Journal of Managerial Psychology

Emerald Article: Global management competencies: a theoretical foundation Joost Bcker, Erik Poutsma

Article information:
To cite this document: Joost Bcker, Erik Poutsma, (2010),"Global management competencies: a theoretical foundation", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Iss: 8 pp. 829 - 844 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089116 Downloaded on: 07-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 66 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 1907 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by BIBLIOTECA CENTRALA UNIVERSITARA MIHAI EMIN For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Global management competencies: a theoretical foundation

Joost Bucker and Erik Poutsma
Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the concept of global management competencies. Design/methodology/approach An extensive review of most of the relevant literature on global management competencies was done. By investigating four constructs, i.e. the global mindset, cross-cultural competence, intercultural sensitivity and cultural intelligence, all related to global management competencies the authors made an in-depth investigation of the contributing organizational behaviour components, the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personality characteristics (the KSAOs), useful for a construct of global management competencies. Findings A conguration of the above components as an integrative model was developed. This model could serve as the basis for the development of measurement instruments. Originality/value The construct of global management competencies, albeit with different labels and in different disguise, has received a lot of attention in the last two decades but has not been conceptualised satisfactorily. This article is an attempt to do so. Keywords Competences, Strategic choices, Cross-cultural management, International business, Multinational companies Paper type Conceptual paper

Global management competencies 829

Received October 2008 Revised June 2009 Accepted October 2009

Introduction Todays business is strongly inuenced by globalization. The number of companies operating across the border has grown exponentially. As a consequence of this, a large group of managers and employees is exposed to global strategic decisions and cross-cultural interaction nowadays. One of the key questions in international management, and more specically in international human resources management, covering all issues related to the management of people in an international context (Stahl and Bjorkman, 2006, p. 1) is to what extent managers are prepared to effectively cope with national diversity and global strategic complexity. In other words: to what extent is the development of global business strategy aligned to the development of the capabilities of the human resources needed to implement this strategy. This alignment appears to be a problem. Firms appear not to be doing enough to prepare managers for the international business environment (Manning, 2003; Bird and Osland, 2004; Johnson et al., 2006). Many companies aim to develop these managers internally (Suutari, 2002). This can only succeed if there is clarity about the criteria for selection and/or development of these global managers. Developing relationships across borders with partners and competitors to jointly compose new strategies assumes the availability of specic competencies, most

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 25 No. 8, 2010 pp. 829-844 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941011089116

JMP 25,8

830

probably never needed before. In this article we initially dene competencies as the potential capacity of an individual to successfully handle certain situations or complete a certain task or job. The specic knowledge and skills, within an international management context, which are further labeled as global management competencies, are described in international management literature under various constructs with various labels, like global mindset (Rhinesmith, 1992), cross-cultural competence (Gertsen, 1990), intercultural sensitivity (Hammer et al., 2003), and cultural intelligence (Earley, 2002). These different constructs are used for more or less similar competencies and appear to show overlap. Besides, there is a stream of research around the construct of leadership and global leadership skills. This stream brings in the elusive construct of leadership, which has a long history of continuously changing denitions. There is no consensus about the exact meaning and operationalization of these constructs in international management literature. This is conrmed in the literature (see Levy et al., 2007, p. 246; Johnson et al., 2006, p. 526; Chen, 1997, p. 8; Thomas et al., 2008, p. 124). To add to inconsistency is the fact that the eld of global management and leadership competencies is characterised by regularly upcoming new denitions and new constructs. The research, leading to conceptual diversity, is done in a non-cumulative way. Furthermore, the constructs and its building blocks are not systematically related to the behavioural aptitudes, the knowledge, skills, abilities and other personality characteristics (KSAOs). There is also no systematic overview and comparison of constructs and concepts, hardly any integration attempts, and also no systematic comparison of measurement instruments. (This latter point will be discussed in another paper.) In short, there are some limitations with regard to the global management competencies research. These limitations contribute to a certain mystication of the concept. Several attempts to rename the concept and to redene its building blocks contribute to further mystication. In this paper we want to clarify the mystication by rst addressing the limitations of the research and second by describing the four most important constructs. Hereafter we dene a new construct, which is built up by integrating the relevant building blocks that were part of the four described constructs. An important limitation is that the global management competencies research is suffering from conceptual diversity. Levy et al. (2007) claim that there is diversity both within and across research streams, as well as conceptual ambiguity in the eld. Studies vary widely in their conceptualization and denition of the construct, level of analysis, and operationalization of global mindset. In addition, empirical studies report inconsistent and contradictory ndings (Levy et al., 2007, p. 246). As a reaction Levy et al. (2007) give a thorough overview of the literature so far on global mindset. Johnson et al. (2006) claim there is a lack of agreement on what constitutes CC (cultural competence) and an absence of in-depth studies of CC (Johnson et al., 2006, p. 526). Chen and Starosta (1997) say about intercultural sensitivity: the study of the concept still suffers from conceptual and operational fragmentation and ambiguity. No clear denition of intercultural sensitivity can be found in existing literature. (Chen and Starosta, 1997, p. 8). Lastly, Thomas et al., 2008 state: However, these denitions fall short of specifying the construct as more than a loosely aggregated set of facets conceptually similar to intercultural competency, global mindset or a host of other similar terms, or as an extension of constructs such as social intelligence to a new domain. (Thomas et al., 2008, p. 124). Contributing to this conceptual diversity is that

newly dened constructs regularly show up, to disappear again after some publications, and to be replaced by a more promising construct. In this way constructs like cosmopolitanism (Merton, 1957), worldmindedness (Sampson and Smith, 1957), transnational mentality (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989), and global literacy (Rosen et al., 2000) have been introduced to the research eld and left the stage after some time and, in some cases, re-appeared again like cosmopolitanism (Archibugi, 2009), and worldmindedness (Boatler, 1990). So, despite the hard work of constantly developing new terms and constructs, the growth in publications related to the various constructs describing global management competencies has not yet added up to a coherent body of knowledge. This non-cumulative character of the discussion is expressed by Berry and Ward (2006) as follows: Although the notion of CQ (Cultural Intelligence) is a novel one and perhaps comprehensive one, it is not clear that it delivers anything other than so-called repackaging of 30 years of theory and research on acculturation. (Berry and Ward, 2006, p. 74). To sum up, a systematic overview of the several constructs is welcome. Although, there have been published a few of them (Suutari, 2002; Johnson et al., 2006; Levy et al., 2007), the variation in the type of construct in these overwiews is low. The research community will welcome integrating these different constructs after having them de-constructed in their building blocks. To contribute to more clarity and consistency in the discussion, it is suggested (Caligiuri, 2006) to describe the building blocks of the several constructs in a standardised language (e.g. organizational behavioural denitions) eliminating unneccessary confusion. The individual aptitudes, knowledge, skills, abilities and other personality factors (the KSAOs), will serve this function and make the constructs accessible for the process of selection and development (Caligiuri, 2006). In this article we focus on the comparison of the most important constructs in the literature. These constructs are selected on the following criteria: a substantial body of literature, an attempt to integrate the construct into a model, to address the building blocks in organizational behaviour terms, and a rst manifestation of a validated measurement instrument. Next, we select the essential building blocks that form part of the global management competencies, and build a conceptual model. Our main question in the article is: how can we dene global management competencies in terms of organisational behaviour aptitudes. The article is structured as follows: rst, a theoretical framework of the concept of competencies is described, second, the four constructs of global mindset, cross-cultural competence, intercultural sensitivity, and cultural intelligence are analysed. After selection of the most relevant building blocks of each of these constructs, a conceptual model is composed which forms a starting point for further development of a measurement instrument for global management competencies. Theoretical framework In this paragraph we discuss the following constructs and its constituent building blocks: global mindset, cross-cultural competence, intercultural sensitivity, and cultural intelligence. But rst, let us dene the concept of competencies. The term competencies, which is used to identify high-performing employees, has gradually become widespread in the HRM literature (Boyatzis, 1982; Ulrich, 1997). According to

Global management competencies 831

JMP 25,8

832

Lawler (1994), replacement of the job-based focus in the traditional organisation structure by the widespread use of competencies in the modern global organisation is a fundamental change, one that requires a change in virtually every management system in an organization (Lawler, 1994, p. 4). Global competition leading to a less predictable environment, job instability and atter organizations diminished the signicance of the job in the organization. Job-based systems were no longer able to facilitate a process of continuous learning, development and progress (Lawler, 1994). Organizational systems in which individual capabilities are the primary focus serve as an alternative to the job-based system and facilitates organizations developing organizational capabilities that provide competitive advantage (Lawler, 1994, p. 6). Guion (1991) denes competencies as underlying characteristics of people that indicate ways of behaving or thinking, generalizing across situations, and enduring for a reasonably long period of time. This denition strongly resembles personality. Spencer and Spencer (1993) add to this denition that competencies always include an intent; a characteristic is not a competency unless it predicts something meaningful in the real world (Spencer and Spencer, 1993, p. 13). This denition comes close to the behavioural repertoires and to the metacognition or mindfulness building block. Competencies provide the basis for effective recruitment, selection, and development of high-performing managers and employees. The attention has moved from hiring employees who could perform a certain task, often related to technical knowledge, to hiring employees for their potential, their ability to perform a set of tasks in the near future (Rodriquez et al., 2002). This potential refers to the knowledge and skills acquired by the individual. In rapidly changing business environments, organizations are recognizing the value of a workforce that is not only highly skilled and technically adept, but more importantly, a workforce that can learn quickly, adapt to change, communicate effectively, and foster interpersonal relationships (Rodriquez et al., 2002, p. 309). Rodriquez et al. (2002) here underline the skills to communicate and to learn. In sum, we dene competencies in this article as capabilities to perform effectively (in a cross-cultural situation/as a transnational manager), which consist of knowledge, skills, abilities, personality, and behavioural repertoires. These building blocks express a potential but also an intent to act. What follows is a discussion of selected basic constructs related to the concept of global management competencies. We select these constructs on the following characteristics: a substantial body of literature, an attempt to integrate the construct into a model, to address the building blocks in organizational behaviour terms, and a rst manifestation of a validated measurement instrument. Global mindset Global mindset research dates back to the early nineties of the last century with studies by Rhinesmith (1992), 1995), who described a person with a global mindset as a person accepting life as a balance of contradictory forces and continuously seeking to be open to themselves and others by rethinking boundaries and changing their behavior (Rhinesmith, 1992, p. 63). The literature then developed along the lines of a normative description of traits. Rhinesmith (1995) distinguished six mindsets (traits) for a manager to operate globally, like going for the bigger, broader picture, balancing paradoxes, trusting process over structure, valuing differences, managing change and seeking lifelong learning (Rhinesmith, 1995, p. 37). Srinivas (1995) added curiosity,

acceptance of complexity, diversity consciousness, an extended time perspective and systems thinking. According to Lane et al. (1997), thinking globally means holding multiple realities and relationships in mind simultaneously, and then acting skill-fully this more complex reality (Lane et al., 1997, p. 232). Gregersen et al. (1998) add adventuresomeness, curiosity and open-mindedness as key characteristics to the denition of mindset for a global manager. These early constructs were mainly trait and attitude related. In an overview article, Levy et al. (2007) state that global mindset research presents two approaches: a strategic and a cultural approach. The strategic approach had its roots in the multinational literature of Doz (1980), Doz et al. (1981), and the transnational management literature of Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989). The latter two authors introduced the construct of transnational mentality, which is needed by managers to cope effectively with the complex strategic dilemmas in an organisation. As global competition intensies and the variety of national demands increases, more decisions are affected by those opposing demands for national responsiveness and for global rationalization (Doz et al., 1981, p. 63). The ability to cope with these strategic dilemmas, labeled by the authors as transnational mentality, requires cognitive complexity. The cultural approach refers to the capability to cope with cultural diversity. The cultural approach is rooted in Perlmutters typology of the headquarter-subsidiary relationship. Perlmutter (1969) used the term ethnocentric mindset for a home-country dominant view in the headquarter-subsidiary relationship. Other states of mind or attitudes towards managing a multinational enterprise are polycentric, showing a host-country orientation, and geocentric which reects a global orientation. Research within this cultural perspective denes a global mindset in terms of cross-cultural skills and abilities. Adler and Bartholomew (1992) describe the transnational manager as someone able to move easily within and between different cultures on a regular basis. Although Levy et al. (2007) attempt to bring some order to the concept of a global mindset, distinguishing a cultural and a strategic stream, they argue that:
. . . beyond these common themes, however, there is diversity both within and across research streams, as well as conceptual ambiguity in the eld. Studies vary widely in their conceptualization and denition of the construct, level of analysis, and operationalization of global mindset. In addition, empirical studies report inconsistent and contradictory ndings (Levy et al., 2007).

Global management competencies 833

Bird and Osland (2004) include global mindset in their global competencies model. Global mindset in their view is one of ve global competencies built on top of knowledge (as a resource) and (four) threshold traits. Global mindset itself is not further explored by them. In summary, the critical review of the global mindset by Levy et al. (2007) forms a good starting point for further conceptualisation of the global management competencies. The global mindset literature is predominantly of a cognitive nature (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2002) and also focuses on personality traits (Rhinesmith, 1992). From the global mindset construct we will extract the cognitive aspect of global strategic dilemmas. This strategic approach regarding the challenge to cope with global strategic dilemmas in multinational decision-making processes is what distinguishes the global mindset construct from the other three constructs. The ability

JMP 25,8

to cope with these strategic dilemmas requires cognitive strength and exibility. The cultural approach within the global mindset construct fuels the cognitive part of the global management competencies as general and specic knowledge of other cultures. Cross-cultural competence In an extensive overview article investigating the latest literature in international business, diversity management and cross-cultural communication, Johnson et al. (2006), reviewed the concept of cross-cultural competence. They conclude that there is a lack of agreement on what constitutes cross-cultural competence. Based on denitions identied in their review and taking into account the complex environment, Johnson et al. (2006) dene cross-cultural competence as: an individuals effectiveness in drawing on a set of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes in order to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad ( Johnson et al., 2006, p. 530). On this point Johnson et al. (2006) agree with Gertsen (1990) who identies three components within his intercultural competence construct: a cognitive, an affective and a behavioural component. In the overview, Johnson et al. (2006) further observed that researchers in international business did not really distinguish between the possession of various attributes, knowledge, and skills, and the ability to use them in a cross-cultural environment- thus the knowing and the doing gap ( Johnson et al. 2006, p. 534). This gap is not very well explored in the construct of cross-cultural competence. We will address the issue of the knowing-doing gap by including the theory of cultural intelligence (see later), where one of the building blocks is meta-cognition (or mindfulness), that explicitly relates to this doing aspect or the activation aspect. Furthermore, Johnson et al. (2006) state that it is not enough merely to have the relevant KSAOs; possessing the requisite set of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes is insufcient; the individual must also apply them in what can often be difcult and trying circumstances (Johnson et al., 2006, p. 530). The authors claim to be aware of the environment, in contrast to former conceptualisations of cross-cultural competence, and see two major barriers within the cultural environment: institutional ethnocentrism and cultural distance. These two barriers, they argue, have a moderating effect on the way individuals use knowledge, skills and attributes. We consider the environment, especially the national cultural context, and the industry culture, indeed important as moderating variables inuencing the nal behavioural outcome. Intercultural sensitivity Intercultural sensitivity is another construct used to describe the ability to cope with people and organisations in different cultures. Intercultural sensitivity focuses on the level of awareness of cultural differences and the ability to react appropriately in different cultural contexts. Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) describe intercultural sensitivity as the importance of having an interest in others and to understand their feelings, thoughts and behaviours. Intercultural sensitivity is one of the ve dimensions, used to measure intercultural effectiveness in their measurement scale. An inter-culturally effective individual can be compared to someone in an ethno-relative (versus an ethnocentric) stage of intercultural sensitivity (Hammer et al., 2003). Ethno-relative

834

refers to the ability to adapt to cultural difference and other cultural worldviews as a stage of development of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1986). Bennett (1986) uses the term intercultural sensitive person, a person who can cope with cultural differences and who can construe differences as processes, who can adapt to these differences, and who can additionally construe him or herself in various cultural ways (Bennett, 1986, p. 186). This is similar to the term interculturally effective person, dened by Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) as a person who is able to perform effectively within a work environment with different norms and rules (Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven, 2000, p. 292). In the literature on intercultural sensitivity, several underlying dimensions are frequently mentioned, like personality traits and communication skills (Hammer et al., 1978), exibility and openness (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992; Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven, 2000; Sizoo et al., 2005), freedom from prejudice (Hammer et al., 1978), acceptance of intercultural differences, and an ability to take cultural differences into account and adapt to these abilities (Hammer et al., 2003). Furthermore, cultural empathy is mentioned as one of the dimensions of intercultural sensitivity (Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven, 2000; Stone, 2006). Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) developed the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), an instrument to measure multicultural effectiveness. Based on work from Kealey and Protheroe (1996) and from Kealey and Ruben (1983), Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) dene multicultural effectiveness as success in the elds of professional effectiveness (or adequate work performance), personal adjustment to a new cultural environment and intercultural interactions (interest in and ability to deal with individuals from a different cultural background). The MPQ consists of four dimensions: social initiative, exibility, openness, and emotional stability. Intercultural sensitivity can also be related to intercultural learning; several authors (e.g. Bennett, 1986; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997) use a model consisting of phases or stages in the development of intercultural sensitivity. The intercultural sensitivity construct focuses on awareness of other cultures, on adjustment to other cultures, and on a number of traits, like openness, and cultural empathy. The higher the degree of intercultural sensitivity, the higher the persons intercultural competence or intercultural effectiveness. The construct also relates to (intercultural) learning. From this construct we develop the variable intercultural learning process. We will draw on Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven and take into account the dimensions of intercultural sensitivity: social initiative, exibility, openness and emotional stability. They are part of personality traits. Cultural intelligence The nal construct to be addressed here is cultural intelligence. This is a recently developed construct (Earley, 2002; Earley and Ang, 2003; Thomas and Inkson, 2004) that is attracting a lot of attention from scholars and practitioners. It builds further on the discussion of intelligence, where two competing schools are distinguished: one with a more general intelligence perspective, dening intelligence as a basic element that is measurable and quantiable, while the other takes a multifaceted approach to intelligence, focusing more on the ow of knowledge, the actual exercise of the stock of knowledge.

Global management competencies 835

JMP 25,8

836

In this latter view, intelligence comes in numerous forms and manifests itself in multiple ways, like social intelligence, rational intelligence and emotional intelligence (Sternberg, 2000). Cultural intelligence (CQ) focuses on the specic domain of intercultural settings (Ang et al., 2007). It is a construct of intelligence that reects adaptation to varying cultural contexts (Earley and Ang, 2003, p. 4). Although this new concept originates from organisational psychology, it entered the international management literature soon after its inception. This construct is meant to reect an ability to deal effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds (Thomas, 2006, p. 78). Cultural intelligence is perceived as a specic form of intelligence focused on capabilities to grasp, reason and behave effectively in situations characterised by cultural diversity (Ang et al., 2007).There are several denitions reecting variances in cultural intelligence. According to Earley and Ang (2003), CQ consists of four dimensions: three of which are mental capabilities, like metacognition, cognition and motivation and one behavioural capability in the form of overt actions. According to Ang et al. (2007), metacognitive cultural intelligence refers to the control of cognition. In some of the literature, a meta-feature is also part of cultural intelligence connecting knowledge with behaviour. Thomas (2006) uses the word mindfulness for this. He describes mindfulness as a meta-cognitive strategy, which forms a bridge between knowledge of cultural differences on one side and a choice of an appropriate behavioural repertoire on the other side (Thomas, 2006, p. 84). Other authors see it as a heightened awareness of and enhanced attention to current experience or present reality (Brown and Ryan, 2003), or as an active approach to cognitive processing, which involves the creation of new categories in memory and the seeking of multiple perspectives (Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000, in Thomas, 2006, p. 84). In later work, Thomas et al. (2008) adapt their cultural intelligence model by renaming the building block mindfulness cultural metacognition (Thomas et al., 2008). In this latter article Thomas et al. (2008) dene cultural intelligence as: a system of interacting knowledge and skills, linked by cultural metacognition, that allows people to adapt to, select, and shape the cultural aspects of their environment (Thomas et al., 2008, p. 126). From the cultural intelligence construct, we will adopt the meta-cognition component as it represents the dynamic aspect of a mindset, which enables learning. Also the behavioural repertoires will be included in our newly built conceptual model. Reection on constructs Reecting on the four constructs reviewed above, which are all related to comprehending and dening the competencies of global managers, we see a lot of similarities but also some differences. One common factor is the ability to cope effectively with people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Another common factor is that in all four constructs there are attempts to relate the construct or its building blocks to at least some of the organizational behaviour aptitudes, although this is not done consistently anywhere. In the global mindset literature we see attempts in the work of Kedia and Mukherji (1999), who discuss knowledge, skills and different types of mindsets.

In the cross-cultural competence literature we see attempts in the work of Caligiuri and Di Santo (2001), who try to nd a denition of global competence, making use of three categories of the KSAOs: abilities, knowledge and skills. The intercultural sensitivity literature shows a strong correlation with personality or traits and with learning, not so much with the other behavioural aptitudes. In the cultural intelligence literature, knowledge and skills factors are consistently mentioned, while adding behaviour, and introducing a new concept of meta-cognition. As far as differences are concerned, the global mindset literature explicitly includes a strategic aspect, represented by Doz et al. (1981) in their focus on national responsiveness and global rationalisation and by Bartlett and Ghoshals (1989) work on strategic dilemmas, e.g. the dilemma of global standardisation versus local responsiveness. This focus on the ability to cope with global strategic dilemmas is not explicitly part of the other three concepts. One difference between the cultural intelligence and the cross-cultural competence construct on the one hand and the global mindset construct and the intercultural sensitivity construct on the other hand is that the rst two constructs represent a more dynamic view by not only looking at potential capabilities but also at the active use of these capabilities by translating them into (effective) behaviour. This dynamic, active aspect is embedded in the meta-cognitive dimension of cultural intelligence and in the behavioural dimension of cross-cultural competence. In all the four constructs, the conclusion is that there is not yet consensus on the denition and meaning of these constructs. The call for a more integrated approach is clear. An important question is: How are the building blocks interrelated? Are there any clear causal linkages or is there a more dynamic interrelation with feedback loops? It is problematic to make explicit causal inferences among the building blocks. We take a systemic view, which is partly found in the work of Thomas et al. (2008), and in the work of Bird and Osland (2004). Thomas et al. (2008) state: In actuality, we anticipate that these processes occur simultaneously and sequentially, and in virtually any order (Thomas et al., 2008, p. 135). Bird and Osland (2004) bring together the building blocks, knowledge, traits, attitudes, and skills in a hierarchical pyramidal model which must be read from bottom upwards, and which develops from an individual level, at the bottom up to an organisational (and wider) level at the top. The authors claim that they focus more on the process than on the content of global management competencies but conclude that their pyramidal model describing the building blocks of global competencies does not capture the dynamic way the global competencies interrelate in the process of managing (Bird and Osland, 2004, p. 75). They do give the suggestion to use a model of concentric circles instead but this is not further explored. We use a systems approach referring to the interaction between the building blocks in the conguration of personality, knowledge, skills and behavioural repertoires. In our model we will make use of the idea of the concentric circles to reect the dynamic process part of the construct and include the mindful communication as one of the main skills in the nal concept. The following model (Figure 1), based on the most critical components of the four constructs described above, will serve as our integrative model.

Global management competencies 837

JMP 25,8

838
Figure 1. Global management competencies model

As the cultural intelligence literature is more specically connected to the organisational behaviour literature and offers some promising challenges by introducing the concept of meta-cognition representing an active and dynamic learning process, this construct will have a more prominent role. The strategic component of the global mindset concept is also included in the model. The model presented in Figure 1 consists of a number of independent variables presented in the bottom circle; they are described in the paper as the behavioural aptitudes or the KSAOs, consisting of personality traits, knowledge (cognition), skills (abilities), and behaviour. These KSAOs together constitute a conguration and are related. The strategic and cultural knowledge together with the skills inuence the behavioural repertoires which can be used in global strategic management and decision-making. The top circle in Figure 1 is described as mindfulness or meta-cognition, a component introduced in the cultural intelligence literature and representing a learning factor that continuously monitors, interprets and adjusts the KSAOs in the bottom circle. An example of the meta-cognition component can be found in the example of a young Dutch manager, operating as an interim manager in the Indian subsidiary of a Dutch IT company who decides to formally install a senior Indian manager as his spokesperson and relates himself rather open but respectful to this senior manager. In this case the Dutch manager makes use of cultural knowledge of the Indian management system where formalization and respect for seniority play an important role, and of the context of an IT rm where relations are more open than in other industries (e.g. manufacturing industry). Furthermore, this Dutch manager inhibits the (typical Dutch) motivational drive to act independently, and makes respectfully use of the senior role of the Indian manager. The inuence of meta-cognition is transmitted via the mechanism of cognitive processing and motivational processing. Cognitive processing results in the adaptation of general and specic cultural and strategic knowledge, and leads to the development of new cognitive frameworks or schemata, the seeking of multiple perspectives, and the adaptation of value propositions. Cognitive processing in the former example is formed by the awareness and recognition by the Dutch manager of the Indian rather formal culture where respect for seniority is important. On top of that, the Dutch manager observes that the younger generation in India expresses a different interpretation of the principles of seniority and formality and that especially in the IT

branch a more open and informal use of language seems appropriate. Motivational processing stimulates the awareness and interpretation of our, culturally different, assumptions, ideas, and emotions and how they inuence what is desirable, and thus affect our behaviour. (Thomas, 2006). Motivational processing can be seen in the Dutch managers decision to hand over part of his power to the senior Indian manager although he feels the pressure from headquarters to prove himself as an independent strong manager in his rst overseas job. Despite the pressure from above, the Dutch manager suppresses this need for power and gives up part of his independency. The combination of cognitive processing and motivational processing leads to the development of new behavioural repertoires. In the former example, this is reected by the manager, expressing his respect, and delegating part of the attributed power to the Indian senior manager while communicating this in a rather informal ceremony. Both the cognitive processing as well as the motivational processing are inuenced by cultural differences. First, depending on the culture, we develop different cognitive frameworks or schemas, second, culture will inuence the composition of the self, e.g. the personal values. For a Dutch manager in an Indian IT company, giving in on power and formality is expected to cost less effort than for a French manager in an Indian automotive plant, due to cultural distance (Kogut and Singh, 1988) with respect to national culture (Hofstede, 2001), and industry culture. The role of the personality traits in the model is an intermediary one of accelerating or inhibiting the cognitive and motivational processing. Emotional stability and openness, enable a person to much faster monitor, interpret, and act upon a cultural interaction than a person being less open or less emotional stable. These traits also stimulate the learning process that takes place when the success and failure experiences lead to the development of new knowledge, skills, and behavioural repertoires, the feedback loop in the model, following the three steps of monitoring, interpreting, and adjustment. Finally, the cultural and strategic success- and failure- behavioural experiences are the dependent variable, which will nally lead to (more or less) effective cultural and global strategic performance. A feedback loop from the cultural and strategic success- and failure- experiences to the conguration of KSAOs triggers the learning process via cognitive and motivational processing. Discussion The proposed integrative model has some important advantages. First, the model is making use of the most appropriate building blocks from different constructs, resulting in a more complete coverage of the concept of global management competencies. It focuses both on the strategic side by integrating the ability to cope with global strategic dilemmas as well as on the cultural side by integrating the ability to cope with cultural diversity. Second, the model is more realistic than some previous models as it takes a dynamic perspective by introducing the behavioural component and by including the meta-cognitive component. The dynamic aspect is reected in the active approach, resulting in the nal strategic and cultural behaviour; in the learning processes, interpreting the strategic and cultural success- and failure-experiences, leads to the adjustment of behaviour. This adjustment process nally enlarges the chance of effective global management behaviour.

Global management competencies 839

JMP 25,8

840

Third, as Kwanjai and den Hertog (2008) claim, the cultural intelligence research so far has focused on the intra-personal side of cultural intelligence and less on the inter-action side of the construct. In their paper they ask for co-operation between the researchers of the emic and etic research approach with regard to global management competencies. To reach complimentarity, it requires that the competing quantitative and qualitative research cultures interact effectively to exploit their uniformity and complimentarity (Kwanjai and den Hertog, 2008, p. 27). Our model serves as a good starting point. The proposed model is apparently complex, which poses challenges for the issue of measurement. Most of the literature in the area of global management competencies so far made use of measuring mainly the attitudes of respondents. The focus was on the being side of these respondents. The global management competencies concept also aims to focus on the doing side, on the actual behaviour of employees and managers in cross-cultural interaction, necessitating new ways of measurement (Regan and Fazio, 1977; Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2008). A future model showing an integrative approach should also meet other requirements, like offering clarity in the level of measurement, using academic rigour to dene the construct, bringing consistency in the employee category of expatriate, leader or manager that is selected as respondent. To include the contextual inuence of culture, a cultural diverse set of respondents must be selected. Furthermore, the integrated approach should take a dynamic perspective, offering room for interaction competencies which asks for both quantitative and qualitative measurement. The most effective data-collection strategy is one that uses multiple measures and multiple methods of data collection (Lee and Templer, 2003, p. 208). Caligiuri et al. (2000) developed the attitudinal and behavioural openness scale, which makes use of both behavioural and attitudinal indicators of the personality trait openness (Caligiuri et al., 2000). In addition, the use of biodata may offer a valuable contribution to a more valid measurement of global management competencies. As suggested already by Adorno et al.s (1950) seminal research on ethnocentrism, a persons development and previous life experiences are believed to impact the way one perceives others who may be different from oneself. Furthermore, biodata items are able to tap into experiences that are inuential in shaping individuals attitudes, beliefs, and values of interest with fewer of the problems that are commonly associated with the measurement of sensitive topics such as social desirability and faking (Kilcullen et al. 1995; Nunnaly, 1967). An adequate measure of competence should also capture multiple dimensions of performance, like job-related outcomes and effective social interactions. Besides, a competence measure gains value when it is capable to assess tacit knowledge. Sternberg (2000) propose triangulation as a method for assessing tacit knowledge by using written scenarios for which the respondent is asked to select the most appropriate response. Byrams (1997) suggestion to use portfolios in which individuals record critical incidents from their own experience and explain how they reacted to them forms another method contributing to a more doing active approach. In sum, the issue of measurement raises challenging questions and solutions that need full consideration in another article.

Managerial implications The costs for failure or ill-performance are high. Miscommunication, dissatisfaction and loss of reputation do harm both to the people and to the organisation. As we see an increase in the number of transnational companies, international cooperation between individuals, teams, and organisations will be part of managers daily practices. The development of an instrument that measures global management competencies, will support transnational cooperation and enhance cultural and strategic effectiveness. The relevance of nding an appropriate denition of the global management competencies construct is clear, considering that the denition is used for developing an instrument which will further be used for selection and development of managers and employees for international (or transnational) positions.
References Adler, N.J. and Bartholomew, S. (1992), Managing globally competent people, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 6, pp. 52-62. Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. (1950), The Authoritarian Personality, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2007), Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 335-71. Archibugi, D. (2009), Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward a Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989), Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Bennett, M.J. (1986), A developmental approach to training and intercultural sensitivity, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 179-96. Berry, J. and Ward, C. (2006), Commentary on Redening interactions across cultures and organizations, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 64-77. Bhawuk, D.P. and Brislin, R. (1992), The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 16, pp. 413-36. Bird, A. and Osland, J.S. (2004), Global competencies: an introduction, in Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M.L., Mendenhall, M.E. and McNett, J. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Global Management. A Guide to Managing Complexity, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 57-80. Boatler, R. (1990), Business student worldmindedness, Journal of Global Business, Fall, pp. 71-6. Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Brown, K.W. and Ryan, R.M. (2003), The benets of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 822-48. Byram, M.S. (1997), Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Caligiuri, P. (2006), Developing global leaders, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 219-28. Caligiuri, P. and Di Santo, V. (2001), Global competence: what is it, and can it be developed through global assignments, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 24, pp. 27-35.

Global management competencies 841

JMP 25,8

842

Caligiuri, P.M., Jacobs, R.R. and Farr, J.L. (2000), The attitudinal and behavioral openness scale: scale development and construct validation, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-46. Chen, G.-M. (1997), A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity, working paper, the Biennial Convention of the Pacic and Asian Communication Association, Honolulu, HI. Chen, G.M. and Starosta, W.J. (1997), A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity, Human Communication, Vol. 1, pp. 1-16. Doz, Y.L. (1980), Strategic management in multinational companies, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 27-46. Doz, Y.L., Bartlett, C.A. and Prahalad, C.K. (1981), Global competitive pressures and host demands. Managing tensions in MNCs, California Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 63-74. Earley, P.C. (2002), Redening interactions across culture and organisations: moving forward with cultural intelligence, Research on Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 24, pp. 271-99. Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Gertsen, M.C. (1990), Intercultural competence and expatriates, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 341-62. Gregersen, H.B., Morrison, A.J. and Black, J.S. (1998), Developing leaders for the global frontier, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 21-32. Guion, R.M. (1991), Personnel assessment, selection and placement, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2002), Cultivating a global mindset, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, pp. 116-26. Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. and Wiseman, R. (2003), Measuring intercultural sensitivity: the intercultural developmental inventory, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 27, pp. 421-43. Hammer, M.R., Gudykunst, W.B. and Wiseman, R.L. (1978), Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: an exploratory study, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 2, pp. 382-93. Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Johnson, J.P., Lenartowicz, T. and Apud, S. (2006), Cross-cultural competence in international business: toward a denition and a model, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 525-43. Kealey, D.J. and Protheroe, D.R. (1996), The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: an assessment of the literature on the issue, International Journal of Intercultural Relationships, Vol. 20, pp. 141-65. Kealey, D.J. and Ruben, B.D. (1983), Cross-cultural personnel selection criteria, issues and methods, in Landis, D. and Brislin, R.W. (Eds), Handbook of Intercultural Training: Issues in Theory and Design, Pergamon, New York, NY, pp. 155-75. Kedia, B.L. and Mukherji, A. (1999), Global managers: developing a mindset for global competitiveness, Journal of World Business, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 230-51. Kilcullen, R.N., White, L.A., Mumford, M.D. and Mack, H. (1995), Assessing the construct validity of rational biodata scales, Military Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-28.

Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988), The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 411-33. Kwanjai, N.N. and den Hertog, J.F. (2008), Cultural intelligence: a qualitative angle, 24th EGOS Colloquium, VU, Amsterdam. Lane, H.W., Di Stefano, J.J. and Maznevski, M.L. (1997), International Management Behavior, 3rd ed., Blackwell Publishers Inc., Cambridge, MA. Langer, E.J. and Moldoveanu, M. (2000), The construct of mindfulness, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, pp. 1-9. Lawler, E. (1994), From job-based to competency-based organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 3-16. Lee, C.H. and Templer, K.J. (2003), Cultural intelligence assessment and measurement, in Early, P.C. and Ang, S. (Eds), Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures, Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA, pp. 185-208. Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S. and Boyacigiller, N.A. (2007), What we talk about when we talk about global mindset: managerial cognition in multinational corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 231-58. Manning, T.T. (2003), Leadership across cultures: attachment style inuences, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 20-30. Merton, R.K. (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged ed., Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY. Nunnaly, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Perlmutter, H.V. (1969), The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation, Columbia Journal of World Business, pp. 9-18. Regan, D.T. and Fazio, R. (1977), On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: look to the method of attitude formation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 28-45. Rhinesmith, S.H. (1992), Global mindsets for global managers, Training and Development, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 63-9. Rhinesmith, S.H. (1995), Open door to a global mindset, Training and Development, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 35-43. Rodriquez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. and Gowing, M.K. (2002), Developing competency models to promote integrated human resources, Human Resource Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 309-24. Rosen, R.H., Digh, P., Phillips, C. and Rosen, R.T. (Eds) (2000), Global Literacies: Lessons on Business Leadership and National Cultures, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Sampson, D.L. and Smith, H.P. (1957), A scale to measure worldminded attitudes, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 99-106. Sizoo, S., Plank, R., Iskat, W. and Serrie, H. (2005), The effect of intercultural sensitivity on employee performance in cross-cultural service encounters, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19, pp. 245-55. Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Srinivas, K.M. (1995), Globalization of business and the third world, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 14, pp. 26-49. Stahl, G. and Bjorkman, I. (2006), Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Sternberg, R.J. (2000), Handbook of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Global management competencies 843

JMP 25,8

844

Stone, N. (2006), Conceptualising intercultural effectiveness for university teaching, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 334-56. Suutari, V. (2002), Global leader development: an emerging agenda, Career Development International, Vol. 7, pp. 218-33. Thomas, D.C. (2006), Domain and development of cultural intelligence: the importance of mindfulness, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31, pp. 78-99. Thomas, D.C. and Inkson, K. (2004), Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Thomas, D.C., Stahl, G., Ravlin, E.C., Poelmans, S., Pekerti, A., Maznevski, M., Lazarova, M.B., Elron, E., Ekelund, B.Z., Cerdin, J-L., Aycan, Z. and Au, K. (2008), Cultural intelligence: domain and assessment, International Journal of Cross-cultural Management, Vol. 8, pp. 123-43. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C.M. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey, London. Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Van der Zee, K.I. and Van Oudenhoven, J.P. (2000), The multicultural personality questionnaire: a multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 14, pp. 291-309. Further reading Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Koh, C. (2006), Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31, pp. 100-23. Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M.L., Mendenhall, M.E. and McNett, J. (2004), The Blackwell Handbook of Global Management. A Guide to Managing Complexity, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. About the authors Joost Bucker (1955) is Senior Lecturer of International Human Resource Management in the Department of Business Administration at the Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen. He studied sociology (MA) at the University of Tilburg. He is an expert in training and consultancy on global leadership and cross-cultural management. His research interests are in the area of cross-cultural management and international human resource management, more specically in the topic of global leadership competencies. Joost Bucker is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: J.Bucker@fm.ru.nl Erik Poutsma (1951) is Associate Professor of Labour Relations in the Department of Business Administration of Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University of Nijmegen. He studied sociology (MA) at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and received his PhD in business administration at the University of Nijmegen. He has many years of experience of conducting research in the areas of technological change, entrepreneurship, human resource management and employee participation. His main research interest is international comparative research of the domains HRM and employee involvement.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints