No such thing as a global
manager
Yehuda Baruch
Reader in Management, University of East Anglia, Norwich,
UK, and Visiting Associate Professor, University of Texas
at Arlington
The author wishes to thank David S. Co//ins and B/i Editor
Dennis Organ for useful comments on an earlier draft.
With the continuing
growth of globalization,
companies need to pay
careful attention to selecting
and managing people who may
become their “global managers.”
The best way to achieve this is by
coming up with a clear concept of
what constitutes such a manager. But
the examination of a wide set of possible
characteristics indicates that there seems to be
no distinct set of such individual qualities, so
there is no consistent way to point out what a
global manager is. What we are left with is the
search for good “conventional” managers with
a global mindset who could succeed in the
international marketplace.
36
I
t has been four decades since Marshall McLuhan first
depicted the world as a “global village.” Now the
business world is fast moving toward globalization,
when the globe rather than the country is the playing
field for companies, markets, and the labor market. In the
contemporary business environment, companies operate
across geographic borders on a regular basis. This means,
of course, that people need to manage and be managed
beyond both geographic and cultural borders.
Few would challenge what has by now become the bread
and butter of executive careers in MNCs. Global managers
are supposed to be the answer to the challenges compa-
nies are facing. Be they home, host, or third country
nationals, global managers are in great demand as com-
panies set their sights toward global competitiveness.
Selecting the right people for overseas assignments is a
crucial managerial decision to be made as part of the
process of expanding business across borders, and the
implications on organizational performance and individ-
ual career success are profound. The ultimate aim of a
company in filling an international assignment is the
prospect or propensity of the manager’s success-the abil-
ity to become a global manager. Of course, not all man-
agers are expected to follow this route. Shackleton and
Newell (1997) argue that “a small core of international
employees will be a key to successful globalization.”
Led by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1992) and their stratifi-
cation of national, international, global, and transnational
stages, many researchers have written about the concept of
the “global manager.” Some have tried to define the term,
either in the popular business press, professional writing
or academic literature. The use of the term, whether inten-
tional or not, seems to imply that a certain well-defined set
of attributes or competencies clearly characterize such a
person. But although the concept of globalization reflects
true business reality, the idea that there is a certain tem-
plate-a “gingerbread man cutter” concept into which one
should fit in order to be the successful Global Manager-
seems flawed. In choosing people for a specific role, we
need a valid and reliable set of criteria. But can such a gen-
Business Horizons / January-February 2002
era1 set be developed in choosing managers for intema-
tional assignments? What would it be? What distinguishes
those inclined to become successful “global managers”
from others who may not be able to stand up to the task?
The main question here is whether the concept of “global
manager” is valid at all. Are there distinct, specific charac-
teristics, skills, and qualities that distinguish a successful
global manager? We argue that, by and large, no such
thing exists. In fact, what is generally needed to be a good
“global manager” is just what is required from any worthy
manager. Certain qualities could be useful under specific
circumstances, but these cannot be determined explicitly.
So there is no valid and straightforward classification. Try-
ing to develop a narrow set of indications or criteria for
the selection and assessment of such a manager would be
a futile exercise and might even distort the process. On the
other hand, there are certain factors-temperament, skills,
personal circumstances-that, at the margin, may make a
person a better candidate for overseas assignments.
company, and were sent by the company to operate over-
seas. Other options can include expatriates who assume
their post and then decide not to return to their own com-
pany but stay in the host country and work for another
MNC. Traveling managers, employed mostly by MNCs,
need to hop across different locations around the globe as
part of their job. Others can be added to this category-
agents, merchants, solicitors, and the like-who perceive
the whole world as their field of operations.
If there is such a thing as a “global manager,” as many
claim, then we should be able to develop a profile of such
a person and then measure it for purposes of selection and
so on. (We cannot manage what we cannot measure,
argued Lord Kelvin). Let’s consider the following set of
attributes that could be used to characterize a global man-
ager, if there is such a thing. The most common elements
usually examined are demographic characteristics-such
issues as age, gender, and marital status. If demographic
characteristics do not help, we will move to a deeper layer,
that of background and individual characteristics.

The “global manager”

defined

T
o start with, it is relevant to clarify what is meant
by the term “global manager.” Are we referring to
an expatriate manager? An executive who works
across borders? Or simply a manager in a company that
operates across borders?
Becoming global and holding to it is also a matter of size;
small companies tend to operate locally, whereas large
ones tend to extend their geographic boundaries. Conse-
quently, the third classification is definitely too wide,
encompassing all managers in just about every mid-sized
and large enterprise. According to this latter criterion, most
executives could be defined as global managers.
The first two options may serve as a valid base for the def-
inition, although a distinction exists between an expatri-
ate and the “traveling manager.” Expatriates are employees
who work in an overseas subsidiary of a company for a
considerable period of time and are usually accompanied
by their families (where applicable); traveling managers
routinely operate across borders but have a base in the
country where the core operation is located-the home
country. Both are “global managers,” with the exception
of certain professional and technical support expatriates.
Both need to exercise qualities that enable them to func-
tion outside their homeland. Under certain circumstances,
however, some diversification can be found between the
two types, a distinction we will address only when a dif-
ference is expected between them.
Who are these “global managers”? Expatriates commonly
grew up in a certain country, worked for a locally based

No such thing as a global manager

Young or old?
Young people may be looking for excitement and change,
and tend to be less tied to family. However, managers need
to be developed along their career path in order to repre-
sent a company culture in its overseas divisions, and some
years are needed for this process to take place, for experi-
ence to be absorbed. Moreover, the manager of a foreign
subsidiary needs to be in a senior position, and youth and
established tenure do not go well together. So the age
aspect produces a contradiction. For some aspects of glob-
al assignments or job requirements, young people’s charac-
teristics are preferred; for others the opposite is true.
Male or female?
Should gender be taken into consideration? Barry and
Bateman ( 1996) claim that maintaining equality and
managing diversity are important not only for legislative
purposes but also for improving organizational effective-
ness. Nevertheless, the literature refers almost exclusively
to a male population in the global market. Tung (1998),
for example, found only a 14 percent level of female rep-
resentation among expatriates. Stroh, Varma, and Valy-
Durbin (2000), trying to identify the reasons for such a
poor showing of women, pointed out the discrepancy
between the self-perceptions of female managers-who
were ready and willing to accept and agree to expatria-
tion-and the misperceptions of their supervisors due to
prejudice and a poor understanding of the women’s
future career opportunities.
Companies need to be realistic, however, in assigning female
managers to overseas posts. Markham ( 1987) maintains that
women may be less willing than men to accept relocation,
an inhibitor that could become stronger with regard to relo-
cation abroad. Moreover, in certain cultures, says Pezeshkpur
(1978), female managers may face tough barriers in the form
of reluctance to collaborate or even legal obstacles to employ-
ment. The situation is not always simple. In Japan, suggest
Taylor and Napier (1996), American expatriate women have
often been accepted as managers rather than merely as
females. But such a concept might not necessarily be applic-
able in other countries.
Married or single?
Single people may be more inclined to uproot themselves
for a foreign assignment, but without the essential psy-
chological support a family can provide they may feel iso-
lated and lonely. The difftculty of finding good company
in a very different or even hostile culture could lead them
to curtail their assignment. It may well be easier for single
people to operate as traveling managers.
On the other hand, married people are generally perceived
as more stable, though stability does not necessarily indi-
cate a willingness to accept overseas assignments, especial-
38
ly if it means uprooting families or making things difficult
for a working spouse. Research on dual-career couples has
expanded as the phenomenon has spread, in both domestic
and international contexts. Harvey (199(j), in particular,
focuses on the issue of selecting executives with employed
spouses for international posts. A spouse’s interest in, or
receptiveness to, an overseas assignment is important and
may pose a major obstacle to expatriation. Dual-career cou-
ples may find it hard for one of them to quit a job and/or
stay at home. It may be difficult to find a suitable role to
answer the career aspirations of spouses in professional and
managerial positions. Nevertheless, companies can provide
support mechanisms, such as job search, employment in a
different part of the same company, and paying for training
or further education for the spouse while abroad.
Nationality?
Various studies have cited a 30 to 40 percent failure rate
for American expatriates, whereas figures for European
and Japanese enterprises tend to be lower-Tung (1988)
and Scullion (1991) have estimated it as low as G percent.
The difference might be due to poor management of US
expats or the low enthusiasm of Americans to serve their
companies’ overseas operations. The relative success of
non-Americans in expatriation may imply that third-coun-
try national employees can make ideal expatriates. Never-
theless, the full picture should include the ability of the
expat to represent both the company’s organizational cul-
ture and the national culture of its home country. The rel-
evance of nationality will also depend on company policy
and strategy. Baruch and Altman (2002) discuss different
company level approaches.
Personality?
Many personality inventories exist, but the Big Five con-
cept will be discussed here as representative. Introduced
to the literature of personality and careers by Goldberg
(1990), its implications for practice in both psychology
and HRM have received wide attention. The five factors
are: (1) neuroticism vs. stability, (2) extroversion vs. intro-
version, (3) openness to experience, (4) agreeableness,
and (5) conscientiousness. Can the Big Five produce a
profile of the best global manager? Barrick and Mount
(1991) have found some empirical evidence for associa-
tion between some of these factors and performance; nev-
ertheless, it is hard to conclude specific relevance to glob-
al management aspects.
Stability is desirable for all managers, but readiness to
relocate is not compatible with stability. Certainly some
level of extroversion characterizes most managers, but this
is less prominent in an Eastern culture than in the West.
An extrovert might find it difficult to operate in a culture,
such as Taiwan, that tends toward a laid-back approach,
whereas the same person might flourish in an Anglo-
Business Horizons I January-February 2002
Saxon environment. Both agreeableness and conscien-
tiousness, or a tendency to be efficient, organized, and
prudent, are desirable traits for any good manager. Open-
ness to experience may be the one factor that can help in
identifying global managers.
Team role and management style inventories cannot pro-
vide an answer here. Different combinations of styles and
roles are not unique for global assignments. A somewhat
more useful framework is the Myers-Briggs Inventory.
(Although its measurement validity is questionable, the
concept has certain heuristic value.) For example, people
who are somewhat more intuitive probably have more
facility in noticing subtle cultural differences. Those in-
clined more toward perceiving than judging would experi-
ence less frustration and anger at delays and differences in
the way business is conducted, and more patience with
the pace of business in some countries.
McCalman (1996) argues that very little is known of how
cross-cultural and cross-functional teamwork takes place
in MNCs. Other studies have focused on this aspect.
Using Hofstede’s (1980) framework, Earley (1993) exam-
An extrovert might find it difTicu/t
to operate in a culture, such as
Taiwan, that tends toward a
laid-back approach, while the
same person might flourish in
an Anglo-Saxon environment.
ined differences between the US and more collectivist
nations with regard to social loafing, and found that in
other cultures, such as China and Israel, the phenomenon
did not exist as it did in the United States. Hambrick et al.
(1998) went further down this research route. Studying
different combinations of cultural diversity, they found
that such diversity in teams had a tendency to boost cre-
ativity and impede coordination. The indications were,
however, that it is not the individual type that matters but
the different blends of multinational membership in a
group that affect the output. All in all, then, the output
cannot be attributed to individual characteristics of a
global manager, but rather to the way a diverse combina-
tion of people come together.
No such thing as a global manager
Knowledge, skills,
experiente, desire
A
re there differences between global and local
knowledge? Is there such a thing as global
knowledge in management? Some managerial
principles are similar between the two realms, such as the
need to motivate people, organize work, and structure
assignments. Even more complex systems such as account-
ing have a common base, but professionals encounter
variations across countries and business sectors even with-
in this profession. On the other hand, some knowledge
becomes global, particularly in the information technolo-
gy (IT) sector. These know-how qualities cannot define
the global manager.
What about a knowledge of English or other international
languages? Such knowledge, or the ability to command
new languages easily, is a unique and desired quality, but
not one that is easily learned.
One possible global characteristic that Zaidman (2000)
found is the general, stereotypical perception of interna-
tional businesspeople as being good negotiators. Howev-
er, this finding may be explained by Zaidman’s unique
study population-salespeople, for whom negotiating
skills are paramount.
Another aspect to consider as an important prerequisite
for global managers is a readiness for change. However,
this attribute is also needed in most of today’s business
environments.
What about “cultural agreeableness”? Again, definition
and conceptual problems hinder the practical use of this
characteristic as a diagnostic tool for selection. Adler and
Boyacigiller (1996), among others, claim that culture is
the main issue in global management. Cultural awareness
is needed for understanding and appreciating other peo-
ple’s values and behavioral norms; without it, foreign
assignments involving a very different culture may be an
overwhelming challenge. The measurement of culture,
though, presents scholars with huge difftculties. Even
Hofstede’s set of cultural dimensions, though seemingly
robust and well-tested, invoke considerable criticism on
the grounds of both concept and method. Differences in
culture exist within nations, within organizations, and
within professions. Thus, although culture is perceived as
important, it is never clear what is meant by “cultural
agreeableness” or awareness.
In a similar vein, Guy and Mattock (1991) and Munter
(1993) examined characteristics such as type of negotia-
tion and communication. Whereas communication is a
generic attribute required for most occupations, particu-
larly for managerial positions, it cannot be used as a spe-
39
cific requirement for international assignments alone. As
for style, this can be learned. Moreover, different styles fit
within different cultures.
It may be argued that the basic tenets of quality control
do not change just because a firm starts a new operation
in a different location, even if that location is in another
country Distance and language could complicate matters,
but because physical distance has no relevance in measur-
ing a manager’s qualities, only knowledge of language
remains to characterize the global manager. Indeed, profi-
ciency in a certain country’s native language can be of
great help to an expat living and working in that country.
But English is the accepted global business language. To
be truly global, and not merely to fit in a certain country,
one really needs a working knowledge of the English lan-
guage. Certain exceptions can be made for companies that
operate across borders, but only within one language; a
knowledge of, say, Spanish or French can substitute for
the knowledge of English if the company operates only or
primarily in Spanish- or French-speaking nations.
Former experience overseas
How crucial is foreign experience? Torbiom (1997) sug-
gests it is an important dimension, but Kobrin (1994)
found that international experience was rated eighth or
ninth in a list of 12 desired qualities or competencies.
Thus, even on this seemingly simple issue there is no con-
sensus among scholars. Intelligent reflection may support
the notion that such experience will benefit managers on
overseas assignments. But this is not necessarily the case.
Unless the move is to a country with a similar ianguage or
customs, the possible advantage of having acquired an
additional language or learned certain customs is elimi-
nated. Even among countries that share a specific lan-
guage, cultural differences prevail, although some similari-
ties do distinguish groups of countries when language is
one of the common elements.
Individual inclination: The other side
of the coin
The process of selecting a global manager is not one-
sided, conducted only on behalf of the company. Individ-
ual managers have a say in the process too. The push-pull
model offered by Baruch (1995)-a conceptual frame-
work based on Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory-emphasizes
that for an individual considering a move across borders
there are influencing forces that both push him toward
and pull him away from the destination country. These
involve his specific aspirations, needs, and life stage, as
well as the country’s characteristics. The combination is
crucial. What makes perhaps the most important impact
is “frame of mind”-a “global manager” must have the
capacity for appreciating elements of culture that are dif-
ferent from his own native culture.
40
Organizational and
research implications
C
ompanies can and should apply certain strategies
to choosing a manager to send abroad. First, they
should realize that there is no such a thing as a
generic recipe for a “global manager.” Trying to identify a
particular set of attributes is a futile exercise. Second, they
should realize that strategies and policies in global man-
agement are quite diverse, particularly with regard to the
human element. Despite the contentions of much of the
literature on global managers, not all firms with intema-
tional aspirations can use a strategy adopted by large
MN&. Some companies may find it more effective to
“buy in” professional expatriates-people who live and
work in the destination country and can change employ-
ers according to needs. For other companies, especially
those operating in small countries, the chance to be sent
What makes perhaps the most
important impact is “frame of
mind “-a “global manager”
must have the capacity for
appreciating elements of culture
that are different from his own
native culture.
to “exotic” places or to leading industries can be a suffi-
cient perk on its own; a manager from, say, Portugal or
Paraguay would probably be very happy to spend some
time in the US or the UK. For such cases, the emphasis
must be on selection and training at the preparation stage.
Motivation and receptiveness to different cultures is far
more important than any arbitrary formula for identifying
a global manager. Begley and Boyd (2000) argue that a
company can benefit if it allows a blending of values,
originated in different cultures, to inspire and influence
HR policies by setting a vision and direction for the whole
firm. This is the case for global management as well.
What about the organizational side in this decision-making
process? What input should companies bear in mind when
selecting people for global assignments? When Kobrin
examined criteria employed by US institutions to select
expatriates, he found that the most important criterion out
Business Horizons I January-February 2002
of 12 was performance, followed by an interest in the inter-
national assignment and functional expertise. Although his
study focused on the possible relationship between a geo-
centric approach and a multinational approach, his find-
ings indicate that demographic characteristics and even lan-
guage are not considered the most important features. The
actual elements deemed crucial are those of relevance to
any typical managerial posting.
Thus, it is clear that there are two options for directing
future research on the nature of “global managers.” The
first is to abandon the concept altogether-a call for a
moratorium on further research on competencies, demo-
graphics, skills, qualifications, and abilities that might
characterize managers likely to succeed in international
managerial careers. But although this option is tempting
and seems an easy way out, dismissing the whole idea
and research area would be a step too far.
The other option is to focus on what is achievable, set the
grounds for what is feasible, and identify what may be a
plausible effort in the area of managing people globally.
Instead of offering and trying to validate certain required
traits and conducting empirical studies to identify those
qualities, scholars may do better to focus on the question
of how to create and maintain the individual and organi-
zational frame of mind that globalization is an integral
part of working life. Perhaps this is the most important
quality required for people inclined to pursue internation-
al managerial careers.
D
espite stereotypical perceptions, there is no con-
_sistent way to characterize a global manager. A
variety of relevant factors make it inappropriate
__ _
to suggest spec&ic attributes such as a set of job skills, per-
sonality traits, or cultural origin. A wide set of contingen-
cies makes it impossible to specify the overall propensity
of success of a manager managing abroad. All in all, the
basic qualities essential for a successful manager-intelli-
gence, motivation, adaptability, entrepreneurship-are
just as relevant for a proficient, worthy, genial global man-
ager. Certain qualities can aid success in a global assign-
ment, but only when they are considered with respect to
the wider context.
In reality, what matters is the mindset that enables good
managers to become successful at managing abroad. It is
both an appreciation of what we know and what we don’t
know that reinforces the message of openness and aware-
ness as crucial elements. A genuine appreciation of local
culture and customs is more important than, say, knowing
the local language. This is how the right frame of mind
can manifest itself. 0
No such thing as a global manager
References and selected bibliography
Adler, N.J., and N. Boyacigiller. 1996. Global management and
the 21st century. In Handbook for international management
research, ed. B.J. Punnett and 0. Shenkar, 537-558. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Arthur, W. Jr., and W. Bennett, Jr. 1995. The international
assignee: The relative importance of factors perceived to con-
tribute to success. Personnel Psychology 48/l (Spring): 99-114.
Banick, M.R., and M.K. Mount. 1991. The Big Five personality
dimensions: A meta-analysis. Personnel P~chofogy 44 (Spring):
l-26.
Barry, B., and T.S. Bateman. 1996. A social trap analysis of the
management of diversity. Academy of Management Review 21:
757-790.
Bartlett, CA., and S. Ghoshal. 1989. Managing across borders: The
transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
-. 1992. What is a global manager? Harvard Business E&view
(September-October): 124-132.
Baruch, Y. 1995. Business globalization-The human resource
management aspect. Human Systems Management 1414: 313-326.
and Y. Ahman. 2002. Expatriation and repatriation in
MNCs: A taxonomy. Human Resource Management. In press.
and R. Lessem. 1997. The Spectral Management Type
Inventory-A validation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology
12/6: 365-382.
Begley, T.M., and D.P. Boyd. 2000. Articulating corporate values
through human resource policies. Business Horizons (July-
August): 8-12.
Belbin, R.M. 1991. Management teams: Why they succeed or fail.
Oxford: Butterworth.
Black, J.S., and H.B. Gregersen. 1999. The right way to manage
expats. Harvard Business Review (March-April): 52-60.
Borg, M., and A.W. Harzing. 1995. Composing an international
staff. In International human resource management, ed. A.W.
Harzing and J.V. Ruysseveldt, 179-204. London: Sage.
Cornelius, N. 1999. Human resource management: A managerial
perspective. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Costa, PT., and R.R. McCrae. 1992. Revised NE0 personality inuen-
tory and NE0 five-factor inventory Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Doremus, P.N., W.W. Keller, L.W. Pauly, and S. Reich. 1988. The
myth of the global corporation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Drucker, P.F. 1999. Management challenges for the 2lst century.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Earley, P.C. 1993. East meets West meets Middle East: Further
explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work group.
Academy of Management Journal 3612: 319-348.
Galagan, P.A. 1990. Executive development in a changing world.
Paining & Development Journal 4416 (June): 24-35.
Goldberg, L.R. 1990. An alternative “description of personality”:
The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 59: 1,216-1,229.
Guy, V., and J. Mattock. 1991. The new international manager.
London: Kogan Page.
Hambrick, D.C., S.C. Davidson, S.A. Snell, and C.C. Snow. 1998.
When groups consist of multiple nationalities: Towards a new
understanding of the implications. Organization Studies 1912:
181-205.
41
Harvey, M. 1996. Addressing the dual-career expatriation dilem-
ma. Human Resource Planning. 1914: 18-40.
~ and M.M. Novicevic. 2000. Staffing global marketing
positions: What we don’t know can make a difference. Journal
of World Business 35/l (Spring): 80-94.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences
in work-relatedvalues.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hu, Y.S. 1992. Global or stateless corporations are national
firms with international operations. California Management
Review 34/2 (Winter): 107-126.
Kobrin, S.J. 1994. Is there a relationship between a geocentric
and multinational strategy? Journal of international Business
Studies 25/3 (Third quarter): 493-511.
Lane, H.W., J.J. DiStefano, and M.L. Maznevski. 1997. Interna-
tional management behavior. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Markham, W.T. 1987. Sex, relocation and occupational advance-
ment-The “real cruncher” for women. In Women and work:
An annual review, ed. A.H. Stromberg, L. Larwood, and B.A.
Gutek, Vol 2: 207-232. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCalman, J. 1996. Lateral hierarchy: The case of cross-cultural
management teams. European Management Journal 14/5 (Octo-
ber): 509-517.
McLuhan, M. 1960. Explorations in communication. Boston: Bea-
con Press.
Mount, M.K., and M.R. Barrick. 1995. The Big Five personality
dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human
resource management. In Research in personnel and human
resource management, ed. G.R. Ferris and Rollins, Vol.13: 153-
200, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Munter, M. 1993. Cross-cultural communication for managers.
Business Horizons (May-June): 69-78.
Pezeshkpur, C. 1978. Challenges to management in the Arab
world. Business Horizons (August): 47-55.
Ronen, S. and 0. Shenkar. 1985. Clustering countries on attitu-
dinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 1013: 435-454.
42
Scullion, H. 1991. Why companies prefer to use expatriates. Per-
sonnel Management (November): 20-21.
Shackleton, V., and S. Newell. 1997. International assessment and
selection. In International handbook of selection and assessment,
ed. N. Anderson and I? Herriot, 81-95. Chichester: Wiley.
Solomon, CM. 1994. Success abroad depends on more than job
skills. Personnel lournal 7314: 51-60.
Sparrow, P.R., and J.M. Hiltrop. 1997. Redefining the field of
European HRM: A battle between national mindsets and
forces of business transitions? Human Resource Management
3612: 201-219.
Stroh, L.K., A. Varma, and S.J. Valy-Durbin. 2000. Why are
women left at home: Are they unwilling to go on intemation-
al assignment? journal of World Business 35/3 (Fall): 241-255.
Taylor, S., and N. Napier. 1996. Working in Japan: Lessons from
women expatriates. Sloan Management Review (Spring): 76-84.
Torbiom, I. 1997. Staffing for international operations. Human
Resource Management Journal, 7(3): 42-51.
Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Tully, S. 1990. The hunt for the global manager. Fortune (21
May): 140-144.
Tung, R.L. 1982. Selection and training procedures of US, Euro-
pean, and Japanese multinationals. California Management
Review, 25/l (Fall): 57-71.
-. 1988. The new expatriates: Managing human resources
abroad. New York Harper & Row.
-. 1998. American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to
cosmopolitans. Journal of World Business 33/2 (Summer): 125-
144.
Wohl, EA. 1993. Defining the global manager. Harvard Business
Review 71/2 (March-April): 155-156.
Zaidman, N. 2000. Stereotypes of international managers: Con-
tent and impact of business interactions. Group & Organization
Management 25/l (March): 45-66.
Zetlin, M. 1994. Making tracks. Journal of European Business, 5/5
(May-June): 40-47.
Business Horizons / January-February 2002