Global Leadership

About: Global Leadership is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1598 publications have been published within this topic receiving 29200 citations.

Global Crises and the Crisis of Global Leadership: Public and insurgent reason: adjudicatory leadership in a hyper-globalizing world

Abstract: Although it is well known that apex or supreme court justices wield impressive, and at times awesome, interpretive powers and capacities for leadership and political and moral influence, this chapter specifically introduces the wider concept of adjudicatory leadership as a contribution to extending theories of global leadership. Adjudicatory leadership consists in the management and organization of the usual hierarchy of jurisdictions and court systems, and it also entails interpretive/hermeneutic leadership. This process now operates on a world scale. Indeed, courts and justices, rather than representative institutions, governments or political parties, have become, in many parts of the contemporary world, the mentors and mediators of the crisis of hegemony, particularly if they are understood as providing ‘intellectual and moral leadership’, to use Gramsci’s phrase (Hoare and NowellSmith 1971: 57), as well as mediating and mentoring not just relationships between state and citizen but also social relations more generally. They are integral to the ‘general activity of the law’, which is ‘wider than purely the State and governmental activity’ and ‘includes the activity involved in directing civil society, in those zones which the technicians of law call legally neutral – i.e. in morality and in custom generally’, and thus to ‘the entire juridical problem’ (ibid.: 195). This ‘problem’ – as well as the crisis of hegemony – emerges in the contemporary moment as an aspect of the dialectic of constituted and insurgent power in the forging of public reason and progressive potentials of adjudicatory leadership.

Two threats to U.S. science.

Abstract: Last month, the House Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Congress began drafting its Fiscal Year 2020 funding bill. Among the promising news is the committee's support for a $2 billion increase above Fiscal Year 2019 for the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the first step in what is likely to be a long and contentious budget process. Why, then, is the cycle of success that the U.S. scientific enterprise has enjoyed since the mid-20th century in jeopardy? > “Why…is the cycle of success that the U.S. scientific enterprise has enjoyed…in jeopardy?” The cycle of success that catapulted the United States to a global leadership position in science and technology has long been fueled by its many research universities. These institutions create the new fundamental knowledge in science and engineering on which all else depends, and they also train the large numbers of outstanding young people required to produce the next generation of professors, technologists, and entrepreneurs. U.S. universities have attracted great young scientists and engineers from all over the world, many of whom choose to remain in the country, strengthening our institutions and enterprises. Two critical features of this system are now threatened: the support of young people and their unique potential to take risks and explore promising new ideas; and a merit-based selection of scientists and engineers to populate academia and industry, viewing everyone as equal, regardless of the nation in which they were born. The current grant opportunities for starting a new independent research career in academia have not only become increasingly unavailable to young scientists and engineers, but are also disastrously risk-averse. At the NIH, the proportion of all grant funds awarded to scientists under the age of 36 fell from 5.6% in 1980 to 1.5% in 2017. One might ask the rhetorical question: How successful would Silicon Valley be if nearly 99% of all investments were awarded to scientists and engineers age 36 years or older, along with a strong bias toward funding only safe, nonrisky projects? Similarly, at the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Laboratories, high-risk, high-reward research and development has been severely limited by extreme volatility in research funding and by very limited discretionary funding at the laboratory level. Another major concern stems from a new distressing and dangerous public dialogue, encouraged by some political leaders, that unjustly disparages the many people in the United States who were born elsewhere. This strikingly un-American attitude, along with the new visa policies that it has generated, is discouraging migration to the United States of the young talent in science and engineering from other nations instrumental to the nation's success. One of us (V.N.) moved from India to the United States in 1967, and 40 years later became the founding dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University. Similar stories could be told tens of thousands of times. Nearly half of current doctoral students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are from abroad, and the United States needs to make it easier, not harder, for them to stay and contribute to the cycle of success. U.S. leadership must focus on stimulating innovation by awarding an equal number of grants to those new investigators proposing risky new research ideas and those proposing to extend the research that they did during their training period, while also funding them at a younger age. At the same time, it is imperative that the United States reconsider its visa and immigration policies, making it much easier for foreign students who receive a graduate degree in a STEM discipline from a U.S. university to receive a green card, while stipulating that each employment-based visa automatically cover a worker's spouse and children. For success, a nation must not only appropriate funds for science and technology; it must also focus on creating an environment that keeps a cycle of success turning.

A Challenge for Higher Education: Preparing Competent Global Leaders

Abstract: The current US agenda for global learning encompasses institutions of higher education, faculty, and students. Few institutions, however, have strategically embraced the challenge of developing a mission or agenda for global learning. Even more evident is the need for institutions offering advanced degree programs in leadership to commit to, and strategically create globally sensitive campus communities and assist faculty in developing global mindset competencies that can be transferred to students through pedagogy and practice. Strategic institutional, infrastructural development, support, and resources are a prerequisite in preparing faculty to prepare students and future leaders with global mindset competencies and skills. Institutional deductive and inductive strategic planning initiatives are needed so that current and future leaders can effectively navigate with confidence and efficacy the global landscape and effectively lead international and multinational businesses. Strategies and specific recommendations to address the institutional globalization challenge are highlighted to encourage current and future academic institutional and economic viability and competitiveness.