Table of contents(27 chapters)
It is hard to believe we are delivering Volume 7 of Advances in Global Leadership (AGL). In the 14 years since we started this series, so much has changed in the world and the rapidity of that change has continued to accelerate. Berman and Korsten (2010) documented that the biggest challenge facing global leaders is the rapid escalation of complexity. The context of our Volume 7 illustrates some of this complexity in the continued demonstration of our global interdependence as the global economic crisis persists with a number of deepening country and region specific financial crises impacting the remainder of the world. Indeed, the challenge of finding meaning and direction and gaining consensus on a plan of action in the face of global interrelatedness and complexity are amply evident in the United States’ continued fumbling of its debt crisis and the European Union's recent attempts at coordination to avert, at least in the short run, the debt crisis in some of its member countries.
Our query into “what is leadership” can be traced back to Galton (1869) in his book, Hereditary Genius. Leadership, as a unique characteristic of extraordinary individual leaders, has dominated leadership research up until the early 1950s and was then followed by the rise of behavioral views of leadership such as situational leadership, transformational leadership, among others. These earlier views of leadership have been developed mainly among psychologists. We have not done sufficient work to view leadership from a business values perspective. Filling in this important gap, Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood answer the question “what is leadership” by focusing on an outside/in view of leadership that draws on business values beyond psychological principles. They ask four important questions that shape the definition of effective leadership: What are the outcomes of good leadership? What must every leader know, do, and be? How do we develop leadership (not just leaders) from the outside/in? And how do leaders make long-term change really happen? Answers to these four questions can lead us to clarify why leadership matters, nail the basics of leadership, create a leadership brand, and ensure leadership sustainability.
There is little doubt that both leaders and leadership matters. Individual leaders shape strategy, execute decision, manage talent, develop future talent, and act with personal proficiency. Being a successful leader requires knowing what is expected and doing it. But, organizational leadership matters more. Leadership occurs when the organization builds a cadre of future leaders who have the capacity to shape an organization's culture and create patterns of success. In this chapter, we answer the question “what is leadership” by focusing on an outside/in view of leadership that draws on business values more than psychological principles. We identify four key principles and questions that shape the definition of effective leadership.1.Clarify why leadership matters: What are the outcomes of good leadership?2.Nail the basics: What must every leader know, do, and be?3.Create leadership brand: How do we develop leadership (not just leaders) from the outside/in?4.Ensure leadership sustainability: How do leaders make long-term change really happen?
By mastering these four principles, leaders can build leadership that lasts over time.
Research has demonstrated that ethical leadership helps to limit subordinates' workplace deviance. In this chapter, we draw on social cognitive theory of moral thought and action to further understand why ethical leadership has a preventing impact on workplace deviance. We propose that the key mechanism between ethical leadership and deviance is moral disengagement, which refers to the process of making unethical behavior morally or socially acceptable. Specifically, subordinates learn cognitively and emotionally from ethical leaders to minimize the adoption of moral disengagement. When they decrease the use of moral disengagement, subordinates are less likely to display deviant behavior.
In this chapter, we empirically examine leaders’ proactivity by taking the goal-process view of proactivity and from a multiple-rating source perspective. We proposed five behavioral indicators (envisioning and following goals, planning, solving problems, creating ideas, and championing change) to evaluate the key stages in the process of achieving proactive goals. We collected 360-degree ratings from leaders themselves, their supervisors, colleagues, and subordinates on these key indicators. The specific aim of this study is to (1) assess factorial validity of these five proactivity-related constructs, and (2) gauge whether different rater groups have consistent or different views in evaluating target leaders’ proactivity. Data were collected from a total of 535 part-time EMBA students, and data were analyzed by a Correlated Trait-Uncorrelated Method (CTUM) model. Results showed that (1) the five proactivity-related indicators were highly intercorrelated and can be influenced by a higher-order proactivity factor, and (2) ratings on the same construct but from different raters consistently converged on the same factor, revealing that different raters have a consistent perception in evaluating leaders’ multiple dimensions of proactivity.
Leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI), personality, and empowering behavior have been heavily studied in the organizational behavior literature. To date, the majority of research on EI and personality has shown their significant influence on personal outcomes. It has also been suggested that empowerment is a fundamental psychological mechanism underlying follower outcomes. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team outcomes and the potential mediating effect of team leaders’ empowering behavior. In this study, we developed theoretical rationale and empirically tested the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team climate and the mediating role that team leaders’ empowering behavior plays in this relationship. The results supported most of our hypothesized relationships, that is, the positive effects of team leaders’ EI and agreeableness on team climate were mediated by team leaders’ empowering behavior, whereas team leaders’ openness to new experience was not related to empowering behavior and team climate. Finally, theoretical and practical implications were discussed.
We focus on the extreme complexity of the global context in relation to global leadership expertise. We relate how the subjects in a qualitative study of expert cognition in global leaders describe their work context. Our goal is to build a foundation for a theoretical argument as to what distinguishes domestic/traditional leadership from global leadership and further clarify the role context plays in challenging and developing global leaders.
Although there is growing acknowledgment of the business case for diversity, efforts to recognize diversity as a strategic issue and to implement diversity initiatives have often been thwarted. We note that diversity is a “hot” issue not only because of the increasing attention being paid by both academics and practitioners, but also because of its potential to evoke strong emotions. We argue that “diversity” makes salient different identities (organizational, group, and individual) leading to different interpretations that can evoke specific emotional and behavioral reactions. This may help to explain whether top management teams identify and invest in diversity as a strategic issue, and whether diversity initiatives are supported or resisted by different groups and individuals throughout the organization. Thus it is important for global leaders to understand the role of identities in how diversity as a strategic issue may be interpreted and responded to by key decision-makers as well as those concerned with the implementation of diversity initiatives.
The construct of cultural intelligence has recently been introduced to the management literature as an individual difference that may predict effectiveness and a variety of interpersonal behavior in the global business environment. This construct has enormous potential in helping to explain effectiveness in cross-cultural interactions. However, progress has been limited by the adequacy of existing measures. In this chapter, we describe the development and preliminary validation of a web-based assessment of cultural intelligence based on our conceptualization of cultural intelligence.
This chapter presents Infosys’ approach to leader development that includes the practical benefits of psychometric and statistical methods commonly used by other disciplines, such as Rasch measurement and latent growth modeling. Infosys is beginning to use these with other individualized leader development practices such as coaching, intervention bundling, and evaluation. When combined, these elements have the potential to personalize developmental processes to each leader and improve microlevel leadership theory with the overarching purpose of enhancing global leadership at Infosys and promoting the science of individual leader development.
How generalizable are 360-degree feedback instruments in different cultures? Research investigating the validity and utility of these instruments across the globe is scarce, yet, extraordinarily important. This chapter investigates the utility of a 360-degree feedback instrument across the globe, as well as how different raters from various cultures perceive leaders.
This chapter reviews key research on the similarities and differences in leadership and management across different regions of the world. It also looks at similarities and differences on other relevant aspects, that is, commitment, work values, personality and emotional intelligence. Research has tended to focus on drawing out the differences as that appears to be worthy of news and attracts interest. We also report on the types of errors in research which might actually make real differences appear much larger. The reality is that what we find is a great deal of similarity in leadership and management behaviour across the different regions of the world. Given these similarities, can we develop a management level Situational Judgment Test (SJT) that can be used effectively across different world regions? We believe this can be achieved by identifying SJT items that work consistently across world regions and then assembling a bias-free test with robust psychometric properties.
Business leaders can face unique challenges in attracting, retaining, and developing an engaged workforce in today's global organizations. However, insights can be provided by examining a firm's Employee Value Proposition (EVP) as seen by employees, as well as carefully exploring drivers of employee engagement to equip executives and managers to overcome these challenges. This chapter uses results from Valtera's Annual Global Employee Survey to highlight the potential for leveraging survey data, analyzed at the country level, to best align and tune their human capital strategy and programs to operations and labor markets around the world. Examples of unique EVP profiles and key drivers of engagement from six countries in Asia, Europe, and Latin America are provided to illustrate important differences organizations need to consider in optimizing their approach to global human capital management.
Recent development shows increasing international trade and across-borders investment as well as growing bilateral and multilateral free-trade agreement among the Asian countries. This is resulting in more and more Asian (and global) organizations facing increasingly culturally diverse groups to manage and to deal with. Hence, it indicates the need for systematic development of intercultural competence and sensitivity for Asian leaders. This study attempts to apply an indigenous approach to deal with the underdeveloped systematic knowledge for non-Western societies and the lack of practices to develop global Asian leaders. A series of 110 interviews with Chinese, Indonesian, and Singaporean international assignees and their local coworkers was conducted in China and Indonesia. More than half of the interviewees were business leaders and senior executives, while the others were mostly at mid-management levels. All interviews were recorded and fully transcribed in their original languages. Grounded Theory analysis was applied to analyze the interview data, supported by the computer-based QDA software Atlas.ti. Our result suggests that Asians are both neighbors and strangers. In spite of our closer physical proximity, many Asians are less prepared to interact with each other than with Westerners. As the number of Asian expats working within Asia grows, there is a need for more applied research to help prepare companies and individuals to overcome the challenges and capitalize on the potential of intra-Asia collaboration.
The construct of global mindset is one that has gained greater attention recently. This chapter focuses on contextual factors that impact the development of a global mindset. Specifically, the focus is on the cultural context of Canada and the factors in the Canadian context that bridge the gap between the theoretical and the practical, and provide both opportunities and challenges related to developing a global mindset in this context. Developing a global mindset on the part of leaders takes place in particular contexts. In this chapter, the distinguishing aspects of the Canadian cultural context are reviewed. Specifically, the Canadian values of (1) individualism/collectivism balance; (2) egalitarianism; (3) caution, diffidence, dependence and non-violence; (4) consensus building; (5) regionalism; (6) multiculturalism; (7) particularism and tolerance; and (8) deference to authority are shown to be important in this cultural context to the development of a global mindset on the part of leaders. While these factors provide many benefits to supporting such development, they also represent unique cultural challenges for leaders.
In this chapter we explore the nature of leadership in Mainland China in two studies using personality and personal values data of Mainland Chinese managers and executives. This perspective provides insight into the leadership prototypes that exist in Chinese culture and the behaviors that signal leadership to other members of the culture. In the first study, we compare the personality and values profiles of Mainland Chinese managers to those of managers in the United States, Germany, and Australia, representing some of China's largest economic trading partners. These comparisons suggest a distinctive leadership prototype for Mainland Chinese managers characterized by more cooperative behaviors, a high concern for managing one's own image and an emphasis on execution and task focus. Certain characteristics in the leadership prototypes were linked to the Chinese concepts of “face” and “guanxi.” The second study examined differences in leadership prototypes within Mainland China by comparing the profiles of Chinese managers working for multinational corporations (MNCs) with those working for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). The findings in this study revealed a pattern of SOE managers conforming more closely to the Mainland Chinese leadership prototype found in Study 1. The profile for MNC managers, where different, often differed in the direction of closer resemblance to more “Western” leadership profiles. The implications of the findings from each study and future research directions are discussed.
This chapter provides research results from a study of contemporary leadership approaches (i.e., paternalistic, charismatic, transformational, aesthetic, authentic, and pragmatic leadership) in eight Chinese organizations. Data were collected from case studies in four private-owned enterprises (POEs) and four state-owned enterprises (SOEs) through both interviews and questionnaires. The main purpose of this chapter is to provide contextual analysis of these findings by applying the concept of field from Bourdieu's sociology. This research contributes to the leadership literature by generalizing Western leadership theories to the Chinese context as well as by giving an insight into contemporary leadership approaches in modern Chinese business by deeply contextualizing these leadership behaviors.
Leadership has been an active area of research and practice in China over the past 30 years of economic reform and organizational change. The main purpose of this chapter is to summarize recent progress from leadership research in China and to propose a growth model for Chinese change leadership. There have been three key trends emerging from the recent research and applications under organizational change in China: (1) problem-driven trend emphasizing global leadership context and business practices; (2) high-performance human resources configuration trend integrating key competencies to build up the new work systems for global leadership; and (3) theory-building trend focusing upon the conceptual development for global leadership areas for future research and applications in China. These trends are discussed in connection with organizational change and global entrepreneurship. The recent progresses in leadership research and practice in China indicated that leadership development has become more and more strategic and embedded with the cultural and industrial contexts. A theory of “adaptation-selection-development” (ASD) is proposed for more systematic research and theory development in global leadership research and applications in China. This chapter demonstrates frontier approaches and implications of the ASD framework for global leadership development are highlighted.
In the opening chapter of this volume, Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood enlighten us with a unique perspective toward the understanding of leadership. They point out that in the past, most leadership research used an inside/out approach that studies leadership attributes (i.e., what is inside oneself that makes an effective leader). However, what matters more are the results that effective leadership produces. Therefore, an outside/in, business-values-driven approach should be adopted to match leadership to the expectations of various stakeholders, including customers, investors, organizations, and employees. The authors stress the importance of building leadership brand to better capture what stakeholders want and propose seven principles that can produce sustainable, long-lasting results from leadership development.
William H. Mobley is visiting chair professor of management at the University of Macau. Also, he is professor emeritus of management at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai. He is chairman of Mobley Group Pacific Ltd. (MGP), focusing on: executive assessment for selection and development; executive coaching; organizational design, culture, and effectiveness; and chairman of WGP Investments (Shanghai) Ltd. focused on China business entry and development and early stage investment in China technology based businesses. He earned his BA degree in psychology and economics from Denison University in the United States and his Ph.D. degree in organizational psychology from the University of Maryland, College Park. Dr. Mobley has been awarded honorary degrees from the University of Americans in Pueblo, Mexico, the University of Akron, and is an honorary professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has served as a visiting professor at National Taiwan University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and as a visiting fellow at Cornell University. He is author of Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences and Control (Addison Wesley) and multiple papers in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and Harvard Business Review China, among others. He is executive editor of Advances in Global Leadership (Emerald Group Publishing). He is a registered organizational psychologist in Hong Kong and a fellow of APA, APS, and the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP). Bill previously served as corporate manager of HR research and succession planning for PPG Industries, dean of the College of Business Administration, and later became president and chancellor of Texas A&M University where he is now president emeritus. He has resided in Greater China for the past 16 years.
Kevin Au graduated from the Chinese University of Hong Kong with a BBA and earned his Ph.D. in management/international business at the University of British Columbia. He co-founded the CUHK Center for Entrepreneurship and has been an associate director. He also serves as associate director of the MBA programme. His research interests are international management, entrepreneurship, family business, social network and cross-cultural research methodology. He has published dozens of academic articles, cases and book chapters, and served on the editorial boards of several academic journals. He has provided consulting and training for the government and business corporations. His clients include the Central Policy Unit, Hong Kong Cyberport, Ove Arup and a number of business startups and family businesses in Hong Kong.