Search results

While there is strong agreement that globalization is spreading rapidly, there is no agreement on what globalization actually means and how it is measured. Giddens (1999) defines globalization as “the worldwide interconnection at the cultural, political, and economic level resulting from the elimination of communication and trade barriers.” He further defines it as “…a process of convergence of cultural, political, and economic aspects of life” (reported in Inkpen & Ramaswamy, 2006, p. 13). Govindarajan and Gupta (2001) define globalization as “growing economic interdependence among countries as reflected in increasing cross-border flows of three types of entities: goods and services, capital, and know-how” (p. 4).

Inherent in the meaning of global mindset is the dilemma of an appropriate level of analysis at which we define, measure, and research this construct. This chapter addresses the individual level of analysis using social cognition, which explains how the development process of global mindset helps individuals make sense of unfamiliar stimuli, broaden their cognitive capacities, adjust their behavior accordingly, and have a positive influence on others. Our recently developed core construct of positive psychological capital, or PsyCap (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), and the overarching process of authentic leadership development (Avolio & Luthans, 2006) are used to explicate the theoretical social cognitive framework. The “influence on others” implies a leadership process, and that is why we address the role that global mindset may have in the authentic leadership development process (Avolio & Luthans, 2006).

Globalization has created an intense competitive environment. As a result, achieving competitive advantage has become the core argument in international management. Some scholars have argued that the development of global leaders is critical (Osland, Bird, & Mendenhall, 2006; Yukl, 2009), while others believe that the global mindset is the key to strategic advantage (Black, Morison, & Gregerson, 1999; Jeannet, 2000; Javidan, 2008). In this paper, we present a review of both literatures (i.e., global leadership and global mindset) to highlight that today's dynamic marketplace requires a shift in thinking. We conclude by drawing attention to existing gaps in these literatures, and shed light on an emerging integrative model of global leadership and mindset.

In this section, we offer a careful and systematic review of the theoretical and empirical studies relating to global mindset that have been published in books and peer-reviewed journals. This review includes studies that use differing terms to refer to the idea of global mindset but consider the same general concept. At the same time, we exclude studies that do not specifically pertain to global mindset but concentrate on such areas as global leadership, expatriates, and expatriation, even though they may focus on similar underlying themes found in the global mindset literature. We then identify two fundamental themes in the global mindset literature – cosmopolitanism and cognitive complexity – and use these concepts to develop a new integrative approach to global mindset.

Performance management can play an important role in the implementation of strategic change, by aligning employees’ mindsets and behavior with organizational goals. However, the ways in which employees react to change efforts aided by performance management practices are far from straight-forward. In this chapter, we develop a conceptual framework for understanding employees’ reactions to strategic change as a consequence of their occupational identities and their performance management outcome. We further apply the framework to an empirical study of a strategic change initiative in a school organization that was supported by a new performance management practice. We show how variations in perceived identity threat translate into four distinct patterns of emotional and behavioral reactions, where only one represents whole-hearted change acceptance. The study contributes to our understanding of individual- and group-level heterogeneity in reactions to strategic change, and also to a more nuanced conception of identity threat.

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.

This chapter seeks to advance ongoing research concerning entrepreneurial commitment. While the concept of commitment has been addressed time and again in organizational literature, few entrepreneurship scholars have used it to understand entrepreneurial behaviors. In line with recent developments in entrepreneurial psycho-social literature (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014; Adam & Fayolle, 2015; Van Gelderen, Kautonen, Wincent, & Biniari, 2018), this conceptual chapter aims to advance understanding of the concept of commitment in the context of emerging organizations. Building on Meyer and Allen’s three-component model of commitment (TCM), it addresses how this multidimensional concept, developed in the organizational setting, is a lens through which one can investigate volitional phases of the entrepreneurial process (Van Gelderen, Kautonen, & Fink, 2015). Our work also explores how the TCM could be specifically adapted for emerging organizations, drawing on its main evolutions and re-conceptualizations since the 1990s. In this way, it uncovers potential avenues for further research on how to operationalize entrepreneurial activity. In doing so, it enhances knowledge of the entrepreneurial process and can improve training and support techniques for nascent entrepreneurs. It also contributes to broader discussions on the TCM and how it should be adapted in order to foster self-determined processes.