Search results

In the global world we live in, organizations have become progressively complex. “C” organizations have been replaced by “I” organizations, implying that we have moved from organizations permeated by a command, control, and compartmentalization orientation, to organizations distinguished by cultural signifiers such as interaction, information, and innovation. Effective teamwork will be essential to make these complex, highly diverse, increasingly virtual structures work.

Given the complexity of teamwork, this chapter discusses some of its benefits and drawbacks. Particular attention is given to possible team killers. Given the darker side of teams, a group coaching intervention technique is presented to resolve this daunting challenge. Taking this approach will help the members of a team to take control of their key team functions: setting direction, creating alignment throughout the organization, and building the commitment of everyone needed to accomplish organizational objectives.

To explore this intervention technique, the notion of the clinical paradigm is introduced, meaning using a psychodynamic-systemic lens that focuses not only on what is directly observable, but also on out-of-awareness behavior. The five premises that characterize the paradigm are described. It is suggested that applying the clinical paradigm within group coaching setting helps to tease out the central interpersonal role in which executives consciously and unconsciously cast themselves. It also helps explore the complementary roles they take on in an executive role constellation, creating tipping points for change. In addition, a number of other intervention techniques are introduced that help foster change.

We review academic journal articles, chapters in scholarly books, and dissertations that were published in the global leadership domain in 2018 and compare our findings with those of Mendenhall, Li, and Osland’s (2016) earlier review of the 2010–2014 period. Specifically, we trace and discuss relevant changes over time in the number of authors, nature of employed methodologies, linkages of global leadership to related phenomena, and the prevalence of drawing on other conceptual approaches compared to those previously used to study global leadership. We conclude by discussing implications for advancing (1) an integrated body of global leadership theory, (2) novel forms of empirical research, and (3) collaborative global leadership research.

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.