View
244
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A research paper on the effectiveness of cross cultural training programmes for the international Human Resource Managers. Researched By: Awais Farooq, Ansab Aftab, Saad Sattar
Citation preview
“CROSS CULTURAL TRAININGS FOR INTERNATIONAL HRM"
Authors :
Awais Farooq
Muhammad Ansab Qureshi
Saad Sattar
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................3
Increased internationalization in the economic, political, and social arenas has led to greater interpersonal cross-cultural contact. Because much of this contact has not been successful, cross-cultural training has been proposed by many scholars as a means of facilitating more effective interaction. A review of the cross-cultural training literature is presented, along with the literature of many of the theories which have been proposed by scholars regarding what makes cross-cultural training programmes effective...................................................................................................3
Introduction.................................................................................................................3
Literature Review.........................................................................................................5
Need for cross-cultural training...................................................................................6
Cross-cultural training: Costs and Benefits..................................................................6
Effectiveness of cross-cultural training........................................................................7
Importance of cross-cultural training...........................................................................8
Theories of cross-cultural training...............................................................................9
Social Learning Theory: An Overview.....................................................................10
Attention............................................................................................................10
Retention...........................................................................................................10
Reproduction.....................................................................................................11
Incentives and the Motivational Processes........................................................12
Bandura’s empirical findings..................................................................................13
Designing Effective Diversity Training........................................................................13
Training group composition...................................................................................14
Trainee experience................................................................................................15
Diversity training outcomes.......................................................................................16
Development of Theory-Based Assimilators..............................................................17
Alternative Criterion Measures..................................................................................18
Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI).................................................................19
Category Width......................................................................................................19
Reaction Measures................................................................................................20
Learning Measures.................................................................................................21
Behavioral Measures..........................................................................................21
Experiential Learning Theory.....................................................................................22
Experiential Learning Process and Cycle................................................................22
Theoretical Framework..............................................................................................23
Page 2 of 44
Dependent Independent...................................................................................23
Variable Variables..........................................................................................23
Methodology.............................................................................................................24
Chi-square analyzes...................................................................................................24
Summary Of Sample’s Cultural Interactions..............................................................32
Conclusion.................................................................................................................34
References.................................................................................................................35
Page 3 of 44
Abstract
Increased internationalization in the economic, political, and social arenas
has led to greater interpersonal cross-cultural contact. Because much of this
contact has not been successful, cross-cultural training has been proposed by
many scholars as a means of facilitating more effective interaction. A review
of the cross-cultural training literature is presented, along with the literature
of many of the theories which have been proposed by scholars regarding what
makes cross-cultural training programmes effective.
IntroductionIn the past, commerce and busniness in a particular region prevailed and
thrived in that particular region only. Whenever there were incedents of inter-
regional commerce, business, and interaction, the scale was very large and the
incedents were not frequent.
With the advent of advanced transportation, infrastructure, technology, and
globalization, international business and cross-cultural interactions have
become extreme widespread and commonplace. Studies have showen that not
only large businesses partake in cross-cultural interactions; small businesses,
students, employees, and even tourists come across a wide variety of different
cultures on a very regular bases.
Through everyone is now living a very culturally diverse life, for businesses,
their managers, and their employees, the pertinance of effectively dealing with
cultures different from their own is paramount. Researchers who have studied
the importance of effective cross-cultural diversity management suggest that
in today’s world, the costs for business to overlook the importance of effective
cross-cultural diversity management is extremely heavy. This is so because
managers who are dealing with different cultures are, in fact conducting
business on behalf of their parent company and are behaving as that
company’s agent, and if these managers do not effectively deal with cross-
cultural differences, the company as a whole takes a hit. This hit, researchers
suggest, can well be in millions of dollars in net worth most of the times.
Page 4 of 44
Thus, in order to remain in business and combat competition, it would
behoove the busnisses to take steps to better the cross-cultural management
skills of their managers and employees. One such step, which has now become
quite popular, is to have the managers and employees undergo corss-cultural
training programmes. These programmes are aimed at bettering the cross-
cultural management skills of the managers and empolyees.
Despite the apparent importance and benefit of cross-cultural training, cross-
cultural programmes still face many apprehensions from senior managers, who
believe that these programmes are ineffective and merely a waste of time and
money.
To counter these cynicisms, researchers have long strived to prove empirically
and theoretically that these training programmes are very effective.
This paper goes over the literature which is extant today related to the need of
cross-cultural training, their importance, their costs and benefits, and their
current and future fate in the arena of international human resource
management. The paper then moves towards presenting the current theories
which have been proposed by researches which attempt to explain how and
why cross-cultural training is effective, and which also attempt to describe
how training programmes can be made more effective.
The paper ends with the analysis of the primary data which was collected to
support the importance of cross-cultural training programms, their perceived
importance, benefits, and costs. This data also attempts to pique the sample
poopulation’s opionion regarding what theories enhance the effectiveness of
cross-cultural training programmes.
Page 5 of 44
Literature Review
The field of international management, up till the late 1980s, had been
observed to be in a nascent, pre-paradigm state of development (Adler, 1983;
Beaty & Mendenhall, 1989; Kyi, 1988; Roberts, 1970; Roberts &
Boyacigiller, 1984; Schollhammer, 1975). Kyi (1988) perhaps best
summarized these findings when he stated, "The paucity of papers in the
hypothetico-deductive category ... is related to the stage of the development of
the field and the nature of comparative analysis.At this stage, there are no
deductively developed theories in [international] management and most so-
called 'theories' are experienced-based hunches or empirical generalizations.
Well-integrated deductive theories with a central core concept, such as 'market
and rationality' in economic theory, have not appeared yet" (p. 209).
This pre-paradigm state was especially descriptive of the newer subfield of
cross-cultural international human resource management (Adler, 1983; Beaty
& Mendenhall, 1989). Adler (1983) found that from 1971 to 1980 only one
percent of the 11,000 articles published in 24 management journals focused on
cross-cultural work interaction. Of the major international business journals
from 1984 to 1988, only 9 percent of the articles were devoted to international
human resource management issues, and in the Academy of Management
Review, for the same period, only one and one half percent of the articles dealt
with international human resource management issues; however, none were
attempts at theory building (Beaty & Mendenhall, 1989).
The decade of 1990-2000, however,saw rapid growth in the popularity of
diversity training in corporate America. One indication of this can be seen in
Training Magazine 's annual Industry Report, a survey of training practices in
medium and large sized firms. In 1988, diversity management was not even
listed among the 40 most common training topics (Rynes and Rosen, 1995).
By 1994, more than half of the surveyed organizations reported offering
diversity training. Data from the late 1990s showed that most government
agencies and 60 per cent of Fortune 500 companies provided some kind of
diversity training to their employees (Hemphill and Haines, 1997). Academic
scholars have noted that substantive change is unlikely to be realized in a
Page 6 of 44
single diversity training workshop (Ellis and Sonnenfeld, 1994), and many
organizations no longer treat diversity training as a one-time seminar
experience.
Need for cross-cultural trainingWork-related cross-cultural interactions are not always successful. For
example, studies have found that between 16 and 40 per-cent of all expatriate
managers who are given foreign assignments end these assignments early
because of their poor performance or their inability to adjust to the foreign
environment (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Black, 1988; Dunbar & Ehrlich,
1986; Tung, 1981), and as high as 50 percent of those who do not return early,
function at a low level of effectiveness (Copeland & Griggs, 1985). Other
studies have found that negotiations between businessmen of different cultures
often fail because of problems related to cross-cultural differences (Adler,
1986; Black, 1987; Graham, 1985; Tung, 1984). Unsuccessful cross-cultural
interactions become even more important when the costs of failure are high,
and they often are. For example, studies have estimated that the cost of a failed
expatriate assignment is $50,000 to $150,000 (Copeland & Griggs, 1985;
Harris & Moran, 1979; Misa & Fabricatore, 1979). For a firm that has
hundreds of expatriate employees worldwide, such costs can easily reach into
the tens of millions of dollars. In fact, Copeland and Griggs (1985) have
estimated that the direct costs to U.S. firms of failed expatriate assignments is
over $2 billion a year, and this does not include unmeasured losses such as
damaged corporate reputations or lost business opportunities.
Cross-cultural training: Costs and BenefitsCross-cultural training (CCT) has long been advocated as a means of
facilitating effective cross-cultural interactions (Brislin, 1981; Landis &
Brislin, 1983; Bochner, 1982; Harris & Moran, 1979; Mendenhall & Oddou,
1986; Tung, 1981). Despite the normative arguments for the use of cross-
cultural training, its use in American business organizations is not always very
widespread. Various reasons have been cited by business organizations for the
low use of cross-cultural training, and the most prevalent of these is that such
training is not thought to be effective (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Mendenhall
& Oddou, 1985; Schwind, 1985; Tung, 1981; Zeira, 1975); thus, top
Page 7 of 44
management sees no need for the training (Runzheimer Executive Re-port,
1984) and is unwilling to support it, financially or otherwise.
Essentially, American top managers believe that a good manager in New York
or Los Angeles will be effective in Hong Kong or Tokyo as well (Miller,
1973). This is illustrated not only in the lack of training provided but also in
the use of the domestic track record as the primary criterion for selecting
candidates for overseas assignments (Miller, 1973). Such a culturally
insensitive perspective seems to be an important reason for many faulty
international human resource practices and the high expatriate failure rates
(Adler, 1986; Black, 1988; Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Mendenhall & Oddou,
1985; Ronen, 1986; Tung, 1982).”
Effectiveness of cross-cultural trainingWhile diversity training programmes have proliferated, the evaluation of these
training programmes has not kept pace. Diversity training programmes rarely
are subjected to systematic evaluation (Ellis and Sonnenfeld, 1994; Noe and
Ford, 1992; Rynes and Rosen, 1995). When programmes are evaluated,
qualitative feedback from trainees is the most prevalent evaluation method
(Bhawuk and Triandis, 1996); few organizations measure how employees'
behavior is influenced by the training (Carnevale and Stone, 1994). In
addition, as in other types of training programmes, there has been little
attention devoted to understanding how trainee characteristics influence
training effectiveness (Kossek et al., 1998; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992). The
lack of systematic evaluation of diversity training, especially with respect to
trainee characteristics and behavioral outcomes, is an increasingly serious
problem. In the absence of systematic evaluation efforts, human resource
professionals are left uncertain about how to conduct training for maximum
effectiveness (Day, 1995).
In order to dispel the negativity surrounding cross-cultural training, and in
order to prove that cross-cultural training is in fact effective in making
managers more adept at managing organizational functions in foreign cultures,
it is imperative to employ scientific, quantitative, and conclusive data and
procedure to prove this point. It would seem, as is suggested by the study of
Black & Mendenhall(1990), that an attempt to comprehensively review the
empirical literature on cross-cultural training in an effort to examine its Page 8 of 44
effectiveness or ineffectiveness and an attempt to advance a theoretical
grounding for valid cross-cultural training program development and
evaluation is especially important. However, no study so far has attempted a
comprehensive review of cross-cultural training and its effectiveness in an
empirical manner(Black and Mendenhall, 1990).
Mendenhall and Oddou's researchof 1985maintains that though no
comprehensive review of cross- cultural training and its effectiveness in an
empirical mannerexist, based on qualitative studies and experiential
knowledge, researchers claim that the skills needed to be successful in a new
culture can be included under three dimensions: skills related to the
maintenance of self (mental health, psychological well-being, stress reduction,
feelings of self-confidence), skills related to the fostering of relationships with
host nationals, and cognitive skills that promote a correct perception of the
host environment and its social systems (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985).
Importance of cross-cultural trainingThe importance of cross-cultural training for international human resource
managers is critical, because the success of practicing management and
business is directly related to the managers ability to understand and
effectively navigate the culture in which the management and the business
activities are being conducted. Kluckhohn and Kroeberg (1952) concluded
that culture consists of patterns of behaviors that are acquired and transmitted
by symbols over time, which become generally shared within a group and are
communicated to new members of the group in order to serve as a cognitive
guide or blueprint for future actions. Thus, cross-cultural interactions bring
people together who have different patterns of behaving and believing and
who have different cognitive blueprints for interpreting the world (Triandis,
Vassiliou, Tanaka, & Shanmugam, 1972).
Moreover, the importance of cross-cultural training practically speaks for itself
when we consider the everyday duties which the new manager has to perform
in the foreign culture, and the difficulties (s)he faces while interacting with
other managers in the foreign culture. If people who have different culturally
based behaviors and beliefs must interact, difficulties arise because faulty
attributions are made about the motives and meanings of the others' behaviors
Page 9 of 44
since the attributions are based on the attributor's own cultural norms and
worldview (Bochner, 1982).
The research of Black and Mendenhall (1990) suggests cross-cultural training
enables the individual to learn both content and skills that will facilitate
effective cross-cultural interaction by reducing misunderstandings and
inappropriate behaviors. If this is accepted as the major objective of cross-
cultural training, it becomes necessary to understand how people learn to
appropriately interact with others and how they use that knowledge for
effective interactions (Black and Mendenhall, 1990).
Theories of cross-cultural trainingIn an effort to focus learning theory on the more specific issue of training, Noe
(1986) proposed a model of how training facilitates performance. This
suggested that two aspects of an individual's motivation had an important
impact on the effectiveness of training. Noe argued that an individual's
motivation to learn and his or her motivation to transfer what was learned into
action were critical elements in the relationship of training and performance.
However, Noe did not delineate how individuals actually learn or how they
transfer that learning to behaviors. In order to understand the relationship
between training and performance, these aspects of the model require
additional attention. Cognitive and behavioral theorists have long competed to
explain how individuals learn and how they use this knowledge (for reviews
on cognitive and behavioral learning theories and the debate between them see
Bochner, 1982; Hilgard & Bower, 1975; Swenson, 1980). According to the
cognitive theories of learning, learning takes place through the mental
processing of information and the determination of subsequent behavior.
Behavioral theories argue that learning is determined by behaviors and
experienced consequences.
Social learning theory (SLT) has been advocated as a synthesis of the
cognitive and behavioral learning theories (Bandura, 1977; Hilgard & Bower,
1975). Davis and Luthans (1980), who compared SLT with other theories of
behavior, argued that it is the most useful in understanding organizational
behavior. Additionally, general reviews of learning in particular have argued
for the superiority of SLT (Hilgard & Bower, 1975; Swenson, 1980). For
example, Swenson (1980) stated that SLT was viewed as a consensus position Page 10 of 44
on most aspects of learning. SLT not only integrates cognitive and behavioral
theories, it also encompasses the motivational aspects stressed by Noe (1986)
within the concept of self-efficacy, and it covers the issues of how individuals
both learn and utilize what they learn during a training situation, aspects that
Noe did not emphasize. In addition, SLT is becoming the dominant framework
in U. S. management training (Latham & Saari, 1979; Manz & Sims, 1981).
These make for compelling reasons to use SLT as the theoretical framework
for understanding cross-cultural learning and training. However, greater depth
and breadth of novel behaviors that trainees must learn during cross-cultural
training present a challenge to SLT's explanation of the success or failure of
cross-cultural training.
Social Learning Theory: An OverviewAccording to SLT, learning is affected by both observation and experience
(Bandura, 1977). A central premise is that individuals use symbols to engage
in anticipatory action, that is, they anticipate actions and their associated
consequences. This enables people to determine how they will behave before
an actual situation. Also, it is argued that individuals learn from experience
and that the experienced consequences of their behavior shape what they learn
as well as their future behavior. As described by Bandura (1977), SLT has
four central elements: attention, retention, reproduction, and incentives.
AttentionBefore behavior can be modeled, the subject must notice it. Several factors
influence the attention process of the subject, including: (a) the status of the
model, (b) the attractiveness of the model, (c) the similarity of the model, (d)
the repeated availability of the model, and (e) past reinforcement for paying
attention to the model (actual or vicarious).
RetentionRetention is the process by which the modeled behavior becomes encoded as a
memory (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Two representational systems are
involved in this process. The imaginal system is utilized during exposure to
the model. At this time the subject associates sequences of corresponding
sensory images with the physical contiguity of the model. The research of
Black and Mendenhall (1990) suggests that these images are stored as
cognitive maps, which can guide the observer when he or she tries to imitate
the behavior. In the second system, a verbal system, the coded information is
Page 11 of 44
abbreviated into verbal systems, and groups of constituent patterns of behavior
are integrated into larger units. It should be noted that both the repeated
modeling of a behavior and the repeated cognitive rehearsal of the modeled
behavior help to secure the retention process (Black & Mendenhall, 1990).
Page 12 of 44
ReproductionThe third major component involves the translating of the symbolic
representations into actions. As individuals try to imitate the modeled
behavior, they check their performance against their memory of what was
modeled. Motoric reproduction of the modeled behavior can, of course,
beinhibited by physical differences between the model and the person
imitating the model, how well the model is observed, and how well the
modeled behavior is retained.
Incentives and the Motivational ProcessesThe fourth element of SLT, incentives, can come from the environment, from
vicarious association, and from the individual. Each of these can affect several
aspects of the learning process. For example, incentives (a) can affect which
models are observed and how much attention is paid to them, (b) can influence
the degree to which the modeled behavior is retained and rehearsed, and (c)
can influence which learned behaviors are emitted. It is important to note that
Bandura (1977) argued on the basis of empirical work that incentives play a
much larger role in influencing what behavior is emitted as opposed to what
behavior is learned. He concluded that individuals learn numerous behaviors
that are not emitted because they are not positively rewarded. However, if the
reward structure is changed, the behaviors are performed.
In relation to the motivational processes of learning, Bandura (1977)
distinguished between two types of expectancies: efficacy expectations and
outcome expectations. Self-efficacy is the degree to which the individual
believes he or she can successfully execute a particular behavior. This
expectation is similar to the effort-to-performance expectancy proposed by
Vroom (1964). In his review of the literature, Bandura (1977) found that
higher levels of self-efficacy led individuals to persist at imitating modeled
behavior longer and to be more willing to try to imitate novel behavior. The
sources for increasing self-efficacy, in order of importance, include past
experience ("I've done it or something like it before"), vicarious experience
("other people have done it"), and verbal persuasion ("people say I can do it").
Outcome expectations are people's beliefs that the execution of certain
behaviors will lead to desired outcomes. There is a clear similarity between
this type of expectation and the expectancy-of-performance-to-outcome
(instrumentality expectancies) proposed by Vroom (1964). Bandura concluded
Page 13 of 44
that incentives influence what people learn and that incentives, efficacy,
expectations, and outcome expectancies influence what learned behaviors are
acted out.
Bandura’s empirical findingsAlthough a number of empirical findings are reviewed by Bandura (1977),
three are important to summarize because they provide insight about
fundamental elements in the learning process.
The first finding is that gradual modeling is more effective than one-shot
modeling, especially if the modeled behaviors are novel. Gradual modeling
involves providing successive approximations of the final behavior and it is
more effective because (a) observers pay more attention to models and
modeled behaviors that are familiar, (b) observers can more easily retain
models that are similar to cognitive maps they already possess, (c) observers
have higher expectations of efficacy and outcome of behaviors that are
familiar, and (d) observers are more likely to be able to reproduce familiar
behaviors.
The second finding is that individuals can learn completely through symbolic
modeling, that is, by watching actions and mentally rehearsing them. As
previously mentioned, this symbolic learning process can be facilitated by
other variables and by the use of multiple models.
Finally, Bandura found that participative reproduction, in general, is more
effective than symbolic processes. Participative reproduction simply means
that the observer actually practices (compared to only cognitively rehearsing)
the modeled behavior. The external, and especially the internal, feedback
processes serve to refine the observer's ability to reproduce the modeled
behavior at a later time.
Designing Effective Diversity TrainingHow should training groups be formed (demographically heterogeneous or
homogeneous) to enhance the effectiveness of cross-cultural training? To
answer this question, the research of Lorainn Roberson, Carol T. Kulik and
Molly B. Pepper of 2001 offers some insight, as well as some theories.
Page 14 of 44
Training group compositionThe diversity/cross-cultural literature frequently advises organizations to
assemble groups of trainees who are
demographicallyheterogeneous,particularlywith respect to visible dimensions
of diversity such as gender, racioethnicity, and age. For example, Ellis and
Sonnenfeld (1994: 101) recommend that organizations 'try to recruit a mix of
participants that minimizes the likelihood that individual participants will be
obligated to assume token roles as unwilling representatives of their racial,
gender, or other such group.' Kirkland and Regan (1997) advocate the use of
mixed race groups for racial diversity training not to protect individuals with
token status, but for the educational benefits. They argue that the quality of
discussion around racial issues is enhanced by racial heterogeneity.
These suggestions for diverse training groups may be taken quite seriously. In
some organizations employing limited numbers of racioethnic minority
employees, the few employees of color have been asked to attend multiple
training sessions so that group heterogeneity could be achieved (Caudron and
Hayes, 1997; Markels, 1997).
But are demographically heterogeneous training groups desirable? There is
another side to this debate. Some diversity trainers argue that racially mixed
groups are more likely to reinforce prejudiced attitudes among trainees
(Gordon, 1995) and advocate racially homogeneous training groups instead.
Groups homogeneous with respect to gender or racioethnicity may reduce
complaints of white males who say that they sometimes feel threatened or
attacked in diverse training groups (Galen and Palmer, 1993). Homogeneous
groups may enable trainees to engage in frank discussions about the training
content, without feeling distracted by impression management concerns or
pressures to behave in a 'politically correct' fashion (Allen, 1995; Kitfield,
1998). In addition, homogeneous groups avoid placing minorityparticipantsin
the 'hot seat' of educatingthe majoritygroup (Katz, 1978).
Kirklandand Regan (1997) and Alderfer et al. (1992) also see a place for same
race groups in racial diversity training, again for educational purposes.
Theories of group relations (Alderfer, 1986) argue that people must learn
about how they relate to their own group as well as how they relate to other
Page 15 of 44
groups. The process of learning about one's own group membership is
facilitated by a same-race training group.
While both sides of the heterogeneous/homogeneous debate have passionate
supporters, many researchers, Black and Mendenhall to name a few, have been
unable to identify any research that systematically evaluated the effect of
training group composition on diversity training outcomes. It may be,
however, that the effects of training group composition depend on another
factor that has received little attention in the diversity literature-the experience
level of the trainee (Black & Mendenhall, 1990).
Trainee experienceThe research of Black and Mendenhall (1990) proposes that the trainee's prior
experience with diversity training may influence the relative effectiveness of
demographically heterogeneous and homogeneous diversity training groups.
Noe and Ford (1992) emphasize that evaluations of diversity training
programmes need to consider individual differences to determine what kinds
of people are most affected by the training.
In the training literature, the trainee's knowledge of the subject matter is an
important individual difference variable, and has been found to interact with
training methods to affect outcomes (Tobias, 1987).
Experience with the subject matter is also theoretically important in the
intercultural training literature. When trainees have had little exposure to
diversity issues, they are likely to be at very early stages of cultural
competence. In these early stages, activities focusing on raising cultural
awareness are most effective (Landis and Bhagat, 1996) and heterogeneous
training groups may facilitate the learning process. Hearing about the
experiences of different others can increase the ability to empathize, and
meeting members of different groups face-to-face is a potent technique for
countering racial and national stereotypes (Rossett and Bickham, 1994).
Awareness training frequently emphasizes having people share experiences
with one another (Loden, 1996), and, for trainees with limited diversity
training experience, interactions within heterogeneous groups may help them
to recognize the need for change.
Page 16 of 44
As trainees gain more experience with diversity issues, their needs are likely
to change. Trainees need to know what to do with their new learning and how
to apply that knowledge in the work setting (Carnevale and Stone, 1994). At
these more advanced stages of cultural competence, diversity in the training
group may not be an advantage. As trainees try to generate and practice
alternative strategies for managing diversity, they may use the other trainees as
models. Behavioral modeling is more likely to occur if the model is perceived
as similar to the trainee (Decker and Nathan, 1985), because trainees can
easily visualize themselves performing the newly learned behaviors. However,
behavioral modeling is also facilitated when trainees experience rewards as a
result of adopting the model's behavior (Decker and Nathan, 1985).
Homogeneous groups may offer greater intrinsic rewards to trainees, since
interactions among similar individuals are generally viewed as more satisfying
and rewarding than interactions among dissimilar individuals (Triandis et al.,
1993). In addition, behavioral learning is more likely to increase anxiety than
is cognitive learning (Landis and Bhagat, 1996). Trainees need a safe
environment in which to rehearse new behaviors and feelings of psychological
safety may be enhanced with similar others. Paige and Martin (1996) suggest
that trainees are likely to be resistant to behavioral learning unless they have
formed relationships among themselves. Because of the greater attraction and
rapport among similar others (Alderfer and Tucker, 1996; Millikin and
Martins, 1996), relationships may form more quickly in a demographically
homogeneous group.
Diversity training outcomesAuthors have expressed concern about the best way to evaluate the
effectiveness of cross-cultural training (Deering and Stanutz, 1995; Wiggins
and Follo, 1999). Although attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive changes are
expected from diversity training, diversity training typically is evaluated using
trainees' reactions to the training (Rynes and Rosen, 1995), ignoring other out-
comes. Training evaluations focused solely on reactions can give misleading
results regarding training effects (Goldstein, 1993), and although reaction
measures are important, they cannot substitute for measures of learning.
Kraiger et al. (1993) argued that learning is a multi-dimensional construct,
Page 17 of 44
including changes in affective, cognitive and behavioral (skill-based)
capacities.
Development of Theory-Based AssimilatorsAnother development deals with the role of culture theory in cross-cultural
training (Bhawuk,1998; Bhawuk & Triandis, 1996b), and the development of
a theory-based culture assimilator,which is based on the concepts of
individualism and collectivism (Bhawuk, 1995, 1996).
Bhawukand Triandis (1996b) proposed that culture theory could be effectively
used in cross-culturaltraining. Bhawuk (1998) further refined this model by
integrating the literature on cognition andstages of learning, and presented a
model of stages of intercultural expertise development. Hedefined a lay person
as one who has no knowledge of another culture, a novice as a person
withextended intercultural experience, which is acquired through overseas
experience or an interculturaltraining program, an expert as a novice who has
acquired knowledge of culture theories that arerelevant to a large number of
behaviors so that they can organize cognitions about culturaldifferences more
meaningfully around a theory, and advanced experts as experts who have had
thenecessary practice to perform relevant tasks proficiently, almost
automatically.
He postulatedthat experts are different from novices in that they use theory to
organize knowledge as well as toretrieve information to solve problems, and
that a theory-based training would lead a lay personto become an expert,
whereas, a culture-specific, a culture general and a behavior
modificationtraining would lead a lay person to become a novice. The model
also postulates that to become anadvanced expert, one would have to go
through additional behavior modification training, or liveabroad for cross-
cultural experience.
To test the model, Bhawuk (1995) developed a theory-based culture
assimilator using the fourdefining attributes and the vertical and horizontal
typology of individualism and collectivism(Triandis, 1995b; Bhawuk, 1999).
He argued that a theory-based assimilator using fewer categoriesis likely to
avoid the cognitive load experienced during a cross-cultural interaction, and
carried outa multimethod evaluation of cross-cultural training tools to test this.
Page 18 of 44
In this study (Bhawuk,1998), he found that, trainees who received the theory-
based Individualism and CollectivismAssimilator (ICA), compared to a
culture-specific assimilator for Japan, a culture-generalassimilator (Brislin et
al., 1986), and a control group, were found to be significantly
moreinterculturally sensitivity, had larger category width, made better
attribution on given difficultcritical incidents, and were more satisfied with the
training package.
The findings of this studyshow promise for using over-arching theories like
individualism and collectivism in cross-culturaltraining, and it can be expected
that many such theories will be used in future for developingtheory-based
training tools.
There is also some evidence that some researchers are developing exercises
for cross-culturaltraining that are grounded in theory, and two volumes of such
exercises have appeared recently(Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Cushner & Brislin,
1997). Development of many training videos hasmoved the field away from
the paper medium to other media (Copeland & Griggs, 1985). There isalso a
move toward the development of multimedia based culture assimilators
(Bhawuk, Lim,Copeland, & Yoshida, 1999), which may change the way
cross-cultural training has been.Institutional developments include Summer
Workshop for Intercultural Coursework Developmentat Colleges and
Universities at the University of Hawaii and the Intercultural Summer
Instituteat Portland. The creation of the International Academy of Intercultural
Research is also likely toshape the research in this field.
Alternative Criterion MeasuresThe search for appropriate criterion measures to evaluate cross-cultural
training programscontinues. The most acceptable framework for evaluation of
training programs includes reaction,learning, behavior, and performance
related criteria (Kirkpatrick, 1987). A number of tests haveevolved in the past,
and more theory-based measurement instruments are likely to emerge infuture.
Some of the promising paper-pencil-tests include intercultural sensitivity
inventory,category width, reaction measures, and learning measures (Bhawuk,
1998). Behavioral measuresare also being tested (Harrison, 1992; Bhawuk,
1998). Some of these tools are discussed below.
Page 19 of 44
Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI)Intercultural sensitivity is a concept that is frequently viewed as important in
both theoreticalanalyses of people’s adjustment to other cultures and in
applied programs to prepare peopleto live and work effectively in cultures
other than their own. Attempts to measure this concepthave not always been
successful, and one reason is that researchers and practitioners havenot
specified exactly what aspects of the other culture people should be sensitive
to duringtheir sojourn.
Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) developed a scale to measure intercultural
sensitivity by examining(a) people’s understanding of the different ways they
can behave, depending upon whetherthey are interacting in an individualistic
or a collectivist culture, (b) their open-mindednessconcerning the differences
they encounter in other cultures, and (c) their flexibility concerningbehaving
in unfamiliar ways that are called upon by the norms of other cultures.
TheIntercultural Sensitivity Inventory is a 46-item scale that was developed
and tested amongparticipants at the East-West Center in Hawaii and among
graduate students in an MBAprogram who were contemplating careers in
international business. The instrument wasfound to have adequate reliability
and validity.
Category WidthCategorization is an organizing process through which the human mind creates
a cluster ofsimilar things, to reduce the complexity of the environment and to
reduce the necessity ofconstant learning. For example, the human mind can
discriminate about 7,500,000 differentcolors, but most English speakers find it
functional to categorize the color spectrum into adozen or so frequently cited
color categories (Triandis, 1972). Some people categorize differentthings
minutely while others categorize things broadly. “Category width” is a term
used todescribe the amount of discrepancy tolerable among category members
(i.e., how similarthings have to be, to be called by the same name?)
(Detweiler, 1978).According to thisdefinition, a narrow categorizer would put
highly similar things in a category, whereas abroad categorizer would put
more discrepant things in the same category.
Narrowcategorizers, compared to broad categorizers, make different
attributions concerning foreignersand non-foreigners (Detweiler, 1975), adjust
Page 20 of 44
less well to different cultures (Detweiler, 1978),and are more ethnocentric
(Rokeach, 1951).
Detweiler (1980) validated his instrument by using a sample of Peace Corps
volunteers. Hefound that volunteers who had a broad category width score
were able to successfully completetheir tasks overseas when compared to
those who had a narrow category width score, whooften returned without
completing their assignments.
Reaction MeasuresBhawuk used six items, adapted from Harrison (1992), to measure generic
reaction to tapparticipants’ opinions about the training. These included: “I
knew everything that was a partof the training,” “The training was a waste of
time,” “I think the program was much too short,”“I enjoyed the training
program very much” “I would tell my friends to avoid such a
trainingprogram,” and “I enjoyed learning at my own pace.” These items
measure the opinion of theparticipants about training program. In addition,
Bhawuk (1998) used 8 items identified asimportant goals of cross-cultural
training programs in the literature (Underhill, 1990) tomeasure the relevancy
of the material in preparing people for cross-cultural interactions.
These included items like “I learned from the training program to effectively
solve seriousproblems with people who are culturally different from me” and
“The training program helpedme to understand the difference between the
values of the host culture and those of NorthAmerican culture.” Underhill
(1990) found that stakeholders agreed upon nine objectives asthe most
important ones for cross-cultural training programs and of these nine, eight
wereincluded, with minor adaptations, to examine the participants satisfaction
with the trainingprograms in achieving these objectives. These items also
measure reaction since they ask forparticipants’ self-report about the
effectiveness of the training, and are relevant because oftheir specific focus on
cross-cultural interactions. These items could be used as a measure ofthe
relevancy of the material used in training programs.
Brethower and Rummler (1979)suggested that negative reactions may result
from poor design, unrealistic expectations fromthe training, and inclusion of
irrelevant material in the training programs. By including thereaction measures
discussed here would allow the researcher to examine if the training
Page 21 of 44
materialgiven to various treatment and control groups caused negative
reactions among theparticipants.
Learning MeasuresBhawuk (1998) used nine difficult critical incidents to measure their skills in
making correctattributions in intercultural interactions, and found them to be
useful as a measure of learning.
Some of the critical incidents were selected from Brislin et al. (1986), which
have been used inthe past as criterion measures (Broaddus, 1986; McIlveen-
Yarbro, 1988; Cushner, 1989), andothers from Bhawuk (1995). Bhawuk
(1998) also asked participants to recall five conceptsthat they had learned from
the training program. The purpose of this measure was to see ifthere was a
significant difference in recalling information learned through
differentassimilators. This method did not distinguish treatment from control
groups, but it may beuseful in other situations, e.g., when comparing a culture
assimilator to a behavioral trainingprogram.
Behavioral MeasuresHarrison (1992) developed a cross-cultural interaction task as a measure of
behavioral change.In this task, participants are required to interact in the
capacity of a manager with a Japaneseworker, who was a confederate. The
interaction is analyzed by using the five-item criteriarecommended by
Harrison (1992). These items measure the extent to which a participantwould
show personal concern, reduce conflict, maintain harmony, emphasize group
consensus,and solicit employee input. By examining the audio or video taped
interactions, two or morejudges can rate each of the participants’ conversation
with the confederate on a five-pointLikert scale for each of the five criteria of
personal concern, reducing conflict, and so forth. Itis recommended that the
judges discussed their ratings, and to achieve a consensus rating foreach of the
interactions. This procedure of obtaining a consensual rating for an
interactiontask has been recommended by Latham and Saari (1979) since it
avoids the mechanicalcalculation of the average of the independent ratings.
Page 22 of 44
Experiential Learning TheoryYoshitaka Yamazaki of the International University of Japan and D.
Christopher Kayes from The George Washington Universityadvocate that
experienceforms the basis of cross-cultural learning, we begin with details of
experiential learningtheory.
Experiential Learning Process and CycleKolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (ELT) remains one of the
mostpervasive theories of how managers learn from experience (see Kayes,
2002; Yuen &Lee, 1994). The theory continues to exert broad influence in a
number of professionalareas including education, psychology, medicine,
nursing, general management,computer science, accounting, and law (Kolb &
Kolb, 2004). The broad influence ofELT is evident in the more than 1,800
studies that have either directly used or beeninfluenced by the theory in the
last 30 years (Kolb & Kolb, 2004).
Basing this integrative model of learning on the works of Dewey, Lewin,
Piaget, James,and Freire, Kolb argued that experiential learning encompasses
the totality of the humanlearning process, where experience forms the
foundation for four modes of learning:feeling, reflecting, thinking, and acting.
Taken in order, these four modes represent afour-phase learning cycle. The
learning cycle describes how immediate concreteexperiences (CE) serve as the
basis for observation and reflection (RO), in which theexperience is
subsequently assimilated into abstract conceptualization (AC). From AC,the
experience is then formed into active experimentation (AE) with the world.
AE bothcompletes the cycle of learning and ensures that it begins anew by
assisting the creationof new CE experiences. Experiential learning theory
makes important distinctionsbetween learning abilities, learning style, learning
skills, and adaptive flexibility.
Page 23 of 44
Theoretical Framework
Dependent Independent
Variable Variables
In this research paper and the questionnaire which was developed to support this paper, one dependent was identified which was dependent upon three independent variables. These dependent and independent variables and their relationship is demonstrated in the above hierarchy.
As shown, the effectiveness of the cross-cultural training programme is dependent, among other things, upon employee motivation, trainer and trainee experience, and the sound understanding and knowledge of the foreign culture. Higher the employee’s motivation in doing well at the training programme, higher is the effectiveness of the training programme. Likewise, the training programme is likely to be more effective if the trainer and the trainee is
Page 24 of 44
Effec
tiven
ess o
f Cro
ss-
cultu
ral t
rain
ing Employee/Trainee
Motivation
Trainer/Trainee Experience
Understanding/Knowledge of Foreign Culture
experienced. Lastly, if the effectiveness of the training programme will be greatly increased if the trainer and trainee have an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the foreign culture in question.
Methodology
The date gathered to test and support the claims of this research paper has been gathered through the primary data gathering technique of questionnaires. This technique has been used so as to ascertain the opinions of people from different walks of life regarding the importance of cross-cultural training, upon what factors is the effectiveness of cross-cultural training dependent, and in case they have partaken in cross-cultural training programmes in the past, how effective they think these programmes have been in improving their performance.
The sample comprised of 60 individuals. Following are the particulars regarding their occupational background:
Occupation NumberStudent 41Faculty 9Professional 10
Using this data, the SPSS statistical software was used to analyze the responses. Following is the rendering of the Chi-square analyzes performed by this software:
Chi-square analyzes
Frequencies
Q1
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 3 12.0 -9.0
Disagree 8 12.0 -4.0
Not Sure 22 12.0 10.0
Agree 22 12.0 10.0
Strongly Agree 5 12.0 -7.0
Total 60
Page 25 of 44
Q2
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 2 12.0 -10.0
Disagree 17 12.0 5.0
Not Sure 11 12.0 -1.0
Agree 21 12.0 9.0
Strongly Agree 9 12.0 -3.0
Total 60
Q3
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 7 12.0 -5.0
Disagree 29 12.0 17.0
Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0
Agree 9 12.0 -3.0
Strongly Agree 6 12.0 -6.0
Total 60
Q4
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 4 12.0 -8.0
Disagree 14 12.0 2.0
Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0
Agree 17 12.0 5.0
Strongly Agree 16 12.0 4.0
Total 60
Page 26 of 44
Q5
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 6 12.0 -6.0
Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0
Agree 31 12.0 19.0
Strongly Agree 13 12.0 1.0
Total 60
Q6
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0 -6.0
Disagree 9 12.0 -3.0
Not Sure 18 12.0 6.0
Agree 22 12.0 10.0
Strongly Agree 5 12.0 -7.0
Total 60
Q7
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 8 15.0 -7.0
Disagree 29 15.0 14.0
Not Sure 10 15.0 -5.0
Agree 13 15.0 -2.0
Total 60
Q8
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 7 12.0 -5.0
Disagree 21 12.0 9.0
Not Sure 13 12.0 1.0
Agree 17 12.0 5.0
Strongly Agree 2 12.0 -10.0
Total 60
Page 27 of 44
Q9
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 7 12.0 -5.0
Disagree 22 12.0 10.0
Not Sure 14 12.0 2.0
Agree 13 12.0 1.0
Strongly Agree 4 12.0 -8.0
Total 60
Q10
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 3 12.0 -9.0
Disagree 19 12.0 7.0
Not Sure 15 12.0 3.0
Agree 19 12.0 7.0
Strongly Agree 4 12.0 -8.0
Total 60
Q11
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 7 12.0 -5.0
Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0
Agree 28 12.0 16.0
Strongly Agree 15 12.0 3.0
Total 60
Page 28 of 44
Q12
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 2 12.0 -10.0
Disagree 9 12.0 -3.0
Not Sure 6 12.0 -6.0
Agree 28 12.0 16.0
Strongly Agree 15 12.0 3.0
Total 60
Q13
Observed N Expected N Residual
Disagree 5 15.0 -10.0
Not Sure 8 15.0 -7.0
Agree 35 15.0 20.0
Strongly Agree 12 15.0 -3.0
Total 60
Q14
Observed N Expected N Residual
Disagree 7 15.0 -8.0
Not Sure 4 15.0 -11.0
Agree 36 15.0 21.0
Strongly Agree 13 15.0 -2.0
Total 60
Q15
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 10 12.0 -2.0
Not Sure 8 12.0 -4.0
Agree 30 12.0 18.0
Strongly Agree 11 12.0 -1.0
Total 60
Page 29 of 44
Q16
Observed N Expected N Residual
Disagree 6 15.0 -9.0
Not Sure 15 15.0 .0
Agree 31 15.0 16.0
Strongly Agree 8 15.0 -7.0
Total 60
Q17
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 5 12.0 -7.0
Not Sure 8 12.0 -4.0
Agree 39 12.0 27.0
Strongly Agree 7 12.0 -5.0
Total 60
Q18
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 19 12.0 7.0
Not Sure 18 12.0 6.0
Agree 14 12.0 2.0
Strongly Agree 8 12.0 -4.0
Total 60
Page 30 of 44
Q19
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 19 12.0 7.0
Not Sure 17 12.0 5.0
Agree 20 12.0 8.0
Strongly Agree 3 12.0 -9.0
Total 60
Q20
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 8 12.0 -4.0
Disagree 29 12.0 17.0
Not Sure 7 12.0 -5.0
Agree 11 12.0 -1.0
Strongly Agree 5 12.0 -7.0
Total 60
Q21
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 9 12.0 -3.0
Disagree 21 12.0 9.0
Not Sure 15 12.0 3.0
Agree 13 12.0 1.0
Strongly Agree 2 12.0 -10.0
Total 60
Page 31 of 44
Q22
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 15.0 -14.0
Disagree 17 15.0 2.0
Not Sure 10 15.0 -5.0
Agree 32 15.0 17.0
Total 60
Q23
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0 -6.0
Disagree 23 12.0 11.0
Not Sure 12 12.0 .0
Agree 14 12.0 2.0
Strongly Agree 5 12.0 -7.0
Total 60
Q24
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 1 12.0 -11.0
Disagree 3 12.0 -9.0
Not Sure 20 12.0 8.0
Agree 26 12.0 14.0
Strongly Agree 10 12.0 -2.0
Total 60
Page 32 of 44
Q25
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 2 12.0 -10.0
Disagree 21 12.0 9.0
Not Sure 13 12.0 1.0
Agree 20 12.0 8.0
Strongly Agree 4 12.0 -8.0
Total 60
Q26
Observed N Expected N Residual
Strongly Disagree 7 12.0 -5.0
Disagree 22 12.0 10.0
Not Sure 20 12.0 8.0
Agree 5 12.0 -7.0
Strongly Agree 6 12.0 -6.0
Total 60
Summary Of Sample’s Cultural Interactions
Following is the compilation and computation of the data related to the
different cultures which the sample has interacted with and had cross-cultural
interactions with:
Countries/Culture People Have Interacted WithNumber Of People
1. USA 112. SCOTLAND 23. YAMEN 14. UK/ENGLAND 135. SAUDI ARABI 6
Page 33 of 44
6. SRI LANKA 27. MALAYSIA 38. DUBAI 39. CHINA 710. NEPAL 111. NIGERIA 112. INDIA 313. OMAN 114. UAE 115. THAILAND 116. IRAN 117. AFGHANISTAN 318. CANADA 519. AUSTRALIA 420. GERMANY 321. TUNISIA 122. SWEDEN 223. NORWAY 124. FINLAND 125. GREECE 126. France 227. BANGLADESH 128. PALESTINE 129. MOROCCO 130. JORDAN 131. NETHERLAND 132. ITALY 233. RUSSIA 134. EGYPT 135. QATAR 1
TOTAL 90
Page 34 of 44
USASCOTLAND
YAMENUK/ENGLANDSAUDI ARABI
SRI LANKAMALAYSIA
DUBAICHINANEPAL
NIGERIAINDIA
OMANUAE
THAILANDIRAN
AFGHANISTANCANADA
AUSTRALIAGERMANY
TUNISIASWEDEN
NORWAYFINLANDGREECEFrance
BANGLADESHPALESTINE
MOROCCOJORDAN
NETHERLANDITALY
RUSSIAEGYPT
QATAR
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Summary of Cross-cultural In-teractions
Numer Of People
Page 35 of 44
Conclusion
The first purpose of this paper was to provide a comprehensive review of the
extant empirical literature on cross-cultural training. This review suggests that
cross-cultural training has a positive impact on the individual's development of
skills, on his or her adjustment to the cross-cultural situation, and on his or her
job perfor-mance in the cross-cultural situation. However, compared to the
training literature in general (see Latham, 1988, for a review), the area of
cross-cultural training has received little empir-ical attention.
Several conclusions are worth noting. First, based on the published empirical
evidence, it seems that cross-cultural training is effective in developing
important cross-cultural skills, in facilitating cross-cultural adjustment, and in
enhancing job performance. Second, most past empirical research on this
subject has lacked theoretical grounding. The area of cross-cultural training
will be facilitated by correcting this practice, and using SLT as a heuristic
framework is a first attempt to move the field in a more theoretically based
direction. Third, although SLT seems to be a robust theory that can be applied
to both domestic and international training contexts, the importance of certain
variables of SLT is different in cross-cultural training situations.
The primary data collected through questionnaires suggests that, even though
most of the sample population comprised of students, the number and variety
of corss-cultural interaction which the sample has had is impressive. This goes
to show that cross-cultural training is extremely important.
Page 36 of 44
References
1. Adler, N. (1983) Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and
the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8, 226-232.
2. Adler, N. (1986) International dimensions of organizational behavior.
Boston, MA: Kent.
3. Alderfer CP, Alderfer CJ, Bell EL, Jones J. 1992. The race relations
competence workshop: theory and results. Human Relations 45:
1259-1291.
4. Alderfer CP, Tucker RC. 1996. A field experiment for studying race
relations embedded in organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 17: 43-57.
5. Alderfer CP. 1986. An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In
Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Lorsch J (ed.). Prentice-
Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 190-222.
6. Allen E. 1995. Surviving diversity training. Working Woman 20: 55-
58.
7. Baker, J. C., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1971) The assignment of American
executives abroad: Systematic, haphazard, or chaotic?
California Management Review, 13(3), 39-44.
8. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
9. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
10. Beaty, D., & Mendenhall, M. (1989) International management
research: Toward an agenda. Unpublished manuscript.
11. Bhawuk DPS, Triandis HC. (1996). Diversity in the workplace:
emerging corporate strategies. In Human Resources
Management: Perspectives, Context, Functions, and Outcomes,
Ferris GR, Buckley MR (eds). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
NJ; 84-96.
12. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1995). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural
training: A comparative evaluation ofculture-specific, culture-
Page 37 of 44
general, and theory-based assimilators. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
13. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1996). Development of a culture theory-based
assimilator: Applications of individualismand collectivism in
crosscultural training. Best Paper Proceedings (pp. 147-150)
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Cincinnati.
14. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural
training: A multimethod study of culturespecific,culture-
general, and culture theory-based assimilators. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology 29 (5), 630-655.
15. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1999). Evolution of culture assimilators: Toward
theory-based assimilators. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of Academy of Management, Chicago, August 6-11,
1999.
16. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (1992). The measurement of
intercultural sensitivity using the concepts ofindividualism and
collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
16, 413-436.
17. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Triandis, H. C. (1996b). The role of culture theory
in the study of culture and interculturaltraining. In D. Landis &
R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 17-
34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
18. Bhawuk, D. P. S., Copeland, J., Yoshida, W., & Lim, K. (1999). The
development of a multimedia culture assimilator: Issues facing
adaptation from text to multimedia. Manuscript under
preparation.
19. Black, J. S. (1988) Work role transitions: A study of American
expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business
Studies, 19, 277-294.
20. Bochner, S. (1982) Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural
interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.
21. Bochner, S. (1982) Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural
interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.
22. Brethower, K., & Rummler, G. (1979). Evaluating training. Training
and Development Journal, 33, 14-22. Brislin, R. W. (1981).
Page 38 of 44
Cross-cultural encounters: Face to face interaction. New York:
Pergamon.
23. Brislin, R. W. (1981) Cross-cultural encounters. New York: Pergamon
Press.
24. Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (Eds.) (1994). Improving intercultural
interactions: Models for cross-cultural training programs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Brislin, R. W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C., & Yong, M. (1986).
Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
26. Broaddus, D. L. (1986). Use of the culture-general assimilator in
intercultural training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
School of Graduate Studies, Indiana State University.
27. Carnevale AP, Stone SC. 1994. Diversity beyond the golden rule.
Training and Development 48: 565-602.
28. Caudron S, Hayes C. 1997. Are diversity programmes benefiting
African Americans?. Black Enterprise 27: 121-132.
29. Copeland, L, & Griggs, L. (1985). Going international. New York:
Random House.
30. Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1985) Going international. New York:
Random House.
31. Cushner, K. (1989). Assessing the impact of a culture-general
assimilator. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13,
125-146.
32. Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (Eds.) (1997). Improving intercultural
interactions: Models for cross-cultural training programs,
(Volume 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33. Davis, T., & Luthans, F. (1980) A social learning approach to
organizational behavior. Academy of Management Re-view, 5,
281-290.
34. Day LEO. 1995. The pitfalls of diversity training. Training and
Development 49: 24-29.
35. Decker PJ, Nathan BR. 1985. Behavior Modeling Training: Principles
and Applications. Praeger: New York.Page 39 of 44
36. Deering TE, Stanutz A. 1995. Preservice field experiences as a
multicultural component of a teacher education program.
Journal of Teacher Education 46: 390-394.
37. Detweiler, R. (1978). Culture, category width, and attributions: A
model building approach to the reasons for cultural effects.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 259-284
38. Detweiler, R. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorization
process: A conceptual analysis and behavioral outcome.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 275-295.
39. Dunbar, E., & Ehrlich, M. (1986) International practices, se-lection,
training, and managing the international staff: A survey report.
New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Project on
International Human Resource.
40. Ellis C, Sonnenfeld JA. 1994. Diverse approaches to managing
diversity. Human Resource Management 33: 79-109.
41. Galen M, Palmer AT. 1993. White, male, and worried. Business Week
January 31: 50-55.
42. Gordon J. 1995. What if it isn't just lousy facilitators? Training 32: 28-
29.
43. Graham, J. (1985) The influence of culture on the process of business
negotiations: An exploratory study. Journal of International
Business Studies, 16(1), 81-95.
44. Harris, P., & Moran, R. T. (1979) Managing cultural differences.
Houston, TX: Gulf.
45. Harrison, J. K. (1992). Individual and combined effects of behavior
modeling and the culture assimilator in cross-cultural
management training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 952-
962.
46. Hemphill H, Haines R. 1997. Discrimination, Harassment, and the
Failure of Diversity Training: What to Do Now. Quorum
Books: Westport, CT.
47. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975) Theories of learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
48. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975) Theories of learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Page 40 of 44
49. Katz JH. 1978. White Awareness: Anti-Racism Training, University of
Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK.
50. Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving
the role of experience in management learning and education.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 137-
149.
51. KirklandSE, Regan AM. 1997. Organizational racial diversity
training.In Racial IdentityTheory:Applicationsto Individual,
Group, and Organizational Interventions, Thompson CE, Carter
RT (eds). Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 159-175.
52. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1987). Evaluation. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training
and development handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 301-319). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
53. Kitfield J. 1998. Boot camp lite. Government Executive 30: 45-49.
54. Kluckhohn, C., & Kroeberg, A. L. (1952) Culture: A critical review of
concepts and definitions. Vintage Books.
55. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Bibliography on experiential learning
theory. Retrieved July 2002 from http://www.experience.com.
56. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
57. Kossek EE, Roberts K, Fisher S, Demarr B. 1998. Career self-
management:a quasi-experimentalassessment of the effects of
a training intervention. Personnel Psychology 51: 935-962.
58. Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E. 1993. Application of cognitive, skill-
based and affective theories of learning outcomes to new
methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology
78: 311-328.
59. Kyi, K. M. (1988) APJM and comparative management in Asia. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 5, 207-224.
60. LandisD., BhagatRS. 1996. A model of intercultural behaviorand
training.In Handbookof Intercultural Training, 2nd edn,
Landis D, Bhagat RS (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 1-13.
Page 41 of 44
61. Landis, D., & Brislin, R. (1983) Handbook on intercultural training
(Vol 1). New York: Pergamon Press.
62. Latham, G., & Saari, L. (1979) Application of social learning theory to
training supervisors through behavior modification. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 64, 239-246.
63. Loden M. 1996. Implementing Diversity. Irwin: Chicago.
64. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1981) Vicarious learning: The influence
of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 6, 105-113.
65. Markels A. 1997. A diversity program can prove divisive. Wall Street
Journal January 30: B l-B2.
66. McIlveen-Yarbro, C. L. (1988). An assessment of the ability of the
culture-general assimilator to createsensitivity to
multiculturalism in an educational setting. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
67. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985) The dimensions of expatriate
acculturation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 39-47.
68. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1986) Acculturation profiles of
expatriate managers: Implications for cross-cultural training
programs. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21(4), 73-79.
69. Miller, E. (1973) The international selection decision: A study of
managerial behavior in the selection decision process.
Academy of Management Journal, 16, 234-252.
70. Millikin FJ, Martins LL. 1996. Searching for common threads:
understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational
groups. Academy of Management Review 21: 492-433.
71. Misa, K. F., & Fabricatore, J. M. (1979) Return on investment of
overseas personnel. Financial Executive, 47(4), 42-46.
72. Noe RA, Ford JK. 1992. Emerging issues and new directions for
training research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management 10: 345-384.
73. Noe, R. A. (1986) Trainee's attributes and attitudes: Neglected
influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 736-749.
Page 42 of 44
74. Paige RM, Martin JN. 1996. Ethics in intercultural training. In
Handbook of Intercultural Training 2nd edn, Landis D, Bhagat
RS (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 35-60.
75. Roberts, K. H. (1970) On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of
cross-cultural research related to organizations. Psychological
Bulletin, 4(5), 327-350.
76. Roberts, K. H., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (1984) Cross-national
organizational research: The grasp of the blind men. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 17-31). Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.
77. Ronen, S. (1986) Comparative and multinational management. New
York: Wiley.
78. Rossett A, Bickham T. 1994. Diversity training: hope, faith and
cynicism. Training 31: 40-46.
79. Runzheimer Executive Report (1984) Expatriation/ repatriation survey.
(No. 31). Rochester, WI: Runzheimer Associates, Inc.
80. Rynes S, Rosen B. 1995. A field survey of factors affecting the
adoption and perceived success of diversity training.
Personnel Psychology 48: 247-270.
81. Schollhammer, H. (1975) Current research in international and
comparative management issues. Management International
Review, 13, 17-31.
82. Schwind, H. F. (1985) The state of the art in cross-cultural
management training. In R. Doktor (Ed.), International human
resource development annual (Vol. 1, pp. 7-15). Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training and Development.
83. Swenson, L. L. (1980) Theories of learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
84. Swenson, L. L. (1980) Theories of learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
85. Tannenbaum S., Yukl G. 1992. Training and developmentin work
organizations. AnnualReview of Psychology 43: 399-441.
86. Tobias S. 1987. Learner characteristics. In Instructional Technology:
Foundations, Gagne RM (ed.). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ; 207-
232.
87. Triandis HC, Kurowski LL, Gelfand MJ. 1993. Workplace diversity. In
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Page 43 of 44
edn, Vol. 2, Dunnette MD, Hough L (eds). Consulting
Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA; 769-827.
88. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York:
Wiley.
89. Triandis, H. C. (1995b). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
90. Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., Tanaka, Y., & Shanmugam, A. (Eds.)
(1972) The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
91. Tung, R. (1981) Selecting and training of personnel for overseas
assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(1), 68-
78.
92. Tung, R. (1982) Selection and training procedures of U.S., European,
& Japanese multinationals. California Management Review,
25(1), 57-71.
93. Tung, R. (1984) Key to Japan's economic strength: Human power.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
94. Underhill, F. (1990). An application of social learning theory using
stakeholder evaluations to assess cross-cultural training
programs for business people. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Washington.
95. Vroom, V. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
96. Wiggins RA, Folio EJ. 1999. Development of knowledge, attitudes,
and commitment to teach diverse student populations. Journal
of Teacher Evaluation 50: 94-105.
97. Yuen, C., & Lee, S. N. (1994). Applicability of the learning style
inventory in an Asian context and its predictive value.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 541-549.
98. Zeira, Y. (1975) Overlooked personnel problems in multinational
corporations. Columbia Journal of World Business, 10(2), 96-
103.
Page 44 of 44
Recommended