Global leaders operate in a context of multicultural, paradoxical complexity in the world—a context that most leaders find themselves facing today. We argue that 4 developmental shifts are required to be effective in this context: developing multicultural effectiveness, becoming adept at managing paradoxes, cultivating the “being” dimension of human experience, and appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of cultural differences. Challenges for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology are identified in each area. The article concludes by inviting I–O psychologists to integrate competing frameworks, explore related disciplines, revamp leadership competency models, create new tools and frameworks for developing global leaders, and step up to become global leaders ourselves.

This study addresses several limitations of previous cross-cultural research of intimacy by (a) differentiating meaning and expression of intimacy, (b) developing items reflecting both cultures' concepts of the two constructs, (c) specifying the relationship context rated, and (d) examining and adjusting cultural response sets in the data set. Findings indicated that the Japanese were more likely to conceptualize intimacy through expressive concepts such as "consideration/love" and "expressiveness" than did the Americans toward same-sex best friend. Likewise, "directly verbalizing how you feel about each other" was more valued by the Japanese than by the Americans toward mother, father, and same-sex best friend, whereas the Americans valued "indirectly verbalize how you feel about each other" more than did the Japanese toward mother, father, and lover. These results, which are contrary to those typically found in the literature, were discussed in relation to the methodologies used, which we believe reduced the possible cultural bias in research.

Global leadership is sorely needed to transform the world, given trends such as climate change, water scarcity, and social unrest. We need leaders with multicultural sensitivity who will face paradoxes head on, invite new voices into the dialogue, and collaborate across sector and national boundaries to find more sustainable solutions. This response addresses 3 areas that garnered the most commentaries: competency models, paradoxes, and developing global leaders. We point out several neglected perspectives, including “being” and “individual uniqueness,” along with the absence of non‐Western voices in the commentary dialogue. We challenge readers to raise their consciousness and shift from enabling status quo leadership to becoming change agents.