Developing Intercultural Competence Through Cross-Cultural Training: A Comparison of Different Training Methods and Their Effect on Intercultural Competence of Managers
Manon A.I. van der Stam University of Amsterdam
Date: 29-06-2016 Supervisor: P. Vromans
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Manon van der Stam, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of different CCT (cross-cultural training) methods on intercultural competence of managers in the multicultural business environment. A combination between a literature review and semi-structured interviews has been used to investigate this. Four male, Dutch managers between 50-60 years old were interviewed in order to gain in-depth information about their experiences and perceptions on the topic. Three propositions have been derived from the literature review, proposing that experiential CCT methods are more effective than lecture methods, culture-general content of CCT is more useful than culture specific and finally, that culture-general CCT contributes to the intercultural sensitivity of managers. None of these could be entirely confirmed nor rejected by the data. Nevertheless, combining the results from the literature review with those from the interviews, it can be assumed that cross-cultural training should focus on the general abilities of managers to be able to identify, analyse, and reflect on difficulties encountered in cultural business relationships. In doing so, managers will become able to handle cross-cultural situations more effectively and efficiently.
Table of Contents
Introduction 5
Literature Review and Propositions 8
Method 23
Results 26
Discussion and Limitations 37
Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research 42
References 44
Introduction
Internationalization and globalization are changing the world. Especially when it comes to transportation and communication technology it feels like the world is getting smaller each day. This is also reflected in the international business environment, which is becoming more and more complex as internationalization and globalization advance. Because of globalization, people have become more mobile than ever and people from different cultures are required to communicate, and work together in a productive and harmonious way. No longer do managers have to deal with people from a single culture, nowadays they are required to be able to adapt to multiple different cultures (Earley & Peterson, 2004). The workplace becomes more culturally diverse (Landis & Brislin, 1983), but this makes the business environment very complex because people from different cultures have different values, beliefs, worldviews, backgrounds and habits (Liu, 2014).
Therefore it is essential to train managers to become more interculturally competent in order to work effectively in their complex and diverse business environment. Intercultural adjustment is important for managers to be able to successfully execute cross-cultural assignments (Kealey as cited in Rehg, Gundlach & Grigiorian, 2011). Earley and Ang (2003) add to this that a key aspect of intercultural adjustment is the ability to use skills different from those used in the culture of one’s home country. Therefore, the development of intercultural competence, which refers to an individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills and personal attributes in order to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006), is essential to managers in the multicultural business environment. As Liu (2014, p.7) articulated: ‘’intercultural competence is a survival skill in the 21st century’’.
To help managers in developing intercultural competence, cross-cultural training can be provided to them. This is a very important and relevant topic, because cross-cultural
assignments often fail (Johnson et al., 2006). According to the literature, this is due to the inability of managers to adapt to other cultures (Johnson et al., 2006). The failure of overseas assignments creates a substantial financial loss for organisations (Littrell & Salas, 2005). As Bhawuk stated: “in the view of the rapid growth in the international business and the growing acceptance of cross-cultural training programs, the research focus needs to shift to a search for the most effective or the optimum method of training people for international assignments” (1998, pp. 630-631).
Moreover, cross-cultural training enables managers to learn content and skills that will enhance their ability to work together effectively within a multicultural environment (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). This is very relevant, because the international business environment is evolving continuously along with the increasing diversity of cultural backgrounds (Littrell & Salas, 2005). Thus, in order for managers to learn how to deal with and adapt to different cultural environments, they need to receive education (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Doing so can push back the failure of cross-cultural assignments, and increase the effectiveness of cross-cultural collaborations.
However, cross-cultural training has been focused a lot on country-specific knowledge rather than the general ability of managers to adapt to multiple cultures, which is, according to Earley and Peterson (2004), not the most effective way of training. They argue that, since managers need to work with people from several different cultures in short periods of time, cultural training should be more focused on intercultural competences in general than on culture-specific knowledge, which means that they focus on knowledge about one specific country or culture, whereas culture-general knowledge is more about culture in general. Their suggestion is to use cross-cultural training to enhance managers’ cultural intelligence in order for them to become able to adjust to multiple different cultures. However, Blasco, Feldt and Jakobsen (2012) have questioned this view on cultural intelligence. They argue that the
concept of cultural intelligence as described by many authors (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Thomas et al., 2008) implies that if a manager is culturally intelligent, he or she is able to prevent him or herself from encountering misunderstandings and conflicts when working with people from other cultures and it is stressed that metacognition is the most important aspect of cultural intelligence. In this view, learning is perceived as the ‘cultural intelligence’ to avoid misunderstandings or conflicts and to be able to adjust behaviour to the ways appropriate in any culture.
According to Blasco et al. (2012), however, the experience of such misunderstandings and conflicts is vital to the development of metacognitive intelligence. In other words, it is not possible for managers to become a ‘cultural chameleon’ like Earley and Peterson (2004) describe, because in order to learn, managers need to be able to recognise cultural differences, and analyse the misunderstandings or conflicts arising from them (Mezirow, 1997; Blasco et al., 2012). This idea is endorsed by Bennett (2004), through the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, in which intercultural sensitivity refers to the extent to which an individual is sensitive to cultural differences and the idea behind it is that people can go through different stages when it comes to their cultural worldview. The more sensitive they become to cultural differences, the more they will move towards an ethnorelative stage at the DMIS, which means that they will more and more acknowledge that their culture is only one of many different ways to perceive the world and thus they will become more able to recognise cultural differences (Bennett, 2004).
Based on the literature reviewed, this study aims to contribute to the literature by providing a better insight in the cross-cultural training methods used to develop managers’ intercultural competence in order to make them able to work more effectively and efficiently across cultures. In order to study this research question, a literature review has been done to provide a theoretical basis. The literature reviewed mainly comes from business journals,
mostly journals regarding organizational psychology or human resource practices. Additionally, some relevant literature reviewed stems from psychology journals or other business journals. In the literature review the concepts and models of intercultural competence, cross-cultural training and other core principles will be analysed, in order to create a solid base of knowledge. Furthermore, propositions have been derived from the literature review. In addition to the literature review, an empirical study has been done through semi-structured interviews. Highly educated managers working in the international business environment have been interviewed to provide in-depth information about the research topic. Finally, the results from the interviews were combined with the outcomes from the literature, in order to draw conclusions about the research topic.
Next is the literature review, in which the concepts of intercultural competence and cross-cultural training are explained. After this, a critical discussion of the literature with the corresponding propositions follows. Then, the results from the interviews are discussed, followed by a discussion of those results and those from the literature review and to conclude, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Literature Review and Propositions
In the literature review, the basic concepts of the study are described, which are intercultural competence and cross-cultural training. Intercultural competence and its relevance are discussed and the facets it consists of are defined. Additionally, the most relevant models to intercultural competence will be discussed. Next, cross-cultural training and its relevance will be covered, together with an assessment of cross-cultural training based on two dimensions. Finally, the influence of cross-cultural training on intercultural competence is studied. In doing so, the different models of intercultural competence as well as the different methods to cross-cultural training are analysed.
Intercultural Competence
International business firms seem to fail too often, which is, according to Johnson et al. (2006), a consequence of the inability of managers to understand the cultures they come across in their work and to interact with the people from these cultures effectively rather than a consequence of the technical abilities in their job. Therefore, intercultural competence is necessary in the global workplace because managers need to collaborate and coordinate more and more across different cultures, in which a culture can be defined as the code or creation of meaning that lies behind a group of human beings’ interpretation of life (Gertsen, 1990; Earley & Peterson, 2004). Managers’ capacities to perceive, interpret and act in ways that achieve organizational goals are increasingly being stretched by the demands of an international workplace, which require them to adapt to different cultural situations quickly (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens & Oddou, 2010). However, academic literature on the topic of intercultural competence is not solidary when it comes to the specific content of intercultural competence. This can be caused by a differing definition of intercultural competence across managers (Matveev & Milter, 2004).
Because managers often fail in being successful in their international business environment, it is important to clearly define what intercultural competence is and how organizations can prepare their managers to work effectively across cultures. A broadly used definition of intercultural competence states that it is an individual’s ability to function effectively across cultures (Gertsen, 1990; Deardorff, 2006; Lustig & Koester, 2006; Perry & Southwell, 2011). Another definition, however, is more applicable to the present study and therefore in this study, intercultural competence will be defined as an individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills and personal attributes in order to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad (Johnson et al., 2006).
Many theories about intercultural competence have been written, studied, and re-written. In many of these studies, the dimensions of intercultural competence are described, from which four general dimensions can be derived. According to many authors, intercultural competence consists of a knowledge dimension, attitude dimension, skills dimension and behaviour dimension (Lustig & Koester, 2006; Hiller & Woznick, 2009; Bennett, 2009; Deardorff, 2006). Bird et al. (2010) bring those dimensions down to the following three dimensions: namely the perception management dimension, the relationship management dimension and the self-management dimension. .
Perception management is about the way in which people cognitively approach cultural differences, including their attitude towards other cultures, in other words, their worldview. Relationship management is the others-oriented dimension, and focuses on the ways in which an individual treats and looks at other people in general. Self-management is about people’s strength of identity and their ability to effectively manage their emotions and stress (Bird et al., 2010). In self-management, self-efficacy is an important factor, referring to the degree to which an individual believes he or she has the ability to succeed in new tasks and settings (Bandura, 1997).
According to Leung, Ang and Tan (2014), intercultural competence consists of three domains. These domains are intercultural traits, so the personal traits of the managers in dealing with other cultures, intercultural attitudes and worldviews, which refers to the way in which managers perceive their culture relative to other cultures (ethnocentrism versus ethnorelativism) and intercultural capabilities. Based on those dimensions, many models to intercultural competence have been designed. The goal of such models is to provide organizations and managers with an understanding of intercultural behaviour (Leung et al., 2014) and a concise overview of how to measure or develop intercultural competences (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Bird et al., 2010). The dimensions show which factors are
important in developing intercultural competence, which influences the focus of cross-cultural training. For example, training should not only provide managers with factual knowledge about a specific culture or culture in general, but should also look at the trainees themselves, which is captured in the self-management dimension of intercultural competence.
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. An interesting model for intercultural competence is the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The model was developed by Bennett (2004) to explain why some people seem to adjust easier to different cultures, while others seem to be unable to communicate across cultural boundaries. It consists of six worldviews based on how people perceive their own culture relative to other cultures. Moving through those worldviews, people’s perception moves from ethnocentric, where they perceive their own culture as central to reality, to ethnorelative, where people perceive their own culture as one of many ways to see the world (Bennett, 2004).
The model is based on the concept of intercultural sensitivity, which refers to the extent to which an individual is sensitive to cultural differences (Bennett, 2004). Based on the cognitive complexity, or in other words, the differentiation of categories in which an individual can organize their perceptions of others cultures, people can be said to be more or less interculturally sensitive. So, the more complex an individual’s categorization of cultural differences is, the more interculturally sensitive their perception becomes (Bennett, 2004).
Additionally, according to Hawes and Kealey (1981), the people that are most aware of the personal and subjective nature of their own values and perceptions are more affected by the presence of people with substantially different and maybe conflicting worldviews. In other words, they are more interculturally sensitive. The study conducted by Hawes and Kealey (1981) has shown that the people that are most affected by cultural differences are more effective in dealing with them. This shows that cultural (self-)awareness is very important,
because in order to be able to learn from cultural differences, people need to be aware of the fact that those differences exist (Bennett, 2004). Self-awareness is particularly important for managers because only if they are aware of their current behaviour, they can adjust this if it is not correct or appropriate in particular intercultural situations (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000; Bennett, 2004).
The six stages of the DMIS are Denial, Defense, Minimization, Acceptance, Adaption and Integration, with Denial being the most ethnocentric worldview, while Integration is the most ethnorelative (Bennett, 2004). When people are at the Denial stage, they are not interested in differences between cultures, and if someone is trying to confront them with cultural differences, they will deny that there are any. Moving to the Defense stage, people perceive their own culture to be the only possible one, and as the best way to live. People at this stage do see the differences between cultures, in contradiction to people at the Denial stage (Bennett, 2004). Consequence to this is that they are also more discriminating and perceive the other culture as a threat. A variation to this is the Reversal stage, which occurs when an individual adopts a culture different from their own culture, where the newly adopted one is being seen as better than the old one. It seems to be the opposite of Defense, however, people in Reversal do not perceive the other culture as a threat. The next stage is the Minimization stage, in which the own culture is perceived to be universal, which means that people in this stage expect that everyone is acting according to their cultural norms and values (Bennett, 2004).
Moving to the ethnorelative stages, the first one is Acceptance, in which people perceive their culture as just one of many different worldviews. Furthermore, in the Adaption stage, people expand their worldviews including relevant constructs from other cultural worldviews. In the last stage, which is the Integration stage, people become able to view the world through different worldviews (Bennett, 2004).
The DMIS is of critical importance when studying the development of intercultural competence, because it is about the way in which individuals perceive other cultures. As discussed before, perception management is one of the three dimensions of intercultural competence (Bird et al., 2010) and includes the perception of and attitude towards other cultures. When training managers with the aim of developing their intercultural competence, this attitude is essential. For example, if a manager is at the Denial stage and working with people from different cultures, he or she will act as if there are no differences between the two cultures. Chances are that this will not result in an effective cooperation, and therefore it is important to make this manager see the differences between cultures, and how to deal with them.
Cultural intelligence. Another model for intercultural competence is the cultural intelligence model. The term cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to a person’s capacity to adapt to new cultural settings based on multiple factors including metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural features (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004). By increasing the cultural intelligence of managers, they will become more interculturally competent.
Cultural intelligence consists of four dimensions, which are cognition, meta-cognition, motivation and behaviour. Cognitive CQ refers to knowledge of norms, practices and conventions in different cultures acquired from experience and education, so basically what an individual has learnt about a culture (Ang et al., 2007). Meta-cognitive CQ, however, goes a bit deeper and is about the level of conscious cultural awareness during cross-cultural interaction, in other words, thinking about thinking (Earley, 2002). Moreover, motivational CQ is about the capability of individuals to direct attention and energy toward learning and function in a different cultural situation, which means that an individual is willing to spend time and effort to learn about and get along with people from different cultures and includes
self-efficacy. Finally, behavioural CQ refers to the capability of individuals to behave appropriately when interacting with people from different cultures (Ang et al., 2007).
According to the literature, the meta-cognitive dimension of CQ is essential for cross-cultural learning, because only cognitive CQ, simply having the knowledge about cultures and the differences between them, is not enough (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Thomas et al., 2008). When adapting to a new culture, managers are required to link the facts together and form patterns in order to really understand what this culture is about (Earley, 2002). In other words, meta-cognitive CQ provides managers with a deeper understanding of the cultures they are dealing with. Therefore, many cultural training programs fail since they overemphasize the specific example at the expense of a more general learning principle (Earley & Peterson, 2004).
According to Brislin, Worthley and MacNab (2006), there are different meanings to cultural intelligence. It can refer to the behaviour that is considered intelligent from the point of view of people in a specific culture, but it can also refer to the traits and skills of people who adjust quickly, with minimal stress, when they interact extensively in cultures other than the ones where they are socialized. Those two definitions are related to each other, because if people want to be sensitive to other cultures, they can examine intelligence as it is defined and demonstrated in their cultures and can make adjustments in their own behaviours during their cross-cultural experiences. This relationship confirms the importance of two concepts discussed earlier, namely cultural (self-)awareness, and intercultural sensitivity. As described by Brislin et al. (2006), in order to be interculturally sensitive, people first have to be aware of cultural differences, which sometimes means that they need to develop their intercultural sensitivity and thus move on the DMIS scale. If people are to adjust their behaviour to the norms and values of another culture, they first need to be aware of the ways in which they behave in their own culture (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000; Bennett, 2004).
The definition of CQ thus depends on the context in which it is used (Brislin et al., 2006). Therefore, it is important to compare the definitions given by Brislin et al. (2006), with those stated by Earley (2002), Earley and Peterson (2004), Thomas et al. (2008) and Blasco et al. (2012). The article by Earley and Peterson (2004) proposed that if an individual is culturally intelligent, they will become what they call a ‘cultural chameleon’, which means that they can adjust easier to every single culture. However, Blasco et al. (2012) expressed their scepticism towards the concept of CQ as described by many of their predecessors (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Thomas et al., 2008). They argue that, although there might be something like cultural intelligence, the concept as described in the literature (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Thomas et al., 2008) suggests that culturally intelligent people are able to adjust different cultures without misunderstandings or conflicts due to cultural differences (Blasco et al., 2012). According to Thomas et al. (2008), educating managers to become culturally intelligent makes them able to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts and to provide the behaviour that is expected from them in a certain cultural situation. Moreover, those who support this function of CQ also acknowledge that the metacognitive aspect of CQ is the most important (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004).
However, metacognitive intelligence has to do with the perception of individuals, and therefore training should focus on how to shape those perceptions (Blasco et al., 2012). That is, learning is about people’s ability to analyse their own worldview that they have formed through their experiences with other cultures, and in doing so, analyse and reflect on the prejudices that their worldview and the worldviews of other bring about and how they influence their judgment of different cultures (Mezirow, 1997). This relates to the DMIS, which is about the development of one’s intercultural sensitivity, resulting in enhanced intercultural competence. In the early stages of the model, people’s intercultural sensitivity grows as they begin to recognize cultural differences. After this, it moves through different
stages based on the way in which they perceive those differences (Bennett, 2004). To conclude, the metacognitive aspect of cultural intelligence is about learning how to deal with cultural differences by analysing them and the perceptions resulting from them, such as misunderstandings and conflicts. Doing so enhances the intercultural sensitivity, which also means that the worldview of managers about cultural differences moves along the stages of the DMIS. Finally, managers can adjust their behaviour to different cultures because they have analysed the ways in which they behaved before, which might have resulted in misunderstandings or conflicts, and are able to adjust their behaviour in the future. This shows that cultural self-awareness is essential for individuals to learn how to adjust their behaviour, because if one is not aware of the ways in which they behaved before, they are unable to change it.
Cross-cultural Training
Cross-cultural training is the educative process that is designed to encourage intercultural learning through the development of cognitive, affective, and behavioural competencies needed for effective interactions across cultures (Morris & Robie, 2001). The overall purpose of cross-cultural training is to improve a manager’s performance and effectiveness in working together with other cultures, by providing the manager with the knowledge, skills, and the attitudes needed for intercultural adjustment, effective performance and interaction with people from other cultures (Littrell & Salas, 2005; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991; Brislin & Petersen, 1986). To do so, cross-cultural training provides managers with an understanding of different cultures, so that they can interact with and adjust to people from different cultures effectively (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991; Brislin & Petersen, 1986 in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000).
Through cross-cultural training, the interaction between managers from different cultures can be improved by reducing the amount of misunderstandings and the chance that they behave inappropriately (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Therefore, organisations should put their efforts in cross-cultural training in order to provide managers with the tools to understand and adjust to cultural differences and push back financial losses that result from failed international business assignments.
In the literature, different approaches to cross-cultural training are discussed. According to the literature, there are four different types of training, which can be differentiated through two dimensions: content and method (Gertsen, 1990; Puck, Kittler & Wright, 2008). Firstly, the content of a cross-cultural training method can be either culture-specific or culture-general (Gertsen, 1990; Puck, Kittler & Wright, 2008). Culture-culture-specific training provides participants with factual knowledge about a specific culture (Gertsen, 1990), such as its history, geography, religion, people, business, way of life, and so forth (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000).
Secondly, in culture-general training, on the other hand, participants are provided with a broad understanding of the meaning of culture (Gertsen, 1990). According to Brislin & Pedersen, culture-general training refers to “such topics as self-awareness and sensitivity training that allow one to learn about him or herself as preparation for interaction in any culture” (as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000, p. 178). Additionally, culture-general training provides the manager with general and attributional knowledge, which can enhance their metacognitive skills (Earley, 2002; Johnson et al., 2006).
Additionally, there are two different ways to approach cross-cultural training, which are the lecture method (Puck, Kittler & Wright, 2008; Gertsen, 1990; Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000) and the experiential method (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000; Gertsen, 1990; Waxin & Panaccio, 2005; Puck, Kittler & Wright, 2008). The lecture method,
also called the traditional or intellectual method, represents a lecture-like teaching style in which participants gain factual knowledge. When using this method, a trainer lectures to a group of trainees to provide them with certain knowledge, either about a specific culture, or culture in general (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). Through the experiential, also called experimental, method, participants are learning in an active way through the simulation of real life situations (Gertsen, 1990) and by intellectually, emotionally, and behaviourally reacting to those situations and evaluating those reactions (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983). Additionally, experiential learning methods result in managers becoming more sensitive to and able to respect the differences between their culture of original and the contact culture (Zakaria, 2000), which results in a movement on the DMIS scale developed by Bennett (2004). Based on these two dimensions, four basic types of cross-cultural training can be distinguished. These are intellectual culture-general training, intellectual culture-specific training, experiential culture-general training and experiential culture-specific training (Gertsen, 1990; Puck, Kittler & Wright, 2008).
Another aspect of cross-cultural training that has been brought forward in the literature is cultural self-awareness training. Zakaria (2008) proposes two slightly different types of cross-cultural training, which are also experiential training, but additionally cultural awareness training. This is a cognitive type of training in which managers’ interpersonal skills are enhanced, focusing on understanding other cultures in a way that is relevant to the individual in order to develop interactive skills that enhance their performance. A well-known technique to create cultural awareness is the ‘cultural assimilator’, through which managers develop their cognitive responses needed for better adjustment. This results in a better understanding of the social systems and values of other cultures and consequently a more positive attitude towards other cultures (Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992).
The Influence of CCT on Intercultural Competence
Many different models and theories about intercultural competence and cross-cultural training have been discussed, but how, if so, does cross-cultural training influence intercultural competence? According to the literature, cross-cultural training is an effective way to enhance intercultural competence (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Rizwan, Riaz, Saboor & Khan, 2011; Waxin & Panaccio, 2005). Black and Mendenhall (1990) found a positive effect of cross-cultural training on managers’ intercultural adjustment. In their review of 29 studies about the effect of CCT they found that CCT results in improvement of a number of factors. Firstly, CCT brings about an improvement of intercultural relationships, because managers from different cultures have more knowledge and skills to work and communicate with each other (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Secondly, CCT changes managers’ perception of other cultures (Black & Mendenhall, 1990), which influences their worldview and thereby enhances their intercultural sensitivity, resulting in a movement on the DMIS scale towards a more ethnorelative stage. This in turn can result in managers becoming more interculturally competent (Bennett, 2004). Finally, CCT brings about an improvement of managers’ overall job performance (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). These findings were supported by Deshpande and Viswesvaran (1992), who found that the effect of CCT on five relevant factors, namely self-development, perception, intercultural relationships, adjustment and job performance, were positive.
Furthermore, Waxin and Panaccio (2005) studied the effect of cross-cultural training on three types of intercultural adjustment and found that it enhances cultural adjustment. They found that CCT positively influences the adjustment of managers to other cultures in contrast to managers who have not received any training. Through cross-cultural training, the cognitive and behavioural dimensions of managers’ CQ are increased, which helps them to perform better across cultures (Rehg et al., 2011). In order for cross-cultural training to be
effective, it needs to be uniquely tailored, because not all managers learn in the same way. Additionally, in order to learn in new situations and cultures, metacognitive skills, as discussed before, play an essential role (Earley & Peterson, 2004).
So, cross-cultural training has been shown to positively affect the enhancement of intercultural competence and thus the cultural adjustment of managers, their perception of other cultures and their overall job performance. But many different training methods have been identified in the literature, with differing arguments on which method is the best. According to Waxin and Panaccio (2005), experiential cross-cultural training is the most effective type of training, especially focused on specific information about another culture. Harrison and Hopkins (as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000) also found the experiential training method to be more effective than the lecture method. This result has brought about the rise of experiential training methods (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000).
The experiential method is argued to be better than the lecture method for a number of reasons, all related to the fact that cross-cultural training through the lecture method is not representative for the real-life experiences that managers receiving such training are likely to encounter with other cultures (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). For example, the lecture method provides a passive rather than active type of training in which all information is readily available to the trainees, while in real life they need to collect information by themselves. Also the lecturer provides the problems that are being solved in lecture-style training, while in real life situations managers need to identify problems before they can assess them (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). Additionally, in this type of training, the trainees are expected to respond rationally and not let themselves be guided by their emotions. However, if one has to deal with an unknown culture, rationality will sometimes be difficult and emotions will influence responses (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). Finally, the orientation of the
lecture method is focused on studying material, producing reports and written communication, whereas in real life, a ‘people orientation’ is needed and communication will be verbal and nonverbal rather than written (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). The lecture method, however, is very popular because it is easy to execute and relatively inexpensive (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). From this, the first proposition can be derived:
Proposition I: experiential training methods are more effective for the development of intercultural competence of managers than are lecture-like training methods.
When studying the content of cross-cultural training methods, it appears that most training methods focus on culture-specific knowledge. According to Earley & Peterson (2004), this is not enough anymore. Nowadays, managers spend shorter periods in one country, and move from one country to the other. This makes culture-specific knowledge less relevant, because those managers need to be able to adjust quickly to different cultural situations. Littrell & Salas (2005) add to this that cross-cultural training should focus on attitudinal changes rather than the acquisition of information. Cross-cultural training should prepare managers to really understand the cultural differences and behave appropriately in new situations. This can be done, for example, by focusing on managers’ intercultural sensitivity. The cognitive dimension of cultural intelligence is based on the acquisition of specific knowledge and does not take into account the importance of metacognitive aspects. Metacognitive skills are needed to learn in new situations and cultures, but have not been addressed in traditional training approaches (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004). Cross-cultural training cannot prepare managers for every single culture that they are going to come across in their careers.
Therefore, cross-cultural training should teach managers how to learn, which are exactly the metacognitive skills as discussed before (Bennett, 1986; Brislin & Bhawuk, 1999). Therefore, the second proposition is:
Proposition II: culture-general training is more effective for managers to successfully work together with people from different cultures than is culture-specific training.
According to Brislin and Pedersen (as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000) culture-general training is referring ‘’to such topics as self-awareness and sensitivity training that allow one to learn about themselves as preparation for interaction in any culture’’ (p.178). Training intercultural sensitivity has to do with the attitude people have towards other cultures, which is related to the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Thus, through culture-general training, manager’s intercultural sensitivity can be enhanced, and thus their worldview will move on the DMIS towards a more ethnorelative one.
Culture-general training aims towards making participants understand the variation in culturally determined patterns of behaviour in general; in other words to give them a broad understanding of the meaning of the concept of culture (Gertsen, 1990). If managers understand the variation in culturally determined patterns of behaviour in general and thus are provided with a broad understanding of the meaning of the concept of culture, the categories in which they can organize their perceptions of other cultures become more complex. This means that they become more interculturally sensitive and thus move along the DMIS towards a more ethnorelative worldview. This leads to the third proposition:
Proposition III: through culture-general training, managers become more interculturally sensitive which means that their worldview moves along the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity towards a more ethnorelative worldview, which enables them to adapt to different intercultural situations.
Method
To support the literature, a qualitative study has been done. The approach used for this was a mix of deductive and inductive. From the literature, propositions were derived, which were tested through semi-structured interviews. However, the literature review and the outcomes of the interviews were also a way to explore the field of cross-cultural training and the perception of managers in the matter, so that they result in a new piece of theory to contribute to the extant literature. In other words, the present study was a grounded theory, which means that the theory resulting from it was directly derived from and supported by, and thus grounded in, the collected data (Boeije, 2010).
Qualitative interviews, according to Boeije (2010), provide the opportunity for researches to learn about social life through the perspective, experience and language of those living it. This is very important, because although there are many theories about the content and methods of cross-cultural training, managers are the ones who have to benefit from them in the end. The point of cross-cultural training is that the managers receiving it perceive it to be useful in the international business environment. Through interviews, participants get the chance to tell their story, share their knowledge, and provide their own perspective on the research matter (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). Thus, their perceptions and experiences with cross-cultural training have provided a useful contribution to this study.
Sample
Four managers from different types of organizations have been interviewed in a semi-structured form to gain information about their perceptions, experiences and comments on the topic of cross-cultural training and intercultural competence. These managers, all of which were male, highly educated, Dutch, Dutch-speaking and between 50 and 60 years old, have all experienced working amongst different cultures, either as an expatriate in another country, as a host for people of other countries, or working on temporary projects in different countries. Three out of four managers work at large organizations in the technological sector. Two of them work in the development/software department, and the other one works as a project manager. The last manager works in a small firm in the marketing sector. They were selected by asking around through social media and in real life for managers who were working in an intercultural business environment and are representative for only a small population. Most of the managers were working in similar industries, but not all of them, so they are quite representative for managers working in large technological organizations. They are representative for the population based on the ways in which they came across other cultures in their careers, because one of the managers, for example, has moved to different countries and has also been working with culturally diverse teams and clients. The others have been travelling a lot for work, and are working in multicultural teams, in their home country but also virtually. Additionally, the organizations they work for also have culturally diverse clients.
Procedure
The managers interviewed were direct and indirect acquaintances, so they were approached in an informal to slightly formal manner to ask if they wanted to participate in the study. If they agreed to participate, an appointment was scheduled, which, depending on time and place
restrictions took place at the manager’s house or via Skype. They were also informed that their identity would not be announced, and that everything they said would be used solely for the purpose of this study. The duration of the interviews was between 15 and 35 minutes.
Data collection
The semi-structured interviews provided a deeper insight about the research topic. Firstly, the participants were asked about the organization they are working in and their role in it. Next, they were asked about the extent to which they have been dealing with other cultures, followed by the question if they had ever received any form of training as a preparation for working together with people from different cultures. If so, questions about the form and content of the training were asked in order to find out which type of training the manager had received based on the literature. In the final question, managers’ experiences with other cultures after receiving the training were discussed. If a manager had not received any type of training, they were asked about the problems they faced when dealing with other cultures. Also, when they did receive some type of training, they were asked if they encountered any difficulties dealing with other cultures when they were unprepared for it, or if they had any difficulties in dealing with other cultures despite the training they received.
Data analysis
All interviews have been recorded, with permission of the participants. Afterwards, the recordings were transcribed. Recording interviews is very advantageous, because the quality of the data is as high as possible since the researcher can focus on the conversation instead of having to take notes (Boeije, 2010). Because the quality of the data is high, it is also more reliable to analyse after transcribing. This is because the researchers have access to the entire
conversation exactly as it occurred, and not just a selection of it from the notes of the researcher (Boeije, 2010). In other words, it is very close to reality.
After transcribing, the transcripts were coded. First through open coding, through which labels for coding were created. Next, in the axial coding phase, fragments with the same codes were analysed in order to find differences and similarities. Finally, the selective coding phase was about finding relationships between the codes, which answer the research question in order to draw new insights from them. Finally, these insights were connected to the literature reviewed. The coding was partly based on the literature, but additionally, other codes were assigned when they were fitting for a certain statement. No codes were created beforehand. However, the interview questions were based on the literature, so coding was done according to the part in the literature on which the questions were based. Some parts of the literature were difficult to study through the interviews that were done, such as the worldview of the managers. However, some of their statements have been coded under ‘worldview’ and more specifically under ‘ethnocentric’ or ‘ethnorelative’. Finally, the knowledge obtained from the interviews was combined with the propositions deduced from the literature review in order to see whether the conclusions that had been derived from the literature were confirmed by the data.
Results
Next, the most interesting findings from the interviews are set out and the results will be discussed according to the relationships found in the data and the propositions derived from the literature review. The subsequent table (see Table 1) provides an overview of the managers interviewed, so that it is clear to which manager is referred to in the text.
Table 1
Characteristics of Managers Interviewed
Type of organization Type of cross-cultural experience Received CCT? What type of CCT? Attitude towards other cultures Manager 1 Large organization; Technological, software Temporary projects abroad; Multicultural teams; Multicultural virtual teams Yes Experiential- culture-specific training; To some extent also culture-general training Open; Somewhat ethnorelative; Cultural (self-) awareness; Moderately interculturally competent Manager 2 Small organization; Marketing Multicultural teams; Expatriation; Clients from many different countries Yes, but only related to a study trip. Not work-related. Lecture-style culture-specific training Open; Ethnorelative; High degree of cultural (self-) awareness, Interculturally competent Manager 3 Large organization; Technological, software Temporary projects abroad; Multicultural teams Yes Lecture-style culture-general training Less open; Somewhat ethnocentric; Culturally aware; Less
interculturally competent Manager 4 Large organization; Technological, procurement Temporary projects abroad; Multicultural teams Yes Culture-specific training, virtual/online Open; High degree of cultural awareness; Interculturally competent
The Multicultural Business Environment
In the interviews, managers were firstly asked whether they came across different cultures in their jobs. All managers had a lot of experience with different cultures in their careers, especially with Eastern-European cultures such as Russia, Romania, Poland and Czech Republic. Next to this, almost all managers had some experience with Asian cultures, mostly Japan, China, Taiwan and Southern-Korea. Additionally, the managers came across people from Belgium, the United States, India, Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico.
However, the ways in which the managers experiences those different cultures differed greatly; three out of four managers had been working in different countries for temporary projects, which means that they went there for a particular project and for a relatively short period of time. The other manager, Manager 2, has moved to three different countries to work and live there and finally started his own company in Poland. Additionally, all four managers have worked in culturally diverse teams throughout their careers, since nowadays many organizations have a culturally diverse workforce. This means that the teams the managers are working in, consist of many different nationalities. As Manager 3 described: ‘'I think that our group consists of 15 to 20 nationalities, and it is a group of 35 to 40 people. So, half of the team is foreign, I mean, not Dutch’'. Furthermore, all managers also worked with people from
other countries on a daily basis, for example the organization Manager 1 is working for in the Netherlands is also partly based in India. Therefore, he is working with them on a daily basis. This kind of teamwork is mostly virtually, but cultural differences are still recognizable. The last type of contact managers experience with other cultures is with their customers who are also often based in another country. The relationship with customers, however, is different from relationships with colleagues. Manager 3 confessed: ‘’when people from countries come and work here, I think I would want to stay close to myself. Unless there is a big difference in reputational level, for example when a customer from Japan is visiting us, I would rather adjust my behaviour than with a colleague who is working at the same level as I am. In that case I would just be myself’’.
Cross-cultural Training Experience
Most managers that were interviewed received some form of cross-cultural training throughout their careers, although Manager 2 only received cross-cultural training before going on a study trip, but not related to his career. The extensiveness, form and methods of their training differed greatly.
Training methods. From the overall description managers gave about the received training, it seemed that Manager 1 received a form of training that tended mostly towards an experiential method. Manager 1 discussed that the training he received was based on examples of situations they had already encountered with a specific culture, where the differences between those two cultures were analysed and discussed, also looking the other way around, so how the other culture might perceive typical Dutch behaviour.
Manager 2 described the training he received as interactive, where the participants were proposed real-life situations, and they had to think of ways to deal with this situation and those were discussed. In addition, Manager 3 said that during the training, situations were
described, and the participants had to respond to those situations explaining how they would deal with it. However, Manager 4 received a completely different type of training. Not only was the training he received very specifically tied to one single culture, managers were able to choose for themselves which training they were going to do. So, as he described: ‘'when you are travelling to a certain country, you can look up which training there is for that country and you can choose to do it'’. This training is always done online and is thus not required by the firm, it is the managers’ own responsibility.
Based on the description of the received training, it can be assumed that Manager 1 received a training, which tends towards an experiential one. As discussed before, the problems discussed in this training came from the managers’ own experience, rather than that they were introduced by the teacher, as in the lecture-method such as Manager 2 and 3 both described. The lecture method, however, is a rather passive type of learning. In real life, managers have to identify misunderstandings, conflicts or problems by themselves. However, in lecture-style training, these problems have already been prepared for them. Additionally, this type of training expects the manager to respond in a rational way, and not be guided by his or her emotions. However, when managers come across different cultures in real life, they will not always respond rationally and sometimes their emotions might influence their reactions (Harrison & Hopkins, as cited in Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000).
The experiential type of learning as Manager 1 described is therefore much closer to reality. The managers received the training when they had already experienced working with people from India, which enabled them to identify problems by themselves, and probably they already had to respond to those problems when they encountered them. During the training, the managers could discuss those problems, but also reflect on their real-life responses, which might have been irrational and emotionally loaded.
The first proposition derived from the literature stated that experiential cross-cultural training methods are more effective than are lecture-style methods. This proposition cannot be confirmed, nor rejected based on the results from the interviews. The interviews did not provide a clear comparison between the two training methods, because the managers themselves did not receive many different types of training that they could compare, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions.
Culture-specific and culture-general training. When asked about their feelings towards or experiences with the content of training, all managers argue that the acquisition of culture-specific knowledge is crucial when working with people from other countries. This mostly came forward from the question asking the managers which advice they would give someone who is at the start of a career in a multicultural environment. For example, Manager 1 said: ‘’I would recommend people to talk to people who know a particular culture and can provide you with the essentials needed to understand this culture. When working with India for example, this information is of vital importance. This does not mean that you need to know everything about them, but you need to know and understand the basic differences and how to deal with them’’. In addition, Manager 4 advised: ‘’try to find material about that particular culture first. As I said before, the Rijksoverheid is also providing this type of information. I would strongly recommend to read this, it will result in better relations, better communication, better understanding, and will finally lead to much more efficient operations’’.
Only Manager 3 typically identified the training he had received in his work as culture-general training. He said: ‘’the things you learn in such training are often things you already know, but they are brought to your attention again. It is mainly the conscious creation of consciousness, I think.’’ On the contrary, Manager 1 responded to the question about culture-general knowledge in cross-cultural training that this is something '‘a manager can do
out of his personal interest, to deepen his knowledge and abilities, but we do not receive any training of that kind'’. However, when describing the training he received, he said that the training also looked at the culture of the managers themselves, and how people from other countries perceive their behaviour. Thus, the training started by analysing the own culture, which is an aspect of culture-general training that creates self-awareness. So, although managers do not always recognize the training they receive as to be culture-general, it might be so or contain culture-general aspects.
When combining the results from the literature review with those from the interviews, an interesting discussion appears from which assumptions can be derived. From the interviews, it shows that three out of four managers appreciate culture-specific knowledge when going abroad or working together with people from another country. If not provided through training, managers 1 and 3 would look into a specific culture by themselves. Culture-general training, however, has only been recognized as such by Manager 3, and from the answers provided by Manager 1 it seems that he has also received culture-general training to some extent, although he did not recognize this as such. This has been concluded because the training he received about India, although culture-specific, looked at the misunderstandings and conflicts that the manager experienced from two sides: both from the side of the Dutch culture and how they perceive the Indian culture, and the other way around.
Additionally, based on the results from the interviews, there is no clear difference between the managers who have of have not received cross-cultural training in terms of difficulties experienced. Although the managers interviewed were satisfied with the cross-cultural training they received, it seems that all managers still encounter difficulties when working together with people from other countries. For example, Manager 4 described that he went to China and Taiwan, at first without any training, and came across habits of the host-country nationals that were new to him. He said that cross-cultural training could have helped
mainly to deal with such differences more efficiently. Without training, managers need to learn from experience, which costs time, and if the manager had known certain things beforehand, they would be more prepared. Manager 1 also described a situation in which a new member from White Russia joined his team, and he was not prepared for the differences that eventually seemed to be there. ‘’He had been working in the United States for years, so I though that he was completely naturalized to the American way of working. Since I had a lot of experience with Americans, I did not think about the characteristics of the White-Russian culture. The new member never asked any questions and felt that he had to prove himself and that asking other people would be failure. He believed that he was supposed to complete his tasks all by himself. As a team manager, I saw this too late and we could not solve it anymore.’’ Therefore, based on the interviews, cross-cultural training should contain culture-specific as well culture-general aspects.
However, except for Manager 3, and Manager 1 to some extent, all managers are trained to deal with specific cultures only. It seems that managers only receive culture-specific training when going abroad or working together with a culture-specific country on a regular basis. Nevertheless, all managers indicated that they have been working with many different cultures throughout their careers. It is practically impossible to train managers to deal with every single culture they will ever come across in their careers, and therefore it is important for them to develop general knowledge and skills when it comes to cultural differences.
Those general abilities can be referred to as cultural intelligence, which, as discussed before, refers to a person’s capacity to adapt to new cultural settings based on multiple factors including metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural features (Earley 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004). There is, however, a discussion in the literature about the definition of this concept. Cultural intelligence as described by Earley (2002), Earley and Peterson (2004) and Thomas et al. (2008) implies that cultural intelligence about being able to adapt to
different cultures without any difficulties, which can be assumed based on the ‘cultural chameleon’ Earley and Peterson (2004) describe in their study. The idea is that culturally intelligent people can adjust to new cultures as a chameleon adjusts to new environments. However, Blasco et al. (2012) have questioned if this is practically possible. According to them, becoming culturally intelligent requires individuals to experience and recognize cultural differences and the misunderstandings and conflicts that might result from them. Being aware of these differences and one’s own behaviour in such situations is what constitutes intercultural learning (Mezirow, 1997).
This is consistent with the results from the interviews. Although the managers that were interviewed did all receive some form of cross-cultural training, all four managers explained that they faced difficulties with other cultures. In one example stated by Manager 1, those cultural differences had been recognized too late and consequently led to big problems. In the other examples, the managers described typical characteristics of cultural differences they experienced, and explained that they had to get used to those differences and how to deal with them. From this, in combined with the results from the literature (Mezirow, 1997; Blasco et al., 2012), can be derived that misunderstandings and conflicts do not necessarily have to be mean a failure, since they can be an important source for intercultural learning.
So, to conclude, Proposition 2, which states that culture-general training is more effective in the development of cultural intelligence than is culture-specific training, cannot be entirely confirmed nor rejected.
Development of Intercultural Competence Through Cross-cultural Training
With regard to the attitude of managers towards other cultures, three managers described themselves to be very open, willing to learn about and interested in different cultures. Based on the results from the interviews, however, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the
intercultural competence, cultural intelligence or stage of the DMIS of the managers interviewed. However, from the ways in which they talk about their attitude towards other cultures and about cultural differences, some assumptions can be made.
For example, Manager 1 and Manager 2, and to some extent also Manager 4, particularly made some statements from which we could derive that they are at a somewhat ethnorelative stage at the DMIS, because they acknowledge the importance of cultural differences. For example, Manager 2’s advice to managers working in a multicultural business environment was to ‘’learn from but also enjoy the differences that different cultures can show you. You can learn a lot from it, and grow as a person as well. Also, I would not underestimate the differences; you really need to see them, but also understand and register them. I have seen many people who ignored those differences and said ‘It’s no big deal, let them learn our ways, because they are the best’, but they finally had to learn the hard way.’’ This statement shows that this manager is very aware of cultural differences, and that he acknowledges the importance of accepting those differences and the need to understand them. Based on this, Manager 2 can be assumed to be interculturally competent and is definitely in an ethnorelative stage at the DMIS scale.
Manager 1 has described specific examples of cultural differences he experienced in very much detail, so that he has left some impression about his intercultural competence and DMIS stage. He seems to be at an ethnorelative stage of the DMIS scale, because he acknowledges the fact that cultural differences exist. However, in the example where a White Russian man joined his team but this completely failed because the cultural differences had not been recognized on time suggests that he was not prepared enough to deal with the misunderstandings that arose. Therefore, it is difficult to make assumptions about the competence and the particular worldview of this manager. One thing that became clear is that he is accepting of and willing to learn from and about other cultures.
Concerning Manager 4, who seemed to be very open and interested in other cultures, just as Manager 2, it can be assumed that he is interculturally competent. He is very much aware of cultural differences and the importance of willing to learn about different cultures. Additionally, regarding the DMIS scale, he is closest to the level of Manager 2, but he has not made very specific statements from which this can be derived.
Manager 3, however, was very clear about his attitude towards other cultures. He said that he does not do anything special when coming across someone from a different culture and that he would treat a Taiwanese and a Dutchmen the same way. In his opinion, people from other countries coming to the Netherlands should be the ones adjusting to the culture here, instead of people here adjusting to every single person from another country that comes here. If people from other countries join his team in the Netherlands, he does not feel the need to act differently with people from the Netherlands or from another country. He argued: ‘’Some people are already working here for 10 or 15 years, and they do not put any effort in trying to adjust to our culture. Well, if I would be working in a foreign country, I would adjust to that culture. I would want to be able to integrate in the society and not be dependent on speaking English all the time’’. This could be said to fit the Defense stage of the DMIS, because although people from another country coming to the Netherlands can try their bests to adjust and integrate, the relationship between people from different cultures is a two-way street. However, Manager 3 does not see the situation that way, and feels like people who come to the Netherlands should adjust to the Dutch culture, and not the other way around. It should be stressed that this is just an assumption made based on the results from the interviews, and that this has cannot be fully confirmed by the data.
Manager 1 described that the training he received was specifically based on the misunderstandings and conflicts he and his Dutch colleagues faced when dealing with the Indian culture. From those misunderstandings and conflicts, they analysed which cultural
differences caused this, but also how this might not be caused only by the other culture, but by the combination of the two cultures. Because, when dealing with other cultures, it is also important to look at one’s own culture and see how the other one perceives this culture, and which difficulties they encounter. This fits the idea stated by Mezirow (1997) and Blasco et al. (2012) that learning is about people’s ability to analyse their own worldview that they have formed through their experiences, and in doing so, become aware of and critical about their own and others’ cultural assumptions and of the ways in which these may colour their judgments.
To conclude, the third proposition, which proposed that culture-general training enhances managers’ intercultural sensitivity and causes their worldview to move along the DMIS towards a more ethnorelative worldview, which means that their ability to adapt to intercultural situations is enhanced cannot not be confirmed nor rejected by the results from the interviews. This is due to the fact that it is very difficult to measure in which stage of the DMIS the managers are.
Discussion
The propositions derived from the literature have not been confirmed nor rejected by the results from the interviews. This is due to a number of reasons that will be discussed in more detail later. However, when combining the results from the literature with those from the interviews, assumptions can be made that provide a valuable contribution to the existing literature on the topic
Firstly, although the literature suggested that the experiential method to cross-cultural training is better than the lecture-method, this cannot be confirmed by the results from the interviews. This is due to the fact that most managers only received one type of training and it was not possible to compare their experience with different types of training.
