Do Methods Matter In Global Leadership Development? A Mixed-Methods Study Of A U.s.-Based International Mba Program

As world communication, technology, and trade become increasingly integrated through globalization, multinational corporations seek employees with global leadership experience and skills. However, the demand for these skills currently outweighs the supply. Given the rarity of globally ready leaders, global competency development should be emphasized in higher education programs. The reality, however, is that university graduate programs are often outdated and focus mostly on cognitive learning. Global leadership competence requires moving beyond the cognitive domain of learning to create socially responsible and culturally connected global leaders. This requires attention to development methods; however, limited research in global leadership development methods has been conducted. A new conceptual model, the global leadership development ecosystem, was introduced in this study to guide the design and evaluation of global leadership development programs. It was based on three theories of learning and was divided into four development methodologies. This study quantitatively tested the model and used it as a framework for an in-depth examination of the design of one International MBA program. The program was first benchmarked, by means of a qualitative best practices analysis, against the top-ranking IMBA programs in the world. Qualitative data from students, faculty, administrators, and staff was then examined, using descriptive and focused data coding. Quantitative data analysis, using PASW Statistics software, and a hierarchical regression, showed the individual effect of each of the four development methods, as well as their combined effect, on student scores on a global leadership assessment. The analysis revealed that each methodology played a distinct and important role in developing different competencies of global leadership. It also confirmed the critical link between self-efficacy and global leadership development.

Effects of Institutional Factors on the Retention of Graduate Students of Color in Schools of Library and Information Science

The intent of the study was to understand the changes that have occurred over the last 25 years in library programs as far as enrollment and diversity of students, number and ethnicity of the faculty, program income and expenses, cost of attendance, and scholarship and fellowship aid, in an effort to better understand library programs granting the MLIS degree. The study also endeavored to identify institutional factors associated with the retention and productivity rates of White students and students of color in schools of library and information science. During the period studied, the proportional representation of White students decreased. For students of color, proportional representation was stable during the same time period. Results revealed a medium effect size of time with productivity rates for both groups declining over time. Retention rate differed significantly by time, with a small effect size with retention rate that initially increased over time, but is now decreasing. The final analyses were meta-regressions to determine if retention and productivity rates can be predicted by cost of attendance, scholarship and fellow aid, and program size. Results indicated that for students of color, program size in 2000 was significantly predictive of retention, cost of attendance was predictive in 2002, and scholarship and fellowship aid was predictive of retention in 2004. No variables were significantly predictive for retention of White students. The last analysis was to determine if productivity rate can be predicted by cost of attendance, scholarship and fellow aid, and program size. Results indicate that for White students in 2002, the cost of attendance was predictive of productivity rating. In 2003, scholarship and fellowship aid was predictive of productivity rate and in 2004, scholarship and fellowship aid was predictive of productivity rating. For students of color, results indicate that only scholarship and fellowship aid in 2005 was predictive of productivity rate. No other variables in any of the years studied showed any significant prediction of productivity rating for students of color.