Knowing Your Audience: The Relationship of Cultural Competence and Work Outcomes Through Communication Accommodation
Madalyn Klika - 11814934 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication Supervisor: Claartje ter Hoeven
Abstract
Past literature has stated that communication plays a fundamental role in demonstrating cultural competence. (Thomas et al., 2008; Ang et al., 2007). In this study, we attempt to measure the extent of this role. This study will explain the concept of cultural competence and present an alternative conceptualization for its effect on work outcomes. Communication accommodation is presented as the underlying mechanism for cultural competence on the work outcomes: uncertainty management and workplace conflict. The presence of national diversity in the workplace will also be examined. Here, it will be tested to see if the presence of national diversity changes the relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict through communication accommodation. These concepts will be defined and the relationship will be explained furthermore in a theoretical framework. Subsequently, the methodology and results will be presented followed by a discussion of finding, limitations and suggestions for future research.
Keywords: Cultural competence cultural knowledge, attitudes, communication accommodation, uncertainty management, workplace conflict, national diversity.
Introduction
According to the Globalization Report of 2018, there has been a steady increase in globalization over the past two and a half decades. Since the transition to the digital age, technology has enabled society to easily interact with an international community through the invention of communication technologies and virtual conferencing (Muñoz-Leiva, Hernández-Méndez, & Gómez-Carmona, 2018). Due to this newfound ability, there has also been a significant increase in international travel (Dong, Wang, & Zhang, 2018) and international business ventures (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Learnlight Insights reported 2018 to be the year of the highest levels of global mobility and country relocation in history.
Because of this shift to a globalized society, increasing intercultural interaction is occurring not only in the business world but also healthcare and education. This sparked an interest in research on the topic of cultural competence (Eisenberg, 2018). Cultural competence is defined as an individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills, and personal attitudes to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006).
Research has found several beneficial outcomes from cultural competence. In the healthcare sector, increased cultural competence for practitioners resulted in higher levels of patient satisfaction, better patient-practitioner communication, and increases in medication adherence (Betancourt, Green, Carrillo & Owusu Ananeh-Firempong, 2016; Truong, Paradies & Priest, 2014). In the business world, education of management on cultural competence was found to decrease expat failure and increase task performance and employee engagement (Richter, Schlägel, van Bakel & Lemmergaard, 2019; Yao, 2014); All of this indirectly saving time and
money for companies and creating employees with a more realistic world view and a higher tolerance from managing in uncertainty.
Because this concept is so strongly relevant in today’s global society, the measurement and conceptualization of cultural competence requires further exploration. In this study, we will examine the concept of cultural competence through the role communication plays in its
beneficial outcomes. The context in which cultural competence has been studied will also be examined.
Throughout research on cultural competence, there have been several conceptualizations of the term (Thomas et al., 2008; Ang et al., 2007; Early & Ang, 2003). One common theme in these studies is its equal distribution of the mental capacities (knowledge and attitude) and behavioral capacities (behavior) in its measurement. It is stated that the behavioral component of cultural competence is imperative for the mental capacities to be translated successfully (Ang et al., 2007). However, little to no cultural competence literature conceptualizes the behavioral capacity to a higher level of necessity or depth as the mental capacities.
The behavioral component is described as the ability to interact and communicate both verbally and non-verbally with people from other cultures (Ang et al., 2007). Several parallels in the characteristics of the behavioral capacity can be found in the concept of communication accommodation. Communication accommodation is depicted as how and why speakers adjust their communicative style depending on the context and person they are speaking with (Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987). Increased communication accommodation training has been found to assist in conflict resolution at work (Ayoko, Härtel, & Callan, 2002) and improve skills in uncertainty management (Brashers, 2001). The personal attributes such as open-mindedness, found in the mental capacities of cultural competence, have been found to improve these
concepts as well (uncertainty management: Gillespie & Slawson (2003); workplace conflict: Schieman & Reid (2008)). This present research will add to literature by proposing a
conceptualization of cultural competence where its behavioral capacity is represented as
communication accommodation and presented as the underlying mechanism of the relationships. The relationships proposed are that of cultural competence improving uncertainty management and reducing conflict in the workplace. Thus, the following research questions are proposed: RQ1: To what extent does communication accommodation mediate the relationship between cultural competence and uncertainty management?
RQ2: To what extent does communication accommodation mediate the relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict?
Another common theme found in cultural competence literature is the domain in which the concept is studied. Majority of the research on cultural competence adds to knowledge regarding an interaction between two different cultures (Betancourt, Green, Carrillo & Owusu Ananeh-Firempong, 2016; Horvat, Horey, Romios & Kis-Rigo, 2014) or as a way to improve management for diverse employees (Egan & Bendick, 2008; Muzychenko, 2008). In the modern world where individuality is encouraged and accepting the differences in others is the societal norm, the attitudes afforded by cultural competence have the potential to be useful outside the scope of national diversity. Conflict is defined as incompatibilities of perspectives between parties regarding the views, wishes, and values held by each party (Rahim, 2017). As previously mentioned, an increase in cultural competence improves open-mindedness and understanding differing perspectives (Deardoff, 2006). This, along with the benefits communication
accommodation that has been proven to provide for conflict resolution, could give the idea that cultural competence could benefit groups with no national diversity as it does groups with
national diversity. This contributes to current literature on cultural competence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2015) by demonstrating relevance of this concept in business and management literature without the presence of internationality. This prompts curiosity regarding the relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict mediated by communication
accommodation, and further questions if this relationship changes with the presence of national diversity. Thus prompting the following research question:
RQ3: To what extent does the presence of national diversity in the workplace change the relationship presented in RQ2?
This research fills the gap of current literature in two ways. First, it suggests a new conceptualization with the behavioral attribute as a central role of the relationship. This
contributes to the literature gap proposed by Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud (2006) stating that past literature has put “an overemphasis on the mental antecedents ‘knowing’ rather than the behavioral manifestation ‘doing’” (p. 534). This idea has come to fruition in this present study by identifying communication accommodation as the behavioral attribute and presenting it as the underlying mechanism between cultural competence and work outcomes. Secondly, this study contributes to cultural competence literature by presenting a new context for study. Past research has focused on the benefit of this concept in international interaction. This present study will attempt to demonstrate that high levels of cultural competence is comparably beneficial in nationally homogeneous work environments as it is in nationally diverse work environments.
Theoretical Background
Ang et al. (2007) depict cultural competence as cultural intelligence: a multidimensional structure that is rooted in the conceptualization of general intelligence. It is said that general intelligence is made up of mental and behavioral capacities. When explaining the behavioral
capacity, it is stated: “Mental capabilities must be complemented with the ability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions… those with high behavioral cultural intelligence tend to exhibit exceptional situationally appropriate behaviors” (p. 336). Although Ang et al. (2007) distinguishes the difference between the mental and behavioral capacities of cultural
competence, they are both measured on the same level of depth and importance. In this present research, these two capacities will be measured separately. Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud (2006) presented three primary attributes involved in the makeup of cultural competence: cultural knowledge, personal attitudes, and skill. In this paper, the mental attributes, cultural knowledge, and attitudes will be operationalized as cultural competence. In order to explain how the behavioral attribute acts as an underlying mechanism for cultural competence and its
outcomes, it will be explained furthermore as communication accommodation. Cultural Competence
Cultural knowledge is an important determinant of one’s ability to minimize
misunderstandings (Hammer, Bennett, Wiseman 1987). It is the tangible information that is discovered when learning about cultures in general and the specific knowledge pertaining to one culture in particular. Hofstede (2001) explains the differences between culture-general
knowledge and culture-specific knowledge. Culture-general knowledge is essentially cultural differentiation. Cultural differentiation is ones ability to understand the critical features that differentiation is based on. These differentiators include several categories: roles of men and women, individualism vs. collectivism (Hofstede, 1983), the concept of class and status, values, and language (Tomoeda & Bayles, 2002). Someone with strong culture-general knowledge spends time comparing and contrasting between cultures as well as comparing a culture to his or her own. Culture-specific knowledge includes knowledge that is specific to one culture. This can
include information such as geography, economics, customs, and cuisine. Culture-specific knowledge is identified as a hierarchy of factual, conceptual, and attributional knowledge. (Bird, Heinbuch, Dunbar & McNulty, 1993). While factual knowledge can be learned online or in textbooks, conceptual knowledge is concerned with understanding the value system of that culture and how it is reflected in the behavior of its people. An example of this could be the idea that Dutch people value punctuality and order; This is reflected by the idea that most Dutch people prefer to arrive on time to a meeting or events. Attributional knowledge is the heightened awareness someone possesses of the appropriate behavior; in other words, taking factual and conceptual knowledge and having it realized in your own behavior. Therefore, knowing the Dutch are always on time, attributional knowledge would be realizing this and arriving on time as well, thus assimilating and being courteous to their cultural norms. Culture-specific
knowledge is strengthened the more time spent in one specific culture.
Cultural attitudes are described as one’s personality disposition as well as their own internalized values, norms, and beliefs (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Deardoff (2006) states that the most requisite attitudes for maintaining cultural competence are: respect for other cultures and cultural diversity; openness to intercultural learning/the people of other cultures all without holding judgment; and curiosity, discovery and the ability to tolerate ambiguity. These attitudes are described as cultural attitudes.
Some theorists believe that effectiveness in cross-cultural interaction is a natural ability. Those that believe this more strongly follow the ideas of cultural intelligence. Cultural
intelligence is identified as an individual who has a seemingly natural ability to interact effectively with people who are culturally different. (Thomas et al., 2008). While the
it is implied that cultural intelligence is an inherent skill and not one that can be learned. The Oxford English Dictionary defines competence as “having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully, ”and thus implying competencies can increase through time and practice. Both knowledge and attitudes can also be taught and learned through experience. One way cultural knowledge and cultural attitudes are manifested is through exposure to other cultures through international travel. International travel has been found to have a positive and lasting effect on one’s personal outlook on life (Lee, Therriault & Linderholm, 2012). Crowne (2013) conducted an exploratory study to measure the effect cultural exposure has on cultural intelligence. Results indicated that higher levels of cultural exposure significantly predict an increase in cultural intelligence. In line with this study, and in accordance with cultural
competence having the ability to be learned, this paper follows the idea that cultural competence can be obtained through exposure to other culture.
Communication Accommodation and the Behavioral Attribute
In order to understand why the behavioral attribute of cultural competence and
communication accommodation are interchangeable in this study, it is important to see how the behavior capacity is explained in literature. Thomas et al. (2008) explain the behavioral capacity ‘skill’ as: perceptual skill, relational skills, and adaptive skill. Perceptual skill is one’s open-mindedness, tolerance for uncertainty, and non-judgmentalness. Relational skill is considered flexibility, sociability, and empathy. While these attributes are important, they are not physical acts that can be performed. These ‘skills’ are represented in past literature (Johnson,
Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006; Deardoff, 2006; Ang et al., 2007) and in this present study as the ‘attitudes’ that are necessary for cultural competence. The final dimension, adaptive skills are the only ‘skill’ that involves outright behavior. Adaptive skill is often defined as one’s ability to
exhibit behavior previously possessed or quickly developed through the course of interaction. The characteristics of adaptive behavior are monitoring, behavioral flexibility, and self-regulation. These characteristics are consistent with the ideas presented in the communication accommodation theory.
The communication accommodation theory explains that depending on how we relate to another person’s verbal and nonverbal behavior, determines our behavior during conversation (Hordila & Pana, 2010). This is explained through specific levels of convergence and
divergence. Convergence is a strategy in which individuals adapt their communicative behavior in order to seem similar to the person they are speaking with. On the other end, divergence is the way in which speakers differentiate him or herself in order to increase social distance (Hordila & Pana, 2010). In relation to convergence, cultural competence literature (Thomas et al., 2008) discuss the positive outcomes of mimicry in conversation, in a similar way as convergence. The importance of differentiating yourself in conversation in order to ensure genuinity is also discussed by Thomas et al., (2008), much like that of divergence. An indication of the level of convergence and divergence necessary for a conversation is explained by one’s sense of interpretability. This explains that in the beginning stages of a conversation, one evaluates (or interprets) the level of competence the other has within a conversation, and accordingly, adjusts their complexity of speech, diversity in vocabulary, clarity, tempo, and topic of conversation. An example of this could be when communicating with someone whose native language is different than the language being utilized in conversation. Knowing that they are not native speakers, one could evaluate how to be courteous to the other person by withholding from slang or speaking too quickly.
Improving communication competence or intercultural communication skills are often included as implications for cultural competence research (Alon, Boulanger, Meyers, & Taras 2016; Berry & Ward, 2006) however, it is scarcely credited as the reasons culturally competent knowledge attitudes can be translated into action. Written, verbal or non-verbal interaction between two or more people is how information is sent or received and is how one can
demonstrate the ability to adjust our interaction according to the person (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005). This being true, it can be suggested communication should be the primary behavior discussed regarding the behavioral attribute of cultural competence. Cultural competence facilitated by communication accommodation can be suggested to have beneficial outcomes pertaining to uncertainty management and conflict resolution.
Uncertainty Management
Uncertainty Management is rooted in the anxiety/uncertainty management theory that assumes that managing uncertainty and anxiety are central processes influencing the
effectiveness of our communication with others (Stephan, Stephan, & Gudykunst,
1999). Uncertainty management is the ability to communicate effectivity when uncertainty is present (Brashers, 2001). This includes managing uncertainty that is challenging, learning to live with chronic uncertainty, and managing the information that coincides with uncertainty.
Engaging in uncertainty management increases the ability to make decisions and solve problems when there is limited information about the situation. This could be anything from starting a new job to going to an unfamiliar place.
The role of knowledge and information can be helpful or hindering when it comes to uncertainty management. Information seeking behavior is an automatic response in attempting to reduce uncertainty (Brashers, 2001): the more you know about something the better you can
prepare for it. On the other hand, an overload of information can be just as distressing. The normative theory has looked at problem solving and decision making as taking all available information, analyzing and carefully weighing the pros and cons of potential outcomes. Cultural competence contributes to uncertainty management in two folds. First cultural differentiation provides a framework for deciphering through information overload. Secondly, practice of cultural attitudes help one become more comfortable with uncertainty when it does arise.
Uncertainty exists when details of situations are ambiguous, when information is unavailable or inconsistent and when people feel insecure in their own state of knowledge (Brashers, 2001). If one becomes more comfortable with the idea of unpredictability they can manage uncertainty better. Differentiation techniques afforded through cultural knowledge can assist in preparing for unpredictability. Having the ability to look at the critical features of a situation assists in creating awareness of guidelines by which something is unpredictable, lessening its intimidation.
Thau, Aquino, and Wittek (2007) found that someone with high levels of social comparison behavior leads to higher levels of anxiety and inability to manage uncertainty. A study of students from study abroad programs demonstrates how cultural competence (gained through cultural exposure) can inhibit this behavior.
The Institute for the International Education of Students (2003) surveyed alumni from all IES study abroad programs from 1950 through 1999, reaching over 3,400 respondents. These students showed that despite where participants studied, studying abroad was a defining occasion that impacted an individual’s life long after their experience ended. 95% claimed study abroad was a stimulant for increased maturity, 89% stated it increased self-confidence, 89% stated it enabled them to tolerate ambiguity, and 90% stated it allowed them to learn more about
themselves. These personal developments are inhibitors of social comparison and are reflective of the attitudes demonstrated in cultural competence.
These developments are also said to enrich long term interpersonal communication (Brashers, 2001; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) demonstrating these intangible attributes to influence one’s communicative behavior. Because the goal of the uncertainty management theory is to improve effectiveness in communication, one can infer cultural competence is related to uncertainty management through improved communication skills. Because the attributes that increase uncertainty management can be found in cultural competence literature (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006; Deardoff, 2006; Ang et al., 2007), and communication is found to be the medium used to demonstrate these attributes, the following is hypothesized:
H1: There is a positive relationship between cultural competence and uncertainty management through communication accommodation.
Workplace Conflict
Conflict in the workplace is manifested when there are perceived incompatibilities between parties’ views or inherent beliefs. Conflict can arise due to relational problems or task-related differences in opinion (Ayoko, Härtel, & Callan, 2002). Mohr and Spekman (1994) explain two focuses needed to enact in conflict resolution: attributes of the partner and
communication behavior. Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud (2006) states that increasing cultural competence means being able to ‘place yourself in the position of others’ to understand why he or she thinks and acts a certain way. This can be useful when attempting to resolve conflict by increasing one’s understanding of a partner’s attributes. This is done by putting yourself in their shoes and learning how to differentiate yourself in order to see their perspective. Secondly, communication behavior is included as an important component in conflict resolution. This can
be done through communication accommodation because it assists in individualizing a message in order to meet the needs of others. By understanding another’s perspective we can further individualize a message thus reducing conflict in the workplace. This prompts the following hypothesis:
H2: There is a negative relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict through communication accommodation.
International business and management training are the primary genre of research cultural competence is found (Alon, Boulanger, Meyers, & Taras 2016; Berry & Ward, 2006; Matveev & Nelson, 2004). It is used as a skill to assist management overseas, improve international relationships, and to improve the success rate of intercultural assignments. (Johnson,
Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Although the relevance of this topic is obvious for international relations, there is scarce literature studying the subject in any other context. Assuming that cultural competence is gained through exposure to culture (Crowne, 2013), if someone has spent time in another country they are able to possess cultural competence. Therefore, they have the potential to also possess skills in differentiation and exhibit cultural attitudes, attributes that are good to have in any situation and are not limited to national diversity. Williams and O’Reilly (1998) explain diversity as to include all attributes that people use to inform themselves that another person is different. Under this definition, any one person can be considered diverse, just by being an individual. Attributes found in cultural competence, including open-mindedness or accepting of differences in others, are attributes that can benefit everyone, not just a nationally diverse group.
In a study done by Hofstede and McCrae (2004) the five-factor model of personality and the IBM study dimensions of culture were compared and assessed for correlation. It was found
that these personality scores were significantly and substantially correlated with that of cultural dimension scores, exhibiting that culture and personality are inherently intertwined. This research demonstrates that the framework used for cultural differentiation is mirrored in the framework distinguishing personality traits. An example of this is individualism vs collectivism. On an individual level, understanding which category someone falls under can reveal their working habits: What are their motivations for work? Are they more successful working on a team or by themselves? What does work-life balance look like according to them? Looking at the benefits cultural competence can have on all types of people, it could be possible that a
nationally diverse or not nationally diverse would not change the relationship. Keeping with the argument that communication accommodation is the underlying mechanism for cultural
competence having positive outcomes, the following is hypothesized in accordance with H3: H3: For the relationship presented in H2, workplaces where national diversity is not present and workplaces where national diversity is present are comparable.
Methods Procedure and Sample
In order to examine the relationship between cultural competence and related variables, an online survey was conducted with a cross-sectional time frame in an individual setting. The online modality was chosen for convenience of respondents that allows for sampling in multiple geographical locations. Because participants are asked to discuss their personal experience of their travels, workplace interactions, and interpersonal skills, surveying based on self-reporting fit the present research design. The survey used in this research was created through an online survey tool, Qualtrics. This tool allows for skip logic, ensuring only those who meet the participant criteria are included in the data. This survey took 5-10 minutes to complete.
This sample was composed using convince sampling, as participants were taken from the personal network of the researcher. A snowballing effect occurred due to the distribution of the survey to personal networks extending from that of the researcher. This survey was distributed through a link or QR code generated by Qualtrics. Before starting the survey, all participants were presented with a consent form and could select ‘Yes, I consent to this study’ and would proceed with the research or ‘No, I do not wish to participate in this study’ where they would be taken to the end of the survey. All participants were given a 14-day window to complete the survey.
294 people participated in this survey between 23 November 2018 to 10 December 2018. Those that had not traveled to 1 or more countries outside their home country and those that do not interact with 5 or more people a day were removed, leaving the final number of participant’s N = 212. The average age of respondents was 32.99 (SD = 13.26) ranging from 20 to 77; 65.6% were female, and 30.7% of respondents interact with 10-20 people on an average workday. Majority of respondents were American (70.3%), followed by Dutch (5.7%), and British (3.8), in total 30 nationalities were represented in this data pool.
Measures
There are five main variables used in this research. Cultural competence, functioning as the independent variable, workplace conflict, and uncertainty management as the outcome variables communication accommodation functioning as a mediator, and national diversity in the workplace is tested as a moderating variable
Cultural Competence. This concept is conceptualized as one’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge and personal attitudes to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Cultural competence will
be measured by culture knowledge and attitudes. This scale was created by the researcher for this study and created the items based off the explanation of culture knowledge according to Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud (2006) and the explanation of attitudes according to Deardoff (2006). See theoretical framework for explanations of culture knowledge and attitudes. To measure this construct, 10 items were created, six measuring cultural knowledge, including items such as “I was knowledgeable about the value system of the country I was visiting” and four measuring attitude, including items such as “The amount I value cultures and cultural diversity has
increased”. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with all items based on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. A list of these items is provided (see Table 2).
To measure this validity of this construct, we first established that the sample size of this study was adequate. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of .81 and a
significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p< .001) established an adequate sample. A principle component analysis (PCA) was then conducted on these 10 items. Using Direct Oblimin rotation, two factors were extracted based on an Eigenvalue greater than 1. The first factor extracted explained 34.55% of variance with a factor loading range from .58 to .86 and was accurately inclusive of all six items measuring ‘culture knowledge’. The second factor extracted explained 21.68% of variance with a factor loading range from .70 to .80 and was accurately inclusive of all four items measuring attitude. Together these factors explained 56.23% of variance. Based on this, it was concluded all items indeed measured the same concept of cultural competence, therefore a new scale was constructed by averaging all items. The reliability of this scale including all 10 items is good with a Cronbach’s alpha = .79 (n = 212, M = 4.23, SD = .44).
Communication Accommodation. Communication accommodation is understood as the way in which a speaker adjusts their verbal (including speech style and specific linguistic usage) and non-verbal communication, to accomplish a mutual goal (Hordila & Pana, 2010). To
measure this concept six items were developed. The first five items were conceptualized according to the communication accommodating technique explained by Ayoko, Härtel, and Callan (2002), a sample item being: “I adjust the clarity of my speech depending on who I am speaking with”. One additional item was included: “You feel like officer Miller made you feel comfortable during conversation” (Kwon, 2012). This item was a part of a survey measuring communication accommodation by law enforcement, and was altered for a more general population and self-reporting format: “I try to make the person I am speaking with feel
comfortable in conversation”. For all six items, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with all items based on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. A list of these items is provided (see Table 2).
To see whether the 6 items could indeed be merged into one scale measuring
communication accommodation a factor analysis was conducted. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of .73 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p< .001) established an adequate sample. A principle component analysis (PCA) was then conducted on these 6 items. After a Direct Oblimin rotation, all items loaded onto one factor based on an Eigenvalue greater than 1 (eigenvalue 2.60), explaining 43.32% of the variance. These six items together have a strong reliable Cronbach’s alpha reliability of these items with a Cronbach’s alpha = .73 (n = 212, M = 4.39, SD = .55).
Uncertainty management. This concept is understood as the ability to communicate effectively even when uncertainty is present in social situations (Gudykunst, 2005). To measure
this concept, 11 items of the intolerance of uncertainty scale constructed by Carleton, Sharpe, & Asmundson, (2007) were employed. A sample items include “Unforeseen events upset me”. Participants were again asked to indicate their level of agreement with all items based on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Because these items depict someone’s lack of uncertainty management, all items in this scale were reverse coded.
To measure this validity of this construct, a factor analysis was conducted. Also in this case, the sample size was adequate (KMO= .813, Bartlett’s test of sphericity p< .001). A
principle component analysis (PCA) extracted one factor with an Eigenvalue greater than 1. Two items were removed due to a factor loading value below .4. The remaining 9 items are
considered reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha = .82. This indicates all items indeed measure the same concept, therefore, a new scale was constructed by averaging the items (n = 212, M = 3.28, SD = .55).
Workplace Conflict. The measurement of workplace conflict was derived from the Organizational Conflict Scale created by Rahim (2017). This construct is conceptualized as the perceived incompatibilities between parties of the view, wishes, and desires each hold (Ayoko, Härtel, & Callan, 2002). This measured by prompting respondents to “Answer in a way that best reflects how you perceive your work environment” using seven items such as “There is a
friendliness among me and my co-workers”. The level of measurement is indicated based off a participant’s level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from (5) ‘strongly agree’ to (1) ‘strongly disagree’.
To measure this validity of this construct, a factor analysis was conducted. Also, in this case, the sample size was adequate (KMO= .813, Bartlett’s test of sphericity p< .001). A principle component analysis (PCA) with a Direct Oblimin rotation, extracted one factor
Eigenvalue greater than 1. All 7 items are considered reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha = .78. This indicates all items indeed measure the same concept, therefore, a new scale was constructed by averaging the items (n = 212, M = 2.32, SD = .66).
Presence of National Diversity in the Workplace. To depict whether the presence of national diversity in the workplace has a moderating effect, it is included as a main variable and measured by one item: “Approximately what percentage (%) of your co-workers have the same nationality as you?” Participants are asked to indicate the percentage level by four answer options: (1) 100%, (2) 75%, (3) 50%, (4) 25%, (5) 0% (n = 212, M = 2.65, SD = 1.47).
Control Variables. In the model, we controlled for sex, measured as a dichotomous variable (female= 1 male = 0), age, measured as a continuous variable, and number of countries traveled, measured as a continuous variable.
Analyses
To test these hypotheses two analyses are to be conducted. Firstly, in order to measure the mediation effect of communication accommodation on the relationship between cultural competence and uncertainty management, model 4 of PROCESS v3.0 software by Andrew Hayes was utilized. Secondly, model 15 of PROCESS v3.0 software by Andrew Hayes will be utilized. This analysis will measure first, the mediation effect of communication on the
relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict, and secondly, the moderating effect of presence of national diversity on this relationship.
Results
To test if there is a mediation effect of communication accommodation on the relationship between cultural competence and uncertainty management (H1), a model 4 regression analysis ran through PROCESS was conducted. This model presents, cultural
competence as the predicting variable, gender, number of countries traveled, and number of daily interactions as covariates, communication accommodation as the mediating variable, and
uncertainty management as the outcome variable. In the first step of the regression analysis with communication accommodation as an outcome variable and cultural competence as the
predicting variable, the model was found to be significant (F (4,207) = 3.12, p < .05) explaining 6% of the variance (R2 = 0.06). It was found that cultural competence does predict
communication accommodation (b* = 0.27, t = 3.09, p < .005, 95% CI [ 0.10, 0.44]) therefore finding, when cultural competence has a 1-unit increase, communication accommodation increases by 0.27 units. The second step of the model with uncertainty management as the outcome variable, the model was found significant (F (5, 206) = 3.47 p > .005) explaining 8% of the variance (R2 = 0.08). Gender (b* = -0.21, t = -2.08, p < .05, 95% CI [-0.38, -0.01]) and the number of countries traveled (b* = 0.25, t = 3.75, p < .001, 95% CI [0.01, 0.04]) significantly predicts uncertainty management. However, the direct relationship between cultural competence and uncertainty management was found insignificant (b*= 0.05, t = 0.48, p = .587, 95% CI [ -0.27, 0.16]) as well as the direct relationship between communication accommodation and uncertainty management was found insignificant (b*= 0.01, t = 0.10, p= .924, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18]). Thus, the mediating effect of communication accommodation on the relationship between cultural competence and uncertainty management was found insignificant and in accordance with H1, the null hypothesis is accepted.
To test the mediation effect of communication accommodation on the relationship of cultural competence and workplace conflict (H2), a model 15 regression analysis ran through PROCESS was conducted. This model presents, cultural competence as the predicting variable, gender, and number of countries traveled, and number of daily interactions as covariates,
communication accommodation as the mediating variable, and workplace conflict as the outcome variable. Similar to H1, the first step of the regression analysis found the model with communication accommodation as an outcome variable and cultural competence as the
predicting variable, to be significant (F (4,207) = 3.12, p < .05) explaining 6% of the variance (R2 = 0.06). It is found that cultural competence does predict communication accommodation (b* = 0.27, t = 3.09, p < .005, 95% CI [ 0.10, 0.44]) therefore finding, when cultural competence has a 1-unit increase, communication accommodation increases by 0.27 units. However the second step, with uncertainty management as the outcome variable, the model was found insignificant (F (8, 203) = 0.66, p > .05). The direct relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict was found not significant (b* = 0.03, t = 0.24, p > .05, 95% CI[ -0.19, 0.25]) and the direct effect of communication accommodation on workplace conflict was found not significant. Thus, the indirect effect of communication accommodation on this relationship was found not significant (b* = -0.05, t = -0.61, p > .05, 95% CI [ -0.23, 0.12]). In accordance with H2, the null hypothesis is accepted.
This model was also used to test the moderating effect of presence of national diversity in the workplace. This model tested the moderation of this variable on the relationship between cultural competence on workplace conflict (b* = -0.43, t = -1.82, p > .05, CI [-0.89, 0.03]). and the relationship between communication accommodation and workplace conflict (b* = 0.09, t = 0.481, p > .05, CI [-0.29, 0.47]). In both cases, the moderation effect of presence of national diversity in the workplace were found insignificant. This result demonstrates that there is no change in relationship when national diversity is present in the workplace, as hypothesized in H3. This result allows for the acceptance of H3.
When looking at the correlation table (see Table 1), it was found there was a significant correlation between cultural competence and number of countries visited. This correlation and significant relationships found in past literature (Crowne, 2013) jarred another single linear regression. This analysis consisted of numbers of countries visited as the predicting variable and cultural competence as the outcomes variable. It was found that number of countries visited has a significant positive relationship with cultural competence (b* = 0.02, t = 4.33, p < .001, 95% CI [ 0.01, 0.03]) explaining 8% of the variance. This finding indicates that when numbers of countries traveled has a 1-unit increase cultural competence increases by .02 units. This finding falls in line with the idea presented in theory that cultural competence is increased by cultural exposure (Crowne, 2013).
Discussion
In this study, we proposed an alternative conceptualization for cultural competence. Here, communication accommodation was presented as the underlying mechanism for the relationship between cultural competence and the work outcomes uncertainty management and workplace conflict. It was also tested to see if the presence of national diversity changed the relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict when communication accommodation is the underlying mechanism. It was found that cultural competence does not have a significant effect on uncertainty management or workplace conflict through communication accommodation. However, it was found that cultural competence does predict communication accommodation. It was also found that for workplaces with national diversity and workplaces without have
comparable results for the relationship between cultural competence and workplace conflict through communication accommodation.
Theoretical Implication
There are several contributes to theory that can be made from this present study. Firstly, it was found that cultural competence has predictive value on communication accommodation. This finding contributes to research on cultural competence by identifying communication accommodation is indeed influenced by cultural competence. For cultural knowledge and attitudes to be materialized, it needs to be manifested through overt action (Ang et al., 2007) In this case, the overt action that occurs when one changes communication style on the basis of the mental capacities he or she possess. This study contributes to literature (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006) by explicating through communication accommodation how cultural competence is exhibited in one’s behavior.
Secondly, it was found that workplaces with national diversity and workplaces with none have comparable results. This contributes to research by demonstrating cultural competence can be utilized not only for managing interactions within national diversity but general diversity as well. Attitudes such as openness and respect for differences found in cultural competence can improve the way people handle situations and should not be limited to cross-cultural interaction. This finding also supports the ideas that the framework of cultural differentiation can be
attributed to individual differences such as personality traits (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). As depicted in this study, having a stronger sense for differentiation can be translated into increased communication accommodation. This allows you to more easily mimic someone’s verbal and non-verbal behavior increasing their sense of empathy, liking, and rapport (Giles & Gasiorek, 2013). This finding implicates cultural competence can improve interactions in all forms of diversity and presents a larger domain where the effects of cultural competence can be studied.
Thirdly, it was found that cultural competence does not significantly predict uncertainty management through communication accommodation. This relationship was expected to be significant due to the coping techniques afforded by cultural competence. Although the result was not in accordance with the hypothesized relationship, this finding does fall in line with the work of Grote (2004). Here, it is explained that to combat uncertainty, one must practice both coping and minimization techniques. Minimization of uncertainty can be done through extensive planning and preparation for all possible outcomes. This study focused solely on coping with uncertainty and provided little insight on minimization. This could be explanative of the insignificant result. This finding demonstrates the necessity of considering both coping and minimization techniques for research of uncertainty management.
Lastly, it was found that cultural competence does not significantly predict workplace conflict through communication accommodation. This finding was hypothesized because of the contribution cultural competence can make to good practice in conflict management. While this hypothesis was not found, Tinsley and Brett (2001) state that when conflict occurs in an
organization, its lack of resolution may not be because of conflict management style.. In order to run a productive business, it is sometimes necessary to ‘agree to disagree’ for the sake of moving forwards rather than continuing to attempt conflict resolution. While it is important to reach a mutual understanding when workplace conflict occurs, it is sometimes in the best interest of the company to leave conflict unresolved to avoid stagnation in the workflow. While this finding was unexpected, it does provide an alternative explanation of why conflict can exist in an organization.
There are two implications for practice that can be derived from this study. First, this study implicates that high levels of cultural competence can reflect attitudes of openness and respect for differences in others. These attributes are similar to that of a diversity climate in an organization. A diversity climate is an organizational climate characterized by openness towards and appreciation of individual differences (Hofhuis, 2016). Maintaining a diversity climate has been proven to increase job satisfaction, knowledge sharing, and a sense of inclusion within workgroups. These outcomes demonstrate the benefits cultural competence can have on an organization. Because cultural competence is manifested through cultural exposure (Crowne, 2013), this type of climate could be facilitated by motivating employees to spend time in other cultures. Management could do this by increasing travel budgets, and leisure time allotted on business trips out of the country.
Secondly, this study identifies that these attributes found in cultural competence can improve one’s communicative ability. Because communication is the primary way we interact with others or demonstrate emotion (Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, & Scott, 2010) it can be a useful tool in organizations for things such as deal negotiations or improving client relations. This could implicate that when hiring for a position that requires interacting with a variety of people, it would be beneficial for an organization to look for someone that exhibit characteristics of cultural competence due to their ability to be versatile in conversation.
Limitations
While there were significant findings in this study, two primary limitations exist. Firstly, the cross-sectional nature of this study inhibits any causal relationship to be confirmed. In order to understand how cultural competence influences oneself over time, a longitudinal design would be relevant.
Secondly, although the scale for cultural competence was found valid and reliable, unequal distribution was also found. This could ensue there was a slight social desirability bias found in the items (Gittelman, et al., 2015). Because the items exhibited positive attributes in oneself, respondents could have been likely to agree with a statement even if the attributes were not obtained through cultural exposure. In furthering this study, items should be phrased in a way that forces respondents to gauge how their level of cultural competence has changed since before their travels to their current state. This can provide a more accurate depiction of their current level of cultural competence.
Future Research
In furthering this research, some suggestions can be made. When looking at the
correlation matrix (see Table 1) it was found that the number of countries visited was correlated with the main variables in this study. It may be beneficial for future researchers to take into account the numbers of countries a respondent has visited. Cultural competence has been found to increase through greater cultural exposure (Crowne, 2013). This being said, it may be relevant to examine cultural competence at high, medium, and low levels of cultural exposure to identify how much one’s level of exposure can influence their level of cultural competence.
Secondly, it was found that the presence of national diversity in the workplace correlated with the main variables in this study (see Table 1). While the moderating effect of this variable was in agreement with the proposed hypothesis, this correlation can ensue an alternative relationship is possible. Thus, it is suggested future research re-examines this variable.
Overall furthering this research provides knowledge on how improving cultural
competence can assist in many facets of life, including the way one communicates with others. It provides a deeper understanding of what it means to ‘know your audience’ and how it can create
more enriched and fruitful interactions. Through the knowledge and attitudes gained in cultural competence, one can be better equipped to have more effective communication with not only those who are culturally different but with every walk of life.
Reference
Alon, I., Boulanger, M., Meyers, J., Vas, T. (2016). The development and validation of the business cultural intelligence quotient. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 23(1), 78-100.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition,
distinctiveness, and nomological network. Handbook of cultural intelligence, 21-33. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A.
(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371.
Ayoko, O. B., Härtel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 13(2), 165-195.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Berry, J. W., & Ward, C. (2006). Commentary on “Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations”. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 64-77.
Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Owusu Ananeh-Firempong, I. I. (2016). Defining cultural competence: a practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care. Public health reports, 118(4), 293-302.
Bird, A., Heinbuch, S., Dunbar, R. and McNulty, M. (1993). The process of cultural competence in the delivery of healthcare services: A model of care. Journal of transcultural nursing, 13(3), 181-184.
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477-497.
Carleton, R. N., Sharpe, D., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty: Requisites of the fundamental fears?. Behaviour research and
therapy, 45(10), 2307-2316.
Crowne, K. A. (2013). Cultural exposure, emotional intelligence, and cultural intelligence: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13(1), 5-22. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of studies in international education, 10(3), 241-266.
Dong, Y., Wang, S., Li, L., & Zhang, Z. (2018). An empirical study on travel patterns of internet based ride-sharing. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 86, 1-22. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Egan, M. L., & Bendick Jr, M. (2008). Combining multicultural management and diversity into one course on cultural competence. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 7(3), 387-393.
Eisenberg, J. (2018). Developing students' cross-cultural competence through academic programs: Analytical review of empirical findings. Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Business Education, 36-47.
Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. Theorizing about intercultural communication, 121–148.
Giles, H., & Gasiorek, J. (2013). Parameters of non-accommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. Social cognition and communication, 155-172.
Giles, H., Mulac A., Bradac, J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 10(1), 13-48.
Gillespie, J., & Slawson, C. (2003). IES outcomes assessment project. Institute for the International Education of Students. (Paper presented at the NAFSA Annual Conference.)
Gittelman, S., Lange, V., Cook, W. A., Frede, S. M., Lavrakas, P. J., Pierce, C., & Thomas, R. K. (2015). Accounting for social-desirability bias in survey sampling: A model for
predicting and calibrating the direction and magnitude of social-desirability bias. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 242-254.
Grote, G. (2004). Uncertainty Management at the core of the system. Annual Reviews in Control, 28(2), 267-274.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International journal of intercultural
relations, 27(4), 421-443.
Hofhuis, J., van der Rijt, P. G. A., & Vlug, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 714.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of international business studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and
dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-88.
Hordila-Vatamanescu, E. M., & Pana, A. D. (2010). The application of the communication accommodation theory to virtual communities: A preliminary research on the online identities. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(4).
Horvat, L., Horey, D., Romios, P., & Kis‐Rigo, J. (2014). Cultural competence education for health professionals. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 5.
Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of international business
studies, 37(4), 525-543.
Kwon, A. C. (2012). Good cop, bad cop: Communication accommodation, perception, and trust in law enforcement-suspect encounters (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries).
Lee, C. S., Therriault, D. J., & Linderholm, T. (2012). On the cognitive benefits of cultural experience: Exploring the relationship between studying abroad and creative thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 768-778
Maclachlan, M. (2017, November 17) Global mobility trends- What to look out for in 2018. https://insights.learnlight.com/en/articles/global-mobility-trends-look-2018/.
Matveev, A. V., & Nelson, P. E. (2004). Cross cultural communication competence and multicultural team performance: Perceptions of American and Russian
managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), 253-270. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic management journal, 15(2), 135-152.
Muñoz-Leiva, F., Hernández-Méndez, J., & Gómez-Carmona, D. (2018). Measuring advertising effectiveness in Travel 2.0 websites through eye-tracking technology. Physiology & behavior, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.002.
Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing conflict in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Richter, N. F., Schlägel, C., van Bakel, M., & Lemmergaard, J. (2019). The role of intercultural competence in European international management: Theory, measurement,
antecedents, and outcomes. European Journal of International Management, 13(2), 2. Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S. K. (2010). Cross-cultural recognition of basic
emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(6), 2408-2412.
Schieman, S, & Reid, S. (2008). Job authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace. Work and Occupations, 35(3), 296-326.
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 250-258.
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., ... & Maznevski, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123-143.
Tinsley, C. & Brett, J. (2001). Managing workplace conflict in the United States and Hong Kong. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 360-381. Tomoeda, C. K., & Bayles, K. A. (2002). Cultivating cultural competence in the workplace,
classroom, and clinic. The ASHA Leader, 7(6), 4-17
Truong, M., Paradies, Y., & Priest, N. (2014). Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare: a systematic review of reviews. BMC health services research, 14, 99. Williams, K. & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40
years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 20, 77-140.
Yao, C. (2014). The impact of cultural dimensions on Chinese expatriates' career capital. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(5), 609-630.
Tables Variables M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Cultural Competence 4.22 (0.44) .79 2. Communication Accommodation 4.39 (0.53) 0.22** .73 3. Uncertainty Management 3.28 (0.67) 0.03 -0.01 .81 4. Workplace Conflict 2.32 (0.66) 0.01 -0.04 -0.13 .78 5. Gender 1.67 (0.48) 0.04 0.11 -0.15* 0.01 -
6. Number of Countries Visited 10.38 (6.57) 0.29** 0.04 0.24** -0.01 -0.02 -
7. National Diversity Present in the Workplace 0.72 (0.45) 0.22** 0.14* -0.08 0.06 0.06 0.21** -
8. Number of people interacted with daily 0.87 (0.33) 0.11 0.03 0.15* -0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.09 - Table 1. Correlation and descriptive statistics
Notes: N = 212 Values on the diagonal in bold represent reliabilities () ** Significance at p < .01
m sd Loading
Cultural Competence .79
Cultural Knowledge .82
I was aware of the cultural differences in the country I was visiting compared to my home country.
4.51 0.73 .58 I was knowledgeable on factual information about the country I was visiting (i.e. cuisine,
economy, history).
3.95 0.81 .65 I was knowledgeable about the value system of the country I was visiting. 3.60 0.94 .86 I was knowledgeable about how the value system of the country I was visiting was represented in
the behavior of the people that live there.
3.53 0.97 .81 I was aware of the appropriate behavior I needed to have when interacting with someone that
lives there, because of the factual information I had about the country.
3.99 0.86 .68 I was aware of the appropriate behavior I needed to have when interacting with someone that
lives there, because of my understanding of the country's value.
3.84 0.91 .76
Cultural Attitude .76
The amount I value cultures and cultural diversity has increased. 4.71 0.53 .79
I am open to learning about other cultures. 4.82 0.38 .81
I am open to learning about people from other cultures without holding judgment. 4.63 0.56 .77
My curiosity and thirst for discovery has increased. 4.66 0.58 .70
Communication Accommodation .73
I adjust the way I communicate depending on the person I am speaking with. 4.56 0.60 .54 I adjust the clarity of my speech depending on who I am speaking with. 4.48 0.74 .71 I adjust the speed of my speech depending on who I am speaking with. 4.26 0.94 .78 I adjust my voice inflections depending on who I am speaking with. 4.07 1.00 .68 I adjust the diversity of my vocabulary depending on who I am speaking with. 4.23 0.96 .67 I try to make the person I am speaking with feel comfortable in conversation. 4.74 .56 .52
Figures
