Today, business tends to grow internationally and many companies attempt to expand their markets at the international level. In fact, the development of international business is closely intertwined with the process of globalization. Moreover, it is the international business development that accelerates the process of globalization. However, the attitude of managers to the process of globalization and to international business may vary consistently. In this regard, managers may have absolutely antagonistic views on international business from its total acceptance to its total denial, but, whatever their views are they cannot ignore the growing trend to the internationalization of the contemporary business.
On analyzing, attitudes of managers toward international business, it is worth mentioning the fact that managers have different attitudes to international business. The diversity in views of managers on international business can be explained by the different impact international business has on organizations managers work in. At this point, it is possible to distinguish two major impacts of international business on organizations. On the one hand, international business can accelerate the organizational development and improve consistently organizational performance, if the organization has managed to enter new markets and to develop its business internationally. In such a situation, organizations benefit from international business. On the other hand, some organizations lose their position in the market or run bankrupt being unable to compete with multinational corporations and international business development. Naturally, these organizations suffer from international business.
Hence, some managers view international business as an excellent opportunity to expand target markets and open new business opportunities. Basically, these are managers of successful organizations, multinational corporations mainly, because they and their organizations benefit from international business. Moreover, international business provides them with larger opportunities to enhance their position in the market and to make a successful career at the international level.
On the other hand, other managers stand on the anti-globalist ground for they believe that international business has a negative impact on the development of national economies and business. These managers work in local organizations, which cannot compete with multinational corporations or the supply of products from abroad, which replace their own products. As a result, their companies face the risk of bankruptcy and deteriorate their performance consistently because of the fast development of international business. Consequently, managers of these organizations have a negative attitude to international business and view it as a threat to their interests and interests of their organizations.
At the same time, some managers view the development of international business as the new stage of the business development. These managers stand on the ground that the development of international business is inevitable and they attempt to adapt their organizations and strategies to the international business development. Basically, these managers do not support or oppose international business. They just attempt to adapt to the international business development, the process of globalization and trends that accompany these processes.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that managers may have absolutely different attitudes to international business. In fact, their views on international business are determined by the impact of international business on the performance and position of their organizations in the market. Obviously, if international business has a positive impact on their organizations they support it, if negative – they oppose it.
Aleman, A. M. (2001). Community, higher education, and the challenge of multiculturalism. Teachers College Record, 103, 485-503.
Baez, B. (2003). Affirmative action, diversity and the politics of representation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 96-107.
Blimling, G. S. (2001). Diversity makes you smarter. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 517-519.
Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
Danaher, C. (1999). Seven Arguments for Reforming World Economy. London: Routeledge.
Dunning, J. (еd.). (1998). Glоbаlizаtiоn, Trаdе аnd Fоrеign Dirесt Invеstmеnt. Охfоrd: Еlsеviеr.
Gomory, R.E. (2002). Globalization: Causes and Effects. New York: Touchstone.
Khor, M. (2001). Global Economy and the Third World. New York: New Publishers.
Martin, R. J., & Van Gunten, D. M. (2002). Reflected identities: Applying positionality and multicultural social reconstructionism in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 44-54.
Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural fame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 483-506.
Van der Borght, K. (2000). Essays on the Future of the WTO: Finding a New Balance. London: Routledge.
Weiler, J. (2002) The EU, the WTO, and NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade. New York: Guilford.