Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore and unbundle the complex processes underpinning development of alliance capabilities, particularly in the context of emerging country multinational enterprises. More specifically, this paper focuses on how firms internalize and translate knowledge generated from experiences gained by participating in international collaborations.

The authors adopt an exploratory case study approach to undertake in-depth processual analysis of alliance capability development in an Indian biopharmaceutical company. The authors focused their analysis on the initial four international alliances the company formed and identified key elements pertaining to alliance capabilities that the company internalized and those that it could not, as this was key in understanding alliance capability.

The research shows that based on experiences from previous alliances, the Indian organization was able to overhaul its negotiation and governance designing processes and practices as well as made robust changes to its internal communication and coordination practices. Interestingly, the company organization, however, did not make any significant changes to its processes and practices regarding partner selection.

The results from our study can be used by managers to develop processes and practices when it comes to developing alliance capabilities.

The paper is novel, as it addresses two specific gaps in the nascent alliance capability literature. First, it provides insights on how different constituent elements/aspects of alliance capability actually develop and integrate within the organizational system over time, and in the process, the paper identifies that some aspects are better internalized as compared to other aspects. Second, by focusing the attention on an Indian biopharmaceutical company, the authors attempt to address a gap in alliance capability development research, which has been neglected in emerging country multinational entities.

Organizational structures, systems and processes can and do limit the discretionary decision-making space of all involved in organizational life. However, high up in organizations leaders have significant discretion in making decisions. Robert Kaiser and Robert Hogan explore the dark side of what might happen if strategic leaders use their discretionary freedom for personal rather than organizational benefit. Timo Santalainen and Ram Baliga present a real example of discretionary leadership gone bad in an NGO that looks quite healthy on the outside. They refer to the phenomenon of a financially successful company with a sick leader as the “healthy-sick organization.” We juxtapose this chapter with the one by Corey Billington and Michèle Barnett Berg to show how Duncan Covington at computer products, services, and solutions company IQ used his discretionary freedom for the good of the company. Covington inherited a sick organization and introduced key systems, structures, and processes to bring it back to health.

The schematic diagram shown in Fig. 1 suggests that a global mindset evolves in the cultural context of industry-specific, organization-specific, and person-specific antecedents that are salient in the context of the global manager and the environment in which he or she functions. Taken clockwise, we discuss the relevance of various factors that comprise these three important domains and how these domains interact with the overarching cultural contexts salient in the domestic as well as in the international business environment. In Table 1, we present the various factors in industry-specific, organization-specific, and person-specific domains that either facilitate (provide opportunities) or hinder (act as constraints) the development of global mindset and global managers.

This paper aims to present a professional and personal tribute to Professor Jerry Hunt, one of the distinguished scholars in leadership and organization studies and to offer glimpses of many of his distinctly eminent qualities as a scholar, a teacher, and as a mentor.

This paper draws on the author's personal experiences and observations to present a commentary on Professor Hunt's style of work and his approach to mentoring doctoral students and resolving complex problems. Set against the backdrop of the evolution of the field over the last three decades, the paper addresses some of the human, cultural, and collegial aspects of life in academia.

Professor Hunt's dedication infused a new lease of life to the field of leadership at a time of declining interest in the field as an area of scholarly inquiry. His lifetime contributions as an editor, scholar, and mentor are as enduring as they deserve to be commended.

The paper serves to illustrate the role of commitment, humility, objectivity, and a sense of humor in the shaping of a distinguished academic career.

An intensely personal account of the human and professional attributes of a world‐renowned scholar is offered. Some broad‐brush strokes of life in academia and of the course of evolution of leadership as a field of inquiry should be useful for potential new entrants as well as established players in the field.

Because of the importance of a global mindset from both a theoretical and a practical point of view, there is need to examine this construct further to understand its contents, how it is developed, when and how it should be applied, and what its consequences are. Thus, we invited a select group of scholars to develop chapters on specific aspects of this topic to help build a volume accomplishing these goals. Our aim here was to invite the foremost thinkers and writers on this topic.

A key distinction, mentioned by Dubin (1979, p. 227), is “leadership at a distance.” When Dubin was writing, there was little research on this topic. More recently, however, there has been an upsurge in leadership-at-a-distance work. We see a major review by Antonakis and Atwater (2002), following an earlier one by Napier and Ferris (1993), along with work by authors such as Shamir (1995) and Waldman and Yammarino (1999).

The authors of the various chapters in this book have approached the concept of global mindset from diverse perspectives and have defined it differently. Levy et al. in this volume define global mindset as a highly complex cognitive structure distinguished by an openness to and expression of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels and the cognitive capacity to moderate and assimilate across this diversity. More specifically, global mindset is typified by three corresponding dimensions: (1) an openness and attentiveness to multiple realms of action and meaning, (2) a complex representation and expression of cultural and strategic dynamics, and (3) a moderation and incorporation of ideals and actions oriented toward both global and local levels (Chapter 1 of this volume). At the core of their definition is the awareness of and openness to multiple realities, meanings, and perspectives.

The case looks at the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project from its inception in the year 1860 to 2012 when the Pachauri Committee was about to submit a report on the latest canal alignment (4A) as suggested by the Supreme Court. It takes the reader through a series of developments starting from the initial proposals and alignments to formation of Sethusamudram Corporation Limited and highlights the impact of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute Report, Tsunami Detailed Project Report, and Subramaniam Swamy Report on various issues including environmental, political, religious, security and legal. The case brings out multi-dimensional aspects involved in an Indian infrastructure project and gives both students and the faculty an opportunity to explore the complexities faced by the Indian decision makers in today's context.