Keywords

1 Introduction

Notably, with no consistent definition of Global Mindset, we cannot claim to understand the antecedents, processes, or proximal and distal effects of how it affects global leader’s decision-making. In this study, and reflective of the novel cognitive model proposed, Global Mindset is a complex cognitive process and is defined as the ability to ‘think and act both globally and locally at the same time’ (Cohen 2010, p. 27). The implication is, that if a set of complex cognitions happen concurrently, there is an increased risk of cognitive overload. Therefore, through the study of how these cognitions manifest and are subsequently processed, the risk of overload is examined, along with how a dual perspective mindset is navigated by global leaders to make effective decisions.

Invariably studying cognitive processes are difficult, especially experts in their field as they often find it difficult to articulate what they think or do because their thoughts and actions have become automated and reside in the unconscious part of their brains. In order to address this issue, the study design utilized Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) in the form of critical incident reporting, with a think out loud approach to promote conscious thought patterns. This allowed access to the participants thought processes, the considerations they made, why these were important, and finally the decisions they arrived at.

While accessing both conscious and unconscious thought processes in any cognitive study is considered challenging, the researcher leveraged from both the design of the study, and her background as a global leader such that she was able to navigate the global leader scenarios and the context in which they operated, in real-time alongside the study participants as they talked through their scenario’s. This allowed quick follow-up questions to capture essential thought processes, while not disrupting the global leaders train of thought. This was deemed helpful in collecting useful data for analysis purposes.

2 The Cognitive Challenge

The research was designed to evidence that Global Mindset is in fact, a cognitive process and the study proposed a novel Global Mindset model. This comprised a complex set of cognitive processes which all global leaders seek to navigate through, in order to make effective decisions while working across geographical boundaries.

The model explains that Global Mindset is triggered by managing a tension between differing and often competing, global versus local stakeholder needs. Managing this tension is known as Paradox Management because the emphasis is on finding equilibrium rather than an overall best solution, which cannot realistically be achieved where there are conflicting agendas.

While there are cognitive challenges with holding a dual perspective for both global and local stakeholders, it also has its benefits as it allows the advantages and disadvantages from opposing sides to be fully evaluated before decision-making occurs. Notably, while categorizing and processing vast amounts of data in both their conscious and unconscious minds, the priority moves from finding a perfect solution to sourcing acceptable outcomes for both parties.

3 The Global Mindset Model and Its Propositions

The study proposed that the complexity experienced by international leaders is characterized by Paradox Management or the tension that is created between managing the demands of global stakeholders and local stakeholder needs, which are different and often in conflict with one another. Therefore, Paradox Management is the first stage and trigger point for activating Global Mindset as shown in Fig. 1 below. Once activation occurs, a series of complex cognitions occur simultaneously and which cumulatively result in effective decision-making.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The Global Mindset Model originating from Study 1 and validated in Study 2.

Full size image

As shown in Fig. 1, once Global Mindset is activated by managing the paradox, three core components come into play to help sort the cognitive data; information management, risk management and relationship management and all data are categorized around these. Simultaneously, three sub-components are activated; rational information processing, intuitive information processing and relationships information processing, which then further divides into 8 factors aligned to either rational, intuitive or relationships information. All of these cognitions occur concurrently, which means that the global leader is filtering through vast amounts of data, using both the conscious and unconscious parts of their minds while also keeping both global and local requirements at top of mind. Subsequently, the risk of cognitive overload increases. In order to manage this, the global leader uses data filtering to manage the amount of data selected for processing, such that only the most relevant information is selected and processed. All other data are disregarded.

Finally, optimum decision-making occurs when the decision and its subsequent actions retain both positive work relationships, and provide positive outcomes for the business. Finding solutions that prioritize these equally are extremely important. Any decision-making options that impact either negatively will be eliminated and further processing will continue until a workable answer is found. This can be challenging, yet all global leaders will finalize their decisions paying particular attention to these factors.

4 Method

4.1 Grounded Theory and the Global Mindset Model

The model used a modified grounded theory approach, whereby theories of Global Mindset were reviewed and synthesized. The researcher then designed a novel cognitive model of Global Mindset with 14 propositions to explain the complexity that occurs inside the minds of global leaders and how they make effective decisions.

The proposed model was then tested using 2 studies to help better understand and delineate the cognitive processes underpinning Global Mindset; Study 1 - qualitative interviews and Study 2 – a quantitative online survey. Study 1 was used to test the proposed model and allow an opportunity for any modifications to be made prior to Study 2. Study 2 was then used to test the findings from Study 1 and to validate any modifications made to the model.

4.2 Study 1 – Qualitative Interviews

The qualitative interviews comprised of 8 high-potential high-performing global leaders from 2 different industry sectors; travel and engineering. The participants were identified as those who influenced and made decisions impacting both global and local stakeholders while working across geographical boundaries. The sample had between 1 and 3 grade levels between their job roles and the top of the organizational hierarchy, so these were some of the most senior leaders in their respective companies. Job titles ranged from Chief Transformation Officer, Senior Vice President/Director, and Manager. The average age of participants was 48 years old and the average length of service was 13 years. Participants were primarily caucasian (80%) and male (80%). The entire sample was located in the Western Hemisphere of the world.

The method used was Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) in the form of critical incident reporting, which allowed insights into the cognitive skills or mental task demands of the international leaders while problem-solving and making effective decisions. Interviewees were emailed in advance with the interview script such that they had time to think about and prepare their critical incident. Permission was sought to record the interview and these were subsequently deleted after the transcriptions were typed up. All participants were advised that if the scenario described didn’t meet the criteria, or they went off tangent during the interview, that the interviewer would stop them and redirect the conversation. This was to ensure maximum data collection during the scheduled 45-min interview per participant.

Interviewees were asked to describe a real-world scenario that they had managed in relation to a tension between meeting the needs of both global stakeholders and local stakeholders. They were asked to break the scenario down into 3 to 6 steps, although this was merely posed as guidance to help the interviewees organize their thoughts. The goal in fact, was for the SME to walk through the problem-solving task in their mind and verbalize the different stages up to the point that they were able to make a decision or decisions, relating to the scenario.

As each event was described, the researcher used probing questions for situation assessment, actions, critical cues, and potential errors including biases. The interviewer was very aware of her role in the data collection and therefore, she regulated both her choice of probing questions, comments made and the number of interruptions that were reasonable for each interview, such that it did not impact the direction of the conversation, nor speak on behalf of the interviewee. The researcher was able to make a constant comparison by listening to the interviewee, stopping them, summarizing what they had said to ensure the main themes or important points relating to the incident had been correctly identified, and also to check understanding. She was also able to give the interviewee an opportunity to rephrase or provide additional information, to change the direction of the interview, or clarify any misunderstandings regarding the interviewer’s interpretation of the incident. This approach allowed the researcher to make connections in real-time between the interview data and the factors in the proposed Global Mindset model, such that she could jointly analyse and code the data. Therefore, the interviewer had a good sense of overall themes relative to the proposed model while also being open to alternatives, both during the interview and the subsequent data analysis.

The researchers use of probing questions during the interviews permitted a full understanding of the global leaders’ rationale for their thought processes, including which information they used and which they disregarded and why, the factors which they considered and their thoughts leading up to their final decision. While the researcher was listening to the interviewees, she was also tapping into the emotions felt by them (happiness, frustration, disappointment, etc.) which aided her understanding of how the global leaders were making decisions.

Once the interviews were completed and recorded, the interviews were typed up verbatim and the recordings destroyed. Each interview was dissected sentence by sentence for meaning including any emotions that were displayed through tone of voice. This was especially important where two factors emerged in the same sentence, or where there was an overlap of factors such that it was difficult to determine which was being described. The emotions helped identify the underlying intention of the interviewee and therefore, the factor that was being utilized.

The researcher acted as the interviewer because she had previously been a global leader for a leading international professional services firm and had worked across 150 countries and had lived in 3 countries. She also had over 25 years applied practitioner experience working with senior executives and therefore, was familiar with the types of issues faced by businesses, organizational behaviour and the language pertaining to this population. This was important for the interpretation of the data and for coding purposes. The researcher’s background was therefore considered instrumental in producing new insights into how global leaders think and behave.

After data collection, a thematic analysis was conducted to allow identification, analysis and reporting patterns and themes to be identified. The researcher knew from her own experience that broad themes would be required in both the design of the research model and in coding of the factors, on the basis that these categories or themes needed to apply to all types of scenarios and events that global leaders experience, which are wide ranging.

Next, a 3-stage procedure took place; unitizing, categorizing and classifying the data (Butterfield et al. 1996). First the Thought Units (TU’s) were identified and this ranged from a phrase to several sentences. Second, the TU’s were coded into emergent categories and finally, these categories were classified as a factor, either identifiable in the proposed model or a new factor was identified. Data was interpreted both semantically or explicitly; looking at surface level meanings generated from the words spoken by the interviewee and also latent or the interpretative level; broader meanings and interpretations. In the latter case, the intention of the interviewee was used to interpret the meaning and subsequent themes.

Any factors that appeared in at least 50% of the interviews were deemed to be significant, bearing in mind the range of different incidents described and the even wider range of contexts that exist for global leaders. Any new factors that also met this criterion were also sourced from the data and included in the modified model for testing in Study 2. Each interview was coded showing specific statements to support each of the factors identified in the data.

Once data analysis was completed, a second stage of analysis took place to identify whether any relationships existed between the factors identified. If this was the case, to also identify the direction of those relationships and whether the direction of the relationship went from one factor to another (A to B) or whether a reciprocal relationship (A <-> B) existed.

4.3 Study 2 – Online Survey

Study 2 retested the findings from Study 1 and where modifications were made to the proposed model, to test these. The modified Global Mindset model was therefore, validated with a different sample of 50 global leaders.

The method used was a quantitative online survey which was designed and pilot tested. Subsequently, some minor modifications were made to the instructions before its launch to the global leader sample. Each of the companies who participated in the study were asked to obtain only 12 global leaders within their respective organizations to complete the online survey, on the basis that this was likely to increase overall participation. Gaining access to this population is very difficult given the nature of their jobs, so smaller numbers made it more palatable for the participating companies.

The sample included 13 different industry sectors; agriculture, forestry and fishing, business services, construction, financial services/insurance, hospitality/entertainment/recreation, information technology, marketing, oil and gas, energy or utilities, other not specified, pharmaceuticals, professional services, telecommunications, and tourism. The number of job grades between the participants and the top of the organization hierarchy was zero to 5 or more. Typical job titles were Director/Vice President or Head of Business Unit. The average age was between 41 and 50 years old and the average number of years service was 11–15. Participants were primarily caucasian (86%) and male (62%). The entire sample was located in the Western Hemisphere of the world.

The survey comprised of 2 parts; first, a frequency of factor usage which measured 22 factor variables contained within the Global Mindset model, after Paradox Management had activated the cognitions and a 7-point Likert scale ranging from never to always was used to measure the frequency of factor usage. Means and standard deviations were then calculated to ascertain which factors were used most often. The second part of the online survey was a ranked order of importance measure used to assess the core 12 factors in the Global Mindset model affecting decision-making. Participants were asked to attribute a percentage to only those factors they considered the most important when making decisions and with an option to insert any other factors not already covered by the model. The factors selected however, had to total 100% in their combined usage. The survey questions were randomly ordered so that participants could not identify the themes being evaluated, with the exception of the last 3 questions which examined the factors the global leaders paid most attention to, when making an overall decision. This was the last part of the Global Mindset model where final decisions occur. In this case, the participants had to see all 3 options in order to compare and contrast their preferred response.

5 Findings

5.1 Study 1 – Qualitative Interviews

The first significant finding from Study 1 was that all global leaders related to the tension and conflicting demands between a global stakeholder group and a local stakeholder group and were able to give examples for the critical incident interviews. This evidenced that Paradox Management as defined in the Global Mindset model, does exist and is part of the global leader’s role.

While the model remained largely unchanged between Study 1 and Study 2, two additional factors were added into the Global Mindset model based on the results of Study 1. Namely, risk management was added as one of the core components alongside information management and relationship management because it was mentioned in 100% of the interviews. Interestingly, the variety of industry sectors included in the research, and the nature of those businesses, might have suggested that some sectors would have different risk appetites in terms of their organizational culture relative to others. However, the results of the qualitative interviews demonstrated that risk was managed frequently and consistently across all industry sectors.

Also, organizational values were added as a new factor as it was reported in 50% of the interviews. This was attributed to rational information processing because global leaders described that they were consciously aware of using the organization’s values to help steer the direction of their decisions. Finally, 2 factors were relabeled to reflect the interview data sourced from Study 1. First, culture was redefined as difference to reflect the broad range of scenarios that global leaders encountered. Whereas culture narrowly suggested that only organizational culture or national culture affected decisions, whereas there were a much broader range of differences experienced by global leaders that impacted their decision-making. Also, the factor of essential versus non-essential information was relabeled as relevant versus irrelevant information to reflect the language used by the interviewees.

Understandably, the researcher was challenged to gain sufficient data to support some of the unconscious mental processes referenced in the proposed model because no priming took place during Study 1. Therefore, the less tangible factors such as intuition were reported less often relative to other more tangible variables, such as business factors. While the data analysis showed that all factors in the proposed model were consistently reported in the qualitative interviews (reported in at least 50% of the interviews), intuition was reported in only 25% of the interviews. However, experience was reported in 100% of the interviews, and because intuition is reported to be strongly linked to experience as part of naturalistic decision-making (Klein 2008) and also Duggan’s theory of strategic intuition (Duggan 2007), where experience is also closely linked to intuition, the researcher decided that it warranted further testing to establish whether intuition was more present in decision-making than participants were consciously aware of. On that basis, it was left in the modified model and retested during Study 2.

Finally, Global leaders were found to manage cognitive load through data filtering, such that only the most relevant information was retained. This involved excluding any additional noise and bias in the information (Kahneman et al. 2016). Global leaders may not however, be aware that this data separation occurs simultaneously in both the conscious and unconscious parts of their brains because the unconscious information processing creates a potential blind spot in the global leaders understanding of how the factors impact their decision-making.

5.2 Study 2 – Online Surveys

Overall, Study 2 confirmed that all factors in the modified model were present and utilized in decision-making. While Paradox Management creates the trigger point for Global Mindset activation, global leaders focus primarily on 3 core factors relevant to every situation; management of information, management of risk and management of relationships and these factors are underpinned by intuitive information processing, rational information processing and relationships information processing, which are further used to assess the 8 factors in the model; experience and emotions aligned to intuitive information processing, business factors, decision-making options, organizational values and relevant versus irrelevant information aligned to rational information processing and information flow and difference aligned to relationships information processing. Finally, all decisions made by global leaders are consciously evaluated in terms of its impact on relationships and the outcomes for the business. Equilibrium is sought between these 2 criteria, such that one does not take priority over the other. This fully supports the modified Global Mindset model.

Frequency of factor usage and importance of factors yielded different rankings in Study 2. Unsurprisingly, the unconscious factors in the model did not rank in the top ratings for frequency of usage which were; 1. risk management (consideration of the potential impact of risk on the business) and 2. risk management (the risks to the business) followed by 3. business factors (consideration of relevant business factors). Similarly, they did not manifest in the top rankings for importance which were; 1. business factors, followed by 2. rational data (facts and figures) and then 3. experience (self and others). From these results, it appears that the more tangible factors were more frequently used and were considered as more important relative to less tangible factors. This suggests that conscious awareness may have influenced the rank orderings in Study 2 resulting in conscious factors being ranked higher than unconscious factors.

Additionally, when all data was further examined to establish whether there were any significant correlations between factors, 78 different relationships were identified across the 8 qualitative interviews. This suggested that there was no commonality to these relationships, and that the relationships between factors were likely to be highly context specific as well as driven by the global leader’s recollection of the events.

Finally, an interesting and yet unplanned finding from Study 2 was that the results showed that global leaders are not determined by their job titles nor seniority. Conversely, research to date seems to suggest that they are senior executives. However, this is not true as demonstrated by this research. The samples used in these studies showed that global leaders mostly exist at Manager level and above; some 4 or 5 levels from the top of the organizational hierarchy. However, there were also participants who were non-Managers or identified with the other professional categories and who were 5+ levels from the top of the hierarchy. This is an important point for future global leadership research.

6 Discussion

6.1 The Global Leaders Role

While the research did not actively seek to test out whether global leaders occupy roles at the top of the organizational hierarchy, in Study 1, only senior executives were included in the sample. However, in Study 2, with 50 participants and as part of the demographic data collected, it became clear that global leaders were not determined by their job titles nor seniority. This is perhaps as a result of flatter organizational structures and job roles which are more expansive, such that global leaders can be found at much lower levels in the organizational hierarchy than previously thought. In fact, the data supported that they can be found at almost any level across different industry sectors. The researcher therefore recommends that a generic definition of global leader is used for research purposes and that this should be ‘those who influence and make decisions across geographical boundaries impacting both global and local stakeholders’ and no reference is made to job title nor seniority. Providing narrowing definitions based on seniority are likely to harm research into this important topic and reduce the research pool.

6.2 The Global Mindset Model

While the sample size in Study 1 was relatively small, it was within the best practice guidelines for Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA), which is 3 to 5 persons per organization. Study 2 also used an adequate dataset of 50 participants. However, the combined studies showed their real value through the consistency of the results across 15 different industry sectors and with a total sample size of 58 global leaders. Therefore, confirming that the modified Global Mindset model was supported.

Risk featured strongly in the results of both Study 1 and 2. It is an important factor in business operations and in the language of business, so its presence during Study 1 was justified and warranted its insertion into the modified Global Mindset model for further testing in Study 2. However, perhaps less obvious is the connection between systems thinking and risk management. While we know from prior research that global leaders are proficient system thinkers, which require cause and effect cognitions, effective risk management also requires the consideration of cause and effect in order to appropriately assess risk. Therefore, this study provides some evidence that global leaders are both effective system thinkers and risk managers.

The importance of Paradox Management in global leadership research was highlighted by this study. While it is not a new phenomenon, it appears to have been given limited exposure to date. The Centre for Creative Leadership (Leslie et al. 2015) proposes that Paradox Management is in fact, part of the healthy functioning of global organizations and therefore, must be a part of a global leader’s role. Similarly, Beechler and Javidan (2007) suggests that Global Mindset is the key to competitive organizational success. Therefore, it is believed that managing paradoxes is a necessary part of a global leader’s role and is part of healthy organizational dynamics. It is also an integral part of Global Mindset as evidenced by this study and therefore, ought to feature in future research. From an applied practitioner’s perspective, the challenge for organizations will be to ensure that future global leaders have had an opportunity to practice managing this tension before they are formally appointed to these roles. This might be in the form of work-based assignments or being allocated to projects for a specific period of time as part of development planning.

6.3 Global Mindset as a Dual Perspectives Process

While there is no consensus that Global Mindset is a cognitive process, some authors who adopt this point of view, have ascertained that global leaders switch back and forth between datasets in order to make decisions (Clapp-Smith and Lester 2014). This research however, evidenced the reverse. Once irrelevant information is disregarded, global leaders retain all remaining information in their heads and holistically examine that data to make decisions versus any form of switching between data sets.

Similarly, other authors suggest that global leaders adopt either a Global Mindset (focused on more international matters) or a Local Mindset (focused on domestic issues), as if they are separate constructs and that the global leader adopts one or the other, but not both (Massingham 2013). This research however, evidenced that global leaders hold both global and local viewpoints simultaneously while problem-solving and decision-making occur. Global Mindset is therefore not just global, as its name suggests. It is both local and global, and more importantly, it requires the ability to hold dual perspectives simultaneously to make effective decisions.

6.4 Unconscious Cognitions

Notably, unconscious cognitions were the most difficult to validate through this research. This was reconfirmed when the researcher received an email from a participant after Study 2, thanking her for being included in the research. In the communication they wrote “I was not consciously aware of some of these processes”, therefore confirming that studying expert cognitions is difficult and that moving the SME’s into conscious awareness is a necessary step in both researching this topic and understanding the underlying cognitive processes.

While the overall design of this study was targeted at moving all of the factors from the unconscious into conscious self-awareness to aid accurate measurement, the extent of that was largely unknown. Unconscious factors were notably present in Study 1, and again in Study 2, however they were rated as less frequently used and less important relative to the conscious factors. This does raise an important point over the design of future cognitive studies, where there may be unconscious mental processes at work. This might be the only study where these factors have been tested in this way and therefore, their full impact may not be known. Further research is therefore recommended.

6.5 Perceptions and Memory

In Study 2, there were clear differences in the global leaders’ self-assessments around frequency of factor usage versus importance of these. Risk management and business factors were top listed frequency factors and business factors, rational data and experience were top listed importance factors. Regardless of these differences, the top-ranking factors in both cases were tangible variables, notably in the global leader’s conscious awareness. There is a question therefore, over the degree to which frequency and importance can be accurately measured because it was possible during this research, that the global leaders reported their perceived frequency of use and perceived importance of use versus their actual usage in real-world scenarios. In future research, it may be helpful to include others in the sample, such as the global leader’s supervisor, their peers, and their subordinates to gain further insights into actual usage of the factors.

Also, because global leaders were asked to describe historic events, instead of reporting the event in real-time, they may not have been able to recall all of the information relating to the scenario and therefore, were unable to remember using some of the factors. This suggests that perceptions (bias) and memory (recall) may be potential moderators of the Global Mindset model. However, this would need to be tested in future research.

6.6 Technology and the Development of Global Mindset

The impact of this research will be fully realized at the point that a technology-enabled supplier chooses to develop software that provides expert decision-making simulations and creates learning pathways for novice global leaders. Human-computer simulations can offer an effective risk-free, and safe environment for this. The learning pathways could expose new recruits, or high-potential leaders targeted for future global leadership roles, to simulation exercises comprising real-world scenarios with complex problem-solving tasks. These simulations would involve large amounts of data, and measure the consideration of, and reactions to, different types of information and the sequencing of different variables, plus how risks were minimized and relationships retained before a final decision was made. Repeated use, with feedback provided after each simulation, could highlight optimal decision-making routes versus non-optimal and improve self-awareness while building the global leader’s confidence in their abilities and their cognitive resilience. Additionally, given the risk of cognitive overload, the simulation could also incorporate measuring physiological factors such as heartrate and breathing to establish whether the global leader is regulating their stress levels while decision-making occurs.

These simulations could also be used as part of a selection battery for identifying high-potential global leaders who demonstrate the cognitive resilience to cope with the high demands of the role. Therefore, the same test environment could be used for more effective selection, development and career management of future global leaders, thus helping companies become more efficient by making better and lower-risk deployment decisions.