Date:
To:
From:
Subject:

Introduction
The following memo attempts to contrast the concept of a “Global” enterprise as modeled by the authors B. Kogut in “What Makes a Company Global?” a Review of The Myth of the Global
Corporation, M. Mangelsdorf in "Building a Transnational Company", INC. Magazine 1993,
Bartlett and Ghoshal in "Managing across boarders New Strategic Requirements", Sloan
Management Review, Summer 1987 and Johan Lembke in “Global competition in the information and communication technology Industry...", Business and Politics, v.4,#1, 2002. The contrast discussion will form around five factors identified as fundamental to operating across nations. Factor #1: The Significance of National Origin
The authors appear to be evenly divided regarding the role the nation of origin plays in the formation, comparative advantage and effective operation of a global industry. Kogut and
Mangelsdorf believe the nation plays a significant role in structure and operation. Kogut forms his entire article on the notion that the nationality of an enterprise is the sole determinate of comparative advantage. His theory is that if global markets remain free, nations will become elements of a global value chain. Kogut’s only variable for a global enterprise is how much to converge the various national operations.
Conversely, Bartlett and Ghoshal (B&G) and most particularly, Lembke, indicate that the nation should not have to play a determining role in the enterprise. Rather B&G present the notion of the “Transnational” (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989) enterprise. The enterprise that is able to reap the benefits of each nation locations expertise, yet share this expertise among all locations forming a singular, responsive organization. Lembke takes the transparency of the nation to a new level. His description of the liberal‐strategic view suggests that there are “public actors try to tweak the rules of the world economy to structure global competition in ways that enhance job creation, overall competitiveness” (Lembke 2002). Lembke describes what he believes is almost complete national transparency in segments of the high technology industry, heralding the arrival of a true global economy. It is the opinion of this author that although organizations

are increasingly acting in a transnational role, the nation of origin will continue to impact global operation and organization as long as geo‐political boundaries define an “us” and “them” position. Social and political issues will always impact the organization and operation of global industry. Factor #2: The Value of free flowing Bi‐Directional Communication
Kogut finds himself alone on this issue. His statement, “As long as the global economy remains relatively open, nations will increasingly consist of highly specialized activities in a worldwide production chain.” (Kogut 1998), leaves one with the idea that communication is more in line with the communications between channel partners rather than the close communication within a individual enterprise. Communication is the essence of B&G’s transnational organization. They describe, in detail, the flow of information and knowledge between nation locations. This free exchange, for B&G, is what elevates an organization from merely a multinational enterprise. Mangelsdorf describes the tendency of local units to develop their own way of operating, often quite different from that expected by the leadership. She describes the formation of cross national committees for IT and other vital operational elements to avoid this fragmentary behavior.
Finally, Lembke’s new model is based entirely on communication between elements within the enterprise, between competitors and between nations. If competitive organizations are to form a global economy, they will need to communicate the ground rules. Communication would appear to be the life blood of all organizations, whether a transnational enterprise competing globally, or the family unit competing for the remote.
Factor #3: The Value of common IT infrastructure
Again, Kogut appears to anchor one pole of this factor. He recommends that global organizations embrace the comparative advantages offered by each nation in which the enterprise exists and to leverage these advantages to the greater good of the enterprise. He seems to indicate that local operations be allowed to develop independently so that they might generate the greatest expertise within the nation of origin. The autonomy recommended by
Kogut would not require a particularly sophisticated international IT infrastructure. B&G embrace a globally interconnected organization. The learning, responsive, transnational entity would require a well designed and functional IT architecture to share local expertise in the face of increasing global competition. Mangelsdorf outlines the construction of a wide‐area network to support email, teleconferencing and application sharing. This type of comprehensive network

represented a significant investment in 1992. Lembke’s piece centered on the very essence of common IT infrastructure, the international standard. The various ICT players recognized the strategic advantage of being the firm, group, nation or region that determines an IT standard.
Their efforts to promulgate the protocol standard for wireless communications across the globe are evidence of its importance.
Factor #4: The Value of shared learning
B&G and Lembke are together on this factor. Their models carefully outline the importance of shared learning in reducing national barriers. B&G lists shared learning as one of the characteristics necessary for a business to elevate to the transnational status. It is this dimension that facilitates both the responsiveness to national preferences and the efficiencies inherent in a centralized organization. Without these three characteristics, B&G feel a business cannot survive in the increasingly competitive global economy. Lembke extends this concept to include shared learning between competitors within a global industry. He proposes to grow the global economy through the cooperation among competitors. By focusing on global standards, a global industry can grow sufficiently to support a number of competitors. Kogut and
Mangelsdorf do not stress shared learning in their articles. Both authors describe the development of local expertise as natural and appropriate. These repositories of local expertise are linked to form a single robust enterprise, but sharing the expertise suggests a waste of valuable resources.
Factor #5: Control
This factor is the most variable among the authors. The model offered by Kogut suggests that localized control is best suited to promoting the comparative advantage inherent in each nation.
He indicates that local operations should naturally diverge from off shore, centralized control to align more with practices of the nation of origin. B&G and Mangelsdorf both model a centralized headquarters entity. B&G suggest a central control group that is not tied to any one nation location. Their concern is that a central management group, located in one location, will color the attitudes and behavior of leadership. Their design is a leadership group that floats among the various locations. Mangelsdorf also advocates a centralized control, but one that is representative of all locations, specifically a leadership committee with representation from all local units. This, she believes, is necessary to prevent the leadership committee from forcing the expertise of one location on others and stifling valuable local development. Lembke promotes a distributed model of control. His liberal‐strategic view supposes organizations cooperating

across national and regional boundaries to stimulate competition and growth. This type of cooperation, often among competitors, precludes a central control point. Few business leaders would be willing to cede control of their organization to another actor, political or industrial.
Conclusion
The global economy is a reality and here to stay. Each author offers some advantages in their model. As geopolitical stability has not and may not be achieved in the foreseeable future, a combination of elements from the various models that allows for the greatest fluidity may be the best answer. Lembke’s liberal‐economic model is definitely the most fluid of the models, but also involves the most risk. Cooperation among competitors, even global competitors, leaves one open to infringement. It is the fear of this infringement that has lead to the protectionist doctrine of most businesses and nations. Perhaps a “transnational” approach that promotes and preserve local expertise, sharing it with global competitors when the opportunity for market growth presents itself.