Search results

The purpose of this paper was to examine the definitions of global leadership and indigenous leadership, identify leadership capacities inherent in human resource development (HRD) and determine relationships of the three as a means to develop a model to aid and guide opportunities for future research.

Following a two-stage integrative literature review of HRD, global and indigenous leadership literature, the grounded theory constant comparative method established 31 positive and 1 negative leadership domains, and respective capacities, and compare domains from literature.

The Global Leadership Capacity Wheel informs researchers of strengths and areas for additional research, has resulted in a more complete model of global leadership and calls for increased clarity for leadership capacity model development, especially for complex, global environments and local constructs and theories.

Although the literature had adequate representation in the business and organizational acumen and managing people and relationships central global leadership domains, more research and reporting is required for managing self and indigenous leadership capacity development subdomains.

Leadership development is a high priority and core function of HRD. The Global Leadership Capacity Wheel provides a tool for scholars and practitioners to guide global leadership development programs and research.

Understanding the relationships of leadership capacities from global and indigenous perspectives is helpful to examine cultural, identity and macro-contextual dimensions and their influence on leadership.

The Global Leadership Capacity Wheel provides a type of road-map, a holistic representation, in the context of developing global leaders in today’s complex environment.

Pre COVID-19 there were a growing number of opportunities for study abroad across higher education in the United States, (Rosch & Haber-Curran, 2013; Martinez, 2012). This paper aims to examine phenomena surrounding outcomes of student abroad experiences while centering students’ leadership learning. Centering leadership learning as a framework, findings indicate participants in the study grew in the of areas of leadership efficacy and capacity through the short-term study abroad.

The aim of this study is to review published articles within the HRD and related fields to identify relationships between disparate streams of research (leadership and innovation and sustainability).

Academic research supports the complex relationships between leadership and innovation and leadership and sustainability. An integrative literature review of published articles is used to gain an understanding about effective leadership as an important link between innovation and sustainability.

The analysis revealed the parallel research streams are rather isolated from one another. Central themes focused around leadership roles, orientations, practices, and influences; leadership capacity building; and (global) leadership development. Emergent themes with respect to sustainability included global mindset and concern for others. Servant leadership was brought forth.

The literature review was drawn from the four Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) journals, as well as sources from the human resource management (HRM), business and management, and related fields.

The study discussed influences of leadership on innovation and sustainability, mindsets and competencies, and leadership development strategies for use in understanding how to foster innovation and sustainable practices. Developmental activities including experiential learning, action learning, and service learning programs were considered.

This article is among the first to highlight leadership as a connection between innovation and sustainability and provides a valuable platform for HRD scholars and practitioners interested in enhancing leadership capacity and development in these areas.

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.

This article investigates which criteria and processes are used to identify global leadership potential (GLP) in multinational corporations.

First, the literature at the intersection between leadership potential and global leadership is reviewed to identify a set of criteria that can be used for assessing GLP. The findings are then validated in a qualitative study against a sample of nine global corporations.

Several traits (integrity and resilience), attitudes (learning orientation, motivation to lead, change orientation, drive for results, customer orientation and a global mindset) and competencies (cognitive complexity and intercultural, interpersonal, leadership, learning, change and business competencies) are associated with GLP. The core steps in the GLP identification process are nomination, assessment and confirmation. These steps can be complemented by a preassessment phase and a subsequent talent dialogue.

The results of this research can inform human resource (HR) management practitioners in their endeavor to successfully identify and assess potential future global leaders.

Prior research has focused either on defining global leadership or on assessing leadership potential in general, without a clear focus on identifying global leaders. In this article, the two concepts of global leadership and leadership potential are combined, thus providing an integrated content and process model that indicates how global corporations select their future global leaders.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the different leadership development techniques used to develop leaders from the human resource development (HRD) and performance improvement (PI) literature, and to categorize the development techniques using Garavan et al.’s (2015) multifaceted typology of development where development has recently emerged in the literature as a “central and important process” (p. 360).

This literature review followed the guidelines for an integrative literature review presented by Torraco (2005) and Imel (2011). This literature review was a freestanding literature review designed to provide directions for future research and development within the HRD discipline.

This literature review categorized over 500 leadership development techniques and mapped them with previously identified leadership capacities into Garavan et al.’s (2015) development typology. Once mapped, the authors were able to identify the most common leadership capacities and related development techniques for each development domain in the typology.

This research provides a tool for identifying required leadership capacities and development techniques that could be used by scholars and scholar-practitioners to conduct further research, as an aid in designing future leadership development programs and as instructional materials in the classroom.

Leadership is becoming a shared construct in today’s literature. Leadership as a shared construct has multiple shareholders, both internal and external of the agent. To better meet the needs of these shareholders, this research provides tools for the scholar and scholar-practitioner for leadership development that can be catered to one’s needs – as opposed to a one-size fits all strategy.

This paper highlights the HRD and PI literature, and provides a pragmatic tool for leadership development. This tool can be used by scholars for future research and for testing, as well as by scholar-practitioners for designing future leadership development programs.

Global leadership research published in the form of journal articles, scholarly book chapters, and theses and dissertations from 2015 to 2020 are tabulated to ascertain patterns in the field regarding the quantity of publication in the field, type of research being conducted, authorship patterns, type of theory that is utilized, and linkages of research to related phenomena. We compare our findings to previous research and discuss implications for the future evolution of the global leadership field.

This study compares multi-rater leadership evaluations of 1,748 executives in 10 national clusters to determine whether leaders in the East and West display different global leadership behavioral patterns. Data were collected via the Global Executive Leadership Inventory (GELI), which measures 12 dimensions of global leadership behaviors. The 360-degree GELI also provided feedback data from the executives’ 13,166 superiors, peers, and subordinates. Based on multilevel modeling analysis of self-ratings and observer ratings, findings indicated that the executives generally display similar patterns of global leadership behavior, but there are significant cultural differences on some leadership dimensions.