Cross-cultural management discussion

Guideline: You will be responsible for one original post, and two responses to posts of your classmates. 

Your original post is due in 2 days, and after post that, I will send you two posts from my classmates, and then you need to reply to those two post in the following day. The original post can be 1 page, and the two responses can be half page each.

For your original posting, you will respond to the question(s) that are asked for the week. You will want to think about responding fully, in a way that fully answers the question, and also incorporates other aspects of graduate level thinking, such as (for example) critical thinking; analyzing issues from multiple perspectives; demonstrating awareness of costs and opportunities of decisions; incorporating or applying course material; and/or bringing in your own real-world experience with the topic at hand. 

For your two responses to other students, you have lots of options. As examples, you can explain why you agree/disagree with what is said, with sufficient explanation or argument to support your position;  you can evaluate what is said by comparing/contrasting what we are learning in the course, or with your experience or knowledge; you can also share an example or story that illustrates the point that the original poster made. 

Questions you have to answer this week:

After viewing the TED talk by Professor Amy Edmonson, think about her suggestions for how to be an effective leader during a crisis. (eg: communication, taking quick action, leading with purpose and values, power). Based on your readings for this week, consider how leadership can vary across cultures. Reflect on how her suggestions may be interpreted or applied differently by people from different cultural backgrounds.  

Pick one of her suggestions to focus on.  Questions to address:

1.  How can this leadership suggestion be differently construed, enacted, interpreted, or applied by people from different cultures?  If it helps, you can choose two cultures or identify specific cultural values/dimensions to compare. 

2. Why is considering how to adapt this leadership suggestion to culturally different employees even more important during a time of crisis?  In responding, you can refer to a specific crisis occurring now, such as the pandemic or economic recession; you can give an example based on a real situation you have experienced or observed; or you can make up an example situation to help demonstrate your point. 

You need to answer all of the questions above, and must apply the content from the articles and video I uploaded. The link of the video: https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_c_edmondson_how_to_lead_in_a_crisis?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622

Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness

Paula Caligiuri a,*, Ibraiz Tarique b

a Human Resource Management Department, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08901, USA
b Lubin School of Business, Pace University, New York, NY, 10038 USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

Global leadership

International effectiveness

Cross-cultural competencies

Developmental experiences

Personality characteristics

A B S T R A C T

Analyzing data from a sample of 420 global leaders (matched with 221 supervisors), we found a

combined effect of personality characteristics (extraversion, openness to experience, and lower

neuroticism) and cross-cultural experiences (organization-initiated cross-cultural work experiences and

non-work cross-cultural experiences) as predictors of dynamic cross-cultural competencies (tolerance

of ambiguity, cultural flexibility, and reduced ethnocentrism). These competencies, in turn, are

predictors of supervisors’ ratings of global leadership effectiveness. Our study suggests that

developmental cross-cultural experiences occur through both work-related and non-work activities.

The results suggest that both selection and development are critical for building a pipeline of effective

global leaders.

� 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j w b

The global economy is producing a competitive landscape that
is becoming increasingly more complex, dynamic and ambiguous
for firms operating across borders. PriceWaterhouseCoopers’s 14th
Annual Global CEO Survey (2011) found that ‘‘bridging the global
skills gap’’ was one of the top concerns they cited for the future as
companies look ‘‘for better ways to develop and deploy staff
globally.’’ Globally competent business leaders, and not limited to
those on international assignments, are critical for a firms’ ability
to compete and succeed internationally. In response to the growing
demand for globally competent business leaders who can operate
successfully in today’s global environment and improve organiza-
tional performance across all geographic markets, 62% of firms
around the world report having a global leadership development
program of some form (American Management Association, 2010).

Many global leadership development programs include talent
management and leadership succession programs that include a
variety of developmental experiences (e.g., Beechler & Javidan,
2007; Evans, Pucik, & Barsouk, 2002; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002).
These organization-initiated developmental experiences include
involvement in global teams (Maznevski & DiStefano, 2000), global
travel that encourages learning from colleagues in different
countries (Oddou, Mendenhall, Ritchie, 2000), in-country training
or coaching (Mendenhall & Stahl, 2000), cross-national mentors
(Mezias & Scandura, 2005), global rotational programs (Caligiuri &
Di Santo, 2001), formal instructional programs (American Man-
agement Association, 2010), and international assignments (e.g.,

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: caligiuri@smlr.rutgers.edu (P. Caligiuri).

1090-9516/$ – see front matter � 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.014

Dickmann & Doherty, 2010; Kreng & Huang, 2009; Yan, Guorong, &
Hall, 2002).

While many activities may exist in a global leadership
development program, only half of the 939 firms surveyed in
the American Management Association study agree that their
global leadership development programs are highly effective and
improve leadership skills in the participants. Similarly, a 2010
study conducted by IBM of over 700 chief human resource
executives globally found that ‘‘developing future leaders’’ was
rated as the most important business capability needed to achieve
future global business objectives. Unfortunately, it was also rated
as one of their firms’ least effective capabilities.

Before the best possible global leadership development
program could be developed, it is important to understand how
global leadership competencies are gained, a topic that, to our
knowledge, is not yet understood. This manuscript will address the
explanatory mechanisms through which experiential global
leadership development opportunities can be effective for
developing global competencies and how those competencies
can, in turn, affect the ultimate goal of the programs – to improve
leaders’ abilities to operate effectively in cross-cultural and
multicultural environments.

The primary question to be examined in this study is how these
dynamic cross-cultural competencies are created or shaped –
whether through individuals’ immutable personality traits or
cross-cultural experiences (or both). Specifically, this study will
examine the roles of experiential opportunities, organization-
initiated cross-cultural experiences (i.e., those found in leadership
development programs) and non-work cross-cultural experiences.
In addition, this study will also examine whether leaders’ relatively

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.014

mailto:caligiuri@smlr.rutgers.edu

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10909516

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.014

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622 613

immutable personality characteristics (i.e., the Big Five) affect
global leadership competencies. Ultimately, we test what is
inferred by global leadership development programs: global
leadership competencies are related to global leaders’ task
performance. Fig. 1 illustrates the relationships to be developed
and tested in this study.

1. Global leadership competencies and global leadership task
performance

In the context of building a pipeline of future global leaders,
cross-cultural developmental opportunities should have one
overarching goal, to build global leadership competencies which
will, in turn, will be positively related to performance on global
leadership tasks. Global leadership development practices are
considered valuable when they can, in fact, improve global
leadership performance (American Management Association,
2010). Predicting performance on global leadership tasks (e.g.,
interacting with external clients from other countries, developing a
strategic business plan on a worldwide basis, managing a budget
on a worldwide basis, managing foreign suppliers or vendors) is
the ultimate goal for this study of global leadership development.

1.1. Dynamic cross-cultural competencies

Dynamic cross-cultural competencies are those that can be
acquired or enhanced through training and development (O’Sulli-
van, 1999; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006).
The three competencies unique to leadership in a global or
multicultural context are: (1) reduced ethnocentrism or valuing
cultural differences, (2) cultural flexibility or adaptation, and (3)
tolerance of ambiguity. These dynamic competencies have been
identified as some of the competencies related to cross-cultural
knowledge absorption (Kayes, Kayes, & Yamazaki, 2005), pre-
dictors of performance among expatriates (Shaffer et al., 2006) and

The variables in brackets include the hypothesize d relationships. The va riables in the upper brac
brackets include the cross -cultu ral ex perie nce s in cluded in the hypotheses. Soli d lines ind ica te s
relationships.

Neuroticism

Extravers ion

Openness

Agreeablenes s

Conscientiousness

Non-Work Cross-

Cultural Experiences

Org-Initiated Cross-

Cultural Experiences

Fig. 1. Mediated model predicting supervisor ratings of global leadership performance. T
upper brackets are the personality characteristics included in the hypotheses and the low

lines indicate statistically significant relationships and dotted lines indicate non-signifi

the skills of global leaders (Maznevski & DiStefano, 2000). Each is
described in greater detail below.

Ethnocentrism is an individual’s nationalistic self-centeredness,
the belief that those from other cultures are inferior (Bizumic,
Duckitt, Popadic, Dru, & Krauss, 2009). Ethnocentric individuals
interpret and evaluate other’s behavior using their own standards
and make little effort to modify their own behavior to suit host
cultural values (Black, 1990). Ethnocentric tendencies inhibit the
individual in coping effectively with new social norms, values
(Church, 1982). Prior research has found that ethnocentrism is
negatively related to interaction adjustment and contextual
performance and positively related to withdrawal cognitions
(Shaffer et al., 2006). As noted by Thomas (1996), ethnocentric
attitudes are especially damaging to the development and
maintenance of cross-cultural interpersonal interactions. A global
leader’s ethnocentrism can have a deleterious effect on intergroup
relations with co-workers, clients and subordinates and reduce
success in tasks where a locally-responsive approach would be
most appropriate. As global business requires greater collaboration
and coordination among people from different cultures, reducing
ethnocentrism is a worthwhile developmental goal for future
global leaders.

Cultural flexibility, another dynamic competency, is defined as
‘‘the capacity to substitute activities enjoyed in one’s home country
with existing, and usually distinct, activities in the host country’’
(Shaffer et al., 2006, p. 113). Prior research suggests that cultural
flexibility is positively related to cross-cultural adjustment (e.g.,
Shaffer et al., 2006), self-esteem and self-confidence (e.g., Menden-
hall & Oddou, 1985), adapting to the foreign environments (e.g.,
Black, 1990), and success on foreign assignments (Arthur & Bennett,
1995). The presence of greater cultural flexibility can enhance global
leaders’ effectiveness when they are living and working interna-
tionally for extended periods of time (i.e., on expatriate assign-
ments). While not all expatriates are global leaders – and not all
global leaders are (or were) expatriates – cultural flexibility remains

kets are the personalit y char acteristi cs in clude d in the hypot heses and th e lowe r
tat isticall y sig nifica nt relationships and dotte d li nes indicate non-si gnificant

Global Lead ership
Effectiveness

Tolerance of

Ambigui ty

Ethnocent rism

Cultural Flexibili ty

he variables in brackets include the hypothesized relationships. The variables in the

er brackets include the cross-cultural experiences included in the hypotheses. Solid

cant relationships.

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622614

an important competence for all those who are working in
multicultural situations; global leaders will often need to substitute
their preferred way of doing things with a culturally different way.
Thus, increasing cultural flexibility is an important developmental
goal, especially among those global leaders who take frequent
business trips in different countries or those who may accept
expatriate assignments in the future.

Another dynamic competence companies seek to develop in
their future global leaders is a tolerance of ambiguity. Tolerance for
ambiguity is the ability to manage ambiguous, new, different, and
unpredictable situations. Researchers have argued that people
with greater tolerance for ambiguity are more likely to effectively
manage the stress imposed by uncertain environments and to be
more adaptive and receptive to change (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, &
Welbourne, 1999), and rapidly changing conditions. A few studies
have argued that individuals with higher tolerance for ambiguity
are better suited for positions that are characterized by ambiguity
(cf. Sherrill, 2005). Given the many uncertainties and the
complexity of the global economy, it is appropriate for global
leadership programs to seek to develop a tolerance for ambiguity.

These three dynamic cross-cultural competencies should,
collectively, produce a repertoire of behaviors in leaders related
to their success in global leadership activities. As such, our first
hypothesis to be tested is:

Hypothesis 1. Dynamic cross-cultural competencies are positively
related to global leadership effectiveness such that

ethnocentrism

(H1a) is negatively related while cultural flexibility (H1b) and
tolerance of ambiguity (H1c) are positively related.

1.2. Cross-cultural experiences

Two theories, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and the
contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), provide the conceptual basis for
understanding the mechanism by which cross-cultural experi-
ences lead to the development of cross-cultural competencies. The
important element these two theories have in common is that
learning occurs through interactions with people from different
cultures (i.e., high-contact experiences).

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) proposes that individu-
als learn and develop by engaging with their surroundings. Applied
to the development of global leadership competencies, learning
occurs when leaders can practice newly-learned behaviors in the
intercultural or multicultural context, when they can receive
feedback (e.g., from peers or mentors), and when the environment
is professionally or emotionally safe to take risks and possibly
make a mistake (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009; Maznevski & DiStefano,
2000).

Using these attributes as a guide, social learning theory helps
cross-cultural developmental experiences into systems or bundles
of interrelated activities based on their developmental potential.
According to the participative modeling process, experiences range
on a continuum from low-contact experiences that use the
participative-verbal modeling approach (e.g., formal university
coursework) to high-contact experiences that use participative-
behavioral modeling (e.g., global assignments, global teams,
studying abroad, being born into a multicultural family). Consis-
tent with social learning theory, cross-cultural experiences with
greater cross-cultural interaction or contact are related to greater
cross-cultural adjustment (Caligiuri, 2000) and self-reported
global leadership success (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009).

When extended to the way in which business professionals gain
global leadership competencies, the basic principles of the contact
hypothesis lead to the same conclusion as social learning theory.
This approach suggests that the more peer-level interaction (or
contact) people have with others from a given cultural group, the

more positive their attitudes will be toward the people from that
cultural group (Amir, 1969). Contact theory further suggests that
the experiences should offer meaningful peer-level interactions,
opportunities to work together toward a common goal, and an
environment that supports the interactions (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006).

In the case of the development of global leadership competen-
cies, the more opportunities for business leaders to interact with
people from different cultures, the more likely they will be have
positive attitudes toward people from different cultures (i.e., the
contact hypothesis) and identify, learn, and apply diverse
culturally-appropriate business behaviors (i.e., social learning
theory). Taken together, we posit that multiple cross-cultural
experiences will increase individuals’ cross-cultural competencies
(i.e., reduced ethnocentrism, increased cultural flexibility, and
greater tolerance of ambiguity) and, in turn, these competencies
will improve their success in global leadership activities.

There are various types of cross-cultural experiences individu-
als may have over the course of their lives that should shape these
cross-cultural competencies. This study will examine two catego-
ries of cross-cultural experiences: (1) non-work cross-cultural
experiences (2) organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences.
We present both in greater detail below.

1.2.1. Non-work cross-cultural experiences

As found in a previous study by Caligiuri and Tarique (2009),
developmental cross-cultural experiences may not necessarily
happen in the workplace. Their study found that family diversity –
being a member of a multicultural household – was related to self-
ratings of performance in global leadership activities. Family
diversity in their study was operationalized by whether the
participant shared nationality with either, neither, or both parents.
This is a particularly interesting variable to examine in light of
social learning theory; children raised in households where they
are modeling behaviors across multiple cultures (and often
bilingual) have been shown to be more creative.

In addition to being raised in a multicultural household,
individuals may self-initiate or seek out international experiences
throughout their lives. Suutari and Brewster (2000) describe self-
initiated cross-cultural or foreign experiences as those individual-
ly-initiated experiences in the pursuit of cultural, personal, or
professional development. Non-work cross-cultural experiences
include studying abroad, vacationing in foreign countries and
international volunteerism. Non-work cross-cultural experiences
have also been shown to be related to an accelerated professional
development (Myers & Pringle, 2005).

As social learning theory and the contact hypothesis would
suggest, cultural flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, and low
ethnocentrism would require the greater exposure to general and
cultural specific skills/behaviors (through non-work cross-cultural
experiences), and to understand which behaviors to execute or
suppress in given situations (through interpersonal contacts). It
can be argued that non-work cross-cultural experiences allows
individuals to substitute behaviors or activities (cultural flexibili-
ty), effectively manage ambiguous and uncertain situations
(tolerance of ambiguity), and minimize the tendency to view
one’s own culture as the only views that are correct (ethnocen-
trism). Collectively, these non-work cross-cultural experiences
should reduce ethnocentrism and increase cultural flexibility, and
greater tolerance of ambiguity. Second hypothesis is:

Hypotheses 2. Non-work cross-cultural experiences are related to
dynamic cross-cultural competencies, such that these experiences
are negatively related to ethnocentrism (H2a), positively related to
cultural flexibility (H2b), and positively related to tolerance of
ambiguity (H2c).

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622 615

1.2.2. Organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences

According to Kayes et al. (2005) managers learn from cross-
cultural experiences through a variety of knowledge absorption
abilities, including valuing difference cultures, building relation-
ships, listening and observing, coping with ambiguity, managing
others, translating complex ideas, and taking action. Based on the
social learning theory and the contact hypothesis, we can bundle
organization-initiated cross-cultural activities experiences (Black
& Mendenhall, 1989) into high-contact and low-contact experi-
ences (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009). The high-contact cross-cultural
experiences that organization may initiate include international
business travel with significant interaction (Oddou et al., 2000)
(either international assignments or participation in international
meetings), membership on global teams (Maznevski & DiStefano,
2000), in-country mentoring (Mezias & Scandura, 2005).

From a social learning perspective, individuals who participate
in high contact organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences
are more to retain and reproduce the learned skills and behaviors
through greater opportunity. It follows that the more individuals
engage in these high contact cross-cultural experiences, the more
opportunity they have to practice the modeled behavior and to
refine the ability to reproduce the modeled behavior at a later time
in the appropriate situation (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2009).

Hypotheses 3. High contact organization-initiated cross-cultural
experiences are related to dynamic cross-cultural competencies
such that these experiences are negatively related to ethnocen-
trism (H3a), positively related to cultural flexibility (H3b), and
positively related to tolerance of ambiguity (H3c).

1.3. Personality characteristics

In addition to the dysfunctional experiences, another possible
reason for the mediocre results in global leadership development
programs is that cross-cultural developmental experiences, on
their own, might not be sufficient to increase global leadership
competencies. Research suggests that certain personality char-
acteristics are related to effectiveness of leaders working in a
global environment (e.g., Caligiuri, 1997, 2000; Gupta & Govindar-
ajan, 2002; Morrison, 2000). Central to the present study,
personality characteristics have been found to be necessary for
the acquisition of dynamic cross-cultural competencies (O’Sulli-
van, 1999).

When considering personality characteristics, five factors
comprise the taxonomy for classifying stable and relatively
immutable personality characteristics. This taxonomy which has
been found repeatedly through factor analyses and confirmatory
factor analyses across time, contexts, and cultures (Buss, 1991;
Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990) and is labeled the ‘‘the Big Five’’:
(1) extroversion, (2) agreeableness, (3) conscientiousness, (4)
neuroticism, and (5) openness to experience or intellect (see Costa
& McCrae, 1992 for more information on each factor).

Considering the way dynamic cross-cultural competencies are
potentially developed through multicultural and international
experiences, both openness and extraversion would predispose
individuals to seek out experiences and interact with people from
different cultures. These two personality characteristics have been
found to be predictors of individuals’ motivation to learn (Major,
Turner, & Fletcher, 2006) and are correlates of transformational
leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000). Neuroticism predisposes
individuals to be more (or less) comfortable while engaging in
these international experiences and multicultural interactions. The
way in which these three characteristics will influence the
development of cross-cultural leadership competencies is now
described.

1.3.1. Openness to experience

Openness is the personality characteristics relating to the
extent to which individuals are original, innovative, curious, and
willing to take risks (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Individuals with a
greater openness are more likely to engage in international
experiences and multicultural opportunities because of their
natural curiosity and interest in novel experiences. As social
leaning theory suggests, having more international and multicul-
tural experiences (more frequent among those high in openness)
will lead to reduced ethnocentrism. Novel experiences should
encourage greater receptivity to learn from different cultures.
Cultural flexibility should increase among those higher in
openness because they will be more likely to naturally seek out
and engage in novel experiences and thus be exposed to different
(or substitute) ways of doing things. Likewise, tolerance of
ambiguity should be lower among those who are high in openness
as these individual are certainly more comfortable in different
countries and with people from different cultures.

Hypotheses 4. Openness to experience is related to dynamic cross-
cultural competencies such that openness is negatively related to
ethnocentrism (H4a), positively related to

cultural flexibility

(H4b), and positively related to tolerance of ambiguity (H4c).

1.3.2. Extraversion

Extraversion is the degree to which individuals are sociable,
talkative, and seek social activities (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Following again from the social learning theory and contact
hypothesis extroversion should predispose individuals to engage
in cross-cultural interactions when involved in cross-cultural
experiences. Extroverts have a greater natural ease with social
demands and may be more willing to put forth the effort necessary
to interact effectively with peers from different countries. In the
training and development literature extroversion tends to be
associated with a learning goal orientation (Zweig & Webster,
2004). The strong learning goal orientation aspect of extroversion
might affect an individual’s motivational process so that he or she
maintains or even increase levels of effort (Colquitt & Simmering,
1998; Cron, Slocum, Vandewalle, & Fu, 2005) to learn and to
maintain new skills and behaviors.

As the contact hypothesis suggests, those peer to peer
interactions (more frequent among extraverts) will help reduce
ethnocentrism as greater contact encourages greater respect.
Cultural flexibility should increase among extraverts who may
engage socially with people from different cultures and be exposed
to different (or substitute) ways of doing things. Likewise,
tolerance of ambiguity should decrease among extraverts as they
are likely to have developed broader relationships among those
who can provide instrumental support, thus reducing ethnocen-
trism.

Hypotheses 5. Extraversion is related to dynamic cross-cultural
competencies such that extraversion is negatively related to eth-
nocentrism (H5a), positively related to cultural flexibility (H5b),
and positively related to tolerance of ambiguity (H5c).

1.3.3. Neuroticism

Another stable personality characteristic related to the forma-
tion of dynamic cross-cultural competencies in neuroticism.
Neuroticism is an individual’s tolerance for and ability to manage
potential stressful conditions, and the feelings of anxiety,
insecurity, and nervousness (Herold, Davis, Fedor, & Parsons,
2002). Those higher in neuroticism individuals are likely to be
more anxious, depressed, angry, emotional, worried, and insecure
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). In contrast, those lower on this trait can

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622616

be characterized as calm, self-confident, and cool-minded (Barrick
& Mount, 1991). In an international context, those with lower
neuroticism are more likely to have the ability to manage stress
and anxiety often associated with living and working in new
cultural environments such as the stress related to making new
friends, and to succeed professionally.

Ethnocentrism is expected to be lower and tolerance of
ambiguity higher among those who are lower in neuroticism
because these more stable individuals would have less anxiety
with the complexities and ambiguities of foreign or multicultural
environments. They would be able to embrace the situations more
readily enabling themselves to learn from the novel environment
and people from different cultures. Likewise, cultural flexibility
should increase among those lower in neuroticism because their
emotional stability will predispose them to be more confident
stepping out of their comfort zone to try ways of doing things
without causing undue anxiety and stress. Thus, our next
hypothesis is:

Hypotheses 6. Neuroticism is related to dynamic cross-cultural
competencies such that neuroticism is positively related to ethno-
centrism (H6a), negatively related to cultural flexibility (H6b), and
negatively related to tolerance of ambiguity (H6c).

As this study is attempting to disentangle the way in which
global competencies are developed, no hypotheses are offered for
the two remaining personality characteristics in the Big Five,
agreeableness and conscientiousness. While agreeableness, for
example, has been found to have a direct and positive relationship
to adjustment (Shaffer et al., 2006) and performance of interna-
tional assignees (Caligiuri, 2000; Mol, Born, Willemsen, & Van Der
Molen, 2005), it is unclear whether there is a theoretical
justification for its direct effect on the development of global
leadership competencies covered in this study. Likewise, a direct
relationship between conscientiousness and work performance
has been demonstrated across a variety of professional samples
(e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Day & Silverman, 1989) but may not
be theoretically linked to the development of cross-cultural
competencies. As such, we have included agreeableness and
conscientiousness in all statistical analyses on an exploratory basis
and would expect a direct effect on global leadership performance.

2. Method

2.1. Research design and participants

The study was designed as a two-survey study, a Global Leader
Survey (Survey 1) and a Supervisor Assessment Survey (Survey 2).
Our sample included global leaders from three large multinational
conglomerates. Each organization identified a group of leaders
worldwide who were involved in a variety of global work activities
and were categorized by the organization as ‘‘global leaders’’. There
were 582 prospective participants identified by human resource
executives across each of the three companies. These participants
were invited by the human resource executive and the authors to
complete an electronic an electronic (web-based) Survey 1. This
survey included an that explained the goal of the study,
emphasized that participation was voluntary, that their individual
responses would be kept strictly confidential, and that their firm
would receive an aggregate summary of the findings. Each
participant was given three weeks to complete the electronic
Survey 1. The respondents’ responses to Survey 1 were completed
electronically and sent direct to the second author. Survey 1
assessed each participant’s participation in global leadership
developmental experiences, personality characteristics, dynamic
cross-cultural competencies, and demographics. After all partici-
pants had completed Survey 1, an electronic (web-based) Survey 2

was sent to each participant’s immediate supervisor either by the
authors or by the organization’s HR department. On Survey 2, each
supervisor provided an assessment of his or her subordinate who
had participated in Survey 1. Once completed online, Survey 2 was
sent directly to the second author. Survey 1 and Survey 2 were
matched by a unique code for all subsequent data analyses.

Four hundred and twenty participants returned Survey 1 for a
response rate of 72%. Twenty four percent of participants were
female. Age groups included: 39% (41–50 years old), 31% (51–60
years old), 17% (31–40 years old), 10% (61–70 years old), 3% (21–30
years old), and 1% (71–80 years old). Eighty nine percent of the
participants had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The average tenure
with the current organization was 15.8 years. Functional areas
included: 34.5% (Production/Operations), 25.5% (Marketing/Sales),
7.4% (Research/Development), 6.7% (Planning/general Manage-
ment), 5.7% (Finance/Accounting), 4.8% (Human Resources), 3.6%
(Law), and 11% (others). The participants were from 41 different
countries. Majority of the participants were from the U.S.A. (64%),
Cuba (6%), Italy (3.5%), Austria (3%), UK (3%), the Netherlands
(2.6%), Australia (2.3%), France (2.1%), Caribbean (1.6%), Kenya
(1.4%), and Mexico (1.4%). Remaining participants were from
Ireland, Peru, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Albania, Argentina, Bolivia China, Denmark, Dominic, East Timor,
Gabon, Iran, Israel, Ivory Coast, Korea, Kosovo, Mauritius, Norway,
Portugal, Russia, and Sweden (each country had less than 1% of the
total sample). With respect to supervisory data, 221 supervisors
returned Survey 2 for a response rate of 43%.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Non-work cross-cultural experiences

Four single-item indicators assessed non-work cross-cultural
experiences. Participants were asked whether they had participat-
ed in each experience, coded 1 if ‘‘yes’’ and 0 if ‘‘no’’. Cross-cultural
experiences included having traveled internationally for vacation,
having volunteered internationally, studying abroad, and having
family diversity. With respect to family diversity, the item was
measured by asking participants to report their country of birth
with respect to the national backgrounds of their parents.
Participants indicated their country of birth on a four-point scale:
(a) born in the same country in which both your parents were born;
(b) born in the same country in which your father was born, but not
mother; (c) born in the same country in which your mother was
born, but not father; and, (d) born in a country in which neither of
your parents was born. For analyses, family diversity was coded 1 if
a participant indicated choice (b), (c), or (d) and was coded 0 if the
participant indicated choice (a). The result was an index with a
range from 0 to 4 (0 if the person had none of the experiences to 4 if
they had all of the experiences). The mean for was 1.29 (SD = 89).

2.2.2. Organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences

Four single-item indicators assessed high contact organization-
initiated cross cultural experiences. Participants were asked
whether they had participated in each experience during the last
12 months, coded 1 if ‘‘yes’’ and 0 if ‘‘no’’. High contact cross
cultural leadership development experiences included long-term
(one or more years) expatriate assignments, being a member on a
global team, being mentored by a person (or people) from another
culture, and participated in meetings in various international
locations. The result was an index with a range from 0 to 4 (0 if the
person had none of the experiences to 4 if they had all of the
experiences). The mean was 2.62 (SD = 1.41).

2.2.3. The Big Five personality characteristics

Each personality characteristic was measured by a 12-item
subscale of the revised NEO Personality Inventory NEO – FFI

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622 617

(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each item was scored on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The items were averaged, whereas, a high score denoted greater
presence of the personality trait. For openness to experience, sample
items include: ‘‘I often try new and foreign foods’’ and ‘‘Once I find
the right way to do something, I stick to it.’’ The mean for this scale
was 3.46 (SD = .45), alpha coefficient was .67. For extraversion,
sample items include: ‘‘I like to have a lot of people around me’’ and
‘‘I like to be where the action is.’’ The mean of this scale was 3.90
(SD = .45), and alpha coefficient was .79. For neuroticism, sample
items include: ‘‘I often feel inferior to others’’ and ‘‘Sometimes I feel
completely worthless’’ The mean of this scale was 2.05 (SD = .50),
and alpha coefficient was .80. For agreeableness, sample items
include: ‘‘I try to be courteous to everyone whom I meet’’ and ‘‘I
would rather cooperate with others than compete with them’’. The
mean of this scale was 3.69 (SD = .35), and the alpha coefficient
was .60. For conscientiousness, sample items include: ‘‘I keep my
belongings neat and clean.’’ and ‘‘I work hard to accomplish my
goals.’’ The mean of this scale was 4.19 (SD = .40), and alpha
coefficient was .73.

Cultural flexibility was measured using the six items adapted
from Shaffer et al. (2006). Item responses followed a 5-point Likert
format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Sample item includes ‘‘Foreign countries have interesting and fun
activities which are not common in my native country’’. The mean
was 3.60 (SD = .45) and. and coefficient alpha was .82. The items
were averaged so that a higher score denoted greater amount of
cultural flexibility.

Tolerance for ambiguity was measured with four items adapted
from Gupta and Govindarajan (1984). Sample item includes ‘‘The
most interesting life is to live under rapidly changing conditions’’.
For each item, the respondents were asked to indicate on a 7-point
scale whether they strongly disagree (1), or strongly agree (5). The
mean for this scales was 3.42 (SD = .74), and coefficient alpha was
.66. The items were averaged so that a higher score denoted greater
tolerance for ambiguity.

2.2.4. Ethnocentrism

Six items adapted from Shaffer et al. (2006) were used to
measure ethnocentrism. Sample item includes ‘‘I like to meet
foreigners and become friends (reverse scored): For each item, the
respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale whether
they strongly disagree (1), or strongly disagreed (5). The mean for
this scale was 1.90 (SD = .69) and coefficient alpha was .78. The
items were averaged so that a higher score denoted greater
ethnocentrism.

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations for individual-level variable.

Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Non-work experiences 1.29 .89 – .29 �.11
2. Organization-initiated experiences 2.62 1.40 .25 – .04

3. Neuroticism 2.05 .50 �.07 .02 (.80)
4. Extraversion 3.90 .45 �.03 �.01 .33
5. Openness 3.46 .45 .15 .00 .06

6. Agreeableness 3.69 .35 .01 �.12 .27
7. Conscientiousness 4.19 .40 .03 �.04 .30
8. Tolerance of ambiguity 3.42 .74 .37 .12 .13

9. Ethnocentrism 1.90 .67 �.30 �.11 �.01
10. Cultural flexibility 3.60 .45 .36 .23 �.01
11. Global leadership effectiveness 3.22 .63 �.03 �.15 .21

Note: Correlations for the full sample appear above the diagonal. N = 420. All correlatio

significant at p < .01.

Correlations for the sample with Global Leadership Success measure appear below the d

test); all larger than .18 are significant at p < .01.

Values in parentheses are reliability coefficients.

2.2.5. Supervisor ratings of global leadership effectiveness

Adapted from Caligiuri (2006), 8 items were used to measure
effectiveness on international work activities. Supervisors rate
global leaders on each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 = not at all effective to 5 = very effective. Sample items
include: ‘‘negotiating with people from other countries?’’ and
‘‘supervising people who are from different countries.’’ The items
were averaged to create an effectiveness score, whereas, a high
score denoted greater effectiveness. The mean of this scale was
3.22 (SD = .63) and coefficient alpha was .82.

3. Results

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and internal
consistency reliabilities are presented in Table 1.

Because we have only 221 ratings of supervisor-rated global
leadership success, we will use the reduced sample (N = 221) to
test Hypotheses 1 and the full sample (N = 420) to test Hypotheses
2 through 6. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to
examine our hypotheses in SPSS 18.0. To test Hypotheses 1,
ethnocentrism, cultural flexibility, and

tolerance of ambiguity

were predictors of supervisor ratings of global leadership success.
As shown in Model 5 of Table 3, cultural flexibility (B = .31, p < .0) and tolerance of ambiguity (B = .17, p < .05) had significantly positive effects on global leadership success. However, the effect of ethnocentrism on global leadership success was not significant (B = �.12, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 1b and 1c were supported whereas Hypothesis 1a was not supported.

In Hypotheses 2 and 3, we proposed that non-work and
organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences, respectively, are
negatively related to ethnocentrism, positively related to cultural
flexibility, and positively related to tolerance of ambiguity. As
shown in Table 2, employees with more non-work experiences
were less likely to be ethnocentric (B = �.17, p < .01), but more likely to have cultural flexibility (B = .14, p < .01) and be tolerant of ambiguity (B = .28, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported. Similarly, we found the positive influence of organiza- tion-initiated experiences on cultural flexibility (B = .04, p < .05) and tolerance of ambiguity (B = .06, p < .01). However, the effect of organization-initiated experiences on ethnocentrism was not significant (B = .00, ns). Hypotheses 3b and 3c were supported, but Hypothesis 3a was not supported.

Hypotheses 4 through 6 proposed that two personality
characteristics (i.e., openness to experience, and extraversion)
are negatively related to ethnocentrism, positively related to
cultural flexibility, and positively related to tolerance of ambiguity.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

�.01 .12 �.05 �.01 .39 �.26 .33 –
.02 .05 �.10 �.04 .24 �.07 .21 –
.36 .03 .23 .32 .08 �.05 .00 –
(.79) .13 .27 .35 .24 �.37 .19 –
.14 (.67) .15 �.05 .24 �.33 .22 –
.30 .17 (.60) .15 �.02 �.17 �.01 –
.36 �.02 .21 (.73) .06 �.20 .09 –
.23 .27 .07 .07 (.66) �.38 .37 –
�.28 �.38 �.17 �.22 �.43 (.69) �.51 –

.17 .25 .04 .17 .42 �.54 (.82) –

.17 .13 .07 .16 .28 �.27 .29 (.82)

ns larger than .10 are significant at p < .05 (two-tailed test); all larger than .13 are

iagonal. N = 218. All correlations larger than .14 are significant at p < .05 (two-tailed

Table 2
Effects of personality characteristics and cross-cultural experiences on dynamic cross-cultural competencies.

Variable Ethnocentrism Cultural flexibility Tolerance of ambiguity

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

Non-work experiences �.17*** .03 .14*** .02 .28*** .04
Organization-initiated experiences .00 .02 .04** .02 .06*** .02

Neuroticism .14** .06 �.05 .04 .07 .07
Extraversion �.47*** .07 .18*** .05 .37*** .08
Openness �.39*** .06 .17*** .05 .29*** .07
Agreeableness �.11 .08 �.07 .06 �.19** .09
Conscientiousness �.22*** .08 .08* .05 .00 .09
R2 .29*** .19*** .26***

Note: N = 420. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Tests were two tailed.
* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01.

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622618

Neuroticism is positively related to ethnocentrism, negatively
related to cultural flexibility, and negatively related to tolerance of
ambiguity As presented in Table 2, extraversion and openness to
experience were significantly related to ethnocentrism (B = �.47
and �.39 respectively, both p < .01), cultural flexibility (B = .18 and .19 respectively, both p < .01), and tolerance of ambiguity (B = .37 and .29 respectively, both p < .01) in the proposed directions. Therefore, Hypotheses 4 and 5 were supported. In addition, neuroticism was positively related to ethnocentrism (B = .14, p < .05) but not significantly associated with cultural flexibility (B = �.05, ns) or tolerance of ambiguity (B = .07, ns). The results were not consistent with Hypotheses 6.

To test the overall model, we examined the mediating roles of
ethnocentrism, cultural flexibility, and tolerance of ambiguity in the
relationships between three personality characteristics and cross-
cultural experiences and global leadership success. Because there
are three mediators in the analyses, we adopted Preacher and
Hayes’s (2008) multiple mediation approach to examine the
mediating effects of all three mediators simultaneously. Preacher
and Hayes (2008) proposed two criteria for mediation test and
provided an approach to calculate indirect effects with boot-
strapping skills. First, we need the effects of independent variables
(Xs) on mediators (Ms) to be significant. Second, the effects of Ms on
dependent variable (Y) partialling out the effects of independent

Table 3
Regression analyses on global leadership success.

Variable Ethnocentrism Cultural flexibility

Model 1 Model 2

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Non-work experiences �.19*** .05 .17*** .04
Organization-initiated experiences �.03 .03 .06*** .02
Neuroticism .19** .09 �.09 .07
Extraversion �.32*** .10 .15** .07
Openness �.47*** .09 .21*** .07
Agreeableness �.13 .13 �.04 .10
Conscientiousness �.32*** .12 .20** .09
Ethnocentrism

Cultural flexibility

Tolerance of ambiguity

R2 .31*** .24***

R2 change

Note: N = 218. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Tests were two tailed.
* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01.

variables need to be significant. Although Baron and Kenny (1986)
specified the significant relationships between Xs and Y as a
criterion for mediation test, some authors have argued that this
criterion is not necessary for mediation to occur (e.g., Kenny, Kashy,
& Bolger, 1998; MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000; Shrout &
Bolger, 2002). We did not consider the effects of X on Y as a criterion
for mediation. Moreover, we used the SPSS macro command created
by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to examine the significance of indirect
effects through specific mediators.

As presented in Table 3, non-work cross-cultural experiences
significantly related to the three mediators. The effect of
ethnocentrism on global leadership success was not significant.
The indirect effects of non-work cross-cultural experiences on
global leadership success were only mediated by cultural
flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. As shown in Table 4, the
indirect effects through cultural flexibility and tolerance of
ambiguity were .05 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = .02: .11) and
.05 (95% CI = .01: .10) respectively. Similarly, we found that
indirect effects of extraversion and openness to experience were
also mediated by cultural flexibility (indirect effect = .05, 95%
CI = .00: .14 for extraversion; indirect effect = .07, 95% CI = .02: .15
for openness to experience) and tolerance of ambiguity (indirect
effect = .05, 95% CI = .01: .12 for extraversion; indirect effect = .05,
95% CI = .01: .12 for openness to experience). In addition, we found

Tolerance of ambiguity Global leadership success

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

.29*** .05 .00 .05 �.12** .05
.01 .03 �.07** .03 �.09*** .03
.14 .09 .20** .09 .23*** .09

.31*** .10 .11 .10 �.03 .10
.28*** .09 .16* .09 .00 .09

�.10 .14 �.09 .13 �.08 .12
�.06 .12 .14 .12 .05 .11

�.12 .07
.31*** .10

.17** .07

.24*** .10*** .23***

.13***

Table 4
Indirect effects of independent variables on global leadership success through proposed mediators.

Variable

Indirect effect through

ethnocentrism
Indirect effect through
cultural flexibility
Indirect effect through
tolerance of ambiguity

Total indirect effect

Non-work experiences .02 (�.01: .07) .05 (.02: .11) .05 (.01: .10) .12 (.06: .21)
Organization-initiated Experiences .00 (�.00: .02) .02 (.00: .05) .00 (�.01: .02) . 02 (�.00: .06)
Neuroticism .02 (�.01: .09) .03 (�.01: .12) �.02 (�.07: .00) .03 (�.06: .12)
Extraversion .04 (�.01: .11) .05 (.00: .14) .05 (.01: .12) .13 (.04: .25)
Openness .05 (�.02: .15) .07 (.02: .15) . 05 (.01: .12) .17 (.07: .30)

Note: N = 218. Indirect effects were calculated according to Preacher and Hayes (2008). Values in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals for indirect effects. Indirect effects

were significant when zero was not contained in the confidence intervals.

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622 619

that the indirect effect of organization-initiated cross culture
experiences was only mediated by cultural flexibility (indirect
effect = .02, 95% CI = .00: .05). Moreover, because neuroticism was
not significantly related to cultural flexibility and tolerance of
ambiguity, which did not meet the first criterion, therefore there
was no indirect effect of neuroticism on global leadership success.

4. Discussion

Suutari (2002) reported that research on global leadership
development is still scarce and future research should focus on the
various ways to develop global leaders. Following this recommen-
dation, we believe this present study contributes to the research
and practice of global leadership development in several ways.
Applying the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and the
contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), this study builds on Morrison’s
(2000) and Suutari’s (2002) suggestions to examine the process for
developing global leaders and by determining the type of
individuals who benefit most from participation in global
leadership developmental experiences.

Prior empirical evidence has shown that while international
development initiatives seem to be effective in positively changing
proximal measures of effectiveness such as knowledge and skills,
the impact on distal measures of effectiveness such as dynamic
competencies and job performance is not clear (see Mendenhall
et al., 2004). To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the
first to demonstrate how high-contact cross-cultural experiences
can influence dynamic global leadership competencies and global
leadership effectiveness.

The finding that dynamic cross-cultural competencies are
related to global leadership effectiveness contributes to the global
leadership development research in several ways. This finding
highlights the importance of dynamic cross-cultural competencies
in predicting global leadership effectiveness. To be effective, global
leaders need high levels of both cultural flexibility and tolerance of
ambiguity, and low levels of ethnocentrism required in jobs with
complex international and multicultural responsibilities. In other
words, dynamic cross-cultural competencies are drivers of job
performance among global leaders. This finding also supports
research that has theorized the importance dynamic cross-cultural
competencies in improving global leadership effectiveness. These
finding show that individuals with dynamic cross-cultural
competencies are able to meet the challenges of working in a
complex global environment. They are more likely to meet others’
needs and expectations and the higher the likelihood of responding
effectively to global challenges.

Non-work cross-cultural experiences are related to dynamic
cross cultural competencies. To the best of our knowledge this is
one of the first studies to examine non-work cross-cultural
experiences among global leaders. Similar to international work
experiences, prior non-work international experiences allow
individuals to learn competencies important for living and working
in different cultural contexts. These international experiences,

even in the non-work context, have an impact on individual
employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, &
Lepak, 2005) that can affect the development of global leadership
competence. This finding also provides support to the conceptual
models that suggest non-international experiences to be effective
in developing cross-cultural competence (e.g., Tarique & Takeuchi,
2008). Our results also extend this stream of research by showing
that different facets of non-work cross-cultural experience are
important variables influencing dynamic cross-cultural compe-
tencies.

The finding that high contact organization-initiated cross-
cultural experiences are positively related to cultural flexibility
and tolerance of ambiguity. This supports prior conceptual and
empirical research that suggests that high contact or experiential
developmental experiences are effective in bringing about
cognitive and behavioral changes required to develop dynamic
cross-cultural competencies. Participation in high-contact or
experiential developmental experiences provides individuals
with greater opportunity to improve their ability to learn and
reproduce appropriate behaviors. This finding also highlights the
importance of ‘‘overlearning’’. Greater participation in high
contact developmental experiences allows the individual to
over-learn the appropriate skills and behaviors so to better retain
these competencies over time. In addition, this finding empha-
sizes the need to take a systems approach to fully understand the
impact of several high contact organization-initiated cross-
cultural experiences on dynamic cross-cultural competencies.
Training and development literature has shown that there are
several types of high contact organization-initiated cross-cultural
experiences and it cannot be simply assumed that what is true of
one type of developmental experience will also hold for other
types. Finally, this finding provides support to the contact
hypothesis and social learning theory as viable theoretical
frameworks for explaining how interpersonal interactions may
influence the retention and reproduction component of social
learning process in the context of organization-initiated cross-
cultural experiences.

The result showed that extroversion and openness to experi-
ence were significant related to dynamic cross-cultural competen-
cies. As contact hypothesis suggests, extroversion allows for the
retention and reproduction of learned skills and behaviors.
Extroverts have the need to engage in social activities and a
strong learning orientation, which affect interpersonal interactions
in ways that are important to retain and reproduce learned skills
and behaviors. Similarly, individuals high on openness to experi-
ence are more likely to retain and reproduce learned skills and
behaviors. Openness to experience allows individuals to seek new
experiences and learn about new cultures from other people. These
two attributes of openness to experience facilitate interpersonal
interactions in ways that are important to retain and reproduce
learned skills and behaviors. The result also highlights the
importance of examining how openness to experience and
extroversion affects individuals in learning environments.

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622620

Finally, the study found that in the full model two dynamic
cross-cultural competencies (cultural flexibility and tolerance of
ambiguity) mediated the influence of developmental experiences
and personality characteristics on supervisor-rated global leader-
ship effectiveness. This finding provides interesting insight into the
mechanism or the process through which developmental experi-
ences and personality relate to global leadership effectiveness.
That is, it is important to view dynamic cross-cultural competen-
cies as possible mediators between developmental experiences
and personality characteristics and effectiveness in global work
activities. In addition this finding focuses on the ‘‘black-box’’
between developmental experiences and performance outcomes
(as most of the prior studies that examined the criterion side of
developmental activities have assumed a direct relationship
between developmental experiences and learning and perfor-
mance outcomes). Our finding attempts to open the black box
between developmental experiences and learning and perfor-
mance outcomes by considering mechanisms (e.g., dynamic cross-
cultural competencies) through which developmental experiences
affect work performance among global leaders. Our findings have
identified a measurable link between developmental experiences
and work performance. We have extended the global leadership
development literature by providing support to the contact
hypothesis and social learning theory as viable theoretical
frameworks for explaining this black-box of global leadership
development.

Overall, our finding suggests, in both personal or professional
lives, significant intercultural experiences enable us to learn the
nuances of behavior that are expected in another culture compared
to our own – helping us to understand our own cultural values and
assumptions. When we become sensitive to these characteristics of
ourselves, as well as to the norms of behavior in another culture,
we begin to develop the intercultural competencies so very
important for success in global leadership activities.

4.1. Limitations and future research

As with all research studies, this study is not without
limitations. The sample of global leaders is largely from the U.S.
(64%). It is possible that the influence of organization-initiated
experiences, non-work cross-cultural experiences, and personality
on work performance may vary with the nationality of the leaders.
For example, individuals from some smaller countries (e.g., the
Netherlands) may have more opportunities for cross-cultural
experiences given the possible ease with which they could interact
with people from other cultures and the probability that more of
their market is located outside their home country. In this context,
the effect of the organization-initiated experiences may be lower,
suggesting a cumulative approach. To improve generalizability of
our findings, we encourage future studies to examine the
hypotheses and model proposed in this study with samples of
global leaders from different countries with varying levels of
potential for cross-border contact.

Another limitation of the study was that we focused only on one
type of effectiveness (individual work performance). There are
many types of criteria such as organizational commitment,
interpersonal effectiveness, and decision-making. To expand the
field of global leadership development, future research should
examine the influence of high contact developmental experiences
and personality traits on various measures of global leadership
effectiveness.

Despite the above limitations, this study does represent an
avenue for future research and provides several interesting
research areas for future theorizing and empirical investigation,
extending this line of research. We suggest three specific areas for
future research. First, research needs to examine the optimal level

of participation in organization-initiated cross-cultural experi-
ences. As this study suggests, global leaders should be encouraged
and motivated to over-learn and to participate in numerous high
contact organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences. Howev-
er, the emotional, financial, and human costs of such an approach
are high. Future research is needed to determine the optimal
amount of experiential opportunity, with an eye toward helping
organizations make better decisions on the way to best craft their
global leadership development programs.

Another area for future research is to examine how contextual
factors, such as work environment characteristics and organiza-
tional environment characteristics, affect the relationship between
organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences and global lead-
ership effectiveness. For example, factors in an individual’s work
environment may moderate the relationship between organiza-
tion-initiated cross-cultural experiences and global leadership
effectiveness in global work activities. One factor discussed
extensively in the domestic employee development literature is
the extent to which the individual is given the opportunity to use
the learned competencies (cf. Ford, Quinones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992).
The general consensus in the domestic employee development
literature is that individuals who are given more opportunities to
use the learned competencies are more likely to maintain their
learning than individuals given few opportunities. Therefore, it is
important for future research to identify factors in the global
leader’s work environment that would provide the leader with the
opportunity to use the learned competencies.

A closely related area for future research is to explore further
the non-work cross-cultural experiences. As noted by Caligiuri and
Tarique (2009), it is possible that intercultural experiences that
help develop dynamic cross-cultural competencies may not
necessarily need to happen in the workplace—they can occur in
non-work environments or may have occurred in childhood or
young adulthood, as a result of being a member of a multicultural
household. This area is ripe for future research and scholars should
look deeper into different facets of non-work cross-cultural
experiences. One area that can provide interesting insight is early
international experiences or experiences gained from living
outside the country of one’s citizenship as a child (Cottrell &
Useem, 1993). This form of international experience has been
extensively discussed in the ‘‘third country kids’’ (TCK) literature
(e.g., Selmer & Lam, 2004). Future researchers can borrow some of
the insights from the TCK literature to examine how early
international experience can be used to develop dynamic cross-
cultural competencies.

4.2. Managerial relevance

The global economy has given rise to an ever-increasing need
for business leaders who operate effectively in different countries.
This study suggests that building a pipeline of global leaders will
require a team effort from human resource professionals within
global organizations. Corporate recruiters and staffing profes-
sionals should attract and select new associates who have the
predisposing characteristics (i.e., those with extraversion and
openness) and those who have had non-work high-contact cross-
cultural experiences (e.g., international volunteerism, study
abroad). Once in the organization, leadership development
professionals in conjunction with global mobility professionals,
when needed, should craft experiences with more developmental
properties (i.e., those that are high-contact).

Taken together, global leadership development programs
should identify those individuals with the requisite individual
characteristics (e.g., personality) and offer high-contact cross-
cultural experiences to those identified. As this study suggest,
these human talent management practices could improve

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622 621

organizations’ chances for having global leaders who understand
the cultural norms and are able to operate effectively across a
variety of contexts. Collectively, the improved cross-cultural
competence of business leaders should lead to better performance
and greater competitiveness for their organizations.

4.3. Conclusion

The results of this study should be interesting for scholars and
practitioners alike who are interested in the competencies needed
to be successful in a global environment and, more importantly,
how they are gained. As this study illustrated a combined effect of
work and non-work experiences, this study should help lend
greater weight to the international experiences gained outside of
the traditional organizational setting. This study also adds to the
body of literature shedding light on the importance of individual
personality characteristics. We join the many scholars who are
encouraging firms to use a combination of selection and well-
designed developmental experiences to build the pipeline of future
global leaders critical for the competitiveness of organizations
going forward.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Society of Human Resource Management
Foundation for supporting this research.

References

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
American Management Association. (2010). Developing successful global leaders: A

global study of challenges and opportunities. NY: American Management Associa-
tion.

Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71: 319–
342.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Bennett, W., Jr. (1995). The international assignee: The relative
importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology,
48: 99–114.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1–26.

Beechler, S., & Javidan, M. (2007). Leading with a global mindset. In M. Javidan, M. A.
Hitt, & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Advances in international management: The global mindset.
Oxford: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). A cross-cultural
investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 39: 871–899.

Black, S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of
Japanese. Management International Review, 30: 119–134.

Black, S., & Mendenhall, E. (1989). A practical but theory based framework for selecting
cross-cultural training methods. Academy of Management Review, 15: 113–136.

Buss, D. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter
(Eds.), Annual review of psychology. CA: Annual Reviews Inc.

Caligiuri, P. M. (1997). Assessing expatriate success: Beyond just ‘‘being there’’. In
Aycan, Z. (Ed.). Expatriate Management: Theory and Practice (Vol. 4,). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Caligiuri, P. (2000). Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: A moderating
effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-
cultural adjustment. Management International Review, 40: 61–81.

Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review,
16: 219–228.

Caligiuri, P., & Di Santo, V. (2001). Global competence: What is it and can it be
developed through global assignments? Human Resource Planning Journal, 24:
27–35.

Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities.
Journal of World Business, 44: 336–346.

Church, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 9: 540–572.
Colquitt, J., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and moti-

vation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85: 678–707.

Cottrell, A., & Useem, R. (1993, September). Article 3. TCKs experience prolonged
adolescence [Electronic version]. NewsLinks – the newspaper of International
Schools Services, XIII, No. 1. Retrieved August 12, 2004, from http://
www.tckworld.com/useem/art3.html

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The
NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4: 5–13.

Cron, W. L., Slocum, J. W., Jr., Vandewalle, D., & Fu, Q. (2005). The role of goal orientation
on negative emotions and goal setting when initial performance falls short of one’
performance goal. Human Performance, 18: 55–80.

Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of
incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42: 25–36.

Dickmann, M., & Doherty, N. (2010). Exploring organizational and individual career
goals, interactions, and outcomes of developmental international assignments.
Thunderbird International Business Review, 52: 313–324.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41: 417–440.

Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J. (2002). The global challenge: Frameworks for interna-
tional human resource management. MA: McGraw-Hill.

Ford, J., Quinones, M., Sego, D., & Sorra, J. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to
perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45: 511–526.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The big five structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216–1219.

Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics,
and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 27: 25–41.

Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2002). Cultivating a global mindset. The Academy of
Management Executive, 16: 116–126.

Herold, D., Davis, W., Fedor, D., & Parsons, C. (2002). Dispositional influences on transfer
of learning in multistate training programs. Personnel Psychology, 55: 851–870.

IBM. (2010). Global CHRO Study, Working beyond Borders. ibm.com/workingbeyond-
borders.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751–765.

Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84: 107–122.

Kayes, D. C., Kayes, A. B., & Yamazaki, Y. (2005). Essential competencies for cross-
cultural knowledge absorption. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20: 578–
589.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Kreng, V. B., & Huang, M. (2009). A discussion on international assignments
performance and the constructing mechanism of career success development.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 1487–
1502.

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1: 173–181.

Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the
Big Five to motivation to lean and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91: 927–935.

Maznevski, M. L., & DiStefano, J. J. (2000). Global leaders are team players: Developing
global leaders through membership on global teams. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 39: 195–208.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A
review. Academy of Management Review, 10: 39–47.

Mendenhall, M., Stahl, G., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Kuhlmann, T., & Osland, J. (2004).
Evaluation studies of cross-cultural training programs: A review of the literature
from 1988-2000. In D. Landis & J. Bennett (Eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural
Training (pp. 129–144). CA: Sage.

Mendenhall, M. E., & Stahl, G. K. (2000). Expatriate training and development: Where
do we go from here? Human Resource Management, 39: 251–265.

Mezias, J. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjust-
ment and career development: A multiple mentoring perspective. Journal of
International Business Studies, 36: 519–538.

Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., Willemsen, M. E., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting
expatriate job performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36: 590–620.

Morrison, A. (2000). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 39: 117–131.

Myers, B., & Pringle, J. (2005). Self-initiated foreign experience as accelerated devel-
opment: Influences of gender. Journal of World Business, 40: 421–431.

Oddou, G., Mendenhall, M. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (2000). Leveraging travel as a tool
for global leadership development. Human Resource Management, 39: 159–
172.

O’Sullivan, L. (1999). The distinction between stable and dynamic cross-cultural
competencies: Implications for expatriate trainability. Journal of International
Business Studies, 30: 709–725.

Pettigrew, & Tropp, T. F. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5): 751–783.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40: 879–891.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers’s Annual Global CEO Survey. (2011). Growth reimagined:
Prospects in emerging markets drive CEO confidence. PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Selmer, J., & Lam, H. (2004). ‘‘Third-culture kids’’ future business expatriates? Personnel
Review, 33: 430–446.

Shaffer, M., Harrison, D., Gregersen, H., & Black, S. (2006). You can take it with you:
Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91: 109–125.

http://www.tckworld.com/useem/art3.html

http://www.tckworld.com/useem/art3.html

P. Caligiuri, I. Tarique / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 612–622622

Sherrill, W. (2005). Tolerance of ambiguity among MD/MBA students: Implications for
management potential. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions,
21: 117–122.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422–
445.

Suutari, V. (2002). Global leader development: An emerging research agenda. Career
Development International, 7: 218–233.

Suutari, V., & Brewster, C. (2000). Making your own way: Self-Initiated foreign assign-
ments in contrast to organizational expatriation. Journal of World Business, 35: 417–
436.

Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2005). An integrative view of
international experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 85–100.

Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Developing cultural intelligence: The role of non-
work international experiences. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 56–70). NY: M.E.
Sharpe .

Thomas, K. (1996). Psychological privilege and ethnocentrism as barriers to cross-
cultural adjustment and effective intercultural interactions. Leadership Quarterly,
7: 215–228.

Yan, A., Guorong, Z., & Hall, D. T. (2002). International assignments for career building:
A model of agency relationships and psychological contracts. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 27: 373–391.

Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). What are we measuring? An examination of the
relationships between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and perfor-
mance intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 1693–1708.

Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness
Global leadership competencies and global leadership task performance
Dynamic cross-cultural competencies
Cross-cultural experiences
Non-work cross-cultural experiences
Organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences
Personality characteristics
Openness to experience
Extraversion
Neuroticism

Method
Research design and participants
Measures
Non-work cross-cultural experiences
Organization-initiated cross-cultural experiences
The Big Five personality characteristics
Ethnocentrism
Supervisor ratings of global leadership effectiveness

Results
Discussion
Limitations and future research
Managerial relevance
Conclusion
Acknowledgement
References

Why Should
Anyone Be
Led by

by
Robert Coffee and

Gareth Jones

We all know that leaders need

vision and energy. But to be

inspirational, leaders need

four other qualities. Probably

not what you’d expect, these

qualities can be honed by

almost anyone willing to dig

deeply into their true selves.

/

F YOU WANT TO SILENCE A ROOM OF EXECUTIVES,

try this small trick. Ask them, “Why would anyone
want to be led by you?” We’ve asked just that ques-‘

tion for the past ten years while consulting for dozens of
companies in Europe arid the United States. Without fail,
the response is a sudden, stunned hush. All you can hear
are knees knocking.

Executives have good reason tb be scared. You can’t
do anything in business without followers, and follow-
ers in these “empowered” times are hard to find. So
executives had better know what it takes to lead effec-
tively-they ihust find ways to engage people and rouse
their commitment to company gOals. But most don’t
know how, and who can blame them? There’s simply
too much advice out there. Last year alone, more than
2,000 books on leadership were published, soirie of
them even repackaging Moses and Shakespeare as lead-
ership gurus.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000 63

Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?

We’ve yet to hear advice that tells the whole truth
about leadership. Yes, everyone agrees that leaders need
vision, energy, authority, and strategic direction. That
goes without saying. But we’ve discovered that inspira-
tional leaders also share four unexpected qualities:

• They selectively show their weaknesses. By exposing
some vulnerability, they reveal their approachability
and humanity.

• They rely heavily on intuition to gauge the appro-
priate timing and course of their actions. Their ability
to collect and interpret soft data helps them know
just when and how to act.

• They manage employees with something we call
tough empathy. Inspirational leaders empathize
passionately-and realistically-with people, and they
care intensely about the work employees do.

• They reveal their differences. They capitalize on
what’s unique about themselves.

You may find yourself in a top position without these
qualities, but few people will want to be led by you.

Our theory about the four essential qualities of lead-
ership, it should be noted, is not about results per se.

While many of the leaders we have studied and use as
examples do in fact post superior financial returns, the
focus of our research has been on leaders who excel at
inspiring people-in capturing hearts, minds, and souls.
This ability is not everything in business, but any experi-
enced leader will tell you it is worth quite a lot. Indeed,
great results may be impossible without it.

Our research into leadership began some 25 years ago
and has followed three streams since then. First, as
academics, we ransacked the prominent leadership the-
ories of the past century to develop our own working
model of effective leadership. (For more on the history
of leadership thinking, see the sidebar “Leadership: A
Small History of a Big Topic.”) Second, as consultants, we
have tested our theory with thousands of executives in
workshops worldwide and through observations with
dozens of clients. And third, as executives ourselves, we
have vetted our theories in our own organizations.

Some surprising results have emerged from our
research. We leamed that leaders need all four qualities
to be truly inspirational; one or two qualities are rarely
sufficient. Leaders who shamelessly promote their dif-

Leadership: A Small History of a Big Topic
People have been talking about leader-
ship since the time of Plato. But in orga-
nizations all over the w o r l d – i n dinosaur
conglomerates and new-economy start-
ups alike-the same complaint emerges:
we don’t have enough leadership. We
have to ask ourselves, Why are we so
obsessed with leadership?

One answer is that there is a crisis of
belief in the modern world that has
its roots in the rationalist revolution of
the eighteenth century. During the
Enlightenment, philosophers such as
Voltaire claimed that through the
application of reason alone, people could
control their destiny. This marked an
incredibly optimistic turn in world his-
tory. In the nineteenth century, two
beliefs stemmed from this rationalist
notion: a belief in progress and a belief
in the perfectibility of man. This pro-
duced an even rosier world view than
before. It wasn’t until the end ofthe
nineteenth century, with the writings
first of Sigmund Freud and later of
Max Weber, that the chinks in the armor
appeared. These two thinkers destroyed
Western man’s belief in rationality and

progress. The current quest for leadership
is a direct consequence of their work.

The founder of psychoanalysis, Freud
theorized that beneath the surface of
the rational mind was the unconscious.
He supposed that the unconscious was
responsible for a fair proportion of
human behavior. Weber, the leading
critic of Marx and a brilliant sociologist,
also explored the limits of reason.
Indeed, for him, the most destructive
force operating in institutions was some-
thing he called technical rationality-
that is, rationality without morality.

For Weber, technical rationality was
embodied in one particular organizational
f o r m – t h e bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, he
said, were frightening not for their ineffi-
ciencies but for their efficiencies and their
capacity to dehumanize people. The tragic
novels of Franz Kafka bear stark testimony
to the debilitating effects of bureaucracy.
Even more chilling was the testimony of
Hitler’s lieutenant Adolf Eichmann that
“I was just a good bureaucrat.” Weber
believed that the only power that could
resist bureaucratization was charismatic
leadership. But even this has a very mixed

record in the twentieth century. Although
there have been inspirational and transfor-
mational wartime leaders, there have also
been charismatic leaders like Hitler, Stalin,
and Mao Tse-tung who committed horren-
dous atrocities.

By the twentieth century, there was
much skepticism about the power of
reason and man’s ability to progress
continuously. Thus, for both pragmatic
and philosophic reasons, an intense
interest in the concept of leadership
began to develop. And indeed, in the
1920s, the first serious research started.
The first leadership t h e o r y – t r a i t t h e o r y –
attempted to identify the common
characteristics of effective leaders. To
that end, leaders were weighed and

i8th

Rationalist
Revolution

century

Enlightenment

64 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000

Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?

ferences but who conceal their weaknesses, for instance,
are usually ineffective-nobody wants a perfect leader.
We also learned that the interplay between the four
qualities is critical. Inspirational leaders tend to mix and
match the qualities in order to find the right style for
the right moment. Consider humor, which can be very
effective as a difference. Used properly, humor can
communicate a leader’s charisma. But when a leader’s
sensing skills are not working, timing can be off and
inappropriate humor can make someone seem like a
joker or, worse, a fool. Clearly, in this case, being an
effective leader means knowing what difference to use
and when. And that’s no mean feat, especially when the
end result must be authenticity.

Reveal Your Weaknesses
when leaders reveal their weaknesses, they show us
who they are-warts and all This may mean admitting
that they’re irritable on Monday mornings, that they are
somewhat disorganized, or even rather shy. Such admis-
sions work because people need to see leaders own up

to some flaw before they participate willingly in an en-
deavor. Exposing a weakness establishes trust and thus
helps get folks on board. Indeed, if executives try to
communicate that they’re perfect at everything, there
will be no need for anyone to help them with anything.
They won’t need followers. They’ll signal that they can
do it all themselves.

Beyond creating trust and a collaborative atmosphere,
communicating a weakness also builds solidarity between
followers and leaders. Consider a senior executive we
know at a global management consultancy. He agreed to
give a major presentation despite being badly afflicted
by physical shaking caused by a medical condition. The
otherwise highly critical audience greeted this coura-
geous display of weakness with a standing ovation. By
giving the talk, he had dared to say, “I am just like you-
imperfect.” Sharing an imperfection is so effective
because it underscores a human being’s authenticity.
Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin, is a brilliant busi-
nessman and a hero in the United Kingdom. (Indeed,
the Virgin brand is so linked to him personally that
succession is a significant issue.) Branson is particularly

measured and subjected to a battery
of psychological tests. But no one could
identify what effective leaders had in
common. Trait theory fell into disfavor
soon after expensive studies concluded
that effective leaders were either above-
average height or below.

Trait theory was replaced by style
theory in the 1940s, primarily in the
United States. One particular style of
leadership was singled out as having
the most potential. It was a hail-fellow-
well-met democratic style of leadership,
and thousands of American executives
were sent to training courses to learn
how to behave this way. There was
only one drawback. The theory was

essentially capturing the spirit of FDR’s
America-open, democratic, and merito-
cratic. And so when McCarthyism and
the Cold War surpassed the New Deal,
a completely new style was required.
Suddenly, everyone was encouraged to
behave like a Cold War warrior! The poor
executive was completely confused.

Recent leadership thinking is domi-
nated by contingency theory, which says
that leadership is dependent on a partic-
ular situation. That’s fundamentally true,
but given that there are endless contin-
gencies in life, there are endless varieties
of leadership. Once again, the belea-
guered executive looking for a model
to help him is hopelessly lost.

For this article, we ransacked all the
leadership theories to come up with the
four essential leadership qualities. Like
Weber, we look at leadership that is pri-
marily antibureaucratic and charismatic.
From trait theory, we derived the quali-
ties of weaknesses and differences.
Unlike the original trait theorists, how-
ever, we do not believe that all leaders
have the same weaknesses; our research
only showed that all leaders expose some
flaws. Tough empathy grew out of style
theory, which looked at different kinds of
relationships between leaders and their
followers. Finally, context theory set the
stage for needing to know what skills to
use in various circumstances.

/19th
1 century

Belief in progress
the perfectibility

and in
of man

/20th
/century

Max Weber
Sigmund Freud

S

s
O N

Style
Theory

Trait
Theory

Contingency
Theory

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000 65

Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?

effective at communicating his vulnerability. He is ill at
ease and fumbles incessantly when interviewed in pub-
lic. It’s a weakness, but it’s Richard Branson. That’s what
revealing a weakness is all about: showing your follow-
ers that you are genuine and approachable-htiman and
htimane.

Another advantage to exposing a weakness is that it
offers a leader valuable protection. Human nature being
what it is, if you don’t show some weakness, then
observers may invent one for you. Celebrities and politi-
cians have always known this. Often, they deliberately
give the public something to talk about, knowing full
well that if they don’t, the newspapers will invent some-
thing even worse. Princess Diana may have aired her
eating disorder in public, but she died with her reputa-
tion intact, indeed even enhanced.

Sensing can create problems. In making
fine judgments about how far they can
go, leaders risk losing their followers.

That said, the most effective leaders know that expos-
ing a weakness must be done carefully. They own up to
selective weaknesses. Knowing which weakness to dis-
close is a highly honed art. The golden rule is never to
expose a weakness that will be seen as a fatal flaw-
by which we mean a flaw that jeopardizes central
aspects of your professional role. Consider the new
finance director of a major corporation. He can’t sud-
denly confess that he’s never understood discounted
cash flow. A leader should reveal only a tangential flaw –
and perhaps even several of them. Paradoxically, this
admission will help divert attention away from major
weaknesses.

Another well-known strategy is to pick a weakness
that can in some ways be considered a strength, such as
being a workaholic. When leaders expose these limited
flaws, people won’t see much of anything and little
harm will come to them. There is an important caveat,
however: if the leader’s vulnerability is not perceived to
be genuine, he won’t gain anyone’s support. Instead he
will open himself up to derision and scorn. One scenario
we saw repeatedly in our research was one in which a

Robert Goffee is a professor of organizational behavior at
London Business School. Gareth Jones is the director of
human resources and internal communications at the British
Broadcasting Corporation and a former professor of organi-
zational development at Henley Management College in
Oxfordshire, England. Coffee and Jones are the founding part-
ners of Creative Management Associates, an organizational
consulting firm in London.

CEO feigns absentmindedness to conceal his inconsis-
tency or even dishonesty. This is a sure way to alienate
followers who will remember accurately what happened
or what was said.

Become a Sensor
Inspirational leaders rely heavily on their instincts to
know when to reveal a weakness or a difference. We call
them good situation sensors, and by that we mean that
they can collect and interpret soft data. They can sniff out
the signals in the environment and sense what’s going on
without having anything spelled out for them.

Franz Humer, the CEO of Roche, is a classic sensor. He
is highly accomplished in detecting shifts in climate and
ambience; he can read subtle cues and sense underlying
currents of opinion that elude less perceptive people.
Humer says he developed this skill as a tour guide in his
mid-twenties when he was responsible for groups of loo
or more. “There was no salary, only tips,” he explains.
“Pretty soon, I knew how to hone in on particular groups.
Eventually, I could predict within 10% how much I could
earn from any particular group.” Indeed, great sensors
can easily gauge unexpressed feelings; they can very
accurately judge whether relationships are working or
not. The process is complex, and as anyone who has ever
encountered it knows, the results are impressive.

Consider a human resources executive we worked with
in a multinational entertainment company. One day he
got news of a distribution problem in Italy that had the
potential to affect the company’s worldwide operations.
As he was thinking about how to hide the information
temporarily from the Paris-based CEO while he worked
on a solution, the phone rang. It was the CEO saying,
“Tell me, Roberto, what the hell’s going on in Milan?”
The CEO was already aware that something was wrong.
How? He had his networks, of course. But in large part,
he was gifted at detecting information that wasn’t aimed
at him. He could read the silences and pick up on non-
verbal cues in the organization.

Not surprisingly, the most impressive business leaders
we have worked with are all very refined sensors. Ray
van Schaik, the chairman of Heineken in the early
1990s, is a good example. Conservative and urbane, van
Schaik’s genius lay in his ability to read signals he
received from colleagues and from Freddie Heineken, the
third-generation family member who was “always there
without being there.” While some senior managers
spent a lot of time second-guessing the major share-
holder, van Schaik developed an ability to “just know”
what Heineken wanted. This ability was based on many
years of working with him on the Heineken board, but
it was more than that-van Schaik could read Heineken
even though they had very different personalities and
didn’t work together directly.

66 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000

V

Four Popular Myths About Leadership
In both our research and consulting work, we have seen executives
who profoundly misunderstand what makes an inspirational leader.

Here are four ofthe most common myths:

Everyone can
be a leader.

Not true. Many executives don’t have the self-
knowledge or the authenticity necessary for
leadership. And self-i

Leaders deliver
business results.

Not always. If results were always a matter of
good leadership, picking leaders would be easy.
In every case, the best strategy would be to go
after people in companies with the best results.
But clearly, things are not that simple. Businesses
in quasi-monopolistic industries can often do very
well with competent management rather than
great leadership. Equally, some well-led businesses
do not necessarily produce results, particularly in
the short term.

People who get to
the top are leaders.

Not necessarily. One ofthe most persistent misper-
ceptions is that people in leadership positions are
leaders. But people who make it to the top may
have done so because of political acumen, not
necessarily because of true leadership quality.
What’s more, real leaders are found all over the
organization, from the executive suite to the shop
floor. By definition, leaders are simply people who
have followers, and rank doesn’t have much to do
with that. Effective military organizations like the
U.S. Navy have long realized the importance of
developing leaders throughout the organization.

Leaders are
great coaches.

Rarely. A whole cottage industry has grown up
around the teaching that good leaders ought
to be good coaches. But that thinking assumes
that a single person can both inspire the
troops and impart technical skills. Of course,
it’s possible that great leaders may also be
great coaches, but we see that only occasion-
ally. More typical are leaders like Steve Jobs
whose distinctive strengths lie in their ability
to excite others through their vision rather
than through their coaching talents.

Success stories like van Schaik’s come with a word of
warning. While leaders must be great sensors, sensing
can create problems. That’s because in making fine
judgments about how far they can go, leaders risk los-
ing their followers. The political situation in Northem
Ireland is a powerful example. Over the past two years,
several leaders-David Trimble, Gerry Adams, and Tony
Blair, together with George Mitchell – have taken
unprecedented initiatives toward peace. At every step
of the way, these leaders had to sense how far they
could go without losing their electorates. In business,
think of mergers and acquisitions. Unless organizational

leaders and negotiators can convince their followers in
a timely way that the move is positive, value and good-
will quickly erode. This is the situation recently faced
by Vodafone and France Telecom in the sale and pur-
chase of Orange.

There is another danger associated with sensing skills.
By definition, sensing a situation involves projection –
that state of mind whereby you attribute your own ideas
to other people and things. When a person “projects,” his
thoughts may interfere with the truth. Imagine a radio
that picks up any number of signals, many of which are
weak and distorted. Situation sensing is like that; you

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000 67

why Should Anyone Be Led by You?

can’t always be sure what you’re hearing because of all
the static. The employee who sees her boss distracted
and leaps to the conclusion that she is going to be fired
is a classic example. Most skills become heightened
under threat, but particularly during situation sensing.
Such oversensitivity in a leader can be a recipe for disas-
ter. For this reason, sensing capability must always be
framed by reality testing. Even the most gifted sensor
may need to validate his perceptions with a trusted
adviser or a member of his inner team.

Practice Tough Empathy
Unfortunately, there’s altogether too much hype nowa-
days about the idea that leaders must show concern for
their teams. There’s nothing worse than seeing a man-
ager retum from the latest interpersonal-skills training
program with “concern” for others. Real leaders don’t
need a training program to convince their employees
that they care. Real leaders empathize fiercely with the
people they lead. They also care intensely about the
work their employees do.

Consider Alain Levy, the former CEO of Polygram.
Although he often comes across as a rather aloof intel-
lectual. Levy is well able to close the distance between
himself and his followers. On one occasion, he helped
some jimior record executives in Australia choose singles
off albums. Picking singles is a critical task in the music
business: the selection of a song can make or break the
album. Levy sat down with the young people and took
on the work with passion. “You bloody idiots,” he added
his voice to the melee, “you don’t know what the hell
you’re talking about; we always have a dance track first!”
Within 24 hours, the story spread throughout the com-
pany; it was the best PR Levy ever got. “Levy really
knows how to pick singles,” people said. In fact, he knew
how to identify with the work, and he knew how to
enter his followers’ world-one where strong, colorful
language is the norm-to show them that he cared.

Clecirly, as the above example illustrates, we do not
believe that the empathy of inspirational leaders is the
soft kind described in so much of the management liter-
ature. On the contrary, we feel that real leaders manage
through a unique approach we call tough empathy.
Tough empathy means giving people what they need, not
what they want. Organizations like the Marine Corps and
consulting firms specialize in tough empathy. Recruits are
pushed to be the best that they can be; “grow or go” is
the motto. Chris Satterwaite, the CEO of Bell Pottinger
Commimications and a former chief executive of several
ad agencies, understands what tough empathy is all
about. He adeptly handles the challenges of managing
creative people while making tough decisions. “If I have
to, I can be ruthless,” he says. “But while they’re with me,
I promise my people that they’ll leam.”

At its best, tough empathy balances respect for the
individual and for the task at hand. Attending to both,
however, isn’t easy, especially when the business is in
survival mode. At such times, caring leaders have to give
selflessly to the people around them and know when to
pull back. Consider a situation at Unilever at a time
when it was developing Persil Power, a detergent that
eventually had to be removed from the market because
it destroyed clothes that were laundered in it. Even
though the product was showing early signs of trouble,
CEO Niall FitzGerald stood by his troops. “That was the
popular place to be, but I should not have been there,”
he says now. “I should have stood back, cool and de-
tached, looked at the whole field, watched out for the
customer.” But caring vnth detachment is not easy, espe-
cially since, when done right, tough empathy is harder
on you than on your employees. “Some theories of lead-
ership make caring look effortless. It isn’t,” says Paulanne
Mancuso, president and CEO of Calvin Klein Cosmetics.
“You have to do things you don’t want to do, and that’s
hard.” It’s tough to be tough.

Tough empathy also has the benefit of impelling lead-
ers to take risks. When Greg Dyke took over at the BBC,
his commercial competitors were able to spend substan-
tially more on programs than the BBC could. Dyke
quickly realized that in order to thrive in a digital world,
the BBC needed to increase its expenditures. He
explained this openly and directly to the staff. Once he
had secured their buy-in, he began thoroughly restruc-
turing the organization. Although many employees were
let go, he was able to maintain people’s commitment.
Dyke attributed his success to his tough empathy with
employees: “Once you have the people with you, you can
make the difficult decisions that need to be made.”

One final point about tough empathy: those more apt
to use it are people who really care about something.
And when people care deeply about something-any-
thing-they’re more likely to show their true selves. They
will not only communicate authenticity, which is the pre-
condition for leadership, but they will show that they are
doing more than just playing a role. People do not com-
mit to executives who merely live up to the obligations
of their jobs. They want more. They want someone who
cares passionately about the people and the work-just
as they do.

Dare to Be Different
Another quality of inspirational leaders is that they cap-
italize on what’s unique about themselves. In fact, using
these differences to great advantage is the most impor-
tant quality ofthe four we’ve mentioned. The most effec-
tive leaders deliberately use differences to keep a social
distance. Even as they are drawing their followers close
to them, inspirational leaders signal their separateness.

68 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW S e p t e m b e r – O c t o b e r 2 0 0 0

Can Female Leaders Be True to Themselves?
Gender differences can be used to either positive or negative
effect Women, in particuiar, are prone to being stereotyped
according to differences -aibeit usuaily not the ones
that they would choose. Partly this is because there
are fewer women than men in management posi-
tions. According to research in social psychol-
ogy, if a group’s representation falls below 20%
in a given society, then it’s going to be sub-
jected to stereotyping whether it likes it or
not. For women, this may mean being type-
cast as a “helper,” “nurturer,” or “seductress”-
labels that may prevent them from defining
their own differences.

In earlier research, we discovered that many
women-particularly women in their fifties-
try to avoid this dynamic by disappearing.
They try to make themselves invisible.
They wear clothes that disguise their
bodies; they try to blend in with men
by talking tough. That’s certainly
one way to avoid negative stereo-
typing, but the problem is that it

reduces a woman’s chances of being seen as a potential
leader. She’s not promoting her real self and differences.

Another response to negative stereotyping is to
collectively resist it-for example, by mounting

a campaign that promotes the rights, opportuni-
ties, and even the number of women in the

workplace. But on a day-to-day basis, survival
is often all women have time for, therefore

making it impossible for them to organize
themselves formally.

A third response that emerged in our
research was that women play into

stereotyping to personal advantage.
Some women, for example, know-
ingly play the role of “nurturer” at
work, but they do it with such wit

and skill that they are able to benefit
from it. The cost of such a strategy?

It furthers harmful stereotypes and
continues to limit opportunities for

other women to communicate their
genuine personal differences.

Often, a leader will show his differences by having a
distinctly different dress style or physical appearance, but
typically he will move on to distinguish himself through
qualities like imagination, loyalty, expertise, or even a
handshake. Anything can be a difference, but it is impor-
tant to communicate it. Most people, however, are hesi-
tant to communicate what’s unique about themselves,
and it can take years for them to be fully aware of what
sets them apart. This is a serious disadvantage in a world
where networking is so critical and where teams need to
be formed overnight.

Some leaders know exactly how to take advantage of
their differences. Take Sir John Harvey-Jones, the former
CEO of ICI-what was once the largest manufacturing
company in the United Kingdom. When he wrote his
autobiography a few years ago, a British newspaper
advertised the book with a sketch of Harvey-Jones. The
profile had a moustache, long hair, and a loud tie. The
drawing was in black and white, but everyone knew who
it was. Of course, John Harvey-Jones didn’t get to the top
of ICI because of eye-catching ties and long hair. But he
was very clever in developing differences that he ex-
ploited to show that he was adventurous, entrepreneur-
ial, and unique-he was John Harvey-Jones.

There are other people who aren’t as aware of their
differences but still use them to great effect. For
instance, Richard Surface, former managing director of

the UK-based Pearl Insurance, always walked the floor
and overtook people, using his own pace as a means of
communicating urgency. Still other leaders are fortu-
nate enough to have colleagues point out their differ-
ences for them. As the BBC’s Greg Dyke puts it, “My
partner tells me, ‘You do things instinctively that you
don’t understand. What I worry about is that in the pro-
cess of understanding them you could lose them!'”
Indeed, what emerged in our interviews is that most
leaders start off not knowing what their differences are
but eventually come to know-and use-them more
effectively over time. Franz Humer at Roche, for instance,
now realizes that he uses his emotions to evoke reac-
tions in others.

Most ofthe differences we’ve described are those that
tend to be apparent, either to the leader himself or to
the colleagues aroxmd him. But there are differences that
are more subtle but still have very powerful effects. For
instance, David Prosser, the CEO of Legal and General,
one of Europe’s largest and most successful insurance
companies, is an outsider. He is not a smooth city type;
in fact, he comes from industrial South Wales. And
though generally approachable, Prosser has a hard edge,
which he uses in an understated but highly effective
way. At a recent cocktail party, a rather excitable sales
manager had been claiming how good the company was
at cross-selling products. In a low voice, Prosser inter-

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000 69

Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?

vened: “We may be good, but we’re not good enough.” A
chill swept through the room. What was Prosser’s point?
Don’t feel so close you can relax! I’m the leader, and I
make that call. Don’t you forget it. He even uses this
edge to good effect with the top team-it keeps everyone
on their toes.

Inspirational leaders use separateness to motivate
others to perform better. It is not that they are being
Machiavellian but that they recognize instinctively that
followers will push themselves if their leader is just a lit-
tle aloof. Leadership, after all, is not a popularity contest

One danger, of course, is that executives can overdif-
ferentiate themselves in their determination to express
their separateness. Indeed, some leaders lose contact
with their followers, and doing so is fatal. Once they cre-
ate too much distance, they stop being good sensors, and
they lose the ability to identify and care. That’s what
appeared to happen during Robert Horton’s tenure as
chairman and CEO of BP during the early 1990s. Hor-
ton’s conspicuous display of his considerable – indeed,
daunting-intelligence sometimes led others to see him
as arrogant and self-aggrandizing. That resulted in over-
differentiation, and it eventually contributed to Horton’s
dismissal just three years after he was appointed to the
position.

Leadership in Action
All four of the qualities described here are necessary for
inspirational leadership, but they cannot be used mechan-
ically. They must become or must already be part of an
executive’s personality. That’s why the “recipe” business
books-those that prescribe to the Lee laccoca or Bill
Gates way-often fail. No one can just ape another
leader. So the challenge facing prospective leaders is for
them to be themselves, but with more skill. That can be
done by making yourself increasingly aware of the four
leadership qualities we describe and by manipulating
these qualities to come up with a personal style that
works for you. Remember, there is no universal formula,
and what’s needed will vary from context to context.
What’s more, the results are often subtle, as the following
story about Sir Richard Sykes, the highly successful chair-
man and CEO of Glaxo Wellcome, one of the world’s
leading pharmaceutical companies, illustrates.

When he was running the R&D division at Glaxo,
Sykes gave a year-end review to the company’s top sci-
entists. At the end of the presentation, a researcher
asked him about one of the company’s new compoimds,
and the two men engaged in a short heated debate. The
question-answer session continued for another 20 min-
utes, at the end of which the researcher broached the
subject again. “Dr. Sykes,” he began in a loud voice, “you
have still failed to understand the structure of the new
compound.” You could feel Sykes’s temper rise through

the soles ofhis feet He marched to the back ofthe room
and displayed his anger before the intellectual brain-
power of the entire company. “All right, lad,” he yelled,
“let us have a look at your notes!”

The Sykes story provides the ideal framework for dis-
cussing the four leadership qualities. To some people,
Sykes’s irritability could have seemed like inappropriate
weakness. But in this context, his show of temper

Executives can overdifferentiate
themselves in their determination

to express their separateness.

demonstrated Sykes’s deep belief in the discussion about
basic science-a company value. Therefore, his willing-
ness to get angry actually cemented his credibility as a
leader. He also showed that he was a very good sensor.
If Sykes had exploded earlier in the meeting, he would
have quashed the debate. Instead, his anger was per-
ceived as defending the faith. The story also reveals
Sykes’s ability to identify with his colleagues and their
work. By talking to the researcher as a fellow scientist,
he was able to create an empathic bond with his audi-
ence. He really cared, though his caring was clearly
tough empathy. Finally, the story indicates Sykes’s own
willingness to show his differences. Despite being one of
the United Kingdom’s most successful businessmen, he
has not conformed to “standard” English. On the con-
trary, Sykes proudly retains his distinctive northern
accent. He also doesn’t show the typical British reserve
and decorum; he radiates passion. Like other real lead-
ers, he acts and communicates naturally. Indeed, if we
were to sum up the entire year-end review at Glaxo
Wellcome, we’d say that Sykes was being himself-with
great skill.

Unraveling the Mystery
As long as business is around, we will continue to pick
apart the imderlying ingredients of true leadership. And
there will always be as many theories as there are ques-
tions. But of all the facets of leadership that one might
investigate, there are few so difficult as understanding
what it takes to develop leaders. The four leadership
qualities are a necessary first step. Taken together, they
tell executives to be authentic. As we counsel the exec-
utives we coach: “Be yourselves-more-with skill.”There
can be no advice more difficult to follow than that. ^

Reprint ROO5O6 To order reprints, see the last page of this issue.

To discuss this article, join HBR’s authors and readers in
the HBR Forum at www.hbr.org/forum.

70 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 2000

Copyright 2000 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions
may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your
institution’s librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your
institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing
including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations
please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.