Page 60 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics

THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES: THEORY AND PRACTICE, V.73, # 1, 2016, pp. 52-63

strategic responses, and adjust organizational structure appropriately‖ (Hannah &
Freeman, 1977, p. 930). This argument is completely relevant in the case of Penn State.
Penn State has decided to adapt these fundamental changes in entire higher
education environment by specifying the Global Penn State idea as its ultimate
destination in UOGP‘s Strategic Plan for 2014-2019 (Global Penn State, 2013).
Penn State‘s Vice Provost for Global Programs Dr. Adewumi believes that their
three-sided approach of Go, Come, and Partner [Go: Expand and diversify our
Study Abroad offerings; Come: Increase and diversify international students and
scholars; Partner: Build transformational partnerships around the world] provides an
efficient mechanism to transform Penn State into a truly global university. It requires
the integration of global perspectives into Penn State‘s academic programs (research
and education) at the fundamental level, and faculty engagement is considered to be
the key factor in this process. Currently, Penn State is well positioned to collaborate
with its strategic partners around the world in addressing some of the major global
challenges (Global Penn State, 2013).
I believe that in Penn State‘s case the structural inertia is not too high. This
argument is based on factors like legal and fiscal barriers, as well as internal and
legitimacy constraints (Hannah & Freeman, 1977, p. 932). More precisely, there is no
legal and political barriers in terms of Penn State‘s efforts to get more international
students. Or, we do not see any fundamental internal constraints from faculty, students,
and campus community braking Penn State‘s study abroad strategy. Plus, Penn State‘s
internationalization-focused adaptation policy does not violate the legitimacy claims.
All these factors make Penn State to look for the adaptation of the internationalization
environment. However, it is obvious that collective rationality or general equilibria
(Hannah & Freeman, 1977, p. 932) generates structural inertia for Penn State. It can be
explained that the common strategy on getting more international partnerships is not
efficient on the same level for the College of Engineering (more globally focused) and
the College of Education (more nationally focused). Summarizing, external pressures
towards inertia (Hannah & Freeman, 1977, p. 932) played an important role in Penn
State‘s adaptation to the mentioned environment.
Of course, the adaptation process is centrally managed by the UOGP.
Currently, UOGP is focusing on realization of the vision of making Penn State a
world leader in scholarship and international engagements. Achieving this goal will
make global engagement the standard operating practice of the university and a
staple ingredient in teaching, research, and service. According to UOGP‘s Strategic
Plan for 2014-2019, ―…the role of UOGP will simply become that of supporting the
academic units. When this happens, Penn State will have transformed itself into a
truly 21st Century Global Land-grant University‖ (Global Penn State, 2013). We

60