Dynamic Capabilities and National Culture - Literature review Example

Name Tutor Course Date Dynamic capabilities and national culture Eisenhardt and Martin focus on dynamic abilities and, majorly on the resource-based view of an organization (1112). The authors contend that these capabilities are established processes that are precise and distinguishable and these procedures include strategic decision making, product development, and alliancing. Dynamic capabilities are clearly and necessary, and although they are particularly in their path and details and dependent on their emergence there are some similarities across organizations. Accordingly these similarities give rise to the concept of best practice. The concept of dynamic capabilities in markets that are moderately dynamic takes the approach of the traditional notion of routines. These routines are analytic, detailed and stable processes but with foreseeable results. On the other hand, this concept of dynamic capabilities in markets with high-velocity resembles modest, exceedingly empirical and delicate practices with random results. Consequently recognizable learning mechanisms direct the development of this concept and the evolutionary emphasis on moderately dynamic markets takes the formula of variation while, in high velocity markets, it is conceptualized by selection. The article also looks at the nature of the concept of dynamic capabilities, the influence of market dynamism, and the evolution of this concept. The authors note that dynamic capabilities comprise distinguished organizational and strategic procedures like product improvement and alliancing. The considered value of these processes attaches to their capability to employ funds into strategies that create value. Although dynamic capabilities are distinctive, they exhibit shared aims or best practices across organizations. The broad structural patterns of dynamic capabilities differ with market dynamism and range from the strong, grooved practices exhibited in markets that are moderately dynamic to delicate and semi-structured procedures in high-velocity ones (Eisenhardt & Martin 1120). In this regard, it is imperative that dynamic capabilities play a central part in organizational culture. On the other hand, Fang (85) calls for a shift in the manner of analyzing culture from the old approach to a new technique of considering the culture to integrate the dynamics of global cross cultural management and national cultures in the era of globalization. Divergent from the prevailing bipolar paradigm of national cultural analysis, the author supports a dialectical approach that considers each national culture to possess its own life and full of both dynamics and paradoxes. The goal of the author is to explore three questions that aim to provide an understanding of intercultural value disparities within a national culture, the significance of national cultures from the context and time perspective and the new character taken by national cultures in the age of globalization. According to the cross national comparison school, which the author refers to as the bipolar model, culture is presumed to be a comprehensible and long-term set of ethics that members of the state or the nation carry and regularly act upon in their communications. Conversely, the various cultures schools perceive culture not merely as accepted but also as the joint understandings through which this culture is dynamically generated through social interaction. The author also notes that culture is learned and handed on to the new participants of the nation or state through social interaction and that this culture is dynamic and modifications over time. Whereas most studies explore cultural variation in the organizational culture context the current article looks at cultural transformation at the national context. Additionally and although suggestions on cultural dynamics exist with examples of multiple culture's identity, cultural negotiation and multilevel cultural dynamics little of these have comprised the paradoxical and dialectical context of culture that is critical in understanding the essence of cultural dynamics (Fang 90). The similarity between the two articles is that they both look into the concept of culture where Eisenhardt & Martin (1117) discuss dynamic capabilities in an organization while Fang (89) looks at the concept of national culture. These two articles look into the understanding and the evolution of their respective cultures and more so from the perspective of globalization. Dynamic capabilities Dynamic capabilities are the prior strategic and organizational practices that managers use to obtain and shed resources, incorporate them, and recombine them in order to generate new value creating strategies. Dynamic capabilities, therefore, are the strategic and organizational practices by which organizations realize innovative resource structures as markets develop, split, collide, develop, and perish. Eisenhardt & Martin (1116) argues that, in markets that are moderately dynamic, practices in the practice of dynamic capabilities are entrenched in increasing and prevailing knowledge. These processes include exploration using present knowledge and directions preceded by implementation. When the prevailing knowledge is organized the resultant practices are regularly specific and complete with foreseeable products. Therefore, in markets that are reasonably dynamic, these dynamic capabilities show the cases where operative routines are resourceful and robust procedures. Similarly, in markets with high-velocity, these abilities rely largely on novel knowledge formed for definite circumstances. Routines are conclusively simple to permit developing adaptation, though not entirely unstructured. Given that new knowledge must be quickly expanded in each novel situation, experimental events such as real-time information, prototyping, experimenting and multiple choices that spawn direct knowledge rapidly substitute investigation. Additionally the authors reason that, since the utility of dynamic capabilities can be replicated through organizations, their significance for competitive advantage lies in the resource structures that they generate, not in their abilities. Although dynamic capabilities are essential, they are not adequate circumstances for competitive advantage. Moreover, their argument follows that these dynamic capabilities can be employed to advance existing resource structures in the quest for long-term competitive advantage which is the resource based view logic of leverage. Commonalities across organizations for operational dynamic capabilities have numerous inferences. First, they infer equifinality, which is directors of organizations that advance effective dynamic capabilities such as creation of knowledge, patching, or alliancing procedures possibly initiate the expansion of these capabilities from diverse preliminary points, and take distinctive tracks. However, since they result in capabilities that are comparable in terms of basic characteristics, there are several paths to similar dynamic capabilities. Secondly, commonalities in fundamental aspects of operational dynamic capabilities suggest that these practices are more similar and fungible across diverse settings. Thirdly, commonalities also suggest that dynamic capabilities are not probable to be causes of continued competitive advantage. While repetitive practice can result in the evolution of these dynamic capabilities, the organization of that knowledge into technology and recognized procedures renders the capability easier to relate and hastens the construction of routines. Mistakes also contribute in the development of dynamic capabilities. Minor losses, in excess of either serious failures or successes, add to operational learning. Success frequently fails to involve managers’ devotion adequately so that they learn from these experiences. Alternatively serious failures advance defenses that hinder learning. In comparison, small disappointments offer the greater incentive to learning as such failures force entities to pay more attention to practice, but do not generate defensiveness that hinders learning. Pacing of experience also affects the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Experience that emanates too fast can engulf managers, resulting in incapacity to convert experience into eloquent learning. Correspondingly, occasional experience can result in overlooking what was learned beforehand and so end in accumulation of little knowledge. Usually, dynamic capabilities are better theorized as implements that influence resource alignments. Occasionally it is effective to employ tools in developing current resource configurations and to reinforce existing positions using resource based views. National cultures Fang (80) point out that culture establishes itself in four diverse levels that can be exemplified as the skins of an onion and comprise rituals, values, symbols, and heroes. The onion metaphor of culture is perhaps the best image of the bipolar model. Comparing culture to an onion proposes a number of notable similarities first the composite knitted, and mixed occurrence of national cultures are undertaken by simplification as cultures are condensed into and isolated from each other in terms of distinct onions politically developed and artificially created states. The second perspective s that each onion has its openly distinct profiles comparable to the national borders of politically developed and artificially generated states. The significance of nationality and state as the fundamental unit of examination of national culture has been determinedly highlighted. Thirdly on the external surfaces of onions there are heroes, rituals and symbols that are known as practices of a culture. In order to appreciate culture more profoundly there is the want to peel the onion in layers in order to reach its core. At the core lies the simple expectations, beliefs and values that direct social behavior. The other aspect is that beliefs and values govern behavior whereas the outer layers contrast the core of the onion holds firm. In other words, the social part of the culture may evolve, but the software of culture that is its deep rooted values will not change since the values stay stable. Further, just as onions possess diverse sizes and can be characterized into large and small state cultures are distinctivly different and can be quantified, indexed and differentiated from each other in regard to cultural perspectives. Onions cannot be both large and small equally state cultures cannot be both nonconformist and communist, both masculine and feminine, both short term oriented and long-term oriented. Lastly, when diverse onions encounter they will bump; correspondingly when diverse national cultures encounter they will collide. Cultural differences will be emphasized, and cross cultural conflicts and clashes will occur because each culture has its peculiar indigenous table history principles, standards and value systems that barely change over time. However, if the tenets were absolutely unwavering social and individual transformation would be difficult, on the other hand, if these ideals were absolutely unsteady endurance of society and human behavior would be difficult. In order for the conception of human values to be productive, it must be able to explain the continuing appeal of values as well as for their varying appeal. Fang argues that instead of refuting the notion of stability there is the necessity to put it in a wider dynamic setting considering steadiness and change as the yin and yang of culture which make, embrace and flourish each other over time (83). Consequently the author provides that culture can be equated to an ocean in a specified situation at a specified time. The argument is that we recognize observable behaviors and values just like we recognize observable wave patterns on the surface of the ocean. Nevertheless the culture we perceive at this instant does not characterize the entirety and the whole life development of that culture. Initially national cultures were independent, palpable and unyielding onions, but the new cultures know what other cultures are discerning and undertaking. It is noteworthy that the period of globalization has profoundly altered the cross cultural setting. Globalization is not a transitory development but reasonably a brand new global arrangement that has substituted the previous system as it represents the extent and addition of information, technology, and capital people across national borders. The most substantial results of globalization are that state cultures are not stiff any longer but are turning gradually mobile, obvious, flexible, and virtual. Foreign direct investment, the emergence of the internet and mobile technology are gradually connecting people and producing shared capabilities irrespective of the places and individuals involved. This situation leads to the question as to whether globalization will lead to nations becoming more and more alike. Although states are increasingly sharing elementary characteristics, they are open to and accept several cultural groups in the globalized domain. Globalization has pressed markets to global commonality where nations regulate their procedures, policies, and human resource actions across nations. On the other hand, the converging powers of globalization would yield varieties of new forms of differences between nations than those founded on nationality or states. The configuration, size, pervasiveness, scale, mobility, continuity, strengths and radiations of several cultural groups in different national cultures will endure different and the ways in which their interplay will stay diverse. Works Cited Eisenhardt Kathleen and Martin Jeffrey. “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?” Strategic Management Journal. 21 (2000): 1105–1121 Fang, Tony. From “Onion” to “Ocean.” Paradox and change in national cultures. International studies of management and organization. 35 (4) (2005): 71-90 Read More