Journal of World Business: Lena Zander, Audra I. Mockaitis, Christina L. Butler
Journal of World Business: Lena Zander, Audra I. Mockaitis, Christina L. Butler
Journal of World Business: Lena Zander, Audra I. Mockaitis, Christina L. Butler
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Global teams that are characterized by national, cultural and linguistic heterogeneity and operate in a
Global teams globally dispersed virtual environment are becoming an established form of organizing work in
Virtual teams multinational organizations. As global team leadership research is rather limited, we review the
Multicultural teams
literature on leading multicultural and virtual teams in a global context, focusing on leadership
Team leadership
People-oriented leadership
competencies, styles, strategies and modes. We also examine the emergent concepts of biculturalism,
Boundary spanner global mindset and cultural intelligence with respect to team leaders. Our aim is to add to our
Bridge maker knowledge of leading global teams, highlight recent trends and suggest directions for future research.
Biculturalism Three themes for global team leadership emerged: leaders as boundary spanners, bridge makers and
Leverage diversity blenders; people-oriented leadership; and leveraging diversity. We discuss implications for research
and practice.
ß 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Yet, it seems that these
new organizational forms are surfacing more quickly than scholars
As organizations become more diverse and ever new forms of are able to study them; research on global and virtual team
organizing emerge, working in global teams is fast becoming the leadership, in particular, is lagging behind (Malhotra, Majchrzak, &
rule rather than the exception. Multinational teams of all shapes Rosen, 2007; Zigurs, 2002). It is our overall objective to increase the
and sizes have been called the ‘heart’ of globalization (Snow, Snell, knowledge about leading global teams.
Canney Davision, & Hambrick, 1996) and are routinely used to cope Global teams, as defined by Maloney and Zellmer-Bruhn (2006),
with our increasingly competitive, complex and culturally diverse differ from other teams on the following two characteristics: (1) a
21st century world (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Ravlin, Thomas, globally dispersed work environment, and (2) heterogeneity on
& Ilsev, 2000). In the midst of technological advances of the last multiple dimensions. We have chosen to focus specifically on
decade, global virtual teams, defined as nationally, geographically, national cultural heterogeneity, a salient characteristic of global
and culturally diverse groups that communicate almost exclusive- teams, as nationality has been found to override other demo-
ly through electronic media (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), rose to graphic and tenure-based categorizations in such teams (Butler,
the fore of organizational innovations (Townsend, DeMarie, & 2006; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000) and with respect to leadership
Hendrickson, 1998). Team members work across temporal and (Zander & Romani, 2004). Our knowledge about leading global
spatial boundaries, most often in the absence of face-to-face teams is still limited (Davis & Bryant, 2003; Joshi & Lazarova, 2005),
interaction, to coordinate their activities toward the attainment of but since teams are multicultural in composition and virtual in
common goals from different locations around the globe. Global action they stand at the crossroads of two literature streams –
virtual teams and collocated teams came to be viewed as end poles multicultural team research and virtual team research (Steers,
on a continuum with most global teams ending up somewhere Sanchez-Runde, & Nardon, 2010).
in between based on their degree of face-to-face interaction There is growing attention devoted to studying virtual teams,
and although progress has been made with respect to comparing
collocated and virtual teams, the literature does not to any large
§
The authors wish to thank the JWB Special Issue editors Rick Steers, Carlos extent distinguish between single and multi-country types of
Sanchez-Runde, Luciara Nardon for insightful comments, the Editor-in-Chief John virtual teams. Much of the work is still conceptual or purely
Slocum and Jan Olavarri, Assistant to the Editor-in-Chief, for support in what has
practitioner oriented. There is a limited number of empirical
been a pleasurable writing experience.
* Corresponding author.
studies on leading virtual teams in general (Malhotra et al., 2007;
E-mail addresses: lena.zander@fek.uu.se (L. Zander), audra.mockaitis@monash.edu Zigurs, 2002), and fewer still that are cross-cultural (Davis &
(A.I. Mockaitis), christina.butler@kingston.ac.uk (C.L. Butler). Bryant, 2003; Joshi & Lazarova, 2005). With regard to research on
1090-9516/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.012
L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603 593
multicultural teams, we find that the accumulation of knowledge Malhotra et al., 2007). In the following sections we highlight some
on the processes and outcomes of multicultural teams is prolific of the literature that has aimed to address this gap with respect to
(Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010). The literature about leader competencies and styles seen as important for GVT
leading multicultural teams is less extensive (Zander & Butler, performance.
2010), but it is expanding as is our knowledge about leading virtual
teams. We will demonstrate this when we discuss leadership 2.1. Leader competencies
competences, styles, strategies and modes as well as recent
cultural research about the team leader such as biculturalism, In GVTs ‘‘distance amplifies dysfunction’’ (Davis & Bryant, 2003,
global mindsets and cultural intelligence. p. 310). To overcome the added challenges associated with
In this article, we aim to identify key emerging themes and distance and to prevent dysfunction, GVT leaders must possess
directions in which global team leadership is heading and provide certain competencies. Joshi and Lazarova (2005) sought answers to
some suggestions for future research. Our review of the trends will the question of what competencies are identified as important for
center on the issues that have emerged in recent years. We will first leaders in multinational virtual teams. In their study of multicul-
turn to the literature on virtual teams for an understanding of tural teams in a single corporation from around the globe, they
leading in a virtual context, then to the literature on multicultural compared the competencies identified by team members and
teams for an insight into multicultural team leadership and finally leaders, as well as those considered important by team members
to recent culture research to add to our knowledge of global team who were collocated with and distant from their team leader. The
leaders. In contrast to the more common practice of examining following competencies were identified as important by a large
leadership from only the leaders’ perspective, it is our ambition to percentage of team leaders and team members: direction and goal
incorporate both team leaders’ and members’ perspectives for a setting, communication, facilitating teamwork and motivating and
more holistic and complex picture of global team leadership. Our inspiring. However, team leaders and team members differed in
review results in three themes for global team leadership: global their views about other competencies. For example, managing
leaders as boundary spanners, bridge makers and blenders; cultural diversity was mentioned as important by 65% of team
people-oriented leadership in global teams; and leveraging global leaders, but only 5% of members. Empowering was mentioned only
team diversity. We thus ground our ideas for a future research by team leaders, and mentoring and coaching and resource
agenda on leading global teams in emerging cutting-edge work acquisition – only by team members.
before concluding with some reflections and managerial implica- Boundary spanning was more important for team members
tions. than leaders. Slight differences were found across countries. For
example, boundary spanning was mentioned only by Anglo
2. Leading virtual teams country respondents (from the U.S.A. and UK/Ireland). There were
generally few respondents from countries other than the U.S.A.,
The virtual context has enabled teams to complete tasks more and statistical tests were not conducted to ascertain any
efficiently and quickly than ever before, and access the best meaningful cross-national differences. Davis and Bryant (2003)
resources and people in locations around the globe. Not conducted interviews with 68 global virtual team members and
surprisingly, these positive aspects are coupled with challenges. leaders (all managers in MNEs located in Asia and Europe) and
Given the virtual context that global virtual teams (GVTs) work in, identified several competencies that leaders of GVTs must possess
members’ different cultural backgrounds, the interface of technol- including that GVT leaders must engage in boundary spanning
ogy, and the fact that members are often not in synch because of activities.
different time zones, the role of leading virtual teams is riddled In their study of multicultural GVTs from Europe, Mexico and
with complexity. Because GVT members often cannot see their the U.S.A., Kayworth and Leidner (2001–2002) found that effective
leader, one might get the sense that virtual team leaders need to GVT leaders act as mentors, are communicative and are able to
have special knowledge or qualities or display certain types of manage multiple leadership roles. They are also empathetic, and
behaviors to be effective. possess both a task-focus and relational skills (Bell & Kozlowski,
In their recent review, Jonsen, Maznevski, and Canney Davison 2002; Kayworth & Leidner, 2001–2002). And, they must be able to
(in press) highlight some of the leader challenges and virtual team instill a sense of community or personal connection in the team to
aspects that have received attention in the general GVT literature. develop trust. Knowing when to switch between a task and
These are rather straightforward leader actions, such as main- relationship orientation is an important skill in achieving this goal.
taining communication, establishing relationships and managing It thus appears that there are clear ideas about the competencies
conflict. In fact, much of the literature on GVTs highlights the needed of global virtual team leaders, due to the specific
importance of communication and trust (e.g., Aubert & Kelsey, contextual factors that determine these competencies. Yet,
2003; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Krebs, Hobman, & Bordia, 2006; interestingly, research has also found differences in the views of
Zigurs, 2002). But this is not as simple as it sounds, because GVT GVT members and leaders regarding the qualities that are
members often rely on team leaders to provide direction and important for leading teams to success. One quality that stands
inspiration from a distance. GVT leaders must possess excellent out is the leader as boundary spanner, a still emergent topic in the
asynchronous communication skills, and must be especially literature.
effective in synchronous and face-to-face communication since
there are often limited opportunities for such interaction (Davis & 2.2. Leadership styles
Bryant, 2003). GVT leaders should also be technologically savvy
and possess an ability to match the technology to the specific A number of studies have examined the effectiveness of
requirements of the team and its tasks (e.g., rich versus lean transformational leadership in teams. In a single country study
communication media); they must be engaging, culturally Carte, Chidambaram, and Becker (2006) found no differences
sensitive and approachable, by communicating frequently with between high and low performing teams regarding transforma-
all members (Davis & Bryant, 2003; Jonsen et al., in press; Zigurs, tional leadership behaviors. Joshi, Lazarova, and Liao (2009)
2002). Although there is much literature about the challenges of however found the opposite for multicultural geographically
working in GVTs there is very little empirical research on actually dispersed virtual teams. In highly geographically dispersed teams,
leading GVTs (Joshi & Lazarova, 2005; Jonsen et al., in press; a lack of shared context can jeopardize a shared team identity.
594 L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603
Inspirational leaders serve as the bridge between team members morale and understanding. This improvement translates into more
and link them with a common goal or vision. In their study, teams effective project performance’’ (Miller et al., 2000, p. 22). Realizing
that were more geographically dispersed had more positive this thoughtful lesson into practice, however, is easier said than
perceptions about inspirational leadership, commitment to the done, as we will discuss in the following.
team and team trust (Joshi et al., 2009). Similarly Davis and Bryant Brett et al. (2006) draw our attention to four cultural barriers in
(2003) found that transformational leadership had positive effects multicultural teams: conflicting decision-making norms, conflict-
on global virtual team outcomes, whereas laissez-faire leadership ing attitudes toward hierarchy, direct versus indirect communica-
and team outcomes displayed a negative relationship. As Davis and tion, and trouble with language fluency and accents. The former
Bryant put it, the leader must lead with ‘‘both the head and the two barriers will be addressed further below in this article. The
heart’’ (2003, p. 319). latter two are related to communication; this is not surprising
Bell and Kozlowski (2002) argue that there is little scope for given that a sizeable portion of the multicultural team research
traditional leadership in GVTs, such as development and shaping of touches on this topic in some way. Even in the smaller subsection
team processes, and the monitoring and management of ongoing of team leadership studies we find work where communication is
team performance. They posit that because there is only limited in focus. For example, in the studies we reviewed, communicating
face-to-face interaction in these teams, leaders need to distribute vision, goals, and directions, engaging in feedback and developing
and delegate leadership functions and responsibilities to team routines together, avoiding communication breakdowns and
members. Kirkman et al. (2004) demonstrate that highly steering the team on the right track stood out as important leader
empowered teams are significantly associated with higher levels actions (see, e.g., Ayoko, Härtel, & Callan, 2002; Matveev & Nelson,
of team process improvement (and customer satisfaction) than less 2004).
empowered teams. To accomplish well-functioning empowered Steers et al. (2010, p. 265) single out ‘‘mastering intercultural
GVTs, team leaders need to provide clear directions as well as communications by listening for contextual messages behind
specific individual goals (Kirkman et al., 2004). Bell and Kozlowski content messages’’ as one of the main leadership challenges for
(2002) argue that leaders should be more proactive and structur- leaders of multicultural teams. Team leaders must also facilitate
ing, developing mechanisms that can become reinforced by the communication among team members, make communication
GVT members themselves. Team leaders can achieve this by norms explicit, and help build mutual understanding (Steers et al.,
establishing routines early in the project (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). 2010). These are essential competences for effective bridge makers
Davis and Bryant (2003) concluded that self-leadership, or acting between people within a team (we will address bridge
leadership distributed to all members of the team, is linked to GVT making in more detail later in this article). Not only do team
success or failure. Teams in which self-leadership was discouraged leaders differ in their communication styles, but members with
were less effective than teams that supported self-leadership. different national backgrounds can also differ in their communi-
Teams in which flexibility meant changing leadership roles cation preferences. For example employees’ preferred form and
depending on the situation were more effective than teams that frequency of communication with their immediate manager was
lacked this competence. However, a key question is whether fully found to vary across countries and cultural clusters (Zander, 2005).
distributed leadership or self-managed leadership is more effective This adds to the complexity of ‘hearing’ what is not being said, i.e.,
in global virtual teams, when members are in different geographic understanding the contextualized communication. The content
locations and have different cultural backgrounds, or if a leader may be just as difficult to grasp as when speakers are less than
needs to act as a linchpin among members. This has not been fluent, have unfamiliar accents or dialects. Senior managers from
explored in empirical studies. Muethel and Hoegl (2010) argue on multinational firms interviewed by Schweiger, Atamer, and Calori
theoretical grounds that shared leadership should be effective in (2003) were surprised to find that language challenges were much
global virtual teams as it enhances the monitoring and influencing more prevalent and more difficult to overcome than they expected
opportunities for members in different locations, the speed of when working in global teams given that English was the lingua
decision-making, accountability of team members toward all franca in their respective organizations.
others, task coordination and group cohesion. The extent to which The topic of communication challenges in global teams is far
individual team members will embrace shared leadership will be from exhausted, and language in global teams has only started to
influenced and impeded by their respective countries’ institutional receive attention. Leaders need to possess certain competences,
and cultural characteristics, e.g., cultural values and norms and possibly leadership styles, to be able to overcome such
(Muethel & Hoegl, 2010). We think testing these ideas empirically challenges. We will first focus our review on leader competences
would be a promising avenue for enhancing our knowledge on before turning to examining recent research on leadership styles in
GVTs. multicultural teams.
We have found extensive reading on the topic of leading global In the literature on MCTs, leadership is not often specified as
multicultural teams (MCTs) of interest to practioners (see, e.g., crucial for team performance, although it is frequently concluded
Brett, Behfar, & Kern, 2006; Maznevski, 2008; Miller, Fields, Kumar, that management matters (Zander & Butler, 2010). To cast light on
& Ortiz, 2000; Steers et al., 2010). For example, Michael Miller, what competencies team leaders need to effectively lead MCTs,
Ronald Fields, Ashish Kumar, and Rudy Ortiz have all been active Hajro and Pudelko (2010) carried out 70 interviews with MCT
managers of multicultural project teams and share their experi- leaders and members from five multinational firms. Interestingly
ences and insights on how to tap the creative potential of they found that leadership was precisely what was perceived as
multicultural project teams through leadership and creating a critical to MCT performance. Specifically, knowledge management
strategic vision (Miller et al., 2000). They also list, and vividly and transfer were reported as the most important MCT leader
illustrate with examples, dos and don’ts regarding intercultural competence, with cross-cultural awareness following closely. As is
work, and conclude that ‘‘although it is impossible for any manager typical of bridge makers in MCTs, team leaders play an important
to know everything about all cultures and ethnic groups, it is role in facilitating interaction between team members and
important to learn as much as possible. The very act of expressing resolving conflicts (Hajro & Pudelko, 2010). Bridge makers are
genuine interest in an individual and his background improves similar to boundary spanners, although boundary spanners span
L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603 595
boundaries between the team and various other organizational argue that the primary difference between the two is that servant
units or groups while bridge makers bridge cultural and linguistic leadership focuses on the follower and the understanding of the
boundaries between people within multicultural groups (Liljegren role of the leader as being of service to the follower (Greenleaf,
& Zander, 2011). 1977), whereas transformational leadership focuses on the
Not surprisingly Hajro and Pudelko (2010) emphasize that an organization, specifically on building follower commitment
inability to simultaneously work with people from different toward organizational goals. Given this differentiation, an imme-
backgrounds together with a lack of insight into, sensitivity diate question is whether the more interpersonal nature of servant
toward, and accommodation of different cultures are among the leadership can be as successful in virtual multicultural teams as it
major reasons for MCT failure. Cross-cultural competence is is in collocated multicultural teams. Additionally, we also query
essential for team leadership, and team leadership is critical for the whether trust and person-organization value congruence would
functioning of the MCT. Beliefs as to what is the most important have similar mediating effects when transformational leadership is
element of cross-cultural competence tend to vary across countries used in global teams, given the culturally based differences in
and cultures. For example, in a comparison of the perceptions of members’ leadership preferences.
Russian and American managers, who were members of MCTs,
Russians ranked a cross-cultural personality orientation (e.g., 3.3. Leadership strategies and modes
cultural empathy and interest in intercultural interaction) as most
important, whereas cross-cultural skills (e.g., an understanding In the face of cultural complexities, which threaten team
and clear communication of team’s goals, norms and roles) were process and outcomes yet can provide opportunities to benefit
the most important to the Americans (Matveev & Milter, 2004). from and leverage cultural differences, team leaders opt for
These results beg the immediate question of what the implications different cultural strategies. Based on in-depth case studies,
are for global team leadership if the leader is perceived as strong on observation, interviews and informal discussions with team
only one of these, when global team members vary in their leaders and members in multicultural R&D, electrical engineering
expectations, as the Russian and American respondents did in the and product development teams, Chevrier (2003) identified three
study above. different leadership strategies and how these were more or less
Additionally, our review of multicultural team leadership successfully enacted. The first strategy is ‘laissez-faire leadership’;
identified that leaders are expected to possess a competence of where cross-cultural differences are neither managed nor drawn
recognizing and bridging divergent member perceptions and upon, but largely ignored. Instead, the leader relies on the team
acceptance of leadership roles, communication skills, ways of members’ tolerance and self-control when facing culturally
organizing work, etc. We raise the questions of how relevant bridge ambiguous or conflicting situations. When team members begin
making skills are in the global context, and how these can be to feel frustrated, they need to release tension by talking and it is
carried out in a virtual setting with globally dispersed team often done within their own cultural subgroup, with the high risk
members. of cementing the already strong faultlines in their team. The
second strategy involves team leaders and members in a ‘cultural
3.2. Leadership styles trial-and-error’ process. Attempts to create more personal
relationships among those involved are essential for this form of
Transformational leadership, like charismatic leadership, has probing and finding ad hoc solutions for cross-cultural differences
been widely studied in general but not so much in the context of one by one. However, this pragmatic way of handling and
MCTs (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). The positive effects of transfor- occasionally leveraging cultural differences suffers from temporal
mational leadership on outcomes such as employee motivation, limitations, which could reinforce polarization and negative
satisfaction and performance (see Judge & Piccolo, 2004 for a stereotyping, instead of creating a mutually permanent function-
review) were found by Kearney and Gebert (2009) in a team setting ing work environment for the team members. The third leadership
in their study of 62 R&D teams in a multinational company. They strategy is based on setting up a ‘common team culture’, e.g., using
established that transformational leadership can unleash the professional or corporate cultural values or ways of organizing
potential in MCTs by tapping the variance and benefits provided by work as a basis. Although this has the potential to create a stable
diversity leading to positive performance. Notably no link between setting where cultural differences can be handled and thrive
transformational leadership and performance could be found in within a shared frame of norms and appropriate behaviors, the
homogenous teams; there was even a detrimental effect on downside is that the creation often becomes a common-
performance for high levels of transformational leadership denominator-culture that dampens rather than encourages
(Kearney & Gebert, 2009). These are controversial findings in cultural exchange and falls short of leveraging cultural differences.
the light of statements that transformational leadership has been One alternative to avoiding a ‘common-denominator-culture’
found to be the most reliable predictor of team performance (see, has been proposed by Maznevski and Zander (2001), namely,
e.g., Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). In Schaubroeck et al.’s combining team culture creation with individualized leadership.
(2011) study of bank teams in Hong Kong versus in the U.S.A., they They argue that this combination could also defuse the power
found that team members’ trust in the leader was critical for the paradox, which occurs when, for example, some team members
link between transformational leadership and team performance. appreciate, respect and trust a leader who practices delegation of
Interestingly, Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, and Sutton (2011) found authority and empowerment, whereas these same leader beha-
that American managers’ congruence with organizational values viors are unacceptable to other team members. Because they prefer
was related to a positive effect of transformational leadership on more directive or hands-on leadership, these team members can
group effectiveness. easily lose their belief in and respect for a leader who does not act
Servant leadership, which has been around since 1970 (Barbuto in the expected way. The power paradox, in this example,
& Wheeler, 2006) has recently started to attract more attention and embodies the two cultural barriers based on conflicting attitudes;
has been found to explain variance in team performance namely with respect to hierarchy and to decision-making norms
(Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Both transformational and servant (Brett et al., 2006). A team leader who is stuck in such a power
leadership are people-oriented leadership styles emphasizing the paradox will become ineffective unless it can be resolved. Wu, Tsui,
importance of valuing people, listening, mentoring and empower- and Kinicki (2010) recently demonstrated problems with individ-
ing followers (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). Stone et al. (2004) ualized leadership in single culture teams – they found that it
596 L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603
disturbs the creation of common team norms, which are positively contexts and so display what Earley and colleagues (Earley,
related to team effectiveness. It remains an empirical question 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley, Murnieks, & Mosakowski, 2007)
whether this problem also would occur in globally dispersed have termed cultural intelligence or CQ. Lastly, an increasing
virtual teams. number of people identify with two (or more) cultural identities
Chevrier (2003) suggests an alternative team leadership and so may demonstrate biculturalism, a process of intrapersonal
strategy to those she identified in her research discussed above. cultural diversity switching easily between two or more cultures
She bases that strategy on two assumptions: first, that multicul- (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-
tural team effectiveness is dependent on a deep understanding of Martinez, 2000; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).
the cultural issues at hand, and second, that such an understanding Global mindset is related to biculturalism and cultural
will not occur simply through team member interaction. She intelligence (Earley et al., 2007) in that an individual can also
proposes that a cultural mediator helps team members to decipher develop and refine at least some elements of it (e.g., the cognitive
cultural meaning systems and integrate cognitive understanding competences that lead to intercultural empathy). It also differs
of others into action. This is another bridge making activity significantly from biculturalism and cultural intelligence in that it
complementing those we briefly touched upon earlier in this alone includes a strategic element. Biculturalism may lead to
article. Such a role does not necessarily have to be held by the team cultural intelligence of cultures beyond those internal to the
leader; team members could also act as cultural bridge makers and bicultural. Cultural intelligence might be understood as the
become influential in the team process, e.g., in decision-making cultural competence component, albeit a modified one, of global
(Liljegren & Zander, 2011). mindset. These three distinct constructs do overlap, and each may
As we have highlighted, team leadership does not necessarily contribute in some distinct way to leading global teams.
have to be carried out by a single individual, the team leader, but
could be seen as a set of activities that needs to be done by one or 4.1. Global mindset and cultural intelligence
several individuals. This reasoning within contemporary leadership
research was applied by Zander and Butler (2010) in their work on Global team leaders need to possess cultural competence and
developing team leadership modes. They add three leadership awareness as we have discussed earlier, but such competence is
modes to traditional single leadership. Zander and Butler (2010) use clearly not sufficient, if they are to be seen as successful by the
two leadership dimensions, activities (distributed versus focused) organizations which employ them. Other factors, such as global
and authority (horizontal versus vertical) to characterize the four business savvy, clearly contribute to this success as part of the
team leadership modes: single, paired, rotated, and shared bigger package. Global mindset (Hitt, Javidan, & Steers, 2007;
leadership. The choice of leadership mode for a given team is based Javidan et al., 2006; Javidan, Steers, & Hitt, 2007; Jeanett, 2000;
on the team’s multicultural composition, which is analyzed in terms Levy, Beechler, Taylor, & Boyacigiller, 2007; Murtha, Lenway, &
of faultlines and status cues (Zander & Butler, 2010). The Zander and Bagozzi, 1998; Perlmutter, 1969; Redding, 2007) is argued to bring
Butler model builds on an initial fit argument. It is not proposed to competitive advantage to organizations through its dual focus on
be used in a static or rigid way but flexibly, in line with the cultural competence and strategic organizational impact. Perl-
dynamics of multicultural processes. The idea is that an informed mutter (1969) ground breaking work on ethno-, poly-, and
choice of team leadership mode may give the multicultural team a geocentric orientations implicitly build on the idea of a global
higher probability of success and a lower probability of destruc- mindset, or in his terminology geocentricism. Until recently the
tive conflict in need of later managerial intervention. Zander and construct has been ill-defined covering a wide range of factors and
Butler (2010) argue that it is possible to align and develop levels of analysis (e.g., individual skills, attitudes, and behaviors;
leadership modes in accordance with the needs of the team, as organizational strategies, policies, practices and structures) tied to
well as the strategic and operational demands of the multination- the global agenda. Levy et al. (2007) synthesize the literature to
al firm. How organizations do so, and which leadership strategies define global mindset as a multidimensional individual level
are most effective in culturally diverse global teams are salient ‘‘highly complex cognitive structure characterized by an openness
topics. Specifically, examining how organizations select and apply to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on
different leadership modes in managing and leveraging diversity both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate
in order to ensure high performance of the global team would be a and integrate across this multiplicity’’ (p. 27). It encompasses both
valuable addition to the leadership literature. cultural and strategic perspectives and draws on underlying
constructs of cosmopolitanism and cognitive complexity. It is at
4. The team leader one and the same time based in cognition, behavior and a ‘way of
being’. It is of interest to understand how the cultural and strategic
As companies become more global and increasingly use competences encompassed by global mindset play out when
multicultural virtual teams, employees who have the cognitive leading global teams in a virtual context.
aptitude and experience to think and act ‘globally’ are increasingly Cultural intelligence consists of meta-cognitive, cognitive,
sought after. The challenge for managers is to accurately identify motivational, and behavioral components (Ang & Van Dyne,
these internationally minded individuals to act as global team 2008; Ang et al., 2007; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008). It has been
leaders. shown to be a key predictor of integration in multinational teams
People are indeed being exposed to more and more cultures (Flaherty, 2008), but also of international assignment effectiveness
(Friedman & Liu, 2009; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). At least three (Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, 2008), expatriate adjustment and
identifiable streams of research have developed around this performance (Shaffer & Miller, 2008), and task performance in
external process. The first of these is the many-faceted construct culturally diverse settings (Ang et al., 2007). These are all relevant
of the ‘global mindset’ (e.g., Javidan, Dorfman, deLuque, & House, for success as a global team leader. Discussions of cultural
2006). Global mindset is argued to be crucial for global leaders to intelligence in the leadership literature, though, remain largely
be able influence individuals, groups and organizations that are conceptual (e.g., Alon & Higgins, 2005; Mannor, 2008). In one
unlike them. These global leaders may be seen to be international recent exception, Groves and Feyerherm (2011) tested the
(e.g., Anthias, 2001) or cosmopolitan rather than bound by one, moderating effects of cultural diversity on leader and team
two or a few cultures. Other people seem to adapt easily and well in performance. Data from 99 leaders and 321 of their followers
emotional, behavioral, and cognitive terms to new cultural with an average team size of about 4 people including the leader
L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603 597
showed that leader cultural intelligence is a function of the range of techniques to achieve success. This immediately accessi-
leadership context. A leader’s cultural intelligence contributes to ble cultural competence repertoire is what makes biculturals,
team member perceptions of the performance of the leader and the whether born or learned, of critical interest for the leadership of
team where teams are characterized by high national and ethnic global teams. Dickerson (2006) reports on the wide variety of
diversity. As this composition is typical for global teams these techniques including the tapping of new social networks that
findings are of interest to examine whether they also are applicable Latino and black women leaders in the labor movement use to
for global teams that act in a virtual context. access and negotiate societal hierarchies. The ‘switching techni-
ques’ of Navajo women managers (Muller, 1998) and the
4.2. Biculturals and biculturalism ‘expanding’ persuasive influence of American Indian managers
(Warner & Grint, 2006) are examples of managers who have
Born biculturals, individuals who have two cultural back- developed active biculturalism. These examples of non-White US
grounds (e.g., parents from two different national cultures, or are leaders illustrate the organizational system constraints these
members of an ethnic minority relative to the society’s dominant individuals face and their ability to liberate themselves from these
majority), are often assumed to already have the ability to quickly constraints while becoming and remaining successful players in
switch frames between the two cultures as required and provide a mainstream organizational systems (Ospina & Foldy, 2009). The
managerial solution to bicultural work situations including teams ability to liberate oneself to ‘switch’ and ‘expand’ influence, for
(Brannen & Thomas, 2010). Indeed, recent experimental work has example, will allow a bicultural, whether born or learned, in the
shown that Chinese-Western participants who have been primed position of a global team leader to span boundaries and bridge
with pictures of Chinese and Western cultural icons actually do differences.
think differently using different parts of their brains to process Mirroring the ‘negative’ lens of the diversity literature more
information depending on the prime (Ng & Han, 2009). Global team generally (Shore et al., 2009), earlier work on biculturalism focused
leaders do need to think differently to span boundaries and make on the often negative immigrant experience in a relatively stable
bridges as we discussed. While it is tempting to assume that a born external context and the conclusions that a positive identity is a
bicultural has the capability to do so, empirical evidence necessary condition for bicultural life success generally. Although
demonstrates that it is important to distinguish between someone we have not uncovered any empirical work on bicultural leaders of
who is ‘simply’ a born bicultural and someone who actually global teams, newer work on biculturalism contrasts positive with
demonstrates bicultural fluency or biculturalism. Indeed Lücke and negative identities, flexibility and liberation with constraint,
Roth (2008) develop a culture-cognitive conceptualization of salience with categorization, and dynamic with stable environ-
biculturalism to argue that individuals who are not born ments. This positive focus parallels developments noted above in
biculturals can develop biculturalism also through social experi- respect of multicultural teams and elsewhere in the organization
ences in later life. literature (e.g., the literature on inclusion of diverse individuals
Friedman and Liu (2009) identify four factors that research has (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008; Roberson, 2006)). These contrasts
shown to enhance or constrain the cognitive flexibility of match more closely with the current complex dynamic and global
biculturals, whether born or learned. These factors are (1) ‘need environment, and suggest that bicultural team leaders of global
for cognitive closure’, (2) assimilation strategies, (3) ‘bicultural teams might more successfully leverage the positive cognitive
integration’, and (4) lay theory of race. High ‘need for cognitive contributions of adaptability (e.g., the boundary-spanning and
closure’ individuals dislike ambiguity and so are more likely than bridge-making roles discussed above) while at the same time more
low ‘need for cognitive closure’ individuals to follow the cultural successfully minimize cognitive constraints experienced by team
rules they were brought up with (Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, members, a third role that we label ‘blender’ (Butler, Zander,
2000; Kruglanski, 1990). Further while some individuals may Mockaitis, & Sutton, 2012). The success of biculturals in this newly
choose a ‘positive’ integration assimilation strategy, other may identified role together with the two roles noted above is a topic
choose ‘negative’ separation or marginalization assimilation that holds both theoretical and practical relevance worthy of
strategies as they acculturate (Berry, 1990; see also Bourhis, future empirical inquiry.
Moise, Perrault, & Senecal, 1997; Mana, Orr, & Mana 2009; Roccas
& Brewer, 2002). In addition high ‘bicultural integration’ 5. Discussion – emerging research themes and a future
individuals make fewer situational attributions, implying cultural research agenda
assimilation; individuals low in ‘bicultural integration’ make
greater situational attributions, implying cultural contrast The literature on global team leadership is far from abundant,
(Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005). Low ‘bicultural integration’ but when reviewing recent work on virtual team leadership,
results in ‘mismatching’ in performance appraisals (Mok, Cheng, & multicultural team leadership, and the team leader we could
Morris, 2010) and pay allocation (Friedman, Liw, Chi, Hong, & clearly identify three emerging themes that are highly relevant for
Sung, 2008, as cited in Friedman & Liu, 2009) that can lead to future research on leading global teams (see Fig. 1 for a graphical
managerial problems rather than solutions. Lastly some bicultur- illustration of the literature review and the emerging themes).
als hold an ‘essentialist’ view or lay theory of race as stable and These three emerging themes are: (1) global team leaders as
enduring. They view their two cultures, minority and majority, as boundary spanners, bridge makers, and blenders, (2) people-
separate entities. In experimental work, biculturals who hold such oriented leadership in global teams, and (3) leveraging global team
a view respond to majority culture primes with minority culture diversity, which will be discussed in detail below.
responses (No et al., 2008). Depending on biculturals’ need for
cognitive closure, application of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ assimila- 5.1. Global team leaders as boundary spanners, bridge makers and
tion strategies, level of bicultural integration, and the absence or blenders
the presence of a ‘lay theory of race’, the degree of biculturalism,
and the associated sought-after competence of cognitive flexibil- As much of the research on global team leadership concentrates
ity will vary. on the leader’s competencies and challenges in leading the team, it
Some born biculturals do indeed possess amazing cognitive would be valuable to consider the multiple roles of global team
flexibility and behavioral adaptability in the workplace. In their leaders. The first theme that surfaced is the expectation and desire
journey to bicultural fluency (Bell & Nkomo, 2001) they use a wide for global team leaders to be engaged in boundary spanning
598 L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603
Leader competences
Leading
virtual teams Emerging research
theme 1:
Leadership styles Global team leaders
as boundary
spanners, bridge
makers & blenders
Leader competences
Emerging research
Leading
Leadership styles theme 2:
mulcultural
People-oriented
teams
leadership in global
teams
Leadership
strategies & modes
Emergent research
theme 3:
Cultural intelligence Leveraging global
& global mindset team diversity
Team leader
Biculturals &
biculturalism
Fig. 1. Leading global teams: literature review and emerging research themes.
activities between organizational units, bridge making activities what is the relationship between identification and effective
across cultural and linguistic differences between people within leadership?
the team, as well as blending subgroups within teams. Bridge makers facilitate intra-team communication, interac-
Boundary spanning was identified as a leader competence tion, and resolve conflicts by bridging cultural and linguistic
important in virtual teams (Davis & Bryant, 2003; Joshi & Lazarova, boundaries between team members (Liljegren & Zander, 2011). As
2005) and multicultural teams (Hajro & Pudelko, 2010). Wiesen- we touched on earlier, tuning in to and identifying cultural cues,
feld and Hewlin (2003) argue that boundary spanning is the most reading the in-between lines of ‘hidden’ contextual information
important role of managers. To do this effectively, managers must (Steers et al., 2010) can enable communication and resolve
identify with multiple groups and be able to attain synergies communication misunderstandings before these become a reality.
between them. However, as Wiesenfeld and Hewlin (2003) argue, This makes bridge making an essential part of what team leaders
managers must have established legitimacy within these groups. need to do to leverage the full potential of a multicultural team
This means that the leader must be viewed as such by the group (Maznevski, 2008). Bridge making is also the essence of the
members. Legitimacy necessitates trust. In global virtual teams leadership strategy proposed by Chevrier (2003), who argues that
this is even more important, as members are dispersed; team mere interaction between team members will not release synergy
members must be confident that their leader will represent their effects from drawing on different cultures. Successful synergetic
interests to other groups both within and external to the team outcomes can only be achieved through a deep understand-
organization. As if the task of leading a global team was not ing of each other’s’ cultural backgrounds and world views. This
challenging enough, the team leader as boundary spanner must leads us to query whether the team leader’s bridge making role
also possess chameleon-like abilities, identifying with the virtual changes character, increases in importance, or possibly becomes
team as a whole and each of its members, as well as with multiple redundant in the virtual working environment of global teams.
other groups. However, according to Wiesenfeld and Hewlin Other questions include whether a team leader can be a bridge
(2003), in order for boundary spanning to be achieved well, the maker in cyber space where team members are not in spatial and
leader cannot prioritize one identity over another, so as not to temporal proximity to each other, and whether bridge making is
jeopardize the trust of the groups that are given lower priority. The dependent on acting in real time, or if delayed team leader
leader must demonstrate commitment to all groups among which responses will aggravate rather than alleviate the situation.
synergies are to be attained. How do global team leaders balance We build on Abreu’s and Peloquin’s (2004) understanding that
their multiple roles in different groups as well as their relation- bridge makers foster understanding, interdependence, cohesion,
ships within those groups? What are the qualities of effective and recognition across cultural boundaries in a team. If we
boundary spanning by global team leaders? Given the critical examine recent research by Jenster and Steiler (2011) on 31 GVTs
importance of identification for connecting global members operating across 22 countries, we find a significant relationship
(Martins & Schilpzand, 2011), how do boundary spanning leaders between team leaders’ personal support and expression of
of global teams identify with the global team and other groups, and inclusion, and team members’ motivation and team cohesiveness.
L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603 599
This leads Jenster and Steiler (2011) to argue for an increased effort possibly serve other purposes? These are central questions in
in supporting team members to bridge gaps between team leader future research on leading global teams.
and members when working in a global virtual context. Examining
the potential effects of team leaders’ personal support and 5.2. People-oriented leadership in global teams
inclusive actions, together with a bridge making cultural repertoire
on global team outcomes constitutes an exciting new research At the crossroads of virtual and multicultural team leadership
agenda with both theoretical and practical implications. research the focus was clearly on people-oriented leadership styles
Global team leaders also need to act as blenders, uniting the making it our second emerging theme. Transformational and
subgroups and splits (see Lau & Murnighan, 1998, 2005, for a inspirational leadership together with the less researched servant
discussion of group faultlines) present in the many ‘in-between’ leadership, all viewed as stimulating, encouraging and supporting
multinational groups (Butler, 2010) that fall somewhere on the types of leadership, were found to have positive effects in both
team composition spectrum between ‘highly heterogeneous’ and global virtual teams and in multicultural collocated teams.
‘highly homogeneous’. Research on intergroup leadership (e.g., The people-oriented leadership trends echo a general move
national political parties) has found that leaders often remain away from the more ‘traditional’ leadership preoccupied with
insular reinforcing boundaries between groups rather than order giving, control and distinct role boundaries between those
encouraging understanding (Kellerman, 2004) creating conflict who lead and those who are led. This is possibly a response to
between groups leading to intergroup rivalry. Those who demon- contemporary changes in work values and expectations, where a
strate biculturalism as discussed above should be more able than sense of duty and loyalty to a single employer is being replaced by a
others to employ, for example, switching techniques to ‘move’ need for individual experience to achieve through a variety of
immediately and rapidly between subgroups. employers and a plethora of work arrangements. To retain talent
The standard solution offered by the intergroup literature has and skills, and not lose knowledgeable human resources, managers
been for leaders to develop a superordinate goal to create a bridge become competent in and practice people-oriented aspects of
to reduce intergroup dislike (likely drawn from social norms) leadership. This people-oriented leadership trend is, however, not
Hornsey and Hogg (2000) emphasize that maintaining, not solely driven by individual work preferences but also by harsh
weakening, subgroup identities, while locating them within the labor market realities, where competition and financial turbulence
context of a binding superordinate identity, is a way to avoid such have led to restructuring, outsourcing, downsizing, alliance
‘superordinate identity’ bridges making things worse rather than formation, and other organizational changes with far-reaching
better. Other research (e.g., Brewer, 1999; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; implications for the people who work in these organizations.
Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Park & Judd, 2005) has shown that Team members in our review ranked people-oriented leader-
the solution lies in offering up a greater range of strategies, ship styles, such as transformational, inspirational and servant
something which should come naturally to those demonstrating leadership, highly, and empirical studies established a direct link
biculturalism. between leadership style and team effectiveness with only a few
Pittinsky (2010) proposes the creation of a workplace culture noted exceptions, such as the mediating need for member trust in
where enacting individual acts of liking (likely to be drawn from the team leader in one study and person-organization value
individual experience) is the accepted way of behaving where congruence in another, for transformational leadership to be
national diversity is present. He further emphasizes the need for effective. The picture is less clear, however, with respect to the
leaders to develop high-quality individual relationships with effectiveness of distributed leadership or empowering global
followers from all subgroups, not just their own. Biculturals are teams. On the one hand, the virtual team leadership literature
more likely to be able to blend the team into such a ‘liking’ poignantly questions whether there is any other way to
culture. Shore et al. (2011) advocate focusing simultaneously on successfully lead geographically distributed virtual teams. On
both the satisfaction of belonging and the need for uniqueness the other hand, some have also found that empowering was
which each team member processes (Brewer, 1991) to increase prioritized by team leaders, not the team members. This is not
inclusion of all team members and cite strategies to achieve this surprising perhaps, as the cross-cultural leadership literature
such as incorporating high group task difficulty coupled with describes how leadership styles, behaviors and prototypes, and
high group autonomy (Man & Lam, 2003) and smaller group size employee preferences for leadership practices vary significantly
and greater group interdependence (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & across countries and cultures (see, e.g., House, Hanges, Javidan,
McLendon, 2003). Dorman, & Gupta, 2004; Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2002;
Although these types of blending strategies seem more likely to Zander, 1997), suggesting that in a global team, members will hold
succeed when undertaken by someone demonstrating bicultural- different leadership models. With this follows the risk of a team
ism, are they the strategies that biculturals in the role of global leader experiencing the afore mentioned power paradox (Maz-
team leader actually use? Further are these strategies, or indeed nevksi & Zander, 2001) and becoming ineffective.
other strategies, significantly more likely to succeed when In a recent meta-analysis of cultural effects in studies using
undertaken by an individual demonstrating biculturalism than Hofstede’s dimensions from the last three decades, Taras, Kirkman,
when undertaken by someone high on cultural intelligence, and Steel (2010) demonstrated that culture significantly explains
demonstrating a global mindset or, indeed, anyone else leading variance in employee receptivity to certain leadership styles as
the so-called ‘in-between global teams’ in particular and global well as team-related attitudes and perceptions; this underscores
multicultural teams in general? the likelihood of facing a power paradox, and the difficulty of
Lastly, how are team leader roles such as boundary spanning, selecting the right leadership style when leading multicultural
bridge making and blending enacted in a global virtual environ- teams. Watson, Johnson, and Zgourides (2002) found that for
ment? Butler et al. (2012) suggest that fostering of the qualities, ethnically diverse teams interpersonal leadership activities were
skills, and competences required for effective global leadership more important than for non-diverse teams, where task leadership
actually occurs simultaneously when performing these three was critical. And, as demonstrated by Zander (1997, 2005) and
unique roles within and across groups. Their significance lies in the Zander and Romani (2004) employees’ interpersonal leadership
ability to manage paradoxical situations occurring when working preferences vary significantly across countries and cultures. A
across national and cultural borders. Will these roles take on a new central question for future research on leading global teams is
guise, can these roles satisfy the needs of global team members, or whether a power paradox can surface and take on the same
600 L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603
magnitude in virtual teams, when team members often work finding by Watson et al. (2002). Others argue that cultural diversity
asynchronically, separated by both time and space and are not is not as important as other factors. For example, Davis and Bryant
necessarily aware of each other’s conflicting leadership prefer- (2003, p. 330) suggest that a strong organizational culture trumps
ences, as in collocated teams. If so, then the global team leader will any national cultural differences, and global team members leave
become a less effective leader. their ‘‘cultural identity at the door,’’ especially in cases where
Team members’ evaluations of team leader effectiveness are, organizational culture is particularly strong.
however, not solely dependent on what leadership style is used. In the meta-analysis of diversity effects in multicultural teams
Sauer (2011) demonstrated that perceived leader effectiveness by Stahl, Maznevski, et al. (2010), diversity was found to lead to
was the result of an interaction between leadership style process losses with respect to increased conflict and lower social
(empowering versus directive behavior) and how the leader’s integration but also increased creativity. Multicultural teams that
status is judged (low versus high status as measured by age, were collocated experienced more conflict and lower social
number of years of experience and appearance of the incoming integration than dispersed (virtual) teams. Although these findings
leader) by team members. These results are similar to findings in suggest that the virtual context may to some extent diminish the
gender-based leadership research aptly denoted female first and effects of diversity, others have found that cultural differences may
leader second (Scott & Brown, 2006). Different leadership styles, be especially strong when they appear to be concealed by the
such as ‘autocratic’ versus ‘democratic’, are interpreted differently virtual context (Mockaitis, Rose, & Zettinig, in press). Because
depending on whether the leader is a man or a woman (see, e.g., global team members cannot readily see one another or easily
Eagly & Carli, 2003; Scott & Brown, 2006). Recent research findings engage in face-to-face interaction, surface-level diversity becomes
in collocated teams indicate that incoming team leader status less important, and deeper-level diversity, such as values diversity,
characteristics and other visible demographics matter for team becomes more salient. Some researchers have argued that cultural
members’ perceptions and evaluations about the effectiveness of diversity will have stronger effects on team outcomes than surface-
the leader’s style. This leads us to pose the question of whether level diversity in global teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004).
these results hold when there is a lack of, or limited, face-to-face Stahl, Mäkelä, Zander, and Maznevski (2010) argue that
visibility in the virtual environment facing global teams? Other perhaps the literature on team diversity has placed too much
research questions include how incoming global team leaders emphasis on the negative aspects of diversity, and this has limited
assume leadership or become acknowledged as team leaders, how our understanding about the dynamic nature of diversity in teams.
they form and norm a team culture, organize work and lead the There is a positive side to diversity as well. Diversity can result in
team to success. In essence, will team members’ perceptions of deeper interaction and richer communication, enhance learning,
leadership effectiveness still be related to incoming global team increase creativity and satisfaction, and have additional benefits
leaders’ status characteristics and/or actions when they work in a (Stahl, Mäkelä, et al., 2010). However, Stahl, Mäkelä, et al. (2010)
virtual working environment? explain that the focus on managing diversity in multicultural
That global team leaders should motivate and inspire, coach teams has been on theories that help to understand or mitigate the
and mentor, and take a personal interest in team members, was problems that arise in such teams (e.g., social identity theory,
viewed as essential by team members in the studies we reviewed. faultlines, similarity-attraction theory, etc.). They do not focus on
These competences are of course of value to any group leader, who multicultural virtual teams. Yet, given all of the distance barriers
wishes to engage in people-oriented leadership styles, but in a created by the virtual context (physical geographic distance,
virtual and cross-cultural context they need to be coupled with a communication lags, interaction barriers, etc.) that the global team
cross-cultural awareness, highlighted as critical in a number of the leader must manage, a positive approach to leveraging the benefits
studies we reviewed. We need further research regarding how of diversity as opposed to managing in order to minimize its
feasible, effective and successful people-oriented leadership negative effects would be a refreshing direction and a novel
practices are in the virtual and multicultural context of a global addition to the literature on global team leadership. Here we can
team, where team leaders and members hold and prefer different refer back to our team leadership modes discussion, repeat that the
leadership models, and whether team outcomes will vary between global virtual context places extra-ordinary challenges on leader-
transformational, inspirational, service-oriented, empowering, ship as team member interaction is not going on in real time (nor in
distributed, and shared leadership styles and modes. real life) to any larger extent. In which way, if at all can the
leadership modes be used to leverage, not just manage, cultural
5.3. Leveraging global team diversity diversity in global virtual teams?
Leaders, who demonstrate biculturalism together with those,
More work is still needed on the role of the leader in managing who possess cultural intelligence or a global mindset, can move
and leveraging multicultural diversity in global virtual teams, our comfortably between different cultures, and demonstrate inter-
third emerging theme. We are still seeking answers to many cultural empathy and personal liking, may be most suited to the
questions about recognizing cultural differences and their task of leading successful global teams. Empirical data is thus far
interaction with the virtual team context, and the emergence of quite thin underlining the need for future research that questions
subgroups and faultlines based on cultural and other team member the nature of the relationship between biculturalism, cultural
characteristics, as well as how to recognize and manage them in intelligence and global mindset, the relative impact of bicultural-
virtual teams. All of these questions pose further challenges for ism, cultural intelligence and global mindset on global team
global team leaders. However, even the leader, who has cross- performance, and strategies for effective bicultural, cultural
cultural competence, will find this task daunting without adequate intelligence and global mindset leadership of global teams. Under
knowledge about how diversity affects team functioning and such a perspective, research into how leaders can bring out the best
outcomes. The literature in this area is not unequivocal. qualities of different team members would be rather informative
According to Earley and Mosakowski (2000), effective teams are from theoretical and practical perspectives.
those that have a strong team culture (a sense of purpose and
goals) and shared expectations. In the early stages of the team, 6. Concluding reflections and managerial relevance
cultural diversity is expected to negatively influence team
functioning, however, over time, the relationship between Our review has shown that, surprisingly, given the rise of global
diversity and performance becomes curvilinear; this is also a teams, both multicultural team and global virtual leadership
L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603 601
remain under-researched areas. The combination of multinational, whether biculturals possess a specific set of competences which
multilinguistic and multicultural team dimensions, and a geo- would make them particularly successful as global team leaders.
graphically dispersed virtual context, lead to teams of a different For practitioners our literature review on leading global teams
kind, not just of a different degree, as team complexities and is of immediate and very hands-on use as it highlights emerging
dynamics are not just amplified, but new leadership challenges are themes important for the future. For global team leaders a specific
also introduced. This places new demands on global team set of leadership roles (i.e., boundary spanners, bridge makers and
leadership and global team leaders. blenders) stand out together with a set of people-oriented
Several compelling research trends and questions for future leadership styles (i.e., transformational, empowering and shared
research emerged in our literature review, all firmly grounded in leadership) and a focus on team performance in form of leveraging
multicultural and virtual team leadership research and recent global team diversity. Knowledge about differences between team
work on biculturalism, which deliberately pose questions regard- members’ and team leaders’ leadership expectations is helpful for
ing leadership and leaders of global teams. We identified and leaders in terms of understanding team members’ leadership
discussed three emerging research themes in more detail. The first preferences as well as for the decision-makers who select team
theme is that of global leaders as boundary spanners, bridge leaders for their global teams. Here discussions as to the
makers, and blenders. The second theme concerns people-oriented advantages of choosing those who display cultural intelligence,
leadership in global teams, and the third theme addresses global mindset or who are biculturals demonstrating biculturalism
leveraging global team diversity. as global team leaders can be most helpful. Vast cross-national
We were surprised that the râison d’étre of a global team leader differences regarding expectations about leadership and manage-
did not receive any explicit in-depth attention. What will change ment practices are not a new phenomenon in contemporary
when a multicultural leader has to work virtually, and corre- multinational organizations. However, some of our findings may
spondingly when a virtual team leader faces a multicultural team? pose challenges for human resource managers, for example that
Hajro and Pudelko (2010) found that the multicultural team team leaders and team members differ as to what they list as most
leaders they studied ranked virtual team leadership at the bottom important leadership competences and styles. Mentoring and
of the list of team leader competences. Only a little more than half coaching were important for team members, while empowering
of the global virtual leaders (and only 5% of the team members) and managing diversity came highly ranked on the team leaders’
viewed managing cultural diversity as important in Joshi’s and agenda. A more nuanced understanding of team leaders’ and
Lazarova’s (2005) study. Is this an example of not understanding members’ differing expectations, together with a cultural aware-
the challenges and implications for others’ daily work until we ness of differences in leadership preferences across countries, will
experience them ourselves, or is it an indication of something else? strengthen team leaders’ ability to overcome the power paradox
Popular belief has it that younger generations, computer and described in our review. Our review also highlighted that use of
internet savvy from an early age, do not feel as inhibited when different leadership modes, such as paired, rotated or shared
communicating electronically as older generations do. If this is so, leadership, rather than just resorting to the standard single team
then will members of the younger generation be better, more leader option, could be applied strategically, not just to manage
effective and efficient, global team leaders? Are the younger cultural differences but to actually leverage them. This is certainly
generations also possibly short-circuiting cultural communication invaluable for team leaders and global leaders alike.
misunderstandings using text messaging abbreviations and an With this article we have contributed to the extant literature
emerging internet communication protocol; will the need for team on leading global teams. The current state of the field is
leaders to boundary span, bridge make and blend decrease or presented and analyzed; we have outlined where contemporary
possibly diminish in the future? Or will they find that socializing research is heading, and identified some themes that deserve
virtually is quite different from leading work virtually? Will the focused attention in the future. We can easily set an even longer
simplified accessibility of electronic media for virtual face-to-face research agenda as our thoughts spin around various combina-
interaction lead to a changed role for the team leader; an increased tions of virtual and multicultural team leadership challenges.
use of alternative team leadership modes; or possibly diminish the However, we need to get much closer to the heart of the matter to
need for a single team leader altogether? find out whether there is something more to leading global teams
Additionally, electronic advancements may be global in use and than what we know from leading virtual multicultural teams
outreach, but this does not necessarily mean that they are globally today, as we believe that work in multinational organizations
accessible to all, or that internet skills or experience with electronic will not only be organized in and around global teams, but that
platforms are uniformly distributed, not even among the younger global teams could actually become the new fluid global firms of
generations. Cultural values, expectations and preferences may tomorrow.
also enhance, or inhibit, contemporary technology-driven com-
munication. At the same time we must remember that leadership References
preferences may change at a variable or slower rate and differ
across countries and cultures, leaving global team leaders with Abreu, B., & Peloquin, S. (2004). The issue is: Embracing diversity in our profession. The
interpersonal challenges and opportunities to be negotiated and American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58: 353–359.
Alon, I., & Higgins, J. (2005). Global leadership success through emotional and cultural
leveraged, while adapting to and learning from fast-paced intelligences. Business Horizons, 48: 501–512.
electronic advancements. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement.
Globalization and changes in attitudes also contribute to the and applications, Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). Cultural
rising number of born biculturals, e.g., in 2008 the U.S. Census
intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision-
Bureau projected that by 2050 minorities will become the majority making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and Organization
with 54% of the American population being of non-White European Review, 3: 335–371.
Anthias, F. (2001). New hybridites, old concepts: The limits of ‘‘culture’’. Ethnic & Racial
origin. Although we cannot predict how many people will
Studies, 24: 619–649.
demonstrate biculturalism, such changing demographic patterns Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in
are a particularly interesting issue to pursue in light of the rapidly virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34: 575–618.
accumulating literature on biculturalism. This phenomenon also Ayoko, O. B., Härtel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and
destructive conflict in culturally heterogenous workgroups: A communication
rekindles the old question of leader traits and characteristics but accommodation theory approach. The International Journal of Conflict Management,
offers a new prism through which to examine it, by querying 13: 165–195.
602 L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links
servant leadership. Group & Organizational Management, 31: 300–326. and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Construction and
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in critical advance (pp. 48–70). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Hitt, M. A., Javidan, M., & Steers, R. M. (2007). The global mindset: An introduction.
Psychology, 88: 989–1004. Advances in International Management, 19: 1–10.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person-organization
Effective Leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1): 14–49. congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness.
Bell, E. L., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and white women and the Academy of Management Journal, 54: 779–796.
struggle for professional identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A
Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Com- dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist,
ponents and psychological antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73: 1015–1050. 55: 709–720.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of
perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, (pp. 201–235). Lincoln, NB: subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 143–156.
University of Nebraska Press. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Leadership, and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic Jarvenpaa, S. L, & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual
science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 47: 423–441. teams. Organization Science, 10: 791–815.
Bourhis, R., Moise, L., Perrault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive accul- Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the
turation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of
Psychology, 32: 369–386. Management Perspectives, 20: 67–90.
Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. (2010). Bicultural individuals in organizations: Javidan, M., Steers, R. M., & Hitt, M. A. (2007). Putting it all together: So what is a global
Implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, mindset and why is it important? Advances in International Management, 19: 215–
10: 5–16. 226.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Jeanett, J. P. (2000). Managing with a global mindset. London: Prentice Hall.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 475–482. Jenster, N. P., & Steiler, D. (2011). Turning up the volume in interpersonal leadership:
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Motivating and building cohesive global virtual teams during times of economic
Journal of Social Issues, 35: 429–444. crisis. Advances in Global Leadership, 6: 267–297.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., & Canney Davison, S. Global virtual team dynamics and
functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. effectiveness. In G. Stahl, I. Bjorkman, & S. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of research in
Academy of Management Journal, 45: 875–893. international human resource management. Edward Elgar Publishing: London, in
Butler, C. L. (2006). The influence of status cues on collective identity in teams of press.
different national composition. Academy of management best papers proceedings. Joshi, A., & Lazarova, M. B. (2005). Do global teams need global leaders? Identifying
Butler, C. L. (2010). The challenge of the ‘in-between’ multinational team: Is a bicultural leadership competences in multinational teams. In D. L. Shapiro (Ed.), Managing
leader the answer? Paper presented at the academy of management annual multinational teams: Global perspectives (pp. 281–301). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
meeting, Montreal, Canada. Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of
Butler, C. L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Sutton, C. (2012). The global leader as inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science,
boundary spanner, bridge maker and blender. Industrial and Organizational Psy- 20: 240–252.
chology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 5(2). Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Kern, M. C. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 755–
Business Review, 84: 84–91. 768.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2001–2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual
virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership beha- teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3): 7–40.
viors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15: 323–343. Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
Chevrier, S. (2003). Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups. The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1):
Journal of World Business, 38: 141–149. 77–89.
Chiu, C. Y., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y. Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston:
The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a Harvard Business School Press.
function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 247– Kim, K., Kirkman, B., & Chen, G. (2008). Cultural intelligence and international assign-
259. ment effectiveness: A conceptual model and preliminary findings. In S. Ang & L.
Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. (2003). Influence at a distance: Leadership in global virtual Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory measurement, and appli-
teams. Advances in Global Leadership, 3: 303–340. cations (pp. 71–90). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Dickerson, N. (2006). We are a force to be reckoned with: Black and Latina women’s Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team
leadership in the contemporary US labor movement. Working USA, 9(3): 293–313. empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face
DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 175–192.
management. Organizational Dynamics, 29: 45–63. Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Towards a measure of patriotic and nationalistic
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the attitudes. Political Psychology, 10: 2257–2274.
evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 807–834. Krebs, S. A., Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). Virtual teams and group member
Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving dissimilarity: Consequences for the development of trust. Small Group Research, 37:
forward with cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24: 271– 721–741.
299. Kruglanski, A. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. attributions. In Higgins, E. T., & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds.), The handbook of motivation
Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. and cognition: Foundation of social behavior (vol. 2, pp. 333–368). New York:
Earley, P. C., Murnieks, C., & Mosakowski, E. (2007). Cultural intelligence and the global Guilford Press .
mindset. Advances in International Management 19 pp. 75-10. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114: 395–412.
test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The composi-
26–49. tional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23:
Flaherty, J. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and 325–340.
integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 192–205). Armonk, effects of demographic fault-lines. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 645–659.
NY: M.E. Sharpe. Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about when
Friedman, R., & Liu, W. (2009). Biculturalism in management: Leveraging the benefits we talk about ‘global mindset’: Managerial cognition in multinational corpora-
of intrapersonal diversity. In R. Wyer, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding tions. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 231–258.
culture: Theory, research, and application (pp. 343–360). Hove, East Sussex: Psy- Liljegren, S., & Zander, L. (2011). The importance of being a bridge maker: Power and
chology Press. influence in international and multicultural boards of directors. Paper presented at the
Friedman, R. Liw, W., Chi, S., Hong, Y. Y., & Sung, L. K. (2008). Western exposure: The academy of management annual meeting, San Antonio, USA.
effects of foreign experience on Taiwanese managers’ cognition. Unpublished manu- Lücke G., & Roth, K. (2008). An embeddedness view of biculturalism. South Carolina CIBER
script. Working Paper Series, Working Paper D-08-07.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of
and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Management Perspectives, February: 60–70.
Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing Maloney, M. M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2006). Building bridges, windows, and cultures:
the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Mediating mechanisms between team heterogeneity and performance in global
Group and Organization Management, 36(5): 535–566. teams. Management International Review, 46: 697–720.
Hajro, A., & Pudelko, M. (2010). An analysis of core-competences of successful multi- Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on
national team leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(2): cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural
175–194. analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 979–1001.
L. Zander et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 592–603 603
Mana, A., Orr, E., & Mana, Y. (2009). An integrated acculturation model of immigrants’ Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based
social identity. Journal of Social Psychology, 149: 450–473. trust as mediators of leaders behavior influences on team performance. Journal of
Mannor, M. (2008). Top executives and global leadership: At the intersection of cultural Applied Psychology, 96: 863–887.
intelligence and strategic leadership theory. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Schweiger, D. M., Atamer, T., & Calori, R. (2003). Transnational project teams and
Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 91– networks: Making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World
106). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Business, 38: 127–140.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the
and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30: 805–835. encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Martins, L. L., & Schilpzand, M. C. (2011). Global virtual teams: Key developments, Processes, 101(2): 230–242.
research gaps, and future directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Shaffer, M., & Miller, G. (2008). Cultural intelligence: A key success factor for expatri-
Management, 30: 1–72. ates. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
Matveev, A. V., & Milter, R. G. (2004). The value of intercultural competence for measurement, and applications (pp. 107–125). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
performance of multicultural teams. Team Performance Management, 10(6): Shore, L. M., Chung, B., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D., Randel, A., et al. (2009).
104–111. Diversity and inclusiveness: Where are we now and where are we going? Human
Matveev, A. V., & Nelson, P. E. (2004). Cross cultural communication competence and Resource Management Review, 19: 117–133.
multicultural team performance: Perceptions of American and Russian managers. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011).
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2): 253–270. Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.
Maznevski, M. L. (2008). Leading global teams. In M. E. Medenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, Journal of Management, 37: 1262–1289.
G. R. Oddou, & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice, and Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of
development (pp. 94–113). Routledge: Milton Park. guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior a 47-nation study. Journal of
Maznevski, M. L., & Zander, L. (2001). Leading global teams: Overcoming the challenge Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2): 188–208.
of power paradoxes. In M. Medenhall, T. Kuehlmann, & G. Stahl (Eds.), Developing Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Canney Davison, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use transnational
global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innovations (pp. 157–174). Westport, teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4): 50–67.
CT: Quorum Books. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of
Miller, D. M., Fields, P. E. R., Kumar, P. E. A., & Ortiz, P. E. R. (2000). Leadership and cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work
organizational vision in managing a multiethnic and multicultural project team. groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 690–709.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(6): 18–22. Stahl, G. K., Mäkelä, K., Zander, L., & Maznevski, M. L. (2010). A look at the bright side of
Mockaitis, A. I., Rose, E. L., & Zettinig, P. The power of individual cultural values in global multicultural team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26: 439–447.
virtual teams. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, in press. Steers, R. M., Sanchez-Runde, C. J., & Nardon, L. (2010). Management across cultures:
Mok, A., Cheng, C. Y., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Matching versus mismatching cultural Challenges and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
norms in performance appraisal: Effects of the cultural setting and bicultural Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant
identity integration. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1): 17– leadership: A difference in leader focus. The Leadership and Organization Develop-
35. ment Journal, 25(4): 349–361.
Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2010). Cultural and societal influences on shared leadership Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of cultures’ con-
in globally dispersed teams. Journal of International Management, 16: 234–246. sequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural
Muller, H. J. (1998). American Indian women managers: Living in two worlds. Journal of value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 405–439.
Management Inquiry, 7(1): 4–28. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technolo-
Murtha, T. P., Lenway, S. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (1998). Global mindset and cognitive gy and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3):
shifts in a complex multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 17–29.
97–114. Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational
Ng, S., & Han, S. (2009). The bicultural self and the bicultural brain. In R. S. Wyer, C. Y. behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management,
Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research, and application 33: 426–478.
(pp. 329–342). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural
No, S., Hong, Y. Y., Liao, H. Y., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Caho, M. M. (2008). Race and intelligence scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence:
psychological essentialism: Lay theory of race moderators Asian Americans’ Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16–38). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Warner, L. S., & Grint, K. (2006). American Indian ways of leading and knowing.
95: 991–1004. Leadership, 21(2): 225–244.
Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Zgourides, G. D. (2002). The influence of ethnic diversity on
literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. leadership, group process, and performance: An examination of learning teams.
The Leadership Quarterly, 876–896. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26: 1–16.
Park, B., & Judd, C. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). Splintered identify and organizational change:
within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9: The predicament of boundary spanning mangers. Research on Managing Groups and
108–130. Teams, 5: 27–52.
Perlmutter, H. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Colum- Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in
bia Journal of World Business, 4: 9–18. groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 90–106.
Pittinsky, T. (2010). A two-dimensional model of intergroup leadership. American Zander, L. (1997). The licence to lead – an 18 country study of the relationship between
Psychologist, 65(3): 194–200. employees’ preferences regarding interpersonal leadership and national culture (pub-
Ravlin, E. C., Thomas, D. C., & Ilsev, A. (2000). Beliefs about values, status and legitimacy lished Ph.D. dissertation). Stockholm School of Economics and the Institute of
in multicultural groups: Influences on intragroup conflict. In P. C. Earley & H. Singh International Business, Stockholm.
(Eds.), Innovations in international and crosscultural management (pp. 17–51). Zander, L. (2005). Communication and country clusters: A study of language and
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. leadership preferences. International Studies of Management and Organisation,
Redding, G. (2007). The chess master and the 10 simultaneous opponents: But what if 35(1): 84–104.
the game is poker? Implications for the global mindset. Advances in International Zander, L., & Butler, C. L. (2010). Leadership modes: Success strategies for multicultural
Management, 19: 49–73. teams. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3): 258–267.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in Zander, L., & Romani, L. (2004). When nationality matters: A study of departmental,
organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31: 212–236. hierarchical, professional, gender and age-based employee groupings’ leadership
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality & Social preferences across 15 countries. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management,
Psychology Review, 6: 88–106. 4(3): 291–315.
Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style Zigurs, I. (2002). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational
on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 574–587. Dynamics, 31(4): 339–351.