Transcript of "Global leadership a new framework for a changing world"
Global Leadership: A New Framework for
a Changing World
Troy E. Dunn, National Defense University
Christina L. Lafferty, National Defense University
Kenneth L. Alford, Brigham Young University
"If your actions inspire others to dream more,
leam more, do more, and become more,
you are a leader."
— John Quincy Adams (Jacobson, 2010)
PepsiCo's chief executive, Indra Nooyi, may
well represent the global leader of tomorrow.
As a member of the Future of Enterprise panel
at the 41st World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, Nooyi captured the attention of the
audience and her fellow panel members with
her "Performance for Purpose" platform (Nooyi,
2009) which stated that PepsiCo will deliver superior sustainable financial performance through
human sustainability, environmental sustainability, and talent sustainability. According to PepsiCo's charter, purpose is more than corporate
social responsibility—it is the driving factor for
sustained performance. To encourage humans to
make healthy living choices, PepsiCo will offer a
portfolio of enjoyable and wholesome foods and
beverages. It will also be a good citizen of the
world by protecting the Earth's natural resources
through innovative and efficient operations.
Lastly, PepsiCo will invest in the development
of its associates and create employment opportunities in local communities. Notwithstanding
PepsiCo's organizational success, one issue still
troubles Nooyi: How does PepsiCo identify and
develop global leaders to ensure the long-term
sustainability of its enterprise? More important,
how does any institution identify and develop
global leaders with multiple global competencies? This paper proposes a global leadership
model from a theoretical and conceptual framework aimed at developing a generation of global
What Is Global Leadership?
We contend that global leadership can be viewed
as the observable and measurable assessment of
16 leadership components across four domains
and six levels of intelligence. Practically speaking, global leadership is the ability to develop
peak performance through the talents and potential of a diverse set of people, organizations,
and societies. Global leaders can awaken the
genius in actors, institutions, and society. The
etymology of the word "genius" comes from the
Latin genius-a guardian who watches over the
talent of each person from birth (Harper, 2010).
Global leaders need to be able to develop talent
and evoke the potential in people, organizations,
and the conmiunity to succeed in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment.
This critical skill is the essence of the global
Global leadership is a nascent field in leadership development with limited research on the
correlation between sustained excellence and the
high global competency of modem leaders. The
preponderance of research on leadership has focused on transactional (Bums, 1978) and transformational (Bass, 1990) leadership theories.
Those studies, however, have been limited to exploring only two levels of intelligence—cognitive (or intellectual) and affective (or emotional)
(Goleman, 1995). Recently, cultural intelligence
(Earley, Ang, and Tan, 2006) was added as part
of the affective leadership competency (Zhang,
2010). In the emerging global economy, organizations are searching for a new theoretical and
conceptual framework to identify and develop
global leaders who can excel in this new environment. Although Nagai (2008) defines global
leadership in terms of a leader's involvement in
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
global activities, this paper presupposes leaders already are involved in global activities on a
daily basis, either directly or indirectly. Global
leadership does not discriminate among leaders
based on positional activities. Rather, it invites
all leaders into the conversation with the intention of developing leadership effectiveness,
global competency, and the responsibility to foster talent and potential in the global marketplace.
Statement of the Problem
To date, no empirical research examining the
relationship between multiple levels of global
competency in the workplace and effective
global leadership has surfaced to contribute to an
important discussion on this topic. We hope that
the a priori theoretical and conceptual framework presented in this paper will spark further
investigation into the hypothesis that multiple
leadership competencies correlate highly with
the components of global leadership. Ideally,
future studies will examine the utility of a global
competency index in predicting effective global
Significance of the Study
According to Reilly and Karounos (2009),
global corporations and leaders increasingly operate in an interconnected business environment.
An example is the increase in the global flow of
investments and lending to developing countries
since thel990s (Reilly and Karounos, 2009;
Javidan and House, 2001). In 1997, net external
financing flows to developing countries, including foreign direct and portfolio investments were
$360.1 billion, but had risen to $785.5 billion
by 2006 (Chandrasekhar, 2008). In addition to
investments, debt flow to developing countries,
measured as net external borrowing, rose from
$10.9 billion in 2001 to $294.5 billion in 2006.
After a three-year study in 1998, Gregersen,
Morrison, and Black (1998) disclosed that 85%
of U.S. Fortune 500 firms reported shortage
of global leaders to sustain their multinational
operations. From that number, 65% believed
leaders needed additional competencies to manage the challenges of global leadership (Gregersen et al., 1998). By 2005, only 8% of Fortune
500 firms reported having comprehensive global
leadership training programs (Alon and Higgins,
Various studies reinforce organizational concern that strategic leaders will not be able to
navigate the new terrain armed with traditional
leadership characteristics (Wanasika, 2007) and
SAM Advanced Management Journai — Spring 2012
may, in fact, lack the requisite global skills for
future success (Buckley and Brooke, 1992 cited
in Chin and Gaynier, 2006). Assuming that
another strategic model is inadequate to cultivate
a new generation of global leaders, a new leadership framework may be required to identify and
develop the global talent and potential of leaders in an interconnected world. The question
for further research is whether a strong enough
correlation exists between multiple leadership
competencies and global leadership to identify
and predict effective leadership characteristics,
behaviors, and style.
Contributions to Theory
Previous studies on leadership theories do not
address the contemporary or future challenges
facing organizations. What has led to a rising demand for a new paradigm in leadership?
What structural pressures have called for something more than transformational leadership,
emotional and cultural intelligences, and the
systems theory approach (Senge, 1990)? Leadership theories have consistently evolved during
the past two centuries from one paradigm to
another, with the latest shift occurring during the
early stage of globalization.
The first paradigm was articulated in several
ways. First, the "great man" theory (James,
1880, cited in Bass and Stogdill, 1990; Galton,
1869, cited in Lafiferty, 1998) appeared during
the early Industrial Revolution; Carlyle (1841
cited in Bass et al., 1990) looked at heroes to
reinforce the concept of the leader as a person
endowed with unique qualities that captured the
imagination of the masses (Bass et al., 1990).
It was followed by trait theory (Kohs and Irle,
1920, cited in Bass et al., 1990), which became
prominent during the late Industrial Revolution.
Researchers attempted to explain leadership in
terms of traits of personality and character (Bass
et al, 1990). Next, behavior theory (Bass et al.,
1990) developed at Ohio State University and
Michigan State University, gained momentum
during the post Industrial Revolution between
the 1950s and the late 1970s. Bales' (1958 cited
in Bass et al., 1990) research implied that individuals who exhibited high levels of task accomphshment and relationship behavior typically
were viewed as leaders by their peers (Lafferty,
1998; Bass et al., 1990). The last period under
the first paradigm was the situational contingency theory (Lafferty, 1998; Bass et al., 1990),
which gained currency during the technological
revolution as researchers studied how certain
situations dictated and guided the most effective
leadership styles. Structural changes have fundamentally reshaped the world and made current
scholarship in the field of leadership incomplete
(Osbom, Hunt, and Jauch, 2002).
Since research under the first paradigm
yielded only partial and inconclusive evidence,
studies in leadership during the information
revolution began to focus on systems theory
(Senge, 1990) as an alternative to previous theories. Researchers viewed leaders as integrated
into a system with inputs from the environment,
organization, subordinates, and the mission itself, and with outputs in the form of task accomplishment (B. Lafferty, 1998; Bass et al., 1990).
Systems theory introduced transactional, transformational, and visionary leadership (Sashkin,
1996) theories. Research, however, focused
primarily on the correlation between transformational leadership and emotional intelligence.
Cultural intelligence recently was added to the
transformational leadership theory but has yielded limited research (Zhang, 2010). However,
as the tide of globalization increases, leadership
theorists have asked, "What's next?" Is there
something more than transformational leadership
linked to emotional and cultural intelligences
that can predict leadership effectiveness?
Global Leadership and Complexity
The answer to the call for a new leadership
framework may lie in the shift from systems theory to complexity theory (Sherman and Schultz,
1998) during the rise of globalization. Sherman
and Schultz (1998) asserted that "competitive advantage is fleeting, and that change can
rapidly turn assets into deadweight." Additionally, John Holland (1999) noted how "complex
adaptive systems are constantly revising and
rearranging their building blocks as they gain
experience. A firm will promote individuals
who do well and will reshuffle its organizational
chart for greater efficiency. Countries will make
new trading agreements or realign themselves
into whole new alliances." Since no single agent
controls or governs a complex system, intricate
interactions among independent agents at all levels (individual, group, and systemic) essentially
may be the key factors to success and long-term
Whereas Sherman and Schultz applied complexity theory to complex systems. Levy (1994)
observed complex systems under the microscope
of chaos theory. Chaos theory explained how
nonlinear dynamic systems reconciled the essential unpredictability of industries through the
emergence of distinctive patterns (Cartwright,
1991 cited in Levy, 1994). Systems facing
perturbations from a chaotic environment either
will adapt or bifurcate. Modeling the supply
chain of a California-based computer company.
Levy showed how small disruptions to the supply chain made the chain highly volatile and
imposed significant costs on the organization in
order to survive (Levy, 1994). Leaders needed
to identify the right approach to the distinct patterns that emerged under a complex, dynamic
system to lower the cost of operating the supply
chain (Levy, 1994). The difference between
complexity theory and chaos theory is that complex systems do not bifurcate or dissipate in the
face of chaos. Instead, they reside at the edge
of chaos by adapting, revising, and rearranging
(Waldrop, 1992). Waldrop (1992) explained
complexity theory as follows: "The actors or
components of a system are never locked into
a particular position or role within the system,
and they never fall completely out of control like
under chaos theory. The edge of chaos is the
constantly shifting battle zone between stagnation and anarchy, the one place where a complex system can be spontaneous, adaptive, and
agile." Global leaders will need the skills and
competencies to thrive in a volatile, uncertain,
complex, and ambiguous environment and know
how to keep the enterprise from descending into
chaos or becoming immobile and irrelevant.
Global leadership theory can be the new lens
for effective leadership style during the next
paradigm shift toward complexity theory. Rapid
changes in the international marketplace have
differentiated both systems theory and chaos
theory from complexity theory.
The Achilles heel of current strategic leadership models is their triadic feature of the awareness domain, task domain, and relationship
domain—a slight variation of Hollander's original framework of the leader-follower situation
dynamic (Hollander, 1978). Current leadership
models focus mainly on two levels of intelligence—cognitive (or intellectual) and affective
(or emotional). As a remedy, this paper suggests that four domains are critical to produce
global leaders and measure their effectiveness:
transactional (Bums, 1978), transformational
(Bass, 1990), conscious (Chatterjee, 1998) and
transpersonal (McCaslin, 2008; Gozdz, 2000).
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
These four leadership theories can be combined
into an overarching global leadership framework
that is tightly coupled with six levels of leadership intelligence. The remainder of this paper
will present the global leadership model in the
context of multiple leadership intelligences and
will discuss the importance of developing global
leaders and nurturing their talents and potential
in a rapidly changing world.
Design Features of the Global
Leadership Model (GLM)
The first step in developing the global leadership
model (GLM) begins by adding "purpose" as the
fourth domain (task, relationship, awareness, and
purpose). With purpose as a new domain, the
GLM underscores the importance of transpersonal leadership theory.
The second component of the global leaderFigure 1. Global Leadership Model (GLM)
Moral Intel (MQ)
Existential Intel (XQ)
Cultural Intel (CQ)
Emotional intel (EQ)
ship architectural framework reshapes Gardner's
multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) into an
appropriate conceptual basis for global leaders. Gardner's work includes spatial, linguistic,
logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
existential, and moral intelligences (Gardner,
1999). His approach was initially designed for
educational research, but is useful in the field of
leadership. Nevertheless, his entire list may not
be applicable to the study of leadership. For example, musical intelligence may not be practical
for leaders to possess to resolve a bottleneck in a
distribution network. We propose multiple competencies that are relevant to developing global
leaders. The new conceptual system includes a
SAM Advanced Management Joumal — Spring 2012
global competency index (GCI) with multiple
leadership intelligences, namely, intellectual,
emotional, cultural, metacognitive, existential,
and moral intelligences. We will elaborate on
the GCI later in this paper.
The final design feature of GLM is to connect the theoretical framework to the conceptual
framework by assigning each level of intelligence to its respective theoretical domain. As a
metaframework grounded in academic research,
GLM may provide critical insight into the four
domains of global leadership.
Domains of Global Leadership
This framework seeks to strengthen the foundations of leadership effectiveness in the context of
talent and potential by including four domains
(task, relationship, awareness, and purpose) in
its framework. Notwithstanding that leadership
research generally supports only two or three
basic categories to measure leadership effectiveness, global leadership requires the more comprehensive foundation of four domains. Crestón
Institute supports an expansive approach with
its "leadership spiral" (Crestón, undated) consisting of transactional, transformational, and
transpersonal leadership. Crestón, however, fails
to consider the deliberate process to transcend
the transformational level into the transpersonal
arena. Nevertheless, GLM applies Chattterjee's
(1998) conscious leadership theory as the bridge
to the transpersonal side. We suggest that a
mature global leadership spiral consists of the
transactional, transformational, conscious, and
transpersonal leadership attached to four respective domains.
Tasks. The GLM views success at the tasklevel through the lens of transactional leadership.
The ability to inspire people and self toward
task accomplishment is the basic tenet of leadership at the transactional level. Essentially, tasks
control the exchange between leaders and followers as they attempt to achieve personal goals
and agendas (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). GLM
maintains that the dominant feature of transactional leadership is the task function.
Currently, a psychometric evaluation does not
exist to measure tasks of global leadership. For
the task portion, a future measurement tool may
incorporate the multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 2000) to assess transactional leadership on two scales. The first is the
contingency reward scale, which identifies leaders who reward achievement (Bass et al, 2000).
They focus on tasks, performance objectives, re-
wards and punishments, and correct output (Bass
et al., 2000). The second is the management-byexception active scale, which identifies leaders
who focus on monitoring mistakes. They monitor deviations and take appropriate corrective
measures (Bass et al., 2000). In short, leaders
with high scores on both scales of the task function have been considered effective transactional
leaders from previous studies. At this point in
their leadership development, they should focus
next on relationships.
Relationships. The GLM moves into the relationship domain supported by transformational
leadership. Obtaining and sustaining relationships in the global environment are crucial for
leaders in a multinational, intergovernmental,
and global business context. Global leaders
must connect with numerous stakeholders in
both the internal and external environments
to achieve organizational success and change
(Black and Porter, 2000). Three great examples
of the gross profit from transformational leadership and the relationship domain are Bill
Gates of Microsoft, Jack Welch of GE, and Sam
Walton of Wal-Mart. They achieved corporate
success through transformational leadership and
relationship-building with key stakeholders.
Currently, there is no psychometric evaluation
to measure relationships of global leadership.
A future tool may incorporate the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ) to measure
transformational leadership on five scales. The
first is the idealized attributes scale, which identifies leaders who build trust in followers (Bass
et al., 2000). This scale measures how leaders
inspire pride in people, put the group's interest
ahead of their own, and become reference models for their followers. The second is the idealized behaviors scale, which identifies leaders
who act with integrity (Bass et al., 2000). This
scale measures how leaders manifest positive
values, self-control, high moral judgment, optimism, and self-efficiency. Their shared sense
of vision for the team or group unifies people.
The third is the inspirational motivation scale,
which identifies leaders who inspire others (Bass
et al., 2000). This scale measures how leaders
articulate shared goals and mutual understanding. They promote positive expectations of their
vision. The fourth is the intellectual stimulation
scale, which identifies leaders who encourage innovative thinking (Bass et al., 2000). This scale
measures how leaders help people think of old
problems in new ways and question assumptions
to solve problems. Associates develop creative
and critical thinking skills. The fifth is the individual consideration scale, which identifies leaders who coach people (Bass et al., 2000). This
scale measures how leaders satisfy the needs of
their followers and provide opportunities within
the organizational culture for individual growth.
In sum, smart executives who form healthy
relationships with multiple stakeholders to effect
organizational change are agents of transformation who also should aspire to achieve success in
the awareness domain.
Awareness. The GLM rests within the domain
of awareness and relies extensively on conscious
leadership (Chatterjee, 1998). Awareness requires global leaders to undergo a period of selfreflection, self-assessment, and self-awakening.
In other words, leaders need to devote time for
a rigorous and thorough examination of their
past behaviors, their current leadership skills,
and their desire for future leadership growth
opportunities. Soon they will become aware of
their strengths and limitations and consciously
seek the essence of their leadership core. As
noted, conscious leadership is the theoretical
lens within the awareness domain. The leader
who can relax his or her mind can leverage the
power of the mind through vision, concentration, and focus to affect personal and corporate
change (Chatterjee, 1998). Skillful and conscious meditation may prove helpful to relax the
mind and find inner tranquility and harmony.
Reframing is another good example of this practice. For instance. His Holiness the Dalai Lama
applied reframing to the Tibetan struggle for
independence by perceiving it as an exercise in
happiness (Lama and Cutler, 1998). Essentially,
happiness is an achievement of mind over external conditions, circumstances, and events (Lama
et al., 1998) through conscious leadership.
No psychometric evaluation measures awareness of global leadership. For the awareness
domain, a future measurement tool needs three
scales—self-reflection, self-assessment, and selfawakening.
The self-reflection scale identifies leaders
who devote time to self-reflection. Zohar and
Marshall (1997) encourage leaders to reflect on
what they believe in, their values, and motivations. Leaders will act and behave according
to those principles and deep beliefs. Next, the
self-assessment scale identifies leaders who are
open to feedback and criticism. Leaders view
adversity as an opportunity to leam and grow
from mistakes and setbacks. Leaders must have
the ability to reframe to see the bigger picture.
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
They also possess holism (Zohar et al., 1997)
where they see larger pattems, relationships, and
connections. Lastly, the self-awakening scale
identifies leaders who contemplate universal
principles. They ask the fundamental "why?"
questions to understand meaning. They have
a sense of vocation to serve and give back to
humanity and independence to stand against the
crowd based on their convictions (Zohar et al.,
In short, reaching a deliberate state of consciousness prepares global leaders for the final
stage of purpose and transpersonal leadership.
Purpose. The GLM suggests purpose as its
fourth domain along with transpersonal leadership (McCashn, 2008; Gozdz, 2000). Purpose
gives meaning to existence and guides leaders to
self-transcendence by shedding their egoistical
consciousness. Purpose exhorts leaders to reframe their personal goals and desires by viewing them as coterminous with organizational and
societal goals. Purpose is the nexus of human
consciousness and business practice that leads to
competitive advantage (Gozdz, 2000).
Although used interchangeably with vision in
current theory, purpose differs from vision. Vision is a product of the systems theory approach
and unifies the different components through
inputs-processes-outputs-outcomes to achieve
an overall goal (Lafferty, 1998). Vision is the
"capability of understanding complex large-scale
systems in terms of cause-effect chains and their
interactions over time" (Lafferty, 1998; Sashkin,
1996). Visionary leaders construct organizational culture to achieve goals and maintain
operational effectiveness (Lafferty, 1998; Sashkin, 1996). In contrast, purpose is beneficial in
complex systems by providing meaning as to
how a business moves in a non-linear fashion
through the fiow of competitive events. Leaders
with a purpose develop the intuition of agents
central to the organization, stakeholders peripheral to the organization, and beneficiaries tertiary
to organization. Leaders must be cognizant
that all parties are integral to the organization's
success and be flexible to the changing roles and
interactions of all players at levels as they adapt
to each other and to the changes in the intemal
and extemal environments. Purpose, as seen
through the lens of complexity theory, integrates
and adapts individual goals with organizational
and societal goals into meta-goals to achieve
A possible advantage of GLM is how it attempts to integrate transpersonal leadership to
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
focus the human and organizational experience
on a higher purpose, greater responsibility, and
moral imperative. Mother Teresa's tremendous
example of human compassion, Al Gore's sense
of responsibility for climate protection, and
Mahatma Gandhi's moral imperative regarding non-violent resistance are all examples of
Currently, no psychometric evaluation measures purpose in global leadership. For the
purpose strata, a future measurement tool needs
four scales—transcendent attributes, transcendent behaviors, transcendent intellect, and transcendent performance.
First, the transcendent attributes scale would
identify leaders who develop long-term relationships by connecting people to other people
so each can reach individual goals. The scale
would measure how leaders develop the intellectual, moral, psychological, and philosophical
appetites within associates. Second, the transcendent behaviors scale would identify leaders
who act with higher purpose or toward a higher
calling. The scale would measure how leaders
weave purpose in every aspect of performance.
Leaders with a purpose find a calling to serve
and feel a long-term duty of care to people,
organizations, and society. Third, the transcendent intellect scale would identify leaders who
encourage transcendent thinking. The scale
would measure how leaders challenge people to
question convention wisdom, individual values,
and assumptions. Leaders seek new concepts
and pattems and allow people to fail fast and fail
often by applying heterodox approaches. Lastly,
the transcendent performance scale would identify leaders who maximize people's potential to
exceed their self-imposed limitations. Leaders
are not satisfied with quantitative measures of
success but ask the question, "Regardless of the
outcome, did you give your very best?" They
focus on praxeology, or the study of human action or conduct, to determine whether people are
fulfilling their inherent talents and abilities.
In short, leaders who understand their global
purpose are the transpersonal leaders the world
needs to tackle the truly complex problems of
this generation. To gain that understanding,
global leaders must possess multiple leadership
• ' • •.
Global Competency Index (GCI)
The GLM's global competency index (GCI) sets
the conceptual stage for developing multiple
leadership intelligences. The GCI attempts to
pull together several theories of intelligence into
one index of the most important leadership competencies. Ostensibly, GCI correlates leadership
intelligence with leadFigure 2. Global
Hence, high leadership
intelligence on the GCI
may be a good predictor
Six Levels of Intelligence
of leadership success.
Through its multiple
the GCI ascends to the
highest level of leadership excellence in a
GCI is not a leader(CQ)
ship model. Rather, it
focuses on leadership
competence for highIntellectual
leaders and presents six
Intellectual intelligence (IQ). To cope with
high task demands, leaders are expected to have
high IQ attributes of analysis, logic, and reason
(Chin et al., 2006). This level can comprise any
combination of Gardner's linguistic, logicalmathematical, or spatial intelligences (Gardner,
1983) and Bell's predictive intelligence of pattern and trend recognition (Bell, 2007).
Emotional intelligence (EQ). Successful leaders must use EQ to recognize, understand, and
manage themselves and others' emotional states
to solve emotion-laden problems and regulate
behavior (Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, 1999).
Whether the discovery of EQ is attributed to
Payne (1985) or Goleman (1995), evidence supports the positive effect of EQ on the success of
the individual at work and a positive relationship between EQ and job performance of senior
managers (Carmeli, 2003). In short, numerous
studies show how EQ enhances performance,
productivity, and people through positive attitude
and behavior, sound management techniques,
interpersonal skills, and potential.
Cultural intelligence (CQ). Ninety percent
of leading executives from 68 countries named
cross-cultural leadership as the top management challenge for the next century (Livermore,
2010). In a single day, today's professionals
may face 15 different cultural contexts (Livermore, 2010). Raising the awareness of the importance of CQ in the work environment, Earley,
Ang, and Tan (2006) and Schmitz (2009) crafted
a framework for CQ competency and global
leadership that requires a high degree of cultural
competence (Schmitz, 2009).
Metacognitive intelligence (MtQ). This level
of intelligence bridges one level of intelligence
to the next higher-functioning level. MtQ is the
capacity to understand oneself (Gardner, 1983).
On one side, Gardner defines it as intrapersonal
intelligence, while LeaderShape (2008), on the
other side, labels it as metacognitive intelligence
and assigns sub-levels of personal conscience
and self-determination to MtQ. Livermore
(2010) contributes self-awareness, planning,
and checking. Unlike the transition between
the two early stages, deliberation and intention
are required here to progress to the next level of
Existential intelligence (XQ). Once the leader
purposefully crosses into this stage, he or she is
open to true global leadership. Existential intelligence is a concern with ultimate issues (Gardner, 1983) and existential questions, for instance,
"Why should we continue to exist?" Bell (2007)
names XQ as path finding intelligence where
global leaders bring individuals and organizational action into alignment with a larger sense
of purpose. Additionally, Wilson (2005) claims
XQ as the capacity to conceptualize deeper or
larger questions about human existence and consciousness. Shearer (undated) further validates
XQ as a valued element of the human thinking
repertoire through the multiple intelligences
development assessment scales.
Moral intelligence (MQ). This is the essence
of the moral domain as an instance of human
intelligence (Gardner, 1983). In the moral
domain, Gardner expresses concern with rules,
behaviors, and attitudes that govern the sanctity
of human life, and the sanctity of other living
creatures and the world they inhabit (Gardner,
1983). In a contextualized analysis of universal
behavior and exercise of one's will, morality is
the highest realization of human nature (Gardner, 1983). Other researchers have labeled MQ
as spiritual intelligence, or SQ (Zohar and Marshall, 2000; Emmons, 2001; Bar-On, 2000). In
a work environment, moral intelligence may
resonate with the larger audience and avoid
ostracizing a minority group. Hence, moral
intelligence may be a more appropriate terminology than spiritual intelligence, but both concepts
share similar meaning.
These six levels of intelligence comprise
the GCI as the conceptual basis for increasing
the global acumen, universal leadership skills,
and potential of contemporary leaders. In turn.
SAM Advanced Management Journai — Spring 2012
global leaders are challenged to produce similar
results in other people, their organization, and
society. This attempt to identify and develop the
talent and potential in leaders is the highest aim
of this new leadership framework.
Global Connection of GLM to GCI
The last step in the GLM is to connect the theoretical framework to the conceptual framework
by assigning each level of intelligence to its
respective domain and then test if each intelligence has been properly matched to its respective domain.
Leadership-intelligence pairing (transactional
level). We contend that the flrst pairing at the
transactional leadership level acknowledges IQ
as being necessary for leaders to cope with high
task demands. As previously discussed, task
domains corresponds with transactional leadership. Therefore, transactional leaders with high
IQ should experience a great deal of success in
the task domain.
Leadership-intelligence pairing (transformational level). We propose that the next pairing
takes place at the transformational leadership
level, where EQ and CQ are the competencies
and skills global leaders need to understand the
intentions, motivations, and desires of other
people in the relationship domain. Future global
leaders must be emotionally and culturally intelligent (Dailey, 2010). As discussed, the relationship domain corresponds with transformational
leadership. Transfonnational leaders with high
Figure 3. Transition Stage
EQ and CQ should relate to people easily and
inspire high-functioning teams for success.
Leadership-intelligence pairing (conscious
SAM Advanced Management Journai — Spring 2012
level). We suggest that conscious leadership
corresponds with MtQ. This level is the transition between transformational and transpersonal
leadership levels. High-scoring MtQ reveals the
emerging potential and developing capacity of a
global leader with self-awareness.
Leadership-intelligence pairing (transpersonal level). We suggest that the final pairing
happens at the transpersonal leadership level
where XQ and MQ are the highest levels of
global competencies on the GLI. As discussed,
the purpose domain is where leaders transcend
their personal egos to achieve the highest level
of performance (LeaderShape, 2008). In short,
transpersonal leaders with high XQ and MQ
should have the greatest likelihood of inspiring
sustained excellence in all stakeholders. Our
approach appears to be the only heuristic attempt
to ahgn a global leadership model with contemporary theories of intelligence.
Recommendations for Further Study
This paper recommends further empirical study
on global leadership by developing two questionnaires on a five-point Likert scale. The first
questionnaire for psychometric evaluation will
seek to measure key leadership effectiveness
and behaviors from prior research along with the
new theory of global leadership. To link both
individual and organizational success, global
leadership contains 16 leadership components
and four leadership styles. The new evaluation
adds seven new factor scores to the current MLQ
by incorporating conscious and transpersonal
leadership theories under the overarching global
The second questionnaire for psychometric
evaluation will seek to measure multiple leadership intelligences from the global competency
index, which has six leadership competencies.
Although the new intelligence test may include
existing tests in practice, it will need to develop
a component for cultural intelligence that is
currently missing. The comprehensive questionnaire will be a first in leadership theory to
measure all six components of the global competency index.
Looking to the future, the global leadership
model may contribute to the field of global and
strategic leadership by offering an innovative
outlook grounded in a theoretical and conceptual framework. It addresses the critical need
to develop global professionals who can lead
effective teams and organizations in a rapidly
changing world. The purpose of the global
leadership model is to help cultivate a generation
of global leaders who can produce successful
results across the task, relationship, awareness,
and purpose domains in an effort to reach the
highest levels of transactional, transformational,
conscious, and transpersonal leadership. The
global competency index measures excellence
in all stages of development across six multiple
intelligences—intellectual, emotional, cultural,
metacognitive, existential, and moral. The
preeminent aim of global leadership is to develop the talents of the next generation of global
leaders and maximize their potential. In turn,
these contemporary professionals will nurture
the talents and potential of their people, organizations, and society. This article is intended to
elicit conversation about the value of the global
leadership model and encourage further research
regarding a global leadership framework. In
short, the global leadership model and global
competency index may explain the correlation
between leadership effectiveness and multiple
intelligences during the paradigm shift under
globalization. Future research in global leadership should open new frontiers in effective
leadership styles in a globalized world.
In his current position. Colonel Dunn leads a
multi-Service organization of military and civilian personnel providing six human resources
life-cycle functions to the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. He was a Congressional Fellow in the
office of Senator Trent Lott, has taught at the
University of Southern California, and completed the Georgetown University Capitol Hill
Fellowship. Dr. Lafferty, a 28-year veteran
of the U. S. Air Force, is a social scientist and
Professor ofBehavorial Science at the National
Defense University. Now in her 8''' year with the
Strategic Leadership Dept., she has also served
on the faculties of George Washington University, Arizona State, and Ohio University. Dr.
Alford, who retired as a Colonel from almost
30 years in the Army, taught at West Point and
the National Defense University in Washington,
D. C. Currently he is an Associate Professor of
Church History and Doctrine.
Alon, I., and Higgins, J.M. (2005). Global leadership success
through emotional and cultural intelligences. Business
Horizons, 48(6), 501-512.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and Social Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory, in Reuven
Bar-On and James Parker (Eds.). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence Theory, Development, Assessment, and
Applications at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations. New York, New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational
leadership: Leaming to share the vision. Organizational
Dynamics, 18(3), 19-32.
Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1990). Transformational
Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CaUfomia: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Bass, B.M., and Avolio. B.J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Redwood City, California: Mind Garden.
Bass, B.M., and Stogdill, R.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's
Handbook on Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York, New York: The Free Press.
Bell, M. (2007). Inner Leadership: 8 Universal Intelligences
for Balance. The Wisdom Même. Retrieved November 16,
2010 from http://www.thewisdommeme.com/Articlesl/
Black, J.S., and Porter, L.W. (2000). Management: Meeting
New Challenges. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Buckley, P., and Brooke, M. (1992). International Business
Studies. Blackwell: Oxford.
Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, New York:
Capriles, E. (2000). Beyond mind: Steps to a metatranspersonal psychology. The International Journal ofTranspersonal Studies, 19. 163-184.
Capriles, E. (2006). Beyond Mind II: Further steps to a
metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 24, 5-44.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional
intelligence and work attitudes, behavior, and outcomes:
An examination among senior managers. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18(S), 788-813.
Cartwright, T.J. (1991). Planning and chaos theory. Joumal
of the American Planning Association, 57(1), 44-56.
Challans, T., and Wester, E. (2010). Two views: The way
ahead for military ethics. Insights.
Chandrasekhar, C.R (2008). Global Liquidity and Financial
Flows to Developing Countries: New Trends in Emerging
Markets and Their Implications. No. 52, G-24 Discussion Papers, United Nations Conference on Trade and
Chatterjee, D. (1998). Leading Consciously: A Pilgrimage
Toward Self-Mastery. Woburn, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Chin, CO., and Gaynier, L.P (2006). Global leadership
competence: A cultural intelligence perspective. Presented
at 2006 MBAA Conference.
Cooper, R., and Sauraf, A. (1998). Executive EQ: Emotional
Intelligence in Business. London, England: Orion Business.
Crestone Institute, (undated). The Leadership Spiral. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.transitiondynamics.com/crestone/51eadershipspiral.html
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
Dailey, M. (2010). Becoming a change agent. Chief learning
officer. MediaTec Publishing Inc., 9(10).
Early, P.C., Ang, S., and Tan, J. (2006). CQ: Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work. Stanford, California: Stanford
Emmons, R. (2001). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of the ultimate
concern. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 70(1), 3-26.
Friedman, H. (2000). Toward Developing Transpersonal
Psychology as a Scientific Field. Paper presented at Old
Saybrook Conference, May 11-14, 2000, State University
of West Georgia: Georgia.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. New York, New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York, New York: Basic
Gardner, L., and Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in
senior level managers. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78.
Goleman, D.( 1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, New
York: Bantam Book.
Goleman, D. (2000). Intelligent leadership. Executive Excellence, 3, 17.
Gozdz, K. (2000). Toward transpersonal learning communities in business. American Behavioral Scientist, 43iS),
Gregersen, H.B., Morrison, A.J., and Black, J.S. (1998).
Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 21-33.
Hagen, A.F., Hassan, M.T., and Amin, S.G. (1998). Critical
strategic leadership components: An empirical investigation. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(3), 39-44.
Harper, D. (2010). On-line Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved
January 30, 2011, from http://www.etymonline.com
Holland, J. H. (1999). Emergence: From chaos to order
Reading, Mass: Perseus Books.
Hollander, E.P. (1978). Leadership Dynamics. New York,
New York: Free Press.
Jacobson, D. (2010). Govleaders.org. Retrieved February 1,
2011 from http://govleaders.org /quotes6.htm
Javidan, M., and House, R.J. (2001). Cultural acumen for
the global manager: Lessons from the Project GLOBE.
Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289-305.
Kuhnert, R., and Lewis P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.
Lafferty, B.D. (1998). Running head: Investigation of a Leadership Development Program. In partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. The
George Washington University, Washington DC.
Lafferty, C. (2010). Presented at the Industrial College of the
Armed Forces in 2010, Washington, D.C.
Lama, HHTD, and Cutler, H.C. (1998). The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living. New York, New York:
LeaderShape (2008). The Transpersonal (Spiritual) Journey
Towards Leadership Excellence—Using 8ICOL. Re-
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
trieved November 8,2010 from http://www.leadershape.
Lemay, L. (2009). The practice of collective and strategic
leadership in the public sector. The Innovation Journal:
The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1).
Levy, D. (1994). Chaos Theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications. Strategic Management
Journal, 15, 167-178.
Livermore, D. (2010). Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The
New Secret to Success. New York, New York: American
Mayer, J.D., and Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of
emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 438-442.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., and Salovey, P (1999). Emotional
intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence.
Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D.R. (1999). Instructional Manual for the MSCEIT: Meyer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test. Toronto, Canada: MultiHealth Systems.
McCaslin, M.L. (2008). The Nature of Transpersonal
Leadership: Building Potentiating Relationships. In-
tegral Leadership Review retrieved November 8,
2010 from http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/
Miller, J.J. (1998). Book review: Textbook of transpersonal
psychiatry and psychology. Psychiatric Services. American
Psychiatric Association, 49, 541-542.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (2000). 3M's
Leadership Competency Framework. Corporate Leadership Council, St. Paul, Minnesota. Retrieved on November
3,2010 from http://www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com
Mirowsky, J., and Ross, C.E. (2007). Creative work and health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(4), 385-403.
Modassir, A., and Singh, T. (2008). Relationship of emotional
intelligence with transformational leadership and organizational citizenship Behavior. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 4(1), 3-21.
Nagai, H. (2008). Development of future asian global leaders: Vision, framework, and implications for APO member
countries. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.
Nooyi, I. (2009). Performance with Purpose: The Promise
of PepsiCo, letter from Indra Nooyi, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, PepsiCo. The 2009 Annual Report to
Osborn, R., Hunt, G., and Jauch, L. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., and Stough, C. (2001).
Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22, 1-7.
Payne, W. L. (1985). A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence. The Union for Experimenting Colleges
and Universities, in satisfaction of doctoral thesis. The
Peters, T. ( 1987). Thriving on Chaos. New York, New York:
Raymont, J., and Smith, J. (2008). Global Leadership and
the Global Fitness Network. Anglia Ruskin University, retrieved on November 3,2010 from http://www.anglia.ac.uk
Reilly, A.H., and Karounos, T.J. (2009). Exploring the link
between emotional intelligence and cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. Journal of International Business and
Cultu ral Studies, 1-13.
Robinson, L. A. (2006). Trust Your Gut: How the Power of Intuition Can Help Your Business. Chicago, Illinois, Kaplan.
Sashkin, M. (1996). Becoming a Visionary Leader. Amherst,
Massachusetts, HRD Press.
Sashkin, M., and Sashkin, M.G. (2003). Leadership that Matters. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Schmitz, J. (2009). Accelerating Global Leadership Development. TMC—Berlitz Company.
Schott, R.L. (1992). Abraham Maslow, humanistic psychology and organization leadership: A Jungian perspective.
Joumal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(1), 106-120.
Senge, P.M. ( 1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Leaming Organization. New York, New York:
Serrât, O. (2009). Understanding and developing emotional
intelligence. Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development
Shearer, B. (undated). Development and Validation of a Scale
for Existential Theory. Retrieved November 15, 2010
Sherman, H.J., and Schultz, R. (1998). Open Boundaries:
Creating Business Innovation Through Complexity. Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books.
Slaughter, A., Jentleson, B.W., Daalder, I.H., Blinken, A.J.,
Brainard, L., Campbell, K.M., McFaul, M.A., O'Brien,
J.C, Smith, G.E., and Steinberg, J.B. (2008). Strategic
Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy. A Phoenix Initiative Report, Center for a
New American Security.
Vicere, A.A. (1992). The Strategic Leadership Imperative for
Executive Development. Entrepreneur. Human Resource
Planning Society, retrieved November 3,2010 from http://
Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science
at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York, New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Wanasika, I. (2007). In search of global leadership. Joumal of
Intemational Business and Cultural Studies. New Mexico
White, J.C, Clifford, A., and Schepers, J.M. (2001). The
construction of a normative instrument of the measurement of moral reasoning. Joumal ofIndustrial Psychology,
Wilson, L.O. (2005). Newer Views of Leaming: Exploring
the Ninth Intelligence—Maybe. Retrieved from http://
Woodhouse, K., and Reidy, M. (2004). Accelerating the
Development of High Potentials: Strategic Leadership
@ Dell. Reprinted from interview, presentation at 2004
Conference Board Leadership Development Conference.
Zhang, X. (2010). A New Member of the 'Intelligence
Family'-Cultural Intelligence (CQ). Cross Cultural
Zohar, D. (1997). ReWiring the Corporate Brain: Using
the New Science to Rethink How We Structure and Lead
Organizations. San Francisco, Califomia: Berrett-Koehler
Zohar, D., and Marshall, I. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence:
The Ultimate Intelligence. London, England: Bloomsbury
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author
and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the U.S. Department of Defense,
or the U.S. Govemment.
SAM ADVANCED MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
Foreign: Add $20.00 per subscription for surface mail and $30.00 for Air Mail for each year to the above
Check (Make Check Payahle to SAM and Mail to the Address Below)
Mail or Fax to:
SAM, Society for Advancement of Management
6300 Ocean Dr., OCNR 330, Unit # 5807, Corpus Christi, TX 78412-5807 USA
Fax: (361) 825-2725 Telephone: (361) 825-6045 E-mail: email@example.com
SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
Copyright of SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075) is the property of Society for
Advancement of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.