Organizational Excellence and Change
May 20, 2014
The focus of this paper is to inform you of the worldliness or lack thereof, one of the largest distribution organizations, in the world. Wal-Mart, founded in 1961, has grown to be one of the world’s largest corporations. In recent studies Zhang and Largay (2009) are trying to determine if Wal-Mart may actually have some positive effects on individual communities, especially with respect to social capital? Wal-Mart, viewed as both a positive and negative force of distribution, is among the highest controversial news worthy organizations in America. In this paper, I will focus on Wal-Mart’s effectiveness in collaboration, transparency, sharing, and empowerment. Upon my findings, I will provide recommendations that will clearly develop a level of worldliness that will increase social connectedness within the communities in which Wal-Mart is associated. In my recommendations I will include ways in which this distribution giant can accommodate the corporation and the community in which it serves, to better establish that worldliness feel. Social Capital
In referencing Wal-Mart, most people connect the large corporation with, ineffective behavior towards its customers and workers. The organization has been summoned to court on several occasions for inappropriate behavior or informal and unethical behavior, resulting in a negative downfall, or effect on someone else’s life. In Carden, Courtmanche and Meiners (2009), Putnam (2000) treats social capital as an input: social capital refers to connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. Wal-Mart clearly does not have a worldly connection to the community in which it is established. Social capital in effect, should contain a desire to collaborate, share, empower, and be transparent, in a community that in essence, provides the revenue which makes them one of the largest corporations in the world. Analysis of Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart has destroyed communities by changing established living patterns in the United States (Zhang and Largay, 2009). Annually, shoppers continue to slowly diminish their desires to shop in the downtown stores where they previously frequented, because the Wal-Mart on the edges of town, has lower prices. More and more, smaller chains are closing their stores down because they are losing customers and do not have the support of the community to keep them open. Although Wal-Mart has surpassed the community in its economic successes, the corporation itself, has generated a negative vibe when evaluating research on its openness (collaboration, transparency, sharing, and empowerment). Wal-Mart has the ability and the power to promote openness within the community, but has neglected to incorporate a worldly openness on many different levels. In speaking with a close friend of mine who is an associate at the neighborhood Wal-Mart, I find that the corporate guru is engaged in greed. A desire to take the world by storm, without consideration of the people in which they develop economic relationships with, or the organizations for which they have a distribution relationship with. The corporate conglomerate is not concerned with becoming transparent enough to collaborate, share, or empower its followers or neighbors, in wake of a community who struggles to stay afloat. Recommendations
I recommend that Wal-Mart incorporate Don Tapscott (2012) Four Principles of the Open World: First is collaboration a word in which Tapscott (2012) describes as, how we sort of orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, to engage with the rest of the world, in terms of government, how we create public value. Second is transparency, the communication of pertinent information to stakeholders of organizations: employees, customers, business...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document