Developing International Marketing through Stakeholder Collaboration

International start-ups rely on more than rudimentary resource allocation as they inherently require collaborative efforts for effective monetization. Entrepreneurial use of social and business networks to improve the chances of success is not something new and is part of the process of pushing innovation. Research by Evers, et. al (2012) brings forward a model of how stakeholders interact in international marketing development. 

The model requires the shifting from market oriented to stakeholder oriented developmental trajectories. By using the power of stakeholders it is possible to better understand the market, business performance, and overall effectiveness through enhanced knowledge management and innovative solutions. Working in collaboration with key market stakeholders can raise the possibilities of developing stronger market penetration. 

The type of stakeholder groups are as follows: 

Neutral Stakeholders: Companies and industry experts that have their own goals but often share knowledge with each other for individual development. General knowledge is converted to specific firm use. It is considered single loop learning. 

Cooperative Stakeholders: Cooperative stakeholders that work together for general improvement and know enough of each other to be effective. They are separate entities that have their own goals but will collaborate when it is beneficial. It is considered secondary loop learning. 

Allied Stakeholders: Allied stakeholders are highly motivated businesses and industry stakeholders that work together to create new products, services and opportunities. They are engage in triple-loop learning that leads to regenerative possibilities. 

Each stakeholder group has different information to offer that contributes to the developmental process. Many markets are made of neutral stakeholders that try and understand their market from various non-aligned parties that provide relevant information. When companies begin to collaborate around market problems they are able to focus the genre more closely on business needs. 

As companies make a significant commitment with each other and share tight resources that deliver products/services they are engaged in allied activities that raise innovative knowledge. We can see this exist when companies team with suppliers to develop better supply chain platforms for international delivery or Internet entities that work tightly with other virtual suppliers to create more effective campaigns. 

International marketing development doesn’t work in a vacuum and requires interested stakeholders to work together to create something new. Knowledge diffusion and innovation occurs when companies bring their current capabilities to collaborate with other companies to develop higher level outputs. The more focused companies are on defined outcomes the more likely they are able to orientate their efforts.

Evers, N. et. al. (2012). Stakeholders and marketing capabilities in international new ventures: evidence from Ireland, Sweden, and Denmark. Journal of International Marketing, 20 (4).

 

National versus International Education

With international business growing a greater need for educating students to compete on international markets is important. Subtle differences exist between national and international education. The type of education will determine the direction the educational process takes.  A paper by Nisbet (2014) delves into defining these two concepts to better understand how the different focuses impact the perspective of graduates. 

National education emphasis national curriculum while international education may follow national curriculum but focuses learning on international markets. Students in national programs seek to understand the most important concepts in their field while international education puts that information into a global perspective. 

There are some important differences in terms of histories. Education accompanies stories and definitions that develop a perspective. National education places a greater emphasis on teaching national values while global education focuses more on international values required for working in international markets. 

National education is successful in places like China that are trying to hold together people from different geographies, cultures and identities. It is an educational plan that supports national identity and national growth. We see examples of this with high levels of nationalist business decisions and paternalistic governmental styles. 

National and global education often exist within the same university and throughout a country. National education is what we see in public education that attempts to socialize and educate societal members for productive work based in Industrial Age thinking. Global education would naturally seek to socialize to the standards of international organizations. 

Global education requires students to think beyond their local towns and nations to see how business is conducted on international markets. Ideas such as international law, business, accounting, economics, communication, and cultural awareness are common in international business schools. Graduates would be more focused on the international arena and plan on working in those fields. 

Nisbet, I. (2014) International education and national education – can they co-exist? International Schools Journal, XXXIII, (2)

Developing the Global Mindset from Understanding Cultural Perspectives

The global mindset is important for managing organizations across a wide spectrum of cultures as well as working effectively within particular cultures. A study by Masakowski, et. al. (2013) discusses the concept of the global mindset and how a sample of military veterans was able to improve upon cultural intelligence, metacognitive/cognitive strategies, and their effective/motivational resources for learning. The study helps to highlight some of the factors in developing global managers.

Business education is beginning to incorporate the global mindset into their curriculum in an effort to create stronger global strategic decision-making. This mindset is fostered through multi-cultural interactions within classrooms (Rhinesmith, 1992). It may also be fostered in companies through cross collaborative projects and service oriented learning.

The global mindset can be used in business organizations, military units, or geographical dispersed projects. Global leadership skills are created by enhancing the global mind-set, cultural intelligence, and intercultural competence (Pless, et. al., 2011).  Development typically comes from tacit and implicit knowledge of other cultures that is built into an appropriate mental framework.

One can think of the global mindset as the development of the “software of the mind” (Hoftstead, 1991). It is a way of processing cultural information across boundaries using a method that makes logical sense to the user. It is a broad perspective that synthesizes information into a usable model that understands the impact of decisions across multiple cultures. It is a type of broad and wide strategic analysis.

According to Rhinesmith (1992, pg. 10) the global mindset is a “a predisposition to see the world in a particular way that sets boundaries and provides explanations for why things are the way they are. A mindset is a filter through which we look at the world.” As a unique perspective it offers the opportunity to understand and synthesize information on a global or universal scale.

Let us try and see this in a more concise perspective. Exposure to various cultures offers an opportunity to see different vantage points and ways of living unique to each culture. When multiple cultural perspectives are understood it is possible to take a wider perspective of life and synthesize that into conclusions that apply across cultures. It is something akin to the commonalities of life.

The study focused on veterans and others who seek to be entrepreneurs. The participants engaged in 2-3 weeks of online education followed by an intensive 9-day boot camp. They found that the metacognitive learning that leads to a global mindset is difficult to train and is something that is unintentional and unique to the individual. Global knowledge is concise pieces of information while the global perspective is a broader methodology of viewing the world. There were a number of factors that seem to have some influence:

Metacognitive/cognitive: The cognitive strategies that a person uses to understand other cultures and the strategies enacted to understand specific cultures (learning how to learn).

Affective/Motivational: People must be motivated to learn about other cultures to develop cultural intelligence.

Behavioral: The ability of a person to adjust their behavior to fit within a particular culture.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mosakowski, E. et. al. (2013). Cultures as learning laboratories: what makes some more effective than others? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12 (3).

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. 2011. Developing responsible global leaders through international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10: 237–260.

Rhinesmith, S. H. 1992. Global mindsets for global managers. Training & Development, 46(10): 63–69.