Global leadership a new framework for a changing world

Global Leadership: A New Framework fora Changing WorldTroy E. Dunn, National Defense University

Christina L. Lafferty, National Defense University

Kenneth L. Alford, Brigham Young University

"If your actions inspire others to dream more,leam more, do more, and become more,

you are a leader."

— John Quincy Adams (Jacobson, 2010)

PepsiCo's chief executive, Indra Nooyi, maywell represent the global leader of tomorrow.As a member of the Future of Enterprise panelat the 41st World Economic Forum in Davos,Switzerland, Nooyi captured the attention of theaudience and her fellow panel members withher "Performance for Purpose" platform (Nooyi,2009) which stated that PepsiCo will deliver su-perior sustainable financial performance throughhuman sustainability, environmental sustainabil-ity, and talent sustainability. According to Pep-siCo's charter, purpose is more than corporatesocial responsibility—it is the driving factor forsustained performance. To encourage humans tomake healthy living choices, PepsiCo will offer aportfolio of enjoyable and wholesome foods andbeverages. It will also be a good citizen of theworld by protecting the Earth's natural resourcesthrough innovative and efficient operations.Lastly, PepsiCo will invest in the developmentof its associates and create employment oppor-tunities in local communities. NotwithstandingPepsiCo's organizational success, one issue stilltroubles Nooyi: How does PepsiCo identify anddevelop global leaders to ensure the long-termsustainability of its enterprise? More important,how does any institution identify and developglobal leaders with multiple global competen-cies? This paper proposes a global leadershipmodel from a theoretical and conceptual frame-work aimed at developing a generation of globalleaders.

What Is Global Leadership?We contend that global leadership can be viewedas the observable and measurable assessment of16 leadership components across four domainsand six levels of intelligence. Practically speak-ing, global leadership is the ability to developpeak performance through the talents and po-tential of a diverse set of people, organizations,and societies. Global leaders can awaken thegenius in actors, institutions, and society. Theetymology of the word "genius" comes from theLatin genius-a guardian who watches over thetalent of each person from birth (Harper, 2010).Global leaders need to be able to develop talentand evoke the potential in people, organizations,and the conmiunity to succeed in a volatile, un-certain, complex, and ambiguous environment.This critical skill is the essence of the globalleadership theory.

Global leadership is a nascent field in leader-ship development with limited research on thecorrelation between sustained excellence and thehigh global competency of modem leaders. Thepreponderance of research on leadership has fo-cused on transactional (Bums, 1978) and trans-formational (Bass, 1990) leadership theories.Those studies, however, have been limited to ex-ploring only two levels of intelligence—cogni-tive (or intellectual) and affective (or emotional)(Goleman, 1995). Recently, cultural intelligence(Earley, Ang, and Tan, 2006) was added as partof the affective leadership competency (Zhang,2010). In the emerging global economy, orga-nizations are searching for a new theoretical andconceptual framework to identify and developglobal leaders who can excel in this new envi-ronment. Although Nagai (2008) defines globalleadership in terms of a leader's involvement in

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012

global activities, this paper presupposes lead-ers already are involved in global activities on adaily basis, either directly or indirectly. Globalleadership does not discriminate among leadersbased on positional activities. Rather, it invitesall leaders into the conversation with the inten-tion of developing leadership effectiveness,global competency, and the responsibility to fos-ter talent and potential in the global marketplace.

Statement of the ProblemTo date, no empirical research examining therelationship between multiple levels of globalcompetency in the workplace and effectiveglobal leadership has surfaced to contribute to animportant discussion on this topic. We hope thatthe a priori theoretical and conceptual frame-work presented in this paper will spark furtherinvestigation into the hypothesis that multipleleadership competencies correlate highly withthe components of global leadership. Ideally,future studies will examine the utility of a globalcompetency index in predicting effective globalleadership.

Significance of the StudyAccording to Reilly and Karounos (2009),global corporations and leaders increasingly op-erate in an interconnected business environment.An example is the increase in the global flow ofinvestments and lending to developing countriessince thel990s (Reilly and Karounos, 2009;Javidan and House, 2001). In 1997, net externalfinancing flows to developing countries, includ-ing foreign direct and portfolio investments were$360.1 billion, but had risen to $785.5 billionby 2006 (Chandrasekhar, 2008). In addition toinvestments, debt flow to developing countries,measured as net external borrowing, rose from$10.9 billion in 2001 to $294.5 billion in 2006.After a three-year study in 1998, Gregersen,Morrison, and Black (1998) disclosed that 85%of U.S. Fortune 500 firms reported shortageof global leaders to sustain their multinationaloperations. From that number, 65% believedleaders needed additional competencies to man-age the challenges of global leadership (Gregers-en et al., 1998). By 2005, only 8% of Fortune500 firms reported having comprehensive globalleadership training programs (Alon and Higgins,2005).

Various studies reinforce organizational con-cern that strategic leaders will not be able tonavigate the new terrain armed with traditionalleadership characteristics (Wanasika, 2007) and

may, in fact, lack the requisite global skills forfuture success (Buckley and Brooke, 1992 citedin Chin and Gaynier, 2006). Assuming thatanother strategic model is inadequate to cultivatea new generation of global leaders, a new leader-ship framework may be required to identify anddevelop the global talent and potential of lead-ers in an interconnected world. The questionfor further research is whether a strong enoughcorrelation exists between multiple leadershipcompetencies and global leadership to identifyand predict effective leadership characteristics,behaviors, and style.

Contributions to TheoryPrevious studies on leadership theories do notaddress the contemporary or future challengesfacing organizations. What has led to a ris-ing demand for a new paradigm in leadership?What structural pressures have called for some-thing more than transformational leadership,emotional and cultural intelligences, and thesystems theory approach (Senge, 1990)? Leader-ship theories have consistently evolved duringthe past two centuries from one paradigm toanother, with the latest shift occurring during theearly stage of globalization.

The first paradigm was articulated in severalways. First, the "great man" theory (James,1880, cited in Bass and Stogdill, 1990; Galton,1869, cited in Lafiferty, 1998) appeared duringthe early Industrial Revolution; Carlyle (1841cited in Bass et al., 1990) looked at heroes toreinforce the concept of the leader as a personendowed with unique qualities that captured theimagination of the masses (Bass et al., 1990).It was followed by trait theory (Kohs and Irle,1920, cited in Bass et al., 1990), which becameprominent during the late Industrial Revolution.Researchers attempted to explain leadership interms of traits of personality and character (Basset al, 1990). Next, behavior theory (Bass et al.,1990) developed at Ohio State University andMichigan State University, gained momentumduring the post Industrial Revolution betweenthe 1950s and the late 1970s. Bales' (1958 citedin Bass et al., 1990) research implied that indi-viduals who exhibited high levels of task accom-phshment and relationship behavior typicallywere viewed as leaders by their peers (Lafferty,1998; Bass et al., 1990). The last period underthe first paradigm was the situational contin-gency theory (Lafferty, 1998; Bass et al., 1990),which gained currency during the technologicalrevolution as researchers studied how certain

SAM Advanced Management Journai — Spring 2012

situations dictated and guided the most effectiveleadership styles. Structural changes have fun-damentally reshaped the world and made currentscholarship in the field of leadership incomplete(Osbom, Hunt, and Jauch, 2002).

Since research under the first paradigmyielded only partial and inconclusive evidence,studies in leadership during the informationrevolution began to focus on systems theory(Senge, 1990) as an alternative to previous theo-ries. Researchers viewed leaders as integratedinto a system with inputs from the environment,organization, subordinates, and the mission it-self, and with outputs in the form of task accom-plishment (B. Lafferty, 1998; Bass et al., 1990).Systems theory introduced transactional, trans-formational, and visionary leadership (Sashkin,1996) theories. Research, however, focusedprimarily on the correlation between transfor-mational leadership and emotional intelligence.Cultural intelligence recently was added to thetransformational leadership theory but has yield-ed limited research (Zhang, 2010). However,as the tide of globalization increases, leadershiptheorists have asked, "What's next?" Is theresomething more than transformational leadershiplinked to emotional and cultural intelligencesthat can predict leadership effectiveness?

Global Leadership and ComplexityTheoryThe answer to the call for a new leadershipframework may lie in the shift from systems the-ory to complexity theory (Sherman and Schultz,1998) during the rise of globalization. Shermanand Schultz (1998) asserted that "competi-tive advantage is fleeting, and that change canrapidly turn assets into deadweight." Addition-ally, John Holland (1999) noted how "complexadaptive systems are constantly revising andrearranging their building blocks as they gainexperience. A firm will promote individualswho do well and will reshuffle its organizationalchart for greater efficiency. Countries will makenew trading agreements or realign themselvesinto whole new alliances." Since no single agentcontrols or governs a complex system, intricateinteractions among independent agents at all lev-els (individual, group, and systemic) essentiallymay be the key factors to success and long-termsustainability.

Whereas Sherman and Schultz applied com-plexity theory to complex systems. Levy (1994)observed complex systems under the microscopeof chaos theory. Chaos theory explained how

nonlinear dynamic systems reconciled the es-sential unpredictability of industries through theemergence of distinctive patterns (Cartwright,1991 cited in Levy, 1994). Systems facingperturbations from a chaotic environment eitherwill adapt or bifurcate. Modeling the supplychain of a California-based computer company.Levy showed how small disruptions to the sup-ply chain made the chain highly volatile andimposed significant costs on the organization inorder to survive (Levy, 1994). Leaders neededto identify the right approach to the distinct pat-terns that emerged under a complex, dynamicsystem to lower the cost of operating the supplychain (Levy, 1994). The difference betweencomplexity theory and chaos theory is that com-plex systems do not bifurcate or dissipate in theface of chaos. Instead, they reside at the edgeof chaos by adapting, revising, and rearranging(Waldrop, 1992). Waldrop (1992) explainedcomplexity theory as follows: "The actors orcomponents of a system are never locked intoa particular position or role within the system,and they never fall completely out of control likeunder chaos theory. The edge of chaos is theconstantly shifting battle zone between stagna-tion and anarchy, the one place where a com-plex system can be spontaneous, adaptive, andagile." Global leaders will need the skills andcompetencies to thrive in a volatile, uncertain,complex, and ambiguous environment and knowhow to keep the enterprise from descending intochaos or becoming immobile and irrelevant.Global leadership theory can be the new lensfor effective leadership style during the nextparadigm shift toward complexity theory. Rapidchanges in the international marketplace havedifferentiated both systems theory and chaostheory from complexity theory.

Theoretical/Conceptual FrameworkThe Achilles heel of current strategic leader-ship models is their triadic feature of the aware-ness domain, task domain, and relationshipdomain—a slight variation of Hollander's origi-nal framework of the leader-follower situationdynamic (Hollander, 1978). Current leadershipmodels focus mainly on two levels of intelli-gence—cognitive (or intellectual) and affective(or emotional). As a remedy, this paper sug-gests that four domains are critical to produceglobal leaders and measure their effectiveness:transactional (Bums, 1978), transformational(Bass, 1990), conscious (Chatterjee, 1998) andtranspersonal (McCaslin, 2008; Gozdz, 2000).


These four leadership theories can be combinedinto an overarching global leadership frameworkthat is tightly coupled with six levels of leader-ship intelligence. The remainder of this paperwill present the global leadership model in thecontext of multiple leadership intelligences andwill discuss the importance of developing globalleaders and nurturing their talents and potentialin a rapidly changing world.

Design Features of the GlobalLeadership Model (GLM)The first step in developing the global leadershipmodel (GLM) begins by adding "purpose" as thefourth domain (task, relationship, awareness, andpurpose). With purpose as a new domain, theGLM underscores the importance of transper-sonal leadership theory.

The second component of the global leader-

Figure 1. Global Leadership Model (GLM)

Global TalentGlobal Potential

TranspersonalMoral Intel (MQ)

Existential Intel (XQ)

TransformationalCultural Intel (CQ)

Emotional intel (EQ)

ship architectural framework reshapes Gardner'smultiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) into anappropriate conceptual basis for global lead-ers. Gardner's work includes spatial, linguistic,logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musi-cal, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,existential, and moral intelligences (Gardner,1999). His approach was initially designed foreducational research, but is useful in the field ofleadership. Nevertheless, his entire list may notbe applicable to the study of leadership. For ex-ample, musical intelligence may not be practicalfor leaders to possess to resolve a bottleneck in adistribution network. We propose multiple com-petencies that are relevant to developing globalleaders. The new conceptual system includes a

global competency index (GCI) with multipleleadership intelligences, namely, intellectual,emotional, cultural, metacognitive, existential,and moral intelligences. We will elaborate onthe GCI later in this paper.

The final design feature of GLM is to con-nect the theoretical framework to the conceptualframework by assigning each level of intelli-gence to its respective theoretical domain. As ametaframework grounded in academic research,GLM may provide critical insight into the fourdomains of global leadership.

Domains of Global LeadershipThis framework seeks to strengthen the founda-tions of leadership effectiveness in the context oftalent and potential by including four domains(task, relationship, awareness, and purpose) inits framework. Notwithstanding that leadershipresearch generally supports only two or threebasic categories to measure leadership effective-ness, global leadership requires the more com-prehensive foundation of four domains. CrestónInstitute supports an expansive approach withits "leadership spiral" (Crestón, undated) con-sisting of transactional, transformational, andtranspersonal leadership. Crestón, however, failsto consider the deliberate process to transcendthe transformational level into the transpersonalarena. Nevertheless, GLM applies Chattterjee's(1998) conscious leadership theory as the bridgeto the transpersonal side. We suggest that amature global leadership spiral consists of thetransactional, transformational, conscious, andtranspersonal leadership attached to four respec-tive domains.

Tasks. The GLM views success at the task-level through the lens of transactional leadership.The ability to inspire people and self towardtask accomplishment is the basic tenet of leader-ship at the transactional level. Essentially, taskscontrol the exchange between leaders and fol-lowers as they attempt to achieve personal goalsand agendas (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). GLMmaintains that the dominant feature of transac-tional leadership is the task function.

Currently, a psychometric evaluation does notexist to measure tasks of global leadership. Forthe task portion, a future measurement tool mayincorporate the multifactor leadership question-naire (Bass and Avolio, 2000) to assess transac-tional leadership on two scales. The first is thecontingency reward scale, which identifies lead-ers who reward achievement (Bass et al, 2000).They focus on tasks, performance objectives, re-

SAM Advanced Management Joumal — Spring 2012

wards and punishments, and correct output (Basset al., 2000). The second is the management-by-exception active scale, which identifies leaderswho focus on monitoring mistakes. They moni-tor deviations and take appropriate correctivemeasures (Bass et al., 2000). In short, leaderswith high scores on both scales of the task func-tion have been considered effective transactionalleaders from previous studies. At this point intheir leadership development, they should focusnext on relationships.

Relationships. The GLM moves into the rela-tionship domain supported by transformationalleadership. Obtaining and sustaining relation-ships in the global environment are crucial forleaders in a multinational, intergovernmental,and global business context. Global leadersmust connect with numerous stakeholders inboth the internal and external environmentsto achieve organizational success and change(Black and Porter, 2000). Three great examplesof the gross profit from transformational lead-ership and the relationship domain are BillGates of Microsoft, Jack Welch of GE, and SamWalton of Wal-Mart. They achieved corporatesuccess through transformational leadership andrelationship-building with key stakeholders.

Currently, there is no psychometric evaluationto measure relationships of global leadership.A future tool may incorporate the multifactorleadership questionnaire (MLQ) to measuretransformational leadership on five scales. Thefirst is the idealized attributes scale, which iden-tifies leaders who build trust in followers (Basset al., 2000). This scale measures how leadersinspire pride in people, put the group's interestahead of their own, and become reference mod-els for their followers. The second is the ideal-ized behaviors scale, which identifies leaderswho act with integrity (Bass et al., 2000). Thisscale measures how leaders manifest positivevalues, self-control, high moral judgment, op-timism, and self-efficiency. Their shared senseof vision for the team or group unifies people.The third is the inspirational motivation scale,which identifies leaders who inspire others (Basset al., 2000). This scale measures how leadersarticulate shared goals and mutual understand-ing. They promote positive expectations of theirvision. The fourth is the intellectual stimulationscale, which identifies leaders who encourage in-novative thinking (Bass et al., 2000). This scalemeasures how leaders help people think of oldproblems in new ways and question assumptionsto solve problems. Associates develop creative

and critical thinking skills. The fifth is the indi-vidual consideration scale, which identifies lead-ers who coach people (Bass et al., 2000). Thisscale measures how leaders satisfy the needs oftheir followers and provide opportunities withinthe organizational culture for individual growth.

In sum, smart executives who form healthyrelationships with multiple stakeholders to effectorganizational change are agents of transforma-tion who also should aspire to achieve success inthe awareness domain.

Awareness. The GLM rests within the domainof awareness and relies extensively on consciousleadership (Chatterjee, 1998). Awareness re-quires global leaders to undergo a period of self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-awakening.In other words, leaders need to devote time fora rigorous and thorough examination of theirpast behaviors, their current leadership skills,and their desire for future leadership growthopportunities. Soon they will become aware oftheir strengths and limitations and consciouslyseek the essence of their leadership core. Asnoted, conscious leadership is the theoreticallens within the awareness domain. The leaderwho can relax his or her mind can leverage thepower of the mind through vision, concentra-tion, and focus to affect personal and corporatechange (Chatterjee, 1998). Skillful and con-scious meditation may prove helpful to relax themind and find inner tranquility and harmony.Reframing is another good example of this prac-tice. For instance. His Holiness the Dalai Lamaapplied reframing to the Tibetan struggle forindependence by perceiving it as an exercise inhappiness (Lama and Cutler, 1998). Essentially,happiness is an achievement of mind over exter-nal conditions, circumstances, and events (Lamaet al., 1998) through conscious leadership.

No psychometric evaluation measures aware-ness of global leadership. For the awarenessdomain, a future measurement tool needs threescales—self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-awakening.

The self-reflection scale identifies leaderswho devote time to self-reflection. Zohar andMarshall (1997) encourage leaders to reflect onwhat they believe in, their values, and motiva-tions. Leaders will act and behave accordingto those principles and deep beliefs. Next, theself-assessment scale identifies leaders who areopen to feedback and criticism. Leaders viewadversity as an opportunity to leam and growfrom mistakes and setbacks. Leaders must havethe ability to reframe to see the bigger picture.


They also possess holism (Zohar et al., 1997)where they see larger pattems, relationships, andconnections. Lastly, the self-awakening scaleidentifies leaders who contemplate universalprinciples. They ask the fundamental "why?"questions to understand meaning. They havea sense of vocation to serve and give back tohumanity and independence to stand against thecrowd based on their convictions (Zohar et al.,1997).

In short, reaching a deliberate state of con-sciousness prepares global leaders for the finalstage of purpose and transpersonal leadership.

Purpose. The GLM suggests purpose as itsfourth domain along with transpersonal leader-ship (McCashn, 2008; Gozdz, 2000). Purposegives meaning to existence and guides leaders toself-transcendence by shedding their egoisticalconsciousness. Purpose exhorts leaders to re-frame their personal goals and desires by view-ing them as coterminous with organizational andsocietal goals. Purpose is the nexus of humanconsciousness and business practice that leads tocompetitive advantage (Gozdz, 2000).

Although used interchangeably with vision incurrent theory, purpose differs from vision. Vi-sion is a product of the systems theory approachand unifies the different components throughinputs-processes-outputs-outcomes to achievean overall goal (Lafferty, 1998). Vision is the"capability of understanding complex large-scalesystems in terms of cause-effect chains and theirinteractions over time" (Lafferty, 1998; Sashkin,1996). Visionary leaders construct organiza-tional culture to achieve goals and maintainoperational effectiveness (Lafferty, 1998; Sash-kin, 1996). In contrast, purpose is beneficial incomplex systems by providing meaning as tohow a business moves in a non-linear fashionthrough the fiow of competitive events. Leaderswith a purpose develop the intuition of agentscentral to the organization, stakeholders periph-eral to the organization, and beneficiaries tertiaryto organization. Leaders must be cognizantthat all parties are integral to the organization'ssuccess and be flexible to the changing roles andinteractions of all players at levels as they adaptto each other and to the changes in the intemaland extemal environments. Purpose, as seenthrough the lens of complexity theory, integratesand adapts individual goals with organizationaland societal goals into meta-goals to achievelong-term sustainability.

A possible advantage of GLM is how it at-tempts to integrate transpersonal leadership to

focus the human and organizational experienceon a higher purpose, greater responsibility, andmoral imperative. Mother Teresa's tremendousexample of human compassion, Al Gore's senseof responsibility for climate protection, andMahatma Gandhi's moral imperative regard-ing non-violent resistance are all examples oftranspersonal leadership.

Currently, no psychometric evaluation mea-sures purpose in global leadership. For thepurpose strata, a future measurement tool needsfour scales—transcendent attributes, transcen-dent behaviors, transcendent intellect, and tran-scendent performance.

First, the transcendent attributes scale wouldidentify leaders who develop long-term rela-tionships by connecting people to other peopleso each can reach individual goals. The scalewould measure how leaders develop the intel-lectual, moral, psychological, and philosophicalappetites within associates. Second, the tran-scendent behaviors scale would identify leaderswho act with higher purpose or toward a highercalling. The scale would measure how leadersweave purpose in every aspect of performance.Leaders with a purpose find a calling to serveand feel a long-term duty of care to people,organizations, and society. Third, the transcen-dent intellect scale would identify leaders whoencourage transcendent thinking. The scalewould measure how leaders challenge people toquestion convention wisdom, individual values,and assumptions. Leaders seek new conceptsand pattems and allow people to fail fast and failoften by applying heterodox approaches. Lastly,the transcendent performance scale would iden-tify leaders who maximize people's potential toexceed their self-imposed limitations. Leadersare not satisfied with quantitative measures ofsuccess but ask the question, "Regardless of theoutcome, did you give your very best?" Theyfocus on praxeology, or the study of human ac-tion or conduct, to determine whether people arefulfilling their inherent talents and abilities.

In short, leaders who understand their globalpurpose are the transpersonal leaders the worldneeds to tackle the truly complex problems ofthis generation. To gain that understanding,global leaders must possess multiple leadershipintelligences. . -- . • ' • •.

Global Competency Index (GCI)The GLM's global competency index (GCI) setsthe conceptual stage for developing multipleleadership intelligences. The GCI attempts to


pull together several theories of intelligence intoone index of the most important leadership com-petencies. Ostensibly, GCI correlates leadership

intelligence with lead-ership effectiveness.Hence, high leadershipintelligence on the GCImay be a good predictorof leadership success.Through its multipleleadership intelligences,the GCI ascends to thehighest level of leader-ship excellence in aglobal environment.GCI is not a leader-ship model. Rather, it

Figure 2. GlobalCompentencyIndex (GCI)

Six Levels of Intelligence

Moral(MQ)

Existentiai(XQ)

Metacognitive(MtQ)

Culturai(CQ)

Emotional(EQ)

Intellectual(IQ)

Purpose

Awareness

Relationship

\ Task

focuses on leadershipcompetence for high-functioning globalleaders and presents six

leadership intelligences:Intellectual intelligence (IQ). To cope with

high task demands, leaders are expected to havehigh IQ attributes of analysis, logic, and reason(Chin et al., 2006). This level can comprise anycombination of Gardner's linguistic, logical-mathematical, or spatial intelligences (Gardner,1983) and Bell's predictive intelligence of pat-tern and trend recognition (Bell, 2007).

Emotional intelligence (EQ). Successful lead-ers must use EQ to recognize, understand, andmanage themselves and others' emotional statesto solve emotion-laden problems and regulatebehavior (Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, 1999).Whether the discovery of EQ is attributed toPayne (1985) or Goleman (1995), evidence sup-ports the positive effect of EQ on the success ofthe individual at work and a positive relation-ship between EQ and job performance of seniormanagers (Carmeli, 2003). In short, numerousstudies show how EQ enhances performance,productivity, and people through positive attitudeand behavior, sound management techniques,interpersonal skills, and potential.

Cultural intelligence (CQ). Ninety percentof leading executives from 68 countries namedcross-cultural leadership as the top manage-ment challenge for the next century (Livermore,2010). In a single day, today's professionalsmay face 15 different cultural contexts (Liver-more, 2010). Raising the awareness of the im-portance of CQ in the work environment, Earley,Ang, and Tan (2006) and Schmitz (2009) crafteda framework for CQ competency and global

leadership that requires a high degree of culturalcompetence (Schmitz, 2009).

Metacognitive intelligence (MtQ). This levelof intelligence bridges one level of intelligenceto the next higher-functioning level. MtQ is thecapacity to understand oneself (Gardner, 1983).On one side, Gardner defines it as intrapersonalintelligence, while LeaderShape (2008), on theother side, labels it as metacognitive intelligenceand assigns sub-levels of personal conscienceand self-determination to MtQ. Livermore(2010) contributes self-awareness, planning,and checking. Unlike the transition betweenthe two early stages, deliberation and intentionare required here to progress to the next level ofintelligence.

Existential intelligence (XQ). Once the leaderpurposefully crosses into this stage, he or she isopen to true global leadership. Existential intel-ligence is a concern with ultimate issues (Gard-ner, 1983) and existential questions, for instance,"Why should we continue to exist?" Bell (2007)names XQ as path finding intelligence whereglobal leaders bring individuals and organiza-tional action into alignment with a larger senseof purpose. Additionally, Wilson (2005) claimsXQ as the capacity to conceptualize deeper orlarger questions about human existence and con-sciousness. Shearer (undated) further validatesXQ as a valued element of the human thinkingrepertoire through the multiple intelligencesdevelopment assessment scales.

Moral intelligence (MQ). This is the essenceof the moral domain as an instance of humanintelligence (Gardner, 1983). In the moraldomain, Gardner expresses concern with rules,behaviors, and attitudes that govern the sanctityof human life, and the sanctity of other livingcreatures and the world they inhabit (Gardner,1983). In a contextualized analysis of universalbehavior and exercise of one's will, morality isthe highest realization of human nature (Gard-ner, 1983). Other researchers have labeled MQas spiritual intelligence, or SQ (Zohar and Mar-shall, 2000; Emmons, 2001; Bar-On, 2000). Ina work environment, moral intelligence mayresonate with the larger audience and avoidostracizing a minority group. Hence, moralintelligence may be a more appropriate terminol-ogy than spiritual intelligence, but both conceptsshare similar meaning.

These six levels of intelligence comprisethe GCI as the conceptual basis for increasingthe global acumen, universal leadership skills,and potential of contemporary leaders. In turn.

10 SAM Advanced Management Journai — Spring 2012

global leaders are challenged to produce similarresults in other people, their organization, andsociety. This attempt to identify and develop thetalent and potential in leaders is the highest aimof this new leadership framework.

Global Connection of GLM to GCIThe last step in the GLM is to connect the theo-retical framework to the conceptual frameworkby assigning each level of intelligence to itsrespective domain and then test if each intel-ligence has been properly matched to its respec-tive domain.

Leadership-intelligence pairing (transactionallevel). We contend that the flrst pairing at thetransactional leadership level acknowledges IQas being necessary for leaders to cope with hightask demands. As previously discussed, taskdomains corresponds with transactional leader-ship. Therefore, transactional leaders with highIQ should experience a great deal of success inthe task domain.

Leadership-intelligence pairing (transforma-tional level). We propose that the next pairingtakes place at the transformational leadershiplevel, where EQ and CQ are the competenciesand skills global leaders need to understand theintentions, motivations, and desires of otherpeople in the relationship domain. Future globalleaders must be emotionally and culturally intel-ligent (Dailey, 2010). As discussed, the relation-ship domain corresponds with transformationalleadership. Transfonnational leaders with high

Figure 3. Transition Stage

Transformational"Relationships"

(A

I Transpersonal

I "Purpose"

EQ,CQ XQ,MQ

EQ and CQ should relate to people easily andinspire high-functioning teams for success.

Leadership-intelligence pairing (conscious

level). We suggest that conscious leadershipcorresponds with MtQ. This level is the transi-tion between transformational and transpersonalleadership levels. High-scoring MtQ reveals theemerging potential and developing capacity of aglobal leader with self-awareness.

Leadership-intelligence pairing (transper-sonal level). We suggest that the final pairinghappens at the transpersonal leadership levelwhere XQ and MQ are the highest levels ofglobal competencies on the GLI. As discussed,the purpose domain is where leaders transcendtheir personal egos to achieve the highest levelof performance (LeaderShape, 2008). In short,transpersonal leaders with high XQ and MQshould have the greatest likelihood of inspiringsustained excellence in all stakeholders. Ourapproach appears to be the only heuristic attemptto ahgn a global leadership model with contem-porary theories of intelligence.

Recommendations for Further StudyThis paper recommends further empirical studyon global leadership by developing two ques-tionnaires on a five-point Likert scale. The firstquestionnaire for psychometric evaluation willseek to measure key leadership effectivenessand behaviors from prior research along with thenew theory of global leadership. To link bothindividual and organizational success, globalleadership contains 16 leadership componentsand four leadership styles. The new evaluationadds seven new factor scores to the current MLQby incorporating conscious and transpersonalleadership theories under the overarching globalleadership model.

The second questionnaire for psychometricevaluation will seek to measure multiple leader-ship intelligences from the global competencyindex, which has six leadership competencies.Although the new intelligence test may includeexisting tests in practice, it will need to developa component for cultural intelligence that iscurrently missing. The comprehensive ques-tionnaire will be a first in leadership theory tomeasure all six components of the global compe-tency index.

Looking to the future, the global leadershipmodel may contribute to the field of global andstrategic leadership by offering an innovativeoutlook grounded in a theoretical and concep-tual framework. It addresses the critical needto develop global professionals who can leadeffective teams and organizations in a rapidlychanging world. The purpose of the global

SAM Advanced Management Journai — Spring 2012 11

leadership model is to help cultivate a generationof global leaders who can produce successfulresults across the task, relationship, awareness,and purpose domains in an effort to reach thehighest levels of transactional, transformational,conscious, and transpersonal leadership. Theglobal competency index measures excellencein all stages of development across six multipleintelligences—intellectual, emotional, cultural,metacognitive, existential, and moral. Thepreeminent aim of global leadership is to de-velop the talents of the next generation of globalleaders and maximize their potential. In turn,these contemporary professionals will nurturethe talents and potential of their people, organi-zations, and society. This article is intended toelicit conversation about the value of the globalleadership model and encourage further researchregarding a global leadership framework. Inshort, the global leadership model and globalcompetency index may explain the correlationbetween leadership effectiveness and multipleintelligences during the paradigm shift underglobalization. Future research in global lead-ership should open new frontiers in effectiveleadership styles in a globalized world.

In his current position. Colonel Dunn leads amulti-Service organization of military and civil-ian personnel providing six human resourceslife-cycle functions to the Joint Staff at the Pen-tagon. He was a Congressional Fellow in theoffice of Senator Trent Lott, has taught at theUniversity of Southern California, and com-pleted the Georgetown University Capitol HillFellowship. Dr. Lafferty, a 28-year veteranof the U. S. Air Force, is a social scientist andProfessor ofBehavorial Science at the NationalDefense University. Now in her 8''' year with theStrategic Leadership Dept., she has also servedon the faculties of George Washington Univer-sity, Arizona State, and Ohio University. Dr.Alford, who retired as a Colonel from almost30 years in the Army, taught at West Point andthe National Defense University in Washington,D. C. Currently he is an Associate Professor ofChurch History and Doctrine.

REFERENCESAlon, I., and Higgins, J.M. (2005). Global leadership success

through emotional and cultural intelligences. BusinessHorizons, 48(6), 501-512.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and Social Intelligence: In-sights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory, in Reuven

Bar-On and James Parker (Eds.). The Handbook of Emo-tional Intelligence Theory, Development, Assessment, andApplications at Home, School, and in the Workplace. SanFrancisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance BeyondExpectations. New York, New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformationalleadership: Leaming to share the vision. OrganizationalDynamics, 18(3), 19-32.

Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1990). TransformationalLeadership Development: Manual for the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CaUfomia: Consult-ing Psychologist Press.

Bass, B.M., and Avolio. B.J. (2000). Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Redwood City, California: Mind Garden.

Bass, B.M., and Stogdill, R.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill'sHandbook on Leadership: Theory, Research and Manage-rial Applications. New York, New York: The Free Press.

Bell, M. (2007). Inner Leadership: 8 Universal Intelligencesfor Balance. The Wisdom Même. Retrieved November 16,2010 from http://www.thewisdommeme.com/Articlesl/inner leadership.htm

Black, J.S., and Porter, L.W. (2000). Management: MeetingNew Challenges. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: PrenticeHall Publishing.

Buckley, P., and Brooke, M. (1992). International BusinessStudies. Blackwell: Oxford.

Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, New York:Harper Torchbooks.

Capriles, E. (2000). Beyond mind: Steps to a metatransper-sonal psychology. The International Journal ofTransper-sonal Studies, 19. 163-184.

Capriles, E. (2006). Beyond Mind II: Further steps to ametatranspersonal philosophy and psychology. The In-ternational Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 24, 5-44.

Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotionalintelligence and work attitudes, behavior, and outcomes:An examination among senior managers. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 18(S), 788-813.

Cartwright, T.J. (1991). Planning and chaos theory. Joumalof the American Planning Association, 57(1), 44-56.

Challans, T., and Wester, E. (2010). Two views: The wayahead for military ethics. Insights.

Chandrasekhar, C.R (2008). Global Liquidity and FinancialFlows to Developing Countries: New Trends in EmergingMarkets and Their Implications. No. 52, G-24 Discus-sion Papers, United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment.

Chatterjee, D. (1998). Leading Consciously: A PilgrimageToward Self-Mastery. Woburn, Massachusetts: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

Chin, CO., and Gaynier, L.P (2006). Global leadershipcompetence: A cultural intelligence perspective. Presentedat 2006 MBAA Conference.

Cooper, R., and Sauraf, A. (1998). Executive EQ: EmotionalIntelligence in Business. London, England: Orion Busi-ness.

Crestone Institute, (undated). The Leadership Spiral. Re-trieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.transition-dynamics.com/crestone/51eadershipspiral.html

12 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012

Dailey, M. (2010). Becoming a change agent. Chief learningofficer. MediaTec Publishing Inc., 9(10).

Early, P.C., Ang, S., and Tan, J. (2006). CQ: Developing Cul-tural Intelligence at Work. Stanford, California: StanfordUniversity Press.

Emmons, R. (2001). Is spirituality an intelligence? Mo-tivation, cognition, and the psychology of the ultimateconcern. International Journal for the Psychology ofReligion, 70(1), 3-26.

Friedman, H. (2000). Toward Developing TranspersonalPsychology as a Scientific Field. Paper presented at OldSaybrook Conference, May 11-14, 2000, State Universityof West Georgia: Georgia.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of MultipleIntelligences. New York, New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intel-ligences for the 21st Century. New York, New York: Basicc Books.

Gardner, L., and Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relation-ship between leadership and emotional intelligence insenior level managers. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 23(2), 68-78.

Goleman, D.( 1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, NewYork: Bantam Book.

Goleman, D. (2000). Intelligent leadership. Executive Ex-cellence, 3, 17.

Gozdz, K. (2000). Toward transpersonal learning communi-ties in business. American Behavioral Scientist, 43iS),1262-1285.

Gregersen, H.B., Morrison, A.J., and Black, J.S. (1998).Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Manage-ment Review, 40(1), 21-33.

Hagen, A.F., Hassan, M.T., and Amin, S.G. (1998). Criticalstrategic leadership components: An empirical investiga-tion. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(3), 39-44.

Harper, D. (2010). On-line Etymology Dictionary. RetrievedJanuary 30, 2011, from http://www.etymonline.com

Holland, J. H. (1999). Emergence: From chaos to orderReading, Mass: Perseus Books.

Hollander, E.P. (1978). Leadership Dynamics. New York,New York: Free Press.

Jacobson, D. (2010). Govleaders.org. Retrieved February 1,2011 from http://govleaders.org /quotes6.htm

Javidan, M., and House, R.J. (2001). Cultural acumen forthe global manager: Lessons from the Project GLOBE.Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289-305.

Kuhnert, R., and Lewis P. (1987). Transactional and transfor-mational leadership: A constructive/developmental analy-sis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.

Lafferty, B.D. (1998). Running head: Investigation of a Lead-ership Development Program. In partial satisfaction of therequirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. TheGeorge Washington University, Washington DC.

Lafferty, C. (2010). Presented at the Industrial College of theArmed Forces in 2010, Washington, D.C.

Lama, HHTD, and Cutler, H.C. (1998). The Art of Hap-piness: A Handbook for Living. New York, New York:Riverhead Books.

LeaderShape (2008). The Transpersonal (Spiritual) JourneyTowards Leadership Excellence—Using 8ICOL. Re-

trieved November 8,2010 from http://www.leadershape.biz/portals/0/docs/28_Transpersonal_Joumey _8IC0L.pdf.

Lemay, L. (2009). The practice of collective and strategicleadership in the public sector. The Innovation Journal:The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1).

Levy, D. (1994). Chaos Theory and strategy: Theory, applica-tion, and managerial implications. Strategic ManagementJournal, 15, 167-178.

Livermore, D. (2010). Leading with Cultural Intelligence: TheNew Secret to Success. New York, New York: AmericanManagement Association.

Mayer, J.D., and Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence ofemotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 438-442.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., and Salovey, P (1999). Emotionalintelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence.Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D.R. (1999). Instruc-tional Manual for the MSCEIT: Meyer-Salovey-CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

McCaslin, M.L. (2008). The Nature of TranspersonalLeadership: Building Potentiating Relationships. In-tegral Leadership Review retrieved November 8,2010 from http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/archives-2008/2008-06/2008-06-article-mccaskin.php

Miller, J.J. (1998). Book review: Textbook of transpersonalpsychiatry and psychology. Psychiatric Services. AmericanPsychiatric Association, 49, 541-542.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (2000). 3M'sLeadership Competency Framework. Corporate Leader-ship Council, St. Paul, Minnesota. Retrieved on November3,2010 from http://www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com

Mirowsky, J., and Ross, C.E. (2007). Creative work and health.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(4), 385-403.

Modassir, A., and Singh, T. (2008). Relationship of emotionalintelligence with transformational leadership and organi-zational citizenship Behavior. International Journal ofLeadership Studies, 4(1), 3-21.

Nagai, H. (2008). Development of future asian global lead-ers: Vision, framework, and implications for APO membercountries. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.

Nooyi, I. (2009). Performance with Purpose: The Promiseof PepsiCo, letter from Indra Nooyi, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer, PepsiCo. The 2009 Annual Report toStakeholders.

Osborn, R., Hunt, G., and Jauch, L. (2002). Toward a con-textual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13,797-837.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., and Stough, C. (2001).Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leader-ship and Organization Development Journal, 22, 1-7.

Payne, W. L. (1985). A Study of Emotion: Developing Emo-tional Intelligence. The Union for Experimenting Collegesand Universities, in satisfaction of doctoral thesis. TheUnion Institute.

Peters, T. ( 1987). Thriving on Chaos. New York, New York:HarperCollins.

Raymont, J., and Smith, J. (2008). Global Leadership andthe Global Fitness Network. Anglia Ruskin University, re-trieved on November 3,2010 from http://www.anglia.ac.uk

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012 n

Reilly, A.H., and Karounos, T.J. (2009). Exploring the linkbetween emotional intelligence and cross-cultural leader-ship effectiveness. Journal of International Business andCultu ral Studies, 1-13.

Robinson, L. A. (2006). Trust Your Gut: How the Power of In-tuition Can Help Your Business. Chicago, Illinois, Kaplan.

Sashkin, M. (1996). Becoming a Visionary Leader. Amherst,Massachusetts, HRD Press.

Sashkin, M., and Sashkin, M.G. (2003). Leadership that Mat-ters. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Schmitz, J. (2009). Accelerating Global Leadership Develop-ment. TMC—Berlitz Company.

Schott, R.L. (1992). Abraham Maslow, humanistic psychol-ogy and organization leadership: A Jungian perspective.Joumal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(1), 106-120.

Senge, P.M. ( 1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Prac-tice of the Leaming Organization. New York, New York:Doubleday/Currency.

Serrât, O. (2009). Understanding and developing emotionalintelligence. Knowledge Solutions, Asian DevelopmentBank, 49.

Shearer, B. (undated). Development and Validation of a Scalefor Existential Theory. Retrieved November 15, 2010from http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/leaming/ninthintelligence.htm

Sherman, H.J., and Schultz, R. (1998). Open Boundaries:Creating Business Innovation Through Complexity. Read-ing, Massachusetts: Perseus Books.

Slaughter, A., Jentleson, B.W., Daalder, I.H., Blinken, A.J.,Brainard, L., Campbell, K.M., McFaul, M.A., O'Brien,J.C, Smith, G.E., and Steinberg, J.B. (2008). StrategicLeadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Se-curity Strategy. A Phoenix Initiative Report, Center for aNew American Security.

Vicere, A.A. (1992). The Strategic Leadership Imperative forExecutive Development. Entrepreneur. Human ResourcePlanning Society, retrieved November 3,2010 from http://

www.entrepreneur.com/tradejoumals/article/12865885_5.html

Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Scienceat the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York, New York:Simon and Schuster.

Wanasika, I. (2007). In search of global leadership. Joumal ofIntemational Business and Cultural Studies. New MexicoState University.

White, J.C, Clifford, A., and Schepers, J.M. (2001). Theconstruction of a normative instrument of the measure-ment of moral reasoning. Joumal of Industrial Psychology,27(3), 61-67.

Wilson, L.O. (2005). Newer Views of Leaming: Exploringthe Ninth Intelligence—Maybe. Retrieved from http://www.u wsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/ninthintel-ligence.htm

Woodhouse, K., and Reidy, M. (2004). Accelerating theDevelopment of High Potentials: Strategic Leadership@ Dell. Reprinted from interview, presentation at 2004Conference Board Leadership Development Conference.

Zhang, X. (2010). A New Member of the 'IntelligenceFamily'-Cultural Intelligence (CQ). Cross CulturalLeadership.

Zohar, D. (1997). ReWiring the Corporate Brain: Usingthe New Science to Rethink How We Structure and LeadOrganizations. San Francisco, Califomia: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers Inc.

Zohar, D., and Marshall, I. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence:The Ultimate Intelligence. London, England: BloomsburyPublishing PLC

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authorand do not reflect the official policy or position of the Na-tional Defense University, the U.S. Department of Defense,or the U.S. Govemment.

SAM ADVANCED MANAGEMENT JOURNALD $64.00/yr. D $117.00/2 yrs. D $169.00/3 yrs.

Foreign: Add $20.00 per subscription for surface mail and $30.00 for Air Mail for each year to the abovesubscription rates.

Name:

Company:

Address:

City:

Zip:

State/Prov.:

Phone:

Country:

E-mail:

• Check (Make Check Payahle to SAM and Mail to the Address Below)

n Charge to: VISA D MasterCard D Card #:

Expiration Date: CVS #:

Mail or Fax to: SAM, Society for Advancement of Management6300 Ocean Dr., OCNR 330, Unit # 5807, Corpus Christi, TX 78412-5807 USAFax: (361) 825-2725 Telephone: (361) 825-6045 E-mail: [email protected]

14 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012

Copyright of SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075) is the property of Society forAdvancement of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sitesor posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.