C.O.R.E. Personal Practices Implemented by Global Educational Leaders

Introduction

The world has become increasingly interdependent as a result of advanced technology and interconnected global markets. The economy, politics, and all of society have undergone dramatic changes in recent years through these complex processes of globalization (Heyl, 2014; Mendenhall et al., 2013; Singh & Papa, 2010). Higher education institutions (HEI) have been particularly affected by globalization because “higher education institutions, especially research universities, are among the main agents of global convergence” (Singh & Papa, 2010, p. 6).

The role of HEIs as “the main agents” of globalization bears a responsibility for preparing students to not only succeed in the global market, but also to function as global citizens who participate in sustaining the future of our world. Reade, Reckmeyer, Cabot, Jaehne, and Novak (2013) asserted that developing globally competent students is currently the “foremost strategic priority for higher education” (p. 100). Galinova (2015) posited that preparing global citizens is not a choice but “a necessity and a moral imperative” (p. 17).

In response HEIs have implemented methods of internationalization, including student mobility, international branch campuses, online learning programs, and global partnerships (Deardorff, 2011; Hawawini, 2011; Heyl, 2014). Faculty members lead these various methods of internationalization. In fact, Galinova (2015) identified faculty members as “the main engines” of internationalization (p. 31). Consequently, “the main engines” that are driving “the main agents” must be equipped to succeed in a global environment. Simply stated, successful internationalization of HEIs requires successful global educational leaders. The objective of this chapter is to provide the following C.O.R.E. personal practices that will contribute to the success of global educational leaders:

• •

  Compassion for others,

• •

  Open communication,

• •

  Respect,

• •

  Ethnorelative attitudes.

Background

Leadership in a global environment requires intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2012) because leadership is a cultural construct (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; House et al., 1999). Hofstede (1980, 1997) identified five structural dimensions utilized to measure cultural differences:

• 1.

  Power distance,

• 2.

  Collectivism versus individualism,

• 3.

  Femininity versus masculinity,

• 4.

  Uncertainty avoidance, and

• 5.

  Long-term orientation.

House et al. (1999) conducted the Global Leadership and Organization Effectiveness (GLOBE) Project in which researchers measured the impact of differences between cultural values (the way things should be done) and cultural practices (the way thing are done) on leadership. The impact of differences was measured using nine cultural dimensions:

• 1.

  Uncertainty avoidance,

• 2.

  Power distance,

• 3.

  Collectivism I,

• 4.

  Collectivism II,

• 5.

  Gender egalitarianism,

• 6.

  Assertiveness,

• 7.

  Future orientation,

• 8.

  Performance orientation, and

• 9.

  Humane orientation.