Skip to content
Home » Global Business Culture Response

Global Business Culture Response

  • by

Global Business Culture Response


This work is regarding Cultural Differences in Leadership in a Global Business. However, I need to figure our few areas such as, communication and coordination of a leader in the case of cultural differences. And, how to manage, keep relationship between leader and the members in this cultural matter in a global business. (Analytically example North American, Asian, and European culture). also, And conclusion. All together I need 750 words. For each 250 words and for each 2 references. Google scholar if you can and ideas from sites like leadership assignment help.

Foucault’s theory identifies four intertwined technologies, namely, production, sign systems, power, and the self and describes how these technologies influence and shape individuals. This work focuses on the technology of power or domination to examine how the technologies are used to make ‘docile bodies’ in the modern age to control and limit the actions of the individual. The analysis suggests that youth and community work should take a double-pronged focus which seeks to improve the situation of the individual as well as the environment that tends to control and limit their choices and actions.

Power and Domination Over Individuals

Foucault’s concept of power provides insights into the process involved in making submissive bodies to control and limit the choices and actions of the individual. The interplay between power and the self is dynamic. The underlying process leads to a shifting inner self that, subject to external influence, adjusts to make choices and act largely in line with the external forces. In this regard, the process leads to subjugation of the individual to the extent that they can be controlled towards certain ends. The five basic principles of Foucault’s work as described by O’Farrell (2005, p. 53-54) provide a sound basis for examining the process involved in making docile bodies to achieve domination over the individual.

The first principle identifies the nature of knowledge and its central role in the process that leads to subjugation of bodies. The principle suggests that knowledge can be produced and described in an orderly manner (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 54). The knowledge-power nexus in Foucault’s theory sets the context for how the technologies he identifies lead to domination of the individual. Foucault notes that ‘knowledge-power is an agent of transformation of human life’ (cited in Parker and Fopp, 2004, p. 148). Given the ability to produce knowledge and the interplay between knowledge and power, the process of making docile bodies to achieve domination over the individual becomes probable. The potential benefits of domination drive the process to move forward. 

The second principle describes another important element of the process and states that every human action, idea, and arrangement exists in time. History, therefore, underlies all the choices and actions of the individual. As per this principle, some entities in society produce knowledge that skews power in their favor. The imbalance worsens over time and domination of the individual becomes easier. Bell’s (2011, p. 101) view that the historical role of the state and child welfare movements in developing flawed child protective services underscores the role of history in the process of making docile bodies and achieving domination from Foucault’s perspective. Accordingly, historical events, defined and redefined by knowledge that is continuously reproduced, underlie present choices and actions of the individual. Global Business Culture Response

The third principle indicates that truth is a historical category and points out how subjugation of bodies to achieve domination occurs. In this sense, truth as held by society or its members is ingrained in history. This concept of truth, according to Foucault, is problematic because it limits the choices and actions of individuals, thereby subjugating the individual (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 54). Knowledge grounded in history and reproduced in a system of imbalance in favor of those seeking domination provides a basis for norms, practices and ideas that guide the actions of the individual. Entities with greater access to knowledge wield the power to apply the techniques identified by Foucault to make docile bodies and control and limit the individual. According to Bell (2011, p. 107), today’s policies and legislation are a construct of the dominant voice as determined by power and knowledge. Therefore, truth constructed to enforce domination is forced upon the individual with limited choices through policy and legislation.

The fourth principle emphasizes the relationship between knowledge and power in the sense that the two elements are mutually reinforcing. Forms of power relating to political, social, and historical factors reinforce or reshape knowledge (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 54). This relationship between power and knowledge implies that once subjugation of the body is achieved, the power gap and domination would continue to increase in the absence of some intervention.

The final principle expresses the need to intervene as the inequalities involved in the process of making docile bodies to achieve domination is not self-corrective. Foucault views social justice as an essential ethical consideration and underscores the need for ongoing attention, evaluation, and corrective action (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 54). In this regard, the ethical responsibility for ameliorating inequality does not lie on those most affected alone, but on all stakeholders.

error: Content is protected !!