Search results

Globalization introduces new challenges related to increased levels of diversity and complexity that organizations cannot meet without capable global leaders. Such leaders are currently lacking, so a theory-based approach to global leader development is needed. A critical intermediary outcome that enables competent global leadership performance is global leader self-complexity, defined by the number of unique leader identities contained within a leader's self-concept (self-differentiation) and the extent to which the identities are integrated with the leader's sense of self (self-integration). This research aims to generate and test a theory of the development of global leader self-complexity through identity construction during international experiences. In Study 1, I gathered qualitative data through retrospectively interviewing 27 global leaders about identity-related changes following their international experiences. Using a grounded theory approach, I developed a theoretical model of global leader identity construction during international experiences, which I empirically tested using quantitative data in Study 2. Specifically, I tested the hypothesized relationships through structural equation modeling with cross-sectional survey data from a sample of 610 global leaders. Findings from both studies indicate global leader identity construction during international experiences primarily occurs through interacting with locals and local culture over a sustained period, motivated by appreciation of cultural differences and resulting in increased global leader self-complexity. These results advance understanding of the global leader self-complexity construct (i.e., what develops) and global leader development processes (i.e., how it develops). Additionally, the findings have practical implications for global leader development initiatives.

In this chapter we examine various human resource management (HRM) implications involved in the leadership of fluid teams. Leadership of fluid teams, which are distinguished by their dynamic composition, requires consideration of issues that may not be as pertinent for stable teams. In particular, we focus on the concept of familiarity. Composing and leading teams with members exhibiting varying degrees of familiarity with one another creates obstacles to effective and efficient functioning and may ultimately lead to poor performance. With this in mind, leaders must pay particular attention to issues of coordination, and composition such that a broad range of generalizable teamwork skills exists within the team. Within this chapter, we explain the concepts of fluid teams, team leadership within fluid teams, and other relevant concepts related to the formation of familiarity. Next, we thoroughly review extant empirical and theoretical research within these areas. We identify areas of correspondence among the various concepts and findings of the reviewed studies and generate an integrated model of fluid team leadership. To conclude, we highlight the distinct HRM implications associated with the use, and leadership, of fluid teams.

This chapter discusses how China’s rapid economic development since the 1970s has involved three different periods of administrative reform, stretching out over seven successive five-year plans. The author focusses on leadership style, specifically, the thinking that is expected from leaders in each period of leadership for development, open leadership and innovative leadership. The author discusses that leadership for these reforms comes from the highest levels, the Communist Party of China (CPC), as articulated by successive secretary generals of the CPC, that the purpose of reform is not only to achieve policy goals but also to uphold CPC leadership in China, and that public managers throughout China are assessed by the party as well as the government. The author also provides an excellent case of reform anti-corruption leadership that shows how the CPC deals with complex and entrenched issues through education and strict implementation, leading to punishment of 1.2 million people, including senior officials. The case shows well senior officials setting the general direction, preserving the role of the CPC, achieving results, learning through practice and innovation, trends towards increasing the rule of law, and the use of audits.

Adaptive capacity has commonly been defined as the “general ability of institutions, systems, and individuals to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences” (http://www.greenfacts.org). Adaptive capacity is herein described as the ability to facilitate the process of adaptive team performance and the resulting outcome of team adaptation (see Stagl, Burke, Salas, & Pierce, this volume). More specifically, although often spoken of with regard to environmental and global changes, it is spoken of here with regard to the ability of individuals (and correspondingly teams) to recognize and understand contextual changes, dynamically revise and implement plans accordingly, and learn from each implementation so as to be better prepared in the future.

We propose a model of multidomain leadership and explain how it drives leader and follower well-being and stress. Multidomain leadership engagement, or the application of leader knowledge, skills, and abilities across domains, results in either an enriching or impairing experience for the leader. The result is influenced by the leader’s self-regulatory strength and self-awareness, as well as the amount of social support and domain similarity. An enriching experience leads to increased self-efficacy, self-regulatory strength, and self-awareness, which in turn leads to increased leader (and subsequently follower) well-being and reduced leader (and subsequently follower) stress. Enriching experiences also tend to drive further engagement and enriching experiences, while impairing experiences do the opposite. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Today’s work environment requires a new type of leader development. It is no longer enough for leaders to be qualified and knowledgeable. Leaders must be focused, adaptable, and resilient in order to be effective amid the increasingly distracting and chaotic organizational world. We argue that current methods of leader development need to evolve to encompass leader well-being and focus on intrapersonal competencies in order to adequately prepare leaders for today’s stressful work world. We provide a holistic development framework for leaders which we believe is a better match for the intrapersonal capabilities required by leadership roles. Our approach is two-fold. First, we believe it is important to educate leaders on the potential interaction between the external sources of stress and leaders’ neurophysiological and subjective well-being. Second, we believe leaders need different development experiences, ones that can help renew psychological resources. We review four categories of holistic leadership practices – mindfulness, social connections, positive emotion inductions, and body-based practices – which can help to counter the effects of overload and exhaustion. We also discuss the future of holistic leader development and suggest directions for future research.

Global Mindset (GM) is a multifaceted construct that has received broad interest among practitioners and academics. It is a fragmented construct at this point in time, due to definitional overlap with other constructs such as global leadership and cultural intelligence. This overlap has created complexity for research that attempts to understand GM in isolation. Lack of clear boundaries in defining and conceptualizing this construct challenges researchers who are attempting to capture fully what constitutes GM. Our work seeks to better understand and explain what underlines the individual GM construct and how does this impact the development of global competencies in individual managers.

We systematically review and analyze the individual GM literature thematically to provide an overview of the extant research from a broad array of scholarly sources dating from 1994 to 2017. Our work offers a thematic analysis that provides a visual guide to GM by tracking the corpus of individual-level GM studies. We categorize the research according to its theoretical groundings and basic concepts and proceed review how GM has been operationalized at the individual level and measured. Next, we integrate major dimensions in the GM research and propose a framework to enhance understanding of the phenomenon. Finally, we discuss the implications of our review for the development of GM for practitioners, coaches and trainers.

Global mindset is an important theme in the international business strategy and organizational behavior literatures. However, these different paradigms define and operationalize global mindset in disparate ways, which creates problems for conducting empirical research as the disparity hampers the development of testable models. This article seeks to unify the different paradigms by introducing a third perspective from cognitive psychology that clarifies the process of mindset activation. We apply a process model of mindset activation to global mindset to build a theory of mindset switching relevant for global leaders. We operationalize global mindset as a dynamic process of mindset switching and suggest that the most appropriate mindset for a situation can be primed to activate. We also propose cosmopolitanism and cognitive complexity as antecedents to appropriate mindset activation and mindset switching. Finally, we suggest that mindset/situation congruence results in global leader creativity and boundary spanning. By applying the cognitive psychology literature to global mindset research, we clarify the process of global mindset and why it is important for leaders to understand how different primes might activate the most appropriate mindset. Our model provides a means for managers to become more cognitively aware of how they problem solve in a highly complex and multilayered world. This paper proposes a unique, dynamic model that captures dualities of global leadership. The model provides a new perspective of global mindset that is testable with existing measures and procedures.