Scholarly Practices for Global Educational Leaders

Scholarly Practices for Global Educational Leaders

Vicki L. Marshall
Copyright: © 2017 |Pages: 15
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1049-9.ch042
(Individual Chapters)
No Current Special Offers


Higher education institutions are responding to 21st Century globalization through internationalization, and faculty members are the “main engines” of those processes (Galinova, 2015, p. 31). Therefore, it is essential for higher education faculty members to lead with interculturally competent personal and scholarly practices. Marshall (2016) explored practices of eight successful global educational leaders, including five females and three males from eight different states in the U.S. (Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia, and the District of Columbia). All of the leaders have traveled internationally, have worked with international students, and have published or presented on the topic of international education. Emerging themes suggested that global educational leaders who exercised CORE personal practices (Compassion for others, Open communication, Respectfulness, and Ethnorelativism) also implemented scholarly practices that enabled them to REACH across cultures. Scholarly practices included Reading global literature, Establishing global networks, Adapting to cultural diversity, Collaborating, and Helping others to succeed.
Chapter Preview


Singh and Papa (2010) asserted that higher education institutions have been dramatically impacted by globalization in the 21st Century because they are the “main agents of global convergence” (p. 6). As a result, higher education institutions have responded to the complexities of a global world through various methods of internationalization (Hawawini, 2011). Examples of internationalization include student mobility, international branch campuses, digital learning programs, and global partnerships (Deardorff, 2009; Hawawini, 2011; Heyl, 2014; Knight, 2012). These methods and programs are designed to prepare students to succeed in a global environment and to function as globally competent citizens. In fact, “developing globally competent students” has been identified as the “foremost strategic priority for higher education” (Reade, Reckmeyer, Cabot, Jaehne, & Novak, 2013, p. 100). Galinova (2015) added that preparing students to succeed in a global society is no longer an option; it is now “a necessity and a moral imperative” (p. 17).

Faculty members are responsible for leading the processes of internationalization and for providing students with transformational learning experiences (Deardorff, 2011; Irving, 2010). In fact, faculty members are “the main engines” of higher education institutions (Galinova, 2015, p. 31). Therefore, it stands to reason that because “the main engines” (faculty members) are driving “the main agents” (higher education institutions), faculty members must serve as global educational leaders who are not only able to succeed in a global environment, but who are also able to lead students toward global competence. Consequently, global educational leaders must implement interculturally competent leadership practices.



Leadership has been discussed, theorized, and defined by scholars since the days of ancient Greece (Thrash, 2012). Biesta (2013) posited that leadership theories are rooted in anthropology, economics, and social studies, and a multitude of research studies surround different leadership theories. Researchers have examined traits inherent in leaders (Goldberg, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Stodgill, 1948, 1974), skills required by leaders (Katz, 1955, 1974; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000; Stodgill, 1974), and behaviors exhibited by leaders (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Schriesheim & Bird, 1979; Stodgill, 1974; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973; Yukl, 2012). Specifically, Yukl (2012) synthesized behavioral leadership theories and placed them in four categories: “(a) task-oriented behaviors, (b) relations-oriented behaviors, (c) change-oriented behaviors, and (d) external behaviors” (p. 68).

Leadership studies also included contingency theories that addressed the motivation and power of the leader as well as the relationship between the leader and the led in a given situation (Blanchard, 1982; Fiedler, 1972). In addition, situational theories considered the maturity, competency, and commitment of those who are led (Blanchard, 1985; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 2013; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Furthermore, Greenleaf (1977) added the servant-leadership theory, and Covey (2004) identified characteristics of a servant-leader as “listening from within the other’s frame of reference” (p. 200).

Key Terms in this Chapter

Global Educational Leadership: Global leadership that is specific to the field of education.

Higher Education Institutions: Includes two-year colleges and four-year universities designed to offer postsecondary education opportunities to students.

Internationalization: “A process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension in the purpose, functions, or delivery of postsecondary education” ( Knight, 2003 , p. 2).

Globalization: “ The broad economic, technological, and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable in the contemporary world” ( Altbach, 2006 , p. 123).

Global Leadership: Scholars have not agreed on an accepted definition for global leadership ( Javidan & Walker, 2012 ; Mendenhall, 2013 ; Osland, 2013 ). However, for the purpose of this study, the researcher relies on Mendenhall, Reiche, Bird, and Osland’s (2012) proposed definition: “A global leader is an individual who inspires a group of people to willingly pursue a positive vision in an effectively organized fashion while fostering individual and collective growth in a context characterized by significant levels of complexity, flow, and presence” (p. 75).

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: