Search results

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.

In 2006, a cover story in Business Week suggested that global forces are largely controlling the domestic U.S. economy and that there is little that the U.S. government can do. Currently, the United States imports almost $2.2 trillion in foreign goods; in contrast, the U.S. government receives approximately $2.4 trillion in revenues. And, in 2007, the costs of imports are expected to exceed government revenues. In the past, the United States has had a major influence on the world's economy, but this influence is waning (Mandel & Dunham, 2006). The substantial development of several country economies such as in China and India and growing competition in global markets have fueled this change. These changes have heightened the importance of firms’ international strategies and increased the need for more and better research to understand how to develop such strategies and implement them successfully (Nachum & Zaheer, 2005).

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.

Developing successful relationships with people from different cultures is challenging by definition. Several reasons account for this, including people's tendencies to have preconceived notions about how the world works (or should work), how individuals behave (or should behave), and which behaviors are acceptable (or unacceptable). These ideas are largely influenced by our personal experiences and the cultures in which we grew up. We tend to approach intercultural interactions based on our own perceptions, beliefs, values, biases, and misconceptions about what is likely to happen (Kluckhohn, 1954; Geertz, 1973; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998; Schneider & Barsoux, 2003; Steers & Nardon, 2006). As a result, when we engage in exchanges with people from different cultures we often find that the consequences of our actions are different from what we expected or intended (Adler, 2002). The results can range from embarrassment to insult to lost business opportunities.

Managers need to be able to understand whether the constructs of organizational commitment apply cross culturally. This study adds to a growing knowledge base regarding organizational commitment internationally, and uses workers in government controlled, mixed economy, and privately owned businesses in China’s interior. The study uses questionnaires of antecedents of commitment and tests Mowday et al’s (1979) OCQ and Meyer and Allen’s (1991) ACS, NCS, CCS. While we were are able to verify some antecedent conditions surrounding Mowday et al (1979) and Meyer and Allen’s (1991) commitment measures, we discovered the conditions surrounding commitment in persons who live outside the commercial zones may be more complicated than theory predicts. Artifacts that may modify antecedent‐commitment main include culture, language, firm ownership/control, and expectations of workers moving from government employment more market based jobs. We suggest that more study is required in relationship to conceptual space, theory development, measurement, validation, and analysis in former centrally planned and communistic countries. As is usually true in China, things are not as straightforward or simple as they seem. This study seems to verify that sentiment.

In any given year, it has been estimated that over 300 million work days are lost in Britain due to employee absenteeism. This figure amounts to about 13.5 days lost per employee. Daily absenteeism among blue‐collar workers in many industries runs as high as 17 per cent of the work force with rates often much higher on Mondays and Fridays. These estimates include absenteeism due to illness, as well as other reasons. High rates of absenteeism have been cited as contributing to industrial slumps in some areas of Britain. Productivity losses, loss of good will, extra labour costs to replace the absent employee, overtime costs, and sick pay are all costs associated with absenteeism. Clearly, employee absenteeism is a major area of concern for personnel managers.

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.

The metaphor of a poker game suggests the reality of international business as a competitive field in which players test their wits against each other, often using guile, and play at high levels of uncertainty. The game's rules are essentially simple but there is extensive room to maneuver. If business were actually conducted internationally with one set of clear rules used by all, then it would be like chess. A chess master can play against many others, given the highly structured nature of the game's processes. A poker master takes on a different kind of complexity, and in that, the reading of others’ minds, characters, behavior patterns, and interactions becomes crucial. The essential challenge of the global mindset is that, whereas you might think you are playing chess against several opponents, you are actually playing poker.

With the globalization of business, a relevant question is how might people deal with others from fundamentally different backgrounds (cultural, ethnic, functional, etc.)? Many authors (Rhinesmith, 1992; Paul, 2000; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002; Kefalas, 1998, just to mention a few) suggest that managers working in international contexts require a specialized way of thinking about the environment in which they operate, a so-called “global mindset.” In the current chapter, we discuss the evolving notion of a “global mindset” and contrast it with extant work on the related concept of “cultural intelligence” (Earley, 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Thomas & Inkson, 2004).