How does leadership differs in a domestic and a multinational company??

Being a latest phenomenon, global leadership emerged in the literature during the early 1990s.
While there is no consent over a single definition of global leadership, it can be defined as
possessing the capability to operate efficiently in a global setting while taking into consideration
the element of cultural diversity (Harris, Moran & Moran, 2004). Global leaders are the ones,
who influence others to bring significant positive changes within organizations through
developing communities with the help of trust and arrangement of organizational structures and
procedures in an environment which involves numerous cross-boundary stakeholders, various
sources of outward cross-boundary power, and numerous cultures in situations of progressive,
geographical and culture complication (Mendenhall, 2008).

Leadership competencies
In general, overall leadership competencies denote to the capability of performing specific tasks.
Generally, a competent leader will bring in better performance in an organization. Creative
Center for Leadership (CCL) suggested a leadership competency model, based on which they
endorsed competencies in accordance with three key areas which involve leading others,
leading the organization and leading yourself, whereas every zone of competency is
explained through certain competencies (Berke, Kossler & Wakefield, 2008).

Global leadership competencies

Global leader is an individual who is capable of working with the elements of complexity and
diversity. Still a global leader is a leader; hence there are common leadership roles and abilities
found among global and domestic leaders (Hazucha et al, 2012). Almost all leaders from
organizations will cope with challenges to head the global stage. Individuals coming from
various backgrounds, values, languages and mentality are relocating all around the globe.
Therefore, nurturing a leader who possesses the competency to handle diversity is essential for
all sorts of organizations. Nonetheless, five major competencies were underlined by Thorn
(2012) which is needed for global leadership, including: strategic vision; adaptableness,
promoting teamwork, developing open communication and nurturing relationships. As per his
viewpoint, organizations must take responsive actions to build potential abilities in order to
operate in globalized environment. Moreover, Tubbs & Schulz (2006) stated another competency
array for global leaders entailing: gaining an understanding of the bigger picture, behaviors, the
driving force, interaction, innovation and creativity, heading the transformation and followership.

Difference between domestic and global leadership-conceptual frameworks

While examining the differences between domestic and global leadership, the distinction is not
merely, or in fact primarily significant as a theoretical difference; the way global leaders perform
tasks are distinct just like their mindset, competencies and cultural awareness. Question arises:
what is that the global leaders do which other leaders working in a wholly domestic setting do
not? Research, in response to this question, suggests various perspectives but the general idea is
that global leaders cope up with increased levels of complexity. Complexity is perceived as the
contextual element of global paradigm- it is the setting which global leaders are supposed to
function and survive in. In their framework related to global complexity, Lane, Maznevski &
Mendenhall (2004) claimed that four elements or conditions persistently communicate in a
nonlinear procedure generating ongoing multiplier impacts which consequently develops
preserves and constantly changes complexity throughout the globe. The four dimensions or
conditions are outlined as: interdependence, multiplicity, ambiguity and flux.

The dimension multiplicity denotes to the actuality that global leaders inevitably encounter,
during their job roles, several models and demonstrations of managing, contending and
controlling beside their associated roles. Therefore, complexity is not merely reflective of the
sum and frequency of several people and bodies which global leaders deal with in comparison to
their domestic complements- its not only about more; its more and different, which describes
the multiplicity dimension of complexity (Lane et al, 2006, p.10).

Interdependence, being the second dimension of complexity, indicates the rapid, international
movement and connectivity of capital, knowledge and people. No person, team or an
organization operates in isolation now while technology facilitates rapid and easy connections
among and throughout organizations, industries and countries. For sustaining competitiveness,
organizations are realizing that should enter inter-reliant arrangements via outsourcing, alliances
and network engagements associated to their value chains for remaining price-competitive or
continuing to develop value (Lane et al, 2006). The CEOs of IBM and Sony, realizing the need
for mutual interplay forming connections are constantly developing a wide array of joint
ventures, mergers and strategies alliances to stay competitive.

As proposed by Lane et al, (2006), the final dimension of global complexity is the concept of
flux. Flux is a consequence of, as well as a nonlinear catalyst of complexity. The entire global
system is persistently in motion, continuously fluctuating, and it appears to be varying at a much
rapid speed all the time. Thus, all the dimensions of global complexity unite to generate a
multiplier impact, which is described as: multiplicity x interdependence x ambiguity x flux =
dynamic complexity (Lane et al., 2006). It is propositioned that this equation theoretically reveals
the inherent framework of global leadership, and that of complexity. Thus, it is established that
the factor of complexity theoretically distinguishes domestic leadership from global leadership
for academics who studied this domain. Particularly, only due to the fact that a leader is a
specific situation acquires positional or hierarchical authority in an organization does not
essentially make suitable the individual to be a global leader, even if his/her responsibilities
stretch outside the domestic setting.

An excellent example is the case of IBM when, in 2008, its CEO Sam Palmisano introduced an
initiative to make IBM a global organization. In order to develop a Globally Integrated
Enterprise, the company introduced customized leadership training for each level of the staff
instead of one-size-fit-for-all. The goal was to develop a cross cultural awareness among the
employees while providing knowledge about world issues and access to global resources
(Mendenhall & Bird, 2013). By providing rigorous training to the employees favoring managers
in client-facing roles, the company aimed to improve their cultural intelligence. Managers
dealing with in client facing roles were given access to resources that would increase their ability
to communicate across cultures (Mendenhall & Bird, 2013).

Conclusion
In light of the above discussion, leadership being one of the most researched topics in social
sciences, now incorporates a newer concept termed as global leadership which is differentiated
from the domestic leadership formerly studied. This distinction is primarily based over the added
competencies and abilities required for nowadays leaders who have to operate and communicate
across borders, thus making them global leaders who can manage diversity and complexity
primarily. Among others, global mindset was particularly referred as a vital competency required
for the development of global leadership, which involves the ability to influence having diverse
social and psychological understanding. Global complexity, which has been discussed as a
construct of the conceptual framework, is the major element which differentiates global
leadership from the traditional leadership, while some examples have also been given to
represent the changing attitudes of leading companies management towards the needs of
globalization.