Advances in Global Leadership

Joyce S. Osland, Mark E. Mendenhall, Ming Li, Joyce S. Osland, Mark E. Mendenhall, Ming Li

• Éditeur: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781787542990
• Sujet: Business
• Sous-sujet: Leadership

This volume continues to advance both globalleadership research and practice by bridging and integrating conceptual, empirical and practitioner perspectives to provide a deeper understanding ofthis rapidly growing field of study. Part I presents innovative foundationalresearch on global leadership processes, systematic bibliometric literaturereviews, and a holistic approach to talent selection. Part II, thePractitioner's Corner, contains papers submitted in response to our call forglobal leadership development in university settings. The editors conclude with directions forfuture research as well as benchmarks for university global leadership programsand study abroad initiatives. This volume is a wonderful primer foranyone tasked with designing and assessing global leadership development programsfor students. The Advances in Global Leadership series, with its fingerfirmly on the pulse of this exciting field, is a must-read book for scholarsand practitioners alike.

PART I
EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

HERE BE PARADOX: HOW GLOBAL BUSINESS LEADERS NAVIGATE CHANGE

Janet Ann Nelson

ABSTRACT

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.

Keywords: Global leadership; globalization; navigating change; paradox; sensemaking; learning agility

INTRODUCTION

Ancient mapmakers reputedly used the Latin words hc svnt dracones (here be dragons) and a picture of a dragon on their maps to indicate unexplored and potentially dangerous waters for early explorers (Dempsey, 2012). Today’s global leaders operate in an increasingly fast-changing, complex world, and they must navigate the unknown without labeled maps or sophisticated GPS systems. Globalization has resulted in increased international trade, enhanced information flows, diasporas, and a greater dependence on the global economy, as well as dramatically changing the context in which leaders operate today. Lane, Maznevski, and Mendenhall (2004) have observed “Globalization is a manifestation of complexity,” and it flows from the conditions of multiplicity, interdependence, ambiguity, and constant change (p. 4). Studies show that there is a shortage of global leaders and that most organizations are concerned that this lack of global leadership skills may threaten corporate performance and continued business growth (Black, Morrison, & Gregersen, 1999; DDI, 2015; Deloitte, 2015; Ernst & Young, 2012; Ghemawat, 2012; IBM, 2010; Mercer, 2017; PWC, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2013, 2015).

Global leadership as a field is still fairly new – emerging in the mid-1980s, taking hold in the 1990s, and growing rapidly today (Mendenhall, Li, & Osland, 2016). Increasing interest in global leadership from both the research and practice communities has given birth to a new subfield in both international management and international human resource management (Mendenhall et al., 2018, p. viii). As a young research field, it has also experienced “growing pains” – lack of a construct definition, underconceptualization of global leadership, and fragmented research agendas and sampling criteria (Reiche, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2017). Ironically, Lane, Spector, Osland, and Taylor (2014) have asserted that managing global change is one of the key competencies demanded of global leaders; however, leading change in the global context is one of the most under-researched topics in global leadership. As Osland, Ehret, and Ruiz (2017) noted, “the omnipresent need for agility in transnational firms and the high demands of both task and relationship complexity in global change initiatives make this particular domain of global leadership ripe for study” (p. 43).

Similarly, paradox research is also rapidly expanding. Ford and Brackoff (1988) define paradox as “some ‘thing’ that is constructed by individuals when oppositional tendencies are brought into recognizable proximity through reflection or interaction” (p. 89); Lewis (2000) characterizes paradox as both a framework and an inquiry. In the most recent special issue on paradox, Smith, Erez, Jarvenpaa, Lewis, and Tracey (2017) posit that the time is right to further enrich theories of paradox, change, and innovation. Most of the research on paradox has focused on the organizational level, but microfoundation/individual-level research on leaders is now starting to emerge (Waldman & Bowen, 2016). Within that subset of research, to date, very little research has focused specifically on global leaders and paradox. Empirical studies to date include Osland’s (2000) study of expatriate paradoxes and Fredberg’s (2014) study of Global CEO’s approach to managing paradoxes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study focused on the intersection between two constructs, global leadership and change, situated in two contexts, globalization and globally integrated enterprises (GIEs). These four elements framed the following brief literature review.

Globalization

Globalization is defined as “a multidimensional process whereby markets, firms, production, and national financial systems are integrated on a global scale” (Brawley, 2011). In contrast, Lane et al. (2004) defined globalization as “a manifestation of complexity” that “flows from the conditions of multiplicity, interdependence, ambiguity and constant change” (p. 4). Keohane and Nye (2000) posited that globalization is the growth of “globalism” and that it is important to examine the shift from “thin” globalization to increasingly “thick” globalization. They attributed the expanding thickness of globalization to (1) the increased density of interdependent networks, (2) the increased velocity of communications at the institutional level, and (3) the increased transnational participation across distances and cultures (Keohane & Nye, 2000). Numerous scholars have asserted that globalization is not new, and it is intensifying in terms of pervasiveness, complexity, interconnectedness, and frequency (Black & Morrison, 2014; Evans, Pucik, & Bjorkman, 2002; Friedman, 2005; Gundling, Caldwell, & Cvitkovich, 2015; Keohane & Nye, 2000; Osland, 2003).

Lane et al. (2004) opined that globalization is defined by structures and best managed by processes and people. Organization structures have also changed as corporations became more global. Marquardt, Berger, and Loan (2004) identified four progressively more complex stages of organization structures: (1) domestic, (2) international, (3) multinational/multiregional, and (4) global. Characteristics of Stage 4 global structures include global business strategy; significant competitors; large, worldwide markets; mass, customized product and process engineering; globalized least cost production; mixed centralized/decentralized organization structures; and critical importance of cultural sensitivity (Marquardt et al., pp. 136–137). Palmisano (2006) describes these organizations as GIEs or “a company that fashions its strategy, its management and its operations in pursuit of a new goal: the integration of production and value delivery worldwide. State borders define less and less the boundaries of corporate thinking or practice” (p. 129).

Global Leadership

Global leadership is grounded in the recent phenomenon of globalization, and many global leadership scholars have their roots in international management rather than in traditional leadership (Osland, 2015a). Global scholars indicate that the field of global leadership is just 25 years old (Black & Morrison, 2014; Javidan & Bowen, 2013; Maznevski, Stahl, & Mendenhall, 2013; Mendenhall et al., 2013). Yukl (2013) points out that social scientists have defined leadership in terms of the portion of it that interests them rather taking a holistic view. Similarly, global leadership is challenged by numerous and often confusing definitions. Mendenhall, Reiche, Bird, and Osland (2012) argue that “the lack of a precise, rigorous, and commonly accepted definition of global leadership limits the field’s conceptual and empirical progress” (p. 493). Reiche et al. (2017) define global leadership as “the processes and actions through which an individual influences a range of internal and external constituents from multiple national cultures and jurisdictions in a context characterized by significant levels of task and relationship complexity” (p. 556).

In keeping with this perspective on global leadership, Mendenhall and Bird (2013) identified two key elements: complexity and boundary spanning. They described globalization as “intense, extreme complexity” that involves the dynamic interplay of four drivers: multiplicity, interdependence, ambiguity, and flux. Flux is also described as “rapid, unpredictable change in many directions” (Lane & Maznevski, 2013, p. 14; Osland, 2015b, p. 5). The second dimension, boundary spanning, consists of the creation and navigation of linkages and networks across economic, functional, geographic, cultural, linguistic, religious, educational, political, and legal systems. Mendenhall et al.’s (2016) recent review of the literature found more than 600 scholarly works published since 1990, most in the last 10 years. They identified that there is (1) a continuing need to rigorously operationalize global leadership definitions and typologies; (2) a predominance of articles on culture, competencies, job analysis, expert cognition, and development; and (3) a need to broaden global leadership research into new emerging areas.

The global leadership typology (Reiche et al., 2017) is the first attempt to start building a global leadership theory, and it examines task and relationship complexities to more precisely conceptualize global leadership roles: “Working from the assumption that leadership depends on the context in which it occurs, context constitutes a critical contingency factor that determines specific global leadership roles and their requirements” (Mendenhall & Reiche, 2018, p. 395). The task complexity dimension focuses on both the variety and flux within work tasks. The relationship complexity dimension focuses on the number and variation of boundaries and interdependences (Reiche et al., 2017, p. 556). The global leadership typology also illustrates the competing priorities and dynamic tensions of different global leadership roles. The authors strongly recommend that the typology should be used in sample selection to enhance clearer understanding of research results and limits on generalizability.

Global Change

Change is one of Marquardt and Berger’s (2000) twenty-first-century global leadership transformations; they posited that the world is shifting rapidly from a Newtonian mindset to a quantum world of chaos (pp. 15–16). Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) found that many computer firms compete by changing continuously, and they reported that change is “frequent, rapid, and even endemic to the firm” (p. 3). Chia (1999) observed that organizations are more comfortable maintaining stability and orderliness, rather than the paradox of flux, movement, change, and transformation; he advocated rethinking change as a dynamic, transformative process, noting that “Change, surprise, and unexpected novel outcomes are the sine qua non of living systems” (p. 224). Tsoukas and Chia (2002) went even further, asserting that change is pervasive in organi...