What we talk about when we talk about "global mindset": managerial cognition in multinational corporations

Recent developments in the global economy and in multinational corporations have placed significant emphasis on the cognitive orientations of managers, giving rise to a number of concepts such as “global mindset” that are presumed to be associated with the effective management of multinational corporations (MNCs). This paper reviews the literature on global mindset and clarifies some of the conceptual confusion surrounding the construct. We identify common themes across writers, suggesting that the majority of studies fall into one of three research perspectives: cultural, strategic, and multidimensional. We also identify two constructs from the social sciences that underlie the perspectives found in the literature: cosmopolitanism and cognitive complexity and use these two constructs to develop an integrative theoretical framework of global mindset. We then provide a critical assessment of the field of global mindset and suggest directions for future theoretical and empirical research

Multinationality and performance literature: a critical review and future research agenda

The literature on the relationship between the degree of multinationality (M) and performance (P) in the context of multinational enterprises (MNEs) has attracted a large volume of research in the past 50 years. Yet, the theoretical foundations and the empirical conclusions concerning the nature of M–P relationship vary greatly, thus call for a critical review and assessment. We examine 135 articles in 39 leading scholarly journals and classic books published during the period 1960–2015. We use an inductive approach and a qualitative content analysis methodology for our comprehensive and critical review of the literature. We incorporate international business, finance, and accounting perspectives in our analysis. We review the conceptualization and measurement of M, P, the findings on M–P relationships, methodologies, and geographic focus. We identify six key inconsistencies in the existing research, which cause ambiguity in the relevant findings. We make eight recommendations for future research to address these inconsistencies. Thus, our study contributes to the central debate in this research field

Negative cancer beliefs: Socioeconomic differences from the awareness and beliefs about cancer survey

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic gaps in cancer mortality may be driven partially by poorer uptake of early detection behaviors among lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Lower SES groups may hold both fewer positive and more negative cancer beliefs that discourage these behaviors. We examined SES differences in positive and negative cancer beliefs in US adults. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with a population-representative sample, aged 50+, using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (ABC) instrument (N=1,425). Cancer beliefs were measured using three positively and three negatively framed items. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations between beliefs and education, which served as a marker of individual-level SES. RESULTS: Agreement with positive statements was high (>80%) and did not vary with education, while agreement with negative statements varied. Relative to adults with a bachelor's degree, adults with a high school degree or less were more likely to agree that "treatment is worse than cancer" (45.2% vs. 68.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=2.43, 99% confidence interval (CI)=1.50-3.94), cancer is "a death sentence" (17.4% vs. 33.2%; aOR=2.51, 99% CI=1.45-4.37), and they "would not want to know if I have cancer" (15.7% vs. 31.6%; aOR=2.88, 99% CI=1.54-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: Positive cancer statements were generally endorsed, but negative statements were more frequently endorsed by lower SES groups. Additional work is needed to understand how negative beliefs develop and coexist alongside positive beliefs. Interventions to improve detection behaviors targeting lower SES groups may benefit from focusing on reducing negative beliefs, rather than increasing positive beliefs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Cancer Symptom Recognition and Anticipated Delays in Seeking Care Among U.S. Adults

Introduction Early stage diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival. Recognition of potential symptoms of cancer may improve survival by reducing time to seeking care. Methods Telephone interviews with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged ≥50 years) in the U.S. (N=1,425) were conducted in 2014 using an instrument adapted from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey. Anticipated time to seeking care for four cancer symptoms (persistent cough, rectal bleeding, mole changes, and breast changes) was assessed, and delay was defined as waiting >2 weeks. Recognition of symptoms as potential cancer signs was assessed dichotomously. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess associations between symptom recognition and anticipated delay, adjusting for demographics, cancer experience, self-reported health, and healthcare access. Analyses were weighted and conducted in 2017. Results Symptom recognition varied but was relatively high across all symptoms (76.9%–95.5%). Anticipated delay varied by symptom and was highest for persistent cough (41.2%) and lowest for rectal bleeding (9.1%). For rectal bleeding (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=1.31, 5.36) and mole changes (AOR=3.30, 95% CI=1.48, 7.33), anticipated delay was more likely among individuals who did not recognize the symptom as a warning sign. Adults with lower education levels (p<0.05) and African Americans (p<0.05) were less likely to delay for some symptoms. Conclusions Lack of symptom recognition was associated with anticipated delay in seeking care for some cancer symptoms. Differences in recognition and delays by symptom could be driven partly by screening messaging or by ambiguity and functional impact of each symptom

A new perspective on the integration-responsiveness pressures confronting multinational firms

The Integration-Responsiveness framework of Prahalad and Doz (1987) has been used extensively in the international business literature to typify the diverse and often-conflicting environmental pressures confronting firms as they expand worldwide. Although the IR framework has been successfully applied for over a decade, many theoretical and empirical studies have focused on the consequences of these pressures rather than the pressures themselves. Prahalad and Doz identified the economic, technological, political, customer and competitive factors that create the global integration and local responsiveness pressures on the diverse businesses and functions in MNEs. This article explains the methodology, including the procedure for data collection and analysis. The researchers conclude with a discussion of their findings and directions for future research, speculating as to the appropriate definition of the domain of IR pressures and the criteria they might use to validate measures of these