The Paradox of Convergence
Globalizing processes of convergence call forth localizing dynamics of divergence Friedman’s (1999) The Lexus and The Olive Tree references humankind’s coterminous drives for sustenance, improvement, prosperity, modernization, and financial security (the Lexus) while capturing our need for roots (linguistic, geographic, and historical) and community (the olive tree).
These simultaneous pressures for convergence and divergence within and among global organizations produce conflict across multiple levels of interaction (Stohl, 2001). Mechanisms reinforcing organizational similarity are rooted in the increased competitiveness of the global market and the institutional mechanisms related to legitimacy (coercive mechanisms), modeling behavior (mimetic mechanisms), and the increasing professionalism and standardization of professional norms (normative mechanisms).An example of convergence and its relation to workplace conflict can be seen at the end of 2000, as East Asian countries (South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia) were facing the financial crises that had affected business worldwide. Prior to this, organizations within each of these countries were independent centers for international investors doing things their own way. The crisis brought about local conflict and change (e.g., leadership transition in Indonesia and beginning liberalization of Malaysian economic policies) and created new organizing processes that brought several countries together in closer interactions in which pressures for conformity and adherence to institutional norms were manifest. ASEAN countries (Association of South East Asian Nation), China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States jointly formed the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) to facilitate business in the Asia-Pacific region through the institutionalization of organizational norms and activities.
Not only were many of the business practices of countries such as Malaysia being forced to change to conform to Western ways of doing business, but also the basic clash between Western-based conceptions of liberal economic regionalism and the East Asian value of mercantilism created conflicts that resulted in a new form of East Asian identity, making future cooperation far more difficult (Yu, 2003).Mechanisms of convergence also create conflicts in the ever-increasing number of corporate/nongovernmental collaborations. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are nonprofit entities that address social challenges through advocacy, education, resource allocation, and/or direct services and include groups like Amnesty International and Greenpeace. In studies of cross-sector collaborations in the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, and Asia, scholars have found that conflicts over values, missions, strategic goals, and governance structures are common (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). In June 2003, John Elkington, chair of SustainAbility, and one of the authors of a United Nation (UN) report that predicted a huge rise in the numbers of NGOs collaborating with business to bring about positive societal change (Elkington, 2003), alluded to potential organizational conflicts that may arise when NGOs are forced to conform to global standards.
The good news for NGOs is that they are emerging as vital ingredients in the health and vitality of markets They are also
highly trusted, far more so than business or governments. The bad news is that unless they recognise and address growing financial, competitive and accountability pressures, their impact will be significantly reduced... and conflict increased. (Mertus, 2008, p. 205)
Across disciplines, conflict and contradiction are well documented in institutional change efforts (Seo & Creed, 2002). When organizations first begin to transform themselves from hierarchical top-down structures to less hierarchical and emergent networks cultural norms regarding channels of communication, unity of command, power dynamics, information sharing, and so on are challenged. Such organizational transformations create conflicts at the interpersonal, group, and organizational levels (L. Lewis, 2011).