Developing global mindset and cultural competency in global leaders

Enhancing Global Leadership with a Global Mindset

Any organizational success in the present globalized economy relies heavily on leadership. Leaders of organizations of all sizes and types must deal with global economic realities (Mendenhall et al., 2013, missing page number). Despite the growing need, most leaders have not been educated, prepared, or trained to handle the current complex globalized business environment. This is an important issue because the increasingly global environment means that leaders encounter several complicated challenges that differ fundamentally from years past (Javidan et al., 2016, p. 119). In sum, any organization that seeks to prosper within the global market at present must implement evidence-based global leadership development initiatives as part of its overall strategic plan for the future. In order to identify effective approaches for this outcome, the purpose of part one of this two-part study is to define and explain global leadership from a theoretical perspective, to identify cultural identity and explain its importance in understanding global and multicultural leadership. In addition, part one also defines and explains boundary spanning and why it is an asset for global leaders. Part two defines and discusses global mindset based on a model and explain how global mindset affects a global leader from the perspective of Levy et al. (2007). Further, part two also examines the role of ethics and trust in cross-cultural management and global leadership and explore ways to incorporate training of global or multicultural leaders into an organization using Kolb’s experiential learning model and other models as secondary options. Finally, the paper provides a summary of parts one and two, essential findings and recommendations for global leaders in the conclusion.
Part One
Global Leadership Defined
Like global mindset discussed in part two below, there is no universally accepted definition for global leadership. There are a number of common themes that are reflected in the academic literature, however, that can help provide some definitional clarity with respect to global leadership. For example, 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).
Likewise, global leadership is also referred to in the academic literature as the ability to effectively operate within the global environment while maintaining respect for cultural diversity (Javidan et al., 2016, p. 119). In fact, the theme of respecting cultural diversity is one of the common threads that runs through the relevant academic literature concerning global leadership, but there are other general as well as situation-specific factors involved that must also be taken into account when defining global leadership. Taken literally, global leaders are at the helm of the world’s business activities, but this literal interpretation is typically inappropriate and irrelevant to the business environment in which most global leaders operate.
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, missing page number). 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, missing page number). Otherwise, cross-cultural experience and personality characteristics seem to influence effectiveness in global leadership (Knoll & Sternard, 2021, p. 253).
Definition of global leadership
Developing an accurate and timely definition of global leadership is a challenging enterprise for a number of reasons, most especially the focus on organizations that have some type of international operations rather than domestic operations only which has dominated the research reported in the academic literature to date. For instance, Reich et al. (2016) emphasize that, “Conceptualizing global leadership as any form of leadership that reaches beyond the domestic context, as previous research has mainly done, leaves tremendous variability in the roles and responsibilities that global leadership encompasses” (p. 73). Indeed, while the notion of “global” is widely understood to mean the applying to the entire world, there is far less agreement concerning the concept of “leadership,” especially in an increasingly globalized marketplace where local actions can have profound international implications.
Nevertheless, there is a general consensus among academicians that the responsibilities of global leaders are fundamentally different from those required of organizational leaders who operate on a strictly domestic basis. As Reiche et al. (20160 point out, “Scholars seem to agree that global leaders encounter task conditions that are substantively different from those that domestic leaders face” (p. 73). These considerations indicate that any definition of global leadership must take into account its cross-cultural and international aspects.
Therefore, although no universally accepted definition of global leadership exists, this study relied on the definition offered by Reich et al. (2016) who 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. 75). This definition also underscores the importance of the various cross-cultural aspects of global leadership which are discussed further below.
Cross-Cultural Leadership
According to the above-stated definition of global leadership and related research, global leadership is by definition inherently cross-cultural in nature. The research to date concerning cross-cultural and global leadership has largely focused on cultural similarities and differences as well as their respective influence on managers (Javidan et al., 2016, missing page number). For example, there are significant cross-cultural differences between the United States and other countries based on the type of leadership style that is used, but there are also some notable across-the-board similarities such as the desirability of managers exhibiting decisive, dynamic, and honest behaviors (Mendenhall et al., 2013, missing page number). Conversely, attributes such as ruthlessness, selfishness, relentless irritability and isolation as loners have been identified as universally undesirable and are widely regarded as ineffective in a global leadership context (Mendenhall et al., 2013, missing page number)
Identifying undesirable and desirable leadership features is essential to achieving effective cross-cultural leadership. Although there are multiple important cross-cultural differences between the United States and many other countries, the aforementioned universally desirable leadership attributes also make it clear that managers can leverage these similarities to improve their cross-cultural leadership (Javidan et al., 2016, missing page number). Such similarities allow managers some level of ease and comfort as they can utilize them to establish a foundation of mutual trust and respect. As noted above, some leadership dimensions are universally undesirable, while others are universally desirable. Whenever there are similarities in leadership attributes, these can serve as a valuable foundation for managers to establish mutual understanding (Javidan et al. 2016, missing page number). Further, expatriate managers can then build on this foundation by discussing the implications of cross-cultural similarities and differences with host country staff (Javidan et al. 2016, missing page number). 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, missing page number and comma after et al.).
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 country’s culture with his own country’s culture. Many managers, however, experience some level of culture shock when introduced to a significantly different society, and remain focused on adjusting to their new working environment to the exclusion of other global leadership needs
(Bracht et al., 2022, missing page number). This constraint must be recognized and time allocated to learning about the host culture and its management preferences.
There is also a tendency for some expatriate managers to “go overboard” when adapting to new cultures by mimicking local customs and national social practices to the extreme while avoiding any Western-style business practices, just as there is the potential for longstanding stereotypes about the culture to adversely influence managers’ perceptions and behaviors (Javidan et al., 2016, missing page number). 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, missing page number). For instance, if the manager is in Kenya, the manager should inform the employees how the Kenyan and American leadership and cultural attributes compare (Mendenhall et al. 2013, missing page number).
Second, effective cross-cultural leadership also requires bridging the cultural gap (Javidan et al., 2016, missing page number). Since there are far more host country employees than expatriate managers, the impetus in on the manager to identify the cultural gap and how best to address the constraints it introduces in the workplace. Therefore, although every cross-cultural situation is unique, most authorities agree that managers must adapt to the host culture as much as possible without sacrificing their own cultural integrity (Szkudlarek et al., 2020, missing page number). Even though it is essential to understand the host’s culture, becoming like them is not recommended; it is not mandatory that a manager automatically apply the host’s approach (Mendenhall et al., 2013, missing page number). For instance, Egyptian leaders are considered benign autocrats; therefore, if an American manager does not embrace such a leadership approach, he ought to inform subordinates about his preferred leadership perspective and the reasons it is preferred (Mendenhall et al., 2013, missing page number).
The foregoing means that global leaders 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 grounds by incorporating both cultures (Bivona, 2018, missing page number). Using this approach, each culture adopts changes that strengthen and accommodate the other (Mendenhall et al., 2013, missing page number). Both perspectives can take place simultaneously concerning both cultures, so long as the global leader involves the employees (Javidan et al., 2016, missing page number). By providing employees with a voice in these decisions, managers can establish a collective, productive, enriching, and educational learning journey for both sides, other than creating a solitary learning journey for the manager. The foregoing considerations also means that developing cross-cultural management skills is challenging but not impossible provided managers invest the time and effort to create a working environment that is characterized by mutual respect and trust, as well as honing their cross-cultural attributes as discussed further below.
Common Cultural Attributes
Managers with global leadership responsibilities should be able to compare other countries’ cultures with those of their own. This comparison would help them to remain open-minded during new encounters with other cultures and embrace the cultures of different nations. A critical review of the findings that emerged from initiatives such as the GLOBE Project highlight the importance and relevance of common cultural attributes in helping forge trusting relationships with international employees as well as serving as a basis for developing a better understanding of dissimilar cultural attributes. Researchers have also developed and conceptualized various cultural dimensions (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number) which are the distinct cultural elements of a country that uniquely distinguish one society from another with critical implications for managerial influence among a group of heterogenous employees with fundamental different cultures (Szkudlarek et al., 2020, page number).
Likewise, sociologist Geert Hofstede has developed multiple cultural dimensions for most of the countries in the world today, and these and similar resources can provide global leaders with some general background information concerning the implications of cross-cultural attributes for internationalized business operations. In sum, identifying common cultural attributes is equally important and perhaps even more so than finding dissimilarities since understanding the former provides global leaders with the ability to respond effectively to the latter.
Leading and Managing Globally
Following cultural diversity around the globe, effective managers need to act differently in different countries. Expatriate managers operating in multinational corporations rarely need a reminder of various management practices found across the globe. Some organizational doctrines are considered acceptable globally, though effective in one country and ineffective in another (Javidan et al., 2016, page number and comma). For example, it is within expectation in Japan that supervisors should be able to have answers to their juniors’ queries (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number and comma). However, in the United States, such expectation does not always exist.
Another instance is about the perception of working as a group or alone. Different countries globally have different perceptions of the effectiveness of working in a group or alone, influencing the aptitude, fairness, and quality examination of virtual teams in multinational companies (Javidan et al., 2016, page number and comma). As a result, it is unarguable that practices of management found acceptable in a particular country are not guaranteed to work in another country effectively. In fact, management practices may not remain effective over time due to changes in the external environment that demand timely responses.
Managers tend to depend on their training and experience when appointing new subordinates relative to other factors like procedures, formal rules, and consultation with others. Nonetheless, countries exhibited significant distinction in how managers adopted formal company procedures and rules (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number and comma). Moreover, culture also influences leadership practices like management. According to studies, a leader’s attributes, influence, status, and behavior vary substantially due to cultural forces unique to regions or countries where the leaders work (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). However, as in the colloquial saying, “the devil is on the details.” The present cross-cultural theory does not adequately expand and clarify the diverse cultural specifics and the cultural universals elucidated in the cross-cultural study.
Required Leadership Qualities Among Nations
In some cases, the managerial leadership similarities and differences among nations may result from residents’ implicit assumptions concerning requisite leadership qualities. According to implicit leadership theory, people hold beliefs about the kind of characters, skills, personalities, behaviors, and attributes that impede or contribute to good leadership (Javidan et al. 2016, missing page number and comma after et al.). Such belief systems, usually called mental models, prototypes, stereotypes, schemas, and cognitive categories in the broader cognitive literature, are presumed to impact the degree to which individuals respond and accept others as leaders (cite).
According to GLOBE research, individuals within cultural teams’ consent to leadership beliefs. Such beliefs are represented through a set of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory leadership profiles established for each country’s culture and a group of cultures (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). Consequently, the attributes of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory leadership profiles are below.
· Charismatic/Value-Based: The Charismatic/Value-Based leadership attribute mirrors the ability to motivate, expect, and inspire high-performance outcomes from others based on firmly held strong beliefs (cite). Charismatic/ value-based leadership is universally indicated to contribute to excellent leadership. APA 6.13 Capitalization, APA 4.13 passive voice, cite all statements written as fact, paragraphs should be 3-10 sentences long and be mindful of extra spacing.
· Self-Protective: The Self-Protective leadership attribute focuses on ensuring the individual’s security and safety (Szkudlarek et al., 2020, missing page number). It is a self-centered western perspective and encounters saving in its approach. It is believed that self-protective leadership hinders outstanding leadership (cite).
· Team-Oriented: The Team-Oriented leadership attribute encourages effective team building and the enaction of common goals or purpose among the group members (Mendenhall et al. 2013, missing page number and comma). Team-oriented leadership is universally indicated to promote outstanding leadership (cite).
· Autonomous: Autonomous leadership is a newly defined leadership attribute that was not within the literature previously. It refers to individualistic and independent leadership (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). Autonomous leadership is indicated to vary from slightly enabling outstanding leadership to impeding outstanding leadership.
· Participative: The participative leadership attribute mirrors how managers engage others while implementing and making decisions (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). Participative leadership is generally indicated to promote outstanding leadership. However, there are significant distinctions among clusters and nations.
· Humane-Oriented: The Humane-Oriented leadership attribute mirrors considerate and supportive leadership, including generosity and compassion (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). Human-oriented leadership is indicated to moderately promote outstanding leadership and is also reported to be close to neutral in some areas (cite).
Attributes of Global Leaders
The value of global leadership is the capability to sway individuals who are not like the leader and are from a distinctly different cultural background (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). Global leaders need to embrace a high level of ambiguity, show cultural flexibility and adaptability, and have a global mindset to succeed. A global manager needs a global mindset because he must understand a range of leadership and cultural paradigms, economic and political systems, and competitive and legal frameworks (cite). Countries can have similar cultural attributes and differ from others (Javidan et al., 2016, page number and comma). For example, Egypt and Brazil are high on ingroup collectivism but differ in performance orientation. The United States and France differ on power distance; however, both are moderate on uncertainty avoidance (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). In addition, the United States and China are very different in ingroup collectivism; however, both are high on performance orientation. Moreover, there are differences and similarities in the leadership profiles of the countries. Also, even though leadership quality like compassion is culturally variable, another dimension like irritability is undesirable universally.
Another critical attribute of a global leader is tolerance of ambiguity. Every new state in which such a leader operates has a different way and paradigm of doing things (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). Many leaders find this an uncomfortable situation since it requires learning new ideas and skills quickly and ignoring what one has already learned (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). Nevertheless, some things are similar among the cultures, while others need to learn because they differ from one another (Javidan et al. 2016, page number). As a result, expatriate managers find it potentially stressful to figure out which one is which and what action to take.
Subsequently, a global leader must be culturally adaptable. That is the ability of the manager to understand new cultures and conduct himself in a manner that helps build positive and strong relations, as well as attain goals with the residents (Javidan et al. 2016, page number and comma). For example, the manager should not focus on France’s ambitious and grand corporate strategies. However, this can be executed in China (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). Therefore, cultural adaptability helps prepare people for change when moving from one country and situation to the other (e.g., the capability of one to do an excellent job of establishing personal relationships in Ghana). Nevertheless, it can also do the same uniquely in German. One’s ability to adjust behavior is vital for a global leader (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). Of course, this attribute is not equally evident in everyone.
Impact of Globalization
Most likely, no American company is completely immune from the globalization impact (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). A fact for the American organization and corporations is that they must continuously adapt to the dynamic cross-cultural suppliers, creditors, competitors, and employees (cite). Since culture colors nearly all the elements of human behavior, a working understanding of culture and its implications can be valuable to a manager in a multicultural business environment (Szkudlarek et al., 2020, page number). It is currently axiomatic that companies require leaders with cross-cultural and global mindsets and leadership capabilities (Javidan et al. 2016, page number). According to expert findings, United States corporations are unprepared to enact global strategies due to inefficient global leadership (cite). Global managers ought to be given specific advice that can enable them to understand how to behave in various environments (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). For instance, leaders with assignments overseas are continually encouraged to respect and have an open mind for other cultures. Such leaders must also be educated on the value of cross-cultural communication and management (Javidan et al., 2016, page number). Besides, some will claim that they want to establish global approaches while being conscious of the local issues.
Even though there are universal leadership attributes, individuals in different states have unique ways of assessing leaders (Mendenhall et al., 2013, page number). The challenge for the American manager is whether the qualities that made him a successful leader in the States will equally contribute to his success overseas, cause harm in a foreign operation, or be of no value whatsoever. This challenge, however, can be addressed more effectively when cultural identify is fully understood and these issues are discussed below.
Cultural Identity
Cultural identity is part of one’s identity, self-perception, or self-conception (cite). It is associated with ethnicity, social class, locality, religion, generation, or any form of the social group with its unique culture (Karjalainen, 2020, p. 249). Cultural identity is a process that is fluid and can fluid based on different historical, social, and cultural experiences (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021, page number). Some individuals go through more changes in cultural identity as compared to others. However, those who undergo fewer cultural identity changes are considered to have a clear cultural identity. Thus, implying that they have a stable cultural integration that is dynamic (as written, there is no evidence of support, complete citations are required).
The attributes that make up an individual’s cultural identity include social connections, cultural knowledge, and category label (cite, studies that have been read by the professor, similar ideas are presented by Usborne &Sablonniere, 2014). Cultural knowledge is where individuals associate their identity by understanding their central cultural features which is also related to the culture’s central characteristics (Karjalainen, 2020, p. 249). Category label refers to where individual associates with their identity by being an indirect member of the said culture (cite). At the same time, social connections are where individuals associate with their identity through specific social relationships.
Subsequently, the establishment of cultural identity takes place through a range of steps. First, an individual understands culture by being immersed in such practices, beliefs, and values (Karjalainen, 2020, p. 249). 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 (Karjalainen, 2020, p. 249)
What Shapes and Defines an Individual’s Cultural Identity
Culture establishes whenever a group of individuals unites toward a common goal (cite). However, regardless of the group size, behaviors, norms, beliefs, and values emerge. Its multiple unspoken features complicate culture (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021, page number). Based on social cues, a particular group can unconsciously establish some standards for what is acceptable and expected (Milfield et al., 2021, p. 603). Subsequently, through continuous exposure to the group, such individuals accept such standards as part of their cultural identity (Karjalainen, 2020, page number). Critical parts of cultural identity are shaped due to affiliation with several cultural patterns, groups, or they are assigned at birth by virtue of issues such as family of origin, local community, sexuality, physical ability, race and 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, page number). As one’s 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 individuals’ cultural identity to emerge.
Importance of cultural identity
Not only is it important for global leaders to develop an accurate view of their own cultural identity, it is also vital that they gain an understanding concerning the cultural identity of their subordinates. In addition, a lack of cultural identity understanding can result in an increase in conflicts due to different viewpoints that are based on subjective rather than objective perspectives. People’s true potential can be unlocked when awareness is gained concerning how cultural identity can act as a growth barrier or catalyst cite.
Besides, there are times when people’s cultural identity conflicts with their lives 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, page number). Whenever people experiences a cultural identity crisis, they should pay keen attention to their feelings and evaluate the cultural conditioning that established their cultural identity.
Finally, one’s cultural identity is essential for success since it affects how one reacts to and interprets their surrounding environment (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2021, page number). Building awareness of one’s cultural identity can also enable one to gain a precise understanding of their unique contributions. Paragraph length. There is little to no content that explains its importance in understanding global and multicultural leadership that is supported by literature. Consider aspects of cultural identity and communication, cultural identity and worldview and why global leaders need an in-depth understanding of cultural identity and how it shows up in a global or multicultural work environment. (Minus 5 points)
Boundary Spanning
As the term connotes, boundary spanning involves transcending existing cross-cultural constraints to effective communications that are inherent in internationalized business operations. For example, according to the definition provided by Schotter et al. (2017), from a global perspective, boundary spanning in global organizations “is a set of communication and coordination activities performed by individuals within an organization and between organizations to integrate activities across multiple cultural, institutional and organizational contexts” (p. 404).
This definition is clearly applicable to global leaders that are confronted with an amalgam of national cultures and management preferences, the effective management of which is a prerequisite for competitiveness in a globalized marketplace. In addition, boundary spanning is also regarded as one of the key cross-cultural competencies that are needed by global leaders today (Butler et al., 2012, p. 240). Based on their analysis of the relevant research to date, Butler et al. (2012) assert that boundary spanning is comprised of three distinct global leadership roles: 1) boundary spanner, 2) bridge maker, and 3) blender which are discussed below.
Boundary spanner: Citing a paucity of timely studies concerning how business practitioners in different countries actually administer their cross-cultural differences, Butler et al. (2012) emphasize that this issue has assumed far greater importance in recent years than in the past. For example, according to Butler et al. (2012), “This is ever more important for global leaders, who work in multiple locations and with people from multiple cultures. Often, they must manage not only within but also across organizations, units, and groups” (p. 241). Given that a large multinational corporation may consists of tens of thousands of employees and dozens of geographic locations, serving as a boundary spanner represents a challenging enterprise by any measure.
These challenges are already severe for any organizational leader at present, but they are especially pronounced for global leaders that must taken into account the different interests that are involved among international stakeholders as well as the respective strengths and weaknesses of business operations in other countries. In this regard, Butler et al. (2012) conclude that, “The global leader must leverage the skills, resources, and values of others, as well as one’s own social ties in multiple locations, in order to earn the trust of subordinates and effectively lead them to attaining organizational goals” (p. 241). Because global leaders must seek to leverage the best of the organization’s available resources in different countries in ways that contribute to the achievement of corporate goals, they must also function as bridge makers which is discussed further below.
Bridge maker: The global leaders’ bridge-making function became particularly important during the worst phases of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic when people were forced to collaborate with others in virtual fora, many of them for the first time. Facilitating effective collaboration among people from different cultures is already a difficult process that is fraught with cross-cultural constraints, but the empirical experiences of many organizations over the past 2 years or so have made it abundantly evident that virtual collaboration can be even far more challenging given the cultural, language and time differences that are involved.
While these same considerations apply to companies with domestic operations only due to the potential for multiple cultural group representation, they are obviously more accentuated in internationalized business operations and this is where the bridge maker function becomes integral to effective global leadership. In this regard, Butler et al. (2012) report that, “Global leaders also need to act as bridge makers among people within multicultural groupings of employees, for example, cultural and functional cross-cutting top management teams, international virtual, or face-to-face projects, as well as merger and acquisition integration task forces” (p. 241). Even though it is reasonable to suggest that many if not most global leaders already serve in the bridge maker capacity to some extent, this function has become even more important than in years past due to the relentless globalization of the marketplace and the growing popularity of global work teams which are discussed below.
Blender: The final role required of effective global leader is likely the most difficult of the group for many people. While the boundary spanner and bridge maker functions address some of the cross-cultural issues that characterize international work groups, the blender function transcends these by requiring global leaders to increase the extent to which people from difficult cultures actually like each other, presumptively so that they will cooperate more readily and become more productive over time. For example, according to Butler et al. (2012), “A skillful blender simultaneously maintains a group-level focus on some elements … to increase belonging and decrease dislike, and an individual-level focus on others … to retain uniqueness and increase liking” (p. 243). Many senior executives who are newly assigned to global leadership roles may view the need to force people from different cultures actually “like” each other is unreasonable, but skillful global leaders are able to achieve this outcome by applying a holistic perspective. As Butler et al. (2012) conclude, “The role of the cultural blender is not simply about achieving multicultural effectiveness and appreciating individual uniqueness. It requires the active cultivation of the ability to ‘be’ with both the team as a whole (e.g., to decrease dislike) and each team member as an individual (e.g., to increase liking)” (p. 243). Despite the time and effort that is involved in developing expertise in the foregoing three capacities, the multiple benefits that accrue to this level of cross-cultural management are worth this investment as discussed further below.
Benefits of Effective Boundary Spanning
Boundaries limit the human power of abilities and perceptions to gain and grow knowledge that is vital for global development, and the same limitation applies to organizations and corporations with boundaries (Andersen & Kragh, 2015, p. 786). Such boundaries reduce the efficient usage of scarce resources, increase organizational silos, and shrink worldviews. As a result, spanning boundaries is an important activity to discover fresh possibilities and opportunities. Further, boundary spanning also establishes new innovative and collaborative working ways by letting boundaries collide and intersect, forming new communication channels (Andersen & Kragh, 2015, p. 786).
The research to date also confirms that managers who embrace a boundary-spanning system are becoming more successful than managers who safeguard their boundaries (Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019, p. 141). 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, p. 786). As a result, these managers optimize their communication, growth, innovation, and work, outcomes that are an integral part of effective global leadership.
Part Two
Define and discuss global mindset
At first blush, the term “global mindset” seems straightforward to define since its constituent elements are commonly understood by most people. When combined together, though, the term “global mindset” becomes more difficult to define precisely. A study by Javidan et al. (2007) provides a useful model for defining and discussing global mindset from various perspectives which is an important modeling attribute for global mindset since the concept lacks overall definitional clarity. For example, all of the following have been offered as definitions of global mindset in the academic literature in recent years:
· It is an ability and willingness to think, act, and transcend goals, boundaries, competencies, and values globally by managers;
· An individual’s psychological, knowledge, and cognitive attributes that allow one to influence groups and organizations that come from various sociocultural systems;
· A cognitive orientation that is incorporated in any organization and shown by its practices and values that in effect show its ability to transcend immediacy boundaries;
· General perspective, which is outlined by cognitive complexity, cognitive cultural intelligence, cultural self-awareness, and positivity; it also includes an individual’s ability to integrate multiple cultural paradigms to understand and influence social interactions and events that are culturally diverse; and,
· Dynamic process of mindset switching, appropriate reaction or mindset can be primed to activate for a specific situation (Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021).
Beyond several references to cognition, it is noteworthy that there is little redundancy or overlap among the above-cited definitions, and many are equally applicable to many types of management scenarios. Based on their analysis of various definitions in the academic literature, Javidan and his associates (2007) conclude that, “Global mindset is typified by three corresponding dimensions: (1) an openness and attentiveness to multiple realms of action and meaning, (2) a complex representation and expression of cultural and strategic dynamics, and (3) a moderation and incorporation of ideals and actions oriented toward both global and local levels” (p. 215).
While the first two above-listed dimensions are equally applicable to most organizational settings, the last dimension highlights the unique aspect of the global mindset needed by global and multicultural leaders today. Taken together, the application of this model provides a valuable triangulated approach for understanding global mindset, but it is also clear that the construct is somewhat nebulous and lacks relevant specificity for individuals and their organizations which are competing in an increasingly globalized marketplace.
Fortunately, some additional definitional clarity is also provided by Kossowska and Rosinski (2021) who describe the various attributes that contribute to an authentic global mindset. In this regard, Kossowska and Rosinski (2021) report that in the majority of instances, global mindset “refers to cognitive aspects and an ability to influence individuals, groups, and organizations from varied cultural backgrounds” (p. 2). These attributes are congruent with the various global mindset dimensions contained in the model described by Javidan et al. (2007, p. 215) above, but there are other attributes that are characteristic of a global mindset as well including multiple psychological attributes and the business practitioners’ degree of cultural awareness (Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021). For instance, two primary cross-cultural competencies that are cited most frequently in the scholarly literature as being integral to effective global leadership are global mindset and cultural intelligence (Andresen & Bergdolt, 2017).
In sum, any definition of global mindset must include a wide range of individual attributes and qualities that contribute to the ability to focus on the “bigger picture” that far-flung global operations involved. Therefore, based on the above-listed definitions and the other factors that are typically included in the discussions concerning these issues, global mindset can be defined as “a cognitive complexity, cultural awareness, and knowledge structure of an individual that provides an ability to effectively influence other individuals, as well as groups or organizations that come from differentiated cultural backgrounds” (Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021, p. 135). Not surprisingly, developing and applying a global mindset has multiple corresponding effects on global leaders as discussed below.
a. Explain how global mindset affects a global leader
While it is unreasonable to suggest that organizational leaders must analyze every day-to-day interaction to evaluate its potential global implications, it is reasonable to posit that truly effective global leaders maintain an overall focus on how their activities relate to the globalized marketplace in which they compete. The extent that global leaders succeed in maintaining this focus will directly contribute to helping the organization develop and sustain a competitive advantage in an increasingly globalized marketplace. For instance, according to Levy et al. (2007), “Over the past decade, global mindset surfaced as a major long-term competitive advantage for firms competing in the global arena” (p. 11). Indeed, irrespective of the industry or sector in which organizations compete, a global mindset affects a global leader positively by focusing on those specific aspects of their operations that are critical to their success. As Levy et al. point out, “Increasingly, academics and practitioners have pointed to global mindset, or the cognitive capabilities of major decision makers, as critical to organizations because of its impact on a number of key organizational success factors” (2007, p. 11).
From the perspective of Levy et al. (2007), the need for leaders who possess a global mindset has been reinforced time and again, but there is a potential for organizations to “jump on global mindset developmental bandwagon” to train their leaders without taking into account individual differences in leadership styles or the myriad of novel opportunities and challenges that globalization presents. Here again, the need for experienced leaders who possess a global mindset is directly related to the management of far-flung operations and cultural diversity that characterize multinational corporations (MNCs) today. For instance, Levy et al. (2007) emphasize that, “As globalization increases, MNCs are exposed to concurrent and often contradictory pressures for global integration and local responsiveness. Because of this, senior managers must coordinate and integrate geographically distant operations and a culturally diverse workforce” (p. 12).
Exacerbating the challenges that global leaders face with respect to the administration of their international operations, they are also confronted with the multiple concomitant requirements that are needed for their local domestic operations (Levy et al., 2007, p. 12). This reality means that a global mindset can help leaders better conceptualize how their day-to-day activities affect the entire scope of the organization’s operations at home and abroad (Levy et al., 2007). This level of conceptualization, though, does not usually occur overnight but is rather the result of long-term empirical observations and hard-learned lessons about what works and what does not in a different culture.
Furthermore, a global mindset will also serve as a useful mental framework in which to comprehend and address the wide range of varied interests of the stakeholders that are affected by their decisions. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of global leadership that both local and international interests are involved. In this regard, Levy et al. (2007) point out that, “[Global leaders] are also required to address local needs and to manage the varied interorganizational relationships with a host of stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, strategic partners, and host-country governments” (p. 12). Given the centrality and importance of effective global leaders to the success of MNCs, it is little wonder these individuals are in high demand, but even the best leaders must identify strategies for balancing the varied interests among the aforementioned stakeholders which is where a global mindset assumes even greater importance (Levy et al., 2007, p. 12).
Unfortunately, a keen global mindset is not something that global leaders can pick up on a supply shelf but is rather the result of making a conscious effort to consider the entire constellation of interests that are involved and balancing these against the needs of the organization. While this level of global leadership may come naturally to a few fortunate individuals – and their organizations – developing and maintain a global mindset requires a significant amount of effort, particularly when there are numerous organizational environments involved in international business operations. As Levy et al. (2007) conclude, “To manage these demands, both practitioners and researchers propose that managers with a global mindset are better prepared for the complex multiple organizational environments, indeterminate structures, and heterogeneous cultures that characterize contemporary MNCs” (p. 12). Doing business in other countries may also introduce novel ethical dilemmas in situations where illicit business practices such as bribery and kickbacks are the norm, and forging trusting relationships in these environments is an especially daunting enterprise for global leaders today as discussed further below.
5. Examine the role of ethics and trust in cross-cultural management and global leadership
Poorly understood cross-cultural differences by Western global leaders can easily result in ethical dilemmas and diminish trust levels among stakeholders (Resick et al., 2006, p. 345). Even if the offense was unintentional, cross-cultural missteps can erode trust and confidence levels among subordinates and peers, and recovering from major blunders can take a long time. This does not mean, of course, that expatriate managers must occupy all of their time trying to avoid natural behaviors such as crossing their legs when sitting, but pointing the bottom of a shoe at a Thai is regarded a highly insulting. In other words, cross-cultural management and global leadership are fraught with opportunities for causing offense, but it is reasonable to suggest that many host nationals will recognize and understand that these types of cultural offenses are not intentional but are rather the direct result of the same cross-cultural differences that caused them.
Based on their analysis of survey data collected from more than 1,000 chief executive officers (CEOs) and more than 5,000 senior executives by the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, Resick et al. (2006) found that the four factors that comprise ethical leadership (i.e., character/integrity, altruism, collective motivation and encouragement) were all essential elements for ethical global leadership. According to the information about the GLOBE project survey provided by the organization, “GLOBE researchers were interested in how a society’s culture influences leadership behaviors expected in that culture and whether leadership success depends on a CEO matching his/her leadership style to these societal expectations” (Project Summary, 2022, para. 4).
Although the Resick et al. (2006) study found that these four factors were universally salient, they also point out that these factors vary in intensity and relevance depending on the specific cultures that are involved. The results of their analysis resulted in Resick et al. concluding that, “In the increasingly global business environment, these findings have implications for organizations implementing ethics programs across cultures and preparing leaders for expatriate assignments” (2006, p. 345). These findings make it clear that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to ethical cross-cultural management and expatriate managers must learn and adapt to local customs and social mores.
Cross-cultural ethics programs represent a valuable addition to the training that is provided for global leaders, but establishing and sustaining trust levels among stakeholders from other cultures may require far more from global leaders in terms of their personal investment in learning how to lead internationalized organizations. Once violated, trust levels between people from different cultures are exceedingly difficult to restore and the potential always exists for inadvertent missteps or miscommunications based on cross-cultural differences to derail even the most otherwise-thoughtful business strategies and operations. Consequently, it is vitally important for global leaders to perform their due diligence with respect to the customs and business practices that are prevalent in the countries in which they compete and to maintain vigilance concerning any potential imminent ethical dilemmas that might result from planned business activities.
6. Explore how you would incorporate training of global or multicultural leaders into your organization using Kolb’s experiential learning model and other models as secondary options
Cross-cultural competency training is appropriate and generally required for both global leaders who oversee employees from different countries as well as multicultural leaders who may operate domestically only or internationally in general. Indeed, given the rapid changes in the demographic composition of the United States in recent years, organizations of all sizes and types should regard cross-cultural training as an essential part of any leadership development training initiative. Depending on the region of the country that is involved, a strictly domestic manager may still encounter multiple cultures in the workplace, many or all of which may be unfamiliar.
Kolb’s experiential learning theory has been widely influential in adult learning. Kolb’s theory posits that learning is a cognitive process involving constant adaptation to, and engagement with, one’s environment. Individuals create knowledge from experience rather than just from received instruction. Conflicts, disagreements and differences drive the learning process as learners move between modes of action, reflection, feeling and thinking. Different learning styles reflect learning preferences that can change with situation (Bergsteiner et al., 2010, p. 30).
According to the learning model originally propounded by Kolb, adult learning is conceptualized as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (as cited in Kurt, 2022, para. 5). In other words, Kolb’s model holds that “hands on” experiences provide essential opportunities for adults to learn in ways that are not possible through “book learning” alone. The experiential learning model developed by Kolb is comprised of two discrete parts: 1) a four-stage cycle (see Figure 1 below) and 2) learning styles, or the cognitive processes that occurred in order for acquire knowledge (Kurt, 2022).
.
Figure 1. Kolb’s four-stage cycle of learning
Source: https://educationaltechnology.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Kolb-stages.jpg
As shown in Figure 1 above, the four-stage cycle of learning developed by Kolb is based on “concrete” or real-world experiences that lead to self-reflection concerning the outcome which results in a mental conceptualization of the experience which can then be applied to similar or new situations. The net effect of this cyclical process is the acquisition of new knowledge that is learned from the episode. The above-described model proposed by Kolb has special implications for adult learners such as expatriate managers who are placed in novel situations where rapid learning is essential to success.
It must be noted, however, that Kolb’s four-stage cycle of learning is not without its critics. For example, according to Bergsteiner et al. (2010), “Kolb prevaricates as to whether his model represents four learning styles or four learning stages. The difference is fundamental since learning styles can be related to inherited or acquired personality types, while learning stages refer to sequential steps in a learning cycle” (p. 31). Other criticisms leveled against Kolb’s learning model include a need for additional studies to confirm its reliability and validity in general and the learning style inventory which is used to test the model (Bergsteiner et al., 2010, p. 31). Notwithstanding these criticisms, though, the four-stage cycle of learning developed by Kolb has been used to help shape a wide range of adult curricular offerings and reinforce the differences between how adults and young people are most effective in acquiring new knowledge (Bergsteiner et al., 2010, p. 31).
Based on the experiential nature of Kolb’s model, the training of global or multicultural leaders should include simulated vignettes that reflect some of the most common real-world challenges that are associated with cross-cultural management in countries where they are scheduled for assignment so that the cross-cultural learning process can be kick-started into action. In addition, training offerings that require managers with a scheduled expatriate assignment to address these cross-cultural issues and propose different strategies for resolving conflicts in the workplace can also provide thought experiments that mimic actual real-world experiences.
The transformative learning model developed by Jack Mezirow is also a widely used adult learning theory that can be incorporated into the training of global or multicultural leaders to facilitate their cross-cultural competencies (Christie et al., 2015, p. 9). From Mezirow’s perspective, “This theory explains how adult learners make sense or meaning of their experiences, how social and other structures influence the way they construe that experience, and how the dynamics involved in modifying meanings undergo changes when learners find them to be dysfunctional” (Christie et al., 2015, p. 10). In this sense, transformative learning theory also draws heavily on actual experiences to reinforce the acquisition of new knowledge, but it differs in terms of how it views the various types of action that are involved in learning (Christie et al., 2015, p. 10).
According to Mezirow’s transformative theory of adult learning, people are motivated for different reasons to take different types of action. These actions are grouped into various categories, with the first labeled “Strategic Action” or “Instrumental Action” (Christie et al., 2015, p. 10). Actions in these categories use “unilateral, non-inclusive means to achieve its aims when the end is considered important enough” (Christie et al., 2015, p. 10). By contrast, actions in the Communicative Actions category in Mezirow’s theory rely on agreement and understanding based on a process that is characterized by dialogue that is fair and rational in order to attain a mutually acceptable outcome (Christie et al., 2015, p. 10). Although Mezirow’s transformative theory is highly focused on the individual transformations that are achieved through the learning process, it also places a high priority on rational and equitable discourse as a viable strategy to effect positive changes in individuals and their organizations (Christie et al., 2015, p. 10).
Both the Kolb model and Mezirow theory have several intuitive and demonstrably evident qualities that make them understandable and appropriate for cross-cultural training initiatives for global or multicultural leaders, but there are some other useful models available for this purpose as well, including self-directed learning which has proven efficacy for adult learning applications. Self-directed learning is defined by Karatas et al. (2021) simply as “an individual managing his own learning process” (p. 54)
Self-directed learning offers a number of benefits for cross-cultural training purposes, including most especially the ability to incorporate distance learning resources in the training process. Moreover, self-directed learning also has the advantage of allowing global and multicultural leaders to learn more about self-identified deficits in their cross-cultural management. For instance, some managers may already have extensive on-the-ground experiences in several other countries and have already learned how to navigate their way through local customs and business practices.
By providing adult learners with the ability to learn what they need to know to become better global leaders when and where they want, self-directed learning performed online also takes advantage of this existing skill set among growing legions of middle management and senior executives who have become expert in its use. These individuals may need additional training concerning the specifics about a newly assigned destination’s cultural dimensions or business practices only rather than an entire cross-cultural training regimen. More to the point, some global or multicultural leaders are likely reluctant to reveal any significant deficits in their cross-cultural management skills, and self-directed learning can help these executives learn what they need with some degree of anonymity.
Furthermore, organizations can develop cross-cultural training modules for each of the foreign countries in which it competes so that new expatriate managers can study at their convenience. In addition, self-directed learning is highly congruent with the needs of busy global or multicultural leaders who may lack the time to pursue training in an institutional setting. In this regard, Karatas et al. (2021) point out that, “Self-directed learning is in the same line with lifelong learning [b]ecause individuals today have to continue learning throughout their lives, independent of a formal educational environment” (p. 57).
The multiple advantages of the self-directed learning approach make it an especially useful framework in which to provide global or multicultural leaders with the specific training needs they require to succeed in all cross-cultural working environments. In addition, human resources practitioners can conceptualize and model their self-directed learning resources and opportunities using the Kolb and Mezirow models described above, meaning that this level of self-directed learning is evidence-based and appropriate for the learning needs of all global and multicultural leaders.
Conclusion
As noted in the introduction, the purpose this two-part study was to provide a definition and explanation concerning global leadership from a theoretical perspective and to describe cultural identity and its importance in developing an improved understanding of global and multicultural leadership. The definition selected for this purpose was drawn from Reich et al. (2016) who 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. 75). In “normal-speak,” this definition means that global leaders are distinguished from their domestic leader counterparts by virtue of routinely dealing with people from different cultures, typically those located in other countries.
The research showed that timely cultural studies of other countries can provide global and multicultural leaders with useful background information for cross-cultural management purposes, but it is not possible to assess all relevant local customs and business practices from afar. This constraint means that even the most comprehensive and rigorous cross-cultural training strategies are not capable of communicating all of the intricacies that are involved in effective global leadership settings where the stakeholders may number in the tens of thousands from dozens of different countries. This constraint also means that some trial-and-error by leaders are likely required to achieve optimal long-term outcomes, but this reality can cause operational disruptions over the short-term, making the learning curve especially steep and urgent.
The research concerning boundary spanning was especially interesting since it framed the multiple tasks that are required of global leaders in novel ways that were directly relevant to many real-world global leadership situations. The three roles that comprise boundary spanning, boundary spanner, bridge maker and blender, each involved certain aspects of effective cross-cultural management strategies, but their individual focus on more specific aspects was especially on-point. The research on boundary spanning also showed that there are numerous benefits that are associated with investments in these strategies, including most especially leverage available local and international resources to their maximum advantage.
The global mindset examined from the perspective of Levy et al. (2007) underscored the importance of this attribute for global and multicultural leaders, and developing this mental framework helps these leaders gain a better understanding of how actions in one area of the organization can affect all others as well as the essentiality of ensuring that the respect interests of a diverse set of stakeholders are taken into account during any decision-making process. Indeed, ensuring that the views of employees from all countries are considered and respected provides the foundation mutual trust and respect.
The research was consistent in emphasizing the importance of mutual trust and respect for effective cross-cultural leadership, and that it is possible to provide for the many of the needs of global and multicultural managers through informed training strategies. In fact, both Kolb’s experiential learning theory and Mezirow’s transformative theory of adult learning provided useful frameworks in which to conceptualize and model cross-cultural training strategies, but self-directed learning emerged as the optimal approach for this purpose.
In the final analysis, a global mindset and relevant cross-cultural competencies are essential for truly effective global and multicultural leadership. Moreover, the demonstrated relationship between effective leadership and organizational performance makes it clear that organizations that inculcate these qualities in their global leaders will enjoy a sustained competitive advantage over their counterparts that do not, making continuous investments in high-quality cross-cultural training offerings, including those available for self-directed learning, all the more important. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of relevant and timely cross-cultural training programming guidance concerning how best to address the challenges and obstacles that are part of every global leadership scenario. While some global leaders possess the ability to speak and write fluently in the different languages that are used in the countries where their companies compete, these individuals are rare and linguistic differences are just the tip of the cross-cultural management iceberg. Cross-cultural training initiatives should use video presentations of real-world interactions between host country nationals and global leaders in various common situations to provide the basis for additional experiential episodes that can contribute to the effectiveness of the learning process.



References
Andresen, M., & Bergdolt, F. (2017). A systematic literature review on the definitions of global mindset and cultural intelligence – merging two different research streams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 170–195.
Andersen, P. H., & Kragh, H. (2015). Exploring boundary-spanning practices among creativity managers. Management Decision, 53(4), 786-808.
include URL/link to article.
Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G., & Neumann, R. (2010). Kolb’s experiential learning model: critique from a modelling perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(1), 29–46.
Bivona, D. H. (2018). Exploring global leadership competencies: a study of leadership in US-based MNCs (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). APA 10.6 Dissertations
Bracht, E., Monzani, L., Boer, D., Haslam, S. A., Kerschreiter, R., Lemoine, J. E., ... & van Dick, R. (2022). Innovation across cultures: connecting leadership, identification, and innovative behavior. Applied Psychology: an international review. Missing additional article information see APA 10.1
Butler, C. L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Sutton, C. (2012, June). The Global Leader as Boundary Spanner, Bridge Maker, and Blender. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 240-243. ·
Christie, M., Carey, M., Robertson, A., & Grainger, P. (2015). Putting Transformative Learning Theory into Practice. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 55(1), 9–30.
Janning, F. (2014). Affirmation and Creation -- How to lead ethically. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 12(3), 25–35.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2016). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Readings and Cases in International Human Resource Management (pp. 119-154). Routledge. See APA 10.3 for referencing a chapter in an edited book
Javidan, M., Steers, R.M. and Hitt, M.A. (2007). Putting it All Together: So What is a Global Mindset and Why is it Important?, Javidan, M., Steers, R.M. and Hitt, M.A. (Ed.) The Global Mindset (Advances in International Management, Vol. 19), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 215-226.
Karatas, K., Sentürk, C., & Teke, A. (2021). The Mediating Role of Self-Directed Learning Readiness in the Relationship between Teaching-Learning Conceptions and Lifelong Learning Tendencies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(6), 54–77.
Karjalainen, H. (2020). Cultural identity and its impact on today’s multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 20(2), 249-262. Italicize journal name and volume, use en dash for page range, include URL
Knoll, C., & Sternad, D. (2021). Identifying global leadership potential. Journal of Management Development, 40(4), 253–272.
Kossowska, M., & Rosinski, J. (2021). Global mindset: a systematic review of the concept. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 57(3), 1–16
Kurt, S. (2022). Kolb’s experiential learning theory & learning styles. Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/kolbs-experiential-learning-theory-learning-styles/
Levy, O., Taylor, S., Boyacigiller, N. A. & Beechler, S. (2007). Global mindset: A review and proposed extensions. Advances in International Management, 19, 11–47.
Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G. R., Maznevski, M. L., Stevens, M. J., & Stahl, G. K. was not an editor on the 2013 book, Stahl was an editor on the third eiditon dated 2018 (2013). Global leadership. New York: Routledge. Italicize book title, do not include location of publisher
Milfeld, T., Haley, E., & Flint, D. J. (2021). A Fresh Start for Stigmatized Groups: The Effect of Cultural Identity Mindset Framing in Brand Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 603–621.
Osland, J. S., & Lester, G. V. (2020). Developing socially responsible global leaders and making a difference: Global leadership lab social innovation projects. In Research Handbook of Global Leadership (pp. 350-363). Edward Elgar Publishing. APA 10.3
Pacquiao, D. (2018). Attributes of Cross-Cultural Leadership. In Global Applications of Culturally Competent Health Care: Guidelines for Practice (pp. 307-314). Springer, Cham. APA 10.3
Posner, S. M., & Cvitanovic, C. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of boundary-spanning activities at environmental science and policy interface: A review of progress and future research needs. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 141-151. Italicize journal articles and use title case, use en dash for page range
Project Summary. (2022). Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness. Retrieved from https://globeproject.com/study_2014.
Reich, B. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M. E. & Osland, J. S. (2016). Contextualizing leadership: a typology of global leadership roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 73-94.
Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–359.
Szkudlarek, B., Romani, L., Caprar, D. V., & Osland, J. S. (Eds.). (2020). The Sage handbook of contemporary cross-cultural management. Sage.
Zajda, J. I., & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.). (2021). Globalization, cultural identity, and nation-building: The changing paradigms (Vol. 5). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1 referencing a book