See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301915607

Assessment and Development of Global Leadership Competencies in the

Workplace: A Review of Literature

Article in Advances in Developing Human Resources · May 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1523422316645883

CITATIONS READS

58 12,176

4 authors:

Denise M. Cumberland Ann Herd

University of Louisville University of Louisville
42 PUBLICATIONS 631 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 828 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Meera Alagaraja Sharon Kerrick

University of Louisville University of Louisville
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,099 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 224 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Denise M. Cumberland on 07 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

645883
research-article2016
ADHXXX10.1177/1523422316645883Advances in Developing Human ResourcesCumberland et al.

Article
Advances in Developing Human
Resources
Assessment and 2016, Vol. 18(3) 301–317
© The Author(s) 2016
Development of Global Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Leadership Competencies DOI: 10.1177/1523422316645883
adhr.sagepub.com
in the Workplace: A Review
of Literature

Denise M. Cumberland1, Ann Herd1,

Meera Alagaraja1, and Sharon A. Kerrick1

Abstract
The Problem.
In the 21st century, globalization is key. Therefore, assessing and developing global
leadership competencies is an important topic in human resource development
(HRD). Global leadership competencies encompass personality traits, knowledge, and
skills, as well as behaviors. While there has been a plethora of scholar-practitioner
literature identifying global leadership competencies, there has been far less focus on
assessing global leadership competencies and how these competencies are developed.
The Solution.
We attempt to address this gap by examining the state-of-the-art literature on
global leadership assessment and development from several disciplines, including
HRD, management, and leadership. With regard to global leadership competency
assessment, our goal is to synthesize the literature and provide HRD professionals
with a systematic method for identifying instruments that measure core global
competencies. With regard to global leadership development, our aim is to provide a
framework for understanding how global leadership competencies can be developed.
The Stakeholders.
The identification and categorization of various instruments that measure global
competencies, as well as a framework that outlines methods to develop these
competencies, will benefit human resource (HR) professionals and HRD practitioners.

Keywords
global leadership assessment, global leadership competencies, global leadership
development

1University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Denise M. Cumberland, University of Louisville, 1905 South First St., Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

302 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

The need for global leadership is widely recognized as trade barriers have been liberal-
ized, as borders to countries have dissolved, and as technological changes have swept
in (Beechler & Javidan, 2007; Canals, 2014). An IBM (2010) study of more than 700
global chief human resource (HR) officers revealed that “developing future leaders”
was the most important business skill needed to achieve business objectives (p. 18).
These same HR executives suggested workforce gaps needed to be addressed to hire,
develop, and retain “borderless leaders” who could function effectively in complex
global environments and manage global business teams (p. 3). This leads us to two
important questions: What are the tools to assess global talent, and what methods are
currently being used to develop global leaders?
While scholar-practitioner literature has detailed comprehensive lists of cognitive
skills and psychological traits (Terrell & Rosenbusch, 2013; Tubbs & Schulz, 2006)
needed by leaders working in increasingly globalized environments, there has been less
focus on assessing these global leadership competencies, how these competencies are
learned, and the many ways organizations can provide employees the opportunity to
acquire and develop these skills (Prewitt, Weil, & McClure, 2011). We focus on these
emerging leadership development issues as they relate to global competency literature
in the context of human resource development (HRD).
It has been more than a decade since Marquardt and Berger (2003) called on HRD
to provide an in-depth examination of global leadership development at all levels of the
organization. However, the reality is that programs intended toward developing global
leaders and leadership are often perceived as “eclectic” (Oddou & Mendenhall, 2013,
p. 230). There is also some confusion in the delineation of purpose and types of devel-
opmental activities of how global leaders learn and develop cognitive, attitudinal, and
behavioral competency components (Edwards & Turnbull, 2013; Oddou & Mendenhall,
2013; Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2011; Terrell & Rosenbusch, 2013). In addition to these
aforementioned gaps in the literature, this article addresses the call by Kuchinke,
Ardichvili, and Lokkesmoe (2014) to HRD scholars and practitioners to examine and
investigate the methods for assessing and developing global competencies. We attempt
to address this call by examining the state-of-the-art literature on global leadership
assessment and development. With regard to global leadership competency assessment,
our goal is to synthesize the literature and provide HRD professionals with a systematic
method for identifying instruments that measure core global competencies. With regard
to global leadership development, our aim is to provide a framework for understanding
the literature regarding how global leadership competencies can be developed.

Method
Our method included examination of several disciplines, including HRD, manage-
ment, and leadership. Articles were identified through database searches on Business
Premier and the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)-EBSCO, and Google
Scholar, as well as within five HRD journals (Advances in Human Resource
Development, Human Resource Development International, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Human Resource Development Review, and International

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 303

Journal of Human Resource Management). The primary keyword search terms

included global leadership competencies, cultural intelligence development, global
leadership development, and global leader development. In total, we identified and
reviewed 98 articles or book chapters on global competency assessment and develop-
ment. Our search focused on literature from the last 15 years, with an eye to discerning
how scholars have addressed the identification, assessment, and development of atti-
tudinal, cognitive, and behavioral global leadership competencies.

Identification and Assessment of Global Leadership

Competencies
Given global expansion, technological advances, and the changing nature of work
today, many leaders must assume global leadership responsibilities even when operat-
ing exclusively within their country of origin. As Canals (2014) suggests, truly global
leaders (i.e., those who lead organizations that operate in more than one country) share
much in common with domestic leaders. However, global leaders must also operate in
different sociocultural and political value systems that create a far more complex,
diverse, and uncertain business environment. Recognizing the additional business
imperatives and the unique knowledge, skills, and competencies needed by global
leaders, Caligiuri and Tarique (2009) broadly define global leaders as “high level pro-
fessionals such as executives, vice presidents, directors, and managers who are in jobs
with some global leadership activities” (p. 336).
The term “competency” has traditionally been used to describe specific knowledge,
skills, and characteristics required to be effective on the job (Lucia & Lepsinger,
1999). The components of competencies have been linked to various terms, including
characteristics, traits, aptitudes, skills, values, beliefs, abilities, attitudes, and behav-
iors. HRD professionals have come to rely on competency models for a wide range of
practices, including recruitment and selection, training, and performance (Lucia &
Lepsinger, 1999).

Organizing Framework
Competency models are commonplace in organizations that aim to prepare workers
for future challenges (Kormanik, Lehner, & Winnick, 2009). We rely on Lucia and
Lepsinger’s (1999) three-tiered pyramid model as an organizing framework to discuss
the assessment and development of global leaders. Their model provides a specific
delineation of the domain components of a competency and is focused on the employee
level. The pyramid’s base includes personal characteristics such as personality traits,
innate talents, or an aptitude suggesting a person has the potential to acquire a skill.
The mid tier of the pyramid identifies skills and knowledge, which may be tangible or
intangible. At the top of the pyramid are specific behaviors that can be observed and
measured.
Due to the volume of competencies associated with global leadership, numerous
scholars have created global leadership competency models, including Bird,

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

304 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Mendenhall, Stevens, and Oddou (2010); Jokinen (2005); and Tubbs and Schulz
(2006). While these taxonomies help organize a multifaceted phenomenon, criticism
has been leveled that global leadership competency models operate from a Western
lens (Holt & Seki, 2012) and fail to prioritize what competencies are most relevant in
different cultural, environmental, and job/industry contexts for enhancing leadership
performance (Canals, 2014). In addition, there is an implicit assumption that either
global leadership competencies are different than those for domestic leaders, or that
there is a higher need for certain competencies when leaders operate in more challeng-
ing global environments (Jokinen, 2005; Steers, Sanchez-Runde, & Nardon, 2012).
Whether one believes global leadership competencies are above and beyond
domestic leadership competencies, or global leadership requires an emphasis on cer-
tain skills, effective assessment practices can aid in the identification, selection, and
development of global talent (Herd, Alagaraja, & Cumberland, 2016). Brownell
(2006) argued that competency-based models, while not a panacea, provide HRD pro-
fessionals with building blocks for identifying global leadership talent. Figure 1 out-
lines our global leadership development framework of the three competency arenas
defined by Lucia and Lepsinger (1999), integrating common assessment tools that
measure these competencies, along with four developmental training methods that
address these different domains.

Personality and Dispositional Competencies

The first competency domain is personality traits, and the assessment of this domain
often serves as the basis for global leadership selection and development programs
(Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009; Stahl, 2001). A meta-analysis performed by Mol, Born,
Willemsen, and Van der Molen (2005) found personality to be more predictive of
global leader performance than domestic job performance. Based on our examination
of the prominent literature reviews on global leadership competencies since 2005
(Bird et al., 2010; Jokinen, 2005; Mol et al., 2005; Osland, Bird, Mendenhall, &
Osland, 2006), as well as empirical studies not included in the aforementioned reviews,
we identify 17 personality characteristics consistently linked to effective global lead-
ership. Table 1 lists these along with survey instruments used to measure these traits
and dispositions. The psychometric properties of these global leadership instruments
are reported in the works of Bücker and Poutsma (2010), Graf and Mertesacker (2009),
and Bird and Stevens (2013). As noted by several researchers, the construct definitions
for some of the traits and dispositions listed in Table 1 overlap (Bird & Stevens, 2013;
Mol et al., 2005), and, for this reason, we listed some traits together after examining
the definitions described by the authors (e.g., adaptability and flexibility).
Personality traits are innate (Smith & Victorson, 2012) and also shaped by culture
(Tubbs & Schulz, 2006). Culture is defined as “shared motives, values, beliefs, identi-
ties, and interpretations of meanings of significant events that result from common
experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across generations” (House,
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004, p. 15). As culture directs not only what an
individual learns but also how behavior will be interpreted (Hofstede, 1984), some

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 305

Figure 1. A global leadership development framework by competency domain components.

scholars debate the merit of using personality characteristics for assessing global lead-
ers (Steers et al., 2012). They maintain that different cultures value different charac-
teristics and, therefore, assessment of leaders on the basis of their personality
characteristics may be ineffective in global environments.
Kowske and Anthony (2007) studied personality based traits (e.g., adaptability, self-
awareness, motivation) among mid-level managers across 12 countries using a multi-
rater development tool. These scholars found that culture dictates which competencies are
valued (Kowske & Anthony, 2007). Agrawal and Rook’s (2014) study using the Global
Leadership Executive Inventory (GELI) had similar findings. These scholars examined
1,784 executives, representing 128 nationalities from the 10 national clusters identified by
the Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) study (see
House et al., 1999). The national clusters include Anglo, Confucian Asia, Eastern Europe,
Germanic Europe, Latin America, Latin Europe, Middle East, Nordic Europe, Southern
Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 12 global leadership capabilities examined, all were
evident in effective leaders across every culture. The degree to which these leaders exhib-
ited these qualities, however, varied. From these findings, the researchers concluded that
leaders must adapt their behavior as different cultures place different values on certain
leadership styles. These findings suggest that it is important to consider what traits or
characteristics should be developed and in what contexts.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

306 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Table 1. Assessment Tools Measuring Global Personality Traits and Dispositions.

Global leadership traits Assessment instrument

1. Adaptability; flexibility (Ananthram & Chan, CCAI; GCI; GLO; ICAPS; ICSI; IDI; IRC;
2013; Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, MPQ; OAI; PROSPECTOR
2010; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Mol, Born,
Willemsen, & Van der Molen, 2005; Osland,
Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2006; Terrell &
Rosenbusch, 2013)
2. Agreeableness (Bird et al., 2010; Mol et al., NEO PI-R
2005)
3. Conscientiousness (Bird et al., 2010; Mol et al., NEO PI-R
2005)
4. Cultural sensitivity (Ananthram & Chan, 2013; CQS; GCI; GMI; ICSI; IDI; IES; IRC;
Bird et al., 2010; Jokinen, 2005; Mol et al., 2005; MPQ; PROSPECTOR
Osland et al., 2006)
5. Emotional intelligence (EQ; Bird et al., 2010; GELI
Osland et al., 2006)
6. Extroversion; sociability (Bird et al., 2010; GCI; GMI; IRC; MPQ; NEO PI-R; OAI
Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Jokinen, 2005; Mol
et al., 2005; Osland et al., 2006)
7. Inquisitiveness; curiosity (Bird et al., 2010; GCI
Jokinen, 2005; Osland et al., 2006)
8. Open-mindedness; nonjudgmentalness; low ATDS; GCAA; GCI; GELI; GLO; GMI;
ethnocentric attitudes (Ananthram & Chan, ICSI; IDI; IES; IRC; MPQ; OAI
2013; Bird et al., 2010; Jokinen, 2005; Mol et al.,
2005; Osland et al., 2006)
9. Openness to experience (Ananthram & Chan, ABOS; CCAI; CQS; GCAA; GMI;
2013; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Jokinen, 2005; ICAPS; NEO PI-R
Terrell & Rosenbusch, 2013)
10. Optimism (Bird et al., 2010; Jokinen, 2005; GCI
Osland et al., 2006)
11. Resilience (Bird et al., 2010; Osland et al., 2006) CCAI; GCI; GELI; IES
12. Self-awareness (Bird et al., 2010; Jokinen, 2005; CQS; GCAA; GCI; GLO; ICAPS; ICSI;
Osland et al., 2006) IES; ISAS
13. Self-efficacy; self-confidence (Bird et al., 2010; GCI; GMI
Jokinen, 2005)
14. Stability; stress tolerance; low neuroticism GCI; GELI; ICAPS; MPQ; NEO PI-R;
15. Tolerance for ambiguity (Bird et al., 2010; GCI; IRC
Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Jokinen, 2005; Mol
et al., 2005)
16. Tenacity (Osland et al., 2006) GELI
17. Values; integrity; character (Bird et al., 2010; CCAI; PROSPECTOR
Osland et al., 2006)

Note. CCAI = Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory; GCI = Global Competency Inventory; GLO = Global Leadership Online;
ICAPS = Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale; ICSI = Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory; IDI = Intercultural Development
Inventory; IRC = Intercultural Readiness Check; MPQ = Multicultural Personality Questionnaire; OAI = Overseas Adaptability
Inventory; PROSPECTOR = Prospector; NEO PI-R = Big Five Personality Inventories; CQS = Cultural Intelligence Scale;
GMI = Global Mindset Inventory; GELI = Global Executive Leadership Inventory; ATDS = Attitudes Toward Diversity Scale;
GCAA = Global Competencies Aptitude Assessment; IES = Intercultural Effectiveness Scale; ABOS = Attitudinal Behavioral
Openness Scale; ISAS = Intercultural Self Awareness Scale.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 307

The categorization of assessment instruments by trait provided in Table 1 allows

HRD resource professionals to consider what traits will be more important in different
situations and then easily identify the instruments that measure those traits. However,
in addition to personality traits, it is imperative to ascertain what specific knowledge
and skills are required in the effective performance of global leaders. In what follows,
we address the knowledge & skills competency domain for global leadership and the
various assessment tools.

Knowledge and Skill Competencies

Knowledge is the complex process of remembering, relating, or judging an idea or
abstract phenomenon (Bloom, 1956). Skills, on the other hand, define an individual’s
ability to execute specific tasks that can be learned over time (Caligiuri, 2006). We
discuss two domains that focus on knowledge and skills as they relate to leading global
enterprises: global mindset and cultural intelligence (CQ).
The first knowledge and skill domain associated with global leadership is the con-
cept of a global mindset (Cohen, 2010). The idea of a global mindset has received
much attention from scholars and practitioners over the last two decades. In their
review of the literature on global mindset, Levy, Beechler, Taylor, and Boyacigiller
(2007) defined this construct as “a highly complex cognitive structure characterized
by an openness and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both
global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across the
multiplicity” (Levy et al., 2007, p. 244). Most scholars articulate global mindset as a
multidimensional construct, and while all scholars do not agree on every aspect, the
majority include knowledge and skills as components of a global mindset. For a com-
prehensive view of the multiple ways that global mindset has been defined, see
Cumberland (2015).
The second broad domain associated with global leadership is CQ, a skill that
enables individuals to use their abilities appropriately in cross-cultural situations
(Brislin, Worthley, & MacNab, 2006; Earley & Ang, 2003). In their seminal book
Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures, Earley and Ang (2003)
advanced attention toward this construct over the last decade. Some scholars consider
CQ as differentiated from the global mindset concept (Levy et al., 2007; Thomas
et al., 2008), while other researchers argue CQ is simply a subset of the global mindset
framework (Cohen, 2010; Story & Barbuto, 2011). Seminal scholars in this arena,
Earley and Peterson (2004), define CQ as “a person’s capability to gather, interpret,
and act upon radically different cues to function effectively across cultural settings or
in a multi cultural situation” (p. 105). Furthermore, these scholars advance the argu-
ment that CQ can be measured and should be assessed prior to selection for interna-
tional assignments. An alternative view, espoused by Thomas et al. (2008), suggests
that CQ is such a complex construct that no single technique adequately measures CQ;
rather, a combination of assessment approaches is needed.
As shown in Table 2, validated survey instruments specifically designed to measure
global knowledge and skills are often used to measure global mindset and CQ. Three

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

308 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Table 2. Assessment Tools Measuring Global Knowledge and Skills.

Knowledge and skills Assessment instrument

1. Global mindset GELI; GMI; GMQ; IES

2. Cross-cultural intelligence CQS
3. Knowledge CCWM; CQS; GCAA; MAKSS; MASQUE; PROSPECTOR; SCAS
4. Skill (e.g., communication) ABOS; GLO; ICS; IRC; MAKSS; SCAS

Note. GELI = Global Executive Leadership Inventory; GMI = Global Mindset Inventory; GMQ = Global Mindset
Questionnaire; IES = Intercultural Effectiveness Scale; CQS = Cultural Intelligence Scale; CCWM = Cross-Cultural World
Mindedness; GCAA = Global Competence Aptitude Assessment; MAKSS = Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills
Survey; MASQUE = Munroe Multicultural Attitude Scale Questionnaire; PROSPECTOR = Prospector; SCAS = Sociocultural
Adaptation Scale; ABOS = Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness Scale; GLO = Global Leadership Online; ICS = Intercultural
Conflict Style Inventory; IRC = Intercultural Readiness Scale.

literature reviews describing the psychometric properties of the various self-report

measures include Bücker and Poutsma (2010), Graf and Mertesacker (2009), and Bird
and Oddou (2013).
Another assessment approach for knowledge and skill aptitudes is the use of
Situational Judgment Tests (SJT). An SJT presents a user with a job related issue and
a set of possible responses from which the user identifies the best response and worst
response, rates the responses, and then determines what they would do (Friedman
et al., 2013; Morris, Savani, & Roberts, 2014). Computer simulators are also a tech-
nique used to understand how individuals might solve a problem in the context of a
global assignment. Computer simulations can examine multiple levels of intelligence
from simple sense making to situations where possible harm could be had (Earley &
Ang, 2003). This tool can provide both qualitative and quantitative data. The disad-
vantages, however, relate to the need for trained assessors, high cost, possible bias, and
the potential that the presence of the assessor may be intrusive and influence behaviors
(Earley & Ang, 2003). Finally, observation of intercultural interactions by an assessor
may also reveal CQ and the presence of a global mindset (Earley & Ang, 2003).
The assessment of knowledge and skills is difficult given that there will be differ-
ences in which knowledge and skills are most pertinent to the role. For this reason,
multiple methods of assessment may be useful when evaluating global knowledge and
skills competencies. We turn now to the last and final level in the Lucia and Lepsinger’s
competency framework and address behavioral competencies.

Behavioral Competencies
Having the appropriate personality traits as well as knowledge and skills of what to do
is only part of the equation with respect to global leadership. Translating these apti-
tudes and abilities into action requires behavioral competencies. More proximal mea-
sures of behavior include 360-degree feedback instruments and assessment centers.
Feedback instruments, such as 360s, are used to help identify the operational modes of
individual executives (Kets de Vries, Vrignaud, & Florent-Treacy, 2004). The Global
Leadership Life Inventory (GlobeInvent), for example, relies on a 360-degree

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 309

measurement tool focusing on the “inner theater of leaders” to measure the dynamic,
two-way relationship between leaders and followers (Kets de Vries et al., 2004, p.
476). Cultural assimilators can also be used to determine how an individual might
react during a culture clash. This tool uses a critical cultural incident for understanding
how a person might react in a specific situation to reveal the presence or absence of
intercultural skills (Earley & Ang, 2003).
An approach that provides direct measurement of skill and behavior, as well as
knowledge and trait components of global leadership competencies, is the assessment
center (Herd et al., 2016). Because assessment centers are designed based on an anal-
ysis of organizational and position strategic objectives (Stahl, 2001), they avoid some
of the criticisms levied at using survey tools, which tend to assume there are universal
global competencies needed across situations (Canals, 2014; Steers et al., 2012).
Assessment centers define competencies in behavioral terms and use a battery of tests
and simulations in individual and group formats, along with multiple raters, to assess
intercultural competencies identified as important for the organization (Herd et al.,
2015).
Assessment of global leadership is challenging given differences in situations and
organizational strategic needs regarding which competencies will be most pertinent.
For this reason, it is recommended that a targeted approach to assessing global leader-
ship competencies be used that is based on the specific needs of the organization
(Canals, 2014). Assessment serves as the basis for designing global leadership devel-
opment initiatives, but many of the tools used for assessment are also used for devel-
oping and training global leaders. In the section “Development of Global Leadership
Competencies,” we outline methods for developing global leader talent, identify prac-
tices used by organizations for improving global leadership skills, and provide a
review of recent empirical literature on the effectiveness of global leadership
interventions.

Development of Global Leadership Competencies

Organizations embrace a wide variety of approaches to develop global leader compe-
tences. Our global leadership development framework delineates four approaches:
Self-Awareness Development, Didactic Training, Experiential Opportunities, and
Immersion. We review each area in the following section.

Self-Awareness
Enhanced self-awareness is often considered the foundation of global leadership, and
is developed by having participants identify and reflect on their own values, attitudes,
and behaviors as a means to discover cultural roadblocks (Earley & Ang, 2003). Self-
awareness training most often focuses on dispositional and knowledge components of
global leadership competencies. Mentoring and coaching, as well as 360-degree feed-
back, are avenues to help individuals become more self-aware of their cultural biases.
Mentors and coaches can be particularly helpful as they can have individuals identify

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

310 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

hidden assumptions and use these to assist individuals in identifying other viewpoints
(Brownell, 2006; Mendenhall, 2006). IBM uses global mentoring programs to “build
relationships and share information via phone and e-mail, and connect in person when
business travel allows” (Caligiuri, 2014, p. 65). Similarly, McDonald’s Corporation
relies on post-arrival coaching to help newly transplanted employees adapt to job
assignments overseas (Morris et al., 2014).

Didactic Training
Didactic training involves a variety of approaches such as diversity training and lan-
guage training through formal education programs, self-training programs (Caligiuri,
2006), and even theater training methods (Earley & Ang, 2003). Improvisational and
theater-based leadership development methods are well suited for those who operate
in complex, social systems that require flexibility, emotional intelligence, and adapt-
ability (Tawadros, 2015). In general, the didactic training approaches tend to rely on
information-oriented activities with a primary focus on knowledge competency com-
ponents that enable the individual to understand cultural topics and viewpoints
(Littrell, 2006) or gain specific skills through practice.
A specific didactic approach used to help employees improve intercultural interac-
tions is the cultural assimilator (Littrell, 2006). A cultural assimilator involves the
participant by having them read cross-culturally oriented scenarios (critical incidents).
Then, the individual reads a list of alternatives and indicates which course of action he
or she would like to adopt. An instructor with a culturally aware view regarding what
would be the most appropriate response then discusses with the individual what the
most appropriate response would have been and why. The cultural assimilator devel-
ops global leadership competencies through conditioning by having participants prac-
tice responding to realistic cross-cultural situations.
On a broader scale, organizations may use International Assessment Centers (IAC)
as a tool to train personnel for global assignments (Herd et al., 2015), and these allow
for the development of behavioral as well as knowledge and skill competency compo-
nents. DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, for example, used an IAC as part of its interna-
tional management development system. Another organizational example reflects the
dual modality of IACs to both assess and develop the various components of global
leadership competencies. The Grundfos Group, a global organization that manufac-
tures pumps, incorporates a range of techniques in their IAC, including simulation
exercises, written exercises, group discussions, and a crisis management activity
(Livings & Mitchell, 2011).

Experiential Opportunities
Experiential opportunities involve activities such as working abroad, international
business travel, operating as a member of a global team, or serving as a volunteer in
another culture (Caligiuri, 2006). Options in this learn-by-doing approach vary in
intensity and length of time an individual will be involved (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2014).

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 311

For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers uses service project assignments in developing

countries to help their leaders develop responsible global leadership behaviors (Pless
et al., 2011). Similarly, IBM’s Corporate Service Corps (CSC) program is a 6-month
effort whereby individuals gain global experience by working in teams in developing
countries, to assist micro-business enterprises in becoming more productive (Oddou &
Mendenhall, 2013). Organizations such as General Electric use action learning teams,
composed of high-potential employees from diverse countries, to collaborate on
emerging markets and develop proposals, which are then presented to senior execu-
tives (Conger, 2014).

Immersion
Like experiential opportunities, developmental interventions commonly associated
with immersion help develop all competency components and include long-term inter-
national assignments, expatriate assignments, and culturally immersive foreign-lan-
guage training (Conger, 2014). International assignments have been lauded as the
most useful developmental approach for enhancing all components of global leader-
ship competencies (Beechler & Javidan, 2007; Oddou & Mendenhall, 2013). This
learn-in-the field approach is recognized for building business acumen, cognitive
complexity, flexibility, and the ability to navigate change and hone cross-cultural skills
(Caligiuri, 2006).
With respect to language immersion programs, these are typically structured inter-
ventions and may involve some classroom and some natural interaction in a host coun-
try. Other types of immersion experiences may install the individual in a country
where they are isolated from their native language and must use the new target lan-
guage for communication (Caligiuri, 2006).

Empirical Findings on Global Leadership Development

Efforts
Despite the extensive amount of research advocating global leadership training, schol-
ars lament the limited number of empirical studies available on linking global leader-
ship development programs to enhancing global leader competencies (Nam, Cho, &
Lee, 2013; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009). Caligiuri and Tarique (2012) found that
significant intercultural experiences in either an individual’s professional or personal
life positively impacted their flexibility and tolerance for ambiguity. These scholars
surveyed 420 global leaders and their supervisors to examine both experiential oppor-
tunities initiated by organizations such as working abroad, operating on a global team,
being mentored by someone from another culture, and participating in meetings in
international locales, as well as non-work related cross-cultural exposure (travel
abroad for vacation, study or volunteering, and family diversity). Findings indicated
that significant intercultural experiences on both the professional and personal level
help individuals learn the appropriate skills and behaviors to operate effectively in a
variety of cultural contexts. Likewise, another recent study by Dragoni and colleagues

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

312 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

(2014) suggests that international experience in more culturally distant countries is

valuable in developing leaders’ strategic thinking competencies (Dragoni et al., 2014).
Another quantitative study of global leaders in a U.K.-based firm found that high con-
tact, cross-cultural leadership activities were more effective than low contact activities in
terms of global leader effectiveness (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009). High contact activities
were defined as short-term international assignments, long-term expatriate assignments,
global meetings held in international locations, membership on a global team, and men-
toring by a person from another culture. Low contact activities included formal education,
cross-cultural training programs, and assessment centers for general leadership develop-
ment, diversity training, and language training. Along this same line, Pless et al. (2011)
found that the high contact experience of participation in a company-sponsored interna-
tional service-learning program increased individuals’ cultural intelligence and global
mindset domains. Finally, Terrell and Rosenbusch’s (2013) phenomenological study of
12 global leaders revealed that a variety of high contact cross-cultural experiences, includ-
ing global travel for work, overseas site visits, mission-related trips, as well as holding
global jobs with or without relocating to another country, increased cultural intelligence
by enhancing the ability of these leaders to adapt to new situations.
A recent study by Kuchinke et al. (2014) adopted the Intercultural Development
Inventory (IDI) to measure whether a student exchange program impacted intercul-
tural competence. Among the group of 41 students, there was very little change in the
pre- or post-IDI scores. The authors conclude that it is not sufficient to send individu-
als into overseas assignments. Rather, they argue that participants on these assign-
ments also need customized in-country coaching and mentoring that is developmentally
appropriate to maximize the global leadership development and learning to be gained
from these assignments.

Conclusion
With increasing globalization, there is greater urgency to prepare leaders to operate in
complex business environments involving diverse stakeholders (Alon & Higgins,
2005). This literature review has contributed to the extant literature on competencies
empirically associated with global leadership, tools used to assess these competencies,
and methods used to develop these competencies on a macro scale. Taken together,
findings from this literature review suggest that assessing and developing global lead-
ership has continued to garner attention across many disciplines, but there remain
many promising avenues for future studies.
We suggest that HRD professionals need to continually increase their knowledge
regarding global leadership competencies and be able to identify which global compe-
tencies are needed for the various roles in their organizations (Chaudhuri & Alagaraja,
2014). Terrell and Rosenbusch (2013) make the case there is a spectrum of global jobs
“each with unique competency requirements” (p. 1073). One of the gaps in the litera-
ture we found is the need for a more coherent understanding of what global leadership
competencies are needed in different contexts. We urge HRD researchers to begin
studying and mapping global competencies across these various spectrums, as it is

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 313

unlikely organizations will be able to find employees who can successfully master all
of the competencies that have been associated with global leadership.
As demonstrated in this review, there are a host of tools available to assess different
global leadership competencies. Measurement of global leadership is not a settled
matter, and HRD researchers should continually seek to improve or expand on mea-
surement tools that avoid a cultural bias. This area of global leadership assessment
offers another fruitful line of inquiry.
Because HRD professionals are responsible for making a compelling case to senior
leaders that there is the need to invest in the appropriate training infrastructure to build
global leadership talent, staying aware of the empirical findings will provide more
evidence of what types of interventions have proven effective and what types of inter-
ventions to employ in different contexts. HRD researchers could develop a training
typology that delineates what leadership development programs work best under what
type of circumstances to assist practitioners with these decisions.
Despite the systematic nature of this review, a limitation is that only peer-reviewed
journal articles in English were included. Also, while multiple sources were located
and reviewed, it is likely that some relevant literature was excluded or overlooked.
Finally, HRD scholars and HR practitioners will want to consider the literature on
expatriate career development, as this area was not examined in this overview. This
establishes opportunities for future work. It is likely that, as the field of global leader-
ship development continues to expand, there will be an ongoing need to synthesize
empirical studies to help practitioners successfully select and groom global leaders in
the context of their critical strategic management objectives.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Agrawal, A., & Rook, C. (2014). Global leaders in east and west: Do all global leaders lead in
the same way. In J. S. Osland, M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Book series: Advances in global
leadership (Vol. 8, pp. 155-179). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Alon, I., & Higgins, J. M. (2005). Global leadership success through emotional and cultural
intelligences. Business Horizons, 48, 501-512. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2005.04.003
Ananthram, S., & Chan, C. (2013). Challenges and strategies for global human resource execu-
tives: Perspectives from Canada and the United States. European Management Journal,
31, 223-233.
Beechler, S., & Javidan, M. (2007). Leading with a global mindset. In M. Javidan, R. M. Steers, &
M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Book series: Advances in international management (Vol. 19, pp. 131-169).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

314 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M. J., & Oddou, G. (2010). Defining the content domain of
intercultural competence for global leaders. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 810-
828. doi:10.1108/02683941011089107
Bird, A., & Oddou, G. R. (2013). Global leadership knowledge creation and transfer. In M. E.
Mendenhall, J. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, M. L. Maznevski, M. Stevens, & G. K. Stahl
(Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice and development (2nd ed., pp. 163-182).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bird, A., & Stevens, M. (2013). Assessing global leadership competencies. In M. E. Mendenhall,
J. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, M. L. Maznevski, M. Stevens, & G. K. Stahl (Eds.),
Global leadership: Research, practice and development (2nd ed., pp. 113-140). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals
by a committee of college and university examiners. New York, NY: David McKay.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & MacNab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence understanding behaviors
that serve people’s goals. Group Organization Management, 31, 40-55.
Brownell, J. (2006). Meeting the competency needs of global leaders: A partnership approach.
Human Resource Management, 45, 309-336. doi:10.1002/hrm.20115
Bücker, J., & Poutsma, E. (2010). How to assess global management competencies: An inves-
tigation of existing instruments. Management Revue, 21, 263-291. doi:10.2307/41783654
Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review, 16,
219-228. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.009
Caligiuri, P. (2014). Many moving parts: Factors influencing the effectiveness of HRM prac-
tices designed to improve knowledge transfer within MNCs. Journal of International
Business Studies, 45, 63-72.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities.
Journal of World Business, 44, 336-346. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.005
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership
effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47, 612-622.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2014). Individual-level accelerators of global leadership develop-
ment. In J. S. Osland, M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Book series: Advances in global leadership
(Vol. 8, pp. 251-267). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Canals, J. (2014). Global leadership development, strategic alignment and CEOs commitment.
Journal of Management Development, 33, 487-502. doi:10.1108/JMD-02-2014-0014
Chaudhuri, S., & Alagaraja, M. (2014). An expatriate’s perspective on leadership and leading (a
global organization) in India: Interview with Matt Barney. Human Resource Development
International, 17, 358-365.
Cohen, S. L. (2010). Effective global leadership requires a global mindset. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 42, 3-10. doi:10.1108/00197851011013652
Conger, J. A. (2014). Addressing the organizational barriers to developing global leadership
talent. Organizational Dynamics, 43, 198-204.
Cumberland, D. M. (2015). Global entrepreneurial leadership competencies. In S. M. Carraher &
D. H. B. Welsh (Eds.), Global entrepreneurship. (pp. 85-96). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Dragoni, L., Oh, I. S., Tesluk, P. E., Moore, O. A., VanKatwyk, P., & Hazucha, J. (2014).
Developing leaders’ strategic thinking through global work experience: The moderating
role of cultural distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 867-882.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 315

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as
a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 3, 100-115. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436826
Edwards, G., & Turnbull, S. (2013). A cultural approach to evaluating leadership development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 46-60. doi:10.1177/1523422312467144
Friedman, H., Glover, G., Sims, E., Culhane, E., Guest, M., & Van Driel, M. (2013). Cross-
cultural competence: Performance-based assessment and training. Organizational
Development Journal, 31(2), 18-31.
Graf, A., & Mertesacker, M. (2009). Intercultural training: Six measures assessing training needs.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 33, 539-558. doi:10.1108/03090590910974419
Herd, A., Alagaraja, M., & Cumberland, D. M. (2016). Assessing and developing global lead-
ership competencies: The critical role of assessment center technology. Human Resource
Development International, 19, 27-43.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of quality of life concept. The Academy of
Management Review, 9, 389-398. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258280
Holt, K., & Seki, K. (2012). Global leadership: A developmental shift for everyone. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 5, 196-215. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01431.x
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.,
& Gupta, V. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project Globe. In
W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. II,
pp. 171-233). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
IBM. (2010). Working beyond borders: Insights from the global Chief Human Resource Officer
study. Somers, NY: IBM Corporation/IBM Business Services.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 29, 199-216. doi:10.1108/03090590510591085
Kets, de, Vries, M. F. R., Vrignaud, P., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2004). The Global Leadership
Life Inventory: Development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree feedback
instrument. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 475-492.
doi:10.1080/0958519042000181214
Kormanik, M. B., Lehner, R. D., & Winnick, T. A. (2009). General competencies for the HRD
scholar-practitioner: Perspectives from across the profession. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 11, 486-506. doi:10.1177/1523422309344170
Kowske, B. J., & Anthony, K. (2007). Towards defining leadership competence around the
world: What mid-level managers need to know in twelve countries. Human Resource
Development International, 10, 21-41. doi:10.1080/13678860601170260
Kuchinke, K. P., Ardichvili, A., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2014). Developing cross-cultural aware-
ness through foreign immersion programs: Implications of university study abroad research
for expatriate development. In Proceedings from UF-HRD 2016 Conference (pp. 1-21).
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about when we
talk about “global mindset”: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 38, 231-258. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400265
Littrell, L. N. (2006). Expatriate preparation: A critical analysis of 25 years of cross-
cultural training research. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 355-388.
doi:10.1177/1534484306290106

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

316 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Livings, N., & Mitchell, W. (2011). In pursuit of a diversification strategy: Using an assessment
centre to identify global talent. In N. Povah & G. C. Thorton III (Eds.), Assessment centers
and global talent management (pp. 253-268). Furnham, UK: Gower Publishing.
Lucia, A. D., & Lepsinger, R. (1999). Art and science of competency models. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marquardt, M., & Berger, N. O. (2003). The future: Globalization and new roles for HRD.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 283-295. doi:10.1177/1523422303254668
Mendenhall, M. E. (2006). The elusive, yet critical challenge of developing global leaders.
European Management Journal, 24, 422-429. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.10.002
Mol, S. T., Born, M., Willemsen, M., & Van der Molen, H. (2005). Predicting expatriate job
performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 36, 590-620. doi:10.1177/0022022105278544
Morris, M. W., Savani, K., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Intercultural training and assessment:
Implications for organizational and public policies. Policy Insights From the Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 1, 63-71. doi:10.1177/2372732214550404
Nam, K.-A., Cho, Y., & Lee, M. (2013). West meets east? Identifying the gap in current
cross-cultural training research. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 36-57.
doi:10.1177/1534484313500143
Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural
intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8, 511-526. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785470
Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2013). Global leadership development. In M. E. Mendenhall,
J. Osland, B. A. G. Oddou, M. Maznevski, M. J. Stevens, & G. K. Stahl (Eds.), Global lead-
ership: Research, practice, and development. (pp. 160-174). New York, NY: Routledge.
Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Osland, A. (2006). Developing global leadership
capabilities and global mindset: A review. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook
of research in international human resource management (pp. 197-222). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through
international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 10, 237-260.
Prewitt, J., Weil, R., & McClure, A. (2011). Developing leadership in global and multi-cultural
organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13), 13-20.
Smith, M. C., & Victorson, J. (2012). Developing a global mindset. People & Strategy, 35(2),
42-51.
Stahl, G. K. (2001). Using assessment centers as tools for global leadership development: An
exploratory study. In M. E. Mendenhall & T. M. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Developing global busi-
ness leaders: Policies, processes and innovations (pp. 197-210). Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Steers, R. M., Sanchez-Runde, C., & Nardon, L. (2012). Leadership in a global context: New
directions in research and theory development. Journal of World Business, 47, 479-482.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.001
Story, J. S. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2011). Global mindset: A construct clarification
and framework. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 377-384.
doi:10.1177/1548051811404421
Tawadros, T. (2015). Developing the theater of leadership: An exploration of practice and the
need for research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17, 337-347. doi:10.1177/
1523422315587898

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

Cumberland et al. 317

Terrell, R. S., & Rosenbusch, K. (2013). How global leaders develop. Journal of Management
Development, 32, 1056-1079. doi:10.1108/JMD-01-2012-0008
Thomas, D., Stahl, G. K., Ravlin, E., Poelmans, S., Pekerti, A., Maznevksi, M., . . . Au, K.
(2008). Cultural intelligence. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8,
123-143. doi:10.1177/1470595808091787
Tubbs, S. L., & Schulz, E. (2006). Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership competencies and
meta-competencies. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(2), 29-35.

Author Biographies
Denise M. Cumberland is an assistant professor of human resources and organization develop-
ment in the Organizational Leadership and Learning program at the University of Louisville.
Her research interests include governance, leadership, and training within global organizations,
franchising firms, and the nonprofit sector. She has been published in Human Resource
Development Review, Human Resource Development International, Nonprofit Management
Leadership, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Marketing Channels, and
the International Journal of Management Education.
Ann Herd is an assistant professor of human resources and organization development in the
Organizational Leadership and Learning program at the University of Louisville. She researches,
teaches, and regularly provides services to industry and the military in the areas of global leader-
ship assessment and development, executive coaching, competency modeling, survey design
and analysis, assessment centers, and talent acquisition and management. Her work has been
published in Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development
International, New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, Sex Roles,
and Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Meera Alagaraja is an assistant professor of human resource development (HRD) at the
University of Louisville. Her research interests include strategic HRD, performance interven-
tions, international HRD, and organizational learning. She received the Monica M. Lee Research
Excellence Award (2013) for outstanding article of the year. She has also published in Human
Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development International, and Human
Resource Development Quarterly, as well as the European Journal of Training and Development.
Sharon A. Kerrick, PhD, is associate director of the Forcht Center for Entrepreneurship at the
University of Louisville, College of Business. She teaches undergraduate and MBA students as
well as teaches around the world. Research interests include leveraging human capital, entrepre-
neurship, management, and leadership development. She has been published in International
Journal of Management Education, Nonprofit Management Leadership, and the Journal of
Information Systems Management.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on August 1, 2016

View publication stats