Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program
(USC Thesis Other)
Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 1
CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING AN OFFSHORE GRADUATE PROGRAM: A
CASE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GLOBAL
EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM
by
Marisa L. Herrera
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2013
Copyright 2013 Marisa L. Herrera
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Gloria and David Herrera. Through their
guidance, commitment and unwavering support, they made this dream, as well as many
more, possible. You inspired me to always stay passionately curious. Gracias.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 3
Acknowledgements
To my Family: You have been a constant source of support, love and inspiration
for me throughout my academic journey. Had it not been for the decades of hard work,
determination and sacrifice of those who have come before me, none of these
opportunities would have been possible. Using the words of Antonio Burciaga in his
mural the Last Supper of Chicano Heroes, “…and to all those that died, scrubbed floors,
wept and fought for us.” My success is your success.
To my parents, David and Gloria: thank you for being true role models of all that
is possible and for inspiring me to continue with my education. Words cannot describe
how thankful I am to have parents like you who have provided unconditional love,
inspired in me early on the love of learning and who never, ever offered me anything less
than the most genuine support two parents could offer a child. Dad, you have been my
true north when I have been lost and I am thankful for your insight and “dad luck”.
Mom, your love and daily phone calls early in the process provided a source of support
that buoyed me long after you were gone. I know what it meant to you that I finish and I
am glad that I fulfilled my promise to you.
To my sister Avila, my brother in law Brian and my nephews: thank you for the
years of continued support and encouragement. I wanted to do this for my nephews, so
that one day they could cross this stage and know that it was the rule, rather than the
exception, to be an educated Latino. You can be anything you want in life and I hope no
one ever tries to extinguish the beautiful energy and intelligence you possess.
To Dr. Bridget LeLoup: there are no words to describe how much I appreciate
your friendship. Over these past three years, I have cried with you, laughed with you,
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 4
and trekked across the globe with you. This process would have been unbearable without
you.
To My Nanas and Tatas, Tias and Tios, cousins and all my friends: thank you.
I’ve missed many important milestones and events because of school over the years, but
you have never made me feel bad about it.
In closing, I need to say a few special notes of thanks to the following people
without whose help I couldn’t have completed this dissertation.
To my committee, Dean Gallagher and Dr. Diamond: thank you for your
mentorship and showing me the world. To my thematic group: thanks for sticking it out
in the trenches with me.
To the amazing staff at the DSC, and, in particular, Dr. Linda Fischer: This
dissertation would not have been possible without her unconditional support, mentorship
and guidance. You are an Angel on earth for all the editing and encouragement you
provide your students.
To Melora Sundt and Rob Kadota: thank you for introducing me to the Trojan
Family.
Thank you to my colleagues at UCLA and Stanford for supporting me in my
academic work. Thank you to Rebecca and Owen Palmer for giving me refuge while I
was trying to write.
To Valerie Garcia and Anna Flores: thanks for being the first educators to push
me, inspire me and show me a world outside of Ray High.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Study 12
Statement of the Problem 19
The Purpose of the Study 21
Significance of the Study 22
Limitations 24
Delimitations 25
Assumptions 25
Definitions 26
Organization of the Study 27
Chapter Two: Literature Review 28
Integrating Globalization into Education 29
Globalization and Business Schools: A Definition 32
Developing Global Executive MBA Programs 37
Leadership 39
Leadership in Higher Education 42
Leadership and Strategic Thinking 43
Theoretical Framework 46
Summary 60
Chapter Three: Research Design 66
Qualitative Research Design 69
Site 71
Sample Selection 72
Instrumentation 74
Data Collection 76
Data Analysis 79
Validity and Reliability 80
Ethics 81
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 6
Chapter Four: Findings 83
Data Collection 83
Interviews 84
Findings for Research Question One 86
Findings for Research Question Two 111
Findings for Research Question Three 119
Findings for Research Question Four 123
Summary 129
Chapter Five: Discussion 132
Discussion of Findings 133
Organizational Change 134
Globalizing the MBA 138
Implications for Practice 141
Recommendations for Research 143
Conclusion 146
References 148
Appendix 155
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Interview Timeline 74
Table 2: Research Methodologies 79
Table 3: Five Interview Participants 84
Table 4: Representation of the Four Frames in the Findings 90
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 8
Abstract
This study applies the literature on leadership framing to the globalization of higher
education to understand the development of the Global Executive MBA program at a
large university. The purpose of the study was to provide administrators, educators and
university leaders an understanding as to how to respond to globalization and, secondly,
to offer a case study of one university’s development of a Global Executive MBA
program. It illustrates common challenges administrators might experience when
launching a global business program, specifically within the Pacific Rim and how those
leaders can respond to globalization.
Using data from interviews, artifacts and articles written on the program, a single case
study was developed to examine how leaders at Ray University implemented the global
executive MBA program. The study sought to understand the process leaders underwent
in developing the GEMBA program along with the challenges they experienced. The
study also highlights assessment measures for imbedding globalization within the
institution. The findings from this study indicate the program not only met the needs of
business students looking for increased international opportunities, but also came at a
time when the university was looking for ways to be more global in nature. In addition, it
positioned the business school as a national leader in global business education and set
the framework for other institutions to use the program as a model for imbedding
globalization into the curriculum. This study aids in understanding how leaders utilize
leadership framing to implement global programs and influence higher education.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 9
Chapter One: Introduction
“When people around the world think of the intellectual giants of the 21
st
century, they
will be thinking of Ray University. For the past two centuries, we have lived in the “Age
of the Atlantic”. As our world today shifts to a “Pacific Century”, Ray University is
better positioned than anyone else to lead this change. This is our moment.”
–President of Ray University
Higher education is experiencing a time of significant change. This
transformation is a result of the combined pressure of globalization, the changing nature
of the business of education and increased competition from a diversified education
system (UNESCO, 1998). This change is making it important for universities, especially
business schools, to not only think “global”, but also to fully integrate these concepts into
the curriculum.
Globalization, when first discussed in the early 1990’s, was a concept that was
referred to as the “inevitable wave of the future” (Daly, 1999). Unlike
internationalization, which referred to the increasing importance of international trade,
globalization changed the way the world interacted and moved societies towards
boundary-free economies (Daly, 1999). This resulted in a significant impact on
education, as this removal of boundaries opened up opportunities for students to rethink
where and how they want to learn. This change from the traditional ways in which the
American public exchanges goods, technology and knowledge was at the forefront of
discussions at many higher education institutions.
As higher education was in the midst of evaluating its model for delivering
education, the traditional way of conceptualizing leadership within higher education was
also changing as well, particularly in the context of a globalized world. As early as the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 10
1960’s, the debate on the future structure of higher education was a major issue in the
United States and influenced modern day higher education policies and structures
(Teichler, 2004). Due to the influences of globalization, higher education leaders were
asked to think in complex terms about a variety of new problems they had not
experienced before.
In 1970, a review conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development suggested the emergence of a broader range of options beyond the binary
system of higher education the United States had in place to a more diversified and
integrated model of higher education (UNESCO, March, 2004). As a result, Deans and
Department chairs led organizations, differentiated their programs and evolved to meet
the changing demands of a globally minded student body. In addition, they adapted at a
time when higher education moved away from a binary system of education while
competing for student enrollment.
Unlike any other moment in history, academic deans and department chairs were
asked to lead at a time when ambiguity, constant change and new paradigms in education
were an everyday expectation of the job. Implicit in this role was the need for leaders to
be charismatic, transformative and to look at problems from a variety of angles. The
difficult task for these individuals was the prospect of doing this while leading teams into
uncharted global territory. In order to be effective in this charge, these individuals rose to
not only be transformative leaders, but also inspired a wide variety of team members all
working towards one common goal.
Institutions of higher education examined the implications of globalization in
education along with the preparation of students and developed strategies to meet the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 11
needs of a globalized world through efforts such as global educational programs
(Hrabowski, Winter 2006). Hrabowski (2006) reflects that globalization is a primary
focus for university leaders and shares that the nation’s future is inextricably tied to
global education, particularly in American Higher Education.
In order to gain a greater understanding of how globalization helped create new
programs, this study sought to understand how the departmental leadership at one
university’s College of Business responded to globalization and implemented an initiative
that resulted in the creation of the Global Executive MBA program. The purpose of the
study was to demonstrate how one institution of higher education examined ways to
prepare students to meet the changing needs of the world and the lessons learned from
one Global Executive MBA program’s example.
Globalization not only, “influenced the educational philosophy and classroom
practices all over the world, but it also altered the context in which educators operate and
profoundly changed the experience of both formal and informal education” (Singh &
Papa, 2010). For instance, colleges and universities became sites for branding and the
targets of corporate expansion (Singh & Papa, 2010). As a result, the impact of these
forces of globalization indicates that traditional universities were at a critical crossroads.
Fiss and Hirsch (2005) explain that the change in the delivery of education comes
from the idea that “growth in international trade leads widely to shared benefits and a
generally civilizing effect”, a change that has direct implications in education(Fiss &
Hirsch, 2005; Levitt, 1983; Ohmae, 1990). Colleges and universities no longer solely
focus on educating students in their place-bound geographic region or state. Universities
expanded the ways in which they educated students by offering a variety of worldwide
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 12
destinations for their classroom experience and various educational delivery methods.
Through an examination of the elements needed and steps taken when creating a global
program, universities can utilize this knowledge as a competitive framework through
which they can strive, improve and expand their global footprint.
Background of the Study
Influence of globalization. A general assumption exists about globalization,
which characterizes its influence as one that only affects economic, technological or
political forces. However, a closer look shows that globalization is an influence that
affects all aspects of how we operate in today’s international society (Bush, 1991). While
delivering education to a global audience through international programs is not a new
concept, recent trends in globalization pushed higher education to examine the delivery
of this educational component and redefine the strategies and structures used to teach
students (Armstrong, 2008).
Globalization is often used to refer to “economic globalization”, the integration of
national economies into the international economy through foreign trade, foreign direct
investment, capital flows, migration and the spread of technology (Jagdish, 2004).
Through this understanding, leadership theory can be used to understand how academic
departments within universities responded to globalization. This examination of
leadership may be used to understand how a program was launched and the leadership
skills employed during the establishment of a new, global program (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
Globalization in higher education. While there are multiple examples to cite
where globalization affected higher education, Armstrong (2007) argues that colleges are
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 13
still operating from an older model of international expansion and not engaging in “true
globalization”. Armstrong (2007) posits that globalization affects all the areas of the
world economy, nations, countries, institutions and people, yet universities are still
operating from a “hub and spoke model” where the home campus controls all activities
that occur on a foreign branch campus (Badcock, 2002).
Armstrong (2007) argues that universities applied the hub and spoke model to
launch global programs and created an operation that fails to take into consideration the
unique aspects facing similar programs in different countries, particularly programs
whose curriculum needs to be tailored to fit a unique educational setting. While the hub
and spoke model has proven to be antiquated for some business sectors in exchange for a
local or outsourced approach, the use of the hub and spoke model persists at many
universities (KPMG, 2012). Higher education is in the midst of understanding its role
and mission at the local, national and global level and, arguably, programs that are in the
midst of this complex phenomenon must take into consideration the ways in which global
economies operate (Armstrong, 2007; Sburlan, 2009,).
Despite criticism of these examples of “global universities”, global programs have
leveraged technological advances to their benefit, which have allowed foreign and
American students to access education through a variety of media platforms (Jaeger,
2007). This change is important, regardless of whether it is seen as true globalization, as
it not only changed student’s learning environments but also changed the way knowledge
is transacted, extending the boundaries of knowledge throughout the globe (Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 2003).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 14
Tensions in higher education. There is no question that globalization has had
some impact on education, particularly with regard to program development, enrollment,
expansion and the overall strategic plans for many American colleges and universities
(Jagdish, 2004). Many American universities have adjusted their strategic initiatives to
include extending their “spoke”, or branch campus, outside of the United States. This
shift forced academic leaders to embrace globalization and focus their efforts squarely on
exporting academic programs to areas in the Pacific Rim, India and Latin America, as a
means of global expansion (Drobnick, 2004).
Increased capital flowing into China resulted in university leaders’ looking
towards China as the next big frontier for global expansion in an effort to seize the
opportunity for international integration (Alvarez, 1998). The expansion of business
activities in places like China, India and Malaysia and serious international education
reforms have led to an increase in Global Executive Master of Business Administration
enrollments along the Pacific Rim (Villegas-Reimers, 2003).
An increase in disposable income in the Pacific Rim provided an incentive for
American universities to expand their programs in countries outside of the United States.
This caused an increased global demand for higher education and created a surge in the
number of students seeking an international experience. It is estimated that the number
of students in tertiary education doubled between the years 2000 and 2012, reaching close
to 135 million students, particularly in Asia and Europe (Douglass & Edelstein, 2009). In
China, applications to American programs continue to climb and are estimated to be a
continued trend (CGS, 2009).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 15
Despite opportunities to expand programs in higher education, a tension exists.
There is a crisis across global higher education that mixes the issue of access, cost and
flexibility (Daniel, 1997). Technological advances that helped globalization emerge in the
business world have also had strong influences in the adoption of educational
technologies by universities (Dutton & Loader, 2002; Tiffin & Rajasingham, 2003).
While this benefit has increased access and eliminated geographic barriers, it has also
created a strain amongst traditional institutions of higher education and non-traditional
education outlets due to competition for student enrollment. While international distance
education is hardly a new phenomenon, universities have cited globalization as a key
reason for shifting their strategic focus and have caused an increase in global education
programs, particularly those with a business education focus.
According to a report from McKinsey and Company, it was estimated that, by the
year 2010, China would need an additional 75,000 internationally capable managers to
meet this growing need for talent (Farrell & Grant, 2005). In 2010, it was estimated that
demand for these managers far outweighed the system’s ability to supply this need, at a
miniscule 10% (I. Alon & Van Fleet, 2008). The Chinese market, while formidable,
presents a tremendous opportunity for growth and has created an explosion of educational
initiatives and competition in China. This increased competition also stems from the
recent recognition of international students as a potential profit center (Douglass &
Edelstein, 2009).
This change in the way universities respond to globalization has also had an
impact on the way their leaders think, act and strategize the growth and development of
their academic programs (Vaira, 2004). Research on the implications of globalization
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 16
and its impact on strategic initiatives in higher education indicate that, in order to thrive
in a global academic economy, universities must be prepared to educate their students to
be functionally competent, cross-culturally capable managers who can thrive in an
integrated global marketplace (Moxon et al., 1997).
One way in which business programs address the need for culturally competent
business managers is through the establishment of Global Executive MBA programs.
Global Executive MBA programs are Master of Business Administration programs that
offer the traditional curriculum of an MBA degree with aspects of the program developed
to meet the needs of busy business executives from all over the world ("Global Executive
MBA in Shanghai," USC 2011). According to Thunderbird School of Global
Management ("Cross Cultural Management," 2011), “no matter if your company is small
or large, global or domestic, in today’s global business environment, cross-cultural skills
are among the most important tools for global executives and companies to master”.
Senior leaders at business schools understand the need for a “global outlook” that
offers students the opportunity to experience globalization first-hand rather than through
textbooks or short study tours and began to rethink the strategies for changing the concept
of international education to be one that is more global in focus. Global Executive MBA
programs continue to be a favored choice for students all over the world to obtain a
business education (Business Week, 2008).
One aspect of the Global Executive MBA is that it appeals to a diverse group of
students, many of them foreigners enrolling in United States institutions ("Global
Executive MBA in Shanghai," USC 2011). The nature of Global Executive MBA
(GEMBA) programs is such that many of the students come from a unique worldview,
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 17
already possessing a significant amount of international experience. GEMBA programs
capitalize on that exposure to global issues and bring together individuals to provide a
richer, more stimulating learning environment. This type of program offers students a
business education from a reputable school where they receive a competitive edge from
both the material they learn in the classroom and from the students who work alongside.
For executives, this experience is valued because it represents an opportunity to quickly
apply their classroom experience to real world situations at their workplace.
The ability to receive a degree from an American institution in a foreign country
emerged at the turn of the century as a change in the delivery of education (Li, 2005).
This change in education delivery for MBA programs began in the latter part of the
1990’s, with the creation of “twin” versions of Master of Business Administration
programs geared at executives living abroad (Chinnammai, 2005). This programmatic
change is typically called “twinning” because it creates two programs in two different
locations with virtually the same curriculum. This created the foundation for the
emergence of Global Executive MBA programs. In China, where a growing number of
foreign students have enrolled in Global Executive MBA programs, these ventures have
resolved the need for quality education in a country that has a historically problematic
education system and little opportunities for obtaining an American MBA (Mohrman,
2006).
There is some concern that efforts to offer quality education in locations outside
of the home campus, the efforts to do so are ineffective for maintaining quality and
accountability. Traditionally, universities have tried to maintain tight control over the
way in which they managed international programs. In doing so, home campuses have
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 18
transferred knowledge by sending their students and professors to branch campuses to
briefly study or conduct research with the goal of returning to enrich the home institution
(Armstrong, 2007).
With the development of the Global Executive MBA however, this model of
knowledge sharing has significantly changed. Executives turn to American Global
Executive MBA programs, as the primary point of access for obtaining quality graduate
education while living abroad. While many programs with local and international
affiliations have attempted to enter the global MBA market, only a small number of
schools meet globally recognized standards for excellence and have been successful in
sustaining those initiatives (I. Alon & Van Fleet, 2008). In order to improve the delivery
of education, universities must examine the critical role that globalization plays in
preparing business leaders enrolled in these programs and adopt the best practices of
those programs which are successfully delivering quality business education (Yan, 2004).
Understanding the influence of globalization on higher education, specifically
looking at the development of Global Executive MBA programs, will significantly help
universities continue to improve program quality. This understanding not only helps
leaders understand how globalization affects the thinking and decisions leaders make in
education, but also ensures that students receive a quality education. The significance of
the study provides an understanding of the type of leadership framing that took place
during a significant crossroads for a university’s successful global expansion. This
understanding can help create a roadmap for other university programs to follow.
College leadership and organizational change. An example of strategic
leadership in the face of globalization’s influence is demonstrated in the successful
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 19
launch of the Global Executive Master of Business Administration program at a large
research university in the western United States herein referred to as Ray University. In
1994, the President of Ray University adopted a strategic plan that laid the foundation for
increased internationalization of its teaching and research programs (Armstrong, 1994;
Drobnick, 2004). Over the next fourteen years, the President, the Provost and Vice
Provost pursued a strategic plan that would take an active leadership role in ushering in
this vision of internationalization.
In 2004, a shift occurred in which Ray University launched a new Global
Executive MBA program (GEMBA). This program allowed students the opportunity to
be enrolled as a Ray University MBA student in collaboration with a partner university in
China referred to in this study as the Shanghai College of Economics and Management.
The program offered an opportunity for students to obtain an elite Ray University
education specifically focused on global issues in management education.
The creation of the Global Executive MBA program complemented the
international study programs already established in the college of business, which
included the Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBEAR) and
the Pacific Rim International Management Education Program (PRIME). Each of these
programs served as programs that incubated international study abroad experiences for
business students.
Statement of the Problem
While we know that the Global Executive MBA program was the first program to
be launched entirely in a foreign location, we do not know how the program was
developed. The problem of understanding how College of Business leaders implemented
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 20
organizational changes to the GEMBA program and strategically planned within the
context of globalization needs to be examined in order to understand possible linkages
between the GEMBA programs and other global programs on campus that emerged
following its creation. While some initial clues point to the fact that the GEMBA
program played a role in the international growth initiatives of the Ray University
College of Business, what we do not know is how it may have influenced other global
activities at the university. The initiatives used to develop and implement the Ray
University GEMBA program provides an opportunity to study how the Ray University
College of Business responded to the phenomenon of globalization.
This information is necessary in order to understand the process of developing a
global program by the college of business and learn whether the program influenced
other globalization initiatives at the university. Examining the formal and operational
conceptualizations of globalization and its impact on the development of the GEMBA
program provides an understanding of the kind of leadership needed in order to launch a
global initiative. Understanding how college of business leaders implemented the
GEMBA program offers significant insight for leaders of other global programs
attempting such a venture.
One problem that needs to be examined is the strategic planning implemented in
order to expand programs to a global audience. A common problem of this expansion is
that, as schools of business rushed to offer Global Executive MBA programs to students
in international locales, they put little forethought into where these programs would go
and how they would evolve (Yan, 2004). This has caused the compounded problem of
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 21
failing to fully assess the academic quality of these programs and their effectiveness in a
global market (Gary, Rissing, & Ong, 2007).
In addition, as other units within universities faced pressure to globalize, they
used the college of business model as a template for developing global programs. It is
difficult to determine what impact both globalization and the utilizing of this approach
have had on other academic departments seeking to follow in the strategic footsteps of a
business school.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to analyze how the Global Executive MBA program
began and the steps that led up to its creation. This information provides information and
an understanding of the process one college experienced when developing a global
program and to learn whether the program influenced other globalization initiatives at the
university.
Examining the strategies that the college of business leaders used to develop the
program, the challenges they faced and hurdles the Ray University College of Business
overcame when attempting such a venture will result in a greater understanding of how
the academic unit defined and responded to globalization. In addition, this study
highlights the programmatic and strategic initiatives that framed the college of business’
response to globalization and helps provide an understanding as to whether
organizational change occurred as a result of this initiative.
The study examines the formal and operational conceptualizations of
globalization. Its impact on the development of the GEMBA program provides an
understanding of the kind of leadership needed in order to launch a global initiative.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 22
Understanding how one group of leaders in one college of business implemented a
Global Executive MBA program offers insight for other leaders attempting to launch
similar global programs.
Four research questions guided this study:
Question 1: How did the perceptions of globalization inform the strategies of
internationalization?
Question 2: How did the leadership of the Ray University College of Business develop
the global executive MBA program based on their perceptions of globalization?
Question 3: How does the leadership of the Ray University College of Business view the
GEMBA program as part of the greater strategic plan for the university?
Question 4: How does the Ray University College of Business measure the progress of
the GEMBA program?
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study is based on the premise that globalization influenced
the creation of the Global Executive MBA program and, perhaps in the process, the
greater university’s efforts towards globalization. The study provides a clear
understanding of how a College of Business developed a global program based on the
College’s definition of globalization. The examination of the steps that led to the
creation of the Global Executive MBA program will enhance the ability of institutions to
make programmatic decisions concerning global expansion (Li, 2005) and aid in closing
the gap between the traditional and new strategies for globalization in the educational
context.
The study also illustrates how GEMBA program administrators at one business
program think about globalization and implemented changes to the program in response
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 23
to globalization. This study offers a greater understanding of how the GEMBA program
was created and launched in China and of the types of organizational change that may
have occurred as a result of globalization and the behaviors and decision-making that
initiated those changes. For the purpose of the study, all program managers, faculty and
staff will be referred to as “leaders”.
In order to offer this snapshot, it is necessary to identify key decisions made
during the development of this initiative, the leadership employed to develop the Ray
University model, the development of this program, and the impact that globalization had
on these decisions. Additionally, this study examines the ways in which the various
leaders made changes to the Ray University College of Business GEMBA program as
part of the development of a larger, school and university-wide globalization strategy.
The impact of globalization on the development, organizational decision-making
and implementation of the Global Executive MBA program at Ray University were
examined through the lens of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory on leadership reframing.
In particular, the strategic factors driving the Ray University College of Business to
create the GEMBA program were assessed to identify the current advantages and
disadvantages of the existing hub and spoke model for global executive MBA programs.
As more students choose to enroll in such programs, the host institution must pay
considerable attention to consistently delivering a quality product while not diminishing
the “brand” of their institution. In addition, at the core of this issue is the realization that
if higher education administrators do not understand globalization’s impact and the
strategies business school leaders employ in developing these types of programs, they
will not be prepared for the leadership challenges that lie ahead.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 24
Limitations
This study used a case study methodology to understand and explain how colleges
of business leaders think about globalization and develop a global program. For the
purpose of this study, the term “leaders” and “university leaders” are used to describe
those individuals in the College of Business who played a significant leadership role in
the development of the Global Executive MBA Program. The researcher was limited by
the amount of time needed to conduct the interviews, collect the data and analyze the
artifacts. The researcher was also limited by the availability of the leaders at Ray
University. The study is limited to the number of subjects interviewed and the amount of
time available to conduct this study. For example, one key contributor to the Global
Executive MBA program was unavailable at the time the data collection took place and
another had left the university with no forwarding information.
This study was limited to subjects who participated in the development of the Ray
University College of Business Global Executive MBA Program. This is limited to
academic deans, faculty and administrators at the school. The researcher was also limited
in measuring the success of the program, because, at the time of the data collection, the
program had not completed five cohorts, which were necessary for being ranked in
Financial Times, a key measurement tool for global executive MBA programs. In
addition, the school had not implemented an outcomes assessment-surveying graduates,
so there was limited data available on the outcome of the program.
The validity of the study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used. As
Merriam (1998) points out, human researchers are limited by missed opportunities,
mistakes and biases. This fallibility is a key limitation when dealing with human
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 25
research. This study contains the biases of the researcher, the researcher understands of
globalization and definition of the globalization of higher education. The researcher
acknowledges missed opportunities to talk to key constituents in the Global Executive
MBA program who were either unavailable or working abroad at the time. The
researcher utilized document analysis of the case studies and conference proceedings
published by participants and leaders within the program.
Delimitations
The study confined itself to analysis of data collected by current and former
members of the Ray University College of Business Administration, which includes
academic deans, program chairs of the Global Executive MBA Program (GEMBA) from
1994 to the time of this study. This study does not include students enrolled in the
GEMBA program, senior university staff or senior staff at the Chinese partner institution.
The study focused on the leadership frames, on administrative decision-making
and on how strategic decisions affect the university and other departments and on how
these decisions fostered successful growth of the GEMBA program at Ray University.
Assumptions
For this study, the following assumptions were made:
1. The measures were reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be studied.
2. The data were accurately recorded and analyzed.
3. The purposes, processes and elements of the framework studied have a degree of
applicability and generalized ability to apply towards Global Executive MBA
programs.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 26
4. The research, findings, data gathering and conclusions of the study represent
“good research”.
Definitions
The following definitions were used throughout this study:
Globalization (Armstrong, 2007)- process in which modularization of production
(from conception through sales) is joined with state of the art information technology and
decreasing national trade boundaries to enable a global optimization of production and
distribution.
Hub and Spoke Model (Armstrong, 2007; KPMG, 2012) - terminology originally
coined by business industry used to describe an industrial model of internationalization.
In this adaptation of the term for use in higher education, a home institution is at the
center of activities (hub) in which students and faculty are sent out along spokes to
foreign partner organizations to briefly study or conduct research and then return to
enrich the home institution with what has been learned.
Multinational Mode (Armstrong, 2007)- the process of setting up offshore degree-
granting branches and programs, often in partnership with a local entity
Equity Joint Venture (EJV) (Harvard, p. 106)- A foreign exchange rule where an
international entity (American or other), enters into a business partnership with a well-
connected Chinese counterpart
Twinning (Chinnammai, 2005) - Aspect of globalization of education, which
creates one Western and one non-Western university.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 27
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One of the study presents the
introduction, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be
answered, the theoretical framework, the significance of the study, the definitions of
terms, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations and the organization of the study.
Chapter Two provides a review of the literature including theories of globalization, the
globalization of higher education, leadership framing and business education. Chapter
Three presents the methodology used in the study, including a description and rationale
of the sample, the data collection procedures, a description of the instrument development
and the methods of data analysis. Chapter Four presents the results of the study. Chapter
Five summarizes the findings, draws conclusions and makes recommendations for future
research and practice.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 28
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature on leadership, globalization, and business
education programs. While s each of these separate elements represents an aspect of
research on the American higher education landscape, the research only scratches the
surface regarding how they intersect. In particular, the complex nature of globalization in
higher education and, specifically, MBA programs, presents an opportunity to make
connections across a broad spectrum of areas.
The research in this area provides a framework for study of challenges facing
leaders in higher education in the context of globalization through an analysis of the
leadership frames employed by administrators and faculty in the College of Business.
The research questions guiding this study refer to the ways in which the leadership of the
business school used leadership framing to develop a global program. For the purpose of
this study, the review of literature examines leadership in a global context utilizing
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Leadership Theory (1991, 1997).
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Theory was selected for this study because of its
proven usefulness in understanding how leaders’ thinking relates to managerial and
leadership effectiveness and because of the argument by Thompson (2000) that a multi-
frame or balanced leadership orientation yields the most effective managers and leaders.
The backdrop for this focus relates to the ways in which leadership is affected by
globalization and discusses the fact that business education was at the forefront of the
movement to globalize universities.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 29
Integrating Globalization into Education
A key component of higher education organizational change is made up of leaders
capable of making fast, efficient and effective decisions with regard to globalization. The
first step in the process of implementing globalization is defining the term, as its meaning
and scope depend on the angle emphasized when crafting a definition (Stromquist, 2000).
With the expansion of the Fulbright Scholarship, educators involved with the Council for
International Exchange of Scholars identified the emergence of global programs and
evaluated the potential for expanding higher education’s reach to new and developing
countries ("A Brief History of IIE," 2011). In order to fully understand globalization’s
implications on knowledge and education, higher education leaders were tasked with
defining and assessing the value of globalization to a university setting in order to make
the best use of an emerging concept.
Within a business school setting, globalization of education was of particular
relevance, as the curriculum was derived from themes occurring in the business world.
One motivation for the globalization of educational programs was financial gain through
an internationalization project (Albach, 2007). It is important to note that this motivation
was driven largely by for-profit higher education programs. Traditional higher education,
while benefitting greatly from an increase in enrollment in a globalized program,
typically had motivations that were not financial and, instead, were aimed at enhancing
research and knowledge capacity with the intent of increasing cultural understanding
(Knight, 2006).
Over the two decades prior to this study, international activities dramatically
expanded in both scope and volume, allowing programs to introduce a range of activities
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 30
that include traditional study abroad programs, access for students in countries where the
local institution could not meet the demand, the enhancing of foreign language programs
and an increase in cross-cultural understanding (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Towards that
end, business schools have been at the forefront of introducing global programs and
international education to university settings. They were some of the first departments to
embed study abroad as an essential component within the core curriculum.
These initiatives resulted in the emergence of branch campuses, franchised degree
programs and partnerships with local institutions focused on developing and middle-
income countries (Altbach & Knight, 2007). These developments resulted in profits in
terms of higher tuition revenue and provided a “demand absorbing” program to aid
students in middle-income countries, such as China and some in Latin America, obtain a
postsecondary education in an environment with very limited opportunities for graduate
studies in business (Altbach & Knight, 2007).
During 1997, when business schools first publicly articulated globalization’s
potential, Castells (2000) identified sources of competitiveness in a global economy that
married well with business schools’ expanding their reach towards new territory. These
developments started with experiential learning opportunities within courses and evolved
towards core competencies in the curriculum that involved global study and international
travel experience (Castells, 2000).
Business schools, particularly top European and American institutions, opened
branch campuses for degree programs that included study at the home campus or
consisted entirely of offshore studies (Alon & McAllaster, 2009). Programs were
carefully targeted towards students in small, high quality programs at the invitation of
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 31
local entrepreneurs at both public and private institutions( Altbach & Knight, 2007).
Cross border higher education efforts resulted in growth areas for countries. This
development created an international initiative leading to a flow of international students,
franchisers of academic programs to foreign counterparts, and controlling partners in
“twinning” arrangements of popular business programs.
According to Castell (2000), global competitiveness operates within four
distinctive processes: the 1) Technical capacity of the country or the articulation of
science, technology management and production; 2) Access to large, integrated, affluent
markets such as the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement nations, or
Japan 3) A profitable differential between production costs at the production site and
prices at the market of destination (including labor and land costs along with taxes and
environmental regulations; and 4) The political capacity of national and supranational
institutions to guide the growth strategy of those countries or areas under their
jurisdiction (pp. 103-5).
Stromquist (1997) articulated three essential geographic blocs as areas that were
preparing themselves for global competition. These three markets (Europe, North
America and East Asia) met the predictions and resulted in what Stromquist called
“micro institutions” that helped facilitate economic and political exchanges. Education
proved to be a key “micro institution”, as it aided in and profoundly imbedded
globalization into its educational exchanges.
In 2007, Stromquist revisited her earlier prediction that globalization shaped what
is learned, the use of technologies in the classroom, the connectivity between professors
and institutions nationally and worldwide, the conditions of academic work, and the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 32
relationships among knowledge production, the market, the lives and interactions of
students and faculty. The model adopted by Master of Business Administration (MBA)
programs for plotting a strategy for optimal globalization provides multiple benchmarks
for dimensions of globalization and a method through which universities can measure
themselves against others to assess their global footprint (Illan Alon & Van Fleet, 2009).
Globalization and Business Schools: A Definition
An area of the literature that requires greater attention is that of globalization of
American universities. Despite globalization’s serving as a major influence on MBA
programs and an acknowledgement by business programs of the importance of
globalization, many schools lacked an overarching approach to globalization which led to
an unsystematic and incomplete review of globalization’s impact (Alon & McAllaster,
2009). In addition, while much was written about the importance universities placed on
globalization efforts, there is very little on what this means for a university or on how to
measure the effectiveness of a school’s globalization efforts.
The American Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International (AACSB) identified the changing international structures that exist within
the complex environment of the globalization of management education("Cross Cultural
Management," 2011). Through adaptive strategies and by examining responses to forces
of change within the curricular content, the association established different barriers
associated with globalizing a program.
While there remains no mutually agreed upon definition for globalization
amongst schools of business, globalization is defined by the AACSB as, “a process of
change within educational institutions extending the reach of educational engagement
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 33
beyond one’s home borders and deepening the richness of understanding about the
increasingly global foundation of business” (2011, p. 7). Despite this definition, there
has been no universal model for globalizing a program or for addressing the various
dimensions of the complex dynamics of globalization’s effects on higher education (Alon
& McIntyre, 2004; McIntyre & Alon, 2005).
This structuring of global content, how it is inserted into a global community, the
infusion of existing campus culture and the interlock that exists are of particular
importance to colleges of business seeking to globalize. Through this examination, the
AACSB identifies ways that higher education leaders can assess learning outcomes and
identify the impact of globalization on institutions ("Cross Cultural Management," 2011).
Understanding globalization’s impact beyond the halls of the business school is important
for identifying different applications as forces towards increasing the minimum standards
for globalization and raising the quality of global initiatives.
In order to define a program as “global” within a business school, management
education shifted its focus towards integrating several assessment metrics within the
curriculum in order to establish learning outcomes for globalizing said curriculum. The
aim is to provide a process towards globalizing a curriculum by: 1) Greater competence
and confidence of graduate students for doing business with global impact; 2) more
research insights into the global complexity of managers, enterprises, and markets
studied; and 3) ultimately better service of the global management profession.
According to the association, there are direct linkages between a “global” program and
the outcomes it achieves, the processes it engages in and the places it inhibits (AACSB,
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 34
2011). The following outcomes create a benchmark for global programs for assessment
purposes:
• Prepares students to perform competently and confidently in a world of global
business competition and inherently global issues
• Generates research insights about trends and best practices in global management
• Leverages diverse cultures and practices in pursuit of innovation and continuous
improvement.
The first a definition for globalization was developed at a time when the concept
was going through a rapid evolution. According to Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011),
the United States faced four major challenges as a result of globalization. As
globalization expanded, it put “virtually every American job under pressure” and caused
business schools to develop curriculum to assist in understanding the phenomenon. At
the same time, the information technology revolution was taking shape and changed both
the complexity and the composition of work. These two elements, along with rising
national debt, annual deficits, and the growth that resulted from globalization and the
adoption of free market economics are of direct concern to the study of business
(Friedman and Mandelbaum, 2011).
From an economic perspective, globalization has been credited with having the
greatest impact on the economic brutality faced by the United States from 2000 to 2010
(Rattner, 2011). At the same time, globalization is credited with expanded markets for
industry and with changing the nature of business activity. Business broadly defined
globalization as “free markets which have increased trade and new technology (internet,
containers), which allowed firms to produce where the costs are cheapest, particularly
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 35
labor costs” (Hofstra, 2011). This resulted in a global supply chain and a global
workforce.
This change created an emergent need for business schools to develop a definition
of globalization and to study its impact while rapidly adapting to its pressures. In the
span of a decade, from the years 2000 to 2010, globalization eliminated many US jobs,
average incomes remained flat, and inequality in incomes increased (Hofstra, 2011).
Following the financial crisis of 2008, the US faced additional job losses and individuals
remained unemployed for longer periods of time.
According to the AACSB (2011), the relationship between the business
profession and the business academy is one that is tightly coupled. The AACSB argues
that, due to the symbiotic relationship between the two industries, it is important to note
that, when one entity gets ahead of the other, in the typical result is recalibration and
reflection by either the academy or the industry. According to the Task Force on
International Education, globalization created tension between management education
and the business industry. In the case of management education and business schools, it
is important to acknowledge management trends in business with regard to globalization
in order to gain a full understanding of the challenges facing higher education.
While globalization was initially seen as a large opportunity for colleges and
universities, it also represented the greatest challenge for business schools worldwide as
they struggled to keep up with the demand for graduates who developed the acumen to
work across countries and cultures. Despite global activities initiated by business
schools, most schools have a “wide curriculum gap that remains alongside large risks of
misdirected and incoherent strategies”(Mangan, 2011).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 36
A review of the literature on globalization strategies at business schools reveals
that four broad trends emerged as a result of globalization’s impact on management
education: 1) the deepening of integration, 2) the fusion of markets, 3) a shift to
networked organizations, and 4) a migration to cyberspace. In addition, the Internet
played a vital role in connecting students, faculty and knowledge dispersion at every
point in the educational delivery pipeline for global programs.
While the evidence suggests that the academy should follow the trend adopted by
business to adopt new organizational models and structural dynamics, new strategies and
a need for new capabilities among employees, higher education remains relatively
steadfast in its connection to academic tradition. Despite this, steady pressure changed
the business education environment so that it shifted its model to include the elements
found in global business. This resulted in increased collaboration, increased student
mobility, increased diversity amongst the student body, and a change in the
organizational and hierarchical structures of business schools.
Unlike business, however, the motivation of business schools to globalize is
derived largely from the desire to provide an enhanced educational experience for
students. Business, on the other hand, derives its motivations for globalization from the
opportunities it provides to enhance positioning, increase access to customers, maintain a
competitive position or decrease production costs. While a 2004 study illustrated that
financial motivations ranked low on the list of motivations surveyed by European and
Canadian business school Deans, the changing economic climate and the impact on
higher education resulted in department heads’ reevaluating global programs as a means
to enhance revenue and lower costs (AACSB, 2011). As traditional sources of funding
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 37
and availability of support at the federal and state level dwindled, the result was the
demand for an increase in revenue-generating activities by universities.
Developing Global Executive MBA Programs
As the nature of business school education changed, the demand for curriculum in
management education that was aligned with the global influences of business industry
created a need for globalized programs. In response, business schools approached
globalization with a variety of strategies for the growth, expansion and integration of
their programs into foreign markets. As issues, trends and strategies by firms with regard
to globalization emerged, the choice for many business schools was to globalize the
executive MBA.
The demand for global skills and competencies, coupled with innovations in
technology and learning approaches, created the globalization of business education. In
addition, educational disparities, particularly with regard to business management,
created a need for culturally competent managers (Tough Choices for Tough Times,
2007). This pressure created capacity-building efforts that assisted in developing cross-
border coalitions to increase knowledge about globalization. Labarre (2009) connects the
evolutionary nature of business transformation of “who we are, how we behave, how we
think, and what we value” (p.226) to the global paradox that created the evolution of
business education (Laszlo, 2001). The early phase of business education saw evolutions
that can be described as professionalism from 1881 until 1941, at the start of World War
II, and as organizational reform from 1941 through the recession of the 1970’s (Khurana,
2007). Globalization emerged in the last stages of business education’s movement away
from professionalism toward market imperatives (Khurana, 2007). It was the forward
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 38
thinking, entrepreneurial actions of academics and managers that shaped business
education during all three periods, based on the premise that business was a professional
calling rooted in ethical behavior that could help serve society as a whole. Two themes
dominated business education as a result: 1) The earliest business schools were created in
response to international trade, and 2) with the emergence of globalization, schools
circled back to the roots of business education as a direct result of cross-border education
and knowledge dispersion amongst countries and industries (AACSB, 2011).
Management education is characterized by the global nature of students and the
global nature of providers. What today’s landscape means for globalization of
management education is that, as the business world changes, there are direct and
immediate effects within higher education. The fault lines of management education, the
promise of globalization and the implications on business education created an
opportunity for faculty leaders to develop strong strategies for globalization. In response
to the forces of change brought on by globalization, faculty leaders focused on curricular
content and on deepening the level of global competency.
In response to forces of change, faculty leaders engaged in globalizing curriculum
focused on structures and processes. According to the National Business Education
Association (2013), this process for creating a global perspective involves an
achievement standard that examines the issues of corporate culture and of managing a
global environment. This involves augmenting capabilities by developing strategic
partnerships, creating collaborative degree models and establishing a deeper presence
abroad. These faculty strategies are at the core of academic leadership and aid in pulling
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 39
a disparate grouping of elements together in order to build a unified strategy around
globalizing the MBA.
The curricular imperative driven by globalization’s influence is a pressing need,
but there are barriers to globalizing curriculum and globalizing curricular content
("National Standards for International Business Education," 2007). While some faculty
leaders and global programs continued to focus on international experience, strategy now
shifts towards structuring global content: insertion, infusion, interlock and assessment of
learning outcomes (AACSB, 2011). All of this involves a multi-framed approach for
leadership.
Leadership
Current research on the dynamics of higher education leadership within the
context of globalization is relatively young and very broad. Previous research typically
looked at leadership within the scope of a management perspective and only recently
took a deeper look at the challenges facing educators in leadership positions. Factors
involving the globalization of higher education and leadership only add to the complexity
of the subject on which very little research has been conducted.
We do know that the nature of leadership in higher education underwent an
evolution that changed the way individuals view problems in organizations. Particularly
in regards to globalization, administrative leaders developed programs in colleges of
business at a time when the definition of globalization was still evolving. Despite this
varied understanding of the pressures associated with globalization’s emergence, this
evolution presented a leadership challenge that caused those involved with business
education to integrate globalization into the curriculum or risk missing an opportunity to
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 40
stay relevant as a department (Portugal, 2006). This pressure resulted in the emergence
of academic leaders willing to create a vision and take the lead on a project with
unknown outcomes.
The transformation of the concept of leadership evolved significantly since the
1900’s when Stogill (1948) first theorized the concept of the “great man” which indicated
that only a select few had the rare qualities necessary to lead and shape history.
Leadership is a topic discussed by scholars who have attempted over time to both explain
the traits of a leader and illustrate the factors that exhibit “a set of principles that are
universal to leadership which can then be adapted to different situations” (Mangan,
2002). These distinctive traits of personality, physicality and values are described by
Northouse (2004) as the “inborn characteristics and qualities of leaders” (Northouse,
2010) The characteristics and qualities leaders possess when faced with defining new
phenomena in the organizations they lead are important aspects of sense-making,
decision-making and developing new initiatives.
Early research on leadership theory focused primarily on traits theory, which
indicated that leaders held certain physical and psychological characteristics that prepared
them for leadership roles (Hackman & Johnson, 1991). According to the early work of
Stodgill, leaders did not become leaders because they had innate abilities or certain
physical attributes. Rather, they reflected their relationship with their follower (Hackman,
et. al, 2004). Trait theory and leadership processes provide two distinct philosophies
about the nature of leadership, with the latter illustrating leadership as a phenomenon
that, “resides in the context and makes leadership available to everyone”.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 41
Later, Stodgill revised his research in the 1970's to include a wider assessment of
163 trait studies in which he found that leaders did possess a set of distinct
characteristics, such as persistence in pursuing goals, initiative, self-confidence,
willingness to accept consequences and tolerate frustration and the ability to influence
others’ behavior (Stodgill, 1981). Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum (1989) later
expanded on Stodgill's findings to include leadership characteristics such as confidence,
courage, fairness, respect for the opinions of others and sensitivity.
From a traditional frame of leadership, the leader is one who achieves a goal
through a set of management skills, personal attributes and interpersonal abilities
(Baldridge et al., 1977, 2000; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Birnbaum, 1988). Gill
(2006) theorizes that leadership itself is like a complex puzzle and one that cannot be
easily explained through the disparate range of theories and models. While varied
research attempts to illustrate how certain traits influence leadership (Northouse, 2004),
one central theme emerges that identifies “the ability to solve complex problems” as a
common thread amongst successful leaders (Peterson, 2004). A finding from Gill’s
research on leadership counters this concept by providing an alternative view. Gill
asserts that, while leaders often do develop their traits early in life, those who possess
these traits are not always effective leaders. While Leaders concern themselves with the
direction of the group (Hackman and Johnson, 2000) and strive to do the right thing
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985), Managers, conversely, are involved in the daily activities of
coordinating and supporting the functions of the organization (Day, 2001). An important
point is that, in a leadership situation, managers are more likely to tend to the status quo
(Hackman and Johnson, 2000) while leaders do the right thing (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 42
It must be noted that early research on leadership only examined the traits of
effective leaders and failed to measure leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990). Fischer,
Tack and Wheeler attempted to connect the specific leadership traits to leadership
effectiveness and determined that this was not possible because situational factors were
often overlooked.
Leadership in Higher Education
Birnbaum (1988) provides data that illustrates the fact that little is actually known
about the phenomenon we refer to as higher education “leadership”. Attempts were made
to understand and describe the different facets of college leadership, through the
description of traits, behaviors, skills, strategies, mental models, processes and actions of
successful leaders and organizations (Bensimon & Neuman, 1993; Northouse, 2007). The
challenge remains that, rather than attempt the difficult task of measuring, defining or
linking outcomes to college leadership, it is more efficient to frame organizations in a
way that responds to a world that has become more global, competitive and turbulent
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Current research on leadership in higher education illustrates the shift from
“traditional” leadership theories that emphasized traits and rational processes changed to
the now emphasized emotions and values (Yukl, 1999). Newer theories that emphasize
transformational and charismatic leadership “acknowledge the importance of symbolic
behavior and the role of the leader in making events meaningful for followers” (Yukl,
1999, p.33). A study on transformational leadership theory demonstrates that charismatic
leaders develop a common mission and sense of purpose for their group while stimulating
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 43
new ways of thinking and problem solving to help lead their teams to greatness (Keller,
1992).
Birnbaum (1988) places the topic of a unified mission into the broader scholarly
literature by stating, “Our common notions of leadership arise from the perception that
the success of business organizations depends on the directives of hard-driving,
knowledgeable and decisive executives” (Birnbaum, 2000). This ability to reach clarity
and agreement on organizational mission and institutional goals has equally important
effects on organization and management. Especially in times of organizational change
within the context of globalization, it is more important than ever for leaders and
institutions to be responsive to their complex environments in order to survive.
The ability to think in the abstract and solve problems that are universally defined
as “complex” is an important characteristic of a good leader (Peterson, 2004). This
overarching concept of “complex thinking” is consistent with Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
Four Frame theory. In this theory, Bolman and Deal explain an approach for looking at
situations from more than one angle. The ability to lead during a time of change is not
the ability to wield unilateral power. Rather, it is the ability to look at situations in an
adaptive way that motivates and mobilizes people.
Leadership and Strategic Thinking
The connection between the role of leader and the importance of strategic change
is not a new concept. Much like the guidance offered by the father of modern leadership
in his book The Prince, Machiavelli knew the vital importance of adaptability and
strategic planning in times of change. This concept is best captured in the statement,
“whoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times” (Machiavelli,
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 44
1513). Environmental movements and consumer preferences play a vital role in strategy
development, and this is a concept that marries well with the globalization of higher
education.
Strategic development played an important role in the worldwide expansion
within higher education in the twentieth century. At the end of the twentieth century,
higher education enrollments grew exponentially, especially in countries such as China
that experienced rapid economic growth. Business education identified globalization as
an emerging concept and one that, if imbedded in the curriculum, could help meet
strategic goals for universities. Research on this topic shows that, “a new model of
society became institutionalized globally-one in which schooled knowledge and
personnel were seen as appropriate for a wide variety of social positions, and in which
many more young people were seen as appropriate candidates for higher education”
(Schofer & Meyer, 2005, p. 2). This rise of development planning and “structuration of
the world polity” lends itself to looking deeper at the institutional and operational
processes involved in global expansion.
The operational and institutional process for global expansion was further fueled
by the advancements found in Europe, specifically after the Bologna Agreement was
enacted. The Bologna Agreement is a European Higher Education Act which encourages
common educational definitions, credentials and standards for global education (Schofer
& Meyer, 2005). While Schofer and Meyer (2005) assert that the “isomorphism” in
Europe leads to the unintended consequence of routinizing all aspects of the subject
matter, research agendas and personnel, the question still remains of who is doing “it”
right. Gary Rhoades (2000) asks that very question but posits that the real question
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 45
regarding global organizational strategy in higher education is “what are some principles
for doing it right?” (Rhoades, 2000).
Rhoades (2000) further asserts that the idea of “doing it right’ goes far beyond
identifying exemplary principles for the intention of copying and implementing those
strategies at other universities. It contributes to thoughtful growth in public research
universities by facilitating, supporting and encouraging constructive strategic thinking
and activity in academic units toward multiple goals. This emphasis on pluralistic goal
acquisitions in the face of competing priorities offers what Birnbaum (1999) describes as
processes that “reform structures, adopt more rationalized management systems and
increase the power of executive leadership to make faster, more efficient and more
effective decisions.” It is important to understand the strategies leaders in higher
education employ when they are placed in positions of power. Literature on leadership in
higher education posits that the key change agents on campus are leaders at the top and
center of the education structure (Bennis &Nanus, 1985; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993;
Clark, 1998; Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999; Keller, 1983; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996).
In 2002, the American Forum for Global Education established standards for
national and state education institutions on global and international study components
(Czarra, 2003). While gaps in the standards across educational outlets vary depending on
the skills and attitudes needed to confront future global problems, a set of guidelines were
established in order to assure that the curriculum met a set of metrics regarding
knowledge acquisition. This checklist provided a tool for educators, “curriculum
developers, school administrators and state agency staff to gauge their work within the
realm of global/international education” (p. 1). According to the standards, the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 46
foundation of the document outlines a set of intellectual filters by which schools can
validate state standards and align those with local curriculum decisions. The document
outlines that the study of globalization is divided into three main themes: global issues,
global culture and global connections.
The American Forum for Global Education is a private, not for profit organization
founded in 1970 with the mission of, “Educating United States citizens for responsible
participation in our communities, our nation, and our interdependent world” (p. 1). These
metrics offer schools planning to internationalize or globalize their curriculum the
guidelines and consultation necessary to understand best practices for global programs,
establish benchmarks for global programs and exchange ideas for the improvement of
content and directions of global education.
Theoretical Framework
Globalization. This study uses Armstrong’s (2007) theory of globalization to
frame the issues facing higher education as a means to define and describe situations
affecting the academic environment. Armstrong’s theory discusses the implications of
globalization and the challenges facing higher education’s attempt to transcend beyond
the “international” scope towards the “global” university. Armstrong (2007) posits that,
while the role of a university is to operate within a knowledge economy, the academic
world has very little idea of what it means to be truly “global”. Armstrong discusses the
potential impact of globalization and the way it will manifest itself in the higher
education landscape. The theory discusses the drivers, issues and risks associated with
institutional approaches to higher education.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 47
Globalization is defined as, “an institutionalized cultural account which describes
reality, makes sense about how the world works and structures the way institutions and
actors operate” (Meyer, Boli, & Thomas, 1987). According to Vaira (2004), while
globalization has become an influential aspect that underpins decision-making and
rationalization, it still remains a contentious and multifaceted topic. He explains, “there
is no univocal and neat definition of its fundamental features, contents and above all,
outcomes” (Vaira, 2004).
In fact, there still remains a debate that centers on two streams of divergence
thesis and convergence thesis. It is important to note the key differences between these
two explanations that attempt to make sense of the different way that globalization takes
shape within organizations and, specifically, within education. On one hand, Vaira
(2004) states that convergence thesis focuses on the top-down linear trend toward
homogenization (cultural, political and economic). On the other hand, divergence theory
focuses on the bottom up, non-linear heterogeneity of globalization’s effects and
outcomes on the local level (national, regional and organizational). He explains that this
organic movement, described as “non deterministic, conflictual and sometimes
voluntaristic”, is how the environment determines the direction of globalization’s
influence (Vaira, 2004).
An important question posed by Lloyd Armstrong is, “Why has globalization’s
impact on higher education been so small thus far compared to its impact on most other
components of the economy?” (Armstrong 2008, p. 4). While early theorists on
globalization’s impact presented the possibility that globalization’s deep roots in
European civilization would result in a net loss of personal identity, Palmer (2003), in his
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 48
historical critique of globalization, offers another viewpoint. Palmer explains that the
increasing freedom of trade and movement did not produce the anticipated results of a net
loss of identity. Rather, Palmer explores the possibility of an alternative idea of identity
in what Palmer calls “Focal Theory”.
Palmer explains that Focal Theory suggests the shifting focus of identity to
include the influence of globalization. The result is a series of overlapping influences
which does not change identity, but, rather, enhances it. This argument may be why
some universities, particularly public institutions, are hesitant to fully embrace
globalization’s impact on higher education.
Shifting the focus of the university to include another identity elsewhere in the
world, albeit an overlapping one, may compromise that university’s historical identity.
Despite the possibility that an evolving university identity may be a marked
improvement, there may be some resistance to change from the university leaders. While
this may be a far-reaching correlation to pose between individual identity and
institutional identity, this tension may exist and might be one of the reasons globalization
has had such a small effect on higher education.
Another theorist provides an additional perspective on globalization’s small effect
on higher education. A study conducted in 1996 by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) lists seven facets of essential knowledge
offered as a means to illustrate the forecasted skills and understanding that will be needed
as organizations globalize (Morin, 1999). While the report lists seven different facets of
essential knowledge, it is the knowledge of planetary developments and the recognition
of earth citizenship that presents a direct correlation between globalization and the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 49
knowledge needed for university strategic planning. It is important to note that, while the
report was conducted at the turn of the century, it presents some interesting findings that
have proven to be indispensable. Specifically, the leadership framing, diversity paradigm
that is suggested, the organizational development and cross-cultural communication
continue to hold importance ten years later.
The research from both Palmer (1999) and Morin (1999), provide a useful lens
through which to examine the reasons higher education has been only moderately
affected by globalization. While the findings of the UNESCO study point to the
importance of “learning to navigate a sea of uncertainties” as critical knowledge, the
mission of some universities may not be aligned with this concept. Specifically, the
importance of teaching strategic principles for addressing these uncertainties and the “call
for reform of mentalities for a mutual understanding in all directions” may not be at the
core of some university missions, teaching, research or service.
Early research on globalization by Burbules and Torres (2000) accurately showed
what could be expected over the next ten years as a result of globalization. Specifically,
economic restructuring had an impact higher education and caused the development of
new policies and programs which have been directly influenced by globalization. This
early research provides a roadmap for the impact globalization has on the thinking and
decisions of leaders in higher education. In addition, it helped to establish an early
definition for globalization within the context of higher education and presented how
globalization influences leadership decision making and drives the strategic goals of a
university or department. Thomas Palmer (2003) defines the phenomena of globalization
as the freedom of trade and movement. He likens this process to “cosmopolis”, or
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 50
universal civilization. Palmer (2003) asserts that cosmopolis, the global migration of
people, ideas and capital, tied together the world, thus becoming a staple of world culture.
The process of turning things once considered local or regional into global ones
illustrates exactly how globalization has a similar impact on American higher education.
Thomas Friedman (1999) defines globalization as a “flattening of the globe” and
argues that globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining and political forces
permanently changed the world for better or worse. Friedman discusses the importance
of understanding globalization and its impact in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree
(Friedman, 1999). Friedman challenges those who argued that globalization would be the
demise of nation states and critics who were incorrect in their predictions of a borderless
world. His research counters that it is “the increasing openness of borders, (where) the
quality of your state matters more, not less” (Friedman, 1999) As a result, Friedman
became a leading writer on the topic of globalization and made a considerable
contribution to the ongoing debate regarding globalization’s implications for important
aspects of the world economy, such as education, the economy and how globalization has
changed the lives of people all over the world.
Interestingly, common arguments (Palmer 2003; Jagdish, 2004) state that
globalization had a profound impact on people the world over, yet new research argues
that true “globalization” has not affected higher education in the same way (Armstrong,
2007). While this change in the way we interact across borders from an economic
standpoint created a single society which functions together, we cannot assume a
correlating change in the way higher education creates and disperses knowledge.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 51
Whether programs that label themselves “global” actually operate in a truly global sense
remains unknown.
Noam Chomsky (2002) also refers to the concept of “economic globalization” in
his book Democracy and Education. Chomsky (2002) illustrates how globalization
changed education as a means for “sharing of discovery and mutual assistance in a time
of crisis” for universities (p. 179). The crisis Chomsky (2002) refers to is the rapid
globalization of society and expansion of knowledge as a commodity that is traded and
shared. This commitment to a “free marketplace of ideas” is the trend that quickly shapes
the future of American higher education (Chomsky, 2002).
Scott (1998) offers a similar viewpoint to support this notion in his explanation of
the challenges facing higher education in the 21
st
century (Scott, 1998). He answers an
aspect of the question regarding why globalization has not had the radical impact
experienced in other industries in the modern world. Scott argues that many traditional
universities risk being superseded by universities that embrace globalization to a larger
extent. He asserts that simply internationalizing is not synonymous with globalization.
To the contrary, he offers that universities that globalize will not look anything like those
that existed up to this point in history, and that includes universities that have
internationalized.
This “promulgation of national cultures” may explain why institutional identity
became a barrier to globalization and why it continues to have a small effect on higher
education. According to Carnoy (2005), “an important question for democratic societies
and societies transitioning to democracy is whether higher quality education for all is
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 52
necessarily consistent with individual-centric democracy, particularly societies marked
by deeply-rooted ethnic conflicts and weak states”.
One example of a university willing to let globalization have a greater impact on
its leadership, organizational development and strategic planning is the emergence of
Laureate International, a for-profit university that has established itself to be a leader in
global education (Laureate, 2012). Unlike traditional universities, Laureate has
demonstrated a readiness to adapt to the global needs of its students and modify its
delivery of education to be one that constantly evolves as those needs change. In 2011,
more than 49,000 students around the world were pursuing degrees through Laureate
Centers of Excellence in Education and the hospitality programs are offering programs in
over 100 countries (Laureate, 2012). .
Early on, global education programs were described as the “inevitable wave of the
future” (Daly, 1999). Institutions of higher education examined the implications of
globalization in education, the preparation of students and developed strategies to meet
the needs of a globalized world through efforts such as global educational programs
(Hrabowski, Winter 2006). Hrabowski (2006) reflects that globalization is a primary
focus for university leaders and shares that the nation’s future is inextricably tied to
global education, particularly in American Higher Education. Globalization has not only,
“influenced the educational philosophy and classroom practices all over the world, but it
also altered the context in which educators operate and profoundly changed the
experience of both formal and informal education” (Singh and Papa, 2010, p. 1). For
instance, colleges and universities became sites for branding and the targets of corporate
expansion (Singh & Papa, 2010). Fiss and Hirsch (2007) explain that the change in the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 53
delivery of education comes from the idea that “growth in international trade leads
widely to shared benefits and a generally civilizing effect”, a change that has direct
implications in education (Fiss & Hirsch, 2007).
Within the context of the organizational development, successful globalization
poses a significant problem for higher education. In a world where higher education has
remained relatively unchanged despite the pressures to keep pace with other industries
such as business and technology, globalization represents a substantial change in the way
universities strategically plan (AACSB, 2011). Globalization has a powerful impact on
most areas of society, especially in relation to economic markets and the free flow of
ideas. In comparison, higher education has both “remained untouched” and continued to
maintain a “place dominated identity” (Armstrong, 2007). The current strategic approach
employed by universities to maintain a “hub and spoke” model for internationalization,
illustrates the challenge with operating in a system where students study abroad for a
finite period of time and quickly return home (Armstrong, 2007).
One example of the hub and spoke model of globalization in higher education can
be seen in the emergence of “Global Universities”, meaning the university with multiple
constituencies and demands, with more mobility, more cross-national research and
learning and more global systems and rankings (Marginson, 2010). First described in
1960 as “multiversity” by then University of California President Clark Kerr, the term
gave way to the term Global Research University or “GRU” (Marginson, 2010). GRU’s
represent how knowledge, “the free currency of higher education” and the global
connections, flow of ideas and capital make an indelible mark on higher education and
transform the way universities operate. The hub and spoke model was first used in
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 54
commercial aviation and was analogous to the bicycle wheel, which has a stable center
connecting to multiple spokes. The use of the term is derived from businesses, such as
Delta Airlines and FedEx, that used this concept to describe how transportation could
become more efficient by simplifying the network of routes (Lawrence, 2004). Over
time, the hub and spoke model was further adapted to businesses that established a home
“office” for the operations of the company from where decisions for regional and
international satellite offices were made.
Armstrong defines globalization as, “a process of modularization of production
(from conception to sales) joined with state of the art information technology and
decreasing national trade boundaries to enable an optimization of production and
distribution” (Armstrong, 2007). The challenge is, however, that, despite the cross-
border and transnational higher education that occurs, globalization does not fit this
model. Higher education has not optimized the production and distribution in the same
way as industry (Armstrong, 2007).
A small number of universities employed what they call a “multinational mode”,
which, in response to globalization, pairs a local entity with a home institution to offer
degrees to foreign students. Armstrong argues that this outsourcing of educational
delivery is merely a hybrid of the hub and spoke model (Armstrong, 2007). The new task
for higher education is to look beyond these models and think differently about the old
ways of doing higher education business. This re-conceptualization of a university as
more than just a place-based concept represents a key trend in the globalization of higher
education (Armstrong, 2007).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 55
Additional trends occurring in the globalization of higher education are
“twinning” and “franchising”. These two types of international partnerships provide
burgeoning examples of globalization within a modularized context of higher education
(Armstrong, 2007). These program delivery methods take the transfer of knowledge to a
new level which brings together an offshore partner while retaining other modules of the
process in-house. These variations of cross-border education provide a vision of the
future of global higher education (Armstrong, 2007). Armstrong points out, “Since
universities embody so much of what is important to us as individuals and societies,
culturally and economically, the outcome of globalization for universities is crucial”
(Armstrong, 2008).
Globalization is a concept that affects all aspects of how we operate in today’s
international society (Bush, 1991). Sometimes referred to as “economic globalization”,
the integration of national economies into the international economy through foreign
trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration and the spread of technology is
of particular importance (Jagdish, 2004). Despite criticism for these examples of “global
universities”, global programs leveraged technological advances to their benefit, which
allowed foreign and American students to access education through a variety of media
platforms (Jaeger, 2007). This change is important, regardless of whether it is seen as
true globalization, as it not only changed student’s learning environments but also
changed the way knowledge is transacted and extended the boundaries of knowledge
throughout the globe (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003).
It is no coincidence that the increased capital flowing into China resulted in
university leaders’ looking towards China as the next big frontier for global expansion in
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 56
an effort to seize the opportunity for international integration (Alvarez, 1998). The
strategic pull to globalize forces higher education institutions to look at the reasons they
globalize. By understanding the complexities surrounding globalization and developing a
unified mission for the institution, higher education will be able to make the leap
necessary to become truly global. With Asia and India quickly becoming the drivers of
the world’s economy, it is more important than ever for higher education leaders to
understand this shift, to maintain a competitive advantage and to develop a way of
sharing knowledge that goes beyond the traditional ways of conceptualizing the
university (Illan Alon & Van Fleet, 2009).
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Theory. The Four Frames Theory states that
the successful manager is one who understands her own style (frame). The Four Frames
are the Structural, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2003). A
manager who views problems through the four frames approach is much better prepared
for leading a complex organization, partly because of his/her ability to lead during a time
of ambiguity or when a new challenge is presented (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This is a
critical concept that aids in understanding leadership processes and how a leader can
influence followers to commit to difficult objectives and achieve the often complex
challenges placed before them. In this study, the leadership frame theory is used to
understand how senior leadership and faculty of the business school at Ray University
made sense of globalization by defining it within the context of business education and,
in response, developed the Global Executive MBA as part of the greater strategic plan for
the university.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 57
According to Bolman and Deal (2003), the structural frame, also referred to as the
assembly plan as a metaphor for the organization, is based on the components of goals,
specialized roles, formal relationships, division of labor, rules, policies, procedures and
hierarchies. The structural frame emphasizes efficiency and effectiveness. Structural
leaders make the rational decision over the personal one and strive to achieve
organizational goals and objectives through coordination and control. They value
accountability and critical analysis. Specialization and division of labor are used to
increase performance levels. The image of leadership is based on social architecture and
the basic leadership challenge is “attune structure to task, technology, environment”.
Problems in performance may result in restructuring (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The human resource frame is composed of extended family, feelings, prejudices,
skills and limitations while tailoring the organization to the people. Bolman and Deal
(2003) indicate the human resource frame emphasizes the individual and the metaphor for
the organization is family. Also referred to as “the Clan” frame, the human resource
leader values camaraderie and harmony within the work environment and strives to
achieve organizational goals through meaningful and satisfying work. The central
concepts are needs, skills and relationships. The image of leadership is based on
empowerment and the basic leadership challenge focuses on alignment of the
organization to human needs. Leaders recognize human needs and the importance of
congruence between the individual and the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The political frame is comprised of arenas, contests, and jungles. Bolman and
Deal (2003) assert the political frame is also known as “the Coliseum”, which is the
frame in which interests compete for limited resources. The metaphor for the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 58
organization is the jungle and the central concepts are focused on power, conflict,
competition and organizational politics. The image of leadership is advocacy, and the
basic leadership challenge is to develop an agenda and a power base. This is the frame
where conflict is rampant and where bargaining, negotiation, coercion and compromise
play a critical role in the style of leadership. Problems arise when power is concentrated
in the wrong place or so broadly dispersed that nothing gets done. The political frame
emphasizes competition. Political leaders value practicality and authenticity and strive to
achieve organizational goals through negotiation and compromise. They recognize the
diversity of individuals and interests and compete for scarce resources regardless of
conflict. In this frame, power is an important resource (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The symbolic frame focuses on the cultural and social anthropology of groups and
is composed of tribes, theatre or carnivals. Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest the
metaphor for the organization is the carnival, temple or theatre. The central concepts are
culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories and heroes. The image of
leadership is described as inspiration and the basic leadership challenge is to create faith,
beauty and meaning. It incorporates a culture focused on rituals, ceremonies, stories,
heroes and myths. In this frame, the organization is the actor. The symbolic frame
emphasizes meaning. Symbolic leaders value subjective and strive to achieve
organizational goals through interpretive rituals and ceremonies. They recognize that
symbols give individuals meaning and provide direction toward achieving organizational
purpose. They recognize unity and a strong culture and mission (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Integrating the four frames. There are many reasons integrating a multi-framed
approach to leadership proves to be the most effective approach to implementing a global
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 59
program. Bolman and Deal’s theory of leadership illustrates how successful leaders are
able to apply the theory of the four frames approach in order to effectively manage
organizational situations and shape how these situations are defined. Bolman and Deal
(2003) posit that a successful leader can integrate the four frames in what is termed,
“multi-frame thinking”. Multi-frame thinking requires movement beyond narrow
mechanical thinking. Managerial effectiveness is closely attributed to the structural and
human resource frames while leadership effectiveness is related to the political and
symbolic frames. The concept of framing asserts that the leaders who possess
“leadership orientations to all four frames” have the most effective leadership styles and
yield the most effective results (Bolman and Deal, 1992, 1997 and 2003).
The cognitive ability to deal with complex problems and employ balanced
leadership is a key component shared by other leadership theorists (Denison et al., 1995;
Hart & Quinn, 1993; Quinn, 1995; Quinn et al., 1991Quinn, Faerman & Dixit, 1987).
Like Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model, similar theories illustrate the difference
between low-performing and high-performing leaders. One consistent finding in the
research is that low-performing leaders are more apt to adopt a single role of leadership
and reveal less complexity in their thinking than high-performing leaders (Thompson,
2000).
Like the Four Frame’s approach, “low performance leaders were unable to
balance the conflicting demands of the organization and were perceived as less effective”
because of their inability to reveal a higher degree of complexity in their thinking
(Thompson, 2000). Bensimon (1989) and Bolman and Deal (1991, 1992) similarly
emphasize the need for managers to rely on all four frames to be fully effective, which is
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 60
a typical finding in the assessment of manager leadership styles. By applying a
leadership orientation that is a multi-frame view, Bolman and Deal (1991, 1992) assert
that managerial and leadership effectiveness will improve.
There are instances where some anticipated and unanticipated variations occurred
as a result of experience and gender in the assessment of leadership orientation.
Although there has not been exhaustive research on the variations of leadership style and
effectiveness, Bensimon (1989) found significant variations on the leadership orientation
of college presidents that centered on experience. The more inexperienced the president
was in his/her role, the more likely the individual was to approach situations with a single
frame view.
The ability of a leader to lead during times of organizational change and strategic
planning provides the perfect setting for looking at leadership in higher education,
especially within the context of globalization. The complexities involved in forging
ahead into unknown international territory to develop global programs provides an
excellent opportunity to examine leadership and how decisions are made through the lens
of the four frames.
Summary
The review of the literature provides a framework by which to understand the
issues departments within colleges and universities face as a result of globalization.
Specifically, the definition of globalization provided by leaders in the College of
Business and their understanding of its impact on education, particularly with regard to
program development, enrollment and expansion, help to frame a greater understanding
of overall strategic planning within the higher education setting (Jagdish, 2004). The
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 61
way in which this definition is operationalized by individual departments within the
college setting demonstrates how leaders embraced the notion of globalization and how
those leaders focus their efforts on exporting academic programs as a means for global
expansion.
The influence of globalization within higher education can be seen in the
development of “global universities” and the flow of ideas taking shape in the form of
global programs modeled after domestic programs in the United States. The tension that
exists in higher education is derived from the fact that most universities operate under an
antiquated model for growth based on the “Hub and Spoke” model of running branch
campuses and programs abroad. While business influenced higher education programs,
particularly in the College of Business, the question remains whether the shift in strategic
focus was born out of the university’s desire to increase global education programs or
whether the business programs themselves, based on the desire to stay competitive in the
marketplace, helped to infuse globalization into the fabric of the institution.
While the research on globalization suggests that universities responded to
globalization’s impact and that this impact had an effect on the way leaders think, act and
strategize, there is still limited research on the role of business programs in this evolution
(Vaira, 2004). It is evident that business programs recognize the need for culturally
competent business managers and, as a result, Global Executive MBA programs have
been the collective response from U.S. business schools seeking to meet the forecasted
need for managers in places like China.
While the research on the convergence of the three themes of Leadership,
Globalization and Higher Education is somewhat new, the review of the literature
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 62
demonstrates that academic units within colleges have an influential role in driving the
greater strategic plan for globalizing the university. This definition and understanding of
globalization served as a baseline for other parts of the university. Individual
departments have become the first in the university’s step toward embracing
globalization, and these organizational changes resulted in an expanded definition of
global.
As individual programs have grown and flourished under the “hub and spoke”
model, they created a ripple effect among the university community resulting in an
increase in the interest and development of global programs (Armstrong, 2007). These
challenges in the face of globalization demand that leaders have a multi-frame leadership
orientation in order to meet the needs of a complex educational setting. (Bolman & Deal,
2000)
For the purpose of this study, complex thinking was reviewed in order to delve
deeper into the important characteristics found in the Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four
Frame Theory. The ability to think in the abstract supports the notion of a multi-framed
leadership approach, as Bolman and Deal explain that “in order to be a good leader you
must look at situations from more than one angle” (Peterson, 2004).
Page (2008) shares that complex thinking is aided by redefining the way we
understand differences and use the power of diversity to help us understand ourselves in
relation to one another. This key intergroup relations skill is imperative for
understanding how we think in groups and how that influences the collective wisdom that
is derived from diverse teams, particularly in business settings. Essentially, he argues,
the key towards finding better solutions to the world’s problems is connected to learning
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 63
how to work better in diverse teams instead of having one brilliant employee working
alone (Page, 2008).
Studies on organizational change in general and leadership strategy in particular
were examined in order to understand the process of launching a new program and how
that development influenced the greater strategic plan for the university. Organizational
change is defined by the literature as an organization going through a transformation
("Organizational Change," 2013). This transformation occurs when business strategies or
major sections of an organization are altered, such as in the instance of reorganization,
restructuring and turnaround.
Leadership strategy is a critical concept that is the cross-section between the role
of the leader and the importance of strategic change. Strategic planning in times of
change involves adaptability and effective strategy development, which are key
components in the globalization of higher education. Strategic development in higher
education has played an important role in the expansion of higher education in the 21
st
century. The rise of development planning for strategic purposes lends itself to looking
further at the institutional and operational processes involved in global expansion
(Schofer & Meyer, 2005). Leaders must understand the type of culture that exists within
their organizations in order to create effective strategies for change (Kezar & Eckel,
2002).
This chapter discussed the concept of operational and institutional process for
global expansion as it relates to the globalization of higher education. Specifically, the
primary areas of focus centered on how advancements found in Europe following the
enacting of the Bologna Agreement influenced how universities have strategically grown
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 64
on a global scale (Schofer & Meyer, 2005). The concept of globalization of higher
education and examining the operational and institutional processes help pose the
question as to “Who is doing it right” (Schofer & Meyer, 2005; Rhoades, 2000). The
concept of “doing it right” goes far beyond identifying exemplary principles for the
intention of copying and implementing these strategies at other universities. It also
encourages those in other areas of higher education to think strategically about growth
not just for growth’s sake, but, instead, with a long range plan in mind.
The theoretical frameworks in the literature review include Armstrong’s (2007)
theory of globalization and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory of reframing organizations.
Globalization’s impact is discussed by examining the different approaches to
globalization, such as twinning and exporting of domestic U.S. academic programs. This
examination demonstrates that globalization shaped the development, implementation of
global programs, models and modes of educational delivery. Armstrong (2007) argues
that, in order to strategically plan for growth in higher education, education leaders must
consider globalization’s impact and significant role in the development of global
programs.
In order to create a model that embraces true globalization, the university must
engage in reframing in order for the program to be implemented and meet the intended
purposes. Challenges to this notion arise when leaders of universities do not engage in
thoughtful planning and refuse to look at the program as one that needs to take into
account the unique characteristics of the educational setting. In addition, simply copying
a global program fails to consider the skills students in this different setting need to be
successful in a globalized world.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 65
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory focuses on the understanding of the Four
Frames Theory that states university leaders can approach organizational challenges
through a variety of frames that become analogies to those challenges typically seen in
global expansion. The four frames are structural, human resource, political and symbolic
scenarios and help make meaning of complex organizational problems. By examining
organizational problems and challenges through a four-frame approach, leaders can use
these tools to navigate the complex issues that arise when developing a global program
and implement effective strategies for growth and expansion.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 66
Chapter Three: Research Design
In June 1994, Ray University adopted a strategic plan that included amongst, its
four primary initiatives a goal that would increase internationalization in its teaching and
research programs. At the time, Deans of all schools were encouraged to increase
learning opportunities in Latin America and Asia. This initiative came on the heels of a
report from the President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness (1985). In this
report, the commission clearly explained the challenges and opportunities presented to
American universities by this readily foreseeable process of international integration.
Ray University experienced two more changes in its strategic plan. One, in 1998,
built on the four initiatives of undergraduate education, interdisciplinary research and
education programs, building on the resources of local businesses, and
internationalization. These components developed critical pathways, which increased
both the excellence and distinction of Ray University. Although there was speculation
that this document influenced the initiatives that the Ray University College of Business
later took on in the creation of the GEMBA program, there was no clear evidence to
show that the two phenomena were interrelated.
The purpose of this study was to understand how globalization affected Ray
University’s GEMBA program’s development, to gain a clear understanding of the
definition of globalization within the context of business education, and to analyze the
role the leadership played in implementing these strategies for globalization.
Additionally, the study examined challenges GEMBA leaders encountered when
developing the program from idea to implementation. Understanding the process of
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 67
developing the GEMBA program provided an important glimpse at how the leadership
implemented the program in China.
This chapter describes the methodology and research approach used in this study.
The research questions were identified and discussed, including the use of interviews and
document analysis. The researcher identified the background of the selected site of the
study, the participants included in the study, the data analysis, procedures used and the
research timeline. This chapter includes sections of the research design, the setting and
participants, the methods of data collection and analysis. The research examined a set of
leadership decisions that affected the program, ranging from curriculum development,
instructional activities and learning activities in the GEMBA program. In order to meet
the guidelines included in Ray University’s strategic plan, strong leadership from the
Dean of the College of Business and a clear understanding of globalization were essential
to reach the greater university goals.
The research examined the leadership of the Ray University College of Business
and addressed how different leaders implemented departmental changes. These changes
aligned with the strategic plan of Ray University and built on the existing development of
international business programs.
Chapter Two provided a framework for the relevant theories and literature about
globalization’s impact on higher education. Specifically, the review of the literature
provided an understanding of globalization’s definition and its impact on education,
particularly with regard to program development, enrollment and expansion. Leadership
theory helped frame a greater understanding of the skills necessary for creating a global
program within a higher education setting.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 68
The way in which this definition was operationalized helped to demonstrate
globalization’s impact on higher education and the tension that existed when colleges and
universities operated under an antiquated expansion model. Armstrong’s (2007) theory
of globalization was used to understand how departments have infused globalization into
the fabric of the institution. Armstrong (2007) asserted that while universities have
responded to globalization, simply copying a global program failed to consider the skills
students in this different setting needed to be successful in a globalized world.
Particularly in the area of business education and cultural competence, the ways
in which global programs operated provide a critical measure of a program’s success in
meeting its stated mission. This study utilized the organizational theory of Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) Reframing Organizations, which finds leaders operate within four frames:
structural, human resource, political and symbolic. The authors advocate for a multi-
framed approach to leadership, one that met the demanding needs of a complex global
marketplace. This approach offered an opportunity to frame organizational challenges in
a variety of ways, with the multi-framed leader being the best equipped and most
effective in navigating their role in a global environment.
The study addressed the following research questions:
Question 1: How did the perceptions of globalization at the Ray University
College of Business inform the strategies of internationalization?
Question 2: How did the leadership of the Ray University College of Business
develop the Global Executive MBA program (GEMBA) based on their perceptions of
globalization?
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 69
Question 3: How does the leadership of the Ray University College of Business
view the GEMBA program as part of the greater strategic plan for the university?
Question 4: How does the Ray University College of Business measure the
progress of the GEMBA program?
This chapter provides a discussion of the research design used to evaluate the
leaders in the Ray University College of Business and the data collection methods
employed. A description of how the data were analyzed is also provided.
Qualitative Research Design
A qualitative case study methodology was used to answer the research questions,
as it represents the opportunity to gain a greater depth of understanding of a problem. A
case study design was selected for this study in order to understand the meaning people
constructed around the development of the GEMBA program, how they make sense of
their world and the experiences they have had (Merriam, 1998, p.6).
The premise of the study was to identify how the GEMBA program developed.
In addition, identification of leadership decisions made by academic leaders offered
insight into how programmatic and policy decisions were made when developing a global
executive MBA programs. The case study was descriptive in nature and offered a
database for future comparison of similar programs and theory building.
There are specific reasons qualitative methodology was chosen for this study.
First, the qualitative study allowed for a historical exploration that illustrates the
complexities of Ray University’s GEMBA program and the process adopted to develop
the program during the period of research. At the time of the implementation of the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 70
initial strategic plan in 1994, the Ray University College of Business was engaged in
changes that coincided with the greater globalization strategies for the University.
Another reason for choosing a qualitative research methodology was the benefits
derived by the use of open-ended questions. Most of the content of the responses to the
research question included in the narrative relied on the subjective perspective of those
involved in the GEMBA program and the decisions made by the College of Business
leaders at Ray University. Open-ended questions allowed the interview subject to
provide insight about the case in its totality, as well as provide an intensive, holistic
description and analysis characteristic that mandated both breadth and depth of data
collection (Merriam, 1998, p. 134).
The empathy for the participants’ experience and insight acquired in open-ended
questioning allowed the interview subject the opportunity to share his or her “inside”
understanding of the players and actors that ushered in the changes that have occurred as
part of the evolution of the GEMBA program (Schwandt in Patton, 2000, p. 51). The
scope of subjectivity offered in a qualitative analysis was informed through the process of
being “in” another’s world, by immersing one’s self by listening deeply and attentively in
order to enter the person’s experience (Mostakas in Patton, p. 53).
A case study design was determined to be the approach best suited for analyzing
data provided by the group of leaders presented in this study, as it allowed for an
inductive research strategy to use for an in depth study of the situation. The case study
approach allowed the researcher to analyze the Ray University College of Business
GEMBA program as a single unit or bounded system for an intensive analysis that would
yield a rich description of the leadership decision-making (Merriam, 1998).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 71
A case study is described by Yin (1994) as an, “empirical inquiry that investigates
a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 13). The case study
approach was considered the most appropriate method for analyzing the leaders in the
GEMBA program and seemed most appropriate for answering the questions posed in the
research questions. These questions determined what the unit of analysis was and how it
was studied (Patton, 2001; Polkinghorne, 1983; Vallejo, 2007).
Site
Approval to use the Ray University College of Business Global Executive Master
of Business Administration (GEMBA) program was sought at the onset of the program
design and preliminary conversations regarding the selection of this program as a case
were conducted. The interview protocols were the primary method of instrumentation in
this study. The interview protocols were submitted to the respective institution and were
approved by the Institutional Review Board. The relevant documents were examined,
including the notes from early planning documents, information session materials and
case studies conducted on the launch of the GEMBA program.
Ray University’s campus is located in California. The Ray University College of
Business administered a twin program of its Executive Master of Business
Administration through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Shanghai School
of Economics. Called the Global Executive Master of Business Administration
(GEMBA), the program focused on global issues in business. As a program, GEMBA’s
primary student body was comprised of business men and women who enrolled in the
Shanghai program as a means to obtain a MBA from Ray University without ever having
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 72
to set foot on the U.S. campus. According to the Ray University website at the time of
this study, the GEMBA program has enrolled 300 students from United States, China,
Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Switzerland, France,
Denmark, India, and New Zealand.
The diverse nature of the student profile demonstrated the breadth of world
perspectives in the EMBA program that awarded the same degree as the Ray University
main campus. This accelerated 21-month program allowed students the flexibility to fly
in from cities around the Pacific Rim over a ten-session module. The accelerated
program had an international focus with an integrated, global curriculum that emphasized
the realistic decision-making that managers had to make in their work in Asia, Europe
and the U.S.
The same faculty team who taught at the Ray University home campus, all of
whom possessed worldwide teaching and consulting experience, led the program. At the
time of this study, GEMBA students’ average age was 37, and they had an average of 15
years work experience and hail from more than 12 countries and regions. The student
profile reflected the demographics of rising executives in the Asia Pacific region. 50% of
the students work in the Yangtze River Delta region of China and about 25% are PRC
Citizens.
Sample Selection
The study was limited to data derived through a single case study of the Global
Executive MBA Program at the Ray University College of Business, which was one of
the 64 non-profit universities offering similar programs in the United States (Business
Week, 2005). The sample for this study was limited to Ray University. The participants
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 73
of this study were members of the committee that was formed by the Dean of the College
of Business and was charged with looking at opportunities within Asia for expanding the
already successful Executive MBA program. The research focused on the experiences of
those academic leaders responsible for developing the idea of the Global Executive MBA
program and implementing the initiative in China. In the study, six participants took part
in the study.
Specifically, the case examined the development of the Global Executive MBA
program and the academic leaders who assisted in the development of the program. Using
a purposeful sampling technique described by Patton (2002), the population sample was
comprised of leaders who helped usher in the GEMBA program in Shanghai, which was
an international education partnership between the College of Business and the Shanghai
School of Economics. Patton describes this method as a means to study people,
organizations, communities, cultures, events and critical incidences because they are
“information rich” and offer meaningful manifestations of the phenomenon of interest
(Patton, pg. 40).
The researcher interviewed five members of the Dean’s committee who looked
into the opportunities within Asia for expanding the EMBA program and were willing to
participate in this study. Within the GEMBA program’s home institution, the researcher
interviewed the current director, the former director, one professor who also served as a
GEMBA committee member, and the Dean of Admissions for the program. Outside of
the institution, the Academic Director of GEMBA Shanghai agreed to an interview.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 74
Table 1
Interview Timeline
Academic Director December 2008 1 interview
Current Director January 2009, February
2009
2 interviews
Former Director December 2008, January
2009
2 interviews
Professor/Committee
Member
December 2008 1 interview
Dean of Admissions May 2008 1 interview
Using a snowball sampling technique for gathering research subjects, the initial
subject was asked to provide the names of other departmental leaders involved in the
creation of GEMBA (Heckathorn, 1997). Snowball sampling is useful in gathering
information about a particular topic where a limited number of participants or test
subjects are available.
Instrumentation
Following the qualitative tradition, Merriam (1998, p. 6) states that
“understanding the meanings people have constructed…and the experiences they have in
the world”, make a descriptive account of the people, phenomenon, setting and
interpretation offered new insights regarding the organizational change that occurred in
the development of the GEMBA program. Interviewing the current Dean of the Ray
University College of Business benefitted the research, because of both his perspective of
the Dean’s current role and because he previously held the post of Vice Provost of
Globalization. In addition, interviewing the individuals who participated in the
development of the GEMBA program allowed for a full understanding of the early
implementation of the strategic plan and the changes made at the Ray University College
of Business.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 75
The researcher developed an open-ended interview questionnaire designed
specifically for administrators involved in the development and implementation of the
Ray University Global Executive MBA program. As Merriam (1998) states, “a
characteristic of all forms of qualitative research is that the researcher is the primary
instrument for data collection and analysis” (p. 7). Using this method of inductive
research as a strategy, the researcher sought to explain how the leaders involved in the
Global Executive MBA Program developed the program. Three sources of data used in
the study were individual interviews with key leaders in an open-ended interview,
document analysis and artifact analysis. The interview protocols laid the initial
framework as the method of instrumentation for this study.
The interview protocols for the study were first submitted to the University’s
Institutional Review Board and were additionally vetted by the Ray University College of
Business at the onset of the study. The study utilized a document analysis tool for
reviewing GEMBA documents, the website and documentation regarding enrollment
data, marketing efforts, course materials, and a case study. The Program Director of
GEMBA shared all documents related to the development of the program.
The interview questions were ordered by research question, starting with
questions that aimed to find out how the project was conceived, how globalization was
defined, the roles of different participants, how different stakeholders perceived the
project and whether the development of the Global Executive MBA program affected the
globalization of Ray University. Each of these questions is linked to the literature,
covering the themes of globalization and leadership.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 76
Questions 1 and 2 focus on how the leadership of the College of Business
established a definition of globalization and developed the concept of the Global
Executive MBA program. The concept was a relatively new trend and could be directly
correlated to globalization efforts in the business sector. This area of focus was centered
on the work of Birnbaum (2000), indicated that academic fads have a lifecycle that is
directly linked to management fads. Birnbaum reviewed seven widely discussed
management techniques, which were advocated for use in higher education. Each case
interrogated the literature database to ask the following questions: “What were the
essential characteristics of the management innovation? When, in what setting and under
what circumstances did the innovation originally appear? How did the innovation diffuse
into higher education? What were the outcomes of the innovation in its original and
higher education settings?”
Questions 3 and 4 focused on the progress of the innovation and how the leaders
of the College of Business reframed the organization to fit into the greater university
strategic plan around globalization. These questions are based on the work of Yin (1984)
who indicated that cases can be reviewed iteratively using a process of explanation
building in order to demonstrate how what was initially perceived as a business school
“fad” eventually diffused and was adopted rapidly through institutional networks and
became an accepted part of the system (Birnbaum, 2000).
Data Collection
The data for the study were gathered, analyzed and validated using an interactive
process that “sought breadth and depth in order to provide a rich description of the case
being studied” (Merriam, 1998). In addition, secondary data provided by the Ray
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 77
University College of Business was used to contribute to the study. The data was
comprised of primary data in the form of audio-recorded interviews conducted via phone
and Skype, artifacts in the form of e-mails, promotional materials, power point
presentations, documents related to the development of the program and observations.
The secondary data was in the form of plenary papers and case study conducted
on the program. The description of the research population was taken directly from
reports produced by the researcher. The final sample for this study consisted of
committee members from the Ray University College of Business, Global Executive
MBA program that participated in the development of the program and for whom
transcript data could be assessed.
For the purposes of this study, these leaders became the experimentally accessible
population from which the sample of all Global Executive MBA leaders was obtained.
The individuals included in this sample were made up of past and current, at the time of
this study, employees of Ray University who were key committee members and had a
direct connection to the Global Executive MBA program. This sample of individuals was
comprised of academic deans, department chairs, program directors and faculty.
Two of three kinds of data in qualitative research methodology identified by
Patton (2002) were included in the study. The first method of qualitative data collection
was the interview, which was a series of open-ended questions. Inductive analysis and
creative synthesis was used to determine, “immersion in the details and specifics of the
data to discover important patterns, themes and interrelationships” (p. #). This
exploration and confirmation was guided by analytic principles and ended with creative
synthesis (Patton, 2002, p. 41).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 78
This involved thinking in new ways about the relationships between parts and
wholes of an old problem and was the process by which the GEMBA program was
examined and in which the phenomenon driving globalization at Ray University was
illuminated (Patton, 2002, p. 59). Utilizing open ended, qualitative research allowed for
in-depth responses about the experiences of the participants and the perceptions, feelings
and knowledge of the leadership of the GEMBA program (Patton, 2002).
Interviews were conducted in an open-ended manner, allowing the most salient
issues around globalization and leadership to emerge. The researcher interviewed the
respondents’ in-person to allow ample question and answer time, the opportunity to
clarify questions that were unclear and to identify common themes amongst the
respondents. During the interview process, the researcher gathered additional names of
individuals who were involved in the development of GEMBA but who were not initially
identified as key decision-makers and leaders involved in this process.
The second method of qualitative data collected in this study was the compilation
and analysis of artifacts and documents regarding Ray University’s strategic plan, the
development of GEMBA and the program changes implemented by the Dean of the Ray
University College of Business in order to support the globalization efforts of both the
academic department and the university. Compiling written documents and artifacts from
the history of the Global Executive MBA program was a key component to providing a
historical context of the research (Patton, 2002).
Once the data were collected and the interviews were completed, the secondary
data was compiled. The secondary data consisted of materials from the promotional
campaign that kicked off the GEMBA. This secondary data ranged from program
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 79
brochures, power point presentations, admissions data, memoranda of understanding,
written communication between the GEMBA director and the Shanghai campus and
other artifacts provided by the former Program Director and GEMBA staff. Table 2
presents a synopsis of the methods used.
Table 2
Research Methodologies
Method Targeted Group Frequency
Document Analysis
(Sept-Oct 2008)
Initial review of public documents As needed, College of
Business website, Ray
University strategic plan
and GEMBA program
materials
Interviews
(Oct-Nov 2008)
Former and current staff members
of the GEMBA program
Single interviews, 30-60
minutes
Interview
(Oct 2008)
Current Dean of the Ray University
College of Business
Single interview, 60
minutes
Document
analysis/triangulati
on
(Dec 2008)
Ray University Strategic plan
documents, website, GEMBA
documents, memos
As needed
Follow up
interviews/triangula
tion
(Dec 2008-Jan
2009)
Additional individuals involved in
the development/leadership of
GEMBA as revealed by initial
interviews
Single interviews via
phone and e-mail
Follow up
Interview/triangulat
ion
(Dec 2008-Jan
2009)
Dean of the Ray University College
of Business
Via e-mail
Secondary Data
(Dec 2008-Jan
2009)
GEMBA Program Director Presentations, brochures
and materials sent via e-
mail
Data Analysis
Patton (2002) indicates that the analysis of the data should be done inductively, in
order to examine the patterns, themes and categories that emerge. This is done in
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 80
conjunction with the collection of data. As Merriam (1998) states, in a qualitative case
study, “the final product is shaped by the data that are collected and the analysis that
accompanies the entire process” (p. 162).
In order to make sense out of the data and text, the researcher created an analysis
plan that contained several components. First, the data was transcribed and was coded
using open and axial coding according to research question, respondent and theme
(Creswell, 1984). This method for analyzing the data was developed in order to identify
common themes and correlating theoretical frameworks identified in the study (Merriam,
1998). The researcher used a methods journal to take administrative notes, create to-do
lists, identify issues to be resolved, indicate data or items to be retrieved and identify next
steps in the process.
The data was transcribed following the completion of all interviews and was
organized in a case record in order to be utilized effectively and make correlations
between the data sets and the document and artifact analysis. The researcher then utilized
these sources and triangulated the findings in order to establish common themes in the
data by utilizing both a discourse and descriptive narrative analysis. Narrative analysis
places an emphasis on the interpretation of stories and context (Patton, 2002). The
researcher concluded the analysis of the data and interpretation of the findings utilizing
the conceptual frameworks identified in the study.
Validity and Reliability
The validity of a qualitative case study refers to the degree to which a study
accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher aimed to measure
(Howell et al., 1994-2012) . In a qualitative case study, the validity reflects the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 81
relationship between reality and the congruence of findings (Merriam, 1998). While
reliability is concerned with the accuracy of the actual measuring instrument or
procedure, validity is concerned with the study’s success at measuring what the
researcher set out to measure.
With regards to reliability, in quantitative research, reliability illustrates the extent
to which an experiment, test or any measuring procedure yields the same result on
repeated trials (Merriam, 1998). In quantitative research, the researcher is the instrument
that observes and collects constructions of reality and provides interpretations of those
realities (Merriam, 1998). The two are interconnected as the “emphasis is on
trustworthiness, achieved through careful work constricting the research design and
approach, conducting the research ethically and honestly, analyzing findings carefully,
and providing a presentation of results informed by rich descriptions in turn leading to
appropriate extrapolations from the data” (p. 130).
The study used Merriam (1998) as a framework for enhancing the validity of the
study by employing strategies such as triangulation, identification of researcher bias and
interpretation through a variety of ideological lenses. Triangulation involves using
multiple sources to verify the findings of the data (Merriam, 1998).
Ethics
Merriam (1998) suggests that ethical dilemmas in qualitative research likely occur
during the process of data collection or in the dissemination of findings. The researcher
approached the research in a manner that was consistent with the ethical codes of all
institutions involved in the study. The researcher maintained a commitment to
conducting the study in an ethical manner throughout the entirety of the study.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 82
In order to maintain strong ethical standards, the researcher worked with
participants to provide a clear description of the purpose of the study, provided them with
a list of questions that would be asked, described the nature of the study and
communicated with each individual regarding sensitive information that would be shared
in the study. While ethical issues and researcher biases are often present in studies of
this nature, the researcher maintained an awareness of this possibility throughout the
duration of the study and was committed to conducting the research in an ethical manner
(Merriam, 1998).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 83
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the findings from the data collection at Ray University. In
the analysis, the researcher sought to uncover the frames that leaders employed to help
shape the GEMBA program to its current form. The analysis presents the successes and
challenges encountered in the process and globalization’s impact on the creation of a
program. This chapter is organized to present findings from interviews with senior
leaders in the Global Executive MBA (GEMBA) graduate program, observations of the
program, and artifacts and documents related to the development its development.
The data was analyzed with the goal of finding patterns and differences,
correlated with the literature regarding the topic of globalization and leadership, amongst
responses from the participants. The final section of this chapter provides an analysis of
the findings relative to the research questions using a case study narrative and the
leadership framework provided by Bolman and Deal (2004). The chapter is structured by
discussing the findings relative to each research question through the identification of
common themes, providing a historical context and a timeline in which the GEMBA
program was developed.
Data Collection
The first part of chapter four describes the participants of the study and their role
within the Global Executive MBA program. The second part of the chapter presents the
findings from the interviews, observations and documents relative to the corresponding
research question.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 84
Interviews
The initial criteria for selecting the GEMBA program as the case study site are
described in Chapter 3. The second phase of selection involved determining the
individuals who were part of the committee that developed the GEMBA program. Five
leaders were interviewed using a “snowball” sampling technique whereby each
respondent provided the names of additional leaders who should be interviewed.
Table 3
Five Interview Participants
Committee Members Position
Dr. David Wu Director of GEMBA
Dr. Eugene Maes Former Director of GEMBA
Dr. Gloria Gregg Academic Director of GEMBA Shanghai
Dr. Rob Davis Professor and GEMBA committee member
Dr. Jessica Collier GEMBA Dean of Admissions
*All names are pseudonyms
The first interview was with the GEMBA Dean of Admissions, Dr. Jessica
Collier. Dr. Collier was formerly the Dean of Admission at the Law School and had been
at the Ray University College of Business since the start of the GEMBA program.
During the interview, Dean Collier gave a brief overview of the GEMBA program,
explained the structure of the program and indicated that the best person to talk about
how the program developed was the architect of the GEMBA program and former
Program Director, Dr. Eugene Maes.
Following initial e-mail contact with Dr. Maes, the former director indicated an
enthusiasm for discussing the program and said that he was eager to share the steps that
led to the creation of this program. He perceived this study as an excellent opportunity to
share how this project evolved and described how enthused he was to share this historical
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 85
data he saved regarding what he described as, “his baby”, a project of which he was very
proud. Professor Maes was the first to conceptualize this program, bring the idea to the
Dean and was the main driver in the first two years of the program’s implementation.
Professor Maes indicated that the concept of the Global Executive MBA program
was driven by his desire to set his department apart from the rest of the business school,
because, at the time of conceiving the idea, he was serving as department chair of the
Management and Operations department. He felt that, at the time of GEMBA’s
development, his department was fighting for resources within the school and needed to
differentiate the division and get the attention of the Dean. As someone who had a
budding interest in global issues, both from his personal and academic interests, he felt it
important to go beyond the classroom to teach students about global business using a
hands on, experiential approach.
The researcher indicated the need to talk to other individuals involved in the
development of the program, and he stated that Dr. Gloria Gregg, the former Academic
Director of the program and Dr. Rob Davis, a professor in the program, would serve as
excellent resources for the study. In addition, he said the current Director could provide
context for the present state of the program. He also mentioned that Dr. Davis’s findings
about the program’s development and the ways in which it helped in the
internationalization of the university were chronicled in a plenary paper. The plenary
paper served as a key artifact for studying the development of the Global Executive MBA
program.
Based on Professor Maes’ recommendations, the researcher contacted Professor
Gloria Gregg who served as the Academic Director for GEMBA in Shanghai. Dr.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 86
Gregg’s research focuses on strategic change, organization growth and management
consulting. She was formerly the chairman of the Organizational Behavior Division, as
well as the Management Consulting Division of the Academy of Management. At the
time of this study, she consulted with a wide variety of private and public organizations.
Professor Gregg was instrumental in the development of the Global Executive MBA
program.
One of the last comments made by Professor Gregg consisted of encouragement
to contact the current director of the program in order to gather more information on the
existing strategic plan. On the recommendation of Professor Gregg, the researcher
contacted Dr. Wu, the Director of the Global Executive MBA program at Ray University
at the time of this study.
Professor Wu’s served as an Associate Professor of finance and business with
expertise in monetary policy, private investment, international finance and Chinese
financial market reform. Professor Wu’s initial involvement with the GEMBA program
was as a professor in the program. After several years teaching as an adjunct professor,
his familiarity with the program and the Chinese business climate led to an appointment
as the Academic Director for the program. This experience eventually evolved into his
current position as the Director. Professor Wu presented considerable knowledge about
the program’s evolution as well as about its strategic goals.
Findings for Research Question One
The first question addresses how perceptions of globalization at the Ray
University College of Business informed strategies of internationalization. Several
themes emerged, and these include an emphasis on leadership strategy and the leadership
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 87
framing that took place with the implementation of the Global Executive MBA program.
In addition, the themes of organizational change, redefining internationalization and the
entrepreneurial spirit that expanded new markets for the university also emerge. This
section reviews the findings according to the themes. The results for the first research
question culminate in a discussion of the overall findings and their connection to relevant
literature.
Results on leadership. There were three findings related to the leadership theme:
leadership reframing, organizational change and strategic competition for the purpose of
program differentiation. The study found that the structural frames of leadership theory
can be used to understand how organizations define globalization and are reframed in
order to achieve organizational change (Bolman & Deal, 2003). One central theme which
emerged was “the ability to solve complex problems” as a common thread amongst
leaders involved in developing a definition of globalization (Peterson, 2004). In this
instance, there was not a universal definition of globalization for the purposes of the
project.
In addition, from the literature on leadership, having a vision is a significant
characteristic of those leaders who are able to effectively carry out goals and who are
able to effectively influence institutional change by “thinking more about the future than
the present” (Neumann & Bensimon, 1990, 2000). Leaders indicated they did not feel
the executive leadership of the university was the driving force behind developing
globalized programs and defining globalization. While they shared that the university
had been international for some time, the concept of global education was a relatively
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 88
new idea and one that was broadly defined by the faculty for the purposes of creating
GEMBA.
According to a plenary paper written by the former Vice Provost, Ray University
was an excellent case study of internationalization, as the idea of global competitiveness
was a central focus of the school for many years. The school was already ahead of the
international trend when, in 1985, the Commission on Industrial Competitiveness
outlined the need to compete in order to produce goods and services that would meet the
needs of international markets and expand income in the United States (Commission on
Industrial Competitiveness: Review of Findings of the President's Commission on
Industrial Competitiveness, 1985).
This author stated the current GEMBA program was a product of the need to
“have more training for American managers in a marketplace where American exports
have more than doubled in the past 10 years”. Ray University developed programs as
early as 1978 to help internationalize its teaching and research in Asia and Latin
America. In 1990, the business school expanded the program with the creation of a
center focused on international business research.
This development coincides with Ray University’s adoption in 1994 of a new
strategic plan for focused heavily on Asia and Latin America. While the strategic plan
did not establish a directive to globalize existing programs, the development of the
strategic plan did push Ray University’s professional schools to experiment with global
programs in a way that would mirror what was already happening in the College of
Business.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 89
This finding was derived from the interview responses, artifacts and data from the
Global Executive MBA Program related to the perspective of leadership framing.
Specifically, Bolman and Deal’s (1991, 1997, 2004) theory of reframing organizations
emerged as a constant regarding how leadership decisions were made in the creation of
the Global Executive MBA program. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames of
leadership explain how leaders perceive situations within their organizational structure.
This method of looking at organizational problems and sense making in complex
organizations provides an understanding of how faculty leaders approached the definition
of globalization for the development of the GEMBA program from structural, human
resource, political and symbolic frames. Bolman and Deal’s (1991, 1997) work was
selected for this study because of its proven usefulness in understanding how leaders’
thinking relates to managerial and leadership effectiveness. Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
Four Frames Theory asserts that a multi-frame, or balanced, leadership orientation yields
the most effective managers and leaders.
The four frames provide an additional way in which situations are defined and
the ways in which they can be managed. According to Thompson (2000), the structural
and human resource frames are related to managerial effectiveness while the political and
symbolic frames are related to leadership effectiveness.
As in the case of the creation of the Global Executive MBA program, Bolman and
Deal (1991) assert that, “an increasingly complex and turbulent organizational world
demands greater cognitive complexity: effective managers need to understand multiple
frames and know how to use them in practice to be fully effective as both managers and
leaders” (p. 528-529).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 90
Table 4
Representation of the Four Frames in the Findings
Frame Representations in Findings
Structural Strategic Planning
Brand Awareness
Curriculum Development
Benchmarks
Rankings
Human Resource Faculty Engagement
Faculty-Driven Leadership
Political Diplomacy
Capacity Building
Competitive Advantage
Differentiation of Program & School
Symbolic Organizational Change
Redefining Internationalization
Increasing the Profile of Institution
Globalization Imbedded in Academics
Adoption of Program in Other Departments
The most predominant frame in the study was the Symbolic frame. The
characteristics employed by the architects of the GEMBA program’s launch were what
Peters and Waterman (1982) described as hands on, value driven, and simultaneously
having both loose and tight priorities. What Dr. Gregg described as “entrepreneurial”, is
what Collins and Porras (1994) would describe as a “big, hairy, audacious goal”. In the
culture of Ray University, the venture had to be better than good. It needed to be
something that was deeply imbedded in the culture of the organization and became a
passion project that was about more than profits.
The move would come to symbolize the type of entrepreneurial spirit of the
school and the innovative leaps that faculty were willing to take on behalf of their
students. In addition, because of the importance the Chinese place on symbolism,
particularly in business, the symbolic frame was a critical aspect of the successful launch
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 91
of GEMBA. To alumni in the Pacific Rim, Ray University’s emergence into the Chinese
marketplace demonstrated a strong commitment to the region and simultaneously
established China as an emerging force in Business.
The program proved to become what Collins (2001) might describe as a
“hedgehog concept”. In his book, From Good to Great (2001), Collins describes the
analogy of the hedgehog and the fox. Each leader falls into either the role of the fox or
the hedgehog. As the Greek analogy goes, “The Fox knows many things, while the
hedgehog knows one big thing”. At the time of GEMBA’s development, business
schools were attempting to be great at multiple international ventures and programs. The
approach by the College of Business to develop the GEMBA program was an effort to do
one thing exceptionally well: to develop a global business program in China.
The focus on globalization in this market became a priority for the Director, Dr.
Maes. In order to be great as both a department and a school, the focus on successfully
launching GEMBA allowed both to move from good to great in the area of global
business.
All of these elements converge to describe what Bolman and Deal (2003, p.242)
call a distilled series of symbolic assumptions where these diverse sources comprise a set
of core assumptions:
1. What is most important is not what happens but what it means.
2. Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because
people interpret experience differently.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 92
3. In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to
resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction and anchor hope and
faith.
4. Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is
produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines;
rituals, ceremonies and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their
personal and work lives.
5. Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around
shared values and beliefs.
Dr. Maes gave up his sabbatical at MIT to oversee this project and understood
what this development would mean to his department, his school and the university.
What he did not anticipate was how the successful launch of the project would help
embed globalization into the university culture.
The second most predominant frame was the Political frame, as it emerged at the
project’s initiation. The political frame was illustrated when the director first approached
his faculty colleagues and the dean in order to gain support for the venture. The director
and his colleagues driving the initiative first used personal stories and experiences abroad
to communicate the culture of globalization they were seeking to imbed into the College
of Business. The Director then resolved confusion and positioned the venture as being in
line with the strategic vision of the university instead of being an entrepreneurial venture
that had elements of uncertainty.
The drivers of this initiative actively sought out an opportunity to capitalize on the
climate around globalization in the business community. In recognizing this opportunity,
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 93
they were able to take their knowledge of the organizational dynamics in the College of
Business and push the endeavor as an opportunity to obtain more resources and also bring
revenues to the school. These efforts align with five assumptions that Bolman and Deal
(2003, p 186) describe that illustrate the political frame:
1. Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs,
information, interests and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources, who gets what?
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to organizational
dynamics and underline power as the most important asset.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation and jockeying for
position among competing stakeholders.
In this instance, it appears that the faculty had a vested interest in improving the
rank and profile of the department while the Dean of the College of Business saw the
advantage that a global program would bring to the school. A global program in the
College of Business would align the strategies with those of the university’s president
and would translate into a favorable outcome for the dean. As a result, through
maneuvering and the fortuitous meeting of the Chinese dean who expressed an interest in
an American partnership, the political frame allowed in the building of partnerships and
the distribution of resources.
The steps that the leaders of GEMBA employed in order to launch the program
represented the structural frame. While the structural frame was essential in the
development of a new program in a foreign country, in order to get to the point of
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 94
launching the program, there was a considerable amount of capacity building, internal
politics and symbolism. In order to garner the academic support needed to develop a
reputable program, the director and his team shifted the focus towards the academic
aspects of the program, marketing, recruiting students, faculty engagement and
curriculum development. These steps reflect the six assumptions Bolman and Deal
(2003) state comprise the structural frame:
1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.
2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through
specialization and the division of labor.
3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of
individuals and units mesh.
4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and
extraneous pressures.
5. Structures must be designed to fit an organizations circumstances (including its
goals, technology, workforce and environment)
6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be
remedied through analysis and restructuring.
Actions taken to lay the foundation for an industrious and visionary endeavor
reflect these six assumptions focused on the growth of an entirely new program and a
trailblazing effort. Ray University’s past international ventures helped define the future
for this program as a visionary institution for growth.
The changes to the MBA program eventually led to globalization’s becoming a
top priority for the College of Business. The impact on students and professors led to
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 95
improved career outcomes and elevated Ray University’s global presence. Eventually,
the Ray University GEMBA program became a model for similar programs almost
irrespective of the field. Since GEMBA’s launch, programs in Engineering, Public
Administration and Education have all developed variations of the GEMBA program.
The Dean of the College of Business reflected the human resource frame in the
selection and approval of key leaders in the faculty ranks to help develop the GEMBA
program. Bolman and Deal (2003, p. 115) articulate the assumptions of the human
resource frame:
1. Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse.
2. People and organizations need each other. Organizations need ideas, energy and
talent; People need careers, salaries, and opportunities.
3. When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer.
Individuals are exploited o exploit the organizations- or both become victims.
4. A good fit benefits both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and
organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed.
Faculty-driven leadership and faculty engagement in the final aspect of the
program launch was an important example of the human resource frame. At the start, it
was a few faculty who saw a need, collaborated in its development and were able to
implement the initiative by getting others involved. The Academic Director discussed
the various players who drove the program and articulated the need the program met for
both students and faculty.
While this idea may have come to fruition without these key individuals in place,
it was the synergistic relationship, the timing and the talent of all the leaders involved,
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 96
that created a fit that benefited both the organization and the people. It is important to
note that Dr. Maes shared that, had the initial seeds of internationalization not been
planted by a previous Dean who believed that international was an important aspect of
business education, the program likely would have never come to light. These actions of
the Dean and the leaders of the program are indicators of the human resource frame.
According to Northouse, having a vision is a key indicator for successful
leadership. However, the vision of the President and Dean was not what drove this
initiative. It was the vision of the Chair of the Management and Organizational
Development Department and his desire to broaden the definition of international
education that largely drove this idea coupled with the financial backing supplied by the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI and Ray University funds (Title VI, 1964). The
Director and Academic Director described how the Ray University College of Business
defined globalization:
There are different people within the College of Business who have different
definitions of globalization. To actually define a mission, vision…no. I tried to
create one of those things a long time ago, but I don’t think there was really a
document at the school stating my opinion. The school was always international
in a sense that thirty years ago we started a degree program, but it was done at the
time by a Dean who felt that international was a very important thing.
Globalization of higher education involves diminishing international boundaries,
much like in business.
While Dr. Maes tried to develop a comprehensive definition of globalization for
the College of Business, the idea was one that was relatively new and took work to get
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 97
the attention of the Dean of the Ray University College of Business. At the time of its
development, there were multiple international programs taking place, but none had the
label of “global”. This was a project that was experimental and was not on the radar of
the senior leadership at the school.
Dr. Wu, the Executive Director of the GEMBA program shared that the concept
of international education evolved into a more global concept where, as business
changed, colleges and universities followed suit in order to set roots in other countries.
This resulted in knowledge dispersion and creation being the catalyst for changing the
perspective towards defining globalization.
In addition, there was the sentiment by all respondents that much of the student
diversity at the school helped drive the definition of globalization for the College of
Business as alumni and Pacific Rim connections increased over the years. Dr. Maes
shared:
I recognized a need to teach my students in my classes about what global
companies were doing. We have students coming to campus seeking knowledge
from all parts of the world, and GEMBA is an extension of that. We were already
doing programs abroad, but this was an entirely new concept.
Dr. Maes also shared, “in 1997, we were already international because of our
existing international business programs. What business schools are trying to do is
educate students so that they have a global perspective, and so that they will be able to
conduct business in a global environment.” In addition, Dr. Wu shared that, “Where
GEMBA is coming from, both of them (students and faculty) can help each other.
Students get exposed to different faculty and different students”. Dr. Gregg, the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 98
Academic Director affirmed, “A lot has changed. When I first came to the school in
1973, it wasn’t very international. It became international. Other programs were going
abroad and we were looking for ways to compete.”
This was consistent with the artifacts and memos that date back to the GEMBA
program’s development that outline that Ray University College of Business has long
pursued a strategy focused on the Pacific Rim and that, over the past 20 years, more than
fifteen thousand students from Asia studied at Ray University, many returning home to
leadership positions in their home countries. In addition, Ray University used specialized
programs within the College of Business as a means to attract international students into
the school, further acting as a catalyst towards creating diversity in the student body.
This, along with the growing number of alumni in the Pacific Rim, pushed the need for
Ray University to have a greater presence in places such as Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong,
and Jakarta.
Significant changes over time led to two considerable milestones: Ray
University’s business school became the first U.S. Business School to require all of its
approximately 1,000 MBA students to travel abroad, and the Executive MBA program
pioneered the way with the first trip 18 years prior to the creation of the GEMBA
program. These changes laid the foundation for the creation of the Global Executive
MBA program, which was consistent with Ray University’s strategic orientation towards
the Pacific Rim.
Results on globalization. Four themes emerged related to results on
globalization of higher education. The first was that the Ray University College of
Business had an international focus for a long time in the school’s history, but the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 99
development of the GEMBA program marked the first evidence of the school’s
developing a definition of globalization. This caused a redefinition of
internationalization within the eyes of the department and, eventually, the university
towards a globalized orientation. The second finding was that the Department of
Education’s earlier financial incentives and the funding received from the College of
Business laid the initial foundation for the program’s development. The third finding was
that these global initiatives piqued the interest of faculty and staff who wanted to set their
academic research and their departments apart from the rest of the school. The final
finding was that much of the demographic and international climate around learning
about others, finding out how businesses works abroad and the buzz around international
opportunities at the time of the program’s development provided an excellent backdrop
for establishing a definition for globalization.
As Dr. Gregg stated, earlier ventures in Asia had been unsuccessful, but the
timing and academic environment was right to start a Global Executive MBA program in
China. He saw himself as a trailblazer and a visionary. The team of faculty focused on
the development of the program had already witnessed other programs at other
universities going abroad, but noticed that there were not any EMBA programs in Asia.
According to Dr. Gregg, due to the perception of MBA programs in Japan and
Korea, they were not the optimal location to launch a program of this nature. The
common perception in Japan and Korea was that business education was learned on the
job and not in a classroom setting. There was an initial attempt to launch a web-based
business program in Japan that was a failed attempt by the College of Business and was
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 100
cancelled, but the learning outcomes from the failed venture laid the groundwork for
GEMBA.
We wanted the GEMBA program to be global in its focus and its content. We
wanted to have a whole mix of people in class, not just the Chinese. We wanted
to design it so people could fly in or from around Asia. Singapore was far too
south. There were already a lot of EMBA programs in Hong Kong and
Singapore. There wasn’t much competition in China, so we paired up with
another institution and designed so that every 6 weeks we could fly students in
and there would be a class period of 5 days where they could fly in, stay in the
dorms. It took some selling around Asia and we allowed $30,000 to market this
program.
This change in delivery of education was different because it marked the first time the
school offered an entire degree-seeking program abroad. Previously, other programs had
taken international trips, but the GEMBA program was different in its global focus and
content.
In addition, the program showed that a traditional university could operate under
the diminishing national boundaries and borders caused by globalization. According to
the artifacts, the main challenges facing the leadership during the planning and
implementation of the GEMBA program involved developing a unified definition of
globalization by the school’s faculty and administrators. This was an important first step
because it aided in setting a global strategy, choosing a global market and location,
finding a partner university and pricing and recruiting. Dr. Maes shared:
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 101
At the beginning of the1990-1991 school year, the Management and
Organizational Development department in the business school was doing a
course called, “Doing Business in Japan”, so they were taking students abroad and
showing them how Japanese companies worked. This was one of two courses
there on the books. They actually took our own business school students abroad to
educate them about other cultures and companies and how they function and other
companies on how they work globally. At the time, this was referred to as
internationalization, not globalization.
The delivery of the program changed significantly over the years to be more global in
scope when it began to lay roots in China as a program that had ties to the local
community and surrounding countries throughout Asia Pacific. The process of
exploration and the eventual decision to start the GEMBA program in China involved the
key impetus of international programs developed by other business programs such as
Columbia University, Northwestern and Washington University in St. Louis. The
committee assembled to look at this issue concluded that, in order to maintain a high
ranking and globalize our faculty and Executive MBA program, the Ray University
College of Business would need to start a global program. This was very similar to the
business model of globalization. According to Dr. Maes:
When you look at the way we teach internationalization, where you take a product
and you are talking about the country, talking about companies who are taking
products to other countries and selling, it is international. Globalization is really
where you have operations in different parts of the world. You may have your
programs in other countries where you are taking students there and then coming
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 102
back, this is internationalization. When you are actually setting roots in other
countries, this is globalization of higher education.
This could not have occurred had there not been a financial incentive to internationalize
first. According to Dr. Maes, for the first thirty years of the program, the College of
Business operated from a perspective of internationalization. Once the US Department of
Education offered a grant to help fund these efforts, the business school was able to
expand the definition of internationalization to include what was happening in business at
the time, which was shifting dramatically towards the concept of globalization. The
funding offered by the United States government, according to Dr. Maes was an effort to
say, “Global is important. I want you to educate your students, your faculty, your
university, the rest of your community, junior college or other community colleges that
don’t have access to this type of information.” In giving this directive, they helped aid in
a redefinition by the College of Business away from international towards globalization.
While the efforts to expand the definition of globalization started off small, with
only fifty students enrolled in the program, the momentum eventually grew. Rather than
wait for students to come to the program, the faculty shifted the curriculum towards the
definition of globalization. The aim, according to Dr. Maes, was the sense that “we
should teach our MBA students what global companies do by using the technology that
was big at the time in 2004”.
These actions then laid the groundwork for the development the Global Executive
MBA program. Had it not been for this initial funding, the leaders of the program posit
that the GEMBA program may not have ever evolved to its current form.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 103
Much of the drive for the program was centered on a desire to set both the faculty
member’s reputation and their division’s reputation apart from others. This was
motivated also by the allocation of resources. At the time, other departments held the
attention of the Dean and getting the majority of the funding in the College of Business.
According to the artifacts found in a case study about the program, a commitment from
the Dean of the College of Business was essential for moving ahead rapidly. In order to
garner this support, the committee needed to demonstrate that the program could be
financially viable and maintain a quality consistent with Ray University’s standards.
According to Dr. Maes:
I had the drive in my department. I became the chair in my department and
wanted to do something unique to set my department apart and to show that, in
the business school, that we could be creative in terms of courses. I wanted to
show our university that our department was innovative and creative and as good
as the financial and marketing departments. We all were secondary players in the
College of Business in terms of hierarchy and market share in terms of students. I
wanted to create something that was unique and that would attract the attention of
students who would want to come to our department and take our course.
The impact of globalization on business schools resulted in a change in the way
professors delivered their material on international business and changed the way study
abroad programs operated within the business school. Simultaneously, this movement
towards a globalized curriculum capitalized on the emergence of international students
flocking to business schools across the country.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 104
According to a plenary paper about the program, the 1985 report on international
competitiveness illustrates the point that, “global competition is increasing and that
business schools and other professional schools need to modify their curricula in order to
prepare their students and alumni for the realities of the new international marketplace”
(Drobnick, 2008). It also introduces the dynamic between corporate demands for
culturally competent managers and the responsiveness needed by business schools to
meet this growing demand. The way business schools addressed the emergent issues
related to globalization caused a group of faculty at Ray University to rethink the type of
international education delivered in the business school. As a result, two professors led a
faculty committee to drive the development of the Global Executive MBA program.
According to Professor Chen:
What business schools are trying to do is educate students so that they can have a
global perspective and so that they will be able to conduct business in a global
environment. At the time, globalization’s impact caused the developers of this
program to move one step ahead of the globalization trend. The thought being
that, if we can foresee what is happening in terms of globalization within the next
10 years, if we stay ahead of it, we will then be able to produce the human
resources that fit the needs of businesses.
Each of the professors and administrators involved in the development of the GEMBA
program played a critical role in getting the program off the ground. Some of the
individuals described their role as trailblazers, some as collaborators on an
entrepreneurial venture and others described their role simply as someone who taught
classes to eager students willing to learn. Similarly, as was mentioned in one of the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 105
artifacts, “corporate leaders were increasingly aware that they could expand more and be
more profitable in their international activities if more members of their teams were
cross-competent, as well as functionally competent”.
According to Dr. Maes, he was originally slated to leave for a sabbatical at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the time the conversation began amongst a few
faculty colleagues regarding globalization efforts. The question was asked by two faculty
colleagues, “How should we globalize or internationalize our full time MBA program?”
At the time, international education in the College of Business was a very important
concept. The response by some faculty to this question was, “why don’t we teach a class
on global strategy?” Another faculty member suggested a class on global economics.
Dr. Maes recalled that his response to the faculty centered on taking MBA students
abroad and showing them what the world was really like. Dr. Maes recalled:
“Why don’t we take all of our MBA students abroad, show them what the world
is? Real life. Actually seeing, touching, smelling. Anything to globalize them
and see what global is rather than just sitting in a classroom in California trying to
figure out what global is.”
The dean at the Ray University College of Business caught on to the idea and wanted to
make it happen. In order to commit to the program, Dr. Maes offered to take on the
project and give up his prestigious sabbatical if the dean agreed to make the program
mandatory for all students. This commitment meant that 300 students would go abroad
in as a requirement of the MBA program. The dean agreed, and, according to Dr. Maes:
I gave up my sabbatical and set about to do away with all of my teaching
obligations and said that this was something that I had to do and that I was a
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 106
champion for it. He gave me the resources to do it. I hired a director for logistics
to take care of the people who were going abroad, all the things that had to be
done, taking 30 students abroad to different countries and bringing them back. He
gave me the resources to do it and that’s when I designed it. In 1996, we
designed it and had one group of students going to Japan and one group of
students going to China and three groups of students going to Mexico.
This change in the MBA program was not only a critical milestone for globalizing the
MBA program but also created a definition of globalization for the College of Business.
In addition, it offered Ray University tremendous exposure as business media pointed a
spotlight at the emerging trend of globalization in higher education. While Ray
University was not the first business program to send students abroad, it was the first to
approach global business in the manner in which it did.
According to research on corporate beliefs about globalization, corporate
managers reported they did not believe university language and area studies programs
produce the functionally competent, cross-culturally capable managers they need in order
to thrive in an increasingly integrated global marketplace (Enzer, 1994, College
Placement Council/Rand Corporation, 1994, and Moxon et al., 1997). The faculty was
sure to delineate that this was not a tourist trip or one for leisure; it was most certainly an
academic venture with global implications they believed would be in line with corporate
hiring practices which lead to employment after graduation. According to Dr. Maes:
We were the first in the US to do this and we got a lot of press. We were in
Business Week, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., you name it. We
had lots of press and that showed that we were unique in what we were doing and
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 107
generally that everyone had a good opinion that we were doing the right thing. It
was not a tourist trip; we made sure that we educated them about the country.
The momentum that was gained by early popularity made the program enticing for
students. Students in the program were given a choice of where they would like to study,
the foreign companies that they would visit and a curriculum centered on global
strategies. Prior departure, the students learned about the definition of globalization
within the context of business education by understanding the global industry, the
company that they would be working with, the development of a global project and
enough education that would allow them to make a successful presentation to company
executives.
According to Dr. Maes:
It became very academic. It fell in line with what we were trying to do which was
try to really globalize, not just show them what globalization was, but, rather, to
give them a project to educate them and make them do research. It worked very
well with what we were trying to do.
Another milestone for the program came in the form of a federal grant from the
Department of Education. During Phase I of the program’s development, the Department
of Education funded initiatives that placed significant importance on the development of
international programs. Changes to the program since its inception and strategic planning
allowed it to grow and implement change alongside the global marketplace in higher
education.
After many years providing international trips and given the increased business
market in Asia, the huge demand, coupled with an infusion of funding from the federal
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 108
government, resulted in the formal creation of the GEMBA program. Following the
release of the 1994 strategic planning document, all of the deans within Ray University’s
academic departments were, “actively encouraged to increase the learning opportunities
for their students and faculty about Asia and Latin America. Each school was responsible
for designing, financing and implementing their own activities, without undue meddling
from Ray University’s administration”. With this expectation came the encouragement,
guidance and, most importantly, funds from the university for internationalization
initiatives. As a result, the GEMBA program helped provide a template for how to
globalize an academic program and the possibility of revenue generation provided the
motivation to start. According to Dr. Maes:
We started first with the MBA program doing it and then the evening program
wanted to do it and then every MBA program now has it and then the
undergraduate programs also do it. I have 400 freshmen now going abroad this
year, so a total of 1100 students…going abroad every year. We call it scale up.
We went from the initial 35 students in the program to now having 1100 students
going abroad every year to almost 12-15 countries, visiting about 200 companies
every year to about 40 to 50 faculty and staff members from the…school going
abroad every year. This is a two to three thousand dollar cost per student, so
you’re talking about a three to four million dollar operation that occurred over the
last ten years and it really set us apart and it shows what we mean by globalization
and we take it seriously on all levels. On all our programs.
There was some doubt from the administration regarding the program’s longevity. In
order to sell the idea of developing the program, the architects of the program had to
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 109
champion its value to the rest of the college, including a reluctant Dean of the College of
Business. Despite the initial infusion of funds to incentivize the project and the
Department of Education grant which aided in its creation, it was some time before other
faculty and administrators saw the value of the program.
There was no formal series of faculty meetings and presentations to help sell the
college on the merits of the program and there were many questions as to whether the
initiative had value. The SARS crisis in East Asia had stalled a variety of business
endeavors, including GEMBA. In addition, Ray University had not yet received the
permission needed from the Chinese Ministry of Education and the dean still was not
convinced that launching an EMBA program in China was a good idea given the distance
away from the main campus. The business school dean gave the date of March 15, 2004,
for meeting a no/go deadline for the GEMBA program, indicating that it must enroll and
have deposits for 30 students. If this target were not met, he planned to eliminate the
project.
Following negotiations with the Program Director, the Dean of the College of
Business committed to funding the program once he saw the enormous revenue
generating potential and heard about the interest from the business world. The timing of
the program could not have been more perfect, as the climate at the university had
shifted. At the time of these discussions, the university President had released a strategy
document that indicated “Global” as a key strategic initiative for the university. As a
result, the business school Dean was under pressure to differentiate the College of
Business and embrace these strategies. The GEMBA program fit in with the trend that
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 110
was occurring at the university level and provided a solution for the dean to demonstrate
that his department was on par with the rest of the academic units.
Despite this shift in enthusiasm for the program, internal documents indicate that
the Dean offered the project leaders a modest start up budget of $250,000 and the group
still faced the following challenges outlined in the operating plan for the project:
• Would the school and university support this initiative strategically and
financially?
• Was Shanghai the most attractive market?
• Was the Shanghai institution the right partner for Ray University’s Business
School? What role should the Shanghai institution play? The program would be
a joint venture and the business community in China was full of stories of
problems between joint venture partners.
• Were we pricing the program right? Who would our competition be?
• How should we recruit students? How much should we use the Internet? Or paper
advertising? Should he go to companies? How much emphasis should the
program place on in China vs. Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other East Asia
locations? What balance is right for the class?
• How much present curriculum should we import? How much should be
localized?
At this point in the development of the GEMBA program, the group had achieved the
completion of the conceptual aspects of the program, but still had to launch and
implement the program in Shanghai.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 111
Discussion. The leaders of the Ray University College of Business based their
definition of globalization on their understanding of internationalization changes that
happened in the GEMBA program. Through the implementation of the GEMBA
program, they broadened that definition to include globalization. Through the process of
leadership reframing within the GEMBA program, the leaders collaborated with
colleagues who also sought organizational change within the College of Business. In part
through their enthusiasm for the program and their desire to position themselves against
other business schools on a more competitive level, they were able to successfully
redefine internationalization for the school and transition their department towards a
global focus.
Findings for Research Question Two
The second research question asked how the leadership of the Ray University
College of Business developed the Global Executive MBA program (GEMBA) based on
their perceptions of globalization. Once it was established by the Dean that support
would be offered for the development of a Global Executive MBA program, the focus
shifted to the infrastructure for the program. The leadership of the program needed to
develop a vision for the program, strategic goals, infrastructure and a plan as to how the
work would be laid out in order to meet the timeline for implementation and completion.
Themes drawn from the findings were the capacity building that took place in order to
launch the program, the systemic change that occurred within the university as a result of
the program implementation, the engagement of faculty in the program’s implementation,
faculty driven leadership, vision, strategic planning and politics. The findings from the
research indicate that, once the Executive MBA program was identified as the best
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 112
vehicle to establish a global presence for the Ray University College of Business, the real
work began in order to move the program from concept to implementation.
Results on leadership. Early on, the key leaders involved in the development of
the program assembled to discuss which program could go global. Dr. Maes, Dr. Gregg
and Dr. Wu organized a faculty committee and asked the question, “What should we do
next? Can we think of any programs that could go global?”
This committee of faculty members came back and said, “Yes, it should be the
executive MBA program because it ranked top ten in the US and is a high value added
program, also our intent was to go into another country so that we could create an alumni
base in that country.” According to Dr. Maes:
Undergraduates were too young to be enough value to the institution. We wanted
senior executives because they would be continued leaders for ten years in those
companies and so we could get an alumni base that we could use for a variety of
other programs to globalize ourselves and get value. As a result the Executive
MBA program was chosen as the program to take abroad.
The question then became what the best location would be to launch a program of this
magnitude. There were plenty of possible options for launching a program abroad, but a
number of factors needed to be considered in order to ensure that the program would
meet the needs of students, the university and business school. In addition, the program
needed to be in a location that was convenient, cost effective, had limited competition,
and which had revenue-generating potential. According to Dr. Maes:
We went through a host of other alternatives. We said, “you can’t go to Japan,
you can’t go to Singapore.” Where should we actually locate this program and
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 113
how should we work this program? Do we do it on our own? Do we do it as a
joint venture? And all of these issues came about. It was up to Gloria Gregg and
myself on how we were going to do this. If you look at all the other alternatives
there, you should go and decide that you’ve got competition in Singapore and in
Hong Kong. Japan was not ready for an American start up MBA program. The
Korean government was still controlling education, and so it was not going to be
easy to price a program appropriately high enough for what you would charge
here. Everybody was looking to China saying, “Get China. China was about to
be the next major power. We have to be in China.” Why are we skirting away
from China when it will be a major power?
After identifying China as the best viable location for the launch of the Global Executive
MBA program, Dr. Maes returned from his sabbatical in 2001 and continued discussions
about the possible location within China. The conversations continued throughout 2002
and Shanghai and Beijing were considered as possible locations.
After weighing the different pros and cons of each location, Shanghai was
identified as most viable for the launch of the Global Executive MBA program. While
Beijing was the capital and had certain advantages, Shanghai had established itself early
on in its history as a trading place. This facet of the city seemed to be a match for a
business program. While there was another program from the University of Missouri in
St. Louis attempting to launch an EMBA program in Shanghai, the reputation of Ray
University would prove an advantage.
At the time, there were only two major schools in Shanghai: Shanghai University
College of Business and Pudong University. Fortunately, in the summer of 2002, Ray
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 114
University received a visit from the Dean of the Shanghai University College of Business
who expressed an interest in creating a partnership with an American school to launch a
program similar to the one that the Ray University College of Business was developing.
The dean of the business school was on a trip through the US looking for a partner.
While Shanghai College of Business had partners in Canada, UBC, one university in
Singapore, and one university in Hong Kong, it was looking for a US University partner.
Representatives had gone to the East Coast, New York, Columbia, NYU, Boston,
Harvard, Alberta, then and Chicago. Their last stop was California, to visit UCLA and
Ray University. Dr. Maes and his team presented the concept of the GEMBA program
and explained the intention of developing a program in Shanghai, China. The Dean of
the Shanghai College of Business went back to campus and, within two days, sent Dr.
Maes an email saying, “you guys are it, we want to be partners with you.”
The timing of this visit could not have come at a better time for the school as all
players and administrators were primed and receptive to a partnership with global
implications. This involved a substantial amount of capacity building, and a “dialogue
amongst equals” (Friere, 1973) took place in order to evolve the organization on an
international level. According to Dr. Maes:
I thought, “What are we going to do?” It was July. In August 2002 we were
having an alumni conference in Shanghai. I talked to Dr. Cesar Bryan, who was
then the Vice Provost for International Affairs for Ray University, and I said, “I
want to sign the deal, right there in front of everybody, in front of Ray University
global and our alumni there.” I said, “Ray University College of Business is
doing a joint program with one of the best schools in Shanghai, Shanghai College
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 115
of Business.” So that was it. We signed the deal in October or November of
2002 in Shanghai and that’s what we committed to, he (the dean) committed to it
but he said, “What are we going to do? How much are we going to charge? Are
we going to make enough money? Are we going to be viable?” He doesn’t want
to lose money and so he gave me directions to go get it done. He let me go, he
gave me the resources, he gave me the mandate and he backed me, he gave me
time off to focus on getting it done.”
The developers of the Global Executive MBA program realized there would be
significant challenges associated with launching a program of this magnitude. In order to
be successful at the program’s onset, there was a need to address major factors that could
have a negative effect, particularly because of the impact of globalization. This would
create a systemic change in the way the GEMBA program would operate and could only
be accomplished through faculty engagement, diplomacy, faculty-driven leadership and
organizational savvy, or politics.
Results on globalization. As the development of the Global Executive MBA
began in the fall of 2002, an initial challenge facing the program was that of faculty
resources. While the three faculty members working to develop the program were able to
garner support from the dean and other faculty in the College of Business, the program
was not without its critics. As Dr. Gregg shared, “The whole university was trying to
internationalize itself, but there were probably some people hoping it would fail.” In
order to sidestep some of the internal politics, the faculty involved in the project had to
demonstrate both leadership and diplomacy in order to ensure faculty engagement and
support.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 116
Despite mixed support from faculty, the team pushed forward and addressed some
of the challenges facing a program that was slated to launch in China within the
following academic school year. One major hurdle that the team overcame was the
dean’s reluctance to commit such a large amount of departmental resources to an
international venture. Initially, the dean wanted the Executive MBA program to have an
elective component that would take students abroad for a class, but Dr. Maes held his
ground and said to the Dean, “If you don’t commit, I won’t commit”. He achieved his
goal of creating a new program, called the Global Executive MBA program that would
have globalization imbedded in the core curriculum and which would take place entirely
on foreign soil. While far from a diplomatic stance, Dr. Maes viewed this strategy as a
means to achieve the vision he set as well as greater systemic change within the
department.
This philosophy to focus on quality and benchmarking for a Global Executive
MBA program would be the hallmark for the program’s success and would demonstrate
the GEMBA team’s organizational savvy for maneuvering departmental politics. This
unwillingness to compromise on quality was essential in ensuring that the program
developed a strong international reputation and that the program became a product the
Ray University College of Business could be proud of.
Aside from the internal political challenges facing the program’s launch, there
were other obstacles the program faced. Issues such as retention of students, English
fluency of the student applicants and the selection of students were major factors behind
faculty hesitance to fully support the program’s launch. In addition, factors such as
resource allocation, geography, time, faculty involvement and program quality needed to
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 117
be discussed and determined before the program could be marketed to the global
community. In order for the vision of the program to fall into place, it was important to
garner faculty support and engagement as the curriculum for the program was being
developed.
In addition to the structural components to this global program, communication
was also a challenge. Communication with the partner institution, collaborating on a
joint venture and merging cultures were all issues derived from launching a global
program of this size. Philosophically, both schools had to reach a point where there was
a singular incorporation of the two institutions. This involved a large degree of strategic
planning and a considerable amount of thought regarding both the internal and external
political climates at both schools.
Once some of these initial issues were addressed, marketing the program abroad
also became a challenge. While there were thousands of alumni living abroad, faculty
and staff needed to give presentations and “sell” the program’s value to potential students
and their families. Due to the high cost of tuition for the program, the school needed to
demonstrate the value of the program and the cost-benefit of this program for a new
market in Asia.
As part of these efforts, staff from the College of Business presented the program
at information sessions throughout the Pacific Rim. In addition, the school developed a
promotional video and marketing materials. Fortunately, the GEMBA program had an
advantage, as they worked with alumni in the Pacific Rim in order to assist program
quality. This example of faculty-driven leadership helped position the program for
potential students as an excellent opportunity to understand the Chinese market, which
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 118
the GEMBA program had as an advantage over other executive MBA programs
competing for student enrollment.
Other challenges the program faced came in the form of political red tape. While
the Chinese were very receptive to the program, there was a concern that the program
would not be able to maintain the same level of quality that the Ray University College of
Business was able to attain at the home campus. It was important for everyone involved
that the authenticity of the Ray University program experience be maintained and that the
program continue to attract and retain high caliber students. In addition to the challenges
of communicating this need to the Chinese counterparts, the program also struggled to
receive approval from the Chinese Ministry of Education and from WASC. According to
Dr. Gregg:
One thing that happened was that people really came through from Shanghai. I
think the dean sort of warmed up to the partner school in Shanghai. We used him
to get the approval from the Chinese Ministry of Education. They (the dean) led
the effort on that. I think the program was reflective; it was a symptom of where
the university was headed.
The leadership of the Ray University College of Business developed the Global
Executive MBA program based on their definition of globalization that evolved from
faculty experiences of taking three groups of MBA students to Japan, China and Mexico.
Following that experience, they utilized their understanding of globalization to lay the
foundation for an accelerated program with students from around the globe flying in and
out of Shanghai for classes. While the broad definition of globalization was one that
helped spark the idea for the program, there were never any preconceived notions that the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 119
GEMBA program was the end goal. What began as an entrepreneurial venture to help
students learn about globalization and obtain global experience evolved into the GEMBA
program.
Findings for Research Question Three
The third research question addressed how the leadership of the College of
Business viewed the GEMBA program as part of the greater strategic plan for the
university. Results on the development of the GEMBA program indicate that it evolved
organically from an idea developed by a handful of faculty leaders, and the creation of
the program was strategically important for both the university and the department.
Initially, the program started from the idea to take a few MBA students to
Mexico, Japan and China. As the benefits of a global program emerged, faculty worked
to create a partnership with a school in Shanghai that could help turn a vision of
globalized education into a reality. This initiative started the globalization of the MBA
program and, as one faculty member stated, “While GEMBA was reflective of where the
university was headed, GEMBA was done from the ground up and it was not driven from
some greater strategic plan”.
Results on leadership. At the onset of the program, Dr. Gloria Gregg, Dean of
the College of Business, and Dr. Eugene Maes chose the Executive MBA as the program
to deliver in a global format. They chose the program because of its high value. In
addition, it had potential to be a revenue-generating program beyond what it was
currently earning for the school and offered an opportunity to create a bigger alumni base
in China. Ray University already had a strong presence and name recognition in the
Pacific Rim, so there was much promise in the concept of basing a program in China.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 120
China was at a point in its history where it could, economically and politically, foster a
program of this scope. Additionally, the outlook for China as a viable market for
enrollment growth was strong. The leadership of the College of Business recognized this
opportunity and seized the chance to become one of the first schools to enter the
marketplace.
While the first leaders involved in the GEMBA program served in a variety of
capacities, all served as faculty in the program. As the program developed, their roles
expanded and each eventually moved from faculty member in the program to
administrator of the program. These leaders created GEMBA to meet the need
established by the university to internationalize itself with the goal to distinguish the
College of Business and further the reputations of the program leaders. The timing and
the setting were ideal for this venture, as China was an emerging market and about to
become a major player in global business. According to Dr. Maes:
We wanted something new. Faculty wanted something new. The College of
Business was pioneering. We became a trailblazer from Ray University on how to
globalize. Due to this success, trips abroad are incorporated into the MBA and
undergrad levels. Students were looking at a future in Asia. This program
brought them a network in Asia.
The work that the faculty in the College of Business did to internationalize the
school was not done to satisfy the strategic plans of the president or the provost. Rather,
it came from the need to compete with other business schools who were attempting to the
do the same thing with less name recognition and fewer resources and connections to
Asia. He shares that, at the time, “some schools were trying to collaborate on joint
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 121
programs creating global initiatives and a global agenda”. The creation of the GEMBA
program gave the Ray University College of Business a competitive advantage. Its
creation coincided with the vision of the university leadership and supported the
university’s strategic plan for internationalization and for having globalization imbedded
in academic departments.
Results on globalization. Despite the assertion by the faculty leaders involved in
the development of the GEMBA program that the creation was not derived by some
greater strategic initiative, the strategic plan did play a role in the way GEMBA
developed. From the standpoint of the Dean of the College of Business, the initiative fit
in nicely with Ray University’s strategic plan to globalize.
One challenge that the program faced was that it was created in an environment
where the cost far exceeded per capita income in China. Program quality was an
anticipated challenge, and the Chinese had the competing interest of wanting to make
money and were not concerned with the overall quality. According to Dr. Maes:
Ray University was interested in quality. Getting on the same page with the
partner institution was a challenge. Other challenges were that it was the highest
priced program in China, SARS, the Chinese government, intellectual property
copyright issues on class materials and the demand for faculty resources.
SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, affected Asia as an outbreak hit in 2003
(Drobnick, 2008). This was significant, as travel to the Pacific Rim was curbed and
many institutions across the United States enacted policies that restricted travel to China
in order to avoid an outbreak on their college campuses. In addition to global issues such
as these affecting the progress of the program and its development, internal tensions and
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 122
faculty politics also hampered the program’s creation. In addition, the expansion of the
Executive MBA program offerings presented an additional challenge of dwindling
faculty resources.
While managing the current demands on faculty to teach, publish and further their
research, business schools faced additional pressure to stay one step ahead of the trend in
order to produce the human resources needed for businesses. In addition to other
commitments the leaders of the program were involved in, they still maintained an
interest in establishing the Global Executive MBA program.
According to Dr. Gregg:
We were involved in China and elsewhere and thought it would be good to take
the EMBA model to Asia. I led the EMBA program for 18 years and was a part
of the team that first launched GEMBA. The goal was getting a degree program
in China. There was a market for it. There was networking already happening in
Asia. We leveraged the Asian alumni in the Pacific Rim and to assist with
growing the program.
While the role of the strategic plan for the university was not cited as a major
influence in the development of the Global Executive MBA program, the global climate
and interest in the business school community to develop international MBA programs
played a major factor in the development of the GEMBA. According to the results, while
these two phenomena were happening at the same institution, at the same time, these
global initiatives were not entirely mutually exclusive. Both were driven by a greater
global force in the higher education landscape.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 123
Findings for Research Question Four
The fourth research question addressed how the College of Business measured the
progress of the Global Executive MBA program in response to globalization. Based on
the assumption that globalization’s impact was taken into consideration as the program
developed and affected how leaders assessed success of the program, this question
addressed the different measures and milestones for the GEMBA program. As evidenced
by the findings, all the respondents indicated that the creation of the Global Executive
MBA program was a significant milestone and helped pioneer an important part of Ray
University.
When asked how the success of the program was measured, at least one leader in
the program indicated had not been much to assess the program in a formal sense, but
that there were indicators of success as the program grew and evolved. Some of these
successes were rankings in business newspapers and the continued growth of the program
with very little need to compromise on the caliber of students being admitted into the
program. According to Dr. Wu:
We really don’t have any metrics laid out for managing the success of it. One
way of measurement could be the number of students in the class and where it is
going next year. We won’t take a hit this year, despite the economic situation.
We want the number in class to be at around 65. The fact is this is how we made
it successful. One, I think that the number of students in class and making sure
that they match the same profile as our EMBA on the main campus. The EMBA
program is very successful. We ranked #5 in Business Week and #4 by the Wall
Street Journal. We want to match that profile of 35 years old, average 15 years
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 124
working. If we can take in every year about 60-65 students of similar profiles, I
think it’s going to be a very successful program and, if we can do it with
continuous persistence for several years, then you’ll have a tremendous impact on
different countries in Asia Pacific, in which we’ll benefit our global interest
programs and faculty research. Faculty members are already doing research now
developing cases like Starbucks in Asia, Tyson Chicken, and Pepsi in China.
These are cases that we developed and also used in MBA and undergraduate
program.
This influence can be considered one of the reasons Ray University opened an
office in China and increased its presence in the Pacific Rim. The recent opening of an
office in China can also be an indicator of success of the program, as it is directly linked
to the increased profile of Ray University in China.
In addition, replication can also be a form of flattery and an indicator of success.
At least two other departments at Ray University developed programs for their executive
and professional graduate degree programs that operate in a similar fashion to the Global
Executive MBA program. According to Dr. Wu:
I have a couple of people talking to me about how we do things in GEMBA. A
couple of other schools are trying to do this: School of Education and School of
Public Programs. They are in charge of replicating a similar program. They’ve
been talking to a Chinese university and trying to launch a Public Policy
international program. I also heard the School of Education is trying to push a
global initiative.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 125
Alternatively, changes to the GEMBA program occurred in direct response to the
impact of globalization. This response to globalization was critical in ensuring that the
program was attuned to the evolving needs of students who were involved in businesses
that also were sensitive to globalization’s impact.
As these results indicate, the economic and political climates inside and outside of
the university matter. There are external forces in the economic and political climates
that create a breeding ground suitable for new programs. Conversely, how receptive
leaders are to certain topics plays a critical role in program development. Setting
globalization as a priority in the strategic plan did situate global programs as more
important for the strategic growth of the university than other programs.
While the leaders of the GEMBA program did not feel that the university strategic
plan and the GEMBA program were related, the fact that the strategic plan included the
need to globalize the university was a key element in the creation of GEMBA program.
This university priority to globalize created the perfect climate for launching a program
of this size and scope. As a result, one outcome of measurement that occurred because of
the concept of globalization is the impact Ray University had on countries in Asia
Pacific.
While no metrics are laid out for measuring the success of the program, the
rankings in Business Week and the Wall Street Journal during the launch of the program
indicate the program was a new change in the direction of business education. In
addition, this impact was felt internally as well as externally in the College of Business.
A trickle-down effect in the MBA and undergraduate programs is an outcome and
benefits of the GEMBA presence in Asia.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 126
Leadership plays a critical role in whether a program will persist, be influential
and grow. In the Global Executive MBA, the dean, while initially hesitant to support the
program’s creation, found that it was a way to evidence his strategic leadership.
According to some of the study participants, as a leader, he supported the strategic
mission of the university President by supporting the GEMBA program’s growth. In
order to get more resources and support for his own school, he needed to be a champion
for the program and used it as a means to demonstrate that his school was also supporting
the greater strategic initiatives.
According to one respondent:
What you see is that leadership is very important. Ray University has a corporate
leadership. If it is not there nothing gets done. Sources and impetus are needed.
We must have a champion to help. When you need anything done and if it’s not
there, nothing will happen. It’s not sufficient, but then you must have champions
who are willing to come in and with their efforts make it happen. You need teams
to make it happen, make it happen successfully. If you don’t have those sets of
people, you’re not going to do anything.
While no real measurable targets were identified in terms of measuring the impact
of globalization on the MBA program, from a financial standpoint, the original target of a
break-even point continues to be a focus for the Dean and program leaders. According to
Dr. Wu:
From a financial standpoint, we went back to GEMBA 1 in terms of revenue.
Due to the economic crisis, our numbers will go down. So our revenues are the
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 127
same as GEMBA 1 (the first year of the program). But we broke even. We will
break even this year despite the economic climate.
Additionally, the respondents also referenced case studies and presentations on
the development of the program as one more way to measure progress with the initiative.
Findings from two case studies and a plenary paper, which focused on launching the
EMBA program in China, served as an example of opportunities, issues and strategies for
the program. These artifacts offered a unique view on the EMBA program in Shanghai
and told the story from a leadership standpoint that provided a case study of
internationalization.
The focus of triumph in the face of adversity was a common theme in all of the
interviews and measuring the progress of the GEMBA program is something that the
current program director indicated as a need for the future. The program director
indicated that faculty need to continue to develop cases and conduct research based on
their experiences teaching in the GEMBA program.
The program director also indicated that, as the program reaches a point of
enough years in existence to measure impact, leadership will seek to obtain a ranking
from Financial Times. In order to receive a ranking from Financial Times, the program
needs to have four graduated classes.
According to Dr. Wu:
We need to track our graduates in terms of how they have progressed in their
career. That’s a very important measurement of a successful program. One
milestone is that we need to take it for Financial Times. We were not qualified to
be ranked before because we needed to have 4 classes of students graduated
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 128
before we were qualified. Now we have four classes and now we are qualified. I
think in the coming year or next, we need to strategically prepare to be ranked in
Financial Times and, of course, this would have to go through the dean’s level.
The desire by the program’s leaders to look back on the program and identify key
areas where globalization has had an impact over the past few decades is an indicator of
the program’s future. Armstrong (2007) shared that, “twinning” arrangements can have a
net effect on the number of students from other countries who enroll in the home
institution and can also be a means to diversify new income. This has been the case, as
there has been a large influx of international students who enrolled at the school since the
GEMBA program began, and the program has become a large source of revenue for the
College of Business.
In addition to the benefits the school has received as a result of the GEMBA
program, it is still unknown whether the reputation of the school was helped or hindered
as a result of the partnership. Armstrong (2007) posits that “twinning” and other
partnerships raise significant reputational risks regarding quality control of the
international partner. While this was an issue at the creation of the program, since no
formal assessment was done in the business community or with alumni of the program,
there is no real indicator that points to the long-term impact on the reputation of the
College of Business.
As Armstrong (2007) points out, institutions will be faced with these same
reputational challenges and will also assume risks different from those they experienced
in the past. This is consistent with the findings from the interview with the current
program director, Dr. Wu, who indicated that, due to financial constraints and the global
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 129
economy, the program would have to be dialed back in terms of revenue to the first year
of operation. While this is a revenue setback, it allows the program to still break even
without having to eliminate major program offerings. The impact of globalization on the
GEMBA program was a transformational change felt in the College of Business along
with other parts of the university. As Dr. Maes shared, leadership chose to embrace the
idea of globalization and directly address the impact of this change in the way the world
transacts business by teaching students how to operate in a globalized world.
Summary
Insight from the findings regarding research question one provides evidence that
university leaders, operated from their own understanding of globalization and not from a
universal definition. This definition was shaped by faculty experiences in business
education. Much of this was driven by the emergence of globalization as an important
trend in business, which other schools were using as a competitive advantage and as a
way to differentiate their programs.
Ray University faculty leaders observed this trend and demonstrated through their
actions, that, in order to stay competitive, they would need to have a global program.
Through the creation of the Global Executive MBA program and the influence of
globalization, the orientation of international business within the college shifted towards
a global mindset. Evidence of this is first seen in the emergence of the GEMBA program
and other global programs that emerged following its creation. While the EMBA
program was used as a vehicle to achieve this goal, the strategy served as inspiration for
other departments on how to launch their own global programs.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 130
Insight from research question two provides evidence that the leadership of the
College of Business based their definition of globalization for the purposes of creating
GEMBA on their own understanding and what occurred in the business industry. The
initiative to create GEMBA was reinforced throughout the interviews with participants
and in the artifacts that show that, despite the fact that internationalization initiatives were
occurring at the executive leadership level, these two phenomena were loosely coupled.
The evidence regarding this aspect shows that the GEMBA program was driven by
faculty leaders who worked to create coalitions, develop relationships and develop a
framework for launching a program, which influenced globalization as an imbedded
competency within the curriculum.
Insights from research question three provide evidence that the leadership of the
College of Business viewed the GEMBA program as a vehicle which would provide the
best product for adapting to a global program and which would provide a competitive
advantage. This development, if successful, had the recognized potential of growing
enrollment, increasing the profile of the college and differentiating the program from
others in the global business marketplace. In addition, the goals of the program provided
an additional benefit to the college as it also aligned with the strategic plan for the
university. Changes to the curriculum following the addition of this global program
helped imbed globalization in the business curriculum in a way that was unique from past
international programs.
Insight from research question four provides evidence that the College of
Business measures the progress of the program through ongoing growth. Evidence from
artifacts such as the website, program enrollment data and the observations shared by
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 131
research respondents in the study show that participant enrollment grew with each class.
In addition, the program achieved the goal of being profitable in the first year and
increased revenue targets with each subsequent class. As a result, data from national
rankings show evidence that, as a result of this growth, the program was ranked high on a
national scale.
Finally, imitation served as the best evidence of program success. The College of
Business was used as a consultant by other colleges at the university and demonstrated
that the program was worth copying through the adoption of this strategy by other
colleges as a means of imbedding globalization in the curriculum.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 132
Chapter Five: Discussion
There have been many changes to higher education, but one of the most
significant was globalization’s influence on international education, particularly within
management education (AACSB, 2011). International education rapidly evolved to
include globalization and continues to be the conduit from which ideas and people flow
between continents. With advances in ease of international travel and developments in
technology, programs like the Global Executive MBA program have become common on
college campuses and are a symbol of innovation.
The creation of the Global Executive MBA program is not a one-size-fits-all idea,
but has been influential in the creation of other global programs in fields of study such as
education, engineering and public policy. This example of developing a global program
offers insight for those interested in understanding the leadership skills necessary to
launch a global program.
There were many developments that led up to the launch of Ray University’s first
degree-seeking program to take place entirely on foreign soil. The study sought to
understand how the program developed, how the leaders defined globalization within the
context of the program’s development and how a multi-framed orientation was employed
in order to launch a program of this complexity (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Finally, the
study reviewed the challenges that leaders faced in the development of a global program
and how the GEMBA program measured progress.
The study introduced the following research questions that were driven by the
literature: The first question asked how perceptions of globalization informed strategies
of internationalization. The second question asked how the leadership of the Ray
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 133
University College of Business developed the Global Executive MBA (GEMBA)
program based on their definition of globalization. Question three asked how the
leadership of the Ray University College of Business viewed the GEMBA program as
part of the greater strategic plan for the university. Question 4 asked how the Ray
University College of Business measured the progress of the GEMBA program.
This chapter reviews the key findings and discusses the analysis of the data
collected. The chapter focuses on how leaders approached the development of the
GEMBA program, how academic leaders collaborated in globalization efforts on campus
and how GEMBA inspired other international growth initiatives at the university. The
implications of the findings regard how an entrepreneurial venture can spark
organizational change for a university department and influence global initiatives across a
wide variety of units. The implications for campus leaders are provided. This chapter
concludes with the limitations of the study, recommendations for further research and a
summary.
The purpose of this study was to analyze how the GEMBA program began and to
understand the steps that led up to its creation. At its introduction, the GEMBA program
was an entrepreneurial venture for Ray University and set a benchmark for what many
business schools in the United States were trying to achieve. The GEMBA program was
the product of the combined work of administrators, educators and university leaders in
order to develop a program in response to globalization.
Discussion of Findings
In response to the research questions, there were four findings. These findings
fall into two major categories: organizational change and globalizing the MBA. Relevant
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 134
to organizational change, there was one finding regarding the redefinition of
internationalization towards a global orientation by the leadership of the college of
business. The second major category was globalizing the MBA, which yielded three
findings. These three findings were how and why this global program was developed, the
complex thinking by leaders that developed the program and how the program was
measured.
Findings related to the first and second research questions illuminated that leaders
at Ray University based their definition of globalization on a broad understanding of the
concept but did not have a universal definition established. The faculty leaders of the
GEMBA program defined globalization on their own interpretation and experiences in
business education. It was determined that much of the definition was driven by the
emergence of globalization as a competitive position that other business programs were
using as a strategy to grow and differentiate themselves in the marketplace. The faculty
of the College of Business viewed the program as aligned with the strategic plan for the
university. The College of Business measures the program using traditional metrics of
enrollment, rankings, revenue and not on a global competency or standard.
Organizational Change
The first finding is that organizational change occurred when globalization
became an important competency within the college of business, as a result of the
emergence of globalization as an important component in the business industry, and the
Global Executive MBA program was created. The finding emerged in response to the
research question that asked the definition of globalization for the purposes of developing
the Global Executive MBA program. The finding was consistent with the literature on
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 135
implementing globalization by first defining globalization, which can vary in meaning
and scope (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). The leaders of the GEMBA program based
their definition of globalization on their own interpretation of globalization and
experiences in business education. In addition, the way the definition was driven by the
emergence of globalization as a competitive position was consistent with the literature
and was similar to the strategies employed by other business schools to differentiate
themselves (AACSB, 2011).
The data revealed that the GEMBA program played an important role in moving
the college of business from an international mindset towards a global orientation. It was
not the only occurrence that contributed to this growth, but it did help move the College
of Business toward greater competency around globalization. What started as an
entrepreneurial venture amongst a few faculty leaders in the College of Business evolved
to meet the needs, created by globalization, of business students. The GEMBA program
was created at a time when the department was looking to differentiate itself from other
schools of business and at a time when the university President emphasized to deans at
the university that integrating globalization into the curriculum was a priority. The
GEMBA program, consistent with the literature on how similar programs developed,
offered a ready solution to increase student enrollment and meet the strategic priorities of
the university (Alon & McIntyre, 2004).
Consistent with the literature on reframing organizations, faculty leaders
employed a multi-framed leadership approach depending on the situation they
encountered at each phase in GEMBA’s development (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Through
these approaches, they helped reshape the curriculum of the College of Business and
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 136
contributed to the international initiatives taking place at the university. The faculty
members who led the initiative implemented organizational change through strategic
planning within the context of globalization. The initiatives used to develop the GEMBA
program helped in the formal and operational conceptualization of globalization within
the College of Business and, perhaps, the greater university (Altbach & Knight, 2007).
The dean and the first director provided the vision for the GEMBA program and
strategically made alliances amongst the faculty to develop the concept and secure the
financial resources needed from the university. The GEMBA program offered an
experiential learning opportunity centered on globalization. This effort expanded new
markets for the school and helped differentiate the program as one that was cutting edge
and innovative. In turn, these actions led to a drastic redefinition of internationalization
to one that was global in scope.
Noteworthy is that, while the GEMBA program aligned itself with the strategic
vision of Ray University’s president, it was the entrepreneurial spirit and desire to gain
attention for a fledgling department that drove the program’s creation. This first finding
illustrates the notion that the GEMBA program helped contribute to the department’s
view of globalization and, through its efforts, helped aid other departments seeking to do
the same. This is consistent with the literature on the life cycle of academic fads, which
scrutinizes the rise and fall of academic fads. Birnbaum (2000) shares that true
management innovations, not fads, can be used to strengthen the educational and social
purposes of higher education in much the same way that the creation of GEMBA did for
Ray University’s College of Business.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 137
This first finding is important relative to the focus of the leadership framing
involved in the development of the GEMBA program. Faculty-driven leadership and
engagement played an important role in the capacity building that took place in order to
launch the GEMBA program. The GEMBA program received support for
implementation and growth because of its carefully timed strategic introduction, the
diplomacy of faculty leaders, and departmental planning. The study used the literature
from globalization of higher education and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory of
reframing organizations in order to understand how strategic thinking and leadership can
play an important role in imbedding globalization into the academic fabric of an
institution. Rather than attempt the difficult task of measuring, defining or linking
outcomes to leadership, it became more efficient to reframe the organization to responds
to a more global, competitive and turbulent environment (Bolman & Deal 2003).
This approach went beyond identifying exemplary principles for the intention of
copying and implementing those strategies (Rhoades, 2000) at Ray University. It also
contributed to growth through strategic thinking. This involved facilitating, supporting
and encouraging constructive activity in academic units toward multiple goals in the face
of competing priorities.
From a leadership framing perspective, the researcher found that faculty leaders
approached the initiative from a symbolic and political frame. These frames are
represented in how the director derived meaning from the establishment of the program
and how the launch of the program involved a high degree of political maneuvering and
organizational savvy. While the structural and human resource frames played a role in
how the organization was viewed, their importance came much later when the program
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 138
was conceived, alliances were made and most of the organizational hurdles were
overcome. The creation of the Global Executive MBA program was consistent with the
literature, as it came to symbolize just one example of the innovation within the
department and the people associated with global activities within the College of
Business (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Globalizing the MBA
The second major category was globalizing the MBA, which included three
findings. These three findings were how and why this global program was developed, the
complex thinking by leaders that developed the program and how the program was
measured. The faculty leaders played an important role in globalizing the Executive
MBA program. The way the program emerged was consistent with the literature, as it
emerged at a critical time where global programs were needed to help train the next
generation of global business leaders (Alon & Van Fleet, 2009).
There are three findings that reveal that the growth of the GEMBA program
established benchmarks for other programs interested in creating a globalized curriculum.
The first finding reveals that the globalization of the MBA program was based on the
emergence of globalization as an important trend in business and there was no universal
definition established for globalization. The second finding was that the globalization of
the GEMBA program emerged as a result of faculty leaders’ advocating differentiation of
the program, staying competitive in the marketplace and increasing enrollment. The third
finding presents questions as to whether the program achieved being a truly “global”
program based on the assessments used to measure the program’s progress. The program
grew in terms of enrollment, increased revenue and improvement of national rankings. In
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 139
addition, other programs at the university sought guidance from the college of business
and used the program as a model for global expansion. However, the program has not
been measured against global competencies for management education.
The first finding reveals that the globalization of the MBA program was based on
the emergence of globalization as an important trend in business and that there was no
universal definition established for globalization. Regarding the first finding, at the time
of GEMBA’s creation, business education was reshaped by globalization and new
technology. GEMBA capitalized on the name recognition of its university in China and
on its reputation and connections in the Pacific Rim in order to address the complex
nature of increasing competition for students and resources. The leadership of the Ray
University College of Business used this knowledge to develop the GEMBA program
based on their broad definition of globalization.
The second finding reflects globalization of the GEMBA program emerged as a
result of faculty leaders’ advocating to differentiate the program, stay competitive in the
marketplace and increase enrollment. While Ray University had a long history of
engagement in the Pacific Rim through teaching, recruiting, exchanges and research, the
development of the GEMBA program marked the first time the university undertook a
degree-granting program in Asia. The committee of faculty selected by the dean drove
the project, set a strategy, chose the market and location, found a partner university,
priced the program and recruited students. The faculty leaders expanded the program and
increased the size and quality of the incoming classes of MBA students in the program.
In addition, they maintained the quality of the Ray University name and reputation
through both academic rigor and diversity.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 140
The third finding reflects the assessment of the program. The marketing approach
for the program proved successful and helped to differentiate the program as a model
program amongst its peers. In addition, the program was able to establish five key
features that set the Ray University global program aside from the rest: a Ray University
MBA - not a joint degree; convenient schedule for “fly-in students”; integrated
curriculum; a global management focus and a senior faculty team from the Ray
University home campus.
The program maintained its character and cohesion with that of the home campus.
This program helped attract students and diminished the national boundaries of education
to allow a wide variety of students to obtain an innovative global education and return to
their home countries to achieve key positions in industry, education and government.
This program exceeded the original goal of meeting the challenges and opportunities
outlined in the U.S. President’s 1985 report on global competitiveness. This was
consistent with the literature on the global footprint of an MBA in that the program not
only globalized the MBA, but also aided in the creation of other global programs at the
university (Alon & McAllaster, 2009).
In order for the change to occur at Ray University, divergence theory played an
important role in illustrating the bottom up, non-linear heterogeneity of globalizations
effects (Palmer, 2003). While Armstrong (2008) asserts that the academic world has very
little idea of what it means to be truly global, in order for Ray University to operate
within a knowledge economy, the College of Business allowed itself to be reshaped by
globalization and the external environment of heightened competition, complexity and
change.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 141
Implications for Practice
The implications of these findings are consistent with the literature that
demonstrates the importance of improving students’ global knowledge, improving
institutional outcomes and academic curriculum tied to student learning outcomes for
global business (Khurana, 2007). The understanding of how globalization is defined,
how that definition fuels the creation of a global program and how the program is
measured, helps improve global education (Alon & McAllaster, 2009). This provides
administrators, educators and university leaders with an understanding of how to respond
to globalization and provide one example of developing a global executive MBA
program.
In order to for educational leaders to launch a successful global program, there are
several preconditions, circumstances and pitfalls that must be considered before starting a
program launch in a foreign country. These are a few questions that should be
considered:
• Will the school and university support this initiative strategically and financially?
• Is the location being considered, the most attractive market?
• Is the foreign institution the right partner for the university? What role should the
foreign institution play?
• How will you correctly price the program? Who will your competition be?
• How will you recruit students? How reliant will you be on the use of your
website for marketing? What about print advertising?
With regard to business programs, the following considerations should also be
reviewed:
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 142
• Should you market the program directly to companies?
• How much emphasis should the business program place on important markets
such as China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other East Asia locations?
• What balance is right for the business class?
• How much present business curriculum should we import?
• How much business curriculum should be localized?
• As a joint venture, what are the common problems other programs have
experienced between joint venture partners in the country?
The importance of the findings emphasizes to practitioners that creating a global
program is not a one-size-fits-all approach (Rhoades, 2000). Rather than providing a
template that works for every campus and every department, the results showcase the
challenges experienced when launching a global MBA, specifically in China (Alon &
Van Fleet, 2009). The idea of “doing it right” is the wrong approach. Rather than
identifying model programs, copying and implementing those strategies, it is important
for higher education leaders to use that knowledge to create new, informed approaches to
globalization’s forces that fit the unique needs of each school and its foreign partner.
This allows for a fresh take on the multiple goals aimed at imbedding globalization in the
curriculum in the face of competing priorities.
The implications based on the first finding of organizational change contribute to
the limited research on the globalization of higher education and the complex thinking
that helps academic leaders create a new global program (AACSB, 2011). The study aids
in furthering the thoughtful consideration of the process of imbedding globalization into
the culture of a university and demonstrates that globalization had a significant impact on
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 143
one university’s departmental vision for the future. In facilitating the discussion on the
globalization of higher education and supporting academic units looking to draw on the
experiences of other institutions who responded to globalization, it produced
organizational change.
The findings on organizational change and leadership framing offer a model of
pedagogical significance for practice and teaching (Czarra, 2003). This didactic
approach accomplished the original goal that sparked the program’s conception, which
was to offer a hands-on, real-world approach to inquiry on global business. These
research findings on globalizing the MBA can translate well into pedagogical practice
without limiting its value and ability to be modified to fit the institution’s needs.
Recommendations for Research
One limitation of this study involved the generalizability of the findings, as the
study was limited to a single case of the perspectives of leaders at the US institution
involved in the GEMBA program. The university studied was a private institution and
the research focused on an executive MBA program in a highly selective institution in
China.
A second limitation was the international name recognition and alumni base in the
Pacific Rim. The university and department had a long institutional history in the Pacific
Rim, which aided in the successful launch of the program. This fact, along with
extensive expertise in international education, offered an ideal basis for developing a
program of this complexity. While the program was successful, there were multiple
examples of international programs that preceded the GEMBA program that were
unsuccessful, but aided in learning and improving the ability to teach about global issues.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 144
Out of four recommendations for further research, three entail an expansion of the
present study. The first recommendation involves expanding the study to include the
perspectives of the foreign partners and foreign leaders involved in the program’s
development. The second recommendation involves researching the development of
other global programs at the university that were aided or influenced at least in part by
the College of Business. The third recommendation involves expanding the research to
include the perspectives of deans and executive leaders at the institution who were at the
university at the time of the GEMBA program’s creation. The final recommendation
focuses more generally on leadership in a multicultural age to assert that leaders must
take cultural difference into consideration when establishing partnerships.
The researcher recommends further study on the perspectives of foreign partners
and leaders involved in the program’s development. In order to achieve the most
comprehensive review of the problem and to identify what took place in the creation of
the Global Executive MBA program, it is ideal to get both the American and Chinese
account of events. The steps that led up to the creation of the GEMBA program from the
perspective of the Chinese leaders, including how they defined globalization within the
context of business education, provides an interesting facet to the study. In addition,
because it was the Chinese partner that selected Ray University for the program,
understanding how the Chinese leaders developed the GEMBA program based on their
definition of globalization would provide an important perspective in the study of the
globalization of higher education. Through this lens, a greater understanding of the role
the GEMBA program played in the greater strategic plan for the Chinese partner
institution would also be illuminated.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 145
Second, the researcher recommends further study on the implementation of global
programs and international partnerships outside of the College of Business. As the
second finding suggests, other departments at Ray University used the GEMBA faculty
leaders and program as a resource for globalizing an existing program. The researcher
recommends other studies be conducted to include how those departments used the
pedagogical model to create curriculum and launch a program with a very different
academic focus. In addition, the different locations chosen as a partner site and thematic
focus offer an additional lens for analyzing the problem. This additional study offers the
opportunity to provide context and insight as to globalization efforts in different
departments at the same institution.
Third, an additional recommendation would be to survey the perspective of the
deans of these various departments and include the perspectives of the deans at the
partner institution. This allows for a deeper view of the role of leadership from the
perspective of those who are traditionally seen as leaders of the department. This
inclusion of executive leaders would help identify short- and long-term changes due to
globalization within higher education. In addition, executive leaders have a responsibility
to the institution that ties student outcomes to their performance. Through the insight
from executive leaders, the study would possibly aid in surveying the perception of the
program as part of the greater strategic plan for the institution.
The final recommendation is on leadership for a multicultural age. While the
research from Bolman and Deal (2003) focused on leadership framing in a monocultural
view, the cultural aspects of launching a program in China cannot be ignored. Much of
the limited research on the impact of globalization in higher education cites examples of
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 146
an American definition of globalization. The way that globalization is defined in the host
country of a global program must be considered at the planning stages of a program
launch. It is vitally important to understand the cultural nuances, understand the
language and utilize that wisdom to increase the effectiveness of the program. The
analysis of new approaches to leadership from a multicultural perspective may offer
unique solutions and new pedagogical approaches to acquiring global knowledge.
Conclusion
It is imperative that higher education leaders have a firm understanding of
globalization and its impact on student learning and career outcomes. This is important
because, for every successful global endeavor launched by universities, there are still
examples of unsuccessful programs. It is important to continue to study the impact of
globalization on higher education because it is a topic that is evolves continuously.
Through the study of the globalization of higher education and, specifically,
management education, there continues to be examples of programs that approached the
challenges brought on by globalization in new and innovative ways. It is critical for
leaders to understand that simply putting the stamp of “global” on a program launched
abroad fails to get at the heart of developing global competence in management
education. Looking at examples of leadership reframing for the purpose of global
education, the complex thinking that occurs when leaders are faced with global problems
and the outcomes achieved provides a guide for leaders.
There is no guarantee that these solutions will fit the unique needs of each
institution and partner country. Through understanding the different approaches to
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 147
overcoming these challenges, leaders gain the tools and insight needed to look at complex
problems and possible approaches to global issues.
If leaders continue to approach globalization in the same ways we have done in
the past, we will continue to create global programs that fail to prepare managers for
global careers. If our approach continues to be teaching the same curriculum abroad
without regard for the unique nature of a global environment, we will never achieve the
goal of creating truly global programs in higher education. It is imperative that leaders
apply new approaches to the issue of globalization to develop programs that help students
become globally competent in order to meet new world-wide challenges.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 148
References
AACSB. (2011). Globalization of management education: Changing international
structures, adaptive strategies, and the impact on institutions. Tampa, FL:
AACSB.
Alon, I., & McAllaster, C. M. (2009). Measuring the global footprint of an MBA.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 13-4(Winter 2009).
Alon, I., & McIntyre, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Business education and emerging market
economies: Perspectives and best practices. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Alon, I., & Van Fleet, J. (2009). Globalization of business schools: The case of China.
Journal of International Business Education(4), 103-118.
Alon, I., & Van Fleet, J. D. (2008). The China challenge. BizEd, May/June 2008, 36-41.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education:
Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 no. 3-
4(Fall/Winter 2007), 290-305.
Badcock, B. A. (2002). Making Sense of Cities: A Geographical Survey. London: Arnold.
Birnbaum, R., Bensimon, E.M., & Neumann, A. (1989). "Leadership in higher education:
A multi-dimensional approach to research." Review of Higher Education 12, 10
1-105.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal of
Higher Education, 71, 1(Jan/Feb ).
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership (Third Edition ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
A Brief History of IIE. (2011). 2011, from http://www.iie.org
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 149
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
CGS. (2009). Findings from the 2009 CGS International Admissions Survey, Phase I:
Final applications and initial offers of admission. Washington, D.C.
Chinnammai, S. (2005). Effects of Globalisation on Education and Culture. Paper
presented at the ICDE International Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.openpraxis.com/files/Article 252.pdf
Civil Rights Act (United States Supreme Court 1964).
Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. Review of Findings of the President's
Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, (1985).
Cross Cultural Management. (2011). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from
http://www.thunderbird.edu/executive_education/about_executive_education/cust
omer_success_stories/cross_cultural_management.htm
Czarra, F. (2003). Global education checklist for teachers, schools, school systems and
state education agencies. The American Forum for Global Education.
Daly, H. E. (1999). Globalization versus internationalization- some implications.
Ecological Economics, 31(July 1999), 31-37.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R.E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward
a theory of behavior complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science,
6(5), 524-540.
Douglass, J. A., & Edelstein, R. (2009). The global competition for talent: The rapidly
changing market for international students and the need for a strategic approach in
the US. Center for Studies in Higher Education Research and Occaisional Paper
Series, CSHE.8.09.(October 2009).
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 150
Drobnick, R. (2008). Professional training and research: The Univerity of Southern
California as a case study of internationalization. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California.
Farrell, D., & Grant, A. J. (2005). China's looming talent shortage. McKinsey Global
Institute.
Fiss, P., & Hirsch, P. (2005). The discource of globalization: Framing and sensemaking
of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review, 70(February: 29-52), 29-
51.
Friedman, T. (1999). Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New York:
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Global Executive MBA in Shanghai. (USC 2011). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from
http://www.marshall.usc.edu/gemba/overview/program
Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. (1991). Leadership. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of
hidden populations. Social Problems, 44(2), 174-199.
Hofstra. (2011). College, globalization and jobs: Why a global education is important for
your future. Hofstra University: Department of Global Studies and Geography.
Howell, J., Miller, P., Park, H. H., Sattler, D., Schack, T., Spery, E., et al. (2012).
Reliability and validity. Writing @CSU . Colorado State University. Retrieved
from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=66.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 151
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of
american business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a
profession. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=v3DfpKEsNREC&printsec=frontcover&sourc
e=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0 - v=onepage&q&f=false
Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new
challanges. Paris: International Association of Universities.
KPMG. (2012). Hub and spoke model: A new business model for the indian it-bpo
industry.
Laszlo, K. C. (2001). The evolution of business: Learning, innovation and sustainability
in the 21st century. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Conference of The
International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS).
Laureate. (2012). Laureate International website. Retrieved May 21, 2012, 2012, from
http://www.laureate.net/CentersofExcellence/Education.aspx
Lawrence, H. (2004). Aviation and the role of government. London: Kendall Hunt.
Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review 61(May/June),
92-102.
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The historical, political and diplomatic writings of niccolo
machiavelli (from the Italian Christian E. Detmold (Boston J. Osgood and
company, Trans.) (Vol. 2).
Mangan, K. (2002). Leading the way in leadership. Chronicle of Higher Education,
48(38), A10-A12.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 152
Mangan, K. (2011). Business schools worldwide fall short on globalization, report says.
The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Marginson, S. (2010). The rise of the global university: 5 New Tensions. Retrieved
August 28, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Rise-of-the-Global/65694/
McIntyre, J. R., & Alon, I. (Eds.). (2005). Business and management education in
transitioning and developing countries: A handbook. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (Eds.). (1987). Ontology and rationalization in
the Western cultural account.
Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
National Business Education Association. (2007). National Standards for International
Business Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nbea.org/newsite/curriculum/standards/international.html
New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (2007). Tough Choices for
Tough Times. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy ..
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy.
New York: HarperBusiness.
Organizational Change. (2013).
Page, S. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups,
firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 153
Portugal, L. M. (2006). Emerging leadership roles in distance education: current state of
affairs and forecasting future trends. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, Volume IX, Number III(Fall 2006).
Rattner, S. (2011, October 15, 2011). Let's admit it: Globalization has losers. New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/lets-
admit-it-globalization-has-losers.html?_r=0
Rhoades, G. (2000). Who's doing it right? Strategic activity in public research
universities. The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 41-66.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (Eds.). (2003) Encyclopedia of distributed learning.
Thosand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The world-wide expansion of higher education.
Retrieved from http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20801/Schofer-Meyer_No32.pdf
Singh, N., & Papa, R. (2010). The impacts of globalization in higher eduation*.
[Module]. The Connexions Project (Connexions Module: m34497).
Stromquist, N., & Monkman, K. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and education: integration
and contestation across cultures. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Teichler, U. (2004). Changing structures of the higher education systems: The increasing
complexity of underlying forces. Kassel, Germany: Centre for Research on Higher
Education and Work.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (March, 2004).
Diversification of higher education and the changing role of knowledge and
research. Paris: UNESCO.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 154
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1998).Towards an
agenda 21 for higher education. Unpublished Working document.
Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A
framework for analysis*. Higher Education, 48(2004), 483-510.
Yukl, G. (1999). an evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 155
Appendix
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING AN OFFSHORE GRADUATE PROGRAM:
A CASE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GLOBAL
EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Marisa Herrera and Dean Karen
Symms Gallagher, Ph.D. from the Rossier School of Education, Doctor of Education program at
the University of Southern California. The results of this study will contribute to Marisa
Herrera’s doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because
you are a senior administrative leader at the University of Southern California Marshall School of
Business. A total of four to six subjects will be selected from your institutions senior leadership
administrative team or a member of the committee that served to develop the Global Executive
MBA program. Your participation is voluntary. You have been selected to participate for the
following reasons: your name was listed on a public document in a conference plenary paper
describing the creation of the Global Executive MBA program or your name was provided by a
member of the committee that developed the Global Executive MBA program who was familiar
with the initiative and your role. Please take as much time as you need to read the information
sheet. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. You will be given a copy of
this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about how the Globalization Executive MBA Program was developed and what role
faculty and administrative leaders played in reframing leadership in order to implement
organization change with regard to globalization at the university.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in a one-on-one, individual interview at a place of your choice on
the University of Southern California campus. The initial interview should take approximately 45
minutes to 1 hour of your time. The interview will be audio recorded. Following the initial
interview, and if you agree to it, the researcher may contact you post-interview by e-mail or
phone in case follow-up information is needed. The amount of time spent for follow-up
questions, either by phone, e-mail or in-person, should not exceed more than 1 hour total of your
time.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort in
answering the interview questions or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your
day to complete the interview. Questions asked that make you feel uncomfortable may be
skipped or not answered.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. However, there is a
possibility that you may learn about institutional efforts during the interview process.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 156
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor or in the
product being studied.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
The information, which has you identifiable information, will be kept separately from the rest of
the data.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer. The institution’s name, University of Southern California, institutional partnerships
and programs will not be identified for the purposes of the study. Personal information collected,
such as your name, will not be disclosed during the study. In order to further protect your
identity, University of Southern California will not be identified; rather the pseudonym “Ray
University” will be used.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
Before the interview begins, the researcher will ask you if the interview can be audio taped and
notes taken. The researcher will be the only person with access to audio tape recording and notes
gathered. Information recorded during this time will be used for educational purposes only. If
you decline the option for audio recording or note taking, you may continue to participate in the
study.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity. If audiotape recordings of you will be used for
educational purposes, your identity, such as your name, will be protected or disguised. Only your
title/role associated with the institution will be disclosed. As the subject of the study, you have
the right to review/edit the tapes up until the completion of the study.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw
you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is not to participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in the research
study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to speak
with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about the research,
or in the event the research staff cannot be reached, please contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-1146, (213)821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM 157
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Dean Karen Symms Gallagher, Ph.D., Principal Investigator
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, Room 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Ph.: (213)740-8313
rsoedean@usc.edu
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study applies the literature on leadership framing to the globalization of higher education to understand the development of the Global Executive MBA program at a large university. The purpose of the study was to provide administrators, educators and university leaders an understanding as to how to respond to globalization and, secondly, to offer a case study of one university’s development of a Global Executive MBA program. It illustrates common challenges administrators might experience when launching a global business program, specifically within the Pacific Rim and how those leaders can respond to globalization. ❧ Using data from interviews, artifacts and articles written on the program, a single case study was developed to examine how leaders at Ray University implemented the global executive MBA program. The study sought to understand the process leaders underwent in developing the GEMBA program along with the challenges they experienced. The study also highlights assessment measures for imbedding globalization within the institution. The findings from this study indicate the program not only met the needs of business students looking for increased international opportunities, but also came at a time when the university was looking for ways to be more global in nature. In addition, it positioned the business school as a national leader in global business education and set the framework for other institutions to use the program as a model for imbedding globalization into the curriculum. This study aids in understanding how leaders utilize leadership framing to implement global programs and influence higher education.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs
PDF
The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization
PDF
The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit
PDF
Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis
PDF
Third culture kids and college support: a case study
PDF
An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study
PDF
Undergraduates in the developing world: study abroad program management in sub-Saharan Africa
PDF
The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution
PDF
The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China
PDF
Leading while expanding: a case study examining the changing nature of an American land grant public research university in response to the forces of globalization
PDF
Establishing and marketing an international branch campus: a case study of Savannah College of Art and Design Hong Kong
PDF
Examining the market entry strategies of a university's international expansion into a developing country
PDF
The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management
PDF
Examining managerial and interpersonal skills delivery in MBA education: an evaluation study
PDF
Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university
PDF
Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement
PDF
Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university
PDF
Sustaining the arts: a case study of an urban public high school of choice
PDF
Asia-Pacific employer perspectives of MBA graduates and the impact on MBA hiring
PDF
A case study: a viable arts program at one elementary school in California
Asset Metadata
Creator
Herrera, Marisa L.
(author)
Core Title
Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/19/2013
Defense Date
06/17/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
China,Education,Globalization,leadership,management education,MBA,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Gallagher, Karen Symms (
committee chair
), Diamond, Michael A. (
committee member
), Robison, Mark Power (
committee member
)
Creator Email
marisal.herrera@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-325916
Unique identifier
UC11292614
Identifier
etd-HerreraMar-2006.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-325916 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HerreraMar-2006.pdf
Dmrecord
325916
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Herrera, Marisa L.
Type
texts
Source
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 a...
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
Tags
management education
MBA