Search results

In this chapter, we draw on social capital and role theories to develop a theoretical model of global leader initiative and reputational effectiveness in spanning structural holes. We define global leaders as those assigned to work locations outside the borders of their home country. Global leaders (by virtue of their global work assignments) occupy structural holes that span geographical boundaries. By definition, this position provides them with special opportunities to use their social capital to span these structural holes. Our model aims to make two key contributions. First, we focus on firm and individual factors that influence the extent to which global leaders proactively use their social capital. Second, we address local, corporate, and personal factors that influence the relationship between spanning behavior and reputational effectiveness. We discuss research implications for testing our propositions and practical implications for applying the model to work organizations, with an emphasis on the benefits of more effectively leveraging the social capital of global leaders.

For the past several decades, the field of global leadership has made noteworthy theoretical and empirical progress. The role of a global follower, however, has not been addressed to date. This chapter focuses on global followers and global followership as vital elements of a global leadership process supporting a traditional followership view that “leadership can only occur if there is followership” (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014, p. 83). Two assumptions ground the arguments: global leaders and global followers are engaged in a partnering process of global leadership, and followers and global followers have distinctive characteristics influenced by their specific environments. To explore those assumptions, we start by introducing the followership theory and relevant followership characteristics. Subsequently, we address the role of context in global leader–follower dynamics, extrapolate global followership characteristics from relevant multidisciplinary literature, and offer an example of a global leader–follower partnership. Next, we examine mentions of global followers and global followership in academic and nonacademic literature, and define a global followership construct. The conceptual framework, global followership model, research agenda, and practical implications conclude the manuscript.

International experience (IE) has been acknowledged to be the most useful method for developing global leaders. However, not everyone benefits equally from IE. During the last two decades, our understanding of why this is the case and how global leaders learn from IE has rapidly increased. Several individual and organizational enablers facilitating global leader learning from IE have been identified in the literature, as have learning mechanisms that make such learning possible. However, the literature remains fragmented, and there is a great need to integrate the findings in the field. Therefore, the present paper systematically examines peer-reviewed studies on global leaders' learning from IE published between 1998 and 2019. The study contributes to the extant literature by identifying and integrating individual enablers, organizational enablers, and key learning mechanisms from global leaders' IE and by suggesting topics for future research.

This chapter investigated how pre-existing ideas (i.e., prototypes and antiprototypes) and what the eyes fixate on (i.e., eye fixations) influence followers' identification with leaders from another race. A sample of 55 Southeast Asian female participants assessed their ideal leader in terms of prototypes and antiprototype and then viewed a 27-second video of an engaging Caucasian female leader as their eye fixations were tracked. Participants evaluated the videoed leader using the Identity Leadership Inventory, in terms of four leader identities (i.e., prototypicality, advancement, entrepreneurship, and impresarioship). A series of multiregression models identified participants' age as a negative predictor for all the leader identities. At the same time, the antiprototype of masculinity, the prototypes of sensitivity and dynamism, and the duration of fixations on the right eye predicted at least one leader identity. Such findings build on aspects of intercultural communication relating to the evaluation of global leaders.

The field of global leadership has flourished and advanced in the preceding decade. However, in contrast to the term global leadership, which enjoys conceptual clarity enabling accumulative progress, the construct of global leadership effectiveness is comparatively undertheorized, with instances of definitional ambiguity and disjointed methodological operationalizations across studies. The purpose of this chapter is, thus, to provide a systematic review of the global leadership effectiveness literature. In doing so, our contributions are fourfold. First, we offer an inclusive, comprehensive definition of global leadership effectiveness. Second, we map its construct domain. Third, we review research findings at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Finally, we integrate extant insights and offer suggestions for future research, organized within the typology of the content domain along the identified dimensions of global leadership effectiveness. Together, our goal is to build a foundation for future research examining the roles of leadership and the global context as antecedents of global leadership effectiveness.

Despite its central role in the influence process, power has largely been overlooked by scholars seeking to understand global leaders' influence over their constituents. As a consequence, we currently have limited understanding of the varieties of power that global leaders hold, how power is exercised in global contexts, and what impact exercising power has in global organizations. The intended purpose of this chapter is to mobilize research on this important topic through systematic review. The review is organized around the following guiding questions: (i) how is power defined in global leadership research? (ii) what power bases do global leaders possess? (iii) how do global leaders exercise power? (iv) what factors influence global leaders' exercise of power? and (v) what are the outcomes of global leaders' exercise of power? Based on a synthesis of extant insights, this chapter develops a foundation for future research on power in global leadership by mapping critical knowledge gaps and outlining paths for further inquiry.

Global leadership involves the ability to connect with individuals from different cultures. Connecting is an actionable process that creates mutual understanding, positive feeling, and a common approach to collaborate. Forming interpersonal connections can be an effective way for global leaders to cut across cultural differences as it is based on a universal human need for belonging. Our study aims to understand the specific actions global leaders engage in to connect with people across cultures. Furthermore, we examine how identity experiences of multicultural individuals contributed to their capabilities of connecting with people from different cultures in their role of global leader. Through a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with multicultural individuals in global leadership positions, we develop a model of connecting across cultures involving specific leadership actions that lead to emotive, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions for connection. Our model also illustrates how multicultural identity experiences equip global leaders with qualities such as empathy, perspective-taking, and integration, which enable them to engage in actions for connecting to people across cultures. The research in this chapter contributes to a better understanding of global leadership with novel insights into how global leaders connect to people and sheds light on the advantages of multicultural identity experiences in this process.

In this concluding chapter, the editors reflect on the value-added contributions of the papers in this volume toward a better understanding of global leadership effectiveness. After highlighting some of those contributions, the editors then discuss relevant directions for future research in global leadership effectiveness and organize their discussion around (1) antecedents, (2) conditions, and (3) dimensions of global leadership effectiveness. They conclude by listing some of the paramount research questions they believe should be addressed for the field to move forward in mapping the dimensions and dynamics of global leadership effectiveness.

Highly publicized scandals and increased stakeholder activism for sustainable development have resulted in calls for more responsible global leadership. At the same time, emerging economies characterized by weak institutions, political instability, and a shaky rule of law have gained in importance for global business. Under the lens of responsible global leadership, we highlight the challenges that global leaders face in addressing the needs of diverse, cross-boundary stakeholders, with a particular focus on Western multinational enterprises (MNEs) doing business in emerging markets. We identify three prototypical approaches that MNEs and their leaders take in responding to calls for responsible global leadership, focusing on the tensions and possible trade-offs between globally integrated and locally adapted approaches. We discuss the implications in view of managerial decision making and behavior and offer recommendations for how organizations may promote responsible global leadership.

While the competencies required for global leaders' boundary-spanning have been significantly explored in literature, less attention has been paid to the processes involved in this work. This chapter examines global leaders' boundary-spanning actions, highlighting the need for leadership practices that enhance team cohesion and reinforce an organization's identity to global members. We introduce the organizational-theory concept of identity custodianship and demonstrate its use for understanding the social processes involved in global leaders' boundary-spanning.