Global Leadership
International human resource management can be defined as the management of significant asset in terms of skills and abilities by multinational companies. Managing human resource can be very challenging for this organization due to its broad coverage all over the globe. This large market comes with its challenges as well as enormous competition from both local and international enterprises. This is very evident in the name of two American tech giants that is the global business machine and the Microsoft Corporation. Both organizations are multinational as well as provide similar services. The competition between the two requires proper management of the most critical asset of them all in the name of acquiring skilled labour. With this vital asset, any institution is bound to rise. Due to this, both companies have devised ways to purchase this asset all over the globe competitively. Having a competent workforce with unquestionable skill ensures that either of the two emerges on top of the other in terms of sales as well as efficient service provision.
IBM has developed several strategies which have put the on top of the competitive chain. One such move is resource management. This involves creating a centralized database that sees to every skill in the company is accounted for. In doing so, the company ensures that there is no waste of talent as well as reducing the cost of hiring contractors on areas that can be handled by permanent staff. In doing so, talent mobility is well controlled, which sees to the equitable and proper management of labour. It gives it a competitive advantage in terms of managing its labour force. In doing so, the company reduces on its cost for leadership, which allows for low pricing of their goods as well as services and still allows for higher market returns. IBM’s strategic reduction in the cost of leadership also gives them an edge in market penetration (Morrison, 2001). Since this move allows for innovation and development of new products, it sees the creation of a unique need. Thus a new market is created. Once the company develops new products such as new systems, there is a need for the new product that arises from the population. The development comes in as the solution to the original demand. In the process of solving the populations’ predicament, the company benefits by finding a market for its products. IBM ais mainly in improving the customers’ services as well as expanding their market, which is very efficient in terms of market forces. Understanding peoples need the company’s lifeline when it comes to marketing.
In Microsoft, their approach is different as it applies broad diversification. It involves the creation of unique products with different specification to aim at a specific entity. It allows the company to sell to different market segments which see to them having higher returns. The move allows the company’s continuous innovation. It puts Microsoft at a pole position in terms of competition in this ever-changing technological world. In doing so, the organization also protects its products from cloning of their products to fit into other devices which are not manufactured by Microsoft. It allows for surplus income from purchasing licenses of these products to facilitate their use. In terms of conquering the market, Microsoft applies a different strategy. For the organization to thrive using its primary method of broad diversification, its aim is its current market rather than expanding (Caligiuri et al., 2001). it gets achieved by creating new products which have a slightly higher advantage in terms of functionality as well as efficient than the previous versions; this forces the hand of the client whose main aim is to obtain the best value for their money. The company’s primary goal is by through diversification of products to conquer the market. Developing new and improved products is the company’s strategy to draw a broader market and increase its income.
Skill is one of the most crucial parts of any company as it determines the organizations present as well as future (Bird et al., 2016). With untalented workforce, the companies are likely to crumble and record losses which are very bad for business. The two organizations, despite having been rivals for quite some time, agree on this exceptional resource. Both institutions believe in a culture of nurturing their talent and enacting the skills required for innovation. By doing so, they both secure their future which sees to the development of an able and well-informed task force who are aware of the organizational goals as well as culture and thus can carry on the legacy of the companies. The organization have therefore established their training that sees to the fishing of the exemplary talents who can carry on the company’s outstanding performance as well as remain competitive and relevant. Developing their expertise is cheaper as compared to hiring from other sources. Both companies, despite being very stiff competitors, are doing well in the technological world due to their well-laid plans on resource management. It has allowed them to conquer the global market.
References
Caligiuri, P. M., & Lazarova, M. (2001). Strategic repatriation policies to enhance global leadership development. Developing global business leaders, 243-256.
Novicevic, M. M., & Harvey, M. G. (2004). The political role of corporate human resource management in strategic global leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 569-588.
Morrison, A. (2001). Integrity and global leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), 65-76.
Cohen, S. L. (2010). Effective global leadership requires a global mindset—industrial and Commercial Training.
Bird, A., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2016). From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 115-126.
VanderPal, G., & Ko, V. (2014). An overview of global leadership: Ethics, values, cultural diversity and conflicts. VanderPal, G., & Ko, VSC (2014). An overview of global leadership: Ethics, values, cultural diversity and disputes. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(3), 166-175.
Pohle, G., & Chapman, M. (2006). IBM’s global CEO report 2006: business model innovation matters. Strategy & Leadership.
Harreld, J. B., O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California management review, 49(4), 21-43.
Kaplan, R. S., Ballve, A., & Davila, A. (2000). Microsoft Latin America.
Dolata, U. (2017). Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft: Market concentration-competition-innovation strategies (No. 2017-01). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Organisations-und Innovationsforschung, SOI Discussion Paper.