Management Principles and Practices: Changes to Contemporary World, Culture, Ability to Learn and Globalization

Question One 

Significant Changes to Contemporary World and their Impact on Management 

The world we live in today is not the same as the one we were in about twenty years ago. Every day, the contemporary world is gradually changing with each opportunity that technology presents. Since globalization became a keyword in the 1980s, we are slowly leaving the Modern Age behind and entering a Global Age. As of today, the biggest challenge that the global business world faces is knowledge of how to handle the continuously changing competition framework (Dye & Stephenson, 2010, p. 3) . Moreover, against all the changes that ar e occurring, any efforts of setting corporate strategies should consider not only the traditional performance measures but also the core capabilities of companies and the structures of the industry in which a company competes. Consequently, managers must gain insight into deep external forces and linear trends that they can bring to the corporate world. 

Moreover, in our constant interactive world, computers are not only tools for information management but tools for communication in the business world. New economies that are based on networking of human intelligence are continually emerging and creating a digital marketplace where people and enterprises create wealth through knowledge application and networked human intelligence (Dye & Stephenson, 2010, p. 4) . Moreover, the knowledge of today is the most fundamental resource for organizations seeking to make their way through a continuously changing complex world. Knowledge as a critical resource makes the world a global economy, and with both continuous individual and collective learning, an organization with well-established knowledge management systems will drive individuals within their organizations to become learning by the organization itself. Therefore, as the world always changes, managers need to transform themselves to cope up with a changing corporate world. 

The contemporary world of today is bombarded with several changes that are turning tides on the global business community. Employment opportunities have been developing gradually, and as per now, we can testify that women are being considered more and more for employment as opposed to some twenty or thirty years ago. Women are being given equal opportunities same as their male counterparts, and this is gradually changing the face of the corporate world in that women are adamant at being on the top business list more than ever. Women have decided not to sit back and watch as males are being provided with every single business opportunity and this new ideology that women possess towards employment are a tough call for management globally (Dye & Stephenson, 2010, p. 6) . 

Consequently, there has been a constant debt tarp that is affecting various world economies both developing and developed and the global business community fears that there might be another financial crisis if governments are not relentless enough to do something about the issue. As costs of debt continue to increase, prices and wages stagnate. More importantly, the world is seeing an increasing amount of a boom in the transportation sector which continuously triggers economic growth in different nations. Moreover, another change that is cause for worry for the corporate world is the increasing number of young people in poverty, an issue which is more prevalent in developed countries. Poverty among the young generation has led to a rise in the number of lowly paid jobs that has raised global concerns regarding welfares such as housing benefits which has defeated the aims of governments to reduce spending (Dye & Stephenson, 2010, p. 7) . 

More than ever, organizations have been placed in a situation where they have to deal with new technologies and upgrades to existing technologies. Corporations are in a constant need to cope up with reorganizations, and process improvement initiatives, acquisitions, and mergers. All these factors often contribute to the climate of uncertainties that we see in various organizations. Moreover, managers who go straight why changes in the corporate world are best for everyone and how businesses are to be conducted often disregard the human nature element of the company. Additionally, managers are mostly faced with uncertainties on how to implement changes in their organizations and often ask themselves on how they should react to the changes (Dye & Stephenson, 2010, p. 9) . Moreover, they are faced with the dilemma of employee resistance or adjustments to these changes. 

What happens to One’s sense of Individuality in Organizations 

Individuality is a central issue that is involved in any question regarding modern culture from any point of view that seems to be beyond dispute. Individuality strongly influences human life from the time that human beings attained the first degree of self-consciousness. Moreover, some sense of the notion that is related to individuality is said to be an element in the idea of an organic being (Najjar & Boudreau, 1996, p. 6) . The business organization in our world today often serves as platforms on which individuality conflicts are played out for different individuals. More importantly, increasing demand for conformity and identification with corporations mostly threatens the very essence on which individuality is built upon. Predominantly, organizations often provide adequate room for individuals to brace themselves and to express unique styles of performances that are accorded to each of them. Corporations do not offer individuality as a gift in that it has to be gained and fought for while maintaining the involvement and responsibility of a person as an individual (Lawrence, 2018, p. 3) . 

Leadership is built upon the acceptance of responsibility and an ideological fantasy that a person can make a difference in the course of events. Personal involvements in life are not a passive experience but rather a compelling urge to bring change and to use one’s personality to affect outcomes. Organizational leaders are mostly insecure as a result of the possibility that whatever they do in the end may appear inconsequential (Najjar & Boudreau, 1996, p. 10) . This is mainly to say that when managers in large organizations leap to action, they are met with personal and organizational challenges that are substantive. Individuality often has a part to play in negotiation outcomes among managers who mostly represent planning and choices regarding the allocation of resources. Consequently, since planning in big corporations is closely tied to social and political life, highly specialized bureaucratic hierarchies must adopt appropriate future organizational postures in the context of an organizational chart. Moreover, organizations are obligated to do so in a system of measurement and information in addition to a managerial system of reward and punishment that fundamentally reflects short-run needs of daily organizational operations (O'Donnell & Boyle, 2008, p. 11) . 

Most organizations often prefer to promote collectivism instead of individualism because individualism mostly hinders cooperation between employees although at times it may encourage innovation. Organizations, therefore, follow the path of communism to avoid conflicts and decrease in productivity. This is because productivity overall can decrease revenues and disputes can cost a lot of money to be resolved. Moreover, individualism at most times may result in tense work environments if people are too rigid in their ideals. Furthermore, in most organizations, weak individuals are often dominated upon by healthy individuals or people who are always hungry for power (Lawrence, 2018, p. 4) . Consequently, modifications of individual differences within organizations to conform with a stereotyped "constitution," a society that is increasingly becoming a prop instead of a stimulus for relying on oneself and the tendency to mental inertia are some factors that hinder the growth of individuality in organizations. 

More importantly, some people are not always happy with where they belong in organizations. Since belongingness is one of the most fundamental characteristics of an employee, social ethics, therefore, deludes the cooperative group over an individual employee. The ability to interact with others and the obligation that managers need to facilitate cooperation among employees is significantly elevated and prized while the role of a leader is consensually demoted (Lawrence, 2018, p. 5) . This is to mean that if a group has a leader, then the viewpoints of individuals in the group are not equally valued. All these ideologies are fatal to individual identity and innovation in that elevating organizational belongingness over genius and leadership often dramatically impedes both individuals; growth, satisfaction, and society in addition to business progress (Najjar & Boudreau, 1996, p. 11) . 

How is your World Flat? 

We live in a world that is gradually changing with phase one of the business world lasting till the 1800s when business globally was run by states. A rise in multinational corporations marked stage two that occurred between 1800 and 2000 while phase three of globalization occurred from 2000 and is continuing into the foreseeable future that is characterized by individuals who are only seeking to take back control of economic destinies offered to them (Piasecki, 2012, p. 3) . Friedman first published the thesis of the world id flat in 2005 with the belief that the reason as to why the world is flat is because competitive playing fields between the industrial world and emerging markets in world nations are continuously leveling. 

In the world of today, every individual entrepreneur including both large and small companies is continually becoming part of a significant, complex universal supply chain that extends across oceans with competition spanning entire nations (Piasecki, 2012, p. 4) . This situation resulted from the collapse of communism, over investments in fiber-optic telecommunication and subsequent outsourcing of engineers whose primary jobs were to fix the perceived Y2K issue. The world is determined as flat in that the various changes that we observe in our time that includes swift technology and telecommunication advances have placed individuals all around the globe in touch as never seen before. This global closeness has created an explosion of wealth in China, India including other nations worldwide and has additionally turned hobbyists of eBay lounging in their living rooms into successful international entrepreneurs who continuously challenges us to keep up with their pace (Piasecki, 2012, p. 5) . 

Question Two 

The Extent to which Culture is a Unifier or Divider 

Culture in organizations is the personality of an organization which mainly works to guide how employees think and work at their jobs. Culture is central to the values, interpersonal behaviors, beliefs and attitudes of organizational stakeholders who mainly determine how an organization does its job (O'Donnell & Boyle, 2008, p. 3) . More importantly, culture is a fundamental factor when it comes to achieving organizational goals in addition to attracting and keeping desirable employees. Moreover, culture in organizations helps in creating a positive public image for an organization and further contributes to building respectful relationships with stakeholders. 

Different theories have been developed concerning culture in organizations with the most fundamental approaches based on sociocultural systems. The functionalist theory postulates that social institution and various manifestations of culture either ultimately serve the interests and needs of multiple individuals in society or eventually disappear (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 196) . The theory as presented by Malinowski dictates that there is a global nature of human beings that is significantly grounded in a fundamental set of needs, institutions, myths and many other cultural products that mainly owe their perpetuity to functional servicing of these needs. It is a need-grounded theory culture of an organization that consists of vast knowledge of human needs and the impact that they have on organizations (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 196) . Moreover, as a sociocultural system, organizations are obligated to reflect individual’s needs for satisfaction in the form of work and participation in the organization in their ways, policies, structures, and processes. Since organizations are theatres through which man play out their needs, they have to adapt their structures, and functioning’s to meet the needs of a man using organizational memberships or else the organization may end up suffering from severe dysfunctions and attritions. This means that for an organization to effectively function and thrive, they have to accommodate their structures and processes to satisfy the needs of their members. Therefore an organizational culture that focuses on the needs of their members to achieve their objectives will bring out the greater understanding between members of the organization and stakeholders. 

Consequently, another theory of organizational culture is the structural-functionalist strain theory of corporate culture. It mainly stipulates that organizations are systems with goals, needs, and purpose that are functional interactions with the organizational environment. Being that organizations are functional sociocultural systems, they are therefore not perceived as having a cultural system that might be different from or one that is discontinuous with its social network. Moreover, as this theory stipulates, organizations cannot have a culture that is different from that of the ambient society in its context. In other words, the culture of an organization must be a locus classicus of structural functionalism and must have a value system that is a sub-value of a higher order system (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 197) . This is because organizations are predominantly defined as a subsystem that has a more comprehensive social network. 

Therefore, according to Rowan's cogent expression of the organizational culture of structural-functionalist strain theory, organizations might become dramatic enactments of rationalized myths that often pervade the modern society (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 197) . Therefore, organizations are systems that are fundamentally permeated by values placed upon them by the society. More importantly, these close integrations between organizations and the community in a necessary factor that determines to legitimate of the goals and activities of an organization. In this context, if members of an organization’s cultures conform to the customs of the society on which the organization is based, then there are higher chances that members of an organization and stakeholders with will always be on agreeable sides (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 197) . Therefore, the values that the organization will adapt based on the culture of the society around them will help in unifying individuals within its perimeters. 

Additionally, there is the ecological-adaptation theory of organizational culture. This theory dictates that culture is a system of behavior patterns that are socially transmitted and mainly serves to relate human communities to their ecological environments. It further stipulates that organization is sociocultural paradigms that take on various forms to adapt to characteristics that are drawn by the environment around it (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 198) . These forms may include both social and political structures that predominantly act upon the settings on which they are enacted and additionally may be selected in or out of existence by circumstances of ecology. In other words, the culture that's taken up by society is just another contingency factor that may ultimately influence organizational structures and processes (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 198) . However, at times the products of dialectic interplay with their environments, may result in organizations reflecting on the values and cultures that the society offers to a varying degree. If they find that contingency factors influence is substantial compared to the culture and benefits of a community, they will diverge theirs from those of the society that begot them (Allaire & Firsirotu, p. 220) . In short, in this context, organizations may function with a subcultural system or values that are different from those of the society around them. Consequently, the cultural policy of the organization will be in harmony and mostly constant with organizations social structure. In this context, there is always a likelihood that the social cultures of a member of the organization at most times do not conform to values and beliefs that the organization may choose to have. Such circumstances often result in conflicts between members of organizations and their stakeholders as they always find themselves at crossroads with each other’s core values and beliefs. This system is not still beneficial for the organization as it is a barrier to achieving the organization's the goals and mission. 

Challenges and Opportunities that a Strong Culture within an Organization Create 

Predominantly, the culture of an organization often expresses shared assumptions, beliefs, and values and is the social glues that hold organizations together. A healthy culture in an organization is a system of rules that mostly dictate how individuals within an organization should behave. Moreover, an organization with a strong culture will have fundamental values in addition to codes of conduct for all its employees to adhere to, a factor that will help the organization to accomplish their goals and mission (O'Donnell & Boyle, 2008, p. 5) . A culture that has a robust internal process is mostly characterized by information management and communication that are predominantly utilized to achieve stability and control in an organization. It is a hierarchical culture that mostly involves enforcing rules, conformity and attention to technical organization issues. More importantly, it reflects a traditional theoretical model of bureaucracy and public administration in organizations that rely on formal rules and procedures as their mechanisms for control (O'Donnell & Boyle, 2008, p. 5) . Therefore, an organization with a robust internal process culture is more resistant to reforms that are aimed at promoting innovation within the organization. Moreover, organizations with strong uncertainty avoidance cultures are more adept at following rules laid out by the organization and most of their employees are always reluctant to risk changing their jobs. 

Consequently, there is the open system culture with a soft focus that mostly utilizes readiness and adaptability to achieve growth, acquire resources, also, to support from external entities. It is an active development culture with innovative leaders with visions and often maintains their focus on external environments. Furthermore, organizations with this culture are entrepreneurial and dynamic. Consequently, their leaders are risk-takers and rewards of their organizations are mostly linked to initiatives that are placed forward by individuals (O'Donnell & Boyle, 2008, p. 7) . I can attest to this in that at one time while working in a U.S Environmental Protection Agency; I came to realize that this agency was more adamant compared to other federal agencies when it came to mitigating the effects that policy constraints of national human resources brought. This is because the core values of the agency were based on an adhocracy that had an open culture which mainly focused on change and flexibility. Additionally, the culture of the agency was that characterized by creative risk-taking and problem-solving. 

More importantly, social learning theory can best be used when determining how a strong culture can present opportunities within an organization. As some authors state, when knowledge is placed in a context that gives it meaning, then meaningful learning will occur, and information will thus be more generalized in the workplace (O'Donnell & Boyle, 2008, p. 8) . The social learning theory stipulates that members within an organization have a personal capability to understand any information that is presented to them by drawing on a wide range of past experiences and a multitude of materials. Social learning theory constitutes a behavioral model that gives learned knowledge of contextual meaning. In this way, individuals can observe that model, remember and practice what the model did and then apply what they found on the Job (Najjar & Boudreau, 1996, p. 15) . All through this process, individuals in a group will provide social reinforcements so that the values ingrained in the organization can be transferred to the workplace. In this manner, employees of an organization will have the capability of reflecting on corporate image, and through their abilities and interactions, they will have the ultimo of reflecting upon the perception that the organization holds (Najjar & Boudreau, 1996, p. 17) . Therefore, an organization with a strong culture behavioral model will have a greater incentive at influencing their members to conform to their beliefs and values to meet their goals and mission and additionally create an organizational environment that favors all within the corporation. 

Question Three 

Why the Ability to Learn is a Distinctive Feature of a Successful Organization 

Since we live in a world that is rapidly and constantly changing, it is vital for organizations to stay informed concerning the latest trends that are in the business market. The ability of an organization to learn often distinguishes those corporations with the potential to succeed and those without the potential to succeed. As various executives stress, the ability to learn in organizations often helps in developing strong organizational skills that are crucial for organizational success (Heathfield, 2017, p. 2) . Moreover, learning helps in the abilities of members of an organization to convey complex information quickly and in a clear manner, a factor which often succinctly lead to advancement in many opportunities for the organization. An organization that has the ability to learn has several opportunities in that organizational learning is directly related to organizational performance. An organization that better knows its level of performance that is associated with various combinations of routines often has more evaluative knowledge. 

Learning in organizations improves the performance of an organization and mostly changes selected routines of the organization or the quality of routines that are implemented by the organization. Consequently, the organizational changes that are derived from learning have a positive effect on the performance of an organization (Heathfield, 2017, p. 3) . More importantly, the ability of an organization to learn helps in identifying new organizational routines that are easily implemented and which are better than the current routines of an organization. Moreover, this will raise organizational awareness on better new routines that the organization may afterward implement. Additionally, an organization ability to learn has the effect of strengthening organizations implementing the process of various organizational routines that are currently under implementation (Tavana, Isaai, Keyvanshokouhi, & Ghili, 2013, p. 67) . This case is often best achieved with behavioral learning that mostly leads to improvements in organizational performance. Moreover, learning gives organizations the ability to notice and improve their performances by employing different mixtures of its routines that can be implemented from mixtures that they are currently using. This, however, happens only when evaluative learning takes place in an organization for improving the performance of an organization. 

Moreover, change is a continuous process is accelerating and even gets more challenging with each year that passes. Therefore, the organization needs to employ individuals who can display agile traits and characteristics that can facilitate and encourage agility and connectedness (Heathfield, 2017, p. 4) . All in all, this only can be achieved through the ability of an organization to learn. The ability to learn helps organizations to collaborate design spaces so that they encourage employees to interact frequently with each other. Moreover learned organization often has some form of transparency within their environments that facilitate easy passage of information that employees need to accomplish tasks and goals (Heathfield, 2017, p. 4) . The ability of an organization to learn is always a step towards organizational change, a key to the future of an organization. The global environment of today is so competitive, and therefore it is nearly impossible for organizations to sustain competitive advantage only through products and services. Therefore for organizations to survive the current business environment and ensure their success, they need to be more innovative which is only possible through learning (Tavana, Isaai, Keyvanshokouhi, & Ghili, 2013, p. 68) . However, the pace of the organizations' success will depend only on their efforts and learning capacities. Consequently, for the organizations to achieve maximum innovation, their abilities to learn will enable them to recruit agile thinkers and ethical decision makers and problem-solvers. Additionally, ability to learn allows organizations to keep up with speeding markets and continuous improvements that although are no longer inspirational in this global business world of today, is a critical strategy towards achieving desired outcomes in organizations (Heathfield, 2017, p. 5) . Moreover, with the rapidly changing technological and mass media platforms that allow for free flow of information globally, organizations with the ability to learn will have it easier to effectively ingest information and data as they become available, a factor that will ensure organizational success. 

Why it is Important for Organization to Learn 

The 21 st -century global business world has many surprises in store for the ordinary businessman. Digital revolutions and information explosions that occurred in the past two decades are not only the factors that have changed the face of the world being that there has been a massive increase in speed with which technology has evolved in addition to other changes that have sped up in recent years. Therefore corporations must be on toes so that they can adapt and maintain flexibility in this ever-changing world (Tavana, Isaai, Keyvanshokouhi, & Ghili, 2013, p. 59) . Therefore, it is imperative that organizations learn since strategies for annual adaptations are often impossible to overstate. 

The fact that learning by an organization is termed as a matter that is not complicated, means that it absolutely stands out when compared to other techniques that were previously employed to keep up with the ever-changing world. Coupled with management knowledge, learning in organizations mostly seeks to ensure that a level of parallelism is maintained across organization tiers from individuals to teams and up across the broader business scope (Tavana, Isaai, Keyvanshokouhi, & Ghili, 2013, p. 65) . Learning in organizations is a system that allows teams in organizations to learn the specifics that are relevant to the assigned task and specialties. Consequently, it provides for these teams to give out information that they do not require other teams and individuals who are in need of it thereby creating a system with some Venn overlap between cooperation. Therefore through organizational learning, various teams with an organization are able to work together to help each other learn and additionally ensure that there is no one left behind when the organization progresses and achieves its targeted goals. Moreover, learning by organizations often omit slippages and redundancies that are facilitated by traditional learning systems thus ensuring that by a particular metric of time and progress, set specific organizational goals are met thereby allowing a bigger picture to ultimately be achieved (Tavana, Isaai, Keyvanshokouhi, & Ghili, 2013, p. 66) . 

More importantly, the flexibility by way of strategy and framework of delivery that organizations that learn often achieve mostly allow for needs and analysis that are way more sophisticated before going in coupled with philosophies that are unique that are mainly pointed towards incentivizing individuals. Moreover learning by organizations mostly offers them incentives for a flexible way of conducting training and adaptation in a corporation, division or team. This comes about in that training in organizations predominantly does require a team mindset from individuals where participants often value the accomplishments that their divisions or teams within organizations make above personal glory and vanity (Tavana, Isaai, Keyvanshokouhi, & Ghili, 2013, p. 67) . More importantly, learning by organizations allow individuals and teams to adapt in an even-paced and diverse setting as units to new ideas without the prospect of slowing down or engaging in models which are expensive in terms of time and manpower. Consequently, it is important for organizations to learn as it is a basis for learning on matters of administration and management that ultimately enhances decision making on matters of resource allocation and effective prioritizing and delegation of its resources to organization's programs for them to have more impact. 

Why Organizational Learning might be a Paradox 

Organizations are always in a continuous move to modify themselves in response to changing business environments. In his book "The Fifth Discipline," Peter Senge derived that academics and consultants have been continually telling us that organizational learning is an ideology that is worth striving for (Lewis, 2000, p. 712) . However, in reality, organizations whoend up taking this path mostly end up in a place that is far removed from this ideology. Moreover, the journey that is taken by organizations often exposes managerial hypocrisies that often contradict the very notion that organizational learning is built upon. More often, organizations must innovate to face the vitality of a rapidly changing business environment to maintain their competitiveness. More importantly, organizational learning is a complex process that has various interrelated elements that link knowledge management with organizational innovation (Lewis, 2000, p. 713) . 

Organizational learning might, therefore, be a paradox because when various individuals are assembled in an organization, they often tend to move towards a collective stupidity according to Albrecht's Law. Although this might not be compulsory phenomena among groups of individuals, it is only optional to the extent to which members in a group will allow it to happen. However, more than ever, it tends to happen frequently than not for it mainly follows the entropy law. For organizations to aggregate knowledge from individuals in addition to intelligence from all members in the organization, it needs particular mechanisms with the capability of integrating them to generate synergies that are significant (Lewis, 2000, p. 716) . Karl Albrecht thus introduced the concept of syntropy with the intention of explaining how synergy is generated in the field of organizational knowledge. Syntropy can be termed as the process by which various individuals, ideas, systems, resources, leadership, and systems come together in a way that they can capitalize on the possibilities that each of them is able to generate (Lewis, 2000, p. 718) . Syntropy mostly denotes how organizational energy, knowledge, and intelligence are upgraded through increasing the alignment or integration of all resources and capabilities that an organization may have. 

Question Four 

Processes that define Globalization 

In the past century, interactions between nations have increased in intensity dramatically. Globalization has evolved from the production of systems in addition to financial transfers to global dissemination of images and information through mass movements of people around the world either tourists, Immigrants or refugees. Moreover, these worldwide transfers can also be done through the media. Being that these extraordinary ranges and depths of international interactions have been viewed as ruptures with cross-border interactions that had previous forms, various authors have thus termed the phenomena's arising from these exchanges as globalization, global formation, global cities, global culture, global modernity and global system (Cuterela, 2012, p. 138) . Globalization thus is termed as the intensification of worldwide social relations that fundamentally bring together distant localities in a way that shape local occurrences by events happening miles away from each other. Consequently, some authors state that globalization is a stage that mainly follows after multi- nationalization and internationalization (Cuterela, 2012, p. 139) . This is because globalization is the pillar to the end of a national system that acts as a central nucleus for human activities and processes that mostly occur in an organized manner. 

Furthermore, when looking at the processes that define globalization, we find that as of today, we are one on one with phenomena's that contain economic, political, social, cultural, legal and religious dimensions that are linked together in a sophisticated manner. However, globalization of the past century does not conform to the modern western model of globalization but rather combines universality and eliminates national borders with local diversity, particularity, ethnic identity and communitarian values. Globalization can be linked locally, nationally and regionally. In defining globalization, connections are made explicitly between economic and social networks and relationships that are organized at national or local levels. Globalization is the spatial-temporary process of change that constitutes fundamental transformations of the concerns of human beings in an organization and continuously links together and expands human activities across continents and nations (Cuterela, 2012, p. 139) . Additionally, in Thomas Larson's "The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization," he defines globalization as the process by which the world shrinks, shortens distances and closeness of things (Cuterela, 2012, p. 139) . Moreover for globalization to appear satisfactory, all its concepts must adhere to address celerity, intensity, extension, and impact. 

Moreover, communication productions and connection technologies around the globe are some of the processes that have contributed to the definition of globalization. Additionally, there is the connectivity of entire nations across the economic world and increased cultural life throughout centuries (Cuterela, 2012, p. 140) . Although there is some current situation that is fundamentally different from before, defining globalization as connections across entire nations of the world of economic and cultural life that has evolved through centuries is a process that cannot be ignored. Exchange rates and communications, the complexity and size of networks that are involved between nations in addition to the volumes of trade, interactions, and risks involved in global markets have contributed to defining globalization. Consequently, increased interconnection between world economies has resulted in deepened political changes with developing countries becoming more dependent of developed economies that have their technical expertise and capital blocked (Cuterela, 2012, p. 142) . Moreover, due to the shifts in power from states, multinational corporations saw growth and globalization became a brand. This can consequently be seen as large corporations are now able to operate in various countries around the world as has additionally become part of a large group of individuals. Additionally, other processes include the spread of ideas, technologies, and practices that are way more than internalization and universalization but are beyond market liberalization (Cuterela, 2012, p. 143) . Although globalization has been beneficial to various world economies, critics of globalization often see its processes as factors that are detrimental to social welfare both globally and locally. This criticism also includes individuals who continuously question natural and social sustainability on a long-term basis as a result of continued economic expansions and social structural inequalities that are brought about by these processes in addition to colonial imperialism and emerging cultural assimilation and appropriations that influence and link these processes. 

What are the different types of Global Jobs 

Mostly international careers are mostly an integration of different skills that mainly depends on the types of job that one does. Moreover, some of them require academic credentials while others only need stage presence, different skills or robust capabilities to mediate. Some of the global jobs include; 

Performing Arts 

Working as a musician has the benefit of allowing one to travel overseas to perform for international audiences. A musician can be part of a rock band, symphonies, and orchestras. Moreover, they may also include operas or theater groups. The availability of music tours often gives people the opportunity of sharing their cultural heritage through their pieces of music (Capozzi, 2017, p. 2) . 

Government 

Many positions in governments often require people to travel overseas. These may include careers such as Foreign Service Officer, diplomat or Central Intelligence Agent. Foreign Service Officers mostly engage in negotiations and additionally promote positive relations with other nations (Capozzi, 2017, p. 2) . Moreover, an Agent of the CIA duties includes performing covert operations in foreign countries mainly to know crucial intelligence information. More importantly, most workers in government sectors have obligations to promote the ideologies of their current administrations. Consequently to develop careers in any of these governmental positions, one has to have strong academic credentials and candidates must pass through various examinations and additionally undergo total background checks. 

Media 

Internationally, many media publications are always seeking for people who are willing to live in foreign countries to report the news of those countries. These individuals often serve as news anchors and journalists whose jobs entail covering local activities and conveying news back to the corresponding publications (Capozzi, 2017, p. 3) . A good example is "The Economist" that is situated in the United States but has journalists living in various countries such as Dubai, Athens, Tokyo, and London. These journalists mainly cover the economic and financial situations in these nations and correspondingly cover stories for "The Economist" when something happens such as the debt crisis that occurred in Greece. 

Is it a Paradox to say Global is always Local 

Globalization is mostly redefined as a self-descriptive part of society. By taking into account Niklas Luhmann’s theory, we mostly find that society, in general, is a cognitive system that handles information only by employing specific operations so that globalization can only affect a society only when the later communicates about the former (Guy, 2009, p. 5) . This is argued so because communications regarding globalization often give accounts of the current situation that a society is in mainly to fulfill the society’s need for self-knowledge. Therefore it is a paradox to say that global is always local since global value often coincides with a particular self-descriptive content of globalization while on the other hand, local value mostly corresponds to all other self-descriptive contents as they are seen from previous perspectives. Global and local are not in any way spatial structures but instead are opposite representations of space that are competing against each other in a process that mainly determines the reality of society within a society (Guy, 2009, p. 8) . Moreover, Roland Robertson gives a clear distinction of four images that encapsulates the order of the world which can be equated to four self-descriptions of society while trying to provide a new understanding on the difference between local and global. Moreover, various distinctions are mostly used in communication as a code for generating information on the universe or society when giving accounts on local and global. 

Consequently, when observing works of literature on globalization in social sciences, we often find three definitions that are current to global and local. The first definition as stated by George Modelski suggests that global is equivalent to the concept of the whole while local is equivalent to the concept of part (Guy, 2009, p. 10) . This utterly means that local is contained within global. Moreover, the second definition stipulates that global and local are two opposite modes of integration. Therefore, local is a delineation of social integration, a face-to-face interaction between physically co-present people while global is a function of an integrative system that occurs between individuals who are situated far away from each other both in time and space. In this context, global appears repeatedly inside local in the form of influences that although are far apart, impinge on daily activities and lives that are personal (Guy, 2009, p. 9) . 

Consequently, the third definition stipulates that global and local are fundamentally specific sizes or ranges. Global is therefore looked upon as big while local is small. This can often be seen in economic literature such as those of Marxist where we mostly hear words such as global capitalism, global hegemony and global corporations that are contrary to local resistance, local solidarity and local communities (Guy, 2009, p. 10) . Therefore, when looking at ranges and sizes, local and global are not in any way pre-determined or connected on the conceptual level. The relationship that they have depends only on the relationship that concrete settings or actors that are characterized by them have. However, I disagree to agree that these three definitions only attempt to make discipline social communications by making use of the concepts of global and local. 

References 

Capozzi, C. (2017, July 05). Types of International Jobs. Retrieved July 2018, from Career Trend: https://careertrend.com/list-6742682-types-international-jobs.html 

Cuterela, S. (2012). Globalization: Definition, Processes and Concepts. pp. 137-146. 

Guy, J.-S. (2009). What is Global and What is Local? A Theoretical Discussion Around Globalization. Parsons Journal for Information Mapping, 1 (2), 1-16. 

Heathfield, M. S. (2017, October 08). Your Organization's Future Demands Agility. Retrieved July 2018, from The Balance Careeers: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/your-organization-s-future-demands-agility-1918814 

Lewis, W. M. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 700-776. 

Tavana, M., Isaai, T. M., Keyvanshokouhi, S., & Ghili, S. (2013). A Complex Systems Paradox of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. International Journal of Knowlegde Based Organizations, 3 (3), 57-72. 

Allaire, Y., & Firsirotu, M. (n.d.). Theories of Organizational Culture. pp. 194-228. 

Dye, R., & Stephenson, E. (2010, May). Five forces reshaping the global economy: McKinsey Global Survey results. Retrieved July 2018, from McKinsey & Company: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/five-forces-reshaping-the-global-economy-mckinsey-global-survey-results 

Lawrence, K. (2018). Individuality and Diversity Bringing a Positive Culture to the Workplace. Retrieved July 2018, from TMS: http://www.tmsconsulting.com.au/organisational-effectiveness-blog/ 

Najjar, M. M., & Boudreau, W. M. (1996, Cultures: The Effect of Behavior Modeling). Extending Social Learning Theories to Collectivist Cultures: The Effect of Behavior Modeling Training, Service Orientation and Language Skills on Service Skills and Behaviors. CAHRS Working Paper Series , pp. 1-36. 

O'Donnell, O., & Boyle, R. (2008). Understanding and Managing Organisational Culture. pp. 1-109. 

Piasecki, B. (2012, April). The World Is Flat:A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Retrieved July 2018, from World Inc: http://www.worldincbook.com/res_book_friedman.html