High Potentials: A CEO Perspective

Jeanine Hermans

Finding high potentials has been identified as one of the major challenges for society
and for higher education. But how does one find the talented individuals who will
design the future of society? Can and should universities cooperate or compete with
business and industry for these talents? Three CEOs reflect on this worldwide compe-
tition for talent, providing a stakeholder perspective that may help rethinking the role
of universities within the framework of the knowledge economy. Successful responses
to the need of maximizing intellectual potential should not so much focus on competi-
tion for high potentials but on the nurturing and growing of talent. As a result of the
changing needs of society, CEOs foresee major changes in the concept of the classical
university. Whether high potentials actually develop the lifestyle fitting to the new con-
cept of lifelong learning remains to be seen.

Keywords: higher education; talent; business perspective; internationalization

A “high potential,” isn’t that this tall blond guy, who works eighty hours
per week?
Trude Maas, CEO HAY Group

What are the challenges and opportunities for the internationalization of higher
education in the coming decade? How is internationalization expected to contribute
to the role and functioning of higher education and research in the context of the
development of society? Forms and policies on internationalization of higher edu-
cation have shown a clear change during the past decades. The general acceptance
in the early 1990s that the economy of any society in the future will be more depen-
dent on knowledge and innovation than on material production resulted in major
shifts in policies on higher education and research of national and supranational
bodies, such as the European Union (EU). This has had a clear influence on the
present-day agenda for higher education and research, with internationalization as
one of the main strategies focusing resources and maximizing results.

Author’s Note: For more information on futures methodology and the futures projects, see http://www
.oecd.org/edu/universityfutures.

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11 No. 3/4, Fall/Winter 2007 510-521
DOI:10.1177/1028315307304187
© 2007 Nuffic

510
Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015
 Hermans / CEO Perspective on High Potentials 511

Mobility of students and staff can be seen as the (relative) first focus points regard-
ing internationalization arising on the political agenda of national governments and
supranational bodies such as the European Union. Following mobility, a need devel-
oped for encouraging transparency and convergence of educational systems. The
Bologna Declaration of 1999 (European Commission, 2007) initiated and guided the
introduction of the two-tiered bachelor’s and master’s system in Europe, accompanied
by the introduction of the European credit transfer system and the diploma supplement.
The European development influenced internationalization of higher education world-
wide. Second, the concepts of quality and quality enhancement can be identified as key
issues of higher education strategy on internationalization. Increasing mobility and
exchange demanded stronger quality control through systems of quality assurance,
ensuring recognition of foreign degrees and study abroad. Third, today we may observe
employability in the EU and international market places as a main focus point of inter-
nationalization. Many higher education institutions around the globe now basically for-
mulate their mission in education as follows: “Educating young people to pursue
academic and professional careers in a rapidly internationalizing environment.”
These consecutive political foci opened up the relatively closed and internally
oriented higher education institutions to society. International cooperation among
higher education institutions and closer contact and cooperation among higher edu-
cation, industry, and the corporate world have become more rule than exception and
certainly are pointing the way forward for internationalization of higher education
in the future.
So what might be next on the political agenda for internationalization? Already
there has been a visible shift from employability to competition for talents. Talent-
scouting programs and growing attention for attracting and retaining high potentials
have arisen from the need to maximize the necessary intellectual capacity essential
to the knowledge economy. The student recruitment campaign of the Deutscher
Akademischer Austausch Dienst using the payoff “Hi! Potentials” is an example of
the trend to attract talented young people. The creation of the EU Erasmus Mundus
program is another example.
In this contribution, I would like to reflect on this competition for talent based on
three interviews with CEOs from business and industry. The three CEOs were invited
from a variety of areas covering the life sciences, the banking and investment world,
and human resources management. Two of the interviewees are male, and one is
female; one CEO is of Danish nationality, and two CEOs originate from the
Netherlands. All three hold close connections to higher education and are knowl-
edgeable and aware of the recent developments in higher education worldwide. The
interviews focused on the following questions. How do the CEOs define the profile
of a high potential? How do they perceive the functioning of higher education
institutions with respect to scouting talent and maximizing the potential of these tal-
ented young people, and what would they change if they themselves were university

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

512 Journal of Studies in International Education Fall/Winter 2007

presidents today? In which ways do they envisage the cooperation and competition
among business, industry, and higher education in general and more specifically with
respect to finding and stimulating high potentials? The insights and comments gained
from the three interviews provide a stakeholder perspective for policy makers in
higher education when rethinking the role of universities and the functioning of inter-
nationalization in higher education within the framework of the knowledge economy.
The first part of this article summarizes the insights and comments of the three
CEOs. The second part of this contribution reflects on the scenario for the univer-
sity of the future, as described by the CEOs, and the lifestyle of high potentials that
is envisioned to develop.

PART 1: INSIGHTS AND COMMENTS OF THE CEO S

Defining the Profile of a “High Potential”

For all three interviewees, it is absolutely clear that the high potential is not nec-
essarily the one who can do the math. To be competitive in the labor market, a grad-
uate needs to have substantial added value on top of being very good in his or her
field. Five aspects were mentioned:

1. The ability to approach issues and problems from multidisciplinary perspectives.

2. Creativity—being able to think outside the box, endurance, “and above all the guts
to act” (Lars Kolind, former CEO, Oticon).
3. Awareness of customer needs and being able to translate this knowledge into inno-
vation and service; high customer empathy.
4. The ability to make independent value judgments relating to social and ethical respon-
sibility of programs, products, and companies in relation to society as a whole.
5. The ability to function in a complex organization: cooperate in diverse and interna-
tional teams, handle power issues and resistance to change, manage (personal) disap-
pointments, and practice self-management and discipline.

The picture that was consistently painted during the interview series is one in
which this combination, of being very good at a profession with a firm dose of emo-
tional intelligence and stamina, dominated. A high potential is perceived as a person
who can make connections, who has personality and leadership that inspire and moti-
vate other people to function better. In the view of the CEOs, this high potential is
not just the narrow professional research talent—a view the universities tend to take.
On average, neither universities nor businesses or industries so far are perceived
to have been very successful in scouting talents in the early phase of their devel-
opment. Somebody who is very good at one thing is discovered relatively easy: a
super pro! However, recognizing high potentials as defined here still seems a mat-
ter of trial and error. “What you do is give opportunities to people” (all CEOs).

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

 Hermans / CEO Perspective on High Potentials 513

This difficulty of discovering talents at the university level might be related to a

predominantly one-sided orientation and mono-disciplinary character of education
programs. At the company level, moving up on the ladder is not being made easy by
internal application procedures. Assessments of job applicants often are biased, and
the bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of organizations hinders young people to
be creative and contribute to the innovation of the company. “As if we don’t know
our people; as if people from outside always are better” (John Neervens, CEO, ABP).
Considering the fact that it is so difficult to forecast who will turn out to be a tal-
ent, why should we solely focus on scouting “high potentials”? A different approach
to scouting talent, namely, stimulating all young people to perform their best, might
prove much more successful. Focusing and stimulating not only the top students but
middle groups as well will lead to an enormous gain of intellectual potential and
heighten the chance that hidden talent will be uncovered. In the opinion of the CEOs,
universities bear responsibility for growing talents by laying a thorough foundation
consisting of multidisciplinary knowledge and a broad variety of skills. The actual
selection process of talents will take place in the “real world,” where emotional intel-
ligence and the combination of the earlier-mentioned five aspects are the more
important factors determining success. Developing authority and leadership is what
people usually learn after graduation.

Enhancing the Development of Talent

Talents can only flourish within an environment that allows a certain amount of
freedom and some room for mistakes. To attract and develop young high potentials,
the CEOs suggested that universities set up programs of personal mentoring and
advising. Advisors or mentors, who understand the background and interests of
these students, may help them define a personal study program and guide their
progress. Stimulating talent asks for an individual, tailor-made approach that leaves
room for a variety of talents to develop. Students could be assessed, for instance,
during the last phase of their bachelor’s program from a multidisciplinary perspec-
tive, not through forms and papers but in dialogue: How have you developed during
the past years? “I would say one should not conclude such an evaluation too quickly.
Leave room for people to develop” (John Neervens, CEO, ABP). Such a personal
development program could become even more effective by combining academic
training with real-life international and on-the-job exposure.
Studying abroad and internationally oriented studies are mentioned as essential
and basic requirements for enhancing talent. Study programs need to be interna-
tionally oriented and prepare students for the global market place. “We have to get
rid of the oyster attitude and have students broaden their perspective” (Trude Maas,
CEO Hay Group). Students need to meet more successful and cosmopolitan teach-
ers. More interaction and cooperation between universities and companies is needed

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

514 Journal of Studies in International Education Fall/Winter 2007

as well. Companies do need people who can work from a variety of perspectives. It
is this infusion of different perspectives that leads to innovation. Bringing people
together from different scientific and business areas and different cultures chal-
lenges students to broaden their outlook.
The CEOs see a responsibility for companies to stimulate and enhance talent
as well. Diversity in the workforce is especially needed. However, one can observe
that the labor market is not internationalizing as quickly as is the capital market.
Companies’ current traditional organizational structures and nationally oriented pro-
fessional qualification frameworks also have to be adapted to allow for diversifica-
tion and for different kinds of talents to develop.
In addition, larger companies should grow their top talents in smaller subsidiary,
start-up companies where they can experiment and try out new things and where
there is room for innovation without a bureaucracy meddling. This freedom is
explicitly seen within the framework of the company, its mission, its vision, and its
priorities that have been set. All three CEOS stress that freedom to experiment and
academic freedom should not be confused with free rides on hobby horses.

Implications for the Focus and Functioning of Universities

The profile of a high potential and the conditions that enhance talent reflect the
demands of society on higher education for the 21 century. All three CEOs have
clear ideas on what they would change in the functioning of higher education insti-
tutions to better prepare talents and to make the institutions fit for their new role in
a global society. Four major points came out of the discussion:

• Changes in mind-set and focus within the organization

• Making clear what that specific university stands for
• A strategic focus on lifelong learning
• Leadership

First of all, each CEO indicated the importance of changing the mind-set and
focus within an organization. People in the institution need to come out of their
own private kingdoms. Staff need to engage and commit themselves to the uni-
versity’s overall goals and ambitions, contributing to an organization with a multi-
disciplinary orientation and seeking out cooperation with internal and external
partners and stakeholders.
In addition, more than happens now, universities should reposition themselves as
being more directly in service of society and define their mission and goals in the
context of their environment. Universities are part of their local environment and
need to more strongly develop awareness and sensitivity toward society’s needs
and to respond to these needs. To achieve this, CEOs suggested abolishing formal

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

 Hermans / CEO Perspective on High Potentials 515

structures, either disciplinary or hierarchical, and forcing people to work more in

projects around research themes or educational programs from a variety of perspec-
tives. The fight against bureaucracy and “ego” enterprises is clearly number one on
the priority list of change.
Today’s society puts clear demands on the universities. The crucial point is the
transfer of knowledge into innovation (valorization). What we actually see today
is an overproduction of just knowledge. A lot of research articles consist to a large
extent of reproduction of what other people have said before and offer only a few
new insights. Instead, research should focus on the creation of applications and
transformation of knowledge—maybe by combining knowledge—into solutions.
To better realize valorization, feedback needs to be given to the universities on
their priorities regarding research themes and topics. If research funding becomes
more competitive, it will bring the universities’ priorities in line with society’s
needs and at the same time elicit cooperation with business and industry. This sets
the basis for a multidisciplinary orientation in the university and creates opportu-
nities to infuse different perspectives from different stakeholders in education and
research.
Second, the CEOs said that universities should make their profile more clear. And
this is not meant as a marketing and communication exercise. Today, universities
more or less all do the same: education, research, and knowledge transfer. How
many universities are there in the world? Most of them work in a rather isolated
fashion, possibly leading to situations where people are working on the same thing
without knowing it and without benefiting from each other’s ideas and results. This
is considered a waste of resources and opportunities. It is important to focus and bet-
ter link the institution to the society in which it is located and in which it functions.
Opening up to the local society is essential for creating differentiation in the mis-
sions, ambitions, and operations of the university. Contacts with the outside world
are essential for the implicated internal process of change. These contacts create
awareness and understanding of the needs of the local community and enhance the
relevance of the university to the local community. Differentiation in profile of insti-
tutions creates the need to cooperate nationally and internationally in selective net-
works, which may represent universities from all parts of the world. These networks
provide the opportunity for universities to share knowledge in an early stage to keep
up continuous communication about priorities in the various areas of research and
education, about the relevance of these areas, and about the results each is getting.
“Networking is important to enhance efficacy and efficiency of universities” (Lars
Kolind, former CEO, Oticon). Within these networks, a division of labor in research
and education and exchange of staff and students could be discussed, providing
excellent breeding grounds for talented students. International recruitment of stu-
dents could be jointly taken up within the network.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

516 Journal of Studies in International Education Fall/Winter 2007

The third major change the CEOs suggest is a strong focus on lifelong learning.
Few programs are offered after 5 years of academic training. So far, there is little
room between the bachelor’s and the master’s phase for students to work or take up
other challenges. In the continental European university tradition, the majority of the
universities are not organized in ways that allow students the flexibility in deciding
when during their professional career they want to study. Flexibility in program offer-
ings is needed even more. A growing number of talented graduates, who have to keep
pace with the quickly changing labor market, are demanding short and intensive
postgraduate programs supporting this greater job mobility. Providing funding for
postgraduate education is seen as an effective means of binding talented people to a
company. A focus on lifelong learning necessitates a different and much more open
attitude in the university to credit transfer and the recognition of competencies
acquired elsewhere. This is expected to have major implications for the organiza-
tion and management of the university, for methods of examination and quality
assurance systems. The latter certainly will have implications for cooperation among
institutions of higher learning—how to describe and assess competencies and final
requirements.
The fourth major theme implies a change in role and power of university leader-
ship. To successfully focus and profile an institution, clear leadership is necessary.
The “new style” of university president carefully listens to the people in the organi-
zation and builds consensus. The new leadership invests in the process of change
with patience and trust and formulates and communicates a clear vision and direc-
tion, inviting people to make a clear choice for the new direction of the university
or otherwise leave.

Cooperation Among Universities, Business, and Industry

“Education in my view is definitively the priority of universities. Research is a way

to develop better Education and to guarantee an influx of educated researchers into
industry. Curiosity-driven research would come third on my list of priorities.” (Lars
Kolind, former CEO, Oticon)

In certain areas of research, a merging of universities with business and industry

is foreseen. Especially in areas that might lead to new products and services and in
areas where there is a need for applied research and where business or industry are
in continuous need of new knowledge to stay competitive. Society needs knowledge
that works and produces results that are commercially interesting. To give an exam-
ple, ABP, the world’s second largest pension fund, needs financial knowledge that it
can use, such as mathematical models that help predict the financial implications of
an aging society. Connections and cooperation among universities, businesses, and

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

 Hermans / CEO Perspective on High Potentials 517

industries are already observed in many instances, and this often leads to new
products and innovation. To ensure independence of research, a clear division of
roles and responsibilities is perceived necessary. The CEOs were collectively of the
opinion that the selection of priorities in the research areas should be jointly decided
with business and industry. On the other hand, the way in which research is con-
ducted is the decision of the researcher or the research group, even when funded by
business or industry. In some research areas, cooperation with business or industry
is undesirable. For instance, research into cost efficiency or comparing effectiveness
of various medical treatments can best be done completely independently, funded by
the government.
Although in the area of research, intensified cooperation among universities,
businesses, and industries is a favorable development, in the eyes of the CEOs the
main responsibility for education and the development of talent lies with the uni-
versities. The involvement of business and industry is less clear in education. Setting
goals, maintaining and enhancing the quality of education, assessing learning, and
monitoring progress in students are said to be mainly the responsibility of the uni-
versity. Of course, there are close connections with business and industry here as
well. They provide the overall context and relevance for education and should feed
into educational programs from their perspective. Universities may have the main
responsibility for education, but they are not in splendid isolation. Curricula need to
be developed in interaction with business and industry, especially programs for life-
long learning and postexperience education. Accreditation should focus not only on
quality but also on relevance to society. Career paths of alumni should be part of the
accreditation. Business and industry might be more involved in informing and
developing information for future students.
With respect to hand over from universities to companies, CEOs indicated they
expect universities to deliver qualified individuals who are well prepared for the
future. They expect universities to develop curricula that broaden the students’ per-
spectives. In the competition for talents between businesses and universities, the lat-
ter cannot compete through salaries. But universities may become competitive to
businesses and industries by offering a challenging intellectual environment that
creates ample possibilities for personal and professional development. Universities
can offer research and other (private) facilities and give individuals the freedom to
develop at their own speed. Performance criteria should be more flexible and per-
sonalized and less rigidly focused on quantity. Appreciation for progress and results,
diversity in assignments, opportunities to work at various places, and clear career
perspectives all add to the competitiveness of universities in retaining talents over
businesses or industries.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

518 Journal of Studies in International Education Fall/Winter 2007

PART 2: REFLECTION

A Challenge for Universities

First of all, the comments of the CEOs can be seen as a clear invitation for closer
cooperation among higher education, business, and industry. Closer cooperation is
expected to enhance and accelerate the valorization of knowledge into new prod-
ucts and services. By focusing and linking research to the broader local environ-
ment, the immediate relevance and added value of higher education to society
become more evident. Second, although, according to the CEOs, universities in the
areas of research should function more as companies, in education and preparing
graduates for the future more flexibility in program offerings and space to experi-
ment was advocated. Talents need time to develop. Both higher education and the
corporate world need to broaden their sometimes biased concepts of talents and
focus more on developing and stimulating larger groups of people than on compet-
ing for high potentials. Third, an open, internationally networked, and thematically
and locally focused institution, with little hierarchy and bureaucracy, is expected to
better serve this new function of the university. The CEOs see a clear division of
labor among higher education, business, and industry concerning the development
of talents, with higher education the primary responsible actor. In the area of
research, borders among the various organizations are expected to become more
blurred. According the CEOs, the agenda for internationalization of higher educa-
tion institutions will be dominated by the division of labor in research among insti-
tutions and the exchange of students and staff. Fourth, talented people will more
often follow the path of lifelong learning, leading to more mobility between higher
education and professional careers. As larger companies serve a global market,
workers (staff) are expected to develop a lifestyle of interchanging work with peri-
ods of learning and of being internationally mobile, that is, working or studying at
different places in the world in the course of their careers. Selection takes place in
this real world.
Evaluated from a short-term perspective, the scenario constructed by the three
CEOs contains many interesting and attractive elements that are relevant for iden-
tifying new roles and new ways of functioning of higher education. The scenario
raises two key questions that deserve more attention. First, what is the future for
the classical university? Second, will high potentials actually develop the lifestyle
that is envisioned by the CEOs?
In the CEO scenario, the characteristics and organization of a higher education
institution will fundamentally change. The current strong connection between edu-
cation and research in higher education institutions—which is at the heart of true
academic formation—will loosen, potentially leading to the end of the classical
university as we know it today. Scientific positions will specialize into a researcher
profile and a teacher profile. In selected scientific fields, where valorization seems

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

 Hermans / CEO Perspective on High Potentials 519

most promising, funding will directly come from business and industry. In other
fields, funding will mostly be derived from tuition fees and government funding.
Research will become more short-term oriented, competitive, and market driven;
education will develop into flexible, on-demand types of offerings, allowing stu-
dents time to reflect and experiment. The humanities and social sciences will gain
in importance in postgraduate education, supporting a broader development of
talented people beyond the current mono-disciplinary-oriented training. The cohe-
sion and landscape within institutions will accordingly change. Such business- and
customer-driven input might prove difficult to handle in one large, comprehensive
institution that is organized in a mono-disciplinary manner along the lines of clas-
sical faculties. This will prove to be even more difficult if the university is mostly
publicly funded.
Seen from the long-term perspective, one might wonder what the implications are
for curiosity-driven research and research in the humanities and social sciences.
Traditionalists strongly warn against scenarios like the one described above, arguing
that the end of the classical university will lead to a social desert and in the long run
destroy the innovative capacity of a society. However, to what extent are these argu-
ments self-created myths to prevent change and to keep freedom to act? The rhetoric
of this debate is predictable and obvious. Any revolution shows that species (organi-
zations) that do not have the adaptability to develop according to changes in the envi-
ronment will become extinct. It is more the question of “how and in which direction
to change” than “if to change at all.” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) scenarios (www.oecd.org) on the future of higher educa-
tion, as presented at the OECD ministerial meeting in June 2006, describe the rele-
vant trends, key points, and questions. The scenario of the three CEOs is closely
linked to the two OECD scenarios for the future of universities of “open networking”
and “serving the local community.” The probable outcome is that there will not be
one university of the future because the different scenarios are all viable, leading to
a differentiated landscape of universities with only a limited number of institutions
combining research and education. Each higher education institution will have to
decide which position it wants to take in this differentiated landscape.
The second interesting point is the issue of if young people will develop the
lifestyle of high mobility, professionally and by location, described by the CEOs.
There has been a parallel development that may shed some light on this question. At
the onset of the Internet, the huge explosion of availability of information was
expected to open up new communication channels toward young people and easy,
direct access. The response of young people, in fact, has turned out to be completely
different. They now communicate in closed communities of peer groups, allowing
in only those they know and trust. Young people decide what information they want,
when they want it, and by which medium. No other generation than this one has
been more difficult to reach.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

520 Journal of Studies in International Education Fall/Winter 2007

Mobility figures in higher education in the area of international exchange are still
less than 1% of the total number of students in tertiary education, even after almost
two decades of Socrates Erasmus action (European Commission, 2006). Mobility
among universities after the bachelor’s phase and reciprocal mobility between labor
market and education, as advocated in programs on lifelong learning, so far do not
seem to become major trends. Of course, on the latter two issues, data still are hap-
hazard, as these just now are starting to be accumulated. Partly, these low mobility
rates might be related to a lack of information on alternative study paths and oppor-
tunities. Some first and limited research data collected at Maastricht University
(2006) in June 2006, however, indicate that opportunities for mobility are counter-
acted by needs to identify and connect with one’s own social environment. Young
people, not surprisingly, express the need to settle down and create a life beyond a
professional career. In this limited study, it was shown that if receiving a master’s at
another university involved moving, students were very reluctant to do so. It is too
early to tell yet. However, the lifestyle that is implicitly advocated by the CEOs and
by the parallel OECD scenarios seems to be in conflict with how many young people
envision their own future. Such a lifestyle—if widely adopted—will have a huge
impact on the development of social order and social cohesion in a society, leading
to a new era in which the profile of the high potential will be redefined into “this
(young) single individual who is willing to work and study any time, any place.”
In response to the need for maximizing intellectual potential, universities in
cooperation with business and industry should not only focus on competition for
talents but also redefine and broaden the concept of what a high potential actually
is and how talents that now go undiscovered can be developed instead of found.
Attention will have to be paid to creating conditions that allow for socially mean-
ingful, embedded, and stable lives, “any time and place.” This challenge implies
not only internationalizing higher education but our societies at large as well.
I would like to thank the three CEOs for sharing their experience and wisdom.

REFERENCES
European Commission. (2006). Erasmus statistics. Retrieved October 2006 from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html
European Commission. (2007). The Bologna process: Towards the European
higher education area. Retrieved October 2006 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/
policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html
Maastricht University. (2006, August). Positioning research report. Maastricht, the
Netherlands: Positioning Group BV.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015

 Hermans / CEO Perspective on High Potentials 521

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

Jeanine Hermans is director of communication and spokesperson of the Executive

Board at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. Until 1997, she worked as dean for
international students at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. After a period as
secretary general of UNICA, she returned in 2000 to the Netherlands to take up the
position of head educational marketing at Wageningen. Over the years, she has
presented at numerous conferences and seminars worldwide. She is coauthor of the
EAIE occasional paper “Culture Matters” (2004) and contributed a chapter titled “The
X-Factor, Internationalisation With a Small ‘c’” in the EAIE/EAIR book Europe’s
Response to Globalization (2005).

Trude Maas-de Brouwer is president of the Hay Vision Society, member of the
Senate of the Dutch Parliament, and member of the board of trustees of ABN AMRO,
Schiphol, Philips, Twynstra Gudde, Arbo Unie, and NUFFIC. Previously, she func-
tioned as vice president of CITO and was a member of the board of directors of BSO
and Origin Nederland.

Lars Kolind serves as a nonexecutive board member or chairman of a number of cor-

porations, including world-leading pump manufacturer Grundfos, Unimerco Group,
Zealand Pharma, Kristeligt Dagblad, and BankInvest Ventures. He is an adjunct profes-
sor of leadership at the Aarhus School of Business. Previously, he served as director at
Denmark’s National Research Laboratory and became CEO of Radiometer A/S, a world
leader in scientific instrumentation.

John Neervens served as CEO of the ABP, the world’s second largest pension fund.
He was president of the board of trustees of Hogeschool Zuyd and DELA and mem-
ber of the board of trustees of, among others, Loyalis NV, the Dutch Railways, and
Maastricht University. Previously, he functioned as the CEO of the FSB group.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 11, 2015