measuring the global footprint of an mba

http://jsi.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Studies in International

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1028315308318943

June 2008 2009 13: 522 originally published online 18Journal of Studies in International Education

Ilan Alon and Craig M. McAllasterMeasuring the Global Footprint of an MBA

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Studies in International Education

at: can be foundJournal of Studies in International EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522.refs.htmlCitations:

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

http://jsi.sagepub.com/

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.asie.org/

http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522.refs.html





















What is This?

- Jun 18, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 28, 2009Version of Record >>

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

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/4/522.full.pdf

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/06/18/1028315308318943.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


522

Measuring the GlobalFootprint of an MBA

Ilan AlonCraig M. McAllasterRollins College

This article discusses the concept that is termed the global footprint as a measure of a uni-versity’s internationalization efforts along multiple dimensions. A university’s globaliza-tion is multidimensional and includes students, faculty, and curricula. In this article, theauthors demonstrate their conceptualization of the global footprint, discuss best practicesin the field, and show readers how they may want to use the authors’model to shape theirinternationalization strategies. In summary, they develop the global footprint model foruniversities, 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 havethe 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 needto move away from simply being aware of globalization to being actively engagedin the process of globalization. Higher levels of immersion in global activities canproduce a greater depth of knowledge and a higher cross-cultural level of compe-tence. Leadership abilities in the 21st century are partly a function of intelligenceabout 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 debatablewhether universities should internationalize; the issue is, rather how much and how

Journal of Studies inInternational Education

Volume 13 Number 4Winter 2009 522-540

© 2009 Nuffic10.1177/1028315308318943

http://jsie.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

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, PettersProfessor of International Business, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue—2722, Winter Park, FL 32789;e-mail: [email protected].

Alon, McAllaster / Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA 523

fast. But what does globalization mean for a university? Although much has beenpublished on specific aspects of universities’ internationalization activities (Alon &McIntyre, 2004, 2005; McIntyre & Alon, 2005), no generally accepted model forinternationalizing programs currently exists that integrates the various dimensions ofthis 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 astrategy for optimal globalization; the article also suggests benchmarks along themultiple dimensions of globalization. As part of our investigation, we sampled agroup of 67 MBA programs from 19 countries around the world that added to ourinformation database about our globalization’s dimensions. About half of our sam-ple is from the United States—half of these American universities are AACSB-International accredited. AACSB International is an accreditation body for topbusiness schools whose mission is to advance quality management education world-wide. Also, about half of the American universities sampled are public. Table 1shows our universities’ country distribution. Appendix shows the questionnaire weuse for our study.

Table 1Country Distribution of Respondents

Country Number Percentage

USA 36 54Australia 4 6France 4 6Canada 3 4Germany 2 3Hong Kong 2 3Pakistan 2 3UK 2 3Greece 1 1Israel 1 1Finland 1 1Sweden 1 1Argentina 1 1Ireland 1 1Switzerland 1 1Turkey 1 1Scotland, UK 1 1Italy 1 1Slovenia 1 1Other, but not specified 1 1Total 67 100

524 Journal of Studies in International Education

Most schools acknowledge that globalization is a major force affecting theirMBA programs, tout the importance of global business education, and want to cre-ate global business leaders. However, shortcomings in current approaches to global-ization 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 fewleading schools, such as Georgia Tech, have appointed internationalization czarswho are supposed to oversee the process of their entire university’s globalization andhave 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 allowsuniversities to measure and assess their efforts; strategize and plan the expansion oftheir footprint; and, as a result, leverage their structures, resources, and partnershipsto achieve global leadership.As can be seen from the figure, the global footprint con-sists of a faculty dimension, a student dimension, and an interface dimension. Wewill discuss each, in turn.

Interface (Curriculum and Languages) Dimension

We start with the curriculum, at the top of the diagram, about which much hasbeen written. This is an area about which there is also an ongoing debate, includingsuch questions as:

Figure 1Conceptualization of the Global Footprint of Business Schools

Global Footprint Framework

Faculty GlobalExperiences

Cross-CulturalDiversity in

Faculty

Languages ofInstruction or

Learning

Student GlobalExperiences

Cross-CulturalDiversity inStudents

GlobalCurriculum

GlobalFootprint

Faculty Dimensions Student Dimensions

Interface


• Whether to internationalize courses or add an international business course to thecore curriculum, or both?

• Whether to establish an international business department or internationalize everydepartment, or integrate international business with another department (such asmarketing, 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 shortdiscussion. Some schools, such as the China Europe International Business School(CEIBS; highly ranked by the Financial Times and currently undergoing AACSBreview), have chosen not to include international business as part of their core curric-ula. Their contention is that the idea of the international should be in everything andevery course: one cannot teach marketing, finance, economics, and so on without treat-ing the subject of globalization as a central component. The counter argument for thisis that international business is becoming an increasingly specialized field for whichleading academic journals (such as the Journal of International Business Studies) havebeen dedicated, specialized PhD majors have been designed, and subject-specificknow-how has been developed. In response to these pressures, some schools, such asHEC Montreal (which has triple accreditation, including AACSB), have decided toresurrect the international business department, infusing additional resources into thisfield. Other schools, such as the Crummer Graduate School of Business (GSB) atRollins College, have attempted to do both, including an international component ineach 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 infusedin every class, (c) international business electives are available, (d) students haveopportunities to learn abroad, and (e) most students take advantage of internationalopportunities. Schools that have check marks for all of the five items above can besaid to have a highly internationalized curriculum. Figure 2, below, shows thenumber 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 thetop to the bottom of the table, the level of internationalization increases because thenumber of languages of instructions also increases. Since English is currently thelingua franca of international business, the language “target” by itself provides aninternational 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 MBAprogram in English only. Few schools provide more than one language of instruc-tion. HEC Montreal, for example, instructs the MBA in all the languages of NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA; English, French, and Spanish).


Student Dimension

The student dimension includes two elements: cross-cultural diversity of studentsand students’ international experiences. The second element overlaps somewhat withthe 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 itprovides a richer classroom experience. Schools have done better in providing interna-tional diversity than intranational diversity, but few schools have reached the highestlevel of intranational diversity in their student bodies. Schools should strive for

Figure 2Distribution of Responses on Curricular Internationalization

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Number of SchoolsPercentage

Table 2Our Program Is Delivered in

Number Percentage

Non-English local language 2 3English only 57 85Non-English plus English training 1 1English plus foreign language training 3 4Bi-lingual instruction 3 4Instruction in three or more language 1 1Total 67 100


diversity in the classroom through admission and scholarship considerations. Thehighest level of internationalization on this dimension is reached if no national orethnic group in the classroom dominates.We asked those in our sample to answer a number of questions about the interna-

tional experiences available to their students; the results are presented in Tables 5through 8.We believe that higher internationalization is exhibited by universities thatrequire all students to have an international experience and provide experiences thatare longer in duration and more participative in nature. That is, experiential learningis preferred to passive learning (Alon, 2003, 2004; Currie et al., 2004). As we movefrom Table 5 to Table 8, time spent abroad as well as the level of student involve-ment in the international environment increases.Our results show that a minority of schools requires international study trips, inter-

national consulting, or international residency; further, none requires internationalinternships or work experiences. While the greatest gains have been made in interna-tional study trips, these tend to be less experiential in nature. Schools should considerinstituting, at least on an elective basis, more international consulting experiences,international residencies, and international working experience opportunities. Tables 5through 8, below present relevant data on international student experiences.

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

Number Percentage

0% 1 11%-19% 31 4620%-39% 14 2140%-60% 18 27No one country dominates 3 4Total 67 100

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

Number Percentage

0% 2 31%-19% 40 6020%-39% 13 1940%-60% 2 3No one ethnicity dominates 10 15Total 67 100


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

Number Percentage

Not available 18 27Elective 38 57Required 11 16Total 67 100

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

Number Percentage


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

Number Percentage


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

Number Percentage



Faculty Dimension

Like the student dimension, the faculty dimension also includes a cross-culturalas well as an experiential background. An ideal internationalization position will bereached if no one country or ethnicity dominates. Schools can shape the cross-culturaldiversity of their faculty through hiring strategies. Tables 9 and 10, below, presentdata 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 ethnici-ties, mostly from a US perspective.The second element of the internationalization of faculty is related to their experi-

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

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

Number Percentage

0% 2 31%-19% 31 4620%-39% 21 3140%-60% 13 19No country dominates 0 0Total 67 100

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

Number Percentage

0% 7 101%-19% 43 6420%-39% 8 1240%-60% 2 3No ethnicity dominates 7 10Total 67 100


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

Measuring Global Footprints: A Case Study

The Crummer GSB wanted to benchmark its globalization achievements on theglobal footprint model and has devised a way to measure based on the responsesgiven in the survey (see appendix). Developing a scale and converting this scale to a100-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 con-ceptualization. These spider diagrams can also be used as diagnostic instrumentsshowing strengths and weaknesses in globalization. Figure 4 shows how theCrummer GSB compares to the averages in our sample. As one can see from thediagnostic spider graph, Crummer GSB outperforms the average MBA programs oncurriculum, student global experiences, and faculty global experiences factors,underperforms on cross-cultural diversity of students and languages of instructionfactors, and performs about the same on cross-cultural diversity of faculty factors. Inshort, the school can, thus, differentiate itself from the competitors by emphasizing

Figure 3Faculty Diversity (AACSB Survey)


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

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

Number Percentage

0% 0 01%-19% 17 2520%-39% 22 3340%-59% 9 1360%-79% 9 13Greater than 80% 10 15Total 67 100

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

Number Percentage


Table 13What Percentage of the Faculty Regularly Teaches or Consults

(2-4 Weeks in Duration) Abroad?

Number Percentage



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

Best Practices

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

Table 14What Percentage of the Faculty Has Done a Fulbright/Residency

(for a Semester to a Year) in the Last 5 Years?

Number Percentage


Table 15What Percentage of the Faculty Has Lived or Worked Abroad

(for a Semester or More) in the Last 5 Years?

Number Percentage



Figure 4Crummer GSB Versus Other MBA Programs Full-Time Programs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Global Curriculum

Cross-Cultural Diversityin Students

Student Global Experiences

Languages of Instruction/Learning

Faculty Global Expriences

Average all schoolsRollins MBA

Cross Cultural Diversity of Faculty

Figure 5AACSB Accredited Versus Nonaccredited GSB

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Global Curriculum

Cross-Cultural Diversity in Students





Average of AAC SBaccreditedAverage of non-accredited


Figure 7Public Versus Private GSB

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Global Curriculum






Public SchoolsPrivate Schools

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Global Curriculum






US SchoolsForeign Schools


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 2005represent 28 different nationalities;

• We integrated a thematic core curriculum involving teams of faculty. The MBA isin the Global FT 100;

• All students are required to have multiple-language proficiency;• We have a Department of Education funded center that conducts research, developscourses and training programs, one which conducts student and faculty consultingin the areas of globalization and localization of business exports (adapting productsand 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 serviceduring 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 theMBA program;

• We use an International Integrative Management Exercise;

Figure 8Comparison of Small, Medium, and Large Schools

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Global Curriculum






Small SchoolsMedium SchoolsLarge Schools


• Integration of cultures within the classroom is achieved through a high percentageof 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) completespart of his/her studies in a foreign university;

• We allow students to choose from a range of countries (from China and India toEurope) 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 incorporatingvarious dimensions of internationalization into their programs.Although not discussedin this article, we have developed a rating scheme that allows schools to grade theirinternationalization efforts along the referenced dimensions and to compare themwith other schools—from an ideal perspective of their choosing. Hundred percentinternationalization on each of the dimensions is not necessarily the desired or compet-itive framework for which universities should strive. The level of internationalization ofeach of the dimensions of the global footprint should be decided on the basis of eachschool’s strategy, budget, human resources, competitive environment, institutionalcontext, 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 theglobal footprint. Each school should measure its current footprint, assess it to see ifit is sufficient, set goals congruent with focused strategies, implement them, andrepeat this process periodically to ensure global competitiveness and quality educa-tion 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?Whatis an international publication? By most academic measures in the United States ofAmerica, A-level, refereed journals are best. But are they the most international? Arepublications in multiple languages desirable and should be encouraged, despite a lack


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

AppendixResearch Questionnaire

Global Footprint—Traditional Full-Time MBA

1. Contact Information2. Is your school public/private

a. Publicb. Private

3. Is your school AACSB accrediteda. Nonaccreditedb. Accredited

4. Number Full-time Equivalent Facultya. Less than 49b. 50-99c. Greater than 100

5. In your MBA curriculuma. International business is a core classb. International business is infused in every classc. International business electives are availabled. Students can major in international businesse. Students have an opportunity to learn outside the countryf. 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 aweight of 16.7 and added the number of responses.

6. What percentage of students is from outside the countrya. 0%b. 1%-19%c. 20%-39%d. 40%-60%No one country dominates

7. What percentage of students is ethnic minoritiesa. 0%b. 1%-19%c. 20%-39%d. 40%-60%e. No one demographic group dominates

(continued)


Student Diversity Questions: Questions 6 and 7 ask about the inter- and intranational diver-sity of students. On a scale of 100, an additional grade of 12.5 for incremental percentages ofdiversity on each of the dimensions.

8. International study trips (1-3 weeks in duration) abroad are:a. Not Availableb. Electivec. Required

9. International consulting projects (1-3 weeks in duration) abroad are:a. Not Availableb. Electivec. Required

10. International residency/study (2-3 months in duration) abroad is:a. Not Availableb. Electivec. Required

11. International internship/work experiences (2-3 months in duration) abroad are:a. Not Availableb. Electivec. Required

Student Global Experiences: Questions 8 through 11 measure the extent of student globalexperiences. On our 100 point scale, we have allocated 25 points to each question, and withineach question: a = 0, b = 12.5, and c = 25.

12. Your program is delivered in:a. Non-English local languageb. English onlyc. Non-English plus English trainingd. English plus foreign language traininge. Bi-lingualf. Instruction in three or more languages

Languages of Instruction/Learning: Question 12 measures the languages of instruction. Inour 100 measure a = 0 and each additional language adds 20 points. The most internationalizedinternational programs are in three or more languages earning a total of 100 points. Single lan-guage 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)

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 inter-and intra-national diversity of faculty in the school. Each question is given 50 points; progres-sive 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)



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 spendmore 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 ofTeaching 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 anddeveloping countries: A handbook. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Ilan Alon is Rollins College Petters chair of International Business, executive director of Rollins ChinaCenter, and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government visiting scholar andAsia fellow. He has pub-lished 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 ofBusiness at Rollins College inWinter Park, Florida. Prior to academia, he worked in industry; his researchand speaking interests are in the areas of international business, influence, leadership, consulting, andorganizational change. He received his BS from the University of Arizona, MS from Alfred University,and MA and doctorate from Columbia University.


measuring the global footprint of an mba

Documents