Converging Commonality and Business Strategy

Cite this
Select Style: Har­vard, APA, or MLA
Har­vard Style Cita­tion
Peter Pre­vos 2008, ‘Con­ver­ging Com­mon­al­ity and Busi­ness Strategy’, hypotheticorp.org, web­log post, accessed 5 Feb­ru­ary 2012, <http://hypotheticorp.org/wp/research/essays/convergence/>.
APA Style Cita­tion
Peter Pre­vos, (2008, Octo­ber 25). Con­ver­ging Com­mon­al­ity and Busi­ness Strategy [blog post]. Retrieved from http://hypotheticorp.org/wp/research/essays/convergence/
MLA Style Cita­tion
Peter Pre­vos. “Con­ver­ging Com­mon­al­ity and Busi­ness Strategy” hypotheticorp.org n.p., 25 Oct. 2008. Web. 5 Feb. 2012

It is often said that the world is becom­ing increas­ingly smal­ler. Whereas it used to take months to travel from Aus­tralia to Europe, the trip can now be under­taken in one day and elec­tronic com­mu­nic­a­tion enables people to instantly deliver mes­sages across the world. These changes in the “spa­tial and tem­poral con­tours” of exist­ence have reduced the sig­ni­fic­ance of space and cre­ated a glob­al­ised world (Sch­euer­man, 2008). Global move­ment of people, inform­a­tion and products has many implic­a­tions for stra­tegic plan­ning in an inter­na­tional corporation.

In the first part of this essay, the ques­tion whether the world is becom­ing homo­gen­eous from a mar­ket­ing per­spect­ive will be dis­cussed. The second part of the essay deals with the impact of homo­gen­eity on the nature of strategy for mul­tina­tional companies.

Theodore Levitt (1983) intro­duced the term ‘glob­al­isa­tion’ to man­age­ment dis­course. His cent­ral thesis is that a “power­ful force drives the world towards a con­ver­ging com­mon­al­ity” (Levitt, 1983, p. 92), allow­ing inter­na­tional busi­nesses to become global by stand­ard­ising their product and ser­vice offer­ing. Con­ver­gence of con­sumer needs and wants is caused a pro­let­ar­isa­tion of com­mu­nic­a­tion, trans­port of goods and travel — increased wealth and greater tech­no­lo­gical effi­ciency enables more people to enjoy cos­mo­pol­itan bene­fits, pre­vi­ously reserved for the upper classes.

Levitt wrote his thesis dur­ing the height of the Cold War, a time when the world was divided and people wished for a more uni­fied globe. Levitt pro­claimed a world were dif­fer­ences are dis­ap­pear­ing and that “no one is exempt and noth­ing can stop the pro­cess” (Levitt, 1983, p. 93). His eschat­o­lo­gical belief in a mono­cul­tural end-state for the whole of the globe gained prom­in­ence when the Iron Cur­tain was demol­ished and hopes for a uni­fied world were abound. Amer­ican philo­sopher Fran­cis Fukoy­ama (1992) even pro­claimed that the end of his­tory itself was nigh, with the world con­ver­ging towards a lib­eral democracy.

The rela­tion­ship between con­ver­ging com­mon­al­ity and tech­no­logy can be explained when look­ing at cul­ture from a sym­bolic inter­ac­tionst per­spect­ive where cul­ture is defined as a “sys­tem of shared mean­ings, atti­tudes and val­ues and the sym­bolic forms in which they are expressed” (te Boek­horst, Burke and Nijhof, 1992, p. 20). The sym­bols of cul­ture are trans­mit­ted through com­mu­nic­a­tion and with low threshold global com­mu­nic­a­tion, local cul­tural expres­sions have a global reach. It is this mech­an­ism that Levitt believed to cause the inev­it­able con­ver­gence of all cultures.

The import­ance of con­ver­gence to busi­ness is partly related to the role mater­ial objects play in cul­ture. Objects are import­ant sym­bols that express under­ly­ing val­ues. Fol­low­ing Goffman’s (1959) the­at­rical meta­phor, people require objects as ‘props’ for the social roles they play. People in pos­i­tions of power, for example, com­mu­nic­ate through cloth­ing and “hold their jobs partly because they look like exec­ut­ives, not because they can work like exec­ut­ives” (Goff­man, 1959, p. 55). Through inter­na­tional travel and world­wide com­mu­nic­a­tion, the image of the com­pany exec­ut­ive has been stand­ard­ised and the three-piece suite has become the world stand­ard for people in power­ful pos­i­tions. This is no more appar­ent when observing a meet­ing of the United Nations, a mul­ti­cul­tural organ­isa­tion, where almost every­body wears the same type of out­fit, instead of cloth­ing tra­di­tional to their respect­ive cultures.

On the other hand, increased global com­mu­nic­a­tion has also cre­ated a greater diversity in the mar­ket­place. Con­sumer are becom­ing more soph­ist­ic­ated because of the increased scope of com­mu­nic­a­tion, requir­ing a flex­ible and respons­ive strategy, instead of stand­ard­isa­tion (Stone­house et al., 2004). The exist­ence of con­ver­ging com­mon­al­it­ies in cer­tain mar­kets does, how­ever, not imply that cul­tures them­selves are con­ver­ging. One object can per­form sim­ul­tan­eous forms of social work and com­mu­nic­ate dif­fer­ent val­ues in dif­fer­ent con­texts. The iPod is an example of a fully stand­ard­ised product that is sold in exactly the same con­fig­ur­a­tion all over the world. The music people listen to is, how­ever, dif­fer­ent in every cul­ture. An Aus­tralian music con­nois­seur might listen to Nick Cave, while their Indian coun­ter­parts might prefer ‘Bol­ly­wood’ products and in Arab counties, Quran read­ings are more pop­u­lar. The mar­ket for elec­tronic music play­ers is, from a mar­ket­ing per­spect­ive, totally homo­gen­eous, but the under­ly­ing cul­tural val­ues are het­ero­gen­eous. Some research even sug­gests that coun­tries are diver­ging rather then con­ver­ging and that, des­pite recent devel­op­ments in com­mu­nic­a­tion and travel tech­no­logy, phys­ical prox­im­ity remains and import­ant factor in the sim­il­ar­it­ies between cul­tures (Craig, Douglas and Grein, 1992).

Con­ver­gence can, accord­ing to Levitt (1983), only occur when cor­por­a­tions ask people what they “want out of life”, rather then what product or ser­vice spe­cific­a­tions they prefer. This is in line with Levitt’s sem­inal paper in which he coined the term Mar­ket­ing Myopia for those organ­isa­tions that define their pro­duce or ser­vice offer­ing too thinly (Levitt, 1960). What people want out of life is largely determ­ined by psy­cho­logy, which is largely inde­pend­ent of cul­ture. The com­mon goals cited by Levitt are “alle­vi­ation of life’s bur­dens and the expan­sion of dis­cre­tion­ary time and spend­ing power” (Levitt, 1983, p. 100).

Levitt’s thesis of con­ver­ging com­mon­al­ity can be cri­ti­cised for sim­pli­fy­ing the com­plex­ity of inter­na­tional busi­ness. Although there are indeed sim­ilar needs between people, as sug­ges­ted by Maslow (1943), cul­tural char­ac­ter­ist­ics determ­ine the way people seek to sat­isfy these.

The need for inter­na­tional expan­sion of busi­ness activ­it­ies was recog­nised in the nine­teenth cen­tury by Marx and Engels (1990, p. 37), who argued that the imper­at­ives of cap­it­al­ism drives cor­por­a­tions to “settle every­where, and estab­lish con­nec­tions every­where”, pav­ing the way for a “uni­ver­sal inter­de­pend­ence of nations”, instead of “local and national seclu­sion and self-sufficiency”. In more recent schol­ar­ship, George Yip iden­ti­fied four spe­cific cat­egor­ies of drivers for glob­al­isa­tion, i.e. mar­ket, cost, gov­ern­ment and com­pet­it­ive drivers (Stone­house et al., 2004). Mar­ket drivers relate dir­ectly to Levitt’s thesis of con­ver­ging com­mon­al­ity and the cre­ation of global needs. The cost struc­ture of the product or ser­vice offer­ing can also drive glob­al­isa­tion in that indus­tries with a high fixed cost, such as car man­u­fac­tur­ing, have a tend­ency to be global in order to increase the mar­ket and poten­tial sales volume. Gov­ern­ment drivers relate to trade policies and tech­nical stand­ards and com­pet­it­ive glob­al­isa­tion drivers are cre­ated by the exist­ence of global com­pet­it­ors in a given market.

Busi­nesses employ­ing a global strategy gen­er­ally oper­ate in mar­kets with low pres­sures for local respons­ive­ness and high pres­sures to min­im­ise cost. The low pres­sure for local respons­ive­ness allows for a large eco­nom­ies of scale because one stand­ard product can be offered to a large global mar­ket. The large size of a global mar­ket also gives greater bar­gain­ing power to buy­ers, which puts down­ward pres­sure on prices and thus cost lead­er­ship is an import­ant aspect of an organ­isa­tion seek­ing a global strategy (Hill, Jones and Galvin, 2004). How­ever, as argued above, there are only few mar­kets where there is no need for local respons­ive­ness and customisation.

Stone­house et al. (2004, p. 308) argue that if the thesis of con­ver­ging com­mon­al­ity is true, then this would remove “the need for mar­ket seg­ment­a­tion and product pos­i­tion­ing strategies” and stand­ard­ised products could be sold world­wide. But, as there are import­ant dif­fer­ences between cul­tures, as illus­trated by the model pro­posed by Hofs­tede (1983), the con­ver­gence hypo­thesis is not true. Levitt does, how­ever, not argue that global com­pan­ies only offer a single product to a single mar­ket. Seg­ment­a­tion is a cent­ral mar­ket­ing strategy in a global eco­nomy, but the seg­ments them­selves are transna­tional. A par­tic­u­lar seg­ment in one coun­try will have “close cous­ins” else­where in the world (Levitt, 1983, p. 94). Global com­pan­ies need to make dis­tinc­tions and adjust­ments in dif­fer­ent mar­kets. McDonald’s is a com­pany that employs an inter­na­tional strategy that incor­por­ates local respons­ive­ness, offer­ing the same core products world-wide, but with adjust­ments to the menu reflect­ing local tastes (Stone­house et al., 2004).

The ten­sion between the desire to deliver stand­ard­ised products in order to achieve eco­nom­ies of scale the need for local respons­ive­ness to meet con­sumer needs adds a layer of com­plex­ity to cor­por­ate strategy. Levitt’s view that the focus of a global strategy should be on stand­ard­isa­tion of products and mar­ket­ing does not reflect these com­plex­it­ies and ignores the cul­tural diversity that shapes con­sumer needs. The extent to which an industry is global can be determ­ined using the glob­al­isa­tion drivers iden­ti­fied by Yip (Stone­house et al., 2004). The glob­al­isa­tion drivers can be related to Michael Porter’s frame­work for industry ana­lysis (Porter, 1979).

Con­ver­gence of con­sumer needs and wants reduces oppor­tun­it­ies for dif­fer­en­ti­ation and thus increase threat of entry by new com­pet­it­ors. Global mar­ket­ing and cre­at­ing brand equity is a means by which the threat of new entries can be reduced (Stone­house et al., 2004). This is illus­trated by the dom­in­a­tion of Apple in the digital music player mar­ket. Although there are suf­fi­cient altern­at­ives of sim­ilar qual­ity, but Apple can main­tain their mar­ket lead through their brand equity. The eco­nom­ies of scale required to be suc­cess­ful in a global mar­ket reduce the threat, as any new entrant will require large invest­ments and time to reach the same point on the exper­i­ence curve as exist­ing com­pan­ies. The threat of sub­sti­tutes is increased by global busi­nesses that invest heav­ily in research and devel­op­ment (Stone­house et al., 2004). The mar­ket of con­sumer elec­tron­ics, with high devel­op­ment cost and short product life cycle, is an example where the threat of sub­sti­tutes is always very high and thus Apple need to improve their music play­ers to sus­tain their pos­i­tion as mar­ket leader. The large size of a global mar­ket increases the bar­gain­ing power of buy­ers, which is coun­ter­ac­ted by the reduced bar­gain­ing power of sup­pli­ers (Stone­house et al., 2004). In a glob­al­ised mar­ket and industry, com­pet­it­ive rivalry is very high as it is dif­fi­cult to dif­fer­en­ti­ate. Oper­at­ing in a lar­ger mar­ket also increases the num­ber of busi­ness to com­pete with.

Recent advances in com­mu­nic­a­tion and trans­port­a­tion tech­no­logy have increased the level inter­con­nec­ted­ness across cul­tures. Cul­tural expres­sions have a global reach, which has con­verged the needs and wants of con­sumers in cer­tain aspects.

The con­ver­gence of con­sumer needs is, how­ever, only ‘skin deep’ as the cul­tural val­ues that drive the use of products and ser­vices on offer in the global mar­ket remain het­ero­gen­eous. Although Levitt’s thesis of   con­ver­ging com­mon­al­ity can be cri­ti­cised for sim­pli­fy­ing the com­plex­ity of inter­na­tional busi­ness, the drive to large achieve eco­nom­ies of scale motiv­ates inter­na­tional cor­por­a­tions to seek truly global strategies.

Ref­er­ences

Craig, C. S., Douglas, S. P. and Grein, A. (1992) ‘Pat­terns of con­ver­gence and diver­gence among indus­tri­al­ized nations: 1960–1988′. Journal of Inter­na­tional Busi­ness Stud­ies 23(4): 773–787.

Fukoy­ama, F. (1992) The End of His­tory and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press.

Goff­man, E. (1959) The present­a­tion of self in every­day life. Lon­don: Penguin.

Hill, W., Jones, G. R. and Galvin, P. (2004) Stra­tegic man­age­ment: An integ­rated approach. Milton: Wiley.

Hofs­tede, G. (1983) ‘National cul­tures in four dimen­sions: A research-based the­ory of cul­tural dif­fer­ences among nations’. Inter­na­tional Stud­ies of Man­age­ment and Organ­iz­a­tions XIII(1): 46–74.

Levitt, T. (1960) ‘Mar­ket­ing myopia’. Har­vard Busi­ness Review 38(4): 45–56.

Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The glob­al­iz­a­tion of mar­kets’. Har­vard Busi­ness Review 61(3): 92–102.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1990) Mani­festo of the Com­mun­ist Party. Beijing: For­eign Lan­guage Press.

Maslow, A. (1943) ‘A the­ory of human motiv­a­tion’. Psy­cho­lo­gical Review 50: 370–396.

Porter, M. (1979) ‘How com­pet­it­ive forces shape strategy’. Har­vard Busi­ness Review 57(2): 137–145.

Sch­euer­man, W. (2008) ‘Glob­al­iz­a­tion’. In The Stan­ford Encyc­lo­pe­dia of Philo­sophy, Zalta, E. N., ed.

Stone­house, G. et al. (2004) Global and Transna­tional Busi­ness. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

te Boek­horst, P., Burke, P. and Nijhof, W. (1992) Cul­tuur en maatschap­pij in Neder­land 1500–1850 (Cul­ture and soci­ety in the Neth­er­lands 1500–1850). Heer­len and Mep­pel: Open Universiteit.

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUponSubmit to reddit