Global Leadership Effectiveness: A Multilevel Review and Exploration of the Construct Domain
ISBN: 978-1-80071-838-8, eISBN: 978-1-80071-837-1
ISSN: 1535-1203
Publication date: 26 January 2022
Abstract
The field of global leadership has flourished and advanced in the preceding decade. However, in contrast to the term global leadership, which enjoys conceptual clarity enabling accumulative progress, the construct of global leadership effectiveness is comparatively undertheorized, with instances of definitional ambiguity and disjointed methodological operationalizations across studies. The purpose of this chapter is, thus, to provide a systematic review of the global leadership effectiveness literature. In doing so, our contributions are fourfold. First, we offer an inclusive, comprehensive definition of global leadership effectiveness. Second, we map its construct domain. Third, we review research findings at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Finally, we integrate extant insights and offer suggestions for future research, organized within the typology of the content domain along the identified dimensions of global leadership effectiveness. Together, our goal is to build a foundation for future research examining the roles of leadership and the global context as antecedents of global leadership effectiveness.
Keywords
Citation
Rickley, M. and Stackhouse, M. (2022), "Global Leadership Effectiveness: A Multilevel Review and Exploration of the Construct Domain", Osland, J.S., Reiche, B.S., Szkudlarek, B. and Mendenhall, M.E. (Ed.) Advances in Global Leadership (Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 14), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 87-123. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320220000014004
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited
Societal culture is arguably one of the most important and researched concepts in organizational literature. It is superseded, perhaps, only by the concept of leadership. In 1927, Young integrated these ideas when he wrote, “One can no more understand leadership than any other social process without taking into account, first, the group situation in which it occurs and, secondly, the culture patterns concerned” (Young, 1927, p. 582). Since then, much attention has been given to leadership in cross-cultural and global contexts with global leadership emerging as a distinct and quickly growing area of research (Bird & Mendenhall, 2016; Osland, Nielsen, Mendenhall, & Bird, 2020). While reviews performed a decade ago note only around 20 articles on global leadership (Osland, Bird, & Mendenhall, 2012), global leadership is now a burgeoning literature (for recent reviews, see Bird & Mendenhall, 2016; Osland et al., 2020; Vijayakumar, Morley, Heraty, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2018). The swell in research interest is not only a reflection of global leaders' growing importance in the rapidly changing and increasingly global nature of contemporary workplaces, but is also due to global leadership's increased definitional clarity (Mendenhall, Reiche, Bird, & Osland, 2012; Reiche, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2017).
However, despite these considerable advances, global leadership scholars highlight the paucity of empirical research on global leadership effectiveness (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009; Javidan, Waldman, & Wang, 2021). Contrasted with growing understanding of global leadership's construct domain (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010; Mendenhall et al., 2012; Reiche et al., 2017), what constitutes global leadership effectiveness remains opaque and undefined. The absence of definitional and operational clarity risks confounding the construct with productivity (Liu, Jiang, Chen, Pan, & Lin, 2018; Szymanski & Ipek, 2020), expatriate adjustment (Shay & Baack, 2004), and organizational performance (Georgakakis, Greve, & Ruigrok, 2017), thereby impeding cumulative scholarship.
The purpose of this chapter is to advance research on global leadership effectiveness through an in-depth systematic review of the literature. While several recent reviews of global leadership exist (see Bird & Mendenhall, 2016; Osland et al., 2020; Vijayakumar et al., 2018), to our knowledge, we provide the first systematic review of global leadership effectiveness. It is not our goal to predict or refute any specific hypotheses about global leadership effectiveness based on our review. Rather, our goal is to use the review method to map the landscape of global leadership effectiveness in service of providing operational clarity. In doing so, we contribute to the scholarly conversation by presenting a workable definition and an integrated framework of global leadership effectiveness that is situated in a larger nomological network of global leadership. Furthermore, we articulate how the field of global leadership effectiveness can evolve at individual, group, and organizational levels of research.
Purpose and Research Questions
As the field of global leadership has evolved, substantial attention has been given to conceptualizing and operationalizing global leadership. A major focus has been on identifying the skills needed by global leaders (Park, Jeong, Jang, Yoon, & Lim, 2018), defining how global leadership competencies differ from global leadership behavior (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009; Mendenhall, Weber, ArnaArnardottir, & Oddou, 2017), global leadership development (Mendenhall et al., 2017), and scale development and measurement (Cumberland, Herd, Alagaraja, & Kerrick, 2016). Although many scholars have explored the essential traits, competencies, and behavioral attributes of global leaders (Bird et al., 2010; Mendenhall & Bird, 2013; Mendenhall et al., 2012; Reiche et al., 2017) and conducted empirical studies on the factors that drive global leadership success (e.g., Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009, 2012; Javidan et al., 2021), guidance on what constitutes global leadership effectiveness remains sparse and fragmented. With research findings spread across the fields of cross-cultural research, global management, comparative leadership, and expatriation literatures (Osland et al., 2020), global leadership effectiveness currently has no commonly accepted definition or singular conceptualization. Without definitional clarity and shared meaning among scholars, cumulative progress is difficult. Its challenges are further exacerbated by the term being used concurrently across these aforementioned fields, as each field has its own theoretical and empirical traditions.
To fill this gap and fulfill our stated goals of mapping the landscape of global leadership effectiveness, providing definitional clarity, and articulating a future research agenda, we oriented our systematic review around four research questions. We formed these questions to help us outline and define our focal construct – global leadership effectiveness – and focus our inquiry. To understand how researchers view global leadership effectiveness relative to other related constructs, we first explored its content domain. We examined how researchers reconcile and distinguish global leadership effectiveness and global leadership. To determine how the two constructs differ and where they align, we asked:
RQ1: What is the content domain of global leadership effectiveness and how does it relate to global leadership?
To further characterize the construct domain of global leadership effectiveness and build a foundation for future research, we posed additional research questions aimed at identifying theoretical and empirical trends. These questions uncovered additional dimensions of the global leadership effectiveness construct and helped us develop an integrative framework of the global leadership effectiveness domain.
RQ2: Which theories have been used to understand global leadership effectiveness?
RQ3: Which constructs have been researched related to global leadership effectiveness? Which constructs are missing?
RQ4: What has been researched on global leadership effectiveness at the individual, group, and organizational level of analysis?
Method
Search Method and Article Inclusion
To answer our research questions, we performed a systematic literature search using the citation database, Scopus. We used the keywords (“effectiveness” or “performance) and (“global” or “international” or “multinational” or “transnational” or “cross-cultural”) and (“manager” or “management” or “supervisor” or “leader” or “leadership”) and (“team” or “global leader” or “global manager” or “international leader” or “international manager” or “expatriate manager” or “expatriate supervisor”). We did not limit our search to any publication year. We limited our exploration to the list of 33 journals identified by Bird and Mendenhall (2016) as having a focus on management and organizational behavior. Therefore, unpublished articles, unpublished data, dissertations, theses, and monographs were excluded from our review. Studies were excluded if they were in a language other than English. Review papers and meta-analyses were also excluded from our review. This resulted in a total of 130 papers for further screening.
Studies were included in the review if they met the following criteria: (1) they had to investigate global leadership, cross-cultural leadership, or some form of leadership in cross-national contexts; (2) they had to investigate criterion outcomes of global leadership from an effectiveness standpoint. Therefore, articles were excluded based on scope (if they addressed global issues but not leadership, leadership but not in a global context, etc.). Upon detailed screening, 83 articles were removed from the initial pool and 47 articles were retained. An ancestry approach was also employed to search selected publications. The references of each of the 47 papers were searched manually for important articles about global leadership effectiveness. Relevant new records were also searched for citations. This generated 14 additional papers. Together, this resulted in an article total of 61 papers in our review. A flow diagram detailing our search and exclusion/inclusion criteria is depicted in Fig. 1.
Article Analysis
To better understand the construct domain of global leadership effectiveness, each article was coded for differences in the samples (data sample, country). We also reviewed each paper for its definition of global leadership effectiveness (cf. RQ1), assessment of global leadership effectiveness (objective, subjective), outcome variables (cf. RQ1), dominant theoretical perspectives (cf. RQ2), and the constructs measured (cf. RQ3). We also categorized articles to examine the locus of leader influence (cf. RQ3). We then categorized studies by level of analysis; although we note that some articles could have been categorized at multiple levels, we made decisions as to which level was most appropriate (cf. RQ4).
Results
Main Results
Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the 61 papers included in our review; they are also marked with an asterisk in the References. The first noteworthy takeaway is growing interest in the topic of global leadership effectiveness, with 35 research articles (57%) published since 2011, 22 (36%) published in 2001–2010, and only 4 (7%) published in 1991–2000. A second takeaway is the methodological preference for quantitative studies, which comprise 71% of our review sample (43 studies). Qualitative studies comprise 13% (8 studies). Only 3% of studies utilized mixed methods (2 studies). Conceptual articles make up the remaining 13% (8 studies).
Review of Research on Global Leadership Effectiveness.
| Author(s) Year | Study Type | Sample | Theory | Definition | Content Domain | Theorized Locus of Leader Influence | Empirical Level of Analysis | Assessment Type | Outcome Variable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neeley and Reiche (2020) | Mixed methods: Qualitative (interview), Quantitative (archival) | Global leaders in multinational companies (MNCs) | Social distance theory, Theory of power and downward deference | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Follower | Individual | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Job performance evaluation; career progression | |
| Javidan et al. (2021) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Social learning theory, Contact hypothesis | “we define global leadership effectiveness in terms of negotiating and building trusting relationships with people from other cultures, and making decisions that help a firm succeed globally” (p. 1332) | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Global leadership effectiveness (scale) |
| Wang, Li, and Wei (2020) | Quantitative (archival) | Top management teams (TMTs) in MNCs | Resource-based view | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on sales | |
| Densten (2021) | Quantitative (survey, observational) | University students and staff | Social identity theory, Implicit leadership theory | “ability to promote specific … leader identities, such as prototypicality, advancement, entrepreneurship, and impresarioship” (p. 64) | Leader relational performance; follower identification with leader | Follower | Individual | Subjective, follower-assessed | Identity leadership inventory (scale) |
| Szymanski and Kalra (2021) | Quantitative (archival) | Professional football players and teams | Social identity theory | “multicultural managers' effectiveness [is] understood as their influence on individuals' performance” (p. 10) | Follower task performance; team task performance | Follower; group | Group | Objective | Wins per game |
| Wei, Li, De Sisto, and Gu (2020) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in foreign subsidiaries | Upper echelons theory | Subsidiary financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on assets | |
| Geil and Greenwald (2020) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | None | Leader task performance; leader relational performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Task, communication, effectiveness, leadership (combined scale) | |
| Presbitero (2020) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Cognitive load theory | “effectiveness of performing the tasks in GVTs” (p. 2) | Leader task performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Task performance (scale) |
| Zhao, Liu, and Zhou (2020) | Quantitative (archival) | Global leaders in MNCs | Self-determination theory | “task performance and managerial and expatriate-specific contextual performance” (p. 1340) | Leader task performance; leader contextual performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Task performance (scale); contextual performance (scale) |
| Szymanski and Ipek (2020) | Quantitative (archival) | Professional football players and teams | Bicultural competence | Leader task performance | Follower | Individual | Objective | Shots on goal | |
| Feng et al. (2020) | Quantitative (archival) | Chief global officers | Instrumental leadership perspective | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Tobin's q | |
| Su, Fan, and Rao-Nicholson (2019) | Qualitative (interview) | TMTs in MNCs | Upper echelon theory | Initial public offering success | Organization | Organization | Objective | Price premium | |
| Szymanski et al. (2019) | Quantitative (archival) | Professional football players and teams | Dynamic capabilities | Team task performance | Group | Group | Objective | Wins per game | |
| Singh et al. (2019) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in foreign subsidiaries | Agency theory | Subsidiary financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on assets | |
| Lauring et al. (2019) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Social analytic theory | “effectiveness describes to which extent a person's job behavior is congruent with a role sender's expectation” (p. 1013) | Leader task performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Global leadership effectiveness (scale) |
| Liu et al. (2018) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Social capital theory | “task performance can be defined as the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization's technical core” (p. 1882) | Leader task performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Task performance (scale) |
| Georgakakis et al. (2017) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in MNCs | Upper echelons theory | “effective team leaders are those who are aware of the information and skills that reside in the group, and can allocate resources in a way to enhance overall team performance” (p. 746) | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on assets |
| Georgakakis and Ruigrok (2017) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in MNCs | Organizational disruption and adaptation view | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on assets | |
| Hill and Bartol (2016) | Quantitative (survey) | Global virtual teams in MNCs | Empowering leadership theory | Team task performance | Group | Group | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Task performance (scale) | |
| Paunova and Lee (2016) | Quantitative (survey) | MBA students | Collective leadership theory | Team task performance | Group | Group | Subjective, instructor-assessed | Task performance (assignment grade) | |
| Hyun et al. (2015) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in foreign subsidiaries | Upper echelons theory | Subsidiary financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Labor productivity | |
| Buengeler and Den Hartog (2015) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Interactional justice climate | Team task performance | Group | Group | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Effectiveness, productivity, quality of work (combined scale) | |
| Charoensukmongkol (2015) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in SMEs | Upper echelons theory, Resource-based view | Leader relational performance | Organization; external stakeholders | Organization | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Quality of relationship with external stakeholders; export performance | |
| Lücke, Kostova, and Roth (2014) | Conceptual | NA | Cognition | Leader task performance | Leader (self) | NA | NA | NA | |
| Stevens, Bird, Mendenhall, and Oddou (2014) | Quantitative (survey, scale development) | Professionals | NA | NA | Leader (self); follower | Individual | NA | NA | |
| Herman and Zaccaro (2014) | Conceptual | NA | Sensemaking | “to be effective in complex cultural settings, [leaders] must be sensitive to the realities of multiple intersecting contexts” (p. 97) | NA | Follower; external stakeholders | NA | NA | NA |
| Tucker, Bonial, Vanhove, and Kedharnath (2014) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in SMEs and MNCs | Trait-based leadership theory | “we have identified three measurable global leader success factors that comprise leader effectiveness in the global business environment [global networking, driving performance, building team effectiveness]” p. 18 | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader contextual performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Leadership effectiveness (scale) |
| Kaczmarek and Ruigrok (2013) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in MNCs | Upper echelons theory | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on assets | |
| Hutzschenreuter and Horstkotte (2013) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in MNCs | Upper echelons theory | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on assets | |
| Lee et al. (2013) | Quantitative (archival) | Global leaders in foreign subsidiaries | Social exchange theory, Leadership theory | Leader task performance; leader contextual performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Expatriate performance | |
| Magnusson et al. (2013) | Quantitative (survey) | Export managers | Resource advantage theory | MNC export performance | Organization; external stakeholders | Organization | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Export performance | |
| Osland et al. (2013) | Qualitative (interview) | Global leaders in MNCs, sampled on effectiveness | Expert cognition | “in the expert stage, global leaders ‘work intuitively and efficiently, accurately diagnosing situations and predicting outcomes. They implement the most effective strategy and adapt different strategies effortlessly as needed. They resolve leadership problems synergistically’ (Osland & Bird, 2006, p. 133).” p. 521 | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Leader (self); follower, group, external stakeholders | Individual | NA | NA |
| Caligiuri and Tarique (2012) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | None | “leaders' abilities to operate effectively in cross-cultural and multicultural environments” (p. 612) | Leader task performance; leader relational performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Global leadership effectiveness (scale) |
| Cole et al. (2011) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Follower-centric approach to leadership | “intragroup consensus vis-à-vis team members' leadership perceptions would enhance leader effectiveness and, in turn, team performance” (p. 385) | Team task performance | Group | Group | Subjective, follower-assessed | Task performance (scale) |
| Segikuchi et al. (2011) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in MNCs | Upper echelons theory | Subsidiary financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Labor productivity | |
| Nielsen (2010) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in MNCs | Upper echelons theory | MNC financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Number of foreign direct investments by company | |
| Ng, Van Dyne, and Ang (2009) | Conceptual | NA | Experiential learning theory | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Leader (self) | NA | NA | NA | |
| Hogan and Benson (2009) | Conceptual | NA | None | Leader task performance; leader relational performance | Organization | Organization | NA | Organizational effectiveness (scale) | |
| Caligiuri and Tarique (2009) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Social learning theory, Contact hypothesis | “effectiveness in global leadership activities can be facilitated if the individual has transnational competencies ... or a global mindset ... to confront the above-mentioned challenges or any other cross-cultural challenges that may inhibit his/her ability to work effectively” (p. 337) | Leader task performance; leader relational performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Global leadership effectiveness (scale) |
| Kearney and Gebert (2009) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Transformational leadership theory | Team task performance | Group | Group | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Task performance (scale) | |
| Elenkov and Manev (2009) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in foreign subsidiaries | Transformational leadership theory | Foreign subsidiary innovation adoption | Organization | Organization | Objective | Rate of innovation adoption | |
| Furuya, Stevens, Bird, Oddou, and Mendenhall (2009) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Organizational knowledge creation theory | Leader task performance; leader affective performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed, supervisor-assessed | Job motivation; general work performance | |
| Taylor, Levy, Boyacigiller, and Beechler (2008) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Organizational commitment | Leader adaptive performance (global orientation) | Follower | Individual | Subjective, follower-assessed | Employee commitment | |
| Shih, Wang, and Yeung (2006) | Qualitative (case study) | Global leaders in MNCs | None | Leader adaptive performance | Organization | Organization | NA | NA | |
| Van Dyne and Ang (2006) | Conceptual | NA | Social capital theory, Role set theory | “reputational effectiveness is high when the role incumbent is responsive to the needs, demands, and expectations of a particular constituency” (p. 111) | Leader social performance | Follower; external stakeholders | NA | NA | NA |
| Ling and Jaw (2006) | Quantitative (survey) | TMTs in MNCs | Human capital theory | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Organization | Organization | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | Earnings per share | |
| Gong (2006) | Quantitative (archival) | TMTs in foreign subsidiaries | Upper echelons theory | Subsidiary financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Labor productivity | |
| Boone, Van Olffen, and Van Witteloostuijn (2005) | Quantitative (archival) | Managers in business simulation | Locus of control | Simulation financial performance | Organization | Organization | Objective | Return on equity | |
| Joshi and Lazarova (2005) | Qualitative (interview) | Multinational teams and team leaders in MNCs | None | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance; leader is inspirational | Leader (self); follower | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | NA | |
| Shay and Baack (2004) | Quantitative (survey) | Global leaders in MNCs | Uncertainty reduction theory | Leader adaptive performance | Leader (self); follower | Individual | Subjective, follower-assessed | Expatriate effectiveness | |
| Paik and Sohn (2004) | Quantitative (survey) | TMTs in foreign subsidiaries | Cultural control | Leader task performance | Organization | Organization | Subjective, supervisor-assessed | Perception of control over foreign subsidiary operations | |
| Kets de Vries, Vrignaud, and Florent-Treacy (2004) | Quantitative (survey, scale development) | Global leaders in MNCs; MBA students | Clinical orientation to leadership | Leader task performance | Leader (self) | Individual | Subjective, 360°-assessed | 360° feedback instrument | |
| Distefano and Maznevski (2003) | Qualitative (case study) | MBA students | None | “leaders who facilitate the three sets of behaviors [mapping, bridging, integrating] – whether in a team, a broader network or an entire workforce – achieve superior performance in their units, and the effect is stronger the more complex the management situation” (p. 346) | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Leader (self) | Individual | NA | NA |
| Davis and Bryant (2003) | Qualitative (interview) | Global virtual teams in MNCs | Leader–member exchange theory, Full range leadership theory | Team task performance; team satisfaction; team commitment | Leader (self); follower, group, organization | Group | NA | NA | |
| Trevor-Roberts, Ashkanasyn, and Kennedy (2003) | Quantitative (archival) | Global leaders in MNCs | None | GLOBE dimensions | Leader (self); follower, group, organization | Individual | Subjective, leader (self) assessed | NA | |
| Schweiger, Atamer, and Calori (2003) | Qualitative (interview) | International project teams | None | “the characteristics and capabilities that makes an effective team leader are: 1. understands functional skills needed on team; 2. knows and has solid relationships with subsidiaries; 3. is multilingual; 4. can negotiate and motivate; 5. has project management skills; 6. demonstrate open-mindedness for learning; 7. has high need for achievement; 8. exhibits humility” | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance; leader is inspirational | Group | Individual | NA | NA |
| Kayworth and Leidner (2002) | Mixed methods: Qualitative (interview), Quantitative (survey) | Undergraduate and MBA students | Behavioral complexity theory of leadership | “effective team leaders will need to exhibit a varied set of roles related to three key dimensions of effective team functioning: task achievement, individual team members' needs, and team cohesion” (p. 12) | Leader reputational performance; leader relational performance; team task performance | Group | Group | Subjective, follower-assessed | Leadership effectiveness (scale); communication effectiveness (scale); team effectiveness (assignment grade) |
| Maznevski and Distefano (2000) | Conceptual | NA | None | “effective global leaders have three types of knowledge: 1. global business knowledge; 2. global environment knowledge; 3. function-specific knowledge” | NA | Group | NA | NA | |
| Li, Xin, Tsui, and Hambrick (1999) | Conceptual | NA | Upper echelons theory | Joint venture performance | Organization | NA | NA | NA | |
| Aycan (1997) | Conceptual | NA | Social learning theory | “performance at the expected level of quality and quantity, endurance until the end of the assignment, ability to develop constructive relations with the members of the new society, moderate level of stress to function effectively, and positive attitudes toward work” (p. 436) | Leader task performance | Leader (self) | NA | NA | NA |
| Wills and Barham (1994) | Qualitative (interview) | Global leaders in MNCs, sampled on effectiveness | None | “managerial performance and ultimately organizational effectiveness” (p. 50) | Leader task performance; leader relational performance; leader adaptive performance | Leader (self) | Individual | NA | NA |
Among the 53 empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) in the review sample, 24 used survey data, 19 used archival data, 6 used interviews, 2 were case studies, and the 2 mixed methods studies used interviews and either archival data or survey data. Multicountry data sources were used by 24 studies, while 29 studies used data from a single country. Among the single-country studies, the United States (7 studies) and China (7 studies) were the most common countries of interest, followed by Germany (3 studies), the United Kingdom (3 studies), and Japan (2 studies). The majority of the 53 empirical studies sampled professionals from multinational companies and their foreign subsidiaries (43 studies), followed by student samples (5 studies), participants in professional sports (3 studies), and professionals in small and medium enterprises (2 studies). In the following sections, we summarize findings from our review in greater detail from conceptual and operational standpoints, before turning our attention to reviewing findings at the individual, group, and leadership levels.
Key Conceptualizations, Theories, Constructs, and Themes in the Literature
RQ1: Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Global Leadership Effectiveness
A primary goal of this chapter is to clarify the conceptualization and operationalization of global leadership effectiveness and offer an integrative definition. Taken together, the available definitions identified through our review (see Table 1) highlight scholars' common interest in conceptualizing effectiveness in managing cross-cultural challenges (e.g., “we define global leadership effectiveness in terms of negotiating and building trusting relationships with people from other cultures” (Javidan et al., 2021, p. 1332); “leaders' abilities to operate effectively in cross-cultural and multicultural environments” (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012, p. 612)). This shared aspect aside, the definitions range from emphasizing execution of role-based tasks, such as negotiating or decision-making (e.g., Javidan et al., 2021), to possessing requisite competencies (e.g., Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009), to influencing stakeholders (e.g., Szymanski & Kalra, 2021), or combinations thereof – indicating a lack of consistency and coherence in extant definitions of global leadership effectiveness.
The standard against which effectiveness is assessed also differs, with some scholars conceptualizing global leadership effectiveness relative to archetypical competencies of global leaders (e.g., Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009), supervisor or role senders' expectations (e.g., Lauring, Selmer, & Kubovcikova, 2019), subordinates' subjective perceptions of leader effectiveness (e.g., Cole, Bedeian, & Bruch, 2011), subordinates' objective performance (e.g., Szymanski & Kalra, 2021), or the organization's success (e.g., Javidan et al., 2021). It is, however, noteworthy that these conceptualizations of global leadership effectiveness link to the role competency and influence-based perspectives by which global leadership has been traditionally defined.
At the individual level of analysis, many papers utilized survey instruments and scales to measure global leadership effectiveness (e.g., Geil & Greenwald, 2020). Reuse of scales across studies was rare, however. Instead, researchers either developed their own scales for each study, based on interviews with subjects familiar with the research setting (e.g., Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009, based on a list of global leader tasks identified in previous work by Caligiuri, 2006; Javidan et al., 2021), or they imported and adapted scales that had been validated in traditional leadership settings to fit a global context. Examples of imported scales adapted by researchers to measure global leadership effectiveness include Tsui and Ohlott's (1988) scale of reputational effectiveness, Colbert et al.’s (2008) scale of leadership performance, and Kraimer and Wayne's (2004) scales of task performance and contextual performance.
At the individual level, some articles investigated global leadership effectiveness through global leaders' impact on followers (e.g., Liu et al., 2018; Szymanski & Kalra, 2021), self-rated effectiveness (e.g., Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009), supervisor-rated effectiveness of individual global leaders (e.g., Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012), or broader individual-level outcomes (e.g., employee commitment, leadership behavior, cross-border leadership effectiveness, etc.). At the group level, outcomes in the criterion space of global leadership effectiveness were consistently group or team performance. At the organizational level, outcomes of global leadership effectiveness varied considerably. As Table 1 illustrates, common outcomes included firm financial performance, but some studies explored other outcomes, such as quality of relationships with external stakeholders (Charoensukmongkol, 2015), export performance (Magnusson, Westjohn, Semenov, Randrianasolo, & Zdravkovic, 2013), labor productivity (Segikuchi, Bebenroth, & Li, 2011), or product innovation (Elenkov & Manev, 2009).
In consideration of this past research, we view characteristics and competencies of the leader (e.g., global mindset, assertiveness) as antecedents to global leadership, global leadership as the influence process of that leader (also cf. Reiche et al.’s 2017 definition of global leadership), and global leadership effectiveness as the outcome of global leaders' behaviors and actions in service of the influence process on followers. Global leadership effectiveness can, therefore, be defined as follows:
Global leadership effectiveness is the extent to which a leader is able to influence constituents from multiple national cultures given the contextual demands faced in his or her role toward achievement of individual, group, and organizational objectives.
Such a definition is consistent with extant conceptualizations of global leadership effectiveness based on our review (e.g., “allocate resources in a way to enhance overall team performance” as in Georgakakis et al., 2017, p. 746, and “…their influence on individual's performance” as in Szymanski & Kalra, 2021, p. 10). Furthermore, central to the presented definition is an assessment of the leader's ability to influence (or have an impact) on relevant stakeholders. As such, global leadership effectiveness is distinct from productivity, performance, success, and similar constructs, as these are codetermined by a range of factors (e.g., resources, competition, environmental effects, etc.). Indeed, although our review indicates that measures of task productivity, expatriate adjustment, or organizational profits (to name a few) are often used to operationalize global leadership effectiveness, our definition highlights the need to decompose these further to more accurately capture the subcomponent that is subject to global leader influence. In other words, we invite researchers to operationalize global leadership effectiveness not simply through “value” but in terms of “value added” to individual, group, and organizational outcomes.
We note that the presented definition of global leadership effectiveness is intended to align with the accepted definition of global leadership, articulated by Reiche and colleagues as
…the process 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.
(Reiche et al., 2017, p. 556)
This definition explicitly recognizes that leadership cannot transpire without influence and interaction, and needs to be considered not only in the context of the external environment but also in the context of a leader–follower dynamic (Osland, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2006; Reiche et al., 2017). In this regard, the focal space of global leadership effectiveness is the criterion space of global leadership. In turn, the focal space of global leadership comprises the actions and behaviors of the leader engaging in an influence process.
RQ2: Review of Global Leadership Effectiveness Theories
Based on an analysis of theories invoked to study global leadership effectiveness, we initially observed no consistent theoretical paradigm. Among the 61 reviewed studies, 10 studies did not reference any particular theory (16%). Broadly categorized, the remaining studies invoked social cognitive theories (13 studies; 21%), theories of leadership (12 studies; 20%), and upper echelons theory (11 studies; 18%). Specific theories (e.g., social learning theory, social identity theory, leader–member exchange theory, transformational leadership theory, etc.) were rarely repeated in our review sample (see Table 1). This suggests a lack of theoretical coherence in the field.
Upon further analysis, however, the diversity of theoretical paradigms can be partly attributed to researchers' differential views regarding the target of the global leadership influence process. For instance, studies that conceptualized global leadership effectiveness in terms of the performance of the leader often relied on social cognitive theories, such as social learning theory or social identity theory. Studies that viewed global leader effectiveness through influence on followers or subordinates most frequently invoked leadership theories. Studies that viewed global leadership effectiveness from an organizational outcome standpoint most commonly drew on upper echelons theory or the resource-based view.
One potential way to unify the disparate theoretical approaches appearing in the literature is to bring the influence process to the forefront of theorizing. Global leadership effectiveness research could potentially coalesce around theories of influence, such as social influence theory (Kelman, 1958), which posits that influence brings about change in individuals' attitudes and actions through reward-induced compliance, relationship-driven social identification, and affect-driven internalization processes. Specifically, the theory can be exploited to explain how certain global leadership behaviors, categorized in the literature as task-based, relational-based, and affect-based (among other categories), result in effective influence processes. For instance, global leadership literature indicates that one of the key roles of global leaders is relationship and network building (Javidan et al., 2021). To theoretically link relational-based global leadership behavior to global leadership effectiveness, researchers can draw on social influence theory to explain how the presence of a relationship induces desired attitudes and behavior through constituents' desire to maintain a fulfilling relationship or through norms of mutual reciprocity (Kelman, 1958). In addition to unifying researchers' theoretical approaches, centering inquiry on theories of influence may also have the added benefit of shedding light on the mechanisms linking global leader behavior to effectiveness, which, as our findings related to RQ3 indicate, are currently a black box.
RQ3: Which Constructs Have Been Researched Related to Global Leadership Effectiveness? Which Constructs Are Missing?
Given the breadth of research covered in our review, we mapped the construct domain of global leadership effectiveness, situating the three levels of global leadership effectiveness (individual, group, organizational) within a larger nomological network that includes global leadership, its antecedents, moderators, and outcomes. This integrated framework, depicted in Fig. 2, not only provides a useful visual overview of the topical landscape but also enables us to identify which constructs have been researched in relation to global leadership effectiveness and which have been omitted. The integrative framework is backward looking in that it summarizes current research related to global leadership and global leadership effectiveness, and forward looking in that it shows how future inquiry can fit within this broader theoretical framework.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, our proposed integrative framework views global leader traits and characteristics (e.g., demographic attributes, personality traits, knowledge and competencies, attitudes and emotions, core self-evaluation) as antecedents impacting global leader behavior (“global leadership”). Global leader behavior, in turn, moderated by contextual factors, influences global leadership effectiveness. In this regard, the construct space of global leadership effectiveness is part of the criterion space of global leadership. While effectiveness content (e.g., task performance, relational performance, affect) represents a key dimension of the global leadership effectiveness construct, our literature review highlights the need to incorporate three additional dimensions into the construct domain: level of analysis, locus of global leader influence, and assessment.
Regarding level of analysis, leadership may be an individual endeavor, but leadership is also often performed in teams. Consequently, our review indicates that researchers currently conceptualize the global leadership effectiveness construct both in terms of leader and leadership team effectiveness. Next, our review highlights variance in how researchers conceptualize the target of global leadership effectiveness, or, in other words, the locus of global leader influence. The extant research views effectiveness as ability to influence the actions of the leader himself/herself, his/her followers, the group/team, and/or the organization. The final dimension relates to whether the assessment of effectiveness is objective or subjective, with subjective assessments further subdivided into perceptions of global leadership effectiveness by the leader himself/herself, his/her supervisor, subordinates, or peers. The presented framework highlights that there is a surplus of research in certain areas (e.g., antecedents of global leadership effectiveness) and a comparative scarcity in others (e.g., outcomes, contextual mediators). Against this backdrop, there are considerable opportunities to further study constructs that have received relatively less research attention.
First, concerning antecedents, researchers have largely emphasized global leaders' personalities and knowledge-based competencies (Fig. 2 – left panel). Although this research has been helpful for identifying key individual differences related to global leadership effectiveness and has helped bridge the global leadership and global leadership effectiveness literatures, available insights are limited in at least several ways. Specifically, they create an impression that certain competencies, such as cultural intelligence (defined as the “skills and traits that allow one to more effectively interact with novel cultural settings” (MacNab, Brislin, & Worthley, 2012, p. 1321)) or global mindset (defined as “a highly complex cognitive structure characterized by an openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this multiplicity” by Levy, Beechler, Taylor, & Boyacigiller, 2007, p. 244), are the critical factors that determine global leadership effectiveness. However, the spotlight on these factors may be due to empirical convenience (as these factors have validated and widely accepted measures), instead of their outsize theoretical role. For instance, current research has not fully explored the role of global leader attitudes and emotions, omitting emotional intelligence, empathy and compassion, and self-awareness, to name only a few examples.
Second, the current set of antecedents within the presented nomological network skew toward the positive, with limited acknowledgment that certain traits and behaviors associated with global leadership effectiveness may also have unintended negative consequences. One exception exploring the dark side of global leadership effectiveness is the work of Szymanski and Ipek (2020), who note that while biculturalism is linked to more frequent leadership behavior, it generates negative perceptions of global leadership effectiveness. Similarly, Van Dyne and Ang (2006) argue that global leaders' boundary spanning efforts are not necessarily viewed as effective by all types of stakeholders. More research on the unintended consequences of global leader behavior is needed to understand the determinants of global leadership effectiveness more fully.
Third, regarding the consequences of global leadership behaviors, the composition of the content domain of global leadership effectiveness highlights scholars' dominant interest in individual task-based productivity, relationship quality, and financial performance. Indeed, task-based activities, such as strategic planning, goal setting, organizational design, budget management, risk management, and decision-making, are considered to be critical components of global leader's effectiveness (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009, 2012), and financial performance is a key criterion of organizational success. However, examinations of global leadership effectiveness need to include additional facets of individual, group, and organizational performance, such as problem-solving, teamwork, team viability, or organizational change. With the notable exception of Furuya and colleagues' (2009) study that explored effectiveness in terms of repatriates' motivation to perform, affect-based outcomes at the individual and group level (e.g., leader and/or member satisfaction, leader–follower exchange) have been comparatively understudied. As such, an important aspect of our model is that we position global leadership effectiveness not only in terms of task-based content, but also in terms of relational, adaptive, affective, and contextual content (Fig. 2 – right panel).
Fourth, our review and integrative framework highlights that considerably less attention has been given to global leadership effectiveness from a mediation or process perspective (as compared to the frequency of studies from a prediction or moderation perspective). As such, there is opportunity to investigate the relationship between global leadership and global leadership effectiveness from a mechanism standpoint. While there are some recent notable exceptions (e.g., Densten, 2021; Neeley & Reiche, 2020), a noteworthy aspect of Fig. 2 is that current literature does not address “the middle” of the framework, which would explain the processes through which global leader behavior (Fig. 2 – middle panel) relates to global leadership effectiveness (Fig. 2 – right panel). Therefore, a question that the field can answer is, “What are the mechanisms and processes through which global leadership predicts global leadership effectiveness?” Other nuanced questions future scholars can ask include, “Do certain types of global leadership competencies predict different global leadership outcomes? If so, why?” and “To what extent do different leadership competencies shape outcomes at the individual, team, and organizational levels of analysis?”
Fifth, regarding levels of analysis, global leadership effectiveness is typically conceptualized as influencing individual-level or group-level outcomes independently. However, this contrasts with traditional leadership research which operationalizes leadership as both an individual-level construct centered on the behavior of the leader and also as a group-level construct representing a climate variable shared among team members (Bono & Judge, 2003; Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000). That is, leader influence is localized at the individual level but is also aggregated to the group level. As a case in point, Wang and Howell (2010) view transformational leadership as a construct that exists in the behavior of the leader as he or she influences individuals (e.g., the leader communicates high performance expectations) and also in how he or she influences the group (e.g., encourages others to place the interests of the team ahead of their own interests). However, this dual influence remains unexplored in global leadership research. Specifically, global leadership effectiveness may similarly operate at multiple levels of analysis whereby a global leader exerts his or her influence on all followers in the group rather than just followers individually in a leader–follower exchange. This represents an important path for future research to pursue, and we highlight this by including it in our theoretical framework (Fig. 2 – right panel). In addition, as noted by Van Dyne and Ang (2006), the challenge of assessing global leadership effectiveness is that different constituents have different priorities and different standards (p. 111). Unfortunately, we currently lack a comprehensive understanding of external stakeholders' perceptions of global leadership effectiveness and believe this is another locus of influence future scholarship could pursue.
Finally, global leadership effectiveness research has been investigated at the individual, group, and organizational level of analysis. However, less attention has been given to cross-level effects. Level issues permeate all types of organizational research, and global leadership is no exception. Although individually directed influence can clearly affect individual-level outcomes (and group-directed influence can affect group-level outcomes), cross-level effects are possible and likely. For instance, influence directed toward an individual can affect group-level outcomes. Influence directed toward groups can affect individual-level outcomes and so forth. To extend understanding, future research ought to also explore these cross-level relationships, and we highlight this by including cross-level effects in our integrative framework (Fig. 2 – right panel, middle).
RQ4: Themes at Multiple Levels of Research
In answering the final research question, a noteworthy takeaway from the articles included in our review is that there is a much greater emphasis on organizational-level and individual-level outcomes compared to group-level outcomes. Namely, of the 53 empirical papers included in our review (Table 1), 24 are at the individual level (45%), 20 are at the organizational level (38%), and only 9 are at the group level (17%). In this section, we explore the themes which emerged from our review of global leadership effectiveness at these three levels of analysis.
Global leadership effectiveness at the individual level of analysis has received substantial research attention. Early scholarship sought to characterize effectiveness by sampling on effectiveness as the primary selection criterion, seeking to catalog effective global leaders' characteristics and competencies (Wills & Barham, 1994) and ascertain how these competencies develop (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). With some notable exceptions (e.g., Javidan et al., 2021), scholarly emphasis remains on exploring the antecedents of effectiveness or its correlated leadership competencies. For example, Caligiuri and Tarique (2012) found that global leadership effectiveness was predicted by three cross-cultural competencies: tolerance of ambiguity, cultural flexibility, and reduced ethnocentrism. Lauring et al. (2019) identified proactive personality and self-control to be positively related to global leadership effectiveness. Similarly, the Global Competencies Inventory (Mendenhall, Stevens, Bird, & Oddou, 2008), which measures traits such as cosmopolitanism and tolerance for ambiguity, has been used to understand global leadership (Miska, Stahl, & Mendenhall, 2013). Finally, theoretical work proposes that perception management, relationship management, and self-management are antecedent traits for global leadership effectiveness (e.g., Bird et al., 2010).
Beyond competency-based models, scholars have studied personality and individual differences in cognition to understand global leadership effectiveness. Caligiuri and Tarique (2009) found that follower ratings of global leadership effectiveness were predicted by leaders' extraversion, openness to experience, low neuroticism, and cross-cultural experiences. Global mindset is another state that has been theorized and researched as a necessary characteristic for the successful global leader (Javidan et al., 2021; Mendenhall et al., 2012; Osland et al., 2006). Scholars have also studied the construct of cultural intelligence as it relates to global leadership effectiveness (e.g., Whitaker & Greenleaf, 2017), and empirical findings support the idea that cultural intelligence predicts global leadership effectiveness (e.g., Groves & Feyerherm, 2011; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011). However, as we noted earlier in this chapter, there is much potential to investigate individual differences outside the study of cultural intelligence and global mindset. For instance, researchers are exploring the role of expert cognition on global leaders' abilities to be effective in global contexts (Osland et al., 2013, 2017), which have been shown to elicit excess cognitive demands on leaders (Osland, Bird, & Oddou, 2012; Osland et al., 2013). At the expert stage, researchers conclude, global leaders “work intuitively and efficiently, accurately diagnosing situations and predicting outcomes. They implement the most effective strategy and adapt different strategies effortlessly as needed. They resolve leadership problems synergistically” (Osland & Bird, 2006, p. 133). As such, expert cognition is closely related to global leadership effectiveness at the individual level.
At the group level of analysis, despite calls to focus on global leadership beyond the individual level of analysis (Stahl, Miska, Noval, & Patock, 2020), scholarly research that explores global leadership effectiveness at this level remains sparse (see Table 1). Nevertheless, a few themes are apparent. Specifically, research to date has been theoretical in nature or has constituted preliminary investigations of the influence of global leadership on team effectiveness. For example, pioneering work based on student teams by Kayworth and Leidner (2002) showed that global virtual teams perceived their leader as effective when the leader exhibited behavioral complexity by performing multiple leadership roles simultaneously (e.g., both task-based and relational roles). Maznevski and Distefano (2000) postulated that global teams are important training grounds for effective global leaders. In a comprehensive qualitative study, Joshi and Lazarova (2005) studied the importance of global leader characteristics for the successful leading of multinational teams. They found that members and leaders of multinational teams believed goal setting, communication, team direction, and motivation to be important characteristics that global leaders should embody to successfully lead international teams.
We can also glean insights into the nature of global leadership effectiveness in groups from research on global teams more generally. Specifically, we can learn from research conducted on global leader characteristics. There, research has demonstrated that cultural intelligence, a characteristic often associated with the global leader, predicts team performance and that such effects are accentuated by contextual variables, such as team national and ethnic diversity (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). More recent research suggests that global leaders' experiential profiles can influence team effectiveness. For instance, team performance increases with alignment in team leader–follower backgrounds, such as when teams with multicultural members are led by multicultural leaders (Szymanski & Kalra, 2021). In highly global competitive environments, teams led by global leaders with multicultural backgrounds outperformed teams led by monocultural leaders (Szymanski, Fitzsimmons, & Danis, 2019). Additional insights may also come from research on global virtual teams, that is, teams that are internationally distributed and composed of individuals across national boundaries who work together for a common purpose (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). While this body of research does not investigate global leadership effectiveness per se, such teams often have a team leader and can inform the role and nature of global leadership in a team setting.
At the organizational level of analysis, compared to individual- and group-level research, we know less about global leadership effectiveness and the factors which underlie global leaders' abilities to influence firm performance. Despite there being numerically more research at the organizational level of analysis compared to the individual and group levels, much of our current knowledge rests on studies of top management team composition in multinational companies (e.g., Georgakakis et al., 2017; Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013) and the expatriate and subsidiary staffing literatures (e.g., Hyun, Oh, & Paik, 2015; Singh, Pattnaik, Lee, & Gaur, 2019). Together, the extant studies suggest that global leadership in C-suite positions is important for organizational performance. However, more theory development is needed to identify what global leadership effectiveness looks like at the organizational level.
Another takeaway from our review is that understanding global leadership effectiveness is important for the increasingly global nature of today's organizations. As noted by Feng, Patel, and Sivakumar (2020), firms are hiring more global leaders for C-suite positions, necessitating greater understanding of these leaders' roles in influencing organizational outcomes. In the most comprehensive study to date, Feng et al. (2020) studied global leaders in top management positions for over a decade and found that global leader presence (vs. absence) positively predicted firm performance measured both with stock price and sales. Thus, global leadership has a meaningful influence on firm value. A conclusion from these findings at the organizational level is that more research is needed to understand how, why, under what conditions, and for what type of firms global leadership positively predicts global leadership effectiveness in terms of influencing organizational-level outcomes.
Discussion and Suggestions for Future Research
In addressing our four primary research questions, our review has provided: (1) an operational definition for global leadership effectiveness, (2) an integrative theoretical framework to highlight how global leadership has been studied as well as where global leadership effectiveness can be reconciled within the broader nomological network of global leadership, (3) common and distinctive themes of research at the individual, group, and organizational level of analysis, and (4) a structured overview of understudied areas of research.
Contributions
First, a problem inhibiting the study of global leadership effectiveness may be the absence of a consistent and clear operational definition of the term. Comparing extant definitions of global leadership effectiveness (Table 1) helped us to see the common threads and themes across the field. Doing so led us to develop a comprehensive and inclusive definition of global leadership effectiveness. Since operationalization is the cornerstone of research, such a definition offers clarity for the study of global leadership effectiveness for future scholars and practitioners.
Second, as a takeaway from our research for future researchers and practitioners, we developed an integrative global leadership effectiveness framework that delineates how global leadership and global leadership effectiveness fit together. Such a view is consistent with the input–process–output framework (cf. Steiner, 1972), where inputs (leader characteristics and individual differences) lead to processes (the influence process of the leader; moderating contextual conditions), that, in turn, lead to outcomes (global leadership effectiveness). This framework has the potential to integrate research within the study of global characteristics and competencies (e.g., global mindset, cultural intelligence), global leadership, and global leadership effectiveness under a single umbrella.
Third, our review also revealed use of many disparate measures of global leadership effectiveness. This is problematic both theoretically and empirically, given that current operationalizations may or may not overlap. By offering an operationalization of leadership effectiveness beyond task-based typologies, our framework can meaningfully reconcile disparate views (e.g., into adaptive effectiveness), while highlighting opportunities for future scholarship in neglected areas (e.g., relational effectiveness, affective effectiveness).
Finally, this field would benefit from further research integration within and across empirical streams. We highlighted that microlevel research tends to utilize a lens of social influence while macrolevel (organizational) research tends to invoke theoretical lenses where leaders are sources of competitive advantage for firms (resource-based theory, upper echelons theory). However, these theories could be meaningfully integrated to broadly understand cross-level effects, such as what special qualities enable an effective global leader to influence organizational outcomes for firm competitive advantage.
Future Research
Our analysis of research at multiple levels of analysis clarified what has been done in the field as well as what has, thus far, been overlooked. As a takeaway from our research for future scholars, here we outline specific promising avenues for future research at individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. At the individual level of analysis, apart from research by Szymanski and Kalra (2021), we have limited understanding of whether global leadership influences follower outcomes. More research is needed to examine whether follower performance or follower job attitudes in global contexts (with respect to job satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, leave intentions, etc.) behave in the same manner as traditional leadership perspectives have demonstrated (Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, & Wu, 2018). We also found little research on intrinsic or extrinsic motivational processes that might shape and change global leadership effectiveness.
Another promising area of research may investigate the role of leadership more generally (e.g., transformational leadership) and how the characteristics or profiles typically ascribed to the global leader moderate whether these leadership styles are effective. Already, Elenkov and Manev (2009) investigated whether global leaders' transformational leadership predicts firm innovation and found that the relationship is stronger when the leader has higher levels of cultural intelligence. Furthermore, although not a direct test of global leadership effectiveness, Lee, Veasna, and Wu (2013) found that the relationship between transformational leadership and global leader task performance was higher when global leaders had high cultural intelligence. Additional inquiry in this direction could further our understanding of whether and how leadership style impacts global leadership effectiveness.
Against this backdrop of findings, future research at the individual level of analysis may wish to go beyond the question of “which competencies make a global leader” to examine questions related to if and how effectiveness varies with global leader context. The COVID-19 pandemic has made context highly salient, spotlighting how global leaders' abilities to influence constituents strengthen and weaken with changes in the external environment (Reiche, Mendenhall, Szkudlarek, & Osland, 2021). However, as the case of Carlos Ghosn's rise and subsequent fall from the upper echelons of global leadership shows (Bird, 2020; Ikegami & Maznevski, 2020), it does not take a paradigm-shifting pandemic to shift the ground under a leader's feet. Instead, global leadership effectiveness is influenced by a range of mediating mechanisms and moderators. For instance, it would be interesting to explore whether followers' cultural intelligence, the quality of the leader–follower relationship, or an organization's corporate culture, as examples, act as boundary conditions for the effective influence process of global leaders in terms of individual-level outcomes. Future research may also wish to explore the role of personal bias in followers' perceptions of global leadership effectiveness. For instance, recent research indicates that followers' preexisting assumptions about leadership and culturally imprinted preferences for leader behavior moderate followers' evaluations of global leadership effectiveness (Densten, 2021).
From a group perspective, research on global leadership effectiveness has yet to develop a fulsome understanding of how global leadership, as a team input, changes important team processes (e.g., cohesiveness, conflict) and team effectiveness as an output. Investigating the broader processes for global leadership effectiveness at the team level presents an opportunity for future research. Further to this point, future research may also choose to explore the impact of team configuration on global leadership effectiveness. Given the effect team diversity has on team performance in local (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014) and global contexts (Kearney & Gebert, 2009), the question of whether global leadership effectiveness is contingent on certain configurational patterns in global teams is highly salient. We currently do not know whether global leadership effectiveness: (1) is independent of team configuration, (2) requires productive configuration of demographic, experiential, and/or psychometric profiles among team members, or (3) requires leader–follower alignment. Research on team diversity can serve as a reference as global leadership researchers explore, for instance, whether separation, disparity, and variety in team member characteristics (Harrison & Klein, 2007) influences global leadership effectiveness. Indeed, recent advances in international team research highlight not only the importance of requisite variety in teams, but also of overlap among team members' demographic and experiential backgrounds (Tasheva & Hillman, 2020). Furthermore, it may be useful to explore whether global leadership effectiveness in teams can be explained using compositional logic (Mathieu et al., 2014). Compositional logic would argue that global leadership effectiveness is driven by the distribution of individual differences across all team members, while compilational logic argues that effectiveness depends only on the characteristics of certain team members (such as the leader, or the most/least experienced member). There are ample opportunities for research in this area.
Finally, from an organization level of analysis, there is limited research on the global competencies of global leaders tasked with influencing organizational performance (notable exceptions include the work of Charoensukmongkol (2015), who found that greater leader cultural intelligence enhances the quality of relationships with foreign firm competitors or suppliers, and of Magnusson et al. (2013), who showed that cultural intelligence enhances export performance). In addition, little is known about the characteristics of the organizations themselves or about the range of organizational outcomes that global leaders can reasonably be expected to shape. Although not a direct study of global leadership, Nadkarni and Herrmann (2010) examined the strategic flexibility of chief executive officer (CEO) personality, a construct that captures leaders' abilities to adapt to the environment (and which has theoretical overlap with flexibility and adaptability as a global leadership competency, e.g., Story & Barbuto, 2011), and its importance for firm performance. The findings suggest that global leaders in C-suite positions might be vital for firm effectiveness in global environments characterized by uncertainty or volatility.
While leaders are individuals and, therefore, leadership is a subset of the individual level of analysis, it is worth noting future research in the leadership level of analysis separately. Future research in this arena may choose to explore the global leadership effectiveness consequences of leader origin. From extant research on CEO origin in multinational companies, we know that the benefits of outsider CEOs materialize when the new CEO resembles incumbent top management team members and has a variety of international and industry experience (Georgakakis & Ruigrok, 2017). In domestic firms, the relationship between CEO insider/outsider status and firm performance is often ambiguous (Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1997), with some studies showing performance benefits from insider CEOs (Saidu, 2019; Zajac, 1990), while others suggest the opposite (Jalal & Prezas, 2012), and still others show null effects (Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2010). It is plausible that global leadership effectiveness moderates the relationship between insider/outsider status and firm performance in global contexts. For example, perhaps a CEO insider or outsider is valuable when he or she has global leader attributes, but less so without.
Practical Implications
When the contributions of the review and the integrative theoretical framework are put together, they suggest that organizations might benefit from evaluating global leaders on the effectiveness criteria we have outlined: task-based, relational, adaptive, affective, reputational, contextual. Indeed, constructive criticism in these areas may help global leaders perform more effectively from a developmental standpoint. For example, a leader may succeed on task-based criteria (e.g., task performance, financial performance) but need improvement on adaptive effectiveness (e.g., cultural flexibility) or affective effectiveness (e.g., inspiring satisfaction, engendering commitment) and either receive training to improve in underdeveloped areas or develop corporate initiatives that specifically target weaker areas. Namely, if affective effectiveness is weaker (as one example), a global leader may wish to improve organizational support, a recognized correlate of worker job satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997), by improving working conditions, providing opportunities for worker professional development, or offering pay raises.
Another practical implication stemming from our review follows from our finding that global leadership effectiveness is not solely a manifestation of leader influence on individual followers. Effectiveness is also determined by the extent of global leaders' abilities to influence groups, organizations, and external stakeholders in a cross-cultural or global context. As such, this suggests that global leaders may be more effective by focusing not only on cultivating the leader–follower relationship, but also by thinking more holistically and appealing to the full range of the organization's internal and external stakeholders.
Conclusion
The last 30 years have seen growth in research on global leadership effectiveness. The results of our review suggest there is much potential for the next 30 years of research and beyond. By offering a comprehensive definition of global leadership effectiveness and an integrative theoretical framework, we hope to spark future scholarship beyond the role of competencies and personal characteristics into understanding mediating mechanisms, the importance of different leader loci of influence, and new avenues at multiple levels of analysis. The integrative theoretical framework we offer in the chapter provides a platform for broader contextual understandings of the linkages between global leadership and global leadership effectiveness and broader understanding of global leadership generally.
References
Aycan, 1997 *Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: Individual and organizational level predictors. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(4), 434–456.
Bird, 2020 Bird, A. (2020). Commentary on revisiting Carlos Ghosn's global leadership style. Advances in Global Leadership, 12, 23–28.
Bird and Mendenhall, 2016 Bird, A. , & Mendenhall, M. E. (2016). From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 115–126.
Bird et al., 2010 Bird, A. , Mendenhall, M. E. , Stevens, M. J. , & Oddou, G. (2010). Defining the content domain of intercultural competence for global leaders. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 810–828.
Bono and Judge, 2003 Bono, J. E. , & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554–571.
Boone et al., 2005 *Boone, C. , Van Olffen, W. , & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2005). Team locus-of-control composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: A business simulation study. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 889–909.
Buengeler and Den Hartog, 2015 *Buengeler, C. , & Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). National diversity and team performance: The moderating role of interactional justice climate. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 831–855.
Caligiuri, 2006 Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 219–228.
Caligiuri and Tarique, 2009 *Caligiuri, P. , & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities. Journal of World Business, 44(3), 336–346.
Caligiuri and Tarique, 2012 *Caligiuri, P. , & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612–622.
Charoensukmongkol, 2015 *Charoensukmongkol, P. (2015). Cultural intelligence of entrepreneurs and international network ties: The case of small and medium manufacturing firms in Thailand. Management Research Review, 38(4), 421–436.
Colbert et al., 2008 Colbert, A. E. , Kristof-Brown, A. L. , Bradley, B. , & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 81–96.
Cole et al., 2011 *Cole, M. S. , Bedeian, A. G. , & Bruch, H. (2011). Linking leader behavior and leadership consensus to team performance: Integrating direct consensus and dispersion models of group composition. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 383–398.
Cumberland et al., 2016 Cumberland, D. M. , Herd, A. , Alagaraja, M. , & Kerrick, S. A. (2016). Assessment and development of global leadership competencies in the workplace: A review of literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 301–317.
Davis and Bryant, 2003 *Davis, D. D. , & Bryant, J. L. (2003). Influence at a distance: Leadership in global virtual teams. Advances in Global Leadership, 3, 303–340.
Densten, 2021 *Densten, I. L. (2021). Identifying with leaders from another race: The impact of preexisting leadership assumptions and eye fixations. Advances in Global Leadership, 13, 57–83.
Distefano and Maznevski, 2003 *Distefano, J. J. , & Maznevski, M. L. (2003). Developing global managers: Integrating theory, behavior, data and performance. Advances in Global Leadership, 3, 341–371.
Eisenberger et al., 1997 Eisenberger, R. , Cummings, J. , Armeli, S. , & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820.
Elenkov and Manev, 2009 *Elenkov, D. S. , & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership's effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44(4), 357–369.
Feng et al., 2020 *Feng, C. , Patel, P. C. , & Sivakumar, K. (2020). Chief global officers, geographical sales dispersion, and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 121, 58–72.
Furuya et al., 2009 *Furuya, N. , Stevens, M. J. , Bird, A. , Oddou, G. , & Mendenhall, M. E. (2009). Managing the learning and transfer of global management competence: Antecedents and outcomes of Japanese repatriation effectiveness. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2), 200–215.
Geil and Greenwald, 2020 *Geil, M. A. , & Greenwald, J. (2020). An investigation of characteristics of effective global leaders. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(10), 1505–1515.
Georgakakis et al., 2017 *Georgakakis, D. , Greve, P. , & Ruigrok, W. (2017). Top management team faultlines and firm performance: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 741–758.
Georgakakis and Ruigrok, 2017 *Georgakakis, D. , & Ruigrok, W. (2017). CEO succession origin and firm performance: A multilevel study. Journal of Management Studies, 54(1), 58–87.
Gong, 2006 *Gong, Y. (2006). The impact of subsidiary top management team national diversity on subsidiary performance: Knowledge and legitimacy perspectives. Management International Review, 46(6), 771–790.
Groves and Feyerherm, 2011 Groves, K. S. , & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(5), 535–566.
Harrison and Klein, 2007 Harrison, D. A. , & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.
Herman and Zaccaro, 2014 *Herman, J. L. , & Zaccaro, S. J. (2014). The complex self-concept of the global leader. Advances in Global Leadership, 8, 93–111.
Hill and Bartol, 2016 *Hill, N. S. , & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 159–198.
Hoch et al., 2018 Hoch, J. E. , Bommer, W. H. , Dulebohn, J. H. , & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529.
Hogan and Benson, 2009 *Hogan, R. , & Benson, M. J. (2009). Personality, leadership, and globalization: Linking personality to global organizational effectiveness. Advances in Global Leadership, 5, 11–34.
Hutzschenreuter and Horstkotte, 2013 *Hutzschenreuter, T. , & Horstkotte, J. (2013). Performance effects of international expansion processes: The moderating role of top management team experiences. International Business Review, 22, 259–277.
Hyun et al., 2015 *Hyun, H.-J. , Oh, C. H. , & Paik, Y. (2015). Impact of nationality composition in foreign subsidiary on its performance: A case of Korean companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 806–830.
Ikegami and Maznevski, 2020 Ikegami, J. , & Maznevski, M. L. (2020). Revisiting Carlos Ghosn's global leadership style: Making sense of his fall from power. Advances in Global Leadership, 12, 3–21.
Jalal and Prezas, 2012 Jalal, A. M. , & Prezas, A. P. (2012). Outsider CEO succession and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Business, 64(6), 399–496.
Javidan et al., 2021 *Javidan, M. , Waldman, D. A. , & Wang, D. (2021). How life experiences and cultural context matter: A multilevel framework of global leader effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1331–1362.
Joshi and Lazarova, 2005 *Joshi, A. , & Lazarova, M. (2005). Do “global” teams need “global” leaders? Identifying leadership competencies in multinational teams. In D. L. Shapiro , M. A. Von Glinow , & J. L. C. Cheng (Eds.). Managing multinational teams: Global perspectives (Vol. 18). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kaczmarek and Ruigrok, 2013 *Kaczmarek, S. , & Ruigrok, W. (2013). In at the deep end of firm internationalization: Nationality diversity on top management teams matters. Management International Review, 53(4), 513–534. doi:10.1007/s11575-012-0159-7
Kayworth and Leidner, 2002 *Kayworth, T. R. , & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7–40.
Kearney and Gebert, 2009 *Kearney, E. , & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77–89.
Kelman, 1958 Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: The processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.
Kets de Vries et al., 2004 *Kets de Vries, M. F. R. , Vrignaud, P. , & Florent-Treacy, E. (2004). The global leadership life inventory: Development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree feedback instrument. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(3), 475–492.
Kraimer and Wayne, 2004 Kraimer, M. L. , & Wayne, S. J. (2004). An examination of perceived organizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context of an expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30(2), 209–237.
Lauring et al., 2019 *Lauring, J. , Selmer, J. , & Kubovcikova, A. (2019). Personality in context: Effective traits for expatriate managers at different levels. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(6), 1010–1035.
Lee et al., 2013 *Lee, L.-Y. , Veasna, S. , & Wu, W.-Y. (2013). The effects of social support and transformational leadership on expatriate adjustment and performance: The moderating roles of socialization experience and cultural intelligence. Career Development International, 18(4), 377–415.
Levy et al., 2007 Levy, O. , Beechler, S. , Taylor, S. , & Boyacigiller, N. (2007). What we talk about when we talk about “global mindset”: Managerial cognition in multinational organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 231–258.
Ling and Jaw, 2006 *Ling, Y.-H. , & Jaw, B.-S. (2006). The influence of international human capital on global initiatives and financial performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 379–398.
Lipnack and Stamps, 1997 Lipnack, J. , & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Liu et al., 2018 *Liu, S. , Jiang, K. , Chen, J. , Pan, J. , & Lin, X. (2018). Linking employee boundary spanning behavior to task performance: The influence of informal leader emergence and group power distance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(12), 1879–1899.
Li et al., 1999 *Li, J. , Xin, K. R. , Tsui, A. S. , & Hambrick, D. C. (1999). Building effective international joint venture leadership teams in China. Journal of World Business, 34(1), 52–68.
Lücke et al., 2014 *Lücke, G. , Kostova, T. , & Roth, K. (2014). Multiculturalism from a cognitive perspective: Patterns and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(2), 169–190.
MacNab et al., 2012 MacNab, B. , Brislin, R. , & Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence development: Context and individual attributes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1320–1341.
Magnusson et al., 2013 *Magnusson, P. , Westjohn, S. A. , Semenov, A. V. , Randrianasolo, A. A. , & Zdravkovic, S. (2013). The role of cultural intelligence in marketing adaptation and export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 21(4), 44–61.
Mathieu et al., 2014 Mathieu, J. E. , Tannenbaum, S. I. , Donsbach, J. S. , & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160.
Maznevski and Distefano, 2000 *Maznevski, M. L. , & Distefano, J. J. (2000). Global leaders are team players: Developing global leaders through membership on global teams. Human Resource Management, 39(2–3), 195–208.
McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002 McCall, M. W., Jr , & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Mendenhall and Bird, 2013 Mendenhall, M. E. , & Bird, A. (2013). In search of global leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 167–174.
Mendenhall et al., 2012 Mendenhall, M. E. , Reiche, B. S. , Bird, A. , & Osland, J. S. (2012). Defining the "global" in global leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 493–503.
Mendenhall et al., 2008 Mendenhall, M. E. , Stevens, M. J. , Bird, A. , & Oddou, G. (2008). Specification of the content domain of the global competencies inventory (GCI). The Kozai Working Paper Series, 1(1), 1–42.
Mendenhall et al., 2017 Mendenhall, M. E. , Weber, T. J. , Arna Arnardottir, A. , & Oddou, G. (2017). Developing global leadership competencies: A process model. Advances in Global Leadership, 10, 117–146.
Miska et al., 2013 Miska, C. , Stahl, G. K. , & Mendenhall, M. E. (2013). Intercultural competencies as antecedents of responsible global leadership. European Journal of International Management, 7(5), 550–569.
Mumford et al., 2000 Mumford, M. D. , Dansereau, F. , & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Followers, motivations, and levels of analysis: The case of individualized leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(3), 313–340.
Nadkarni and Herrmann, 2010 Nadkarni, S. , & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–1073.
Neeley and Reiche, 2020 *Neeley, T. B. , & Reiche, B. S. (2020). How global leaders gain power through downward deference and reduction of social distance. Academy of Management Journal. 20201125. doi:10.5465/amj.2019.0531
Ng et al., 2009 *Ng, K.-Y. , Van Dyne, L. , & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511–526.
Nielsen, 2010 *Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team internationalization and firm performance. Management International Review, 50(2), 185–206.
Osland and Bird, 2006 Osland, J. S. , & Bird, A. (2006). Global leaders as experts. Advances in Global Leadership, 4, 123–142.
Osland et al., 2012a Osland, J. S. , Bird, A. , & Mendenhall, M. E. (2012). Developing global mindset and global leadership capabilities. In G. K. Stahl , I. Bjorkman , & S. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (2nd ed., pp. 220–252). London: Elgar.
Osland et al., 2006 Osland, J. S. , Bird, A. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & Osland, A. (2006). Developing global leadership capabilities and global mindset: A review. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international HR management (pp. 197–222). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Osland et al., 2012b Osland, J. S. , Bird, A. , & Oddou, G. (2012). The context of expert global leadership. Advances in Global Leadership, 7, 107–124.
Osland et al., 2017 Osland, J. S. , Ehret, M. , & Ruiz, L. (2017). Case studies of global leadership: Expert cognition in the domain of large-scale global change. Advances in Global Leadership, 10, 41–88.
Osland et al., 2020 Osland, J. S. , Nielsen, R. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & Bird, A. (2020). The birth of a new field from CCM: Global leadership. In B. Szkudlarek , L. Romani , D. V. Caprar , & J. S. Osland (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of contemporary cross-cultural management (pp. 375–392). Thousdand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Osland et al., 2013 *Osland, J. S. , Oddou, G. , Bird, A. , & Osland, A. (2013). Exceptional global leadership as cognitive expertise in the domain of global change. European Journal of International Management, 7(5), 517–534.
Paik and Sohn, 2004 *Paik, Y. , & Sohn, J. D. (2004). Expatriate managers and MNC's ability to control international subsidiaries: The case of Japanese MNCs. Journal of World Business, 39(1), 61–71.
Park et al., 2018 Park, S. , Jeong, S. , Jang, S. , Yoon, S. W. , & Lim, D. H. (2018). Critical review of global leadership literature: Toward an integrative global leadership framework. Human Resource Development Review, 17(1), 95–120.
Paunova and Lee, 2016 *Paunova, M. , & Lee, Y.-T. (2016). Collective global leadership in self-managed multicultural teams: The role of team goal orientation. Advances in Global Leadership, 9, 187–210.
Presbitero, 2020 *Presbitero, A. (2020). Foreign language skill, anxiety, cultural intelligence and individual task performance in global virtual teams: A cognitive perspective. Journal of International Management, 26(2), 100729.
Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1997 Rajagopalan, N. , & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 48–79.
Reiche et al., 2017 Reiche, B. S. , Bird, A. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & Osland, J. S. (2017). Contextualizing leadership: A typology of global leadership roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5), 552–572.
Reiche et al., 2021 Reiche, B. S. , Mendenhall, M. E. , Szkudlarek, B. , & Osland, J. S. (2021). At the heart and beyond: What can global leadership researchers learn from perspectives on the Covid-19 pandemic?. Advances in Global Leadership, 13, 261–282.
Rockstuhl et al., 2011 Rockstuhl, T. , Seiler, S. , Ang, S. , Van Dyne, L. , & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross‐border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825–840.
Saidu, 2019 Saidu, S. (2019). CEO characteristics and firm performance: Focus on origin, education and ownership. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(29), 1–15.
Schweiger et al., 2003 *Schweiger, D. M. , Atamer, T. , & Calori, R. (2003). Transnational project teams and networks: Making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World Business, 38(2), 127–140.
Segikuchi et al., 2011 *Segikuchi, T. , Bebenroth, R. , & Li, D. (2011). Nationality background of MNC affiliates' top management and affiliate performance in Japan: Knowledge-based and upper echelons perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(5), 999–1016.
Shay and Baack, 2004 *Shay, J. P. , & Baack, S. A. (2004). Expatriate assignment, adjustment and effectiveness: An empirical examination of the big picture. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3), 216–232.
Shih et al., 2006 *Shih, S. , Wang, J. T. , & Yeung, A. (2006). Building global competitiveness in a turbulent environment: Acer's journey of transformation. Advances in Global Leadership, 4, 201–217.
Singh et al., 2019 *Singh, D. , Pattnaik, C. , Lee, J. Y. , & Gaur, A. S. (2019). Subsidiary staffing, cultural friction, and subsidiary performance: Evidence from Korean subsidiaries in 63 countries. Human Resource Management, 58(2), 219–234.
Stahl et al., 2020 Stahl, G. K. , Miska, C. , Noval, L. J. , & Patock, V. J. (2020). Responsible global leadership: A multi-level framework. In L. Zander (Ed.), Research handbook of global leadership (pp. 178–201). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Steiner, 1972 Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Stevens et al., 2014 *Stevens, M. J. , Bird, A. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & Oddou, G. (2014). Measuring global leader intercultural competency: Development and validation of the global competencies inventory (GCI). Advances in Global Leadership, 8, 115–154.
Story and Barbuto, 2011 Story, J. , & Barbuto, J. E., Jr (2011). Global mindset: A construct clarification and framework. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(3), 377–384.
Su et al., 2019 *Su, Y. , Fan, D. , & Rao-Nicholson, R. (2019). Internationalization of Chinese banking and financial institutions: A fuzzy-set analysis of the leader-TMT dynamics. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(14), 2137–2165.
Szymanski et al., 2019 *Szymanski, M. , Fitzsimmons, S. R. , & Danis, W. M. (2019). Multicultural managers and competitive advantage: Evidence from elite football teams. International Business Review, 28(2), 305–315.
Szymanski and Ipek, 2020 *Szymanski, M. , & Ipek, E. (2020). The better, the worse, and the bicultural: Examining bicultural competence and bicultural liability in elite football teams. European Journal of International Management, 14(2), 357–380.
Szymanski and Kalra, 2021 *Szymanski, M. , & Kalra, K. (2021). Performance effects of interaction between multicultural managers and multicultural team members: Evidence from elite football competitions. Thunderbird International Business Review, 63(2), 235–251.
Tasheva and Hillman, 2020 Tasheva, S. , & Hillman, A. J. (2020). Integrating diversity at different levels: Multilevel human capital, social capital, and demographic diversity and their implications for team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 746–765.
Taylor et al., 2008 *Taylor, S. , Levy, O. , Boyacigiller, N. , & Beechler, S. (2008). Employee commitment in MNCs: Impacts of organizational culture, HRM and top management orientations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 501–527.
Trevor-Roberts et al., 2003 *Trevor-Roberts, E. , Ashkanasyn, N. M. , & Kennedy, J. C. (2003). The egalitarian leader: A comparison of leadership in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20(4), 517–540.
Tsui and Ohlott, 1988 Tsui, A. S. , & Ohlott, P. (1988). Multiple assessment of managerial effectiveness: Interrater agreement and consensus in effectiveness models. Personnel Psychology, 41(4), 779–803.
Tucker et al., 2014 *Tucker, M. F. , Bonial, R. , Vanhove, A. , & Kedharnath, U. (2014). Leading across cultures in the human age: An empirical investigation of intercultural competency among global leaders. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–21.
Van Dyne and Ang, 2006 *Van Dyne, L. , & Ang, S. (2006). Getting more than you expect: Global leader initiative to span structural holes and reputational effectiveness. Advances in Global Leadership, 4, 101–122.
Vijayakumar et al., 2018 Vijayakumar, P. B. , Morley, M. J. , Heraty, N. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & Osland, J. S. (2018). Leadership in the global context: Bibliometric and thematic patterns of an evolving field. Advances in Global Leadership, 11, 31–72.
Wang and Howell, 2010 Wang, X. H. F. , & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134–1144.
Wang et al., 2020 *Wang, R. , Li, Y.-N. , & Wei, J. (2020). Growing in the changing global landscape: The intangible resources and performance of high-tech corporates. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi:10.1007/s10490-020-09744-8
Wei et al., 2020 *Wei, Q. , Li, W. H. , De Sisto, M. , & Gu, J. (2020). What types of top management teams' experience matter to the relationship between political hazards and foreign subsidiary performance? Journal of International Management, 26(4), 1–27.
Whitaker and Greenleaf, 2017 Whitaker, B. L. , & Greenleaf, J. P. (2017). Using cultural intelligence assessment to teach global leadership. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(1), 169–178.
Wills and Barham, 1994 *Wills, S. , & Barham, K. (1994). Being an international manager. European Management Journal, 12(1), 49–58.
Young, 1927 Young, K. (1927). Source book for social psychology. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Zajac, 1990 Zajac, E. J. (1990). CEO selection, succession, compensation and firm performance: A theoretical integration and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 217–230.
Zhang and Rajagopalan, 2010 Zhang, Y. , & Rajagopalan, N. (2010). Once an outsider, always an outsider? CEO origin, strategic change, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 334–346.
Zhao et al., 2020 *Zhao, S. , Liu, Y. , & Zhou, L. (2020). How does a boundaryless mindset enhance expatriate job performance? The mediating role of proactive resource acquisition tactics and the moderating role of behavioural cultural intelligence. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(10), 1333–1357.
∗ indicates articles included in the literature review listed in Table 1.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Ranjan Shrestha for providing research assistance in the article review process.
- Prelims
- Part I Empirical Findings
- The Grand Challenge None of Us Chose: Succeeding (and Failing) Against the Global Pandemic
- Global Leadership Effectiveness: A Multilevel Review and Exploration of the Construct Domain
- Reinforcing “We”: Organizational Identity Custodianship in Global Leaders' Boundary-spanning
- Developing Global Leader Self-Complexity through International Experience
- Leading Innovation in a Multicultural and Digitally Connected World – An Exploratory Study
- Part II Practitioner's Corner
- An Interview with Paula Caligiuri, Pioneer in Global Leadership Effectiveness Research
- Research, Dissemination, and Activism – The Grand Challenge of Refugees' Integration: An Interview with Betina Szkudlarek
- An Interview with Milena Pighi, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility at the BMW Group
- Developing Future Global Leaders' Competencies in a Business School Course: A Case Study of a Course Design Inspired by Team-based Learning
- Conclusion
- Global Leadership Effectiveness: First Steps and Future Directions