International business Hi Andrews, Your discussion on managers in domestic and international environments is comprehensive and the distinction is clear. I like the way you introduce the two scopes with a similarity before defining their differences and I concur with you definition that their roles involve motivation, planning and organization. Understanding their environments allows managers to operate effectively and understanding possible differences as one move from one culture to another helps managers to extend their effectiveness from domestic scopes to international frameworks. You also note significance of geocentricism among international managers as opposed to polycentrism and ethnocentrism that are oriented to a single orient in an international set up.
I concur with your opinion on the need for geocentricism among international managers than among local managers because of the benefits that the attitude offers to the diversified international management environment. International managers pursue both local and international objectives and therefore require a sober attitude to both and should be able to balance attitude towards the objectives. Polycentricism may induce significant barriers for managers who operate in many cultures at the same time while ethnocentrism may induce resistance in the host country (Kreitner 2007, p.
98, 99). I however believe that your post should have offered examples of specific differences that exist in potentials of domestic and international managers. The international scope, for instance, requires knowledge of language and culture in the host country and language and culture of other people who may exist in the host region or may be trading with the region. You should have therefore mentioned factors such as being multilingual, cultural awareness, and cultural sensitivity as some of the features that an international manager should have over a domestic manager whose scope is more homogeneous.
I also disagree with your position that domestic managers can adapt to skills in the international set up, following exposure, because different management orientations exist in similar environments. An ethnocentric manager may for example be willing to learn a new culture but the orientation may be a subconscious barrier (Anoop 2009, p. 62). Hi Taufalele, You identify a common basis for domestic and international management in their roles that involves planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.
The post also identifies examples of each of the roles and this helps prepares the audience to understand possible differences between domestic and international management skills. You also succeed in identifying a basis for the difference between skills of domestic and international managers through their geographical jurisdictions. You note that international managers have a wider scope of operation that require higher potentials for successful management. I however fail to identify specific skills that may distinguish an international manager from a domestic manager. Geocentricism, cultural sensitivity, and cultural awareness are some of the skills that you could have discussed and explained that they are necessary among international managers than among domestic managers (Dlabay and Scott 2010, p.
279; DuBrin 2011, p. 42). I also believe that despite the rich information in your post, it lacks clarity on the discussion point, difference in management skills between domestic and international managers. It discusses more of the managers and their scope of work but not their specific skills. You may need to improve on precision. Reference list Anoop, N Basics of international business, M.E.
Sharpe, New Delhi. Dlabay, L and Scott, J 2010, International business, Cengage Learning, Mason. DuBrin, A 2011, Essentials of management, Cengage Learning, Mason. Kreitner, 2007, Management, Cengage Learning, Mason.