste, and simultaneously providing the basic for a dynamic economy that will endure for an extended period are viewed as complementary rather than conflicting endeavors.”

 However, are there many things that are possible to be sustained without proper planning for them?  In order for businesses to avoid these conflicts of interest between capitalism and the sustainability model, visionary leaders must communicate their expectations to all members of their organizations and throughout their supply chain. 

Discuss the concepts of sustainability as it relates to your profession.

© 2013 by Daryl D. Green

Today’s Strategic Alliances

/ nuleadership / 13 Comments

handshakes-business

If you want to survive on the international scene, you had better develop a well connected supply chain.  Yet, businesses need to properly align with organizations that have the same ethical system and create value in the relationship.  This reality speaks to the nature of strategic alliances. 

With the sudden emergence of countries like China, Brazil, and India, there is a new emerging demand from consumers across the globe.  These newer countries are strategically positioning themselves to change Western civilization and America’s Super Power status.  

Antoine van Agtmael, author of The Emerging Markets Century, argues that these emerging countries are not a fad but a wave of things to come in the near future:   “Instead of being peripheral, as they have been since the first Industrial Revolution, key economies of the former Third World will soon re-emerge as the dominant economies of the future.”  

In fact, he notes that these emerging countries’ economies are growing at a rate nearly twice as fast as developed countries such as the United States and its Western allies. 

Gareth Jones and Jennifer George, authors of Contemporary Management, explain about the positives and negatives of entering global markets:  “As we have discussed, a more competitive global environment has proved to be both an opportunity and a threat for organizations and managers.” 

Businesses must build relationships that minimize their risks in global markets.   According to some estimates, these emerging markets will be nearly twice as large as the current developed economies.  Antoine van Agtmael suggests a different business shift:  “A new breed of companies will play a critical role in producing this shift; a select number of which truly deserve to be regarded as world class.” 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgfwzPRyVvw 

Strategic alliance is defined ‘as an agreement in which managers pool or share their organization’s resources and know-how with a foreign company, and how organizations share the rewards and risks of starting a new venue.’  However, these relationships must make sense over the long-term in order to sustain any meaningful value. High performing organizations cannot afford to misfire with the wrong strategic alliances.  Consequently, good organizations need to be deliberate in forging the right relationships in a global market.

 Discuss the concepts of strategic alliances in a global market.

 © 2013 by Daryl D. Green