1. How valid are the methods for assaying and understanding the risks that arise in dealing with the global arena? Are the methods unbiased? What risk is inherent in portraying nonwestern countries in a somewhat adversarial light? How might this influence the preparation of U.S. executives for global roles?
2. How is the risk involved in managing teams with members of diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds different or similar to the risk involved in managing teams with members of the same backgrounds?
3. What are the most effective ways to develop relationships with customers, suppliers, and employees in a global setting? What cultural aspects must be considered? How are the relationships different in a developed country, such as Japan or the United Kingdom, and a developing country, such as China, Brazil, or India?
The methods for essaying and understanding the risks that arise in dealing with the global arena are moderately valid. The methods are logically sound and cogent. They measure what they are supposed to measure, however some biases enter the methods. The biases are present because of cultural differences, past experiences, and history of the countries whose risks are being assessed. The risk inherent in portraying nonwestern countries in an adversarial light is that the firm in a western country may miss or let go of an excellent opportunity in a non western country. This bias may adversely affect the preparation of US executives for global roles. The risks that are portrayed to the American Executives may be unrealistic. There will be cultural prejudice ...
This solution explains issues related to global business risk. The sources used are also included in the solution.