Ann Feyerherm

Leader Cultural Intelligence in Context: Testing the Moderating Effects of Team Cultural Diversity on Leader and Team Performance

Despite clear calls from industry to better understand cross-cultural leadership competencies, academic research on leader cultural intelligence (CQ) is remarkably sparse. To date, very few empirical studies have examined the unique contribution of leader CQ to leadership performance outcomes beyond the effects of competing leadership competencies. Data from 99 culturally diverse organizational leaders and 321 of their followers demonstrated that leader CQ predicted follower perceptions of leader performance and team performance in contexts where work teams were characterized by significant ethnic and nationality diversity. Furthermore, leader CQ predicted follower perceptions of leader performance and team performance on culturally diverse work teams beyond the effects of leader emotional intelligence and other leadership competencies. Implications for cultural intelligence theory, future research directions, and management practice are discussed.

Reflections on the Future of Organization Development

This article describes and interprets the results of interviews with 21 pioneering organization development (OD) thought leaders regarding the past, present, and future of the field. Interpretations of the data reveal a pattern of responses that reflects the evolution of the field; adds to our understanding of the definition, values, skills, and trends in the field; and supports recommendations for developing future OD practitioners and reconciling the disciplines currently fragmented state.

Leadership in collaboration: A longitudinal study of two interorganizational rule-making groups

Abstract Two problem-solving groups were followed for a year to explore how leadership behaviors influenced members developing shared frameworks as they created regulatory solutions to air pollution. The study suggests that leadership behaviors are best thought of as a gestalt among several individuals. The most influential behaviors on shifting frameworks were: (1) those that illuminated and surfaced peoples assumptions and thoughts, (2) those that created new possibilities and alternatives, and (3) those that initiated collective actions.

Generation X women in high technology

Purpose – Seeks to undertake research of Generation X women in high technology in order to determine what type of corporate environment would support their needs for professional success, personal fulfillment, and sustain longer‐term employment.Design/methodology/approach – This qualitative study looked at high‐potential Generation X women (born between 1965‐1980) within the high‐technology industry and explored their relationship with work which means how they interact with bosses, peers, subordinates, and the corporate culture.Findings – The study found that, for Generation X women, personal fulfillment was intrinsically connected to professional success, and that they wanted support from their companies in terms of mentors for guidance and development, opportunities to excel, recognition for efforts, relationships, and flexibility to achieve work/life balance.Research limitations/implications – The sample size was small and, while the research applies to the high‐technology industry, care would need to...

Examining Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Cultural Negotiation Effectiveness.

International negotiation failures are often linked to deficiencies in negotiator cross-cultural capabilities, including limited understanding of the cultures engaged in the transaction, an inability to communicate with persons from different cultural backgrounds, and limited behavioral flexibility to adapt to culturally unfamiliar contexts. Although management educators are concerned about developing students’ cross-cultural capabilities, there exists very little empirical research demonstrating the impact of such abilities on negotiation performance. To address this limitation while advancing research on the development of cross-cultural capabilities, we examined the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-cultural negotiation performance. Using assessment center and consensus rating methodologies, 113 fully employed MBA students participated in a negotiation exercise designed to underscore key cultural differences with respect to both negotiation style and substantive issues. Controlling for prior negotiation and international experiences, personality (openness to change and extraversion), and emotional intelligence, our results demonstrated that CQ predicted negotiation performance while interest-based negotiation behaviors partially mediated the CQ–negotiation performance relationship. CQ capabilities facilitated negotiators’ ability to demonstrate cooperative, interest-based negotiation behaviors in a negotiation context that demanded behavioral adaptation. We conclude by discussing a series of practical implications for management educators and suggestions for future CQ research.

Reflections on Academic Governance

I appreciate the authors sharing their learning from the position of being in the “hot seat” of a leader in a university senate. Herding cats or jiggling the big bowl of Jell-o is not easy, and there are few guideposts to help one navigate this sometimes bewildering journey. I am reflecting on the article from multiple perspectives, having been the chair of the faculty organization, currently in administrative positions, being a member of the faculty, and having had experience in union–management relations in a business corporation. For all the reasons noted in the article, I could relate to the assertion that the complexity of universities is increasing. One stakeholder that was not mentioned specifically was the accrediting bodies, which add their own sets of demands and limitations that shape university governance. Accrediting agencies, such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International, expect to see both faculty involvement in governance and adherence to a set of guidelines. In fulfilling the guidelines, administrators may be at odds with the will of a governance body! Accrediting agencies and other stakeholders often assert competing demands on the institution, therefore contributing to the “lumpy” environment. I also resonated with the authors when they went through a litany of internal dynamics, including increasing bureaucratization and adding layers of management, which therefore leads to critics wondering if the universities are not being as agile or creative as they need to be. As I sat nodding my head, I longed for the authors to offer their suggestions as to what might be directions for the future and how one might vision university governance structures—perhaps that is an article for another time. The distinction between leadership and governance was a helpful one, and articulating the tension inherent in governance was useful. If indeed the frame of a “loyal opposition” became more widely adopted, some of the issues that I have seen arise from a faculty organization would be attributed to helping the leadership become more prepared and thoughtful versus making personal attributions to those who raise the issues. However, many of the issues raised are of the “operational” issues that can quickly derail a faculty governance organization. I think both leadership and governance are strategic functions for a university that are not yet perceived, approached, or acted on in a strategic manner. The authors did acknowledge that there are personal relationships that matter (e.g., “relationship with the administrator connected to the committee,” p. 10). However, in my experience, interpersonal skills, relationships, and past skirmishes or successes make a huge difference in the functioning of any faculty governance organization and their relationship to the administration. Given that governance is a political process, there are seemingly “irrational” decisions and debates. The authors’ descriptions and framing seem more rational and cognitive, and therefore, I think tend to give the interpersonal dynamics short shrift. In my experience, the only way that the emerging governance model summarized on Table 2 will take place is for decent interpersonal relationships to exist. At the beginning of my academic career, I yearned for familiar models from business. When I was the chair of the faculty organization, I flashed back to my days as an employee relations manager and numerous union– management conversations. I then came to the conclusion that the academic world could not just “import” the conventional business models of governance, as the authors also suggest. At the very best, in the academic world, we were engaged in colearning and cocreating an institution. I think the authors suggest that university governance has to be unique. It also occurs to me that university governance is not a good comparison to business functioning. In essence, the role of a senate is to govern peers in conjunction with administration. There is very little comparison to governance structures in businesses as they currently exist. However, with the changing nature of businesses, perhaps there is something the university governance models could import as organizations “flatten” and are asked to be learning organizations. Will there then be a group of peers to perform such strategic governance tasks? Journal of Management Inquiry Volume 18 Number 2 June 2009 134-135

Responding to community expectations on corporate environmental performance: How to develop effective citizen advisory panels

Abstract Corporations are facing increasing pressure to improve their environmental performance. Many are turning to citizen advisory panels (CAPs) as a way improve their decision- making and enhance their public accountability. CAPs are committee of citizens who meet regularly with managers to discuss environmental and other community issues associated with their companies. These panels allow organizations to recieve the type proactive environmental decisions. CAPs also can enble a company to communicate to and receive input from the community in a more controlled and confidential mannier than many other public processes. While CAPs offer many potential advantages, there are also a number of challenges that must be met before their benefits can be realized. This article describes a number of steps that companies should take to develop effective CAPs, including: forming the panels, selecting members, conducting meetings and communicating to citizen members. In addition, the authors discuss some of the lessons learned, including how to ensure that CAPs are operated in a manner that truly serves the interests of both the community and the company.