What Do Business Schools Need Beyond Internationalization? An Ambi-Cultural View toward the Growth of Chinese Business Schools

By Professor Yadong LUO, International Dean
Professor Zhongfei LI, Executive Dean
Sun Yat-Sen Business School (SYSBS)
Sun Yat-Sen University
Guangzhou, China

In an epoch of globalization, our students need global competency—a skill set of cross-cultural awareness, international business knowledge, foreign languages, global aspects of professional disciplines, and the ability to think critically and creatively about complex international challenges. Our students need to be internationally competent—well versed in global competency. As local firms go global, they are often handicapped by shortfall of talents equipped with global competency. Globalization nourishes knowledge sharing and exchanges as well as the implementation of some best practices in pedagogical and academic development.

Globalization is both the biggest opportunity and the greatest challenge for business schools worldwide as they struggle to keep up with the demand for students at various levels who can work across countries and cultures. For Asian business schools, their imminent challenge in the face of globalization lies mainly in the shortage of faculty brainpower who can really deliver global knowledge. Many Asian business schools lack sufficient brainpower to develop and integrate global content within the curriculum and lack adequate financial resources to support sending their students to study abroad.

Chinese business schools encounter their own challenges associated with globalization. Per curriculum, not all students in the country are ready for English-only classes, nor should they do so. English textbooks may gear too much toward Anglo-American, rather than truly global knowledge nor relevant enough to China-specific practices or environments. For faculty, it is a challenge to bolster research without diluting emphasis on teaching and contributions to solving real-world problems and furnishing students real-world knowledge and insights needed for economic and social developing unfolding in China and beyond.

The globalized model is not without limitation in such environments where enrollments of masses of students, limited resources, and inadequate infrastructure come to play. While globalization does facilitate transfer, sharing and implementation of best practices in knowledge generation and dissemination, wholesale acceptance of the globalized model may cause some unintended outcomes and concerns. In his 2008 best seller, The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria notes that the “rise of the rest” or a multi-polar world is emerging, mandating alternatives to American models and values that do not meet their long-term needs. Along this line, we believe, an ambidextrous or ambi-cultural perspective—think globally and adapt locally—is imperative for the growth of leading Chinese business schools as they seek greater contributions to China’s economic and social development as well as stronger global influences at the same time.

In our view, an ambi-cultural view centers on—actively learning what we can from globalization while creating what we need locally—developing culturally appropriate curricula and pedagogical strategies to better serve economic and social development for the indigenous society. The dominant intent underlying this view is to provide a flourishing learning environment that combines and integrates both global standards and indigenous adaptation so that students at various levels are sharpened in both international competence and sufficient understanding of locally specific knowledge. Knowledge creation and teaching real-world experience for globally competent yet locally mastery students are how business schools should earn their global preeminence. Below we highlight a few major points and suggestions:

First, more actions are needed to contribute global knowledge AND develop localized business knowledge:

· To do so, we should not only motivate faculty to publish in top-tier international journals, such as those in UT-Dallasr Financial Times lists, but also adequately recognize and credit scholarly activities, particularly publications in local top-tier journals. Scholarly contributions in the form of publications in practitioner-oriented outlets must also be recognized. EMBA and EDP students in China often learn more insights from these outlets. Local case studies are also of important value as China’s competitive and institutional environments are so complex that often no single mainstream theory can adequately predict.

· It is imperative to inspire developing Asia-specific and China-specific theories in business and management and publish such outputs both locally and internationally. The ambi-cultural view embraces both Western and Eastern philosophies and calls for mutual reinforcement and bilateral learning from both ends. As business schools grow internationally, we realize that it becomes more, not less, important for the global community to see region- or country-specific frameworks, paradigms, or perspectives that either complement or substitute extant views developed in the Western world.

· It is warranted to organize international research conferences and forums focusing on Asia- or China-specific themes, shifting away from separation to convergence in such meetings. Moreover, it is much needed to enhance the role and impact of local academic associations and bridge them with international associations.

Second, knowledge development starts from faculty, and more actions need to be taken to foster faculty development and upgrade faculty skills in developing knowledge that integrates global and local components.

· To accomplish this goal, Chinese business schools should work together, creating more getting-together opportunities for faculty from different business schools to upgrade their skill set. Cross-school seminars, exchanges, workshops, symposiums, and conferences are useful formats to this end.

· While many local scholars in Chinese business schools might need to upgrade their skills toward globalization, some junior faculty there holding a doctorate degree from the Western universities actually need to cherish their localized knowledge. This implies that Chinese business schools should foster a reciprocal learning system—nourishing mutual learning and interactive knowledge flows between senior faculty and junior faculty.

Third, more actions are needed to disseminate both globalized and localized business knowledge, fostering our students to become internationally competent yet locally mastery:
 

· To do so, syllabi and cases need to be regularly revamped to suit localized demands. A curriculum development committee consisting of faculty experienced in teaching at various levels can help move the process forward.

· It is important to incorporate sufficient content concerning local economic, historical, socio-cultural, political, legal components in classrooms.

· It is merited to strengthen connections and coherence linking textbook knowledge and real-world experience via internships, C-suite lectures, on-site visits, and social practice, etc.

· Providing essential reading lists, entailing both locally and universally critical articles, to students taking capstone courses is proven helpful. This approach enables students to familiarize themselves with both accumulated and latest wisdom in globalized knowledge and localized knowledge that addresses China-related business problems and solutions. 
 

Fourth, Ph.D programs in Chinese business schools are in cross-road—we need to downsize these programs in weak schools but bolster them in strong schools. It is an irreversible trend, and indeed becomes even more important than ever before, to recruit rookies from Western schools but this may cause underdevelopment of localized knowledge. Developing a diversity of advanced courses relating to research methods, theories in management and organization, and advanced concentration courses can solidify the quality of Ph.D programs. Inviting globally renowned scholars as honorary, guest or visiting professors to teach such courses is often effective.

Finally, the American business school model—emphasize more on graduate programs (“elite” students) and less on undergraduate education—may not work in developing countries, including China whose economic and social development depends so much more on massive undergraduate business education. Economic and social development in Asian developing countries depend much more on bachelor-degree education and furnishing real-life professional knowledge and training than Western countries. The key challenge in the new century for Asian developing countries is to make university education accessible to a large number of students. As a result, we believe that more resources and commitment are needed to dedicate to undergraduate programs in China than in developed, say, G7 countries. Similarly, quality in offering professional knowledge to undergraduate students in business must be improved.

In conclusion, the “global” need for business education consists of a patchwork of what works locally within individual cultures and economies. Balancing isomorphism and distinction among Chinese business schools—best practices prompt pedagogical isomorphism yet each school should maintain and uphold some degree of uniqueness in programs, research, and innovation as they increasingly embrace globalization—remains a key task as well as a daunting challenge facing business schools in China.