Part A, Question 3 Apple Executive`s Assertion

PartA, Question 3: Apple Executive`s AssertionThecomment by apple touches on a sensitive socioeconomic issue of theresponsibility of corporations and the problem of outsourcing fromother countries. While on one side apple seeks to benefit from theglobalization of capital, the firm has a social responsibility topromote the development of local capital on the other side. Thismakes the assertion of the company not well advised, especially for acompany that seeks global dominance in the phone industry through thelocal success in America. The assertion by apple paints the companyas a firm rooted into profit making that it would seek global humanresource to reduce costs at the expense of creating jobs at home.Whilethe main issue is the public view of the outsourcing of jobs byapple, the assertion by apple is validly presented as the companyseeks to provide the best in the market. Providing the best productfor the market means selling the product at the lowest possible priceto the local and the world consumers (Dereskyand Christopher31).Therefore, outsourcing becomes a viable reason for the assertion bythe company. The company outsources production of its products in theforeign market and takes the advantage of the low cost of labor inthe Asian labor market. As a result, the firm enjoys low costs, atthe expense of creation of jobs in the country.Thisassertion proves apple right in the pursuit of the best productspossible for consumers, and at the best price. However, the firmshould recognize that the obligation to provide the best possibleproduct should also be in cognizance of the challenges facing thecountry. As an American firm, the company has a general, butvoluntary responsibility to provide jobs for the locals. This shouldnot be necessarily be interpreted as an obligation to solve America’sproblems, but just a contribution to the society. Therefore, thecompany should not have made the assertions. While the firm is rightto take advantage of global capital, making an express assertion tothe public on the same is not advisable. PartB: The ethical dilemmasTheapplication of ethics for a company operating in the internationalmarkets should not be bordered by the geographical diversity. In thedilemma presented by the situation of the VP for sales of the globalcommunications equipment company, calls for a decision that willassert the moral values of the company globally. Therefore, as theVP, I would take the first option for the company, and refuse toaccept the offer, despite the lack of legitimate reasons. Accordingto Dereskyand Christopher(32),this is because the ethics that define the company should not becompromised at the expense of the company’s business success.Ethics are universal and the standards of the company should apply inall countries in the same dimension as they apply locally.Takingoption two of taking the business would be against the company’sethical standards and would lead to an international conflict. Thisoption would be viable if the company takes the business and exposesthe inconsistencies existing in the deal. However, the conflict thatthe company exposes itself to the country would be more costlybecause the conflict would arise after the ethical compromise hadbeen made through the accepting the deal. Taking option three would meana direct compromise of the company’s values and ethical standardsat for business reasons. As the VP of the company, I would not acceptto pay the 3% commission because it would be a direct promotion ofunethical practice of the “payoffs” against the company ethics.The main reason for avoiding this option is because of the challengeof reconciling the local ethical expectations with the law. Makingsuch a payment would be questionable under the Foreign CorruptPractices act, and the company would be liable locally. Part C: Cultural MisstepsThefirst cultural misstep is the conduct of the business partners interms of communication and social conduct. In this misstep, Wallywanted to be called by his name by Mr. Silva, as it is in theAmerican culture, especially among the younger people. The secondcultural misstep is in the dressing of Wally, the American and Silvathe Brazilian. Wally chose to dress casually by considering theweather and temperature and get comfortable. However, on the otherhand, Mr. Silva decided with his manager to be fully formal bydressing in suits and ties. The third misstep is observed in Wally’sexpectation to sign the contract just after arrival and ignoring toset any time for engaging in a relationship with Silva.Thesemissteps could have been avoided if the managers involved would havetaken the time to build relationships with the partners from theother country. They could have taken the time to learn the social,cultural, economic and political dynamics of America and Brazilrespectively, so that they could understand the perspectives of eachother. In global management, managers should seek to understand theglobal environment before making decisions and venturing in businessdiscussions (Dereskyand Christopher,51).For instance, Wally could have taken the time to build a relationshipwith Silva and his team before engaging in business discussing. Part D: Risk Tolerancearound the WorldRisktolerance differs in terms of the cultural differences existing amongpeople in the world. Some cultures portray a higher degree of risktolerance than other cultures or people in the world. For instance,Belgians, Germans and Austrians are said to be having a low tolerancefor risk. This is the reason why they are said to be risk averse. Onthe other hand, the Dutch and the Japans ear generally thought to bemore tolerant of risk than other countries in the world.Inaddition, risk tolerance differs with the differences in the decisionmaking processes of people as observed in the way people makejudgments. The time taken to make decisions and the people consultedvaries, which leads to variation in risk tolerance. For instance,some people will research more and consult widely than others whenmaking decisions. The differences in the time and consultation takento consult illustrate the extent of risk tolerance among people.People who are risk averse tend to research and consult more than therisk takers.Riskpropensity facilitates effective decision making process, bydetermining the risk levels of the decisions being made. Riskpropensity also determines the possibility of a person making thedecision to avoid risks or to take risks. This is because theoutcomes of the decisions made in general business life areprobabilistic therefore, risk propensity helps determine theeventuality of the outcomes. For example, risk propensity is used inthe decision of product development. Risk takers have higher risktolerance, and therefore invest in risky products. On the other hand,people who are risk averse have low risk tolerance and chooseproducts with less risk. WorkCited

Deresky,Helen., and Christopher, Elizabeth.InternationalManagement: Managing Cultural Diversity.New York: PearsonHigher Education AU,2011, Print