In the story about the elephant and the blind men, each of them describes only the part of the animal he can touch. The one who feels its tail believes it resembles a rope; to another, who touches its ear, it seems like a fan. Their conclusions aren't wrong, yet none of them perceives the elephant in its entirety. The moral of the story, which has its origin in a Buddhist sutra, is not that parochial views are untrustworthy but that all reasonable perspectives deserve respect.

This parable sheds light on the most recent McKinsey Global Survey of Business Executives, whose findings are reported in the article "What global executives think about growth and risk." Corporate leaders around the world disagree on the opportunities for and risks to growth in the years ahead. More often than not, the divergence of opinion reflects regional and sectoral differences rather than any lack of prescience.

Business leaders in India, for example, worry more than their global counterparts do that a lack of infrastructure will constrain their country's growth. US executives fret more about health care costs than do their European peers. Banking executives worry about excessive regulation. Leaders in heavy industry agonize over the cost of natural resources. Each of these points of view and emphases is understandable in the context of the region or sector from which it comes. Where you sit often determines where you stand.

Yet provincial perspectives can lead people to overlook or underestimate serious risks to business. When they are "knowable"—that is, when executives can project the outcome with some degree of likelihood—it seems particularly remiss not to see, as it were, the whole elephant. Consider, for instance, the probability that aging populations around the world will strain public-pension and health care systems while depriving the global economy of roughly $31 trillion in capital for investment during the next two decades. This knowable risk makes it surprising to see in our survey results that executives in Europe, where the demographic issue is particularly acute, appear complacent about access to capital and are undaunted by the threat of graying populations. For more about the implications of aging, as well as the opportunities for financial-services and health care companies willing to mitigate the risk that retirees face, see the articles from our special section on the economics of an aging world: "The demographic deficit: How aging will reduce global wealth," "Taking the risk out of retirement," and "Can pension plans age gracefully?".

Other forms of risk, such as the economic effects of global warming and the potential for geopolitical instability, are inherently less knowable. Nonetheless, companies must carefully plan ahead, either by reducing their exposure to these risks or by gathering information to make the outcome more certain. In this context, it's difficult to understand the US respondents' lack of concern about the risks global warming poses to economic growth and corporate profits.

Our survey of executives also points to other salient topics explored in this issue of The McKinsey Quarterly. Respondents in China and India, for instance, regard the search for talent as their biggest managerial challenge during the next five years. As Jayant Sinha points out in "Global champions from emerging markets," Asian companies could do worse than to follow the examples of HSBC, Ranbaxy Laboratories, and Samsung Electronics—companies that trained an international cadre of executives to help them expand into diverse markets far from home.

Articles in this issue also explore the way governments can avoid regulatory traps, ideas for boosting returns on corporate marketing investments, and Allan Loren's successful turnaround of D&B (formerly Dun & Bradstreet). All should be of interest to senior executives in their ongoing quest for growth.