LEADERSHIP NEEDS IN INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA AND EUROPE; FINAL REPORT OF A DELPHI STUDY

Full text

LEADERSHIP NEEDS IN
INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION
IN AUSTRALIA AND EUROPE
FINAL REPORT OF A DELPHI STUDY
JANUARY 2014
DENNIS MURRAY
LEO GOEDEGEBUURE
HANS-GEORG VAN LIEMPD
MARC VERMEULEN

BACKGROUND
RESEARCH APPROACH
PHASE 1
Findings of Phase 1
PHASE 2
Findings of Phase 2
Context of Phase 2 interviews
Key professional leadership roles needing to be strengthened
Key internationalisation challenges facing leaders in Australia and Europe
Australia
Europe
Strengthening leadership capabilities and skills to address perceived
key challenges
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
CONCLUSION
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
3
3
4
8
4
8
8
12
8
12
14
16
19
21
21
23
24
CONTENTS

1
BACKGROUND
The development of advanced leadership capabilities among up and coming international
education professionals is an area of particular concern to both the International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA) and the European Association for International Education
(EAIE). The matter was a focus of a joint symposium, Advancing Europe-Australia
Cooperation in Higher Education, held in 2009 in Sydney.
With financial support from the Australian Government (Australian Education International),
the two Associations conducted a joint empirical research study. The technical components
were conducted by the LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and
Management, The University of Melbourne (Australian partner) and Tilburg University, the
Netherlands (European partner). The EAIE has supported the European component of the
project.
RESEARCH APPROACH
The research sought to identify the generic and specific leadership capabilities required by
the future generation of international education leaders in Australia and Europe. A two-phase
Delphi methodology* was adopted and a first phase online questionnaire developed. This
was based on a conceptual framework (Quinn et al, 2007) which identifies eight “competing”
leadership roles: facilitator, mentor, innovator, broker, director, producer, monitor and
coordinator. Details of the eight roles are given in the Appendix (see p. 24).
Phase 2 was conducted in light of the findings from Phase 1. Phase 2 involved semi-
structured interviews with selected respondents from Phase 1, as well as a number of other
senior international education professionals and academic sta in Australia and Europe.
* Our research involved use of a modified Delphi methodology. The Delphi methodology is ‘a method for the
systematic solicitation and collation of judgments on a particular topic through a set of carefully designed
sequential questionnaires interspersed with summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from
earlier responses’ (Delbecq et al. 1975:10). The research takes place in two phases. The methodology is used
most frequently to integrate the judgments of a group of experts. A key feature of the methodology is that the
respondents do not meet and their responses may be anonymous.
Although some flexibility exists in implementation, the core method, as described by Delbecq et al. (1975:11), is as
follows:
“First, the sta team in collaboration with decision makers develops an initial questionnaire and distributes it…to
the respondent group. The respondents independently generate their ideas in answer to the first questionnaire
and return it. The sta team then summarizes the responses to the first questionnaire and develops a feedback
report along with the second set of questionnaires for the respondent group. Having received the feedback
report, the respondents independently evaluate earlier responses. Respondents are asked to independently vote
on priority ideas included in the second questionnaire and mail their responses back to the sta team. The sta
team then develops a final summary and feedback report to the respondent group and decision makers”.
Our research involved use of a modified form of the methodology in that for the second phase a structured
interview schedule was used based on the findings of phase one. Interviewees may or may not have participated
as respondents in Phase 1. Phase 2 aimed to validate and explicate the findings of Phase 1.

2
PHASE 1
The Phase 1 questionnaire focussed on the leadership capabilities that professionals in the
field perceive as needed today, and in years to come. In addition, respondents were asked to
indicate the key issues facing international education.
Respondents were drawn from the membership of the EAIE and IEAA. A total of 187
responses were received (a satisfactory response rate), which were distributed evenly
between Europe and Australia.
Findings of Phase 1
Full details of Phase 1 and its findings are given in the Phase 1 Report.
For more information, visit www.eaie.org/leadership or www.ieaa.org.au/leadership.
The intention in Phase 1 was to identify if there are dierences in the way international
education leaders in Australia and Europe perform their roles. Additionally, it sought
to identify if gaps exist between what leaders perceive as their realities and what they
ideally would like their jobs to consist of in terms of a mix of the eight Quinn leadership
roles. Answers to these questions could then inform the design of appropriate leadership
development activities for the EAIE and IEAA, separately and possibly jointly.
Technical checking using Principal Component Analysis reveal considerable correlation
between items within a subset (i.e. role). While there is some variation in dierences between
the eight leadership roles for Australia and for Europe, all roles are significant for both
locations. Slightly higher scores for Australian compared to European respondents indicate
that Australian respondents enact all these roles somewhat more than their European
counterparts. This is particularly the case for the “director” and “mentor” roles, followed
closely by the “broker” role.
Leadership roles
Analysis of the Phase 1 general leadership findings indicate there is also significant
agreement among Australian and European respondents about the order of importance
of particular leadership roles. With the exception of the “director” and “innovator” roles
(swapped across the two groups), the relative order in roles was the same for Australia and
for Europe.
However, when the current and optimal mix of roles is examined, there is a notable dierence
between the two groups of respondents. For Australian international education leaders, the
importance of the “facilitator”, “mentor” and “director” roles in an optimal situation remained
the same as it is currently. Australian respondents considered themselves relatively capable
in the areas of teamwork and in planning, goal setting, productivity and eciency. Australian
leaders however indicated a need to strengthen their capabilities in the “innovator”,
“monitor” and “coordinator” roles, and to a lesser extent in the “producer” and “broker” roles.

3
For European leaders, the “facilitator” role remains the most dominant. However, in an ideal
world, European leaders would like to see themselves play out more of the “innovator”,
“monitor”, “director” and “coordinator” roles and less of the “producer” and “mentor
“roles. They seek to improve their capabilities across a broader range than their Australian
colleagues in terms of:
• flexibility, growth, resource acquisition and external support (“innovator”)
• internal processes such as information management and communication, stability
and control (“coordinator” and “monitor”), and
• planning, goal setting, productivity and eciency (“director”).
Comparatively speaking, the typology changes quite a bit from Australia to Europe, although
the ‘top’ role and three ‘least’ emphasised roles remain the same across the continents.
The dierences between the scores reflecting the current situation and the score for the
optimal situation were also investigated. In general, the findings reveal a slightly larger gap
for the Australian participants than for the Europeans. However, for most roles this gap was
not significant, with the exceptions being the “innovator” and “producer” roles where the
gap was marginally significant.
Internationalisation as the context for leadership
The context of internationalisation in which leaders attempt to operate is clearly important.
Empirically, this is exactly what makes such a vexed terrain for leadership. In the final section
of the survey, participants were asked to identify the main benefits of internationalisation,
what the key priorities for internationalising higher education are, and what the main
obstacles to internationalisation might be.
Benefits of internationalisation
By far the strongest perceived benefit was the positive impact internationalisation has on
societies. Internationalisation contributes to a global, mutual understanding; increases cross-
cultural awareness; creates global citizens; and contributes to helping to deal with global issues.
There was no dierence in the emphasis placed on this dimension from a European or Australian
perspective.
A second set of benefits related to student outcomes (a better education for students,
specifically developing a global perspective; providing students with an international
experience; contributing to an open mindset including tolerance; and resulting in better
personal development). This was closely followed by broadening the educational experience
for all students (and sta), the building of networks, and preparing students for a global
labour market and international careers. Again, there was little dierence in emphasis or
importance between Europe and Australia.
When it came to benefits that relate to institutions, a more varied picture emerged.
Australian respondents saw better research through international collaboration as a

4
significant outcome and ranked this fifth. This dimension did not feature prominently in the
minds of European respondents who focussed far more on the benefits that relate to quality
assurance.
Both European and Australian respondents ranked the programmatic impacts of
internationalisation as important, stressing quality and innovation, the increased breadth
of programs and the reflection of the international dimension in the curriculum. The
economic side of internationalisation was also acknowledged but not surprisingly featured
more prominently with Australian respondents. Finally, capacity building (education for
development) came up as the last major benefit with a little more prominence in Europe than
Australia, although the dierence was not significant.
Priorities for internationalisation
The perceived key priorities for the internationalisation of higher education were strongly
aligned with the objectives of internationalisation and perceptions about how these might
best be achieved.
Student and sta mobility came up as the top priority. What was particularly significant with
respect to mobility was the emphasis in the Australian responses on outward mobility and
the focus on Asia.
The second key priority – building institutional relationships – related closely to the first
priority. Interestingly, for Australian respondents this included a strong emphasis on
the development of research collaboration, while European respondents emphasised
collaboration in teaching through the development of joint or double degree programs.
The development of an internationalised curriculum and curriculum innovation, including
the use of technology, featured as the third priority. This was closely followed by a set of
priorities that relate back to the sociocultural benefits identified earlier.
Responses by Australian and European respondents to other matters diverged. From an
Australian perspective the development and implementation of clear institutional strategies
with a high level of institutional commitment were important priorities. This was much less
the case in Europe, where again quality issues were perceived as far more important.
Overall, responses about the key issues for internationalising higher education were more
widely spread than those about the benefits of internationalisation.
Obstacles to internationalisation
The final section of the questionnaire sought to canvass opinions about perceived major
obstacles to further internationalisation of higher education. Respondents were practically
unanimous in identifying resourcing as the stumbling block. This should not be interpreted
simply in the narrow sense of finances available. Rather, it reflects the broader set of
human, infrastructure, administrative and financial resources needed to fully engage with

5
internationalisation. Resourcing was far more prominent as an obstacle than as a key priority.
There were considerable dierences between Australian and European views about other
obstacles. Particularly problematic from an Australian perspective were issues related
to government policies and regulations (especially concerning student visas) and more
generally the politicisation of international education in the Australian Parliament and media.
From a European perspective, subordinate obstacles related more to a lack of leadership,
vision and strategy, as well as awareness of the importance of internationalisation.
Matters raised earlier in the study, such as system diversity and quality assurance, were also
reflected in a further set of obstacles that again predominantly featured in Europe. These
include the mismatch of educational systems (at times reflected in degree content) resulting
in problems with recognition and exchange, and a series of structural impediments that
reflect Europe working through the Bologna agenda.
A clear problematic issue for many Australian respondents was the tying of
internationalisation to the financial imperative to keep Australian institutions financially
viable. An obstacle that was clearly identified by European respondents but far less by
Australian respondents was the lack of foreign language skills of both sta and students.
While Australian respondents were less concerned about leadership and strategy issues
than their European counterparts, they were more concerned about the lack of support
they receive within their institution for internationalisation. Lack of commitment (from the
top of the institution), competing priorities, lip service to internationalisation and overall
coordination problems were the most common obstacles mentioned.
Both European and Australian respondents perceived more or less equally a problem in the
attitude of academic sta to internationalisation, which points to a somewhat problematic
relationship between administrative and academic sta. Successful internationalisation is
clearly at risk without an understanding and acceptance of the co-dependency between
dierent groups of players in the institution.
Lastly, both European and Australian respondents noted generalised negative attitudes that
appear to exist in their societies with respect to internationalisation. Described variously as
an “inward looking country climate”, “ethnocentricity”, “nationalism” or “xenophobia”, these
perceptions, indeed concerns, all referred to the adverse responses to ethnic and cultural
diversity rife in certain parts of the Australian and European communities.

6
PHASE 2
Phase 2 of the study, the final phase, was conducted in late 2012 (Europe) and early 2013
(Australia). This phase involved a 45-minute, semi-structured interview with a range of senior
higher education leaders in international education to canvass their views about the specific
needs of leaders and how these might best be met. 11 senior leaders in Australia and 10 in
Europe were interviewed.
Findings of Phase 2
Full details of Phase 2 of the study and its findings are given in the two Phase 2 Reports, for
Australia and for Europe.
For more information, visit www.eaie.org/leadership or www.ieaa.org.au/leadership.
Context of Phase 2 interviews
As noted earlier, the context provides the vexed terrain for leadership. The Australian context
of the study meant there were heightened pressures on international education leaders in
Australia in the lead up to, and at the time, when the study was undertaken. These pressures
included turbulence in higher education public policy settings, the implications of a decline in
international student enrolments, the high cost of study in Australia and the increased academic
focus of internationalisation. These contextual factors clearly influenced interviewees’ responses
to the issues discussed. The Phase 2 findings throw light on perceptions of the Australian
respondents about current challenges and the leadership and management skills needed to
address them.
Similarly in Europe, the context defined the terrain in which international education leaders
worked and influenced their responses in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The Global Economic
Crisis has had a major impact on the financial situation of many institutions in most countries
in Europe. The study was conducted over an extended 18-month period during which the
economic crisis was not resolved, leading to turbulence and fiscal constraint, including in the
higher education sector throughout Europe.
Despite the economic crisis and its impact on internationalisation of higher education, it is
apparent that most countries and institutions around Europe have not been marginalised. As
in Australia (see below), it has become a core issue in the mission of universities and other
higher education institutions. The shifts and dynamics in the leadership and management
of internationalisation as it becomes increasingly mainstreamed was seen in Europe (as in
Australia) as having implications for the role and responsibilities of international education
leaders and managers whether they be administrative or academic sta.

7
Key professional leadership roles needing to be strengthened
In Phase 1 Australian leaders indicated that they sought to strengthen their capabilities in the
“innovator”, “monitor” and “coordinator” roles, and to a lesser extent in the “producer” and
“broker” roles. In Phase 1 European leaders indicated that they sought to strengthen their
capabilities in four dimensions: the “innovator”, “monitor”, “coordinator” and “director” roles.
While the European interviews in Phase 2 maintained an emphasis on the four priority roles
identified by their colleagues in Phase 1, there was an interesting shift from the Phase 1 findings
by the Australian interviewees. The Australian Phase 2 interviewees were virtually unanimous
in identifying the “innovator” and the “broker” roles as the key areas where strengthening of
capabilities and skills were most needed. This was a departure from the findings of Phase 1
where the “innovator”, “monitor” and “coordinator” roles had been the top three roles identified.
As with European interviewees (see above), there was a strong sense among Australian
interviewees that “traditional” international education, focused mainly on recruitment and
teaching of international students, is now but part of a much broader “whole of university
enterprise and mission”. The globalisation of research, expanding international business and
industry linkages and the imperative of outbound mobility for domestic students were now
very much part of institutional strategies involving a much broader and diverse range of senior
players (Deputy/Pro Vice-Chancellors, Deans, Administrative Program Directors) as well as an
increasing number of teaching and research sta across multiple academic divisions/faculties.
The need for integration of institutional strategy and practice across a broad front – described
variously as “an international engagement strategy and framework” reflecting “a strategic
vision emanating from the executive” – was frequently referred to in this context by the Vice-
Chancellor or President.
Broker role
In this context, brokering and relationship management were perceived by Australian
interviewees as increasingly important for senior international leaders and managers. A
number of interviewees commented that while their roles as monitors and coordinators were
crucial, these roles are relatively less important – particularly given the shared responsibilities
of senior higher education leaders generally for institutional internationalisation and the need
to form and work alliances between the various senior players. Greater time and eort are
needed to ensure the shifting balance of responsibilities plays out the way most international
education leaders believe it should.
Brokering also requires an external focus. Many interviewees commented that their core
external relations role involves identifying, cultivating and mediating contacts with a wider
range of external players, within overseas institutions and beyond in the wider business,
industry or research communities. Many interviewees acknowledged that while there might
be a temperamental element to eective brokering, these skills can be learnt. European
interviewees tended to discuss the broker role in the context of their focus on their role as
“innovator” (see below).

8
Innovator role
There was a palpable sense among interviewees that the world of Australian international
education has changed and that the future will not be like the past. Increasing external
competition challenges leaders as innovators and interviewees perceived the need to be
aware of competitor trends and market shifts. In many cases, leadership roles required
sta to identify new business opportunities including innovative business models and the
conceptualisation, design and delivery of new educational programs.
Most Australian interviewees believed that at least some innovation skills could be taught and
acquired. A number suggested that exposure to or drawing on lessons from other industries
that have a strong, successful customer orientation and service culture would help lift the
innovation culture in higher education institutions.
The specific insight here is that better commercial skills and capabilities are needed at all
levels of the international enterprise, including underpinning successful future innovation. An
adverse contrast was drawn between the quality of data and systems that underpin critical
management decision making in the commercial sector and the adequacy of the data and
systems used to underpin decision making in higher education institutions. More robust
commercial systems are needed and middle to senior level managers and leaders need to
understand, collect and use better “bottom up” data.
Some Australian administrative leaders drew attention to specific gaps in their skills as
innovators. In particular, they mentioned the need to identify and broker new approaches
to academic program development in the international context, or taking account of
curriculum content, the student experience and graduate outcomes. They perceived their
role overlapping but complementing the roles of academic leaders. They desired to work
more closely with academic colleagues to conceive and design viable academic products to
meet new needs and demands in international education. The symbiosis between academic
and business objectives and outcomes is the relevant point.
The process of internationalisation of higher education inevitably impacts the education,
research and service functions of institutions. International education leaders are
conspicuous change agents. European interviewees saw eective change management
capabilities as central to their role as innovators and stressed both vision as well as skills
to influence and empower others and to take the initiative. Excellent communication skills
(including knowledge of more than one language) were also stressed. Obstacles as the
European interviewees perceived them included a mismatch between institutional strategies
and the focus and interest of the internal stakeholders. Further, interviewees identified a
frequent divide between a hierarchical decision making structure and influencers and the
change agents at the lower levels (i.e. the lack of an institutional or organisational culture
that encourages and fosters change).
Accordingly European interviewees stressed the need for professional development
oerings that focus on eective change management, taking account of the institutional
and organisational context of higher education institutions. Advanced (intercultural)
communication skills and interpersonal skills training were also stressed.

9
Monitor role
Only the European group saw the “monitor” role as being a major priority need for
enhancement. European interviewees perceived a need to improve their data collection and
performance evaluation skills to be able to lead and manage a successful, stable functional
unit or enterprise.
Perceived skills needed include:
• the ability to build trust
• sensitivity towards other stakeholders who collect and provide data and other
information
• maintaining personal credibility and accountability
• good analytic skills, and
• an ability to evaluate and manage performance of individuals and of the functional
unit.
Training in high level project management skills was identified as the priority professional
development need, contextualised for internationalisation purposes.
Coordinator role
Similarly, only the European group saw the “coordinator” role as being a significant priority
need for enhancement, and closely aligned to the “monitor” role. Good communication
skills were seen as the key to successful coordination of a team or functional unit’s eorts.
The ability to delegate while maintaining eective oversight of performance was seen as
particularly important. A coordinating “structure” (e.g. documented work objectives and
outcomes) was also regarded by European interviewees as necessary. A challenge to good
coordination of strategic and operational objectives in some European institutions was
perceived to be the centralised versus decentralised management models and structures for
international activity, with sometimes the lack of an overall (“helicopter”) institutional view or
consciousness.
Again, project management skills (combined with knowledge of organisational systems
geared to the internal functioning of higher education institutions) as well as peer mentoring/
shadowing and sta exchange among institutions of similar scale (or with similar internal
structures and cultures) were identified as a need.
Director role
The European interviewees particularly sought to improve capabilities and skills in the
“director” role. The focus was dual – internally on the relevant functional unit and externally
towards the wider institution overall. Clear, strategic thinking, decisiveness, diplomacy,
persuasiveness and outstanding communication skills were all mentioned as essential to
being eective.

10
Training in conceiving, implementing, evaluating and refining an institutional international
strategy was highlighted as the priority need, together with related training (involving
presumably the “innovator” “monitor” and “coordinator” roles also mentioned by the
European Interviewees) in how to eectively manage an international oce. Professional
development to enhance strategic thinking, diplomatic and political skills development,
change management and peer mentoring was also mentioned as needed at a more
advanced level.
Key internationalisation challenges facing leaders in Australia and
Europe
Six key internationalisation issues were identified in Phase 1 of the study and followed up in
Phase 2. Two key issues were common to both the Australian and European groups:
1. Participation of academic sta in the process of internationalisation, and
2. Perceived lack of resources for internationalisation.
In addition, two key issues were identified as being specific to each of the groups.
For Australia these were:
3. The international engagement of Australian university researchers, and
4. Perceived lip service to internationalisation and ineective coordination of
internationalisation eorts.
For Europe these were:
5. Strengthening international teaching collaboration
6. Barriers of leadership, vision and strategy and the lack of awareness of the
importance of internationalisation.
Because of dierences between the two groups, for relevance and for ease of elucidation
these issues are treated under separate locational headings.
Australia
There was substantial unanimity among Australian interviewees about the key issues
and obstacles facing internationalisation of Australian higher education in Australia.
Comments focused essentially on issue 1 (participation of academic sta in the process
of internationalisation) and on issue 3 (international engagement of Australian university
researchers). These two issues were clearly related in the minds of interviewees. The other
two issues identified by Australian interviewees – issue 2 (perceived lack of resources for
internationalisation) and issue 4 (perceived lip service to internationalisation and ineective
coordination of internationalisation eorts) – were commented on as part of the discussion
around the two primary issues.

11
International engagement of Australian university researchers
The Australian interviewees identified this as a major issue for long-term internationalisation
of Australian higher education. For the Australian interviewees the strong emphasis on the
development of international research collaboration was seen as a particularly important
component of building international partnerships. There was an explicit connection
drawn between deep international research engagement and the Australian institution’s
international reputation broadly including in terms of position on the global university league
tables.
The assumption also seemed to be that moving up the league tables would help in attracting
and retaining international students, including international postgraduate students. The
desire by many Australian universities to balance their international student enrolments
by having a greater proportion of postgraduate research students was clearly a strong
motivation.
For the most part, the interviewees commenting were not themselves researchers. However,
they perceived a strong connection between their roles as leaders in internationalisation
and the support they might provide to others in their institution with primary responsibility
for research engagement. This was seen as part of international education leaders’ crucial
brokering role in international education.
The co-dependency of academic and administrative sta was recognised. Eectively this
was a call to blend academic and business capabilities in some appropriate way, with fairly
obvious practical implications for professional development.
Participation of Australian academic sta in the process of
internationalisation
The issue of perceived “tension” around the role and participation of academic sta in
the process of internationalisation is clearly related to the first issue. Interviewees stated
that tensions arise for a variety of reasons, including competing pressures on academic
sta for their time and the perception by some academic sta that internationalisation is
mainly about student recruitment and revenue generation. However, the issue is likely to be
more deeply rooted in the culture of an institution and, for example, may be a result of the
meaning executive leaders give to internationalisation and the kind of strategic objectives,
directions, support and incentives executive leaders provide to progress internationalisation.
Some interviewees suggested the need to build mechanisms to foster engagement,
particularly those where academic and non-academic sta might “learn together”. Others
suggested the need for academic sta to acquire not only business but also cultural
competency skills. Others suggested that administrative sta need to improve their
brokering skills to help them identify and cultivate appropriate academic sta and to be
eective in managing the crossover between academic and non-academic responsibilities
and functions.
Many interviewees referred to examples of good practice in the engagement of academic

12
sta in internationalisation and suggested that these should be more widely disseminated
and better known.
European interviewees also identified the issue of engagement of academic sta as a critical
priority for leaders of internationalisation (see below).
Europe
European interviewees identified four key issues challenging leaders of internationalisation in Europe,
which are outlined below.
Strengthening international teaching collaboration
International oces in European institutions focus mainly on cooperation in the field of
teaching and mobility of students. Strengthening teaching collaboration was identified in
Phase 1 as a key issue in the internationalisation strategy of European institutions. The strong
emphasis on the development of international teaching collaboration is seen as a particularly
important component of building international partnerships.
Three barriers were identified:
• the attitude of academic sta to view engagement in international projects as a
burden rather than an advantage;
• the lack of an evidence base persuasively demonstrating the benefits of
international teaching collaboration to academic sta and institutional leaders;
• and the complexity of obtaining external funding support for such projects.
As with Australian interviewees (see below), European interviewees perceived the persuasive
advantage of a program director being an academic who could encourage and convince
academic colleagues to be involved in the program. Conversely, they also believed that
non-academic sta need a better understanding of the processes of academic program
development and delivery.
A mixture of skills was perceived as necessary: good communication/persuasiveness skills; a
flair for innovation and entrepreneurship; and a good understanding and interaction between
academic and non-academic sta.
As with Australian interviewees, European interviewees saw the issue in terms of improved
training to achieve a shared recognition between academic and non-academic sta of what
is required to achieve successful internationalisation.
Lack of resources
Resourcing for internationalisation varies between European countries and may not be a key
issue in some where EU funding underpins much activity. For leaders of internationalisation,
resources or the lack of them posed varying challenges. Some leaders placed great priority

13
on having a sound internationalisation strategy as a means to successfully access the
resources needed. On the other hand, some leaders were convinced about their institution’s
dependence on EU funding.
As a generalisation, there was a perception that in economically dicult times
internationalisation leaders in Europe should re-think priorities and the means to achieve
them. They could also link more eectively with local and regional business communities
to access resource support. Enhancing the “innovator” and “broker” roles to foster better
communication of the benefits of internationalisation – and assisting sta to identify
and access previously untapped sources of support (e.g. alumni) – would presumably be
important in overcoming resource diculties imposed by institutional or governmental
financial restraint.
Leadership, strategic vision and the lack of awareness of the
benefits of internationalisation
The European interviewees identified a set of related high level issues as forming the
context in which they need to operate. At one level, in countries where internationalisation
of higher education is part of the national agenda, institutional awareness, vision and
strategy tend to follow. In this case the challenge for leaders is to articulate, plan and deliver
programs aligned to their country’s and their institution’s strategic vision. In other cases
internationalisation may not be high on the national/institutional agenda, in which case the
challenge becomes more complex and includes the task of raising awareness of the need for
internationalisation among institutional sta and students.
Interviewees in Europe however agreed that in all cases leaders of internationalisation need
to understand and to be able to eectively articulate to others the outcomes and benefits of
internationalisation – economic, demographic cultural and educational. Interviewees called
for more research at an institutional, national and international level to provide the evidence
base on which to raise awareness about the outcomes and benefits of internationalisation for
multiple stakeholders.
Participation of European academic sta in the process of
internationalisation
The views of European interviewees around the role and participation of academic sta in
the process of internationalisation were substantially congruent with those of their Australian
counterparts (see above). As with their Australian colleagues, European interviewees viewed
the issue of the involvement of academic sta as a critical challenge. The issue was seen to
be deeply rooted in institutional culture, in particular the research focus of many academic
sta, and to be influenced by the kind of strategic direction, support and incentives executive
leaders in institutions provide to progress internationalisation.
As with their Australian counterparts, European interviewees suggested a number of
strategies to achieve greater academic engagement in the internationalisation process,

14
including incentives for extra time and eort provided by academic sta and the building
of mechanisms which might include joint professional development, to foster closer
engagement between academic and non-academic sta in the identification, planning and
delivery of international programs and projects.
Strengthening leadership capabilities and skills to address
perceived key challenges
A wide variety of practical suggestions were proposed by Australian and European
interviewees in the final part of Phase 2 of the study. While there is some overlap between
the two groups, these proposals are treated under separate locational headings. The
implications for the two Associations are brought together in the conclusion to the present
report.
Australia
Australian interviewees suggested a wide variety of ways to strengthen leadership
capabilities and skills in key priority areas, directed specifically towards particular groups
of professional and academic sta. The suggestions focused primarily on dierent forms of
professional networking and development.
Middle level managers
(Managers of sub-units within the central international structure or portfolio; Faculty/Division
International Managers)
This is a group essentially of professional administrators. The group is likely to have mixed
experience and qualifications. Almost by necessity many would have experience in one or
more aspect of international education. Some may not have had significant experience in
managing sta teams. Many would be on career paths and aspire to higher-level leadership
roles.
A number of interviewees indicated a specialised Masters would probably be of interest
to some middle level professionals provided they did not already hold a Masters level
qualification. Most interviewees however, stressed the need for less formalised training for
this group, including professional development to acquire or fine-tune specific technical
skills (e.g. cross-cultural skills; negotiation and mediation skills; financial management skills;
business innovation skills); peer learning and networking; mentoring/coaching/buddying;
and professional development to assist understanding of the broad institutional mission and
strategy and the place of internationalisation strategy within that.
Executive directors of central international oces or other units having a significant
international responsibility
(e.g. Heads of International Relations Oces, Research Oces; Associate Deans International)
This group is mixed, being comprised of both senior professional administrators and
academic sta designated as responsible for international matters within a faculty or

15
division. Interviewees were generally of the view that at this level, professional development
would largely need to be individualised.
Interest in acquiring higher-level academic qualifications (e.g. a second Masters) is unlikely
for members of this group, even if the qualification were a specialised one focused on
internationalisation of higher education.
The trend to greater academic leadership of institutions’ international activities at the
executive levels poses an issue for non-academic international leaders both because they
wish to maintain their current credibility and influence within their institution and because in
some cases they want to advance further up the executive ladder, either in the existing or in
another higher education institution. Some believed they would need to acquire a Doctoral
qualification if they were to maintain their professional credibility over the longer term. For
most however, the long path to a research doctorate is not a practical option.
For sta at this level, the preference of most interviewees is for other forms of professional
development. These include:
• participation in executive leadership programs and networks involving experience
beyond the higher education sector
• personalised, structured shadowing, benchmarking or meetings/seminars with top
leaders in internationalisation
• sabbaticals spent living and working in an international context
• focused skills development training (e.g. cross-cultural skills; negotiation and
mediation skills; financial management skills); and
• mentoring/coaching.
University executive leadership
(Deputy/Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans)
This group is essentially comprised of academic sta. There is a great mix and diversity
among incumbents. Some might have significant prior leadership and management
experience, others less so. Most have had significant teaching background, others might
come with an essentially research background. Some would have had significant international
experience and involvement, some less so. Given that experience and expectations among
members of this group are likely to vary greatly there is probably a need for early “role
clarification” for members entering this group.
Skills enhancement at this level would need to be individualised, involving tailored programs
that facilitate understanding of the changing national and global higher education contexts,
drivers and trends; broad understanding of dierent university missions and strategies and
the role of internationalisation within them; participation in executive leadership programs
and networks involving experience beyond the higher education sector; role clarification
and up-skilling of non-academic skills (e.g. business skills; cross-cultural negotiation skills);
personalised, structured executive level shadowing, seminar programs or other familiarisation
programs.

16
Europe
As described above, European interviewees suggested a wide variety of ways to strengthen
leadership capabilities and skills in the key priority areas.
Structured, targeted professional development
Structured and targeted professional development in particular priority areas were identified,
covering in particular:
• Development of an international strategy
• Practices and tools to manage an international oce involving, for example
• change management, project management, teambuilding, negotiation skills conflict
resolution, communication/cross-cultural skills, brokering skills and fundraising.
Topic specific seminars
Topic specific seminars and workshops for groups of internationalisation professionals were
also suggested, focused on:
• Understanding of the changing national, European and global higher education
contexts and of the role of internationalisation within them
• Drivers and trends in internationalisation
• The variety of institutional responses to internationalisation – dierent university
missions and strategies and the role of international education leadership.
Small group meetings and seminars
Interviewees also saw value in personalised professional development for senior leaders
involving meetings and seminars with top leaders in internationalisation, especially on topics
involving good practice examples and theme based case studies on key priority issues.
One-on-one peer learning (external focus)
One-on-one peer learning with colleagues with advanced experience was also suggested,
involving colleagues and institutions either within the same country or other countries.
Mentoring and coaching
Suggestions here focused primarily on dierent forms of professional networking and
development. Interviewees were generally of the view that professional development would
largely need to be individualised and focus on learning with and from their peers either in a
national or international context.
Structured executive leadership training
European interviewees also suggested a more formalised structure for executive leadership
training involving the establishment of a specific executive leadership program focused on
internationalisation within higher education, modularised to cover topics such as strategic
planning, change management, project management, and human resource management.
Advanced qualifications
As with their Australian counterparts, a number of European interviewees believed they
would need to acquire an advanced qualification (for example a doctoral qualification) if they
were to maintain their professional credibility over the longer term. For most however, the
long path to a research doctorate is not a practical option.

17
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The present report details and integrates the research findings of Phases 1 and 2 of the joint
study. The findings of the study reveal some dierences but many shared concerns and
interests between international education professionals and leaders in Europe and Australia.
The commonalities are striking in terms of context, the challenges faced and the priorities for
practical program options proposed on both sides.
Contextual similarities are strong. Professionals and leaders in internationalisation in
both Australia and Europe face contexts that are ever changing, frequently turbulent in
a public policy sense and increasingly business focused. In both locations the process of
internationalisation is highly dependent on academic involvement. Indeed, responsibilities for
internationalisation are increasingly broadening to involve a greater number and variety of
institutional players, especially academic sta, fully across the teaching, research and service
functions of universities. This and the trend towards the mainstreaming of internationalisation
strategy and practice mean that for successful institutional internationalisation the co-
dependency of professional administrative and academic sta is becoming even more
pronounced. Mechanisms to foster this development are increasingly imperative in Europe
and in Australia.
The key challenges faced by international education leaders are also largely similar in the
two locations. A particularly important challenge in the minds of leaders in both Europe and
Australia is how to eectively engage academic sta in the process of internationalisation.
A further challenge is the ability to be innovative, strategic and persuasive within the
institutional context to move the institution forward and to secure the high level support,
and in some cases the resources, to successfully conduct the enterprise. Associated with
these leadership challenges are the challenges of eective management of a functional
unit, requiring specific technical skills (strategic planning, change management, project
management, intercultural communication, negotiation skills and human resource
management).
Although the emphasis between them and the way they manifest themselves might be
slightly dierent in the two locations, the leadership and management roles requiring
particular strengthening are largely common for the two locations. The key roles identified
for strengthening are “innovator”, “broker”, “monitor”, “coordinator” and “director”.
Finally, also there is largely common agreement about the key actions needed to strengthen
skills and capabilities of leaders and managers in the two locations.
Professional development of dierent forms and levels is required to suit participants at
three dierent levels (middle managers, executive directors and senior executives/CEOs). For
all groups there is an expressed need for improved innovation and entrepreneurial/strategic
skills to meet ever changing external and internal challenges.
There is a strong shared view that the co-dependency of administrative and academic
roles must be addressed in professional development, preferably through joint learning by

18
academic and administrative sta to foster closer engagement between them to enable
successful identification, planning and delivery of international programs and projects. A
blending of academic and business knowledge and skills in an appropriate way is sought.
A clear perceived need too is a focus on good practice, including good practice in the
engagement of academic sta.
There is a shared view that modest formal award courses at graduate level focused on
leadership and management with a particular focus on internationalisation might be of
value and of interest to middle managers on a career path and aspiring to higher level
responsibility. However, less formalised training at all levels is perceived as to be more
relevant and clearly necessary.
Short courses/seminars to fine tune or enable acquisition of particular technical skills (e.g.
change management, project management, teambuilding, communication/cross-cultural
negotiation and mediation skills, brokering skills, financial management and fundraising skills;
business innovation skills) are viewed as important. In addition, other less formalised training
involving peer learning, networking, mentoring or coaching and buddying are viewed as
being particularly valuable to middle managers. Individualised expert meetings/seminars
with top leaders in internationalisation on specific topics (e.g. good practice examples
and theme-based case studies on key priority issues) and one-on-one peer learning with
counterparts in institutions either within the same country or other countries are viewed
as being of more value to directors/ associate deans and to senior institutional executives.
Australian leaders believe such initiatives are especially required between Australia and Asian
countries.
Topic specific one-o seminars and workshops are viewed as valuable for groups at all
levels focused particularly on understanding of the changing national and global higher
education contexts and the role of internationalisation within them, the drivers and trends in
internationalisation, and the variety of institutional responses to internationalisation and the
role of international education leadership (all levels).
Finally, for senior university executives moving into an internationalisation role, early role
clarification and familiarisation involving individualised, tailored executive leadership
programs would be of value. Participation in networks involving experience beyond the
higher education sector and up-skilling of non-academic skills (e.g. business skills, cross-
cultural negotiation skills) would also be beneificial.

19
CONCLUSION
The findings of the research point clearly to a number of research and practical program/
professional development options that the International Education Association of Australia
(IEAA) and the European Association for International Education (EAIE) might like to
consider in the context of their responsibilities to support and develop international
education professionals in the two locations. Some options for consideration are suggested
below in the final section of this report.
Some of these options will have relevance for international education professional
associations beyond Europe and Australia. The desire for joint/peer learning, including with
colleagues from other regions, is a feature of both the Australian and the European findings.
While it makes sense initially to pursue opportunities for joint initiatives involving both
the EAIE and IEAA, it may also be possible over the longer term to undertake some joint
initiatives with colleagues elsewhere.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
Further research
The most urgent and potentially most useful further research is likely to relate to the
administrative-academic nexus, particularly the co-dependency of the two groups in
successful internationalisation.
Three research possibilities are:
1. Attitudes of academic sta to engagement in internationalisation across the teaching,
research and service functions of universities.
2. Good practice in engagement of academic sta in the process of internationalisation.
3. The nexus between the Senior International Ocer (SIO) and executive leadership
of universities.
The Associations could consider a series of layered research projects under a broad umbrella
project over 3-5 years, with international comparisons and jointly developed case studies.
Outcomes could be published and disseminated over the course of the project as they
emerge.
Professional development
Potential professional development oerings for consideration:
1. Joint leaders academy
This could possibly operate as a revolving leadership series through three-four
conferences each year (the EAIE, AIEC, APAIE, AIEA). The focus would be on

20
sharing practice and improving capabilities and skills in the “innovator”, “broker”,
“monitor”, “coordinator” and “director” roles. Oerings should be framed around a
major critical job skill – e.g. decision making. Maximum 20-25 participants. It would
be desirable to have a wrap-up report that encapsulates good practice and other
outcomes of the academy.
2. Young Professionals Forum/Debate
This could possibly be oered annually at one of the major international
conferences, with a focus on a major topical theme, with dissemination of the
outcomes of the event.
3. Joint-shadowing project for young leaders
One each year in Europe, Asia and Australia involving five young leaders from each
location shadowing five senior leaders in one of the other locations.
4. Joint theme based seminars
For executive/middle managers and leaders framed around the joint case studies to
be developed by the Associations.
REFERENCES
Aas, B. E. & Connelly, S. (2009). Outcomes Report from an international Symposium,
“Advancing Europe-Australia cooperation in international education”. Sydney, October
2009.
Adams, T., Banks, M. & Olsen, A. (2011). Benefits of international education: enriching
students, enriching communities. In Mackintosh, B. & Davis (Eds.) Making A Dierence:
Australian International Education. Sydney: New South Publishing.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
Based on the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco, CA
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R., Quinn, R.E. (1995). Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of
Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 5 (Sep. -
Oct., 1995).
Goedegebuure, L, de Boer, H, Aas, B.E., & Murray, D,. (2009) International Education
Leadership, Background paper prepared for an international Symposium, “Advancing
Europe-Australia cooperation in international education”. Sydney, October 2009.
Goedegebuure, L., Vermeulen, M., van Liempd, H-G., Murray D., (2012): Leadership Needs in
International Higher Education in Australia and Europe Report from Phase One of a Delphi
Study. (Internal report IEAA and the EAIE).

21
Heyl, J.D. and Tullbane J. (2012). Leadership in International Higher Education. In Deardor,
D.K., de Wit, H., Heyl, J.D. and Adams, T. (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of International Higher
Education
Knight, J. (2004). “Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales”.
Journal of Studies in International Education. Vol 8, No.1, pp5-31.
Lambert, S, Nolan, R, Peterson, N and Pierce, D. (2007) Critical Skills and Knowledge for
Senior Campus International Leaders, NAFSA.
Murray, D. and Goedegebuure, L. (2013). Leadership Needs in International Higher Education
in Australia and Europe. Australian Report from Phase Two of a Delphi Study. (Internal
report IEAA and the EAIE).
Quinn, R.R., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P., McGrath, M., St. Clair, L.S. (2010): Becoming a
Master Manager: A Competing Values Approach. 5th edition, Wiley.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbach, J. (1983). ‘A Spatial Model of Eectiveness Criteria: Toward a
Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis’, Management Science 29(3):
363–77.
Van Liempd, H-G. (2013). Leadership Needs in International Higher Education in Australia and
Europe. European Report from Phase Two of a Delphi Study. (Internal report IEAA and the
EAIE).

22
APPENDIX
QUINN’S LEADERSHIP ROLES*
In keeping with the emphasis of the Quinn model on behavioural complexity and leadership
as a portfolio of capabilities, the eight roles in the model are defined in terms of a set of skills
necessary to perform each role:
Innovator role
The innovator is creative and envisions, encourages and facilitates change.
Broker role
The broker is politically astute, acquires resources and maintains the unit’s external
legitimacy through the development, scanning and maintenance of a network of external
contacts.
Producer role
The producer is task-oriented, work focused, seeks closure and motivates those behaviours
that will result in the completion of the group’s task.
Director role
The director engages in goal setting and role clarification, sets objectives and establishes
clear expectations.
Coordinator role
The coordinator maintains structure, does the scheduling, coordinating and problem solving
and sees that rules and standards are met.
Monitor role
The monitor collects and distributes information, checks on performance and provides a
sense of continuity and stability.
Facilitator role
The facilitator encourages the expression of opinions, seeks consensus and negotiates
compromise.
Mentor role
The mentor is aware of individual needs, listens actively, is fair, supports legitimate requests
and attempts to facilitate the development of individuals.
* Daniel R. Denison, Robert Hooijberg, Robert E. Quinn: Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral
Complexity in Managerial Leadership, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 5 (Sep–Oct, 1995).
This study was undertaken by the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) and the European
Association for International Education (EAIE) in collaboration with the LH Martin Institute (The University of
Melbourne) and TiasNimbas Business School (Tilburg University, the Netherlands). For more information regarding
this study or for permission to reproduce, please contact admin@ieaa.org.au or info@eaie.org.