Extensible Marketing Mix – A wider thought outside the box / Practices
Think global, act local – To break down the 33rd G8 summit
from Jens T. Hinrichs
The PARTNERS at the 33rd G8 summit have set to bring global thinking and local action into balance. For PROPONENTS coherences are so much complex, so there is a need to pull at the same rope. Meanwhile the true intentions were hidden for protestants. The following text will convey a deeper understanding about role behavior of potential decision makers.
PRIMARY objectives is to determine common denominators which leading to a solid basis for negotiation. Nevertheless, contents dominate at the diplomatic Ievel, numbers step back often. ln addition, illusions don’t stand for the scheduling because this could hinder the agreement. The PROVERB ‚pacta sunt servanda‘ remain valid. ln the business life intuitive creativity techniques (e.g. Morphological Box) and previous experiences which can be gathered from a MIS or DSS helps to find fields of activity. For complex PLANS, intersections are compatible and conceivable in the most different constellations. However, the success is only guaranteed if ideas are also PRACTICABLE and feasible. Such PRECONSIDERATIONS and checking of objectives serve as a decision support and both shall make the basis clear for future negotiations, with what the necessity might be answered indirectly.
There are cultural obstacles which every PARTY should know (see Business Spotlight 4/07: lntercultural communication). For example, Asians, Arabs and Africans tradition are collectively marked. So they wouldn’t enter into any contracts by which they would be put at a disadvantage. What family and team concerns they’ll never want to feel uncomfortable. At least, they understand a contract as a Iengterm relationship and they are interested in the actions that have to be taken. Often, they don’t accept any welfare, so that PERSONAL loans could gain acceptance in the POOR POPULATION. lf anyone pays attention to cultural rules a win-win situation would be easily.
Finally, so what was demanded needn’t to be part of the topics. Generally a SWOT-Analysis (SWOT: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) defines PROMISING strategic units. Although informations can be triggers for inspiration, however decision makers want to concentrate on strengths. The G8 conference has to create a framework with which global objectives are attainable. A sure POLITIC, agricultural and financial infrastructure could be the key for the local PROCEDURE. Debt reduction, democratization and PACIFICATION should be included. lf the causes were fought, the effects made grow by and consequences like POVERTY, famine, epidemics and ethnic following can also be removed.
All countries have to face and to deal with steady changes but now they don’t know how to develop their good intensions into POSITIVE action. This is valid for PROGRESSIVE and also for fast-developing nations. This also means that countries which apparently suffer mostly being aren’t invited must hope that their neighbours will offer them stability. They hope what will work for the beneficiaries that’ll be good for the neighbours. This thoughts are very strongly rootedly to best PRACTICE. What wasn ‚t be able to gain acceptance till now in business community seems to be enforceable at a diplomatic Ievei: The weaker were asked to make suggestions for the forthcoming conferences.
The questions ‚Who is who and why?‘ aren’t easy to answer because member structures and group dynamic differs. There are also members who don’t belong to the G8. An identification of the forward role behaviour can carry out for the intensity for activity and PASSIVENESS (see Figure 1: Kantors 4-PLAYER Model). We can classified the different members as mover, bystander, opposer or follower. Germany as the initiator of the conference is a mover. ln the front-end, China and the USA (Opposer) had already announced self-liability and made suggestions of their own (Follower).
No matter as egoistical and utopian such self-liabilities may be, they are a good example so Iong as there is somebody who copies it. At first China was been an opponent, however, has always observe (Bystander) and then agreed with own suggestions and comments. The USA (Opposer) hadn’t ratified the Kyoto PROTOCOL and want the solo run (Mover), however, agree to the objectives generally (Follower).
Unfortunately, to PULL at the same rope is not at all simply. Sometimes, they try to work in a team, but think as individuals. A common behaviour may be a high ideal but it is hard to coordinate, therefore willingness to compromise would be suitable otherwise all effort is in danger. The conclusions could be use for future PROCEDURES. So it isn’t important to identificate climate killer no.1 so long the right are aware of the responsibility for her future action. The G8 situation shouldn’t be mandatorily required who contributes to the world economic growth the most. lt is only all about to PROCESS faults of the PAST and to support attitudes and virtues by which an increasing quality of life can mean PROSPERITY for everyone.
Absolutely, we can figure out various traces of guilty PERSONS: Earlier colonial and PRESENT military aggressors, e.g. The Brits in America, lndia and Honk-Kong The Portuguese in today’s Brazil, Angola and in Macao, the Spaniards in Mexico, the French in Algeria and Morocco and so on. Today’s involved countries can be identified through historical PARALLELS. Due to the historical PARALLELS that could also meant that the biggest POLLUTERS will have to lose the most and therefore this was the reason why to take action. The question isn’t who doesn’t have to allocate but who has to lose the most. Aggressors retired and they had to give up resources there where early. On the other hand, many states in Africa and Central Asia had earned their independence and oppression and murder couldn’t be so simply forgiven. Undoubtedly, the history taught us, the hope dies last. This had led that countries wanted to take alone destiny into their own hands. It was granted to them to learn from own one’s fault until they recognized that they can’t POSSIBLY survive without any help and influence of their former dictators or estranqed neighbours.
Multilayered PROCESSES need time (see: Figure 2: Kolb’s Learning Cycle), we cannot force this immediately and wounds need time to cure. China and Russia are occupying states which have own resources or to arrange to use democratic essential features to an advantage of one’s own. While communist China gains its own experience with the free market economy in few PROVINCES (e.g. especially Hong-Kong and Macao), tries to show Russia strength with geographical size and with totalitarian POWER. A military strength or threat can be found in fast-developing nations like lndia, Russia and China. However, negotiating with uncomfortable PARTIES provide a balance diplomatic relations in these regions. Without every doubt we can spin the thread further, however, it is enough for a basic understanding.
We don’t have to receive the globalization with open arms. lt remains an indispensable part of PEACE efforts. Quite recently the USA take a risk once again and fail, but they only imitated the Europeans merely the methods of warfare and geographical PLAYGROUND changes over the last decades. The PROTESTANT are wrong that a G8 conference will be a public relation event and honest intentions cannot be found . Respect and confidence on both sides can arise without making claims by accepting of victims. lt shouldn’t matter who goes on with a good-will gesture but who wants to Iet hirnself measured with results. ldeally, the ongoing clearance what globalization really means might beware us to fall back into bad manners- and by far bad. lt would be irresponsible to keep one out of these PROCESSES.
The truth is, globalization could be seen as a chance for worldwide cultural evolution. And who knows, someday politicians need high ranking business administration or bonze no more because they can read in their minds.