Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Global leadership a new framework for a changing world


Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Global leadership a new framework for a changing world

  1. 1. 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 leaders. 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 leadership theory. 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
  2. 2. 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 leadership. 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, 2005). 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
  3. 3. 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 Theory 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 sustainability. 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. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 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
  4. 4. 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) Global Talent Global Potential Transpersonal Moral Intel (MQ) Existential Intel (XQ) Transformational 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-
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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., 1997). 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 long-term sustainability. 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 transpersonal leadership. 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 intelligences. . -. • ' • •. Global Competency Index (GCI) The GLM's global competency index (GCI) sets the conceptual stage for developing multiple leadership intelligences. The GCI attempts to
  7. 7. pull together several theories of intelligence into one index of the most important leadership competencies. Ostensibly, GCI correlates leadership intelligence with leadFigure 2. Global ership effectiveness. Hence, high leadership Compentency intelligence on the GCI Index (GCI) may be a good predictor Six Levels of Intelligence of leadership success. Through its multiple Moral leadership intelligences, (MQ) Purpose the GCI ascends to the Existentiai (XQ) highest level of leadership excellence in a Metacognitive (MtQ) global environment. Awareness Culturai GCI is not a leader(CQ) ship model. Rather, it Relationship Emotional (EQ) focuses on leadership competence for highIntellectual Task (IQ) functioning global leaders and presents six leadership intelligences: 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 10 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 intelligence. 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
  8. 8. 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 (A Transformational "Relationships" EQ,CQ I I Transpersonal "Purpose" XQ,MQ 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 leadership model. 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 11
  9. 9. 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. REFERENCES 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 12 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 inner leadership.htm Black, J.S., and Porter, L.W. (2000). Management: Meeting New Challenges. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing. Buckley, P., and Brooke, M. (1992). International Business Studies. Blackwell: Oxford. Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, New York: Harper Torchbooks. 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 Development. 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 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
  10. 10. 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 University Press. 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 c Books. 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), 1262-1285. 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 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). Retrieved February 1, 2011 from /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: Riverhead Books. 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. biz/portals/0/docs/28_Transpersonal_Joumey _8IC0L.pdf. 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 Management Association. 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 archives-2008/2008-06/2008-06-article-mccaskin.php 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 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 Stakeholders. Osborn, R., Hunt, G., and Jauch, L. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797-837. 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 Union Institute. Peters, T. ( 1987). Thriving on Chaos. New York, New York: HarperCollins. Raymont, J., and Smith, J. (2008). Global Leadership and the Global Fitness Network. Anglia Ruskin University, retrieved on November 3,2010 from n
  11. 11. 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: Doubleday/Currency. Serrât, O. (2009). Understanding and developing emotional intelligence. Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank, 49. Shearer, B. (undated). Development and Validation of a Scale for Existential Theory. Retrieved November 15, 2010 from ninthintelligence.htm 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:// html 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 State University. 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, 27(3), 61-67. Wilson, L.O. (2005). Newer Views of Leaming: Exploring the Ninth Intelligence—Maybe. Retrieved from http:// www.u 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 Leadership. Zohar, D. (1997). ReWiring the Corporate Brain: Using the New Science to Rethink How We Structure and Lead Organizations. San Francisco, Califomia: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. Zohar, D., and Marshall, I. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence: The Ultimate Intelligence. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC 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 D $64.00/yr. D $117.00/2 yrs. D $169.00/3 yrs. Foreign: Add $20.00 per subscription for surface mail and $30.00 for Air Mail for each year to the above subscription rates. Name: Company: Address: City: Zip: Country: E-mail: State/Prov.: Phone: • Check (Make Check Payahle to SAM and Mail to the Address Below) n Charge to: Expiration Date: Mail or Fax to: 14 VISA D MasterCard D Card #: CVS #: 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: SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2012
  12. 12. 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.