Weaving the Threads of a Global Mindset in Work

Organizations: Managerial Roles and Responsibilities

SAMIR R. CHATTERJEE

How can a manager or an organization refine and enrich its global mindset orientation? A radically
different frame of aligning people, strategy and purpose may be through the extension and enrichment of a
global mindset rather than strategy or structure. This article explores the concept of global mindset from a
new perspective and forwards a number of specific action frames for managers to reflect on. The article
contends that the negative effects of contemporary globalization can only be overcome through the enrichment
of global vision of managers everywhere. As for applicability, the article argues that mindset development
can only contribute to the sustainability of organizations and societies.

Kothao amar hariye jabar nei mana mone
mone (I have no boundaries to my mindscape).
(Tagore 1940)
Introduction
The 1940s popular Tagore song on limitless mind-
scape convergence epitomizes the Indian ethos of
globalism of centuries. The Vedic ideals of ‘vasu-
daiva kutumbakam’ (all the world is connected
and we are related to all) have been osmosized
not only in spiritual, literary or religious trad-
itions, but are also evident in socio-political
visions of national leaders in India. Globalization
of the mind has been the hallmark of Indian civil-
ization as opposed to the other great civilizations
of Asia such as China or Japan. The Chinese ab-
sorption of Buddhism as its own has been more
an exception than the Indian ability to absorb
things from everywhere. This is evident in the
Indian ethos expressed through poetry, art, music,
languages and architecture. In the recent decades
and in particular in the economic arena, the
holistic global thinking of India has not been able
to match the pace of other Asian nations, particu-
larly the Japanese. The emergence of competitive
global organizations and the rise of Asia as the
global economic hub of the future call for a wider

Samir R. Chatterjee, Professor, International Management, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western
Australia 6845. E-mail: samir.chatterjee@cbs.curtin.edu.au.
JOURNAL OF HUMAN VALUES 11:1 (2005)
Sage Publications New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London
DOI: 10.1177/097168580401100104
38 l SAMIR R. CHATTERJEE
diffusion of global mindset at the micro-level
corporate context. The paradigm of balancing the
mindset that matters with contemporary societal
harmony and progress has become a major chal-
lenge to all societies. It is not sufficient any more
for a poet or a visionary leader of a country to
possess exclusively the visions of globalism. This
needs desperately to be shared and grasped by
all organizations, managers and indeed the popu-
lation at large.
Research amongst Asian managers indicates
that in spite of their ability to recognize and value
the imperatives of a global mindset in the gov-
ernance of work organizations, only a handful
can translate them to practice (Chatterjee and
Pearson 2002). In the corporate arena, responding
to the challenge of globalization can only be real
if the application of the mindset is expressed
through strategies, systems, structures, behav-
iours, designs and organization culture. Develop-
ing a global mindset in a work organization
requires the alignment of deeply held values and
visions to the empowered networks of managers
and employees. People with global vision need
to be able to integrate the contradictory forces of
Figure 1
Global Mindset as a Social Construct
complexity arising out of both ‘globality’ and
locality. In a study of 1,500 executives from 12
large corporations around the world, ‘the ability
to acquire global mindset in the organization’ was
rated as the 24th item in a 24-item menu of values
(Kefalas 1998). This was particularly perplexing
as these managers were selected from companies
that described themselves as ‘global’. It points
to the glaring difficulties in the diffusion of
macro-level ideas to micro-level behaviour and
attitudes. The converging forces of regulatory
regimes of new market-oriented ideologies such
as the WTO, and the expansion of communication
technology, the Internet and global logistics have
made the imperatives of global mindset urgent in
societies like India and China.
How the macro-level national strategies of eco-
nomic reform translate into the meso-level enter-
prise or industry reorientation is of considerable
interest. At the micro level it is important to con-
ceptualize the processes of filtering of the broad
societal agenda. The emerging top-down, or in
some areas networked, diffusion of global think-
ing to the grass-roots are areas of immediate
research attention. Figure 1 presents a model
 Weaving the Threads of a Global Mindset in Work Organizations l 39
linking the macro-level forces creating and
developing global mindset amongst managers.
Societal history and heritage can either open or
close people’s mind in this area. Colonial heritage
in educational pedagogy and English as a langu-
age of social and corporate communication had
had an impact on the Indian context to a consider-
able extent. The political, social or managerial
elite’s undeniable impact can often be the single
most force in the area of developing popular
mindset. The post-war transformation of the
Japanese societal, enterprise and individual mind-
sets attest to this view. In India organizations like
Infosys, Ranbaxy Labs, Wipro, Tata and Birla
Groups, Indian Oil and Reliance are some of the
excellent examples in recent years where it ap-
pears that significant achievement in their global
mindset development has been activated at the
‘grass-roots’ level. It may be argued that global
success in these organizations is more than stra-
tegic success or the strength of the structural,
cultural or even human resource capabilities.
The adoption of global mindset throughout the
organization and sharing of the global values may
have contributed to their spectacular success in
recent years.
The Concept of Global Mindset
As work organizations expand and respond to
competitors and collaborators regionally and
globally, they need workforces and managers who
can ride the waves of culture and diversity by
learning and adapting in every sphere of organiza-
tional life. This can only be done by seeing how
an organization scans the world in devising the
values, visions and actions in maintaining its
cohesive identity. Global mindset is a cognitive
orientation anchored in any organization and
expressed through its values and practices that
demonstrate its ability to transcend the boundaries
of immediacy. This allows managers and their
workforces to consider and absorb diverse para-
digms with critical long-term strategic directions.
The possession of global mindset is much more
than openness to multiple and broad approaches.
It is an integrative focus where tangibles and in-
tangibles are synthesized in the cognitive domain
and then configured into corporate values, beliefs,
strategies, cultures and competencies. Perlmutter
(1969) conceptualized three types of mindsets and
these frames still dominate in the literature. First,
ethnocentric, reflecting a home country orienta-
tion with a compulsion to view the world from a
‘my way is the best way’ frame. Second, the poly-
centric mindset, reflecting a very contrasting view
where everything elsewhere is considered effect-
ive. The third perspective of geocentricity was
advocated as a ‘global’ view where no single cul-
ture or context contained the ‘best’ answer to
global choices. In recent conceptualization, it is
increasingly being viewed as a ‘knowledge
structure’ amongst managers. The two primary
attributes of this knowledge structure are differ-
entiation (the number of elements in the person
or organization’s knowledge base) and integration
(the person or organization’s ability to synthesize
the disparate elements of business, task and
function) (Gupta and Govindarajan 2004: 83).
Differentiation in knowledge leads to the
narrowing of focus and seeing one’s work from
a ‘value-free technical perspective’ only. The
knowledge structure of many technical experts
in the fields of engineering, business, health or
science demonstrates high differentiation where
they become specialists of a given task, function
or business. Integration in knowledge structure
refers to the ability to aggregate and synergize
disparate elements of the knowledge jigsaw by
combining contradictory perspectives. An indus-
try like information technology may necessarily
have to have technical experts with very high
levels of differentiation and, in this case, unless
the managers demonstrate correspondingly high
40 l SAMIR R. CHATTERJEE
integration, the mental templates may remain
fragmented as illustrated in Figure 2. Global
mindset becomes natural in quadrant M4, where
openness to and awareness of diversity of cultures
and systems can be easily comprehended and
synthesized. The globality of mindset is evidently
missing in quadrant M1, with the organizational
focus being completely on routine task per-
formance only.
Figure 2
Framework of Global Mindset
Maruyama (1982: 613) termed these cognitive
and perceptual structures as ‘mindscapes’ and
postulated that in any given culture, there were
many types of mindscapes, although the per-
centage distribution of this varies from culture to
culture. He termed these variates as H-type
(homogeneity seeking), I-type (heterogeneity
isolationist), S-type (heterogenist stability) and
C-type (cogenerative). His ‘H’ type mindscape
represented homogeneity and was the platform
for most people where diversity and distance were
considered outside the ‘mental’ boundary as in
quadrant M1 in Figure 2. H-type mindscape
sought internal standardization and homogen-
ization, external competitiveness and an adver-
sarial attitude towards the government, labour and
the ‘public’.
Nobel-Prize-winning management scholar
Herbert Simon argued that all managerial and
administrative decisions in work organizations
reflected choices arising from the idiosyncrasies
of decision makers. Decision makers at all organ-
izational levels bring their set of ‘given presup-
positions’, reflecting their values and principles
(Simon 1965). In this regard, the success and
failure of any managerial decision can be linked
to the ‘given presupposition’ of the global mind-
set. Paradoxically, the ‘presuppositions’ of glob-
ality in many cases have been the standardization
of a global concept. For example, the global con-
cept in IBM in 1960s was in fact a rigid standard-
ization and sometimes it led to even ‘throwing
out the baby out with the bathwater’. For example,
every employee of IBM received the same bene-
fits across nations, and this extended even to
countries that guaranteed their citizens universal
health coverage (Begley and Boyd 2003: 32). It
is only in recent years that IBM has accepted that
a global imperative often leads to consciously
divergent outcomes depending on strategic dic-
tates, thereby making global thinking a dynamic
insight rather than a bureaucratic set of rules.
Such a simplistic global view is often seen in the
human resource policies and practices of the
United Nations. However, the UN mindset of
driving homogeneity-seeking globality still
dominates major global enterprises. Examples of
this are seen in the formulation of subsidiary
strategic alliance initiatives of mergers and
acquisitions, market research, product devel-
opment, etc.
The Managerial Role in Building
a Global Mindset
Contemporary management theories about how
managers understand international initiatives of
an organization can be termed as ‘process theor-
ies’. The main proposition of these theorists has
 Weaving the Threads of a Global Mindset in Work Organizations l 41
been to search for a dynamic balance between
the achievement of global efficiency brought
about by coordination and process on the one
hand, and the recognition of local responsiveness
through the adoption of unique cultural, economic
or other contextual elements on the other. Noted
amongst the protagonists of this framework are
Bartlett and Ghosal (1989), who defined ‘trans-
national mentality’ as the ability to exploit com-
plex strategic potential through the development
of organizational capability. As has been pointed
out, ‘Process theorists have variously specified
the direction of relationships between mindsets
and business policies that can leverage inter-
national strategic change. Mindsets confer insight
to design appropriate policies. But consistent
policies also bring about shifts, with a tag in
manager’s mindsets’ (Murtha et al. 1998: 98–99).
Aligning micro-level and meso-level mindsets
to a consistent enterprise, industry or national-
level thinking needs a common vocabulary, a
clear value convergence and a consistency of
behaviour. There are two divergent ways in which
this alignment can be viewed. The first approach
emphasizes the abilities and orientations as-
sociated with the acceptance and leveraging of
heterogeneity. A leading contributor to this ap-
proach was Rhinesmith (1995), who emphasized
the characteristics of knowledge, conceptual abil-
ity, flexibility, sensitivity, judgment and learning
as the personal attributes to be developed to make
the transition from the ‘traditional’ to a ‘global’
mindset. The six areas of managerial attention in
setting the tone for a global mindset in any organ-
ization as espoused by Rhinesmith were:
1. driving for a bigger and broader canvas
where people, ideas, resources, processes,
markets and all other critical ingredients
could be viewed from a totality standpoint;
2. developing capabilities of paradox manage-
ment through the recognition of alternative
viewpoints;
3. overcoming structural impediments by
emphasizing trust in people and their
behavioural processes;
4. the ability to recognize and leverage di-
versity in creating cross-functional, cross-
disciplinary and often cross-cultural team
work;
5. the opportunities of changes in organiza-
tional imperatives leading to the acceptance
of ambiguity and risks, the tone of global
context in an organization is linked to
6. the organization’s openness to learning.
The organization continuously seeks to extend
its boundaries, finding new meanings, and chang-
ing directions and behaviours. Two more man-
agerial frames were added to the preceding six
by Srinavas (1995). Thus, the seventh compe-
tency contributing to global mindset was for-
warded as ‘long term orientation’ and the eighth
perspective was ‘systems thinking’, where the
organization and the functioning sub-units were
viewed in terms of their interdependence and
cause–effect relationships. The second approach
to the building of a global mindset highlights the
‘cognitive’ domain of managers and articulates
an idea of ‘the matrix in the mind’. This matrix
of the mind refers to a set of attributes rather than
competencies that transcend all structures and
strategies.
Table 1 outlines a framework of mindset devel-
opment. The parameters of mindset in any organ-
ization could be witnessed through its elite values
(who are the members of the top management
group), power of global ambition, and richness
of networks, selection and development of human
resources.
Making sense in a world increasingly domin-
ated by global imperatives is complex for man-
agers of all types of organization. For example,
the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, headquartered in Geneva, has
42 l SAMIR R. CHATTERJEE

Table 1
Managerial Focus in Mindset Development

Levels of intensity Mindset variables Managerial focus

Societal level
l Social heritage: global/local
l Institutional strength: universal/
particularistic
l Educational emphasis:
technical/integrative
Organizational level
l Global ambition: local/regional/
global
l Global Capability Index (GCI)
l Global Revenue Index (GRI)
Individual level
l International experience
l Opportunities of learning and
development
l Career opportunities
l Viewing diversity as an advantage
l Developing polycular vision in
understanding how others see us
l Leveraging country heritage to
enhance global values
l Primacy of global vision in strategy,
structure and behaviours
l Building organizational agility and
risk orientation
l Emphasizing long-term orientation
l Benchmarking practices of other
organizations
l Building information handling
skills
l Quality emphasis
l Regulatory regime of openness
l Emphasis on ethics and integrity as
global advantage
l Global linkages in education, arts and
culture energized
l Building networks of trusting alliances
through multinational boards
l Balancing integrative perspectives of
differentiation and integration
l Establishing global/cultural
mentoring for a new leadership
l Internalized values of other cultures
l Developing contrarian thinking skills
l Accepting novelty, adventure and
learning

a management development concern. It worries
that it may be drifting too far towards a fast-action
culture. It knows that it must act quickly in re-
sponding to disasters everywhere—earthquakes
and wars, floods and famines—but it also sees
the need to engage in the slower, more delicate
task of building a capacity for action that is care-
ful, thoughtful, and in tune with local conditions
and needs (Gosling and Mintzberg 2003: 56).
They argue that the reconciliation of global and
local orientation is a formidable challenge for
managers. Perhaps they cannot be adequately
responded to at the individual managerial level
unless the organizational and societal forces are
also aligned to the mindset. A German manager’s
global mindset is perhaps influenced by four
layers of forces. First, the home country (German)
global orientation; second, the company’s global
heritage; third, the industry characteristics; and
fourth, the individual home country managers’
global mindset. The ‘creative tension’ generated
by these four driving forces will possibly set the
tone of global mindset orientation, not only for
German managers but also the home country
managers of this company in various countries.
Mapping the Global Mindset
One can hypothesize the parameters that char-
acterize a purely global company. A global com-
pany needs to have an articulated vision of global
emphasis in terms of global, regional or export
ambitions. For example, a global presence may
signal the procurement on a global scale, gen-
eration or revenue of significant proposition from
outside its national boundaries, subscription to
its equity from multinational sources and finally
the overwhelming presence of a global mindset.
The two indicators of global involvement for a
company are often measured through the Global
 Weaving the Threads of a Global Mindset in Work Organizations l 43
Revenue Index (GRI) and the Global Capability
Index (GCI). The GRI is calculated by the
formula:
GRI = ∑1 [Ix (Cum Rx
n
+ Cum Rx ( n −1)
n n
Where:
n = number of regions (such as North Amer-
ica, Europe, South Asia, Middle East,
South-East Asia)
Ixn = industry demand in a given region in pro-
portion to the world demand
Rxn = Cumulative proportion of sales achieved
by the company in the region n (for ex-
ample, Tata Tea’s sales may be 25 per cent
in Europe, 10 per cent in USA, 15 per cent
in South-East Asia).
GCI evaluates the distribution of assets across
the world either in terms of capital or in terms of
human resource deployment. The combination of
GCI and GRI provides an indication of the global
strength of a company.
A number of researchers in management have
attempted to link the managerial mindset to organ-
izational performance by developing empirical
tools. Kobrin (1994) contended that a balanced
ethnocentrism of managers was linked to global
advantage of a number of US corporations.
Murtha and colleagues (1998) extended this work
in developing a newer scale for measuring indi-
vidual and organizational mindset towards global
orientation. The key objective of this quantitative
assessment was to enable individuals working in
organizations to master the complexity of global
strategic choices. The scale items included in this
mindset survey were measured on a 7-point scale
and included two sets of variables. These vari-
ables were ‘mindset variables’, including inte-
gration expectations, responsiveness and country
coordination expectations, as well as policy
variables such as career expectations, global
ambition and global impact. The mindset
mapping was outlined by the researcher as:
] n
∑ (x ) ∗ X
X kj = ij kj
i =1
Where:
Xkj = the score on scale k (which may be respon-
siveness to local adjustment of standard-
ized global idea or operation)
j = an individual manager
x = the score of individual j on the question-
naire item i
n = the number of items in the additive scale k.
The empirical work led the researchers to con-
clude that:
More knowledge that senior managers were
attracted to the prescriptions of prominent
academics when they sought to bring about a
cognitive shift toward more global mindsets
among all managers. We found that consistent
with the case-based literature, operating man-
agers did not immediately respond to the new
thinking or to new incentives, but remained
mired in the past. Some time in the 30 months
between our observations, thinking changed.
Our findings allow us to assert this with con-
fidence because our measures exhibited
reliability, validity and generalizability across
time. Although the mindset and policy vari-
ables for the operating group were established
only during the intervening period, we found
these patterns meaningful in light of the
literature and the change processes senior
managers asserted they had tried to undertake.
(ibid.: 110)
44 l SAMIR R. CHATTERJEE
An index called Global Creative Class Index
(GCCI) analysed the emergence of ‘thinking man-
agers’ in a number of countries. ‘Using employ-
ment data and the job classifications established
by the International Labour Organization (ILO),
the index is a straightforward calculation of the
number of people employed in creative job cat-
egories in each country divided by the country’s
total number of workers’ (Florida 2004: 122). The
study reported a dramatic shift in the global
orientation in countries like Ireland, Belgium,
Australia and the Netherlands, where at least a
third of the workforce were engaged in creative-
competitive sectors of the economy. Other coun-
tries with a surprising high score on the GCCI
Index were New Zealand, Estonia, the United
Kingdom, Canada, Finland and Iceland. This
measure correlated closely with other well-known
global competitiveness measures, such as the
Global Innovation Index (GII) developed by
Michael Porter and the Globalization Index (GI)
developed by the consulting firm A.T. Kearney.
Weaving the Design
Percy Barnevik, the Swedish CEO of ABB is
widely credited as the key idea leader of global
mindset in his organization. When English was
chosen as the common language of ABB, it was
the mother tongue of a minority of its 220,000
employees. A management information system
called ABACUS was developed specifically to
broaden the global information awareness of its
approximately 1,400 companies and 5,000 profit
centre operatives. The country managers at ABB
were often referred to as ‘global optimizers’ and
a global cadre of 500 elite was given the role in
transforming organizational practices and mind-
sets. Barnevik had at one time described ABB to
be a collection of local business coordinated by
teams with a global mindset. Cross-national
membership of the teams made it easy for the
development of personal ties across borders
(Taylor 1991). In contrast to this approach of
ABB, many Japanese companies still strive to
achieve a very specific standardization of
practices and cultures. Matsushita, for example,
sends 700 Japanese to serve on four- to eight-
year assignments. They attempt to minimize the
influence of local social, political or cultural dif-
ferences by combining frequent personal involve-
ment and strong socialization.
Answering the question, ‘Just how global are
we as individuals or organizations or a region or
as a nation?’ may need much deeper introspection
of our values and beliefs. The answer lies in our
capacity to understand contrasting values and
beliefs as the search for the ‘reductionist measur-
ability’ discussed earlier in this article may only
provide an indication to the signpost of a long
road. The real test of being on the road to achiev-
ing global mindset may even be to see how many
members of the board are from overseas or are
people with global competence. For an Indian
company like Infosys, Wipro or Tata, how many
of their top managers are of non-Indian origin?
Can an Indian company become really global if
all the top 100 managers are Indians? As has been
pointed out:
The leaders of the world’s most admired com-
panies have shown that they have the talent
not only to design a multi-cultural strategy but
also ... and perhaps more important ... to
mobilize and to energize their people. The
international acumen that they possess have
enabled them to keep their organizations at the
forefront in the global markets. (Kets DeVries
and Florent-Treacy 1999: 14)
Creating a global mindset necessitates oppor-
tunities for learning. Learning to be open, learning
to be more self-aware, learning to challenge en-
trenched values and beliefs, and develop healthy
 Weaving the Threads of a Global Mindset in Work Organizations l 45
approaches to dealing with differences. European
companies attempted this type of learning by
establishing ‘the European round table’, an
association for 40 of Europe’s biggest companies
in the early 1990s. There are opportunities of
member companies to swap managers between
companies for short periods. The building of
global mindset is the platform for any learning
pyramid in organizations striving to achieve the
broadest possible perspectives in dealing with
future.
Learning through immersion in strange con-
texts is a pedagogy often employed in developing
a global view for managers. It has been experi-
mented in management development programmes
around the world. A programme module of
INSEAD in India had been explicitly formulated
to get into someone else’s world as a mirror to
one’s own assumptions.
For all but the Indian managers, India is not just
another world, but, in a sense, other-worldly.
Being there, especially among fellow managers
from Indian companies, takes the non-Indian
participants past the nice abstractions of eco-
nomic, political, and social differences, down
onto the streets, where these differences come
alive. How can you possibly drive in this
traffic? An American marketing manager from
Lufthansa, shaken up during her ride from the
airport, asked an Indian Professor. He replied,
‘I just join the flow.’ Learning can begin. That
is not chaos on the streets of India, but another
kind of logic. (Gosling and Mintzberg 2003: 59)
The overwhelming trends point toward a world
where individuals have unparalleled opportunities
of linking to each other. The explosive growth of
people-to-people connection potential has been
paradoxically hindered by the tribality of political,
social and corporate leadership. It has been
pointed that:
Indians are among the brightest people on this
earth, said a German statesman in a candid dis-
cussion at Davos in the early nineties, and yet
India can’t seem to take advantage of the global
economy. Why can’t Indians understand that
there is only one game in town? Those who
learn to play it well will make it in the twenty-
first century; others will be left behind. (Das
2002: 263)
The inventor of Hotmail, Sabeer Bhatia, attrib-
uted his global techno-entrepreneurial mindset to
the Indian heritage. He recently reflected on the
remarkable influence Indians have had on the IT
industry and believed it to be contributed by a
combination of Indian family life and British
colonial heritage. The extraordinary emphasis on
education in India combined with the Hindu trad-
ition of science and mathematics, and the British
legacy of the English language had contributed
to the shaping of globally linked professionalism
in India (McNicoll 2004: 6).
A company such as Nokia, which emerged out
of a sunset industry like lumbering and paper
pulping and has become a mind-boggling multi-
national entity, attributes this success largely to
its global mindset weaving managerial leader
Ollila. It is hard to believe that a company that
once strategized to corner the ‘toilet tissue
market’ of the newly opening Soviet Russia could
reinvent itself as a truly global player of a highly
successful innovative product. ‘It is a company
that bends over backward to tailor its products to
every local quirk, from the Chinese need to have
long-lasting batteries to the Japanese enthusi-
asm for dialing by voice’ (Micklethwait and
Wooldridge 2000: 131).
Global mindset can be perceived and inter-
preted in terms of the social and economic en-
vironments of a given managerial context. As
divergent cultures place importance to different
aspects of values in a society and the changing
46 l SAMIR R. CHATTERJEE
economic imperatives demand divergence of
managerial focus, the challenge for managers
becomes more formidable as globalization takes
hold. A mindset is not the acquisition of a set of
skills; it is a way of defining one’s ‘being’ con-
sciousness. It is an orientation that allows an
individual or a society to see certain things that
others are unable to. The rising dominance of
American culture all around the world shows the
inadequacy of global orientation in many
societies. While the fast movement of books,
films and art can only enrich cultures, the move-
ment of popular culture from one context to the
other can be of great harm if it does not presup-
pose a much higher level of global understanding.
The emerging world of ‘cultural imperialism’
evident with consumeristic globalization has been
strengthened by the gap left open by the absence
of global imagination elsewhere. On the one
hand, the expanding frontiers of Hollywood’s
empire is a threat to other cultures; on the other
hand, this inherently offers opportunities for real
globality to take hold as countervailing forces
come into play. In recent years, not only has
Bollywood signalled its desire to acquire a global
reach, but also a number of Chinese films had
been able to cross their cultural boundaries and
achieve success in other spheres.
Conclusion
Returning to the central issue of managerial role
in the weaving of global vision that allows
REFERENCES
Bartlett, C. and S. Ghosal (1989), Managing Across Borders:
The Trasnational Solutions (Boston: Harvard Business
School Press).
managers to see themselves and their work roles
in a broader frame of reference needs a com-
pletely different analysis, reflection and creativity
of mind. Fundamental shifts in assumptions about
local consequences of global integration are
needed as the managerial wind of globalization
touches every corner of the world. The negative
impacts of mindless global convergence through
a consumerist culture can only be overcome
through the development of a knowledgeable
cadre of managers whose values transcend narrow
technical or commercial considerations, and who
can link contemporary challenges to a civiliza-
tional context. The need to understand exploding
boundaries of work and organizations with a
deeper level of cultural intelligence is an impera-
tive of paramount significance for all managers.
Belief systems and cognitive processes differ
across cultures, and in-depth field-based know-
ledge will always lead to mindscapes that are not
generalized dimensional views of a society or a
company.
The research in this article points towards
understanding macro-societal influences on
organizations and managers. What is unique
about the concept and its action frame is that it
does not limit itself on macro-societal influences.
Instead, the focus of attention is on a manager
(as in Figure 2). In essence, it is a complete shift
in the managerial paradigm, in calculating a new
way of connecting to each other through the
refinement of a mindset rather than emphasizing
the traditional structure, system and culture.
Begley, T.M. and D.P. Boyd (2003), ‘The Need for a
Corporate Global Mindset’, MIT Sloan Management
Review, 44(2), 25–32.
 Weaving the Threads of a Global Mindset in Work Organizations l 47
Chatterjee, S.R. and C.A.L. Pearson (2002), ‘Work Goals
of Asian Managers: Field Evidence from Singapore,
Malaysia, India, Thailand, Brunei and Mongolia’, Inter-
national Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2(2),
251–68.
Das, G. (2002), The Elephant Paradigm: India Wrestles with
Change (New Delhi: Penguin).
Florida, R. (2004), ‘America’s Looming Creativity Crisis’,
Harvard Business Review, 42(10), 122–38.
Gosling, J. and H. Mintzberg (2003), ‘The Five Minds of a
Manager’, Harvard Business Review, 81(11), 54–63.
Gupta, A.K. and V. Govindarajan (2004), Global Strategy
and Organization (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons).
Kefalas, A.G. (1998), ‘Think Global, Act Locally’, Thunder-
bird International Business Review, 40(6), 547–49.
Kets DeVries, M. and E. Florent-Treacy (1999), ‘Authenti-
zotic Organizations: Global Leadership from A–Z’.
INSEAD Working Papers, Singapore.
Kobrin, S.J. (1994), ‘Is There a Relationship between a Geo-
centric Mindset and Multinational Strategy?’, Journal
of International Business Studies, 25(3), 493–512.
Maruyama, M. (1982), ‘Mindscapes, Management, Business
Policy, and Public Policy’, Academy of Management
Review, 7(October), 612–18.
McNicoll (2004), ‘Interview with Sabir Bhatia’, The
Australian, 3 November.
Micklethwait, S. and A. Wooldridge (2000), A Project
Future: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Global-
ization (London: William Heinemann).
Murtha, T.P., S.A. Lenway and R.P. Bagozzi (1998), ‘Global
Mindsets and Cognitive Shift in a Complex Multi-
national Corporation’, Strategic Management Journal,
19(2), 97–114.
Perlmutter, H. (1969), ‘The Tortuous Evolution of the Multi-
national Corporation’, Columbia Journal of World
Business, 4(January–February), 9–18.
Rhinesmith, S.H. (1995), ‘Open the Door to a Global Mind-
set’, Training and Development, 49(5), 34–43.
Simon, H. (1965), Administrative Behavior: A Study of
Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organ-
ization (New York: Free Press; and London: Collier-
MacMillan).
Srinivas, K.M. (1995), ‘Globalisation of Business and the
Third World: Challenge of Expanding the Mindsets’,
Journal of Management Development, 14(3), 26–49.
Taylor, W.E. (1991, ‘The Logic of Global Business: An Inter-
view with ABB’s Percy Barnevik’, Harvard Business
Review, 69, 93–105.