A systematic literature review on the definitions of global mindset and cultural intelligence – merging two different research streams

Abstract

The literature on global mindset indicates a growing array of different approaches to its definition and conceptualization. The components making up global mindset are often unclear and vary significantly between studies. Concomitantly, global mindset shows major overlap with the cultural intelligence construct. This leads to an unfortunate lack of comparability of research results and to potential confusion for readers. In this article, the authors systematically review and synthesize the existing definitions and conceptualizations of global mindset and cultural intelligence. These definitions and conceptualizations are grouped according to four dimensions of cross-cultural competencies: personal attributes, cognitive knowledge and skills, motivation, and resources for adapting behavior. Based on this analysis, we provide definitions and a demarcation of the constructs global mindset and cultural intelligence using the three levels of business management (normative, strategic, and operative). Whereas cultural intelligence is a sufficient cross-cultural competency for employees working in operative management, a global mindset becomes highly relevant at the strategic and normative management levels. We derive implications for management practice as well as for future research.

Cultural intelligence, global mindset, and cross-cultural competencies: a systematic review using bibliometric methods

“…There is a lack of consensus on the terms, similarities, distinct features, and associations of CQ, GM, and CC. We demonstrate this below with reference to conceptual papers that seek accepted definitions: Andresen and Bergdolt (2017) presented a systematic review of the definitions of CQ and GM (that also incorporates studies in a similar vein, such as Levy et al (2007), who define GM on individual, group, and organisational levels). Johnson et al (2006), Spitzberg and Chagnon (2009), as well as Leung et al (2014) proposed definitions and models of CC.…”

“…Review studies address the definition of CQ in contrast to the more traditional international business terminology (e.g., Andresen and Bergdolt, 2017;Levy et al, 2007;Johnson et al, 2006). Moreover, the authors have reviewed the literature with a focus on structuring (empirical) studies based on CQ (Fang et al, 2018;Ott and Michailova, 2018).…”

“…In addition to CQ, there are two concepts with a longer research history in international business and management: Cross-cultural Competencies (CC) and Global Mindset (GM) (e.g., Andresen and Bergdolt, 2017;Elo et al, 2015;Leung et al, 2014;Bücker and Poutsma, 2010a). While these concepts are not identical to CQ, they are valuable when looking at the CQ research domain for two reasons: first, they have relevant overlap with the concept of CQ (see Appendix 1 for a brief overview of selected measurement approaches).…”

Reinvigorating Research on Gender in the Workplace Using a Positive Work and Organizations Perspective*

“…With increasing globalization, a variety of approaches have emerged to help managers cultivate a mindset that is conducive to bridging differences (Andresen and Bergdolt ; Levy et al . ).…”

“…Inclusive mindset. With increasing globalization, a variety of approaches have emerged to help managers cultivate a mindset that is conducive to bridging differences (Andresen and Bergdolt 2017;Levy et al 2007). Here, insights from international business research converge with those from gender research.…”