 In this topic, since we are talking about performance management and we are saying that international performance management is more complicated than domestic performance management. So we are going to look at various factors which make international performance management a more complicated and more challenging process than domestic performance management. So in this topic, we are going to look at one of the factors which is whole versus parts. Now what does it mean by whole versus part? You know that a multinational organization is spread and dispersed in various parts of the world and it is not working as a whole. It is working as different parts, working in different parts of the world. But it is yet an organization which is working towards a uniform objective. They have a uniform vision, mission and strategies and the targets that they want to achieve are global targets which must be looked at as a whole. So this is a confusion which often creates dilemma for human resource management that whether they should be concerned about the parts or they should be concerned about whole and who should be guiding this strategy of making the performance management process as directed towards the performance of the whole rather than that of the parts. So that needs a uniform mindset, a universal global mindset that is held by the subsidiary managers as well as the headquarter managers that they have to look at the performance of the organization as a whole. So multinational is a single entity that faces a global environment which means that it simultaneously confronts differing national environments. So it does confront differing national environments but it is trying to achieve global targets which creates a dilemma. So this is a constraint for international performance management that what do we need to evaluate to? We need to be myopic and focused only on the subsidiary unit performance that the subsidiary unit must perform well. It doesn't matter how does it affect the rest of the global objectives of the organization. So that leads to integration and control imperatives. So you need to because you want the organization to work as a whole that means that you need to first of all integrate the performance management process. You need to have a comprehensive look. You just can't look at the numbers coming from different subsidiaries and then say okay subsidiary A tick, subsidiary B tick. You cannot do that you need to look at the performance of the organization as a whole. So this means you need to have an integrated view. It also means that you need to have control over the entire organization. You cannot entirely delegate responsibility and authority for performance management to subsidiary units. So there has to be a decision about what level of control your organization is going to impose upon your subsidiary units. And that is what is going to lead to the mindset that good of the whole is more important than one subsidiary's short term profitability. So it's not important that the subsidiary is giving a short term profitability at the cost of its global goodwill at the cost of its global reputation at the cost of its global objectives. So for that we have discussed an example over here. We are not going to name the organization but the example of that is that a multinational organization it established a subsidiary in a particular market with an existing global competitor. So a multinational in a market where an already existing global competitor existed and whose market share and market value was an established market share over there. They just created a challenge for the global competitor. So what they did was that they established the market of that particular product in that market to create competition for that global competitor. So what happened was that the global competitor's investments, its focus, its attention was tied up to that market where a competitor came from. So to reduce its attention from the rest of the area, they established their own subsidiary unit in that market so that the global competitor could divert its attention from the other market, so that its investment, its assets could be tied up in that market so that it could fight for the profits to be saved because the market share was there. So that competitor would take away investment from other parts of the world and invest on that. So because of that, strategically the remaining areas, the remaining markets, the value and opportunities of this multinational there increased because of that. So an explanation of this example is that the balance sheet of this particular subsidiary might be continuously in red. But this strategy by tying up the competitor resources may allow substantially higher returns in another market. So this is something that I've just described. So to generate higher returns in another market, a subsidiary unit which was in red was established here. So the difficulties in quantifying such a global strategy in terms of the usual return on investment objectives are obvious. That you cannot obviously have a 2 plus 2 criteria of performance in this. This is a strategic decision and you are establishing a subsidiary which is not profitable which is rather going in losses but it is something which is creating opportunities for you in other parts of the world. So these are the challenges of whole versus part for international performance management in the international arena.