Moreover, these firms failed to adjust for changes in their economic environment, such as the increasing value of the Yuan (Associated Press, 2008). Thus, globalization did not result in these failures, poor management did.
One of their main buyers, for example, is Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has reaped substantial benefits from globalization and many of the firm's suppliers have been directly affected by the crisis. Yet, Wal-Mart has not. This company, which has high exposure to consumer demand fluctuations and turmoil in the Chinese manufacturing sector, continues to succeed despite the adversity. Wal-Mart has also adopted cost leadership strategy, but unlike the toy factories in China, Wal-Mart has carefully developed business-level tactics that support that strategy. For example, they have developed over the years a dominant market position that gives them leverage over even Fortune 500 suppliers (Gainor, 2004). The difference between Wal-Mart and the Chinese toy manufacturers in therefore not the core strategy - they pursue the same one - but that Wal-Mart's management is that much stronger. They have developed the systems and organizational culture that supports the strategy, while the Chinese toy factories were content to assume that the pool of cheap labor would continue indefinitely, and so would growth in the U.S. market that would allow them to continue along their existing paths.
Another argument against curtailing globalization is that overall, it is worth the risk. Over time, industries will inevitably rise and fall as economic conditions vary. The job losses and factory closures in southern China had occurred in the same industries in the U.S. In years and decades previous. Overall, however, the nation has benefitted. This position views the role of managers as agents of this change, rather than actors upon whom the change is thrust. In the hard-hit region of Guangdong, for example, the Vice Governor felt that this crisis represented that it was time for Guangdong to move on from low-end manufacturing to an economy based more on high-tech manufacturing.
This example may be at the governmental level, but the lesson is potent for managers as well. Rubbermaid is an example of how companies must remain flexible in order to respond to adverse economic circumstances. They were forced to close plants in the U.S. And move production to lower-cost countries in order to meet the demands of their major customer Wal-Mart (Ibid.). In this case, Wal-Mart precipitated the move but the example is corollary to the lessen managers can take from the subprime crisis. It does not matter what the specific incident is that forces a policy change, what matters is that as a result of globalization, these incidents will exist. Managers must be aware at all times of the economic environment, and build their businesses in such a way that insulates them from shifts in that environment. Rubbermaid had attempted to adopt a differentiation strategy but did not adopt tactics that supported this policy. A new management team had acquired a contract with Wal-Mart, despite knowing that Wal-Mart was going to be able to dictate prices. This strategic incongruence left Rubbermaid wanting to be a differentiated producer, but in practice they were a low-cost producer. Eventually, they needed to bring their tactics in line with their strategy or face ruin. What the subprime crisis shows is that firms around the world are failing because of poor strategy. In good times, these firms can succeed; in bad times, they fail.
Another example is the U.S. auto industry. The subprime crisis and credit crunch has left this industry reeling, coming to Washington for a bailout. Yet, the root cause of the suffering these companies are enduring is not the global financial crisis, but their own managerial failures. Unlike foreign automakers, the U.S. companies have adopted neither a differentiation strategy nor a cost leadership strategy. Caught in between, they are unprepared for a sharp decrease in consumer demand. Decades ago, globalization dramatically altered their marketplace by allowing foreign companies access to the U.S. market. The major U.S. automakers, however, failed to respond to this challenge in a meaningful way. Now we have the subprime crisis affecting the marketplace, and the U.S. automakers are again failing to respond to the challenges of the global marketplace. Other automakers in the U.S. market, such as Toyota and Honda, are not in need of a bailout because they have adopted tactics that are congruous with their strategies. Compared with the U.S. automakers, they are both cost leaders and differentiators.
Recommendations for Managers
The subprime crisis has expanded into a global financial crisis. Many firms have suffered as a result of decreasing...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now