Global Leadership

Introduction

Any organizational success in the present globalized economy excessively relies on leadership. Leaders must deal with global economic realities (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Nonetheless, most leaders have not been educated, prepared, or trained to handle the current complex environment. Due to the increasingly global environment, leaders encounter several complicated challenges (Javidan et al., 2016). Any organization that plans to flourish within the global market has to enact global leadership development as part of its strategic plan.

Some studies have referred to global leadership as an interdisciplinary study of critical aspects that future leaders in various categories of personal experience should obtain to properly familiarize themselves with globalizations geographical, physiological, anthropological, psychological, sociological, and geopolitical impacts (Mendenhall et al. 2013). Global leadership can also be referred to as the ability to effectively operate within the global environment while upholding respect for cultural diversity (Javidan et al., 2016). Usually, global leadership takes place whenever an individual or a group navigates the combined efforts of various stakeholders towards a goal by leveraging global thinking (Pacquiao, 2018). Presently, global leaders must be able to connect with people across multicultural countries to engage them to collaborate in a global team to promote knowledge-sharing processes across the globe (Szkudlarek et al. 2020). Otherwise, cross-cultural experience and personality characteristics seem to influence effectiveness in global leadership.

The emergence of global leadership

In 1950, the emergence of international business as a distinct field of study led to consideration of how leadership worked in other cultures. Also was the consideration of cross-cultural leadership differences for individuals in international businesses working within multinational corporations (Mendenhall et al. 2013). Subsequently, researchers studying business management in 1960 began identifying challenges of human resource management in multinational corporations (Javidan et al. 2016). Besides, other scholars also began claiming that organizational and leadership theories may not be applicable across all cultures; however, they should be viewed from the lens of the culture construct itself (Mendenhall et al., 2013). As a result, more sophisticated knowledge of the nature of international cultures and their impacts on how multinational corporations should be managed based on each developed country.

Moreover, some scholars of comparative management have used more limited anthropological theories of national cultures to various processes of institutions to analyze countries leadership processes and norms (Javidan et al. 2016). This research was referred to as country-specific. It produced compelling insights that have been very useful to leaders, expatriates and managers who work and live with people from different cultures (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). For instance, due to Japans post-World War II rekindling into significant economic power, several countries have since concentrated on understanding Japanese leadership and other organizational behavior processes (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Simultaneous to comparative management research processes, the number of researches conducted on expatriate managers and challenges encountered in managing people from a different cultural background in a different country from ones own increased in the 1970s. Research studies on expatriate managers continued to rise substantially in the 1980s through to the 1990s and burgeoned from the 2000s to date. This has increased insight and awareness about what role culture plays as a dependent variable in expatriates leadership and cross-cultural managerial effectiveness.

Nonetheless, in the early 1990s, multinational corporations faced multiple management challenges due to globalization, raising the need to establish executives who could lead and manage from a global approach (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Thus, leadership was considered more challenging and complex due to globalization processes. Since then, most firms have prioritized developing business and global leadership competence (Osland & Lester, 2020). In other words, firms have realized that people leadership is key to global success.

Consequently, there were swift responses to the complex challenges of globalization. There was an immediate need for executives who could handle the global complexity (Javidan et al., 2016). As a result, global leadership development programs were established to upgrade the managerial cadres skills and competencies, and training started immediately (Mendenhall et al., 2013). The programs were internally generated within the companies, mainly through the help of consultants sourced externally (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Moreover, the programs were not founded on empirical findings of the exact dimensions of global leadership but on what appeared sensible to the designers.

As a result, some global firms in the 1990s designed programs on what they then consiered three to five essential skills of global leaders competence. Other firms also developed programs addressing up to thirty or more skills they considered critical in developing global executives. This hodgepodge perspective resulted in poor outcomes, worsening further the challenges firms encountered (Javidan et al. 2016). Even when firms turned to academe for assistance, there was a lack of effective feedback.

Accordingly, scholars started responding to business needs, and the field of global leadership was established (Javidan et al., 2016). It started with a small cadre of scholars who were determined to figure out the whole challenge to help businesses in their efforts to develop global leadership (Mendenhall et al., 2013). These scholars were also anxious to explore globalizations theoretical and empirical leadership dimensions (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). To date, the need for global leadership has not changed. However, compared to the 1990s, more research is a foundation for global leadership development programs.

Cross-Cultural Leadership

The study on cross-cultural and global leadership focuses on cultural dissimilarities and their influence on managers. The primary belief is that leaders working in various countries face different problems and requirements (Javidan et al., 2016). According to a global survey, countries have divergent perceptions of several elements of effectiveness in leadership. However, they also have a concurrent perception of some elements. For instance, being decisive, dynamic, and honest are universally desirable across the globe (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Moreover, features like being ruthless, selfish, loners, and irritable were established to be universally undesirable and considered ineffective.

Identifying undesirable and desirable leadership features is essential in effective cross-cultural leadership. It is indicative that even though there are differences among countries, managers should be aware that similarities also exist (Javidan et al., 2016). Such similarities allow managers some level of ease and comfort as they can utilize them to establish a foundation.

Further, an expatriate manager should know the managerial implication of various cultural profiles and have an action-oriented idea of how they can present themselves in the shoes of other cultures and adapt (Mendenhall et al. 2013). Irrespective of the host country, two steps help establish a positive route towards cultural adaptability and understanding.

First, the manager must share information about the host countrys culture with his own countrys culture. Most managers are only orientated on adjusting and adapting to other cultures (Bracht et al., 2022). However, whenever individuals of diverse cultures come into contact, they mostly have unstated, exaggerated, or false stereotypes about the other culture (Javidan et al., 2016). Therefore, even though a manager must learn about the other culture, it is not enough. Managers must update host country employees about their culture (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). For instance, if the manager is in Kenya, the manager should inform the employees how the Kenyan and American leadership and culture attributes compare (Mendenhall et al. 2013). Both the differences and similarities should be elaborated on.

Subsequently, some leadership dimensions are universally undesirable, while others are universally desirable. Whenever there are similarities in leadership attributes, that should be a productive ground for the manager to establish mutual understanding (Javidan et al. 2016). The manager can then use such sessions to talk about their implications. Moreover, the manager can also compare the findings about the perception of his culture with the hosts culture to clear any misunderstandings. The surfacing and mapping of cultural attributes can help build mutual trust and understanding among the players.

Second, a global leader must consider bridging the cultural gap (Javidan et al., 2016). Most training and advice managers implicitly or explicitly hint that the manager must assimilate into the host culture (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Even though it is essential to understand the hosts culture, becoming like them is not recommended; it is not mandatory that a manager automatically apply the hosts approach (Mendenhall et al., 2013). For instance, Egyptian leaders are considered benign autocrats; therefore, if an American manager does not embrace such a leadership approach, he ought to teach the subordinates about his preferred leadership perspective; why it is the most preferred, and why not dictatorial approach.

In addition, managers must ensure that employees know that their leadership approach is an effective style for the team, the manager, and the organizations success, not a sign of weakness (Javidan et al. 2016). Besides, a global leader should inform subordinates of the managerial roles they intend to change with the team roles they prefer changed by the employees so that the organization can succeed on mutual ground incorporating both cultures (Bivona, 2018). Also, the manager needs to request the subordinates help from both perspectives. Each culture adopts changes that strengthen and accommodate the other (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Both perspectives can take place simultaneously concerning both cultures, so long as the global leader involves the employees (Javidan et al. 2016). This means that the manager can establish a collective, productive, enriching, and educational learning journey for both sides, other than creating a solitary learning journey for the manager.

Common Cultural Attributes

Managers should be able to compare other countries cultures with those of their own countries. This would allow them to remain open-minded and embrace the cultures of different nations. A critical literature review shows that GLOBE developed and conceptualized various cultural dimensions (Mendenhall et al., 2013). They are cultural elements of a country that uniquely distinguish one society from...

…by understanding their central cultural features (Karjalainen, 2020). Category label refers to where an individual associates with their identity by being an indirect member of the said culture. At the same time, social connections are where individuals associate with their identity through social relationships.

Subsequently, cultural identity is established through a range of steps. First, an individual understands culture by being immersed in such practices, beliefs, and values (Karjalainen, 2020). Second, the individual goes through self-identification as a member of that culture. The third and final step is that individuals establish relationships with close friends, coworkers, neighbors, and immediate family.

What Shapes and Defines an Indviduals Cultural Identity

Culture establishes whenever a group of individuals unites toward a common goal. However, regardless of the group size, behaviors, norms, beliefs, and values emerge. Its multiple unspoken features complicate culture (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021). Based on social cues, a particular group can unconsciously establish some standards for what is acceptable and expected. Subsequently, through continuous exposure to the group, such individuals accept such standards as part of their cultural identity (Karjalainen, 2020). Critical parts of cultural identity are shaped due to affiliation with several cultural patterns, groups, or once assigned at birth. Example: Family of origin, local community, sexuality, generation, gender, nationality, language, physical ability, race, and local community, amongst others.

Another contribution to cultural identity occurs as someone navigates through social construct and life. As one develops interests and skills and gains experiences, they leave some communities due to a lack of commonality with their group members (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021). As ones life changes, one may engage in groups like professional organizations, online communities, support groups, educational institutions, and political or special interest groups.

Consequently, some contexts and situations provide more filters that enable unique aspects of ones cultural identity to emerge.

Importance of cultural identity

Cultural identity determines how people react to and interpret situations. Therefore, individuals must have identity awareness of their environment.

Also, a lack of cultural identity understanding can result in to rise in conflicts due to different viewpoints. Peoples true potential can be unlocked when awareness is created of how cultural identity can act as a growth barrier or catalyst.

Besides, there are times when peoples cultural identity conflicts with their lives together with the environment or what they feel is true within themselves. Such tension is a cultural identity crisis and can create distress or discomfort (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021). Whenever one experiences a cultural identity crisis, they should pay keen attention to their feelings and evaluate the cultural conditioning that established their cultural identity.

Finally, ones cultural identity is essential for success since it affects how one reacts to and interprets their surrounding environment (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021). Building awareness of ones cultural identity can also enable one to gain a precise understanding of their unique contributions.

Boundary Spanning

Boundary Spanning is a process of establishing an external relationship by measuring the boundaries to business goals accomplishment (Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019). It is a situation where an organization or individual crosses a social groups limits (Andersen & Kragh, 2015). However, it enables businesses to get information from other organizations.

Otherwise, boundary spanning is an organizational effort involving practices that bridge one or more established organizational boundaries to facilitate information flow across such boundaries (Andersen & Kragh, 2015). There are several examples where boundary spanner has occurred, and both companies benefited. The term was minted after the second world war, where multiple companies profited when they shared intel (Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019). The growth became more efficient and faster after the boundary spanning was applied.

In business, boundary spanning refers to where one crosses boundaries set by their organization to collaborate with another party to get tasks executed (Andersen & Kragh, 2015). For example, the United Nations was formed to enable member countries to collaborate to improve the world. Periodic boundary spanning is necessary for such collaboration.

Benefits of Effective Boundary Spanning

Boundaries limit the human power of abilities and perceptions to gain and grow knowledge vital for global development. The same applies to organizations and corporations with boundaries (Andersen & Kragh, 2015). Such boundaries reduce resources, increase organizational silos, and shrink worldviews.

As a result, spanning boundaries is an important activity to discover fresh possibilities and opportunities. It also establishes new innovative and collaborative working ways by letting boundaries collide and intersect, forming new channels.

Managers who embrace a boundary-spanning system are becoming more successful than managers who safeguard their boundaries (Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019). This is because managers who practice boundary-spanning work with a wide range of colleagues from diverse positions, cultures, expertise, backgrounds, community, and locations, amongst others (Andersen & Kragh, 2015). As a result, they optimize their communication, growth, innovation, and work.

Finally, boundary spanning is critical in establishing collaborative attitudes, mindsets, and skills that concentrate on acceptance, adaptability, and knowledge of several approaches,…