Critical thinking and reasoned argument construction from evidence

Critical Thinking Action Project

The assumptions that can be reached through deductive reasoning -- that there are most definitely problems between the home office and the foreign office; and that the two offices have different objectives -- are certainly not rocket science. These kinds of problems create tension and conflict, which detract from the objectives and mission of ExtraVert. The solution (or solutions) to the problem presented by this assignment -- what has gone wrong with ExtraVert and can the problem be solved -- will be presented in this paper. Solutions can almost always be arrived at if careful, thoughtful, thorough understanding and courtesy is the strategy and theme of the problem-solving project.

Cultural Differences and Constructive Behaviors

Clearly, with any global operation, there needs to be clear-cut communication established between the home office and the foreign office -- or offices, if there is more than one foreign unit as part of the global company. Before any discussion about cultural conflict or differences in approaches to technology -- or even the chaotic organizational structure -- there should be good lines of communication that are open and responsive at both ends of the spectrum. This apparent lack of communication in ExtraVert results in the fact that no mutually agreed-upon approach has been tried.

How do you sort out the conflicts that result from poor communication if there is no universal acknowledgement among all the executives that communication is at the heart of the schism? Who is talking to whom, and what kind of leadership is promoted in the home office? These and other questions are apparently not being asked.

Moreover, it is possible that aside from poor communication, cultural clashes and differences in how to run an operation, what ExtraVert may be lacking is good corporate governance (CG). In the Journal of Business Ethics (Chan, et al., 2012) the authors describe good corporate governance -- which ExtraVert apparently lacks -- as a situation in which corporate management has "…demonstrated its responsibility to protect the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders," including employees, lenders, consumers. Good corporate governance assures transparency, fairness, and accountability, according to Chan (45).

So, the pertinent question following Chan's research into what positive impacts corporate governance can have on an organization, is this: is ExtraVert embracing good corporate governance when it has not clearly laid out its rules and responsibilities to all managers and workers in both fields? Has ExtraVert fostered good cooperation and engendered a quality team spirit when it hasn't yet provided a way for folks overseas to provide feedback? And has ExtraVert embraced good corporate governance when the overseas unit and the home unit do not have the same objectives? The answer to all three questions is a resounding "No!"