Running head: PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP 1

Philosophies, Theories, and Approaches in Global Leadership Oral L. Beason Regent University

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Abstract As the future advances, globalization will continue to grow and bring cultures and societies closer. Globalization is an instrument of peace, growth, progress, and prosperity that will be the fuel of global competitiveness and growth. Research shows that leadership is the key to competitiveness in the global world. Consequently, the role of senior leadership in achieving organizational transformation and evolution is pivotal in such a world. In order to be effective in the global

marketplace, todays global leaders must identify and take into consideration competitive advantages associated outside their nation of origin. A global leaders ability to emotionally connect with people is based on the ability to establish close personal relationships and is critical because they help the leader gauge competitive advantages. Consequently, a fresh perspective of global models of leadership is needed. Todays global approach should include an integration of the development of global leaders as well as a global mindset, consequently, a global leader should become a citizen of the world, acknowledging the similarities and differences among cultures and learning to see ones own culture through the eyes of another. Effective Christian leadership is necessary in the global marketplace. The central virtue in Christian leadership is integrity, which along with humility, is the key quality in common among leaders of global companies who have moved from good to great. The integrity of Jesus is the foundational virtue and philosophy of leadership. Christian leadership is fundamentally simple if we remember this central truth.

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Global Leadership Robinson and Harvey (2008) presented that the acceleration of globalization has created a chaotic state of change as businesses struggle to adapt to new paradigms of leadership. And as the established tried and tested approaches may no longer be effective in a global context, globalization demands new approaches and the challenge is to find the appropriate leadership imperatives in response to the changing problems of existence (Robinson and Harvey, 2008). Zahra (1999) argued that into the foreseeable future, globalization will continue to escalate, transferring technologies, bringing cultures and societies closer, and creating a community of peaceloving, intelligent citizens and in this vision of the future, globalization will foster cooperation

among nations and promote goodwill. Globalization, Zahra presented will be an instrument of peace, growth, progress and prosperity; and ultimately, competitiveness is viewed as a marathon to achieve and sustain excellence in the global neighborhood. Zahra opined that competition fuels innovation, entrepreneurial risk taking, and growth; and that leadership intellect and knowledge are the fuel of global competitiveness and growth. Leadership, Zahra (1999) further presented, is the key to competitiveness in the global world and in a dynamic environment that brings opportunities and challenges, the role of senior leadership in achieving organizational transformation and evolution is pivotal; great global leaders build great global organizations. While the influences of an organizations outside environment cannot be ignored, many global entities rise and fall based on the quality of their leadership; moreover, visionary leaders who recognize the beginnings of strategic change in industry dynamics, see the future before it materializes, and move quickly to capitalize on these changes (Zahra, 1999). Such global leaders generally understand the global landscape, and the myriad of forces that can affect their companies' global success, they know that the secret lies in building an organization that values change, innovation, and the inclusion of diverse skills, views, and backgrounds (Zahra, 1999). Roth

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

and Morrison (1992) opined that company interest in globalization parallels a dramatic rise in global trade and investment. Developing a Global Leadership Model Howard, Pollack, and Gorman (1999) indeed argued that leaders in the past were able to focus primarily on factors in the internal environment (i.e., organizational configuration, culture, and firm competencies) and the local national environment (i.e., local labor markets, customer/supplier relationships, direct competition, and local competitor innovations) in determining their competitive stance. However, todays global leaders must also identify and take into consideration competitive advantages associated outside their nation of origin as they navigate a course for their firms in the global marketplace (Howard et al., 1999). Multiple lenses, Howard et al. (1999) opined, must be used to view competitive market characteristics and activities at different levels of abstraction and examining the global market from a variety of perspectives will help leaders position their firms to compete in global markets. However, how well leaders understand this necessary global approach may determine the outcome of an organization. Morrison (2000) presented that much of the challenge of developing more and better global leaders has fallen on individuals who have largely been oriented mainly to domestic leadership models. During the 1960s and 1970s, global business was the purview of a relatively small group of business professionals who typically worked within specialized international operations departments whose leaders considered globalization as a part time, sideline business and viewed those who pursued international careers as somewhat odd (Morrison, 2000). Morrison presented that beginning in the early 1980s the scene started to change with the soaring international trade and investment as leaders began to recognize the importance of mastering global leadership competencies. Suggesting the parameters of a well-defined global leadership model, Morrisons study showed much clearer that leaders have to develop within their own organizations

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

unifying competency-based models of global leadership that contain components that are idiosyncratic and are able to be generalized. Jackofsky, Slocum, and McQuaid (1988) opined, for example, that despite the advances in the field, the vast majority of leadership models generated in the United States have worked relatively well in helping United States leaders lead in a domestic context. Morrison (2000) argued that unfortunately, domestic leadership models are rarely designed

for broader, global application. For example, Porter (1986) furthered, through a strategic application of Fiedlers contingency theory, it is argued that industry globalization puts enormous pressure on leaders to adopt global strategies. The basic premise of Fiedlers contingency theory is that the leaders context or situation moderates the relationship between the leaders personality traits and effectiveness (Hickman, 2010). Morrison (2000) advanced that as companies rely more on global strategies, they require a greater number of global leaders and because the tie between strategy and leadership is essentially a two-way street, the more companies pursue global strategies, the more competent global leaders they need; and the more global leaders companies have, the more they will pursue global strategies. Global leadership is quite different from domestic leadership in that, for example, leadership theories that work in China do not always work in Canada or India (Nyaw & Ng, 1994). An important reason why global leadership is different, Morrison purported, is the role that culture plays on norms and values, accordingly, in matters as diverse as the delegation of decision-making, cultural norms and expectations have been shown to vary widely. Beyond identifying differences (such as attitudes, values, and beliefs) between global and domestic leadership, Yeung and Ready (1995), in a study of multinational entities from eight countries, found significant differences in the domestic emphasis on key leadership capabilities. For example, while Australians believed leaders needed to be catalysts of cultural change, Japanese and

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Koreans did not think this was a critical capability of leaders; Korean and German leaders placed a high value on integrity and trust; French employees wanted leaders who demonstrated skills at managing internal and external networks; U.S., German, Australian, Italian, Korean, and British

leaders appeared to care less about these skills; and finally, while Italians believed that flexibility and adaptiveness were critical competencies of effective leaders, Australians and Americans generally did not agree with this (Yeung and Ready, 1995). Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) presented that global leadership models differ because the importance of such variables as relationships, hierarchies, ethics, and risk differ from culture to culture. In Japan, for example, Morrison (2000) opined, the prevailing culture reflects that the nail that stands up gets pounded back down, consequently, in Japan, leaders who are good at building consensus are valued over those recognizing individual merit. Japanese groups do not even need leaders, as leaders disrupt group dynamics and through inferred understanding, group members know how to behave without a leader (Morrison, 2000). In China, Morrison stated, developing and managing relationships are important building blocks of effective leadership and unlike the United States, where it is the emphasis on maximizing efficiency, drive many decisions. Adler and Bartholomew (1992) presented that national leadership models generally work well as long as the leaders deal primarily with individuals from the same culture. As companies are exposed to global markets, Adler and Bartholomew argued, national leadership models no longer work as well. Globalized leadership is all about overcoming national differences and embracing the best practices from around the world, therefore, what is needed is a global leadership model that can be applied throughout the world, a model that transcends and integrates national schemes and becomes an essential tool for hiring, training, and retaining the leaders of tomorrow (Morrison 2000). Although he argued that the specific characteristics of tomorrows global leaders are not very clear,

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Morrison presented the findings of the descriptive studies wherein Brake and Rhinesmith focused on global leaders, from an individual and company perspective, intent on uncovering the competencies. Brake presented a model of global leadership that he called the global leadership triad and highlighted three characteristics of global leadership: (1) relationship management, (2) business acumen, and (3) personal effectiveness, and at the center of the triad is the transformational self or the drive toward meaning and purpose through activity strengthened by reflection, personal mind management, and openness to change (Morrison, 2000). Rhinesmith (1996) identified an even wider set of global leadership competencies that are structured around what he believes are the three main responsibilities of global leaders: (1) strategy and structure, (2) corporate culture, and (3) people, and asserted that in terms of managing strategy and structure, global leaders needed to be knowledgeable and analytical (characteristics), manage complexity and competition (skills), have drive and balance (action), and embrace a broad and balanced global picture (mindset). Global Strategic Competencies Moran and Riesenbergers (1994) study identified three different leadership competencies associated with implementing global strategies including the ability to: (1) facilitate organizational change, (2) create learning systems, and (3) motivate employees to excellence. Of Moran and Riesenbergers 12 total capabilities, five dealt directly with managing cultural differences while only three dealt exclusively with global leadership. This shows the importance that the understanding of cultural differences plays in the global world. Black, Morrison, and Gregersens 1999 study concluded that about two-thirds of the characteristics of effective global leaders are generalizable and the other third are idiosyncratic or context-specific. Black, et al. identified four major context-specific factors that impacted idiosyncratic characteristics: company affiliation, managerial position, country affiliation, and

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

functional responsibility, and each of these four factors influences the types of characteristics required for effective global leadership. Black, et al. (1999) concluded that because every situation is unique, global leaders need a portfolio of context-specific, idiosyncratic competencies as well as a core set of characteristics that operate irrespective of context (such characteristics are relevant to global leaders regardless of the company they work for, the position they hold, their country of origin, or their functional orientation). In particular, Black, et al. identified three characteristics of effective global leaders: demonstrating savvy, exhibiting character (with two different dimensions: emotionally connecting with people and demonstrating high personal integrity), and embracing duality. A global leaders ability to emotionally connect with people is based on the ability to establish close personal

relationships and is critical because they help the leader gauge local markets, customers, competitors, and governments more quickly; they help the leader better understand local conditions within the company; and help to identify and mentor future leaders (Morrison, 2000). The third characteristic of effective global leaders that Black, et al. (1999) proposed has two competencies associated with it: the ability to manage uncertainty and the ability to balance the often-powerful tensions between globalization and localization pressures. For global leaders, uncertainty comes first from the very nature of leadership as leaders ultimately determine the rules, roles, and parameters of conduct for followers (Morrison, 2000). Black et al. identified a fourth component, inquisitiveness, as a kind of glue that holds the model together and gives it life, true inquisitiveness produces the action associated with learning, and learning is essential for keeping the other components fresh (as without inquisitiveness, an individual will never develop a solid understanding of global markets nor will s/he establish the type of vibrant internal relationships necessary to effectively access the resources of the global organization).

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Bueno and Tubbs (2004) opined that the influence of globalization requires new competencies, and their study shows that leaders consider the following to be some of the most important global leadership competencies: (1) communication skills, (2) motivation to learn, (3) flexibility, (4) open-mindedness, (5) respect for others, and (6) sensitivity. Once the competencies are identified, the leadership development process can more effectively focus on improving any deficiencies identified in each individual (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). The most important leadership competencies, Bueno and Tubbs (2004) asserted, are those that can best transfer across cultures, both within organizations and from one country to another therefore, effective leaders must improve from deficiency levels to competency levels in order to succeed in the global marketplace. Using Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 2000 study as a

foundation, Bueno and Tubbs argued that global leadership competencies develop over a long period of time, and if research can identify the most important leadership behaviors, leaders can perhaps shorten the process of developing the most important competencies. Bueno and Tubbs opined that the levels are learned in a predictable sequence, where at the lowest level an individual begins with a state of global leadership deficiencies, and at the highest level an individual can achieve some level of global leadership competencies. Global Strategic Complexities Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski, Quinn, and Ainina (1999) presented that the global leadership skills of behavioral complexity and stewardship development that contribute to corporate reputational capital, are key intangible resources that leverage sustainable competitive advantage in todays world. Global strategic leadership now consists of the individual and collective competence that enhances global reputation and produce sustainable competitive advantage for an entity while heightening intangible capital assets at both the firm and industry levels (Petrick, et al., 1999).

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Korten (2001) criticized that global strategic leadership has influenced the perceptions of multiple stakeholders, and diminished corporate and industrial reputations as intangible assets, and ultimately adversely affected sustainable competitive advantage. Sustainable global competitive

10

advantage occurs when a global organization implements a value-creating strategy that other global organizations are unable to imitate (Hitt, Ireland & Hoskisson, 2007). For example, an entity with superior leadership skills in handling behavioral complexity and implementing sustainable development policies enhances its reputation with multiple stakeholders and positions itself for competitive advantage relative to firms without comparable leadership style and substance (Petrick, et al., 1999). While competitive advantage, Petrick, et al. (1999) opined, is obtained by appealing to customers in a targeted market, sustainable competitive advantage is the result of a distinctive capability differential due in large part to leveraging the intangible resources of leadership skills and reputational assets that are more difficult to substitute or imitate by competitors than tangible resources. Reputation, whether or not it is embodied in a trademark, should receive constant leadership attention because successful global strategic leaders achieve reputations for trustworthiness among followers through exemplary management practices (Petrick, et al., 1999). Such leaders also earn reputations for credibility among investors, customers, suppliers, government and competitors (Petrick, et al., 1999). Vaill (1989) presented that as it relates to the global marketplace, leaders need to pay attention to their reputational capital and need to do more than accumulate this capital, they need to change the ways in which they define, measure, and use it to create a sustainable competitive advantage in global markets. Reputational capital can be effectively used offensively and defensively depending on the firm's strategic priorities and competitive setting (Petrick, et al., 1999).

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, and McGrath (1996) advanced that excellent global leaders

11

have a leadership style, termed behavioral complexity, that generates superior corporate performance by balancing four competing criteria of performance: (1) profitability and productivity, (2) continuity and efficiency, (3) commitment and morale, and (4) adaptability and innovation and is directly linked with sustainable competitive advantage. Excellent global leaders, Petrick, et al. (1999) argued, are able to understand complex issues from different strategic perspectives and act out a cognitively complex strategy by playing multiple roles in a highly integrated and complementary way, but without balanced behavioral complexity a global leader's style can become the source of his or her failure. Extremely underdeveloped or overdeveloped behavioral complexity on the part of a global leader can lead to undesirable performance and damaged reputations (Petrick, et al., 1999). New Global Model Chin, Gu, and Tubbs (2001) offered a new model for developing people from a state of global leadership deficiencies toward greater global leadership competencies. Each level is broken up into stages (from lower to higher): (a) ignorance, (b) awareness, (c) understanding, (d) appreciation, (e) acceptance/internalization, and (f) transformation. A better understanding of these stages involved in a successful adjustment to a foreign environment should help in the development of a global mindset (Sanchez, Spector, and Cooper, 2000). Pertaining to ignorance, Chin, et al. (2001) stated that starting from the bottom of the pyramid, Ignorance is the first level when relating to others from different cultures and since with no contact there can be no knowledge, each party assumes that their own way of doing things is the correct and proper way. Regarding awareness, as individuals begin to interact with those from another culture, impressions begin to form and in many cases bonds begin to develop (Chin, et al., 2001). At the level of understanding, Chin, et al. presented, individuals begin to exhibit some conscious effort to learn why people are the way they are and why people do what they do; and at

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

12

this level people display interest in the history, psychology, and evolution of value systems as well as in the environmental factors contributing to the makeup of a distinctive culture. In the appreciation level, individuals begin to experience a genuine tolerance of different points of view, and a genuine appreciation and, in some cases, preference for certain aspects of the new culture (Chin, et al., 2001). In the acceptance/internalization stage, Chin, et al. (2001) presented, the possibility of interaction between cultures increases appreciably as people are more sophisticated both in terms of recognizing commonalities and in terms of effectively dealing with differences and at this level individuals begin to value and embrace their understanding of the new culture. Finally, Chin, et al. (2001) opined that at the transformation stage, globalization becomes a way of life; it is internalized to the degree that it is out of one's own volition and the process having become more or less completed, one's behavior almost becomes effortless, subconscious, and second nature. Some of the interviewees in Bueno and Tubbs (2004) study attributed their leadership successes to the following types of experiences: under ignorance: We diversified our customer's bases, especially in North America and Europe. We were not used to this diversified relationship. Therefore, we had to deal with a lot of issues in the beginning. Under awareness: In the United States, they are very egoistic, everything is bigger, better, etc. I found in China, that if you give people more respect, you will end up with better results (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). Under understanding: Buying and selling is always the biggest challenge. Doing it in a global world requires a huge shot of patience, understanding the barriers, the different economies, languages and cultures (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). Under appreciation: I like reading, looking at maps, and just trying to find out where things are. Every time I travel I always take a book that tells about the history and culture of the country (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). Under acceptance/internalization: I think the two key words are respect and communication. You've got to respect people...you should not allow your own nationality to get in the way (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). Under transformation:

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

13

I always try to be receptive. For example, Algerians do not see me as an American... When 1 [sic] was in Argentina [I was] as able to identify myself as an Argentine. I never consider myself as a foreigner in a country. I try to work with them and understand what their beliefs and cultures are, and issues and politics (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). Definitions of Global Leadership The worldwide GLOBE researchers defined leadership as "...the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members" (House et al., 2004, p. 15). McCarthy (2010) presented that despite a recent proliferation of leadership scholarship, definitions of global leadership remain highly ambiguous. Having established that leadership is culturally contingent, McCarthy presented that it is vital that organizations understand how culture affects leadership in practice and can integrate this knowledge in leadership development programs. In attempting to create competency models to guide global leaders, cultural literacy has been emphasized as a key competency; to be globally literate means seeing, thinking, acting, and mobilizing in culturally mindful ways and is the sum of the attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, skills, and behaviors needed for success in todays multicultural, global economy (McCarthy, 2010). McCarthy (2010) offered that the lack of a precise and universally applicable framework for classifying cultural patterns has been addressed by a number of researchers including Dutch organizational anthropologist Geert Hofstede who defined culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, whose research focuses on the cultural dimensions of business executives, defined culture as the pattern by which a group habitually mediates between value differences, such as rules and exceptions, technology and people, conflict and consensus, etc. (McCarthy, 2010). Collectively, Hofstede, Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner, and The GLOBE project

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

14

described culture as an amalgam of factors, values, practices, tacit assumptions, shared motives and behaviors that are common to a given group, and that act as an interpretive frame of reference (McCarthy, 2010). Historically, Edward T. Hall, the founding father of intercultural communication research, polarized dimensions of global culture into high-context and low-context and monochronic and polychromic, wherein high- and low-context describe the way information is communicated (McCarthy, 2010). Communication context deals primarily with language and is fundamental to all intercultural communication analysis and while communication skills are vital to leadership, perception of these skills differs across cultures (McCarthy, 2010). Halls second culture dimension dealt with the way different cultures structure time; monochronic time is one-dimensional, with tasks occurring one at a time, and polychronic time involves the simultaneous performance of multiple tasks, and thus subordinates times, to interpersonal relations (McCarthy, 2010). Ultimately, McCarthy (2010) advanced, the ambiguity of Halls global culture concepts disavows a more analytical approach, and is limited to one aspect of cultural-based behavior rather than exploring the diversity of underlying values. Geert Hofstede is perhaps the most widely cited author in cross-cultural organizational literature, and his research and theories stimulating many additional studies on cross-cultural leadership behavior (McCarthy, 2010). McCarthy (2010) presented that Hofstedes framework for distinguishing between cultural groups included four value dimensions as follows: (1) Power Distance; (2) Uncertainty Avoidance; (3) Individualism vs. Collectivism; and (4) Masculinity vs. Femininity. Hofstede defines uncertainty avoidance as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations and this feeling is, among other things, expressed through nervous stress and in a need for predictability: a need for written and unwritten rules (McCarthy, 2010). Uncertainty avoidance is often contained in global leadership models under

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

behavioral indicators such as visionary skills; maximizing business opportunities; demonstrating

15

courage; displaying a sense of urgency; valuing diversity, driving change and innovation (McCarthy, 2010). Uncertainty Avoidance, Ardichvili and Kuchinke (2002) defined, is the degree to which people in a country prefer structured over unstructured situations. Members of countries or organizations with a moderate to high uncertainty avoidance are more likely to perceive change, uncertainty and instability as a threat (McCarthy, 2010). Hofstedes Individualism/collectivism is one of the most frequently discussed and researched concepts in cross-cultural leadership research (Dahl, 2004). Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after him/herself and family, and Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (McCarthy, 2010). Theories of Global Leadership Yukl (2010) opined that increasing globalization of organizations makes it more important to learn about effective leadership in different cultures as leaders are increasingly confronted with the need to understand and successfully influence people from other cultures. Leaders must be able to understand how people from different cultures view them and interpret their actions. To understand these issues, it is essential to validate a theory of leadership in cultures that differ from the one in which the theory was developed. (Yukl, 2010, p. 437). Khilji, Davis, and Cseh (2010), presented that although some scholars have argued that the development of global leaders is critical to an intense global competitive environment and others believe that the global mindset is the key to strategic advantage, in actuality, today's dynamic marketplace requires a shift in thinking from these approaches to, at minimum, an integration of both models. Meanwhile, Mendenhall, Khlmann and Stahl (2001) presented that operating in the global

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

16

marketplace multiplies the variables and interdependencies that a leader must take into consideration in their decision making; they compare the requirements for leading in a global context to a chess player who has to play against a constantly changing number of participants, while having to observe partially unknown rules that are subject to changes without prior announcement. Dainty (2008) presented that globally competent leaders are fundamentally important for the future success of all multinationals, however, in order to ensure that they have the leaders they require, organizations face two critical problems. The first is in identifying the qualities or competencies that are needed to operate successfully in this environment and second is in understanding how these competencies can be developed into a global leadership theory (Dainty, 2008). In looking at global leadership models, Dainty (2008) argued, few writers highlight the fact that most have domestic roots although amongst the hundreds of definitions of leadership, few are truly global. Most leadership theories are still domestic theories masquerading as universal theories and tending to reflect one gender and one culture (although this does not mean that domestically generated leadership theories have no relevance to the global environment) (Dainty, 2008). Global leadership involves basic leadership competencies, for instance, Yeung and Ready (1995) in an empirical study of 1200 mangers from ten multinational corporations found that leadership roles such as setting a direction, aligning people and motivating and inspiring, were qualities needed in whatever country the manager operated. This consensus between managers from different firms and nationalities was thought to result from the similarity of the challenges found in the global environment (Yeung and Ready, 1995). The danger, Dainty (2008) opined is in carrying the application too far; although domestic competency and leadership models will have some relevance globally, there are limits to this and knowing where to draw the line, if development efforts are to be successful, is critical, consequently,

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

the typical global leadership development program is designed to give individuals exposure to working in (at least) one foreign subsidiary. A global leader should become a citizen of the world,

17

acknowledging the similarities and differences among cultures and learning to see ones own culture through the eyes of another (Dainty, 2008). "If you think of yourself as a representative of the United States as you go around the world, I do not think you are going to be successful. I think you basically have to understand that you are part of the global multinational company and the United States just happens to be where the headquarters are (Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). Global Leadership Approach Ikenberry (2003) argued that governments everywhere are worried about the uncertainties and insecurities that appear to flow from such extreme and unprecedented disparities of power found in the shifting global security environment being that the world is in the midst of a great geopolitical adjustment process. However, Ikenberry asked, will a unipolar America discard its approach to global leadership that functioned through multilateral rules and institutions and close partnerships? Some French and other European foreign policy officials, for example, believe that the rise of American unipolarity has triggered a radical break in Americas global leadership approach (Ikenberry, 2003). A great example of global leadership approaches is how the worlds approach to coping with a preeminent America tend to fall in between two basic types of strategies; strategies of resistance (which entail policies that seek to loosen ties and undercut or block American leadership and policy); and strategies of engagement (which entail building cooperative ties in the hope of gaining opportunities to influence how American leadership is exercised) (Ikenberry, 2003). The more that the United States signals that it intends to lead through mutually agreed rules and institutions, Ikenberry (2003) opined, the more other countries will choose to engage rather than resist the United States.

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

18

Continuing with this example, some approaches that foreign governments use toward global leadership include buffering, which is a strategy that entails reducing exposure to the lead state through the development of alternative regional political spheres with the idea to loosen and reduce direct interaction with, and therefore control by, the lead state (Ikenberry, 2003). Buffering can also take the form of strengthening more limited and functional groupings. Another strategy is baiting, which entails developing counter-regional groupings that are designed, at least in part, to lure the dominant leader state into interaction with, and ultimately conformity with, this regional or functional grouping, the strategy is to develop principles and institutions that establish global standards or best practices that over time will become universal in scope (Ikenberry, 2003). Ikenberry (2003) argued that the most obvious and prevalent strategy for dealing with the untoward consequences of governmental global leadership is simply to bargain with the lead state. Keeping with the previously mentioned example, since the United States is preeminent but it is not omnipotent, the other major states do have assets and some leverage over the United States, therefore, this strategy entails attempting to alter the policies of the dominant state through carrots and sticks and it can take a variety of forms (Ikenberry, 2003). One form is simply to engage in oldfashioned pulling and hauling where governments can play the bargaining game through intergovernmental channels and working with like-minded domestic groups and politicians in the dominant state; second, major states can also play a slightly harder-edged game by threatening to withhold cooperation (this is the main source of leverage for weaker countries facing the United States); third, weaker states can use economic tariffs and embargoes as a tool to gain some political leverage over American policy; fourth, bargaining can take the form of old fashioned log rolling where this variation entails seeking to work with the dominant state to seek opportunities for joint gain [weaker states do not resist the politics of the dominant state but try to adapt them in local circumstances for local advantage, for example, former Russian President Putin offered support for

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Americas Iraq policy in exchange for American acquiescence in Russian policies toward its minorities and more generally, governments around the world have sought to find ways to connect their policy agendas to Americas war on terrorism and thereby gain support from Washington]; finally, bargaining may also involve an attempt by weaker states to use a more diffuse source of leverage the threat to withhold legitimacy for an American action (Ikenberry, 2003). Another approach to global leadership is bandwagoning, which is a strategy that encompasses a wide range of state behavior, but it essentially entails policies that support and accommodate the dominant power, weaker states seek to work with rather than resist the dominant state, and they look for opportunities to advance their interests without directly challenging the

19

dominant state (Ikenberry, 2003). Another version of bandwagoning, Ikenberry (2003) opined might be called bonding, where, for example, leaders of weaker states develop close personal and policy ties with the American president, the goal is to become so close, so loyal, and so indispensable that the United States effectively incorporates them into the inner circle of decision making. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is the best example of this strategy when the former British leader tied himself to the American anti-terrorist plan but in doing so he has made it an Anglo-American-based campaign, but by bonding itself to the superpower, Britain gained a stake in the struggle but also a voice in the policy (Ikenberry, 2003). Call to Christian Leadership How does Christian leadership tie into global leadership and provide a purpose to impact, and change the world? Christian leadership is simple but not necessarily easy, Smalling (2005) proposed, the essential principles are easy to understand and to apply, if leaders have the moral courage to do so. To those God has chosen for leadership, Paul says: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16 New King James Version). Everything you

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

need for effective Christian leadership is in the Bible as the Bible teaches one philosophy of Christian leadership that Christ himself summarized and modeled in Matthew 20 (Smalling, 2005). The central virtue in Christian leadership is integrity, if a person can be taught to be an

20

individual of complete integrity, then that person can be made a leader regardless of temperament or natural qualifications (Smalling, 2005). In cross-cultural research on the essential traits for effective leadership, integrity is near the top of the list in all cultures that have been studied (Yukl, 2010, p. 410). God wants leaders to be people of integrity: Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to Gods grace. (2 Cor. 1:12). In this text, Smalling (2005) presented, Paul declares he has no hidden agendas and what you see is what you get. The words used to translate holiness and sincerity in the above verse shows that Paul means purity of motives and single-mindedness of purpose and shows that integrity is so closely related to humility, we might argue they are synonyms (Smalling, 2005). Integrity is central to all leadership, religious or secular, and along with humility, was the key quality in common among leaders of companies who had moved from good to great. (Smalling, 2005). It is the integrity of Jesus, Smalling (2005) opined, that is the foundation virtue and Christian philosophy of leadership, there is none other. As it relates to the global marketplace, without integrity, a leader is no more than a manager at best and a manipulator and controller at worst; even the worldly notice this (Smalling, 2005). In Matthew Chapter 20, the mother of James and John approached Jesus asking that her sons sit beside Jesus in His Kingdom. This experience provided the opportunity for Jesus to introduce three key attitudes in Christian leadership: Suffering, Parity and Service (Smalling, 2005). The

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

21

pressures of leadership are enormous and a leader must be prepared to suffer, often in secret, to fulfill his calling; Leaders should be equal in authority in the body of Christ as they relate to each other like knights at a round table rather than ranks in an army; Leaders should have a servant rather than a ruler attitude, as people are the whole point of their work, not tools toward their own purposes (Smalling, 2005). System of Christian Leadership Tenets of Christian leadership are portrayed in the Old Testament in Psalm 75:6-7 where the Bible presents that no one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt themselves. It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. We see a hint of the first principle of Christian leadership in the New Testament and that leadership is a gift from God when Jesus also makes it clear in St. Matthew 23 (Jesus said to them, You will indeed drink from My cup, but to sit at My right or left is not for Me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.) that He is not in charge of promotions in the personnel department, God is (Smalling, 2005). Smalling (2005) opined that the suffering involved in leadership, especially in the western world, usually takes the form of psychological pressures and stresses other believers neither bear nor understand. Titles and honors that accompany the office of leader are insufficient to compensate for the stress and those who highly value titles or honors more than the service entailed, soon find themselves disappointed and disillusioned (Smalling, 2005). Regarding the second key leadership attitude Parity, Smalling (2005) proclaimed that a good global Christian leader cannot see himself on the rung of a hierarchy with all other nationals on a lower rank as is often inherited from the North American corporate business culture. Authoritarianism is a byproduct of arrogance as authoritarian leaders often suppose their superior office proves they are inherently superior individuals (Smalling, 2005). Jesus did not teach that

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

22

authoritarian hierarchies are wrong, He is simply saying, Not so with you, this phrase, is literally in Greek, it shall not be so among you (Smalling, 2005). Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew and in that language, future tenses are used as imperatives, so Jesus was probably saying, I forbid you to put into office people with authoritarian attitudes and temperaments (Smalling, 2005). Christian leadership focuses more on helping others than commanding them, it is a life given over to service (Smalling, 2005). Leaders who are attracted to Christian offices for the honors, Smalling (2005) opined, often wind up as negligent leaders, more concerned with their status than the welfare of the people. The goal of a Christian leader should be to make his followers the best they can be, in fact, if he can train someone to replace him, this is the best leadership of all (Smalling, 2005). Promotion to leadership is a gift of Gods grace as well as a gift of the Spirit as Rom. 12:8 declares. Pulkingham (1974) argued that without a baptism of spiritual power, able leadership will dissolve into a pitiful sediment. Although the spiritual gift of leadership may accompany a natural gift, God is not dependant on natural human talents (Smalling, 2005). Functions of Christian Leadership The Christian leaders functions include keeping watch over themselves and over all their followers of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (Smalling, 2005). Smalling (2005) proposed that the Christian leaders first concern must be for his /her own spiritual welfare; and must carefully maintain a solid and consistent devotional life. A chief trap of Satan is to get leaders so busy that they neglect prayer and fellowship with God through the Word; many a leader has fallen because he/she has gotten so busy in the ministry, and has neglected his/her own soul and became an easy target for the enemy (Smalling, 2005). The term, be shepherds in Acts 20:28 translates the Greek verb poimaino which means to lead, with the implication of providing for - to guide and to help, to guide and take care of, it also

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

means, to rule, with the implication of direct personal involvement (Smalling, 2005). The term definitely includes authority; a Christian leader is not there merely to make suggestions, but has authority from God to be directly involved in the personal lives of his followers and feeds them by providing them the Word of God (Smalling, 2005).

23

The main product of Christian leadership is other leaders, that is how Pauls friend Timothy ended up in the ministry, however, out of fear that others may rise up and take their place, many Christian leaders seem reluctant to prepare other individuals for leadership (Smalling, 2005). However, a Christian leaders strategy should be to prepare others to do the ministry including training others to lead (Smalling, 2005). Christian leadership is fundamentally simple if we remember its central truth. The quality of our personal walk with God has more to do with leadership than managerial techniques (Smalling, 2005). With the worlds paradigms constantly shift, we should remember that Christ modeled only one leadership paradigm that has never changed: Integrity, a disposition to embrace suffering, treating others with respect as Gods image and dealing with our fellow ministers as equals along with a servant attitude (Smalling, 2005). It is dangerous for Christian leaders to emulate the worlds organizational structures and mindset, as most become authoritarian hierarchies, which are the antithesis of Christian leadership (Smalling, 2005). Such structures bring out the worst in people: arrogance, authoritarianism, jealousy and incompetence and to mitigate the damage, the world must invent a plethora of managerial techniques to get by (Smalling, 2005). People who heed the call to Christian leadership should seek to emulate the leadership examples given by Christ.

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

References

24

Adler, N. J., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing Globally Competent People. The Executive, 6(3), 52-65. Black, J. S., Morrison, A. J., & Gregersen, H. B. (1999). Global explorers: the next generation of leaders: Routledge. Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The Parochial Dinosaur: Organizational Science in a Global Context. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262262. Bueno, C. M., & Tubbs, S. L. (2004). Identifying Global Leadership Competencies: An Exploratory Study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1), 80-87. Chin, C. O., Gu, J., & Tubbs, S. L. (2001). Developing Global Leadership Competencies.(American and Chinese business leaders). Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 20. Dahl, S. (2004). Intercultural Research: The Current State of Knowledge. SSRN eLibrary. Dainty, P. (2008). Leading and Managing in a Global Environment: Developing Executive Competencies for the World Stage. Melbourne Business School - Working Paper Series. Hickman, G. R. (2010). Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era (2nd ed.). Los Angles: SAGE Publications. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2007). Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization: Thomson/South-Western. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howard, T., Pollock, T., & Gorman, P. (1999). Global Strategic Analyses: Frameworks and Approaches. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 13(1), 70-82.

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

25

Ikenberry, G. J. (2003). Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity. Jackofsky, E. F., Slocum, J. W., & McQuaid, S. J. (1988). Cultural values and the CEO:Alluring companions? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 2(1), 39-39. Khilji, S. E., Davis, E. B., & Cseh, M. (2010). Building competitive advantage in a global environment: leadership and the mindset. Advances in International Management, 23. Korten, D. C. (2001). When corporations rule the world: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. McCarthy, C. (2010). Global leadership: An Analysis of three Leadership Competency Models in Multinational Corporations. PhD, Dublin City University, Dublin. Mendenhall, M. E., Khlmann, T. M., & Stahl, G. K. (2001). Developing global business leaders: policies, processes, and innovations: Quorum Books. Moran, R. T., & Riesenberger, J. R. (1994). The Global Challenge: Building the New Worldwide Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Morrison, A. J. (2000). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management, 39(23), 117-131. Nyaw, M. K., & Ng, I. (1994). A comparative analysis of ethical beliefs: A four country study. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 543-555. Petrick, J. A., Scherer, R. F., Brodzinski, J. D., Quinn, J. F., & Ainina, M. F. (1999). Global leadership skills and reputational capital: Intangible resources for sustainable competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(1), 58-58-69. Porter, M. E. (1986). Changing Patterns of International Competition. [Article]. California Management Review, 28(2), 9-40. Prichard, J. S., & Stanton, N. A. (1999). Testing Belbin's team role theory of effective groups. The Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 652-652-665.

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Pulkingham, W. G. (1974). They left their nets: A vision for community ministry. New York: Morehouse-Barlow Co. Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (1996). Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

26

Rhinesmith, S. H. (1996). A Manager's Guide to Globalization: Six Skills for Success in a Changing World: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Robinson, D. A., & Harvey, M. (2008). Global leadership in a culturally diverse world. Management Decision, 46(3), 466 480. Roth, K., & Morrison, A. J. (1992). Business-level competitive strategy: A contingency link to internationalization. Journal of Management, 18(3), 473-487. Sanchez, J., Spector, P., & Cooper, C. (2000). Adapting to a boundary less world: A developmental expatriate model. Academy of Management Executive, 14(2), 96-106. Smalling, R. L. (2005). CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP: Principles and Practicalities. Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art: New ideas for a world of chaotic change (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yeung, A. K., & Ready, D. A. (1995). Developing Leadership Capabilities of Global Corporations: A Comparative Study in Eight Nations. [Article]. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 529547. Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Zahra, S. A. (1999). The changing rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(1), 36-36-42.