Integration Nature and Requirements (part 1) – When?
Dear Collabloggers,
I guess we can move on a little bit on this discussion, focusing on something new for a change. I hope the Netherlands (including all its inhabitants) will find a way to deal better with the integration of the different co-existing cultures living here. As Olaf has put it, this might be a transition period, and despite all divergent opinions, I think we all agree that the current model does not work any longer.
Anyway, there have been other contributions to our discussion, like Luiz's interesting message about globalization. I totally agree with you that 'people' have been forgotten in the globalization process, although I think that not 'all people', but just some, usually the weakeast links of our so called 'global economy'. Taking this as a context, I'd like to propose the following questions: is integration always good? if not, when is it good, and when is it bad?
In my view, no matter in which context, integrating two parties is only beneficial if each party will have advantages or gains resulting from this merge.
The statement above has great impact on the ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ questions related to an integration processes. Let us first focus on 'when', illustrate our thoughts with a concrete example. If two companies A and B decide to merge, they should analyze what they will profit from that. So, suppose company A is bigger and more valuable, but thinks that company B has an interesting new product that has already gained some attention in the market. On the other hand, company B (a small business) sees this merge as a good opportunity to grow, having important contributions from A, in terms of resources of several kinds. Clearly, in this case, companies A and B have good reasons to merge. Now you might claim that this is the general case, when ‘things’ integrate in our world, but just think about it: has anyone asked the countries in Africa or in South America if they wanted to be part of a global economy? I guess not… For many of these countries, globalization as it happened did not improve the life of their people. On the contrary, it made them poorer than before. On the other hand, these countries see themselves more or less ‘forced’ to integrate, otherwise their products may not be competitive in the global market anymore… that’s too bad!
Well, in the next post we will continue this discussion, with some ideas about ‘how’ integration can be effectively achieved. Meanwhile, I let you process this post and provide me with your opinions.
Take care,
Renata
I guess we can move on a little bit on this discussion, focusing on something new for a change. I hope the Netherlands (including all its inhabitants) will find a way to deal better with the integration of the different co-existing cultures living here. As Olaf has put it, this might be a transition period, and despite all divergent opinions, I think we all agree that the current model does not work any longer.
Anyway, there have been other contributions to our discussion, like Luiz's interesting message about globalization. I totally agree with you that 'people' have been forgotten in the globalization process, although I think that not 'all people', but just some, usually the weakeast links of our so called 'global economy'. Taking this as a context, I'd like to propose the following questions: is integration always good? if not, when is it good, and when is it bad?
In my view, no matter in which context, integrating two parties is only beneficial if each party will have advantages or gains resulting from this merge.
The statement above has great impact on the ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ questions related to an integration processes. Let us first focus on 'when', illustrate our thoughts with a concrete example. If two companies A and B decide to merge, they should analyze what they will profit from that. So, suppose company A is bigger and more valuable, but thinks that company B has an interesting new product that has already gained some attention in the market. On the other hand, company B (a small business) sees this merge as a good opportunity to grow, having important contributions from A, in terms of resources of several kinds. Clearly, in this case, companies A and B have good reasons to merge. Now you might claim that this is the general case, when ‘things’ integrate in our world, but just think about it: has anyone asked the countries in Africa or in South America if they wanted to be part of a global economy? I guess not… For many of these countries, globalization as it happened did not improve the life of their people. On the contrary, it made them poorer than before. On the other hand, these countries see themselves more or less ‘forced’ to integrate, otherwise their products may not be competitive in the global market anymore… that’s too bad!
Well, in the next post we will continue this discussion, with some ideas about ‘how’ integration can be effectively achieved. Meanwhile, I let you process this post and provide me with your opinions.
Take care,
Renata
posted by Renata S. S. Guizzardi at
07:24
1 Comments:
Hi Renata and all bloggers
I had a look to your useful insights, but I'm thinking that the ideas presented above seem to me, quite simple. In particular the idea of having two companies that evaluate how to gain one from the other, in a very rationalistic approach, seems not realistic.
For instance, consider that every time an organization is forced or autonomously agree to merge another firm. Even if managers understand the real nature of merging and the real advantage in carrying out these processes, social and cultural problems will emerge. People and workers feel in a completely different way. In a very short time, they need to change their culture, processes, and institutionalized practices. Besides, people and workers are always scared by these radical changes imposed from the top.
Then considering integration among population, how long should we take to obtain a real integration? Generation and generation. Only son of the immigrant's son will perceive Europe as their Country!!!
Comparing these processes with community of practices theories, seems that people need to share a common agreement a common view of the world, they need to accept the community’s rules, and through participation and daily practices, they can participate and contribute in defining new roles, new rules and new views.
Finally, ONLY if we allow foreign people to come inside our community, they are enabled to contribute in our work and daily activities, they are enabled to understand our life and our beliefs, and finally they can help us to better understand their points of view, changing our culture
I know, I’m really general and my ideas are utopia, but this is what I’m feeling
Ciao Roberta
By
University of Trento, At
November 25, 2004 at 8:28 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home