Search results

Arguing that it is necessary to look into specific global leadership processes in specific contexts, this article focuses on collective global leadership in self-managed multicultural teams using an input-process-output model. Building on a study of nationally and culturally diverse self-managed teams, our work demonstrates that collective global leadership in these teams is critical for team performance (output). Our study also examines some of the affective or attitudinal antecedents of collective global leadership in self-managed multicultural teams (process) and their members’ goal orientations (input). Our findings suggest that a team learning orientation may greatly help multicultural teams overcome the liability of cultural diversity, create a positive intra-team environment, and enable collective global leadership. Our research also suggests that team performance orientation moderates the above effects.

We propose team-based organizing as an alternative to more traditional forms of hierarchy-based organizing in global firms.

Advancements in the study of global teams, leadership, process, and outcomes were organized into four themes: (1) openness toward linguistic and value diversity as enhancing team creativity and performance, (2) knowledge sharing in team-based organizations, (3) the significance of social capital for global team leader role success, and (4) shared leadership, satisfaction, and performance links in global virtual teams.

We identify questions at three levels for bringing research on team-based organizing in global organizations forward. At the within-team individual level, we discuss the criticality of process and leadership in teams. At the between-teams group level, we draw attention to that global teams also need to focus on relationships and interactions with other teams within the same global firm, for example, when sharing knowledge. With respect to the across-teams organizational level, we highlight how bringing people together in global teams from different organizational units and cultures creates the potential for experiential individual and team-based learning, while making the firm more flexible and adaptable.

The potential of the relatively underexplored idea of global team-based firms as an alternative to hierarchy open up questions for empirical research, and further theorizing about the global firm.

Practitioners can learn about organizational, team, and individual challenges and benefits of global team-based organizing.

A century-old dominant organizational form is challenged when moving away from hierarchy- and hybrid-based forms of organizing toward team-based global organizing of work.

This chapter examines some of the demographic and socioeconomic factors, as well as cultural and institutional traditions, that help explain turnover and retention in Bulgaria. The case of Bulgaria illustrates that extant theories of turnover and retention may not be well suited to account for macroeconomic and large-scale social processes spurred by globalization. The focus here is on collective turnover at the organizational and particularly at upper levels of analysis (e.g., industry, region), and the authors emphasize four factors that they believe jointly contribute to the high levels of turnover in the country, namely (1) globalization processes affecting the country’s demography (i.e., mass international migration), (2) the economy (i.e., global labor arbitrage), (3) institutions (i.e., patchwork capitalism), and (4) culture (i.e., shifting generational values). To further scholarly progress, management scholars need to be more attentive to turnover – and its determinants – for larger collectives, that is, at levels above the unit and organizational. The authors provide concrete suggestions on how the case of Bulgaria opens up some avenues for future research on turnover and retention.

Scholars often suggest that institutionalized employee voice reduces turnover as an alternative to exit when employees are dissatisfied. Paradoxically, Denmark presents a case of high union density and thus high institutionalized employee voice, yet high turnover rates. To explore the Danish turnover paradox, this chapter looks at the macro-societal contextual factors impacting turnover rates in the Danish labor market. Institutional characteristics such as the flexicurity model (i.e., a welfare state model with proactive labor market policy; a portmanteau of flexibility and security), legal frameworks (i.e., relatively lax labor market regulations), and cultural factors (i.e., a culture of equality and collective collaborative structures) are all relevant to understand the high turnover rates in Denmark. The authors first overview the general trends and figures on turnover in Denmark and then examine the Danish institutional, legal, and cultural factors as they relate to the high turnover rates in the Danish labor market. Finally, the authors summarize and discuss the findings and consider their implications for research and practice related to employee turnover in the Nordics and beyond.