Global Leadership: Cross-Cultural Competence and Strategy

Introduction

Organizational success in the present globalized economy relies heavily 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 today's 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 must 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 globalization's geographical, physiological, anthropological, psychological, sociological, and geopolitical impacts (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Global leadership can also be defined as the ability to effectively operate within the global environment while upholding respect for cultural diversity (Javidan et al., 2016). Global leadership typically occurs whenever an individual or a group navigates the combined efforts of various stakeholders toward a goal by leveraging global thinking (Pacquiao, 2018). Presently, global leaders must be able to connect with people across multicultural countries, engage them in collaboration within a global team, and promote knowledge-sharing processes across the globe (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Cross-cultural experience and personality characteristics also appear to influence effectiveness in 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, as well as cross-cultural leadership differences for individuals in international businesses working within multinational corporations (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Subsequently, researchers studying business management in the 1960s began identifying challenges of human resource management in multinational corporations (Javidan et al., 2016). Other scholars also began claiming that organizational and leadership theories may not be applicable across all cultures; rather, they should be viewed through 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 emerged, varying based on each developed country.

Moreover, some scholars of comparative management used anthropological theories of national cultures to analyze countries' leadership processes and norms (Javidan et al., 2016). This research was referred to as "country-specific." It produced compelling insights that proved very useful to leaders, expatriates, and managers who work and live among people from different cultures (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). For instance, due to Japan's post-World War II rise as a significant economic power, several countries concentrated on understanding Japanese leadership and organizational behavior processes (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Concurrent with comparative management research, the number of studies conducted on expatriate managers and the challenges of managing people from different cultural backgrounds increased substantially in the 1970s and continued to rise through the 1980s and 1990s, burgeoning from the 2000s onward. This growth increased insight and awareness about the role culture plays as a dependent variable in expatriates' leadership and cross-cultural managerial effectiveness.

The Emergence of Global Leadership

In the early 1990s, multinational corporations faced multiple management challenges due to globalization, raising the need to develop executives who could lead and manage from a global perspective (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Leadership was seen as increasingly challenging and complex. Since then, most firms have prioritized developing business and global leadership competence (Osland & Lester, 2020), recognizing that people leadership is key to global success.

There were swift responses to the complex challenges of globalization. An immediate need arose for executives who could handle global complexity (Javidan et al., 2016). Global leadership development programs were established to upgrade the managerial cadres' skills and competencies (Mendenhall et al., 2013). These programs were internally generated within companies, mainly with the help of externally sourced consultants (Szkudlarek et al., 2020), and were not founded on empirical findings about the exact dimensions of global leadership, but rather on what appeared sensible to their designers.

As a result, some global firms in the 1990s designed programs around what they considered three to five essential global leadership competencies. Other firms developed programs addressing up to thirty or more skills they deemed critical in developing global executives. This inconsistent approach resulted in poor outcomes, further worsening the challenges firms encountered (Javidan et al., 2016). Even when firms turned to academia for assistance, effective feedback was largely absent.

Accordingly, scholars began responding to business needs, and the field of global leadership was formally established (Javidan et al., 2016). It started with a small cadre of scholars determined to understand the full challenge and help businesses develop global leadership capacity (Mendenhall et al., 2013). These scholars were also eager to explore the theoretical and empirical dimensions of globalization's impact on leadership (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). To date, the need for global leadership has not diminished; however, compared to the 1990s, significantly more research now underpins global leadership development programs.

The study of cross-cultural and global leadership focuses on cultural dissimilarities and their influence on managers. The primary premise is that leaders working in various countries face different problems and requirements (Javidan et al., 2016). According to global survey research, countries hold divergent perceptions of several elements of leadership effectiveness, while also sharing some concurrent perceptions. For instance, being decisive, dynamic, and honest are universally desirable qualities across the globe (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Conversely, being ruthless, selfish, a loner, or irritable were found to be universally undesirable and associated with ineffective leadership.

Identifying undesirable and desirable leadership features is essential for effective cross-cultural leadership. It indicates that even though differences exist among countries, managers should be aware that similarities also exist (Javidan et al., 2016). Such similarities allow managers a degree of ease and comfort, as they can be used to establish a shared foundation.

An expatriate manager should also understand the managerial implications of various cultural profiles and have an action-oriented sense of how to present themselves in the context of other cultures and adapt accordingly (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Irrespective of the host country, two key steps help establish a positive path toward cultural adaptability and understanding.

First, the manager must share information about the host country's culture alongside their own culture. Most managers focus only on adjusting and adapting to other cultures (Bracht et al., 2022). However, whenever individuals from diverse cultures interact, they often carry unstated, exaggerated, or false stereotypes about the other culture (Javidan et al., 2016). Therefore, while a manager must learn about the host culture, that effort alone is insufficient. Managers must also inform host country employees about their own culture (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). For instance, if the manager is stationed in Kenya, they should inform employees how Kenyan and American leadership and cultural attributes compare, elaborating on both differences and similarities (Mendenhall et al., 2013).

Cross-Cultural Leadership

Some leadership dimensions are universally undesirable, while others are universally desirable. Where similarities in leadership attributes exist, those common grounds become productive starting points for mutual understanding (Javidan et al., 2016). The manager can use such sessions to discuss their practical implications, compare cultural perceptions, and clear up misunderstandings. Surfacing and mapping cultural attributes can help build mutual trust and understanding among all parties involved.

Second, a global leader must consider bridging the cultural gap (Javidan et al., 2016). Much of the training and advice available to managers implicitly or explicitly suggests that the manager must assimilate into the host culture (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). While understanding the host culture is essential, becoming fully like them is not required; a manager is not obligated to automatically adopt the host culture's approach (Mendenhall et al., 2013). For instance, Egyptian leaders are often regarded as benign autocrats. If an American manager does not embrace such a leadership approach, he should teach his subordinates about his preferred leadership style, explain why it is most effective, and clarify why a more directive approach is not his preference.

Managers must also ensure that employees understand that the manager's chosen leadership approach is an effective style for the team, the manager, and the organization — not a sign of weakness (Javidan et al., 2016). A global leader should inform subordinates which managerial roles he intends to take on, and which team roles he expects employees to assume, so that the organization can succeed on shared ground that incorporates both cultures (Bivona, 2018). The manager should also seek help from subordinates from both cultural perspectives, with each culture adopting changes that strengthen and accommodate the other (Mendenhall et al., 2013). This can allow the global leader to create a collective, productive, and educational learning journey for both sides, rather than a solitary one for the manager alone.

Managers should be able to compare other countries' cultures with their own in order to remain open-minded and embrace cultural diversity. A critical literature review shows that the GLOBE project developed and conceptualized various cultural dimensions — elements that uniquely distinguish one society from another and carry critical managerial implications (Mendenhall et al., 2013; Szkudlarek et al., 2020). These cultural attributes, also referred to as dimensions, include the following:

Performance Orientation. This refers to the degree to which a collective rewards and encourages group members for performance excellence and improvement. Countries like Singapore and the United States ranked high on this cultural practice (Javidan et al., 2016). However, it ranked lower in countries like Greece and Russia, where family background was a primary determinant of standing.

Assertiveness. This refers to the degree to which individuals are expected to be confrontational, aggressive, and assertive in their relationships with others (Javidan et al., 2016). Citizens from highly assertive countries, such as Austria and the United States, tend to possess a can-do attitude and enjoy business competition (Mendenhall et al., 2013). In contrast, those from countries with lower assertiveness, such as New Zealand and Sweden, emphasize solidarity and loyalty and prefer harmony in relationships.

Power Distance. This refers to the degree to which collective members expect equal power distribution. A high power distance score indicates unequal power distribution in society. Countries that scored highly on this dimension tended to be more politically, socially, and economically stratified (Javidan et al., 2016), with those in leadership positions expecting and receiving obedience. Businesses in high power distance countries such as France, Brazil, and Thailand tend to have hierarchical decision-making processes with limited, one-way communication.

Future Orientation. This refers to the degree to which a collective engages in future-oriented behavior such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification. Firms in areas with high future-orientation practices, such as Switzerland and Singapore, tend to have more systematic planning processes and longer-term horizons (Mendenhall et al., 2013), though they tend to be risk-averse and less opportunistic. Firms from countries that are least future-oriented, such as Argentina and Russia, tend to be more opportunistic and less systematic in their decision-making.

Common Cultural Attributes

Gender Egalitarianism. This refers to the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality. Countries such as South Korea and Egypt have historically been among the most male-dominated globally (Javidan et al., 2016). Firms operating within gender-egalitarian societies tend to embrace diversity in personality and ideas.

Humane Orientation. This refers to the degree to which a collective rewards and encourages members to be generous, kind, caring, selfless, and fair to others. Countries like Malaysia and Egypt rank highly on this dimension, while Germany and France scored comparatively low.

In-Group Collectivism. This refers to the degree to which people express loyalty, cohesiveness, and pride in their families or organizations (Javidan et al., 2016). Societies such as Russia and Egypt exhibit strong pride in both family and in the organizations that provide them employment.

Institutional Collectivism. This is the degree to which societal and organizational practices reward and encourage collective action and resource distribution (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Businesses in countries rich in collectivism, such as Sweden and Singapore, emphasize team reward and team performance. Those in more individualistic nations like Brazil and Greece tend to focus on individual rewards and achievements.

Uncertainty Avoidance. This is the degree to which an organization, group, or society relies on procedures, rules, and social norms to reduce the unpredictability of future events (Javidan et al., 2016). The greater the desire to eliminate uncertainty, the more individuals seek consistency, orderliness, laws, formal procedures, and structure in their daily lives (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Firms in countries with high uncertainty avoidance, such as Switzerland and Singapore, develop extensive processes and prefer formally detailed strategies (Javidan et al., 2016). In contrast, businesses in countries with low uncertainty avoidance, such as Greece and Russia, tend to favor broadly stated strategies, simpler processes, and a more opportunistic, risk-taking orientation.

Given cultural diversity around the globe, effective managers need to behave differently in different countries. Expatriate managers operating in multinational corporations rarely need a reminder that management practices vary widely across the globe. Some organizational doctrines are considered acceptable globally, yet may be effective in one country and ineffective in another (Javidan et al., 2016). For example, it is expected in Japan that supervisors should be able to answer their subordinates' questions (Mendenhall et al., 2013), whereas that expectation does not carry the same weight in the United States.

Another example concerns the perception of working as a group versus working alone. Different countries hold different views on the effectiveness of group versus individual work, influencing the assessment of aptitude, fairness, and quality in virtual teams within multinational companies (Javidan et al., 2016). It is therefore clear that management practices found acceptable in one country are not guaranteed to be effective in another.

Managers tend to draw on their training and experience when making personnel decisions, relative to formal rules, procedures, and consultation with others. Nonetheless, countries exhibited significant variation in how managers adopted formal company procedures and rules (Mendenhall et al., 2013). Culture also shapes leadership practices such as management. According to research, a leader's attributes, influence, status, and behavior vary substantially due to the cultural forces unique to the regions or countries in which they operate (Javidan et al., 2016). However, as the colloquial saying goes, "the devil is in the details." Current cross-cultural theory does not adequately elaborate on the diverse cultural specifics and universals elucidated in cross-cultural research.