Cross-cultural competence and power-based rules: A native American case study

Women Leadershipon Public Institution in Muslim Minority Society of West Papua

“…Her presence in the familybecomes a positive side for women.They are able to establish communication across people and communities.With this ability, they are easier to unify the differences and make the difference as part of a shared decision.In the American tradition, women are even able to cross classes and ethnicity (Debebe, 2008). Similarly, the politicians and academics of West Papuasynergize with all the organizational components that are involved.So to a certain extent, the presence of women would be a part that glues the existing shortcomings.Women can become public figures and leaders who participate in society.They have the skills to make strategic decisions and determine the direction of the organization in achieving its vision and mission, so are the women in Nairobi.Although they are in a shabby area, their presence is a solution to solve environmental problems (Greig & Bohnet, 2009).…”

A multi-level model of global decision-making: Developing a composite global frame-of-reference

“…Important internal organizational environment factors that increase the difficulty for the global manager include the problems associated with managing in foreign hybrid organizational environments which can be represented by combined ownership (i.e., joint ventures, strategic alliances), the top-managements' attitude relative to the strategic importance of the host country operations/market, and the history of the organization's prior experience in the host country market. This information is organization-specific and could have an impact on the global managers' ability to accomplish the task through the development of cross-cultural competencies relative to specific objectives during the foreign assignment (Debebe, 2008). The most salient external environment factor to consider is the cultural distance between the country of the global manager's assignment and the home country of that manager (while a great deal of controversy relates to the concept of cultural distance (e.g., Shenkar, 2001;Tihanyi, Griffith, & Russell, 2005) its general concept is useful for conceptualizing cross-national space (Sousa & Bradley, 2006;Tihanyi et al, 2005), political risk and economic instability of the host country).…”

Globalization and the inward flow of immigrants: Issues associated with the inpatriation of global managers

“…Thus, the goal of the inpatriation program is to decrease the degree of uncertainty associated with the change that foreign managers face when entering a domestic organization. By decreasing this uncertainty, there is a greater chance that adjustment into the organization and culture will be accomplished (Ward & Masgoret, 2006, 2008. Adjustment into the organization and culture enables the inpatriate manager to deliver services more effectively and efficiently, which in turn makes the others in the organization more satisfied, thus decreasing the perception of liability of foreignness of the inpatriate manager (Eden & Miller, 2004;Matsuo, 2000;Mezias, 2002;Sethi & Guisinger, 2002).…”

“…The higher-order needs (belonging, esteem, and self-actualization) are of no importance until the lowerorder needs (i.e., physiological and safety) are completely or partially satisfied. Once a need is completely or partially satisfied, an individual will seek to satisfy the need at the next higher level to build his or her cross-cultural competencies (Debebe, 2008). In an effort to provide future direction to inpatriate researchers, eight research propositions are presented relative to the four stages of integration of inpatriate managers to the home country organization.…”

“…Performance demands on global organizations have escalated at such an accelerating pace that hypercompetitive has become the standard for global competition, creating a complex competitive environment that necessitates organizational flexibility, innovativeness, improved communications, and management creativity (Debebe, 2008;Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997;Zadek, Hojensgard, & Raynard 2001). The development of these dynamic capabilities requires strategic flexibility in the management of the global organization.…”