Global Leadership-Scott Thor

8/9/2019 Global Leadership-Scott Thor

1/24

Managing Across Borders1Scott Thor BUSG 702 International Management

Running head: MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

Global Leadership: Managing Across Borders

Scott Thor

George Fox University

Doctor of Management

BUSG 702 International Management

March 28, 2010


2/24


Abstract

The world is rapidly becoming one interconnected global system that operates 24/7/365.

This is significantly changing the traditional role of organizational leaders. No longer are

managers interfacing solely with domestic customers, suppliers, and employees. To

remain competitive and continue to grow new revenue streams, organizational leaders

are moving beyond the borders of their own countries, searching for opportunities to

expand. This paper seeks to develop an understanding of what globalization means to

organizational leaders, the evolution of globalization, and the complexities globalization

creates for managing in a world that is becoming borderless. The paper also discusses

the meaning of culture, the challenges of working within different cultural environments,

and the common dimensions that characterize all cultures. A final aspect of the paper

focuses on the role of the global leader, the need to develop global leaders of the future,

and how best to meet the needs of organizations as they compete internationally.


3/24


Managing Across Borders

The words globalization and international have become part of everyday

language to nearly every American. More than ever, we are living in a world that has

become flatter, which has created a leveling effect on the global playing field

(Friedman, 2007). With ninety-five percent of the worlds consumers living outside the

United States, the future of business lies in tapping into the global consumer (U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, 2004). One could argue that organizations that lack the ability

to create a global focus will miss out on a significant opportunity to grow new revenue

streams.

Having products and/or services with a global appeal is only half the equation for

developing an international strategy. The second half lies in the people that will be

needed to seize the opportunity for growth. Simply moving individuals to international

assignments presents a significant challenge that many are likely to struggle with. The

complexities of working in a different culture can present international managers with

the greatest challenge of their career.

Gregerson, Morrison, and Black (1998) surveyed 130 executives from 50 Fortune

500 organizations in Europe, Asia, and the United States, and report that 85 percent of

firms believe they do not have enough global leaders, and 67 percent of the

organizations believe their existing leaders need more training and knowledge to meet

the demands of managing internationally. A more recent survey of 919 senior

executives found that nearly half of executives surveyed stated building a global

organization is their greatest concern, and only 55 percent believe their organization is

able to develop leaders who are capable of dealing with the ability to adapt to the


4/24


change when being assigned to international work (Accenture, 2007). Clearly the

leaders of organizations developing global strategies believe they are not equipped to

meet the demands of a burgeoning global marketplace.

This paper seeks to create an understanding of globalization and the

complexities it presents to organizations and the leaders who execute their international

strategies. The evolution of globalization is also discussed, including a summary of what

had led to the increase in globalization. Also discussed is culture and the difficulties of

not only defining culture, but also those of working in different cultures. A summary of

the common dimensions of culture is also provided, helping explain the similarities of

the characteristics between different cultures.

One could argue that the most influential aspect of becoming successful on a

global scale relates to the effectiveness of the leaders executing the strategies, much of

which is linked to the development of these individuals. This paper also explores the

existing research on the task of becoming an effective global leader by defining what

they do. A final point of discussion includes the development of global leaders. How can

organizations ensure they are working toward meeting the future demand for global

leadership? What knowledge, skill sets, and characteristics do successful international

leaders have? This paper seeks to provide an understanding of what is needed to

ensure the success of managers taking on international assignments.

Globalization

Defining Globalization

No single agreed upon definition of globalization exists. Ohmae (1995) describes

globalization as having an absence of barriers to trade and borders. Robertson (1995)


5/24


suggests that globalization is a melding of the world as a single entity. Renesch (1992)

believes globalization is a combination of common interests between business and

society. Scholte (2008) goes deeper into defining globalization, believing most

descriptions are flawed because of redundancy, having fallen into one of four

categories, which the author describes as internationalisation, liberalisation,

universalisation, and westernisation.

Internationalisation refers to an increase in transactions and independence

between countries. Liberalisation centers on the removal of government imposed

restrictions on trade, such as trade barriers between countries. Universalisation

assumes a combining of cultures and economies into one uniform society.

Westernisation has similarities to universalisation, but with an emphasis on becoming

more like western society, which has also been described as Americanisation. Scholte

(2008) offers a fifth concept of globalization as the spread of connections between

people, reducing the barrier to social contact. The author goes on to describe

globalization as a shift in the nature of social space (p. 1478). No matter how

globalization is defined one thing is certain, the process is irreversible (Thomas, 2008).

The Evolution of Globalization

In 2005 U.S. exports totaled $1.2 trillion dollars (U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

2007) representing 10.5 percent of GDP (The World Bank, 2008). World exports as a

percent of GDP have been rising steadily since 1960, increasing from 12.1 percent in

1960 to over 27 percent in 2005 (The World Bank, 2008). Many factors have influenced

the increase in globalization, of which the use of information technology is perhaps the

most significant (Naisbitt, 1994). The use of information systems has allowed


6/24


organizations located throughout the world to be connected through a multitude of

mediums including voice, video, and text. Modern technologies have allowed work

teams to collaborate from thousands of miles apart as if they were in the same

conference room. Friedman (2007) offers several other forces that he argues have

created a flatter world that include governmental changes, workflow software, upload

community collaboration, outsourcing, informing, and personal digital devices.

Friedman (2007) argues that recent changes in government, beginning with the

collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989, have begun the process of democratizing the world.

This has led to creating capitalistic markets across the globe, resulting in a catalyst for

free trade between countries. Workflow software has also created a new frontier in the

concept of collaboration. The ability of machines to talk to one another with no human

intervention has allowed information and data to be shared with no limitations based on

proximity to one another. Online communities have also created a flattening effect,

according to Friedman, which has resulted in greater collaboration by individuals across

the globe. Outsourcing has been perhaps the most influential factor in the rise of

globalization, allowing service and manufacturing organizations the ability to source the

tasks related to their products and services to locations that perform at the most cost

effective and efficient manner. Friedman also argues search engines such as Google

have made finding information incredibly easy, linking people across the world with a

common interest. The availability of the information from personal data devices such as

mobile phones has also brought people around the world closer together, and provided

a more efficient means to accessing information. There is clearly no single reason for

the evolution of globalization. Many factors have played into the world becoming an


7/24


international marketplace. With this evolution come several challenges for the global

manager, one of which is dealing with the change in culture likely to be experienced

when taking an international assignment.

Culture

Defining Culture

Culture is an elusive concept that is hard to define with any precision. Thomas

(2008) describes culture as something shared by members within a specific group.

More specifically, Thomas describes culture as an organized system consisting of

values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral meanings that are linked to one another, and

within the context of the environment.

Hofstede (1991) describes culture as mental programming that exists between

human nature and an individuals personality. Hofstede utilizes a pyramid consisting of

three levels to illustrate culture, with the lowest level representing human nature, which

is linked to biological reactions related to needs all humans have (eating, sleeping, etc.).

At the highest level of the pyramid are traits specific to the individuals personality that

are inherited or learned. In the middle lies the concept of culture, which is learned and

specific to groups.

Triandis (1972) describes culture as the perception of the part of the environment

created by people. Included in this description is a categorization of beliefs, attitudes,

roles, and values that are shared amongst a group. The Global Leadership and

Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project is a research team consisting of

170 management scholars and social scientists focused on the relationship between

organizational and societal culture and organizational leadership. GLOBE defines


8/24


culture as a combination of shared beliefs and values. GLOBE further defines beliefs as

the perception people have in relation to how things are done in their society, and

values as the way people believe things should be done (Javidan & House, 2001).

What is common between these definitions is that culture is something unique to

a group within a society, and moving between societies can present a significant

challenge to international managers. What is also evident are that many aspects of

culture are not visible, making adaptation to a new culture quite challenging. Schein

(2004) offers a perspective on culture dividing it into three specific levels that helps

further refine why integrating into a different culture can be so challenging. The three

levels described by Schein include:

1. Artifacts

2. Espoused values

3. Basic underlying assumptions

Schein (2004) uses the analogy of an iceberg to illustrate the three levels. Visible

artifacts lie above the surface and can be seen in the way people within a culture dress,

speak, use technology, and behave in certain situations. Moving just below the surface

are what Schein describes as espoused values that are consciously held values linked

to the visible artifacts. Deep beneath the surface are basic underlying assumptions,

which Schein believes are unconsciously held values, beliefs, and perceptions that are

assumed by members of the group. One could argue that adapting to the visible cultural

artifacts represents the least significant challenge to integrating into a new culture, and

basic underlying assumptions the most significant. Despite the differences between


9/24


cultures, some common cultural dimensions exist that aid in assisting global managers

faced with the challenge of working outside their native country.

Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede (1980) originally introduced the concept of cultural dimensions, which

presented the idea that differences between cultures could be measured to help answer

questions about universal problems amongst different societies. The four dimensions

initially developed included power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-

collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. A fifth dimension, long versus short-term

orientation, was later included with the original four (Hofstede, 1991). GLOBE (Javidan

& House, 2001) expanded on Hofstedes research by using the five dimensions as a

basis in their work to develop nine cultural dimensions. The focus of the discussion that

follows is not a comparison of Hofstedes research to that of GLOBEs. An in depth

comparison of the differences and similarities between the studies already exists

(Hofstede, 2006). The focus of the discussion that follows is on creating an

understanding of the nine dimensions as they relate to describing cultural similarities

and differences as they apply to becoming an effective global organizational leader.

A cultural dimension can be described as a characteristic or attribute of a culture

that helps define the culture in relation to a specific behavior pattern or belief. The

GLOBE (Javidan & House, 2001) study identified the following nine dimensions:

1. Assertiveness

2. Future orientation

3. Gender differentiation

4. Uncertainty avoidance


10/24


5. Power distance

6. Institutional emphasis on collectivism versus individualism

7. In-group collectivism

8. Performance orientation

9. Humane orientation

Assertiveness is the level at which a culture encourages people to be aggressive,

competitive, and confrontational as opposed to passive and accommodating. The U.S.

and Austria are two of the most assertive cultures, while Sweden and New Zealand are

less aggressive and more cooperative (Javidan & House, 2001).

Future orientation describes how focused a society is on future activities, and the

rewards they offer for behavior centered on actions such as strategic planning.

Singapore, Switzerland, and the Netherlands emphasize future orientation the most as

opposed to Russia, Argentina, and Italy, where short-term results are rewarded more

highly (Javidan & House, 2001).

The degree to which gender differences exist is a measure of the gender

differentiation dimension. Hungary, Poland, and Denmark have the lowest gender

differentiation demonstrated by more balanced salaries between men and women.

These societies also give women greater decision making authority and participation in

the workforce. South Korea, China, and Egypt are on the opposite end of the spectrum,

giving far fewer freedoms and equalities to women in their respective societies (Javidan

& House, 2001).

Cultures in which uncertainty avoidance is high are represented by a greater

degree of structure and formalization where processes and procedures are


11/24


commonplace in helping to avoid uncertainty. Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland rank

high in uncertainty avoidance, and Venezuela, Russia, and Greece lie on the lower end

where rules and procedures are less a part of the societal structure (Javidan & House,

2001).

Power distance describes how equally power is shared within a society. Cultures

with high power distance can be described as those in which few people make most of

the decisions, while in low power distance societies the decision making power is more

equally shared. Spain, Russia, and Thailand have high power distance, while the

Netherlands and Denmark have lower power distance (Javidan & House, 2001).

The institutional emphasis on collectivism versus individualism dimension defines

a societys tendency to provide opportunities and resources for the members of the

society. These opportunities and resources help societal members become associated

with activities and organizations deemed beneficial to the society. Examples of this

dimension include making non-profit status of an organization easier, and

supplementing organizations that provide benefits to the members of their society.

Japan, South Korea, and Sweden rank high in this dimension, while Argentina, Greece,

and Italy, where individualism is more common, rank low (Javidan & House, 2001).

The in-group collectivism dimension can be defined as the degree to which

members of a society value individual performance versus group performance. This

dimension also measures a societys emphasis on membership in small groups,

whether they are within an individuals organization or family. China, Iran, and India rank

high in this dimension placing a significant importance on membership in family and


12/24


organizational groups. New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden rank in-group collectivism

low and have more emphasis on individualism (Javidan & House, 2001).

How great of emphasis a society places on performance defines the performance

orientation dimension. Societies that reward performance rank high in this dimension,

which include Hong Kong, the U.S., and Singapore. Performance plays a less important

role in countries such as Russia, Argentina, and Italy (Javidan & House, 2001).

The final cultural dimension defined by the GLOBE research team is humane

orientation. This dimension describes the level to which a society rewards individuals for

being compassionate and caring about each other. Ireland, Malaysia, and the

Philippines rank the highest in this dimension, and France, Singapore, and West

Germany the lowest (Javidan & House, 2001).

The cultural dimensions provided by GLOBE help establish a greater

understanding of the complexity between cultures and how global leaders need to

understand what works in one culture may not work in another. It is also important to

understand the ranking of the dimensions are only an averaging of the cultures, and

individuals within a culture may or may not accurately represent the dimensional data

presented by the GLOBE research team. With a greater understanding of globalization

and culture, and the complexities of each, one can begin to understand why the role of

the international manager can be such a challenging and demanding proposition.

Global Management

Defining Management Activities

The process of management was originally thought of as the tasks of planning,

organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling (Fayol, 1930). Observing these


13/24


activities can be challenging, and they do not necessarily function sequentially, making

it difficult to determine which category the activities of a manager fall into (Thomas,

2008). Because of these difficulties, management scholars began looking for a better

way to describe what managers do. From this research the best known study was

completed by Mintzberg in the 1960s (Mintzberg, 1973).

Mintzberg (1973) argues that a managers authority over their organizational

units provide them with three categories of activities that include interpersonal,

informational, and decisional roles. Mintzbergs work helped to argue that managerial

work is not predominately systematic and rational, but more fragmented with a large

degree of variety, and most of all, having a high degree of interpersonal interaction.

Hales (1986) reviewed 30 management studies and came to similar conclusions

as Mintzberg. Hales found that the work of managers is highly variable, a significant

portion of time is spent in problem solving activities and persuading others to do things,

and that contradictions are widespread in managerial work. Hales research also

concluded that managers have a significant amount of freedom in deciding what to do

and how to do it, and that little time is spent in a single activity.

Summarizing this research, the primary roles of the manager include the tasks of

controlling and disseminating information, solving problems and making decisions, and

leading and motivating individuals in an effort to achieve the goals of the organization.

Each of these activities has a high degree of interpersonal interaction, which is the core

of managerial work (Thomas, 2008). The role of a global manager is similar to that of a

domestic manager. Both types of managers conduct the same activities, but the culture


14/24


that the manager works within will affect the emphasis of each role, both directly and

indirectly (Thomas, 2008).

Characteristics of Global Managers

In their research of global managers noted previously, Gregerson et al. (1998)

concluded that all global managers need to have a certain set of context specific

abilities, and a core set of characteristics to be successful. Their research concluded

that one-third of a global managers success is linked to specific knowledge and skills.

These include understanding the organizations culture, knowledge specific to the

industry in which the organization competes, and an understanding of the accepted

management practices for the country in which they work. Two thirds of the

characteristics apply no matter what level position the individual has, organizational

culture, the norms of the industry in which they compete, or the management practices

in the country they work. These characteristics include demonstrating character and

business savvy, as well as embracing duality. What really stood out in their research as

a catalyst to these characteristics is that successful global managers have an

uninhibited curiosity to constantly be learning about what they do not know, and are

motivated by a sense of adventure.

The subjects of the research conducted by Gregerson et al. (1998) consistently

repeated that having a curious nature fueled their desire for increasing their knowledge

of global business. The research also concluded that personal character is based on

two components, connecting with people on an emotional level and demonstrating

uncompromising integrity.


15/24


According to Gregerson et al. (1998), connecting with individuals on an emotional

level is a three step process beginning with having a sincere interest in others, followed

by making an effort to listen, and being able to understand the differing perspectives of

other people. Creating this connection is critical in establishing trust. The authors also

found that integrity is a characteristic that is tested more often when on an international

assignment where corporate governance is not to the level as when working

domestically.

Global leaders also need to have the ability to deal with uncertainty. Gregerson

et al. (1998) argue that while domestic managers deal with uncertainty as well, global

managers must deal with it on a more frequent basis. The most obvious source of

uncertainty relates to global managers moving from their native country where they are

likely most comfortable, to a foreign culture where a significant degree of uncertainty is

bound to be encountered. The authors argue that global managers must have a high

tolerance for ambiguity to better cope with the unknowns encountered when working in

a different culture.

Gregerson et al. (1998) suggest that in addition to uncertainty global managers

must also deal with certain tensions of balancing local needs with those of global

integration. The research suggest that those managers who are able to balance the two

by not focusing entirely on localizing or globalizing all activities are more likely to

succeed. The challenge lies in the ability of determining which activities should stay

local and which should become global.

A final characteristic identified by Gregerson et al. (1998) is savvy. The authors

divide savvy into two categories that include business and organizational. Business


16/24


savvy includes understanding the global market for the products and/or services the

organization provides, whereas organizational savvy revolves around knowing the

capabilities of the organization and how they can be best utilized to be successful in the

execution of the business strategy.

In similar research conducted as part of the GLOBE project, researchers

studying the attributes of successful global managers found several similar

characteristics considered to be desirable by managers including integrity, honesty,

trustworthiness, being able to communicate effectively, coordinate activities, and build

teams. The research also uncovered some undesirable characteristics that include

leaders who are ruthless, have big egos, or are highly irritable or antisocial (Javidan,

Dorfman, de Luque, & House, 2006).

Javidan et al. (2006) also discovered attributes of successful global managers

similar to previously cited research that include having what they call a global mind-set

(p. 85), a high tolerance for uncertainty, and the ability to adapt to different cultures. The

global mind-set is important in understanding new cultures and all the nuances that

come with working in a foreign land such as the differences in political, legal, and

economic systems in addition to the management paradigms of the culture. Also

important is the ability to deal effectively with uncertainty. Each culture represents a

potential to create the need to learn how to manage differently, which can pose a

significant challenge to managers working in an unfamiliar culture. A final attribute found

in the research linked to successful global mangers, is the ability to quickly adapt to a

new environment, and change behavior patterns to those that are acceptable to the

local culture.


17/24


Javidan, Teagarden, and Bowen (2010) conducted interviews with 200

executives in the U.S., Asia, and Europe, and surveyed more than 5,000 managers

around the world, expanding on the global mind-set concept previously discussed. In

their research they focused on creating an understanding of what contributes to both

success and failure of international managers. From this research three main

components of the global mind-set were established. The three components include the

following:

1. Intellectual capital

2. Psychological capital

3. Social capital

Intellectual capital can be described as an individuals knowledge of international

business and their capacity to learn, psychological capital is the ability of an individual to

change and learn new cultures, and social capital describes the ability to make new

connections with people who are not like you, bring together individuals around a

common purpose, and influence others who are unlike yourself (Javidan et al., 2010).

Javidan et al. (2010) describe each of the components as having specific

attributes. Intellectual capital is characterized by the attributes of global business savvy,

which is based in a strong understanding of global markets; cognitive complexity,

demonstrated by the ability to link together multiple scenarios consisting of several

parts; and a cosmopolitan outlook, which is described as having an interest in cultural

specifics (i.e. government, history, geography, etc.) of foreign countries.

Psychological capital can be characterized as a passion for diversity, a love of

adventure, and having self-confidence. Social capital has the attributes of intercultural


18/24


empathy, which is demonstrated in the ability to connect at an emotional level with

people from a different culture; interpersonal impact, characterized as being able to

bring differing views together to build consensus and maintain trustworthiness; and

diplomacy, described as the ability to listen to others and be able to discuss differences

in a diplomatic manner (Javidan et al., 2010).

Reviewing the literature on what makes an international manager successful, a

number of common themes begin to surface. The following is a summation of the most

prevalent similarities:

1. Business knowledge related to global markets

2. Ability to adapt to changing environments

3. Adventurous attitude and little fear of the unknown

4. Willingness to learn about other cultures

5. Ability to see things from different perspectives, and respect others for what

they believe even though you may not agree

Knowing what leads to becoming a successful global manager is only a starting

point for organizations in their quest to develop individuals not only willing to take on

international assignments, but also in the process of understanding how to help them

become effective in these challenging roles. What may separate failure from success

may not be understanding what leads to success, but more so on the process used to

develop international managers.

Developing Global Managers

Gregerson et al. (1998) suggest that based on their research in interviews with

leaders of Fortune 500 organizations, global leaders are born and then made (p. 28).


19/24


The researchers compare the process of creating effective global leaders to one similar

to developing great musicians and athletes. To become the best, argue Gregerson et

al., takes talent, opportunity, training, and education. The authors suggest that

organizations that take a formalized approach to training perform better financially than

those who do not. Despite this finding, their survey results show that more than 40

percent of organizations take an ad hoc approach to developing global leaders.

Gregerson et al. (1998) suggest the development process should take a global

approach in understanding not just one country, but the entire world. Four strategies

suggested by the authors include travel, teams, training, and transfers. Two unique

travel suggestion by the authors are to take detours off the main roadways when

traveling to get a better sense of the country, and spending time exploring markets,

schools, shops, and homes to gain a better understanding of what living in the country

is really like. Teams also provide a development opportunity to work with people from

different cultures. Training is also an obvious strategy for learning about a different

culture. A final strategy is transferring to a new assignment and immersing oneself in a

foreign land. Eighty percent of the studys respondents believe that working and living in

a foreign country is the single most effective method of becoming a better manager.

Javidan et al. (2006) suggest that organizations start by making a large volume

of information on global and cross-cultural issues and reports specific to different

countries available to employees. The authors also suggest the use of multimedia

programs and journals specific to international management. Consistent with the

findings of Gregerson et al. (1998), Javidan et al. conclude that international

assignments are the most effective method to developing global leadership capabilities.


20/24


Javidan et al. (2010) offer a more structured approach to preparing for an

international assignment, suggesting the use of an assessment tool to gain a better

understanding of an individuals weaknesses related to the global mind-set components.

Based on the assessment the authors suggest a plan consisting of, read, surf, watch,

do, and listen (p. 111). To improve intellectual capital the authors also suggest reading

publications such as the Economist and Foreign Affairs to develop an understanding of

international issues. Also suggested is watching television programs with an

international perspective, and attending lectures, conferences, and workshops. Overall,

the authors argue that improving intellectual capital is the easiest to improve of the

three.

Psychological capital is the most difficult to improve, argue Javidan et al. (2010).

The authors believe it is the most difficult to improve simply because there are limits to

how much one can, or should, change their personality. Two questions are suggested

by the authors to help individuals increase self awareness. First, how do you feel about

things such as people and places that are foreign to you? Why do you feel this way?

Second, do you feel it is necessary to change the way you feel, and if so, why? Javidan

et al. suggest once you answer these questions you will be better prepared to take on

activities related to improving your psychological capital.

Building social capital is related to improving ones ability to widen your

relationships with people outside of your normal circle of social interaction (Javidan et

al., 2010). The authors suggest the challenge is to widen your perspective by interacting

with people who have interests and viewpoints that differ from yours. Taking on

assignments with international teams, traveling to foreign countries, and joining social


21/24


networking groups such as those that include both face to face and online interaction

are ways in which to increase social capital.

Developing global leaders is a challenge facing organizational leaders tasked

with executing global strategies. The research suggests the most effective method of

developing leaders is to immerse them in the foreign culture, but this is not always a

viable option, nor the most economical. Perhaps taking a hybrid approach is the most

logical starting point for those responsible for creating development programs. What is

blatantly evident is that if organizations continue to take an ad hoc approach the results

will likely continue to disappoint, and the potential to grow beyond domestic borders

may take longer than expected.

Conclusion

We no longer live in a world where the focus of organizations and individuals

within them can be only on what we see around us. We have to close our eyes and

begin to visualize a global perspective that will quickly become the norm for the future of

business. The data suggests we have significant work to do in developing the global

leaders needed to make this vision become a reality, but the tools and techniques are

available to begin the process. Those organizations that seize the opportunity to begin

the process of developing future leaders are most likely to be the ones who succeed at

taking on the challenge that comes with living in a world that is becoming flatter.


22/24


References

Accenture (2007). Maintaining common corporate culture is chief concern for global

executives, outweighing geopolitical issues, Accenture survey finds. Retrieved on

March 27, 2010 from

http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4493

Fayol, H. (1930). Industrial and general administration. Geneva: International

Management Institute.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A briefhistory of the twenty-first century. New

York: Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the

global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 21-32.

Hales, C. P. (1986). What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal of

Management Studies, 23(1), 88-115.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-

Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers mind versus

respondents minds. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 37, 882-896.

Javidan, M., Teagarden, M., & Bowen, D (2010). Managing yourself: Making it

overseas. Harvard Business Review, 88(4), 109-113.


23/24


Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the

beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project Globe.Academy of

Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.

Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons

from project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289-305.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

Naisbitt, J. (1994). Global paradox. New York: Williams Morrow.

Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state. Cambridge, MA: Free Press.

Renesch, J. (1992). New traditions in business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M.

Feattherston, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25-44).

London: Sage.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Franciso:

Jossey-Bass.

Scholte, J. A. (2008). Defining globalisation. The World Economy, 31(11), 1471-1502.

The World Bank (2008). 2008 World development indicators online. Retrieved on March

27, 2010 from http://go.worldbank.org/U0FSM7AQ40

Thomas, D. C. (2008). Cross-cultural management: Essential concepts (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2004). Jobs, trade, sourcing, and the future of the

American workforce. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/yfsaj2g


24/24


U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2006). Global engagement: How Americans can win and

prosper in the worldwide economy. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from

http://tinyurl.com/yf6tuawU.S. Chamber of Commerce (2007). U.S. exports fact sheet. Retrieved on March 26,

2010 from http://www.commerce.gov/02-13-07%20Export%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Documents

Global Leadership-Scott Thor