Global mindset: a systematic review of the concept

Databases taken into consideration were EBSCO, Google Scholar, Researchgate.net, Publish or Perish, and Google Search. Keywords used in the search were limited to “global mindset” or “global” AND “mindset” to return the greatest number of results. Only peer-reviewed work was acknowledged for this review. With regards to Publish or Perish software, a different approach was implemented because the number of irrelevant texts resulting from the search was too great. In the “general citations” column and then in the “all of the words” column, the expression “global mindset” was input, and then the search was narrowed to “title words only,” which resulted in more relevant search results.

The literature review was divided into two stages. The first was to search and qualify as many texts as possible that were connected with GM. The next step was to review abstracts and content to eliminate those that did not examine GM in any way. Thus, references that only had GM mentioned in the title but did not refer to the concept in the abstract were removed. One of the criteria considered important in this stage was to eliminate those publications that were not peer-reviewed. The second stage focused on a deeper examination of texts in terms of methodology, researched group, place, GM definition, other variables taken into consideration in the study, whether GM was a dependent variable, and methods used. To access all the required and reliable data, full texts for chosen papers were searched for. After that, the second stage started and the selected texts were further examined.

Antecedents and outcomes obtained from the literature were grouped into categories by two independent judges (PhD students). They received a file with a list of antecedents and outcomes and their sources, and they were asked to align those to appropriate categories. Descriptions of each category and aligned codes, the abstract text, and the definition of variables coming from the original sources were provided. After that, a third judge grouped variables that were aligned in two different categories by the other two judges to add an additional control factor to the categorisation process.

GM antecedents were categorised into organisational and individual factors. Organisational factors were described as components that include characteristics of a company, describe its global activities, and outline the job complexity and organisational practises within the organisation. It consists of four subcategories. Organisational characteristics describe a company, including its location, size, and industry. An organisational manager's characteristics refer to management structure, a manager's characteristics, and leadership role. Organisational practises refer to human resources practises regarding an organisational strategy. Organisational international activity focuses on a company's global orientation strategy, internationalisation, international branches, employees, and customers.

The category of individual antecedents consists of four subcategories. Demographic factors include variables such as age, gender, education, skills, and family status. International activity describes international action referring to travels, international assignments, international cooperation, and international experience of an individual. Cross-cultural factors focus on variables that include an individual's cultural experiences, cultural intelligence, and knowledge. Psychological factors outline behaviours, attitudes, mental processes, and personality traits of a person, style of behaving, and thinking, and experiences.

Variables that did not fit into any provided categories were classified into the category of other antecedents. Details are shown in Table 1.

Outcomes were grouped into four categories. Two of them were the same and defined the same way as those used in the categorisation of GM antecedents; that is, organisational international activity and psychological factors. Leadership factors capture a leader's global competencies, skills, behaviours, attributes, and ability to manage others. Performance factors capture global and cross-cultural effectiveness or performance of individuals, teams, managers, companies, or programmes, and ability to adjust to new or changing environments. Once again, variables that did not fit into any provided possibilities were classified into the category of other outcomes. Details are shown in Table 2.

Different databases were searched with the use of a simple search formula: “global mindset” or “global” AND “mindset” search string. The initial output was 290 texts. Two stages of review were applied here. The first stage included removing non-peer-reviewed texts and duplicates. Moreover, criteria outlined here were used to include or eliminate publications according to GM availability in the title, abstract, and keywords. After applying those rules, 133 of the 290 texts remained. The second stage was a deeper analysis of the content, so full texts were searched for. A total of 93 full texts were available and included in the second step of this review. The search process and results are described in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Two factors influenced how the findings were grouped: study type and whether GM could be considered as a dependent or independent variable in the study (antecedent or outcome; Tables 1 and 2). Quantitative studies were presented in 36 publications, in which GM was treated as a dependent variable in 15 and as an independent variable in 21. A smaller number of qualitative studies and complex research designs were found in comparison to quantitative studies. In a total sample of publications, there were nine qualitative studies evenly split between GM treated as a dependent and as an independent variable. There were eight publications with a complex research design in which mostly GM is researched as a dependent variable (seven publications) and only in one publication as an independent one. In a total sample of 93 publications, there were 53 publications presenting empirical studies and 40 presenting literature reviews. Details are shown in Table 3.

Sources differed in terms of types of publications. A considerable number of texts came from peer-reviewed journals (n = 58), book chapters (n = 14), PhD dissertations (n = 16), MA theses (n = 3), and MBA theses (n = 2). Most of those have an international reach and were written in English (95%). A sources matrix can be found in the Appendix.

GM definitions were extracted from available publications, resulting in 18 definitions. GM is approached and described in different ways, but some similarities can be found across the literature and available definitions (Table 4).

Interrater reliability (IRR) and Scott's Pi (π) tests were conducted to analyse to which degree provided category ratings were in agreement. For both antecedents and outcomes, two independent judges achieved a high level of agreement. Antecedents IRR reached 70%, and in the case of outcomes, it is 90%. As far as Scott's Pi is concerned, within antecedents there was a high reliability score (π = 0.65), and outcomes reached a very high reliability (π = 0.9). Those results show a high level of agreement between the independent judges.

For antecedents, independent judges input 31 variables into organisational factors, 90 for individual factors, and one into the other category. Mismatch was found in 54 cases (those were categorised by a third independent judge). After adding up variables from the third judge, the total number for organisational factors turned out to be 61 and for individual factors it was 119. There was no change within the other category. Details are shown in Table 5.

In the case of outcomes, independent judges input 7 into organisational international activity, 6 into psychological factors, 16 within leadership, and 17 in performance. Mismatch was found in the case of five outcomes. A third independent judge categorised those as in the case of antecedents. Thus, the total number for organisational international activity turned out to be 8, psychological factors were 7, leadership was 16, and performance was 20. Details are shown in Table 6.

There are a number of studies focusing on GM antecedents. Independent judges grouped those into two main categories—organisational and individual factors—that were then divided into four subcategories each. Table 7 presents the mentioned factors; the first four outline the organisational category and remaining four are from the individual category. There is one that was not included in any of the previously mentioned categories, which is the other categorisation with one variable included.

Next, we describe various approaches concerning grouping antecedents across the available literature. Some findings from this study are also to be presented.

Ransom (2007) focused on managerial characteristics, intercultural adaptability, and attitudes towards globalisation in conducted research. Attitudes towards globalisation are considered as a mediator here in between intercultural adaptability and GM. Results show that there is a partial mediation between the mentioned variables. Intercultural adaptability is found to partially mediate managerial characteristics and attitudes toward globalisation. Significant interrelations are found between GM and attitudes towards globalisation. The main differences in responses turned out to be influenced by managerial level, functions, and world regions.

Story and colleagues (2014) differentiated GM antecedents into categories of personal, psychological, and job-role complexity. As important antecedents, they outlined education, level of management, number of languages spoken, number of international business trips, international assignment experience, complexity of global role, and positive psychological capital (PsyCap). On the other hand, Kjar (2007) outlined early life experiences, family factors and community, and travel as important for GM development. Nationality prominence is also indicated in conducted studies. Matthes (2013) described higher levels of GM in leaders who have dual citizenship. Personal, educational, and professional factors were also shown to mediate the relationship between GM and nationality.

There are other approaches that, for example, group GM antecedents on demographic and organisational levels. The latter referred to such factors as the number of employees in the company, location of headquarters, product lines, and the number of countries a company operates in or does business with. The percentage of employees overseas and revenue received from foreign operations were also taken into consideration. From a demographic perspective, age, gender, position, or such factors as international work experience, number of foreign languages spoken, multicultural background of an individual, or work location are considered significant antecedents of GM. A number of factors were found to increase GM considerably: known foreign languages, countries worked in, employees working overseas, company revenue (Cole & Konyu-Fogel, 2011). Dekker (2013), on the other hand, distinguished personal and person in job factors. Personal factors refer to number of children, marital status, age, gender, and education (also the one abroad). Person in job factors refers to job characteristics (e.g., geographical scope), international work experience, and how many times an individual travelled per year.

Antecedents of GM also get divided according to level of occurrence, so individual, team or group, and company or organisation. Ciszewska-Mlinarič (2015) distinguished individual and firm-level predictors of GM. The first group refers to prior international experience and language skills, and the second to foreign ownership and international experience of a company. Hruby et al. (2016) undertook an extensive literature research and grouped their findings according to level of appearance. On the individual level, such antecedents are outlined as demographics (e.g., age, gender, and language proficiency; international education), multicultural work experience, multicultural background, international connection or mindset (e.g., expanding knowledge on various cultures), and business-related factors (e.g., operations). On a group level, they specified variables like cognitive capabilities, international experience, cosmopolitan orientation, and cognitive diversity. It is outlined as prominent for GM whether this group is engaged in globalisation issues and international trade practises, has experience of foreign customers and traditions, industry-specific forces, organisational and strategic heritage, and overseas campuses. On an organisational level, Hruby and colleagues (2016) described such antecedents as leadership performance, managers’ decision style, top management's capability to do a proper evaluation of gained international experiences, and even their childhood experiences. Moreover, daily language exposure and international experience is considered valid, as well as diversity of available resources and an ability to cultivate knowledge and information about other cultures.

Gupta and Govindarajan (2002), on the other hand, focused on international work experience of managers such as multiyear assignments and creation of an environment in which they would feel like global sources. Having an ability to integrate dispersed cultural knowledge structures as well as willingness to cultivate it is considered an important predictor of GM. Thus, an ability to integrate diverse knowledge bases effectively was considered the most important factor that affects GM development.

Among other antecedents that can be spotted within the available literature, cognitive complexity is described as important for GM (Clapp-Smith, 2009; Clapp-Smith & Lester, 2014; Clapp-Smith et al., 2007; Hruby et al., 2016; Levy et al., 2007; Pobat, 2013) as are cultural intelligence (Carvalho, 2014; Clapp-Smith, 2009; Clapp-Smith et al., 2007; Hruby et al., 2016; Lovvorn & Chen, 2011; Zander et al., 2012) and cultural adaptability (Reis et al., 2012). What is more, cultural self-awareness, positivity, and suspending judgment are considered prominent factors (Clapp-Smith, 2009; Hruby et al., 2016). Carvalho (2014) referred to personal characteristics (formal education, language skills, international experience, informal learning) and psychological traits (PsyCap, tolerance for ambiguity, cosmopolitanism, and cultural self-awareness) as predictors of GM. Moreover, Clapp-Smith and colleagues (2007), as well as Beechler and Javidan (2007), identified psychological capital as an important antecedent of GM. Later on, Clapp-Smith and Lester (2014) built upon those findings and added cosmopolitanism to the GM antecedent group. Formal training, as well as training on the job, is considered important for GM development. There are variables that have a positive impact on GM development like foreign country work and living experience, multicultural family, and age (Arora et al., 2004). Moreover, having an international background within work or educational experience was listed as an important antecedent by Nummela and colleagues (2004). They found that such market characteristics as turbulence or globalness are prominent factors influencing GM. Lill (2012) outlined that managers on international assingments are the most effective in cultivating GM. Such factors as international travel, work experience, or working in global teams contributed to GM development. The value of international cooperation, assignments, and leadership style was mentioned by March (2013). Leadership style is described by people growth, offering development opportunities, conducting proper induction of new hires, and providing proper training. It is vital to provide fulfilling work opportunities that can keep employees interested in a job (March, 2013).

Mikhaylov and Fierro (2015) found out that among antecedents that are vital for GM are social networks, capital, cross-cultural competence, and creating cultural knowledge. Global approach turned out to be an important impact factor for GM. Lane and colleagues (2009) referred to global competencies as antecedents of GM and as the most important ones they have described developing global business knowledge. In their study, they also referred to threshold personality traits (integrity, humility, curiosity, and hardiness or resilience) as vital predictors. On the other hand, Gaffney and colleagues (2014) directed their attention to global integration, international work experience, interactions with foreigners, individuality, and entrepreneurship as important traits for GM development. As far as willingness to cooperate, GM is predicted by team members’ willingness to work together. This relationship is mediated by self-efficacy, and it is found that learning orientation is not positively interrelated with GM and cannot be considered as its antecedent (Tran et al., 2015).

Another group of antecedents referred to individual and company characteristics. In the studies published in 2012 and 2013 by Felicio and colleagues, the same set of GM antecedents were outlined: childhood experiences, international experience and its valuation, technical expertise, global orientation and company's global market perspectives, and company's characteristics and global orientation (Felício et al., 2012; Felício et al., 2013). In addition to that, Felício and colleagues (2012) outlined decision style, and later combined decision style and attitude in relations as well as language skills (Felício et al., 2013). Then, in another set of research, Felício et al. (2015) divided antecedents of GM into an individual and corporate categories. The first set builds up from cognition, knowledge, and behaviour when corporate level is referred to as analytical, risk-taking, aggressive, situational, or strategic posture. Moreover, diversity in cultural background, childhood influences like immigrant family or multiple nationalities, knowledge of foreign marriages, international marriage, and motivation to cooperate and lead in a cross-cultural environment were found to be important antecedents of GM (Stokke, 2013).