Boards don’t put “time abroad” on a CEO scorecard. Firm performance data suggests maybe they should.
The firm-performance data is more specific than “travel is good for leaders”
Research published in the Journal of International Business Studies, using a sample of 387 new CEOs, found that time spent abroad had a measurably positive effect on both strategic change and firm performance, drawing on social and cognitive learning theory to explain the mechanism: international experience builds general competencies and knowledge that shape decision-making directly, and shape it further indirectly by enabling more effective strategic change once in the role.
A separate, more recent study sharpens the picture further. Research on CEOs from the Global 500, measuring firm performance as average net margin across a CEO’s first four years, found that cultural distance itself isn’t uniformly good or bad for performance — it depends on which specific cultural dimension the distance is measured on. Greater distance between a CEO’s country of experience and the parent company’s home culture on dimensions like in-group collectiveness and performance orientation was associated with *higher* firm performance. Distance on power distance and assertiveness, by contrast, was associated with *lower* performance. This is a genuinely useful refinement: the value of international experience isn’t generic exposure to “somewhere different.” It’s specific exposure to particular cultural dimensions that turn out to matter more than others for how a leader actually runs a company.
The Spanish Group
If you’re seeking professional translation and localization services to enhance your global ventures, visit The Spanish Group — your trusted partner in bridging cultures worldwide.
LEARN MOREThe mechanism isn’t just knowledge — it’s how leaders learn to learn
What makes international experience translate into better leadership rather than just broader trivia is a specific learning process researchers have documented directly. Research based on in-depth interviews and survey data across Asian and European executives found that international business assignments consistently produced “double-loop learning” — leaders didn’t just acquire new information, they acquired new frameworks for acquiring information, triggered by genuine “breakthrough experiences” during the assignment. That distinction between single-loop learning (getting better at existing methods) and double-loop learning (questioning and rebuilding the methods themselves) is precisely the mechanism separating a leader who’s simply accumulated frequent-flyer miles from one whose decision-making has genuinely been reshaped by the experience.
This connects directly to something I’ve written about in the individual cognition research — the finding that adaptation depth, not duration of stay alone, predicts the cognitive benefit. The leadership version of that finding is even more specific: it’s not international experience broadly that builds better executives, it’s international experience structured around genuine breakthrough moments that force a leader to question an assumption they didn’t know they were carrying.
Cultural intelligence as a measurable leadership competency, not a soft skill
Research on leader cultural intelligence takes this a step further, treating it explicitly as an organizational performance variable rather than a personal trait. A study investigating the effect of leader cultural intelligence on organizational performance found it operates significantly through organizational structure — leaders with higher cultural intelligence are better equipped to manage multicultural environments effectively, with real downstream effects on how the organization performs. This lines up with research I’ve referenced elsewhere on cultural intelligence and negotiation outcomes: the same underlying capability that helps an executive close a cross-border deal also appears to help them run a multicultural organization more effectively day to day, not just in the negotiating room.
For boards thinking about succession planning specifically, this reframes international experience from a nice-to-have biographical detail into something closer to a due-diligence item — a documented predictor of strategic effectiveness, not just cultural sophistication.
What this means for how leaders should actually build this capability
The research converges on a clear implication: not all travel builds leadership capability equally, and the version that does isn’t primarily about accumulating passport stamps. It’s about depth of engagement with specific, meaningfully different cultural contexts — ideally ones that differ from a leader’s home culture on the dimensions the firm-performance research identifies as most consequential, like performance orientation and in-group collectiveness, rather than superficial or purely leisure-oriented exposure.
I’ve written previously about the honest tradeoffs and lessons that come from genuinely building a career across two very different business cultures in the entrepreneurship lessons Europe taught me that the US never did, and about the specific cognitive research behind why depth of adaptation matters more than duration in what living abroad actually does to perspective. The leadership research adds a further, more institutional layer to that same argument: this isn’t just a personal growth story. For a board evaluating a CEO candidate, or an executive designing their own development path, genuine international experience — the breakthrough kind, not the observational kind — is one of the more empirically supported predictors of leadership effectiveness currently available, and one most succession planning processes still underweight.
The distinction that actually matters
None of this argues that any executive who’s lived abroad is automatically a stronger leader. The research is specific about what does the work: genuine breakthrough experiences, cultural distance on the dimensions that matter most for performance, and double-loop learning that reshapes how a leader approaches problems rather than simply what they know about them. A leader who’s spent a decade abroad without engaging deeply with any of it looks, on the performance data, closer to one who never left at all.
The takeaway for anyone building a leadership development path — their own, or their organization’s succession pipeline — isn’t “travel more.” It’s structure the international experience deliberately, around genuine cultural engagement rather than observation, because the research suggests that’s the version that actually changes how someone leads.
Stay Connected for More Travel and Lifestyle Inspiration
For more insights into travel, culture, and lifestyle tips, follow me on Instagram @salvadorordorica.
If you’re seeking professional translation and localization services to enhance your global ventures, visit The Spanish Group — your trusted partner in bridging cultures worldwide.
The Spanish Group
If you’re seeking professional translation and localization services to enhance your global ventures, visit The Spanish Group — your trusted partner in bridging cultures worldwide.
LEARN MORE