Global leadership can be considered as emerging. The emerging nature of global leadership has attracted numerous inputs from diverse and multidisciplinary dimensions. The growth in interest in global leadership can serve as a curse or as a blessing to its promising but young and relatively naïve and open field. Per a review of the literature on global leadership, various distinctions point to the understanding that cultural dynamic involving multiculturalism, cross-cultural, intercultural, and cultural differences are critical to the understanding and advancement of global leadership towards global leadership competencies, effectiveness and so forth. As such, this understanding is expected to underscore the conceptualization and practice of global leadership going forward.  New Meanings in Global Leadership Competence: Discovering Approaches of Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Multicultural Leadership in Global Occupational Settings           Cultural dynamic-cultural diversity, intercultural, cross-cultural, and multicultural-is increasing in its criticality towards global leadership competencies and effectiveness (Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, & Maznevski, 2008). Leaders within organizations oriented towards multiculturalism are expected to be multiculturally competent (Canen, & Canen, 2008). These leaders are, for example, required to be multiculturally accountable towards the institutionalizing of cultural flexibility and diversity (Canen, & Canen, 2008). Moreover, multiculturally competent leadership has been identified as a potential source of conflict management in organizations (Canen, & Canen, 2008). Globally oriented companies are also cautioned to consider as critical and integral to their efforts multicultural leadership (Muna, 2011) if they intend to sustain their global competitive advantage since “multicultural leaders are cosmopolitan and worldly, they have acquired the cultural sensitivity necessary to bridge cultures (even when working within the same country) and can conduct business effectively across national borders” (Muna, 2011, p. 90). In addition to the criticality of effective global leadership to the success of global organizations (Butler, Zander, Mockaitis, & Sutton, 2012; Tung & Varma, 2008, as cited in Lisak & Erez, 2015: Mendenhall et al., 2008) leaders who develop the potential to emerge within a multicultural occupational settings or teams are seen to be more oriented towards global identity, cultural diversity, and cultural intelligence (Lisak & Erez, 2015). Regarding stakeholder issues in organizations, there has arisen the need to manage ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism challenges via ethnopluralism (Snaiderbaur, 2012).           The developments highlighted above are a few of the vast array of growing developments associated with the undeniable growth in stature and impact of globalization and multinational organizations that increasingly pose emerging challenges to leadership and management and ...

1. Global leadership can be considered as emerging. The emerging
nature of global leadership has attracted numerous inputs from
diverse and multidisciplinary dimensions. The growth in
interest in global leadership can serve as a curse or as a blessing
to its promising but young and relatively naïve and open field.
Per a review of the literature on global leadership, various
distinctions point to the understanding that cultural dynamic
involving multiculturalism, cross-cultural, intercultural, and
cultural differences are critical to the understanding and
advancement of global leadership towards global leadership
competencies, effectiveness and so forth. As such, this
understanding is expected to underscore the conceptualization
and practice of global leadership going forward.
New Meanings in Global Leadership Competence: Discovering
Approaches of Conceptualizing and Operationalizing
Multicultural Leadership in Global Occupational Settings
Cultural dynamic-cultural diversity, intercultural, cross-
cultural, and multicultural-is increasing in its criticality towards
global leadership competencies and effectiveness (Mendenhall,
Osland, Bird, Oddou, & Maznevski, 2008). Leaders within
organizations oriented towards multiculturalism are expected to
be multiculturally competent (Canen, & Canen, 2008). These
leaders are, for example, required to be multiculturally
accountable towards the institutionalizing of cultural flexibility
and diversity (Canen, & Canen, 2008). Moreover,
multiculturally competent leadership has been identified as a
potential source of conflict management in organizations
(Canen, & Canen, 2008). Globally oriented companies are also
cautioned to consider as critical and integral to their efforts
multicultural leadership (Muna, 2011) if they intend to sustain
their global competitive advantage since “multicultural leaders
are cosmopolitan and worldly, they have acquired the cultural
sensitivity necessary to bridge cultures (even when working

2. within the same country) and can conduct business effectively
across national borders” (Muna, 2011, p. 90). In addition to the
criticality of effective global leadership to the success of global
organizations (Butler, Zander, Mockaitis, & Sutton, 2012; Tung
& Varma, 2008, as cited in Lisak & Erez, 2015: Mendenhall et
al., 2008) leaders who develop the potential to emerge within a
multicultural occupational settings or teams are seen to be more
oriented towards global identity, cultural diversity, and cultural
intelligence (Lisak & Erez, 2015). Regarding stakeholder issues
in organizations, there has arisen the need to manage
ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism challenges via
ethnopluralism (Snaiderbaur, 2012).
The developments highlighted above are a few of the vast
array of growing developments associated with the undeniable
growth in stature and impact of globalization and multinational
organizations that increasingly pose emerging challenges to
leadership and management and subsequently demand new
leadership and management models capable of addressing
cultural dynamics bordering on cultural differences and so forth
(Snaiderbaur, 2012). Invariably all kinds of attempts and
initiatives have been advanced towards the leadership and
management challenge described above vis-à-vis global
leadership (Reiche, Bird, Mendenhall & Osland, 2015).
Notwithstanding, a field of study must be able to “generate
cumulative body of knowledge that compares and meaningfully
integrates research findings” (Reiche et al., 2015, p. 2).
However, an overabundance of chiefly vague and characteristic
definitions underscoring prevailing conceptualization and
operationalization of global leadership according to
Mendenhall et al. (as cited in Reiche et al., 2015) presents a
threat to the field regarding the aforementioned ability which
can lead to additional disintegration within the field, signifying
an undeveloped research field and serving to vitally hinder
impending scientific advancement in the field (Pfeffer, as cited
in Reiche et al., 2015).
This paper was developed to focus global leadership on

3. analyzing and synthesizing key and emerging concepts, and best
practices undergirding global leadership competencies,
intercultural competencies, cross-cultural dynamics and their
implications for practicing managers, the use of global
leadership theories and practices by global organizations.
Further, insights from the global leadership typology developed
by Reiche, et al. (2015) was used to emphasize the focus of the
paper towards emerging multicultural leadership insights. The
aim regarding the paper is to identify the conceptual and
operational understanding of multicultural leadership in
occupational environments towards the development of global
leadership effectiveness. It is expected that the literature
developed per the paper can be useful towards further
descriptions and classifications in global leadership (Reiche et
al., 2015). The identification of the type of global leader
underlying a global leadership researcher’s study can enhance
the validation process associated with conceptualization and
operationalization global leadership findings especially
regarding (Reiche et al., 2015) “global leadership ideal-types”
(Reiche et al., 2015, p. 9) for global leadership competence
assessment which according to Mendenhall et al. (2008) is
lacking and has become challenging in global leadership
effectiveness.
Identifying Global Leadership Competencies
Despite challenges of agreeability and definition across
the global leadership field and research vis-à-vis global
leadership effectiveness, attempts have been made towards
developing frameworks for global leadership competencies
(Mendenhall et l., 2008). Three attempts made in the direction
of developing frameworks for global leadership competencies
have been identified as the multidimensional construct of global
leadership by Mendenhall and Osland (2012) the integrated
framework of global leadership by Tiina Jokinen (2005) and the
pyramid model of global leadership by Bird and Osland (2004)
and Osland (2008) (Mendenhall et l., 2008). There are five
competency dimensions comprising the pyramid model of global

4. leadership namely global knowledge, threshold traits (integrity,
humility, inquisitiveness, and resilience), attitudes and
orientations (global mindset, cognitive complexity, and
cosmopolitanism), interpersonal skills (mindful communication,
create and build trust, and multicultural teaming), and system
skills (make ethical decision, influence stakeholders; lead
change, span boundaries, architecting, build community) (Bird
& Osland, 2004; Osland, 2008, as cited in Mendenhall et l.,
2008)
Although much work remains to be done regarding the
assessment of competencies associated with effective global
leadership the competencies highlighted above aligns with
existing and fundamental global leadership competency
assessments: cultural difference, intercultural adaptability, and
global leadership competency (Mendenhall et l., 2008).
Identifying Intercultural Competencies
Intercultural competency can be explained as the
capability of functioning effectually per another culture (Dinges
& Baldwin; Gertsen, 1996, as cited in Bird et al., 2010). Based
on a three factor framework 17 intercultural competencies can
be identified under perceptual management, relationship
management, and selfmanagement (Bird et al., 2010). The first
competency is the perception management competence which is
concerned with the cognitive approach people adopt towards
cultural diversity including the flexibility levels people adopt
towards cultural challenges borders on competencies such as
nonjudgementalness, inquisitiveness, ambiguity tolerance,
cosmopolitanism, and category inclusiveness (Bird et al., 2010).
Second management competency dimension is the relationship
competency category which connotes the orientation people
develop towards relationships relevance as a whole and is
characterized by peoples’ awareness towards others and towards
their style of interaction, values, and so forth (Bird et al.,
2010). The relationship management category involves
competencies such as relationship interest, interpersonal
agreement, emotional sensitivity, selfawareness, and social

5. flexibility (Bird et al., 2010).
The self-management factor is characterized by the
strength people have regarding their identity and their
emotional and stress management effectiveness (Bird et al.,
2010). Here, a distinct sense and comprehension of one’s self
and core values respectively are among the prerequisites for
success in intercultural situations (Bird et al., 2010).
Understanding, adapting, and changing suitably towards work
and intercultural scenarios is also considered a prerequisite for
effectiveness in a global context (Bird et al., 2010).
Selfmanagement is characterized by competencies such as
optimism, selfconfidence, selfidentity, emotional resilience,
nonstress, stress management, and interest flexibility (Bird et
al., 2010). Per their review of existing literature, Bird et al.
(2010) found that the three factors framework and its
constituent competencies with regards to many global
leadership based variables or values is valuable in terms of
prediction (Furuya et al., as cited in Bird et al., 2010) positive
influence “building block”, competency transfer, and higher job
performance levels (Bird et al., 2010). More so, intercultural
competencies and cross-cultural competencies influence global
leadership competencies and global leadership effectiveness
(Mendenhall et l., 2008).
Cross-cultural Dynamic and Its Implications for Practicing
Managers
Developing cross-cultural competence among leaders is
considered effective within organizations such as multinational
corporations (Stroh & Caligiuri, 1998, as cited in Caligiuri,
2006). Based on reviewed literature and interviews involving
interculturalist among others, a cross-cultural adaptability
inventory for training and developing managers was developed
by Christine Kelly and Judith Meyers (1995) (Mendenhall et l.,
2008). Consequently, four cardinal dimensions of the
selfassessment tool are: flexibility or openness-the tendency for
being open to and be openminded towards others and ideas as
well as for being nonjudgemental and flexible in one’s

6. perception, and so forth; emotional resilience characterized by
the ability to deal with and speedily recover from situations and
experiences associated the unfamiliar landscape of intercultural
dynamics; perceptual acuity involving one’s ability to be open
to new people and experiences and manage related challenges;
and personality autonomy which focuses on one’s ability to
develop and sustain a secure identity of self in the midst of
experiencing and adapting to cultural environments (Mendenhall
et l., 2008).
Aligned with Kelly and Meyers’s (1995) cross-cultural
adaptability inventory constituents are the personal qualities or
traits of individuals who lead others such as drive, the edge to
lead, honesty or integrity, and selfconfidence (Kirkpatrick and
Locke, 1991, as cited in Rodriguez, 2005). In global managers’
interactions with their environment (Scarr and Zanden, 1987, as
cited in Rodriguez, 2005) personality traits qualities such as
surgency that reflects the qualities of extroversion and
introversion, agreeableness that reflects the qualities of
friendliness and hostility, consciousness, that is characterized
by the quality of will, emotional stability that reflects conflict
between the quality of emotional stability and neuroticism, and
intellect, that is concerned with the quality of openness
(Digman, 1990, as cited in Rodriguez, 2005) are considered
elements of one’s psychological dynamics towards the
environment they function in vis-à-vis the other people they
interact with (Birenhaum & Montag; Digman; 1990; Goldberg;
Noller et al.; Wiggins & Pincus, as cited in Rodriguez, 2005).
In addition, the success of international alliances is
impacted by the development of the management of
selforganizing and organization (Ireland et al., 2002; Lorange
and Probst, 1987, as cited in Rodriguez, 2005). In managing
international alliances’ involving the coexistence of two
cultures, the dynamic of orienting and styling that drives the
operations per a common grounds approach can impact the
alliances’ success (Rodriguez, 2005). Thus, the design of an
organizational culture that foster shared leadership via

7. cooperation among decision makers can promote the building of
intercultural fit for the alliance (Rodriguez, 2005).
In global leadership development, the combination of
intercultural training and people’s predispositions or aptitudes-
knowledge, skills, abilities, and various personality qualities-is
expected to promote a unique benefit for individuals involved
(Caligiuri, 2006). That is, getting successful results in training
of managers towards global leadership, organizations are
implored to consider the appropriation of the alignment
involving the aptitude and predisposition of the individuals
involved and the intercultural training since the success of one
becoming a global leader is impacted by the appropriate
alignment of one’s predisposition or aptitudes with the
intercultural training (Caligiuri, 2006).
Using Global Leadership Theories and Practices in Global
Organizations
The theory and practice of global leadership in
organizations regarding training and development are expected
to vary per the level of global complexity and connectivity. Low
and high levels of global complexity and connectivity among
global leaders are expected to attract different forms of training
(Reiche, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2015). In general,
however, global organizations are oriented towards
conceptualizing and operationalizing global leadership qualities
within their organizations (Reid, 2008). Modeling and
practicing global leadership in organizations can be identified
with Cirque du Soleil (Reid, 2008). Cirque du Soleil has
succeeded in adopting eight global organizing factors that are
considered to reflect the variables global organizations are
necessitated to focus on for thriving in the future regarding
talent, leadership, change, and innovation (Reid, 2008). The
eight components of Cirque du Soleil’s model according to Lyn
Heward (as cited in Reid, 2008, p. 6) are: “1. recognizing and
unleashing creativity, 2. providing sensorial stimulation to
transport people a little out of their world, 3. treasure hunting
and creative transformation where we dig deeper to find not just

8. the artists’ contributions but their unusual, hidden gifts, 4. a
nurturing environment conducive to supporting the creative
process and connecting all employees with the product and our
successes, 5. taking on challenges in the world through our
social mission, whether violence in schools or water supplies, 6.
supporting multi-culturalism and plunging into all the offerings
and strengths people have, 7. not being afraid to take risks,
learn from mistakes and go forward…we never talk in terms of
failure, 8. keeping the shows fresh and changing the casts so
people can feel pride in the product.”
Effects of Global Leadership Competencies on Organizations
Global leadership competencies impact global leadership
effectiveness in organizations (Mendenhall et l., 2008;
Rodriguez, 2005; Gabrielsson, Seristo, & Darling, 2009).
Intercultural competency for example has a positive impact on
global leadership oriented variables such as global business
acumen (Black et al., 1999, as cited in Bird et al., 2010)
interpersonal skills (Bird and Osland, 2004, as cited in Bird et
al., 2010) and skills for managing systems (Bird and Osland,
2004, as cited in Bird et al., 2010). The multicultural nature of
global leaders also influences success levels in multicultural
teams (Gabrielsson, Seristo, & Darling, 2009). In fostering high
levels of ethical behavior, the avoidance of politics and
selfservice, the modeling of organizational values, and culture
of sustainable belief across the organization for example, the
next generation global leader is expected to demonstrate
integrity, honesty, and ethical behaviors (Goldsmith, Greenberg,
Robertson, & Hu-Chan, 2003, as cited in Mendenhall et l.,
2008). Goldsmith, Greenberg, Robertson, and Hu-Chan (as cited
in Mendenhall et l., 2008) also believe that global leadership
effectiveness in organizations can be positively affected by the
global leadership competencies of inspiring the construction of
dialogue, sharing in the creation of vision and leadership,
empowering and developing people, constructing partnership,
thinking globally, acknowledging diversity, appreciating
technological savvy, ensuring customer satisfaction, sustaining

9. competitive advantage, leading change, attaining personal
mastery, and anticipating opportunity. Intercultural
competencies are critical to the effectiveness of global leaders
(Mendenhall et l., 2008; Bird et al., 2010).
Understanding Theoretical Foundation for Conceptualizing and
Practicalizing Multicultural Leadership
Cultural dynamic continues to pose challenges within the
global environment (Ghemawat, 2007, as cited in Snaiderbaur,
2012). Cultural distances, for example, pose challenges to
network organizations operating internationally (Ghemawat,
2007, as cited in Snaiderbaur, 2012). Cultural considerations
can be discussed per Reiche, et al. (2015) global leadership
typology that delineates two fundamental dimension of global
complexity and global connectivity involving six constructs:
“variety, interdependence, flux, boundary spanning, relational
demand, and influence efficacy” (Reiche et al., 2015, p. 9)
Reiche et al. (2015) asserts that the typology aligns with prior
leadership models that conceptualize the task and relational
contexts of leadership (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Stogdill, 1974,
as cited in Reiche et al., 2015). The six constructs of the
typology were developed based on empirical definitions of
global leadership existing in the global leadership literature
(Reiche et al., 2015). The six constructs that reflects the two
fundamental dimensions-relational and task-of global leadership
(Reiche et al., 2015) echoes the two additional characteristics of
leadership: situational (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982, as cited in
Reiche et al., 2015) and the process of exchange involving
others (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001, as cited in Reiche et al.,
2015).
Using their typology, Reiche et al. (2015) considered a
global leader to be “an individual who fulfills his or her roles
and responsibilities in (1) a task context characterized by
significant levels of variety, interdependence and flux, and (2) a
relational context characterized by significant boundary
spanning, relational demand and influence efficacy” (p. 9).
Regarding conceptualizing leadership, the six constructs of

10. Reiche et al.’s (2015) typology can be used to: per the task
context, conceptualize global leadership based on the situation
or environment surrounding a global leader’s disposition
regarding given roles and responsibilities (Reiche et al., 2015)
and per the relational context, conceptualize global leadership
based on the process or how a global leader accomplishes given
roles and responsibilities (Reiche et al., 2015). In practice, per
the task context wise, global leadership can be considered as a
function of the wideranging task environment experienced by an
individual and as an interactive and exchange of resource
process involving diverse actors and stakeholders (Reiche et al.,
2015).
Within the task context, global leaders go about their
roles or responsibilities amidst global complexity, characterized
by variety, interdependence, and flux and require addressing or
managing (Reiche et al., 2015). Variety which refers to the
multiplicity of representations and indicators involved in
forming, contending, and governing including their associated
actors is one of the global complexity constructs global leaders
engage while playing their work roles or responsibilities (Lane
et al., 2004, as cited in Reiche et al., 2015). Among many,
variety reflects the array of vital elements associated with the
environment the task takes place, that cuts across business
components, competitors, customers, ethnicities, languages, and
the dynamic characterizing of each element (Reiche et al.,
2015). Multinational companies, for example, are engaged with
a variety of institutional environments that reflects among
many, cultural norms that singularly bring to bear challenges
the multinational companies are expected to address towards
being accepted locally (Reiche et al., 2015).
Global complexity is also impacted by interdependence
which constitutes the undertaking and interconnectedness
regarding capital, information, and people globally (Lane et al.,
2004, as cited in Reiche et al., 2015). Interdependency
necessitates advance levels o organization and sharing regarding
information and resources regarding multinational companies

11. and task environments that are external, involves diverse
stakeholders, and the managing of the multiplex dynamic of
related interconnections (Reiche et al., 2015). A third
characteristic of global complexity is flux which is explained as
the “degree to which change in the task environment is
destabilizing…. argue that it is represented by three facets: the
frequency with which it occurs, its intensity, and its degree of
unpredictability” (Reiche et al., 2015, p. 13). Among many,
making change in global leadership is perceived as both passive
and active (Reiche et al., 2015) since conceptually, global
leadership is considered to involve the reality of being
confronted with environmental dynamics (Caligiuri, 2006, as
cited in Reiche et al., 2015) the making of efforts towards
global change (Osland, 2013, as cited in Reiche et al., 2015)
and the clarification of the distinction between being a change
agent per a global manager and that of a global leader (Osland
et al., 2012, as cited in Reiche et al., 2015).
Aside from complexity being concerned with conditions
associated with the task context impacting a global leader’s
work responsibilities, leadership can also be characterized by a
social process of exchange among actors (Zaccaro, Foti, &
Kenny, 10991, s cited in Reiche et al., 2015). The influence of
global leaders towards a synergistic effort for goal attainment
span diverse boundaries involving group, organization, and
global community with their associated mindsets and behaviors
(Adler, 1997; Osland & Bird, 2006, as cited in Reiche et al.,
2015). Another dimension of global leadership is global
connectivity (Reiche et al., 2015). Global connectivity is
characterized by the interactions between a global leader and
other actors and the sharing of resources via the interaction
towards the performance of a global leader’s role and
responsibilities within and across diverse boundaries-
organizational, industry, markets culture including others
(Reiche et al., 2015). The three constructs associated with
global connectivity are boundary spanning, relational demand,
and influence efficacy (Reiche et al., 2015).

12. Notably, global leaders are associated with diverse
boundary spanning activities spanning settings, sectors,
cultures, systems of institutions, and stakeholders (Beechler &
Javidan, 2007; Gregersen et al., 1998; Osland et al., 2013, as
cited in Reiche et al., 2015). Boundary spanning is a process
that involves relating the amalgamating and coordinating of
activities via the distribution of ideas, information, decisions,
talent, and resources spanning boundaries of functions,
organizations, and geography (Beechler et al., 2004, as cited in
Reiche et al., 2015). Connecting people from different settings
and units with each other towards the decentralized sharing of
ideas and information (Kostova & Roth, 2003, as cited in
Reiche et al., 2015) and the spanning of varied roles and
associated identities (Butler, Zander, Mockaitis, & Sutton,
2012, as cited in Reiche et al., 2015) also characterize boundary
spanning.
Relational demand is the second conceptual construct of
the connectivity dimension of global leadership confronting
global leaders as they develop and sustain relationships with
stakeholders situated across diverse boundaries (Reiche et al.,
2015). Asynchronicity and frequency are two key conditions
that influence the nature of relational demands of global leaders
(Reiche et al., 2015). The effectiveness of influencing other
actors is the third concept constituting global leaders’ approach
towards fulfilling their global roles and responsibilities vis-à-
vis global connectivity (Reiche et al., 2015). Across cultures,
diverse likings regarding social exchanges may necessitate
global leaders to progressively acclimatize their leadership
attitudes and methods of exchange (Reiche et al., 2014, Reiche
et al., 2015). More so, the social friction encountered through
their involvement in diverse boundaries, can enable experienced
global leaders to learn and acquaint themselves towards the
continuous adjustment in their behavior and towards wielding
culturally apt influence vis-à-vis the creative leveraging of
cultural differences to favor their influence efforts (Osland et
al., 2013, Reiche et al., 2015).

13. The six constructs per the above understanding (Reiche
et al., 2015) can be used conceptualize and operationalize
multicultural leadership. Based on reviewed scholarly literature
on culture, Reiche et al. (2015) found that the dynamic of
change investigated under the construct of flux is impacted by
culture variations. Marginalized multiculturalism involving the
internalization of multiple cultures without identifying
strappingly with none is a potential quality associated with the
emergence of global leaders since the quality is less prone to
the challenges associated with identity that arises from identity
oriented boundary spanning (Fitzsimmons, Lee, & Brannen,
2013, as cited in Reiche et al., 2015). This understanding is
associated with boundary spanning. More so, multicultural
learning (Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, 2019, Reiche et al.,
2015) can be associated with multiple global leaders’ prior
boundary spanning can also improve their creativity towards
problemsolving effectiveness (Reiche et al., 2015).
Conclusion
Reviewed literature show that developing emerging
meanings in global leadership has been the focus of many
research contribution. Focusing research towards
conceptualization and modeling has not been forthcoming
posing threats to the development of the field (Reiche, Bird,
Mendenhall & Osland, 2015). Innovating approaches towards
the conceptualization and operationalization of global literature
and insight can as expected in multiculturalism regarding global
leadership and organization is a viable step forward toward
developing the field.
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.
Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human
Resource Management Review,16(2), 219–228. Retrieved from
PsycINFO database.

14. Canen, A. G., & Canen, A. (2008). Multicultural leadership:
The costs of its absence in organizational conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict Management (Emerald), 19(1),
4-19. doi:10.1108/10444060810849155
Gabrielsson, M., Seristo, H., & Darling, J. (2009). Developing
the global management team: A new paradigm of key leadership
perspectives. Team Performance Management,15(7/8), 308–325.
Retrieved from ABI Inform database.
Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in
multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business, 503-14.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
Mendenhall, E. M., Osland, S. J., Bird, A., Oddou, R. G., &
Maznevski, L. M. (2008). Global Leadership Research, Practice
and Development. New York: Routledge.
Muna, F. A. (2011). Voices: Cultivating multicultural leaders.
Business Strategy Review, 22(2), 90-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8616.2011.00761.x
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
Reid, J. (2008). The resilient leader: Why EQ matters. Ivey
Business Journal, 72(3), 1-7.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2005). Emergence of a third culture: Shared
leadership in international strategic alliances. International
Marketing Review, 22(1), 67–95. Retrieved from ABI/Inform
database.
Snaiderbaur, S. (2012). Symphonic Leadership: A Model for the
Global Business Environment. ISM Journal of International
Business, 1(4), 1-17.