Search results

Leadership has been an active area of research and practice in China over the past 30 years of economic reform and organizational change. The main purpose of this chapter is to summarize recent progress from leadership research in China and to propose a growth model for Chinese change leadership. There have been three key trends emerging from the recent research and applications under organizational change in China: (1) problem-driven trend emphasizing global leadership context and business practices; (2) high-performance human resources configuration trend integrating key competencies to build up the new work systems for global leadership; and (3) theory-building trend focusing upon the conceptual development for global leadership areas for future research and applications in China. These trends are discussed in connection with organizational change and global entrepreneurship. The recent progresses in leadership research and practice in China indicated that leadership development has become more and more strategic and embedded with the cultural and industrial contexts. A theory of “adaptation-selection-development” (ASD) is proposed for more systematic research and theory development in global leadership research and applications in China. This chapter demonstrates frontier approaches and implications of the ASD framework for global leadership development are highlighted.

We review academic journal articles, scholarly book chapters, and dissertations in global leadership published in the last five years to map trends in the field in terms of multiple authorship, nature of overall methodologies used, linkage of global leadership to other constructs, and the degree to which theories outside of the field are used to study global leadership. We conclude with a discussion of potentially fruitful ways in which the field can move forward more rapidly and more productively through the integration of efforts by scholars from various camps within the wider management domain.

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.

Whereas most societal commentators continue to review the historical patterns of men’s leadership in search of models for 21st-century success, few have begun to recognize, let alone appreciate, the equivalent patterns of women’s leadership and the future contributions that women could potentially make as leaders. What could and are women bringing to society as global leaders? Why at this moment in history is there such a marked increase in the number of women leaders? Are we entering an era in which both male and female leaders will shape history, both symbolically and in reality? And if so, will we discover that women, on average, lead in different ways than men, or will we learn that role (global leader) explains more than gender? This chapter reveals the accelerating trends of women joining men in senior leadership positions, establishes the relationship of women leaders to our overall understanding of global leadership, and sets forth an agenda to accomplish much needed research and understanding.

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.

Although managing global change is one of the key competencies demanded of global leaders, it is one of the most under-researched topics in the field (Lane, Spector, Osland, & Taylor, 2014). This chapter shares findings from a recent qualitative study that examined how global business leaders navigate complex global changes. Data were collected from 23 global business executives working for 20 unique global enterprises, in 12 different functions, through a pre-interview participant qualifying profile, an in-depth semi-structured interview, and follow-up verification. Findings reveal that global business executives are contextual leaders who juggle both global task and global relationship complexities. The paradox is the process they employ to navigate continuous change, enabled by sensemaking. Finally, as agile learners, they prove that the global leadership capabilities required to navigate paradox can be learned.

This paper aims to identify the life-cycle of leadership theory from both the human resource development (HRD) and the organizational/leadership literature while providing a contrast between the two bodies of literature. The current research identifies which theories are being represented within the HRD literature, followed by a review of current directions in the leadership fields, primarily from literature in the organizational and leadership fields. By identifying these two bodies of leadership theories, the following research question will be answered: How current are the leadership theories provided in the literature of HRD compared to research that is reported from other external leadership fields?

This paper examines how leadership theories are represented in the HRD literature. Data for the current article provide a preview of leadership theories that are used to inform HRD scholars and scholar–practitioners for a period of 15 years (2000-2015) in the four Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) publications (Advances in Developing Human Resources; Human Resource Development International; Human Resource Development Quarterly; and Human Resource Development Review). The four journals within the AHRD were reviewed to identify which leadership theories were being researched and used to inform members of HRD. The search terms for the current study included “leadership AND theory,” “team AND leadership,” “leadership AND development” and “team AND development.” Studies that presented a leadership theory and either described or defined the theory were coded for the current study. Within this body of literature, there were a total of 74 leadership theories identified (some repeating), among those there were a total of 20 unique leadership theories. The literature external of HRD was identified using the ScienceDirect database for 10 years (2007-2017) with the topics limited to “topics–leadership.” Once the HRD and organizational/leadership literature are presented, a comparison between the two literature streams will be provided, highlighting any deficiencies within either body of literature and recommendations for future research efforts for the field of HRD.

This examination of leadership theory study within HRD and other fields highlights the deficiencies within either body of literature and offers recommendations for future research efforts for the field of HRD. In line with the trend in leadership research, HRD should call for more longitudinal and multi-level research efforts to be conducted as opposed to cross-sectional studies.

The current study is limited in the literature that was used to collect/code data. Also, the time frame for the HRD literature ended in 2015 due to the long duration required to review articles and to code the data. Secondary data were obtained from organizational/leadership literature and are more current because they are more recent. Overall, even with an end date of 2015 for the HRD literature, the HRD field has not changed too much during this time and the authors recognize some minor changes, but the research findings are still relevant and the leadership deficits presented are still realized.

The field of HRD is behind when it comes to leadership theories. This paper identifies this in an effort to aid researchers, students and practitioners to look beyond the leadership theories presented in the HRD literature for more relevant and current leadership theories. This paper highlighted a number of newer and current leadership theories and trends for scholars and scholar-practitioners to begin to focus on; however, this list is only a snapshot and is bounded by the data collected for the current paper.

This paper is original in that it is both critical of leadership research within the HRD literature while also providing new directions for the field. The snapshot of where the field of HRD is compared to the leadership and organizational fields becomes apparent with multiple future directions for research.

The chapters in Volume 15 of Advances in Global Leadership provide a comprehensive examination of the state of our field in its lenses on and through power. In this chapter, we synthesize the volume's insights around two main conclusions. First, global leadership research tends to draw on the same lenses and approaches to the study of power as the mainstream leadership research does. This is helpful for comparison and extension across contexts, but the research suggests that important insights – especially around the nature of power dynamics in highly complex environments – may be missed by limiting the perspective. Second, recent research on how global leaders work is beginning to show a pattern illuminating the importance of dynamic and shared power adaptation in global leadership. There are exciting possibilities in these directions, and this chapter concludes with a discussion on ideas for future research.