Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T13:22:32.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Global Corporate Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Shawn Pope  and
John W. Meyer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I feel very fortunate to be able to open the MOR Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion editorial section with a striking perspective advanced by Shawn Pope and John W. Meyer of Stanford University. They point to the rise of a global corporate organization that is shedding its national distinctiveness and any remaining local rooting. Instead, they envision global standardization as no longer related to national origins and as managed according to abstract, universalistic principles. The global standard is furthermore run by managers who graduated from the same homogenous business programs, who gain advice from like-minded consultants, and who, of course, go to the same Davos meetings. The new standard, the universal corporation, seeks to convey its socially responsible character by confirming, sometimes voluntarily, to the standards of excellence as decreed by other organizations perhaps increasingly like itself. This provocative perspective invites debate – refutations and support alike – in future MOR issues and blogs. Where does your research lead you to take a stand?

Type
Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 173 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Advertising age. 2009. Global Marketers Index. [Cited 6 May 2015.] Available at URL: http://adage.com/datacenter/globalmarketers09 Google Scholar
Altbach, P. G. 2004. The costs and benefits of world-class universities. Academe Online (January-February): 1–5. [Cited 6 May 2015.] Available at URL: http://bcct.unam.mx/adriana/bibliografiaparte2/ALTBACH,P.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (9): 1460–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deem, R., Mok, K. H., Lucas, L. 2008. Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21 (1): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drori, G. S., Jang, Y. S., & Meyer, J. W. 2006. Sources of rationalized governance: Cross-national longitudinal analyses, 1985–2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabaix, X., & Landier, A. 2008. Why has CEO pay increased so much? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (February): 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, M., & Bruner, H. 2003. Global Inc.: An atlas of the multinational corporation. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Guillén, M. F. 1994. Models of management: Work, authority, and organization in a comparitive perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management 's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6): 1346–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Lim, A., & Tsutsui, K. 2012. Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: Cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. American Sociological Review, 77 (1): 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W. 2010. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology 36 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., Pope, S., & Isaacson, A. 2015. Legitimating the corporation in a world society. In Tsutsui, K. K. & Lim, A. (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in a globalizing world: 27–73. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mok, K. 2005. The quest for world class university: Quality assurance and international benchmarking in Hong Kong. Quality Assurance in Education, 13 (4): 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigman, G. A. 2007. The world economic forum: A multi-stakeholder approach to global governance. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell Reynolds Associates. 2015. European board composition: A time of change.Google Scholar
Sarkissian, S., & Schill, M. 2010. Cross listing waves. MPRA Paper. [Cited 6 May 2015.] Available at URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27545/1/MPRA_paper_27545.pdf Google Scholar
Sutton, R., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3): 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uniworld Business Publications. 2009. Directory of American firms operating in foreign countries, 20th edition.Google Scholar
White, S. D. 2012. The top 175 global economic entities, 2010. All Things Marketing. [Cited 6 May 2015.] Available at URL: http://dstevenwhite.com/2011/08/14/the-top-175-global-economic-entities-2010/ Google Scholar
Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalilsms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar