The Evolution And Adaptation Of Cross-Cultural Management To Global Leadership

The significance of cross-cultural management in assessing global leadership

Discuss about the Cross-Cultural Management Research In Global Leadership for Business.

The article titled “From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation” authored by Allan Bird and Mark E Mendenhall shows the ways global leadership trends have transformed in cross cultural management. The authors also address the topic as to how these changes build new global leadership literature. Gelfand et al. (2017) are of the view that it is possible to understand cross-cultural leadership by utilizing cultural intelligence. The authors further state that the cultural intelligence can accommodate comparing and selecting adaptations that need to be applied in novel leadership plans. Likewise, Bird and Mendenhall (2016) have identified certain activities and abilities of global readers with cross-cultural management research.

This essay will scrutinize the role of cross-cultural management in assessing global leadership and illustrate the challenges and labors of cross-cultural management research in diverse areas. In addition, the essay will discuss the strengths and limitations of the new approaches that have been developed to adapt to recurring changes resulting from increased research on cross-cultural management explaining trends in global leadership.

Cross-cultural management in as defined by the main authors refers to the understanding of variations in cultural practices. The term is used to define the framework of international business that differentiates customer choices, practices and cultural priorities. Cross-cultural management also gives focus towards explaining the organizational behavior across cultures.  The article by Bird and Mendenhall explains the different kinds of cross-cultural management research to estimate global leadership. It can be intercultural, comparative and unicultural as well.

Whilst indulging on the topic of cross-cultural management research, the authors of the main article highlighted the importance of this field during the early years of the 20^th century. Cross-cultural management studies evolved side by side to the evolvement of common fields of management and organizational behavior. Initially the journals included the study of management and behavior in organizations and psychology. The trend continued until the contemporary times as studies on management and organizational behavior still abound along with cross-cultural researches. During the 1950s, it was seen for the first time that journals focusing on organizational psychology and management began to be published. The authors thus claim that interest in cross-cultural management studies have been present from the time interest in general management was there.

While mentioning the three categories of cross-cultural management research, the authors point out the work of Adler (1983), who had first introduced the three terms. According to the author, unicultural research was carried out to focus on the management of organization within a single country. an instance of this could be given of German organizations where organizational commitment was the main aim of management. In the views of Sarala et al. (2016), the mergers and acquisitions of businesses that take place today, leaders are required to amalgamate the businesses as well as the cultures of the countries where the business operates or aims to operate.  Numerous instances can be provided of such amalgamations and acquisitions where two very separate cultures were merged in order to gain competitive edge in business. This posed a huge test to global leaders. Cross-cultural management studies have investigated this issue as well and offered explanations, although limited, that assisted leaders obtain capability in dealing with such issues.

The types of cross-cultural management research and their importance in global leadership

Comparative research on the other hand examined management in two or more countries and outlined the visible comparisons. Example was given of countries like Mexico, Turkey and India in terms of their norms of conflict resolutions. Lastly, intercultural research aimed at conversation between members of organizations belonging to different countries. The effective communication between employees of Philippines and Danish executive expatriates was presented as an example. The study by Adler revealed that cross-cultural management research focused largely on intercultural management and other two areas had only a limited share of research. Cooke, Veen and Wood (2017) however point out that modern literature on cross-cultural management tends to emphasize the adversities of the field rather than focus on the positives. The author notes that the dominance of studies focusing on the negative side of cross-culturalism in international business led to an obstacle in people’s understanding of the process that assist organizations reap the benefits of cultural differences.

The role of cross-cultural management research in preparing global leaders to confront the modern business challenges cannot be denied. Researchers working on cross-cultural management have found that mutual collaboration on providing training and course with assistance from competencies of lively cross-cultural management could help in achieving leaders for the future. Many universities teaching business management subjects have also incorporated a separate topic on cross-cultural training and management. Programs like exchange of students on an international platform also focused on imparting cross-cultural competency training to students through real-world experiences. In the article authored by Bird and Mendenhall (2016), the focus has been on cross-cultural management notion and its role within the arena of global leadership. The key issue or topic addressed in the article that global leadership, as a concept in international business is a result of continued researches in cross-cultural management field.

Modern leaders are required to manage workers from diverse cultures effectively. In the field of cross-cultural management studies, the later years 20^th century saw comparative researches being carried out that on one hand appreciated cultural differences and on the other leaned more towards the overriding Western viewpoint. The chief article clearly explains this. In details, cross-cultural management studies influenced global leadership definition. As Reiche et al. (2017) argued, global leaders must possess the potential to appreciate the intrinsic nature of any nation and assess the prevalence of cross-cultural management in that nation. The author mentioned the six perceptions about cross-cultural management that leaders must make use of in order to be competent. Six perspectives including classical approach, psychological approach, anthropological approach, knowledge management approach, stereotypical approach and systems thinking approach form the cross-cultural management research, states the authors. Few other theorists have also investigated the matter of cross-cultural management and its contribution towards making the leaders of the present and the future. While highlighting the importance of cross-cultural management, it is important to mention the name of one Dutch philosopher and sociologist who provided a framework for understanding cultural differences in different countries – Geert Hofstede. He was most likely the first thinker and scholar who offered a structure for companies to classify the disparity in culture of different nations. According to him, cultural separation between countries can be identified by relating the six cultural dimensions (Calvin, Beale and Moore 2017).The cultural dimensions comprised elements like power distance index, individualism and collectivism, uncertainty avoidance index, masculinity and femininity, long-term orientation and short-term orientation and lastly, indulgence and restraint. Multinational organizations were largely benefitted by the introduction and use of these cultural dimensions as it helped them understand and prepare for the challenges posed by different countries with different cultures.

The challenges and strengths of cross-cultural management research

Highlighting the challenges that confront multinational companies (MNCs), they deal with such issues more frequently than they deal with the national or local companies. The reason following this is the frequent requirement of MNCs to interact with different people belonging to diverse cultural backgrounds for business purposes. MNCs however can be on an advantageous position if the employees are given training on the ways to deal with clients and customers of different cultures. Tenzer and Pudelko (2015) are of the view that cultural skill is the most significant prerequisite for MNC employees because trading or interacting with people from diverse cultural backdrops is a susceptible issue. Workers must have the aptitude to interact with customers and make sure that they do not hurt their cultural sentiments. Kostova, Marano and Tallman (2016) argue that the key element that makes some MNCs successful and others not is their ability to realize the need for cultural competency. The authors comment on the role of cross-cultural researches that focused on managing organizations across countries and indentified the dilemma if national cultures coincided with the culture of MNCs or it lagged behind. Their research found that the culture dominant within multinationals form and govern the organizational culture common within the company. 

Bird and Mendenhall (2016) studied the origins of global leadership literature and revealed that the field is versatile and mirrors multiple contributions from the emigrant, comparative leadership and streams of global management research.  The literature on global leadership has also been instrumental in understanding the complex link between managers and leaders. The authors state that the 21^st century management is characterized by the increasing role of managers as leaders. This also can be attributed to cross-cultural management researches that entailed the work and nature of both international mangers and leaders.

It is however imperative to find out the strengths and limitations of cross-cultural management research and its role in analyzing global leadership. At first, the advantages or strengths of the researches on cross-cultural management should be put forward. Cross-cultural management studies for long periods have intended at means to expand management capacities of organizations globally. The studies have enabled companies to integrate systems of efficient cross-cultural management into the organizational system. Schedlitzki et al. (2017) claim that studies in cross-cultural management have made it possible for both companies and governments to plan for the welfare of both workers and citizens. Bird and Mendenhall (2016) in the article mention cross-cultural management usage as a “more specific subset of international management” that values the cultural differences. The authors supported the notion that international managers in the contemporary business environment have attained the role of leaders making strategic decisions. This has largely occurred due to the cross-cultural management study that identified the shifting roles for the first time. The greatest advantage of Cross-cultural management research is its ability to handle global leadership issues since its inception in the 1960s until now. To state further, globalization has been a phenomenon that changed the course of international business. Globalization put load of stress on managers to preserve constancy in business (Meyer 2017). The main article has considered globalization as an important element of cross-cultural management research. The 1990s, state the authors, saw business leaders crossing boundaries throughout all aspects of business management and even government. The process was more rapid, more frequent and steadier compared to previous decades. However, this phenomenon brought increased pressure on business leaders. They were struggling to find quick solutions to the problems created by this sudden change. Cross-cultural management research that also saw an upsurge of studies dedicated to the global concept provided some sort of relief to the leaders. It led to the origin of researches on global leadership that added vitality to the various streams of global leadership including intercultural communication, expatriates, global management research and comparative leadership.

The role of cross-cultural management research in shaping global leadership literature

However, with the consistent growth in demands for flexibility, cross-cultural management studies displayed numerous weaknesses. As Li (2014) points out, “only a certain range of perspectives were taken into consideration while incorporating cross-cultural management researches in top business institutions around the world and this seems now as a lethal limitation”. According to the authors, contemporary cross-cultural management researches account only for the norms prescribed by the dominant West. The statement is true as it can be seen that the dominant western management team has imposed its own views to the rest of the world. Further, it also has to be mentioned that research on global leadership that stemmed from the cross-cultural management researches still lacks clarity. The reason is a lack of depth in the studies conducted for cross-cultural management. This turned out to be a weakness in global leadership because the suppositions put forth by cross- researchers of cultural management provided contradictory pragmatic evidence or failed to address them empirically (Dinh et al. 2014). An example can be given of the contradiction where the cultural differences in a nation are supposed to be small compared to the differences between other nations. Scholars in the past just focused on expatriates as the subject of their study and their consequent findings were mostly generalized. However, it turned out to be otherwise and hence cross-cultural management research failed to provide any concrete evidence on how to manage differences in culture.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that cross-cultural management researches unveiled the increasing shift in the role of managers and leaders in the global business environment. Managers in the 21^st century took on the role of leaders in the sense that they began making strategic decisions for the organizations they worked in. although experts undertook leadership studies from a perspective of expert cognition, competencies, job analysis and developmental approaches, it could have more impact if it was studied from other theoretical perspectives. The essay undertook a critical analysis of the main article in order to provide insights into the role of cross-cultural management research to evaluate global leadership. In doing so, the essay unearthed certain other facts that led to the beginning of studies in global leadership. Further, the essay included views from other scholars on the issue and revealed that the studies on cross-cultural management lacked depth especially in the contemporary setting. the advantages and limitations of cross-cultural management studies were also discussed thoroughly in the essay.

References:

Adler, N.J., 1983. Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend. Academy of management Review, 8(2), pp.226-232.

Bird, A. and Mendenhall, M.E., 2016. From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation. Journal of World Business, 51(1), pp.115-126.

Calvin, J.R., Beale, R.L. and Moore, K., 2017. Acculturation and Allied Contributing Factors That Further Advance Cross-Cultural Management Learning and Education: A Conceptual Approach. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 21(2), pp.1-11.

Cooke, F.L., Veen, A. and Wood, G., 2017. What do we know about cross-country comparative studies in HRM? A critical review of literature in the period of 2000-2014. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), pp.196-233.

Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.G., Gardner, W.L., Meuser, J.D., Liden, R.C. and Hu, J., 2014. Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), pp.36-62.

Gelfand, M.J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M. and Leung, K., 2017. Cross-cultural industrial organizational psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), p.514.

Kostova, T., Marano, V. and Tallman, S., 2016. Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51(1), pp.176-184.

Li, M., 2014. Cross-cultural tourist research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(1), pp.40-77.

Meyer, K.E., 2017. International business in an era of anti-globalization. Multinational Business Review, 25(2), pp.78-90.

Reiche, B.S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M.E. and Osland, J.S., 2017. Contextualizing leadership: a typology of global leadership roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5), pp.552-572.

Sarala, R.M., Junni, P., Cooper, C.L. and Tarba, S.Y., 2016. A sociocultural perspective on knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management, 42(5), pp.1230-1249.

Schedlitzki, D., Ahonen, P., Wankhade, P., Edwards, G. and Gaggiotti, H., 2017. Working with language: A refocused research agenda for cultural leadership studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(2), pp.237-257.