Organizational Structure in the Pharmaceuticals Industry

Industry Abstract Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson are the largest and most successful pharmaceutical companies in the world today. Each company has a massive workforce and conducts business in countries all over the globe. Both companies have used a high degree of horizontal differentiation in order to manage their business units more effectively. Operating companies are grouped together by their function, as well as the type of product the produce. There are concerns about the lack of control that results from decentralization.The benefits, however, appear to outweigh the risks, as evidenced by the successes enjoyed by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Organizational Structure in the Pharmaceuticals Industry Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer are both pharmaceutical companies that can be found near the top of the Fortune 500 list. Johnson & Johnson was ranked 33 and Pfizer 50 on this year’s list (Fortune 500, 2010). The complexity of this industry requires a very large wor kforce with many specialized roles. More specialized roles in an organization call for more differentiation within the company.There is a great deal of all three types of differentiation within each company: horizontal differentiation, vertical differentiation, and spatial differentiation. This high level of differentiation results in a very complex organizational structure (Nelson & Quick, 2011). Globalization presents significant challenges to all organizations that operate in many different countries. These challenges are typically created by the cultural differences that may exist among the countries in which a company operates. Hofstede believes work-related attitudes are formed by five dimensions of cultural differences.These dimensions are as follows: individualism vs. collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, and time orientation (Nelson & Quick, 2011). It is important for a company to consider these dimensions when developing i ts organizational structure for the global marketplace. Johnson & Johnson owns more than 250 companies located in 57 countries. Each operating company is placed into one of three business segments: consumer health care, medical devices and diagnostics, and pharmaceuticals (Company Structure, 2010).This classification is based on the types of products the company produces. The grouping of subsidiaries in this manner represents horizontal differentiation. Johnson & Johnson gives each operating company a fair amount of control within their environment. This decentralized structure can create concerns about lack of control, but there are benefits as well. As stated above, many of these companies are located outside of the United States. The decentralized structure yields much of the power to the leadership within each company and country, who are more familiar with the environment in which they are working.Furthermore, decentralization provides a great opportunity to develop emp loyees. The leader of a smaller subsidiary may move to a larger sister company if he or she performs well. Innovation can also thrive in a decentralized environment. When people are developing ideas in independent environments, there is greater creativity. Innovation and creativity are paramount in the pharmaceuticals industry (â€Å"Johnson & Johnson CEO,† 2008). Pfizer, like Johnson & Johnson, utilizes a high degree of horizontal differentiation within its organizational structure.Like many companies, Pfizer has gone through several periods of restructuring over the past few years. The latest round of restructuring occurred after Pfizer acquired Wyeth in 2009. Pfizer’s operations can be split into two distinct categories: research and global health care businesses (â€Å"Pfizer Announces,† 2009). After the acquisition, Pfizer formed two separate research organizations. The PharmaTherapeutics Research Group focuses on small molecule research, while the BioTherapeutics Research Group concentrates on large molecules. Within each group, small teams work on specific projects of high potential.This decentralized structure provides sharper focus and less bureaucracy for those working in this critical field (â€Å"Pfizer Announces,† 2009). Upon acquiring Wyeth, Pfizer reorganized its operating companies into two diverse categories: Pfizer BioPharmaceutical Businesses and Pfizer Diversified Businesses. Pfizer BioPharmaceutical Businesses contains five distinct biopharmaceutical businesses: Primary Care, Specialty Care and Vaccines, Emerging Markets, Oncology, and Established Products. Pfizer Diversified Businesses is made up of four unique businesses: Animal Health, Capsugel, Consumer Health, and Nutritional Health.Each of these nine businesses has clear expectations for results from initial product development to the end of the product’s life cycle (â€Å"Pfizer Announces,† 2009). This type of decentralized environme nt provides employees with a sense of pride and ownership in their products. Each business is also able to react more quickly and respond more directly to consumer needs in this decentralized structure (Besthof, 2009). While there are many benefits to a decentralized structure, there are also drawbacks as well. Management often times does not like to yield power and control to others, which may result in micro-managing.There is also concern whether the values and ethical standards of upper management are being practiced by those making criticial decisions. This may be of particular concern for situations in which it is difficult to monitor the activities of those trusted to make these decisions. When working in a global environment, however, the benefits of a decentralized structure certainly appear to outweigh the risks. Nelson and Quick believe the three biggest challenges facing managers today are globalization, diversity, and ethics (2011).All three of these issues are certainly present in the pharmaceuticals industry, and in particular for large global companies such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Decentralization can be very beneficial for a company operating in a global environment. Managers working daily in that country should be actively involved in decision making, since they are most familiar with the environment. Operating globally can also bring diversity issues to the forefront. These issues can also be aided by decentralization, which allows situations to be addressed by those closest to them. Ethics is a major challenge in the pharmaceuticals industry.In a decentralized structure, upper management must be able to trust that others are doing things the right way. If they are not, the reputation of the entire organization may be damaged by the poor decisions of one person in a relatively minor role. Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson have many similarities in the structure of their organizations. Both companies utilize a high degree of horizo ntal differentiation, some of which is required by their wide range of operations. Each company, however, has also made a commitment to allowing these business units to operate with a high degree of autonomy.ReferencesBesthof, Robert. (2009). Pfizer Makes Push in Ophthalmic Market With Restructuring, R&D Strategy. Ocular Surgery News. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from: http://www. osnsupersite. com/view. aspx? rid=42818 Business Wire. (2009, April 7).Pfizer Announces Operating Structure and Select Senior Leadership Posts to Be Effective Immediately Upon Close of Wyeth Acquisition. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from: http://www. businesswire. com/news/home/20090407005717/en/Pfizer-Announces-Operating-Structure-Select-Senior-Leadership Fortune 500. (2010).Retrieved October 7, 2010, from: http://money. nn. com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/industries/21/index. html Johnson & Johnson. (October 2010).Company Structure. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from: http://www. jnj. com/conne ct/about-jnj/company-structure [email  protected] (2008, June 25).Johnson & Johnson CEO William Weldon: Leadershipin a Decentralized Company. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from: http://knowledge. wharton. upenn. edu/article. cfm? articleid=2003 Nelson, D. L. , & Quick, J. C. (2011).Oranizational behavior: Science, the real world, and you. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Distinctive Marketing, IT Capabilities, and Strategic Types: A Cross-National Investigation

Distinctive Marketing and Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types: A Cross-National Investigation ABSTRACT Keywords: strategic typology, firm capabilities, cross-national, Japan, China The authors examine the relationship between strategic type and development of distinctive marketing, market-linking, technology, and information technology (IT) capabilities to implement innovation strategy. They hypothesize that prospectors must build technical and IT capabilities, whereas defenders develop market-linking and marketing capabilities. The authors collect data from 709 firms across the United States, Japan, and China.They find support for their capability hypotheses, as well as for some of their cross-national hypotheses that are based on cultural and business environment differences among the three countries. In particular, they find support for the hypotheses that Japanese firms have greater technology and IT capabilities than U. S. firms of the same strategic type. Th ey conclude with implications for management. The strategic typology of Miles and Snow (1978) has received much attention in the marketing and management literature over the past two decades (e. g. Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997, 1998; Griffin and Hauser 1996; Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon 1986; McDaniel and Kolari 1987; McKee, Varadarajan, and Pride 1989; Parry and Song 1993, 1994; Ruekert and Walker 1987; Song and Xie 2000; Walker et al. 2003). Almost 30 years after its initial appearance in the literature, their typology is viewed widely as having stood the test of time and is still the most popular and commonly accepted model of strategic types in the management literature, having been applied in many different industry settings (DeSarbo et al. 005; DeSarbo et al. 2006; Hambrick 2003). Miles and Snow envision strategy as the patterns in the decisions by which a strategic business unit (SBU) aligns itself with its environment, and they categorize SBUs according to these patterns. The critical underlying variable in their typology is the rate of change in an SBU’s products or markets. Using an exploratory empirical study, Miles and Snow propose four strategic types—prospectors, analyzers, defenders, and reactors—and suggest that each of the first three types chooses a different competitive strategy ith respect to products and/or markets: Prospectors will innovate technologically and seek out new markets, analyzers will prefer a â€Å"second-but-better† strategy, and defenders will focus on maintaining a secure niche in a relatively stable Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto Journal of International Marketing  © 2008, American Marketing Association Vol. 16, No. 1, 2008, pp. 4–38 ISSN 1069-031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic) 4 product or service area.Miles and Snow suggest that all three of these strategic types can be successful if the SBU matches its strategy to the competitive en vironment and develops and deploys appropriate capabilities. Capabilities have been broadly defined as â€Å"complex bundles of skills and accumulated knowledge that enable firms [or SBUs] to coordinate activities and make use of their assets† (Day 1990, p. 38). In this article, we examine the relationship between Miles and Snow’s (1978) strategic type and four capability constructs: technology, market linking, marketing, and information technology (IT).Day (1994) suggests that both technology and market-linking capabilities (or â€Å"insideout† and â€Å"outside-in† capabilities, respectively) are critical to sustained competitive advantage and superior performance (see also Day 1990; Day and Wensley 1988). Technology capabilities, which enable the organization to improve production process efficiencies and ultimately reduce its costs and increase its competitiveness, include financial management, cost control, technology development, logistics, manufact uring, and other processes with an internal emphasis.Market-linking capabilities, which enable the organization to use its technology capabilities to exploit marketplace opportunities, include market sensing, channel bonding, customer linking, technology monitoring, and spanning processes such as purchasing and new product development (Day 1994). Marketing capabilities, such as customer and competitive knowledge, skill in market segmentation and targeting, and effective marketing program design, should also be related to an organization’s performance. In a ioneering study, Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) link marketing capabilities to the four strategic types and find that prospectors are superior in marketing capabilities. The marketing literature suggests that obtaining market and competitive information and diffusing it throughout the organization lead to better market orientation, better performance, and sustainable competitive advantage (Day 1994; Jaworski and Kohl i 1993). The literature also suggests that IT capabilities are increasingly important means to these ends.Research in both the marketing and new product streams has recognized the difficulty of communication across functional boundaries and has identified ways to improve both the quantity and quality of information (Dyer and Song 1997, 1998; Griffin and Hauser 1992, 1993, 1996; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994; Parry and Song 1993, 1994; Ruekert and Walker 1987; Song, Thieme, and Xie 1998; Song and Xie 2000; Swink and Song 2007). All four capability constructs include significant marketing processes. The original, exploratory Miles and Snow (1978) research finds relationships between firm capabilities andInformation Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 5 strategic types in a limited number of industries. A subsequent study in this research stream empirically examines the relationships between marketing capabilities and strategic types and also validates a scale for assessing a business unit’s strategic type (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990). Two recent studies by DeSarbo and colleagues (2005, 2006) propose and empirically test models that include a range of capabilities in addition to marketing capabilities.DeSarbo and colleagues (2005) use SBU data from three countries (the United States, China, and Japan) to derive a descriptive strategic typology that improves on the Miles and Snow typology in terms of explanatory power; this study is extended by DeSarbo and colleagues (2006) to a predictive model that examines causalities between strategic capabilities and SBU performance. The first objective of the current study is to examine the relationships between an SBU’s strategic type and its development of the four distinctive organizational capabilities technology, market linking, marketing, and IT). This research extends the previously mentioned research stream (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; DeSarbo et al. 2005; DeSarbo et al. 200 6) in that we seek to quantify and to better understand these relationships. The second objective is to build and test hypotheses regarding cross-national differences and their effects on the relationships between strategic type selection and the capabilities, a topic in which no empirical work has been conducted so far. We gather empirical data from three countries: the United States, China, and Japan.As China and Japan are the two largest East Asian economies, and together with the United States make up the three largest economies worldwide as measured by purchasing power (World Bank 2000), it is important to examine how firms from these countries compare with respect to their capabilities and strategies. Although DeSarbo and colleagues (2005) use a three-country database to build their descriptive typology, the research does not use the extant international marketing and management literature to build or test hypotheses of cross-national differences.We believe that the cross-nati onal hypothesis testing constitutes a clear extension to the work of Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) and DeSarbo and colleagues (2005, 2006). We first propose a set of four hypotheses relating an SBU’s relative capabilities to its selection of strategic type, as well as four additional hypotheses expressing expected crossnational differences in the magnitudes of the capabilities. We then test these hypotheses using a data set of 709 managers from the United States, Japan, and China. Our empirical results largely confirm these hypotheses. We conclude by 6 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C.Anthony Di Benedetto providing theoretical implications and some possible prescriptions for managers seeking to improve their organization’s strategy selection. In this section, we define the Miles and Snow (1978) typology and discuss the implication of the strategic selection. We then define the four capability constructs and develop four hypotheses relating the capability co nstructs to strategic type. The Miles and Snow (1978) strategic types differ in the rate at which they change products or markets in response to environmental change. According to Miles and Snow, prospectors are the leaders of change in their industry.They operate within a broad product-market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997). They value being â€Å"first in† in new product and market areas as market pioneers even if not all these efforts prove to be highly profitable (Robinson and Fornell 1985; Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992). They often need to respond rapidly to early signals involving areas of opportunity, and these responses often lead to a new round of competitive actions. Nevertheless, prospectors may not maintain market strength in all the areas they enter.They compete principally through launching new products and meeting new marketplace opportunities. Consequently, they devote significant res ources to new product development, market research, and other marketing expenses (Hambrick 1983; McDaniel and Kolari 1987; Shortell and Zajac 1990; Walker et al. 2003). Prospectors also rely on close ties with the channel of distribution to anticipate customer needs and environmental changes (Walker et al. 2003). Sony’s audio products SBU, which is responsible for innovations such as the Walkman, is an example of a typical prospector organization.Defenders attempt to locate and maintain a secure niche in a relatively stable product or service area. They are less risk oriented than prospectors; typically they do not look outside well-defined product-market domains for new opportunities (McDaniel and Kolari 1987; Shortell and Zajac 1990). Rather than invest time in new product or market development, they tend to offer a more limited range of products or services than their competitors, and they focus on resource efficiency and cost-cutting process improvements to try to protect their domain by offering higher quality, superior service, lower prices, and so forth (Hambrick 1983).Defenders are normally not at the forefront of developments in the industry. Walker and colleagues (2003) distinguish between two defender strategies: price cutting and competitive differentiation. Unlike Sony’s audio SBU, Matsushita’s audio division, a typical defender organization, is likely to focus not on developing products but rather on cutting manufacturing costs (Lieberman and Montgomery 1988). HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT The Miles and Snow Strategic Typology Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 7 Analyzers show qualities of both defenders and prospectors.They attempt to maintain a stable, limited line of products or services, while moving out quickly to follow a carefully selected set of the more promising new developments in the industry (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997). Analyzers are seldom â€Å"first in† with new products or services. However, by carefully monitoring the actions of major competitors in areas compatible with their stable product-market base, they are frequently â€Å"second in† with a more cost-efficient product or service (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997).For example, they might develop a new product in a stable market domain or sell established products in new geographic markets or through new distribution channels. They can operate in different domains, perhaps one stable and one more turbulent (McDaniel and Kolari 1987). Miles and Snow (1978, p. 73) characterize analyzers as â€Å"avid followers of change,† always ready to pursue a promising, emerging product or market with a later-entrant, â€Å"second-but-better† strategy (Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992).They can initiate product and/or market development, but less often than prospectors; at the same time, they can focus on stability and efficiency, but to a lesser extent than defenders (Hambrick 1983). Reactors typically lack long-term plans and any consistent strategy, instead reacting to environmental pressures as necessary (McDaniel and Kolari 1987). Empirical study has suggested that prospectors, analyzers, and defenders all perform well (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Miles and Snow 1978) and generally outperform reactors.We are interested primarily in the relative capabilities of the three potentially successful archetypal strategic types, so we do not explicitly include reactors in our hypotheses. We have gathered data from reactor organizations, however, and included them in our analysis section. To create economic value, sustain competitive advantage, and achieve superior profitability, an organization requires a wide range of capabilities. Although it would be impossible to list them all, certain categories of capabilities common to many organizations have been identified and used in prior research (e. . , Day 1994; DeSarbo et al. 2006). Technology capabilities—such as financial management, cost control, technology development, and logistics—enable an organization to keep costs down and to differentiate its offerings from those of competitors. Market-linking capabilities—such as sensing market trends, channel and customer linking, and technology monitoring—enable an organization to be responsive to changing customer needs and to use its technical capabilities effectively to exploit external possibilities (Day 1994). Marketing capabilities—such as skill in segmentation,Organizational Capabilities 8 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto targeting, pricing, and advertising—enable the organization to take advantage of its market-sensing and technological capabilities and to implement effective marketing programs (Song and Parry 1997a, 1997b). Finally, IT capabilities enable the organization to diffuse market information effectively across all rel evant functional areas so that it can direct new product development. Not all organizations will have all of these capabilities (Day and Nedungadi 1994; Day and Wensley 1988).Furthermore, organizations will solidify and even develop their particular capabilities through time according to their strategic type, as Miles and Snow’s (1978) classification posits. For example, prospectors tend to compete by anticipating new product or marketplace opportunities and by implementing technological innovation; continued, successful prospecting will have the effect of strengthening inside-out and IT capabilities. The subsequent sections explore the hypothesized relationships between strategic type and organizational capabilities.Market-linking and -sensing capabilities enable the organization to compete by sensing market changes effectively, anticipating shifts in the market environment, creating and retaining durable links with customers, and creating strong bonds with channel members s uch as wholesalers and retailers. These capabilities enable the organization to sense marketplace requirements before competitors and to connect its other capabilities to the external environment (Day 1994). Organizations of all strategic types need well-developed market-linking capabilities.For defenders, however, such capabilities are particularly critical because these organizations must correctly and quickly anticipate changes in the market and their customers’ needs if they are to maintain their prominence within their existing product-market domain (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990). Because defenders attempt to locate and maintain a secure niche in a relatively stable product or service area, they tend to offer a more limited range of products or services than their competitors, and they try to protect their domain by offering higher quality, superior service, lower prices, and so forth.To be effective in achieving these objectives, defenders must possess a high lev el of market-linking capabilities. Walker and colleagues (2003) also note that tracking changes in customer needs and competitive behavior is especially important to a differentiated defender strategy. They note that defenders should be strongest in business functions related to their competitive strategy, such as market sensing and linking. Although prospectors should also have good market-linking capabilities, their ability to sustain competitive advantage is more closely tied to the development of new products, markets, and technologies.Therefore, although Market-Linking Capabilities Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 9 market-linking capabilities are important to prospectors and analyzers, defenders will need them most. Our expectations about organizational strategy types and market-linking capabilities (relative to competitors) can be summarized as follows: H1: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the least rel ative marketlinking capabilities, nd defenders have the greatest. Technical capabilities involve the manufacturing processes, technology, new product development, production facilities, and forecasting of technological change in the industry. They are contained within the organization and activated by market, competitor, and external challenges and opportunities. By increasing efficiency in the production process, they can reduce costs and improve consistency in delivery and, therefore, competitiveness (Day 1994).Although technical capabilities are likely to be important for all strategic types, they should be most important to prospectors, which prosper in unstable, changing environments, especially those marked by rapid technological change such as biotechnology, medical care, and aerospace (Walker et al. 2003). Because prospectors use a first-to-market strategy and typically operate within a broad product-market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition (Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992), they must be able to develop new technologies, products, and markets rapidly (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; McDaniel and Kolari 1987).Walker and colleagues (2003) note that prospectors require strength in product research and development (R&D) and product engineering, and they perform best when the amount spent on product R&D is high. Because defenders typically locate and maintain a secure niche in a relatively stable product or service area, they tend to be less interested in developing new products and technologies and therefore will depend less on technical capabilities. Formally, H2: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the greatest relative technical capabilities, and defenders have the least.Marketing capabilities include knowledge of the competition and of customers and skill in segmenting and targeting markets, in advertising and pricing, and in integrating marketing activity. Conant, Mokwa, and Varadaraj an (1990) find that prospector firms have distinctive competencies in marketing planning, allocation of marketing resources, revenue forecasting, and control of marketing activities. However, although both prospectors and defenders require skills in Technical Capabilities Marketing Capabilities 10 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto arketing and market research to succeed (Song and Parry 1997a, b), certain marketing capabilities will be of most importance to defender firms because they are most concerned about protecting products and retaining customers (McDaniel and Kolari 1987). Walker and colleagues (2003) note that differentiated defenders must be able to communicate their products’ unique advantages so as to sustain customer satisfaction and loyalty. Low-cost defenders must be able to standardize effective marketing programs across all customer segments so as to reduce overall marketing costs.Thus, because both differentiated and low-cost defenders rely on marketing capabilities, they should develop them to a greater degree than should other strategic types. H3: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the lowest relative marketing capabilities, and defenders have the greatest. A firm active in product development must be able to gather technical and market information effectively and disseminate it throughout the organization (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990).These IT capabilities facilitate internal communication and cross-functional integration (Song et al. 2007). Better IT is associated with greater strategic flexibility and, ultimately, with better performance and greater organizational success (Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Konsynski 1999; Swanson 1994). Day (1994) notes that more creative use of IT should lead to better firm performance, and other researchers have found that better information transmission across functional areas leads to m ore successful new products (Griffin and Hauser 1992, 1993, 1996; Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon 1986; Moenaert and Souder 1996).As we discussed previously, prospectors typically operate within a broad product-market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition. They also rely on the rapid development of new products and new markets (Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992). Therefore, prospectors need relatively high IT skills to respond rapidly to early signals involving areas of opportunity. Miles and Snow (1978) note that prospectors tend to have the most complex coordination and communication mechanisms.Because of the technologically advanced nature of the products they develop, prospectors are also more likely to encounter conflicts among marketing, R&D, engineering, and possibly other functional areas (Dyer and Song 1997, 1998; Walker et al. 2003). This makes even more critical prospectors’ ability to communicate as effectively as possible and to ensure the free flow of informati on throughout the organization. In addition, prospectors might need greater strategic flexibility than other strategic types because they must constantly monitor and target emerging technology IT CapabilitiesInformation Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 11 and product opportunities; better IT contributes to greater strategic flexibility (Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Konsynski 1999). Formally, we propose the following: H4: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the greatest relative IT capabilities, and defenders have the lowest. CROSS-NATIONAL HYPOTHESES The cultural differences among Japan, China, and the United States are well documented in the literature (Hofstede 1980; Tse et al. 1988). Japanese and Chinese cultures are collectivistic and long-term oriented, whereas the U.S. culture is individualistic and short-term oriented. Japan and China emphasize group harmony and cohesiveness, whereas the United States values freedom of c hoice and competition (Hofstede 1980). The business environments in both Japan and China reflect these cultural tendencies. In Japan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) encourages investment in key technologies and fierce competition among Japanese firms in selected industries (Kagono et al. 1985). These policies have helped strengthen Japan’s competitiveness in the global marketplace. In addition, METI’s olicies have recently encouraged new initiatives, such as growth in IT and support for environmentally friendly products (Elder 2000). The keiretsu, or interorganizational business groups, also strongly support technology development in Japan (Lai 1999; Lincoln, Gerlach, and Ahmadjian 1996; Miwa and Ramseyer 2002). A major manufacturer might work cooperatively with its suppliers and distributors (vertical keiretsu) or with other manufacturers (horizontal keiretsu) to perfect a new technology; consider, for example, the consortium of Japanese firms tha t worked with Sony in the development of the global positioning system (Campbell 1999).In addition to technology and IT capabilities, Japanese firms in many industries possess formidable marketing and marketlinking capabilities. Their cultural predilection toward group harmony and cohesiveness has led Japanese firms to value long-term relationships with their suppliers, distributors, and customers (Kagono et al. 1985; Kotabe et al. 1991; Smith, Peterson, and Wang 1996; Tse et al. 1988). These relationships enable Japanese manufacturers to link with their customer markets effectively and to develop appropriate marketing strategies and programs.Since the end of World War II, Japanese firms have closed the gap between themselves and their U. S. competitors in terms of marketing capabilities, in some industries surpassing them. As an example, Japanese carmakers are renowned for their excellence in customer research. Use of observational research techniques has enabled Toyota, Nissan, an d Honda to develop cars that are 12 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto ideally suited to the unique demands of the U. S. marketplace (Shirouzu 2001).Japanese carmakers were also among the first to use Quality Function Deployment techniques (e. g. , the House of Quality; see Hauser and Clausing 1988), which ensure that market needs drive all the subsequent steps in product development and manufacturing processes, including product engineering, process planning, and production (Griffin 1992). It was the U. S. carmakers that had to learn these techniques from Japanese carmakers to catch up (Dyer 1996). This literature suggests that Japanese firms are at least equal to their U. S. ompetitors in terms of marketing capabilities and, because of their cultural tendency toward group harmony and cohesiveness, could possess even stronger market-linking capabilities. The Chinese business environment differs from that of Japan, though the two countries share some cultural traits. Despite recent economic reforms, many Chinese firms remain state-owned enterprises, characterized by shared government and firm authority (Schermerhorn and Nyaw 1991). Since the 1970s, investment in technology and innovation has been supported strongly by government policy to stimulate Chinese economic growth and to boost global competitiveness.As decentralization has occurred, stateowned enterprises have increased their decision-making authority on issues such as products and prices (Henley and Nyaw 1986; Laaksonen 1988; Schermerhorn and Nyaw 1991), and smaller collective enterprises with even less government control have become more prevalent (Parry and Song 1994). Nevertheless, Chinese government policy continues to prioritize technology capability investment. However, our review of the literature on Chinese state-owned enterprises reveals little evidence that the Chinese government has prioritized or funded marketing, market-linking, or IT capabilities.In summary, the l iterature suggests that Japanese government and keiretsu policy favor technology and IT capability development, whereas Chinese government policy favors technology development. In addition, the marketing and marketlinking capabilities of Japanese firms are well established, whereas Chinese governmental policy has not supported the development of these capabilities On the basis of this evidence, we propose the following: H5: Japanese firms have greater market-linking capabilities than U. S. and Chinese firms of the same strategic type.H6: Japanese and Chinese firms have greater technology capabilities than U. S. firms of the same strategic type. Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 13 H7: Japanese and U. S. firms have greater marketing capabilities than Chinese firms of the same strategic type. H8: Japanese firms have greater IT capabilities than U. S. firms of the same strategic type. Note that H5–H8 can be tested for each of the four strategic types separa tely—thus the qualifier â€Å"of the same strategic type. † RESEARCH DESIGNInstrument Development and Cross-Cultural Validation Process Our constructs are defined using competitive capability theory (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Day 1994) and must be operationalized using valid, reliable measures (Churchill 1979). We used a four-step instrument development procedure to develop new scales for market-linking, technical, marketing, and IT capabilities and to ensure crosscultural validity. (For a fuller discussion of the instrument development procedure, see DeSarbo et al. 2005. ) Step 1: Measurement Items for Each Capability Type.We identified relevant measurement scales from the marketing literature. We grouped the scale items derived from these scales into the four capability types. To this initial pool of items for each capability type, we added new items in instances in which we believed that not all the dimensions of the construct had been sufficiently covere d. To ensure content validity and appropriateness of items, we refined the scales through in-depth focus interviews in two SBUs. Managers at these SBUs were asked their opinions about salient issues in SBU capabilities.They were also asked to evaluate whether the theoretical model described their own experiences adequately. Next, managers commented on their perceptions of the relevance and completeness of the scale items drawn from the literature review and previous case studies. Finally, we tested and validated the Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) strategic typology scale. Step 2: Scale Development. Following Churchill (1979), we assessed construct validity of the scales being developed and corrected any scale items that might still be ambiguous.Seven judges (two professors and five doctoral students with background in measurement development) sorted the items from the first step into the four capability scales, following Davis’s (1986) procedure. Construct convergence and divergence were examined by assessing interrater reliability (for assessment statistics, see DeSarbo et al. 2005). Step 3: Instrument Pretesting. Using the judges’ comments, we reexamined all scale items and eliminated inappropriate or ambiguous items or any that were inconsistently classified.We then combined the four scales into an overall instrument 14 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto for additional pretesting. We distributed the instrument to 32 managers in the two SBUs to further assess scale reliability and validity; two problematic items were deleted. Then, the instrument was distributed to 41 executive MBA students taking a new product development class. We subjected the results to factor analysis and assessment of reliability. (Factor loadings and reliability test results are available on request. We deleted two more items, which resulted in a questionnaire including all items judged to have high consistency and face validity. Step 4: Cr oss-Cultural Validation of the Research Instrument. To ensure that the translation was accurate and that the question meanings were not altered, we used a double-translation method to translate the questionnaire into Japanese and Chinese (Adler 1983; Douglas and Craig 2006; Sekaran 1983). After translation, we conducted field research in six Japanese firms and two Chinese firms in which we examined SBU capabilities and innovation strategies.The purposes of the field research were to establish the content validity of the concepts and the hypothesized relationships among the constructs; to establish equivalence of the constructs, concepts, measures, and samples; and to assess the possibility of cultural bias and response format bias (Douglas and Craig 2006). The field research studies were conducted over a ninemonth period with multiple visits to the companies. The field research studies were important for several reasons. First, they facilitated an assessment of construct (conceptual , functional, and category) equivalence.Second, they indicated that the measurement scales were appropriate for studying capability and strategic types in Japanese and Chinese context. Third, the field research results suggested that it is more appropriate to ask the respondents to rate their SBU on each of the capability scale items relative to their major competitors (for exact wording, see Appendix A). Appendix A provides a list of the final measure measurement items and the response format employed in the questionnaire. The following sections briefly summarize the four scales.Market-Linking Capabilities. We measured market-linking capabilities using several scale items derived from Day (1994). The items measure relative capability in creating and managing durable customer relationships, creating durable relationships with suppliers, retaining customers, and bonding with channel members. Technical Capabilities. We also measured technical capabilities according to a set of scale i tems derived from Day (1994). These items measure relative capabilities in the prediction ofInformation Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 15 technological change, technology and new product development, manufacturing processes, and production facilities. Marketing Capabilities. We measured marketing capabilities using a set of scale items derived from Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990). These items measure knowledge of customers, knowledge of competitors, integration of marketing activities, skills in segmentation and targeting, and effectiveness of pricing and advertising programs. IT Capabilities.We defined IT capabilities as the relative capabilities that help an organization create technical and market knowledge and facilitate intraorganizational communication flow. We developed items to measure the possession of IT systems for new product development, cross-functional integration, technology and market knowledge creation, and internal communication. We subjected th ese items to the measurement development procedure described previously. We obtained the data from a large-scale mail survey of the companies listed in Ward’s Business Directory, the Directory of Corporate Affiliations, and the World Marketing Directory.We drew a proportionate-stratified random sample of 800 firms from each country, using each industry as a stratum. The data collection consisted of three stages: presurvey, data collection on SBU strategies, and data collection on relative capabilities. In the first stage, we sent a one-page survey and an introductory letter requesting participation to all the selected firms and offered a list of available research reports to participating firms. The letter requested each firm to select an SBU/division for participation and provide a contact person in that SBU/division.Of the 2400 firms contacted, 392 in the United States, 429 in Japan, and 414 in China agreed to participate and provided the necessary contacts at the SBU/divis ion level. In the second stage, on strategic types, we contacted the designated SBU managers directly and mailed a questionnaire and personalized letter to each manager. We employed a three-wave mailing on the basis of the recommendations of Dillman (1978). We received data on the multi-item measures of the strategic types from 308 firms in the United States, 354 firms in Japan, and 352 firms in China.Two items at the end of the instrument assessed respondents’ confidence in their ability to answer the questions. Respondents with a low level of confidence (less than 6) were excluded from the final sample. In the third stage, on the four capabilities, we sent another questionnaire to the SBU managers, followed again by a three-wave mailing. This time, we received data on the rela- Data 16 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto tive capabilities from 216 U. S. firms, 248 Japanese firms, and 245 Chinese firms.These sample sizes represent response rates of 27. 0% in the United States, 31. 0% in Japan, and 30. 6% in China. The final sample includes the following industries: computer-related products; electronics; electric equipment and household appliances; pharmaceuticals, drugs, and medicines; machinery; telecommunications equipment; instruments and related products; air conditioning; chemicals and related products; and transportation equipment. The majority of participating SBUs/divisions had annual sales of $11 million–$750 million and 100–12,500 employees.Appendix A presents all of the measures used in this study. We asked respondents to rate their SBU on each of the capability scale items relative to their major competitors. We used an 11-point scale to elicit levels of agreement, with values ranging from 0 (â€Å"much worse than our competitors†) to 10 (â€Å"much better than our competitors†). We used the data collected in the second phase of the collection process to classify the SBU/division into the four strategic types. We adopted the 11-item scale from Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990).We classified the SBU’s strategic type (prospector, analyzer, defender, or reactor) using the â€Å"majority-rule decision structure† (for details, see Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990) with the following modification: For an SBU to be classified as a prospector or a defender, it must have at least seven â€Å"correct† answers. Before testing our hypotheses, we performed principal factor analyses with Varimax rotation on all the variables measuring the four relative capabilities for all three countries. To assess measurement invariance, we examined factor structure similarity (Mullen 1995).We retained variables using the following criteria: (1) Each factor must contain the same scale items across all three countries, (2) each item’s factor loading must be comparable across all three countries, and (3) for each factor, the factor loading must exceed . 40. This procedure produced four factors and reduced the total number of variables to 21. We made comparisons among the factor structures of the three countries using visual inspection, the salient similarity index, and Pearson correlation of the factor loadings across the three countries. The factor loadings appear in Table 1.As indicated, all factors are distinguishable and well defined for all three countries. The percentage of the variance explained by the four factors is 72% for the United States, 71% for Japan, and 69% for China. The examination of the diagonal of the factor score covariance matrix indicates that all factors for the three Measures ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Factor Analysis of the Capability Scales Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 17 Table 1. Principal Component Factor Analysis: Rotated Factor Patterns United States Market-Linking Capabilities Market-sensing capabilities Customer-linking (i. e. creating and managing durable customer relationships) capab ilities Capabilities of creating durable relationships with our suppliers Ability to retain customers Channel-bonding capabilities (creating durable relationships with channel members such as wholesalers, retailers) Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor Technical Capabilities Manufacturing processes Technology development capabilities Ability of predicting technological changes in the industry Production facilities New product development capabilities Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor Marketing Capabilities Knowledge of competitors Effectiveness of advertising programs Integration of marketing activities Skill to segment and target markets Effectiveness of pricing programs Knowledge of customers Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor IT Capabilities IT systems for facilitating crossfunctional integration IT systems for new product development projects IT systems for internal communication (e. g. , across diff erent departments, levels of the organization) IT systems for facilitating technology knowledge creation IT systems for facilitating market knowledge creation Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor . 71 . 80 . 90 . 58 . 86 . 85 . 62 . 89 4. 22 20. 1 . 97 . 93 . 90 . 92 . 91 6. 10 29. 1 . 85 Japan .81 China .88 .80 . 81 . 79 .77 . 71 . 57 .79 . 66 . 70 .65 3. 04 14. 4 .44 1. 68 8. 0 .67 2. 64 12. 6 .79 . 78 . 78 . 77 . 71 2. 51 12. 0 70 . 81 . 69 . 73 . 78 4. 36 20. 7 .95 . 95 . 94 . 95 . 90 . 86 5. 69 27. 1 .95 . 86 . 94 . 93 . 83 . 83 5. 39 25. 7 .90 . 89 .83 . 80 .75 . 66 . 74 1. 66 7. 9 .85 . 65 . 57 5. 08 24. 2 .46 . 67 . 63 1. 75 8. 3 18 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto countries are internally consistent and well defined by the measurement items. We provide the final set of included measurement items in Appendix A and the construct reliabilities (as measured by Cronbach’s ? ) and item-to-total correlations in Appendix B. All 12 construct reliabilities (three countries ? four constructs) exceeded the . 70 level that Peter (1979) recommends.To test H1–H4 in each of the three country settings, we performed multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) to compare the scores on each of the four multi-item relative capability scales across all four strategic types using SAS general linear model procedure. For each capability scale, we obtained a multiple-item scale by a simple average of the items. As Table 2 shows, the MANOVA F-statistic was significant for all four relative capabilities and in all three countries, so we computed pairwise comparisons to examine the nature of the differences in relative capabilities among the four strategic types. We also include the t-test results of the pairwise comparisons in Table 2.The results in Table 2 provide support for H1–H4 in all three countries. (A hypothesis is supported if at least one pairwise comparison is significant and the direction is in t he hypothesized direction. ) As H1 hypothesized, the relative marketlinking capabilities of defenders and analyzers are significantly greater than those of prospectors in all three countries, though the difference between defenders and analyzers is not significant. For example, in the United States, mean scores on market-linking capabilities are 2. 69, 2. 35, and 1. 67 for defenders, analyzers, and prospectors, respectively. The F-statistic from the analysis of variance is 3. 52, which is significant at p < . 05.T-tests of the paired comparisons showed that both the defender mean and the analyzer mean were significantly larger than the prospector mean (D > P; A > P) at the p < . 05 level. We obtained similar results for the Japanese and Chinese samples. These findings are consistent with H1. Prospectors have lower market-linking capabilities than defenders and analyzers because the latter two strategic types rely primarily on their market-sensing and -linking abilities to serve thei r current markets with their current products and technologies. The results also support H2 (prospectors have greater technical capabilities than defenders) in all three countries.For the United States, the prospector and defender means were 3. 42 and 2. 25, respectively, significantly different at p < . 05. Both prospectors’ and analyzers’ technical capabilities are greater than those of defenders in Japan. The means for prospector, analyzer, and defender were 8. 75, 8. 47, and 7. 84, respectively; both prospector and analyzer means were significantly Tests of H1–H4: Possession of Capabilities by Different Strategic Types Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 19 20 Table 2. Analysis of Variance Results: Relative Capabilities and Strategic Types Strategic Type Prospector 1. 67 (1. 67) 3. 42 (2. 70) 1. 75 (1. 50) 7. 5 (1. 49) 6. 72 (1. 79) 5. 48 (1. 09) 5. 05 (1. 72) 2. 37 (1. 75) 3. 26 (1. 99) 1. 98 (2. 38) 2. 78 (2. 46) 2. 25 (2. 59) 2. 46 (2. 90) 2. 16* 7. 47** 31. 96** 2. 35 (1. 82) 2. 69 (1. 79) 2. 46 (2. 01) 3. 52** Univariate Defender Reactor F-Value Paired Comparisons Hypothesis (t-Tests)a D > P; A > P P>D D > A; D > P; D > R; A > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > D; A > R Countries/Relative Capabilities Analyzer Supportedb Yes Yes Yes Yes United States Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Japan 1. 03 (. 91) 8. 75 (1. 23) 3. 58 (2. 36) 9. 48 (. 87) 9. 00 (1. 01) 3. 9 (2. 88) 8. 47 (1. 20) 7. 84 (1. 35) 3. 68 (2. 73) 8. 72 (1. 09) 1. 96 (1. 12) 2. 07 (1. 19) 2. 51 (1. 56) 7. 42 (1. 42) 4. 82 (2. 29) 8. 46 (1. 28) 19. 17** 12. 02** 2. 24* 11. 28** D > P; A > P; R > D; R > A; R > P P > D; P > R; A > D; A > R R > D; R > A; R > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > R Yes Yes No Yes Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto IT capabilities Strategic Type Prospector 1. 21 (1. 28) 8. 53 (1. 27) 2. 9 2 (2. 20) 8. 96 (1. 10) 8. 58 (1. 13) 7. 94 (1. 33) 7. 59 (1. 60) 13. 38** 3. 37 (2. 52) 3. 9 (2. 82) 4. 13 (2. 45) 2. 30* 7. 81 (1. 28) 7. 43 (1. 19) 6. 79 (1. 85) 15. 69** 2. 17 (1. 52) 2. 22 (1. 49) 2. 71 (1. 74) 11. 21** Univariate Defender Reactor F-Value Paired Comparisons Hypothesis (t-Tests)a D > P; A > P; R > A; R > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > R; D > R D > P; R > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > D; A > R Countries/Relative Capabilities Analyzer Supportedb Yes Yes Yes Yes China Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types *p < . 10. **p < . 05. aSignificant differences at p < . 0 are reported. bA hypothesis is supported if at least one pair is significantly different in the hypothesized direction. Notes: Each cell shows the mean; standard deviations are in parentheses. P = prospector, A = analyzer, D = defender, and R = reactor. Table 2. Continued 21 higher than the defender mean at p < . 05. In China, prospectors scored higher than analyzers and defenders on this capability (prospector, analyzer, and defender means were 8. 53, 7. 81, and 7. 43, respectively; the prospector mean was significantly higher than the other two means at p < . 05). H3 was supported in the United States and China samples. For the U. S. ample, defenders had significantly greater marketing capabilities than analyzers, and analyzers had significantly greater marketing capabilities than prospectors. The defender, analyzer, and prospector means on relative marketing capabilities in the United States were 3. 26, 2. 37, and 1. 75, respectively, all significantly different from one another at p < . 05 according to the pairwise t-tests. For the Chinese sample, the only differences are the pair between defenders and prospectors and the pair between reactors and prospectors. However, for the Japanese samples, the hypothesis was not supported. The three â€Å"archetypal† strategic types we re insignificantly different and, notably, rather low.The reactors had significantly greater marketing capabilities than all other three strategic types. Finally, H4 was also supported in all three countries. Almost without exception, prospectors had greater IT capabilities than analyzers, which in turn had greater IT capabilities than defenders. For example, in the U. S. sample, the relative IT capabilities for prospectors, analyzers, and defenders were 7. 95, 6. 72, and 5. 48, respectively, all significantly different from one another at p < . 05. Similar results were found in Japan and China. In summary, our expectations, expressed in our hypotheses, were that prospectors would be strongest in technical and IT capabilities and defenders in market-linking and marketing capabilities.We find support for all these hypotheses in all three countries, and all significant findings were in the hypothesized directions. The next set of hypotheses involves expected cross-national differences in terms of the relationship between capabilities and strategic types due to cultural or business environment differences. Before discussing the direct empirical testing of these hypotheses, however, we explain some preliminary findings regarding cross-national differences using data from Table 2. Market-Linking Capabilities. Reactors had significantly greater relative market-linking capabilities than did other strategic types in both Japan and China, but not in the United States. Market-linking capability = 2. 51 and 2. 71 in Japan and China, respectively; in each case, this is the highest capability mean. ) Miles and Snow (1978) find that reactors Tests of H5–H8: Cross-National Similarities and Differences 22 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto did not implement strategies consistently and therefore did not fully develop internal capabilities that would enable them to compete successfully. Our results suggest that this expectation is not borne out in Japan or China, possibly because some firms in these countries have well-developed market-linking capabilities but choose to compete as reactors rather than defenders.That is, superior market-sensing skills enable these firms to act successfully as prospectors in certain markets and as adapters or defenders in others. This finding appears to be supported by the H3 results, at least for Japanese firms. Reactors in Japan have significantly greater relative marketing capabilities than all other strategic types. Leaders of a multinational organization doing business against a Japanese competitor should keep in mind that a firm apparently lacking a consistent strategy (i. e. , displaying reactive behavior) may be nonetheless highly skilled in marketing and market linking and, therefore, a surprisingly formidable opponent. Technical Capabilities.Although H2 was largely supported, it is worthwhile to note that across all four strategic types, managers from U. S. firms rated their technica l capabilities (relative to competitors) substantially lower than did their Japanese or Chinese counterparts. The means for the United States were 2. 2–3. 4 on a ten-point scale, and comparable means in Japan and China were 7–9. This finding suggests that in Japan and China, all strategic types (including defenders and reactors) have well-developed relative technical capabilities. Again, a U. S. firm in competition against, for example, a Japanese defender should not infer low technical capabilities from its competitor’s defensive posture. Marketing Capabilities.Finally, it was surprising to note that H3, which involves relative marketing capabilities, was not supported in Japan and only partially supported in China. As we noted previously, Japanese reactor firms have the greatest relative marketing capabilities; all other firms are insignificantly different on this capability. In China, defenders rate significantly higher than prospectors in this (as hypothesiz ed), but we found no other significant differences among the archetypal strategic types. Cross-National Differences. To test the cross-national hypotheses (H5–H8), we performed additional analyses to compare the means on each relative capability construct across countries for each of the four strategic types using SAS general linear model procedure.We used the same procedure described previously: a MANOVA followed by a series of pairwise t-tests to identify significant differences. As Table 3 shows, the F-statistic was significant for 13 of the 16 possible comparisons. Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 23 Consider first the technology and IT capability hypotheses (H6 and H8). Table 3 shows that across all four strategic types, Japanese and Chinese SBUs rate significantly higher than U. S. SBUs in relative technical capabilities. As an example, technical capabilities for prospectors were rated as 8. 75, 8. 53, and 3. 42 for Japan, China, and the United St ates, respectively (significant at p < . 05).This is directly supportive of H6. Japanese and Chinese SBUs also rated significantly higher than their U. S. counterparts in relative IT capabilities across all four strategic types; therefore, we find only partial support for H8. For prospectors, IT capabilities were 9. 48, 8. 96, and 7. 95 for Japan, China, and the United States, respectively (significant at p < . 05). High relative IT capability among Japanese SBUs was expected according to H8, but the high relative IT capability among Chinese SBUs was unanticipated and is worthy of further research. We found less support for the market-linking and marketing capability hypotheses (H5 and H7).Cross-national differences are not very pronounced in the case of relative marketlinking capabilities. As Table 3 shows, U. S. prospector SBUs rate significantly higher than their Japanese and Chinese counterparts, and U. S. defenders rate significantly higher than their Japanese counterparts. The se findings are contradictory to the expectations of H5. Given the evidence of Japanese market-linking expertise, it is surprising that Japanese SBUs rate significantly higher than U. S. or Chinese competitors in market linking only in the case of reactors. In addition, H7 is only partially supported. Japanese and Chinese prospectors and analyzers rate significantly higher than their U. S. ounterparts on relative marketing capabilities. For example, in the case of prospectors, marketing capabilities are rated as 4. 58, 2. 92, and 1. 75 for Japan, China, and the United States, respectively (significant at p < . 05). Although we expected high relative marketing capability for Japan, we did not expect the significantly lower marketing capabilities among U. S. SBUs. Nevertheless, consistent patterns appear with respect to the cross-national hypotheses and suggest directions for further research. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION According to the Miles and Snow (1978) typology, organizations ado pt certain mechanisms to respond to environmental changes.That is, they choose to be pioneers in product or market development or to protect existing positions within their niches, or they seek some kind of intermediate position between these two extremes. As a result, firms exhibit relatively consistent strategies, or patterns of product-market innovation decisions, in response to environmental shifts. Furthermore, a firm that pursues a given strategy develops certain capabilities that help it implement that strategy, thus increasing the likelihood that it will continue to use the same strategy in response to future environmental shifts. As Ham- 24 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di BenedettoStrategic Types/ Relative Capabilities United States 1. 67 3. 42 1. 75 7. 95 9. 48 8. 96 33. 14** 3. 58 2. 92 13. 91** 8. 75 8. 53 202. 00** 1. 03 1. 21 4. 74** Country Japan China Univariate F-Value Cross-Country Comparisonsa U. S. > China; U. S. > Japan Japan > U. S. ; China > U . S. Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Prospectors Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Analyzers 2. 35 2. 78 2. 37 6. 72 9. 00 8. 58 3. 59 3. 37 8. 47 7. 81 230. 38** 5. 46** 58. 07** 1. 96 2. 17 1. 16n. s. — Japan > China; Japan > U. S. China > U. S. Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Defenders 2. 69 2. 25 3. 26 5. 48 8. 72 3. 68 3. 69 7. 94 7. 84 7. 43 2. 07 2. 22 2. 70* 163. 99** . 54n. s. 121. 94** U. S. > Japan Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. — Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types IT capabilities Table 3. Analysis of Variance Results: Cross-National Comparisons 25 26 Table 3.Continued Country Un ited States 2. 46 2. 46 1. 98 5. 05 8. 46 7. 59 4. 81 4. 13 7. 42 6. 79 2. 51 2. 71 . 17n. s. 38. 68** 7. 99** 28. 82** Strategic Types/ Relative Capabilities Japan China Univariate F-Value Cross-Country Comparisonsa Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. — Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Reactors Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto *p < . 10. **p < . 05. aSignificant differences at p < . 10 are reported. Notes: n. s. = not significant. brick (1983, p. ) notes, â€Å"prospectors tend to want to continue prospecting; defenders tend to want to continue defending. † Among the capabilities Miles and Snow investigate are technology, structure, management processes, and power distribution. As we noted previously, the Miles and Snow (1978) typology is, above all, a typology of innovation strategies. In this study, we mapped four ca pabilities of interest to innovating firms (market-linking, technical, marketing, and IT capabilities) onto the Miles and Snow strategic typologies. We hypothesized (in H1–H4) that prospectors, which typically pursue a first-mover strategy through product-market innovation, would need to build up technical and IT capabilities.Similarly, defenders, which are most concerned with preserving protected market segments with existing technology, must develop market-linking and marketing capabilities. We found supporting evidence for all these hypotheses in firms from all three countries. We then developed and tested a set of cross-national hypotheses (H5–H8), based on cultural and business environment differences existing among the United States, Japan, and China. Our development and empirical testing of these hypotheses represent a significant advance of the literature beyond the contributions of DeSarbo and colleagues (2005, 2006). We found clear support for one of the four hypotheses (H6), partial support for two others (H7 and H8), and no support for the last (H5).In general, the cultural and business environment prevalent in Japan and China has given SBUs in those countries relative advantages in technology and IT capabilities (H6 and H8), yet we did not observe anticipated advantages in market-linking and marketing capabilities (H5 and H7). This study has some implications for theory development and further research. In general, the results support the hypotheses that relative to other organizations, prospectors develop greater technical and IT capabilities so that they can pursue first-to-market initiatives and that defenders develop greater market-linking and marketing capabilities so that they can respond effectively to marketplace changes.These findings lend support to the Miles and Snow (1978) typology and to the contention that organizations tend to respond in certain, consistent ways to environmental change. Therefore, our findings can be i nterpreted as further empirical support of the Miles and Snow typology, originally conceived after an exploratory study of a limited number of industries but empirically supported in other settings (Hambrick 2003). Our findings are also consistent with Hambrick’s (1983) contention that prospectors want to keep prospecting and consequently develop the capabilities most closely related to Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 27 prospecting more than do other firms. Because IT has evolved only in the past few years, further research should explore the impact of IT on strategic choices.Because no existing theories are sufficient to enable us to predict a priori the nature of cross-national differences in the relationship between the four capabilities and strategic types, further research also should examine further our preliminary results regarding cross-national differences in relative capabilities. In addition, note that our model provides evidence of the val idity of Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan’s (1990) 11-item scale for assessing strategic type in both Japan and China. We believe that this is the first application of this scale in China and one of the first in Japan (for an earlier Japanese application, see Dyer and Song 1997). There are several notable managerial implications. The Miles and Snow (1978) typology suggests that organizations must do a sincere internal and external assessment when planning strategic moves for future competition.The external assessment should include analysis not only of likely opportunities or developments in product, market, and technology but also of past moves by primary competitors classified by strategic type. In the internal assessment, the organization’s leaders must identify honestly the firm’s strengths and recognize its weaknesses in light of external challenges. They must then choose a strategic stance, deciding how it can best capitalize on the strengths and overcome th e weaknesses. Although this recommendation is hardly new, it is important in this context to recognize that there is a mutually complementary relationship between capabilities and strategies.Relative strengths in technology and IT capabilities might suggest that a prospector (or even an analyzer) strategy could be a more appropriate choice than a defender strategy. Consistent, successful pursuit of a prospector strategy over time should help a firm develop these relative strengths and enable it to retain its competitive advantage. This implicitly suggests also that a firm that recognizes itself as a reactor type should use its internal assessment to decide which â€Å"archetypal† strategic type it should strive to become. Cross-national differences in strategic type also carry managerial implications. Previously, we noted several

John Dewey on Education Essay

John Dewey, Mortimer Adler and Nel Noddings impacted our system of education in very profound ways. Dewey believed that there should be communication between the student and the teacher. Adler believed that schools should only teach the traditional courses (English, Math, Science, Social Studies and Foreign Language). Noddings believed that teachers should be more caring towards their students. John Dewey’s idea of education greatly affected our system of education today. John Dewey’s ideas for education were to concentrate on students’ psychological and sociological qualities. Dewey believed in promoting an â€Å"unconscious education† where â€Å"the individual gradually comes to share in the intellectual and moral resources which humanity has succeeded in getting together. He becomes an inheritor of the funded capital of civilization† (Dewey 261). In other words, he thought this was a good method for teachers to analyze a student’s behavior in order to teach them more effectively. This also provided an opportunity for the student to learn without even realizing it. Dewey stated that a student’s psychological needs were the basis of his method of education. The child’s own instinct and powers furnish the material and give the starting-point for all education† (Dewey 262). Dewey stressed the idea that, â€Å"Without insight into the psychological structure and activities of the individual the educative process will†¦be haphazard and arbitrary† (Dewey 262). Dewey was also extremely interested in the social aspects of a student. He said that the, â€Å"knowledge of social conditions, of the present state of civilization, is necessary in order to properly interpret the child’s powers† (Dewey 262). This was a new technique for an educator to see and distinguish the instincts and tendencies in a student. Therefore, in order for an educator to know more about a student he/she must first study the student’s psychological traits in order to understand the unique characteristics of a child’s capacities, interests and habits. Then the teacher must translate their findings into terms of what they believe the child is capable of in a social setting. In my opinion, Dewey showed a balance between the dialectic of academics and affective goals. This is also known as transaction, which is having both the teacher and the student interact in the classroom. Dewey believed that the academic goals of education should be, â€Å"a process of living and not a preparation for future living† (Dewey 263). He stated that the teachers’ job is not to influence him but to help guide the student into successfully forming with the community by letting the student experience some life occurrences. â€Å"The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child† (Dewey 263 – 264). Dewey also believed that tests should only be used to examine a child’s social capabilities in the real world. â€Å"Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child’s fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of the most service and where he can receive the most help† (Dewey 264). In my opinion, this would be more of a conceptual test where the child can voice his or her own opinions. Dewey’s main affective goals were to deepen the child’s meaning of himself and his values. It is the business of the school to deepen and extend his sense of the values bound up in his home life† (Dewey 263). Dewey believed that it was important for the school to implement lessons that related to what a child would do at home. The school would also be responsible for simplifying their social life because; â€Å"existing life is so complex that the child cannot be brought into contact with it without either confusion or distraction† (Dewey 263). Therefore, if the child is exposed to too much social stimulation he will become, â€Å"either unduly specialized or else disintegrated† (Dewey 263). I believe that Dewey’s views show that he is against standardization in schools. He believed that there was a lack of conscious states in schools. He asserts that children are, â€Å"thrown into a passive, receptive, or absorbing attitude† (Dewey 265). Dewey’s viewpoint is still an active discussion topic in today’s education system. However, some school districts insist on rote learning because their schools receive more funding when there is a high percentage of passing students on standardized tests. According to Linda McNeil, students are taught on how to pass these tests without really learning. For example, McNeil states that, â€Å"students report that in the drills on the TAAS reading section, they frequently mark answers without reading the sample text. They merely match key words in an answer choice with key words in the text† (McNeil 218). According to Dewey, this is â€Å"not permitted [in following] the law of nature† (Dewey 265), resulting in â€Å"friction and waste† (Dewey 265). Dewey believed that proper instruction should be exemplified by, â€Å"the preparation and presentation of lessons [which] might be more wisely and profitably expended in training the child’s power of imagery and in seeing to it that he was continually forming definite, vivid, and growing images of the various subjects with which he comes in contact in his experience† (Dewey 266). Standardization is not they key component of education, even though the state and federal government believe this is an important element for success. According to Gerald Bracey, when students are applying to college, the SAT exam should be used as a guideline and not the final decision in acceptance. Bracey stated that the, â€Å"SAT scores had been falling for fourteen years† (Bracey 47). He also stated that, â€Å"While the developers of the SAT still called their test a ‘mere supplement,’ the public now saw it as the platinum rod for measuring school performance. And that performance was getting worse† (Bracey 47). Somehow over time, a student’s SAT score developed into an extremely significant number which seemed to become the overall determination of a student’s intelligent. It seems harsh and unbalanced to put so much emphasis on one test. Of course, applicants are told that in combination with their SAT scores; their grades and outside activities are taken into consideration for college admittance. But the truth is these SAT scores still remain a huge factor for college applicants. Studies have shown that a high SAT score does not guarantee high grades in college however the politics behind these tests are stronger than the public’s opinion in order to get these tests repealed. Standardized tests do not lead the student to come into contact with the subject at hand or the experience related to it. They also do not show the overall picture of an individual or what he or she can contribute while attending college. Scott Thompson is against the test-based reform of today’s society. Thompson claims that, â€Å"The human hearts and minds of others, I believe, are simply too complex and too inaccessible to read as a book† (Thompson 160). Thompson argues that the differences between test-based reform and standards-based reform. He concluded that standards-based reform involves more cooperation from parents, teachers and the students. It also gives the students a high-quality method of learning and not simply learning techniques for test taking. â€Å"We should be interested in students who can produce high quality work rather than students who have mastered the ability to take standardized tests† (Thompson 159). Thompson would love to see that the idea of standardized tests be abandoned in the future. Thompson argues that by giving these students standardized tests that they are reducing their potential of demonstrating their intellect, social and personal sides to the community. Test-based reform, through its focus on high-stakes test, narrows the curriculum to what is included on the tests and reduces instructional practice to test preparation† (Thompson 159). In contrast, â€Å"standards-based reform†¦involves a complete abandonment of the bureaucratic, ‘seat time’ approach to education and replaces it with a system of learning communities dedicated to helping all students reach their intellectual, social, and personal potential† (Thompson 159). To summarize, without requiring students to take standardized tests they will greatly increase their academic potential and affective abilities. Bill Bigelow also stresses his concern of standardization. He believes that, â€Å"social studies knowledge is little more than acquiring piles of disconnected facts about the world† (Bigelow 231) and that â€Å"the world can’t be chopped into multiple choice questions, [in] that you can’t bubble in the truth with a number-two pencil† (Bigelow 239). Bigelow would be ecstatic to see the state do away with standardized tests. He demonstrates some strong educational goals that the state should follow that show a balance between academic and affective goals for education. He claims that teachers should, â€Å"construct rigorous performance standards for students that promote deep thinking about the nature of our society. These efforts should acknowledge the legitimacy of a multicultural curriculum of critical questions, complexity, multiple perspective, and social imagination. They should recognize that wisdom is more than information† (Bigelow 239). I agree with his statement. When considering the famous quote, â€Å"knowledge is power†; have we gained knowledge when we have learned the means by which to pass a standardized test? Or has knowledge been gained when a student has the sense of understanding conceptual ideas about society and civilization as a whole? I feel that standardized testing is something elected state officials want because these tests provide numbers and numbers are easy to put into a spreadsheets and show which schools are getting high scores and which schools are getting low scores. It is an easy format to determine budgets; one test is suitable for all students. It is harder to define guidelines on how or what teachers should teach conceptually because that leads to a broader spectrum of learning. In conclusion, I believe that standardized tests are the â€Å"dumbing down of America†. These tests inhibit our abilities to question and reflect. The state and federal governments do not really want the American public to get smarter. They want a simple way to control what students learn and how they learn it. While many people agree that standardization is not improving learning, we are still unable to do away with these tests due to all of the politics involved. I would love for high schools to be more like colleges in that, teachers can use whatever methods of teaching they like just as professors do. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Obviously, there are essential fundamental topics that much be taught that are necessary in order to have the basic foundation on which to grow intellectually. I feel that once a student has mastered the basics, it is crucial to one’s development to discuss controversial issues and to intelligently question the ways of the world. I agree with Bill Bigelow; I do not believe that one test is a thorough determinant of a student’s ability and mastery of various concepts. A famous quote by George Santayana states, â€Å"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it†. With all the controversial issues and problems in the world, shouldn’t learning how to use one’s mind and think â€Å"outside the box† be considered an integral part of learning? Isn’t it important and valuable to society to be able to intelligently discuss solutions rather than just be considered smart because you aced the SAT?

Persuasion techniques used in Jesus Camp film Essay

Persuasion techniques used in Jesus Camp film - Essay Example The persuasive techniques used in the film George W. Bush seems to be the icon for the children in this movie. A life size cardboard cutout is displayed in front of them, a waving American flag graphic projected behind it reads, â€Å"Here’s President Bush, come to visit us†¦!†Ã¢â‚¬  The children come forward and pay respect to him, touch the cutout and one could see the charged emotions on their innocent countenances. After providing such a backdrop, the children are asked to pray and profound vocabulary of Christianity pours out, like flesh and blood, principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness in this world, spiritual wickedness etc. Do the children really understand what they are being taught? Not one of them perhaps, but their minds is being polluted and they develop deep grudge against something which they do not know precisely. They begin to hate that which ‘not Christian’ according to the new values taught to them in Jesus Camp. In a sce ne, children dance to the accompaniment of Christian Heavy Metal music, in strangely painted faces brandishing sticks and thrusting them to an imaginary enemy and shouting â€Å"War! Warfare!† The girl participants in the dance wear black. The Jesus Camp is against abortion. Good, but it is taught, as if through a system drawn through the prison manual. The mouths of the children are shut with a red duct tape with the inscription LIFE. Those running this movement of Christianity are not apologetic about their intensions and speak with deep convictions. They are on the mission to form a generation of "Conservative Christian Republicans." Another ‘highlight’ of the camp is all children, irrespective of their age, are taught the same Christian principles. A toddler and a teen are given the message, whether it suits their mind set or not, without applying any thought about the dangerous consequences as to what imprint it may leave on the tender minds. The words Satan and Sprit are often used and the children are made to believe that a horrifying evil monster continues to stand at their back to watch their actions. Any deviations in following the issues that are taught in the class, any lethargy, would destroy them! What could be the finished product, of the children who entered the camp as innocents, their mind fresh as the flower in bloom? Trauma is their bonus! How can their mind process such hard messages? The trans-inducing methods must have done irreparable damage to their life, which is difficult to erase. Most of the children look physically tired and emotionally exhausted, their eyes drained due to excessive tears they shed, and at the subconscious level, poisonous seeds are planted through the vicious lessons of Jesus Camp that will grow into saplings and will ultimately yield poisonous fruits. The mind-set of one such ‘finished product’ of this move, Levi, by name indicates the line of thinking of the future generation th e movie will sure to produce. At one stage of the movie, he clearly expresses his hatred for the non-Christians in equivocal terms. He is led to believe that everything about non-Christians is bad. This camp has shut the doors for the real Jesus. His teachings are abandoned in this class and some political figures are chiseled out of the personalities of the youngsters. They are taught about the dangers to Christianity and America, which in reality are not there! This indeed is the manufacturing unit of human bombs that will leave far-reaching consequences to destroy the society. 2. My opinion of the appropriateness of the techniques Religion is good; â€Å"religionism† is bad. Fundamentalism in the practice of any religion is the worst thing that can happen to humankind. It is a double tragedy—for the individual personality and for the culture of the Nation as a whole. As for Christianity, when the religious leaders give more importance to the cross on the neck than C hrist in the heart, the fertile field of true religion begins to rot. Jesus Camp (Heidi

Privacy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Privacy - Essay Example As apparent, effective data management, entails adherence to ethical, social and legal standards that guide individuals or institutions when transmitting information. The standards are significant especially in the current environment where various institutions are facing immense challenges in data management. The standards present requisite incentives that ensure information within institutions is used effectively. Data privacy is of fundamental concern within several institutions, for example, banks, hospitals, and learning centres. Privacy emphasises the need for appropriate and safety management of client’s data to boost their confidence. This paper discusses privacy because it is a fundamental aspect that ensures quality administration of data within institutions. Ethical, social and legal issues relevant to Information Systems As noted Information technology (IT), systems are software or hardware used by individuals and institutions to execute activities. The systems fac ilitate effective and efficient delivery of services in various facets of operations, and are recognisable as key pillars that influence data privacy. They aid information capturing, encoding, processing, storage and dissemination. The administration of such activities or information should be reliant on excellent privacy standards (Moon2010, p.1). The standards should assume social, legal and ethical dimensions. Furthermore, they should focus on an institution’s capacity to enhance sustainability. Ethics defines moral processes in institutions. It sets clear standards and moral values that stakeholders should obey in various jurisdictions. Ethical standards ensure delivery of quality services and optimal utilisation of resources, as well as enhancement of privacy in information administration. Institutions should formulate viable ethical principles, for example, the golden rule, utilitarian and risk aversion principles (Quigley 2004, p.2). This creates a favourable environme nt where every stakeholder is treated with diligence and respect. This is significant since institutions that operate with inferior ethical guidelines cannot maintain their clients in the current dynamic world that experiences immense competition. Code of ethics requires employees within institutions or individuals to use client information with confidence. They should also enhance privacy, security in data management and treat clients with respect. Exhibition of high level of cautiousness, prudence, timely delivery of services and accountability also form key ethical guidelines. The standards are integral in facilitating performance since they encourage accountability, responsibility and adherence to due processes while executing activities. Each profession has set ethical guidelines that guide execution of activities (Moon 2010, p.1). The professions, for example, nursing and accounting focuses on data privacy based on the information that individuals in such professions possess. Information conveyed through IT system significantly affect social processes. Poor management of information may lead to increased social incoherence, animosity and damage mutual understanding. This stalls performance and delivery of quality services to clients. Institutions should adopt the recommended information management practices to advance social integration. They should also adopt best practices to facilitate effective mitigation of social issues (Wilson, 2004, p. 119).

Phonetics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Phonetics - Essay Example Tools is not a good gift sorry (word order) tools are not a good gift because it probably means that the guy have to work and his not working (um) unless he some sort of physicist or mechanic tools probably not a good gift. Opera tickets is not a good gift I don't guys like opera. Silver cuffling(k)s is romantic and is a good gift. A picture of her is again a good gift I think is romantic. Race car driving lessons is a good gift because guys love sports. A book from the best seller list is not a good gift because I don't think guys like reading that much. An electric razor is very unromantic and is not a good gift is also means that guys probably don't shave. White socks is not a good gift. A sweater is probably a good gift again shows that the women cares for the man. Once upon a time there was a man Mr. Smith everything seemed to be good in his life. But he was feeling loneliness and one day he realized the missing part of his life was a women. He took a brush and paint and he painted on his car "wanted;" a wife he put his address below. Several days later later he got letters and one of them was particularly exciting this was a letter from a lady who had a daughter, a son, and a dog. Mr. Smith called to the lady they met and they made serious relationships. Thus Mr. Smith removed the advertisement from his car. And finally Mr. Smith got married to the lady. Analysis of the speeches of Bis... It has been observed that they sound strange and even rude sometimes. It is a glaring problem that they cannot produce the correct sounds of many vowel-sounds especially the [I], [], []. For the consonants sounds, both have problems in producing the correct sound of th transcribe. It is observable that they prolong that instead of producing the retroflex [r] they produce the trilled [r]. Aside from the difficulty in the approximation of sounds, the two students have been diagnosed to be problematic in their intonation, assimilation of sounds, pitch, stressing, and rhythm. Dimitry for instance has so much unnecessary pauses. This lesson plan then shall be intended for them to be familiarized with the vowel sounds. It is prepared in such a manner that they will find the difference of pronouncing isolated words from the words in context. Drill will be given as it is the best way for them to learn and to master the skills. One Hour Lesson LESSON 1: THE VOWEL SOUNDS (should be read and pronounced by the teacher correctly with Dimitry and Bisun repeating after the teacher) [i] High tense front Extended unrounding of lips (smiling position) feelings "feelings, nothing more than feelings" keep "keep smiling, keep shining" believe "I won't ever leave as long as you believe" she "She's the girl I really want" need "I need your love" [I] Lower-High lax front Natural unrounding of the lips; slight opening of the mouth miss, kiss "Boy I miss your kisses" this, is "all the time what this is" minutes "25 minutes too late" still, hear "still I can hear the words" Monday, "You can kiss me on a Monday" [] Low tense front Natural unrounding of lips' low bunching of the

#6 Dew Point Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

#6 Dew Point - Essay Example The dew point is a recommended indicator of the actual water vapor content of the air because variations in atmospheric pressure at the earth’s surface are quite minimal. Dew point is measured by an instrument called a Dew Point Meter. These instruments have a polished metal mirror which is cooled as air passes over it (Hens 2007). Essentially, the dew point is determined by finding out the temperature at which dew forms. These manual devices may also be used to standardize other types of instruments that measure humidity. Moreover, automatic sensors may be utilized in a control loop where a humidifier or a dehumidifier is used to manage the dew point of the air in a building or in smaller spaces used for manufacturing processes (Hens, 2007). A high dew point indicates that the air has high water vapor content while a low dew point indicates that the air has low water vapor content. When the air has high water vapor content and, correspondingly, a high dew point, it is said that the air is humid and people are most likely uncomfortable with such situations. This is because a person’s body is designed to use the evaporation of sweat to cool itself down during warm temperatures. However, evaporation largely depends on how much moisture the air already contains and how much more it can hold (Sills 2010). Thus, if the air is already saturated, a person’s sweat will no longer evaporate and so that person ends up sweating profusely. At certain cases where dew point is quite elevated, people suffering from respiratory ailments like asthma may even be in grave danger. The dew point is considered to be an important indicator of the atmosphere’s condition. It affects the living conditions of humans and animals alike and thus, it must be monitored closely using accurate instruments in order to provide necessary and appropriate advice to those who might need

Ethics -- Moral Theory and Moral Issue Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Ethics -- Moral Theory and Moral Issue - Essay Example Proponents of the practice argue that people should be as free to choose the way they die in the same way they choose the way they lived. In addition, people deserve to die with as little pain and as much dignity as is possible. Those against legalizing euthanasia say that it could open the door to abuses such as people opting to die earlier than needed for economic reasons and being pressured by relatives who have a financial concern. Callous as may sound, children of the terminally ill may not want their parents to spend their inheritance on life extending techniques, a sad scenario that should certainly be considered. Still others say that euthanasia is â€Å"playing God† which is not acceptable under any circumstances. Euthanasia is a sensitive subject about a painful prospect but must be addressed because it will likely involve everyone as some point in their lives. The word â€Å"euthanasia† is of Greek origin meaning â€Å"good death.† 18th Century England scholars referred to euthanasia as a means of â€Å"dying well.† (Belanger, 2010). Euthanasia is a medical procedure where a doctor supplies a lethal cocktail of drugs to a terminally ill patient who is in serve pain. The patient administers the dosage, not the doctor. The drugs could be administered either intravenously or orally but the decision is the patients, not the doctor or family members. Because of this, euthanasia is termed â€Å"doctor assisted† and not â€Å"doctor administered† suicide. Other methods include removing the patient from a life-support machine or simply not resuscitating them after they expire, allowing them to pass on naturally without the aid of â€Å"heroic measures.† In the three states and few countries that have legalized euthanasia, the patient must be terminally ill, as decided by three doctors and be fully mentally cognizant. Though it is unfortunate, most people will die a bad death instead of a good death. Euthanasia proponents are motivated not by personal autonomy issues, though that is extremely concerning in a free society, but by human suffering and the lack of a dignified death most people endure. Many, if not most, paths to death involve diseases that slowly eat away at bodily organs causing a torturous ending both for the person dying and their loved ones who watch then die following months of agony. Family members and close fiends watch as the dying person becomes progressively gaunt and thin while either unconscious due to pain medications or experiencing constant pain. Everyone can imagine themselves in that scenario and most, ostensibly, would not want to die in that way and would rather spare themselves and their family the agony. Further, the person dying considers themselves a burden and not a positive in anyone’s life anymore. No person wants to be in that situation. However, this scenario occurs in homes, hospices and hospitals thousand of times every day of the year. It ’s a horrific scene that serves no purpose and cannot be assigned a rationale other than to pacify the â€Å"morals† of those who think it acceptable to dictate their wishes from outside the actual situation, uninvolved in the daily trauma. It’s easy to imagine a grandmother, the matriarch of the family, a gentle lady who has dedicated her entire adult life to care for the needs of others now spending her last weeks lying feebly in a sterile, foreign environment. She is not able to use the restroom or feed herself without