Polycentric, Ethnocentric, and Geocentric Approach to International Management

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 39455
  • Published: May 7, 2013
Read full document
Text Preview
(Chapter 2) What is the difference between a polycentric, ethnocentric, and geocentric approach to international management? What key factors should a firm consider before adopting one of these approaches?  

Polycentric approach to international management is the policy involved hiring and promoting employees who are citizens of the country that host and operates the company. The polycentric approach is best used in order to maintain low hiring costs. Communication is easier and companies run smoother due to the fact the employees are all related in their geographic location. Ethnocentric approach is a staffing policy that is used in companies that has primarily international strategic orientation. While polycentric maintains employees from the same area, ethnocentric is generally adopted by headquarters by sending employees from the home or parent countries to the host country. Ethnocentric approach is best used when teams from a certain home country are sent to a new location to help direct and assist due to their experience. Geocentric staffing approach is used when companies implement a transnational orientation. In such an approach, rather than maintaining the same groups of people or transferring people, employees are selected regardless where they come from. The geocentric approach recruits the best of the best; this approach is consisting with building a strong unifying management network. A firm should take into consideration one, the immigration policy and whether or not they are able to recruit from certain countries, two, if the area they wish to be located in has workers who are capable for the job. Location and laws are key factors in the approach to international management. http://www.mhhe.com/uop/hill3e/student/olc/ch18s_cs.html


3.(Chapter 3) Contrast common law, civil law, customary law, and theocratic law. Explain their relevance to managers In common law systems, the law continuously evolves in addition to being amended by laws passed by the legislation. Common law systems are used in England, which was where it originated. In common law systems, the decision made by a high court cannot be overridden by a lower court, the decision of the higher court is a binding precedent; where as in Civil law, there is no such thing as binding precedent. A civil law country provides the ability to view a law in each individual case rather then the higher courts decision. A customary law system reflects the wisdom of daily experience or more elegantly spiritual legacies and philosophical traditions. Customary law anchors the law in many indigenous communities defining the rights and responsibilities of members. Customary law prevails in many developing countries rather then being the oldest followed custom like Civil law. Theocratic law on the other hand, relies on religious doctrine rather then courts. Precepts and beliefs rule, ultimate authority is given to religious leaders. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Mauritania are Islamic theocracies. The Vatican City is the only Christian theocracy, although its laws are still limited to the secular laws of Italy. Most theocracies are usually authoritarian in nature and often jail religious and political dissidents. When it comes to managing, these systems of laws are relevant because they help to dictate a company. Managers are the head of the companies and they decide how to “govern” so to say, their company. Whether it’s “their way or the highway,” or they allow input from lower authority i.e. workers. http://www.internationalbusinesslawadvisor.com/2010/05/articles/international-litigation/international-basics-whats-the-difference-between-common-law-and-civil-law/ TEXTBOOK CITATION!

(Chapter 4) What is meant by the idea of economic freedom? What factors are used in the Economic Freedom Index? For...
tracking img