Measuring the global footprint of an mba

Journal of Studies in International Education http://jsi.sagepub.com/

Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA Ilan Alon and Craig M. McAllaster Journal of Studies in International Education 2009 13: 522 originally published online 18 June 2008 DOI: 10.1177/1028315308318943 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Studies in International Education

Additional services and information for Journal of Studies in International Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522.refs.html

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 28, 2013

>> Version of Record - Oct 28, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 18, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 28, 2013

Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

Journal of Studies in International Education Volume 13 Number 4 Winter 2009 522-540 © 2009 Nuffic 10.1177/1028315308318943 http://jsie.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Ilan Alon Craig M. McAllaster Rollins College

This article discusses the concept that is termed the global footprint as a measure of a university’s internationalization efforts along multiple dimensions. A university’s globalization is multidimensional and includes students, faculty, and curricula. In this article, the authors demonstrate their conceptualization of the global footprint, discuss best practices in the field, and show readers how they may want to use the authors’ model to shape their internationalization strategies. In summary, they develop the global footprint model for universities, and explain this model using MBA business education as an example.

Keywords: global footprint; internationalization; business education; MBA

Introduction to the Global Footprint To say that globalization is on us is somewhat clichéd. Universities, like businesses, have to face the new global reality and respond appropriately. This means that they have the responsibility to prepare their students for global leadership, on the one hand, and the need to deliver competitive programs that fit the market needs on the other.

Global competence is a prerequisite for global leadership success, and students need to move away from simply being aware of globalization to being actively engaged in the process of globalization. Higher levels of immersion in global activities can produce a greater depth of knowledge and a higher cross-cultural level of competence. Leadership abilities in the 21st century are partly a function of intelligence about our global environment (Alon & Higgins, 2005).

As part of their strategic positioning, universities are induced to internationalize in response to competitive pressures and demands from their multiple customers: students, employers, donors, boards of overseers, and other stakeholders. It is no longer debatable whether universities should internationalize; the issue is, rather how much and how Authors’ Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the AACSB Tampa Conference: November 19, 2005. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ilan Alon, Petters Professor of International Business, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue—2722, Winter Park, FL 32789; e-mail: ialon@rollins.edu.

522

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

523

Table 1 Country Distribution of Respondents Country USA Australia France Canada Germany Hong Kong Pakistan UK Greece Israel Finland Sweden Argentina Ireland Switzerland Turkey Scotland, UK Italy Slovenia Other, but not specified Total

Number

Percentage

36 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 67

54 6 6 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100

fast. But what does globalization mean for a university? Although much has been published on specific aspects of universities’ internationalization activities (Alon & McIntyre, 2004, 2005; McIntyre & Alon, 2005), no generally accepted model for internationalizing programs currently exists that integrates the various dimensions of this complex dynamics.

The model developed herein can be used to assess a university’s current global footprint against desired or peer global footprints to assist universities in plotting a strategy for optimal globalization; the article also suggests benchmarks along the multiple dimensions of globalization. As part of our investigation, we sampled a group of 67 MBA programs from 19 countries around the world that added to our information database about our globalization’s dimensions. About half of our sample is from the United States—half of these American universities are AACSBInternational accredited. AACSB International is an accreditation body for top business schools whose mission is to advance quality management education worldwide. Also, about half of the American universities sampled are public. Table 1 shows our universities’ country distribution. Appendix shows the questionnaire we use for our study.

524

Journal of Studies in International Education

Figure 1 Conceptualization of the Global Footprint of Business Schools

Global Footprint Framework Interface Student Dimensions

Faculty Dimensions Global Curriculum

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students

Faculty Global Experiences

Global Footprint

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Faculty

Student Global Experiences

Languages of Instruction or Learning

Most schools acknowledge that globalization is a major force affecting their MBA programs, tout the importance of global business education, and want to create global business leaders. However, shortcomings in current approaches to globalization include an unsystematic and incomplete review of their globalization efforts, a focus on a single dimension (curriculum, exchange programs, student recruitment, a particular international program, etc.), and lack of overarching strategy. A few leading schools, such as Georgia Tech, have appointed internationalization czars who are supposed to oversee the process of their entire university’s globalization and have direct responsibility for the results.

Figure 1, above, shows our conceptualization of the global footprint, illustrating the university’s level of internationalization across multiple dimensions. It allows universities to measure and assess their efforts; strategize and plan the expansion of their footprint; and, as a result, leverage their structures, resources, and partnerships to achieve global leadership. As can be seen from the figure, the global footprint consists of a faculty dimension, a student dimension, and an interface dimension. We will discuss each, in turn.

Interface (Curriculum and Languages) Dimension We start with the curriculum, at the top of the diagram, about which much has been written. This is an area about which there is also an ongoing debate, including such questions as:

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

• •

•

525

Whether to internationalize courses or add an international business course to the core curriculum, or both?

Whether to establish an international business department or internationalize every department, or integrate international business with another department (such as marketing, management, and economics)?

Whether international business should be a major, a concentration, or a degree?

The first bullet point above overarches the second and third and, thus, merits a short discussion. Some schools, such as the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS; highly ranked by the Financial Times and currently undergoing AACSB review), have chosen not to include international business as part of their core curricula. Their contention is that the idea of the international should be in everything and every course: one cannot teach marketing, finance, economics, and so on without treating the subject of globalization as a central component. The counter argument for this is that international business is becoming an increasingly specialized field for which leading academic journals (such as the Journal of International Business Studies) have been dedicated, specialized PhD majors have been designed, and subject-specific know-how has been developed. In response to these pressures, some schools, such as HEC Montreal (which has triple accreditation, including AACSB), have decided to resurrect the international business department, infusing additional resources into this field. Other schools, such as the Crummer Graduate School of Business (GSB) at Rollins College, have attempted to do both, including an international component in each class, and requiring students to take at least two courses in international business, one of which may be the international study trip.

Schools may measure the internationalization of their programs by examining whether (a) international business is a core class, (b) international business is infused in every class, (c) international business electives are available, (d) students have opportunities to learn abroad, and (e) most students take advantage of international opportunities. Schools that have check marks for all of the five items above can be said to have a highly internationalized curriculum. Figure 2, below, shows the number of options for international learning that the school offers.

The second element of the student–faculty interface involves languages of instruction. The results from our survey are shown in Table 2. As we move from the top to the bottom of the table, the level of internationalization increases because the number of languages of instructions also increases. Since English is currently the lingua franca of international business, the language “target” by itself provides an international capability in students. The MIB School of Management in Trieste, Italy, is the first and only MBA in Italy, for example, to provide its entire MBA program in English only. Few schools provide more than one language of instruction. HEC Montreal, for example, instructs the MBA in all the languages of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA; English, French, and Spanish).

526

Journal of Studies in International Education

Figure 2 Distribution of Responses on Curricular Internationalization 35%

25

30% 20 25% 15

20%

15%

10

10% 5 5%

0

0%

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Schools Percentage

Table 2 Our Program Is Delivered in

Non-English local language English only Non-English plus English training English plus foreign language training Bi-lingual instruction Instruction in three or more language Total

Number

Percentage

2 57 1 3 3 1 67

3 85 1 4 4 1 100

Student Dimension The student dimension includes two elements: cross-cultural diversity of students and students’ international experiences. The second element overlaps somewhat with the curriculum interface discussed above.

Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the cross-cultural diversity of students in our sample. Greater cultural diversity (here defined by ethnicity and nationality) is desirable because it provides a richer classroom experience. Schools have done better in providing international diversity than intranational diversity, but few schools have reached the highest level of intranational diversity in their student bodies. Schools should strive for

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

527

Table 3 What Percentage of Students Is From Outside the Country?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-60% No one country dominates Total

Number

Percentage

1 31 14 18 3 67

1 46 21 27 4 100

Table 4 What Percentage of Students Self-Identify Themselves as Ethnic Minorities?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-60% No one ethnicity dominates Total

Number

Percentage

2 40 13 2 10 67

3 60 19 3 15 100

diversity in the classroom through admission and scholarship considerations. The highest level of internationalization on this dimension is reached if no national or ethnic group in the classroom dominates.

We asked those in our sample to answer a number of questions about the international experiences available to their students; the results are presented in Tables 5 through 8. We believe that higher internationalization is exhibited by universities that require all students to have an international experience and provide experiences that are longer in duration and more participative in nature. That is, experiential learning is preferred to passive learning (Alon, 2003, 2004; Currie et al., 2004). As we move from Table 5 to Table 8, time spent abroad as well as the level of student involvement in the international environment increases.

Our results show that a minority of schools requires international study trips, international consulting, or international residency; further, none requires international internships or work experiences. While the greatest gains have been made in international study trips, these tend to be less experiential in nature. Schools should consider instituting, at least on an elective basis, more international consulting experiences, international residencies, and international working experience opportunities. Tables 5 through 8, below present relevant data on international student experiences.

528

Journal of Studies in International Education

Table 5 International Study Trips (1-3 Weeks in Duration) Abroad Are

Not available Elective Required Total

Number

Percentage

18 38 11 67

27 57 16 100

Table 6 International Consulting Projects (1-3 Weeks in Duration) Abroad Are

Not available Elective Required Total

Number

Percentage

44 19 4 67

66 28 6 100

Table 7 International Residency/Study (2-3 Months in Duration) Abroad Is

Not available Elective Required Total

Number

Percentage

33 30 4 67

49 45 6 100

Table 8 International Internship/Work Experiences (2-3 Months in Duration) Abroad Are

Not available Elective Required Total

Number

Percentage

38 28 1 67

57 42 1 100

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

529

Table 9 What Percentage of the Faculty Is From Outside the Country?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-60% No country dominates Total

Number

Percentage

2 31 21 13 0 67

3 46 31 19 0 100

Table 10 What Percentage of the Faculty Self-Identify Themselves as Ethnic Minorities?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-60% No ethnicity dominates Total

Number

Percentage

7 43 8 2 7 67

10 64 12 3 10 100

Faculty Dimension Like the student dimension, the faculty dimension also includes a cross-cultural as well as an experiential background. An ideal internationalization position will be reached if no one country or ethnicity dominates. Schools can shape the cross-cultural diversity of their faculty through hiring strategies. Tables 9 and 10, below, present data on the (self-reported) ethnic composition of faculty in the sample.

The AACSB has recently reported on full-time faculty diversity of its members (see graph, Figure 3, below). This provides more data on the distribution of ethnicities, mostly from a US perspective.

The second element of the internationalization of faculty is related to their experiences abroad. Tables 11 through 15, ranked by increasing levels of internationalization, show the results from our sample. In terms of global conference presentations and faculty development, schools seem to be doing fine, but this is the least intensive international effort on behalf of a faculty member. A more intensive effort is to lead international trips. Most schools have a small percentage of faculty doing so. For this number to increase, schools should first offer international study trips with faculty and add nonleading faculty to international trips to provide these experiences to a maximum number of willing and able faculty. Tables 13 through 15 refer to teaching,

530

Journal of Studies in International Education

Figure 3 Faculty Diversity (AACSB Survey)

working, and residing abroad. As the tables show, more internationalization is possible in these areas too. Schools wishing to increase these numbers should, on the one hand, encourage these activities in their faculty (some actually discourage faculty through restrictive policies) and, on the other hand, provide these opportunities for their faculty through formal faculty exchange programs. Tables 11 through 15, below, illustrate the international activities of faculty in the sample:

Measuring Global Footprints: A Case Study The Crummer GSB wanted to benchmark its globalization achievements on the global footprint model and has devised a way to measure based on the responses given in the survey (see appendix). Developing a scale and converting this scale to a 100-point index was the first step.

We then modeled the footprint using a spider diagram because of the diagram’s strengths in showing a multidimensional spatial footprint representative of our conceptualization. These spider diagrams can also be used as diagnostic instruments showing strengths and weaknesses in globalization. Figure 4 shows how the Crummer GSB compares to the averages in our sample. As one can see from the diagnostic spider graph, Crummer GSB outperforms the average MBA programs on curriculum, student global experiences, and faculty global experiences factors, underperforms on cross-cultural diversity of students and languages of instruction factors, and performs about the same on cross-cultural diversity of faculty factors. In short, the school can, thus, differentiate itself from the competitors by emphasizing

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

531

Table 11 What Percentage of the Faculty Frequently (Once a Year or More) Travels Abroad (e.g., Faculty Development, Conference, or Presentation)?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% Greater than 80% Total

Number

Percentage

0 17 22 9 9 10 67

0 25 33 13 13 15 100

Table 12 What Percentage of the Faculty Regularly Leads International Trips?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% Greater than 80% Total

Number

Percentage

7 51 7 0 2 0 67

10 76 10 0 3 0 100

Table 13 What Percentage of the Faculty Regularly Teaches or Consults (2-4 Weeks in Duration) Abroad?

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% Greater than 80% Total

Number

Percentage

9 38 13 3 4 0 67

13 57 19 4 6 0 100

the global experiences and curriculum available. To combat its globalization deficiencies, the school plans to institute a business Spanish class as an international business elective (because of the many students who already have a foundation in Spanish) and will attempt to recruit more heavily in Asia (to increase the diversity and percentages of students from this area of the world).

532

Journal of Studies in International Education

Table 14 What Percentage of the Faculty Has Done a Fulbright/Residency (for a Semester to a Year) in the Last 5 Years?

Number

Percentage

28 38 1 0 0 0 67

42 57 1 0 0 0 100

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% Greater than 80% Total

Table 15 What Percentage of the Faculty Has Lived or Worked Abroad (for a Semester or More) in the Last 5 Years?

Number

Percentage

8 38 16 3 0 2 67

12 57 24 4 0 3 100

0% 1%-19% 20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% Greater than 80% Total

The spider diagrams have also allowed us to visually compare different groupings of schools in terms of the global footprint model. Figures 5 through 8 show various comparisons for the global footprint of different GSB groupings. We used AACSB standards to measure and define the different groupings of business schools. AACSB schools do not visibly perform better on the global footprint; foreign schools in general outperform American ones on all globalization factors; size and ownership of the school also seem to have an impact.

Best Practices We have asked schools in our sample to share their best practices relating to the globalization of their programs. Below we summarize some of what we consider as best practices. The specifics of the bullet-points that follow represent individual responses that we have collated to create a best-practices program:

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

Figure 4 Crummer GSB Versus Other MBA Programs Full-Time Programs Global Curriculum 100 Average all schools Rollins MBA

90 80 70

Faculty Global Expriences

60

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students

50 40 30 20 10 0

Student Global Experiences Cross Cultural Diversity of Faculty

Languages of Instruction/Learning

Figure 5 AACSB Accredited Versus Nonaccredited GSB

Average of AACSB accredit ed Average of nonaccredit ed

Global Curriculum 50

45 40

Faculty Global Expriences

35 30 25 20

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students

15 10 5 0

Student Global Experiences Cross Cultural Diversity of Faculty

Languages of Instruction/Learning

533

534

Journal of Studies in International Education

Figure 6 US Schools Versus Non-US (Foreign) Schools

US Schools Foreign Schools

Global Curriculum 60 50 40

Faculty Global Expriences

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students

30 20 10 0

Student Global Experiences

Cross Cultural Diversity of Faculty

Languages of Instruction/Learning

Figure 7 Public Versus Private GSB Global Curriculum 50

Public Schools Private Schools

45 40 35 30

Faculty Global Expriences

25

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students

20 15 10 5 0

Student Global Experiences Cross Cultural Diversity of Faculty

Languages of Instruction/Learning

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

535

Figure 8 Comparison of Small, Medium, and Large Schools Small Schools Medium Schools Large Schools

Global Curriculum 60

50 40 Faculty Global Expriences

30

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students

20 10 0

Student Global Experiences Cross Cultural Diversity of Faculty

Languages of Instruction/Learning

Interface (Curriculum and Language) Dimension • • • • •

•

We developed a specialized Global MBA; The MBA is targeted to foreign students: the 31 people who started in fall 2005 represent 28 different nationalities; We integrated a thematic core curriculum involving teams of faculty. The MBA is in the Global FT 100; All students are required to have multiple-language proficiency; We have a Department of Education funded center that conducts research, develops courses and training programs, one which conducts student and faculty consulting in the areas of globalization and localization of business exports (adapting products and services for foreign markets). We have a new degree program in this area; and We have an international MBA with 30% of the courses taught abroad.

Student Dimension • • • • •

We have a joint program with the Peace Corps that requires Peace Corps service during the MBA program; All students are required to create an international business plan for a company; All of our MBA students do an overseas, live-case trip; We have an international entrepreneurial project students must complete during the MBA program; We use an International Integrative Management Exercise;

536

Journal of Studies in International Education

• • • • • •

Integration of cultures within the classroom is achieved through a high percentage of foreign students; We involve our students in joint projects with foreign students; Some of our postgraduate programs have nearly 100% foreign students; One in five of the entering students (in 2003; the number is increasing) completes part of his/her studies in a foreign university; We allow students to choose from a range of countries (from China and India to Europe) as they complete a study-abroad component; and We require a 14-day overseas trip.

Faculty Dimension • •

We regularly recruit international faculty to teach our students, We provide significant funding for faculty to go overseas.

Conclusions In conclusion, MBA programs globally have made some progress incorporating various dimensions of internationalization into their programs. Although not discussed in this article, we have developed a rating scheme that allows schools to grade their internationalization efforts along the referenced dimensions and to compare them with other schools—from an ideal perspective of their choosing. Hundred percent internationalization on each of the dimensions is not necessarily the desired or competitive framework for which universities should strive. The level of internationalization of each of the dimensions of the global footprint should be decided on the basis of each school’s strategy, budget, human resources, competitive environment, institutional context, and student body.

Proper organizational framework, strategic partnerships (with other universities as well as companies), centers of international business, international publications, funding, and the strategies of the universities can all help facilitate and support the global footprint. Each school should measure its current footprint, assess it to see if it is sufficient, set goals congruent with focused strategies, implement them, and repeat this process periodically to ensure global competitiveness and quality education for their students.

Future Research Future research can extend the global footprint in a number of ways. For example, what is the best organizational framework that enables maximum globalization? What is an international publication? By most academic measures in the United States of America, A-level, refereed journals are best. But are they the most international? Are publications in multiple languages desirable and should be encouraged, despite a lack

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

537

of international quality measures? How does a school give incentives for a buy-in from key stakeholders? What administrative benchmarks should be used and how (budgets, Chairs, centers, cost sharing, etc.)?

Appendix Research Questionnaire Global Footprint—Traditional Full-Time MBA 1. Contact Information 2. Is your school public/private a. Public b. Private 3. Is your school AACSB accredited a. Nonaccredited b. Accredited 4. Number Full-time Equivalent Faculty a. Less than 49 b. 50-99 c. Greater than 100 5. In your MBA curriculum a. International business is a core class b. International business is infused in every class c. International business electives are available d. Students can major in international business e. Students have an opportunity to learn outside the country f. Most of our students take advantage of opportunities to study abroad Curriculum Question: This question allows multiple responses, any of which applies.

Schools can have as many as all six or as few as none. On a scale of 100, we gave each a weight of 16.7 and added the number of responses.

6. What percentage of students is from outside the country a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-60% No one country dominates 7. What percentage of students is ethnic minorities a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-60% e. No one demographic group dominates (continued)

538

Journal of Studies in International Education

Appendix (continued) Student Diversity Questions: Questions 6 and 7 ask about the inter- and intranational diversity of students. On a scale of 100, an additional grade of 12.5 for incremental percentages of diversity on each of the dimensions.

8. International study trips (1-3 weeks in duration) abroad are: a. Not Available b. Elective c. Required 9. International consulting projects (1-3 weeks in duration) abroad are: a. Not Available b. Elective c. Required 10. International residency/study (2-3 months in duration) abroad is: a. Not Available b. Elective c. Required 11. International internship/work experiences (2-3 months in duration) abroad are: a. Not Available b. Elective c. Required Student Global Experiences: Questions 8 through 11 measure the extent of student global experiences. On our 100 point scale, we have allocated 25 points to each question, and within each question: a = 0, b = 12.5, and c = 25.

12. Your program is delivered in: a. Non-English local language b. English only c. Non-English plus English training d. English plus foreign language training e. Bi-lingual f. Instruction in three or more languages Languages of Instruction/Learning: Question 12 measures the languages of instruction. In our 100 measure a = 0 and each additional language adds 20 points. The most internationalized international programs are in three or more languages earning a total of 100 points. Single language programs in English earn 20 points because English is lingua franca of business.

13. What percentage of the faculty is from outside the country? a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-60% e. No one country dominates (continued)

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

539

Appendix (continued) 14. What percentage of the faculty is ethnic minorities? a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-60% e. No one demographic dominates Cross-Cultural Diversity of Faculty: Questions 13 and 14 collectively measure the interand intra-national diversity of faculty in the school. Each question is given 50 points; progressive answers are given 12.5 points within each question.

15. What percentage of the faculty frequently (once a year or more) travels abroad (e.g., faculty development, conference, or presentation): a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-59% e. 60%-79% f. Greater than 80% (Selective 2 points each, total 10) 16. What percentage of the faculty regularly leads international trips? a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-59% e. 60%-79% f. Greater than 80% (Selective 3 points each, total 15) 17. What percentage of the faculty regularly teaches or consults (2-4 weeks in duration) abroad? a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-59% e. 60%-79% f. Greater than 80% (Selective 3 points each, total 15) 18. What percentage of the faculty has done a Fulbright/residency (for a semester to a year) in the last 5 years? a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-59% (continued)

540

Journal of Studies in International Education

Appendix (continued) e. 60%-79% f. Greater than 80% (Selective 6 points each, total 30) 19. What percentage of the faculty has lived or worked abroad (for a semester or more) in the last 5 years? a. 0% b. 1%-19% c. 20%-39% d. 40%-59% e. 60%-79% f. Greater than 80% (6 points each, total 30) Faculty Global Experience: Questions 15 to 19 are given 10, 15, 15, 30, and 30 points, respectively. For each answer progressive answers get 2, 3, 3, 6, and 6 points, respectively.

More points per question are given to schools that have higher percentage of the faculty spend more time internalizing the foreign environment.

20. What do you consider your best international practices?

References Alon, I. (2003). Experiential learning in international business via the World Wide Web. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 14(2/3), 79-98.

Alon, I. (2004). Service learning and international business education. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(1), 2369-4w.

Alon, I., & Higgins, J. (2005). Global leadership success through emotional and cultural intelligences.

Business Horizons, 48, 501-512.

Alon, I., & McIntyre, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Business education and emerging market economies: Perspectives and best practices. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Alon, I., & McIntyre, J. R. (Eds.). (2005). Business and management education in China: Transition, pedagogy and training. Singapore: World Scientific.

Currie, D.M., Matulich, S., & Gilbert, J. P. (2004) Foreign Travel in North American MBA Programs.

Journal of Teaching in International Business, 15(30), 45-60.

McIntyre, J. R., & Alon, I. (Eds.). (2005). Business and management education in transitioning and developing countries: A handbook. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Ilan Alon is Rollins College Petters chair of International Business, executive director of Rollins China Center, and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government visiting scholar and Asia fellow. He has published 20 books and more than 100 peer-reviewed articles, chapters, conference papers, and trade articles.

Craig M. McAllaster is the dean and a faculty member at the Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. Prior to academia, he worked in industry; his research and speaking interests are in the areas of international business, influence, leadership, consulting, and organizational change. He received his BS from the University of Arizona, MS from Alfred University, and MA and doctorate from Columbia University.