Increasingly, emerging demographics is inspiring leadership and organizational research towards the unconventional relationship between leadership concepts and diversity themes (Eagly & Chin, 2010). In What Ways Do the Readings During These 2 Weeks Answer Important “So What?” Questions in The Field of Leadership and Organizational Change? How Are These Readings Potentially Valuable for Research in The Field? The potential value inherent in the readings for these two weeks and the “so what” questions the readings answer with regards to developing inquiry strategies in the field of leadership and organizational change can be captured in Eagly and Chin’s (2010) insight that: “a broader set of themes is emerging as the world becomes more globally interconnected and leadership researchers themselves represent a wider range of nationalities and ethnicities. As leadership theories become more inclusive and integrative, they have more potential to take into account multiple dimensions of individual identities and contexts, organizational cultures and subcultures, and the relations between leaders and a wide range of followers.” (p. 221). Additionally, leadership theorist must contemplate organizational principles, transformational change agendas, and ethics, which also mirror cultural ideals (Ciulla, 2004, as cited in Eagly & Chin, 2010). Among many, these insights discussed above suggest new approaches for studying organizational and leadership dynamics that involves leadership theories being applied towards multidisciplinary studies and the address of issues of diversity such as culture (Eagly & Chin, 2010). Are the Model(s) or Paradigm(s) Primarily Theoretical or Applied? What Are the Implications of This for Future Research? The readings for these pair of weeks reflect an array of theoretical and practical paradigms of global leadership and organizational change. For example, from a human resource perspective, Cumberland, Herd, Alagaraja, and Kerrick (2016) suggest a systemic approach for recognizing core global competency measuring instruments. Cumberland et al. (2016) combined three core competency domains of global leadership-personality and dispositional, knowledge and skills, and behavioral-developed by Lucia and Lepsinger (as cited in Cumberland et al., 2016) with existing tools for assessing global leadership to develop a log for specifically human resource professional towards facilitating the appropriate identification and utilization of measurement instruments. On the other hand, the global leadership intercultural competence content domain developed by Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, and Oddou (2010) and the global leadership typology developed by Reiche, Bird, Mendenhall, and Osland (2015) are theoretical. What Concepts of Global and Multicultural Leadership Do You Perceive to Be the Weakest in The Model(s) or Paradigm(s) Presented? Why? How Could They Be Strengthened? The brain is culturally intelligent (Rockstuhl, Hong, Ng, Ang, & Chi.

1. Increasingly, emerging demographics is inspiring leadership and
organizational research towards the unconventional relationship
between leadership concepts and diversity themes (Eagly &
Chin, 2010).
In What Ways Do the Readings During These 2 Weeks Answer
Important “So What?” Questions in The Field of Leadership and
Organizational Change? How Are These Readings Potentially
Valuable for Research in The Field?
The potential value inherent in the readings for these two weeks
and the “so what” questions the readings answer with regards to
developing inquiry strategies in the field of leadership and
organizational change can be captured in Eagly and Chin’s
(2010) insight that:
“a broader set of themes is emerging as the world becomes more
globally interconnected and leadership researchers themselves
represent a wider range of nationalities and ethnicities. As
leadership theories become more inclusive and integrative, they
have more potential to take into account multiple dimensions of
individual identities and contexts, organizational cultures and
subcultures, and the relations between leaders and a wide range
of followers.” (p. 221).
Additionally, leadership theorist must contemplate
organizational principles, transformational change agendas, and
ethics, which also mirror cultural ideals (Ciulla, 2004, as cited
in Eagly & Chin, 2010). Among many, these insights discussed
above suggest new approaches for studying organizational and
leadership dynamics that involves leadership theories being
applied towards multidisciplinary studies and the address of
issues of diversity such as culture (Eagly & Chin, 2010).
Are the Model(s) or Paradigm(s) Primarily Theoretical or
Applied? What Are the Implications of This for Future
Research?
The readings for these pair of weeks reflect an array of

2. theoretical and practical paradigms of global leadership and
organizational change. For example, from a human resource
perspective, Cumberland, Herd, Alagaraja, and Kerrick (2016)
suggest a systemic approach for recognizing core global
competency measuring instruments. Cumberland et al. (2016)
combined three core competency domains of global leadership-
personality and dispositional, knowledge and skills, and
behavioral-developed by Lucia and Lepsinger (as cited in
Cumberland et al., 2016) with existing tools for assessing global
leadership to develop a log for specifically human resource
professional towards facilitating the appropriate identification
and utilization of measurement instruments. On the other hand,
the global leadership intercultural competence content domain
developed by Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, and Oddou (2010) and
the global leadership typology developed by Reiche, Bird,
Mendenhall, and Osland (2015) are theoretical.
What Concepts of Global and Multicultural Leadership Do You
Perceive to Be the Weakest in The Model(s) or Paradigm(s)
Presented? Why? How Could They Be Strengthened?
The brain is culturally intelligent (Rockstuhl, Hong, Ng, Ang, &
Chiu, n.d, as cited in Rock & Ringleb, 2013). But despite its
promises, the relationship between cultural intelligence and
global leadership is conceived as an emerging conceptual
dimension in leadership vis-à-vis global leadership (Rockstuhl,
n.d, et al., as cited in Rock & Ringleb, 2013). However, the
concept of cultural intelligence in global leadership can be
enhanced via extended empirical exploration and examination
(Rockstuhl, n.d, et al., as cited in Rock & Ringleb, 2013).
To What Extent Do the Model(s) or Paradigm(s) Present A
Clear Set of Measures for Assessing Leadership and
Determining Group or Organizational Outcomes? What
Suggestions Do You Have for Enhancing Assessment Metrics?
The paradigms presented per the readings for these pair of
weeks as indicated by Cumberland et al.’s (2016) systematic

3. approach for recognizing instruments towards measuring core
global competence, Bird et al.’s (2010) intercultural competence
content domain for global leaders, and Reiche et al.’s (2015)
global leadership typology developed, have utilizable qualities
for assessing and determining leadership and group or
organizations outcomes respectively. That said, global
leadership assessment metrics and group and organizational
outcomes determination can be enhanced by heightening the
inclusion of diversity issues or themes and multidisciplinary
study approaches in the field (Eagly & Chin, 2010).
Are There Any Important Contradictions, Arguments,
Disagreements, or Divergences Within This Set of Readings
That Point to Potential Areas for Future Research? How Would
You Follow Up to Extend or Explore These Gaps?
The insight gained from the readings for this set of weeks have
been enlightening towards a potential area for future research:
the relationship between cultural neuroscience vis-à-vis cultural
intelligence and global leadership (Rockstuhl, n.d, et al., as
cited in Rock & Ringleb, 2013).; Hogan, 2010; Hogan (2010)
see cultural neuroscience as among the unconventional and
emerging lenses global leadership can be examined and
explored with. Although Mumford et al. and Wong and Law
(Rockstuhl, n.d, et al., as cited in Rock & Ringleb, 2013)
believe that organizing and managing cultural diversity among
stakeholders is central to global leadership or leading across
cultures, “the cognitive neurological basis of the competencies
essential for effective leadership in culturally mixed
environments” (Rockstuhl, n.d, et al., as cited in Rock &
Ringleb, 2013, p. 383) vis-à-vis the role of cultural intelligence
in global leadership require significant empirical understanding
(Rockstuhl, n.d, et al., as cited in Rock & Ringleb, 2013). My
focus regarding studying management is to extend or explore
the gap identified with global leadership and cultural
neuroscience vis-à-vis intelligence.

4. References
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M. J., & Oddou, G. (2010).
Defining the content domain of intercultural competence for
global leaders.
Journal of Managerial Psychology,25
(8), 810
–
828. Retrieved from Emerald database.
Cumberland, D. M., Herd, A., Alagaraja, M., & Kerrick, S. A.
(2016). Assessment and development of global leadership
competencies in the workplace.
Advances in Developing Human Resources
,
18
(3), 301-317. doi:10.1177/1523422316645883
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a
changing world.
American
Psychologist, 65
(3), 216–224.
Hogan, T. (2010). Neuroscience provides tools to navigate the
new business reality.
People & Strategy
,
33
(4), 8.
Reiche, B. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M. E., & Osland, J. (2015).
The conceptual basis for a global leadership typology.
Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings
, 1. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.10907abstract
Rock, D., & Ringleb, A. H. (2013).
Handbook of neuroLeadership
. NeuroLeadership Institute.