University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

(USC Thesis Other)

Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Managing Competing Stakeholder Demands: Global Leaders’ Decision-Making Amid
Social Backlash
George Panayiotou
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by George Panayiotou 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for George Panayiotou certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Robert Filback
Richard Grad
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The study explored the decision-making experiences of 11 global corporate executives and their
interpretations of key factors supporting or hindering decision-making effectiveness while
managing competing stakeholder demands for social issues that evoke backlash. Also, it
uncovered their perceptions of the attributional factors that explain global leadership’s
differential effectiveness in managing these issues. Furthermore, the study aimed to improve the
understanding of leadership dynamics that shape effective decision-making for stakeholder
management in global contexts. This research used qualitative methodology. Semi-structured
interviews informed by interpretive phenomenological analysis provided in-depth insights into
the participants’ decision-making experiences for stakeholder management within challenging
international settings. By using social cognitive theory as a frame, this research found that the
participants view environmental, behavioral, and personal factors as key to navigating
stakeholder demands for backlash-provoking issues. Successful decision-making relies on their
understanding of multiple cultural contexts, navigating societal expectations, practicing
responsible leadership, and adopting global mindsets. Personal beliefs also significantly affect
their approach and outcomes to stakeholder management. The study also calls for additional
qualitative research to explore how global executives’ personal beliefs about their identities,
values, biases, and privileges shape effective decision-making for managing stakeholders.
Furthermore, it advocates for future quantitative research. This research would aim to correlate
the study’s recommendations with the impact these can have on the valuation of publicly listed
corporations, particularly within specific industries.
Keywords: decision-making, backlash, stakeholders, global mindsets, responsible
leadership, social cognitive theory, competing demands

v
Dedication
Για την Μελίσσα, τῆς ὁποίας ἡ ὑπομονή καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη ἔκαναν αὐτή τὴ μελέτη δυνατή.

vi
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge Dr. Patricia Tobey, the committee chair, who taught me the
invaluable lesson of being a friend to myself and believing in my capabilities. I would also like
to acknowledge the committee members, Dr. Richard Grad and Dr. Robert Filback, for their
dedication to enriching my work with their valuable comments. Likewise, to Dr. Julia Malfouz
from the University of Colorado, Denver—my mentor, coach, and friend. Her meticulous
reading of several drafts and insightful feedback have stood as pillars of support in my writing
process. Also, I want to acknowledge Dr. Robert Bethel from Cambridge University, whose
advice and mentorship during the research and writing of this study have crucially shaped me as
a thinker. Dr. Bethel’s impact reaches beyond these pages, altering the very way I perceive the
world. I would also like to acknowledge Melissa McGrane, CFA, for her influential role in
shaping the topic and critically evaluating my early drafts, contributions that have proven
invaluable. To my American Educational Research Association colleagues, Dr. Alison Wilson,
Dr. Meredith Wronowski, Dr. Kristy Cooper Stein, Dr. Maxwell Yurkofsky, Jeffrey Wooten, and
Dr. Craig De Voto, whose support and encouragement have constantly strengthened me. They
have helped me realize that the journey is as important as the destination. And finally, to the 11
participants who generously contributed their time and insights amidst their very busy schedules.
They are the soul of this study. This dissertation not only speaks of them but exists because of
them. Their narratives have been the voice of this research; I am eternally grateful for that.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...............................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................5
Purpose of Project and the Research Questions...................................................................6
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................7
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................14
Historical Background .......................................................................................................16
Environmental Factors.......................................................................................................20
Behavioral Factors.............................................................................................................29
Personal Factors.................................................................................................................38
Overview of Social Cognitive Theory’s Environmental, Behavioral, and Personal
Factors on Global Leaders’ Decision-Making...................................................................45
Reasons Underlying the Problem of Practice ....................................................................49
Social Cognitive Theory ....................................................................................................54
Summary............................................................................................................................71
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................77
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis........................................................................78

viii
Paradigm of Inquiry ...........................................................................................................79
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................80
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................83
Data Analysis and Collection.............................................................................................85
Positionality .......................................................................................................................87
Trustworthiness..................................................................................................................88
Ethics..................................................................................................................................89
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................91
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................96
Social Cognitive Theory ....................................................................................................96
Description of Participants.................................................................................................96
Results for Research Question 1......................................................................................104
Behavioral Factors for Research Question 1 ...................................................................108
Environmental Factors for Research Question 1: Cultural and Societal Contexts..........125
Personal Factors for Research Question 1 .......................................................................130
Summary of Findings for RQ 1 .......................................................................................132
Results for Research Question 2......................................................................................133
Behavioral Factors (RQ2)................................................................................................135
Environmental Factors.....................................................................................................148
Personal Factors...............................................................................................................154
Summary of Findings for RQ2 ........................................................................................157
Contradictory Findings ....................................................................................................158
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................160
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations........................................................................162
Discussion of the Findings...............................................................................................163

ix
Framework for Study Recommendations ........................................................................164
Recommendations for RQ1..............................................................................................166
Recommendation for RQ2: Sensemaking Framework for Effective Decision-Making
While Navigating Societal and Cultural Contexts Through Personal Beliefs.................174
Practical Recommendation for the Problem of Practice ..................................................180
Practical Recommendation for the Problem of Practice ..................................................184
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................188
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................189
References....................................................................................................................................191
Appendix A: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................214
Appendix B: Coding Table ..........................................................................................................216
Appendix C: University of Southern California Information Sheet ............................................221
Appendix D: Integrating Personal Beliefs and Experiences in Global Leadership DecisionMaking .........................................................................................................................................223

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Alignment of Environmental Factors With Literature Review Topics and Research
Questions 21
Table 2: Alignment of Behavioral Factors With Literature Review Topics and Research
Questions 29
Table 3: Alignment of Personal Factors With Literature Review Topics and Research
Questions 38
Table 4: Factors Affecting Global Executives’ Decision-Making for Competing Stakeholder
Demands: An Exploration of Environmental, Behavioral, and Personal Factors 48
Table 5: The Study’s Methods Relating to the Research Questions 86
Table 6: Participant Information 97
Table 7: Themes for RQ1 in Relation to SCT 105
Table 8: Participant Frequency on the Findings for RQ1 106
Table 9: Summary of Interpreted Factors for Success or Failure in Decision-Making During
Social Backlash 107
Table 10: Aspects of Effective Communication for Leadership During Social Backlash 111
Table 11: Aspects of Empathy in Leadership During Social Backlash 114
Table 12: Organizational Alignment Aspects in Leadership During Social Backlash 118
Table 13: Responsible Leadership Notions Supporting Decision-Making During Social
Backlash 123
Table 14: Global Mindset Aspects for Decision-Making in Global Environments 125
Table 15: Navigating Multiple Cultural and Societal Contexts 129
Table 16: Coding Themes for RQ2 in Relation to SCT 133
Table 17: Participant Frequency on the Findings for RQ2 135
Table 18: Defining Leadership: Insights From Participant Experiences 139
Table 19: Defining Responsible Leadership Through Participant Insights 144
Table 20: Internal or External Application of Global Mindset in Diverse Cultural Contexts 148
Table 21: Decision-Making Environmental Challenges: Insights From the Participants 153

xi
Table 22: Recommendations Summary for RQ1 167
Table 23: Recommendation’s Alignment With Theoretical Frameworks, Literature,
Interview Data, and RQs 178
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 214
Appendix B: Coding Table 216

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Literature Review Outline 15
Figure 2: The Interplay of Cultural Values and Conceptions and Societal Expectations Within
Cultural Spheres 23
Figure 3: Defining Leadership Through Interaction of Leaders, Followers, and Situation 32
Figure 4: Theoretical Model for Building Capacity for Global Mindsets 37
Figure 5: Model for Leaders’ Self-Regulated Behavior 40
Figure 6: Interconnectedness and Complementary Theoretical Relationships 56
Figure 7: Global Corporate Leaders Operating Within Communities of Practice 59
Figure 8: Exploring Global Leaders’ Decision-Making Experiences Through an Institutional
Theory Lens 60
Figure 9: An Institutional Theory and Social Cognitive Theory Combined Perspective on
Global Leaders’ Decision-Making Experiences 62
Figure 10: Global Corporate Leaders’ Learning for Managing Competing Stakeholder
Demands Within a Social Learning System 66
Figure 11: Bandura’s Model on the Sources of Self-Efficacy and Its Outcomes 69
Figure 12: Social Cognitive Theory Application on the Problem of Practice 72
Figure 13: Qualitative Study Design Relationships 94
Figure 14: Recommendations Framework Integration 165
Figure 15: Study’s New Perspectives on Responsible Leadership 171
Figure 16: Framework for Effective Decision-Making for Navigating Multiple Societal and
Cultural Contexts Through Personal Beliefs 179
Figure 17: Responsible Leadership Implementation Framework 181
Figure 18: Leadership Development Ecosystem: A Community of Practice Approach 187
Figure D1: Adaptation of McCormick’s Model to Global Leadership Contexts 223

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The study explores the decision-making experiences of global corporate leaders as they
navigate stakeholders’ competing public demands in response to events that trigger social
backlash. Operating at the helm of corporations with global reach, executives face competing
and occasionally conflicting demands from different stakeholder groups. These often relate to
issues impacting the welfare and the broader collective well-being of the communities they
serve. Global executives’ responses to these issues can critically influence their organizations’
operational and reputational standing (Janssen, 2013; Pacelli, 2016; Phillips et al., 2020). Failing
to address these demands with urgency, intentionality, and authenticity can inflict enduring
damage on the organizations they lead (Mitchell et al., 1997; Pacelli, 2016; Varma, 2021; Vo et
al., 2019). By uncovering the factors that support or hinder global executives’ effective decisionmaking in these complex situations and by identifying influences contributing to their differential
effectiveness, this research aims to explore the intricate mechanisms underpinning successful
stakeholder management during social backlash.
Context and Background of the Problem
Events triggering social reckoning occur in local and global communities (Barnett et al.,
2020; Janssen, 2013; Maak et al., 2021; Mena et al., 2016; Phillips et al., 2020). As a result,
many stakeholders now demand that corporations and their leaders recognize, address, and
rectify situations that, due to their action or inaction, cause environmental, political, economic,
and broader social harm (Mendenhall et al., 2020; Serafeim, 2020; Zingales et al., 2020). For
example, transformative collective experiences, like the Black Lives Matter Movement,
scientific detections of acute ecological catastrophes, or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, set the
momentum for stakeholders to evaluate the related corporate responses critically. However,

2
stakeholder groups interpret social events through the lens of their societal and cultural contexts,
which shape their beliefs, norms, and perceptions (House et al., 2017; Miska et al., 2018;
Waldman et al., 2020). Therefore, global executives must deal with diverse and competing
demands within the multiple cultural and societal contexts in which they operate (Javidan, 2021;
Javidan et al., 2021; Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021).
Furthermore, the public nature of stakeholder demands, whether expressed physically or
virtually, creates a platform for broader expressions of disapproval, backlash, or outrage (Gruber
et al., 2015; Saxton et al., 2021). This is particularly evident when corporations or their leaders
exhibit irresponsible, unethical, or unresponsive behaviors that can contribute to or cause harm to
humans, the environment, or society at large (Maak et al., 2021; Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016).
As a result, stakeholder groups express disapproval through negative word of mouth that can
manifest in various forms, including protests, boycotts, negative media coverage, and regulatory
sanctions, leading to reputational damage and thus affecting an organization’s operational
functioning (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018; Vo et al., 2019). Therefore, how organizational leaders
enact decision-making to respond to emotive situations becomes the focus of stakeholders’
attention (Coraiola & Derry, 2020; Muff et al., 2022; Varma, 2021; Welbourne Eleazar, 2021).
Corporate Settings of the Problem of Practice
As backlash-provoking events emerge, global corporate executives find it increasingly
challenging to listen to the cacophony of competing stakeholder demands (Macnamara, 2016a,
2016c, 2018a, 2018b). The transformative and emotive nature of events often generates opposing
stakeholder views, leading to the possibility of backlash against corporations and their leaders for
failing to respond effectively (Coraiola & Derry, 2020; Varma, 2021; Welbourne Eleazar, 2021).
For example, a case highlighting such stakeholder conflict leading to backlash occurred between

3
the state of Florida and the Disney Corporation. Florida state law “Parental Rights in Education
Law” affirms fundamental parental rights to direct a minor child’s upbringing, education, health
care, and mental health. Therefore, this law gives parents in Florida the power to withdraw their
children from school if they perceive that their education goes against their beliefs or viewpoints
(Office of Governor Ron DeSantis, 2022). The Disney Corporation took a public stance
opposing the Florida Law and supported relevant progressive causes and organizations working
for its repeal. Former Disney CEO Bob Chapeck’s managing of the organization’s response
angered both Disney employees and state legislators, resulting in the revoking of longstanding
tax exemptions. Failure to enact appropriate, balanced, and relevant decision-making toward
competing demands from diverse stakeholders contributed to the Disney CEO’s resignation.
Another instance of stakeholder conflict leading to potential backlash is the overturn of Roe v.
Wade in 2022 and how this reversal affects employee healthcare plans and privacy. Many
organizations responded by announcing that they would cover travel to other states for
employees who live in a state where abortion is now banned. However, other organizational
leaders remain silent on the matter. As a result, both faced stakeholder backlash from customers,
employees, and elected government officials, whether through action or inaction (Mersecola,
2022).
Furthermore, social media has resulted in a more engaged and active stakeholderconsumer base (Saxton et al., 2021). However, the increasing importance of virtual spaces made
it difficult for organizations to navigate complex social and political issues without risking
backlash from different groups (Brennan et al., 2013; Goncharenko, 2019). As a result, global
executives are challenged to navigate complex and competing stakeholder demands. Their
decision-making addressing these complex contexts can significantly impact their organizations’

4
reputational and operational success. Therefore, such complexity added to a growing need for
decision-making processes to effectively manage stakeholder expectations and minimize the
potential for backlash (Dhar & Bose, 2021; Harrison & Wicks, 2021; Vo et al., 2019). For
example, the stakeholder backlash against Bud Light in response to a marketing and advertising
partnership with social media influencers highlights the ongoing challenge for global executives
in managing competing stakeholder demands within multiple societal contexts. The global
executives faced a challenging situation involving Bud Light’s parent corporation located in the
European Union (EU) and stakeholders in the United States. Stakeholders expressed their
concerns and expectations shaped by the unique polarized societal context of the United States,
where opposing views on equity issues clashed. The EU-based executives struggled to address
these demands promptly, sensitively, and appropriately. This incident highlights the situation of
global corporate leaders being able to navigate the expectations and values of stakeholders
situated outside their immediate home environment, particularly in the current socio-political
climate where issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are at the forefront.
Corporate Responses to the Problem of Practice
Corporate leaders need to develop effective processes, systems, and frameworks for
managing their stakeholders’ competing demands that can potentially provoke social backlash
(Maak et al., 2021; Saxton et al., 2021). Given the inherently divisive nature of these demands,
global leaders must adopt a decision-making approach that is both intentional and authentic
while also considering the societal and cultural expectations of their diverse and global
stakeholder groups (House et al., 2017; Javidan, 2021; Macnamara, 2016a, 2016c; McCall,
2002). The reputational and operational health of an organization depends on its ability to
manage stakeholder competing demands and foster a sense of unity and shared purpose among

5
diverse stakeholder groups (Gruber et al., 2015; Maak et al., 2021; Saxton et al., 2021; Wang et
al., 2019).
Statement of the Problem
Although scholars place stakeholders at the core of the organizational purpose and
leadership practices, no empirical studies exist that explore how global executives navigate
decision-making when faced with competing stakeholder demands during events that provoke
social backlash (Avolio et al., 2009; Bolman & Deal, 2017; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014;
Harrison & Wicks, 2021; Høvring et al., 2018; Kezar, 2000; Magness, 2008; Neubert et al.,
2016; Northouse, 2022; N. M. Pless et al., 2021; Spears, 1995; Waldman et al., 2020; Wheeler &
Sillanpa’a, 1998; Zingales et al., 2020). Such events trigger stakeholders to scrutinize the actions
of executives, as well as the impact of their organizations on the communities they operate
within (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018; Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Harrison & Wicks, 2021; House
et al., 2017; Javidan, 2021; Muff et al., 2022). Scholarly literature underscores that a leader’s
failure to listen to (Macnamara, 2016c, 2018a, 2018b) and manage stakeholders’ demands (Maak
et al., 2021; N. M. Pless et al., 2021; Waldman et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019) can affect the
operational and reputational standing of the organization (Bovens et al., 2014; Carter, 2006;
Coraiola & Derry, 2020; Doan, 2016; Greenwood & Van Buren, 2010; Mersecola, 2022; Varma,
2021; Veil et al., 2011). Consequently, global corporate leaders must effectively engage in
decision-making to manage their stakeholders’ concerns (Castro, 2014; Greenwood, 2007; Javed
et al., 2020; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007; Spitzeck, 2009). However, there is a lack of exploration
into the lived experiences of global corporate executives, particularly concerning their decisionmaking processes in such contexts. There is also a shortage of empirical research revealing the
factors that hinder or promote executives’ effective decision-making. Furthermore, related fields

6
of management and leadership studies have yet to develop practical frameworks that address the
management of competing stakeholder demands, especially those tied to events that spark social
backlash (Greenwood, 2007; Greenwood & Van Buren, 2010; Kaptein, 2021; Saxton et al.,
2021; Strand & Freeman, 2015; Zingales et al., 2020).
Purpose of Project and the Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore global corporate executives’ decision-making
experiences as they interpret and attribute factors influencing their success or failure in managing
competing stakeholder demands for sensitive issues that can promote social backlash.
Furthermore, through the experiences of global executives, the study aims to highlight best
practices for navigating stakeholder concerns in these contexts and to uncover factors leading to
their differential effectiveness.
The study employs social cognitive theory (SCT) as a theoretical framework. The theory
guides the analysis, enabling a detailed exploration of how these executives interpret and
attribute factors that contribute to the success or failure of their decisions. This exploration
categorizes these factors into three distinct dimensions: (a) behavioral, (b) personal, and (c)
environmental, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making
process in a global leadership context.
Developed by Bandura (2000), SCT centers on the triadic relationship of environment,
behavior, and person. Chapter Two expands further on SCT by analyzing its components to the
problem of practice and the research questions. Two research questions guide this study:
1. How do global corporate leaders interpret success or failure in decision-making while
managing competing stakeholder demands for events that provoke social backlash?

7
2. What factors contribute to the differential effectiveness of global leaders in managing
competing stakeholder demands in the face of events that provoke social backlash?
Importance of the Study
This dissertation is significant for global corporate executives because it invites them to
reflect on their experiences by exploring how they interpret events and identify factors
contributing to their decision-making successes or failures. As stakeholder demands become
more complex and varied, global leaders face increasing challenges in managing them
effectively. Despite the importance of this issue, there is a lack of empirical research that
explores corporate executives’ decision-making experiences in this area. This study seeks to
address this gap by uncovering the environmental, behavioral, and personal factors that hinder or
encourage effective management of competing stakeholder demands within complex settings. It
also explores the contributing factors leading to their differential effectiveness in this context.
Consequently, the study is also important for the academic fields of organization and leadership
studies by suggesting several operational frameworks that can assist global leaders in navigating
these challenges.
Definition of Terms
The study defines companies with global reach as those corporations that, through their
logistical, operative, financial, and reputational capital, can transcend geographical boundaries,
national borders, and cultural spheres and implicitly or explicitly affect stakeholders’ economic,
social, and political well-being.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to organizations’ short-term and long-term
strategies to benefit communities by adding monetary or non-monetary value through enacting
and supporting positive environmental, social, and political practices. Corporate leaders’ CSR

8
conceptual and practical approaches include (a) an emphasis on corporations’ social power, (b) a
duty to integrate stakeholders’ social demands into every facet of corporate life, and (c) an
ethical envisioning of the relationship between business and society (Garriga & Melé, 2004).
Additionally, studies conceptualize CSR as a “new social contract between business and
society,” promoting altruistic corporate behavior that transcends profit orientation and selfinterest by promoting the welfare of all stakeholders (Crowther & Ahmad, 2013, p. 2).
Furthermore, social reckoning events encouraged executives of corporations with a global reach
to embrace a historical dimension to CSR. Therefore CSR-centered corporate global leaders
view as socially responsible action any corporate attempt to listen, acknowledge, reconcile,
manage, or rectify stakeholder concerns where societal harm occurred or is occurring because of
corporate action, inaction, or negligence (Coraiola & Derry, 2020; Janssen, 2013; Phillips et al.,
2020).
In this study, DEI refers to the dynamic or static practices and policies that influence an
organization’s hiring and promotion processes, procurement from sustainable suppliers, and
philanthropic contributions to socially progressive causes. DEI also pertains to the formation of
branding and marketing strategies that communicate messages of equity and inclusion to a
diverse array of organizational stakeholders.
Environmental social and governance (ESG) refers to a set of standards and criteria for
meeting industry, market, and broader societal expectations for an organizational behavior that
demonstrates a willingness and an ability to address climate concerns (environment), manage
equitable relationships with employees, customers, and suppliers (social) and deal with
stakeholder demands for fair corporate executive pay, accountability mechanisms and
shareholder rights (government; Y. Chouaibi & Zouari, 2021).

9
Events provoking social backlash are those events that this study views as eliciting
negative reactions or responses from stakeholders due to perceived violations of cultural values
or societal expectations. Such events may involve controversial decisions, actions, or statements
by organizations, or their leaders deemed unethical, inappropriate, or harmful to society or
specific stakeholder groups. Social backlash can manifest in various forms, including protests,
boycotts, negative media coverage, and other regulatory sanctions, leading to reputational
damage and thus affecting an organization’s operational functioning.
Global mindsets refer to cognitive and behavioral attributes that enable individuals,
particularly global leaders of organizations, to perceive and interpret complex social, cultural,
and economic contexts across multiple countries and regions. This includes an openness to
diverse perspectives, a sensitivity to cultural nuances, a willingness to adapt to diverse cultural
norms, and an ability to communicate and collaborate effectively across borders. Global
mindsets are critical for leaders to manage and navigate competing stakeholder demands in
international contexts (Javidan, 2021).
Stakeholder demands refer to the stakeholders voicing various interests, concerns, and
opinions toward organizational entities and their leadership. When stakeholder(s) express a
demand(s), they possess a feeling, understanding, or conviction that the organization and its
leadership can explicitly or implicitly affect the social, economic, or political well-being of a
group, community, or broader society in which they belong (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Organizational harm refers to the conditions where corporate commissions or omissions
facilitated, legitimized, or encouraged others to abuse an individual or group or damage the
physical and social environment (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, n.d.).

10
Organizational leadership refers to the behavior, method, skill, and process that shapes
the relationship between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2022). According to Yammarino
(2013), scholarly approaches for defining leadership include three levels of analysis: (a) a multilevel perspective, (b) a leader-follower process-based interaction that is longitudinal, and (c) a
leader-follower interactive reciprocal relationship. Based on this analytical framework,
Yammarino (2013) defined organizational leadership as
A multi-level (person, dyad, group, collective) leader-follower interaction process that
occurs in a particular situation (context) where a leader (e.g., superior, supervisor) and
followers (e.g., subordinates, direct reports) share a purpose (vision, mission) and jointly
accomplish things (e.g., goals, objectives, tasks) willingly (e.g., without coercion). (p.
150)
Organizational listening refers to “policies, systems, structures, resources and a range of
processes, technologies, and specialist skills” that facilitate large-scale listening within the
organization to recognize, acknowledge, pay attention, interpret, understand, consider, and
respond to stakeholders’ requests (Macnamara, 2018a, p. 3).
Organizational stakeholders refer to any group or individual who can affect or is affected
by the achievement of the organization’s objectives. Mitchell et al. (1997) quantitatively
constructed three attributes that organizational stakeholders possess. These are (a) the power to
influence the organization, (b) the legitimacy of the relationship between stakeholders and the
organization, and (c) the urgency of stakeholders’ claims on the organization (Mitchell et al.,
1997).
Responsible leadership (RL) refers to the leadership style that focuses on the “relational
influence process between leaders and stakeholders geared toward the establishment of

11
accountability in matters pertaining to organizational value creation” (Maak et al., 2014, p. 464).
RL envisions value creation as meeting a firm’s stakeholders’ needs, interests, expectations, and
claims through genuine and effective CSR engagement. The leadership model positions the
principles of sustainable value and social change at the forefront of corporate life by combining
the ethical dimension of leadership with a relational stakeholder perspective (Varma, 2021).
Unlike servant leadership, which is a set of behaviors for understanding and adhering to the
needs of followers and the wider community, RL is a mindset or orientation embraced by leaders
to promote “social good beyond the immediate interests of the firm and its shareholders and
beyond that which is required by law” (Waldman et al., 2020, p. 6). According to Waldman et al.
(2020), the RL model embodies the following: (a) conceptualization of responsibility toward
stakeholders, (b) envisioning of accountability systems protecting all stakeholder interests, (c)
framing for CSR pursuits for the benefit of shareholders and stakeholders, and (d) structures for
personal involvement to allocation promotion of CSR efforts.
Self-efficacy refers to the personal beliefs and expectations about how effective one can
be in each situation or bringing a certain outcome. Self-efficacy can be specific to a task or
situation by predicting performance or outcome. Enactive attainment (experience of mastery),
vicarious experience (observing), verbal persuasion (feedback), physiological states (physical
reactions), and personal contexts (individual’s situation) can affect the level of motivation and,
thus, overall self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986).
Sensemaking refers to an individual’s, group’s, or organization’s interpretive procedural
event(s) to create meaning for decision-making experiences enacted in their behavior relating to
challenging, novel, or unknown situations (Weick, 1995).

12
Organization of the Study
This study comprises five chapters, each with a distinct focus. Chapter One served as the
foundation, providing the necessary background and highlighting the significance of the problem
of practice. It also outlines the research questions to guide the analysis and frame the study’s
overall purpose. Chapter Two will delve into the exploration of academic work on global
leaders’ environmental, behavioral, and personal factors. It will examine how environmental
factors, either internal or external to the organization, influence the decision-making process.
Shifting to behavioral factors, the chapter will review the scholarly work on RL and global
mindsets (GMs) as leadership behaviors that place stakeholders at the center of global leaders’
practices. It will explore cognitive (personal) factors, including self-efficacy and sensemaking, to
understand how they shape global executives’ abilities to manage competing stakeholder
demands in diverse cultural and societal contexts. Also, Chapter Two will investigate the
reputational and operational impact of effectively managing these demands, providing insights
into the underlying problem of practice. The literature review will assess existing scholarly work,
identify areas of convergence, explore potential inconsistencies and disputed claims, and
highlight contradictions among theoretical perspectives and analytical techniques employed in
previous studies. The structure of Chapter Two aims to contribute to understanding how
environmental, behavioral, and personal factors shape global leaders’ decision-making
experiences and effectiveness in managing competing stakeholder demands.
Chapter Three will highlight the study’s methodology, including the research instruments
and a statement on positionality. It will also spotlight the trustworthiness, limitations, and
delimitations of the study while addressing the ethical considerations involved. Moving forward,
Chapter Four will present the data through a thematic analysis of the interviews. This data

13
analysis will serve as a rich source of insights into global leaders’ decision-making experiences
and relevant stakeholder management practices that support or hinder effective decision-making
and uncover causal factors explaining the variance in performance by global executives in this
context. Relevant interview data will correspond to and complement topics covered in the
literature review.
Chapter Five will highlight the findings derived from the interview data and the overall
synthesis, providing a comprehensive understanding of global leaders’ experiences and offering
practical frameworks and recommendations for decision-making in complex stakeholder
environments. This comprehensive organization of the study enables a thorough examination of
effective leadership practices. By doing so, the organization of this study sets the stage for the
development or adjustment of practical frameworks to assist global executives in navigating
complex settings and managing competing stakeholder demands.

14
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter comprehensively reviews the literature on global corporate leaders’
decision-making when facing competing stakeholder demands for events that provoke social
backlash. The review synthesizes scholarly work from management, business ethics, leadership
studies, and organizational psychology. The literature review will begin by contextualizing the
topic of study and tracing its background and historical roots by reviewing scholarly work on the
ethics of decision-making. It will then evaluate studies on environmental, behavioral, and
personal factors affecting global leaders’ decision-making effectiveness for managing their
stakeholders and uncover the factors of variance relating to their performance in this context.
The chapter will conclude by analyzing SCT’s main theoretical components and situating them
within broader social science theories (Figure 1).

15
Figure 1
Literature Review Outline
The study applied a systematic approach to literature review selection criteria, as
suggested by Creswell and Creswell (2018). Using the USC libraries search engine, I conducted
a literature search from 2010 to 2023. The search terms were stakeholders, responsible
leadership, global, decision-making, ethics, crisis management, reputation, organizational
purpose, mindsets, and CSR. This search initially found 427 articles. To determine their

16
relevance, I read all the abstracts, paying close attention to the descriptions and keywords used
by the authors. After considering their relevance and short listing 57 articles and book chapters,
the following subjects were included as a screening filter: social sciences, business and
economics, management, social responsibility, CSR, business ethics, leadership, business and
management, education, and communication. After this first round of screening, I had a total of
216 articles and book chapters. I then selected those that were relevant to the study’s
methodology and theoretical framework. This helped me to review and cut down the list to a
total of 132 articles and book chapters. As I read the selected articles’ abstracts and reference
lists, I compiled a list of seminal works that related to the problem of practice. In the list, I also
included landmark scholarly work on methodology. These articles and book chapters added up to
27. These were frequently cited by authors and lined up with my search keywords. The addition
brought the total to 159. While I did not use journal titles as a primary filter, I gave more
inclusion weight to articles from certain journals because of their relevance to my topic. These
journals included Business Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Global Responsibility,
Social Responsibility Journal, Academy Management Review, Journal of International Business
Studies, and the Journal of Leadership Studies.
Historical Background
The topics of ethical decision-making, stakeholder management, and organizational
purpose are essential to address in the literature review because they provide the historical
context and foundation for understanding the problem of practice. Discussing past seminal
studies in these areas establishes a baseline of knowledge and identifies gaps in the literature.
Such an approach will develop a more nuanced understanding of the challenging factors that

17
global corporate executives face while they navigate stakeholder demands that can promote
social backlash.
Ethical Decision-Making
Global leadership’s ethical decision-making connects to the philosophies of influential
thinkers who established the foundation for comprehending the moral dimensions of choices in
organizational settings (Bentham, 2007; Jones et al., 2007; Kant, 1993; Mill, 2018; Rawls, 2009).
Moral philosophers, including Bentham (2007), Mill (2018), Kant (1993), and Rawls (2009),
focused on the ethical dimensions of decision-making in both individual and organizational
contexts. Bentham (2007) emphasized the importance of calculating costs and benefits to
maximize pleasure for the collective benefit, while Mill (2018) distinguished between selfregarding and other-regarding decisions. Kant (1993) focused on decision-making principles,
emphasizing the importance of dignity, value, autonomy, usefulness, and respect. Rawls (2009)
argued for the necessity of making decisions behind a “veil of ignorance” (p. 136) to limit social
inequality and produce fair outcomes. While these ethical approaches developed in the past,
contemporary scholarship has continued to apply, synthesize, and adapt them to address
corporate leaders’ ethical challenges in managing stakeholder demands with social value. Thus,
contemporary global leaders can draw upon these foundational ethical principles to navigate and
balance intricacies and promote social value in their decisions. (Bentham, 2007; Jones et al.,
2007; Kant, 1993; Mill, 2018; Rawls, 2009).
Leadership for Stakeholder Management
The relationship between leadership and stakeholder management underpins how leaders
perceive, prioritize, and engage with varied stakeholder groups (Donaldson & Preston, 1995;
Freeman, 2023; Mitchell et al., 1997). Theoretical lenses, including institutional theory,

18
resource-based theory, and stakeholder theory, are used to develop frameworks to define and
identify stakeholders and their varying degrees of salience (Donaldson & Preston, 1995;
Freeman, 2023; Mitchell et al., 1997). Stakeholder management theory framed the leaderstakeholder relationship through relational, transactional, and procedural lenses. Donaldson and
Preston’s (1995) three-dimensional taxonomy included a normative, descriptive, and
instrumental dimension and added an ethical perspective to stakeholder identification and
engagement. Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a seminal framework for identifying and mapping
stakeholder salience, conceptualizing stakeholder status as a group with varying degrees of
legitimacy, power, and urgency. Legitimacy refers to socially acceptable norms and behaviors.
Power refers to the ability of stakeholder groups to shape outcomes or processes, while urgency
exists when there is an urgent call for attention. The framework provides a practical procedure
for leaders’ decision-making when engaging with multiple stakeholders’ demands, assessing
various degrees of urgency, legitimacy, and power to determine stakeholder status (Mitchell et
al., 1997). The contributions of these seminal works continue to shape contemporary scholarship
on stakeholder management (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 2023; Mitchell et al., 1997).
Miles (2017) contributed to stakeholder management by developing a comprehensive multidimensional classification system that sorted, filtered, and ordered 593 stakeholder components
and definitions. The study addressed the definitional contestability of stakeholders by proposing
a model that enhanced stakeholder theory application. Specifically, Miles (2017) identified
stakeholder attributes such as the density of networks, centrality, reciprocity, influencing
strategies, claims, risk-taking perceptions, and harming propensities, which informed other
studies in the field (Magness, 2008).

19
While the notion of stakeholders remains contested, the perceptions stakeholders hold for
the purpose of the organization are central to stakeholder identification, management, and
salience. Thus, the dynamic field of stakeholder management offers global leaders a structured
lens to critically evaluate and address the multifaceted demands of their stakeholders (Donaldson
& Preston, 1995; Freeman, 2023; Mitchell et al., 1997; Magness, 2008; Miles, 2017).
Organizational Purpose
Scholars debated how leaders should shape their organizations’ core purpose and vision
within society, with ethical, political, and economic factors at the forefront. (Arrow, 1974; Wicks
& Freeman, 1998; Zingales et al., 2020). At the same time, landmark work on ethics focused on
personal beliefs and their influence on values relating to choices and decision-making in
particular (A. Smith, 2002). For instance, A. Smith (2002) developed a theory of moral
sentiments, arguing that ethical considerations should underpin moral purpose in the values and
personal beliefs of individuals, thus shaping their decisions. According to A. Smith, decisions
based on altruism and charity promote social well-being and contribute to the progress of the
organization or group. Additionally, A. Smith proposed that decision-makers should judge the
ethicality of their decisions through an imaginary impartial observer to transcend their impulse of
self-interest. Several seminal studies have applied A. Smith’s theory of moral sentiment to
corporate leaders’ decision-making attitudes, advocating for a stakeholder-centered and thus
arguing for an ethical approach to the organizational purpose (Arrow, 1974; Smith, 2002 Wicks
& Freeman, 1998; Zingales et al., 2020).
Studies endorsed a broader stakeholder-focused purpose in organizations, emphasizing
the importance of adding social value, not just profit (Arrow, 1974; Friedman, 2000; Pruzan,
2001; Zingales et al., 2020; Wicks & Freeman, 1998). Arrow’s (1974) pivotal work shaped

20
economic thought and is an influential study in this area. Arrow introduced an approach to
decision-making that reduces unwanted competition and promotes cooperation among
organizations and their stakeholders for the benefit of society. Arrow’s notion of moral hazard
describes situations where decision-makers have incentives to expose their organizations to
higher risks without bearing the costs. In such cases, organizational stakeholders are vital to
minimizing moral hazard by critically scrutinizing the decision-makers’ conduct when it
becomes potentially risky. Friedman (2000) offered a different perspective on the organizational
purpose, arguing that corporate decision-makers’ responsibility lies solely with their
shareholders and not serving other stakeholders by advancing broader societal purposes.
According to Friedman, social values and ethical demands are vague and difficult to manage
concepts that fall outside the scope of corporate executives’ management tasks. Contrary to
Friedman’s perspective, recent seminal scholarly work (Byrd, 2022; Mendenhall et al., 2020;
Pass & Ridgway, 2022) emphasized the significance of stakeholder-focused decision-making
and its potential impact on society, indicating that the idea has gained momentum. Overall, the
scholarly trend suggests that leaders must balance stakeholder interests and ethical
considerations, even as perspectives on organizational purpose range from strictly profit-driven
to broader societal impact (Arrow, 1974; Pruzan, 2001; Wicks & Freeman, 1998; Zingales et al.,
2020).
Environmental Factors
This literature review employs SCT as a thematic framework. To explore human action,
SCT emphasizes the interplay between environmental, behavioral, and personal (cognitive)
factors (Bandura, 1986, 2000, 2002). This literature review examines scholarly work focusing on
the impact of environmental factors on global leaders’ decision-making processes. It explores

21
how these factors shape their perceptions of organizational purpose, stakeholder management,
and ethical decision-making, influencing their ability to navigate complex stakeholder
relationships, especially in response to events that elicit social backlash (Table 1).
Table 1
Alignment of Environmental Factors With Literature Review Topics and Research Questions
SCT factor Stakeholder
management
Ethical decisionmaking
Organizational
purpose
Research
questions
Environmental Stakeholder
demands
Cultural contexts
and societal
expectations
Cultural contexts
and societal
expectations
RQ1
RQ2

22
Cultural Contexts
Cultural dimensions can influence organizational leaders’ behaviors (Hofstede, 1980;
Hofstede & Hope, 2004; House et al., 2017; Witt & Stahl, 2016). The literature review focuses
on scholarly work centering on cultural contexts because it highlights the importance of broader
external environmental factors in shaping effective decision-making within complex global
stakeholder environments. Chapter Four will report the study’s participants’ insights on the
importance of cultural contexts in shaping their stakeholder management.
Javidan and House (2001) defined culture as the accumulation of shared motives, values,
beliefs, identities, and interpretations of significant events. These elements stem from the shared
experiences of group members and are passed down through generations. Schwartz (2014)
viewed cultural values as coherent manifestations of a broader culture espoused by collectivities
of individuals (agents) and institutions (structures) within a particular cultural sphere. Moreover,
cultural values emphasize and influence cultural conceptions that shape societal expectations of
what is suitable and desirable in society (Hofstede, 1980; Weber, 2012). Although Schwartz
omitted to link cultural conceptions to societal expectations, House et al. (2017) correlated the
two notions to highlight their influence on leaders’ decision-making toward stakeholders from
multiple cultural settings (Figure 2).

23
Figure 2
The Interplay of Cultural Values and Conceptions and Societal Expectations Within Cultural
Spheres
Note. Adapted from Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies
by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta, 2017. SAGE
Publications. Copyright 2017 by SAGE Publications.
Scholars have examined how cultural influences shape leaders’ decision-making and
behaviors in the societies in which they operate (Durand et al., 2019; House et al., 2017; Javidan
& Dastmalchian, 2009; Miska et al., 2018; Witt & Stahl, 2016). While these studies did not

24
explicitly use SCT to explore environmental factors, Hofstede (1980) developed a model by
conducting a global quantitative survey of IBM employees between 1967 and 1973 to investigate
the impact of cultural values on organizational actions. Hofstede’s (1980) model included six
cultural dimensions: (a) individual and collectivism, (b) uncertainty avoidance, (c) power
distance, (d) masculinity-femininity, (e) long-term orientations, and (f) indulgence versus selfrestraint (Hofstede & Hope, 2004). Although Hofstede’s (1980) model remains relevant for
management and leadership research (House et al., 2017; Javidan, 2021; Javidan et al., 2006;
Witt & Stahl, 2016), some scholars have identified methodological and conceptual limitations on
its applicability (Baskerville, 2003).
Baskerville (2003) criticized Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions framework for
studying organizational leadership’s decision-making in diverse cultural settings, highlighting
methodological and conceptual limitations. Hofstede’s (1980) study administrated only two
rounds of surveys, which restricted the analysis of future dynamic developments in societal
expectations. Furthermore, anthropology scholars cautioned against using indices in crossnational studies, which could lead to broad cultural comparative generalizations (Sahlins, 1976).
The overreliance of management and leadership scholars on Hofstede’s model overshadowed the
need for more holistic, consilient, and dynamic theoretical models to study cultural factors.
Despite these limitations, Hofstede’s model influenced landmark research projects on cultural
values and societal expectations of leaders’ decision-making behaviors within varying cultural
contexts. (Baskerville, 2003; Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2017; Sahlins, 1976).
Societal Expectations
Broader normative evaluations of societal expectations influence global leaders’
decision-making processes (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014; Dhar &

25
Bose, 2021; Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2017; Mudrack & Mason, 2013; Waldman et al., 2006;
Witt & Stahl, 2016; Zietsma et al., 2019). House et al. (2017) conducted long-term
comprehensive research using this model, leading to the development of The Globe Project (GP).
The GP explored the impact of societal expectations and cultural values on leadership behavior,
decision-making, organizational performance, competitiveness, and top management teams. The
GP was the first large-scale mixed-methods study to measure leaders’ decision-making behaviors
by examining the relationship between culture, leadership behavior, and societal expectations.
The authors included over 1000 CEOs and 5000 senior executives in various industries in 24
countries, representing “cultures in almost all cultural regions of the world” (House et al., 2017,
p. 2). The GP provided insights into how societal expectations impact leaders’ decision-making
and behavior (House et al., 2017). However, a study by Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2014) revealed a
discrepancy between the decision-making behaviors of corporate leaders and the expectations of
the societies they operate. The authors argued that within cultural and social contexts that
prioritize fairness, corporate decision-makers may adopt an “arms-length approach” when
dealing with stakeholder-related concerns (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014, p. 107). Despite societal
expectations favoring a fair approach to stakeholder demands, some corporate leaders prioritize
bargaining power over fairness in their management strategies. For instance, Bridoux and
Stoelhorst compared the stakeholder management practices of Ryanair and Southwest in the
airline industry, both operating in cultural contexts that prioritize fairness-motivated leadership,
to highlight their antithetical approaches.
Bridoux and Stoelhorst’s (2014) mixed-methods study presented empirical evidence that
some corporate leaders prioritize value creation over societal expectations of fairness, which
contradicts the GP findings on cultural and societal expectations. The authors distinguished

26
corporate decision-makers between reciprocators, who prioritize fairness, and self-regarding,
who prioritize value, suggesting that leaders make decisions based on their normative
perceptions of fairness. Moreover, Mudrack and Mason (2013), reviewing scholarly work on the
ethical judgment of organizational leaders based on the Social Sciences Citation Index, argued
that normative evaluations, including stakeholder moral demands such as fairness, play a
significant role in shaping leaders’ decision-making processes. Further research could examine
the extent to which global leaders’ normative evaluations shape their decision-making in
managing ethical events, mainly when competing stakeholder demands and issues of social value
are at stake (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014; Mudrack & Mason, 2013).
Antonetti and Maklan (2018) furthered the work of Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2014) by
quantitatively focusing on the salience of the stakeholder issue, unlike Mitchell et al.’s (1997)
study, which focused on the salience of the stakeholder group. Conducting an online
experimental survey, Antonetti and Maklan (2018) recruited 98 stakeholder participants through
Amazon Mechanical Turk. They suggested that stakeholders’ responses to irresponsible or unfair
decision-making by corporate leaders vary according to the perceived harm caused by the issue.
For example, corporate leaders’ failure to manage stakeholder demands relating to tax avoidance,
tax sheltering, and general corporate fraud can trigger stakeholder anger, whereas contested
issues about fairness might not. Future empirical work centering on corporate leaders’
experiences can highlight the role of their normative evaluations on social expectations and the
influence this might have on their decision-making when managing competing stakeholder
demands for issues with social value such as fairness, social responsibility, and sustainability.
Overall, the scholarly work underscores that cultural influences, personal norms, and stakeholder
issue salience collectively drive corporate leaders’ decisions, making a case for a deeper

27
exploration of the social expectations in their decision-making approaches. (Antonetti & Maklan,
2018; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014; Dhar & Bose, 2021; Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2017;
Mudrack & Mason, 2013; Waldman et al., 2006; Witt & Stahl, 2016; Zietsma et al., 2019).
Social Contexts
Societal perceptions on matters affecting collective well-being, such as ESG issues,
motivate stakeholders to demand proactive sustainable action from organizational leaders to
correct, manage, and minimize harm (Y. Chouaibi & Zouari, 2021; Durand et al., 2019; J. Li et
al., 2020; Miska et al., 2018; Waldman et al., 2006). Corresponding with Witt and Stahl’s (2016)
and House et al.’s (2017) view, Miska et al. (2018) used qualitative and quantitative data from
the GP. Sampling 1924 companies in 36 countries and nine different cultural clusters, the authors
suggested that when societal expectations prompt corporations to enact sustainability practices,
leadership does so as a form of stakeholder management. The study used pivotal research
(Matten & Moon, 2008) to define corporate sustainability practices as “activities that contribute
to the economic, social, and environmental domains by meeting stakeholder needs in the present
without compromising the requirements of future generations” (Miska et al., 2018, p. 265). The
authors argued that expectations within social contexts could shape stakeholders’ sustainability
concerns and, consequently, leaders’ decision-making concerning these demands.
Durand et al. (2019) offered a quantitative study echoing the model developed by
Mitchell et al. (1997) on the importance of social contexts in corporate decision-making.
Drawing their hypotheses from previous quantitative empirical work but omitting the voices of
corporate executives, they suggested that organizational decision-makers conform and comply
with external normative stakeholder pressures when these issues are urgent and salient.
According to Durand et al. (2019), leaders, by interpreting issue salience and analyzing costs-

28
benefits for resource allocation, can address stakeholders’ sustainability demands by
demonstrating (a) symbolic compliance and (b) conformity. However, the study omitted to
reflect its findings on the work of Ruiz-Blanco et al. (2022), which explored the reputational
effects of non-authentic and greenwashing decision-making. The literature defines greenwashing
as “the difference between what the company says it does in terms of commitment to
sustainability and what the company does as evaluated by external parties” (Ruiz-Blanco et al.,
2022, p. 4024). Overall, scholarly work identified the importance of social contexts in shaping
decision-making for stakeholder demands for issues with social value.
In addition, M. Li et al. (2022) examined leaders’ decision-making in the energy industry
toward stakeholder sustainability demands. Using a mixed-methods approach that included a
content analysis of sustainability policies and documents in the public domain, the researchers
observed that four key players in the industry demonstrated a willingness to divest from fossil
fuels and transition toward clean energy. However, the authors found that these companies made
increasing symbolic tendencies and pledges to decarbonization and clean energy without
following through with concrete actions. When lodging sustainability demands within their
social contexts, stakeholders can identify greenwashing incentives and lack of authenticity in
corporate leaders’ decision-making (Ruiz-Blanco et al., 2022). Future studies can highlight
leaders’ perceptions when engaging with stakeholders’ sustainability demands. Also, future
empirical work can highlight leaders’ global contexts when engaging with stakeholder
sustainability demands, especially when those compete. In global corporate leadership, social
contexts influence decision-making, particularly concerning stakeholders’ sustainability
demands. These contexts shape leaders’ responses, ranging from genuine commitment to
symbolic compliance and greenwashing, as they navigate the complex interplay of societal

29
expectations and the urgency of ESG issues. (Butler et al., 2012; Javidan, 2021; Kossowska &
Rosinski, 2021; Levy et al., 2007; Vogelgesang et al., 2014).
Behavioral Factors
Global executives manage stakeholder demands by enacting leadership styles that
manifest their espoused behaviors (Kezar, 2000). Therefore, it is crucial to examine global
leaders’ decision-making through the lens of their behaviors as manifested in espoused
leadership styles. To this end, this part of Chapter Two will synthesize studies on RL and GMs
as leadership styles that signal global executives’ behavioral choices for ethical decision-making
in relation to stakeholder management (Table 2). This review will draw from scholarly work by
Doh and Quigley (2014), Maak et al. (2021), Muff et al. (2022), N. M. Pless et al. (2021),
Yammarino (2013), and Zhu et al. (2016).
Table 2
Alignment of Behavioral Factors With Literature Review Topics and Research Questions
SCT factor Stakeholder
management
Ethical decisionmaking
Organizational
purpose
Research
questions
Behavioral Responsible
leadership and
global
mindsets
Defining
leadership,
responsible
leadership
Responsible
leadership and
global
mindsets
RQ1 and RQ2

30
Defining Leadership
Scholarly research aims to develop a clear and structured understanding of leadership
(Avolio et al., 2009; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014; Northouse, 2022; Yammarino, 2013). It
creates a unified framework to define leadership and applies it to understanding corporate
decision-making. This approach also assists organizational and leadership studies in highlighting
leaders’ behaviors for stakeholder management and assessing the ethics of their decision-making
while they fulfill their roles and define their organization’s goals. Scholars defined leadership
using a multi-level, complex approach incorporating various constructs and entities (Avolio et
al., 2009; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014; Yammarino, 2013). Northouse (2022) categorizes
leadership definitions into trait, behavior, process, and standpoint. This study adopts
Yammarino’s (2013) definition of leadership, which states that leadership is a multi-level leaderfollower interaction process occurring in a particular context where a leader(s) and follower(s)
share a purpose and jointly accomplish things willingly. The study considers leadership as a
process and behavior instead of a trait. Leaders interact with stakeholders through procedural and
behavioral interplay to achieve a common goal. Although Yammarino (2013) referred to
followers instead of stakeholders, Mitchell et al. (1997) suggested that followers possess a
stakeholder status central to leaders’ ethical decision-making (Avolio et al., 2009; Fairhurst &
Connaughton, 2014; Northouse, 2022; Yammarino, 2013).
Triadic Leadership Framework
Hollander (1978) identified behavioral, cognitive, and environmental factors in the
leadership process and highlighted a triadic relationship among three intersecting factors: leader
(L), follower (F), and situation (S). The intersection between L and F denotes the interaction
between the two based on communication and inclusion. The section where L and S intersect

31
indicates that leaders shape their decision-making based on the organization’s internal and
external environmental settings. Finally, the intersection between F and S suggests that followers
(stakeholders) shape their organizational demands. Leadership is enacted in the triadic
intersection L x F x S (Figure 3; Hollander, 1978; Yammarino, 2013). Establishing a clear and
comprehensive understanding of leadership is pivotal in scholarly research, as it allows for
creating a unified framework that can analyze and evaluate the ethical aspects of leaders’
decision-making and their interactions with stakeholders. This study emphasizes leadership as a
dynamic, multi-level interaction process involving leaders and stakeholders within specific
contexts, where behavioral, cognitive, and environmental factors play a crucial role in shaping
decisions and organizational outcomes.

32
Figure 3
Defining Leadership Through Interaction of Leaders, Followers, and Situation
Note. Adapted from “Leadership” by F. J. Yammarino, 2013, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 20(2), 149–155. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812471559).
Copyright by Sage Publications.
Responsible Leadership
Responsible leadership (RL) refers to the behavior exhibited by global executives when
they align their ethical understanding and organizational goals with the responsible management
of stakeholders. This approach integrates their ethical standards with the broader aim of RL
(Maak et al., 2021; N. M. Pless et al., 2021). RL is important to address in this literature review
because Chapter Four will detail insights from the study’s participants. The participants focus on
their decision-making processes and the aspects of RL they embody, especially in responding to

33
stakeholder demands on socially valuable issues during backlash periods. Furthermore, Chapter
Five will use RL as a guiding implementation framework for the study’s recommendations.
Therefore, including RL in this literature review is essential, underlining its crucial role in the
study’s context.
According to Kuhn (1996), a new radical paradigm is necessary when a theory fails to
explain new phenomena. RL, with its emphasis on CSR, morality, accountability, authenticity,
trust, shared leadership, and compassion, is attuned to the current social, environmental, and
geopolitical braking points that many global leaders face (Maak et al., 2021; N. M. Pless et al.,
2021; Tsui, 2021; Waldman et al., 2020; Waldman & Balven, 2014). RL literature highlights the
significance of stakeholder influence, CSR, and global contexts for organizational leaders (Levy
et al., 2017; Siegel, 2014; Waldman & Balven, 2014; Waldman et al., 2020). Scholars have
explored stakeholder pressures for social responsibility (Maak et al., 2021; N. M. Pless et al.,
2021; Siegel, 2014), the need for organizational leaders to act as global citizens (Mendenhall et
al., 2020; Voegtlin, 2016), their commitment to balancing diverse stakeholder demands (Greige
Frangieh & Khayr Yaacoub, 2017) and delivering outcomes for environmentally sustainable
futures (Witt & Stahl, 2016), ethical decision-making (Voegtlin, 2016; Williams, 2019), and
developing behavioral complexity for leading responsibly (Voegtlin et al., 2020). Considering
scholarly work on RL is crucial in understanding the ethicality of global executives’ decisionmaking, as it encompasses aligning their ethical standards with organizational goals and
effectively managing stakeholder relationships. RL’s focus on social responsibility, global
citizenship, and sustainability is particularly relevant in addressing the complex challenges
global leaders face today, emphasizing the need for leaders to balance diverse stakeholder
demands and contribute to sustainable futures (Bentley, 2018; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

34
Social Responsibility and Responsible Leadership
Siegel (2014) and Waldman (2012) identified social responsibility (SR) as a RL
component, but empirical research is lacking from their study. Varma (2021) quantitatively
linked leaders’ socially responsible decision-making with the firm’s value, while Maak et al.
(2021) qualitatively explored political leaders’ irresponsible behaviors during the COVID-19
pandemic. The authors conducted content analysis on four political leaders’ public statements
and press releases. They highlighted responsible and irresponsible decision-making based on
their perceptions and beliefs about the threats posed by COVID-19. However, by adopting
similar qualitative instruments such as interviews or content analysis, future research on RL
should examine global corporate leaders’ experiences managing stakeholder demands within
multicultural contexts. Such inclusion would enable a better understanding of how global
corporate leaders can address competing stakeholder demands while navigating diverse cultural
norms and values.
Global Mindsets
Global mindsets (GMs) is a leadership behavioral trait that influences the leadership style
of global leaders (Javidan, 2021). It serves as a lens through which this study analyzes and
evaluates the ethics of leaders’ decision-making, particularly in managing stakeholders and
understanding their perceptions of their organization’s purpose within global contexts. Therefore,
the literature review focuses on research related to GMs to deepen understanding of their impact.
Furthermore, Chapter Four will identify the study’s participants’ insights on GMs and how they
shape their decision-making within intricate global stakeholder landscapes. Similarly, Chapter
Five will use GMs as a concept to propose recommendations for efficient decision-making in
global contexts.

35
Scholarly work focused on global leaders’ mindsets for exploring their decision-making
effectiveness (Javidan, 2021; Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021; Waldman, 2011). Dweck (2007)
popularized the idea of mindsets as the attitudinal frame a person or a group possesses to deal
with unknown and challenging situations. Klein (2012) defined mindsets as beliefs that influence
how we oversee situations, sort out what is going on, and what we should do (p. 1). Although the
idea of mindsets is a popular concept in organizational psychology literature, the notion of GMs
within leadership studies is recent (Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021). With the expansion of
international business and the rise of multinational companies (MNCs), global executives need to
develop leadership skills to manage stakeholders’ demands in multicultural environments (Levy
et al., 2007). Therefore, hiring, training, and developing skills for global leaders became a set
target for organizations as well as educational institutions that train business leaders (Larrán
Jorge et al., 2017).
This study employs SCT to define GMs as a dynamic process that includes cognitive
complexity, behavioral attitude, and cultural intelligence to transcend cultural boundaries and
understand, influence, and develop organizations and stakeholders through universal values,
empathy, cosmopolitan outlook, and cultural diversity (Clapp-Smith & Lester, 2014; ClappSmith et al., 2009; Levy et al., 2007; Nummela et al., 2009; Vogelgesang et al., 2014). In
addition, Javidan et al. (2021) associated GM with global leaders’ effectiveness. They
emphasized the importance of leaders’ decision-making to “understand, as well as the propensity
to act upon, the environment, which enables effectiveness in global roles” (Javidan et al., 2021,
p. 1332). Kossowska and Rosinski (2021) further refined the notion of GM by locating and
framing a multiplicity of GM definitions (n = 18), its antecedents (n = 179), and outcomes (n =
52). By systematically reviewing the relevant literature, the authors concluded that global

36
leaders’ decision-making can benefit from building and operationalizing a capacity for GMs to
manage culturally, ethically, and racially diverse stakeholders.
In their study, Javidan et al. (2021) qualitatively linked a leader’s GM with their
effectiveness in making decisions for global roles, emphasizing the importance of personal
exposure to multicultural and diverse environments in building relevant behaviors for developing
GM. The authors used interviews with a female global executive and highlighted her executive
practice while dealing with stakeholders in organizational environments outside the home culture
of the corporation. This study uses SCT to explore corporate leaders’ behavior in diverse and
multicultural settings and the personal and behavioral dynamics that influence leadership
outcomes (Figure 4). While qualitative studies such as Javidan et al. (2021) have limited
transferability, they can inspire future research by providing a rich understanding of individual
experiences. To further explore the experiences of global corporate leaders, future research could
expand the sample size, thus providing a deeper exploration of their lived experiences in
multicultural contexts, shedding light on the factors that shape their decision-making when
managing stakeholders outside the home corporate environment (Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021).
By enhancing our understanding of the complexities of stakeholder management during events
that promote social backlash, this research could inform the development of more effective
decision-making strategies for global leaders (Javidan, 2021).

37
Figure 4
Theoretical Model for Building Capacity for Global Mindsets
Note. The theoretical model conceptualized by Javidan et al. (2021) and adapted to include
Bandura’s (2002) SCT suggests that leaders’ exposure to diverse, multicultural environments
shapes their behavioral stance to adopt GMs when engaging with their stakeholders within their
organizational settings. Such personal exposure is a predictive factor for their effectiveness as
global leaders. Adapted from “How Life Experiences and Cultural Context Matter: A Multilevel
Framework of Global Leader Effectiveness” by M. Javidan, D. A. Waldman, & D. Wang, 2021.
Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1331–1362. (https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12662).
Copyright 2021 by John Wiley & Sons.
Although GMs are a recent notion, scholarly work identified its positive effects on global
organizational growth, stakeholder management, and the development of a skilled leadership
workforce in international settings (Javidan et al., 2021; Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021; Levy et
al., 2007; Waldman 2012).

38
Personal Factors
Bandura’s SCT highlighted the dynamic interplay of environmental, behavioral, and
cognitive factors for human action (Bandura, 1986). The study utilizes SCT to explore the
environmental, behavioral, and cognitive influences on global leaders’ decision-making in
multicultural corporate contexts.
This section of the literature review will concentrate on academic research about the
personal factors, such as self-efficacy and sensemaking, of corporate executives. It will examine
scholarly work on how these personal attributes impact their ethical decision-making approach
and influence stakeholder management. Additionally, this part will explore the notion of
sensemaking and how it can shape leaders’ understanding of the purpose of leadership and
organizations.
Including scholarly work on personal factors such as sensemaking and self-efficacy in the
literature review is important. Chapter Four will showcase how participants perceive personal
beliefs as critical to successful decision-making. They will also discuss the role of personal
beliefs in enhancing decision-making effectiveness, especially when addressing stakeholder
demands on socially sensitive issues during challenging times. Similarly, Chapter Five will apply
personal beliefs, informed by self-efficacy and sensemaking, to recommend a practical
framework for effective decision-making strategies (see Table 3).
Table 3
Alignment of Personal Factors With Literature Review Topics and Research Questions
SCT factors Stakeholder
management
Ethical decisionmaking
Organizational
purpose
Research 3
Personal Self-efficacy and
sensemaking
Self-efficacy and
sensemaking
Sensemaking RQ1 and RQ2

39
Self-Efficacy and Personal Beliefs
This section will delve into scholarly work covering the importance of personal beliefs
through self-confidence and self-efficacy in decision-making among global leaders. Drawing
from Bandura’s (1986, 2000, 2002) concept of self-efficacy and broader personal beliefs, as well
as McCormick’s (2001) insights on leaders’ self-efficacy, it will explore how these personal
factors enable leaders to navigate leadership effectively. Incorporating the personal factors of
self-efficacy and personal beliefs in the literature review is also important because Chapters Four
and Five highlight participants’ insights on how incorporating personal beliefs through selfefficacy forms the basis of decision-making.
According to Bandura (1986, 2000), self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their
capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainment. Personal
processes can regulate behavioral choices through an individual’s beliefs, thoughts, and
emotions. Global corporate executives operationalize their self-efficacy into problem-solving
capabilities and analytical thinking (Bandura, 1986). Similarly, in stakeholder management,
personal processes can regulate global leaders’ overall practices (McCormick, 2001). According
to McCormick (2001), organizational leaders’ self-efficacy and self-confidence are conceptually
similar, as they both refer to a leader’s self-assessment of their abilities and skills to effectively
oversee various situations. McCormick (2001) defined leader self-efficacy as “one’s selfperceived capability to perform the cognitive and behavioral functions necessary to regulate
group process in relation to goal achievement” (p. 30). McCormick (2001) also posited that
leaders’ experiences are a product of personal goals and self-efficacy and can self-regulate their
behaviors (leadership styles) to shape their environments proactively. Through motivation as a
vehicle for task and strategy development, leaders can choose the optimal set of behaviors

40
(leadership style) as informed by their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA), thus leading to an
optimal performance environment (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Model for Leaders’ Self-Regulated Behavior
Note. McCormick added context to Bandura’s (1986) self-efficacy concept by relating it to
organizational leaders and their practice. This study links McCormick’s (2001) adaptation of
Bandura’s (1986) model to global corporate executives’ decision-making experiences. Their
global decision-making experiences affect their knowledge, skills, abilities, self-efficacy, and
personal goals. These factors shape their motivation and task development in their global
leadership practice while managing competing stakeholder demands. The interplay affects their
behaviors in the form of their adopted leadership style, which shapes their performance
environment and thus impacts their decision-making experiences. Adapted from “Self-efficacy
and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to leadership” by M. J.
McCormick, 2001, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22–33.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102). Copyright 2001 by Sage Publications.

41
In exploring the role of self-efficacy and self-confidence in developing leaders’
experiences, scholarly work in organizational leadership utilized McCormick’s study (2001). For
example, Liu et al. (2020) quantitatively studied the relationship between self-efficacy and selfconfidence in leaders’ development. Additionally, Bear et al. (2017) investigated the impact of
performance feedback on power retention and the gender gap in leadership.
Furthermore, Ee and Cho (2012) adapted McCormick’s (2001) conceptual approach to
Bandura’s (1986) self-efficacy. The authors applied it to study individuals’ leadership
development and skills in massively multiple-player online role-playing games (MMORPGs).
The study’s relevance to global organizational leaders stems from geographically distributed
employees and executives requiring similar KSAs to communicate and engage with tasks, just
like MMORPG players. The study used a qualitative approach to gather interview data from 20
MMORPG players to explore how environmental, behavioral, and cognitive factors shape
players’ actions and affect their self-efficacy, self-confidence, and broader leadership
development in the collaborative gaming environment. Ee and Cho’s (2012) study is particularly
relevant to the current research because it utilized the same instruments and occurred online,
providing a similar approach to uncovering individuals’ lived experiences. This qualitative,
exploratory study offers valuable insights into how environmental, behavioral, and cognitive
factors shape leadership development. It can also inform the current study’s understanding of
how global leaders manage competing stakeholder demands within multiple geographical
contexts.
Similarly, Ronay et al. (2019) hypothesized the relationship between overconfidence and
leadership suitability in a qualitative study. Citing McCormick (2001) as a study linking selfefficacy and self-confidence for leaders’ success in securing appointments, the authors presented

42
five case studies examining the relationship between overconfidence and perceived leadership
suitability. The study demonstrates that overconfidence linked with self-efficacy can positively
predict hiring recommendations, buffer social stress, increase perceived leadership potential
regardless of competence, sway voters, and make competent candidates less likely to be elected.
The findings suggest that overconfidence shapes self-efficacy and manifests behavioral displays
that activate people’s implicit leadership theories, leading to increased perceptions of leadership
potential.
Adding a Global Dimension
McCormick’s (2001) study on the interplay of personal factors such as self-efficacy and
self-confidence in leadership overlooked the dynamics of global leadership in relation to
stakeholder management. Building on the foundational theories presented in Chapter Two, this
review seeks to expand upon McCormick’s findings by synthesizing scholarly work from GMs
within a global leadership context. By delving into the lived experiences of global leaders in
Chapter Four, this research aims to illuminate how personal beliefs, GMs, and broader
environmental influences contribute to effectively managing stakeholder demands and driving
performance in international environments. Appendix D details these insights, which include the
participants’ narratives and their correlation with the proposed model.
Sensemaking
Global leaders make sense of organizational realities and thus construct their decisionmaking based on perceptions and social interactions (Allio, 2023; Bandura, 1986, 2000; Eliade,
1991; Foss & Klein, 2022; Jung, 2002; Weick, 2012). The literature review delves into scholarly
work focusing on sensemaking because, as a concept, it informs global executives’ perceptions
and overall decision-making when they confront novel and uncertain environmental conditions.

43
In Chapter Four, participants will share insights highlighting sensemaking processes while
navigating intricate and less-known global stakeholder landscapes. Similarly, Chapter Five will
use sensemaking to inform theoretical and practical language for building a framework for
effective decision-making for global executives when confronted with complex stakeholder
demands.
Jung (2002) argued that when a “fear whose cause is far from being fully understood …
there arise explanatory projections which purport to find the cause” (Jung, 2002, p. 12). Per Jung,
individuals try collectively to make sense of distressed situations and construct an interpretive
pattern to create an untangled reality. Similarly, Eliade (1991) identified culture-wide
sensemaking patterns in non-Western societies. In Eliade’s study, individuals tend to give
meaning to a profane world through a sacred lens by applying myths, rituals, legends, and stories
as interpretive vehicles to their lived experiences. Converging with Jung, Eliade argued that
fusing the “sacred and the profane” (p. 3) into a singular sensemaking entity prompted people to
construct an untangled reality where the unexplainable becomes explained.
This study draws from the work of Eliade (1991) and Jung (2002) and adopts Weick’s
(2005) sensemaking framework to explore how global leaders navigate stakeholder demands
during times of environmental uncertainty. Sensemaking, as defined by Weick and supported by
Jung and Eliade, is crucial when individuals perceive a disconnect between the current state of
the world and their expectations. Organizational leaders must engage in sensemaking to manage
less known or uncertain stakeholder demands related to socially valuable events in the global
corporate environment. Muff et al. (2022) emphasized that stakeholders’ demands for social
justice and environmental sustainability push leaders to rethink their societal contributions and
reshape their understanding of how to make sense of their corporate social value. For instance,

44
Allio (2023) highlighted how stakeholders’ demands for DEI add to the environmental pressures
on leaders to act. Foss and Klein (2022) discussed how employees’ demands for socially
progressive practices prompt leaders to embrace “woke ideas” (p. 1), such as prioritizing DEI
and other socially progressive causes. In this global social, political, and economic context,
leaders must enact sensemaking as part of their decision-making processes to effectively manage
stakeholder demands for justice (Allio, 2023; Foss & Klein, 2022).
Leaders engage in sensemaking to navigate unpredictable experiences and search for
answers to complex questions (Weick et al., 2012). Despite not explicitly referencing SCT or
Bandura’s work, Weick’s (2012) study aligned with a social constructivist perspective by
highlighting individuals’ ability to shape events through sensemaking (Weick, 2005, 2012). This
viewpoint is consistent with Bandura’s claim that individuals are “producers of experiences and
shapers of events” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75). Building on the concept of sensemaking, future
research can explore how global corporate executives manage stakeholder competing demands
and construct meaning across various cultural and organizational contexts. Given the view by
certain stakeholders of corporations as social value-adding entities (Zingales et al., 2020), leaders
must develop innovative approaches to address novel social issues (Allio, 2023; Foss & Klein,
2022; Wright, 2022). By employing an efficient sensemaking process, leaders can develop a
comprehensive understanding of stakeholder demands during times of uncertainty.
Sensemaking is important in understanding how global leaders construct their decisionmaking amidst uncertain environments, particularly when managing stakeholder demands.
Drawing from landmark scholarly work, this study emphasizes how leaders interpret and respond
to complex situations, integrating cultural and social dimensions into their strategic thinking. The
study will explore this process in detail in Chapter Five, demonstrating how effective

45
sensemaking is crucial for leaders in navigating stakeholders’ expectations for social value
during backlash (Allio, 2023; Bandura, 1986, 2000; Eliade, 1991; Foss & Klein, 2022; Jung,
2002; Weick, 2012; Wright, 2022; Zingales et al., 2020).
Overview of Social Cognitive Theory’s Environmental, Behavioral, and Personal Factors
on Global Leaders’ Decision-Making
The relevance of environmental, behavioral, and personal factors in the context of ethical
decision-making, organizational purpose, and stakeholder management underpins the design and
anticipated outcomes of the study. The study perceives global executives’ perceptions of these
factors as influential forces to global executives’ effective decision-making, especially when
confronted with competing stakeholder demands during events that spark social backlash. The
first research question guiding this study sets an interpretative dimension focusing on how
leaders comprehend and give meaning to these factors and events. Simultaneously, the
attributional aspect of the second research question probes how these leaders assign these factors
to decision-making successes or failures. Such an approach offers a rich, in-depth exploration of
global executives’ lived experiences, shedding light on their understanding of the complexities
intrinsic to their roles. In this light, the SCT emerges as an especially fitting framework,
facilitating an examination that accommodates the interplay of individual, behavioral, and
environmental factors in shaping leadership responses.
Ethics of Decision-Making
Ethical decision-making is a foundation for behavioral factors shaping leadership styles.
The literature review highlighted the significance of ethical considerations in decision-making
processes and aligned them with broader behavioral leadership attitudes. Incorporating ethical
frameworks and guidelines in exploring global executives’ decision-making experiences is

46
important when they manage competing stakeholder demands within complex environments
(Bentham, 2007; Jones et al., 2007; Kant, 1993; Maak et al., 2021; Mill, 2018; N. M. Pless et al.,
2021; Rawls, 2009; Tsui, 2021; Waldman & Balven, 2014; Waldman et al., 2020; Wombacher et
al., 2018).
Stakeholder Management
Stakeholder management is an aspect that aligns with environmental, behavioral, and
personal factors, directly influencing leaders’ decision-making. It is a lens to examine global
executives’ experiences and challenges when managing competing stakeholder demands.
Stakeholder management aligns with behavioral and personal factors by studying RL, GM, selfefficacy, and sensemaking. The literature review emphasized the importance of RL for ethical
and accountable behaviors in managing stakeholders effectively. Also, the chapter focused on
GM as an enabling behavioral style that leaders can use to adopt a broader perspective and
navigate diverse stakeholder environments. Lastly, the review focused on self-efficacy, signaling
an influencing force for leaders’ belief in managing stakeholder demands and making informed
decisions. Additionally, sensemaking enables leaders to reduce uncertainty for complex
stakeholder expectations and needs dynamics. By integrating these behavioral and personal
factors, stakeholder management provides a comprehensive framework for decision-making to
engage with stakeholders effectively.
Stakeholder management aligns with environmental factors such as cultural contexts and
societal expectations. Cultural contexts shape the dynamics of stakeholder relationships and
influence the expectations and demands of various stakeholder groups. Lacking an understanding
of the cultural contexts and societal expectations, global executives cannot navigate and manage
competing stakeholder demands within multiple societal contexts. The ability to adapt their

47
strategies and decision-making approaches according to the specific cultural and societal
contexts aligns with the building of frameworks that promote effective decision-making toward
stakeholders. Integrating these factors can form a comprehensive framework that considers
environmental, behavioral, and personal aspects in effectively managing stakeholders
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 2023; Magness, 2008; Miles, 2017; Mitchell et al.,
1997).
Organizational Purpose
Organizational purpose plays a role in guiding global leaders’ decision-making. Leaders
can make decisions aligned with broader corporate objectives and meet stakeholders’
expectations by recognizing and aligning with environmental factors such as cultural contexts
and societal expectations. Similarly, behavioral factors further shape leadership styles that affect
how global executives view the purpose of their organizations. The review emphasized RL,
guiding leaders to act in ways consistent with broader values. Global mindsets (GMs), on the
other hand, shape leaders’ attitudinal perspectives by fostering a broader and more inclusive
worldview. Overall the focus on organizational purpose in the literature review highlighted the
need for comprehensive approaches to decision-making that consider cultural nuances and
societal expectations (environmental), leadership styles (behavioral), and sensemaking and selfefficacy vehicles (person) when exploring practical frameworks to effective decision-making
toward competing stakeholder demands (Arrow, 1974; Byrd, 2022; Mendenhall et al., 2020; Pass
& Ridgway, 2022; Pruzan, 2001; Wicks & Freeman, 1998; Zingales et al., 2020).
These environmental, behavioral, and personal factors influence global executives’
decision-making while managing their stakeholders’ competing demands. They form the
foundation for analyzing and understanding how they construct effective decision-making or

48
why some global leaders are more effective than others in managing competing stakeholder
demands. They also explore global leaders’ challenges and provide valuable insights for
developing effective decision-making frameworks. By incorporating these factors into the study
design, through the study of ethical decision-making, organizational purpose, and stakeholder
management, the research aims to uncover the complexities and nuances that hinder or support
decision-making within complex stakeholder environments and provide practical
recommendations for global executives (Table 4).
Table 4
Factors Affecting Global Executives’ Decision-Making for Competing Stakeholder Demands: An
Exploration of Environmental, Behavioral, and Personal Factors
Literature review
topic
Environmental factors Behavioral factors Personal
(cognitive) factors
Ethical decisionmaking
Cultural contexts
Societal expectations
Leadership styles
(responsible
leadership and global
mindsets)
Self-efficacy
Sensemaking
Organizational
purpose
Cultural contexts
Societal expectations
Leadership styles
(responsible
leadership and global
mindsets)
Self-efficacy
Sensemaking
Stakeholder
management
Cultural contexts
Societal expectations
Leadership styles
(responsible
leadership and global
mindsets)
Self-efficacy
Sensemaking
Note. This table signals assumed influences that can affect leaders’ decision-making while
managing competing stakeholder demands. The topics covered in the literature review are in
alignment with the relevant factors as identified by the theoretical model espoused by this study.

49
Reasons Underlying the Problem of Practice
Recent social, political, and environmental phenomena prompt stakeholder groups to
demand that organizations and their leaders acknowledge, address, and correct situations that
cause harm to the communities in which they operate. Intersecting international dynamics, such
as the proliferation of world trade, integrated supply chains, and new efficient technologies, add
a global dimension to corporate leaders’ praxis. As a result, an increasing number of corporations
in the Western world gained momentum for worldwide reach and, therefore, an ability to shape
environmental, political, economic, and social realities outside their home cultural sphere.
However, corporations are increasingly exposed to stakeholders outside their home environments
as they expand globally. Furthermore, societal expectations and cultural values can shape
stakeholders’ demands that may be unfamiliar to the corporate leadership (Cooke & Zhao, 2021;
Waldman et al., 2020).
Leaders of corporations with global reach need to manage their stakeholders’ demands
and develop GMs to navigate diverse cultural, national, and social realities (Javidan, 2021).
Global leaders’ challenges increase when stakeholders from different cultural spheres forward
competing demands. Failure to acknowledge, listen, or manage these can have operational and
reputation effects on the corporations they lead (Allio, 2023; Antonetti & Maklan, 2018; Bovens
et al., 2014; Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Coraiola & Derry, 2020; Greenwood, 2007; House et al.,
2017; Macnamara, 2016a, 2016c, 2018a; Merritt, 2021; Muff et al., 2022; N. M. Pless et al.,
2021; Visser, 2019; Voegtlin et al., 2020; Waldman et al., 2020).
Reputational Impact
Scholarly work highlighted that decision-making by corporate leaders that neglects
stakeholder demands for responsible conduct can crucially impact an organization’s reputation

50
(N. M. Pless et al., 2021; Visser, 2019; Voegtlin et al., 2020; Waldman et al., 2020). Fombrun
(1996) defined organizational reputation as the “perceptual representation of a company’s past
actions and prospects that describe the firm’s appeal to all of its key constituents” (p. 165). The
literature further suggested that a corporate crisis is the most impactful event for an
organization’s reputation (James & Woten, 2010). James and Woten (2010) defined crisis in
corporate contexts as “rare, significant and public situations that create highly undesirable
outcomes for the firm and its stakeholders” (p. 17). Scholarly work suggested that corporate
leaders’ decision-making that neglects stakeholders’ demands for responsible corporate conduct
can harm the organization’s reputation within the society in which it operates (N. M. Pless et al.,
2021; Visser, 2019; Voegtlin et al., 2020; Waldman et al., 2020).
Quantitative and qualitative studies on RL provided empirical context for efficient
stakeholder management on issues that can have a reputational impact. For example, N. M. Pless
et al. (2021), Waldman et al. (2020), and Voegtlin et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of
moral imagination, espoused leadership orientation and behavioral complexity in managing
stakeholders’ expectations during times of crises to manage, limit and prevent reputational harm.
Specifically, Pless et al., using four case studies of companies located in four Southeast Asian
countries, identified a basis and a practical framework for imagining RL responses to stakeholder
conflict when leaders are presented with moral dilemmas that have a reputational impact on the
organizations they lead.
Additionally, scholarly work examined the positive impact of RL on organizational
effectiveness, stakeholder perception, and employee engagement, emphasizing the importance of
empathy and value orientation in leadership roles. Voegtlin et al. (2020) evaluated a theoretical
model of RL that involved three roles: expert, facilitator, and citizen, and its empirical validation

51
through three studies, which indicate a positive relationship between RL and perceived
effectiveness, favorable stakeholder evaluations, and employee engagement, facilitated by leader
empathy, positive affect, and universal value orientation. Through surveys targeting student
leaders and stakeholders but not corporate executives, the study found that RL is positively
related to leaders’ perceived effectiveness, favorable stakeholder evaluations, and employee
engagement (Voegtlin et al., 2020). The authors also noted that leaders’ sense of responsibility
toward their stakeholders as part of their CSR decision-making is an opportunity for the
organization to highlight its responsible credentials that can have a positive reputational effect
(N. M. Pless et al., 2021; Voegtlin et al., 2020; Waldman et al., 2020). Using similar qualitative
instruments, Pass and Ridgway (2022) focused on leaders’ decisions to enforce remote working
during the pandemic and its impact on employee engagement, trust building, and broader
reputation for the organizations they lead. The management and organizational literature
demonstrated that organizations that assume accountability and act responsively toward
stakeholder demands can mitigate reputational damage, while those that fail to do so may face
negative consequences (Janssen, 2013; Pacelli, 2016; Phillips et al., 2020). Overall studies on RL
demonstrate that involving a sense of responsibility, notably during crises like the pandemic, can
enhance an organization’s reputation and stakeholder relations, underscoring the pivotal role of
leadership in shaping corporate image and trust.
Responsibility and Accountability
The management and organizational literature examined how leaders’ approach to
accountability and responsibility can impact a corporation’s reputation (Janssen, 2013; Pacelli,
2016; Phillips et al., 2020). While Friedman (2000) argued that organizational leaders should
prioritize accountability and responsibility toward shareholders, other scholars suggested that

52
embracing accountability and responsibility toward broader stakeholders can help prevent
reputational crises (Bovens et al., 2014; Janssen, 2013; Pacelli, 2016; Phillips et al., 2020). Case
studies in the public press and scholarly literature illustrated the reputational impact on
organizations that failed to proactively address stakeholder demands for an apology or public
admission of wrongdoing by their leaders. For instance, Lehman Brothers’ failure to hold its
leaders accountable during the 2008 financial crisis (Pacelli, 2016) or the reluctance of the
British Petroleum CEO to assume personal accountability for the oil spill in the Gulf of New
Mexico resulted in negative reputational events for their organizations (Diers-Lawson & Pang,
2016).
Conversely, organizations that assume accountability and act toward relevant stakeholder
demands for retribution and justice can limit reputational damage (Janssen, 2013). For example,
Volkswagen (VW) addressed stakeholder perceptions of its dark corporate history by “creating
space for ongoing discourse about the past” and building a memorial to acknowledge those
harmed and their descendants (Janssen, 2013, p. 79). Even though VW faced ongoing lawsuits
for its history of forced labor during World War II, its leadership managed stakeholder concerns
for historical justice by conducting research and issuing detailed acknowledgments.
Furthermore, emerging activist stakeholder groups can serve as “courts of public
opinion” (Bovens et al., 2014, p. 632) and as accountability agents. Overall, organizational
leaders who demonstrate accountability and responsiveness to stakeholder concerns regarding
past or present injustices have an opportunity to restore trust and limit reputational damage,
while activist stakeholder groups can function as a force for accountability and public opinion
(Diers-Lawson & Pang, 2016; Janssen, 2013; Pacelli, 2016; Phillips et al., 2020).

53
Operational Impact
Leaders’ failure to listen to (Macnamara, 2016a, 2016c, 2018a, 2018b) and manage
stakeholder demands for events that provoke social backlash (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018) can
trigger moral outrage, erode trust, and impact broader corporate operations (Doan, 2016; Doh &
Quigley, 2014; Greenwood & Van Buren, 2010). Corporate operations include logistics,
production, marketing, human resources, and public relations (Baumgartner & Winter, 2014).
Scholars emphasized the importance of stakeholder-centered decision-making by leaders for
enhancing corporate legitimacy (Lindgreen et al., 2018), which is critical for obtaining and
improving a corporation’s social license to operate (SLO; Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016). An
SLO is “an intangible representation of the ongoing approval or acceptance of a project by
stakeholders affected by its progress” (Provasnek & Schmid, 2018, p. 32). If leaders fail to
manage stakeholder demands, it can lead to the loss of SLO, affecting the organization’s broader
operations within its community. Inauthentic decision-making or a lack of willingness to address
stakeholder concerns can lead to the withdrawal of SLO and limit the organization’s social
legitimacy (Provasnek & Schmid, 2018). Because of corporate leaders’ failure to address their
demands, stakeholders in industries such as mining (Mitchell et al., 1997), airline (Varma, 2021),
and finance (Pacelli, 2016) have initiated boycotts, protests, and negative publicity through
social media (Vo et al., 2019), resulting in critical effects on organizational operations.
In a quantitative study, Vo et al. (2019) sampled the top six airlines in the United States.
Collecting stakeholder-costumer tweets based on topics and hashtags with operational value, the
authors obtained 127,194 tweets from 118,853 individual posters in the United States over 40
months. The study examined how a company’s engagement with CSR to manage stakeholder
demands influences word of mouth (WOM) on Twitter, particularly during a service delay. The

54
authors showed that airlines with optimal methods for managing stakeholder demands for CSR
receive more positive WOM and less negative WOM on Twitter. Also, the positive relationship
between service delays and negative WOM is weaker for airlines with better stakeholder
management for CSR events. Provasnek and Schmid (2018), using stakeholder theory as a
conceptual guide, conducted a literature review on published scholarly work to understand
stakeholder engagement and its effect on broader operational impact for organizations. Although
the study lacked additional empirical contribution, it conceptualized SLO as a framework for
crisis management. It suggested that the failure of corporate leaders to manage stakeholder
demands can have transformational impacts on any region of operation (Provasnek & Schmid,
2018, p. 42).
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory (SCT) has contributed to learning sciences and psychology.
Bandura (1986), who is associated with the development of SCT, claimed that a careful
examination of multiple reasons is required to explore and understand the “causal processes”
(p. 1) driving human action. However, theories include or exclude factors, thus overemphasizing
one set over another. Bandura (1986) called this “one-sided interactionism” (p. 23). For example,
behavioral theories emphasize the behavioral dimension, leaving the individual subject to
environmental influences outside their control (Bandura, 1986). This study draws on SCT and
uses environmental, behavioral, and personal factors in exploring global leaders’ perceptions of
stakeholder management, organizational purpose, and ethical decision-making that can hinder or
support their effective approach to competing stakeholder demands.
Social cognitive theory (SCT) offers a model of holistic causality captured within the
dynamic interplay of environmental, behavioral, and cognitive (personal) factors. This part of the

55
literature review will center on scholarly work influenced by SCT and the work of Bandura
(1986, 2000). It will review and assess the applicability of each SCT factor for the problem of
practice. In addition, the study will explore how other relevant social sciences theories
complement and enhance the understanding of the factors identified within SCT that hinder or
support global leaders’ decision-making for competing stakeholder demands that elicit social
backlash. The integration of institutional theory and communities of practice will provide
valuable insights into environmental factors, offering a broader understanding of the contextual
influences on global executives’ decision-making. Furthermore, social drama theory,
sociocultural learning theory, and moral identity theory will complement the behavioral factors,
providing deeper insights into the social and psychological processes that shape leaders’
responses to stakeholder demands for events that promote social backlash. By incorporating
these complementary theories, the study aims to offer a comprehensive perspective in Chapter
Four by analyzing global leaders’ decision-making experiences within complex stakeholder
environments (see Figure 6).

56
Figure 6
Interconnectedness and Complementary Theoretical Relationships
Note. This diagram represents the interconnectedness and relationships between the factors of
SCT and relevant social learning theories. It illustrates how these theories complement and
enhance the understanding of global executives’ decision-making experiences within complex
stakeholder environments.

57
Environmental Factors: Communities of Practice, Institutional Theory, and Open Systems
Theory
Environmental factors are essential to explaining and understanding human and
organizational action (Bandura, 1986, 2000). Bandura (1986) stressed the role of “situational
influences” (p. 22) affecting human behavior. Environmental influences can shape corporate
leaders’ ethical decision-making, and broader perceptions of organizational purpose and
stakeholder management.
Social cognitive theory posits that economic, social, and political dynamics contribute to
social diffusion processes for shaping “how people live” (p. 142). By social diffusion, Bandura
(1986) meant acquiring and adopting knowledge, ideas, and practices that people perceive as
new. Globalization forces, such as the range and impact of advanced technologies and
communication, multinational institutions propagating integration among nation-states, and
economic interdependence through integrated supply chains and free trade, brought
environmental factors to the forefront of organizational leadership (Javidan, 2021; Mendenhall et
al., 2020). To Bandura (1986), models are “displays of preferences and evaluative reactions
which can alter observers’ values” (p. 146). As earlier stated in the literature review, leaders can
model their behaviors, sensemaking processes, and thus, their decision-making from broader
environmental factors. Social cognitive theory informed this study by studying external and
internal environments combined with behavioral and cognitive factors that model leaders’ values
and shape their perceptions and understanding of the organizational purpose, decision-making,
and broader corporate ethics.

58
Communities of Practice
Wenger (1999) developed the theoretical frame of communities of practice (CoPs) to
describe a joint enterprise (task-driven partnership) of a community of individuals with a “shared
repertoire and mutual engagement” (p. 73) where they engage in the practice for the acquisition
and development of information, tools, and skills. Such meaning-making enterprise occurs
within a domain where they claim legitimacy to define, measure, and negotiate competence
(Figure 7). For example, global leaders engage as a CoP when they gather within a domain such
as a professional membership organization (PMO) to engage in networking and learning.
Complimenting SCT, CoPs can highlight broader environmental factors influencing global
corporate leaders’ decision-making as informed by their learning and engagement with other
leaders. The dissertation will use CoPs as recruitment areas for the study’s participants. When
global leaders operate within the social learning systems of a PMO, they are outside their
specific and individual organizational constraints and thus willing and able to share their
individual and collective experiences (B. Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020).

59
Figure 7
Global Corporate Leaders Operating Within Communities of Practice
Note. Adapted from Learning in a Landscape of Practice: A Framework by B. Wenger-Trayner
& E. Wenger-Trayner, 2020. Routledge. Copyright 2020 by Routledge.
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory (IT) explains the adoption and spread of formal organizational
structures, including written policies, standard practices, and new forms of organization.
According to Meyer and Rowan (2006), IT is a useful theoretical tool for studying organizational
leadership because it explores a combination of broader environmental factors such as

60
organizational, institutional, sociocultural, and individual factors that pressure to (de)legitimize,
constrain, or shape leaders’ decision-making (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Exploring Global Leaders’ Decision-Making Experiences Through an Institutional Theory Lens
Note. Adapted from The New Institutionalism in Education by H. Meyer and B. Rowan, 2006,
State University of New York Press. Copyright 2006 by State University of New York Press.

61
Institutional theory (IT) can explore and explain global leaders’ decision-making changes
within a broader frame of organizational change (de Jonge, 2015). Adding to IT, the work of
Jennings and Zandbergen (1995) divided institutional pressures that can shape corporate leaders’
decision-making into coercive forces, mimetic pressures, and normative pressures.
Complimenting SCT, IT can inform environmental factors by highlighting broader societal
influences and expectations expressed through normative pressures (Figure 9). Likewise, it can
underline behavioral factors by stressing coercive forces such as government regulation shaping
leaders’ behaviors towards stakeholders. Finally, it can emphasize cognitive factors by pointing
imitative pressures leading leaders to model their behaviors by observing other industries or
leaders.

62
Figure 9
An Institutional Theory and Social Cognitive Theory Combined Perspective on Global Leaders’
Decision-Making Experiences
Note. Adapted from Ecologically Sustainable Organizations: An Institutional Approach by P. D
Jennings and P.A. Zandbergen, 1995, The Academy of Management Review.
(https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280034) Copyright 1995 by The Academy of
Management Review.

63
Open Systems Theory
Bandura (1986) posited that organizations exist within expansive ecosystems that shape
their broader performance and the way they interact with the communities and stakeholders they
serve. Before Bandura, Katz and Khan (1967) emphasized this notion in their pivotal study on
the social psychology of organizations. They proposed that organizations are entrenched within
multiple embedded environments, teeming with challenges. For these organizations to thrive,
their leaders must actively respond to these challenges. Those who fail to adjust their leadership
practice to broader environmental issues risk undermining their legitimacy and operational
prowess, endangering the survival of the organizations they lead. Open systems theory (OST)
posits that navigating such challenging, adaptive, and fluid landscapes requires processes of
adaptation. These processes not only adjust an organization’s functioning to current
circumstances but also enable it to effectively address environmental changes. Lastly, OST
complements Bandura’s SCT because it enhances its focus on the triadic interplay of
environment, behavioral, and cognitive factors as adaptive organizational leaders navigate
complex environments when responding to their stakeholders’ demands for events that provoke
social backlash.
Behavioral Factors
Through “interactions among psychosocial determinants” (Bandura, 1986, p. 154), global
corporate leaders adopt and enact leadership practices that shape their decision-making
experiences and their vision of organizational purpose while managing stakeholder demands.
Informed by SCT, the dissertation reviewed the literature on leadership styles that place
stakeholders at the center of the leadership praxis. RL corresponds to leaders’ espoused

64
behaviors, while GMs emphasize their attitudinal perspectives when operating in multicultural
environments (Fairhurst, 2023; Javidan, 2021; Muff et al., 2022).
Following SCT’s “triadic reciprocality” (Bandura, 1986, p. 23), global leaders’ adopted
leadership style is a product of the interplay of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors.
For example, social networks that cultivate the formation of “social structures” or “clusters”
(Bandura, 1986, p. 151) can foster connectedness through knowledge transactions and social ties
where organizational leaders can model behaviors through “mutuality of influence and
interpersonal communication” (Bandura, 1986, p. 152). As suggested in the data section of
Chapter Four, CoPs, and social learning spaces (SLS) can potentially function as connectedness
vehicles for global corporate leaders to adopt optimum leadership styles when managing
competing stakeholder demands. However, although the interplay of behavioral and
environmental factors can motivate leaders to adopt certain behaviors, these behaviors alone do
not explain the causation of human action. Therefore, Bandura placed a significant role in selfregulatory action through cognitive (personal) influences within the behavior and environment
interplay (Bandura, 1986, 2000).
Sociocultural Learning Theory
The study complements SCT with sociocultural learning theory (SCLT) to explore global
corporate leaders’ learning capacity to inform and shape their decision-making toward
stakeholder demands within global organizational contexts. Vygotsky (1978) developed earlier
phases of SCLT and described how individuals make sense of “information and construct new
knowledge based on prior knowledge, belief, attitudes, and experiences and thought activity and
special interactions in everyday contexts” (Marsh & Farrell, 2015, p. 173). Wenger (2020)
developed SCLT by introducing the concept of situated learning environments (SLEs) and SLS.

65
By SLE, the literature defined the process of uncovering, contributing, and attaching oneself to a
community’s values, behaviors, and norms (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Applying SLE to the problem of practice, the study can focus on the capacity of global
leaders to engage with learning and how this experience can affect their behaviors and, thus,
leadership style. Global executives can engage within SLEs in three modes: (a) engagement,
doing things as a pair or group; (b) imagination, through observing and constructing an image of
themselves within the communities they serve; and (c) alignment, coordinating perspectives of
local and global learning communities (Wenger, 2016). Wenger’s (1998, 2016, 2020) SLS
framework captures an interactive and reciprocal relationship by integrating practice, meaning,
identity, and community as necessary learning components. Complimenting SCT, the study can
explore global leaders’ interaction within SLS. This social view of learning involves global
leaders constructing practice, meaning, and identity as a community by doing, belonging,
becoming, and experiencing that shapes their understanding and effectiveness in ethical decisionmaking and stakeholder management (Figure 10).

66
Figure 10
Global Corporate Leaders’ Learning for Managing Competing Stakeholder Demands Within a
Social Learning System
Note. Adapted from Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity by E. Wenger,
1998, Cambridge University Press. (https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932) Copyright
1998 by Cambridge University Press.
Moral Identity Theory
Developed by Blasi (1983), moral identity theory (MIT) explored the importance of
morality to a person’s identity and how it can guide their action within social contexts. It is

67
useful to the problem of practice because it can explore global leaders’ identification with their
moral personal values and the extent of influence this has on their moral judgment, espoused
leadership style, and, thus, on their ethical decision-making, stakeholder management, and vision
of organizational purpose. According to MIT, global leaders’ ethical decision-making that fails
to reflect their morality can create cognitive dissonance. According to Pletti et al. (2019),
People who have a strong moral identity would be more motivated to behave morally
because this is necessary for them to maintain a coherent image of themselves. Moreover,
for people with a strong moral identity, there is a high correspondence between moral
goals and personal goals, and thus these people often are not even facing the choice
between the two. (p. 435)
Therefore, MIT is a useful analytical lens to include along with SCT because it can further
explore global leaders’ morality and the impact of normative choices influencing their decisionmaking when stakeholders bring forward ethical demands (Blasi, 1983).
Cognitive Factors: Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1986) stressed the centrality of the dynamic interplay of SCT by suggesting that
“personal and environmental factors do not function as independent determinants; rather, they
determine each other” (p. 23). Therefore, SCT avoided “one-sided interactionism” (p. 23),
positing that cognitive factors interact with environmental and behavioral dimensions to provide
a frame for causation for human action. Bandura (1986) claimed that individuals “create
cognitive guides … and incentives for their efforts making a causal contribution to their
motivation and action” (p. 20). Therefore, “cognitive representation can have a strong causal
impact on the present action” (Bandura, 1986, p. 19). As self-efficacy, Bandura (2000) defined a
person’s belief and capability to execute actions to achieve desirable ends, influencing effort and

68
persistence for learning necessary skills. Global leaders’ self-efficacy is pivotal for developing
sensemaking abilities to navigate their global organizational environments with fluidity while
managing stakeholder demands within multicultural settings (Bandura, 1986, 2000; Weick,
2012).
Bandura (1986) conceptualized self-efficacy as the individual’s belief in their capacity to
execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainment. As stated in the
literature review on scholarly work for personal factors, global corporate leaders’ belief in
enacting decision-making toward stakeholder demands within their multiple cultural and societal
contexts require GM skillset. Following McCormick’s (2001) adopted model on Bandura’s
(1986) self-efficacy, this study relates global leaders’ self-efficacy/self-confidence with their
belief in how effectively they can manage stakeholder demands within their global
organizational environments in a multicultural setting (Bandura, 1986; McCormick, 2001).
Following Bandura’s (1986) conceptual frame of self-efficacy, this study links site
(organizations) and situation (multicultural environment) with global leaders’ enactive mastery,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional state as factors for the development of
self-efficacy. These factors shape their belief for behaviors and performance relating to (a)
sensemaking for managing the meaning of multicultural organizational environments and (b)
capabilities for enacting a GM as a part of their broader cognitive (personal) factors while
managing stakeholder demands (Figure 11; Bandura, 1986, 2000).

69
Figure 11
Bandura’s Model on the Sources of Self-Efficacy and Its Outcomes
Note. The study applies Bandura’s (1986) model of sources and outcomes of self-efficacy on
global corporate leaders while they manage competing stakeholder demands. In this sense,
executives engage in enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional
state when developing their self-efficacy to enact optimum behaviors or leadership styles,
resulting in enhanced capabilities and sensemaking processes. The adapted diagram relates
Bandura’s model to the organizational realities of global corporate executives operating in
multiple cultural and societal contexts. Adapted from Social Foundations of Thought and Action:
A Social Cognitive Theory by A. Bandura, 1986. Prentice-Hall. Copyright 1986 by Prentice-Hall.

70
Combining Theories
Social theories explore the social context of human conduct by examining factors such as
communication, social networks, and institutional structures’ role in framing individual action
(Lyke, 2017). According to E. Wenger-Trayner (2013), a theory is a “framework that provides
useful ways of seeing the world … by a systematic creation of technical language” (p. 106-107).
Therefore, designers or users of social theories can combine theoretical concepts in a “plug and
play” (E. Wenger-Trayner, 2013, p. 108) fashion to complement, complete, and refine technical
aspects of an espoused theory. The study’s theoretical lens of SCT can benefit from the abovementioned complementary theoretical concepts.
Integrating related social learning theories enhances the theoretical lens of SCT by
providing a deeper understanding of the interplay between environmental, behavioral, and
cognitive factors in global executives’ decision-making experiences. By incorporating these
theories into the SCT framework, Chapter Four will shape the interview protocol and codes,
enabling a comprehensive engagement with the interview data. This integration will further
strengthen the analysis in Chapter Five, facilitating the development and adaptation of practical
frameworks for global leaders to make effective decisions within complex stakeholder
environments while uncovering environmental, behavioral, and personal factors that create a
variance in their effective stakeholder management performance. It will also enhance the
analytical framework of SCT to explore environmental, behavioral, and personal factors that
differentiate leaders in effectively managing competing stakeholder demands.
As stated earlier, relevant social theories can inform holistically a systematic approach to
explore, frame, and address the problem of practice. E. Wenger-Trayner (2013) gave an
illustrating example of combining Marxism with cultural-practice theory:

71
If social class is a significant concern, for instance, a variety of Marxist and conflict
theories provide ample theorizing about the nature of economic dominance in class
relationships. However, one could apply social learning theory to investigate the learning
processes by which people become members of a social class in practice. This was the
approach Paul Willis took in Learning to Labour (1977). He accepted the Marxian
premise of the reproduction of social classes, but he wanted to know in practice why
working-class boys ended up with working-class jobs even though they heard their
fathers complain about their work all the time. And the result of his ethnographic
investigation is an overly complicated story involving, among other things, resistance in
school and the development of a male (lad) identity. He was running Marxist theory
through cultural-practice theory, which is very closely related to social learning theory,
and the result was very insightful. (p. 109)
Although plug-and-play is an optimal tool to enhance the study’s theoretical lens, it is
worth noting that combining theories in this fashion requires a rigorous approach in (a)
comparing theoretical purposes, (b) reflecting on conceptual stances, (c) contrasting main
technical terms, (d) identifying complementaries, and (e) highlighting tensions (Farnsworth,
2017; B. Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020). Chapter Five will use this frame to
optimize theoretical interconnectedness and complementarities while engaging with the
interview data to produce practical recommendations for the problem of practice.
Summary
This chapter presented a literature review exploring the factors in global corporate
leaders’ decision-making in the face of competing stakeholder demands in global organizational

72
settings. The review included studies from management, business ethics, leadership, and
organizational psychology, using SCT as a lens (Figure 12).
Figure 12
Social Cognitive Theory Application on the Problem of Practice
Note. Adapted from Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory by A.
Bandura, 1986. Prentice-Hall. Copyright 1986 by Prentice-Hall.

73
The literature review provided a historical background by discussing the core topics of
ethical decision-making, stakeholder management, and organizational purpose, highlighting the
importance of understanding these areas to establish a baseline of knowledge and identify gaps in
the literature. In relation to ethical decision-making, the review explored seminal studies that
emphasized their contributions to individual and organizational ethical dimensions, offering
insights for corporate leaders in managing stakeholder demands. Furthermore, the review
examined stakeholder management, showcasing the contributions of scholars like Mitchell et al.
(1997) and delving into theoretical lenses such as IT, resource-based theory, and stakeholder
theory to develop frameworks for identifying and engaging stakeholders. The literature review
then delved into studies on organizational purpose, emphasizing the importance of adding social
value and addressing broader societal purposes.
The literature review explored environmental factors influencing global corporate
leaders’ decision-making in response to stakeholder demands and societal expectations. It
reviewed studies that examined leaders’ decision-making within cultural contexts, highlighting
the shaping influence of cultural and societal dimensions on leadership behaviors and decisionmaking processes. The review uncovered the limitations of existing decision-making models and
called for more comprehensive and dynamic approaches to support global executives in
managing competing stakeholder demands within complex international environments. For
example, the review examined the discrepancy between societal expectations and corporate
leaders’ decision-making, considering the role of normative evaluations and stakeholder
perceptions of fairness. Also, it explored stakeholders’ demands for sustainability practices and
for proactive action, emphasizing the influence of societal expectations on leaders’ decisionmaking. Chapter Three will cover the study’s methodology, highlighting instruments for data

74
collection, positionality statement, trustworthiness, and ethics. Interview data in Chapter Four
will highlight global executives’ perspectives on these issues and explore their views on optimal
stakeholder management practices. At the same time, in Chapter Five, the study will suggest
practical frameworks for effective decision-making to manage stakeholders in complex
environments. Understanding these environmental factors was crucial for addressing the problem
of practice and achieving the dissertation objectives, as highlighted in Chapter One, fostering a
deeper engagement with the challenges global corporate leaders face in making impactful
decisions.
The review focused on the behavioral factors of global leaders’ decision-making
experiences in managing competing stakeholder demands. It emphasized the importance of
understanding the reciprocal relationship between environmental, personal, and behavioral
factors within the framework of SCT. Responsible leadership (RL) and GMs are essential for
effective global decision-making. Consequently, the interview protocol (Appendix A) and the
coding table (Appendix B) structured questions, probes, follow-up questions, and codes aiming
to harvest global executives’ views on how they interpret stakeholder demands and relevant
events eliciting social backlash and the factors they identify as contributing to success or failure
in managing these. Chapter Five will use the relevant data to build a practical framework for
managing stakeholders’ competing demands. By enhancing an understanding of these factors,
the study aims to meet its objectives by informing the development of more effective decisionmaking frameworks for global leaders.
Additionally, the literature review focused on the personal factors that influence global
leaders’ decision-making experiences while managing competing stakeholder demands. It
explored the concepts of self-efficacy and self-confidence with leadership success, highlighting

75
the role of personal goals, motivation, and task development. The study also delved into the
importance of sensemaking for global executives in navigating complex organizational realities
and making decisions based on perceptions and social interactions. Drawing from Bandura’s
SCT, the study constructed an interview protocol (Appendix A) and coding table (Appendix B)
to explore global leaders’ self-efficacy and sensemaking relating to stakeholder management.
Chapter Four will highlight relevant interview data, while Chapter Five will utilize them to
construct and adapt frameworks for effective stakeholder management and optimal sensemaking
and self-efficacy approach for global executives. Overall, this part of the review focused on
understanding the personal beliefs that global executives may utilize to navigate the complexities
and effectively manage competing stakeholder demands.
Drawing on theories on social learning, the literature review focused on applying SCT to
explore global corporate leaders’ decision-making experiences when managing competing
stakeholder demands. The chapter covered the theoretical concept of environmental factors in
shaping leaders’ behaviors and decision-making processes. It also examined the role of
behavioral factors in influencing their responses to stakeholder demands. Additionally, the
chapter incorporated the theoretical construct of personal (cognitive) factors, such as selfefficacy and sensemaking, to understand how leaders’ beliefs guide their decision-making during
social backlash. Complementary theories, such as CoPs, SCLT, and MIT, were integrated into
SCT’s environmental, behavioral, and personal factors to comprehensively investigate global
leaders’ decision-making processes within complex stakeholder environments. By combining
these theories, the study aims to inform the research methods by shaping the interview protocol
and thus aligning with the research questions and objectives of the study. In Chapter Five, the
additional theories complimenting SCT will function as an analytical lens to the study’s

76
recommendations and implementation framework. Chapter Three will focus on the methodology,
instrumentation, data collection, positionality, ethics, and limitations.

77
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents the methodology and methods used to address the research
questions. The study’s instrumentation included the rationale for the interview protocol linked to
the research questions and informed by the topics explored in the literature review. In addition,
the chapter operationalized data collection and analysis procedures to meet the study’s aims.
Finally, it highlighted the criteria that qualify the participants as appropriate, relevant, and
“ideal” for the study (Andres, 2012, p. 6) and discussed the limitations and delimitations
affecting the study’s validity and reliability.
The study used qualitative methodology to explore global leaders’ decision-making
experiences while managing competing stakeholder demands for events that provoke social
backlash. Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined qualitative research as “understanding a social
or human problem based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting
detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.
1). Qualitative methods can frame data collection techniques such as interviews to explore
leaders’ “multiple, dynamic and … context dependent realities” and thus uncover complex
environmental, behavioral, and cognitive factors that can shape global leaders’ decision-making
experiences (Sanberg, 2005, p. 45). Two research questions shaped the study:
1. How do global corporate leaders interpret success or failure in decision-making while
managing competing stakeholder demands for events that provoke social backlash?
2. What factors contribute to the differential effectiveness of global leaders in managing
competing stakeholder demands in the face of events that provoke social backlash?
Qualitative research design is well-suited to explore the environmental, behavioral, and
cognitive (person) factors that shape global leaders’ decision-making experiences when

78
managing competing stakeholder demands across diverse, cultural, and societal settings. Unlike
quantitative research that has studied corporate leaders’ decision-making as a purely
organizational function, emphasizing institutional dynamics, resource-based considerations, and
efficiency aspects (Costanza et al., 2016; López-Pérez et al., 2017; Vo & Ho, 2019), this study
explores global leaders’ decision-making experiences when managing competing stakeholder
demands by uncovering environmental, behavioral and personal factors that support or hinder
efficient stakeholder management in complex situations. This study used qualitative instruments
to address a gap in the literature by exploring social and cognitive influences that shape global
executives’ decision-making experiences and constructed and adjusted practical frameworks for
optimal decision-making in managing competing stakeholder demands. While the quantitative
method may be optimal for establishing correlation, causation, or other investigative purposes
linking decision-making to organizational function, it is not ideal for exploring leaders’ lived
experiences, which require instruments such as interviews to uncover their voices and practices
relating to stakeholder relations for events that elicit social backlash (Patton, 2015).
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Additionally, this qualitative study used an interpretative phenomenological analysis
(IPA) approach to shape its methods. “IPA is a qualitative research approach committed to
examining how people make sense of their major life experiences” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 1).
According to Creswell (2013), “phenomenological study describes the common meaning for
several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon” (p. 76). Therefore,
IPA possesses a phenomenological basis because it centers on research participants as meaning
units to explore a central phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

79
Furthermore, using IPA encouraged me to engage reflexively with the study phenomenon
and the associated lived experiences. It specifically allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of
the participants’ experiences by putting myself in their position (Alase, 2017). Furthermore, as a
participant-oriented interpretive process, IPA optimized qualitative methods to explore and
amplify participants’ sensemaking processes for the study phenomenon (Alase, 2017; Creswell,
2013). For example, constructing interviews through an IPA approach focused on the deep, lived
meanings of events for individuals if these meanings guided actions and interactions (Marshall &
Rossman, 2016). Furthermore, IPA framed research questions centering on the participants and
their experiences through an open-ended structure that embedded the inquiry’s values,
worldview, and direction (Alase, 2017). Lastly, IPA informed purposeful sampling methods to
recruit an optimum number of homogeneous and ideal participants for the study, thus bringing
credibility and trustworthiness to their interpretive accounts (Alase, 2017; Andres, 2012;
Creswell, 2013).
Paradigm of Inquiry
Scholars examining organizational leadership have proposed that sociocultural dynamics
shape how leaders perceive organizational realities (Kezar, 2000; Klenke, 2016). This
proposition aligned with adopting a social constructivist paradigm of inquiry, which guided the
decision in this study to use a qualitative methodology and an IPA. As a social constructivist, I
adopt Crotty’s (1998) premise that objective knowledge and truth are constructed based on
perspectives.
The social constructivist paradigm focuses on how interrelational social, political,
economic, historical, and geographic factors shape processes and meanings affecting global
leaders’ decision-making. Its ontological assumption is that reality is a nexus of multiple

80
experiences collectively created and individually managed. Consequently, the interpretive
paradigm of social constructivism informed this qualitative research to explore the deeper
socially constructed meanings that shape global corporate leaders’ cognitive factors (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). For example, the social constructivist paradigm informed the literature review
in Chapter Two, exploring the cognitive factors in global leaders’ decision-making. The
cognitive factors focused on self-efficacy and sensemaking, highlighting the significance of
understanding how global corporate leaders interpret and construct meaning within their
complex and dynamic environments. By drawing on the social constructivist paradigm, which
recognizes the role of the social and cultural context in shaping individual experiences and
perspectives, Chapter Two focused on scholarly studies (Maak et al., 2021; Muff et al., 2021)
that centered on leaders’ interpretive and sensemaking decision-making processes and thus
provided a comprehensive understanding of the topic (Klenke, 2016; Weick et al., 2005).
Sample and Population
The study explored global leaders’ decision-making experiences while managing
competing stakeholder demands for socially sensitive events that provoke backlash. The study
used purposeful and snowball sampling methods to recruit participants who meet specific
criteria. For four out of the 11 participants, I used PMOs as recruitment sites for global corporate
leaders. By selecting a diverse set of participants, the study aimed to uncover the unique
decision-making experiences of global corporate leaders.
Study Participants
The choice of global executives as study participants was based on the relevance of their
experiences to the research questions. In today’s globalized business environment, corporations
with global reach operate in diverse cultural and social contexts, navigating complex stakeholder

81
relationships (Zingales et al., 2020). Their roles as key decision-makers place them at the nexus
of environmental, behavioral, and personal factors, offering unique perspectives on navigating
these challenges (Maak et al., 2021). Also, this understanding framed the literature review,
guiding the selection of scholarly studies that delve into the experiences of global leaders. By
focusing on this specific group, the review aimed to explore how their decision-making is shaped
within varied global contexts, thereby aligning the study’s exploration with the intricate realities
of international corporate leadership. Their expertise and experiences will contribute to the
broader goal of developing practical frameworks and best practices for global leaders facing
similar challenges (Bandura, 2000; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, their experiences in dealing with social backlash provide unique insights
into the challenges and complexities involved in balancing competing stakeholder demands. By
studying global executives’ experiences, this research uncovered the factors that hinder or
support their decision-making effectiveness in the face of social backlash, providing valuable
lessons and guidance for other leaders facing similar situations. Lastly, their exposure to multiple
stakeholder groups within multiple cultural and societal contexts while managing their demands
made them valuable sources of information on the study’s phenomenon.
Sample Criteria
Since this qualitative study explores global corporate leaders’ decision-making
experiences, I used a non-probability sampling method to recruit participants (Patton, 2002).
Purposeful sampling is “based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover,
understand and gain insights and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be
learned” (Patton, 2002, p. 96). Purposeful sampling is optimal for recruiting leader-participants
who will reveal their views and sensemaking processes while managing competing stakeholder

82
demands. The study also used snowball or chain sampling if purposeful sampling fails to recruit
an optimum number of participants. Snowball sampling involves locating key participants and
asking them to refer me to other participants who meet the selection criteria (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
As a criterion-based selection process, the literature defines the researcher’s thinking
process, determining participants’ attributes that are crucial and align with the purpose of the
study, its theoretical concepts, and recruitment sites (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, I
invited individuals to participate in the study if they meet the following criteria.
Criterion 1
Participants should perform an executive function within a corporation with a global
reach.
Criterion 2
Participants should have exposure to managing stakeholder demands for events that elicit
social backlash.
Criterion 3
Participants should engage daily with two or more stakeholder groups as part of their
executive leadership role.
Criterion 4
Participants should engage with stakeholders within multiple (more than one) cultural or
societal settings.
Participant Sites
I recruited participants from a typical recruitment site. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
defined “typical” as “sites that are not extreme, deviant or intensely unusual” (p. 97). The study

83
also recruited participants from PMOs for corporate leaders in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and the EU. While PMOs serve as a recruitment space for participants through
purposeful sampling, I used snowball sampling to recruit participants outside of PMOs.
Professional membership organizations (PMOs) can function as CoPs, where individuals
share a concern or passion for a craft, profession, or topic. Recruiting and interviewing global
leaders within a CoP is an optimal site to explore their decision-making experiences. Corporate
executives engaging in a social learning space within a CoP place a spatial distance from their
organizational constraints and can share their experiences with authenticity (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Instrumentation
The study explored global corporate leaders’ decision-making experiences when
managing competing stakeholder demands for events that provoke social backlash. Qualitative
methodology is optimal for uncovering global leaders’ lived experiences (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Also, IPA informed the semi-structured interview protocol rationale and interview
question construction to efficiently explore the participants’ meaning-making reality (Alase,
2017).
Interview Rationale
Patton defined an interview as the process a researcher utilizes to discover what is in and
on someone else’s mind (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since observation cannot capture people’s
feelings and emotions by interviewing the participants and adhering to IPA, the study aimed to
obtain the deeper socially constructed meanings they attach to their leadership praxis (Alase,
2017; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Patton, 2002).

84
Social cognitive theory informed the study’s 13 interview questions and supported their
categorization into environmental, behavioral, and personal according to their scope and
objective (Appendix A). Additionally, I aimed to facilitate and maintain interview control by
following Patton’s (2002) guidelines. These are (a) knowing what the researcher needs to
discover by asking focused questions to obtain relevant answers, (b) actively listening to ensure
quality information for effective data assessment, and (c) giving the interviewee pertinent
feedback. Furthermore, the study used a semi-structured interview approach by flexibly wording
a non-sequential chain of questions that encourages active listening and open discussion between
interviewer and interviewee (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, I adhered to Patton’s (2002)
assumption that the interviewer is an instrument of data collection and that an interview is a
sensemaking occasion and a process where participants become co-creators of meanings to
reveal a wide range of views (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Protocol
Adopting IPA to shape semi-structured interviews, the study combined closed-ended and
open-ended questions referring to the topics covered in Chapter Two (Morgan, 2014). Following
Patton’s (2002) typology in line with the SCT concepts, and the topics covered in the literature
review, I constructed an interview protocol embedding 13 interview questions, including probes,
follow-up questions, and transition points. The interview protocol categorized questions by
experience, opinion, feelings, knowledge, sensory, and demographic factors (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Due to the different geographical locations and time zones, the participants filled in their
time slot availabilities via the Doodle Software. I conducted interviews synchronously via the
online Zoom software or in person to ensure rapport building (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Also,
the study utilized the Otter.ai platform to record and transcribe the data. The interview duration

85
ranged from 50 to 60 minutes. After transcribing the interviews, I erased the participants’ names
and replaced them with a pseudonym.
Electronic Interviews
The study’s methodology for interviews was informed by Salmons’s (2015) approach to
e-interviews, which supported the incorporation of specific key characteristics. These included
alignment of design and purpose, selection of appropriate data collection methods, utilization of
a suitable e-interview style, employment of the correct type of ICT tools, and adherence to
aligned sampling methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Salmons, 2015). I secured consent for
recording before initiating the 60-minute discussions. All associated interview materials were
password-protected and stored on the USC online cloud service for security.
Data Analysis and Collection
I conducted and recorded the interviews with the study participants via the Zoom
platform and then transferred the data to Otter.ai for transcription. Using NVivo software, I
categorized and systematically coded the interview data (See Appendix B). The above qualitative
instruments and mechanically reported and systematically coded and analyzed data increased the
trustworthiness of the study’s findings (Table 5).

86
Table 5
The Study’s Methods Relating to the Research Questions
Research questions Semi-structured
interviews
RQ1: How do global corporate leaders interpret
factors to decision-making success or failure in
managing competing stakeholder demands
during events that provoke social backlash?
X
RQ2: What factors contribute to the differential
effectiveness of global leaders in managing
competing stakeholder demands in the face of
events that provoke social backlash?
X
Analysis of Interview Data
Once I conducted the interviews via the Zoom platform and transcribed the data using the
Otter.ai platform, I systematically categorized them using thematic narrative analysis by
emphasizing the content of the narratives (Riessman, 2008). Next, I conducted descriptive
coding by reading the transcripts line-by-line to inductively identify themes and patterns,
following Riessman’s (2008) approach. To organize the descriptive codes, I create code booked
and sort them by themes, subthemes, axial codes, and open codes. This process resulted in four
main themes for RQ1, comprising 27 axial codes and a total of 255 open codes. Similarly,
interview data for RQ2 yielded four main themes, 14 subthemes, 20 axial codes, and a total of
270 open codes and thematic codes were linked to the literature review topics and respective
SCT factors (Appendix B). Recognizing that semi-structured interviews inherently emphasized
participants’ beliefs and interpretations, as well as my subjective processes as a researcher, I
aimed to mitigate potential biases. This was achieved by actively practicing reflexivity

87
throughout both the data collection and analysis phases. Following Morgan’s (2014) approach, I
engaged in extensive memoing using the NVivo memoing tool. This process yielded 52 memos
assigned to open codes for both RQ1 and RQ2. This approach ensured a more balanced and selfaware research process.
Positionality
As a professional in the global shipping and commodities trading industries and currently
engaged as a ship broker and analyst, my experiences as an executive span across multiple
cultural contexts. This background provides me with related insights into the challenges faced by
the global executives I study. However, it also presents a potential bias, as my experiences in
dealing with several stakeholder groups and managing their competing demands may shape my
interpretation of the perspectives of the study’s participants. I recognize the importance of being
self-aware of my assumptions and how they could shape my interpretations. To mitigate this, I
employed reflexivity as a method to manage my biases. I maintained a research diary to record
moments when my biases might influence my interpretations, especially after each interview and
during the analysis of the transcripts. After cleaning up the transcripts for typos, I sent them back
to the participants, inviting their opinions and allowing them to suggest changes or removal of
words or phrases. Furthermore, during the coding process, I engaged in extensive memoing,
recording my feelings and thoughts relating to the participants’ authentic voices and insights.
Recording and reviewing these memos through the NVivo software and as an integral part of the
interview data analysis assisted me in checking and managing my biases. These steps were
crucial in ensuring that my interpretations remained true to the participant’s experiences and
perspectives.

88
Additionally, I recognize that broader positionality issues can affect my practice as a
researcher. I received a privileged and formal Anglo-Saxon education that reinforced expressions
of post-imperial, neo-colonizing tendencies and perpetuated ethnocentric social constructs of
gender, ethnicity, and class. I also acknowledge my connection and consent to power structures
through affiliations with educational, professional, and charitable organizations. My professional
identity shapes notions of class consciousness and, thus, a sense of belonging to an upper middle
class. Such a condition fixes my intersectionality within a capitalist power nexus by being an
expert professional and a bourgeois (Foucault, 1970; Gramsci, 2000). Therefore, when collecting
and analyzing data, I mitigated my biases by critically reflecting upon my habitus and thus
identifying potential predispositions that might affect the representation of participant views and
data analysis (Bourdieu, 1984; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Trustworthiness
To ensure trustworthiness, I integrated various strategies relating to credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability. For credibility, I utilized triangulation methods
involving a diverse group of 11 global executives from different societal and cultural settings to
incorporate multiple perspectives to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the research topic.
Additionally, the study employed mechanically reported data using Zoom recording software for
accurate data capture. Furthermore, the research instruments underwent peer and expert review
from dissertation committee members, who also provided critical examination and valuable
insights. Furthermore, I conducted member checks with the participants and my dissertation
chair, sharing findings and interpretations for critical review and validation of my coding and
thematic analysis for the accuracy and authenticity of data interpretation. Regarding
transferability, I undertook extensive content analysis yielding a total of 515 open codes,

89
providing rich, detailed descriptions that aid in understanding how the findings might apply in
other contexts. Implementing triangulation by site, for recruiting diverse participants through
multiple PMOs, enriched the data with insights from varied organizational contexts covering
industries such as automotive, entertainment, shipping, banking, asset management, and
manufacturing. Also, these industries, apart from operating globally, are based in multiple
locations, such as Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. This approach
enhanced the applicability of the study’s findings beyond the immediate research setting. To
maintain dependability, I adopted a consistent methodological approach, aligning the research
questions and literature review topics with the broader study design, ensuring a logical, traceable,
and documented research process for potential replication. Lastly, for confirmability, I employed
memoing throughout the research process, keeping detailed notes on decisions, reflections, and
interpretations. This practice, along with maintaining a reflexive stance and acknowledging my
positionality and potential biases, served as a critical tool in establishing an audit trail, indicating
that the findings were shaped by the data and not influenced by my preconceptions (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015).
Ethics
Scholarly literature emphasized the importance of ethical considerations in qualitative
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). This qualitative study emphasized ethical
considerations because it explored global leaders’ experiences when managing competing
stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues during backlash. Adopting a “relational ethic”
approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 260), I committed to treating participants as whole
individuals rather than reducing them to mere subjects from which to extract compelling
narratives. Guided by qualitative methodology principles as expressed by Merriam and Tisdell

90
(2016) and Patton (2015), I actively obtained informed consent from participants, thoroughly
explained research objectives and procedures, and addressed any potential risks or benefits
involved. Throughout the interviews, I prioritized, acknowledged, and facilitated participants’
autonomy by reaffirming their right to skip questions, decline to answer, or terminate the
interview without subjecting themselves or their organizations to negative repercussions. After
the interviews and during the coding process, I engaged with participants by informing them of
the research analysis, developed themes, and requested their input to ensure the authenticity of
their perspectives.
To effectively manage potential risks, I upheld confidentiality and anonymity by using
pseudonyms for participants and organizations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conducting data
collection in four countries, I recognized the participants’ diverse cultural and societal
backgrounds by prioritizing cultural sensitivity and respect for their unique contexts (Patton,
2015). Additionally, I implemented data security measures and safeguarded participants’
information, such as password protection of data folders and saving them in the USC cloud
service (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, when conducting physical interviews, I strived
to set a distraction-free environment with participants’ consent and well-being as top priorities.
The participants received regular updates and summaries of the study’s results, fostering
transparency and enabling the practical application of findings within their respective corporate
realities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, I obtained ethical approval from the IRB of
the degree-awarding educational organization before commencing the study (Patton, 2015). By
adhering to these measures, I safeguarded participants’ rights, privacy, and well-being while
gaining valuable insights into global leaders’ decision-making processes in managing
stakeholder backlash.

91
As a researcher, I actively recognized the potential influence of my biases and
perspectives on the research (Alase, 2017; Patton, 2015). To address this, I adopted a reflexive
stance, continuously examining and questioning my own assumptions and preconceptions
throughout the study (Alase, 2017; Patton, 2015). I maintained a research diary to document
reflections and update it regularly during the data collection process. Additionally, ongoing
supervision and feedback from my dissertation committee facilitated expert debriefing,
challenging my own perspectives and enhancing the rigor and objectivity of the study. These
practices ensured the integrity and validity of the research, enabling a comprehensive and
unbiased exploration of the participants’ experiences and perspectives.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study recruited participants using purposeful and snowballing sampling. Due to the
defined professional setting as a knowledge institution for expert professionals, I assumed that
study participants were trustworthy, authentic, and credible (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Although this assumption is reasonable, limitations to the validity of the data are present. The
literature defines validity as “the accuracy of the findings by employing certain procedures”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 200). For this study, participants reporting bias can affect validity
and trustworthiness because they might construct responses shaped by their socio-politicoeconomic conditions and what is considered an acceptable response at the time of the interview. I
mitigated this by triangulating for trustworthiness. Such an approach included cross-checking
information from various documents and public records found in the public domain (Johnson &
Christensen, 2014). I also included multiple perspectives from participants in different societal
contexts, engaging in reflexive practice, and invited peer review on instrument design and data
analysis by three expert members of the dissertation committee.

92
Another potential limitation was the study’s duration. A doctoral thesis’s time limitation
and structure prevented extensive data triangulation, such as multiple investigators for
interpretation or negative case sampling disconfirming expectations (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). However, I mitigated this limitation by adhering to IPA, which offers a rich experiential
account from interview data, thus transporting the reader to the site and situation of the problem
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Moreover, the study’s focus on global corporate leaders in the
Western world may result in a culture-centric bias in the data collection and subsequent analysis.
I mitigated this potential bias by acknowledging and reflecting on my social proximity to
corporate leadership and identifying any predispositions that may affect my interpretation
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Delimitations are the conditions affecting the study that the researcher can control
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One such delimitation was the challenge of capturing
organizational leaders’ genuine and authentic lived reality due to their socially constructed lived
experiences and unique individual meaning-making mechanisms. To address this delimitation, I
selected PMOs as the site for participant recruitment. PMOs are diverse social learning
environments where expert professionals collaborate for continuing education and networking.
These SLS allowed me to purposefully sample global executives with diverse lived realities,
accounting for factors such as ethnicity and thus triangulating by site (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). Another delimitation was the study’s lack of generalizability. Qualitative case studies do
not aim to generalize findings to a broader population. Instead, the results apply only to specific
global leaders within their societal and cultural contexts. Therefore, the study’s findings can only
transfer to cultural or societal contexts within the location of the leaders’ home organizational
contexts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2008).

93
Summary
Chapter Three explained how the conceptual framework, rooted in SCT, guided the study
by focusing on the behavioral, environmental, and personal factors in executive decision-making.
This framework directly shaped the research questions, which seek to understand how leaders
interpret decision-making success or failure and attribute factors affecting effectiveness in
stakeholder management for socially sensitive issues that can promote social backlash. The
methods aligned with the conceptual framework, research questions, and the study’s goals to fill
empirical gaps by identifying key success factors. Also, the methods, by employing IPA, made it
possible for the study to delve deeply into executives’ experiences and decision-making
processes within the SCT context. This qualitative approach, through semi-structured interviews,
allowed for a nuanced exploration of the complex dynamics identified in the research questions.
Trustworthiness intertwined with both the conceptual framework and methods, ensuring that the
study’s design and execution accurately capture and reflect the SCT-informed experiences of
global executives. Trustworthiness was maintained through reflexive practices to counteract bias,
member checks to validate findings, and extensive content analysis to ensure that conclusions
drawn from the interviews were credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable. This
approach to validity supported the integrity of the methods and the application of the conceptual
framework, creating an aligned and reliable study (Figure 13).

94
Figure 13
Qualitative Study Design Relationships
Note. Adapted from Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach by J. A. Maxwell,
Copyright 2005 by SAGE.
Chapter Three outlined the methodology to address the research questions and the
espoused worldview. Also, it discussed the sampling strategy, study participants, and the
recruitment site. The instrumentation of the study covered the interview rationale and protocol,
while the data analysis focused on the collection and analysis. Lastly, limitations and

95
delimitations focused on bias mitigation and trustworthiness optimizing practices. Chapter Four
turned to the results associated with the research questions.

96
Chapter Four: Findings
The study delved into the decision-making of global corporate leaders as they navigate
competing stakeholder demands during events that evoke social backlash. It aimed to uncover
their experiences and develop practices for managing these conflicting demands in intricate
contexts. Despite the critical nature of this topic, there needs to be more research regarding these
executives’ decision-making experiences. Guided by this purpose, the study poses two primary
research questions:
1. How do global corporate leaders interpret success or failure in decision-making while
managing competing stakeholder demands for events that provoke social backlash?
2. What factors contribute to the differential effectiveness of global corporate leaders in
managing competing stakeholder demands in the face of events that provoke social
backlash?
Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura’s (1986) SCT serves as the theoretical framework for this research. Social
cognitive theory (SCT) emphasizes the intricate interplay of environmental, behavioral, and
cognitive factors in exploring and interpreting human action. The study’s purpose is aligned with
this theory because it guides a deep analysis of the experiences of global executives’ decisionmaking by focusing on their leadership practices’ environmental, behavioral, and personal
dimensions toward managing stakeholder demands with social value and the potential to trigger
backlash.
Description of Participants
The study comprised 11 participants, all of whom functioned in an executive capacity in
their corporations. Notably, 10 of them were actively serving in their roles during the study,

97
while one had recently retired. The corporations associated with these participants maintain a
global reach, with privately and publicly held companies represented. Table 6 presents their
geographic distribution.
Table 6
Participant Information
Participant Home location Corporate structure Industry type
Jamie United
Kingdom
Private Entertainment/videogames
Taylor United
Kingdom
Private Entertainment/videogames
Kai Hong Kong Private High-value manufacturing
Sascha Germany Private Transport/shipping
Alex United
Kingdom
Private Entertainment/videogames
Jordan USA Public Agriculture and energy
Charlie United
Kingdom
Public Banking
Morgan USA Private Automotive
Casey USA Private Asset management
Avery USA Private Asset management
Cameron USA Private Asset management

98
Each participant engages with various groups of internal and external stakeholders and
manages their demands arising from events that elicit social backlash. Notably, the events that
the participants shared their views on manifested differently. While some became publicized and
took shape through WOM, others remained internal to the organization but not entirely confined
to private circles. Regardless of the publicity level, all interviewees faced these events head-on
while navigating global corporate contexts and making decisions that shaped the resulting
stakeholder dynamics in their respective organizations.
Jamie
Jamie serves as a director for an internationally acclaimed video game company based in
the United Kingdom and operating internationally. Jamie manages various aspects of game
development, such as overseeing teams working on features and bug fixes and providing direct
coding support. They hold a bachelor’s degree, a master’s, and a Ph.D. in software engineering
and possess 20 years of industry experience handling software and internet infrastructure
management, analytics, and business intelligence. They also have exposure to internal and
external stakeholders through managing events relating to customer experience and overall
company direction to sensitive product development issues. A truly global executive, Jamie
permanently resides in Spain, commuting to the United Kingdom and other parts of the world
when needed to execute their executive duties.
Taylor
Taylor is the co-owner of the U.K.-based ALPHA Software, a video game developer and
publisher with a 20-year history in the industry. They possess a bachelor’s degree in computer
science. Initially, ALPHA Software ventured into game sales, controlling everything from game
creation to consumer delivery. Now, it designs video games and is reaching millions of players

99
worldwide. Taylor and three co-owners were instrumental in the company’s overall growth in
one of the world’s most recognizable and successful game studios. Over the years, they have
succeeded in various forms and are proud of their accomplishments. On paper, Taylor holds the
title of managing director, but they perceive themselves more as a “fixer.” They acknowledge
that the team excels in game development, and their role is to facilitate the entire process, from
game creation to customer delivery. Describing themselves “as a jack of all trades,” they focus
on steering the ship and setting destinations for the team while allowing each co-owner to
manage their respective areas.
Kai
Kai is an engineer, entrepreneur, and inventor with a bachelor’s degree in engineering.
Kai established a Hong Kong-based company in 2004 and remains actively involved in its
operations. The company specializes in designing and producing precision electromechanical
mechanisms. These high-value manufactured items serve industrial and medical equipment
production businesses. Apart from the engineering side, Kai engages daily with global supply
chains, marketing, and compliance operations spanning Europe, North America, Southeast Asia,
and China. To fulfill their role, this participant maintains residences in the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Hong Kong, making him attuned both personally and professionally to several
cultural and societal contexts.
Sascha
Sascha holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration and is a senior executive at a
global transport company headquartered in the United States. Sascha heads the European
operations with headquarters in Germany. With 35 years of industry experience, they specialize
in procuring logistics products for the European market. While a U.S. national, Sascha has spent

100
25 years working and residing outside the United States, amassing expertise in navigating
diverse cultural and societal contexts.
Alex
Alex has over 20 years of experience, holds a bachelor’s in software engineering, and is
the co-owner and creative director of a world-renowned BAFTA-winning video game studio.
Tasked with sparking new game concepts, Alex often begins the creative process by sketching
initial ideas and developing them into early-stage prototypes. Once a concept has a solid
foundation, Alex collaborates with team members to present and discuss its viability. If
successful, Alex oversees the development team’s expansion, including programmers, artists,
and sound designers. As the project progresses, their role evolves from conceptualization to team
management, mirroring the responsibilities of a producer engaging with domestic and
international stakeholder groups. Alex’s journey into the video gaming industry commenced at a
university in London in 1997, where they met the co-founders and co-owners of the company.
Their bond formed instantly, growing from shared academic pursuits to deep friendships.
Jordan
With over 40 years of farming and management experience, Jordan serves on the board
of a global U.S.-based agricultural and energy cooperative. As a practicing farmer, they draw
from deep-seated American Midwest farming traditions. They stand unique in the study as the
only executive elected to their directorship and management position by the cooperative’s
extensive membership. This distinctive role places them in close contact and fosters strong
relationships with internal and external stakeholders. The cooperative, an international and
publicly listed entity driven by its membership, primarily focuses on energy and agriculture. As
it operates in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and China, Jordan remains actively

101
engaged with various domestic and international stakeholders, emphasizing interactions with the
cooperative’s members.
Charlie
With a career in banking of over 30 years, Charlie is a senior executive of a leading U.K.-
based global bank. Charlie’s journey started with in-branch banking services and traversed a
spectrum of roles, from international audit and risk compliance to currently heading the
institution’s support for vulnerable customers. Historically, the bank maintained a more
extensive global presence, overseeing over 30 territories, a domain in which Charlie held
significant responsibility. The company retains a U.K.-centric focus while now streamlined to
less than 10 overseas territories. Still, it operates in a few international regions, such as the
Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia. Charlie’s current role embodies this
dual nature, overseeing domestic operations and maintaining responsibilities for the remaining
international territories, reflecting a group-wide scope. Lastly, Charlie is an LGBTQ+ activist
and co-chairs the organization’s related staff group, championing inclusivity in the United
Kingdom and overseas territories in which the organization operates.
Morgan
Morgan devoted more than 3 decades to a U.S.-based organization with a global
footprint, encapsulating their entire professional career. Beginning at the entry-level of the
corporate hierarchy and engaging directly with customers, Morgan swiftly advanced through
regional executive positions before relocating to the corporate headquarters to support the
company’s president. In this capacity, Morgan commented that they championed effective
operational strategies, upheld corporate standards, and deterred counterproductive corporate
practices. Subsequent promotions saw Morgan assume the position of vice president, and after

102
that, they took charge of the company’s expanding U.K. operations. In the final leg of their
career, Morgan led the company’s European expansion efforts. Morgan consulted with various
stakeholders throughout their tenure, including suppliers, government entities, regulators, trade
unions, and media groups.
Casey
Casey has amassed 3 decades of experience in global operations, real estate management,
and corporate leadership, primarily in the financial sector. Situated in the United States and
Europe, they manage corporate real estate assets for a major asset management firm across
multiple European cities, ensuring adherence to local laws and firm policies. Their vast exposure
to international work cultures and various stakeholder demands in several societal contexts is
evident through their involvement in negotiating with architects, legal entities, and financial
controllers. Casey has a proven record of consulting with diverse stakeholders, from potential
institutional investors to legal entities, highlighting their prowess in decision-making amid
complex demands. Moreover, their stint with a leading contemporary art gallery has fine-tuned
their acumen to connect artistic talents with corporate partners and engage in charity-driven
projects. Their expansive experience underscores their proficiency in coordinating large-scale
corporate relocations, disaster recovery, and organizing large-scale corporate events. Casey’s
multifaceted journey uniquely positions them to provide rich insights into global corporate
leadership challenges, particularly when navigating social backlashes and multifaceted
stakeholder demands.
Avery
Avery brings over 40 years of experience from the global investment and financial
research industries, holding leadership roles in a prestigious asset management firm known for

103
its innovative asset allocation. In this role, they skillfully navigated the diverse demands of
stakeholders, including institutional investors and regulators from various EU countries and other
global jurisdictions, all pertaining to the company’s investment products. Therefore, their
extensive background positions them to understand the nuances of decision-making when facing
competing stakeholder demands for investment issues that can provoke social backlash. Also,
Avery spent 2 decades with a leading global association of investment professionals,
spearheading research, education, and strategic initiatives. Their commitment to elevating the
investment industry’s standards has been recognized multiple times, and it also includes a
prestigious position in the 100 most influential women in finance. Avery’s education
encompasses a BS in finance, an MS from a world-renowned leading technological institution,
and, finally, a PhD in finance. Furthermore, they have been an active board member for multiple
financial advisory entities and a certified chartered financial analyst.
Cameron
Cameron has an extensive background in global leadership and management across
diverse sectors. Their career began in the nonprofit realm, and their trajectory shifted in 2008,
transitioning into the finance industry, joining a global asset management firm with a presence in
10 countries. Currently a partner and the global head of workplace and real estate management,
their responsibilities include overseeing global real estate, facilities, IT support, security, travel,
and office services worldwide. Cameron was instrumental in expanding the firm’s international
presence, opening new offices in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia, and
spearheading the development of the firm’s headquarters in Chicago. Cameron’s expertise
extends beyond physical space management to strategic aspects of business continuity, risk
management, and community impact. They sit on several steering committees focused on risk,

104
business continuity, partner engagement, and community impact. Their educational background
includes a BS in political science and international studies.
Having explored the participant biographies, Chapter Four pivots into the findings,
illuminating the responses to RQ1 by exploring global executive interpretations of
environmental, behavioral, or personal factors leading to the success or failure of decisionmaking while managing stakeholder demands for social backlash.
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 examines how the participants interpret the environmental,
behavioral, and personal factors influencing decision-making success or failure when managing
stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues that may provoke a backlash. Participants took
part in interviews, each lasting about an hour, over 2 months. These interviews consisted of
seven questions. Three of these questions specifically sought to understand the interviewees’
interpretations of the SCT factors influencing decision-making outcomes in these situations. One
question asked them how they interpret success or failure in decision-making amid challenging
stakeholder scenarios. Another inquired about the factors they deem crucial for navigating
challenging stakeholder situations. The last question focused on their interpretation of
overarching factors that influence decision-making effectiveness in these contexts (see Appendix
A). Given the study topic’s timely relevance, the interviewees eagerly shared their interpretations
of recent corporate public backlash events. They discussed current stakeholder reactions and the
decision-making effectiveness of CEOs facing social criticism, offering additional interpretive
insights relevant to the research question.
The findings for RQ1 correspond to the themes I extracted while organizing the interview
data using the NVivo software. Each theme centers on a central phenomenon emerging from

105
subthemes, axial and open codes, as informed by the interview data and SCT (see Table 7).
Behavioral factors include interpretations of leadership styles and attitudes that affect decisionmaking effectiveness. Environmental factors encompass societal and cultural contexts and mold
decision-making. Personal factors pertain to interpretations associated with global executives’
cognitive processes, such as personal beliefs, self-efficacy, and sensemaking. Furthermore, each
theme, along with its related subthemes and axial codes, is represented by the number of
participants who explicitly or implicitly referred to these concepts during their interviews.
Monitoring and reporting this frequency are crucial for establishing the trustworthiness of the
study’s findings in relation to the research question (Table 8).
Table 7
Themes for RQ1 in Relation to SCT
Theme SCT factor
Defining leadership for stakeholder management Behavior and person
Responsible leadership Behavior and person
Global mindsets Behavior and person
Navigating cultural and societal contexts Environment
Personal beliefs Person

106
Table 8
Participant Frequency on the Findings for RQ1
Theme Subthemes Notions derived from axial
codes
Participant
frequency (11)
Defining leadership
for stakeholder
management
Effective
communication
Genuine
Cautious
Feedback-driven
Vision driven
3
11
7
11
Empathy Self-awareness
Understanding
Listening
Emotional/intelligence
7
7
10
3
Organizational
alignment
Vision
External pressures
Moral compass
Empirical evidence
8
8
4
6
Responsible
leadership
Resource allocation and
pragmatism
Ethical foundation
Valuing all stakeholders
Proactivity and anticipation
6
7
5
7
Global mindsets Cultural awareness
Curiosity
7
5
Managing cultural
and societal
contexts
Role of learning
Cultural respect
Managing societal
expectations
9
5
7
Personal factors Personal beliefs 8
Effective decision-making for stakeholder management is characterized by active
communication, empathy, and alignment with corporate values. Responsible leadership
emphasizes dynamism, ethics, and proactivity. Additionally, operating with a global mindset is
vital in managing diverse stakeholder relations during social backlash. Leaders must also
navigate societal and cultural contexts with respect and awareness of societal expectations.
Personal beliefs allow the participants to align their decisions with their values and ensure their

107
actions do not infringe on stakeholders’ rights and identities. These factors collectively define the
landscape of successful leadership during times of stakeholder backlash (see Table 9).
Table 9
Summary of Interpreted Factors for Success or Failure in Decision-Making During Social
Backlash
Interpreted factor (theme) Description Exemplary quote
Defining notions of
leadership for stakeholder
management (behavior)
Global leaders define
effective leadership for
managing stakeholders
during backlash as
active communication,
showing empathy, and
considering corporate
values when managing
stakeholders’ demands.
Seeking feedback from those
within the target culture and
being ready to listen, learn,
and adapt (Jamie).
Embracing responsible
leadership (behavior)
Responsible leadership
hinges on dynamism,
ethics, proactivity,
valuing, pragmatism,
and relevance.
We remain consistently vigilant
about potential stakeholder
concerns, always striving to be
proactive rather than reactive
(Sascha).
Operating with global
mindsets (behavior,
environment, and person)
Use of cultural awareness,
curiosity, and emotional
intelligence to navigate
diverse stakeholder
relations, especially
during backlash
If you’re considering entering a
market like China. … You
have to consider the depth of
your own unfamiliarity
(Jamie).
Navigating societal and
cultural contexts
(environment)
Executives address the
learning, cultural
respect, and societal
expectations in decisionmaking for navigating
multiple contexts.
Navigating these waters feels
like a minefield at times
(Jamie).
Guided by personal beliefs
(person)
Leaders make sense of
decision-making success
through a personal
beliefs framework.
It is essential for me, personally,
to discern why I hold certain
values. … When faced with a
specific issue, my judgment is
driven by the principle of one
person’s rights, not imposing
on another’s (Taylor).

108
Behavioral Factors for Research Question 1
Social cognitive theory (SCT) underscores the behavioral factors influencing human
activity within social contexts. All interviewees interpreted specific behaviors that can support or
hinder effective leadership while managing stakeholder demands during backlash.
Defining Leadership for Stakeholder Management (RQ1)
All participants provided insights for defining leadership for managing stakeholder
concerns during events that can provoke social backlash. A number of them are increasingly
attuned to the intricacies of (a) effective communication and feedback, (b) empathy, (c)
organizational alignment, and (d) emotional intelligence. The participants interpret these
behavioral factors as pivotal for supporting decision-making while managing stakeholder
demands concerning environmental challenges.
Effective Communication and Feedback (Behavior)
In defining leadership, interviewees support two critical aspects of effective
communication and feedback. Jamie touched on the higher purpose of communication in
leadership: “The aim is to build bridges of understanding.” Morgan, reflecting on the importance
of communication and understanding, especially during social backlash, claimed, “In today’s
climate, people often communicate without genuinely understanding each other. Stories about
employees making demands are commonplace, and while I would always advocate for dialogue,
taking drastic actions based on feelings of offense might not always be justified.” Jamie and
Morgan observed the importance of fostering genuine communication for understanding
stakeholders and cautioned against reactive actions.
All participants observed the need for corporate leadership to approach communication
with caution, especially during social backlash. Jamie highlighted this approach, noting that

109
“caution is paramount in our public interactions. Every communication must be deliberate and
well thought out.” Similarly, Charlie focused on the requirement of caution during times of
backlash, claiming, “This is why I’ve always believed that one needs to be cautious about
statements made within a company today,” highlighting the intricate process of effective
communication. For Jamie, Charlie, and Casey, the consequences of leadership sidestepping
caution and not adhering to the communicated message have reputational effects on the
organization and its leadership.
Seven interviewees indicated the need for prioritizing feedback-driven communication in
their decision-making, especially on socially sensitive issues. Taylor, Morgan, and Avery offered
insights illuminating the intricate relationship between communication and feedback to
underscore this notion. Taylor linked the two by stating that leadership is “seeking feedback
from those within the target culture and being ready to listen, learn, and adapt.” Similarly,
Morgan emphasized the dynamics of feedback-driven communication, highlighting the
importance of understanding viewpoints, clarity, and the act of listening. by saying, “The key is
understanding how to communicate and listen. … It is crucial to communicate it clearly. … If
you are not listening, then you are not truly communicating.” Avery agreed and further linked
leadership with communicating for feedback, noting,
You must actively seek feedback and give it genuine consideration. While you may not
always agree with the feedback, showing that you have taken it to heart is crucial. … If
you operate in secrecy, not sharing your processes or reasoning, people will inevitably
question your authenticity.
Similarly, Cameron went further and associated acknowledgment of feedback to
recognize the courage it takes for a stakeholder to offer feedback. “The most challenging part for

110
anyone who has the courage to offer suggestions or feedback to a leader is when the leader
doesn’t acknowledge their courage.” For this senior finance executive, recognizing the courage it
takes to offer feedback validates the contributor’s effort and encourages a more open, innovative,
and collaborative workplace. Moreover, Avery and Morgan argued in a similar line that even if
an executive disagrees with stakeholders’ concerns, “dismissing them with labels like ‘woke’ is
not constructive.” Instead, Morgan claimed, “A productive conversation is required.” Thus, for
Taylor, Morgan, Avery, and Cameron, communication is not merely about speaking to
stakeholders; it is equally about listening and adapting based on the feedback received.
All participants revealed the need to communicate organizational vision during social
backlash. Alex drew the connection between effective communication and the ability to rally
people, saying, “Another facet is determining how to rally people behind your vision—how to
communicate and persuade them to embrace your ideas effectively.” Morgan further aligned
effective leadership with communication of vision by suggesting that “if you don’t have good
leaders who communicate well and set a steady course, along with real values, you’ll end up
lost.” For Alex and Morgan, communication emerged as a leadership tool for dissemination
alignment and vision-casting during social backlash.
In summary, the findings underscored three critical aspects of effective leadership
communication. The need for genuine and cautious communication during times of social
backlash. Also, the importance of feedback-driven communication for decision-making and the
significance of communicating the organizational vision (see Table 10).

111
Table 10
Aspects of Effective Communication for Leadership During Social Backlash
Communication aspects Description Exemplary quotes
Genuine Genuine communication to
build a dialogue for sensitive
demands within the current
social context
In today’s climate, people often
communicate without
genuinely understanding
each other (Morgan).
Cautious Communication is cautious and
authentic, without any hidden
agenda.
Caution is paramount in our
public interactions. Every
communication must be
deliberate and well thought
out (Morgan).
Feedback-driven Honest and value-driven
communication integrating
feedback from various
stakeholders to adapt and
refine the message
Seeking feedback from those
within the target culture and
being ready to listen, learn,
and adapt (Jamie).
Empathy (Behavior and Person)
For all participants, empathy in global leadership’s decision-making serves as a bridge to
identify and address the sensitive concerns of stakeholders. For Jamie, Taylor, Kai, Sascha,
Charlie, Casey, and Cameron, personal beliefs about understanding, self-awareness, and listening
influence empathy as a behavioral response for leadership enactment. Reflecting on the
importance of empathy in understanding stakeholder concerns, Jamie asserted
The challenge, I believe, is understanding these sensitive issues. … Understanding is
everything. Understanding someone else’s point of view, I have learned that you need to
be empathetic and strive to be a calming influence. … We live in a world filled with
anger and shouting, and finding a middle ground through empathy is crucial.
On a similar note, Casey provided an insightful account of the importance of empathy, asserting
that “Empathy is a significant attribute. … It is crucial to be able to put yourself in someone

112
else’s shoes. Leading solely from your own perspective is limiting; it closes you off from
understanding how others might view things.” This sentiment underscored the stabilizing role of
empathy during turbulent times. Building on this, Taylor also linked awareness with empathy.
Kai supplemented this by emphasizing the role of empathy in cultivating self-awareness, stating,
That is the first thing, and it is about self-awareness. It involves introspection and
analysis for you to have a noticeably clear viewpoint on your own personal position on
these matters. Along with understanding where you stand, it is also crucial to be
empathetic towards others’ perspectives on these issues. Being empathetic, listening, and
recognizing where those boundaries lie is essential.
For the interviewees, self-awareness is pivotal, as it allows them to position themselves
effectively in response to stakeholder concerns, reinforcing the need for empathetic decisionmaking in leadership.
Moreover, for 10 participants, effective leadership is grounded in listening, an RL
behavior inherently tied to empathy. As Taylor stated, “To answer the question of leadership, for
me, it’s predominantly about listening to the lived experience.” They underscored the idea that
empathy provides the lens for understanding experiences. Sascha also identified empathy with
listening to the lived experiences of diverse stakeholders, stating,
If I am honest, it is listening to people’s lived experiences. If you think you know the
answer or are bright enough to work out the solution logically, you will be wrong. All of
us have lived quite different life experiences. Even if someone grew up in the same town
and has the same education, their life experiences and interactions with others will be
different. Therefore, we all have different views on how things happen.

113
Empathetic listening, for Taylor, defines leadership when stakeholder demands compete because
“finding a middle ground through empathy is crucial.” Taylor continued, “When issues arise, and
perhaps reparation is needed, ensuring people feel heard is essential. A decision might not align
with what everyone wants, but if they feel listened to, you can still bring them along on the
journey.” For Jordan, listening to stakeholders with empathy does not necessarily equate to
agreement. Instead, it is about ensuring that they feel valued. They commented,
It is essential to listen to their concerns. While we might not always provide the answers
they hope for, offering an explanation and background on our decisions is crucial. They
might not always like it, but it is important to convey the reasons behind our actions.
Further connecting empathetic listening with decision-making, Taylor claimed, “It’s essential not
to make decisions without considering these experiences. … Sometimes, you might encounter
perspectives you’ve never considered before.” The ability to grasp unconsidered perspectives
stems from empathetic engagement through listening. Charlie reflected, “All of us have lived
very different life experiences.” The underlying message is that leaders risk being trapped in
their perspectives without empathy. As Taylor highlighted, “If you continually stay in the same
echo chamber, how will you truly understand?” The participants linked empathy, self-awareness,
listening, and emotional intelligence with effective communication relating to stakeholder
concerns during backlash.
Additionally, navigating a sensitive backlash, Cameron insightfully stated, “I believe I
have a good understanding of the firm and am emotionally sensitive to what’s important to
people.” This emotional intelligence was pivotal in addressing stakeholder concerns. Echoing
this sentiment, Morgan reflected, “It was crucial for them to develop, for lack of a better term,
emotional intelligence towards others.” Their concerted efforts in developing this emotional

114
acumen underscored its critical role in empathetically managing stakeholder demands during
socially sensitive situations. The participants observed these behavioral characteristics,
influenced by their personal beliefs, as key components for effectively making decisions
responding to social backlash (see Table 11).
Table 11
Aspects of Empathy in Leadership During Social Backlash
Empathy aspect Description Exemplary quotes
Self-awareness Executives become acutely
aware of their biases and
values, enhancing their ability
to address sensitive issues
effectively.
That is the first thing, and it is
about self-awareness. It
involves introspection and
analysis for you to have a clear
viewpoint on your own
personal position on these
matters (Taylor).
Understanding Comprehension of stakeholder
concerns allows leaders to
delve into the nuances of
sensitive issues.
The real challenge, I believe, is
understanding these sensitive
issues (Jamie).
Listening Beyond just hearing words,
executives should emphasize
and value stakeholders’ input
and validate their experiences.
In my mind, if you’re curious
and believe that a stakeholder
has something valuable to say,
you should listen and consider
it (Avery).
Emotional intelligence Embracing a keen understanding
of sensitivity to the emotions
and needs of others is essential
for effectively managing
stakeholder relations in
socially sensitive situations.
It was crucial for them to
develop, for lack of a better
term, emotional intelligence
towards others (Morgan).

115
Organizational Alignment (Behavior and Environment)
Eight participants observed the importance of considering the organizational vision in
their decision-making while addressing stakeholder concerns for sensitive issues. To balance the
integrity of the corporate vision and the demands of stakeholders, Jamie discussed a decisionmaking dilemma while designing a video game catering to consumers globally:
We have to decide whether our primary objective is to craft a game that aligns with our
vision or to cater to every single user request. It is about finding a balance that maintains
game integrity while ensuring user satisfaction.
Concerning this notion, Casey talked about aligning organizational vision with global consumer
ethical demands and stated, “It’s essential to maintain the direction and identity of our
organization, even when faced with suggestions that don’t align with our values and vision.”
Jamie argued further for the dangers of executives reacting to and commenting on backlash
events without considering their organizational vision and core principles. They argued,
If a company spends too much time reacting to every shift, they might lose their core
identity. Instead of paving their own path, they become overly reactive to outside
pressures. They end up not standing for anything specific. The challenge is determining
when to adapt to changes and when to hold your ground, asserting this is what we stand
for.
Similarly, Avery argued for alignment between organizational vision and stakeholder
management when leaders address sensitive social issues, claiming, “It truly boils down to the
culture established by the leadership team. If they genuinely believe in equal opportunity, actions
should align with their beliefs. If they are not taking appropriate actions, employees either
dismiss their claims, remain indifferent, or view their job as a paycheck source.”

116
The participants observed the need to consider the organizational vision when managing
stakeholder demands for effective decision-making, especially during social backlash.
Seven participants conveyed the need to align decision-making with corporate identity,
especially during external pressures. Referencing as a public backlash example the divergent
stances of Disney and the Florida government on controversial state law, Jordan commented,
What I would communicate to my team is this: This is our identity as a company. The
state of Florida, through its elected officials, has chosen a stance different from ours. We
will align our operations to comply with the law and prioritize our employees’ well-being
internally.
They illustrated the need to align decisions with corporate identity and broader organizational
culture, especially during broader environmental pressures from outside stakeholders. Jordan
highlighted the challenges of navigating global stakeholder environments, especially when
external stakeholder entities do not align with the corporate ethical identity. They stressed the
importance of maintaining a company’s core identity principles when outside stakeholders
exhibit corrupt business practices, remarking,
So, we have to make it known that our company will not going to do that. We must do it
the right way. And that will be a challenge; people will exclude you, like, “Oh, this
company thinks they are greater than us or smarter than us. We do not want anything to
do with them.” But you must keep conveying that message; hopefully, someday, you will
gain traction and make a difference.
For Jordan and Morgan, upholding and communicating a company’s core identity is crucial,
even when facing external disagreements or challenges.

117
Jordan reported a need for aligning corporate action with the moral compass of the
decision-maker. Such alignment is essential for navigating complex stakeholder environments
during social backlash. Taylor succinctly encapsulated this idea by stating, “Navigating these
treacherous waters without a strong moral compass is impossible. Your compass’s direction,
whatever it means to you personally, is something you must understand, as it aligns with or
defines your business’s values.” Likewise, Avery managed stakeholder demands for sensitive
issues according to their moral convictions, claiming, “I have a sense of fairness based on my
moral and ethical compass.” Participants expressed the need to match their ethics with corporate
values and actions, especially while managing stakeholders during social backlash.
Lastly, Alex reported the need to align decision-making with empirical evidence to
ensure effective leadership during challenging times. Alex commented on the importance of this
alignment, asserting that while intuition plays a role, “we make it a point to validate those
instincts with empirical data. We deeply value evidence-based decision-making.” This approach
ensures that decisions during social backlash are rooted in data, promoting clarity and alignment
with the organizational vision. Similarly, Avery, who holds a PhD in quantitative finance, argued
for evidence-based and data-driven decision-making when managing stakeholders. They
claimed,
I lean heavily on research to make my case. … It gains traction when I present [to
stakeholders] research on the topic and articulate it with a comprehensive set of footnotes
or endnotes. Facts speak louder than any individual voice. … People value research
results and often refer to the work of others they respect. This approach has significantly
aided me.

118
Emphasizing the alignment of decision-making with evidence-based decision-making,
participants detailed the indispensable role of empirical data in underpinning leadership choices.
The data indicated that effective leadership involves balancing organizational vision with
stakeholder concerns during social backlash. Leaders can navigate challenges effectively by
maintaining vision integrity, recognizing the broader societal context, adhering to a strong moral
compass, and embracing data-driven decision-making (see Table 12).
Table 12
Organizational Alignment Aspects in Leadership During Social Backlash
Organizational
alignment aspect
Description Exemplary quotes
Organizational vision Considering the integrity of
the organizational vision
while addressing
stakeholders’ demands is
necessary for effective
decision-making.
We have to decide whether our primary
objective is to craft a game that aligns
with our vision or to cater to every
single user request (Jamie).
External pressures Leaders need to align
corporate action to
external societal or
political pressures while
preserving corporate
identity.
The state of Florida … has chosen a
stance different from ours. We will
align our operations to comply with
the law and, internally, prioritize our
employees’ well-being (Morgan).
Moral compass Executives align their
moral compass with the
organizational vision
when managing
stakeholder concerns
during times of backlash.
Navigating these treacherous waters
without a strong moral compass is
impossible. Your compass’s direction,
whatever it means to you personally,
is something you must understand, as
it aligns with or defines your
business’s values (Taylor).
Empirical evidence Decision-making aligns
with empirical evidence
and data-driven
reasoning.
This provides us with an opportunity at
the highest level to explain why we’re
making certain decisions. We provide
them with data and statistics, as our
firm strongly relies on data for
decision-making. Sharing data proves
to be highly beneficial (Casey).

119
Responsible Leadership (RQ1)
All participants reported RL behaviors for effective decision-making during social
backlash. These included embracing pragmatism in resource allocation, an ethical foundation, a
willingness to value stakeholders, embracing cultural relevance, and a proactive stance in
decision-making.
Resource Allocation and Pragmatism (Behavior)
In addressing backlash, the interviewees considered the potential risks alongside the use
of resources and time. Four participants suggested that while backlash might be evident, there are
times when the organization must prioritize other crucial endeavors depending on the region of
operations. Jamie stated,
Upon thorough evaluation, it might be determined that the potential for backlash, while
existent, is not pressing enough to divert resources from other, more crucial endeavors
like product development. … As a company, should we be putting in all our efforts to
avoid backlash at every turn? Is that really the best use of our time?
Similarly, Cameron advocated for a pragmatic approach to decision-making, allowing them to
focus on practical and effective solutions, especially in situations where personal beliefs and
opinions might be diverse and conflicting. They claimed.
I try hard to focus on facts, especially in situations where opinions are divided. The
pandemic is a good example. There was a lot of division about wearing masks and getting
vaccinated. Regardless of my personal belief about vaccination, it was irrelevant to my
decision-making process or the recommendations I made for the firm. It was more about
what we needed to do to protect our colleagues.

120
Therefore, the participants’ perspectives demonstrate that RL also involves making pragmatic
decisions and ensuring the best use of organizational resources, especially when navigating
global stakeholder environments.
Ethical Foundation (Person)
Eight participants reported that the ethical foundation of decision-making while
managing stakeholder demands plays a significant role in navigating backlash situations. Taylor
was explicit about their moral stance and necessity, saying, “For me, there is an implicit moral
stance, which is important to hold as well, to say, ‘We have done something wrong. Let us make
it right.’” They further delve into the complex nature of ethics by adding, “Just because I lean
towards an estimate does not mean I disregard ethics. In fact, I have a strong ethical foundation. I
believe quite fervently in the concepts of right and wrong.” Jordan suggested that a public
company owned by a broad membership of shareholders inherently motivates leadership to
embrace ethical practices, commenting, “I think we pride ourselves on being ethical. … For us,
it’s an everyday thing.” This notion was reinforced when Kai commented on their preference for
a structured ethical approach: “For me, it boils down to a hierarchical ethical standard, a
framework of what we should and shouldn’t do.” These participant statements expressed the
critical nature of having a robust ethical foundation to guide decisions, especially during social
backlash.
Valuing Stakeholders (Behavior and Environment)
Five interviewees reported valuing salient stakeholders in their decision-making,
regardless of agreement with them. They noted that this consideration might impact the decisionmaking outcome, particularly during social backlash. Morgan commented on an extensive public
backlash event between consumers and the leadership of a major beverage industry. Alex

121
emphasized the importance of valuing customers, regardless of disagreements, asserting, “That is
a leadership issue. You should have affection for your customers. You might not always agree
with them, but you should value them. The customer might not always be right, but they are
always your customers.” Conversely, in the context where consumers labeled Charlie’s
organization as a “woke” company due to its inclusive agenda, Charlie posited that while valuing
customers is essential, there comes a point where the alignment of values is non-negotiable,
stating, “If you don’t align with our values, you’re welcome to go elsewhere.” This underscores
the delicate balance RL must strike, prioritizing company values while appreciating every
stakeholder’s worth.
Proactivity and Anticipation (Behavior)
Seven participants commented on the importance of RL’s proactive and anticipatory
nature that can influence the likelihood of success or failure in decision-making. Jordan
insightfully mentioned when asked about a public backlash event between consumers and
corporate leadership of a major beverage corporation, “Well, I don’t know if I would be dealing
with the backlash because I would hopefully not have gotten ourselves into this situation.” Jamie
asserted that a dynamic rather than static approach to leadership is essential. They commented,
“It’s crucial to remain attuned to where backlash might emanate. … Staying updated and not
becoming static or frozen in a particular time frame is essential.” Sascha reinterred this view,
claiming, “We remain consistently vigilant about potential stakeholder concerns, always striving
to be proactive rather than reactive.” Charlie also emphasized the value of identifying signs of
potential issues, commenting, “If you’re prepping for a potential backlash, it’s about identifying
signs or triggers that indicate a looming issue.”

122
Similarly, Cameron advocated for an anticipatory approach to RL shaping effective
decision-making to stakeholder demands. By proactively considering and preparing for potential
questions and concerns of stakeholders, they can mitigate backlash and foster a more inclusive
and forward-thinking approach. They claimed,
For me, as a change manager, success is being able to anticipate as many questions as
possible and to understand the why behind something. … I try to put myself in other
people’s shoes, considering what they might ask, what they will want, and what is
important to them. … I take those questions and think about how to incorporate their
insights into the next initiative or project.
Participants reported that an RL underpinned by ethics, proactivity, pragmatism, and
relevance is vital for effectively navigating stakeholder demands in global environments during
social backlash (see Table 13).

123
Table 13
Responsible Leadership Notions Supporting Decision-making During Social Backlash
Aspect of responsible
leadership
Description Exemplary quotes
Ethical foundation Holding a strong moral
stance in decision-making
For me, there is an implicit
moral stance, which is
important to hold as well,
to say we have done
something wrong. Let us
make it right (Taylor).
Resource allocation Balancing backlash response
with other priorities
Might be determined that the
potential for backlash …
isn’t pressing enough to
divert resources from other,
more crucial endeavors
(Jamie).
Pragmatism Emphasizing factual
considerations, particularly
in divisive situations
I try hard to focus on facts,
especially in situations
where opinions are
divided. The pandemic is a
good example. …
Regardless of my personal
belief about vaccination, it
was irrelevant to my
decision-making process.
… It was more about what
we needed to do to protect
our colleagues (Cameron).
Proactivity and anticipation Foreseeing potential issues
and acting beforehand
Well, I don’t know if I would
be dealing with the
backlash because I would
hopefully not have gotten
ourselves into this situation
(Jordan).
Global Mindsets (RQ1)
All participants observed behavioral traits linked to GMs as significant for decisionmaking success when engaging with stakeholders from multiple cultural contexts. They reported

124
cultural awareness and curiosity as essential behaviors when navigating complex stakeholder
landscapes within the multiple cultural realities in which they operate.
Cultural Awareness (Behavior and Environment)
Jamie believed cultural awareness is the “cornerstone of navigating a global market
effectively.” Furthering their claim for the decision to expand on other cultures outside their
home environment, they suggested, “If you are considering entering a market like China, which
is not just another territory but essentially a distinct world with its dynamics. … You have to
consider the depth of your own unfamiliarity.” Such cultural comprehension is crucial for Jamie
because market expansion and navigation require deep personal reflection on the part of global
executives. Similarly, the growth of global consumer influence makes cultural awareness
relevant to decision-making. Taylor linked these notions because executives need a deeper global
perspective when navigating consumer concerns in international contexts. Taylor elaborated that
globally, “consumers held little power; they now possess significant influence. … They can
swiftly drag brands into cultural and ethical debates,” thus exemplifying the current leadership
challenge and accentuating the need for executives to bolster their GMs to understand
consumers’ perceptions through developing cultural awareness.
Curiosity (Behavior and Person)
The interviewees introduced the significance of curiosity as a global leadership trait when
maneuvering through multiple societal contexts (Table 14). Jamie argued, “Ultimately, curiosity
broadens your perspective by tapping into the knowledge and experiences of others.” Such
curiosity, they suggested, allows executives to be “culturally apt to the diverse demands of their
stakeholders.” Jamie, Kai, and Avery underscored the importance of curiosity, noting its role in
broadening perspectives, enhancing cultural aptness, and facilitating continuous understanding.

125
Table 14
Global Mindset Aspects for Decision-Making in Global Environments
Global mindset aspect Description Exemplary quotes
Cultural awareness Executives become acutely
aware of their biases and
values, enhancing their
ability to address sensitive
issues effectively.
The cornerstone of navigating
a global market effectively
lies in cultural awareness
(Jamie).
Curiosity Curiosity involves an
eagerness to learn and
understand, allowing
leaders to broaden their
perspectives and adapt to
diverse societal demands.
Maintain an openness to new
insights and perspectives.
An offhand comment from
someone might provide a
solution if you approach it
with curiosity (Avery).
Environmental Factors for Research Question 1: Cultural and Societal Contexts
All participants revealed their interpretations of environmental factors that may shape
success or failure in decision-making that stem from navigating multiple cultural and social
contexts. These environmental challenges interconnect with behavioral and personal responses,
prompting them to adjust their behaviors to respond to environmental challenges.
All the interviewees indicated the need to develop behavioral personal responses and
decision-making aptitude to navigate environmental challenges within the multiple cultural and
societal contexts in which global executives operate. These include (a) learning, (b) cultural
respect, and (c) management of societal expectations. Jamie’s analogy captures the intricacies of
external environments: “Navigating these waters feels like a minefield at times.” Building on
this, Kai emphasized the rapid evolution of cultural landscapes, highlighting the need for global
executives to “effectively identify avenues for improvement and adaptation within the everevolving landscape of diverse societal contexts and stakeholder demands.” These sentiments

126
show that navigating these contexts is intricate yet essential for successful decision-making. Ten
participants emphasized the importance of learning, cultural respect, and managing societal
expectations as critical vehicles for efficient decision-making across multiple societal and
cultural contexts during social backlash.
The Role of Learning (Behavior and Environment)
Nine interviewees interpreted the role of learning in decision-making as a response to
environmental challenges, aiming to understand stakeholders’ demands within their diverse
cultures and societies. Taylor pointed out, “Staying abreast of these [environmental] changes
require an ongoing commitment to learning and staying connected.” Converging with Morgan,
who navigated several cultural contexts as a global executive, claimed,
I always advise young people, including my kids, entering the business world …
continuous learning, especially through reading, is equally important. … I aim to grasp
different perspectives to understand better where others are coming from. … This shift in
perspective only emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and understanding
diverse viewpoints when you are in any form of leadership.
Casey, in a similar way, stressed the importance of fostering global interaction among employees
to foster learning and by introducing them to different cultural perspectives.
Our CEO ensures that leadership meetings are held in different offices rather than just in
Chicago, where most employees are based. This allows leaders to experience other
offices and engage with different perspectives … and encourages more dialogue and
interaction among employees to foster learning.
Given the participants’ reflections, understanding these complex societal and cultural contexts
necessitates dedication to ongoing learning and adaptation.

127
Cultural Respect (Behavior and Person)
When engaging in unfamiliar cultural contexts, five participants commented on
embracing culturally respectful decision-making. Jamie, referring to marketing services to other
cultural spheres, identified a linguistic dimension to cultural respect in their decision-making
when navigating unknown stakeholder landscapes.
We recognized that, as Westerners, our knowledge of the entire Arabic world was
limited. … Besides the technical challenge, there was also a cultural dimension. We
wanted to ensure our translation was not just linguistically accurate but culturally
respectful. The risk was that we might inadvertently communicate something unintended
or even offensive. … We could end up with many unhappy customers.
Kai detailed their experience with shifting cultural dynamics, referencing the operational
differences between their organization’s branches in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. They
noted that effective leadership in such diverse contexts demands profound cultural
comprehension. They explained,
In the U.K., we maintain a relatively flat structure, while in Hong Kong, there is more
attachment to the traditional hierarchy, which can be culturally influenced. Balancing
these structural differences is challenging, but our managing director in Hong Kong
appreciates and thrives within a more hierarchical setup. It aligns with his preferences
and is effective for his role.
These accounts indicate that culturally reflective and respectful decisions hold significance for
business reputation, stakeholder trust, and organizational performance. Such an approach
requires the global leader’s behavioral and cognitive effort to respond to environmental
dynamics.

128
Managing Societal Expectations (Environment)
Seven participants articulated the complexities of understanding and reconciling varying
societal perceptions across different regions. Jamie noted the vast differences across regions,
stating, “Cultural nuances and societal perceptions can vary dramatically from one region to
another, and these subtle variations can significantly affect how a product or game is received.”
Echoing this sentiment, Jordan elaborated on the challenge of reconciling local norms with those
of their home country, especially when ethical considerations are in play: “Managing stakeholder
expectations in places where norms differ, like in Brazil compared to the United States, presents
a huge challenge.” Even within a singular societal context like the United States, global leaders,
such as Jordan, with experience navigating societal contexts both in the United States and
globally, emphasized that a one-size-fits-all decision-making approach is not always effective for
managing diverse stakeholders due to regional differences in perspectives. They claimed,
The Midwest probably looks at things differently than the West Coast. And not that one
is right, one is wrong, but it is different … because we have such a substantial
Midwestern footprint. That is part of the challenge of understanding the people. Iowa and
Illinois versus North Dakota and Montana look at the world differently. And, so, that is a
challenge for our company to listen to all those stakeholders in other geographics and try
to blend their thoughts, their concerns, and try to do the right thing for everybody.
Global leaders underscored the nuanced challenges of balancing societal expectations,
emphasizing the need to address the diversity of stakeholder perceptions between and within
regions.
Navigating diverse global environments, all participants recognized the importance of
continual learning, cultural respect, and managing societal expectations. Through personal and

129
behavioral reflections, they stressed the importance of adapting their decision-making processes
to various societal and cultural contexts. The collective insight suggested that understanding and
respecting these environmental intricacies can shape effective decision-making, especially during
social backlash (see Table 15).
Table 15
Navigating Multiple Cultural and Societal Contexts
Navigational aspect Description Exemplary quotes
Role of learning The continuous process of
acquiring knowledge to
understand better and
navigate diverse cultural
and societal contexts
For me, every day is a
learning opportunity
(Cameron).
Cultural respect Cultural respect involves
making sensitive and
considerate decisions about
unique cultural nuances
when navigating global
contexts.
One thing I’ve noticed is the
evolution of cultural
dynamics. … Balancing
these structural differences
is challenging (Kai).
Managing societal
expectations
Managing varied cultural
nuances and perceptions
that influence how
products, decisions, or
actions are received across
different regions
Cultural nuances and societal
perceptions can vary
dramatically from one
region to another, and these
subtle variations can
significantly affect how a
product or game is received
(Jamie).

130
Personal Factors for Research Question 1
Seven interviewees interpreted a range of personal factors that may shape success or
failure in decision-making while managing stakeholder demands during social backlash.
Participants shared how personal beliefs informing their sensemaking can influence behavioral
responses to broader environmental challenges.
Personal beliefs emerged as a tool for seven participants as a guide to making sense of
success or failure in decision-making while managing stakeholder demands during social
backlash. Taylor, reflecting on their personal beliefs, claimed, “It is essential for me, personally,
to discern why I hold certain values. … When faced with a specific issue, my judgment is driven
by the principle of one person’s rights not imposing on another’s.” Taylor’s discerning personal
values exemplified a form of sensemaking informing behavioral responses to environmental
challenges. By seeking clarity on why they hold specific values, Taylor effectively navigates the
complexities of sensitive issues.
Seven participants associated their personal beliefs with interpreting decision-making
success, especially during challenging contexts. Charlie regarded decision-making during these
contexts as a moral obligation and claimed, “Even if it doesn’t result in change, at the very least,
I can find solace in knowing I did everything possible to prevent a negative outcome.” Charlie’s
testimony emphasized the emotional and ethical weight they assign to their decision-making
processes. The reflection linked personal beliefs with leadership enactment, which global
executives draw upon to navigate and interpret the complexities of their roles. Similarly,
Cameron emphasized the importance of personal beliefs for decision-making, acknowledging
that their personal outlook and beliefs about how one should approach work and interact with
stakeholders can influence their leadership practice.

131
If anyone told you their personal beliefs did not impact their decisions or actions, I think
they would be lying. It is impossible to separate how you think or feel personally. I do
not believe my personal beliefs drive what I do, nor are they the source of my decisions,
but they do influence them. … You can probably tell that I am a positive and energized
individual. That is part of who I am and what I believe we should be as we go out into the
world and do our work. That’s an example of how my personal beliefs is incorporated
into what I do.
Moreover, pivotal personal experiences in a corporate career can profoundly affect their
decision-making, overall sensemaking, and efficacy as leaders. Avery’s leadership journey
symbolizes sensemaking and self-efficacy, shaped by her encounters in a male-dominated
industry. Their recollection from a past leadership role illustrates the adversities: “The
environment was riddled with biases and backlash; the culture wasn’t healthy.” Such experiences
have left an indelible mark on their leadership approach and ignited a drive to create a more
equitable environment, as seen when they transitioned to GAMA Finance with the aim “to
cultivate a healthier environment for everyone.” Their reflection on past professional norms
further underscores their commitment to thinking about effective behaviors for leadership:
“Earlier in my career, … the norm was to entertain clients at strip clubs. … That was in the 80s,
and I hope such practices have lessened.” Avery’s encounter with gender bias and nepotism
profoundly shaped their sensemaking and self-efficacy. Their experiences in male-dominated
fields significantly influence their interpretation of what constitutes successful or unsuccessful
decisions during challenging societal events. They recalled a moment of evident bias, stating, “I
was really upset because the CEO decided that a woman who reported to me … should not go
down for the annual review. … Instead, the president and the CFO would attend.” The aftermath

132
altered their professional relationships, but crucially, it became a pivotal learning moment. They
reflected, “I learned a lot about myself. … I have learned to take a longer view.” Their
experiences shaped Avery’s sensemaking in management and led them to adapt their behavioral
response, emphasizing the importance of aligning with markets that resonate with their values,
ensuring that their leadership vision is inclusive and principled. They claimed,
I believe in the significance of a trust-based culture and the power of collective
intelligence. I think diverse teams collaborating on challenges produce better solutions
than the smartest person in the room. … I have dedicated a lot of time to encouraging
people to dismantle barriers and silos, promoting people to collaborate across various
disciplines [and] deal with various stakeholders stems from this foundational approach.
Personal beliefs serve as guiding principles for global leaders, steering their decisionmaking, especially in challenging scenarios. Charlie, Avery, Casey, and Cameron exemplified
how their diverse personal beliefs, shaping their sensemaking processes, provide a holistic view
of how global corporate leaders interpret decision-making success or failure, especially when
managing competing stakeholder demands during social backlash.
Summary of Findings for RQ 1
Participants highlighted their interpretation of the interplay of personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors in decision-making for effectively managing stakeholder demands for
socially sensitive issues. They underscored the importance of RL and GMs in navigating
complex societal and cultural landscapes and understanding societal expectations.

133
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 focused on the factors contributing to the interviewees’ differential
effectiveness when managing competing stakeholder demands in situations that provoke social
backlash. Global executives participated in semi-structured interviews for 2 months, each an
hour long. The analysis is organized into four thematic sections, each addressing pivotal facets of
RQ2. The RL theme delved into the specific behavioral leadership style and personal attitudes
used by the participants when facing heightened stakeholder pressures in challenging societal
contexts. Global mindsets (GMs) emphasize the behavioral and personal traits used by these
executives in their leadership when responding to sociocultural environmental pressures. The
theme of managing societal and cultural contexts captured the participants’ varied experiences as
they navigated stakeholder demands within multifaceted cultural and societal environments.
Finally, the theme of personal factors focused on their sensemaking and self-efficacy (see Table
16).
Table 16
Coding Themes for RQ2 in Relation to SCT
Theme SCT factor
Defining leadership for
stakeholder management
Behavior and person
Responsible leadership Behavior and person
Navigating cultural and societal
contexts
Environment
Personal beliefs, sensemaking, and
self-efficacy
Person

134
Three out of seven questions aimed at exploring participants’ attributional factors for
differentiated decision-making effectiveness for stakeholder demands during social backlash as
derived from their lived experiences (see Appendix A). The question about why some executives
are better than others in their decision-making when managing stakeholder concerns during times
of social backlash directly yielded data from their lived experience relating to the environmental,
behavioral, and personal factors, leading to differential effectiveness and contributing to all the
study’s themes. Similarly, the interview question about how an effective leader navigates
stakeholder expectations within multicultural decision-making contexts aimed at extracting data
on behavior, person, and environment relevant to the global contexts in which they operate,
yielding relevant data for the themes of RL, GMs, and societal and cultural contexts. Finally, the
question about what resources, whether human, financial, or informational, have been most
valuable during these challenging situations aimed at sourcing data for all the themes,
emphasizing the SCT’s factors on behavior and person. Furthermore, each theme, along with its
related subthemes and axial codes, is represented by the number of participants who explicitly or
implicitly referred to these concepts during their interviews. Monitoring and reporting this
frequency is crucial for establishing the trustworthiness of the study’s findings in relation to the
research question (Table 17).

135
Table 17
Participant Frequency on the Findings for RQ2
Theme Subthemes Notions derived from
axial codes
Participant frequency
(11)
Defining leadership
for stakeholder
management
Active and
transparent
communication
8
Empathy through
listening
10
Feedback 10
Consideration of
corporate vision
when managing
stakeholder
demands
6
Responsible
leadership
Ethical foundation
Managing ethical
blind spots
Pragmatic and
anticipatory
decision-making
7
2
6
Global mindsets Cultural awareness 11
Navigating cultural
and societal
contexts
Value-aligned
decision-making
cultural familiarity
value equilibrium
7
6
4
Personal factors Sensemaking and
personal beliefs
Gender
Race
Ability
5
3
3
Self-efficacy 9
Behavioral Factors (RQ2)
All the participants commented on the behavioral factors affecting their decision-making
when confronting stakeholder demands for issues that can provoke a social backlash. The
participants (a) defined leadership as a set of espoused behaviors within challenging contexts, (b)

136
described RL practices while navigating stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues, and
(c) observed their GM attitudes when navigating international contexts.
Defining Leadership for Stakeholder Management (Behavior and Person)
All participants shared leadership experiences and how they define effective leadership
for navigating stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues. Their collective experiences
hinge on four key factors that can contribute to successful decision-making: (a) active
communication, (b) empathy through listening, (c) feedback, and (d) the consideration of
corporate vision when managing stakeholder demands. According to participants, global
executives, to successfully navigate stakeholder backlash, must transparently and genuinely
communicate their intended actions and align their decision-making with their core principles,
ensuring their actions resonate with their organizational vision.
Charlie, an LGBTQ spokesperson and senior global banking executive, detailed a
significant decision their company faced following a social media backlash. They noted,
My company is a leader when it comes to inclusion. … In line with their forwardthinking approach, we considered a new policy to visibly support and acknowledge the
diverse identities of our employees. … We announced this initiative on Twitter, which …
ignited a Twitter storm. … Many were vehemently opposed, accusing us of being woke.
… The key realization was that by ignoring the issue or backtracking, we would harm our
stakeholders, … but our firm decision … showcased our commitment to its values and
reinforced support for the LGBT+ community.
It is worth noting that the decision to incorporate the vision and core values in the decisionmaking and communicate it to stakeholders was successful. Charlie added, “In the aftermath, we
found very few, if any, closed their accounts. Instead, our public stand attracted more customers

137
who identified with our values.” This narrative reinforces the claim that active communication
combined with an unwavering alignment to the company’s core values can foster trust and
solidarity among stakeholders, even amid fierce societal opposition.
Supplementing how the study participants defined leadership for effective decisionmaking, Morgan, a senior executive with a conservative, large private Midwest-based company,
shared a telling experience surrounding an LGBTQ partnership. Faced with concerns from
salient stakeholders about the initiative’s appropriateness, Morgan recalled,
He [director of communications] wanted us to hold off on the decision. … My response
was, “I am not sure I can do that. We are already committed to this path. We either stand
by our words and our identity, or we do not. I am okay with either stance, but we need
consistency in our messaging. We should not backtrack, especially when it becomes
challenging.” I wanted clarity: “Who are we, really?”
Highlighting the pivotal role of organizational values in leadership when dealing with sensitive
issues, Morgan continued,
They eventually understood, and we proceeded without it becoming an issue. [The
company leadership] has strong values and stuck to them. … That is my lived experience
of what makes a corporation successful, … recognizing your organization’s values and
their importance. It is about explaining these values to people, illustrating how the
corporation embodies them. … Straying from these values likely leads to problems.
Both narratives underscored the importance of transparent communication within the
organizational hierarchy and the consideration of the company’s values during challenging times.
Jordan, a global executive and board member of a U.S.-based publicly listed company
with a cooperative structure, added to the context of defining effective leadership by focusing on

138
the role of empathy through listening, aiming to obtain feedback from their publicly expressed
concerns. Jordan noted,
An example is the bylaw change we are in the middle of right now. There are certain
pieces of it that were probably controversial, … but it created a lot of anxiety among
people. And, so, we are out here telling you [stakeholders] what we think is the best path
to take. But we are also listening. … We did change some things in that proposal and then
said [to the stakeholders], we were listening, we did change, and we are compromising…
we really took that stand and talked about it, … and it has made a difference.
Synthesizing the experiences of Morgan and Charlie with that of Jordan, a cohesive
understanding emerges of how the participants attribute factors to successful leadership for
effective decision-making. All three accounts underscored the necessity for leaders to
communicate effectively and consider the organization’s vision, as well as a willingness to adapt
based on genuine feedback through empathy and listening (see Table 18).

139
Table 18
Defining Leadership: Insights From Participant Experiences
Participant Event description Response/outcome Leadership
defining notions
Factor
Charlie Social media
backlash
following the
announcement
of a policy to
support diverse
identities
Stood firm on
decision,
showcasing
commitment to
values and
support for
inclusionary
agenda
Active
communication
combined with
alignment with
the company’s
core values
Behavior and
person
Morgan Leadership
concerns about
LGBTQ
partnership’s
appropriateness
Sought clarity on
the company’s
identity and
chose to
proceed without
backtracking
from the
expressed
corporate vision
Active
communication
within the
organizational
hierarchy and
consideration of
the company’s
values
Behavior
Jordan Controversial
bylaw change
creates anxiety
among salient
stakeholders
(cooperative
owners).
Adjusted proposal
based on
feedback,
demonstrating a
willingness to
compromise and
adapt
Empathy through
listening aiming
to obtain
feedback
Behavior
Responsible Leadership (Behavior and Person)
Seven participants emphasized that the absence of an RL style contributed to the failure
of decision-making in these contexts. According to their collective perspective, RL’s behavioral
and personal traits of (a) ethical foundation, (b) awareness of ethical blind spots, (c) valuing
stakeholders, and (d) anticipatory decision-making played a pivotal role in facilitating successful

140
decision-making when confronted with the challenging task of managing stakeholder demands
for sensitive issues.
Valuing Stakeholders
Jordan expressed an aspect for RL in valuing stakeholders as decision-making agents
rather than merely passive recipients of decisions. Jordan, a board member of an international
agricultural and energy cooperative, shared insights advocating valuing salient stakeholders as
informed participants in decision-making. Jordan suggested informing them of geopolitical
challenges so that they understand the intricate business conduct of an international cooperative:
We try to explain [to stakeholders, cooperative members] that some world dynamics can
impact [our operations] … Just sharing some global things that people might not
understand, ‘Well, that is half a world away. What does that mean to us?’ Well, it does.
And sometimes, people do not fully understand that. So, we try to tell the story of why
the markets are what they are, … you have to reach out to the big and small. … Try to
explain it and provide them with a background of why we have to do this. It is important.
You must talk to them all and try to give them as much information and background as
you can.
Jordan’s insight fosters a sense of inclusion, reinforcing the RL principle of valuing stakeholders
as decision-making collaborators rather than merely recipients of company decisions.
Ethical Foundation
Ensuring an ethical foundation in leadership decisions remains vital for all the
participants, especially when managing sensitive stakeholder issues. Taylor, a senior executive at
an international video game studio, emphasizes the need for leaders to consider the societal
implications of their choices actively. In the past, their corporation faced backlash over exclusion

141
in their game design. Their insights show a commitment to making decisions rooted in strong
ethical principles when managing stakeholder concerns over inclusion and equity. Taylor
commented.
So, I question, why can’t we represent some groups? … One issue I feel strongly about is
representation in our current game. I would like to include some disabled characters in
the design. … The game focuses on physicality. Characters move things from point A to
B. In essence, we have an ableist game. I would prefer if we had more disabled
characters.
Jordan’s insights accounted for an ethical approach in addressing stakeholder equity and
inclusion concerns but also observed the importance of authenticity in the decision-making’s
ethical commitment when facing stakeholder backlash. They revealed,
Now, the real difficulty is facing criticism for mere representation. Some might argue,
“You’re just adding characters in wheelchairs without authentic representation,”… but
even symbolic representation is a step in the right direction. The argument here is if we
are going to address disability, we should do it fully and authentically.
Jordan acknowledged, in their ethical decision-making, the challenges of representation,
emphasizing the balance between symbolic gestures and the need for authentic portrayal,
especially when addressing stakeholder backlash on equity and inclusion matters.
Managing Ethical Blind Spots
Alex, a U.K.-based video games executive, shared insights for managing stakeholder
backlash relating to navigating stakeholder backlash for racial representation within a simulation
of closed societies. Alex emphasized the thin line between ethical decision-making and
overlooking pressing societal issues. They stated,

142
We grappled with how to appropriately represent race in a game set within a closed
society system. We wanted to avoid inadvertently embedding biases, especially ones that
might suggest that a particular race is more prone to certain crimes.
Managing these ethical concerns, Alex and their team decided to opt for an equal representation
of all races within their simulation. They noted,
To address this, we decided to equalize the representation. We randomized the AI skin
color, making it entirely arbitrary and not tied to any racial group. We derived these
colors from a spectrum of human skin tones, ensuring all types observed worldwide were
equally represented.
Despite their efforts to ensure impartiality and fairness in representation to avoid potential
backlash, they faced criticism from stakeholder groups who perceived their approach as ignoring
pressing social issues. They noted,
The crux of the issue was that, in our attempt to remain neutral, we inadvertently made
our game not mirror the real world. Our solution, meant to sidestep any potential racial
bias, ended up brushing this harsh reality under the rug. … As a group of White
developers from England, critics felt we were not equipped to comment on the complex
realities of challenging close social systems, particularly from a racial perspective.
Alex regarded this socially sensitive issue as the most intense backlash they faced. While the
intention was to prevent bias, achieving an ethical balance in decision-making to avoid backlash
requires a deeper understanding of the social complexities. For Alex, attempting to navigate
these intricacies, even well-intentioned decisions can inadvertently lead to backlash when they
do not address the authentic realities of societal issues.

143
Anticipatory Decision-making
Charlie observed the importance of proactive and anticipatory decision-making when
managing stakeholder backlash for socially sensitive issues. Their account provided insights for
historical corporations when they needed to confront past wrongdoings proactively. They
commented,
One notable example was Adidas, and I was surprised to learn it had affiliations with the
Nazi regime during World War II. This side of Adidas’ history is not commonly
discussed, which I found intriguing. Given that my company has been around for over
300 years, I would not be shocked if there were some connections to slavery in its distant
past. However, this has not been a prominent issue.
Charlie gave insights into the importance of proactive decision-making for stakeholder demands
to acknowledge past wrongdoing. In addition, they observed their leadership’s lack of a
proactive stance in dealing with its imperial past, claiming,
I cannot recall any instances where we have publicly acknowledged a major wrongdoing.
While we would admit to any issues if they were brought to light, it is more typical for us
to address individual cases as they arise rather than make a significant public statement.
Decisions on such serious matters would likely fall to the board and the CEO. I am not at
that decision-making level yet.
Jordan, Taylor, Alex, Cameron, and Charlie collectively observed the significance of
RL’s behaviors in successful decision-making. Jordan revealed stakeholders’ value as
collaborative decision-makers, emphasizing the need for transparent communication, particularly
when navigating geopolitical intricacies. Taylor underscored the imperative of an ethical
foundation in leadership decisions, especially when confronting societal implications. Lastly,

144
Charlie’s account observed the necessity for proactive, anticipatory decision-making, especially
for entities with a long and potentially controversial historical footprint (see Table 19).
Table 19
Defining Responsible Leadership Through Participant Insights
Participant Event description Response/outcome Responsible
leadership defining
notions
Factor
Jordan Navigating
geopolitical
challenges
affecting
international
cooperative
operations
Communicated
intricacies of
global events to
stakeholders,
ensuring they
felt valued and
informed about
the cooperative’s
decisions
Valuing
stakeholders by
facilitating open
dialogue,
ensuring
stakeholders
were more than
just passive
recipients
Behavior and
person
Taylor Backlash over lack
of representation
in game design
Advocated for the
inclusion of
disabled
characters to
address equity
and inclusion
while also
emphasizing the
ethical need for
authentic
representation
Ethical foundation
by addressing
the delicate
balance between
representation
and genuine
portrayal in the
game’s design
Behavior
Charlie Potential corporate
affiliations with
controversial
historical events
Highlighted the
proactive need
to address and
acknowledge
past affiliations,
emphasizing
responsibility to
stakeholders and
historical
transparency
Anticipatory
decisionmaking:
Encouraged
forward-thinking
acknowledgment
of potential
historical
controversies
Behavior
Alex Navigating
backlash for
racial
Equalized racial
representation
by randomizing
Reflecting on
ethical blind
spots when
Behavior,
person, and
environment

145
Participant Event description Response/outcome Responsible
leadership defining
notions
Factor
representation
within a
simulation of
closed societies
AI skin color
Intense
backlash, with
critics arguing
the game
ignored realworld racial
complexities
engaging with
socially
sensitive issues
Casey Responding to
fears for AI
technology,
CEO launched
an in-house AI
education
initiative for
staff to
understand and
utilize emerging
technologies.
Improved
workforce
adaptability,
sparked
innovation, and
positioned the
firm at the
forefront of
tech-driven
client solutions
Proactively
anticipating
future trends and
preparing the
team through
strategic
foresight and
skill
development
Behavior and
environment
Cameron At the onset of the
pandemic, a
crisis
management
team of 50
members from
offices across
five different
countries faced
challenging
discussions,
marked by
diverse opinions
and constrained
by limited
information.
A smaller
executive
committee of
five people
made the
decisive call for
everyone to
work from home
as a response to
the unfolding
pandemic
situation.
Involving
stakeholders in
the decisionmaking process
but remaining
pragmatic for
deciding the
outcome based
on the
organizational
vision and
regulatory
pressures
Behavior and
environment

146
Global Mindsets (Behavior and Environment)
All participants shared their leadership experiences on GMs as a behavioral stance while
managing stakeholders within multiple cultural contexts. Specifically, Jamie and Charlie, both
based in the United Kingdom but operating globally, identified the necessity of cultural
awareness as a key behavioral trait of GMs when navigating stakeholders across diverse cultural
contexts.
Charlie shared the challenges of navigating the intricate cultural landscape of the United
Kingdom, which boasts a rich tapestry of unique cultures and languages, including English,
Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. Particularly, they highlighted the responsibility of their English-based
banking institution to exhibit sensitivity in decision-making for these differences, thus avoiding
potential backlash by marginalizing further Welsh minorities. They noted,
For many years, services were exclusively in English and occasionally in Welsh. … This
approach is problematic since a significant portion of the U.K. population struggles with
English. … They [Welsh] face barriers to banking services, especially during critical
situations like fraud or bereavement. Recognizing this, I sought to change our Englishonly policy despite facing opposition from multiple stakeholders.
Jamie, a U.K.-based video game studio executive, further elucidated cultural awareness
in decision-making to avoid backlash from stakeholders when expanding in a non-Western
market. Jamie advocated for the need for expertise, learning, and training to develop such
awareness. They noted, “You need local expertise, someone with their finger on the pulse of that
culture, who can guide you not just through the logistics, but the cultural sensibilities.” They
suggested the need for cultural immersion to develop awareness when operating in a non-western

147
cultural context, claiming the “importance of immersing oneself … in the culture of the intended
market.”
Cameron, a senior executive in a U.S.-based large asset management firm operating in
five countries, asserted the importance of GMs when dispensing executive duties. In particular,
they stressed the importance of “trivial” aspects to demonstrate GM skills, showing cultural
awareness and respect for stakeholders in different geographical locations:
When I host a video call, I avoid saying “good morning” because it is not morning
everywhere. It requires conscious effort. Instead of saying it is 9:30, I say it is 30 minutes
past the hour. These small adjustments may seem trivial, but they make a significant
difference. It is about considering your audience. I manage people across the globe, so
this is just one example.
Jamie, Charlie, and Cameron underscored the need to adopt GMs, with cultural
awareness emerging as a pivotal subtheme in their narratives. Despite their different sectors, both
underscored the importance of this awareness in addressing stakeholder concerns, whether within
the confines of their domestic corporate environments or when venturing externally beyond their
home base (see Table 20).

148
Table 20
Internal or External Application of Global Mindset in Diverse Cultural Contexts
Participant Global mindset
application
Internal/external
context
Factor
Charlie Demonstrated cultural
awareness while
navigating the U.K.’s
diverse cultural
landscape,
emphasizing
sensitivity to Welsh
minorities by
introducing a costeffective translation
service
Navigating the internal
cultural landscape of
the United Kingdom
through the
application of
cultural awareness
within the home
corporate
environment
Behavior and
environment
Jamie Need for cultural
awareness when
expanding into nonWestern markets to
ensure successful
market entry
Exhibited cultural
awareness outside
the home corporate
environment by
emphasizing the
significance of local
expertise when
entering nonWestern markets
Behavior and
Environment
Cameron Need for paying
attention to small
things when
operating globally to
show that one is
aware of cultural
nuances
Developing internal,
personal awareness
for cultural nuances
going beyond mere
acknowledgment but
living their realities
Person, behavior, and
environment
Environmental Factors
All participants observed broader environmental factors influencing their decisionmaking in response to stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues. Drawing from their
experiences within their organizations, the participants demonstrated how managing cultural and

149
societal contexts can impact their leadership success in the challenging global environments in
which they operate.
Managing Cultural and Societal Contexts (Environment and Behavior)
All participants confronted the potential of backlash from environmental challenges
within and outside their organizations. Their narratives reveal how distinct leadership behaviors
influenced their decision-making in the face of broader environmental challenges. Specifically,
Avery emphasized the significance of value-aligned decision-making when selecting operational
regions, highlighting the aim to avoid cultural clashes, such as those opposing gender equality.
Charlie underscored the necessity of adaptive cultural sensitivity, especially when addressing
LGBTQ+ issues, to safeguard stakeholders in regions adverse to LGBTQ+ rights. Similarly,
Jamie recognized the importance of cultural familiarity when venturing into markets with
different cultural norms. Lastly, Avery emphasized catering to regional stakeholder nuances,
avoiding backlash while maintaining core corporate standards. Collectively, these narratives
highlight the pivotal role of specific leadership behaviors in guiding decision-making and
responding to environmental pressures by navigating varied cultural and societal landscapes.
Value-Aligned Decision-Making (Environment and Person)
Avery is a senior executive and serves as a board member for a global quantitative asset
management firm serving institutional investors across many regions of the world. Their insights
emphasized the significance of value-aligned decision-making when expanding and marketing to
clients in a cultural sphere outside their home cultural environment. For the participant,
expanding to cultures that may not uphold cultural values of gender equality could lead to a
backlash. They observed,

150
It would not make sense for me personally to operate in the Middle East. Thus, that
region was never a primary focus for me. While the company did contemplate business in
a few countries, the business practices in some just did not align with my interests.
Fortunately, there are numerous other places where we can operate.
Avery underscored the importance of aligning business operations with culturally sensitive
regions and personal values to mitigate risks of backlash and maintain corporate integrity.
Adaptive Cultural Sensitivity (Environment and Behavior)
Charlie, a U.K.-based senior banking executive and a spokesperson for their institution
on LGBTQ matters, shared their insights on the intricate cultural landscape of operating in
regions often considered less amenable to LGBTQ+ rights compared to the Western world.
Charlie’s banking conglomerate has a presence in several countries, including the Middle East.
Charlie elucidated, “This necessitates a heightened awareness of local laws and regulations,
especially those that differ significantly from ours, including those related to social norms and
attitudes.” Commenting on LGBTQ+ employee safety: “Our utmost priority is to ensure that our
colleagues never face risks.” This commitment is central to their decision-making, especially
when the authenticity of their employees could place them at peril due to regional cultural norms.
The discrepancy between operations in the United Kingdom, where LGBTQ+ rights are more
openly recognized and celebrated, and in the Middle East requires adaptive decision-making.
This contrast was evident when Charlie reflected, “This means that our approach varies from one
country to another, differing from our methods in the U.K.” Yet, despite these variances,
leadership support remained consistent. Charlie ensured employees, irrespective of their location,
were neither isolated nor abandoned. They reinforced this sentiment by noting, “We wanted
them to know they weren’t isolated, that we were there to support them.” The corporation under

151
Charlie’s leadership employed an innovative approach in response to local sensitivities.
Recognizing the potential risks associated with public attendance in LGBTQ+ corporate events,
they created alternatives. They detailed this strategy, saying, “As a workaround, we organized
evening events, … accessible via personal devices at home. … Colleagues could participate
without fear, especially those working side by side with locals who might hold contrasting
views.” To conclude, Charlie’s insights shed light on global organizations’ nuanced decisionmaking processes when navigating diverse cultural contexts. The challenge lies not in
compromising core values but in adapting their decision-making to resonate appropriately within
the local context.
Cultural Familiarity (Environment and Behavior)
Jamie’s insights, coming from the perspective of a U.K.-based game studio more attuned
to Western cultural intricacies, emphasized the pivotal role of cultural familiarity in decisionmaking when navigating non-Western markets. For the video game executive, this is crucial
when venturing into the Chinese market. The participant observed that cultural awareness can
avert backlash from local stakeholders, including governmental bodies. They noted,
Venturing into different cultural territories is not merely about overcoming language
barriers. It goes beyond that. … Entering a market like China, … you must recognize the
depths of your unfamiliarity. … China is stringent when it comes to content approval.
This is not just about censorship but about ensuring content is appropriate and relevant to
their societal norms.
Jamie underscored cultural familiarity in decision-making, beyond mere language
comprehension to a deep-rooted understanding of regional customs and norms.

152
Value Equilibrium (Person and Environment)
Amid the global variations in environmental investment priorities, as an investment
leader, Avery emphasized the significance of upholding core principles while navigating the
competing demands of stakeholders. Their words echoed the firm’s experiences in Europe,
where ESG, particularly the ‘E’ (Environmental) aspect, is mandated. “The Europeans have
mandated investments with a lower carbon footprint,” they noted, drawing a contrast with the
United States, where the emphasis on incorporating environmental considerations into
investment portfolios is less pronounced. Avery explained the need to balance the varied and
often contrasting demands of its diverse stakeholder clientele. They highlighted customization
and an unwavering commitment to the core investment values of the firm: “Our business model’s
flexibility allows for customization,” displaying decision-making adjusting strategies. However,
despite the need for decision-making adaptation, Avery ringfences investment standards and core
values when addressing stakeholder demands. “We have standards we won’t go below,” they
declared, signifying that while they may cater to client preferences, they never break away from
their core investment principles. Avery’s insights focus on balancing regional stakeholder
nuances with core values, ensuring that they navigate the intricacies of regional value systems
while staying true to their foundational principles. Table 21 presents the participants’ decisionmaking aspects for environmental challenges, outcomes, and factors.

153
Table 21
Decision-Making Environmental Challenges: Insights From the Participants
Participant Decision-making aspect
for environmental
challenges
Outcome Factor
Avery Value-aligned decisionmaking: aligning
business operations
with personal values
to mitigate risks of
backlash and maintain
corporate integrity
and core values.
Avoided potential backlash
by not operating in
cultures opposing gender
equality.
Person,
environment
Charlie Adaptive cultural
sensitivity:
prioritizing employee
safety through
leadership support as
a response to local
cultural sensitivities.
Created a safe
environment for
LGBTQ+ employees
and stakeholders across
diverse regions,
effectively navigating
cultural challenges
without compromising
core values
Behavior,
environment
Jamie Cultural familiarity:
emphasizing
understanding of
regional customs.
Reduced potential
backlash by recognizing
and aligning with
regional cultural nuances
and expectations,
ensuring content
appropriateness.
Behavior,
environment
Avery Value equilibrium:
balancing regional
stakeholder nuances
with core values and
standards.
Navigated the intricacies
of regional value
systems while achieving
a decision-making
balance between
customization and
commitment to ESG.
Person,
environment,
and behavior

154
Personal Factors
Six interviewees highlighted personal factors that influenced their behavioral responses
when navigating stakeholder demands concerning socially sensitive topics. The data indicated
that these participants were introspective about their self-efficacy, evaluating the behaviors
required for effective decision-making in the face of broader environmental challenges.
Furthermore, they demonstrated a sensemaking capacity, underscoring their ability to
comprehend and aptly respond to broader environmental challenges.
Sensemaking
Taylor attempted to make sense of the backlash related to designing a video game
simulation involving disabled characters. Not knowing the real intricacies of dealing with the
difficulties of disability, they faced backlash from salient stakeholders, including other
executives who held different opinions about including disabled characters in the simulation.
They epitomize their sensemaking experience when noting,
We were not authentically representing the experience of disabled individuals, just
paying lip service. … We should do it fully and authentically, which I agree with. Yet, I
am not disabled. So, who am I to say whether that is the right or wrong approach?
Therefore, Taylor grappled with the backlash over the representation of disabled characters in the
video game, facing criticism for not authentically portraying their experiences, leading to
introspection about their stance.
Furthermore, the participants highlighted gender and race dynamics affecting their
sensemaking while navigating intricate stakeholder landscapes. These dynamics shaped their
understanding and responses to the diverse and evolving environment around them.

155
Gender
Avery, Cameron, Casey, Charlie, and Alex highlighted the influence of gender on how
they perceive problems and the subsequent decision-making process to address these issues.
Avery remarked, “In my previous role, I encountered challenges stemming from being a woman
in a predominantly male-dominated field. The work environment was rife with biases and
backlash; the overall culture was toxic.” Their identity as a woman in such a field significantly
shaped their approach to problems and the relevant decision-making processes to manage the
ensuing backlash. While the interviews did not specifically include questions related to gender,
the fact that Avery proactively mentioned this aspect in their responses underscores the role of
gender in shaping sensemaking and other personal factors. This is indicative of why some
leaders exhibit differential performance in managing stakeholders during times of backlash.
Similarly, Casey stressed the importance of personal identities in shaping their decisionmaking for social issues. Acutely aware of their identity as a woman in their 50s, they stressed
how this can affect their perception and approach to decision-making and the way an empathetic
corporation and senior executives can approach it:
What is particularly relevant to me at this stage in life is menopause. For women reaching
this phase in their careers, it often coincides with their highest earning potential.
However, it also brings challenges like mood swings, anxiety, and other symptoms that
can affect performance at work. Recently, there has been more discussion about how
menopause impacts women, potentially leading to self-doubt due to hormonal changes.
Our firm has also addressed this issue. We have programs designed to raise awareness
about menopause, not just for the women experiencing it but also for their colleagues

156
who might be encountering similar situations at home. These initiatives help in creating a
more understanding and supportive work environment.
Avery’s experience as a woman in a male-dominated field shaped their problem-solving and
decision-making, while Casey, also a woman in her 50s, emphasized how personal identity,
including menopause, impacts sensemaking and overall leadership perception. Both highlight the
significance of gender and personal experiences in shaping leadership approaches and workplace
dynamics.
Race
Taylor displayed race as a factor in making sense of potential backlash and subsequent
decision-making to address it. When dealing with stakeholder backlash due to their response to a
socially sensitive issue, they commented about their approach: “I’ve been privileged, being a
White straight man, and it’s almost as if that’s the norm, based on how it was presented to me
growing up.” Their reflection on feeling privileged as a White straight man highlights their
efforts to make sense of the narratives and concerns raised by minority groups. They actively
seek to understand the broader societal landscape and how it contrasts with their personal
experiences. Although race was not part of the study’s focus, interview protocol, or thematic
approach, the fact that three participants brought it up shows its significance in ensuring success
and avoiding failure in dealing with socially sensitive issues.
For Avery, Jamie, and Taylor, the executives’ ability to comprehend diverse perspectives
based on race and gender to inform their sensemaking for broader environmental challenges is
fundamental to effective decision-making, especially during potential events of social backlash.

157
Self-Efficacy
Nine interviewees reflected on their behaviors essential for successful decision-making
when addressing stakeholder demands on socially sensitive topics. Those confident in their
capabilities to produce the desired outcomes have better capability to make significant decisions,
even in tumultuous times. Sascha’s particular narrative reveals self-efficacy in responding to
challenging situations that may provoke backlash. Their recounting of navigating through events
like the financial crisis, 9/11, and the COVID pandemic underscored a belief in their ability to
manage challenges and grow from them. They commented,
Every 6 to 7 years, it seems, we face a new crisis. What is particularly invigorating about
these challenges is the opportunity they provide for growth and learning. They function
as catalysts, allowing us to draw from past experiences to find solutions.
Sascha’s journey is characterized by a belief in their abilities to develop relevant behaviors for
effective decision-making: “The habits and resilience developed during these times equip us
better for future crises,” emphasizing their self-efficacious approach to leadership for managing
stakeholder backlash.
Summary of Findings for RQ2
The interview data for RQ2 unveiled insights from participants regarding leadership
behaviors and personal influences while navigating environmental challenges both within and
outside their organizations. These insights spotlighted the attributional factors underlying the
varying effectiveness of global executives in decision-making relating to stakeholder demands
during instances of social backlash. Five prevailing themes emerged, elucidating the variable
effectiveness of global executives as they navigate intricate stakeholder landscapes. The way
global leaders conceptualize leadership for stakeholder management directly influences their

158
decision-making. Moreover, the extent to which they embody RL as a leadership behavior
directly impacts their efficacy in managing stakeholders during backlash periods. Behavioral
traits, epitomized by a GM, further determine their success within these contexts, while their
proficiency in navigating cultural and societal contexts shapes their potential to address
overarching global challenges. Their personal beliefs on identities such as race, ability, and
gender, which influence sensemaking and self-efficacy, play a pivotal role in their awareness,
comprehension, and successful response to stakeholder demands concerning socially sensitive
topics.
Contradictory Findings
Four participants diverged in their agreement with the study’s RL notion of proactivity in
decision-making when it comes to political activism for socially sensitive issues. It is worth
noting that industry, geographical location, and the nature of corporate ownership shape their
interpretations. Morgan, a recently retired senior executive from a privately-owned, Midwest
U.S.-based corporation leading in its industry, expressed caution over corporations and leaders
publicly addressing politically sensitive issues. Discussing the influence of government, a key
regulator and stakeholder, on a Florida-based corporation, Morgan observed, “[CEO’s] political
stances deemed him a hero, but I believe this isn’t smart for business. Companies should neither
be bulldozed by the government nor seek confrontations, especially in states where they face
additional challenges.” Morgan argued that an executive’s political activist stance, if not aligned
with the organizational vision, complicates management. As an example, they cited a corporation
that faced backlash for pursuing a politically charged decision-making agenda: “The situation on
Twitter seemed chaotic. … It appeared they aimed to be an activist company; a core mission that
doesn’t seem promising.”

159
Similarly, Kai, based in Hong Kong and co-owner of a global high-value manufacturing
corporation, shared a similar perspective: “Our company refrains from commenting on or
engaging with social movements, maintaining neutrality.” Both participants advocated for
pragmatic leadership, especially when it involves openly supporting politically divisive causes
that do not align with the corporate vision and values due to the risk of backlash from significant
stakeholders.
Contrastingly, Charlie, an LGBTQ+ spokesperson and senior executive of a U.K.-based,
publicly listed banking conglomerate, advocated for an active corporate stance on progressive
social issues that are politically divisive if they are in line with the corporate mission, vision, and
values. During a public backlash from stakeholder groups over allegations that the company is
“going woke,” Charlie supported their company’s reaction to the intense backlash: “If you do not
align with our values, you are welcome to go and do your banking elsewhere. This stance,
though contentious, remained consistent with our message.”
Similarly, Alex, a creative director at a globally recognized entertainment and gaming
studio, also supported proactively addressing politically divisive social issues in video game
design when in line with the creative dimension of the project. Alex’s team, renowned for
creating globally popular games, focuses on realistically depicting racial and social class
inequities. Despite knowing this socially inspired equity-based narrative may provoke a backlash
from players who disagree, Alex willingly accepts this risk when it is in line with their creative
vision: “Real-world topics in games will offend someone. It reflects today’s culture. We choose
to continue making games on controversial topics and address these challenges.”

160
In conclusion, although Morgan and Kai’s views differ from those of Charlie and Alex,
all recognize the acceptability of taking an active stance on controversial issues when they align
with the organizational vision, mission, or corporate values.
Conclusion
The data illuminated the participants’ insights as global corporate leaders for their
decision-making processes when facing stakeholder demands amid events leading to social
backlash. For RQ1, participants interpreted the factors determining the effectiveness of decisionmaking in these contexts, emphasizing the extent of leaders embracing RL, GMs, and
willingness to navigate multifaceted societal and cultural contexts. Integral to this understanding
was how leaders’ personal beliefs shaped their interpretation of decision outcomes during events
triggering social backlash.
RQ2 further delved into the factors explaining the differential effectiveness of these
leaders in managing stakeholders during backlash. The findings underscored that global leaders’
conceptualizations of leadership for stakeholder management intrinsically affect their decisionmaking in managing stakeholder demands for sensitive issues. The practice of RL emerged as a
critical behavior in managing stakeholders effectively during episodes of backlash. Additionally,
cultivating and employing a GM was instrumental in navigating complex stakeholder
environments, especially during social backlashes. Furthermore, their adeptness in navigating
cultural and societal contexts was pivotal for effectively responding to broad-spectrum global
challenges. Concluding this thread, the leaders’ personal beliefs about race, ability, and gender,
intertwined with sensemaking and self-efficacy, were revealed as foundational in their holistic
understanding, awareness, and response to stakeholders’ expectations and demands on socially
sensitive matters.

161
The findings for RQ1 and RQ2 offer a comprehensive understanding of the interplay
between personal beliefs, leadership styles, global perspectives, and contextual navigation in
shaping global corporate leaders’ decision-making efficiencies amid stakeholder backlashes.
Drawing upon the findings presented in this chapter, Chapter Five will now turn to the practical
recommendations by offering actionable strategies to address the identified challenges in the
problem of practice.

162
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study aimed to explore global corporate leaders’ decision-making experiences as
they interpreted events and attributed factors influencing success or failure in managing
competing stakeholder demands for sensitive issues that can promote social backlash.
Furthermore, through the participants’ experiences, the study aimed to highlight best practices
for navigating stakeholder demands in these contexts and to uncover factors leading to their
differential effectiveness.
It is worth noting that this study ventures beyond the conventional scope of practiceoriented research by tackling the intricate nature of decision-making within global environments.
Although it is atypical for dissertations of practice to delve deeply into theoretical discourse, the
complexity of the subject matter concerning decision-making successes and failures in global
contexts warranted such an approach. The following recommendations and discussions are
informed by theoretical and practical insights alike, unpacking participants’ views as they make
sense of these challenges. Thus, this dual exploration of practical and theoretical
recommendations enriches the understanding of decision-making in complex stakeholder
engagements.
The participants held executive positions in private and publicly listed corporations with
global reach, engaged with various stakeholders, and had experience dealing with stakeholderrelated backlash. Through semi-structured interviews, they shared insights on the behavioral,
environmental, and personal factors shaping decision-making effectiveness in these contexts.
Bandura’s (1986) SCT framed the exploration of the participant experiences, emphasizing the
interplay of behavioral, environmental, and personal factors. Participants’ decision-making
behaviors, influenced by “causal processes” (p. 1), were intertwined with “situational influences”

163
(p. 22), indicative of environmental factors, and personal tendencies, described as “displays of
preferences, … which can alter observers’ values” (p. 146). This interconnectedness illuminated
the complexities of how they interpret and attribute decision-making efficiency during
stakeholder backlashes. Two research questions guided this study:
1. How do global corporate leaders interpret factors contributing to decision-making
success or failure when faced with competing stakeholder demands during events
causing social backlash?
2. What factors contribute to the differential effectiveness of global corporate leaders in
managing competing stakeholder demands in the face of events that provoke social
backlash?
Discussion of the Findings
Addressing RQ1, participants shed light on their interpretations of the interplay of
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape success in decision-making processes
when managing stakeholder demands regarding socially sensitive issues. Emphasizing the
criticality of RL, participants stressed the need for a GM and the proficiency to navigate
complicated societal and cultural contexts while considering societal expectations. Key findings
included the need for active communication, empathy, and vision-centric stakeholder
management, with RL grounded in pragmatic, ethical, and proactive attributes.
Recommendations pertaining to RQ1 combine proactive communication strategies, ethical RL
decision-making frameworks identified by GMs, and a deep cultural understanding while
managing stakeholder expectations and demands. For RQ2, insights unveiled the intricate
dynamics of leadership behaviors intertwined with personal influences as global leaders confront
environmental challenges. The findings emphasized the importance of the participants’ personal

164
beliefs on their identities, which influence their sensemaking and self-efficacy. These insights
emerged as pivotal in understanding why some leaders are better than others in managing
stakeholder demands efficiently, especially during backlash.
Framework for Study Recommendations
The study ensures the rigor of each proposed recommendation by employing a three-level
approach: (a) theoretical grounding, (b) practical application, and (c) support from relevant
academic literature. Theoretical framework or constructs, as reviewed in Chapter Two, anchor
each recommendation. In some instances, these theoretical constructs merge to strengthen the
theoretical rigor of the recommendations, as suggested by E. Wenger-Trayner’s (2013) concept
of “plug and play” (p. 108). At the practical level, insights derived from participant contributions
shape each recommendation. The study reported these insights in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five,
each proposed recommendation notes the number of participants who shared similar views,
while an exemplary quote provides context from the study’s findings, thus fortifying its
trustworthiness. This approach grounds the recommendations in real-world experience and
amplifies their relevance and applicability (Klenke, 2016).
Furthermore, the study interlaces these recommendations with the literature review topics
presented in Chapter Two and the main themes illustrated in Chapter Four. By following this
structure, proposed recommendations gain the support of established scholarly work and connect
to the study’s research findings. It is worth noting that the recommendation relating to RQ2 and
the second recommendation on pragmatism relating to RQ1 extend beyond the current academic
discourse, offering novel perspectives and thus contributing to existing topics. In summary,
intertwining aspects of theory, practical insights from global executives, and scholarly literature

165
ensure that the recommendations presented in this study are robust and resonate with a breadth of
empirical and theoretical substantiation (Figure 14).
Figure 14
Recommendations Framework Integration

166
Recommendations for RQ1
In response to RQ1, which delves into the participants’ interpretation of factors
contributing to decision-making success or failure, the research derived four critical
recommendations based on their insights for successful decision-making in these contexts. First,
enhancing leadership for stakeholder management requires a focus on communication, empathy,
and alignment with organizational vision. Secondly, adopting ethical and proactive RL is
essential. Thirdly, leaders must cultivate a GM that encompasses cultural awareness and
curiosity. Finally, commitment to continuous learning and cultural respect is necessary for
navigating diverse societal contexts. These recommendations offer a comprehensive guide for
global corporate decision-making while addressing stakeholder demands for socially sensitive
issues that can evoke backlash (see Table 22).

167
Table 22
Recommendations Summary for RQ1
Recommendation Exemplary quote Literature review topic
Recommendation 1: Develop
leadership for stakeholder
management centering on
communication, empathy,
and alignment with
organizational vision.
Understanding where you
stand, it is also crucial to be
empathetic towards others’
perspectives on these issues
(Taylor).
Leadership for stakeholder
management (Donaldson &
Preston, 1995; Freeman,
2023; Mitchell et al., 1997)
Responsible leadership
(Maak et al., 2021;
N. M. Pless et al., 2021;
Waldman et al., 2020)
Recommendation 2: Prioritize
ethical, pragmatic, and
proactive responsible
leadership in addressing
stakeholder demands for
socially sensitive issues.
We remain consistently
vigilant about potential
stakeholder concerns,
always striving to be
proactive rather than
reactive (Sascha).
Leadership for stakeholder
management (Magness,
2008; Miles, 2017;
Mitchell et al., 1997)
Responsible leadership
(Maak et al., 2021;
N. M. Pless et al., 2021)
Recommendation 3: Embrace
GMs while addressing
stakeholder demands
within multiple cultural
contexts.
In some countries where I
operated, there were
workers councils and
similar entities. Even
though this can be seen as
an employee-centric
stakeholder group, it is still
crucial to note (Morgan).
Global mindsets (Javidan,
2021; Kossowska &
Rosinski, 2021; Waldman
et al, 2012)
Cultural contexts (Hofstede,
1980; Hofstede & Hope,
2004; House et al., 2017)
Societal expectations
(Antonetti & Maklan,
2018; Hofstede, 1980;
House et al., 2017)
Recommendation 4: Embrace
learning and cultural
respect when navigating
stakeholder concerns on
socially sensitive issues
within global contexts
It is a learning experience and
an opportunity for dialogue
about our intentions and
outcomes. Everything can
be seen as a learning
opportunity from my
perspective (Avery).
Global mindsets (Javidan,
2021; Kossowska &
Rosinski, 2021; Waldman
et al, 2020)
Cultural contexts (Hofstede,
1980; Hofstede & Hope,
2004; House et al., 2017)
Societal expectations, Selfefficacy (Bandura, 2000,
2002; McCormick, 2001)
Sensemaking (Weick, 2012)

168
Recommendation 1: Develop Leadership for Stakeholder Management Centering on
Communication, Empathy, and Alignment With Organizational Vision
Global executives must prioritize effective communication, empathy, and decisionmaking alignment with the organizational vision in framing leadership for stakeholder
management. Leadership literature focused on defining stakeholders, evaluating their
significance, and exploring engagement strategies. Key literature discussions involved
stakeholder identification (Freeman, 2023) and their prioritization (Mitchell et al., 1997).
However, there was a research gap concerning global executives’ behavioral traits crucial for
adept stakeholder management for socially sensitive events that can promote backlash. The
findings underscored a shift in focus upon which participants leaned toward these behavioral
traits rather than the traditional aspects of stakeholder identification or prioritization. While these
behaviors find echoes in the principles of RL—a subject for subsequent discussion—participants
singled out their importance for the context of leadership for stakeholder management. In line
with Bear et al. (2017), participants championed feedback-centric and genuine communication,
especially when addressing issues with societal sensitivities. They echoed Voegtlin et al. (2020)
in their stress on empathy, rooted in self-awareness and attentive organizational listening,
aligning with Macnamara (2018b). Moreover, participants concurred with Zingales et al. (2020)
about aligning with the corporate vision and purpose, particularly when navigating sensitive
terrains.
Open systems theory (OST) and SCT frame the theoretical foundation for this
recommendation. Katz and Kahn’s (1966) OST stressed leadership’s role in managing complex
stakeholder landscapes, highlighting the organization’s interconnectedness with its external
environment. Complementing this, Bandura’s SCT (1986, 2000) stressed the importance of

169
personal beliefs for adapting behaviors to broader environmental changes. Bandura’s (1986)
theoretical view underpinned the participants’ emphasis on empathy and self-awareness in
decision-making for sensitive stakeholder engagements identified by complex environmental
challenges at a global scale. Consequently, global executives should adopt and reflect on
behavioral traits of empathy and communication and set their stakeholders at the center of the
organizational purpose (Magness, 2008; Zingales et al., 2020) as a method for adapting to
broader systemic changes that can impact the reputational (Janssen, 2013; Pacelli, 2016; Phillips
et al., 2020) and operational standing (Doan, 2016; Doh & Quigley, 2014; Greenwood & Van
Buren, 2010) of the organizations they lead.
Recommendation 2: Prioritize Ethical, Pragmatic, and Proactive Responsible Leadership
in Addressing Stakeholder Demands for Socially Sensitive Issues
When addressing stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues that could elicit
backlash, global corporate leaders must enact RL hinging on an ethical, pragmatic, and proactive
stance. Aligning with the scholarly insights of Williams (2019) and Voegtlin (2016), the research
underscores the importance global executives place on ethical decision-making as a cornerstone
of RL. Achieving ethical outcomes from these decisions further resonates with the arguments of
Rawls (2009) and A. Smith (2002) for an ethical approach to decision-making to reduce moral
hazard to all stakeholders. This emphasis also concurs with Greige Frangieh and Khayr Yaacoub
(2017), who advocated for a balanced approach to meet various stakeholders’ diverse needs and
demands. In conjunction with this scholarly work, the research emphasized the indispensability
of valuing all stakeholders. Such RL ethos resonates with the philosophical assertions of Kant
(1993) about the intrinsic value of every entity. Concurring, the participants emphasized the

170
importance of adopting socially responsible actions and valuing all stakeholders, especially when
addressing socially sensitive issues.
Participants RL approach to socially sensitive stakeholder demands also aligns with the
research of Siegel (2014), Varma (2021), Maak et al. (2021), and N. M. Pless et al. (2021).
However, the study’s findings revealed two pivotal dimensions uncharted in RL literature:
pragmatism and proactive or anticipatory decision-making. Global executives emphasized the
importance of pragmatic resource allocation, suggesting the integration of this facet into RL’s
conceptual framework. Additionally, these executives advocate for a proactive approach,
addressing socially sensitive issues before they escalate, potentially jeopardizing the company’s
operational posture. Summing up, streaming from the findings in Chapter Four, this study
recommends that global executives embrace ethical decision-making, pragmatism, and
proactivity within a broader SR frame when dealing with socially sensitive issues that can elicit
backlash (see Figure 15).

171
Figure 15
Study’s New Perspectives on Responsible Leadership
Note. The RL decision-making characteristics reported by participants fall within a broader
social responsibility frame. While the RL literature covers ethical decision-making, the other two
dimensions—namely pragmatism and proactive decision-making—emerged from participant
insights in this study.
Recommendation 3: Embrace Global Mindsets While Addressing Stakeholder Demands
Within Multiple Cultural Contexts
Global executives should embrace GMs through cultural awareness and curiosity while
navigating stakeholder demands within the multiple cultural and societal contexts in which they
operate. In converging with findings from the scholarly literature on GMs, the participants

172
unanimously observed that GMs significantly influence decision-making success, particularly in
the context of multiple cultural settings (Javidan et al., 2021; Kossowska & Rosinski, 2021; Levy
et al., 2007; Waldman et al., 2012). For example, participant insights align with academic
insights from Javidan (2021) and Kossowska and Rosinski (2021), who emphasized the
importance of GMs in leaders’ effectiveness while navigating international contexts. However,
the research findings uncover the importance of cultural awareness and curiosity as behaviors
that shape global executives’ effective decision-making success in these contexts. As illustrated
in Chapter Four, Jamie, Charlie, and Cameron advocated for an acute awareness of their biases
and values to enhance their decision-making ability to address stakeholder-sensitive issues while
navigating unknown cultural domains. They also embraced a curious posture in decision-making
involving an eagerness to learn and understand, allowing them to broaden their perspectives and
adapt to the cultural and societal contexts outside their home environments. Consequently, this
research adds depth to GMs by highlighting the significance of cultural awareness as the
cornerstone for navigating global markets and the role of curiosity in broadening leaders’
perspectives for international contexts (Appendix D).
Recommendation 4: Embrace Learning and Cultural Respect When Navigating
Stakeholder Concerns on Socially Sensitive Issues Within Global Contexts
The study recommends that global executives prioritize learning to understand and
mitigate uncertainties related to cultural nuances when operating outside their home corporate
environments. Additionally, when addressing unfamiliar societal contexts and complex
stakeholder dynamics, it is crucial to approach with cultural respect to minimize potential
backlash. Chapter Two examined scholarly studies that reveal how cultural and societal
dimensions significantly shape organizational leaders’ behaviors and decision-making in

173
response to stakeholder demands (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018; Hofstede, 1980; House et al.,
2017; Mudrack & Mason, 2013). The study’s findings in Chapter Four revealed that all
participants emphasized cultural respect and continuous learning as crucial approaches to
effectively address stakeholders’ socially sensitive demands. For example, Jamie emphasized the
importance of cultural respect to ensure their decisions were linguistically accurate and culturally
respectful when dealing with an issue that could cause backlash from their Arab customers.
However, a significant divergence from the literature is the depth of emphasis on the role of
continuous learning for global executives when addressing stakeholder demands within multiple
societal and cultural contexts. While the literature touched on the importance of adapting to
cultural nuances (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede & Hope, 2004; House et al., 2017; Witt & Stahl,
2016), participants strongly highlighted the need for an ongoing commitment to learning as
paramount for understanding and navigating these contexts. For example, Morgan, Cameron, and
Avery advocated for a continuous process of acquiring knowledge through learning to better
understand and navigate diverse cultural and societal contexts.
The study considers the applicability of SCLT by Vygotsky (1978) and SLE by Wenger
(2000) to provide theoretical rationale and rigor to the enactment of this recommendation. Both
theories correspond and complement SCT’s emphasis on the influence of environmental factors
on the behaviors of individuals (Bandura, 1986, 2000). In this sense, SCT, SCLT, and SLE view
learning as a social process that can shape individuals’ practices and behaviors (Bandura, 2000;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 2000). Consequently, SCLT can assist global corporate leaders in
exploring their learning capacity to inform and shape their decision-making toward stakeholder
demands within global organizational contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). At the same time, SLE can
prompt them to engage with learning by integrating practice, meaning, identity, and community

174
as necessary learning components to navigate corporate international contexts (Wenger, 2016).
In this way, global leaders can reflect on their learning and promote situated learning spaces
within their organizations, promoting cultural respect and enhancing their understanding of
navigating multiple cultural realities in which their corporations operate.
Recommendation for RQ2: Sensemaking Framework for Effective Decision-Making While
Navigating Societal and Cultural Contexts Through Personal Beliefs
Study findings emphasize the pivotal role of personal factors in the differential
effectiveness of the interviewees’ decision-making. Through detailed analysis of interviews, it is
apparent that when global executives integrate personal beliefs, it is a defining factor in
differentiating them from their peers while navigating the complexities of societal and cultural
contexts. The differential effectiveness stems from leaders’ capability to make sense of broader
environmental challenges through personal beliefs. Global executives who adopt such a nuanced
approach can develop robust leadership and decision-making to adeptly manage stakeholder
demands, especially in situations that can induce backlash across diverse cultures. This study
utilizes sensemaking language to intertwine IT’s insights on environmental pressures with SCT’s
focus on personal factors, culminating in a decision-making framework. This framework will
assist corporate executives in addressing the multi-dimensional challenges of stakeholder
management inherent to their global leadership roles.
This study introduces a framework merging IT’s understanding of environmental
pressures with the SCT’s focus on personal beliefs. It offers global executives a comprehensive
framework for decision-making while managing stakeholder demands within multiple societal
contexts. Seven out of 10 participants believed their interpretation of broader environmental
challenges stems from personal factors. Participants emphasized the importance of recognizing at

175
a personal level an understanding of the diverse cultural and societal contexts in which they
operate. They highlighted and linked the significance of personal beliefs in making sense of
broader environmental pressures impacting their organizational decision-making. This approach
aids in effective decision-making to manage stakeholder demands for socially sensitive issues.
Literature Background to the Study’s Recommendation
Global executives’ decision-making reflects the intricacies of societal expectations
(House et al., 2017). Such expectations influence their responses to stakeholder demands on
sensitive issues (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014). The participants interpreted broader
environmental factors influencing their leadership behaviors and decision-making in line with
the findings by Mudrack and Mason (2013). Concurring with the work of Antonetti and Maklan
(2018) and House et al. (2017), they also highlighted the management of societal expectations as
pivotal for managing stakeholders. However, the research also showed that global executives’
personal beliefs inform their sensemaking and influence their behavioral responses to broader
environmental challenges. Therefore, global executives adapt behaviorally to environmental
pressures, as suggested by Bandura (1986, 2002), and actively shape their decision-making
toward environmental pressures grounded in their personal beliefs.
The study’s recommendation draws from Bandura’s (1986) SCT, Weick’s (2012)
sensemaking theory, and Meyer and Rowan’s (2006) IT and relevant topics from Chapter Two.
The recommended framework emphasizes the role of personal beliefs in sensemaking, assisting
global executives in their decision-making for managing stakeholder demands by making sense
of broader environmental factors stemming from diverse social and cultural contexts.

176
Theoretical Background to the Study’s Recommendation
Sensemaking allows global executives to confront less known or unknown broader
environmental pressures by managing uncertainty as it occurs within their multiple societal and
cultural contexts (Eliade, 1991; Jung, 2002; Weick, 1995, 2012). The study’s recommended
framework uses sensemaking theoretical language. It incorporates IT and SCT to provide a
holistic framework for interpreting and responding to multifaceted challenges by considering
their personal beliefs.
Making Sense of Environmental Pressures in Decision-Making (IT Path)
Through the lens of IT, global leaders make sense of broader environmental pressures
when managing their organizational realities (de Jonge, 2015; Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995).
The theory divides forces that can shape corporate leaders’ decision-making into coercive,
mimetic, and normative pressures (Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995). By merging Sensemaking and
IT in a “plug-and-play” fashion (E. Wenger-Trayner, 2013, p. 108), global executives can make
sense of coercive systemic pressures by managing uncertainty on government regulations and
other mandatory requirements, guiding their decisions for stakeholder demands and avoiding
backlash. Charlie and Avery commented extensively on the importance of awareness of
regulations in navigating stakeholder demands in global contexts.
Similarly, global executives can learn through mimetic pressures from successful
strategies and practices in peer companies or industries. Jamie, Kai, and Morgan commented on
the role of learning from others to improve their decision-making in navigating complex societal
and cultural contexts. Finally, by making sense of normative pressures, global executives can
reduce uncertainty by becoming informed of broader societal expectations when addressing

177
stakeholder demands for sensitive issues. All participants commented on developing cultural
awareness to navigate societal expectations.
Making Sense of Personal Beliefs in Decision-Making (SCT Path)
Social cognitive theory (SCT) highlights the interplay between behavior, environment,
and the individual. Influenced by these dynamics, global leaders inform interpretations grounded
in personal cognition and shaped by environmental interactions (Bandura, 1986, 2000, 2002).
Merging sensemaking with SCT in a “plug-and-play” fashion (E. Wenger-Trayner, 2013, p. 108)
can illuminate the study’s recommended framework on leaders’ sensemaking efforts to reduce
uncertainty for broader environmental pressures by internalizing and applying personal beliefs to
understand and enact behaviors for successful decision-making in these contexts.
The study’s research showed that personal beliefs guide global executives’ decisionmaking. Global executives align their values and beliefs with their decisions, drawing upon
personal experiences to navigate the intricacies of sensitive topics. For instance, Avery
emphasized the influence of gender-related experiences in decision-making processes. Similarly,
six participants reflected on race, social class, and ability, underscoring the need to consider
personal biases, experiences, and privileges, as highlighted by their insights on portraying race
and disabled characters in gaming simulations. At the same time, Jordan signaled the importance
of historical, cultural, and geographical identities in shaping executives’ broader understanding
of corporate realities. These personal factors significantly shape executives’ perceptions,
experiences, and choices on how they make sense of and react to environmental pressures (see
Table 23).

178
Table 23
Recommendation’s Alignment With Theoretical Frameworks, Literature, Interview Data, and
RQs
Recommendation
stages
Theoretical
framework
Literature review
topic reference
Participant/Data
reference
RQs
Making sense of
environmental
pressures in
decision-making
Institutional
theory: making
sense of
coercive,
normative
mimetic
pressures
(Jennings &
Zandbergen,
1995; Meyer &
Rowan, 2006)
Cultural contexts
(Hofstede, 1980;
Hofstede & Hope,
2004; House et al.,
2017)
Societal expectations
(Antonetti & Maklan,
2018; Bridoux &
Stoelhorst, 2014;
Dhar & Bose, 2021;
Hofstede, 1980;
House et al., 2017;)
Social contexts
(Durand et al.,
2019; Miska et al.,
2018; Waldman et
al., 2006)
Jamie, Taylor,
Kai, Sascha,
Alex, Jordan,
Charlie,
Morgan,
Casey, Avery,
and Cameron.
RQ1 and
RQ2
Making sense of
personal beliefs
in decisionmaking
Social cognitive
theory:
environmental
and personal
factors
(Bandura,
1986, 2002)
and
sensemaking
(Weick, 2012)
Sensemaking (Weick,
2005)
Self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1986,
2000, 2002)
Jamie, Taylor,
Alex, Jordan,
Charlie,
Morgan,
Casey, Avery,
and Cameron.
RQ2
By integrating the IT approach to making sense of environmental factors (normative,
coercive, and mimetic pressures) with the SCT emphasis on personal beliefs influencing
decision-making, this study proposes a decision-making framework for global executives. This
framework guides them in navigating diverse societal and cultural contexts by actively

179
considering their personal beliefs. Both theoretical approaches enhance each other (see Figure
16).
Figure 16
Framework for Effective Decision-Making for Navigating Multiple Societal and Cultural
Contexts Through Personal Beliefs
Note. The image presents a decision-making framework tailored for global executives facing
stakeholder backlash in varied societal and cultural settings. It emphasizes a strategy integrating
personal beliefs with a broad understanding of environmental conditions, fostering a nuanced
approach to sensemaking. This integrative framework guides leaders to align their values with
external pressures, enhancing their decision-making efficacy in complex global contexts.

180
Practical Recommendation for the Problem of Practice
Responsible leadership (RL) emerged as the change model to effectively implement the
study’s recommendations. Overall, RL offers a comprehensive approach when global executives
traverse various cultural terrains to address multifaceted stakeholder demands. It is suitable
because, at its core, RL centers around (a) SR for seeing corporations as vehicles for fostering
social value, (b) places importance on all stakeholders, and (c) envisions a stakeholder-centered
approach to organizational purpose (Freeman, 2023; N. Pless & Maak, 2006; Waldman et al.,
2020; Wicks & Freeman, 1998).
Implementation of Recommendations
Building on the rigor and suitability of RL as an implementation framework, Chapter
Two discussed seminal works centering around these RL notions. Thus, the literature review
covered scholarly works on the stakeholder-centered approach to organizational purpose (Arrow,
1974; Smith, 2002; Wicks & Freeman, 1998; Zingales et al., 2020), ethical decision-making
(Bentham, 2007; Jones et al., 2007; Kant, 1993; Mill, 2018; Rawls, 2009), and stakeholder
management through SR (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 2023; Mitchell et al., 1997).
The research findings further resonate with RL. The interview protocol assigned two
questions relating to RL notions. The participants frequently referred to the practice of RL
throughout their interpretations of success factors of decision-making within the complex global
contexts in which they operate. Consequently, the confluence of research findings and the
extensive review of relevant scholarly work in Chapter Two supports the adoption of RL as an
appropriate model for implementing the recommendations (see Figure 17).

181
Figure 17
Responsible Leadership Implementation Framework
Note. The diagram visualizes the multifaceted two-staged approach that global leaders must
adopt to embrace RL. The diagram highlights four critical dimensions: person, roles,
relationships, and responsibilities, orbiting around the central tenet of RL. Person emphasizes the
need to align personal beliefs with decisions. ‘Roles’ underlines addressing stakeholder demands
and broader environmental challenges. ‘Relationships’ focus on ethical interactions with
stakeholders. Finally, ‘Responsibilities’ stress ethical decision-making in leaders’ overarching
duties. Adapted from Responsible Leadership by T. Maak & N. Pless, 2005. Routledge.
Copyright 2005 by Routledge.

182
Leadership Context
In contextualizing the implementation frame for the study’s recommendations within the
framework of RL, the leadership context focuses on the dyadic relationship of (a) person and (b)
roles. Within this dyadic relationship, global executives’ personal beliefs shape their
understanding and conceptualization of their role as leaders within their organizations and can
affect their decision-making when managing stakeholder demands for social value issues
(Bandura, 2002; McCormick, 2001)
The Person Aspect
The person aspect underscores the pivotal role of global executives who must intertwine
their personal beliefs with their decision-making processes. This inclusion supports the research
findings in Chapter Four, where the participants shared their insights in acknowledging the
influence of their personal beliefs in their decision-making. Also, the leadership context of the
person corresponds with the recommendation of Chapter Five, proposing a framework for
including personal beliefs for effective decision-making. Similarly, Chapter Two reviewed the
key concepts of self-efficacy, personal beliefs, and sensemaking, highlighting the inclusion of
person in the leadership context (McCormick, 2001).
The Roles Aspect
The roles aspect prompts global executives to focus their leadership role on stakeholder
demands for socially sensitive issues (N. Pless & Maak, 2006). The literature review in Chapter
Two has laid a foundation in this context, highlighting leadership dynamics, especially within the
confines of stakeholder management, and a stakeholder-centered approach to organizational
purpose (Zingales et al., 2020). The findings in Chapter Four illustrated participant insights on
the urgency for addressing stakeholders’ socially sensitive demands as a crucial role for global

183
executives. Likewise, Chapter Five’s relevant recommendations highlighted the need to develop
leadership behavioral traits such as awareness in managing socially sensitive stakeholder
demands. The person and roles dyad distinctly resonates with SCT’s behavioral and personal
factors, emphasizing sensemaking and self-efficacy for responding to environmental challenges,
which further solidifies the leadership context of RL as an ideal implementation model for the
recommendations of this study (Bandura, 1986, 2002; Maak et al., 2014; Maak et al., 2021;
N. M. Pless et al., 2021).
The Ethics of the Leadership Process
In contextualizing the implementation frame for the study’s recommendations within the
framework of RL, the ethical context focuses on the dyadic relationship of (a) relationships and
(b) responsibilities. Within this dyadic relationship, global executives’ decision-making in
forming stakeholder relationships can shape their understanding and conceptualization of their
broader ethical responsibilities toward their organizations and can affect their decision-making
when managing stakeholder demands for social value issues (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018;
Bentley, 2018). The literature review in Chapter Two, research findings in Chapter Three, and
recommendations in Chapter Five support the inclusion of an ethical dimension to the leadership
process within a broader RL implementation framework.
Relationships
Concerning relationships, the study’s recommendations prompt global executives to
navigate their stakeholder relationships by considering ethical aspects of leadership.
Furthermore, the RL implementation framework corresponds with key RL notions addressed in
Chapter Two, namely that (a) executives’ decisions must adhere to equitable decision-making
and in the best interests of all stakeholders (N. M. Pless et al., 2021) and (b) they should reflect

184
on their overarching responsibilities to ensure the ethical integrity of their decision-making
(Waldman et al., 2022).
Responsibilities
In line with the concepts of RL, the implementation framework prompts global
executives to consider the ethical dimension of stakeholders’ demands when shaping decisionmaking for socially sensitive issues and align it with corporate values (N. Pless & Maak, 2006).
The study’s research findings further support the suitability of the ethical leadership dimension
of RL as an implementation framework, with participants articulating their RL practices at
length, focusing on ethical considerations of their decision-making when confronted with
socially sensitive stakeholder issues. Consequently, the synergy between research findings in
Chapter Four, the recommendations in Chapter Five, and finally, the comprehensive review of
RL in Chapter Two fortifies the reasoning for adopting RL as a suitable model for implementing
the study’s recommendations.
Practical Recommendation for the Problem of Practice
The study aimed to develop practical recommendations for global leaders to manage
competing stakeholder demands that can lead to social backlash. It produced recommendations
for RQ1 and RQ2 that developed theoretical and practical leadership frameworks focused on
promoting leadership practices centered on empathy, communication, and organizational vision.
These prioritize responsible leadership and embrace global mindsets. Additionally, the study
proposed a novel theoretical perspective for effective decision-making, navigating societal and
cultural contexts through the sensemaking of environmental pressures and personal beliefs.
However, in line with the requirement for a practical application of recommendations relating to
the practice problem, this study proposes using internal and external mentoring systems to

185
support corporate leaders at the middle and upper levels of corporate leadership to manage
stakeholder demands within global contexts.
Although the participants did not explicitly mention mentoring as a policy or strategy
within organizational settings to assist leaders in supporting each other to develop skills and
behaviors to manage their leadership challenges within these contexts, they directly referred to
outcomes from the mentoring process. Emerging open codes and subsequent thematic analysis
highlighted learning, lifelong learning, and education as pivotal aspects of an effective decisionmaking process (see Appendix B.) These aspects deriving from mentoring outcomes can lead to
an optimized leadership practice during social backlash. Therefore, mentoring is a logical and
valid vehicle for facilitating, understanding, and optimizing such skills and behaviors for
effective leadership.
The study proposes to facilitate two vehicles of mentorship for leaders. These are internal
and external mentoring systems. Internal mentoring systems are going to occur within the
company. Middle and upper-level executives from different organization sections will formulate
mentoring dyads, meeting virtually and physically to inform, shape, and propagate best
leadership practices. Externally, upper leaders from various organizations within the same
industry may establish official mentoring channels. They can meet in retreats or outside their
organizational settings to exchange optimal stakeholder management practices.
All mentoring systems can benefit from utilizing practical case studies drawn either from
their own experiences or from stories of other companies that have successfully managed
backlash from stakeholders. This approach aligns with the study findings highlighted by Sascha,
Charlie, Casey, and Taylor, suggesting the use and benefits of applying real-life scenarios in
leadership training. Also consistent with the study’s findings is that this mentoring and broader

186
training method should seamlessly integrate into the fabric of organizations, thus shaping their
organizational settings.
Implementation Model to the Practical Recommendation: Communities of Practice
The CoP framework provides an optimal structure for implementing mentoring systems.
As outlined in Chapter Two, CoPs (Figure 10) operate within SLEs, which incorporate practice,
meaning, identity, and community as essential elements of learning. Inspired by CoPs and SLEs,
mentoring becomes a central phenomenon within the implementation framework corresponding
to and complimenting learning. In this context, mentoring involves actively integrating meaning,
identity, and community as its core components for mid- and upper-level executives (Wenger,
1998). Thus, within the CoP framework, mentoring emerges as a sensemaking enterprise that
fosters information, tools, and skills development and optimization (Figure 18).

187
Figure 18
Leadership Development Ecosystem: A Community of Practice Approach
Note. This adapted diagram conceptualizes a CoP framework for mentorship among mid- and
upper-level executives within a corporation and the broader industry. Under Domain, these
leaders receive internal and external mentorship, drawing upon specialized knowledge identified
within their industry. Practice illustrates developing relevant practices through mentorship,
encompassing knowledge, stories, tools, and skills. Finally, community represents forming
relationships within and outside the organization, promoting service and discussion through
mentoring for industry-wide enhancement. At the intersection of domain, practice, and
community, these executives engage in mentorship as a community of practice. Adapted from

188
Learning in a Landscape of Practice: A Framework by B. Wenger-Trayner & E. WengerTrayner, 2020. Routledge. Copyright 2020 by Routledge.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research direction can focus on the following leadership aspects: exploring
experiences in non-Western cultural spheres, examining the impact of personal identities,
investigating different industries and ownership structures, and employing mixed methods
approaches in exploring global executives’ decision-making. The study primarily emphasized the
Western cultural sphere, focusing on corporations and global executives rooted in Western
corporate environments. Future research could delve into the experiences of global executives
operating primarily within non-Western cultural spheres, offering a contrast or a supplement to
the insights gathered in this study. Moreover, using mixed-methods research designs, future
studies could explore the relationship between responsible decision-making and firm
performance within different cultural contexts (N. M. Pless et al., 2021).
Further, while this research concentrated on the role of the 11 global executives and their
navigation of stakeholder demands, it did not specifically anchor its research questions around
nuanced personal identities, such as gender, race, ability, culture, socio-economic geographies,
or social class. However, participants consistently underscored the significant influence these
identities exert on decision-making. It is valuable for future research to shape its inquiry around
these specific identities, designing interview protocols that solicit participant insights on their
role in shaping decision-making processes. An additional avenue for future research can center
on specific industries or ownership of public or private companies. Also, focusing on cooperative
corporations and their unique ownership structure using a case study methodology might offer

189
valuable insights into how cooperative executives manage stakeholder backlash. Such a focused
approach can yield additional insights, as varied ownership structures or the types of industries
they operate within mold the experiences of global executives.
Lastly, adopting a qualitative or mixed-methods research approach could further augment
the understanding of global executives’ decision-making experiences and expand it to larger
populations. For instance, in the case of public companies, regression analyses can discern any
correlations between an executive’s adeptness in handling intricate stakeholder demands,
particularly during backlash, and the consequent impact on the company’s share price, overall
valuation, or operational performance. Finally, SCT provides a valuable lens for understanding
the triadic relationship of environment, behavior, and person that shapes leaders’ decisionmaking, especially during crises. By incorporating SCT, future scholarly work on global
leadership can fortify its conceptual focus and become a valid, relevant, and pertinent theoretical
approach in leadership studies.
Conclusion
As the landscape of stakeholder demands grows increasingly intricate, global leaders
grapple with escalating challenges to manage them effectively. Despite the pressing nature of
this issue, there was limited empirical research on the relevant academic subjects. Therefore, this
research added to the academic discourse of leadership and organizational studies. The study
delved into the intricate decision-making experiences of 11 global corporate executives when
confronted with stakeholders’ competing public demands for events with social value that
promote backlash. This is a problem of practice for global executives because their decisionmaking to address socially complex, divisive, and, at times, competing stakeholder demands
could significantly impact their organizations’ operational and reputational standing. Thus, the

190
research highlighted participants’ interpretations of the factors supporting or hindering effective
decision-making in these complex situations. It also revealed their insights into the causes for
differential effectiveness in managing stakeholder concerns during backlash. However, it also
prompted these global executives to reflect on their experiential reservoirs to discern how they
manage and interpret their organizational and leadership events and what factors play pivotal
roles in their decision-making successes. Ultimately, this research can hold significance for
international corporate executives by proposing practical decision-making frameworks to aid
them in steering through these complex environments.

191
References
Alase, A. (2017). The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): A guide to a good
qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies,
5(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9
Allio, R. J. (2023). Preparing leadership for daunting 21st century challenges. Strategy &
Leadership, 51(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-10-2022-0096
Andres, L. (2012). Designing & doing survey research. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402202
Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2018). Identity bias in negative word of mouth following
irresponsible corporate behavior: A research model and moderating effects. Journal of
Business Ethics, 149(4), 1005–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3095-9
Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. Norton.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–
290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092

192
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR
initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management, 46(6), 937–964.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319900539
Baskerville, R. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00048-4
Baumgartner, R. J., & Winter, T. (2014). The sustainability manager: A tool for education and
training on sustainability management. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 21(3), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1313
Bear, J. B., Cushenbery, L., London, M., & Sherman, G. D. (2017). Performance feedback,
power retention, and the gender gap in leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 721–740.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.003
Bentham, J. (2007). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University
Press.
Bentley, J. M. (2018). What counts as an apology? Exploring stakeholder perceptions in a
hypothetical organizational crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917722635
Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental
Review, 3(2), 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Routledge.

193
Bovens, M., Goodin, R., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of public
accountability (online ed.). Oxford Academic.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The
importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435–455.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00597.x
Brennan, N. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Beelitz, A. (2013). Dialogism in corporate social
responsibility communications: Conceptualising verbal interaction between organizations
and their audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 665–679.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1825-9
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing
stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 107–
125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2089
Butler, C. L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Sutton, C. (2012). The global leader as boundary
spanner, bridge maker, and blender. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(2),
240–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01439.x
Byrd, M. Y. (2022). Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work
environments that sustains meaningful work. Human Resource Development
International, 25(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047252
Carter, S. M. (2006). The interaction of top management group, stakeholder, and situational
factors on certain corporate reputation management activities. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(5), 1145–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00632.x

194
Castro, S. V. H. (2014). The morality of unequal autonomy: Reviving Kant’s concept of status
for stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 593–606.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1737-8
Chouaibi, J., & Zouari, S. B. (2021). Leadership in crisis: The impact of ethical leadership on
employees’ stress, anxiety, and job satisfaction during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Business Ethics, 169(1), 51–66.
Chouaibi, Y., & Zouari, G. (2021). The effect of corporate social responsibility practices on real
earnings management: Evidence from a European ESG data. International Journal of
Disclosure and Governance, 19(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00125-1
Clapp-Smith, R., & Lester, G. (2014). Defining the “mindset” in global mindset: Modeling the
dualities of global leadership. In J. S. Osland, M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in
global leadership (Vol. 8, pp. 205–228). Emerald Group.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1535-120320140000008017
Clapp-Smith, R., Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). The role of psychological capital in global
mindset development. In M. A. Hitt, R. Steers, & M. Javidan (Eds.), The global mindset:
advances in international management (pp. 105–130). JAI.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-5027(07)19005-7
Cooke, F. L., & Zhao, C. (2021). Towards a broader understanding of workplace inequality and
exclusion in China: A review of discrimination based on social class, gender, and
physical ability. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(2), 184–203.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12276

195
Coraiola, D. M., & Derry, R. (2020). Remembering to forget: The historic irresponsibility of US
big tobacco. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 233–252.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04323-4
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31(3), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach
(4th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approach (5th ed.). Sage.
Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. SAGE
Crowther, D., & Ahmad, J. (2013). Introduction: CSR education moving towards common
direction. In J. Ahmad & D. Crowther (Eds.), Developments in corporate governance and
responsibility (Vol 4, pp 1–14). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-0523(2013)0000005003
De Jonge, A. (2015). The glass ceiling in Chinese and Indian boardrooms: Women directors in
listed firms in China and India. Elsevier.
Dhar, S., & Bose, I. (2021). Emotions in Twitter communication and stock prices of firms: The
impact of Covid-19 pandemic. Decision, 47(4), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-
020-00264-4

196
Diers-Lawson, A. (2016). Did BP atone for its transgressions? Expanding theory on ‘ethical
apology’ in crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
24(3), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12110
Doan, M. D. (2016). Responsibility for collective inaction and the knowledge condition. Social
Epistemology, 30(5–6), 532–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2016.1172359
Doh, J. P., & Quigley, N. R. (2014). Responsible leadership and stakeholder management:
Influence pathways and organizational outcomes. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 28(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0013
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Durand, R., Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2019). Willing and able: A general model of organizational
responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 299–320.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0107
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Ee, A., & Cho, H. (2012). What makes an MMORPG leader? A social cognitive theory-based
approach to understanding the formation of leadership capabilities in massively
multiplayer online role-playing games. Eludamos, 6(1), 25–37.
https://doi.org/10.7557/23.6136
Eliade, M. (1991). Images and symbols: Studies in religious symbolism. Princeton University
Press.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2023). This much I know about leadership: 2007. Routledge.

197
Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective.
Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396
Farnsworth, V., Kleanthous, I., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2016). Communities of practice as a
social theory of learning: A conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 64(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1133799
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business
School Press.
Foss, N., & Klein, P. (2022). Why companies go woke? (Unpublished manuscript).
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4285680
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Vintage Books.
Freeman, R. E. (2023). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Friedman, M. (2000). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34
Goncharenko, G. (2019). The accountability of advocacy NGOs: Insights from the online
community of practice. Accounting Forum, 43(1), 135–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2019.1589901
Gramsci, A. (2000). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y

198
Greenwood, M., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness
in the organization-stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 425–438.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0414-4
Greige Frangieh, C., & Khayr Yaacoub, H. (2017). A systematic literature review of responsible
leadership: Challenges, outcomes, and practices. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2),
281–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2017-0004
Gruber, D. D., Smerek, R. E., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & James, E. R. (2015). The real-time power
of Twitter: Crisis management and leadership in an age of social media. Business
Horizons, 58(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.006
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2021). Harmful stakeholder strategies. Journal of Business
Ethics, 169(3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04310-9
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hope, D. (2004). The new multinationalism: Western multinational corporations
and pollution control in the Third World. Journal of International Business Studies,
35(4), 277–293.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. Free Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2017). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE Publications.
Høvring, C. M., Andersen, S. E., & Nielsen, A. E. B. (2018). Discursive tensions in CSR multistakeholder dialogue: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3),
627–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3330-4

199
James, L. R., & Woten, M. K. (2010). Creating a climate of trust: Collaboration, authenticity,
and ethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 587–603.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0489-4
Janssen, C. (2013). Corporate historical responsibility (chr): Addressing a corporate past of
forced labor at Volkswagen. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(1), 64–83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.731698
Javed, M., Rashid, M., Hussain, G., & Ali, H. M. (2020). The effects of corporate social
responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of
responsible leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
27(3), 1395–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1892
Javidan, M. (2021). Cross-cultural leadership. In The Oxford research encyclopedia of business
and management. Oxford University Press.
Javidan, M., & Dastmalchian, A. (2009). Managerial implications of the GLOBE project: A
study of 62 societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(1), 41–58.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411108099289
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder:
Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410
Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from
Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00034-1

200
Javidan, M., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, D. (2021). How life experiences and cultural context
matter: A multilevel framework of global leader effectiveness. Journal of Management
Studies, 58(5), 1331–1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12662
Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An
institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280034
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Jones, G. R., George, J. M., & Hill, C. W. (2007). Essentials of contemporary management.
McGraw-Hill.
Jung, C. G. (2002). Flying saucers: A modern myth of things seen in the sky. Princeton
University Press.
Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. In Immanuel Kant: Ethical philosophy
(J. Ellington, Ed. & Trans., pp. 9–87). Hackett Publishing Company.
Kaptein, M. (2021). The moral duty to love one’s stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics,
180(2), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04897-y
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1967). The social psychology of organizations. The American Journal
of Sociology, 72(6), 677–677. https://doi.org/10.1086/224406
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(6), 722. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649160
Klein, F. (2012). Why companies go woke? JM, 4(April), 1–55.
Klenke, K. (2016). Qualitative research in the study of leadership (2nd ed.). Emerald Group
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781785606502

201
Kossowska, M., & Rosinski, J. (2021). Global mindset: A systematic review of the concept.
International Journal of Contemporary Management, 57(3), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcm-2021-0008
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
Larrán Jorge, M., Andrades Peña, F. J., & Muriel de los Reyes, M. J. (2017). Analysing the
inclusion of stand-alone courses on ethics and CSR: A study of the MBA curricula of the
Financial Times top-ranked business schools. Sustainability Accounting, Management
and Policy Journal, 8(2), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2015-0033
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about when we
talk about “global mindset”: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal
of International Business Studies, 38(2), 231–258.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400265
Li, J., Lam, L. W., & Karakowsky, L. (2020). Does ethical leadership lead to happy workers? A
study on the impact of ethical leadership, subjective well-being, and life happiness in the
Chinese culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(3), 507–527.
Li, M., Trencher, G., & Asuka, J. (2022). The clean energy claims of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil,
and Shell: A mismatch between discourse, actions, and investments. PLoS ONE, 17(2),
1–27. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263596

202
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Maon, F. (2018). Corporate social responsibility. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2009.00277.x
Liu, Z., Venkatesh, S., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2020). Leader development across the
lifespan: A dynamic experiences-grounded approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5),
Article 101382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101382
López-Pérez, B., Fernández, I., & Abad, F. J. (2017). The role of perceived emotional
intelligence in the quality of peer relationships among adolescents. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 69(1), 35–41.
Lyke, A. (2017). Habitus, doxa, and saga: Applications of Bourdieu’s theory of practice to
organizational history. Management and Organizational History, 12(2), 163–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2017.1329091
Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Borecká, M. (2014). Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 8).
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320140000008023
Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2021). The fault lines of leadership: Lessons from
the global covid-19 crisis. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 66–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861724
Macnamara, J. (2016a). Organizational communication for survival: Making work, work. Peter
Lang.
Macnamara, J. (2016b). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations
theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3–4), 146–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2016.1228064

203
Macnamara, J. (2016c). Public relations ethics and professionalism: The shadow of excellence.
Routledge.
Macnamara, J. (2016d). The work and ‘architecture of listening:’ Addressing gaps in
organization-public communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication,
10(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1147043
Macnamara, J. (2018a). The power of communication: Skills to build trust, inspire loyalty, and
lead effectively. AMACOM.
Macnamara, J. (2018b). Toward a theory and practice of organizational listening. International
Journal of Listening, 32(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076
Magness, V. (2008). Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell,
Agle, and Wood theory of stakeholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 177–
192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9610-2
Marsh, S. J., & Farrell, M. (2015). Global leadership: A case for cross-cultural competence in
social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(3), 425–437.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1047597
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458
McCall, J. (2002). Leadership and ethics: Corporate accountability to whom, for what and by
what means? Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 133–139.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015781215345

204
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive
theory to leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22–33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102
Mena, S., Rintamaki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the forgetting of corporate
irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720–738.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0208
Mendenhall, M. E., Miska, C., & Stahl, G. K. (2020). Responsible global leadership: The
anatomy and promise of an emerging field. In M. E. Mendenhall, M. Žilinskaite˙, G. K.
Stahl, & R. Clapp-Smith (Eds.), Responsible global leadership: Dilemmas, Paradoxes,
and opportunities (pp. 221–233) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003037613
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merritt, M. R. (2021). Active listening in the diverse roles of international school leaders. IMCC
Journal of Science, 1(2), 115–130.
Mersecola, N. (2022). The JUST report: Disney, Exxon, and Twitter show why stakeholders
matter. JUST Capital. https://justcapital.com/news/the-just-report-disney-exxon-andtwitter-show-why-stakeholders-matter/
Meyer, H.-D., & Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. State University of
New York Press.
Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of
definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
015-2741-y

205
Mill, J. S. (2018). Utilitarianism. In J. H. Burns & H. L. Mansfield (Eds.), Utilitarianism and
other essays (pp. 9–71). Penguin Books.
Miska, C., Szőcs, I., & Schiffinger, M. (2018). Culture’s effects on corporate sustainability
practices: A multi-domain and multi-level view. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 263–
279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.12.001
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach.
Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697
Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2013). Ethical judgments: What do we know, where do we go?
Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1426-z
Muff, K., Delacoste, C., & Dyllick, T. (2021). Responsible leadership competencies in leaders
around the world: Assessing stakeholder engagement, ethics and values, systems thinking
and innovation competencies in leaders around the world. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 273–292.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2216
Muff, K., Rüegg-Stürm, J., & Bluemelhuber, C. (2022). Responsible management for a
sustainable world. Routledge.

206
Neubert, M. J., Hunter, E. M., & Tolentino, R. C. (2016). A servant leader and their
stakeholders: When does organizational structure enhance a leader’s influence? The
Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 896–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.005
Northouse, P. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc
Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2009). A global mindset - A prerequisite for
successful internationalization? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue
Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 21(1), 51–64.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2004.tb00322.x
Office of Governor Ron DeSantis. (2022, March 28). Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill
to Protect Parental Rights in Education [Press release].
https://www.flgov.com/2022/03/28/governor-ron-desantis-signs-historic-bill-to-protectparental-rights-in-education/
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Declaration of basic principles of
justice for victims of crime and abuse of power. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instrumentsmechanisms/instruments/declaration-basic-principles-justice-victims-crime-and-abuse
Pacelli, T. (2016). Virtuous leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating
effect of moral efficacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 43–58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2560-9
Pass, S., & Ridgway, M. (2022). An informed discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and
‘enforced’ remote working on employee engagement. Human Resource Development
International, 25(2), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2048605
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

207
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice (4th ed.). Sage.
Phillips, R. A., Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Stutz, C. (2020). The past, history, and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 203–213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04319-0
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2006). Responsible leadership (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203002247
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2021). Promoting corporate social responsibility and
ethical leadership through stakeholder inclusion: An introduction. Journal of Business
Ethics, 168(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-1
Pletti, C., Spurk, D., & Michel, A. (2019). Social impact through networks: A meta-analytic
review on the differential effects of network characteristics on objective and subjective
career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 1–19.
Provasnek, A. K., & Schmid, E. (2018). Stakeholder engagement to secure legitimacy – the
social license to operate. In A. Lindgreen, F. Maon, J. Vanhamme, B. Palacios Florencio,
C. Vallaster, & C. Strong (Eds.). Engaging with stakeholders (pp. 32–44). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429450341-3
Pruzan, P. (2001). The stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Presses Universitaires de France.
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
Ronay, R., Oostrom, J. K., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Mayoral, S., & Rusch, H. (2019). Playing
the trump card: Why we select overconfident leaders and why it matters. The Leadership
Quarterly, 30(6), 101316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101316

208
Ruiz-Blanco, S., Romero, S., & Fernandez-Feijoo, B. (2022). Green, blue or black, but washing–
What company characteristics determine greenwashing? Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 24(3), 4024–4045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01602-x
Sahlins, M. (1976). Culture and practical reason. The University of Chicago Press.
Salmons, J. (2015). Qualitative online interviews: Strategies, design, and skills. Sage.
Sanberg, C. S. (2005). Reflections on the reflection of meaning: A review of the literature.
Journal of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, 1(1), 61–72.
Saxton, G. D., Ren, C., & Guo, C. (2021). Responding to diffused stakeholders on social media:
Connective power and firm reactions to CSR-related Twitter messages. Journal of
Business Ethics, 172(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04472-x
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility:
Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 32(4), 1096–1120. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585837
Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Historic corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700–719.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0137
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value
differences and cultural distance. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese
psychology (pp. 477–492). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-
53776-8.00020-9
Serafeim, G. (2020). Public sentiment and the price of corporate sustainability. Financial
Analysts Journal, 76(2), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198X.2020.1723390

209
Siegel, D. S. (2014). Responsible leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 221–
223. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43822064
Smith, A. (2002). The theory of moral sentiments. Penguin Classics.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800153.005
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method, and research. SAGE.
Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of
servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. Wiley.
Spitzeck, H. (2009). Organizational moral learning: What, if anything, do corporations learn
from NGO critique? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 157–173.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0112-2
Strand, R., & Freeman, R. E. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and
practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1),
65–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1792-1
Tsui, A. S. (2021). Responsible research and responsible leadership studies. Academy of
Management Discoveries, 7(2), 166–170. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0244
Varma, T. (2021). Responsible leadership and reputation management during a crisis: The cases
of Delta and United Airlines. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(1), 29–45.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04554-w
Veil, S. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Heald, M. (2011). memorializing crisis: The Oklahoma City
national memorial as renewal discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
39(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2011.557390
Visser, W. (2019). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. Routledge.

210
Vo, H. T. T., Nguyen, B. N., Nguyen, T. H. L., & Nguyen, P. T. (2019). Corporate social
responsibility and firm value: The role of foreign institutional ownership. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 212, 1213–1222.
Vo, T. T., Xiao, X., & Ho, S. Y. (2019). How does corporate social responsibility engagement
influence word of mouth on Twitter? Evidence from the airline industry. Journal of
Business Ethics, 157(2), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3679-z
Voegtlin, C. (2016). What does it mean to be responsible? Addressing the missing responsibility
dimension in ethical leadership research. Leadership, 12(5), 581–608.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015578936
Voegtlin, C., Frisch, C., Walther, A., & Schwab, P. (2020). Theoretical development and
empirical examination of a three-roles model of responsible leadership. Journal of
Business Ethics, 167(3), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04155-2
Vogelgesang, G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Osland, J. (2014). The Relationship between positive
psychological capital and global mindset in the context of global leadership. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(2), 165–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813515515
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press
Waldman, D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the concept of responsible leadership: Three
caveats to guide theory and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(S1), 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1021-8

211
Waldman, D. A., & Balven, R. M. (2014). Responsible leadership: theoretical issues and
research directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 224–234.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0016
Waldman, D. A., De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., & House, R. J. (2006). Cultural and leadership
predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study
of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 823–837.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400230
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Stahl, G. K. (2020). Defining the socially responsible leader:
Revisiting issues in responsible leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 27(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819872201
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (2019). Building relationships through
accountability: An expanded idea of accountability. Organizational Psychology Review,
9(2–3), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619878876
Weber, M. (2012). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Penguin.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
Weick, K. E. (2012). Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work.
Human Relations, 65(1), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424235
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
Welbourne Eleazar, M. J. (2021). Immoral entrenchment: How crisis reverses the ethical effects
of moral intensity. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 71–89.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04859-4

212
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker,
10(5), 1–5.
Wenger, E. (2016). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. In I. MacNeill & C. J. Krause
(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 293–299). Wiley.
Wenger, E. (2020). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (Rev. ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, B., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2020). Learning in a landscape of practice: A
framework. Routledge.
Wenger-Trayner, E. (2013). The practice of theory: Confessions of a social learning theorist. In
V. Farnsworth & Y. Solomon (Eds.), Reframing educational research: Resisting the
‘what works’ agenda (pp. 100–108). Routledge.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpa’a, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long
Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(98)00004-1
Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism:
Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123–
140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123
Williams, G. (2019). Regulation enables: Corporate agency and practices of responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3896-
0
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. Columbia
University Press.

213
Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. (2016). The internationalization of entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis
of the empirical literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 1183–1211.
Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2),
149–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812471559
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Zhu, W., Treviño, L. K., & Zheng, X. (2016). Ethical leaders and their followers: The
transmission of moral identity and moral attentiveness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1),
95–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.11
Zietsma, C., Toubiana, M., Voronov, M., & Roberts, A. (2019). Emotions in organization theory.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108628051
Zingales, L., Kasperkevic, J., & Schechter, A. (2020). Milton Friedman 50 years later.
https://promarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Milton-Friedman-50-years-laterebook.pd

214
Appendix A: Interview Protocoll
Question Follow-up Probe Research
question
addressed
Literature review
topic
Demographics questions
Could you please share some information about your professional background?
Who are the main
stakeholders within
your company?
How do the
expectations
and demands
of these
stakeholders
differ or
overlap?
Is your
organization
driven by its
stakeholders
or
shareholders
(if publicly
listed)?
RQ1 Stakeholder
management
Organizational
purpose
How do you define
decision-making
success in the
context of
managing
competing
stakeholders during
social backlash?
Are there any
instances
where you felt
a decision was
successful
despite social
backlash?
RQ1 Defining
leadership
Responsible
leadership
Societal and
cultural
contexts
(Environmental
and behavioral
factors)
Can you share a
successful
approach you or
your organization
have used to
manage competing
stakeholder
demands and
mitigate social
backlash
effectively?
Which executive
skills proved
most valuable
in the
decisionmaking
process?
Were there any
organizational
influences or
resources that
contributed to
the success?
RQ2 Responsible
leadership
Societal and
cultural
contexts
(Behavioral and
environmental
factors)
How do you
understand or
define responsible
leadership during
these challenging
contexts?
What
responsible
leadership
skills are
essential for
decisionmaking to
address
backlash?
Can you provide
specific
examples of
how these
responsible
leadership
skills have
been
effectively
RQ1
RQ2
Leadership
Responsible
leadership
Global mindsets
(behavioral)

215
Question Follow-up Probe Research
question
addressed
Literature review
topic
applied to
address
backlash?
How does an
effective leader
navigate
stakeholder
expectations within
global or
multicultural
decision-making
contexts?
What leadership
skills does it
take to
understand
and navigate
multicultural
or global
complexities?
How have shifts
in global
socio-political
environments
affected the
way you
manage
stakeholder
relationships
and
expectations?
RQ1
RQ2
Responsible
leadership
Global mindsets
Personal beliefs
(behavioral and
Personal)
In your view, why are
some executives
better than others
in their decisionmaking when
managing
stakeholder
concerns during
times of social
backlash?
Can you think of
an example of
an executive
or an
organization
that was
successful in
their decisionmaking?
Can you
pinpoint
pivotal
moments in
your career
where you
deeply
considered
effective
behaviors and
formed such
attitudes?
RQ2 Leadership
Responsible
Leadership
Personal beliefs
Global mindsets
(behavioral
personal)
What resources,
whether human,
financial, or
informational, have
been most valuable
to you during these
challenging
situations?
How did all this
help you to
manage
diverse
stakeholder
demands
across various
cultures and
nationalities?
Recalling the
Bud Light
stakeholder
backlash, how
would you
manage such a
multi-social
situation
RQ2 Stakeholder
demands in
social contexts
(environmental)
Personal beliefs
(cognitive)

216
Appendix B: Coding Table
Appendix B: Coding Table
Name Conceptual
framework
Files
participants
References
(RQ1) Interpreting factors of success and
failure in decision-making
(Theme) Navigating cultural and societal
contexts
Environment 11 116
(Axial code) Lifelong learning informs
effective decision-making
Behavior 3 10
(Axial code) Navigating cultural dynamics and
biases in decision-making in a global context
Behavior 7 25
(Axial code) Past experiences shape present
decision-making strategies
Behavior and
person
4 10
(Axial code) Personal nuances shape leaders’
interpretations
Person 3 6
(Axial code) Reflection on past experiences
guides future decision-making
Person 6 12
(Axial code) Staying connected to evolving
societal and cultural changes
Behavior and
person
3 5
(Axial code) Societal values and biases aids in
managing backlash
Behavior and
person
4 10
(Axial coding) Personal and organizational
readiness and adaptability in decisionmaking
Behavior and
person
6 10
(Axial coding) Organizational values and
adapting to evolving stakeholder demands
Environment
(internal)
5 16
(Single code) Leaders’ emotional complexities Person 5 12
(Theme) Defining leadership for stakeholder
management
Behavior and
environment
11 121
(Axial code) Communication Behavior 9 36
(Axial code) Organizational alignment Environment
(internal)
5 43
(Axial code) Authenticity Behavior and
Person
4 13
(Axial code) Empathetic leadership Behavior and
person
6 29
(Theme) Responsible leadership when
balancing stakeholder interests
Behavior and
Environment
(external and
internal)
11 223
(Axial code) Anticipatory actions can ward off
potential backlashes
Behavior and
environment
7 25
(Axial code) Unpredictable nature and
inevitability of stakeholder backlash
Behavior and
person
4 12

217
Name Conceptual
framework
Files
participants
References
(Axial code) Embracing responsible leadership
communication
Behavior and
person
5 14
(Axial code) In the midst of backlash, ethical
grounding is paramount.
Behavior and
person
8 55
(Axial code) Global perspectives and
interpretations of stakeholders
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
4 6
(Axial code) Proactive, efficient, and strategic
when navigating backlashes
Behavior and
person
6 22
(Axial code) Media influences as significant
factors in decision-making during backlash
events
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
2 5
(Axial code) Leaders’ challenge to balance
multiple stakeholder interests
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external and
internal)
5 18
(Axial code) Timely and thoughtful decisionmaking
Behavior and
person
3 12
(Axial code) Training and development can
play a role in preparing leaders for
stakeholder backlash
Behavior and
person
6 13
(Axial code) Understanding the root causes of
backlash helps effective stakeholder
management
Behavior and
environment
(internal)
4 7
(Axial coding) Necessity of strategic planning,
resource allocation
Behavior and
environment
(internal)
5 11
(Axial code) Reputation and stakeholder
perception may influence decision-making
processes
Behavior and
environment
(internal)
2 4
(Axial code) Training and preparation Behavior 4 9
(Single code) Corporate risk-taking inspired by
audacious political styles
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
1 2
(Single code) Decision-making mistakes are
inevitable in large corporations
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
1 1
(Single code) Emphasizing the need for
contextually relevant training content
Behavior 1 1
(Single code) Personal evolution and adaptive
leadership for effectively managing sensitive
issues
Behavior and
person
1 1

218
Name Conceptual
framework
Files
participants
References
(Single code) Political neutrality in business Behavior and
environment
(external)
4 5
(Theme) Global mindsets Behavior, person,
and environment
(external and
internal)
11 38
(Axial code) Decision-making effectiveness Behavior 6 12
(Axial code) Societal and cultural variance Behavior and
environment
9 26
(RQ2) factors for differential decision-making
effectiveness
(Theme) Cultural and societal contexts Behavior and
environment
(external)
11 101
(Subtheme) Cultural respect Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
7 20
(Axial code) Acknowledging regional
stakeholder variations
Behavior,
environment
(external)
3 10
(Axial code) Addressing historical and cultural
significance
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
6 16
(Subtheme) Managing societal expectations Behavior and
environment
(external)
8 58
(Axial code) Cultural, societal, and
geopolitical awareness
Behavior, Person,
and environment
(external)
8 58
(Subtheme) Role of learning Behavior 6 23
(Axial code) Stakeholder involvement and
feedback through listening
Behavior, person,
and environment
(internal)
6 23
(Theme) Defining leadership for stakeholder
management
Behavior 10 207
(Subtheme) Alignment Behavior and
environment
(external and
internal)
8 103
(Axial code) Balancing organizational identity
and vision with stakeholder expectations
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external and
internal)
6 26

219
Name Conceptual
framework
Files
participants
References
(Axial code) Challenges in aligning regulatory
compliance and stakeholder expectations
Behavior, person,
and environment
(external)
5 52
(Axial code) Inclusive and reflective working
environment
Behavior, person,
and environment
(internal)
7 25
(Subtheme) Communication Behavior, and
environment
(external and
internal)
8 76
(Axial code) Adopting proactive and
collaborative decision-making
Behavior 7 36
(Axial code) Social media and digital
communication shaping stakeholder
perceptions
Behavior and
environment
6 13
(Axial code) Stakeholder engagement through
adaptive communication
Behavior and
environment
6 27
(Subtheme) Empathy Behavior and
person
5 28
(Axial code) Active listening and empathy Behavior and
Person
5 28
(Theme) Personal beliefs Behavior and
person
10 70
(Subtheme) Self-efficacy, personal beliefs Behavior and
person
7 46
(Subtheme) Sensemaking Behavior and
person
8 34
(Theme) Responsible leadership Behavior and
person
10 205
(Subtheme) dynamic approach Behavior and
person
6 31
(Axial code) Engaging in open dialogue for
better outcomes
Behavior 6 31
(Subtheme) Ethical foundation Behavior and
person
9 57
(Axial code) Navigating decisions in real-time
contexts to manage sensitive issues
Behavior and
environment
8 37
(Axial code) Recognizing and addressing
mistakes after backlash
Behavior and
person
5 20
(Subtheme) Global mindsets Behavior, person,
and environment
10 15
(Axial code) Managing diverse stakeholder
demands
Behavior and
environment
6 8

220
Name Conceptual
framework
Files
participants
References
(Single code) Managing public perception and
backlash
Behavior and
environment
4 7
(Subtheme) Cultural relevance Environment
(external)
8 42
(Axial code) The critical role of authenticity
and cultural sensitivity
Behavior and
person
8 42
(Subtheme) Proactivity and anticipation Behavior 7 29
(Axial code) Proactive decision-making
strategies
Behavior 3 7
(Axial code) Proactive versus reactive
leadership styles during times of stakeholder
backlash
Behavior 5 22
(Subtheme) Resource allocation and
pragmatism
Behavior and
person
7 31
(Axial code) Recognizing the organizational
structure in engaging diverse stakeholders
Behavior and
environment
5 18
(Axial code) Utilizing data and predictive
modeling in stakeholder management at
times of backlash
Behavior and
environment
3 13

221
Appendix C: University of Southern California Information Sheet
My name is George Panayiotou, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of
Southern California.
I am conducting a research study on global corporate leaders’ decision-making as they
navigate stakeholders’ competing demands for events that trigger social backlash. The study
aims to produce a practical framework for efficient stakeholder management that executives may
apply while navigating complex environments. The name of this research study is “Managing
Competing Stakeholder Demands: Global Leaders’ Decision-Making Amid Social Backlash.” I
am seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
1. You perform an executive function within a corporation with global reach.
2. You have exposure to managing stakeholder demands for events/issues that elicit
social backlash (such as environmental concerns, issues relating to diversity, equity
and inclusion, or broader CSR).
3. You engage daily with two or more stakeholder groups as part of your executive
leadership role.
4. You engage with stakeholders within multiple (more than one) cultural or societal
settings.
5. You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 1:1 online or inperson interview over Zoom for 45–60 minutes.

222
I will publish the results in my doctoral thesis. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information.
All data will be deidentified prior to any publication or presentations. I may share your data, deidentified, with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: panayiot@usc.edu. If you
have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

223
Appendix D: Integrating Personal Beliefs and Experiences in Global Leadership DecisionMaking
Adaptation of McCormick’s (2001) model to global leadership contexts incorporating
global executives’ personal beliefs for developing GMs to navigate global leadership challenges.
Figure D1
Adaptation of McCormick’s Model to Global Leadership Contexts
Note. Based on the study’s findings, this diagram adapts McCormick’s (2001) study, applying
concepts of self-efficacy, sensemaking, and personal beliefs in leadership to a global context. It
reveals that global leaders’ decision-making experiences are shaped by personal beliefs and
goals, informed by their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2002) and sensemaking (Weick, 2005). These
dynamics drive their motivation to undertake global assignments within their executive roles.
When informed by universal values, a cosmopolitan outlook, and empathy, they embrace GMs as
a relevant leadership behavior (Levy et al., 2007). This, in turn, shapes their ability to navigate
effectively through multiple societal and cultural contexts (House et al., 2017). Adapted from
“Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying SCT to leadership” by M. J. McCormick,

224
2001, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22–33.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102). Copyright 2001 by Sage Publications.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

The significance of investigating the absence of Black decision-makers in television and feature films

PDF

Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory

PDF

Fostering leadership resilience: examining the influence of social networks on female administrators’ capacity to lead in times of crisis or organizational change

PDF

Understanding burnout in non-denominational clergy: a social cognitive approach

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

Gender disparity in law enforcement

PDF

Investigating the personal and organizational factors influencing the departure of female physicians from healthcare leadership roles

PDF

Ambient anxiety within leadership teams and its impact on organizational efficiency in mental health organizations

PDF

Ethical leadership: the case for building a fraud-resistant organization

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

On the quest for global competencies

PDF

Teaching well-being alongside academic studies in an undergraduate for-credit mindfulness course

PDF

Understanding barriers and resiliency: experiences from Latina leaders in local government

PDF

Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

Women Chief Information Officers (CIOs): how did they make it?

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Developing global competence in a Sino-US joint university: an evaluation study

PDF

Attrition of junior military officers within the uniformed military services: a quantitative study

Asset Metadata

Creator Panayiotou, George (author)

Core Title Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/03/2024

Defense Date 01/17/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag backlash,competing demands,decision-making,global mindsets,OAI-PMH Harvest,responsible leadership,social cognitive theory,stakeholders

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Filback, Robert (committee member), Grad, Richard (committee member)

Creator Email gfpanayiotou@gmail.com,panayiot@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113865286

Unique identifier UC113865286

Identifier etd-Panayiotou-12751.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Panayiotou-12751

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Panayiotou, George

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240403-usctheses-batch-1134 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu