Search results

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.

The construct of cultural intelligence has recently been introduced to the management literature as an individual difference that may predict effectiveness and a variety of interpersonal behavior in the global business environment. This construct has enormous potential in helping to explain effectiveness in cross-cultural interactions. However, progress has been limited by the adequacy of existing measures. In this chapter, we describe the development and preliminary validation of a web-based assessment of cultural intelligence based on our conceptualization of cultural intelligence.

This essay reflects on over two decades of developing global leaders while simultaneously studying global leadership phenomena. Global leadership is leading across contexts. Because the contexts of global business continuously evolve, so too must our understanding of global leadership and our research about it. When research and practice inform each other in constant iteration, we can develop knowledge that is robust and relevant, and identify emerging ideas that shape future knowledge and practice. The essay suggests that exceptional, high-impact global leaders demonstrate two characteristics in addition to the competences and qualities identified in most research. Self-acceptance is an internal orientation, an acknowledgement of one’s own strengths, weaknesses, and reasons for leading. It underlies the ability to manage the impact of one’s self on others, and creates a leadership space for empowerment of others. Community transcendence is an external orientation, an acknowledgement of the primacy of local for creating meaning in business and work. It enables a leader to take on a local identity and create a leadership space for the community to succeed through the global organization. The essay concludes with speculation on the future importance of these two qualities.

Intercultural interactions, in domains such as civil aviation and international peacekeeping, expand awareness of national differences in cognition. At the same time, experience with national differences in natural settings provides a more complex picture of cognition. The Cultural Lens Model captures the nature and origin of the cognitive differences. This paper reviews cognitive dimensions that vary over national groups. It uses the Cultural Lens Model to describe the implications of these cognitive differences for five intercultural challenges: problem definition, planning, coordination, prediction, and training. Finally, the paper suggests mechanisms for increasing international effectiveness in the face of cognitive differences.

In this chapter we develop a conceptual model describing how global teams do more than accomplish discrete tasks, and create “spillover coordination” effects by influencing the amount of work-related direct contact among team members outside the task boundaries of the team. We theorize that spillover coordination is the result of relational and cognitive social capital developed through team interaction. We also propose that the design of the team and the context in which it operates influence the degree to which social capital develops.

We develop a conceptual model including propositions that can be tested empirically. We suggest avenues for future research.

Our model proposes that teams are a more powerful cross-border integration mechanism than originally thought in existing literature in international management and organizational behavior, since they affect social capital that can benefit the broader MNE beyond scope of the task and after the team disbands. Our approach suggests that MNE managers should be mindful of global team spillover effects and intentional in the way they design global teams if those benefits are to be achieved.

Most research on global teams, and teams in general, does not look past the task and time boundary of the team. We expand the view of team effectiveness to encompass those dimensions.

Managing diversity requires an understanding of culture. The majority of businesses have realised that competitiveness no longer stems from formal organisational structures but rather from the mindsets, competencies, and functioning of individuals who create, develop, and support the organisation and who frequently come from different cultural backgrounds. Understanding the essence of a culture, its components, variations, and how all these things effect the business and the managerial process is very beneficial for international managers. Businesses in global value chains need cross-cultural management practices to obtain a competitive advantage. Global value chains make it possible to benefit from the comparative advantages of other nations, and without cross-cultural management, these multinational corporations would be unable to carry on with their business operations. Although there are many explanations on global value chains in the literature, there is no study on the effect of different cultures in value chain management and how different cultures can be managed in global value chains.

In this chapter, the definition of the concept of culture, which is comprehensive and crucial in managing differences, will be depicted. Then, the concept of cross-cultural management will be emphasised and what cross-cultural management means and why and to what extent it is important will be explained. In addition, the impact of cross-cultural management in the inclusive global value chain will be discussed, emphasising the value chain analysis, how it emerged, its basic concepts, and its importance in the international context.

Strategic management research has shown growing interest in understanding the dynamic resource reconfiguration processes through which firms grow, evolve, and sustain profitability. The goal of our study is to understand how dynamic resource reconfigurations enable firms to pursue growth opportunities. We use the methods of inductive theory building from case studies to elaborate current theoretical understanding about how firms draw on both internal and external resources in the pursuit of growth. We examine the patterns of resource reconfigurations through which Yahoo and Google powered their early growth strategies in their first 10 years of existence. We analyze a total of 192 new product launches in 43 markets by the two firms to capture how they reconfigured resources dynamically. Our analysis reveals that both firms developed highly dynamic strategies exhibiting both surprising similarities and differences. These similarities and differences provided the basis for our theoretical insights about the development of what we term “dynamic resource platforms,” comprising of (a) dynamic resource shifts; (b) targeted resource orchestration; and (c) complementary processes balancing dynamism and capability development. These ideas contribute novel theoretical insights to current strategic management research on dynamic capabilities and on resource reconfiguration and redeployment.