Six Factors That Shape How Global Leaders Exercise Power and Influence Followers
ISBN: 978-1-80455-857-7, eISBN: 978-1-80455-856-0
ISSN: 1535-1203
Publication date: 6 March 2023
Abstract
As part of an exploratory study on the nature of global leaders' power, we interviewed 23 global leaders to address the question: “How do the task, culture, and relationship complexities of global leadership shape the way global leaders exercise power and influence their followers?” We identify five complicating factors that shape the use of power by global leaders: Language, culture, time zones, physical distance, and matrix organizational structures. When compared with domestic leaders, these five factors make the use of power more complex for global leaders and require global leaders to invest substantially more time and energy into building relationships, sharing leadership, and prioritizing communication to ensure common understanding of vision and goals. We highlight a sixth factor, high-quality relationships, as an enabling resource for global leaders to succeed despite contexts of global leadership complexity. We provide a conceptual model summarizing how global leader influence attempts are complicated and enhanced and offer implications for future research and practice.
Keywords
Citation
Hinds, B. and Ludema, J.D. (2023), "Six Factors That Shape How Global Leaders Exercise Power and Influence Followers", Osland, J.S., Reiche, B.S., Mendenhall, M.E. and Maznevski, M.L. (Ed.) Advances in Global Leadership (Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 15), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 37-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320230000015002
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023 by Emerald Publishing Limited
Reiche et al. (2017) define global leadership as “the processes and actions through which an individual influences a range of internal and external constituents from multiple national cultures and jurisdictions in a context characterized by significant levels of task and relationship complexity” (p. 556). Two core components of this definition are influence and complexity. Global leaders are required to influence a range of internal and external constituents to achieve organizational objectives in highly complex environments. Recent studies show the ability to assert this kind of influence is directly linked to the bases of power global leaders are able to employ and to the task, culture, and relationship dynamics that shape how those bases of power can be exercised (Gyamfi & Lee, 2020; Neeley & Reiche, 2022).
While few studies have explored the nature of global leaders' power, in a recent review of foundational work on global leadership, Osland et al. (2017) call for research “that takes into consideration the different ways that global leaders do their work” and “greater understanding of how global leaders empower themselves and the communities in which they work” (p. 258). Two recent articles have responded to this call. Neeley and Reiche (2022) studied 115 global leaders in a large US-based tech company who were charged with advancing organizational goals in nonnative markets where they had less expertise, networks, and influence than their subordinates. The authors found that leaders who enacted downward deference – the practice of submitting to individuals with lower positional power but greater expertise, networks, and influence – enjoyed higher job performance ratings and were promoted faster to executive levels compared to their counterparts who did not practice downward deference.
In a study of global leaders working for multinational enterprises in Ghana, Gyamfi and Lee (2020) investigated the ways in which geopolitical power dynamics and cultural identities shape the assets and liabilities of local and foreign global leaders and enable or constrain their bases of personal and professional power. The authors found that global leaders use a variety of strategies to maximize the assets and minimize the liabilities of their relative localness or foreignness with the aim of improving their relationships with subordinates and other constituents, strengthening their bases of power, and enhancing their performance.
To expand understanding of how global leaders exercise power and influence followers, we recently conducted an exploratory mixed-methods study into the bases of power employed by global leaders in the automotive industry. First, we administered a survey based on the work of Raven et al. (1998) to 65 global leaders examining which bases of power they used when requesting a change from global followers versus domestic followers. Next, we conducted semistructured interviews with 23 global leaders to explore how and why they employed the various bases of power. This chapter focuses exclusively on the qualitative findings drawn from the semistructured interviews, but to set the stage, we begin by briefly reporting the quantitative results from our survey research.
Raven et al. (1998) conceptualized 11 bases of power used by leaders: Referent power, expert power, information power, legitimate power of dependence, personal reward power, impersonal reward power, personal coercive power, impersonal coercive power, legitimate power of position, legitimate power of equity, and legitimate power of reciprocity. Drawing on Raven et al. (1998), the first quantitative question our study asked was, “Is there a significant difference in the bases of power used by global leaders versus domestic leaders when leading change?” The answer was no; global leaders and domestic leaders use the same bases of power when leading change (Hinds, 2020). Our second quantitative question was, “Is there a significant difference in the bases of power used by global leaders when leading change with global followers versus domestic followers?” Again, the answer was no; global leaders use the same bases of power when leading change with global followers and domestic followers (Hinds, 2020).
Additionally, our quantitative results indicated that global leaders and domestic leaders followed a similar sequence when using the bases of power, whether leading global or domestic followers. The sequence is shown in Fig. 1. Each leader began with a constellation of preexisting powers based on who they were and where they were positioned in the organization (box A). When it was time to make a change request of a follower (diamond CR), the leader's first step was to build understanding (circle U) by employing information power (diamond IP) and clarifying why the change was important, how it could be accomplished, and how it would benefit both the organization and the individual. If the leader's information power was effective, the follower completed the requested change (diamond CC and circle Y). If the leader's information power was misunderstood, ignored, or resisted, and the follower did not complete the requested change (circle N), the leader turned to legitimate power of position to mandate the change (diamond LP). If legitimate power of position did not result in the desired change, the leader resorted to impersonal coercive power (diamond CP) by threatening to withdraw resources or remove the follower from the change initiative (Hinds, 2020).
In summary, our quantitative survey results showed that global and domestic leaders used the same bases of power and used them in the same sequence whether leading global or domestic followers. However, when we conducted semistructured interviews with the 23 global leaders to dig deeply into how and why they employed their bases of power (Raven et al., 1998), we discovered five key complicating factors: Language, culture, time zones, physical distance, and matrix organizational structures. When compared to domestic leaders, these five factors make the use of power far more complex for global leaders and require global leaders to invest substantially more time and energy into building relationships, sharing leadership, and prioritizing communication to ensure common understanding of vision and goals. In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss the five complicating factors and their impact on the exercise of power. We review relevant literature, explain our research methodology, explore the five complicating factors, and offer a conceptual framework for understanding power in the uniquely complex context of global leadership. Additionally, we describe how high-quality relationships are an enabling factor that allow global leaders to strengthen their use of power. We conclude with implications for future research and practice.
Understanding Bases of Power
Political scientist, Robert Dahl, offered the first modern definition of power in 1957 when he wrote, “A has power over B to the extent that [A] can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl, 1957, pp. 202–203). Two years later, in their classic article “The Bases of Social Power,” French and Raven (1959) suggested that the application of power is not a single effort, but rather a collection of elements defined by the individuals and situations. They defined five bases of power: (1) reward power, (2) coercive power, (3) legitimate power, (4) referent power, and (5) expert power. In 1965, information power was added as a sixth base of power and defined as the presentation of new knowledge that contributes to changes in the follower's work task, such as revised work instructions, details on project completion deadlines, or an explanation of how an individual's work task complements other work tasks or contributes to larger organizational objectives (Raven, 1965). By 1998, the list of leadership powers was further expanded to 11 (Raven et al., 1998) and classified into “harsh” (structural) and “soft” (personal) bases of power (see Table 1).
Leader Power Bases.
| Power Bases | |
|---|---|
| Structural Bases | Personal Bases |
| Impersonal Reward Power | Referent Power |
| Impersonal Coercive Power | Expert Power |
| Personal Coercive Power | Informational Power |
| Legitimate Power of Position | Legitimate Power of Dependence |
| Legitimate Power of Equity | Personal Reward Power |
| Legitimate Power of Reciprocity | |
Source: Adapted from Raven et al. (1998).
Applying Power to Global Leadership
In a study of 115 global leaders charged with advancing organizational goals in foreign markets for a large US tech company, Neeley and Reiche (2022) demonstrated that some leaders enacted “downward deference” while others did not in situations where they had less expertise, networks, and influence relative to their local subordinates. Research has demonstrated that organizations rely on people's positional power to achieve organizational goals and that, in many cases, individuals work better together when one is dominant and others are submissive because clearly defined roles help to speed decision-making, resolve conflict, and aid coordination (Tiedens et al., 2007). The behavior that helps to facilitate the relationship between the dominant and the submissive person is deference, i.e., the tendency to accommodate or submit to others (Goffman, 1956; Rucker et al., 2018).
Typically, displays of deference follow organizational hierarchies and flow upward; subordinates change their behaviors to accommodate the wishes of their superiors. However, under the conditions of complexity, ambiguity, and flux associated with global leadership (Lane et al., 2004) in which followers need to make decisions and carry out tasks quickly and flexibly on their own (Grant & Parker, 2009), formal hierarchy can become an impediment (Huesing & Ludema, 2017). As global leaders enter new countries and markets where they have limited expertise and face unfamiliar languages, cultures, and regulatory regimes (Reiche et al., 2017), they rely on the expertise, relationships, and political skills of global followers to navigate uncertainties and get work done (Neeley & Reiche, 2022). Although global leaders may still hold positional power, they are often required to consider alternative approaches that deemphasize organizational hierarchy and reverse the flow of deference from upward to downward. Neeley and Reiche (2022) label this downward deference and define it as “the practice of submitting to individuals with lower positional power” (p. 12).
In a qualitative study of 13 local (Ghanaian) global leaders and seven foreign (Belgian, Chinese, Dutch, Indian, and Nigerian) global leaders working for multinational enterprises in Ghana, Gyamfi and Lee (2020) investigate the ways in which geopolitical power dynamics and cultural identities shape the assets and liabilities of localness and foreignness and enable or constrain the bases of power. The assets of localness include local language proficiency, socio-cultural understanding, and intimate knowledge of the local market. Liabilities include perceived redundancy in skillset (i.e., skepticism over local education and expected lack of novelty in approach to work), overembeddedness in social context, and complacency. The assets of foreignness include absence of constraining ties, idiosyncrasy credit, access to new networks and resources, perception of competence, and exemplary behavior (i.e., freedom from professionally undesirable social habits and single-minded focus on company and profession). Liabilities include weaker command of the local language, perceptions of exploitation, susceptibility to stereotypes, and social alienation.
Gyamfi and Lee (2020) describe four main ways in which global leaders leverage the assets and liabilities of localness and foreignness, depending on the outcomes they wish to achieve. First, through identity leveraging, local global leaders position themselves as cultural insiders by maximizing the assets of localness while minimizing the liabilities of foreignness. Second, through power leveraging, foreign global leaders capitalize on their resource and referent power by maximizing the assets of foreignness while minimizing the liabilities of localness. Third, through juxtapositional leveraging, pairs of local and foreign global leaders maximize the assets and minimize the liabilities of both localness and foreignness by sharing leadership and filling comparable roles simultaneously. Finally, through temporal leveraging, foreign global leaders groom local global leaders to capitalize on the assets of both foreignness and localness over the medium to long term.
These two studies provide tentative evidence that global leaders' task, culture, and relationship complexities shape the way they exercise power, yet little is still known about how exactly they do so. Consequently, we ask the following research question: How do the task, culture, and relationship complexities of global leadership shape the way global leaders exercise power and influence their followers?
Methodology
To conduct the qualitative portion of our research, we followed the conventions of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin et al., 2014; Gioia et al., 2012; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory is appropriate for answering how and why questions, exploring underresearched and undertheorized phenomena in the context in which they unfold (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and developing pragmatic theory that can be directly applied to practice (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin et al., 2014). These criteria make grounded theory an ideal methodology for exploring how and why the task, culture, and relationship complexities of global leadership shape the way global leaders exercise power and influence their followers. The use of power by global leaders is an undertheorized phenomenon in need of study in the context in which it unfolds using naturalistic data collection and bottom-up theory building to capture its dynamics in real place and time (Osland et al., 2017). The nature of global leaders' power is also a phenomenon that bridges theory and practice and can provide new insight to both scholars and practitioners.
Research Setting and Participants
To gain descriptive insights into the use and challenges of employing bases of power, we interviewed 23 global leaders from the automotive manufacturing and automotive component supply industries. One of us has worked globally for many years as a senior executive in automotive manufacturing and has extensive professional networks in the industry. Study participants were recruited from among these networks using snowball sampling (Biernacki & Waldorf, 2016). They included a combination of product development engineering leaders, component purchasing leaders, and business relationship leaders. They were located in China (6), Germany (1), Japan (4), the United Kingdom (1), and the United States (11) and led global followers in Australia, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The leaders ranged from first-level supervisors to vice presidents. Seventeen were men and six were women. See Table 2 for the list of global leaders interviewed.
List of Global Leader Interviewees.
| Leader Name, Gender |
Leader Nationality, Based In |
Follower 1 Nationality, Based In |
Follower 2 Nationality, Based In |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Craig, Male | United States, United States | Chinese, China | United Kingdom, United Kingdom |
| 2 | Emily, Female | United Kingdom, United States | Chinese, China | None |
| 3 | Tracy, Female | United States, United States | Mexican, Mexico | None |
| 4 | Felix, Male | United States, United States | Chinese, China | Indian, India |
| 5 | Michelle, Female | United States, United States | Indian, India | None |
| 6 | Jun, Male | Chinese, China | Indian, India | None |
| 7 | Keith, Male | United States, United States | United Kingdom, United Kingdom | None |
| 8 | Kyle, Male | United States, China | Chinese, China | None |
| 9 | Takahiro, Male | Japanese, United States | Japanese, Japan | None |
| 10 | Takuma, Male | Japanese, Japan | Japanese, United States | None |
| 11 | Yoshikane, Male | Japanese, Japan | Japanese, United States | None |
| 12 | Rokuro, Male | Japanese, Japan | Japanese, United States | None |
| 13 | Roy, Male | United States, United States | Chinese, China | Israeli, Israel |
| 14 | Herrick, Male | German, Germany | South Korean, South Korea | None |
| 15 | Bob, Male | United States, China | Indian, India | None |
| 16 | Dave, Male | United States, United States | Multiple | Multiple |
| 17 | Ann, Female | United States, United States | Multiple | Multiple |
| 18 | Dawn, Female | United States, United States | German, Germany | None |
| 19 | Liang, Male | Chinese, China | German, Germany | None |
| 20 | Mian, Male | Chinese, China | United States, United States | None |
| 21 | Wei, Male | Chinese, China | United States, United States | None |
| 22 | Li, Female | Chinese, China | Australian, Australia | None |
| 23 | Jie, Male | Chinese, China | United States, United States | None |
Data Collection
To conduct the interviews, we used the Critical Incident Interview technique (Flanagan, 1954). Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and was recorded and transcribed by a professional transcriptionist. In some cases, follow-up interviews were conducted to clarify understanding or to explore themes of interest in more depth. We began each interview by explaining the concept of global versus domestic leadership and asking interviewees to share stories, both positive and negative, of leading globally and leading domestically. As they told the stories, we probed for the ways in which they used their bases of power. We asked them to identify any challenges they faced and to share examples of how they addressed the challenges. Once the sequence of questions was completed, we asked them, “From your perspective, what are the differences between leading a global follower and domestic follower?” See Appendix A for our full interview guide.
Data Analysis
We used the four steps of the Gioia method (Gioia et al., 2012) to analyze our data: identifying first-order codes, second-order themes, aggregate dimensions, and developing a conceptual framework. In the first step, we identified key insights (first-order codes) described by participants, staying as close to their words as possible. For example, when describing interactions with a global follower, one participant said, “I explained the broader picture and why my version was better; he accepted it.” We coded this as “Bigger Picture.” In the second step, we organized our first-order codes into second-order themes to create more abstract, research-centric descriptors. “Bigger Picture” was combined with other first-order codes such as “Facts and Figures” and “Vision” to create the second-order theme of “Information.”
In the third step, we further abstracted our second-order themes into aggregate dimensions; wrote memos to explain them and give them conceptual richness (Charmaz, 2014; Gioia et al., 2012); and began to develop a conceptual framework about the complicating factors that influence the use of power by global leaders. We also examined the role of relationships in mitigating the negative impact of the complicating factors and allowing global leaders to gain influence by building understanding, trust, and interdependence. Finally, in the fourth step, we linked our conceptual framework to the literature to further elaborate our theoretical contribution.
Findings
In the following sections, we reveal five complicating factors (i.e., language, culture, time, distance, and matrix organizations) that global leaders encounter and how they increase the complexity these leaders face. We also discuss how high-quality relationships serve as a critical resource to counteract these complexities. Throughout our discussion, we use direct quotes from participants to illustrate our findings. The quotes are presented verbatim as spoken by the global leaders. In some instances, they appear to be poor translations or improper use of the English language that would typically require “[sic]” to indicate inaccuracy; however, the quotes are accurately represented. We have chosen not to use [sic] in order to illustrate more authentically the complexities of language in global leadership.
Complicating Factor #1: Language
Since the widespread emergence of multinational corporations during the late 1980s, global leaders have experienced a dramatic increase of interaction in numerous languages and with individuals who are communicating in a nonnative language (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). At one level, these interactions create new challenges for simply exchanging information. Language differences can make it difficult to achieve clear communication and complicate knowledge transfer across distance and differentiated contexts (Brannen et al., 2014).
At a deeper level, national, corporate, or technical languages create power dynamics by defining hierarchies, creating in-groups and out-groups, and clarifying or obfuscating understanding (Brannen et al., 2014). When left unchecked, language asymmetries can create fault lines and fuel us-versus-them subgroup dynamics (Hinds et al., 2014). Issues like these have led researchers to identify language as a key construct requiring additional development to reflect the realities of the field (Brannen et al., 2014, p. 495).
The Complexity of First Language to Second Language and Vice Versa
Our research was conducted in a global corporation based in the United States in which business is done primarily in English. This gives native English speakers a distinct advantage in matters of communication. As illustrated in Fig. 1, information power is usually the first step taken by a global leader when implementing a change request. However, when English is a second language for the global leader or the global follower, communicating information can be a challenge. As described by Takahiro, a Japanese leader leading teams in the United States: “To translate my expectations correctly, that is most important, that is most difficult sometimes.” This challenge was echoed by Takuma, another Japanese leader leading teams in the United States: “Language is difficult to overcome. Looking at from Japanese perspective, languages may have been the most difficult roadblock to overcome.”
Language can be a challenge for many reasons. One is that the same word can mean different things in different languages. For example, Tracy, an American leading teams in Mexico, told the story of working with a team of engineers in Sweden. For several months, Tracy and the Swedish engineers could not understand one another when discussing the role of “application engineers.” Finally, after much frustration and delay, Tracy realized that application engineers in the United States are not the same as application engineers in Sweden, explaining:
We spent two long months talking about application engineers, and in the US, application engineers are the people who release the hardware. And I'm like, “Why are they saying that the application engineers need to do the calibrations?” And then I was like “Oh, in Sweden, application engineers are the calibrators. In the US, our calibration engineers do that!”
Once Tracy and the Swedish engineers clarified the misunderstanding, the change initiative proceeded as planned.
A second reason why language can be challenging is that words are contextual, and nonnative speakers are often unaware of the contextual cues needed to support full understanding. Kyle, an American who leads teams in China, described this obstacle as follows:
Some Chinese followers don't understand even though we sit in the same room. They're working in a second language, and not all of them are good at capturing the context and the subtleties of what we're communicating by the language. They hear the words, they know the words, but they don't necessarily get the context.
A third reason is the speed and amount of information communicated by native language speakers. Roy, an American leading teams globally, provided a vivid illustration of this dynamic: “Even if some [non-native-English-speakers] read really quickly, and some of them also hear pretty well, to ask them all to do both at the same time during a rapid presentation of 98 slides is just completely insane!”
The Complexity of Second Language to Second Language
A global leader who is speaking in a second language to a global follower who is listening in a second language has a compounded challenge to overcome. Both the leader and the follower need to translate what they are saying and hearing into their respective native languages and then back again into the second language, over and over again. As described by Yoshikane, a Japanese leader leading teams in the United States:
It's easier in the US, because you just speak English, and most of the Japanese at least understand English. But other regions, like Germany, they're very good English speakers as well, but English is their second language and our second language, so we have to communicate back-and-forth, back-and-forth using what's different from our mother tongue.
Jun, a Chinese leader leading teams in India, described how the speed and amount of information communicated can be an obstacle in second-language-to-second-language situations:
India speak English sometimes I cannot understand. They speak very quick and fast and where you cannot catch up their point. At the very beginning, some of my engineer working India, they talking, and I can't capture what they talking about. I saw it as my English is not good. I ask some American guy, they says they even cannot understand, either. So, I think is just to the language problem. [sic]
Notably, the factor of language was mentioned by nine out of 11 nonnative English-speaking global leaders who were interviewed. Only three of 12 native English speakers mentioned it. This suggests that many native English-speaking global leaders may not fully appreciate the complicating factor of language when requesting a change from their global followers in the English language.
The Complexity of Cultural Nuances in How Information Is Relayed
Differences in communication between high-context and low-context cultures (Hall, 1989) were highlighted by global leaders during the interviews. Yoshikane, a Japanese leader leading teams in the United States, explained that, culturally, the delivery and presentation of information is different between Japanese speakers and US speakers. He suggested that Japanese leaders deliver partial amounts of information and then expect followers to interpret meaning for themselves, whereas European and American leaders attempt to provide more complete information:
Japanese doesn't say everything, just some 50%, 70% explanation. Then receiver side try to understand 90%. The other country, example European country or I think US as well, the talker side, sender side, is trying to explain everything, maybe 80%, 90%, more than Japan. Receiver side is not necessary to try to read the mind. This is, I think, different culture.
Dawn, an American leading teams in Germany, told a similar story:
Germans speak English, and they hear the English, but if it's not your mother tongue, it's very hard to know if they really, really comprehend. So, I think there's a bit of a language barrier. And, I think their culture, which is a lot more “clear and concise,” I think there's a lack of comprehension of what I'm saying, as well.
Yoshikane and Dawn demonstrate that the challenge in communicating is not related to an understanding of the English language alone but also to a cultural difference in how the information is relayed. According to Yoshikane, information presented by a Japanese manager is left open to allow for interpretation by the receiver. In the United States, there is less of a requirement by the follower to interpret the information. In Germany, it is exactly the opposite. According to Dawn, German followers want clarity and precision while American leaders allow for more interpretation. Recognizing these cultural communication differences is important for global leaders to minimize their confounding effect on change requests.
Complicating Factor #2: Culture
Another complicating factor on a global leader's bases of power is the cultural differences between the global leader and global follower. The global leaders we interviewed identified differences in the way Eastern global followers and Western global followers interact with hierarchical structure. They affirmed that Eastern global followers are generally more accepting of hierarchy based on legitimate power of position than Western global followers. Felix, an American leading teams in multiple countries, gave a high-level summary of four global cultures:
China is a very top-down society. Rarely do you get into a situation, you ask someone to do something, they don't follow it. India, on the other hand, is very different. Every issue that you bring up requires debate and engineering analysis. Europeans are always asking, “Does this fit in my time and the timing I have?” And, with North Americans, everybody wants to jump to actions right away.
Although Felix's comments reflect broad generalizations, they align with the work by Hofstede (1980) and with results of the GLOBE (2019) study in which China (5.04) demonstrates a higher power distance compared to the United States (4.88), India (5.92) demonstrates a higher in-group collectivism compared to the United States (4.25), England (4.65) and Germany (5.16) demonstrate a slighter higher uncertainty avoidance compared to the United States (4.15), and the United States demonstrates a higher performance orientation compared to all four of the other countries (4.49 for the United States, 4.45 for India, 4.25 for China, 4.08 for England, and 4.09 for Germany).
The Complexities of Culture and Legitimate Power of Position
Cultural differences in the use of legitimate power of position were described by many leaders in our study. Li, a Chinese leader leading teams in both China and in the United States, suggested that legitimate power of position carries much more weight in China than it does in the United States. She shared the following vignette:
My mentor asked me, “Li, if you ask your team in China to finish a task, what confidence level you have they will follow your direction?” I said, “Yeah. I think I have 90% confidence they will do it.” Then, he asked me, “Li, think about it. If you have a team in the US, what confidence level you have they will follow your direction?” I said, “Maybe 50%.” Then my mentor said, “If you can get 50% in the US, you are already very lucky.”
Despite the legitimate power of position, culture often determines how direct a global leader can be when making a change request. For Western cultures, the change request can be very direct, while for Eastern cultures, the change request is less direct and presented more as a suggestion. As described by Takahiro, “American members, when I ask them to do something, so maybe I ask very directly. Sometimes in Japanese discussion, we avoid to use direct sentence. For example, ‘please do that;’ we don't say that to nobody.”
The Complexities of Culture and Personal Reward Power
Culture can also complicate the use of personal reward power. During our interviews with Mian and Wei, two Chinese leaders leading teams in the United States, they explained that personal recognition is valued by both the Chinese and US followers, but the ways in which it is given and received differs by culture. Wei explains:
In U.S., the way we want to tell people that they did a good job, always could be very straightforward. We always know that they will be happy that they are told, but in China, even we know that people want to know that they are really recognized, but the way we tell them should be a more like a hidden way or a softer way.
To expand on the idea, Mian used the analogy of paying someone a compliment. Although both the Chinese and Americans like to receive compliments, the responses vary by culture:
In China culture, if you say, “Okay, you look handsome,” the response is, “No, no, no, no. I'm okay.” But in U.S., if you say, “Hey you are handsome,” the response is, “Thank you.” That's the culture and the differences. They respond in different way, but if you say, “You are handsome,” everyone is happy. I don't care it's in U.S. or in China, everyone's happy.
The Complexities of Culture and Personal Coercive Power
Global leaders also need to be aware of cultural differences when using personal coercive power. As described by Herrick when assessing how to give feedback to his global followers, the culture of the follower is important to consider. He explained, “I would've been more soft on India, and I would've been very careful that the person in India is not losing his face.” Conversely, when dealing with his German followers, Herrick “would be super direct.” As described by Herrick, “I have a person sitting right now that is a German in Japan in my organization, and in German, I think I would be extremely to the point.”
The Complexities of Aligning National and Organizational Cultures
Our research suggests that, while national cultures typically supersede organizational cultures, organizational cultures at the global and local levels affect a leader's legitimate power of position. If the organization has a strong global organizational culture, the global leader will have stronger legitimate power of position. Conversely, if the organization has a strong local organizational culture, the global leader will have less legitimate power of position.
A strong global organizational culture can help to strengthen a global leader's legitimate power of position especially when the global organizational culture is desired or when a local counterpart is a relatively new organization that lacks a distinct culture of its own. As described by Keith:
Look at China, where it was new recruits, early on I think they were brought into the company, and it was “Hey, we want to do things globally and here's our process, and this is what we want to do.” I saw China really wanting to be part of our company globally, and really wanting to do the same processes that we do globally.
In this situation, the desire of the Chinese organization to be a part of the company globally and the lack of a preexisting or conflicting local organizational culture produced followers more willing to accept the global leader's legitimate power of position.
Conversely, organizational culture can also reduce a global leader's legitimate power of position. Established organizations have their own local culture and identity, which can make them resistant to outside influence. The primary company we studied had a North American, European, and Chinese division, and at times, there were tensions between the North American and European divisions. Keith described his view of the situation: “Europe wanted to be autonomous, they wanted to do some things differently, there's different reporting chains, and you're not there on a daily basis, so sometimes it was a struggle.” Europe's efforts to remain autonomous and resist centralized control constrained Keith's legitimate power of position.
Complicating Factor #3: Time Zones
The lack of time zone overlap between the global leader and global follower can complicate a global leader's bases of power. Roy described the challenge during his interview: “If you don't stay on top of the time zone thing by having a rhythm with your team, it'll eat you alive.” Time zones have a particularly strong effect on information power. As a global leader works across time zones, their ability to interface directly with the global follower is limited. For example, US leaders working with Chinese, Japanese, or South Korean teams have no standard working hours of overlap. All direct audio or video communication needs to take place during nonstandard business hours. As Bob describes:
Leading a global team can be tricky if you've only got three to four hours a day on the same time zone and then it's...your window is limited. When I'm in the U.S. operating with a China team, you've got 6:00 in the morning or 7:00–9:00 at night, and over time, that gets exhausting.
As established previously, information power is the first and most important base of power used by global leaders when leading change. Lack of time zone overlap with global followers constrains direct communication and limits the global leader's ability to communicate, clarify information, and ensure understanding, especially across differences in language and culture. This effect was further described by Bob:
Living in China and trying to interact with the U.S. and European teams, over time...that can wear you down. I've had physically more demanding jobs in the U.S. where I was responsible for the North America region and Mexico, and I was traveling all over, but because I could pick up the phone and have a conversation right there where I needed to with the Mexico team [because they were on the same or a similar time zone], it was much easier and way more efficient.
A reduced flow of information back to the global leader limits the global leader's ability to determine if current bases of power are successful or if additional bases of power need to be employed. This extended feedback loop is described by Tracy: “One request actually took a good two months because of people in multiple time zones. We never got in sync about who was doing what and what was needed. That was a hard one, because I'm usually done in a day or so, you know? Maybe a week.” Jun provided a similar example. He explained that in one case, it took him an extra month before he found out his global follower had made no progress on a particular change request. Jun said, “It takes almost a month for me to find out. I told him this is pretty urgent, but I feel very aware he just do not start doing the work and do not tell me.”
To address the challenges of extended feedback times, global leaders are required to be more proactive in their follow-up and ask their global followers for frequent updates to ensure progress is made. As Herrick describes:
If you have people in many time zones, then you have to do a more closed loop move control. That means I give new direction, once direction is given, I have follow-up that is very close to the day that I gave that direction.
Many of the global leaders that we interviewed shared similar feedback on requiring direct follow-up after the change request is made and allowing extra time for the change to be implemented compared with a request that is made domestically.
Complicating Factor #4: Physical Distance
A fourth complicating factor is physical distance. Like time zones, physical distance reduces the ability of the global leader to utilize information power when making a change request. Distance requires global leaders to use forms of communication, such as audio, video, and email that are less rich than face-to-face interaction. Herrick, a German leading teams in Japan, explained the challenge this way: “There is very little feedback visually and verbally to know if the person on the other side understood. So, if this direction was given through let's say phone conference, I would have no understanding if it was received properly.” With limited feedback from the followers, global leaders are required to rely on the followers' questions, and ultimately, on evidence of progress made toward task completion to determine if the change request was understood and accepted. This dependence on the followers' questions and progress toward task completion often delays the change initiative and frustrates both the global leader and the global followers with late deliveries and rework. Bob described his experience as an American working in China while leading teams face-to-face in China and remotely in India:
Where in China, reading body language, both mine and theirs, and showing interest in the project, it was simpler to keep the project moving along. The team knew I was interested in it, and they could see it. While, in India, had I not plugged in and ensured all the influencers fully grasped the why, we would regularly lose two or three weeks, and all of a sudden something wasn't progressed, and you're putting the full project at risk.
Physical distance can also limit global leaders' ability to leverage the value of relationships. As we will detail further below, many of the global leaders we interviewed highlighted the importance of relationships with global followers as a counterbalance to the complexities of language, culture, time zones, and distance. As a global leader establishes high-quality relationships with global followers, there is a corresponding increase of trust and understanding between the leader and follower, which facilitates alignment and action. Physical distance can make it difficult to form strong relationships and establish the necessary levels of trust, understanding, and alignment to facilitate efficient and effective action.
Complicating Factor #5: Matrix Organizations
A fifth complicating factor is matrix organizational structures (Ford & Randolph, 1992; Moodley et al., 2016). In our research, 36% of global leaders were in some form of matrixed relationship with their global followers (Hinds, 2020). In matrix organizations, global followers have dual reporting relationships. They report to both a global leader and a local, in-region leader. In the automotive manufacturing and component supply industries, the global leader is typically responsible for operational and functional tasks – such as product strategy, technology roadmaps, market and sales strategies, workload distribution, production schedules, cost controls, and quality assurance – while the in-region leader is responsible for organizational and in-region tasks – such as regional customer and product specifications, regional business unit targets, facilities support (e.g., building, seating, equipment, technology), development plans, and performance reviews, which influence compensation and benefits.
In this scenario, the global leader's power is often constrained because the in-region leader has a stronger basis for positional and coercive power vis-à-vis the global follower than does the global leader. The in-region leader has direct, face-to-face, tangible (resources, evaluation, compensation, benefits) interaction and influence with the global follower, whereas the interaction and influence of the global leader are typically indirect (mediated through the in-region leader), virtual (by phone or video conference), periodic, and strategic (i.e., higher level).
The in-region leader also has a strong basis for information power. The global leader may have superior access to certain kinds of expertise, information, networks, and resources needed by the global follower, but differences of language, culture, time zones, and geographical distance can cause the global leader to be dependent on the in-region leader to serve as translator or mediator to the global follower. This requires the global leader and the in-region leader be well aligned in their goals, direction, and communication with the global follower. As described by Ann, an American leading teams in China, Australia, and Germany:
In reality, [the in-region leader] is probably walking down and talking to the followers and not keeping me in the loop all the time, so I needed to know that they're going to be giving direction every day. I need to make sure we're aligned constantly so that their direction is consistent with my direction.
If the in-region leader is not aligned with the global leader, the follower may experience a lack of support or conflicting direction, and progress on the work may be impeded. Jun, a China-based global leader leading teams in India described just such a situation: “The main reason I found, finally, is the [in-region] leader based in India, disagree to do the [global follower's assignment]. But he doesn't tell me directly because he's working in India.”
Cases like Jun's create additional work for the global leader. The global leader must not only try to influence the global follower directly but also influence the in-region leader to create consensus on what needs to be done, how, and why. The global leader is effectively making a second change request of the in-region leader and needs to employ similar bases of power. Global leaders may need to employ information power and expert power with the in-region leader to explain why the change request was made. Global leaders may also appeal to network resources, rely on previous relationships, or even resort to position power and coercive power with the in-region matrix leader to gain support for the change request. However, it is often difficult to exercise power of position or coercive power with in-region leaders due to the differences in language, culture, time zones, and geographical distance previously discussed. During his interview, Jun commented on the increased effort required to work with the in-region leader to convince them of the change request: “It was very long, several rounds. At least one week, we take one week, while we have four or five meetings in that week.”
High-Quality Relationships as an Antidote to Complexity
While the participants in our study demonstrated how language, culture, time zones, distance, and matrix organizational structures make the exercise of power highly complex for global leaders, they also explained how high-quality relationships based on interdependence, understanding, and trust can serve as an enabling resource.
Interdependence
Recognizing the tight interdependence between global leaders and global followers is an essential first step in establishing high-quality relationships. Global leaders are highly dependent on the cultural and operational expertise of their global followers, and global followers are highly dependent on the strategic and organizational expertise of their global leaders. This dynamic creates a form of reciprocal interdependence (Castañer & Ketokivi, 2018) in which each needs the other to succeed. As described by Emily, a global leader leading teams in China:
Getting across the fact that their [global follower's] input is as important to defining the solution as mine is key for me, because I don't have all the answers. The people that work for me know a lot more about the detail of the everyday mechanics than I do.
In a context of reciprocal interdependence, global leaders and global followers join in a form of shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Wassenaar & Pearce, 2018), a dynamic, interactive influence process in which each brings their unique knowledge and expertise. As described by Roy, an engineering executive overseeing multiple global locations:
I think that you can put together whatever structure you want, but if you have a leader who's not willing or able to hand over decision making to their team, it doesn't matter how you structure it. But if you give people more power, give people more authority, hire people into those positions, then the structure will flow.
In a shared leadership relationship, the global leader and global follower actively and intentionally shift the role of leader to one another as needed by the circumstances. Global leaders rely on global followers to provide region-based knowledge to determine next steps (cf. Neeley & Reiche, 2022). As they do so, they begin by asking questions to understand the perspectives of their global followers.
Understanding
Global leaders identified understanding between themselves and their global followers as another essential step in establishing high-quality relationships. They described a need for understanding around language, expertise, and culture. At the level of language, they built understanding by using simpler words and less complex sentences, and they slowed down the delivery of the information. They provided backup materials in the form of detailed specifications or background information, and they wrote things down (e.g., Word docs, PowerPoint, emails, instant messaging [IM]). They exchanged written information on key points prior to a discussion and then followed up after the discussion with a written summary and agreements. They also followed up with supplemental verbal communication after discussions or asked another native language speaker to help with the message delivery. Finally, they allowed extra time for their messages whether written or verbal. They reported that preparing, delivering, and following up on key messages was enormously time-consuming, but it provided overall time savings by building understanding and strengthening relationships with nonnative speakers.
At the level of expertise, the global leaders built understanding by asking questions, listening, and entering into a mutual cocreative process with their global followers. This allowed them to gain insight into regional and cultural differences, increase engagement, and strengthen working relationships with global followers. Takuma, a Japanese global leader leading teams in the United States, said:
The one thing I have learned is listening is more important than you can speak. Listening is first, but it's not listening is only the one requirement. It's a surface unless you understand and come out with something as a proposal. So, I think the three layers, first you have to listen. Second, you digest it and understand fully or you will never share the sympathy or the common ground. Without having that, there is no way that you're going to move on to the next solution together.
Ann shared a similar perspective, saying:
To gain understanding, I propose to the stakeholders, “This is what I'm thinking. What do you think? Do you have any different ideas? It's a blank slate. Provide me input, and let's create it together. What's the best situation for you and for all of us to deliver?”
Trust
As global leaders and global followers recognize their interdependence and work to understand one another, they begin to develop trust which forms the basis of a strong working relationship. However, establishing trust can be a complicated process. First, global leaders need to establish that they have the global followers' best interests in mind when making decisions or making a change request. Michelle, an American leading teams globally, described this first step as displaying “genuineness and that empathy for caring about what they [global followers] think, is really critical to build that trust.” Next, global leaders need to demonstrate consistency in their concern for their global follower over time. Global leaders need to demonstrate that over multiple change requests and an extended time period, the global follower's interests are considered along with organization interests. As described by Felix, a global leader leading teams in China and India, “People need to have a sense of trust over time, and if you've been there time and again to help them out, to get them through situations, they are willing to work with you a little bit easier.”
By establishing trust with the global follower, global leaders strengthen their bases of power with global followers. The result is that when the global leader makes a change request, the global follower will require fewer forms of influence. This observation was described by Jie, a Chinese global leader: “if you have a really good relationship and he [global follower] respects you, he understands you very well, he will follow. Although he could not understand why you ask him to do so.”
Building trust between global leaders and global followers was often accomplished with simple events of mutual involvement or sharing outside of work. Getting together with families and sharing meals were described by global leaders as an opportunity to exchange cultures and have conversations on personal subjects. For example, Emily, a British leader working in the United States and leading teams in China, described the following events during one of her visits:
This last occasion I was in China in April. I stayed in Nanjing over a weekend, and it made me smile because they started suggesting things for me to do. And it became quite obvious quickly that they intended to all do it with me. I said, “Well, I don't want to take up your entire weekend!” In the UK, the thought of spending a weekend touring your boss around the city, would never be considered. But, they actually wanted to do it. So, we went out one day over the weekend, and they brought their families and children with them, and we went to a museum, we went out to a park, and we went for a nice lunch. And everybody was interacting like it was a group of friends.
Emily's experience with her Chinese followers demonstrated a willingness by the followers to expand their relationship with Emily to include personal aspects of themselves.
Ann, a US global leader leading teams in China, also used activities outside of the organization to build relationships. She found that sharing personal information invited global followers to share personal information in return. These in-depth exchanges strengthened the relationship between her and her global followers:
I met a lot of the families in China. They were very family-oriented. On nights and weekends, I would see what they were doing. Can I join you? Can I learn a little bit more about your family and build a better personal connection? I find when I give them a little bit of myself and my family, they are also sharing, and we become a bigger extended family.
In-person meetings and visits between a global leader and global follower were also mentioned as having a positive effect on the relationship that extended beyond the individual time the global leader and global follower were together. As described by Michelle: “Once you meet them a couple times face-to-face and you have some really good conversation, you can maintain that relationship globally.”
Finally, another way global leaders improved their relationship with global followers was to rotate meeting times to balance the inconvenience of meeting outside of standard working hours. Jie, a Chinese global leader, said: “Sometimes we work very late at night, and sometimes they work very late at night.” Switching the responsibility of who worked outside of standard working hours demonstrates a respect and strengthens the relationship between the global leader and global follower.
Discussion
High-Quality Relationships as an Enabling Resource
In this study, we set out to understand the complexities that shape the way global leaders exercise power and influence followers and to develop theory about how global leaders manage those complexities. The complexities include language, culture, time zones, geographical distance, and matrix organizational structures, and global leaders deal with these complexities by building high-quality relationships with their global followers based on interdependence, understanding, and trust. We propose these high-quality relationships as a power-enabling resource that is underdeveloped in existing literature. French and Raven (1959), Raven (1965), and Raven et al. (1998) discuss “referent power” at length and define it as a “feeling of membership [and a desire] to maintain this relationship” (French & Raven, 1959, p. 266). The example we cited earlier in which Keith was working with new recruits in China who wanted to identify with and be part of Keith's globally recognized company is an example of referent power. The new Chinese recruits wanted a “feeling of membership and a desire to maintain a relationship” with Keith's well-respected brand.
Referent power, however, is distinct from the kind of high-quality relationships we heard described by the participants in our study. Referent power implies a one-way relationship in which the global follower is influenced by the global leader. The global follower's respect and desire to be part of the global leader's organization increases the global leader's referent power over the global follower. High-quality relationships, on the other hand, imply a two-way relationship in which the global leader personally understands and responds to the interests of the global follower and vice versa. This personal connection between the global leader and global follower yields empathy, understanding, and fresh insights and allows the global leader to gain higher levels of influence with the global follower. This understanding of relationships as an enabling resource is supported conceptually by the literature on the prosocial side of power, leader–member exchange (LMX), and positive relationships, which we explore below.
Prosocial Power
Dominant theories of power suggest that the experience of power is associated with a sense of freedom and that power therefore makes people feel independent of others (Keltner et al., 2003). Power leads people to an egocentric focus on their own needs and to act in ways that are attentive primarily to personal goals and rewards rather than to the needs of others (Magee & Smith, 2013; Rucker et al., 2012). However, research has shown that there are both personal and contextual factors that can moderate the egocentric effects of power in favor of prosocial approaches. In particular, social psychological and organizational research has linked the prosocial experience of power with feelings of responsibility (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Handgraaf et al., 2008). This prosocial view of power holds that power is intimately tied to social norms and moral obligations that constrain powerholders to act benevolently toward others.
Tost and Johnson (2019) demonstrated that in collaborative settings such as teams and organizations, power often induces a sense of responsibility to those over whom one has power. This sense of responsibility is driven by two mechanisms: (1) norms about the benevolent use of power in organizations and (2) awareness that subordinates are dependent on the powerholder, and vice versa, for their success. The sense of responsibility, in turn, induces feelings of solidarity or identification between powerholder and subordinates, which in turn leads powerholders to engage in behavioral solidarity, i.e., behaviors that prioritize subordinates' interests over powerholders' self-interests.
This idea of behavioral solidarity based on benevolent power norms and dependency awareness is congruent with Neeley and Reiche's (2022) construct of downward deference, i.e., the practice of submitting to individuals with lower positional power. In contexts where global leaders have limited expertise and face unfamiliar languages, cultures, and regulatory regimes, global leaders recognize their dependence on global followers and enact strategies of behavioral solidarity to reduce social distance between themselves and their subordinates and to yield to subordinates' expertise. Our work extends Neeley and Reiche's (2022) findings to suggest that, in addition to dependency awareness, benevolent power norms within an organization help to support behavioral solidarity and strengthen high-quality relationships. This was reflected in many comments by global leaders in our study. For example, Jun, a Chinese leader leading teams in India and Australia, emphasized norms of respect and empathy:
You have to respect [your global followers] and showing your respect. So, I mean, showing your respect is you have to listen to their voice and understand why they don't want to do it or why they are different directions than you, what's their rationale or what's their logic. And also, you have to stand in their shoes and understand why their behavior is like this.
Similarly, Michelle, an American leading teams globally, emphasized norms of joy, appreciation, and love. She said:
I genuinely find leaders that really are centered and really have a joy and appreciation for general human beings, do much better as global leaders. Because it's a common denominator. Doesn't matter what culture, doesn't matter what time zone you're in, if you really genuinely love people, it's just going to show.
Thus, following Tost and Johnson (2019), we argue that high-quality relationships in complex contexts of global leadership may in part be activated by norms of benevolent power in the global leader's organization and by global leaders' awareness of the ways in which they are interdependent with global followers. Norms of benevolent power and awareness of interdependence, in turn, lead global leaders to identify with global followers and engage in acts of behavioral solidarity, i.e., acting in ways that prioritize the subordinates' interests.
LMX
The literature on leader–member exchange (LMX) also helps to explain our findings. LMX is a relational approach to leadership (Anand et al., 2011; Bauer & Erdogan, 2015) that examines the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers. High-quality LMX relationships are characterized by high mutual trust, respect, and reciprocity and are associated with a range of performance indicators, such as higher member task performance (Bauer et al., 2006), extra-role behaviors (Ilies et al., 2007), job satisfaction (Harris et al., 2009), creativity (Liao et al., 2010), and lowered intention to leave (Bauer et al., 2006; Harris et al., 2009).
High-quality LMX relationships are disproportionately influenced by leaders because leaders generally have more control in the relationship than do followers (Nahrgang et al., 2009). Specifically, factors like leader expectations of follower success (Liden et al., 1993), transformational leadership behaviors (Anand et al., 2011), leader trust (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), and affect or liking (Wayne & Ferris, 1990) are positively related to LMX quality. Thus, in relationships between global leaders and global followers, it is incumbent upon global leaders to take the initiative in developing high-quality LMX relationships with their global followers, as expressed by Dave in our study:
I always try to start off with understanding how they think, what they think, what their vision is, what their strategy is, and trying to be a good listener and being a good partner with them. I think if you work on the fundamentals of the relationship, then that goes a long way, and you leverage that relationship not only in tough times but on an ongoing basis.
Consistent with our findings, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) describe the development of these LMX relationships in terms of a process of maturation. The process begins with a “stranger” phase, in which the leader and follower come together as strangers. Leaders typically provide followers only with what they need to perform, and followers behave only as required and do only their prescribed role. If things go well, the relationship moves to the “acquaintance” stage of development. In this stage, increased social exchanges occur between the leader and follower, and the leader and follower begin to share greater information and resources, both on a personal and work level. The third stage is classified as “mature partnerships” and is congruent with our notion of high-quality relationships. The leader and follower understand one another and count on each other for loyalty and support. Their exchanges are not only behavioral but also emotional based on mutual respect, trust, and obligation to one another's growth and success. There is a high degree of reciprocal influence and shared leadership. Leaders can count on the followers to provide them with assistance when needed, and followers can rely on the leaders for needed support, encouragement, and career investments.
In one recent study, researchers explored high-quality LMX relationships in organizations that crossed multicultural boundaries (Tong et al., 2020). Like us, they found that both individual-level and organizational-level factors were significant to establishing high-quality relationships between global leaders and followers. At the individual level, the characteristic of collectivism contributed positively to high-quality LMX, while individualism did not. At the organizational level, based on the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) cultures emphasizing internal integration (clan and hierarchy cultures) supported high-quality LMX relationships, while those emphasizing external differentiation (adhocracy and market cultures) did not.
These findings suggest that high-quality global leader and global follower relationships and high-quality LMX relationships may be isomorphic, both dependent on interdependence, respect, understanding, trust, and reciprocity, and both relying on the leader to take the initiative in providing support, encouragement, and investment in their followers' success. The findings also suggest that global leaders need to be aware of the cultural differences among their followers and be flexible with their leadership style.
Positive Relationships
Research in positivity is another area where our research on global leader's power finds parallels. In an article by Youssef and Luthans (2012), the authors present the idea of positive global leadership as an extension of the studies on positivity and flourishing. The authors build on positive organizational behavior (POB), which has been defined as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement” (Luthans, 2002, p. 59).
In their research, Youssef and Luthans (2012) discuss how global leaders who embrace positivity promote outcomes that can overcome three unique global leader challenges: physical distance, structural distance, and psychological or social distance. Positive global leaders will “affirmatively” engage with global followers to develop “strengths and capabilities toward new possibilities” (p. 543). The researchers propose that extended positive interactions build the confidence of the global follower and reduce the effects of the global leader complexities. Over extended time, the global leader and global follower relationship may evolve into “one of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual appreciation, rather than dependence and mentorship. (Youssef & Luthans, p. 543)”
Youssef and Luthans' (2012) description of the outcome of extended positive interactions parallels the relationships that our research discusses. In the context of bases of power, our research found that as a global leader establishes a strong relationship with global followers, their high-quality relationship lessens the global leader complexities of language, culture, distance, time, and organization structure. High-quality relationships, like positive global leadership, build on the strengths of the interactions and the unique cultural and regional knowledge of the global follower.
Theoretical Contributions
As encouraged by Osland et al. (2017), our research advances the field of global leadership by empirically testing and theorizing about the “significant levels of task and relationship complexity” inherent in leading globally (Reiche et al., 2017, p. 556). It identifies five complexity factors global leaders must overcome when using bases of power to request a change of the global follower. The complicating factors of language separation, cultural separation, work hours temporal separation, geographic separation, and nonaligned matrix managers can all contribute to reducing global leaders' bases of power. A conceptual framework of the factors is shown in Fig. 2. The framework presents how, as a global leader attempts to influence a global follower, the complicating factors reduce the effect of the influence attempt.
As a leader uses the most important base of power, information power, the five complicating factors inhibit the global leader's ability to present information clearly. The complexity factor of language separation reduces the richness of the exchange and potentially dilutes the importance of the change request for the leader, follower, or the organization. Similar to the study of Ghanaian leadership (Gyamfi & Lee, 2020), cultural separation can also contribute to how the new information is perceived. As shown in their study, global followers consider the source of the information when listening to global leaders. Temporal separation and geographic separation can also contribute to reductions in the ability for global leaders to share information with global followers. With the potential for reduced overlap in working hours and challenges in meeting face-to-face, there are increased challenges to have a rich exchange of information. Nonaligned peer matrix leaders also contribute to a global leader's complexity. When a global leader and their peer matrix manager are not aligned, the global follower is confronted with opposing influences creating conflict between the involved individuals.
Our research identifies high-quality relationships as an enabling factor that contributes to increasing the influence of the global leader when requesting a change of a global follower. If the global leader and follower have a strong relationship, it acts as a counterbalance to the complexity factors. The global leader will have a stronger influence over the global follower even if the information exchange may not be as clear. Additionally, an aligned peer matrix manager can assist with overcoming the complexity factors by speaking the follower's native language and working in the same region. As new global leadership research is conducted, it is important that the complexity factors and enhancing factors are considered. Complexity factors are in many ways unique to global leaders and increase the challenge of the global leader to lead compared to domestic leaders.
An additional contribution of our research highlights the importance of language separation between native English-speaking global leaders and nonnative English-speaking global leaders. The complexity factor of language was expressed by nine out of 11 nonnative English-speaking global leaders interviewed. Conversely, only three of 12 native English speakers commented on language as a complexity factor on bases of power. From these results, it appears native English-speaking global leaders may not fully appreciate the language factor when requesting a change request from their global followers. This outcome further supports the importance of language discussed by language researchers in international business studies (Brannen et al., 2014; Henderson, 2005).
Practical Implications
Our research looked at each base of power independently; however, in practical application, the use of bases of power is much more complex and will involve not only the base of power that is being employed by the global leader but also include a constellation of powers (Raven et al., 1998, p. 309). A constellation of powers refers to the collection of experiences and characteristics of the global leader. The participants in our study identified five important bases of power in a global leader's constellation of powers: legitimate power of dependency, legitimate power of position, referent power, expert power, and impersonal reward power. They described power of position, expert power, and referent power to be of particular importance. These three powers were also indirectly identified by Neeley and Reiche (2022) when they identified “downward deference” in some global leaders. As defined in their research, downward deference involves behaviors to (1) reduce social distance – reducing legitimate power of position and increasing referent power of the global leader, and (2) yielding to the expertise of subordinates – recognizing expert power in the global follower.
Our research on global leaders' bases of power also has practical implications for industry and leadership curriculum programs. Global leader training should include a discussion on the complexities that confront global leaders and the methods that global leaders can use to overcome them. Global leader training should highlight the complexity that language, culture, distance, and time zones introduce. These complexities may make it more difficult to communicate and establish relationships. The complexity of matrix organizations should also be recognized in training. As part of their training, global leaders need to learn and develop methods to offset these complexities.
Future Research and Limitations
The goal of this study was to understand how global leaders influence their global followers when making a change request. Our research showed how the complexities of language and cultural differences, and time zone and geographic separation affect the global leader's influence. The study provided examples of how these complexities inhibit the global leader's ability to provide clear information to global followers and limit forms of rich communication between the leader and follower which restrict the establishment of trusting relationships. At the same time, the study introduces additional future research questions on the global leader complexities.
A future study could look to determine the individual impact of each of the complexity factors and explore the degree to which relationships can offset the complexities. A longitudinal study would provide additional insights on how the factors change with extended interactions. This study further highlighted the importance of language as a factor in the interaction between global leaders and followers. Continuing to understand the full range of impact of language on interactions and what contributes to a rich information exchange between a global leader and global follower who do not have a native common language is a third study opportunity.
Our study has three primary limitations. The first is related to the characteristics of our sample. Interviewing global leaders that differ more significantly with regard to their variety and depth of previous experience in a global context would increase the richness of the findings. The second limitation is the narrow scope of industry and functional domains. All the global leaders interviewed were from the automotive manufacturing industry, and all were from engineering, purchasing, or project management. The automotive industry is externally regulated by governments, highly capital-intensive with low margins, and with project timelines that extend over multiple years. These organizational characteristics are relatively rare and tend toward high levels of project control and organizational bureaucracy. This narrow focus may limit the generalizability of our findings and calls for future research into other industries and functional domains.
The third limitation is that only global leaders were interviewed, not global followers. There is an implicit assumption that the global leader accurately understands why the global follower made the change and that the global leader fully understands the nature and extent of their power. Future research should include the perspective of global followers along with the perspective of the global leaders.
This chapter presented complexities and enhancing factors experienced by global leaders when attempting to influence global followers. Identification of these factors helps provide global leaders insights on their efforts to improve their individual performance, improve their relationship with followers, and advance the agenda of their organization.
References
Anand et al., 2011 Anand, S. , Hu, J. , Liden, R. C. , & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future (pp. 311–325). The Sage handbook of leadership.
Bauer and Erdogan, 2015 Bauer, T. N. , & Erdogan, B. (2015). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: An introduction and overview. In Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 3–9).
Bauer et al., 2006 Bauer, T. N. , Erdogan, B. , Liden, R. C. , & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 298. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.298
Biernacki and Waldorf, 2016 Biernacki, P. , & Waldorf, D. (2016). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205
Brannen et al., 2014 Brannen, M. Y. , Piekkari, R. , & Tietze, S. (2014). The multifacted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.24
Cameron and Quinn, 2011 Cameron, K. S. , & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
Cartwright and Zander, 1968 Cartwright, D. , & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics.
Castañ er and Ketokivi, 2018 Castañer, X. , & Ketokivi, M. (2018). Toward a theory of organizational integration. In B. Silverman (Ed.), Advances in strategic management (Vol. 40, pp. 53–80). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Charmaz, 2014 Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.
Corbin et al., 2014 Corbin, J. , Strauss, A. , & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage Publishing.
Dahl, 1957 Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
Flanagan, 1954 Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/cit-article.pdf
Ford and Randolph, 1992 Ford, R. C. , & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800204
French and Raven, 1959 French, J. R. P. , & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
Gioia et al., 2012 Gioia, D. A. , Corley, K. G. , & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Glaser and Strauss, 1967 Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 12, 27.
GLOBE, 2019 GLOBE . (2019). An overview of the 2004 study: Understanding the relationship between national culture, societal effectiveness and desirable leadership attributes. GLOBE 2020. https://globeproject.com/study_2004_2007
Goffman, 1956 Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502.
Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995 Graen, G. B. , & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Grant and Parker, 2009 Grant, A. M. , & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 273–331.
Gyamfi and Lee, 2020 Gyamfi, N. Y. A. , & Lee, Y. (2020). Toward a framework of contextualized assets and liabilities in global leadership: Identity and power implications in an African context. In Advances in global leadership (Vol. 12, pp. 79–108). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320190000012006
Hall, 1989 Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. Anchor.
Handgraaf et al., 2008 Handgraaf, M. J. , Van Dijk, E. , Vermunt, R. C. , Wilke, H. A. , & De Dreu, C. K. (2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1136
Harris et al., 2009 Harris, K. J. , Harris, R. B. , & Brouer, R. L. (2009). LMX and subordinate political skill: Direct and interactive effects on turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(10), 2373–2395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00530.x
Henderson, 2005 Henderson, J. K. (2005). Language diversity in international management teams. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2005.11043722
Hinds, 2020 Hinds, B. S. (2020). Nature of global leaders' power. (Publication No. 28023874). Doctoral dissertation, Benedictine University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Hinds et al., 2014 Hinds, P. J. , Neely, T. B. , & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 536–561. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.62
Hofstede, 1980 Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3
Huesing and Ludema, 2017 Huesing, T. , & Ludema, J. D. (2017). The nature of global leaders' work. In J. S. Osland , M. Li , & M. E. Mendenhall (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 10, pp. 3–39). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320170000010001
Ilies et al., 2007 Ilies, R. , Nahrgang, J. D. , & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
Keltner et al., 2003 Keltner, D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Lane et al., 2004 Lane, H. W. , Maznevski, M. L. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & McNett, J. (2004). Global management a guide to managing complexity. Blackwell.
Liao et al., 2010 Liao, H. , Liu, D. , & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090–1109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533207
Liden and Maslyn, 1998 Liden, R. C. , & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1
Liden et al., 1993 Liden, R. C. , Wayne, S. J. , & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662
Luo and Shenkar, 2006 Luo, Y. , & Shenkar, O. (2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual community: Language and organization in a global context. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400197
Luthans, 2002 Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.6640181
Magee and Smith, 2013 Magee, J. C. , & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312472732
Moodley et al., 2016 Moodley, D. , Sutherland, M. , & Pretorius, P. (2016). Comparing the power and influence of functional managers with that of project managers in matrix organizations: The challenge of duality of command. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 19(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.17159/2222-3436/2016/v19n1a7
Nahrgang et al., 2009 Nahrgang, J. D. , Morgeson, F. P. , & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.002
Neeley and Reiche, 2022 Neeley, T. , & Reiche, B. S. (2022). How global leaders gain power through downward deference and reduction of social distance. Academy of Management Journal, 65, 11–34. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0531
Osland et al., 2017 Osland, J. S. , Li, M. , & Mendenhall, M. E. (2017). Patterns, themes and future directions for advancing global leadership. In J. S. Osland , M. Li , & M. E. Mendenhall (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 10, pp. 253–262). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320170000010014
Pearce and Conger, 2003 Pearce, C. L. , & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage Publications.
Raven, 1965 Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–381). Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Raven et al., 1998 Raven, B. H. , Schwarzwald, J. , & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01708.x
Reiche et al., 2017 Reiche, B. S. , Bird, A. , Mendenhall, M. E. , & Osland, J. S. (2017). Contextualizing leadership: A typology of global leadership roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5), 552–572. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0030-3
Rucker et al., 2012 Rucker, D. D. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001
Rucker et al., 2018 Rucker, D. D. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Magee, J. C. (2018). The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 58, pp. 71–125). Academic Press.
Terpstra-Tong et al., 2020 Terpstra-Tong, J. , Ralston, D. A., Treviño, L. J. , Naoumova, I. , de la Garza Carranza, M. T. , Furrer, O. , Li, Y., & Darder, F. L. (2020). The quality of leader-member exchange (LMX): A multilevel analysis of individual-level, organizational-level and societal-level antecedents. Journal of International Management, 26(3), 100760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100760
Tiedens et al., 2007 Tiedens, L. Z. , Unzueta, M. M. , & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 402–414.
Tost and Johnson, 2019 Tost, L. P. , & Johnson, H. H. (2019). The prosocial side of power: How structural power over subordinates can promote social responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.004
Wassenaar and Pearce, 2018 Wassenaar, C. L. , & Pearce, C. L. (2018). Shared leadership. In J. Antonakis & D. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 167–188). Sage Publications.
Wayne and Ferris, 1990 Wayne, S. J. , & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487
Youssef and Luthans, 2012 Youssef, C. M. , & Luthans, F. (2012). Positive global leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.007
Appendix A: Global Leader Interview Protocol
Review the global leadership definition:
… the processes and actions through which an individual influences a range of internal and external constituents from multiple national cultures and jurisdictions in a context characterized by significant levels of task and relationship complexity.
(Reiche et al., 2017, p. 566)
Review prompt and question:
Often supervisors ask subordinates to do their job somewhat differently. Sometimes subordinates resist doing so or do not follow the supervisor's directions exactly. Other times, they will do exactly as their supervisor requests.
Think about a time when you were supervising someone in doing some task. Suppose you asked your global subordinate to do the job somewhat differently and, though they were initially reluctant, they did exactly as you asked (Raven et al., 1998).
What was the situation?
What steps did you follow when giving the revised direction?
Does this follower report directly to you (solid line) or is it a matrix reporting (dotted line) relationship?
(If a matrix reporting relationship) Please expand on the role of the global leader and the in-region matrix leader.
How would you describe your relationship with the global follower?
What are the differences between leading a global follower and domestic follower?
Does your company have a strong global culture or is your company culture more aligned by region (i.e., Japan, United States, or others)?
Have you ever just said “This is the way we are going to do it!” when working leading global followers?
What was the situation?
How did you feel when giving the direction?
Have you had a situation in which the global follower disagreed or rejected your change request?
What was the situation?
How did you feel when the follower rejected the change request?
(If the global leader is from Japan or China) Please define and explain the concept of Japanese on and Chinese guanxi, respectively.
Do these concepts extend to other non-Japanese or non-Chinese global followers?
Based on your experience as a global leader and understanding of the interview, are there any additional comments or insights you want to add about global leadership?
- Prelims
- Part I Empirical Findings
- A Systematic Review of Power in Global Leadership
- Six Factors That Shape How Global Leaders Exercise Power and Influence Followers
- Leading Effective Global Change: Three Design Imperatives That Support Success
- A Model of Trigger Events and Sensemaking in the Intercultural Context: A Cognitive Approach to Global Leadership Effectiveness
- Publishing Patterns in the Field of Global Leadership: 2015–2020
- Reflections From Advances in Global Leadership's Emerald Literati Award Winners
- Part II Practitioners' Corner
- Asking Big Questions That Matter: An Interview With Nancy J. Adler
- Tackling Grand Societal Challenges and Designing Consciousness-Raising Experiences Inside and Outside the Classroom: An Interview With Global Leadership Educator Günter K. Stahl
- Developing Global Leaders in Denmark Via Academic-Practitioner Collaboration: Lessons for Educators and Consultants
- Power and Global Leadership: Marking the Transition and Suggesting Future Directions