Content area
Full Text
Abstract
* The growing number of international-management studies has stimulated the search for a better understanding of this expression and field. In recent articles, we have agreed and disagreed on what it means.
* A key point of discussion has been whether the traditional definition of international management - namely, management crossing borders - should be challenged; another is whether related expressions, such as global management, do improve our understanding of what "international management" means.
* We develop a definition that ranges beyond the one-way crossing of borders to include two-way exchanges, domestic learning and the development of a practice of management in all institutions.
Key Results
* "International management" applies not only to the unidirectional crossing of national borders but also to the two-directional learning experienced by managers outside their home environments.
* "Global" and "transnational" add a mental mindset to the more material content of the crossing of borders by factors of production (including knowledge) and firms.
* The study of international management has benefited from the "transnational" perspective of considering both "global" and "local" threats and opportunities.
* "Management" is a socially constructed activity that takes place in all sorts of organizations -private, public, for profit or not, at home, abroad and supranationally.
An Ubiquitous But Vague Expression
Many of us teach international management as a separate course or as part of broader management and international-business courses; and journals such as Management International Review and the Journal of International Management use this expression in their titles. What particular meanings does it evoke for us and our audiences? This is a tricky question because even the Academy of Management1 has not bothered to define "management;" while the qualifier "international" is now frequently replaced by such terms as "global" and "transnational." Is international management about the international (global, transnational, etc.) dimensions of management or about something else?
Asking this question is in the tradition of sciences challenging their domains, the paradigms they use, and the epistemological and ontological assumptions they make (e.g., Gould 1981, Guba 1990, Hunt 1983, Lincoln/Cuba 1985, Pojman 2003). In this wholesome tradition, we will continue and refine a previous dialogue that explored the definition and domain of international management (Boddewyn 1999, Martinez/Toyne 2000).
We will argue that: (1) "international...