Difference between Management and Leadership
Management and leadership are two different roles that overlap in terms of the functions that they play in the day-to-day management of organizations. Although their roles are almost the same, their difference is intricately stark. Therefore, the two cannot be described as one. Management roles are informed by set processes such as planning, staffing, budgeting, and performance measuring among many other roles while leadership has its roles aligning a group of people towards a certain vision that the organization is working towards achieving (Young & Dulewicz, 2008, p. 23). When deciding the most appropriate area for global expansion, it would require a fine mix of the two roles because such a move is so dependent on both roles. Management roles would come in when required to set up structures for operation in new areas whereas leadership roles will come in handy to sell the idea to stakeholders so that they see and believe in what an organization is doing.
Global expansion for any organization or business requires the organization to take the necessary steps that would see it enter the global scene and survive the turbulence that defines it. Joining the global scene is like entering unchartered waters that are completely unpredictable. Before any organization decides to make global expansions, it must first have the need to expand globally. This means that the organization must have seen the need and opportunity to expand. The need is usually informed by new opportunities or very high operating costs at home. The role of the chief information officer, in this case, will be to find and package this information in such a way that, when presented to the stakeholders of the organization, they will be able to buy into the idea. As a leader, in this case, the chief information officer will be aligning the stakeholders with the vision of the organization by selling to them the expansion idea.
According to Waldman et al. (2012), leadership and management vary from one country to the other and from one culture to the other. Therefore, there is a need for a change in approach when moving transverse to the global arena (p. 36). This, therefore, calls for a leadership approach that will guide and deliver the organization’s objectives besides the management requirements. Leadership becomes properly applicable when there is a change. On the other hand, management will also come in the form of putting up formal structures that will be required to run the organization then. This can be in terms of costs, legal obligations, and other formal practices that are standard in management (Toor, 2011, p. 314). The setting up of management structures will align the organization with other entities in terms of operation so that their interaction and communication follow one direction. Management takes the center stage when there is no need for change because the organization will be run as usual.
Use of Models in Situations
A model can be described as a framework representing the real situation. In the case of global expansion, the kind of model used will be the conceptual model that will involve the applications of thoughts and concepts in coming up with a predicted path for the organizations. In deciding on the course of global expansion, the process model would be the best approach preceding the leadership model (Gilbride & Lenk, 2010, p. 899). The process model will simply have a role in setting up the structures in alignment with how the global arena works so that it fits in without a problem when the organization gets into the global stage. The leadership role on the other hand can come after the process model has been set up. In this case, the leadership model will be selected in accordance with the setup process model so that it guides it to achieve the intended objectives.
The choice of a model as a first step is not a question of which one comes first between the chicken and the egg. Rather, it is a straightforward decision because one of the two comes first: the process model. The path is simply an order that cannot be interchanged. In fact, when interchanged, it loses its relevance. When deciding the course for global expansion, the first thing to set up is the process that will be required to be followed in doing so. This process will give birth to the structures that will make up the organization into something that can be described as an entity. Once the entity has been set up, the right model of leadership will be selected in accordance with the prevailing condition on the ground (Chesbrough, 2010, p. 358). This means that a type of leadership can only come into play when the ground has already been set and where there is something or people to lead. Leadership without a structure on the ground is as good as a driver without a bus to drive, which will take away the relevance of the driver. The global arena demands different leadership styles because of the cultural and economic diversity that comes with it. It will therefore be prudent for the management of the organization to first set up a structure on the ground through a process model before that process is provided with leadership. According to Burgelman (2011), the process model is simply a guiding factor that informs the organization’s management on the type of leadership to be employed according to the model usually after research has been done on the ground (p. 225). The selection of a leadership model will be one that will be informed by the needs on the ground, as well as the interests of the organization. Poor process and leadership models can easily lead to failure.
Types of Models for Global Expansion
The type of model that will be useful for global expansion is one that will enable the organization to fit with ease in its new location in a bid to succeed according to its vision. It is one thing for the organization to enter new territorial grounds. However, it is a very different thing for the organization to succeed there. Many organizations have always succeeded in entering new markets in the global arena. However, with time, they have found it difficult to sustain themselves there due to different factors offered on the global stage (Sayan, 2013, p. 104). Therefore, a type of model for global expansion should be one that will give the organization a sustained takeoff that will see it last in the new arena. One of these models is the business model by Henry Chesbrough. It advocates for seamless interaction between the technical and economic domains in that the organization is able to achieve its intended objectives seamlessly upon the application of the model.
Different models serve and satisfy different global demands. These models are usually dynamic just like the global stage. The choice of a business model should be informed by the fact that different models fit different businesses and that not all models work everywhere (Gabrielsson, Gabrielsson & Seppala, 2012, p. 28). On the other hand, the global stage has been developed at different levels that have seen different countries develop at different heights on the global stage and more specifically technology-wise. Some of the models that have been employed in this case include virtual linkages in the business arena as models of conducting business. There is also the outsourcing strategy, which is a virtual way of doing business that is simply meant to cut on the setup and operation costs that come with global expansion (Aliouche & Udo, 2011, p. 349).
The development of information technology has made it easy for organizations to trade online and in real-time. Thus, it is easy to trade on the global stage. The challenge is in identifying the best model that will be used by the organization in transacting its business. Not just any model can work with any business at any time. The few models that are user friendly still have many conditions that have to be fulfilled for security reasons. An example of a business model that can also be adopted is the virtual market, which allows traders to trade online across the globe. This model is good because it allows different traders to advertise and sell their wares online by using minimal costs in their operations (Mauro & Esteban, 2009, p. 25). The model also factors in time. At the end of the day, all parties are able to agree without a problem. The best model for a global setup is therefore one that will enable the organization to launch its operations in different countries of the world without the need to employ different models for different countries.
Reference List
Aliouche, H., & Udo, S. (2011). Towards a Strategic Model of Global Franchise Expansion. Journal of Retailing, 87(3), 345-365.
Burgelman, R. (2011). A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223-244.
Chesbrough, H. (2010), Business Model Innovations: opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 354-363.
Gabrielsson, P., & Gabrielsson, M., & Seppala, T. (2012). Marketing Strategies for Foreign Expansion of Companies Originating in Small and Open Economies: The Consequences of Strategic Fit and Performance. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 25-48.
Gilbride, T., & Lenk, P. (2010). Posterior Predictive Model Checking: An Application to Multivariate Normal Heterogeneity. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 896-909.
Mauro, G., & Esteban, G. (2009). The American Model of Multinational Firm and the New Multinationals from Emerging Economies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 23-35.
Sayan, C. (2013). Simple Rules for Designing Business Models. California Management Reviews, 55(2), 97-124.
Toor, S. (2011). Differentiating Leadership from Management: An Empirical Investigation of Leaders and Managers. Leadership & Management in Engineering, 11(4), 310-320.
Waldman, D., De Luque, S., & Wang, D. (2012). What Can We Really Learn About Management Practices Across Firms and Countries? Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 34-40.
Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2008). Similarities and Differences Between Leadership and Management: High Performance Competencies in the British Royal Navy. British Journal of Management, 19(1), 17-32.