The Role of State in Promoting Globalisation

Globalisation, described in the perceptive of the political, economic, and cultural perspectives, entails the scenario where the world uses a free market structure that eases the movement of capital, products and services as trade is freed. There is a lack of consensus about the exact time when it originated, but many observers have agreed that it has existed for as long as humanity has existed (Örnek, 2010). To warrant the hypothesis, it is supposed that the advancement in communication and transport that later became manifested with the industrial revolution and the discovery of the internet have all been the essential basis for the definition of globalisation (Pagel, 2014). It is undisputed that the inevitable trend in the work and employment relations that has since been described with the realisation of capitalism and advances in technology is the concept of globalisation (Munck, 2010). With the expansion of world systems and the work setting, the world is decreasing the barriers to communication and limitation of the values’ sharing, resulting in the improved outcomes. The three most cited effects have been the realisation of state, employer, and employee effects so that there has been the realisation of postmodernism values in the workplace through the improving individual cultural entities as perceived in the context of globalisation.

The State

First, the government control globalisation by providing an environment that motivates free and healthy competition among the citizens. For international integration to be witnessed the country has to experience a peaceful environment that encourages domestic and external investments. The state has to ensure that the internal business environment is thriving and thus their citizens are feeling secure to invest both locally and globally (Peláez & Peláez, 2008). The government then protects the citizens by forming laws and policies that control their operations and defines their international integration. The policies govern the foreign firms and the procedures involved before they set up businesses in the country of concern. The state also protects the individuals’ property and provides security across borders (Rudra, 2002). Therefore, the government is actively involved in promoting free and healthy competition between its citizens and the international world.

Moreover, the state plays a role in the provision of social welfare. The governments are tasked with the mandate of ensuring that all its citizens attain the minimum standards of good life by providing medical care, education, security, and housing (Yay & Aksoy, 2018). The social welfare creates stable environment for all citizens to participate in industrial building and integration. For instance, the government has to partner with other states and organisations to ensure that its inhabitants have quality standards of living (Glickman et al. 2009). The developing countries face the challenge of diseases such as HIV/AIDS that is threatening the lives of many citizens. Hence, through globalisation, the state has to partner with the international organisation such as the World Health Organisation to provide health care services such as provision for medication to the affected population (Garrett, 2000). Besides, the developing countries face abject poverty, and thus the state has to rely on donations from International Monetary Fund and other financial institutions to provide monetary help for its citizens (Gupta & Sharma, 2006). All above mentioned becomes possible through globalisation.

Besides, the state is involved in promoting technology that creates financial incentives and improves the methods of global integration. The world today is characterised by growing technological advances that have made possible movement of goods and services (Kose et al., 2009). Technology has ensured innovation and invention processes. The state has to make sure they are operating under new technology to attract international investment to their country. Technology enables faster trading systems and easy management due to the improved communication systems (Hawkes, 2006). Therefore, the government must use current technology within their businesses to encourage globalisation.

Lastly, the government is involved in the establishment and maintenance of fair economic competition between the public and private enterprises. The state must provide a supportive environment that encourages investment and business entry for the private practitioners (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2009). Therefore, the state acts as a facilitator that unifies the two sectors with the aim of providing economic integration. There should be limited policies and laws that regulate the entry of private investors in the market, because the alliance offers the social and economic advantage to the citizens and promotes globalisation.

Thus, the perspective of the role of the state has necessitated the need to study into the cultural trends and socio-economic patterns in different nations that have proven that there is an element of resistance to homogenisation. Referred to as cultural heterogenisation, societal differences between various states and cultural clashes have continued to exist, and the aspect of the global village has continued to manifest (Bislev, 2004). One study was aimed at examining the nature of global phone traffic where it was found that the heterogeneity is a feature that is still manifesting itself through the widespread use of telecommunication in the workplace (Brenner, 1999). By focusing on the international telephonic calls, it was found that while it is an essential world communication system, world cultural areas have still been drawn (Grossman & Maggi, 2000). In fact, the finding has strengthened the heterogenisation argument that the US, which is expected to dominate the globalised network, seems not to be more involved in its own cultural areal (Matei, 2006). Other findings that have proven that individual entities still exist amid the growing effect of globalisation has been the scenario whereby while the world has been thought to be advancing into homogenisation, the US has been central in the global telecommunication arena. These effects have thus confirmed the idea that heterogenisation at the state level has still been an outcome in the workplace despite the increasing appreciation of world cultures as economies as a global village.

The Organisations as Employers

The analysis regarding the organisation is based on the understanding that employers are leaders in the market and they tend to implement principles that affect the globalised view of the workplace setting (Freeman, 2006). The review of the literature indicates how the culture influences the direction of employees (Macdonald, 1997). The company culture determines all operations of an organisation as well as the manner in which a firm approaches various issues affecting its operations. However, some researchers give divergent views concerning what a majority of the researchers suggest (Black & Brainerd, 2004).

Within the past three decades, institutions and firms around the world have focused on organisational culture and leadership resulting in a continuous discussion about the links between corporate culture and leadership. The criteria for identification and development of future leaders have traditionally changed about the characteristics of the potential leader (Feenstra & Hanson, 1996). Various researchers have used diverse approaches to establish the relationship between the culture of an organisation and its culture. Schein (2010) explains the association between leadership and culture by pointing out the influence of norms on organisational leadership. The author emphasises the point that the trends, values, and rules shape unique leadership styles. The author establishes a link between the two aspects by explaining how various organisations are identified with specific types of leadership. Their unique cultures recognise different companies and so are the leadership approaches within the firms. According to Schein (2010), a leader’s style of running an institution is shaped by the normal operations of the organisation. Leaders working in environments that are characterised by strict rules are strict in their approaches too.

On the other hand, leaders in less authoritarian environments demonstrate less authority in their leadership styles. The author adds that leaders ought to evaluate and adhere to the cultural facets at the same time trying to enhance a suitable and strategically appropriate culture (Ahn, Adamson, & Dornbusch, 2004). To clarify the possibility of leaders to influence the culture of an organisation, Schein (2010) explains certain circumstances in which leaders might shape the culture of a corporation. The author suggests that during the early stages of a company, leaders have a chance to influence on its culture nonetheless, as the organisation advances, its culture starts to develop the leadership approaches of its employees. Sarros, Cooper and Santora (2008) support the points by suggesting that the influence of leadership on the performance of a company is interceded by the culture of the organisation. The early stages of a firm are characterised by attempts to create a culture that guides how the operations of the company will look like. Culture is fundamental to the future existence of an organisation because it will determine the leadership approaches of the future generations of corporate leaders (Mazzarella, 2004). The authors, however, suggest that organisational culture should have room for the incorporation of new ideas and leadership styles depending on the corporate environment (Spring 2008). According to the researchers, sticking to the traditional operations might hinder the future opportunities of a firm since the changing forces in the corporate world indicate that companies might also modify their approaches to stay in tune with future challenges.

In spite of a majority of researchers suggesting employers have minimal influence on the organisational culture, Ke and Wei (2008) focus on the significance of the employer’s role in the development of culture. According to Bass and Avolio (1994), leaders play a significant role in shaping the culture of an organisation. The author insists that the ability of a leader must be determined by his or her ability to ensure that the influence is reflected through positive change in the company culture. The author emphasises that good leaders can fit into a new culture and trigger changes that help to propel the firm to achieve its goals. A similar opinion was held by Chen and Silverthorne (2005) who suggested that a leader is the face of the firm and his or her style of leadership determines the culture of the company. The perceptions of people concerning the organisational culture are highly influenced by the features of the leaders in charge of the firm (Arnett 2002). The researcher holds on the assumption that leadership behaviours are critical predictors of organisational culture. People judge companies depending on the leadership approaches associated with the top leadership team. The researcher uses common aspects to explain how leadership is a reflection of company culture. Organisations that have leaders that are described as change-oriented have cultures that are future-oriented because change is normally the key aspect that determines a firm’s success in the future (Chen & Silverthorne, 2005). Hence, leadership styles ought to be in line with a company culture to meet the desired outcomes.

The Trade Unions

The globalisation has changed the framework for workers across the world by engaging the international organisations in influencing their policies. The most pertinent of them include the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC) and the Global Union Federations (GUF) (Sinclair, Martin, & Sears, 2010). The trade unions have come as a way of addressing the primary challenge facing the employees in the changing legislation affecting the workforce. Some of the unions have had an immediate effect on the workplace (Khondker, 2017). The outcome has been that many people have protected their jobs. The trade unions have had a massive effect on people who operate businesses and those who work in the diverse companies because they were initially rendered jobless. The GUF stipulated that those who were paid under 65 per cent of the subsidy by their former employers be programmed for benefits (Mayhew, 2016). It the process, the union generated thousands of jobs by creating opportunities for those who were operating small businesses. It was also noted that the guarantee for loans for those operating small businesses was increased to 90 per cent (della Porta, 2005). The employees have witnessed an increase in their incomes because the employers have been forced to comply with the new union demands.

The Balance of Power and Globalisation in the Workplace

Through the balance of power, the state plays a role in controlling markets. The economic integration creates trade liberalisation among countries. The government unites through the equal power to remove trade barriers and policies that do not encourage investments in international markets. Moreover, shared controlling markets ensure that there is trade flow of licensed and quality goods in and out of the country. Liberalisation and trade flows encourage foreign investors thus improve the economic stability of the people. The shared power at the state level also regulates the relationship and association between countries through the development of trade laws and policies (Richards & Sang, 2016). For instance, there should be no import or export of forbidden goods or duty-free products to discourage black markets. Economic integration benefits from controlling markets because investors and traders only engage in approved trading practices (Favier & Mekhantar, 2004). Therefore, the role of the balance of power at the state level in governing globalisation is directed towards creating an enabling environment that provides its citizens and foreign investors with the democracy to enjoy free market systems.

Furthermore, the balance of power could be examined in the perspective of the employers from the apprehension that many leaders move across organisations that have varied cultures and they need to adopt the newly shared customs to succeed in their operations. A significant concern in regards to the relationship between organisational cultures is whether the leaders influence the perceptions of their new organisations or the culture influences their leadership approaches (Terrell & Rosenbusch, 2013). According to the organisational culture theory, the culture of a firm influences its leaders (Smircich, 1983). The leaders that move across organisations ought to change their leadership approaches and nurture strategies that resonate with the set of beliefs, behavioural norms, and daily operations of the new corporations. The complex systems leadership theory recognises the influence of leaders on the organisational culture. However, the cultural forces are stronger than the impact that new leaders might attempt to introduce in a company. The most apparent outcome is exclusive compliance by the leaders to the system of leadership within an organisation (Jaumotte, Lall, & Papageorgiou, 2013). Some of the ways in which new leaders might attempt to change organisational culture include: establishing a purpose to believe in, introducing model behaviours through leading by example, setting expectations and helping other employees to nurture the required skills, reinforcing a culture of accountability, and proposing changes that attempt to transform the existing culture (Irving, 2010). However, the attempts to change a company’s culture fail because it is hard to eliminate what all workers have been used to as the followers tend to demonstrate equal power. Leaders ought to be flexible and fit themselves into the existing culture of the company.

Finally, the various ways the balance of power advances have found their way into the workplace for employees via trade unions have been through the formulation of globally accepted principles relating to remote reporting and telework. Unions have shared interests that required managers to balance the agreement between the employer and the employee to ensure that the rights of the workers are protected. The principles instituted by the unions require that employers exercise some form of discipline and commitment because of the apprehension that some employees lack the drive to work by themselves while some thrive in such settings (Schwartzman, 1998). The upshot trade unions environment has thus resulted in the dilemma for employers who have to balance the organisation goals and mission with the new demand by the employees who want to work from the comfort of their employment contract (Mayhew, 2016). It is an upshot for employees too because the use of such trade union options requires technical advances that could be scrapped with a system that ensures everyone is on broad within the company premises (Busemeyer et al., 2008).

Conclusion

In summary, it is critical to underscore the fact that globalisation is an inevitable effect of technological advancement, and has influenced on the perspective of the state, the employers and the employees. The cultural integration as a consequence of the balance of power has since resulted in homogeneity in each of the three main actors, but it does not affect cultural identity that is pertinent in either case. The overall impression is that the state plays a significant role in ensuring that policies are put in place to promote the globalisation process while organisations and trade unions have equally influenced the terms of employment.

References

Abrahamsen, R. & Williams, M.C., 2009. Security beyond the state: Global security assemblages in international politics. International Political Sociology, 3(1), pp.1-17.

Ahn, M.J., Adamson, J.S.A. & Dornbusch, D., 2004. From Leaders to Leadership: Managing Change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), pp.112-123..

Arnett, J.J., 2002. The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), p.774.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J., 1994. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), pp.541-554.

Bislev, S., 2004. Globalization, State Transformation, and Public Security. International Political Science Review, 25(3), pp.281-296.

Black, S.E. & Brainerd, E., 2004. Importing equality? The impact of globalization on gender discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57(4), pp.540-559.

Brenner, N., 1999. Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization studies. Theory and Society, 28(1), pp.39-78.

Busemeyer, M.R. et al., 2008. Overstretching solidarity? Trade unions’ national perspectives on the European economic and social model. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 14(3), pp.435-452.

Chen, J.C. & Silverthorne, C., 2005. Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee readiness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(4), pp.280-288.

Favier, L. & Mekhantar, J., 2004. Trade Unions in e-Democracy. In Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 3rd [IFIP WG 8.5] International Conference, EGOV 2004, (pp. 570-572). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Feenstra, R.C. & Hanson, G.H., 1996. Globalization, Outsourcing, and Wage Inequality. (No. w5424). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Freeman, R.B., 2006. People Flows in Globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), pp.145-170.

Garrett, G., 2000. The causes of globalization. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7), pp.941-991.

Glickman, S.W. et al., 2009. Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine.

Grossman, G.M. & Maggi, G., 2000. Diversity and trade. American Economic Review, 90(5), pp.1255-1275.

Gupta, A. & Sharma, A., 2006. Globalization and Postcolonial States. Current Anthropology, 47(2), pp.277-307.

Hawkes, C., 2006. Uneven dietary development: Linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Globalization and Health, 2(1), p.4.

Irving, J., 2010. Educating global leaders : Exploring intercultural competence in leadership education. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 3, p.1.

Jaumotte, F., Lall, S. & Papageorgiou, C., 2013. Rising income inequality: Technology, or trade and financial globalization? IMF Economic Review, 61(2), pp.271-309.

Ke, W. & Wei, K.K., 2008. Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. Decision Support Systems, 45(2), pp.208–218.

Khondker, H.H., 2017. Globalization and inequality. International Sociology.

Kose, M.A. et al., 2009. Financial globalization: A reappraisal. IMF Staff Papers, 56(1), pp.8-62.

Macdonald, D., 1997. Industrial Relations And Globalization: Challenges For Employers And Their Organizations. International labour Organization.

Matei, S.A., 2006. Globalization and heterogenization: Cultural and civilizational clustering in telecommunicative space (1989-1999). Telematics and Informatics, 23(4), pp.316–331.

Mayhew, R., 2016. Contemporary Issues Faced by Human Resource Managers Today. Hearst Newspapers LLC. [Online]. [Assessed 4 August 2018]. Available from: Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/contemporary-issues-faced-human-resource-managers-today-1875.html

Mazzarella, W., 2004. Culture, Globalization, Mediation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, pp.345-367.

Munck, R., 2010. Globalization, migration and work: Issues and perspectives. Labour, Capital and Society, pp.155-177.

Örnek, Y., 2010. Globalization and Cultural Identity. [Online]. [Assessed 4 August 2018]. Available at: http://www.studienkreis.org/common/news/referat_oernek.pdf.

Pagel, M., 2014. Does globalization mean we will become one culture. BBC. [Online]. [Assessed 4 August 2018]. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120522-one-world-order.

Peláez, C.M. & Peláez, C.A., 2008. Globalization and the state. London: Springer.

della Porta, D., 2005. Globalizations and Democracy. Democratization, 12(5), pp.667–685.

Richards, J. & Sang, K., 2016. Trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled employees. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), pp.1642-1661.

Rudra, N., 2002. Globalization and the decline of the welfare state in less-developed countries. International Organization, 56(2), pp.411-445

Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. & Santora, J.C., 2008. Through Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), pp.145-158.

Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass Wiley Imprint. [Online]. [Assessed 4 August 2018].Available at: http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Edition.pdf.

Schwartzman, K.C., 1998. Globalization and Democracy. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), pp.159-181.

Sinclair, R.R., Martin, J.E. & Sears, L.E., 2010. Labor unions and safety climate: Perceived union safety values and retail employee safety outcomes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), pp.1477-1487.

Smircich, L., 1983. Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.339-358.

Spring, J., 2008. Research on Globalization and Education. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), pp.330-363.

Terrell, R.S. & Rosenbusch, K., 2013. How global leaders develop. Journal of Management Development, 32(10), pp.1056-1079.

Yay, G.G. & Aksoy, T., 2018. Globalization and the welfare state. Quality and Quantity, 52(3), pp.1015-1040.