Global Leadership Education in the 21st Century

Globalism and the Demand for Global Leaders

As the 21st century unfolds, the world is embracing globalism — a key shift in the economic, political, and cultural movements that, broadly speaking, are drawing the world's countries closer together. This concept encompasses a number of theories that view the complexities of modern life as fundamentally interconnected, such that events and actions in one place have consequences regardless of the geographic location of a specific country. The idea of globalism has become especially prominent in economic and cultural terms with the advent of major macro-trade agreements, combined with the ease of communication made possible by the Internet and cellular technology.

Would it not follow logically, then, that countries in the developing world would do their utmost to encourage global thinking? That these same countries would embrace the opportunity to forge a nation of entrepreneurs and move toward self-sustaining economic growth? For globalism to truly function in a robust manner, organizations must have leaders at multiple levels who are trained and capable of global, 21st-century thinking. This new paradigm involves far more than simply producing more MBAs; it calls for a new initiative in education and training.

Roche Corporation, part of the Hoffmann-La Roche global healthcare corporation, has a program called the Global Accelerated Talent Development Program. This program is designed for a very small number of exceptional individuals with a Master's or Ph.D. degree who have minimal early career experience but a strong passion for the healthcare industry. The goal is to develop and cultivate the leadership capabilities that will transform global business one individual at a time (Roche, 2011). This is commendable, and Roche has correctly recognized that responsibility for developing global leaders must start somewhere — but ultimately must be shared by corporations, communities, governments, and especially educational institutions.

The American Education System and Its Structural Challenges

In the United States, education is offered at all levels from pre-kindergarten through graduate school, with K–12 typically funded by public monies. Elementary and secondary education encompasses twelve years of mandatory schooling, culminating in a High School Diploma or GED. A defining feature of the American educational system is its decentralized organization (Mondale, 2002). Elementary and secondary education is financially supported by three levels of government — local, state, and federal — and is further divided into public and private institutions.

The main disadvantage of this decentralization is the variable quality of education students receive, which is clearly dependent on the social and geographic area in which they live (Odden, 2003). Local entities are theoretically responsible for operating public education systems; in practice, however, much local control has been superseded by the state, with state legislation governing financing, taxation authority, and sometimes even line-item revenue support. Academic standards, policy, and curriculum guidelines often differ dramatically between states (Palestrini, 2006). Because of these differences and inconsistencies — and despite national legislation and public policy such as No Child Left Behind — an assessment of national educational scores reveals a clear demographic predisposition favoring areas with greater tax revenue (Kenyon, 2007).

Without the capacity to think globally, the United States risks falling behind in the competencies required for global leadership. If this trend continues unchecked, the result may be a generation of U.S. graduates who are unable to participate fully in global economic development, with serious consequences for domestic employment rates.