Intercultural competencies for
leaders with a culturally diverse
workforce
Olivier Steenvoorden 10678433
29-06-2016 2015/2016
Supervisor: N.A. Ghazaleh Cross-cultural management & intercultural competence Bachelor thesis
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Olivier Steenvoorden 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.
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 5
Introduction and problem definition ... 6
Literature review ... 7
Research questions ... 10
Types of cultural differences present in an organization and their consequences ... 10
Dimensions of diversity ... 10
National culture dimensions ... 12
Implications and consequences of cultural differences for individuals ... 13
Power distance ... 13
Uncertainty avoidance ... 14
Individualism versus collectivism ... 15
Masculinity versus femininity ... 15
Observable attributes of diversity and less visible attributes of diversity ... 16
Importance of possessing intercultural competencies for leaders ... 17
Leadership ... 17
Implications of cultural differences for organizational groups ... 18
Managing diversity ... 19
Intercultural understanding ... 20
Personality traits and characteristics of cross-culture competent leaders ... 22
Big Five personality traits ... 22
Impact of Big Five personality traits on expatriate leaders ... 22
Impact of Big Five personality traits on global leaders ... 23
Extraversion ... 23
Conscientiousness ... 24
Openness to experience ... 24
Emotional stability ... 25
Important intercultural competencies for leaders with a cross-cultural workforce ... 26
Intercultural competencies and their dimensions ... 26
Perception management dimension ... 26
Relationship management dimension ... 29
Self management dimension ... 31
Developing intercultural competencies for leaders ... 32
Stages of development ... 32
Ethnocentrism versus ethnorelativism ... 33
Global leadership deficiencies versus global leadership competencies ... 34
Methods for developing intercultural competencies ... 35
Didactic learning programs ... 36
Experiential opportunities ... 37
Intensive experiences ... 37
Impact of personality traits on the development of intercultural competencies ... 38
Discussion & Conclusion ... 39
References ... 42
Abstract As a result of the economic globalization and changing workforce demographics, the
workplace has become more diverse and companies are increasingly working across borders. Leaders have to deal with cultural differences of their subordinates across those borders. Examples of these cultural differences are: age, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, social class and national culture. This literature review identifies the twelve most important intercultural competencies for leaders to work effectively with a culturally diverse workforce: nonjudgmentalness, acceptance of complexity, inquisitiveness, cosmopolitanism, category inclusiveness, communication skills, relationship interest, self-awareness, social flexibility, self-identity, emotional resilience and dealing with stress. Furthermore, it addresses the importance of the Big Five personality traits on leaders, all of which were positive to some extent. Finally, this literature review also proposes some methods for developing intercultural competencies. It is relevant for theory and practice to know which concrete competencies are needed to work effectively in a cross-culture environment. With this information, organizations can make adjustments in order to select and prepare the right leaders for cross-cultural encounters.
Introduction and problem definition
''We live in a global world''. According to Kose and Ozturk (2013), this sentence did not have much meaning back in 1964. However, due to the rise of economic globalization, it has become a cliché (Kose & Ozturk, 2013). Economic globalization can primarily been seen in terms of rapid growth in international trade, foreign direct investment and cross-border financial flows in recent years (Lee, 1996). Some driving forces behind the increased
economic globalization are: technological advancement, the adaption of free market ideology worldwide and the increase in free trade including the lowering of tariff and other barriers to international trade (Knight, 1998). The importance and the impact of international business is well-accepted by practitioners, policy makers and executives (Czinkota & Ronkainen, 2005). The globalization and business internationalization creates a challenge for companies who are engaged in international business. Countries all over the world experience an
entrance of more women, racial, ethnic and national minority groups into the workplace (Barak, 2000). Not only large firms, but also small firms have an increase in the number of foreign suppliers, partners, customers and employees (Caligiuri, 2006). The workplace has thus become more diverse and companies are increasingly working across borders. Leaders and employees have to deal with cultural differences across those borders. Examples of these cultural differences are: age, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, social class and national culture (Robbins & Judge, 2012).
This global environment has changed the competencies leaders need to be successful (Caligiuri, 2006). Often the people at the top of an organization are saying the right things about diversity. However, the middle management, who actually run the organization and create the experience of their employees, do not understand and do not feel accountable for diversity and inclusion (Brescoll, 2011). So, these leaders most likely do not know what is needed to work effectively across cultures.
It is relevant for theory and practice to know which concrete competencies are needed to work effectively in a cross-culture environment. With this information, organizations can make adjustments in order to select and prepare the right leaders for cross-cultural encounters. With a refined set of intercultural competencies, organizations will know upon which
competencies they should build their global leadership development programs. This can help leaders to encourage inclusion between diverse groups and collaboration between diverse groups. These adjustments can also help optimizing the performance of leaders and their subordinates and this can perhaps lead to better operating results.
contribution of this study to the domain of intercultural competencies of leaders will be discussed. Then, the main research question and sub-questions will be discussed.
Subsequently, the sub-questions will be answered. Finally, an answer on the main research question will be given, limitations of this study will be provided and recommendations for future research will be given.
Literature review
Research on workforce diversity has already been done, because the globalization of business, the increased use of teams and changing workforce demographics have made workforce diversity management an important aspect for organizations (Cox, 2001). The workforce is becoming more diverse and a number of articles support this statement (Lerman, 1999; Lee & Mather, 2008; D'Netto & Sohal, 1999). For example, the workforce in the United States is in the middle of a demographic transformation. From 1980 to 2020, the white working-age population is expected to decline from 82% to 63%. During this period, the African-American portion is expected to rise from 10% to 13% and the Hispanic/Latino portion is expected to rise from 6% to 17% (''Income of U.S. workforce'', 2005).
There has also been an significant increase in the share of women in the workforce in the United States, this share rose from 40.5% to 47% between 1976 and 2006 (Lerman, 1999). The age distribution is also changing in the labor force in the United States. The presence of 16- to 24-year-olds is expected to decline from 69% to 64% between 2005 and 2030. Whilst in the same period, the presence of 55-year-old and older is expected to rise from 16% to 23% (Lee & Mather, 2008). The demographic trend in Australia also indicates that the workforce is changing. In 1999, there were more than 220 nationalities represented in the population (D'Netto & Sohal, 1999). So, the world is changing and the people in this changing world will need jobs which creates a more diverse workforce.
As a result of workforce diversity, leaders and employees are nowadays increasingly required to collaborate in teams with cross-cultural boundaries. In theory, these diverse teams can create competitive advantage, because they can bring together different ideas, knowledge and approaches to work (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). However, in practice, diverse teams do not always perform well. This is due to clashes between members and ineffective
interaction (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). The research of DiStefano and Maznevski (2000) highlight the importance of creating value in diverse teams and have developed an approach to create value in diverse teams. This research will be used in this study to explain why
workplace diversity has to be managed well and thus why intercultural competence is important for leaders.
Workforce diversity has to be managed well, so there has also already been done research on cross-cultural management and intercultural competence (Jokinen, 2005; Osland, Taylor, & Mendenhall, 2009; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998). Bennett (2004) has done extensive research on what happened to people who became more intercultural competent. He suggested that there was a major change in the quality of their experience, which is called the move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. He argues that ethnocentrism refers to an individual's experiences of his/her own culture as central to reality, whereas at the other side of the continuum, ethnorelativism refers to an individual's experience of his/her own culture as just one reality among many viable possibilities. Bennett (2004) also suggested that people follow stages of development in order to generate an ethnorelative worldview. Ethnorelative people experience cultural differences better than more ethnocentric people and they probably adapt better to those differences in interaction (Bennett, 2004). This study will build on the research of Bennett (2004) by identifying which stages of development and which worldviews are important for leaders to go trough in order to work effectively with a culturally diverse workforce.
Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, and Oddou (2010) developed a comprehensive definition for intercultural competence in the context of global leadership. They based this on an extensive review of global leadership and expatriation literature. Some of the literature focuses primarily on global leadership (Jokinen, 2005; Osland, Taylor, & Mendenhall, 2009). Other literature is more focused on expatriation (Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Harrison,
Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004). Bird et al. (2010) found three dimensions of the domain of intercultural competence. The three dimensions are perception management, relationship management and self management. Furthermore, each dimension has facets that further describe aspects of intercultural competence, such as nonjudgmentalness, interpersonal engagement and interest flexibility (Bird et al., 2010).
The three factor framework of 17 intercultural competency dimensions of Bird et al. (2010) and the other literature on intercultural competencies can be used in this study in order to build a more nuanced and refined understanding of intercultural competencies. Earlier research of intercultural competence and global leadership effectiveness was hindered due to lack of a clear conceptualization of intercultural competence (Bird et al., 2010).
Rather than a just providing a large number of intercultural competencies, this study will give a more refined understanding of intercultural competencies leaders need to posses.
This study will focus primarily on the relationship between leaders and their culturally diverse subordinates and it identifies competencies leaders need to have in order to motivate,
stimulate and understand their subordinates. This study will not focus on intercultural
competencies that are needed to increase the effectiveness of working with foreign suppliers, partners, shareholders, markets and customers.
Examining ways to actually develop global leaders is an important aspect for practitioners (Caligiuri, 2006). According to the article of Caligiuri (2006), organizations should approach global leadership development from a strategic point of view, because managers can actually benefit from an intercultural training or developmental experience. Caligiuri (2006) provides a list of methods for the development and training of global leaders. He also identifies some knowledge, skills, abilities and other personal characteristics that are common to successful global leaders. Examples are: culture-general knowledge, extroversion and cognitive ability.
Stroh and Caligiuri (1998) also emphasize the importance of global leadership development and they found that developing leadership cross-cultural competence was an important organization practice that affects the effectiveness of a multinational corporation. This study will build on earlier research (Caligiuri, 2006; Stroh & Caligiuri 1996) by emphasizing that providing the right developmental opportunities to the right people can actually produce leaders who are capable of working effectively across borders. This study will further identify which developmental interventions are especially appropriate for leaders to effectively manage workplace diversity. Development interventions that enhance the capability of leaders to deal with foreign suppliers, partners, shareholders, markets and customers are outside the focus area of this study and will not be discussed.
In conclusion, there has already been done research on effective global leaders and on identifying which competences are critical to their success. However, the competencies which are mentioned in the research often have a conceptual overlap and are often only separated by semantic differences (Jokinen, 2005). The current research is also not able to definitively describe which intercultural competences form the nomological network in terms of their power and relevance with regard to effective global leadership (Bird et al., 2010). Also, current research is primarily focused on overall global leadership. There is not sufficient research on solely the relationship between leaders and culturally diverse subordinates. Therefore, this study will focus on which concrete competencies are the most important for leader to posses in order to work effectively with a culturally diverse workforce. The refined framework of intercultural competencies will help organizations and especially leaders to
identify and gain specific and important competencies in order to increase inclusion and collaboration between diverse people in the workplace.
The contribution of this study to the existing literature is firstly that it provides more insight into the relationship between leaders and culturally diverse subordinates instead of overall global leadership. Secondly, it focuses on all sorts of cultural differences of
subordinates such as age, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation instead of only differences in nationality and national culture. Thirdly, this study will give a more refined understanding of intercultural competencies leaders need to posses.
Research questions
The main research question of this study is: which intercultural competencies do leaders need to posses in order to work effectively with a culturally diverse workforce? In order to answer this main research question, sub-questions are developed. Firstly, it is important to examine which types of cultural differences may be present in an organization and what their
consequences are for the relationship and interaction between leaders and subordinates. Secondly, the importance of possessing intercultural competencies for leaders will be
examined. Thirdly, the personality traits and characteristics of cross-culture competent leaders will be examined. Fourthly, the important competencies for leaders with a cross-cultural workforce will be examined. Fifthly, it is important to examine how leaders can develop intercultural competencies. Finally, an answer on the main research question will be given.
Types of cultural differences present in an organization and their consequences
Dimensions of diversity
The increasing economic globalization creates more interaction between people from diverse cultures, beliefs and backgrounds. People do not work in a restricted marketplace anymore, they are now part of a worldwide economy (Mazur, 2010). According to O'Reilly, Williams, and Barsade (1998), diversity is created by group members themselves who categorize other people as similar or dissimilar based on their different social identities. Loden and Rosener (1991) suggest that diversity is that which makes a group of people different from another group of people along primary and secondary dimensions.
Primary dimensions of diversity have a fundamental influence on the identity of individuals. Examples of primary dimensions are: age, gender, ethnicity, race and sexual orientation (Loden & Rosener, 1991). Arredondo (2004) amplifies the primary dimensions by
adding culture, social class and language. Maier (2002) also argues that diversity is a concept of many dimensions, such as nationality, ethnicity, race and gender. According to Mazur (2010), the primary dimensions define our self-image and fundamental world views. These primary dimensions have also the most impact on groups in the workplace (Mazur, 2010).
Secondary dimensions of diversity have a more variable influence on the identity of individuals (Mazur, 2010). The reason for this is that individuals acquire, discard and modify secondary dimensions, so their power is less constant and more individualized than is true for the primary dimensions (Loden, 1994). Examples of secondary dimensions are: educational background, geographic location, religion, work style, organizational role and level, income and communication style (Loden & Rosener, 1991). According to Mazur (2010), the
secondary dimensions impact our self-esteem and self definition. There are also dimensions of diversity which are the core of an individuals' identity. These are the tertiary dimensions and they lie below the surface and are less obvious. These are: beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, attitudes, feelings, values and group norms (Rijamampianina & Carmichael, 2005).
Currently, an increasing number of diversity dimensions is being developed (Mazur, 2010). For example, Maier (2002) developed 38 possible diversity dimensions and still argues that these dimensions are infinitely expandable. Thomas (1996) argues that diversity in
business for too long has been associated with only cultural, ethnic and racial differences of the workforce. Thomas (1996) therefore defines diversity as ''any mixture of items
characterized by differences and similarities'' (p. 5). Rijamampianina and Carmichael (2005) agree that there is a large variety of aspects with regard to diversity and they therefore propose that diversity should be redefined as ''the collective, all encompassing mix of human differences and similarities along any given dimension'' (p. 110). The contemporary of cultural diversity therefore includes a number of aspects of diversity and is defined as: the ethnic, gender, racial and socioeconomic variety in a group (''Cultural diversity'', 2016). In conclusion, cultural diversity does not only relate to cultural and ethnic differences of the workforce. It currently also relates to differences in age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and more. Individuals thus can be different in a number of ways, these differences influence how individuals perceive others and how they communicate with others.
The multi-dimensionality of diversity of an individual is namely imbedded in the theory of symbolic interaction (Human, 1996). Human (1996) argues that this suggests that we perceive others and interpret the behavior of others in a certain way. This determines how we will behave towards them. Moreover, they way we threat and respond to individuals depends on what we think we see in others (Human, 1996). Furthermore, when individuals
interact, they communicate both verbally and non-verbally and when they communicate they express their messages trough their mental models. These mental models are shaped by their culture, gender, age, religion, ethnicity and all the other dimensions of diversity
(Rijamampianina & Carmichael, 2005). Rijamampianina and Maxwell (2002) argue that the opportunities for misinterpretation, misunderstanding, miscommunication and conflict
exponentially increases when individuals with different cultures or backgrounds communicate with each other.
Therefore, when leaders communicate with culturally diverse subordinates, they must be aware that the messages of the subordinates are shaped by their culture, gender, age, religion, ethnicity and all the other dimensions of diversity. Leaders must be aware of this and manage these differences to reduce misunderstanding, miscommunication and conflicts. This requires intercultural competence. In conclusion, the multi-dimensionality of diversity shows that there is a multiplicity of differences between individuals and these differences influence how individuals interpret others, behave towards others and how they communicate with others. A primary dimension of diversity which has a significant influence on human behavior is culture and will therefore be discussed in more detail next.
National culture dimensions
As mentioned earlier, there are various aspects of diversity with regard to individuals in the workplace. However, according to Moran, Abramson, and Moran (2014), culture is often considered as the driving force behind human behavior. They argue that culture gives people a sense of who they are and a sense of belonging. They also indicate that culture gives people direction to how they should behave and what they should be doing. DiStefano and
Maznesvki (2002) agree on this and they state that culture is a society's or defined group's assumptions and norms with regard to how people interact and behave. They further indicate that cultural values and norms are deeply rooted and their effects on behavior and interaction are difficult to identify and address. Moran et al. (2014) indicate that it is important to understand the national character and mindsets of people. According to Hofstede (1983), people in different countries perceive and interpret the world in fundamental different ways.
Hofstede (1980a) found four dimensions of national culture. He called the dimensions power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity. The first dimension, power distance is defined as ''the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally'' (Hofstede, 1980a, p. 45). The second dimension, uncertainty avoidance indicates ''the extent
to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations'' (Hofstede, 1980a, p. 45). The third dimension includes individualism versus collectivism. Individualism relates to a loose social framework where individuals are supposed to take care of only themselves and their family. Whereas collectivism refers to a tight social framework where people expect that their in-group looks after them (Hofstede, 1980a). The fourth and final dimension
includes masculinity versus femininity. Masculinity relates to being assertive and being focused on money and things rather than caring for others and the quality of life. This is called masculinity, because men scored higher on these values in almost all societies (Hofstede, 1980a).
In conclusion, there are four dimensions of national culture. These dimensions influence how individuals interact and behave. Each dimension of national culture has
different implications and consequences for individuals. These implications and consequences will be discussed in more detail next.
Implications and consequences of cultural differences for individuals
Being culturally different has a number of consequences and implications for individuals in an organization. Milliken and Martins (1996) argue that diversity can have affective
consequences, such as lower satisfaction and organizational commitment of individuals. Power distance. The power distance dimension has for example an impact on whether an individual responds favorable. Brockner et al. (2001) suggest namely that people in low power distance cultures have a greater tendency to respond unfavorable to low levels of voice than people in high power distance cultures. They argue that voice refers to the extent to which people have input in a decision-making process. Responding less favorable indicates that people have lower organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intention to remain and less favorable job performance (Brockner et al., 2001).
Hofstede (1980a) further indicates that subordinates in large power distance cultures see superiors as different kind of people. Meanwhile, Moran et al. (2014) argue that in cultures where the power distance is not too high, subordinates are independent enough to have meaningful negotiations with a superior. Hofstede (1980a) argues that there exist a hidden, but not yet manifested conflict between the powerful and powerless in large power distance cultures.
The power distance dimension has also a number of implications for the relationship between subordinates and superiors. Hofstede (1980a) suggests that subordinates in small power distance cultures have weak dependence needs and vice versa. He further indicates that
subordinates in small power distance cultures expect that superiors ask them for their opinion, when this does not happen subordinates may strike or behave negatively. Bochner and
Hesketh (1994) provide support and indicate that individuals in high power distance cultures are less open with their superiors, have more contact with their superiors and they experience their superiors as more close and direct than individuals in low power distance cultures. They also indicate that subordinates are also less willing to argue with a decision of their superiors when they disagree. Bochner and Hesketh (1994) further indicate that subordinates with a high power distance relationship with their superior were cautious in telling problems at work when they have a superior with a different ethnicity. Hofstede (1980a) also argues that
subordinates in small power distance cultures prefer a loyal democrat as ideal superior. They also believe that laws and regulations apply to everybody and that it is not acceptable when superiors receive preferential treatment (Hofstede, 1980a).
This differs from subordinates in large power distance cultures. Hofstede (1980a) indicates that subordinates in those cultures expect that superiors act autocratically and they also prefer a kind autocrat. He further suggests that subordinates in those cultures expect that superiors receive preferential treatment, because laws and regulations are different for subordinates and superiors. Moreover, status symbols for superiors are accepted by subordinates and helps displaying the authority of the superior, whereas status symbols in small power distance cultures is not accepted by subordinates (Hofstede, 1980a).
Brockner et al. (2001) argue that if managers do not give subordinates voice when the power distance beliefs of the subordinates imply that they actually should have voice, then subordinates are likely to respond unfavorable. They further indicate that an individuals' beliefs about whether they should have a voice in a decision-making process is influenced by national culture. Therefore, when leaders want to decide how much voice they want to give to their subordinates, they have to consider whether the national culture of the subordinates lead them to believe they actually should have voice (Brockner et al., 2001). This requires
intercultural competence.
Uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (1991) suggest that
individuals in weak uncertainty avoidance cultures score higher on agreeableness, indicating that they are more cooperative, warm and trusting. Moran et al. (2014) argue that individuals in a low uncertainty avoidance cultures are also willing to take risks. Hofstede (1980a) further indicates that individuals in societies in which uncertainty avoidance is strong have a strong inner urge to work hard and have a need for written rules and regulations, whereas for individuals in weak uncertainty avoidance cultures working hard is not considered as an
desirable quality.
Individualism versus collectivism. In collectivistic cultures, the direct appraisal of subordinates spoils harmony (Hofstede et al., 1991). Hofstede (1980a) argues that individuals in collectivist cultures place their belief in group decisions, whereas individuals in
individualistic cultures place their belief in individuals decisions. Bochner and Hesketh (1994) found that Hofstede's dimensions of collectivism and power distance had an impact on the perception of individuals. More specifically, it are those employees who come from low individualistic and high power distance countries instead of high individualistic and low power distance countries who perceived that they were discriminated against more often and experienced more inequality in the workplace, but they valued their differences more highly. Bochner and Hesketk (1994) indicate that these individuals which are called out-group members had a number of assumptions which differ from in-group members. The out-group members believed more strongly that there was discrimination based on ethnicity, they believed that ethnicity and nationality influenced promotions and salary increases, they believed more strongly that managers have difficulty to supervise employees with a different cultural background, but yet they believed less strongly that a multicultural workforce is a disadvantage (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994).
Govindarajan and Gupta (2001) also argue that members of an organization who come from diverse cultures may have different values, norms, assumptions and patterns of behavior. For example, the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultural norms has clear implications for decision making. The need for consensus is critical for people from
collectivistic cultures. However, this need for a general agreement is for people of
individualistic of relatively low relevance (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). Robbins and Judge (2012) argue that there are also differences between individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures with regard to tolerance for conflict. People from individualistic culture are more pleased with direct conflicts and they are willing to tell with whom they disagree.
Collectivists avoid emotional debates and acknowledge conflicts only implicitly. Furthermore, individuals from individualistic cultures prefer public apologies to restore relationships, whereas individuals from collectivistic cultures attribute focus more on the situation rather than the individuals and do not prefer explicit apologies (Robbins & Judge, 2012). The cohesiveness of the workplace can suffer and be ineffective when people from highly
individualistic cultures, such as the United States, will have to work with people from highly collectivistic cultures, such as Japan (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001).
advancement is important for individuals (Hofstede et al., 1991). Also Moran et al. (2014) emphasize the importance of performance of individuals in masculine cultures. Hofstede (1980a) provide support and indicates that in masculine cultures the performance is what counts. Moreover, in these cultures men are expected to be assertive and ambitious (Hofstede et al., 1991). Hofstede (1980a) further argues that individuals in these cultures have a
preference for independence instead of interdependence.
In conclusion, each of the four dimensions of national culture influence the attitude, behavior, assumptions, beliefs and preferences of individuals in a different way. Leaders must be aware of the influence of the national culture dimensions on individuals in order to
increase collaboration and reduce conflicts. Besides the distinction between primary,
secondary and tertiary dimensions of diversity, diversity can also be divided into observable and less visible attributes. This will be discussed in more detail next.
Observable attributes of diversity and less visible attributes of diversity
Cummings, Zhou, and Oldham (1993) differentiate between diversity on observable attributes of diversity, such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality and diversity with regard to less visible attributes of diversity, such as education, socioeconomic background, personality characteristics and values. Milliken and Martins (1996) argue that a reason for this distinction is that when differences between people are visible, they are especially likely to evoke
responses as a result of prejudices, biases or stereotypes. Milliken and Martins (1996) also argue that these observable differences are correlated with complex differences in
perspectives, assumptions and beliefs. It is these differences in perspectives, assumptions and beliefs which are a major reason why diversity of any type creates difficulty for groups (Milliken & Martins, 1996). For example, when a group is diverse, it has probably members who have had different experiences. As a result of these different experiences, these members also have significantly different perspectives on key problems and issues. (Jackson et al., 1991). This creates difficulty for groups.
Milliken and Martins (1996) found that the diversity attributes of individuals which are observable have a negative effect on affective outcomes, such as satisfaction and
identification with the group. Furthermore, diversity on race and gender has greater negative effects than diversity on age (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). This suggests that people hold deeply rooted prejudices against people who have a different race or gender and this may add to the difficulty of interacting for these groups (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Furthermore, people who have a different race than the majority in an organization experience less positive
emotional responses to their employing organizations, their supervisors will likely evaluate them less positively and they are more likely to turn over (Milliken & Martins, 1996).
Subordinates who have a different gender than their supervisors experienced higher levels of role ambiguity and role conflict than subordinates who had the same sex as their boss. Furthermore, also subordinates who differ from their supervisors in age experience higher levels of role ambiguity (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). Jugde and Ferris (1993) argue that age, gender and racial differences between a subordinate and a supervisor is indirectly related to lower performance evaluations and subordinates will also experience lower levels of positive affect on the part of the supervisor.
Robbins and Judge (2012) also emphasize the difference between observable and less visible attributes of diversity. The only difference is that they call it surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity. They argue that the observable attributes can lead employees to perceive other employees trough stereotypes and assumptions. However, the differences in observable attributes become less important for employees when they get to know each other and when they sense that they also share less visible attributes of diversity, such as personality characteristics and values (Robbins & Judge, 2012).
Human (1996) argues that the reliance on social stereotypes is inevitable. He argues that individuals make both conscious and unconscious judgments about the quality of others. These qualities are for example honesty, integrity, loyalty and creativity. However,
individuals normally do not have access to information for objective judgments, because this information does not exist up-front. As a result, individuals will then make judgments based symbolic representations of the qualities of others and this will inevitably lead to a reliance on social stereotypes (Human, 1996). The process of social stereotyping is subjective and has a adverse effect on interpersonal effectiveness (Human, 1996).
In conclusion, diversity of any type creates differences in perspectives, assumptions, beliefs, attitude and behavior. These differences can create difficulty for groups, between individuals and between leaders and subordinates. Leaders play an important role in the workforce and that is why it is important to examine next how important it is for leaders to possess intercultural competencies in order to reduce negative consequences of diversity and to increase collaboration between culturally diverse individuals.
Importance of possessing intercultural competencies for leaders
Leadership
workforce. Leaders provide purpose, focus and inspiration to the employees of a company. Leaders can be seen as architects of an organization and therefore should demonstrate, express and transfer the desirable attitudes, values and beliefs of the workforce (Ahmad,
2001).
As earlier mentioned, several studies (Lerman, 1999; Lee & Mather, 2008; D'Netto & Sohal, 1999) have shown that the workforce is becoming more diverse as a result of
demographic transformation, an increase in the share of women in the workforce, a changing age distribution and several different nationalities within a country. Mazur (2010) suggests that managing diversity is an important organizational challenge, leaders must therefore learn the managerial skills that are needed in a multicultural environment. Managing and
appreciating workplace diversity is an important part of effective people management, because it can improve the productivity of the workplace (Mazur, 2010). Mazur (2010) also suggests that achieving organizational goals might by difficult when diversity in the
workplace is unmanaged.
Organizations are making increasingly use of teams (Cox, 2011). This fact in
combination with workforce diversity makes, according to DiStefano and Maznesvki (2002), the existence of culturally diverse teams inevitable. Leaders and subordinates are therefore nowadays increasingly required to collaborate in teams with cross-cultural boundaries (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000).
Implications of cultural differences for organizational groups
Milliken and Martins (1996) also suggest that organizations are increasingly operating in a multinational and multicultural contexts. It is therefore important to understand how diversity in organizational groups affect outcomes such as creativity, dissatisfaction and turnover (Milliken & Martins, 1996). A group can be defined as diverse when it is composed of individuals who differ on a characteristic on which they base their own social identity (O'Reilly, Williams, & Barsade, 1998). An example of an organizational group that is culturally diverse is a global business team. According to Govindarajan and Gupta (2001), a global business team is a cross-border team of individuals with different nationalities who work in different cultures and who come together to coordinate a multinational operation on a global basis. Another example of a culturally diverse team is a multinational team. According to Earley and Gibson (2002), a multinational team is a team that consists of people who differ in nationality and/or cultural background.
to reconcile diverse perspectives and to arrive at better, new and more creative solutions (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). If members of a team can overcome their differences, team diversity can help them to be more creative and open-minded and to do better (Robbins & Judge, 2012). More diverse groups have also the potential to provide a greater number of perspectives and provide more high-quality solutions than less diverse groups (Watson, Kumar, & Michaelson, 1993). Firms cannot afford to miss the value of diverse teams, because diverse teams can create significant competitive advantage by bringing together different ideas, knowledge and approaches to work. These diverse teams can also be more creative and can generate better alternatives to problems compared to homogenous teams (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). It is therefore important that leaders are capable of leading diverse teams, because diverse teams can create advantages when they are managed well.
Global business teams have often the same problems, such as the misalignment of individual team member' goals and the lack of clarity with regard to the team objectives. Other additional problems are differences in culture, language and geography (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). Cultural diversity can harm the productivity of a group by undermining communication and team cohesion (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003). The more diverse a group or organizational subunit is, the less integrated the group is likely to be (O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). Diverse groups or organizational subunits also have higher levels of dissatisfaction and turnover (Wagner, Pfeffer, & O'Reilly, 1984). Diversity also increases group conflict, which often lowers the morale of the group and raises the amount of members who leave the group (Robbins & Judge, 2012). According to DiStefano and Maznevski (2000), cultural differences are the greatest potential to hinder effective interaction within teams. They also suggest that diverse teams do not always perform well, due to clashes between members. It is therefore important that leaders are capable of managing the differences that separate members in order to exploit the opportunities of diverse teams.
Managing diversity
Managing global business teams effectively and reaching their intended goal is not easy (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). DiStefano and Maznevski (2000) have developed an approach to create value in diverse teams. Firstly the difference between members have to be
understood, secondly the differences have to be communicated, thirdly the difference have to be brought together and finally there has to be developed and executed high quality solutions (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). Another solution to offset the problems diverse teams face is appropriate leadership. Leaders who can get the group to focus on the tasks they are doing and
who can encourage group learning are able to reduce group conflicts and enhance the discussion of group problems (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Milliken and Martins (1996) also strike the importance of learning how to manage more heterogeneous workgroups.
Govindarajan and Gupta ( 2001) also emphasize the importance of a leader. They suggest that a key to creating a successful global business team is choosing the right leader, because leaders play a central role in cross-border teams (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). To be effective, leaders must manage cultural, organizational, linguistic and physical distances that separate members, make good communication possible and develop trust among members (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). According to Govindarajan and Gupta (2001), developing trust among members is the most important task for leaders. Trust is critical for the success of global business teams, because it creates cooperation and there will be less unproductive conflicts. Without mutual trust, team members will not communicate what they really think. So, the absence of trust will diminish the advantages of the team's diversity (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001).
In conclusion, leadership is an important aspect of diverse teams, because appropriate leaders can manage diverse teams effectively. However, for diverse teams to be successful, it is necessary that leaders are capable of managing the differences that separate members and they must also be able to develop trust among members. This requires leaders to possess intercultural competencies. Intercultural competencies are also important in order to achieve intercultural understanding. This will be discussed in more detail next.
Intercultural understanding
Intercultural competencies are important, because Earley (2002) suggests that intercultural misunderstandings happens frequently and has significant impacts on organizations.
Intercultural understanding is important for people operating in multicultural environments, for example in a transnational or multinational firm (Earley, 2002). Moreover, diversity and complexity also increases in domestic working environments as a result of the
internationalization of business operations. The characteristics of the global environment, such as dynamic, complexity and diversity, are now expanding into the domestic
environment. This requires leadership competencies at all organizational levels (Jokinen, 2005).
Caligiuri (2006) support this and indicates that much of the research on global leaders has been in terms of international assignments and expatriate managers. However, she argues that expatriates are not the only individuals within multinational firms who must perform
global leadership activities. Also individuals who are located domestically have to perform global leadership tasks which require cross-national skills (Caligiuri, 2006). People operating in multicultural environments will be confronted with a diverse workplace, but according to Earley (2002) also with intercultural interactions during international work contexts such as multinational teams and expatriate work assignments.
Earley (2002) provides an example of a manager working for a large food and personal care products company who faced difficulty in his intercultural encounters with employees. The manager describe his working situation in Bangkok as difficult. For example, he spent the first months learning how to apologize the right way, because he continuously said things by accident that embarrassed or upset someone. He also formed teams which the Thais did not like and he did not connect with the Thai people (Earley, 2002). Although he possesses good characteristics and social skills, he did not adjust properly to a new cultural context. This person did not have the capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts (Earley, 2002).
Another example of Earley (2002) is that of an American expatriate manager. He experienced the responses of a German employee to a proposed solution as brash and brutal honesty. However, another German colleague informed the American that this seemingly brash behavior only reflects a criticism of ideas rather than of people. The German was only commenting on an idea and not as a personal attack on the person who proposed the solution. The American manager had a more ''I am my ideas'' approach and therefore resented the Germans' brutal honesty. Just like the manager in Bangkok, this American expatriate manager also did not have the capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts (Earley, 2002).
Individuals who actually posses the capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts have a greater chance of succeeding in expatriate positions (Earley, 2002). With regard to multinational teams, these individuals are more capable of understanding and reacting to conflict situations among team members as a result of cultural differences. They also have high efficacy to function on a diverse team and these individuals will engage proactively in setting goals for the activities of the team (Earley, 2002). In conclusion, maximizing and capitalizing on workplace diversity is an important matter for management nowadays. Workplace diversity is important today, but also in the future as a result of the increasing differences in the population of countries. (Mazur, 2010). It is therefore important that leaders posses intercultural competencies to effectively communicate with their culturally diverse subordinates and teams and to manage the cultural differences within the workforce and within teams.
In addition to having an influence on the quality of performance and employees' affective reactions, diversity can also have symbolic significance for internal and external stakeholders (Ely, 1994) . Ely (1994) elaborates that achieving diversity in organizational groups is important, because employees behave differently when they notice they can have power and opportunities instead of having the feeling that the organization does not care about their advancement. Mazur (2012) provides support and indicates that managing a diverse workforce is a symbol of equality. She suggests that this is important for the
reputation of an organization. Next, the personality traits and characteristics of cross-culture competent leaders will be discussed.
Personality traits and characteristics of cross-culture competent leaders
Big Five personality traits
According to Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, and Ferzandi (2006), personality traits are relatively stable and long-lasting patterns of how people feel, think and behave. Digman (1990) suggests that most personalities can be classified into five general traits, which are called the Big Five model. The five general traits are extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Robbins and Judge (2012) elaborate that extraversion refers to an individuals' comfort level with relationships. Extraverts are expected to be assertive and sociable. They further elaborate that agreeableness refers to an individuals' tendency to relate well to others and their tendency to be cooperative, warm and trusting. They also indicate that conscientiousness refers to an individuals' tendency to be reliable, responsible, dependable and persistent. They further elaborate that emotional stability refers to an individual's ability to be calm, self-confident and secure. Finally, they elaborate that openness to experience refers to an individual's tendency to have high interest in new things and their tendency to be creative and curious.
In conclusion, there are five personality traits. These personality traits influence how leaders think and behave. Each personality trait has a different impact on leaders. These impacts will be discussed in more detail next. Moreover, there will be differentiated between two types of leaders who have to work with a culturally diverse workforce: expatriate leaders and global leaders.
Impact of Big Five personality traits on expatriate leaders According to Mol, Born, and Willemsen (2005), the Big Five dimensions have only since 2000 received attention of researchers within the expatriate context. Previously, the attention
was solely on the Big Five dimensions as predictors of domestic job performance. The attention of the Big Five dimension on expatriate contexts is of interest, because according to Aycan and Kanugo (1997), expatriates refer to employees of a business who are sent to a country which is different from their own. Hofstede (1983) suggests that people in different countries perceive and interpret the world in fundamental different ways. Therefore indicates Moran et al. (2014) that it is important to understand the national character and mindsets of people. It is important to understand the impact of the Big five dimensions, because according to Arthur and Bennett (1997), it is not yet clear of what organizations should be selecting for. Also Werner (2002) has indicated that job performance criteria for expatriates are unavailable.
Caligirui (2000) argues that each of the Big Five dimensions should relate positively to the job performance of expatriate leaders. Mol et al. (2005) indicate that positive job performance can be seen in terms of being assertive, stable, dutiful and not shy or nervous. Mol et al. (2005) have found both confirming and contradictory results for this statement. They have found that extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness were indeed positively related to expatriate leaders' job performance. However, they also found that openness to experience was not positively related to expatriate leaders' job performance.
Impact of Big Five personality traits on global leaders
Global leaders are defined as executives who are in jobs with some international scope (Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997).
Extraversion. Robbins and Judge (2012) suggest that being extravert creates enhanced leadership. They further suggest that extraverts have good interpersonal skills. These interpersonal skills are important for leaders with culturally diverse subordinates, because according to Rijamampianina and Maxwell (2002), normally the chance of miscommunication increases exponentially when individuals with different cultures or backgrounds communicate with each other. Bueno and Tubbs (2004) support the importance of interpersonal skills, because they argue that a lack of communication can lead to being mistrusted. Shaffer et al. (2006) further indicate that extraversion is a positive predictor of cultural adjustment, indicating that extraverts can easily adjust to living conditions in other countries. However, they failed to support that extraversion is also a positive predictor of interaction adjustment. Therefore, when organizations select or prepare leaders for cross-cultural encounters, it can be helpful to choose extravert leaders, because extravert leaders are more likely to perform well.
Conscientiousness. Robbins and Judge (2012) suggest that being a highly
conscientious person creates enhanced leadership. Caligiuri (2004) further found that effective global leaders were significantly higher in conscientiousness than less effective global
leaders. Conscientiousness is a useful personality trait in relation to leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). A reason for this is that conscientious individuals have integrity and can create trust (Hogan et al., 1994). Optimism can be related to conscientiousness, because according to Ones and Viswesvaran (1997), some facets of conscientiousness are being purposeful, strong-willed and determined. According to Bird et al. (2010), these facets also relate to optimism. Optimism is believed to be a personality trait that characterizes an intercultural competent person (Hawes & Kealey, 1981). It can therefore be helpful for organizations to choose leaders who are highly conscientious, because those leaders are more likely to be effective in cross-cultural encounters and more likely to be intercultural
competent.
Openness to experience. Robbins and Judge (2012) suggest that being open to experience creates enhanced leadership. They elaborate that openness to experience is important for leaders, because open people are more likely to be effective leaders and they can handle ambiguity and change better. Being open to new experiences and curious for new things can be especially an advantage for leaders who have to work in another country, because according to Brein and David (1973), the ability to find new interests and replacing existing interests that do not fit anymore within the culture of the new country is an important aspect in being successful in global or intercultural contexts. A trait that can be related to openness to experience is motivation to learn, because according to Barrick and Mount (1991), individuals who are open to experience are more likely to have positive stance towards learning experiences and are thus more willing to engage in learning experiences. Bueno and Tubbs (2004) indicate that international leaders consider the motivation to learn as an important trait of an effective global leader. These international leaders suggest that
listening and exchanging ideas is a good way to gain knowledge and enhance personal skills. They also suggest that it is important to understand the differences between people and understanding why these differences exist.
Therefore, being open to experience is an important personality trait for leaders to posses in order to work effectively with culturally diverse subordinates, because leaders who are open to experience are more likely to be effective, they can handle ambiguous situations well and they are more willing to learn new things.
better liked and more compliant and conforming. This can help leaders in their relationship with culturally diverse subordinates, because according to Milliken and Martins (1996), normally people hold prejudices against others who have a different race or gender. They suggest that this normally adds to the difficulty of interacting. Shaffer et al. (2006) found that agreeableness is a positive predictor of interaction adjustment, indicating that high agreeable individuals have the ability to socialize with people from another culture. However, they failed to support that agreeableness is also a positive predictor of cultural adjustment.
Bird et al. (2010) suggest that agreeableness is related to emotional sensitivity. They indicate that emotional sensitivity refers to the extent to which individuals are sensitive to the emotions and feelings of other people and this definition is to some extant similar to the definition of agreeableness used by Robbins and Judge (2012). Hudson and Inkson (2006) further indicate that emotional sensitivity is important for intercultural effectiveness, because it shows tolerance for the difference in others. Therefore, agreeableness is an important personality trait for leaders to posses in order to work effectively with culturally diverse subordinates.
Emotional stability. Robbins and Judge (2012) indicate that individuals who are emotionally stable have fewer negative emotions and fewer negative thoughts. Judge and Ferris (1993) have indicated that subordinates who differ from their supervisor experience lower performance evaluations and lower levels of positive affect on the part of the supervisor. Therefore, it may indicate that leaders who are emotional stable will have the possibility to eliminate those negative consequences for their culturally diverse subordinates. Successful leaders tend be calm and confident (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) argue that emotional stability is important for leaders, because if they lack emotional stability they have difficulties in handling pressure and they are more likely to be moody and angry. They suggest that this undermines their interpersonal relationships with subordinates.
Robbins and Judge (2012) argue that one of the underlying facets of emotional stability is self-confidence. Also Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) argue that self-confidence is associated with emotional stability. They indicate that self-confidence is important for leaders, because followers are less likely to trust a leader when he/she demonstrates a high degree of doubt. Bird et al. (2010) also strike the importance of self-confidence, because they argue that self-confidence is an important aspect in intercultural effectiveness and adjustment. Locke (1999) suggests that self-confidence is a required trait for successful leadership. Therefore, when organizations select or prepare leaders for cross-cultural encounters, it can be helpful to
choose leaders who are emotional stable, because emotional stable leaders are more likely to eliminate the negative thoughts of their subordinates and they are more likely to have
successful interpersonal relationships with their subordinates.
Selecting leaders with small cultural distance, which refers to the four dimensions of Hofstede (1980a) or selecting leaders with a specific age or gender is not helpful. Mol et al. (2005) namely indicate that none of these variables had a significant relationship with the job performance of expatriate leaders. In conclusion, it is important for organizations to select leaders who posses all or some of the Big Five personality traits, because each of these personality traits and characteristics contribute in some way to the success of leaders in dealing with cultural difference in the workforce. However, it is also important that leaders posses intercultural competencies in order to work effectively with a cross-cultural workforce. The important intercultural competencies for leaders with a cross-cultural workforce will be
discussed next.
Important intercultural competencies for leaders with a cross-cultural workforce
Intercultural competencies and their dimensions
According to Deardorff (2004), researchers have defined intercultural competencies in a variety of ways. The definition that was mostly used among researchers was the one in which intercultural competence was defined as '' the ability to communicate effectively and
appropriately in intercultural situations based on one's intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes'' (Deardorff, 2004, p. 194).
Empirical evidence (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991) has shown that it is practical to organize intercultural competence by using three broad
dimensions for individuals. Bird et al. (2010) has renamed them as perception management, relationship management and self management. They suggest that all these three large intercultural competency dimensions are characterized by underlying facets which further illustrate the aspects of intercultural competence. The three broad dimensions will now be discussed in more detail.
Perception management dimension
The perception management dimension focuses on how an individual cognitively approaches cultural differences (Bird et al., 2010). Cognitive skills have an influence on the way we interpret and experience our environment, furthermore they affect how we learn from these interpretations and experiences (Jokinen, 2005). Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) support that
this dimension focuses on cognitive processes. They suggest that these processes eases an individual's ability to understand why individuals with cultural differences behave in a certain way. Bird et al. (2010) further indicate that this dimension addresses how mentally flexible individuals are when they have to deal with cultural differences and whether they make immediate judgments about the displayed differences.
Mendendenhall and Oddou (1985) further delineates that this dimension assesses whether the judgments about the reasons of an individual's behavior are correct. They suggest that it is important to make correct judgments about the reasons or causes of an individual's behavior, because this helps to predict future behavior and it reduces uncertainty in
interpersonal and intercultural relationships. This dimension finally addresses how interested individuals are in different cultures (Bird et al., 2010).
The first intercultural competence in this dimension for leaders is nonjudgmentalness. Nonjudgmentalness refers to the extent to which an individual is disposed to suppress or hold off judgments about persons, situations and behaviors that are new or unfamiliar for them (Bird et al., 2010). Also other researchers (Arensberg & Niehoff, 1971; Barna, 1972) have indicated that nonjudgmentalness is an important interpersonal and social communication skill, which in turn is important for cross-cultural adaption. Hofstede (1980b) suggests that the capacity to be nonjudgemental is a key cross-cultural skill. Bueno and Tubbs (2004) support this. However, they divide this competence in respect for others, open-mindedness and sensitivity. They consider these three some of the most important global leadership competencies. Bueno and Tubbs (2004) conducted an interview with international leaders which provided insight in these three intercultural competencies. One international leader suggested that respect for others is important, because everybody is different and respecting their opinions is of importance. Another international leader suggested that open-mindedness is important, because it is needed to understand differences. Moreover, another international leader suggested that sensitivity is important, because trying to understand the point of view of another individual is important in order to change the situation (Bueno & Tubbs, 2004).
The second intercultural competence in this dimension for leaders is acceptance of
complexity and its contradictions. This refers to a personal attitude towards ambiguous and
unpredictable situations. Accepting complexity and its contradictions is important, because complexity is continuously increasing as a result of cultural differences in organizations (Jokinen, 2005). Individuals who accept complexity and its contradictions develop the appreciation of cultural differences in the organization. This appreciation of cultural differences is important for global leaders (Jordan & Cartwright, 1998). When leaders are
uncomfortable with reacting and adjusting to new situations, it can have negative
consequences such as confusion, frustration and interpersonal hostility. That is why the skill of reaction to new and ambiguous situations and environments can be crucial for successful cross-cultural adaption (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Also Hofstede (1980b) suggests that the capacity to be tolerant for ambiguity is a key cross-cultural skill.
The third intercultural competence in this dimension for leaders is inquisitiveness. Inquisitiveness refers to an individual's capability of accepting new ideas and focusing on more than his/her own way of dealing with problems (Tucker, Bonial, & Lathi, 2004). Moreover, inquisitiveness addresses being open and willing to understand different ideas, value, norms, situations and behavior (Bird et al., 2010). These values and norms are known as tertiary dimensions of diversity, they lie below the surface and are less obvious for others (Rijamampianina & Carmichael, 2005). Bird et al. (2010) further indicate that inquisitiveness involves avoiding stereotyping. Milliken and Martins (1996) argue that this stereotyping is especially a result of observable attributes of diversity. Gertsen (1990) support the negative influence of using stereotypes by indicating that a good deal of intercultural
misunderstandings can be explained by the use of stereotypes.
The fourth intercultural competence in this dimension is cosmpolitanism.
Cosmoplitanism refers to an individual's interest and curiosity about different cultures and countries (Bird et al., 2010). Bird, Osland, and Lane (2004) indicate that this is an important competence for global leaders, because individuals who posses cosmopolitanism are willing to engage with people who are different. A reason for this can be that according to Levy, Beechler, Taylor, and Boyacigiller (1999), individuals with a cosmopolitan mindset have an enthusiastic appreciation of other cultures.
The fifth and final intercultural competence in this dimension for leaders is category
inclusiveness. Bird et al. (2012) suggest that this refers to the tendency to include and accept
people based on similarities rather than dividing people in groups or categories, even though people have noticeable differences. Detweiler (1980) argues that a narrow categorizer normally puts only highly similar people in the same category, whereas a broad categorizer might include more people with cultural differences in the same category. He argues that this approach to categorizing things can be used for interpreting the behavior of another person.
According to Detweiler (1980), the category width has an important effect on the conclusions which are drawn in intercultural interaction. He suggests that a reason for this is that a narrow categorizer frequently might have the wrong interpretations and expectations of the behavior of individuals. Therefore, category inclusiveness can be positive for the
relationship between leaders and their subordinates, because according to Robbins and Judge (2012), normally observable attributes can lead leaders to perceive other employees trough stereotypes and assumptions. This inclines that they normally perceive others as different and they do not include different individuals in the same category. Therefore, category
inclusiveness has the potential to reduce stereotyping. Human (1996) suggests that this is important, because stereotyping has adverse effect on interpersonal effectiveness.
In conclusion, it is important for organizations and leaders themselves that they possess all or some of the intercultural competencies of the perception management dimension. The competencies in this dimension namely help leaders to understand the behavior of culturally diverse subordinates and they help leaders to be mentally flexible to culturally differences. Next, the intercultural competencies of the second broad dimension, the relationship management dimension, will be discussed in more detail.
Relationship management dimension
The relationship management dimension focuses on the orientation of individuals with regard to the importance of relationships, how conscious individuals are of others and whether individuals are aware what their impact is on others (Bird et al., 2010). Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) support the establishment of this dimension and indicate that this dimension includes attributes that have a positive impact on the ability of an individual to interact effectively with culturally diverse people. Bird et al. (2010) further suggest that this
dimension complements the perception management dimension, because it delineates how the cognitive structures have an influence on behavior and especially on intercultural and
interpersonal relationships.
The first intercultural competence in this dimension for leaders is communication
skills. According to Mendenhall and Oddou (1985), communication skills are related to some
factors. They suggest that examples of those factors are: a leaders' willingness to use the language of another person, a leaders' confidence when he/she interacts with others, the desire to understand and relate to others and finally a leaders' use of conversational currency.
Conversational currency suggest that a leader should know the social and textual knowledge that is shared by many members of a culture which offers common ground for social
conversations (Chandler & Munday, 2011). Hofstede (1980b) suggests that the capacity to communicate is a key cross-cultural skill. Bueno and Tubbs (2004) support the importance of this competence and they consider communication skills as one of the most important global leadership competencies. They strike that accomplishing good communication is important,
