Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Prof. Theodore Levitt (Harvard Business School) stated almost two decades ago that "[t]he globalization of markets is
at hand. With that, the multinational commercial world nears its end, and so does the multinational corporation"
How does today's global business environment comport with his vision? He may not have been prescient, but he
pointed the way foreshadowing the tumultuous developments.
Whether called “Multinational Corporation” (MNC) or “Global Corporation” (GC), the animal is the same - only that it
has gone through evolutions across the decades. Levitt used the name of MNC for the previous form, and the name
of “Global Corporation” for the next evolved form. At the time of Levitt’s writing (1983) he characterized the MNC as
"operating in a number of countries, adjusting its products and practices in each – at relatively high costs." He
contrasted this “old” MNC form to the “new” corporation, the “Global Corporation” (GC), as one which "operates in
difference countries without adjusting its products and practices – and at relatively low costs."
I think the current iteration of management practices and the corporation’s role in globalization is evolving - at an
accelerated rate - and this may be the “new” nature of the GC: adaptability. (A return to “old” MNC, Levitt may say.)
It is no wonder then, as instant cable news and the Internet bandied about American firms’ ridiculously large valuation
numbers achieved in embarrassingly short times; as MTV and other tv shows made American culture and material
desires the standards-bearer for personal consumption; as McDonald’s, Nike, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and Citibank
made the American culture physically ubiquitous; and as Americans/Europeans and “western” ways of conducting
business dominated WTO/IMF/World Bank/UNDP negotiations; that there should be backlash and resentment
against all things American/western – not least of all the capitalist way of doing things and its tentacled manifestation,
the Global Corporation.
Now, in our post-dotcom, 9-11 and domestic terrorist attacks era, the nature of the corporation is once again evolving
to the changing landscape. Levitts’ perspective, that the global/human commonality of scarcity drives the efficiency
model and the desire for money, is valid…
But I’d like to add that our era now requires GCs to pay more attention to the needs of locals - and that some
measures of social responsibility need to be taken. Human life and the operation of corporations cannot be all about
efficiencies and profitability.
Levitt’s perspective is essentially based on the need for standards - an agreeable position that is difficult to reinforce -
because human being are inherently territorial, and seek to differentiate… Particularly under situations of duress
(New Zealanders or Native Americans losing their land, heritage) or even of age (teens across races, religious, are
affected by raging hormones).
Today’s industrial revolution of technology has made communication instantaneous, feeding the creation and fast
growth of a global culture. In the world of technology, without a doubt this need is great – IEEE has made good
inroads in this, along with the W3 Consortium (Tim Berners-Lee’s group).
In the realm of trade, certainly the need for standards is also clear. WTO has made significant steps in addressing the
need for all countries to abide by the same set of rules. Further, in commercial products, the human desire for the
newest or the best is as naturally unavoidable as crows’ attraction to shiny objects, so standardization of “high
quality” is an ever rising bar as innovations percolate.
However, today’s global era demands that GCs do need to adapt to the local tastes, they should understand what the
customer wants, and not presume to know the customer better than the customer himself. Purchases are not based
upon price alone, unless they are generic products… Broadly speaking, purchases are emotionally driven – which is
why “brand” means more now than ever as homogenization spreads. Even with technology-related products.
Today’s GC is both “fox” and “hedgehog” - Ikea’s success makes it methodology an attractive model to study. It has
maintained both its own standards, as well as made regional/local adaptations. Toys-R-Us and McDonalds have also
found it beneficial to pay attention to “[d]ifferent cultural preferences, national tastes and standards, and business
institutions”. Any GC seeking future profit must be both in China. So, Levitt’s example of Hoover is for me an
indication for the “new” GC to make adjustments in its attitude. Lacking knowledge about new features available,
buyers stated what they thought they wanted. With new marketing promotions, they discovered other more desirable
features. But the corporation’s attitude, I think, should still be of giving the customer what he wants – not being
“thoughtlessly accommodating” - but of thoughtfully sharing.
Convergence is happening, yes. But not to the exclusion of addressing sub- or micro-level overseas sensitivities or
practices. Some markets (China) are simply too large or variegated to be forcibly and quickly changed by GCs
without the GCs themselves making significant adaptations in their own practices and products. GCs who adapt to
standards but also address local environmental conditions, cultural and institutional needs are the ones that find a
smoother path to market entrance and market share.