oral beason- major project 1 - final - lphd 702[1]

8/4/2019 Oral Beason- Major Project 1 - FINAL - LPHD 702[1]

1/26

Running head: PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

1

Philosophies, Theories, and Approaches in Global Leadership

Oral L. Beason

Regent University


2/26

PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP 2

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.


3/26


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 peace-

loving, 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


4/26


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


5/26


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


6/26


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,


7/26


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


8/26


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).


9/26


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).


10/26


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

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).


11/26


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

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 ofunderstanding, 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


12/26


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:


13/26


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


14/26


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


15/26


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

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


16/26


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,


17/26


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,

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.


18/26


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 old-

fashioned pulling and hauling where governments can play the bargaining game through inter-

governmental 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


19/26


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

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


20/26


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

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 forJesus to introduce

three key attitudes in Christian leadership: Suffering, Parity and Service (Smalling, 2005). The


21/26


pressures of leadership are enormous and a leader must be prepared tosuffer, often in secret, to fulfill

his calling; Leaders should be equalin 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 aservantrather 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


22/26


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 verbpoimaino which means to

lead, with the implication of providing for - to guide and to help, to guide and take care of, it also


23/26


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).

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.


24/26


References

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), 262-

262.

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.


25/26


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(2-

3), 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.


26/26


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.

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), 529-

547.

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.

oral beason- major project 1 - final - lphd 702[1]

Documents