Global Competencies Inventory - RainDrop Laboratories€¦ · • Understand why the GCI is a credible instrument and be able to communicate this to others. • Understand the different

Global Competencies Inventory

Qualifying Webinar

February 12-13, 2010

Gary Oddou

The Intercultural Communication Institute

The Globa l Competencies Inventory: Qua l i f y ing Webina r is o f fered by the KOZAI GROUP

in coopera t ion w ith The In tercultura l Commun ica t ion Inst itu te.

For further in forma t ion about semina rs , inventor ies, or consult ing serv ices, p lease contact :

Chad Stewar t

Phone: 81(90)127 1 .57 17 Ema i l : chad@ikan .b i z

OR

Intercultura l Commun ica t ion Inst itute

8835 SW Canyon Lane, Suite 238 Port land, OR 97225 USA Phone: 503-297-4622 Fax: 503-297-4695

Ema i l : ic i@intercultura l .org www.intercultura l .org

©The Kozai Group, Inc. 2009

Global Competencies Inventory

Qualifying Webinar

February 12-13, 2010

Gary Oddou

Part I: Seminar Presentation

o PowerPoint Slides .......................................................................................................................................................................1

Part II: Seminar Background Materials

o What Is the Purpose of the Seminar? ..................................................................................................................................34

o The Global Competency Inventory: What Is It? ...............................................................................................................34

o Is the GCI a Credible Instrument? .......................................................................................................................................37

o What Are the Different Applications of the GCI? ...........................................................................................................39

o How Can I Effectively Interpret the GCI? ..........................................................................................................................41

o GCI Profiles ................................................................................................................................................................................42

o Individual Differences within the Generic Profiles ...........................................................................................................46

o The Kozai Learning and Transformation Model ...............................................................................................................51

o Transformation Levels .............................................................................................................................................................53

o Creating a Personal Development Plan...............................................................................................................................54

o Your Personal Development Plan ........................................................................................................................................55

o General Suggestions for Developing Intercultural Competence ..................................................................................56

Part III: Appendices

o Appendix A: Sample Profiles ..................................................................................................................................................58

o Appendix B: SMART Goals ....................................................................................................................................................67

o Appendix C: Frequently Asked Questions.........................................................................................................................75

o Appendix D: Technical Report..............................................................................................................................................82

Part IV: The Kozai Group

o Kozai Group History ............................................................................................................................................................ 126

o Kozai Partner Biographies ................................................................................................................................................... 127

o Books ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 130

GCI QUALIFYING SEMINAR 1

GCI Qualifying Seminar

A Joint Webinar by the InterculturalInstitute and the Kozai Group

February 12-13

Discovering & Developing Exceptional Talent

Webinar Objectives

• Understand the different types of interculturalassessments and the specific role of the GCI.

• Understand why the GCI is a credible instrumentand be able to communicate this to others.

• Understand the different applications of the GCI.

• Confidently interpret the GCI results as adiagnostic tool.

• Coach individuals to develop an effective PersonalDevelopment Plan based on their GCI profile.



Types of InterculturalAssessments

Gap vs. Competency Assessments

Gap = What are the differences?

Competency = How well can this person managethe differences?


High PerformingPeople

In Cross-cultural& Diverse Contexts

RelevantOperationalKnowledge

Personal Competencies

TechnicalExpertise

The Role of the GCI


PersonalCompetencies

Ability to Learn

Effectively

Ability toDevelop and

ManageRelationships

Effectively

Ability to Manage Self Effectively in Challenging Situations

Credibility of the GCI

• Origin and conceptual domain of the GCI

• Actual development process of the GCI (questiondevelopment, statistical procedures, sifting ofquestions, etc.)

• Properties of a good instrument (types of validity,reliability)



Origin and Conceptual Domain ofthe GCI

• Original question: What characteristicsdo people have who adapt better toforeign cultures than others?

• Findings from research: We focused onthe commonalities across groups andcountries related to cross-culturaladaptation.

• Conclusion: Three major characteristicsand later our acculturation model


How the GCI Was Developed*

1. Content areas to cover (competencies)

2. Development of questions (311)

3. Administration of GCI

4. Statistical analysis of questions to test theirrelevance and cohesion.

5. Iterations of #3 and #4 with 2,000+ subjects.

6. Finalization of best items (179)*For a complete explanation, refer to the technical report inAppendix A.



Properties of a GoodInstrument

• Must be reliable• Should have these types of validity:

– content validity

– construct validity

– predictive or criterion-related validity


Predictive Validity Research Results

GlobalManagement

Skills TransferDeploying Global

Skills in New WorkRoles

InterculturalCompetencies

GCI OverallScore

• Perception

• Relationship

• Self

OrganizationalSupport

• Firm’s Culture

• Strategy Fit

• HR Support

GlobalManagement

SkillsAcquisition

• Global Businessknowledge

• Managementskills

High Motivationtowards Job

HighInstitutionalCommitment

High WorkPerformance

RepatriationSupportSystem

GCIDimensions

SkillAcquisition

Ability toTransfer

Skills

GCI-relatedOutcomes


• Global Competencies Inventory (GCI) measures 17dimensions associated with effective intercultural behaviorand dynamic global managerial skill acquisition and aregrouped under three factors:

– Perception Management (Learning effectively)– Relationship Management (Managing relationships eff.)– Self Management (Managing self in challenging situations)

• The GCI contains 179 items and is administered online orvia paper-and-pencil format.

• A Social Desirability dimension (a = .83) is also measured.

(http://gci.kozaieducation.org)

The GCI Survey

GCI Feedback Sheet

You have eachbeen assessed onthese 17dimensions.


PerceptionManagement

This factor assesses how individuals perceivesthe world around them and its effects on theirsubsequent learning about that world.

• How mentally flexible one is when confronted with culturaldifferences that are strange or new.

• One’s tendency to make rapid (rather than thoughtful) judgmentsabout observed cultural differences.

• One’s ability to manage perceptions when faced with situations thatare not immediately easy to understand because they differ fromexpectations.

• One’s proactive curiosity toward foreign countries, cultures, andinternational events

• One’s tendency to draw sharp boundaries between things that aredifferent.


PerceptionManagementCompetencies

• Nonjudgmentalness This dimension considers anindividual’s inclination to suspend or withhold negativejudgments about situations or persons that are new orunfamiliar and assume a more positive view. (a = .72)

• Inquisitiveness. This dimension assesses an individual’spursuit of understanding ideas, values, norms, situations andbehaviors that are different one’s own. It also addresses anindividual’s capacity to take advantage of learningopportunities. (a = .84)

• Tolerance of ambiguity. This dimension measures theextent to which someone is able to manage ambiguity as itrelates to new and complex situations where there are notnecessarily clear answers about what is going on or howthings should be done. It also evaluates how much someoneenjoys surrounding themselves with ideas or things that arenew and unfamiliar, rather than feel threatened by them. (a= .73)



PerceptionManagementCompetencies

• Cosmopolitanism This dimension measures the levelof natural interest in and curiosity about countries andcultures that are different from one’s own. It alsoassesses the degree to which someone is interested incurrent world and international events and would enjoytraveling abroad. (a = .85)

• Category Inclusiveness This dimension measureshow likely someone is to perceive commonalitiesdespite the obvious differences. It therefore assesseshow likely someone is to include and accept things andpeople who are different from them. (a = .70)


RelationshipManagement

• This factor assesses a person’s orientationtoward developing and maintainingrelationships in general:

– how aware one is of others around them, theirinteraction styles, values, and so on

– one’s personal level of self-awareness andawareness of how one’s behaviors impact others.

– the degree to which one is oriented toward thedevelopment and management of interpersonalrelationships in a cross-cultural environment.



RelationshipManagementCompetencies

• Relationship Interest. This dimension measures the extent towhich one has a genuine interest in, and awareness of, people,including those who are from other cultures or ethnic groups. It alsoreflects your desire to get to know them, their values, and why theydo what they do. (a = .76)

• Interpersonal Engagement. This dimension considers the extentto which one is likely to initiate and maintain relationships with otherpeople. It also measures how inclined someone is to actively seek outothers who are different, as well as desire and ability to engage themin interesting conversations. (a = .80)

• Emotional Sensitivity. This dimension measures the capacity toaccurately read and comprehend the emotions of others and tounderstand their feelings from their perspective. It also measures howwell one is able to listen genuinely and respond with empathy to thecircumstances and challenges they face. (a = .74)


RelationshipManagementCompetencies

• Self-Awareness. This dimension appraises the extent to which oneis are aware of personal values and interpersonal style, personalstrengths and weaknesses, and how one’s past experiences havehelped shape who one is as a person. It also measures how wellsomeone claims to know him or herself, and the extent to whichthere is an understanding of the impact of personal values andbehavior on relationships with others. (a = .73)

• Behavioral Flexibility. This dimension measures your tendency toregulate and adjust your behavior to fit in, and to present yourself toothers in ways that create positive impressions and facilitate thebuilding of constructive relationships. (a = .72)



SelfManagement

• This third factor assesses one’s natural andlearned capabilities to maintain a healthyemotional state when faced with challengingsituations.

– the strength of sense of self-identity– competencies that enhance the ability

to effectively manage one’s thoughts,emotions and responses to stressfulsituations.


SelfManagementCompetencies

• Optimism. The extent to which one maintains a positiveoutlook toward people, events and outcomes generally, andview challenges as learning opportunities. (a = .74)

• Self-Confidence. The level of personal belief in one’s abilityto achieve whatever one decides to accomplish, even if it issomething that has never been tried before. (a = .83)

• Self-Identity. This dimension considers a leader’s ability tomaintain personal values and beliefs regardless of the situation.A strong self-identity means one has strong personal values andmaintains a high sense of personal integrity while at the sametime being openly accepting of those who are different, withoutfeeling personally threatened. (a = .73)

• Emotional Resilience. One’s level of emotional strengthand ability to cope favorably with irritations, setbacks,frustrations and failures. It also assesses capacity to recoverquickly from psychologically and emotionally challengingsituations. (a = .81)



SelfManagementCompetencies

• Non-Stress Tendency. This dimension measures one’s innatecapacity to respond with peacefulness and serenity to potentiallystressful situations or circumstances, whether they are derivedfrom different sources or from a wide range of stressors. (a =.81)

• Stress Management. The degree to which one reportsactively utilizing stress reduction strategies and techniques whenfaced with stressors in daily life, as well as the degree to whichone is willing to employ new stress reduction techniques in thefuture. (a = .74)

• Interest Flexibility. This dimension measures flexibility inidentifying and adopting new interests, hobbies and changes inone’s daily routine when normal activities and other outlets arenot available. Having enjoyable outlets, leisure activities, andbeing able to adapt one’s daily routine are all important elementsin the ability to deal with stress. (a = .83)


How Can We Use the GCI?

• Cross-cultural applications in business andeducation

• Diversity applications in business andeducation



Applications of the GCI


• Contexts for using the GCICross-Cultural Uses in Business– General employee recruitment to ensure a population of

employees that are more suited for a globalenvironment.

– Employee selection for specific positions requiringpresent or future interactions with foreigners.

– Expatriate/Inpatriate selection to help ensure betterperformance and/or successful knowledge transfer

– Global leader selection to help ensure the nextgeneration of leaders are more globally adaptable.

Applications of the GCI cont’d

Cross-Cultural Uses in Education– More effectively selecting study abroad or

international study tour leaders.

– Better understanding why some studentsadapt better than others on study abroadprograms.

– Helping students assess their competenciesas they prepare to deal with a diverse andmulticultural world.



Applications of the GCI cont’d

Diversity Uses in Business or Education– Recruitment of employees to help ensure hiring of

individuals who can better manage their differenceswith those of other experiences and backgrounds (e.g.,ethnic, religious, gender, generation, sexualorientation, etc.)

– Team member selection to increase the probability ofindividuals’ accomplishing their objectives and utilizingtheir diversity as an asset instead of a liability.

– Analysis of at-risk college students to determinecompetencies they might lack to help them adapt tothe college environment.


The “Elevator” pitch!

• Individually, take 5 minutes to pick out what youconsider the salient points about the GCI.

• Share your salient points and discuss an effectiveapproach to communicating the credibility andeffectiveness of the GCI to potential clients (10or so minutes).

Why should a client want to use the GCI?



GCI’s Cousin, the IES

• Need to develop a low-cost, shorterassessment of intercultural effectiveness

• On-line or paper-and-pencil, 52-itemsurvey for $12 with 20+ page workbook.

• Principally for– Educational markets

– Nonprofit organizations (not all )

– Lower-level employees in for-profit firms

(http://ies.kozaieducation.org)Discovering & Developing Exceptional Talent

The IES examines three main dimensions of interculturaladaptability, and each dimension consists of two sub-dimensions:

An Overall IES score is also generated.

The Intercultural Effectiveness Scale

ContinuousLearning

InterpersonalEngagement

Hardiness

Exploration Global Mindset Positive Regard

Self- Awareness Relationship Interest Resilience


Your Peers You Are Compared To:Demographics of GCI Participants

• Education• Age• Gender• Work experience• Ethnicity


Educational Background

Percent ofNorm

Sample

Some college (incl. 2-yr. degree) 38.8

4-yr. degree 30.8

Some graduate courses 11.9

Masters level degree 10.8

Doctoral/Terminal degree 1.9

Other/None of the above 5.9

Totals 100


Age

Percent ofNorm

SampleUnder 20 10.520 to 29 62.330 to 39 16.240 to 49 8.250 and above 2.8

Totals 100

Gender

Percent of NormSample

Male 56.8

Female 43.2

Totals 100


Work Experience


Top Level Executive 2.2Middle Manager 11.4Entry-level Manager/Supervisor 15.4Employee 36.3Other (Including Students) 34.7Totals 100

Ethnicity


Asian 30.3Black 3.4Hispanic 7.2Middle Eastern 2.2Pacific Islander 1.3White (Anglo & European) 52.2Other 3.4Totals 100


Scoring Inventories:Why Percentiles?

Two basic ways to score:

• Evaluate against a standard: This would presupposewe know what level of a dimension relates to whatlevel of intercultural effectiveness. No one knowsthat! What we do know is that more is better.

• Evaluate against others: We typically evaluatecomparatively as a cultural norm.• “Susan is a great speaker” (compared to other speakers)

• “Bill is the best bull rider.” (compared to the other riders)


Scoring of the GCI: Percentiles

• Individual dimensions (Inquisitiveness, etc.): Eachresponse is compared to all others’ responses onthe same questions related to that dimension.

• Factors (PM, RM, SM): Each response is comparedto all others’ responses on the questions related toall the individual dimensions pertaining to thatfactor.

• Overall score: Same process across all questionsover all 17 dimensions.



Why the Recalculation of the Questions forFactor and Overall Scores?

• Is there a difference between someone whoscores at the 1st percentile vs. the 17th

percentile even though they’re in the samecolumn on the feedback form?– Averaging does not account for variation within

a given category

– Recalculating each of the questions andcomparing them against everyone else’sresponses accounts for that variation


Your Personal GCI Results

• Take a few minutes to write down anyquestions you have about your reactionto your results.

• Compare your brief evaluation of yourselfagainst your actual GCI results.– How close were the two?

– If they weren’t close, why?




Learning more about yourcompetencies from yourGCI Feedback Report

FAQs

See Appendix B:FAQs from users and FAQs for potential

administrators



Interpreting the GCI

• An intercultural and/or diversityexperience background helps a lot.

• Five steps to a sound interpretation– Understand well the 3 factors and the 17 dimensions.– Understand the interactions/interdependencies of the

dimensions.– Understand the generic profile descriptions to see how a

composite picture of those dimensions look with theirinterdependencies.

– Learn how the generic profiles are affected by discrepantdimension scores and become comfortable with that.

– Practice.


Eight Generic GCI Profiles

1. Higher PM, Higher RM, Higher SM

2. Higher PM, Higher RM, Lower SM

3. Higher PM, Lower RM, Lower SM

4. Lower PM, Higher RM, Higher SM

5. Lower PM, Lower RM, Higher SM

6. Lower PM, Lower RM, Lower SM

7. Lower PM, Higher RM, Lower SM

8. Higher PM, Lower RM, Higher SM



Practice Time


Coaching with the GCI

• The focus of Kozai and the GCI is what itsays at the bottom of this slide!



“Underlying characteristic of an individual or team thatcan be shown to predict effective superior performancein a job or situation.”

McClelland (1973)

“A capacity that exists in a person that leads tobehaviors that meet the job demands within theparameters of the organizational environment.”

Boyatzis (1982)

“The dimensions of behavior that lie behind effectiveperformance -- often called behavioral.”

Armstrong (1998)

What is a competency?

Transformation: Improving ourCompetencies



Can People Change?

Dynamic vs. Stable Competencies

Levels of Transformation

• Behavioral level• Attitude level• Values and fundamental belief level


ValuesSelf

Behavioral Self

Attitudinal Self

Transformation Easiest

MostDifficult

Transformation is a process of

Letting go of . . . and taking on . . .


Dynamics of TransformationLetting Go Taking On Tactics (PDP)

Sticking with the “tried and“true” (Behavior)

Ambiguity is stressful(Attitude)

Ambiguity is bad(Value/Belief)

Engaging in a new activity(Behavior)

Participating in Ambiguity canbe a learning opportunity

(Attitude)

Ambiguity is good(Value/Belief)

Going somewhere by adifferent route (Behavior)

Joining a club for the first time(Behavior)

Focusing mostly on localissues Focusing more on global issues

Reading Financial Times;listening to CNN Internationalor BBC (Behaviors)

Acting more introverted Initiating more socialinteraction

Meeting at least one newperson each day (Behavior)

Being inattentive to theverbal and nonverbal

content of interactions

Paying a great deal of attentionto the verbal and nonverbal

content of interactions

Make mental notes ofsomeone’s tone of voice, facialexpressions, and the content todetermine the mood they mightbe in (Behavior)

Focusing on the negative Focusing on the positive

Seek feedback from someonewho knows you well to makeyou aware of when you arethinking pessmistically(Behavior)_

High PerformingManagers/Employees and the

Transformation Process

Their implicit motto:

No pain, no gain.



Transformational Experiences

The pain comes through challenging one’s personalcompetencies, sometimes going through crucibleexperiences that test our abilities to understand, to developrelationships and to maintain emotional stability.

The gain comes through the transformation--the increase inunderstanding, the development of effective relationships anda positive sense of self in the aftermath.

It’s in the stretching of one’s previous abilities that results ina broader perspective, a greater ability to manage ambiguity,keener observation skills, and an increased sense of self-efficacy.

Understanding The Process ofTransformation

Contrast Confrontation Transformation


Contrasts

• The Japanese tend to take a long time to makedecisions. Americans tend to take much less time.

• Latinos tend to have more family gatherings thanthe typical Anglo family in the U.S.

• The parents of the baby boom generation usuallyworked for the same company nearly all their worklives. Although this can still be true in the mid-west, frequent company switching is typical of thecurrent generation.

Confrontation

• Why do Latino families have so manyfamily get-togethers that last forhours?

• Why do Americans want to risk a baddecision to take advantage of possibleopportunities? Why do others wantto be so certain and possibly missopportunities? Is one approach betterthan the other?


Transformation: Getting answersto the “Whys”

• I understand that family is the most importantorganization to a Latino and that nurturing thoserelationships is essential to maintaining their identity as amember of that organization.

• There are times when it probably makes sense to takemore time to make certain the decision is a good one;there are also times when it might be worth the risk tomake a quicker decision while the opportunity is open. Ineed to think more about the circumstances andconsequences of both of those to figure out when Ishould use one approach or the other. Both are valid.

The Kozai Learning andTransformation Model

• Letting go of things through a process ofcontrast and confrontation.

• This happens best through “trigger” events.



TriggerEvents

Buffers

NormalBuffers

Sense-making

ImprovedCompetencies

ImprovedJob Behavior

HighPerformance

Exaggerated Buffers

AbortedLearning

WeakenedCompetencies

DysfunctionalJob Behavior

LowPerformance


Buffers

Normal Buffers Exaggerated Buffers

“I know bribes are consideredillegal and unethical in mycountry but standard practicein others. Is it just becausethey’re corrupt or is theresome other reason why bribesare common place?There are probably somethings I don’t understandabout these countries that Ineed to before making ajudgment.”

“I can’t believe they wouldask for a bribe to do normalbusiness. No way am I goingto even consider it. It’ssimply unethical and illegaland that’s all there is to it.You either do business on itsown merits or you don’t.Period.”


Sources of Exaggerated BuffersInternal External

Perception management:Our own frame of reference isthe right one. (Results in anarrower-minded perspective)Relationshipmanagement: My currentrelationships are adequate.(We cut off sources ofinformation and socialenjoyment.)Self management: It’sbetter to avoid new situations;they’re stressful. (Avoidingstressful situations, we don’tincrease our capacity to endurethem or the opportunity tochange.

HR policies: Internationalbusiness travelers always stay inthe 4 star hotels, are chauffeuredeverywhere they go, and all localtransactions or decisions are madeby the locals. (They eliminateexposure to differences andthereby avoid questioning theirown assumptions.)Local experts: Excellent forinformation and guidance. (Tooclose a “supervision” never allowsthe foreign visitor to makemistakes or confront the realitiesof the local culture.)

Individual Development

Requires:

• Experiential learning and reflection• Testing experiences• Extensive practice• Ability and willingness to learn and transform

oneself


Personal Development Plan

How do we help our client move forward?

What can companies do?

Provide Experiences via:• Multicultural teams• International education• Long-term international assignments• Short-term international assignments• Mentors from other cultures• Structured international business travel


More specifically, companies can:

• Design integrated, holistic developmentalprograms for managers

• Start developmental processes early inmanagers’ careers

• Leverage previous global experiences

• Bolster with multi-method training andcoaching

• Ensure organizational support for personalcompetency development processes

Questions? Reflections?




What Is the Purpose of the Seminar?

The overall purpose of this seminar is to help you use the Global Competency Inventory as a confident and qualified administrator! More specifically, the principal objectives of the seminar are the following:

1) Understand why the GCI is a credible instrument and be able to explain this to others. 2) Understand the different applications of the GCI. 3) Confidently interpret GCI results for use as a selection and development tool. 4) Coach individuals to develop an effective Personal Development Plan (PDP) based on their GCI profile.

The Global Competency Inventory: What Is it?

The GCI is an instrument that assesses individuals' strengths and weaknesses in certain competencies that are related to adapting to and working effectively with people who are different from you. Those differences can originate from multiple causes, including cultural, ethnic, occupational, generational, gender, religious or other groups. Our emphasis, however, is on managing the differences between cultural groups, where often the differences are not only contrary values and beliefs but also include political, religious, ethnic, gender, and other differences as the basis for many of their values and beliefs.

Individuals' ability to manage these differences and work effectively with members of these other groups can be found in the individuals' competency levels related to these major areas:

o Learning effectively about the foreign people and their environment (Perception Management)

o Building and maintaining quality relationships with those people (Relationship Management)

o Being able to manage one's emotions and maintain a positive state of being given the challenges of adapting to and working with foreign people and environments (Self Management)

These three areas, Perception Management, Relationship Management, and Self Management are the three major factors that the GCI measures. A more detailed look at the three factors and their 17 dimensions can be found in the following section:

1. Perception Management

Perception Management (PM) considers the processes by which perceptions and judgments are made, as well as peoples' ability to accurately make sense of ambiguous situations and to be inclusive of differences. The effectiveness of your PM competencies will have a significant impact on the quantity and quality of the information you learn in the new environment.

Nonjudgmentalness. When entering into new or unfamiliar situations involving other cultures, it is best to withhold judgments about other people - their values, attitudes, beliefs, expectations, motives, or behaviors - until we are sure that we have adequate information or that we need to make a judgment in order to take action. In fact, assuming positive things about people in general can lead to more effective relationships.

Inquisitiveness. If we are to develop accurate and constructive perceptions and understandings, then we must also seek out new and more complete information. This involves being inquisitive. It works hand-in-hand with Nonjudgmentalness. Avoiding making premature judgments and assuming the positive lay the groundwork for constructing a more positive and inviting picture of the new environment. This also helps in the development of relationships with the people in that environment.

Tolerance of Ambiguity. A new environment characterizes a great deal of ambiguity as a consequence of novelty, complexity, or uncertainty about how to act. Being able to tolerate that ambiguity during the learning process is crucial. Withholding judgment and being inquisitive, however, can heighten our awareness of how much we don't know. Our need to create a predictable environment, if not managed well, can increase the amount of



stress we experience.

Cosmopolitanism. Our ability to accurately perceive what is going on around us is enhanced if we have an interest in and pursue an understanding of the larger world around us. You might think of this as an extension of Inquisitiveness in the specific context of understanding the broader world and the wide varieties of people who live in it.

Category Inclusiveness. Finally, as we learn more about the world and the people within it, how do we categorize what we know? People vary in their inclination to use decision rules and rubrics that create categories that tend to exclude as opposed to rules and rubrics that include. Being inclusive aids in the development of relationships and in one's sense of being more part of instead of separate from the new environment.

As we think about these five dimensions of the Perception Management factor, we can recognize that someone may be high on several dimensions and low on others, and variations across these dimensions will lead to differences in how people perceive and process information. For example, a person might be high on Nonjudgmentalness and Inquisitiveness, but low on Tolerance of Ambiguity and Cosmopolitanism, and moderate on Category Inclusiveness. This profile would seem to indicate someone who avoids making quick judgments about people and who is curious about others, but who does not feel comfortable with the ambiguity that accompanies such settings and is relatively uninterested in broader aspects of what is going on in the world.

One's profile in Perception Management can have a direct influence on the quantity and quality of relationships one develops. It sets the context for how easy or difficult it might be to apply one's competencies to develop those connections.

2. Relationship Management

Relationship Management (RM) considers your level of self-awareness, the ability to attend to yourself and others, and the application of sound interpersonal skills to deal with people from different cultures or ethnic groups. Having effective RM competencies is critical for at least two major reasons. Although PM competencies are related to how much and how well we learn about the new environment, they focus on our individual approach to learning. Developing effective relationships can extend our learning by tapping into the insights of those around us. In addition, as we are social beings, having friendships and good working relationships with colleagues makes our experience more pleasurable.

Relationship Interest. This dimension addresses how interested we are in developing relationships with people from other cultures. This is the starting point of developing relationships.

Interpersonal Engagement. But interest in developing relationships with people from other cultures does not take us very far if we are reluctant to initiate conversation, and are always waiting for the other person to make the first move. Engaging others is necessary and is a source of information and potential enjoyment.

Emotional Sensitivity. An interest in, and a willingness to initiate, relationships with people from other countries is weak if one is not sensitive to the emotions that others feel. Interpersonal communication usually involves three messages – factual information, intent, and emotion. This dimension evaluates the extent to which someone is sensitive to emotions in intercultural communication and can detect those emotions based on visual cues in the context.

Self-Awareness. Related to Emotional Sensitivity is a person's awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, how those strengths and weaknesses might influence others' perceptions of them, and whether it is even valuable to gain such personal insights. Individuals who emphasize self-awareness are better able to manage themselves and build effective relationships.

Social Flexibility. Finally, being able to adjust our behaviors to fit the new norms and expectations is very helpful. By doing so, others perceive us as more similar to them, which encourages relationship building. It also enables us to feel more comfortable in the new context. In other words, having an interest in persons from other cultures and maintaining sensitive relationships are the foundation of building solid relationships. Monitoring one's behavior based on a keen awareness of one's strengths and weaknesses that might affect those relationships and being able to adjust one's behavior in social situations can further enhance the quality of the connection with others.



As with the Perception Management factor, we can imagine how different scores on the various dimensions within this factor affect one's overall approach to developing and maintaining intercultural relationships. Someone may possess high levels of self-awareness and social flexibility, but lack emotional sensitivity, and have relatively little interest in developing relationships with people from other cultures.

3. Self Management

Self Management (SM) consists of personal traits essential to cope effectively when faced with the challenges and personal demands of intercultural situations. The degree of challenge, however, is directly affected by the extent to which the foreign environment is unknown and unpredictable to us. That, in turn, is affected by how well and quickly we learn (PM competencies), by the number and quality of the relationships we develop to better understand and enjoy the foreign environment (RM competencies), and our actual coping skills and competencies (SM competencies). Finally, the degree of stress we experience will, in turn, affect our ability to perceive accurately and the degree to which others will enjoy our company. Self Management competencies are of two basic types: those that lay the foundation for determining how much stress we are likely to experience and those that relate to managing the stress we do experience. Optimism, Self-Confidence, Self-Identity, Emotional Resilience and Nonstress Tendency are of the former.

Optimism. Experiencing the typical challenges that foreign environments characterize can be daunting. It is much harder to handle the stress and challenge that comes with foreign environments and working with people from other cultures without an underlying predisposition that things will work out. The attitudes "I can do it," "It can't be that hard," "Everything's going to be all right," reflect a fundamental optimism that moves us in a positive direction.

Self-Confidence. It is also helpful to have a belief in one's ability to be successful through persistence and the application of one's abilities. This is a self-confidence not rooted in optimism alone but in a fundamental belief in oneself and/or through successful past experiences.

Self-Identity. The stress of working in intercultural contexts that are fraught with ambiguity can lead one to question one's own values and beliefs. People with a strong sense of self-identity – an awareness of who they are and what is important to them – generally feel less threatened by cultural values and norms from other cultures. This ironically allows them to be more open to understanding others' beliefs and values while maintaining their own. A clear self-identity leads to a sense of peace and consistent behaviors, which in turn creates more predictable relationships. This net effect is a more positive experience.

Emotional Resilience. Emotional resilience reflects one's basic "armor" that deflects a lot of the negativity of stressful experiences. It specifically addresses how much we will be affected by and therefore how quickly we will rebound from stressful situations.

Nonstress Tendency. Different things cause different people to feel stress. This dimension looks at an individual's likelihood to feel stress from various and typical sources (e.g., time constraints, workload effects, relationship difficulties, etc.). It is not that people who are low in this dimension can't manage stress, it is simply that they tend to be affected by more sources of stress than others. The more easily we are affected by a host of sources that cause stress, the more challenge we will have to adapt and perform well.

Stress Management. While other dimensions within this factor focus on broader, predispositional characteristics, Stress Management focuses specifically on the behaviors that people engage in order to cope with and recover from stress. Activities such a getting good exercise; eating nutritional, well-balanced meals; getting adequate sleep and rest; as well as having diverse hobbies or other practices that reflect a release from stress all contribute to emotional health and well-being.

Interest Flexibility. Finally, Interest Flexibility explores one's ability to shift stress management activities and practices when customary stress managers are not available. For example, the ability to switch interests from a preferred activity (e.g., watching or playing cricket) that balances our stress to another that is available in the foreign environment (e.g., watching or playing baseball) helps facilitate one's enjoyment in the culture, thereby reducing stress.

4. Interactions Across Factors



As has been mentioned during the previous discussion, dimensions within one factor can and will affect other dimensions in that same factor. It is also true that dimensions in one factor can and will affect dimensions in other factors. For example, low scores on Nonjudgmentalness in Perception Management may obstruct our capacity to effectively interact with others (Interpersonal Engagement in Relationship Management). A high level of Inquisitiveness (PM) can result in generating a variety of topics that can be used as conversation starters to help develop relationships (RM). A moderate level of Social Flexibility (RM) can affect one's comfort in adopting new interests that require new behaviors (Interest Flexibility in SM), which in turn can affect the development of relationships in that new setting. The 17 dimensions create a fairly complex web of interactions across factors that is different for each individual.

Is the GCI a Credible Instrument?

Whether an instrument can be considered credible or not depends on the rigor of its development, the relevance of its content, and the inclusion of acceptable psychological measurement standards.

Development of the GCI

The previous pages outline in detail the set of competencies that are measured by the GCI. The set of competencies that are measured by an assessment instrument can be referred to as its "content domain." Thus, the content domain of the GCI consists of the three broad factors of Perception Management, Relationship Management, and Self Management, accompanied by their 17 more discrete dimensions.

Once the content domain of the GCI was mapped out, the next step in the process was to develop a valid assessment tool to accurately and reliably measure the degree to which a person does or does not possess these competencies. This process of developing the GCI measure took many years of research and refinement. The most rigorous professional and psychological research protocols were utilized until eventually a measure was created that was highly reliable and valid. A detailed description of this process is provided in the GCI Technical Report (See Appendix D).

Conceptual Integrity

The conceptual foundation for the GCI has its origins in the early theoretical research that Mark Mendenhall and Gary Oddou published in a highly cited article from one of the management field's top journals (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985). Their research demonstrated that others had found that successful integration into foreign cultures was dependent on people's ability to manage their perceptions so that what they learned was representative of reality rather than influenced too much by their own cultural biases or filters (Perception Management). They also found that developing relationships with the locals was a critical component. Locals are both a source of information about the culture, including explanations for why things are the way they are, and a source of social pleasure (Relationship Management). Lastly, their research found that an important part of adapting to a new environment included the ability to manage the stresses that come with challenging situations. Certainly, not knowing the rules of the new environment, yet being expected to perform in that environment, can be a stressful experience (Self Management).

Later, in additional reviews of the literature on adapting to a new environment, Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991) developed a comprehensive model to explain the variables that lead to effective integration into the foreign environment. Further, they discovered that what had been conceived of as a unidimensional adjustment really had three parts to it: 1) managing oneself in the general environment (e.g., transportation system, consumerism, etc.), 2) managing the integration process into the work environment (e.g., new people, new work cultures with new policies, work processes, decision-making structures, etc.), and 3) managing the interpersonal relationships that come with a new general and work environment; that is, adjusting to new forms of communication, including language, contextual issues, nonverbal behavior, and so on.

There were a number of additional variables beyond these individual variables that were part of the model that Black et al. (1991) had developed to explain how well an individual managed these three areas: cultural novelty, job characteristics, and socialization by the host organization. However, the original research by Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) showed that the three major variables they had identified (Perception Management, Relationship Management, and Self Management) were the only variables that related to all three types of effective integration.



In a study in Organizational Studies in 2001 (http://www.orgstudies.org/amr/toparticles.html), both of these articles were ranked among the top 100 cited research papers in the twenty-year period from 1981 - 2001. They continue to be among the most cited today and the Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991) model is the most widely accepted model explaining the determinants of successful integration into a foreign environment. In summary, the GCI is thus an assessment tool that measures the most widely cited and empirically established conceptual domain of global competencies available to date in the international management research literature.

Technical Integrity

According to standards set by psychology and other closely related fields, a good measure will have several essential properties that demonstrate a high degree of reliability and validity. Although the concepts of instrument reliability and validity are highly interrelated, they need to be discussed and understood separately. A brief overview of these concepts is provided below.

Reliability

The concept of reliability refers to the degree to which a measure is free from random error (or random fluctuations). If we consider the three pictures below of a target, we can see the relationship between reliability and validity. Ideally, we want the pattern of strikes on the target to be not only close together, but also as close as possible to the target's bull's eye. In this analogy, the lack of reliability would be depicted through a broad scattering of bullet strikes on the target. Assuming the shooter was holding a steady aim, the broad scattering the bullet strikes in the middle picture below would be evidence of a rifle that was not very reliable--that is, the bullet strikes appear to be striking the target with a relatively higher degree of random error in the process.

Reliable Not Valid

Neither Reliable Nor Valid

Both Reliable And Valid

On the other hand, the tighter groupings of bullet strikes in the two outside figures above indicate a much more reliable rifle. However, as noted in the captions, while a measure's reliability is essential for validity, reliability does not in and of itself provide a guarantee that the measure is also considered valid.

Or to state it another way, measurement reliability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for measurement validity. Validity requires more than just freedom from random error or fluctuation—validity also requires freedom from systematic errors and biases.

Validity

As noted above, establishing the validity of a measure goes beyond the question of simply establishing that is it reliable. Validity requires that we show the various ways in which the measure is free from systematic errors and biases. Researchers have developed different ways to think about the concept of validity, such as:

o Content Validity: The degree to which a measure assesses the intended content domain of interest without contamination or deficiency.



o Criterion-related Validity: The degree to which a measure is able to predict the results of important outcomes or criteria of interest that should be associated with the measure.

o Convergent and Divergent Validity: The degree to which scores on one measure of a variable agree with scores on other measures of the same variable (or conversely the degree to which scores on one measure differ from scores on other measures of disparate variables).

o Construct Validity: The degree to which an overall body of evidence can be accumulated that supports the general conclusion that a given assessment in fact measures the intended phenomenon of interest.

The GCI was developed and refined in such a way that we can confidently conclude it meets all professional standards for measurement reliability and validity. Detailed documentation showing the results from the various research studies we conducted to establish the reliability and validity of the GCI are provided in the GCI Technical Report (See Appendix D).

What Are the Different Applications of the GCI?

Gap vs. Competency Measurement

There are essentially three types of instruments that measure things related to cross-cultural effectiveness. One of the most common types is what is called a "gap" measurement. The focus is on the difference, or gap, between Culture A and Culture B. These instruments measure the differences in cultural dimensions such as the authority structure of two cultures, whether one culture is more collectivist and another more individualistic, and so on. These instruments are important because they identify those areas that might be most problematic for working effectively across cultures. For example, an individual who comes from a very egalitarian culture will likely have significant integration challenges when working in a culture that values hierarchy. This creates a "gap."

A second type of instrument, notably the IDI (Intercultural Development Inventory), strives to assess the stage of maturation of one's global mindset. It moves through a stage of very undeveloped global mindedness to a very mature one and attempts to assess where an individual is on that sliding scale.

However, these instruments tell individuals nothing about their ability to work "through" that gap, reach a higher level of global mindedness, or, in general, manage the differences between cultures. This is the purpose of the third type of competency instruments, such as the GCI. These instruments attempt to measure individuals' competencies in specific areas that relate to effectively managing the differences. The GCI is the most comprehensive of the competency assessments and, as explained in the previous section, is based on extensive and careful research that has been well received by the research community.

The GCI can be used for a number of specific reasons:

Cross-Cultural Uses in Business

o General employee recruitment to ensure a population of employees that is more suited for a global environment.

o Employee selection for specific positions requiring present or future interactions with foreigners.

o Expatriate/Inpatriate selection to help ensure better performance and/or successful knowledge transfer.

o Global leader selection to help ensure the next generation of leaders is more globally adaptable.

Cross-Cultural Uses in Education o More effective selection of study abroad or international study tour leaders.

o Insight for understanding why some students adapt better than others on study abroad programs.

o Targeted needs analysis for identifying specific instructional and developmental teaching that individual students might have as they work to become more globally competent.

Diversity Uses in Business or Education o Recruitment of employees to help ensure hiring of individuals who can better manage their differences with those of

other experiences and backgrounds (e.g., ethnic, religious, gender, generation, sexual orientation, etc.)

o Team member selection to increase the probability of individuals' accomplishing their objectives and utilizing their diversity as an asset instead of a liability.



o Management of the selection process to create a more positive work environment among employees who are different from one another.

o Analysis of at-risk college students to determine competencies they might lack to help them adapt to the college environment.

Essentially, the GCI can play a role in any situation where differences of any sort occur. The GCI measures individuals' ability to manage the differences in cultural gaps and remain emotionally stable while doing so. It can also highlight the probability that an individual will be able to reach higher levels of global mindedness.

A Summary of the Selling Points of the GCI

1) It is based on sound research well accepted by the academic community.

2) The development process was very rigorous and has followed accepted practices by the American Psychological Association and other closely associated professional fields.

3) It is the most comprehensive instrument that assesses competencies related to effectively managing cultural and diversity differences.

4) It has a broad application, useful in a number of different contexts.

In addition to these points, the GCI:

o can be taken on line or in paper-and-pencil format.

o is supported by additional pedagogical and coaching materials.

o is backed by The Kozai Group, which is committed to an on-going research program to further highlight the utility of the GCI as well as refine it.



How Can I Effectively Interpret the GCI?

Part of the challenge of working with clients is addressing their concerns about the instrument and the assessment. (Appendix C provides answers to the most frequently asked questions of GCI administrators in order to help you to deal with client questions.)

The Scoring Method for the GCI

Scoring for the various GCI scales is based upon the standard research methodology of using summated rating scale computations. In short, this simply means we average an individual's responses across all the relevant survey questions used for each given scale and subscale. A person's computed results are then compared against a wide cross-section of population norms in order to establish relative status on each of the competencies measured by the GCI.

As a result, the profile in a GCI feedback report thus represents the person's results relative to everyone else who has already taken the GCI, and the individual's absolute scores are really of little interest and are not communicated anywhere in the feedback report. This is an important point worth stressing.

What the Profiles Mean

Major General Profiles of the GCI

Very few people will fit nicely into generic profiles where all dimensions of a factor are in either the lower or higher degrees. It is more likely that an individual might be generally lower or generally higher when considering all of the dimensions assessed in a particular factor. When discussing an individual's profile in a coaching environment, however, it can be useful to start out with a general picture regarding how the results might describe the person and then move to a more customized profile by further examining where their assessment differs from the General Profile. The following is only to serve as a generic picture of an individual who has such general tendencies. From these general tendencies and these profiles given, individual differences can then be examined to customize the general picture. In the section that follows these generic profiles, we will give some illustrations of how such differences might customize the general profiles that follow.

There are 8 general profiles with a very large number of variations within those 8 profiles. The 8 general profiles are these:

1) Higher PM, Higher RM, Higher SM 2) Higher PM, Higher RM, Lower SM 3) Higher PM, Lower RM, Lower SM 4) Lower PM, Higher RM, Higher SM 5) Lower PM, Lower RM, Higher SM 6) Lower PM, Lower RM, Lower SM 7) Lower PM, Higher RM, Lower SM 8) Higher PM, Lower RM, Higher SM

Each one of these will be discussed below. For some of the profiles, implications for an employee are given as a sample.

Interpreting the GCI



GCI Profiles

Globe Trotters (High PM / High RM / High SM) GLOBE TROTTERS ENJOY LEARNING about foreign places and people, easily initiate relationships with those who are different from them, and manage the personal challenges these create quite well. The world is their "backyard."

ndividuals with this profile have the all-around capability of learning and developing effective relationships and successfully managing the challenges posed by operating in a

global environment. Globe Trotters ask many questions and want to learn about the people and locations where they work. They enjoy diversity and even seek novel experiences in order to remain intellectually interested. Operating within an ambiguous environment is normal and even stimulating. They have a keen interest in and ability to develop relationships with people who are different from them. These relationships become new sources of information for better understanding the foreign environment. Globe Trotters' excellent self-awareness and sensitivity to the social context helps them adjust their behavior appropriately to fit in. These individuals are self-confident, have a clear sense of self, and are able to adjust their interests to the new context and manage any stress they experience quite well.

Opportunists (High PM / High RM / Low SM) OPPORTUNISTS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POSSIBILITY of learning about and developing relationships with people who differ from them. However, they don't always calculate the personal costs of such adventures and usually suffer some emotionally.

pportunists have good learning skills and varied interests, enabling them to understand the varied cultural contexts and environments very well. They deal well

with ambiguity and although they see the many differences between them and the foreign environment, they are also able to see the commonalities. They use what they learn to build on their natural interest in others to build effective relationships. Their keen observations of the social environment enable them to understand others' behavior and mold their own to fit the social norms. However, the effort required to do all of this successfully takes a personal toll on these individuals. All of the novelty and the ambiguity that comes with working across diverse cultures can cause Opportunists stress and anxiety. Their weaker sense of identity can undermine their confidence in who they are and who they think they might be becoming as they adapt. Their forays into unfamiliar environments might occasionally be tempered by the need to retreat to a "safe" place mentally and emotionally in order to regain equilibrium and have the renewed energy to reenter the challenges of the foreign context.

Sample implications for an employee in an intercultural context

As employees working in a foreign context and/or simply working with foreigners, these individuals will generally try to understand the culture in general but especially the workplace culture, policies, procedures, and such. With equal interest and ease, they will tend to build ties with co-workers and the locals in general both because there is a strong interest in doing so but also because they are valuable sources of information to improve their functioning in the new culture. This type of employee makes it a challenge to learn and understand the local culture(s) as quickly as possible. They likely will pick up the subtle behavioral and linguistic cultural cues that determine appropriate behavior that take others much longer to learn. They will also attempt to learn the foreign language as quickly as possible in order to communicate more effectively with the local population and feel a part of the local culture. They will generally like to try out their new language on selected coworkers or other employees, which will serve to build their relationships even more. However, because they may not be naturally self-confident or optimistic and might tend to be more susceptible to stress, they will likely need periods of respite to regather their focus and "rest" from all the activity and challenge of being in a foreign country. Because their interest range is sometimes fairly narrow, doing new things will likely take its toll on the person's emotions. They might be very positive about doing things with coworkers even if they're not interested in those activities because it is part of the social context in general. It will be helpful for these individuals to have some stability in their lives, such as a family

I

O



life, that they can retreat to at times. Their home will likely be a place where they spend a fair amount of time, but they will also venture out for solitary or family activities without much hesitation.

Connectors (Low PM / High RM / High SM) CONNECTORS HAVE A STRONG DESIRE TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN RELATIONSHIPS with others and generally are able to handle any stress, frustration, or set backs that may be associated with their efforts to do so.

onnectors tend to primarily focus on relationship development from their own base of life experience without using external intellectual or theoretical strategies to

assist in this process. Due to this tendency, they often inaccurately assess and judge people who are culturally different from them; or, they often are not intrinsically interested in understanding cultural differences and never study deeply enough the cultural triggers that cause much of the behavior they observe, hindering their efforts at relationship development. Their strong social skills and interest in relationships combined with a high degree of personal stability often enables them to effectively adapt to new cultural environments. Connectors' interest in relationships, outgoing manner, and the general sense of confidence they radiate makes them attractive to others, and increases the likelihood of developing good social and work relationships. Also, Connectors have a strong sense of self, and their psychological stability enables them to adapt to challenging intercultural situations without undue stress; this benefits them in intercultural environments as it allows them to push forward through challenges and setbacks with energy, confidence, and hope.

Adventurers (High PM / Low RM / High SM) ADVENTURERS ENJOY with and learning about the larger world and about people who differ from them. But it is also emotionally challenging for them.

dventurers have an excellent ability to learn about other cultures and comprehend many similarities and differences among them. They are interested in the new and

find novelty and diversity stimulating. They often ask a lot of questions or spend time exploring the world around them. Their high tolerance of ambiguity allows them to learn without the hindrance of feeling stressed during the process. Because they are less interested in forming and maintaining relationships beyond those they already have, they tend to use people as information sources or interact mostly as required for specific work or social situations. Their inattentiveness to the social milieu limits the sophistication of their learning. Information coming from close observation of people's behaviors and an ability to meaningfully interpret others' actions and expressions will largely escape them. Because Adventurers don't seek out regular social interaction, and because they tend to be naturally optimistic and confident, they will perform better in tasks that don't require coordination with others. People will find it easy enough to work with Adventurers because they are generally happy and often open to new experiences. Their interests tend to be varied and easily adaptable from context to context.

Sample implications for an employee in an intercultural context

Employees in this category will likely do research about the local culture and find out what they can even before leaving. Those with high scores in Inquisitiveness will do this because of their curiosity. Those with lower scores in Inquisitiveness are more likely to express an interest because of perceived expectations and/or the personal need to perform well. They will normally continue their research once in the local culture since learning about new places and people is usually seen as a stimulating challenge. Because they take an interest in the local culture and because they are not judgmental, even though they are not particularly interested in developing many new friendships, neighbors or coworkers will likely take an interest in them as appropriate in the specific culture. They will tend to perform well in cross-cultural teams but will not likely forge strong social bonds with team members. Also, because they usually have stable personalities, are self-confident and interested in learning new things, they will likely take on new tasks without much hesitation and work hard to perform well.

Outside the workplace, they will tend to do well because there is usually less social interdependence and these employees can select their activities based more on their personal or family interests.

C

A



Watchers (High PM / Low RM / Low SM) WATCHERS ARE INTERESTED IN STUDYING THE WORLD AROUND THEM and also in the behavior of others more than they are in forming relationships. They avoid challenges because of the stress that creates.

atchers are interested in understanding other cultures and people but are less interested in developing relationships with others. They have an excellent ability

to learn and understand a new environment and see beyond the obvious differences to more common ground. In their quest to understand things, they tend to read and ask a lot of questions. Watchers find satisfaction in investigating and understanding issues and people, though their interest in people is more for intellectual understanding. Developing new relationships is not a priority; instead, they put more effort into maintaining existing relationships. Watchers tend to be less aware of the emotional aspect of social interaction or of how others perceive them, diminishing their ability to adapt their behavior. Lack of attentiveness to their own behavior and how it affects others will also be a missed opportunity for learning. Watchers often feel uncomfortable adopting new behaviors and/or adapting to new situations. They may experience more anxiety and lower levels of self-confidence and optimism in such settings.

Sample implications for an employee in an intercultural context:

These employees look forward to learning about the local culture and will seek to understand it well via a variety of sources but are most comfortable with written information. They will tend to ask coworkers and locals within "easy reach" a number of questions, giving the foreigners the impression these employees are very interested in them; however, mainly the people will serve as sources of information for these individuals rather than an end in and of itself. As a result, although the foreign colleagues might have the impression they are interested in them on a social level, individuals scoring low in Relationship Management will tend not to follow through in attending or initiating social activities with the foreigners. In fact, socializing and working with the foreigners within a social context will be a stressful experience for these individuals. As a result, once they feel that they are comfortable with their knowledge of the local culture, their natural tendency will be to avoid social gatherings at work or elsewhere. These individuals are not natural team players and may find it more challenging to work in a project team context. Not feeling as comfortable with the foreigners as with their existing relationships, and not understanding the subtleties of their foreign colleagues' humor and will make these employees tend to retreat to a "safe" place. If they have their family with them and the family is adapting well, the home environment can be that place. If their family is not adapting well, it will serve to increase the amount of stress and anxiety these employees feel and can easily affect their work performance negatively.

Isolationists (Low PM / Low RM / High SM) ISOLATIONISTS ARE GENERALLY SECURE WITH THEIR SENSE OF “WHO THEY ARE” and are not bothered by what others think of them.

solationists are psychologically "hardy," have a clear sense of identity, are able to handle negative or challenging experiences well, and tend not to feel undue stress from these

events. This strength can be attractive to others who may seek out Isolationists for advice because they perceive them to be highly competent and trustworthy. Isolationists are comfortable and confident with their worldview and their beliefs. They tend not to be interested in probing and analyzing social dynamics (e.g., "why do people do what they do?") and are not motivated to develop new relationships, relying instead on existing family and established friendship networks to meet their social needs. The new relationships that they do develop are usually based on convenience or necessity. Isolationists’ understanding of new cultures and the people that populate those cultures is usually not very sophisticated, often because of a lack of natural interest and curiosity. Cultural differences tend to be viewed by Isolationists as more of a bother than being intriguing in nature. The combination of the tendencies to not seek out and develop relationships with others who are culturally different, and to not be intrinsically interested in understanding why others are culturally different, usually impedes Isolationists' abilities to work with, manage, and motivate people who are different from them.

W

I



Extroverts (Low PM / High RM/ Low SM) EXTROVERTS ENJOY BEING WITH PEOPLE AND CREATING NEW RELATIONSHIPS. They are less interested in understanding differences and avoid challenging experiences.

xtroverts can be effective in fitting to other culture sand performing their tasks; however, they are limited by their low-level interest in and understanding of other

cultures and their inability to manage well the challenges of new contexts. Lacking a natural curiosity to learn broadly about other people and places, they never develop a deep-level understanding of other cultures or the larger world. Extroverts are quite social, however, and despite differences in culture, will develop new social ties and participate in activities in other cultures that are of a social nature. They are astute observers of behavior and pick up on emotional cues. Extroverts comprehend how their behavior affects others and are usually able to adjust accordingly. Their relationships, however, will tend to be more superficial, as they lack the understanding of cultures required to connect at a deeper level. Extroverts may concentrate on routines in order to increase the predictability of their lives, including efforts to maintain existing relationships and participating in habitual activities. These are natural outcomes of the fact that they tend to be susceptible to stress from the unpredictability of an environment they don't understand very well.

Preservers (Low PM / Low RM / Low SM) PRESERVERS PREFER THE STATUS QUO, favoring familiar people and places over the unfamiliar, and are apprehensive when placed in new situations where they must learn or develop new associations.

reservers find it extremely challenging to be successful in global work settings where they have to learn new things, develop new relationships, and manage the stress that

comes from a challenging assignment. Preservers tend to be happy with their current situation and level of knowledge and don't explore new things. Learning usually comes as a result of external forces rather than from their own inquisitiveness. Working in new contexts or with people from other cultures is mostly a source of stress for them. They tend to focus on differences only and generally aren't able to see commonalities between themselves and people from other cultures. Preservers are typically satisfied with existing friendships, making it difficult to develop new ones. Others might be discouraged from developing anything other than superficial relationships. The result is that experiencing new people and new environments is a very stressful experience for Preservers.

E

P



Individual Differences within the Generic Profiles

As mentioned earlier, rarely will an individual score lower or higher in all dimensions of the factor. When discussing an individual's profile, moving from a general picture to a more discrete, customized picture is useful in that it is easier for the individual to grasp the information. Moving immediately to all the individual dimension differences in trying to explain a factor will likely lose the individual in the details.

Here are some examples of more refined profiles as they relate to specific discrepancies:

Example of Higher PM, Higher RM, Higher SM with discrepancies:

This profile appears to be the ideal profile, the individual who will adapt easily and be effective in working with those who are different. However, the overall scores can mask some important issues when their individual dimensions reflect discrepancies. Here we will look at three possible discrepant scores, individually and together to see their probable effects.

A Lower Score in Category Inclusiveness So, Person A has a Higher PM, Higher RM and Higher SM profile; however, in the PM area, they score significantly lower in Category Inclusiveness. Because CI measures how much the person is able to move beyond the differences in the new environment and enables them to also see the commonalities between the two cultures, lower scores in CI might have one or more effects on the individual's ability to perform well in and adapt to the new environment:

o It might limit the extent to which the individual senses a closeness to the people. Perceived differences can divide; perceived commonalities can bridge. This has implications then for their interest in developing relationships with the locals and their sense of comfortability in the new environment. So although the overall score is a higher RM score and even though Relationship Interest might be higher, if these individuals don't relate as well to the locals because they don't perceive they share things in common, their interest in and actual attempts to develop relationships might be more limited despite their higher scores in RM.

o Seeing primarily the differences between oneself and the foreigners can limit the number of relationships these people develop, which in turn will limit the breadth and depth of information the individual accumulates about the local people. Besides limiting the network these people might develop, it could also increase their exposure to stress, as lack of correct information impedes an individual's ability to behave appropriately and predict what might be expected.

So, in sum, although an individual might be able to tolerate ambiguity well, be inquisitive, and interested in foreign things, a lower CI score can detract from developing effective relationships, which can negatively affect the ability to learn more comprehensively, also exposing them to additional stress.

A Lower Score in Behavioral Flexibility Let's say Person A has, instead, a lower BF score amidst the higher scores in the other dimensions of Relationship Management. Because BF measures the extent to which the individual can demonstrate comfortably new behaviors that might be required or desirable in the new culture, a lower score might limit the person's ability to develop and manage relationships as well as create some stress. Specifically, the following might result from lower BF scores:

o If locals perceive the outsider as someone who does not “fit in,” they may doubt the visitor’s interest in their culture. Therefore, certain locals might make less of an effort to create a relationship with the newcomer who is perceived as being different. Fewer local relationships mean a smaller network, which has implications for cooperation, information sharing, etc.

o Not feeling comfortable behaving differently will likely make the newcomer feel less at ease in social situations. The consequence of this might be avoidance of certain social contexts where those uncomfortable behaviors might need to be exhibited. It can also increase the individual's stress when in those situations.

o So, in sum, although these people might otherwise have a number of competencies that will aid them in developing relationships with the locals, a lower BF score can limit the development of relationships in those contexts where the new behaviors would be helpful or required. Consequently, not being able to act like the locals and sensing their



awkwardness can easily increase the sources of stress despite a possible high Nonstress Tendency score among the higher SM scores.

In addition, if individuals have both a lower CI and BF score, the two can combine to have an even greater negative influence on relationship development. A lower CI score tends to create a barrier between such people and people from another culture, emphasizing their differences. A lower BF score can enhance that sense of difference and discomfort about adaptation.

A Lower Score in Self-Identity Person A might also have an overall high Self Management score but have a lower Self-Identity score. A lower SI score means the person's fundamental beliefs and values might not be very firm and the person might not even be that aware of what they are. This can have a negative effect on developing effective relationships as well as cause the individual undue stress:

o Even when one individual might not like or agree with someone else, if that person’s views and behavior are consistent, it is easier to respect and develop a healthy relationship with the individual. We appreciate consistency. However, when it is difficult to tell what the person believes and what motivates them, we may view that individual with suspicion, and find it difficult to develop trust.

o In addition, a lack of integrity in belief and action usually causes individuals more stress because they lack a sense of wholeness or self-predictability. When identity keeps changing it can lead to a sense of being out of control.

As a result, even though Person A has other high individual dimension scores in Self Management, a low self-identity can be a source of stress that will necessitate some attention and management. To build effective relationships, the person will need to behave more consistently in order for others to learn to trust and enjoy being around them.

Further, if this person has all three lower scores (lower CI, lower BF and lower SI scores), it is clear that developing healthy relationships will likely be problematic despite the overall high RM scores. It is also clear that the increased tendency to feel stress because of these three scores will put additional pressure on their ability to manage the stress that accompanies the challenge of working and living in a foreign environment.

Example of Higher PM, Lower RM, Higher SM with discrepancies:

This profile indicates that the person is very good at learning about the new environment and is able to manage the stresses well, yet will probably have a more difficult time developing effective relationships with the locals.

A Higher Score in Interpersonal Engagement Individuals who generally score lower in RM but higher in Interpersonal Engagement will likely be able to develop more relationships than might be expected but without the depth or quality they could if their other scores were also high. Further, a higher Interpersonal Engagement score will probably reinforce the effectiveness of their high PM scores (i.e., they will have additional sources of information) and perhaps aid them in managing the stress of working with foreigners (SM):

o A higher Interpersonal Engagement score means these individuals are comfortable approaching other people, even if they are different. This will logically result in the development of some relationships that otherwise would not likely happen given their lower interest in relationships.

o Because these individuals score high in PM, they are likely to develop more complete and accurate information about the locals. This and their higher Interpersonal Engagement score will probably have a positive interdependent relationship. The high PM scores will enhance the range of topics with which they can engage the locals and thereby increase the probability of developing relationships. At the same time, the fact that they are comfortable engaging locals will also help them increase their sources of information to enhance their PM.

o With the probability then that these people will develop a slightly more complete and accurate picture of the local environment than their overall RM score would seem to indicate, their ability to more effectively manage themselves in the foreign environment will probably enhance their ability to manage the stress that comes with such challenges.

In conclusion, a higher score in Interpersonal Engagement might have a positive effect on their relationship development even though their competencies in the other RM areas are lower. It will probably also reinforce their ability to manage the challenges because of the increase in knowledge and enjoyment that comes with a larger network of associates that can provide useful information.



A Lower Score in Interest Flexibility If these people also have a lower score in IF in the Self Management area, it might in turn negate some of the positive effect of having a higher Interpersonal Engagement score:

o A lack of being able to shift one's habitual interests to those that are available in the new environment will reduce their involvement in activities with the locals. Depending on the activity, this might reduce the opportunity to develop associations with the locals and also reduce the individuals' topics of conversation and understanding of the local environment. These will all negatively affect the development of positive associations.

o In addition, not finding natural outlets to enjoy themselves, these individuals will likely accumulate more stress and become less effective in all areas of their life in the new environment. They will find less to enjoy about being in the foreign place and unless they have very high Cosmopolitan, Relationship Interest, and Interpersonal Engagement scores, for example, they may well isolate themselves from an important part of the new environment.

Example of Higher PM, Higher RM, Lower SM with discrepancies:

A Lower Score in Cosmopolitanism These individuals have a great ability to learn—even in challenging situations; however, their interest in learning is limited more to things that are in their familiar environment. Being either disinterested or uninterested in environments that are foreign to them will certainly have a limiting effect on their relationship development as well as increase their already higher chance for stress:

o Being less interested in things that are foreign to the individual will negatively impact the individuals otherwise high PM and RM scores. Rather than seek out the locals, visit or experience local things, and/or otherwise learn about the new environment, these individuals are more likely to seek out those from their same country and visit those places they might recognize from their own country (e.g., MacDonalds for an American). Despite their interest and competencies around developing relationships, this tendency will seriously limit the probability of developing local relationships outside of an obligatory context (e.g., work).

o In many foreign environments, the availability of things and people similar to one's own is limited. This will have an impact on the number of friendships these people develop and will certainly constrain what they learn and the accuracy of that learning about the foreign environment (PM).

o To the degree these people enjoy social interaction, having limited options for comfortable social networking among the locals will likely increase the person's tendency to experience stress.

As a result, a lower score in Cosmopolitanism can have a clear, negative effect across all major dimensions (PM, RM, and SM). It can seriously limit one's learning and the development of local relationships, and can increase the potential stress because of the lack of integration into the local environment.

A Higher Score in Self-Confidence Coupled with high scores in PM and RM, individuals with high self-confidence are probably going to "forge ahead" despite the challenges of a new environment. This might well enhance their competencies in PM and RM, while possibly, however, increasing their stress:

o With their high self-confidence, they are even more likely to engage people and participate in activities in the local environment. They will likely develop enjoyable and effective networks than their already higher RM scores would indicate.

o As they interact more with locals and participate in local activities, their learning and understanding will also significantly increase, enhancing their PM scores.

o However, increased interaction and participation also mean confronting more unpredictable situations in the initial stages of exposure to the new environment. In the short-term, in particular, this might create more stress for the individual and thus have negative effects on the person's emotional state, particularly given their lower SM scores. If not managed well enough and done incrementally, this can then have a cascading negative effect on the desire to be active in the environment.



In sum, if these individuals are aware that they have tendencies to feel stress and therefore manage more methodically their entry into the new culture, a higher Self-Confidence score can have positive effects on their learning as well as their relationship development.

If these persons have both a lower Cosmopolitan score and a higher Self-Confidence score, their energy and commitment to engaging the more foreign parts of the local environment might decline. Instead, they might channel that interest and confidence toward things more familiar to them. Unfortunately, this will then result in fewer foreign relationships developed and fewer foreign activities engaged in. The loss in understanding the local environment can then have an increased negative effect on the stress they experience in a less predictable environment than the one they're used to.

Be able to confidently coach individuals in developing an effective Personal Development Plan (PDP) based on their GCI profile

Stable and Dynamic Competencies: A process to improve

As might have been suggested earlier, many of the competencies assessed by the GCI are rather stable and resistant to more traditional efforts to change. In this way, the GCI competencies can be considered as very much like personality traits. For example, our ability to tolerate ambiguity, our tendency to make negative judgments in the face of little information, and our orientation toward engaging people, are fairly stable and robust traits. Although some—maybe even much—of this has been learned over time and reinforced, rather than completely innate, relearning and "un" reinforcing those tendencies can be a lengthy and challenging process.

In some cases, with repeated experiences of putting ourselves in ambiguous situations and consciously realizing that we can succeed despite the ambiguities, we can "relearn" and become more tolerant of ambiguity. Part of that process can involve following specific steps and skill-building practices. For example, it might help the person when faced with ambiguity to follow a process such as this:

1) Identify the things about the situation that seem unknown but helpful to know.

2) Decide on what things could bring more certainty to the situation: What do you need to know to feel more comfortable?

3) Determine how to obtain that information when possible.

4) Make your best judgment about what to do after you have the information that is possible to obtain.

5) Review the results and practice the same steps in the future, modifying the steps according to feedback.

Through a process like this or another one, we might become more comfortable with ambiguity over time. We learn to build a process that helps us reduce the ambiguity and therefore positively affects our reaction to it. At first, we are not really changing our tolerance to it as much as creating coping mechanisms or internal processes to more effectively deal with it. In time, however, as our capacity to deal with ambiguity becomes increasingly natural to us, we might actually change our reaction to ambiguity itself. This is typically a slow and evolving process, but it can be said and done for virtually all of the competencies.

In general, the personal development and coaching process will consist of these steps:

First, we identify those areas we want to improve.

Second, we explore as well as possible the reasons behind why we think or act the way we do in the identified areas, to help us better understand it.

Third, we determine which of those ways of thinking or ways of acting are most easily changeable.

Fourth, we target specific skills or coping mechanisms that will help us improve those areas we've identified.

Fifth, we map out specific steps or tactics that need to be practiced in order to develop the new skills or coping mechanisms.



Sixth, we practice those new skills and/or follow those steps or tactics.

Over time, the new skills become more internalized and the steps become more natural, thus increasing our ability to manage the "deficiency" and improve the areas we've identified.

Coaching: Customizing or Standardizing? "Coaching," by definition, implies a personal and usually customized approach to helping individuals improve their GCI competencies. However, there is a range of customization from more standardized approaches to very personalized ones. Depending on time, the associated fees, and so on, a coach might decide to lean toward using already-developed methods to help individuals improve or to develop very customized ones. In either case, using SMART goals to help the individuals is a sound process, whether more or less customized. In Appendix B, there are sample scenarios for each competency that individuals can implement in order to improve the targeted areas. These are intended to serve as actual scenarios that a coach might use with a client or as a basis for customizing the scenario to fit the individual's exact circumstances.

What follows is a process for helping your clients develop a Personal Development Plan (PDP).



The Kozai Learning and Transformation Model

A framework that can be used to give the PDP a context is the Kozai Learning and Transformation Model (KLTM).

The model is based on a learning process first noted by Taylor (1994):


Contrast. In order to learn and improve, we have to go through a process where we are exposed to differences, differences important enough that the contrast attracts our attention. These differences can relate to things simply of interest to us or things that might affect our ability to perform. We often call these "trigger events." Some examples are the following:

o Your negotiations with a potential foreign partner failed miserably.

o Your foreign employees tell your boss that they are going to quit if he/she doesn't fire you.

o You realize that unless you pay a government employee a bribe, your company is not going to get the permit it needs to operate.

o One of your project team members of a different ethnic group accuses you of racism.

o A member of a younger generation than yours implies that you are "out of date" and too "stuck in your ways."

o You went on vacation and noticed that a particular religion influences many of the practices that you have to conform to.

Confrontation. We have the option of ignoring that contrast or confronting it. We might ignore it for many reasons: we don't have time to pay attention in detail or deal with it at the time, it is not deemed important enough to



reflect on, we might not have a good response at the time, or we simply might choose to ignore it because it's too painful to confront.

Buffers. In the process of experiencing the contrast, we also experience "buffers." Buffers are of different types: normal and exaggerated.

Normal buffers. A normal buffer is the act of putting the attention-getter, the contrast, into the form of a question to be answered. An example might be a businessperson who is confronted with a bribe situation. A healthy reaction that could lead to learning might be this:

o I know bribes are considered illegal and unethical in my country but standard practice in others. Is it just because they're corrupt or is there some other reason why bribes are commonplace?

o There are probably some things I don't understand about these countries that I need to before making a judgment.

Exaggerated buffers. An exaggerated buffer is one that might "blow" the issue out of proportion; in other words, the individual reacts so defensively that he/she implicitly decides the issue is not even worth reflecting on, which brings an immediate stop to any learning, and therefore, any transformation. This reaction might look like this:

o I can't believe they would ask for a bribe to do normal business. No way am I going to even consider it. It's simply unethical and illegal and that's all there is to it. You either do business on its own merits or you don't. Period.

Sources of the buffers. We have two fundamental sources of buffers: ourselves (internal) and others (external), including our organizations.

Internal sources. The extent to which we exhibit normal or exaggerated buffers will depend, interestingly, on many of our GCI competencies. The more inquisitive we are, the more we are likely to ask ourselves questions rather than dismiss issues. The more emotionally resilient we are, the less we are likely to push issues to the side because they cause us "pain." The more interested we are in developing relationships, the more we are likely to want to increase our understanding of the cultural norms in order to adapt and develop relationships, and so on.

External sources. Sometimes others, including our organizations, become buffers for us. Either explicitly or implicitly, they affect our perceptions or try to "protect" us:

Local experts: They are excellent for information and guidance, but too close a "supervision" doesn’t allow one to make mistakes or confront the realities of the local culture.

HR policies: Organizations, the host's or our own, can keep us in a "bubble" for courtesy and efficiency reasons. Although this might be helpful at easing the stress of the contrast on one hand, it hurts on the other. International business travelers stay in the four-star hotels, are chauffeured nearly everywhere they go, eat at four-star restaurants (which are usually international by definition and not local) and often all local transactions or decisions about activities are made by the hosts. Domestic organizations can create such an atmosphere of fear about racism, sexism, and other "isms" that individuals are afraid to ask questions to better understand the views of someone of a different ethnic group or of the opposite gender.

The outcome of these external buffers is that we experience fewer contrasts, decrease the opportunity to confront our ways vs. their ways, and thereby lessen our learning or potential for transformation.

With less transformation, our likelihood of improving our performance lessens as well.



Transformation Levels

Assuming we are able to minimize the impact of the buffers that will otherwise keep us from changing, transformation can occur at three different levels: behavioral, attitudinal, and at the values or fundamental beliefs level. As the figure below shows, the depth of transformation is different depending on the level of transformation.

In summary, the Kozai Learning and Transformation Model gives a framework that helps us understand the process of change, the levels of transformation possible, and the challenges to learn and transform. This understanding will be an important context in which to develop individuals' Personal Development Plan.



Creating a Personal Development Plan

Individuals can increase their intercultural and diversity effectiveness by creating and carrying out a personal development plan. Their GCI scores provide them with the basis for developing a solid plan, which may consist of the following elements.

ELEMENT EXAMPLE

Assessment: What is/are my targeted area(s) of intercultural effectiveness for highest potential for growth and development?

Which one(s) are of greatest importance in terms of my responsibilities?

Of those most important, which is/are most urgent?

My lowest score is in Relationship Interest but I also have low scores in Stress Management and Tolerance of Ambiguity. The most important are probably Relationship Interest and Stress Management.

The more urgent of those two might be Relationship Interest because the changes to take place will likely take the longest to internalize.

General Plans: List a few broad objectives to help you focus your efforts.

What is it that you want to accomplish by improving in the area(s) you have noted above?

The most immediate objective is to develop an above average level of communication with the people I will be living and working with in Germany.” But this is a life skill that will help me have more influence to accomplish things wherever I am and whatever I’m doing. So the real objective is to enable me to have more influence in getting things done.

Tactics: These are the concrete “how-to’s” that help you achieve your general plan. Tactics need to be specific and measurable. And pick tactics you can actually accomplish—not too easy, but not too hard. We learn best when real effort is required. What is your timeline? What do you hope to accomplish by when?

First tactic: “I will study the language 15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the evening every day, and I will practice speaking with three different Germans every day.” I want to be able to hold simple conversations by the end of the month.

Second tactic: By the end of 3 months, I want to be able to ask people simple questions to better know them—like if they have children, where they live, etc.

Reporting Results: Results are better when we tell others about our plan. Without this accountability, it is too easy to fail to follow through. Find someone who will hold you accountable in a positive way, and decide when and how you will report to them.

Who: “I will report my language study and interaction to my cousin back home.”

How and When: “I will send my report by email every Sunday evening.”

On the following page a blank table is provided, which you can use to create your own Personal Development Plan.



Your Personal Development Plan

ELEMENT YOUR PLAN

Assessment: What is/are your targeted area(s) of intercultural effectiveness for highest potential for growth and development?

Which one(s) are of greatest importance in terms of your responsibilities?

Of those most important, which is/are most urgent?

General Plans: List a few broad objectives to help you focus your efforts.

What is it that you want to accomplish by improving in the area(s) you have noted above?

Tactics: These are the concrete “how-to’s” that help you achieve your general plan. Tactics need to be specific and measurable. And pick tactics you can actually accomplish—not too easy, but not too hard. We learn best when real effort is required. What is your timeline? What do you hope to accomplish by when?

Reporting Results: Results are better when we tell others about our plan. Without this accountability, it is too easy to fail to follow through. Find someone who will hold you accountable in a positive way, and decide when and how you will report to them.



General Suggestions for Developing Intercultural Competence

1) Know yourself. Learn about your own culture so that you understand the lens through which you view the rest of the world. Become conscious of the behavioral scripts you learned unconsciously.

2) Know other cultures. Educate yourself on the ways that cultures generally differ. When dealing with a specific culture, learn the internal logic that explains why they hold certain values and tend to think and behave as they do. This will help you make more accurate attributions and interpretations about cultural behavior.

3) Expose yourself to difference. Seek out people who are different from you (e.g., different ethnicity, culture, generation, religion, political philosophy). Listen closely to their views so that you can take their perspective. As a test, see if you can accurately describe—without arguing or debating—their perspective on topics that conflict with your own views.

4) Read people. Get in the habit of closely observing people and trying to interpret their behavior. When working across cultures, we need to be keen observers of behavior and decode the norms and values that guide it.

5) Clearly identify expectations. Negative reactions often result when others’ behavior does not meet our expectations, which are influenced by our culture and past experiences. Surfacing and discussing expectations paves the way for smoother interactions.

6) Suspend judgment. Intercultural encounters often derail when people ethnocentrically judge or incorrectly interpret the other party's actions. Stick with simply describing their behavior and, if puzzled, ask someone with more cultural knowledge to explain its meaning. Give the other party the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is a logical reason for their beliefs and behaviors, even if you don't yet understand it. Approach learning another culture like a scientist who holds hypotheses in order to test them.

7) Seek out cultural mentors. In today's global environment, it's impossible to master every culture or understand every co-worker or situation. Cultural mentors fill in the gaps in our knowledge and coach people to be more effective.

8) Focus on the individual. Culture doesn't explain everything—personality, in particular, plays a large role in social interactions. When we're trying to decode an individual's behavior, we also have to take into consideration things like personality traits, occupational status, gender, age and generation, religion, and life experiences.

9) Apply your GCI skills wherever you are. Because people are different in a wide variety of ways, these skills are also useful within your own culture. These skills can help you bridge the gap with people from different regions, generations, genders, ethnic backgrounds, occupations, religions, and political parties, to name a few.

References Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291-317.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 39-47.

Taylor, E. (1994). A learning model for becoming interculturally competent. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 389-408.

Other Useful Resources There are many good books and articles on intercultural effectiveness and working across cultures. Below are some that we highly recommend.

Suggested Readings Bird, A., & Osland, J.S. (2006). Making sense of intercultural collaboration. International Journal of Management and Organizations, 35(4), 115-132.

Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Kern, M.C. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 84-91.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004). Can emotional intelligence be developed? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 95-111.



Gannon, M. (2004). Understanding global cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mendenhall, M., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2009). Global leadership: Research, practice and development. London: Routledge.

Osland, J. S. (1995). The adventure of working abroad: Hero tales from the global frontier. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cross-cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 1-12.

Storti, C. (1990). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Storti, C. (1994). Cross-cultural dialogues: 74 brief encounters with cultural difference. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Thomas, D., & Inkson, K. (2003). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.



Appendix A

Personal & Confidential

Name: Georgette

The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.

Demonstrated level of effectiveness

Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6

A. Perception Management O

1. Nonjudgmentalness O

2. Inquisitiveness O

3. Tolerance of Ambiguity O

4. Cosmopolitanism O

5. Category Inclusiveness O

B. Relationship Management O

6. Relationship Interest O

7. Interpersonal Engagement O

8. Emotional Sensitivity O

9. Self-Awareness O

10. Social Flexibility O

C. Self Management O

11. Optimism O

12. Self-Confidence O

13. Self-Identity O

14. Emotional Resilience O

15. Nonstress Tendency O

16. Stress Management O

17. Interest Flexibility O

Overall Global Competency Index O




Name: Harrison The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Afton The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Kara The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Jean Paul The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Vijay The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Buppachart The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Joaquin The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6











9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O









Name: Jurgen The Overall Global Competency Index is comprised of three main factors, each of which has several dimensions. For each factor, results are given based on answers across the relevant items in the Global Competencies Inventory. Should readers of this report desire additional insight beyond the reported scores below, we encourage them to contact the lead survey administrator for a more thorough discussion of their profile.


Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6








6. Relationship Interest



9. Self-Awareness O



11. Optimism O


13. Self-Identity O








Appendix B: Example SMART Goals for Improving Global Competencies

This handout was prepared to help you with suggestions to stimulate your own creative thinking about ways you might develop personal SMART goals (SMART goals refers to a model from Project Smart in the United Kingdom that describes designing goals that are Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, and Time-based) for improving your scores across the various dimensions of the Global Competencies Inventory. Although you are free to use any of the following ideas “as is,” you should nonetheless try to think about how you might adapt or extend them in ways that would make them personally interesting and desirable as goals you would be motivated to achieve on your own.

Perception Management

Nonjudgmentalness o Leadership in the global context requires the capacity to work with people who are different from you and to be

able to see their strengths, not just their weaknesses. Isolate a prejudice you have towards a group of people. Why do you have it, what function does it serve, why does it persist, and how could you work on reducing or deleting it from your mindset if you desired to do so?

o For one week, keep a record of how many times during each day you judge other people, either verbally or just in your thoughts. When you find yourself beginning to make an uncalled-for judgment (i.e., your boss has not asked your opinion about another employee, friends have not asked you whether they should marry their significant other), switch into active listening and make a conscious effort to withhold judgment and focus solely on what they are saying and feeling. To see whether you were successful, write down the person’s perspective and feelings afterwards and evaluate how well you refrained from judging them. See if you can decrease the number of judgments you make every day.

o Select a public person whom you don't particularly like or respect. Consider the nature of his or her life, the pressures faced, what it would be like to be this person, and any possible constraints upon them. Write down at least three reasons that might have influenced their views and personality. Assess your feelings toward them now; is it possible to "separate the sin from the sinner"?

Inquisitiveness o Select an activity you’ve never done before, one that is not necessarily scary but one that doesn't seem all that

intrinsically interesting to you (e.g., if you never particularly enjoyed photography, then consider taking a walk downtown and photographing buildings, people, or street scenes to create a personal photography portfolio). Engage in this activity for at least an hour. Write a short journal entry reflecting on any changes in emotion, awareness, and perspective you experienced. How might you apply such experimentation to the global workplace?

o Do one activity that you don’t normally do because you might be embarrassed (dancing, karaoke singing, etc.). Analyze how you felt during the experience. Was it as bad as you thought it might be? What did you have to “let go of”? Feeling self-conscious, worrying about what others might think, etc.? What did you have to “take on”? A more carefree attitude, more self-confidence, greater concentration, etc.? How did these new behaviors affect you in cross-cultural encounters (or in general)? What can you learn from this exercise about how it relates to effective integration with those who are different from you?

o Research a point of view opposite to one you have held solidly for a long time. Work to really understand the other perspective. Talk to people who have this perspective and ask them why they believe that. Did you learn anything? Do you better understand the others’ perspective and would you be more inclined to be sympathetic or feel closer to those who hold the contrary view point? Explain what you would have to “let go of” and “take on” were you to embrace that opposite perspective.



Tolerance of Ambiguity o Watch the film The Year of Living Dangerously. Outline the variables of ambiguity that the main character (played by

Mel Gibson) faced as an expatriate in Indonesia in the 1960s. What might he have done to manage the ambiguity he found himself in? Apply these principles to your own situation right now. What three things can you do to embrace and manage the ambiguity you face in your job?

o Participate in an activity that involves people from other cultures and has an unknown outcome. Practice “going with the flow” and try to trust that it will work out well in the end. For example, you could get involved with a heterogeneous community group comprised of people you do not know well. This group may not function exactly as you expect, but they will probably achieve the same or better results as a homogeneous group. Identify how you can trust their judgment and how you should behave when potential ambiguity makes you uncomfortable.

o Select an area of your life where you find ambiguity to be emotionally challenging because you cannot control the outcomes of the situation. It could be anything (for example, trying to help your teenage child perform better at school or managing your relationships with two bosses in a matrix-reporting structure or being an effective volunteer leader in a local organization). Now, spend half an hour speculating about why this situation, in particular, bothers you so much. Write down your thoughts. A week later, return to your analysis, and this time spend half an hour brainstorming concrete actions you can take to manage the ambiguity inherent in this situation. Solutions might range from reading a book on teenagers to organizing a meeting with your two bosses to align goals, to taking online leadership training webinars for volunteers. Once you have determined a concrete action, engage in it for two weeks and report your learning to your coach, a good friend, your spouse, or someone else you have asked to assist you in your personal development plan.

Cosmopolitanism o Identify a subculture in your community (e.g., a religious group, immigrant assistance program, etc.) and either

volunteer to work in it, or attend several events (such as a worship service) for a month or two. Go out of your way to engage people and ask them to help you understand why they do what they do and/or what their challenges are. Summarize to the other person what you heard them say and ask if you understood them correctly. Re-summarize anything you may have gotten wrong. Write a short journal entry about your perception of this subculture after each interaction or visit. Describe any changes you notice in your views and opinions over time.

o Watch a foreign film in the original (non-dubbed) language on at least one weekend night for the next four months. Follow up each film viewing by writing down your intellectual and emotional reactions to the film.

o Set aside 30 minutes each Sunday evening for six weeks to listen to the BBC World News report or conversely CNN or NPR (National Public Radio) if you are from the UK. Take notes and contrast the top five stories on the hour from this new source with the top five stories for the same day from your usual news source at home. Reflect on the differences between what each source considers to be “newsworthy” and try to suggest reasons why these differences exist.

Category Inclusiveness o Select a group of people different from you (ethnic group, cultural, generational, etc.). Write down how many

differences you see and believe about that group of people. Then write down how many similarities there are between you and them. Include all aspects that are possible to draw dissimilarities and similarities—attitudes about things, habits, physical appearance, likely hopes and dreams, importance of family, basic needs, psychological needs, etc. Decide whether there are more similarities or differences. Does the realization that there are so many similarities alter your attitude and/or interest in that group? Would you feel more inclined to interact with them and develop a relationship?

o Think about four people at work (or school) who are different from you. Draw a large box with four quadrants and put each person’s name at the top of each quadrant. Now write down the ways these people behave differently from each other. Be specific. For example, if one person is a better communicator than another, write down how that person communicates: “Mr. B. always greets us and asks how we are doing” as opposed to “Mrs. C. never stops to say hello but just goes right to what she wants from me.” Make a separate list of the behaviors or characteristics you generated in your quadrants and rank them according to how important they are in terms of desirability. These



behaviors reflect the characteristics you use to categorize people, the ones you have on your radar screen. Are you happy with these categories? Are they functionally effective for you to develop positive relationships with those who are different from you? What would you need to change about how you categorize and what motivates those categories to be more effective?

Relationship Management

Relationship Interest o Make a list of at least five to ten people you work with (e.g., your subordinates, peers, outside vendors, etc.) who are

from a different culture or country. Underneath their names list everything you know about them in the following categories:

o Political philosophy

o Religious views

o Intellectual interests

o Personal interests and hobbies

o Cuisine preferences

o Worries

o Repeat all of the above for each person’s spouse and/or adult children. Then choose one of the areas and spend the next few weeks asking them all questions about their views when it would be socially appropriate (e.g., during lunch or in the coffee break room at work); engage them in conversation and learn their ideas. Write up a summary of what you learn.

o Select someone you know from your extended family or your workplace with whom you have not particularly been close, have not had the opportunity to interact with much, or who held little interest for you in terms of getting to know them. During the next week, the goal is to simply learn more about them, their background, and who they are. At the end of the week, spend half an hour pondering the following question: Why did I have little interest in learning about this individual? What factors get in the way for me and tend to block my curiosity and interest in learning about others with whom I am not directly involved? What are the implications of this assignment for me going forward?

o Strike up a conversation with a stranger from a different culture whom you would not normally approach. Put the person at ease and find an appropriate way to connect with them (e.g., mutual interests, common backgrounds or experiences, polite and acceptable personal questions). Find at least one thing that you both share in common.

Interpersonal Engagement o Select an individual whom it would be useful for you to know beyond a mere acquaintance level. This can be

someone from either work or social circles. Take the initiative to invite them to lunch to learn more about their work and how it relates to yours; search for common ground as well as interesting differences. Follow up by taking the initiative to meet with them regularly for three months. Tell someone you feel comfortable with what you learned from the experience.

o Identify a subculture in your community (e.g., a religious group, immigrant assistance program, etc.) that is quite different from what you are used to. Volunteer to work in it or attend several events (such as a worship service) for a month or two. Go out of your way to engage people to find out more about them and their organization. Report on your comfort level in doing this, the progress you might have made and whether you now feel you can more easily approach those who are different from you.

o Think about the different contexts you are regularly in—work, sports, etc. Pick someone who is in the same context but with whom you have never really interacted. Start up a conversation and find out what their thoughts are about



the activity you share (work, sports, school, a class, etc.). Find out also what their other interests are and learn three things about one of those interests that you never knew before.

Emotional Sensitivity and Self-Awareness o Read the book How to Read People Like a Book by Murray Oxman. Then try to implement some of its suggestions by

making a specific effort to observe people you see interacting with others and also that you interact with yourself. Note what you think they are feeling based on their nonverbal behavior. If the person is someone you are comfortable approaching, try asking if your observations are accurate about their inner moods or feelings. Report on your experience.

o Draw up a list of what you think are five or six accurate and important descriptors of yourself. Then add another dozen descriptors that you believe do not accurately describe you. Combine the two lists and randomly mix up the items; then ask several people you know well and several people you know in passing to look at the list and explain to you which ones they believe describe you best and why. Write up a description of the results and your reaction to them.

o Think of a recent situation that provoked a strong negative emotion (e.g., jealousy, anger, fear) in you. In writing, carefully analyze the source of this emotion. Did someone fail to meet your expectations? Did the situation remind you of a previous painful experience? Why did this situation trigger such a strong response? What can you learn about yourself from your reaction? Now consider the other actors in the situation. What prompted their behavior or perspectives as best you can figure? With greater self awareness and emotional sensitivity, is there any way you might have handled this situation more effectively in the future?

Social Flexibility o Choose a person with whom you have a good comfortable relationship and are not particularly worried about how

you might appear. Imagine ways you could modify or adapt your behaviors in order to get along better with that person or cause them to respect or appreciate you more. Strategically engage in those behaviors for a period of two weeks. Write up your reflections on how you felt at the beginning versus at the end of the two weeks. What did you find particularly difficult or easy about the experience? Reflect on why you think that might be the case.

o Identify a group of people (social club, cycling group, church group, etc.) with whom you do not normally interact. Spend enough time with them to learn their habits and rituals, and then practice behaving like they do. Keep a journal of your efforts. What were your anxieties, if any? How did you feel when you were behaving just like the rest of them (in both the formal routines they have as well as the informal ones)? Did it help you to feel more a part of the group? Why or why not?

o Identify a cultural situation that you want to master (e.g., expressing condolences appropriately, joining strangers in conversation at a cocktail party or networking event, apologizing for an error). Diagnose the components of the cultural script that members of that culture follow in your chosen situation via careful observation and interviews. Check with a cultural mentor to ensure your diagnosis is accurate. Then practice the behavior by following the script on at least three occasions in real settings. Have a cultural mentor evaluate your efforts and give you feedback. Keep a journal to reflect on your thoughts and feelings on developing more behavioral flexibility.

Self Management

Optimism o Read the book Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman. Identify three things you can apply from that book to your own

life and practice them for at least two months. Report to someone you are comfortable with on your experience and whether it has changed your perspective or not, and why you think that might be the case.

o Think about someone you’re involved with (work colleague, family member, friend, etc.) and that you are not confident will be willing to do something you propose. Think of all the good reasons to be involved, especially considering their hesitation/fears. Propose the activity to that person with all the enthusiasm you can generate and tell them about all the good things that will happen. See what their reaction is and consider the effect your



enthusiasm did or did not have on the person. Determine whether your enthusiasm had any positive effect at all—even in the slightest way.

o Think of someone who is an optimist and someone who is a pessimist. Pay attention to how they behave, what they are able to accomplish, and how others react to them. Note the differences you see and think about which one you would rather be like and why. Then take something you want to see happen but don’t believe it’s likely. Note all the good reasons why it would be good if it happened. Decide on a strategy that would increase the probability of that. What would have to change? Who would have to do what? As you think about these, note your natural thoughts, which might be why it won’t work (i.e., why this person won’t want to do that; why you think things will not change). Now pretend you are that optimistic person you know. Note how you think they would approach the situation differently from you—what they would think, how they would approach the people involved—their enthusiasm, the words they would choose, etc. Practice those new behaviors.

o Ask a trusted friend or family member to signal when they hear you make pessimistic comments. Don’t argue with their judgment of what constitutes a pessimistic statement or they’ll stop helping you. Just write them down and reflect on them at a later time. What types of comments are they identifying? Can you take their perspective and see how others might interpret them as pessimistic? How do such statements impact those around you? Remember that even if statements are true and realistic, there are moments when optimism and hope are more helpful to a group. This is why optimism is one of the key characteristics of leaders. If you become more conscious of a tendency toward pessimism, you might be able to recognize pessimistic statements and their impact. Set a goal to decrease the number of pessimistic comments you make in a day and consciously try to transform such thoughts and attitudes into positive ones..

Self-Confidence o Make a list of aspects of your current job and the skills needed to be successful. Be as exhaustive as you can. Rate

yourself in terms of how high and low your self-confidence is for each of the different skill sets for your job. Pick your primary “weakness” and reflect on what you can do to increase, in small steps, and improve your self-confidence. Be specific as you brainstorm possible ideas. Select at least one skill set or area and implement the steps you’ve outlined for at least two months.

o Our self-confidence grows as we become comfortable with ourselves and recognize what we are able to do. To become comfortable with yourself, do the following: Look in the mirror and smile at yourself. Practice different smiles, and practice looking at your smile. Research on facial feedback theory finds that people who do this regularly tend to feel better about themselves and feel more self-confident. While looking at yourself in the mirror, talk to yourself. Practice different ways of saying what you want to say to someone else. For example, practice introducing yourself to someone from a different culture or group, or how you might explain a proposal. Do this each day for one month. After one month, ask a family member or close friend to be your “mirror.”

o If you lack confidence about your ability to interact with people who are different from you or with people from another culture, seek out a volunteer opportunity where you can work with them. Be persistent and ignore any initial discomfort until you can relate well to them. The ability to get along with all types of people is a source of self-confidence that results from going outside one’s comfort zone and practice.

Self-Identity o If you were in an interview and your interviewer turned to you and said, “Tell me who you are in five words,” what

would you say? Say it right now! How long did it take you to come up with your five? Are you really satisfied that they are THE five? If you were uncomfortable with this, it took you longer than it should have, or if the five you derived don’t really fit the best, what does that say about how aware you are of your core values and attitudes? What does it say about how much time you give to reflecting on your life and the person you are and are becoming?

o Identify the most important five to ten values in your own culture. List them and come up with an example of a typical behavior that manifests those values. Find a library book or article that explains why these values came to be so important in your culture. For example, a key U.S. value is self-reliance, which was important as people settled the frontier. Today an example can be seen in parents’ expectation that most children will leave home when they are 18 and live in their own households rather than living at home until they marry.



o Think about a significant cross-cultural experience you have had. If you have not lived in another culture, reflect upon an experience dealing with a subculture in your own country or when you first went away to college. What happened to your personal values as a result of this experience? Did you experience any conflict with personal values as you learned what the other group valued? Did your personal values change so you could adapt to the situation? If so, were those peripheral values (less important) or core values that help determine your self identity? Sometimes expatriates report that their core values become stronger as a result of living in another country; did you have the same experience? If so, which values became stronger and which values did you let go?

Emotional Resilience o Identify cross-cultural/cross-ethnic situations at work or in your personal life that make you very uncomfortable.

Next, explore the following question: “Why do these situations make me feel so uncomfortable?” Analyze your answer and then brainstorm activities you could do that would reduce your anxiety. Implement at least two of those ideas during the next three situations. Repeat this for several months and reflect on any changes you feel over time in your capacity and comfort level in dealing with these uncomfortable cross-cultural/cross-ethnic situations.

o Consider a situation that causes some anxiety in you (talking in public, talking to someone who intimidates you, performing an activity that you feel quite incompetent in with someone whose opinion you care about, etc.). Before you do it, think about why you are anxious about it. Consider the worst thing that could happen. Put that in perspective, such as how does it relate to a loved one passing away, being fired from your job, losing your home, etc. Do the activity that you fear. Then monitor your reaction. How did you feel? Why did you feel that way? What is the root of the anxiety? Talk to someone you feel comfortable with about these things so that you hear yourself talk, not in order to get the other person’s opinion really. When we explain things that are not completely within our awareness, we usually learn a lot about ourselves from doing that.

o One way to build emotional resilience is to develop the capability to “re-ground,” i.e., to consciously move from the stressful, anxious unstable ground we find ourselves in to the calm, stable ground we want to act from. The ability to re-ground comes through experience with situations that lead us to feel anxious, afraid, or threatened. Re-grounding requires both mental and physical action. To practice some of these steps, do the following. You can practice them even in situations that you do not find stressful or anxious. In fact, practicing them in less stressful situations will allow you to build up capabilities and response routines that will be easier to invoke when you do feel stress.

1) Sit down in a comfortable, but straight-backed chair.

2) Place your hands in your lap, with the palms up and one hand resting gently on the other.

3) Close your eyes.

4) Take five deep breaths, drawing air into your diaphragm, holding it for a brief pause and exhaling slowly.

5) Concentrate your mind only on your breathing and your body.

6) As you feel calmer, reflect on the source of your stress or anxiety.

7) If you feel stress, return to a deep breathing and concentrate on that until the calmness returns.

Nonstress Tendency o Consider your primary sources of stress (time management issues, anxiety in interpersonal interactions with certain

people, presentations at work, working with people from a different culture or ethnic subgroup, etc.). Choose two of those sources of stress and come up with a different way to perceive those situations so that you see them in a more positive way. Then repeatedly practice viewing them in this new way. Reflect on the changes, both good and bad, you experienced and report on how this might have helped reduce your tendency to feel stress. Explain whether it was effective or not and what the challenges were in trying to neutralize the sources of stress you identified.

o Envision what your life would be like if the primary source of stress that you isolated in the above bullet was not in your life. Write a one-page description of how your life would change if this stressor was either gone or did not have the power to cause you stress. Now, create one or two strategies to employ to defuse the power of this stressor.



Follow this up by implementing these strategies for a week, writing down the results of your experiment every day in a journal. At the end of the week, discuss your experience with someone whom you trust and who knows you well. With the help of his or her perspective, devise a plan for what you should do next to continue your progress.

o Think of all the different situations that are causing you stress right now or that habitually do. Categorize them into “sources” or “types” of stress (i.e., work overload, complicated relationships, time constraints, ambiguity in something, etc.). Choose one of the types or sources of stress that you would like to work on. Put that source in context: how important is that issue/objective/relationship to you? What if you didn’t have that relationship? What if you dropped that project/objective? What could you do to increase the time you have to devote to the situation? The objective of this exercise is to help you develop a different perspective from your present one, a perspective that you might continue to use in the future to avoid being vulnerable to stress.

o It is very helpful to be aware of how you tend to react in stressful situations so that you can perceive and perhaps head off major stress reactions. How does your body signal stress (e.g., tight neck, stomach, or headaches, etc.) and how do you generally behave when under stress (e.g., anger directed outward or inward, blame for others who are not carrying their weight, shut down emotionally, etc.)? Analyze your typical pattern and what types of situations trigger stress for you. Devise an action plan that you will follow the next time you begin to feel stress and test it out.

Stress Management o Make a list of stress reduction methods you could implement (meditation, jogging, music listening, etc.) and identify

some programs in your company or town that could help you reduce your stress. Select one and start applying the technique regularly for six weeks. At the end of each week, write a short journal entry on the results you feel you are having. After the six weeks, decide whether you want to keep on doing it based on the results you are having.

o Sleep is important to physical and mental health. Getting sufficient sleep when we are stressed is often difficult because anxieties hinder relaxation. With few exceptions, most people need 7-9 hours of sleep per night to be at full functioning capacity. Monitor your sleep patterns and work toward getting a full night’s rest by doing the following for one month:

1) Don’t drink any alcohol or caffeinated beverages for several hours before going to bed.

2) Set aside all mentally demanding work at least two hours before you retire for the night.

3) Write down persistent thoughts and worries in a notebook, setting the notebook aside at least 30 minutes before retiring.

4) Read a relaxing, non work-related book for 15 minutes.

5) Maintain a standard “going to bed” routine each night.

6) Keep the same bedtime each night.

o Social support at work and outside work is a key factor in dealing with stress. Take a close look at your social support network. Do you have family and good friends who want the best for you and help you laugh at your problems and solve them? Or are your family and friends a source of stress? Many people create surrogate families by forming interest groups that meet regularly (e.g., a potluck dinner group, bike club, knitting group, hiking club). Devise a plan to create a stronger support network for yourself in the next month by strengthening your ties to others. Don’t forget to model the behavior you want from others by supporting them when they face setbacks and stress.

Interest Flexibility o Select a sport you really like (or a hobby if you don’t like sports). Make a list of other sports (or hobbies) you know

nothing about. Close your eyes and throw a dart at the list. Whichever sport (or hobby) it lands on is your new one, which you then have to either learn how to play or pick a league or professional team to follow. Over the next two months do the following:

1) Study its rules. 2) Visit fan websites and read what people are saying about it.



3) Bookmark www.bbc.com/sport and read what’s going on in that sport every day. 4) Rent or buy a “classic sports” video associated with that sport and watch it. 5) Find someone in your community who is from a country where the sport is popular, invite them to lunch

and ask them to explain their country’s passion for the sport. You can follow the five steps above with music, cuisine, or any other hobby.

o Unplug the television or computer and reduce your habitual leisure activities. Pretend that you have just moved to a new town and have to construct a life from scratch. What new actitivies would you like to try? Pick one that you’ve never before done. Try it for two months and keep a journal on your thoughts, feelings, and lessons learned.

o Sometimes people living outside their country miss activities and interests that are not available in their new setting. Rather than bemoan their absence, expatriates and immigrants often adapt to the new culture by seeking out a new local hobby or sport that serves the same function (e.g., they root for American football rather than soccer or vice versa, they express their creativity or artistic ability through a local art form they have never tried). If you are living outside your country, pick a local activity that is new to you. Take lessons, join a group, or find ways to learn and practice the new activity. Learn about its history and significance to the foreign culture. After three months, write a report on what you’ve learned about the activity and yourself.



Appendix C: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) by Users and Potential Administrators of the GCI

FAQ’s by Users of the GCI

1. So if I score way to the left, does that mean that I'm not competent at all in that area? The profile each participant is relative to everyone else who has taken the GCI. Each person's scores are compared to everyone else's scores such that the profile is a relative position rather than an absolute position against an artificial standard. As a result, it is possible that an individual could score in the "lower" columns yet still be somewhat competent in that dimension. If, for example, the average score on Relationship Interest is 4 on a 1-5 scale (reflecting that we all have a fundamental interest in having relationships), it is possible that someone might score a 3, reflecting a fairly good interest in developing relationships, yet be scored in one of the left-hand columns.

In essence, the individual might be somewhat competent in that particular dimension but less, or much less, competent than others. Since in reality, much of our perception about how skilled someone is in a particular area is a judgment about the skill level of that person vs. the skill level of others we know, the relative position can be a stronger, more reliable indicator of that person's strength or weakness in that dimension.

Some competencies can be evaluated against fairly objective standards and others cannot. For example, we can score someone by how many words he or she type in a minute and get an absolute value as well as a relative standing against other typists. With "soft" competencies, such as those measured by the GCI, objective standards do not exist and we are unlikely to advance to the point we will have them for many, many years. As a result, a relative standing is presently the best way to measure a person's competency level.

2. How can I be high in one area of the dimensions and low in another on the same factor? This can happen quite easily. The dimensions within each factor are largely independent, though they can be inter-related. For example, a person can be high in Inquisitiveness yet low in Tolerance of Ambiguity. It may well be, for example, that one of the main reasons the person is motivated to search out information (Inquisitiveness) is because they do not tolerate ambiguity well and have a strong need to know. Yet, if a people is low in tolerating ambiguity, they will tend to avoid situations that are not predictable for them, thereby lessening their opportunity to learn.

A second example might be useful. "John" might score high in Relationship Interest but low in Interpersonal Engagement. Having a strong interest in people does not mean that the person is equally confident in approaching people and engaging them in conversation. Yet, having both of these competencies is essential to developing relationships.

3. The factor score is pretty different from what appears to be the average of the dimensions. How is that possible?

This is possible because the broader factor scores are not a simple average of the constellation of related dimension scores. Each of the dimension scores is a result of adding up a person's responses across the specific GCI survey questions used for that dimension and then comparing that score to the population norms.

However, the three factor scores (PM, RM, and SM) are the result of a different comparison. The best way to think of your factor score is that it represents how "typical" your pattern, or constellation, of dimension scores is relative to the general population-whether it's similar to, lower, or higher than how others are scoring.

4. So which should I pay more attention to—the dimension scores, the factor scores, or the overall GCI score?

Yes! The dimension and factor scores are both important, each one telling a slightly different story. The factor scores tell the macro story; that is, since they tell "John's" position on all the dimensions in that factor compared to everyone else's, it gives a macro-level picture of where "John" is on that factor. However, the macro view is not



really helpful for "John" to determine where specific strengths and weaknesses might be and where improvement needs to be made. The individual dimension scores give this information.

5. Which factor is most important? No factor is more important than another. That's a little like asking which component of an automobile is most important—the engine, transmission, brakes, or steering? They are all important for different reasons, and they are all interdependent. It is not possible to work effectively with people who are different from us if we (a) don't know much about them (Perception Management) or have stereotypes about them, (b) aren't good at developing relationships with them, and (c) are in a constant state of distress because we can't manage our emotions given the challenges of the context.

In addition, each factor is affected by the others. For example, if "John" has low Perception Management scores, he will not have a large amount of information about the culture, nor will the information be as accurate as it should be, because the sourcing of that information will likely be faulty. This, in turn, will negatively influence "John's" ability to develop relationships. The less information he has, and the less accurate it is, the less there is a possibility for common ground between “John” and the host culture.

6. What's the difference between Self-Awareness and Self-Identity? There is a very important difference between these two. Self-Awareness is about how clear our view is about our personal strengths and weaknesses and other characteristics and how much importance we give that kind of information. Self-Identity, on the other hand, is how clear our values and fundamental beliefs are and how consistently we apply those across situations and time. With Self-Awareness, the issue is if we do not have good self-knowledge, we cannot manage our relationships very well. If I do not understand that I tend to be loud and dramatic, I won't alter my behavior when in a formal situation with a Japanese colleague, for example, where being reserved and inconspicuous are more valued. With Self-Identity, if we are not clear about our value and belief system and/or do not apply it consistently, we will appear erratic to others and we will question our own integrity. This undermines our ability to feel a sense of continuity and personal stability.

7. How does Emotional Resilience differ from Nonstress Tendency and Stress Management? Emotional Resilience is our natural "armor" to deflect or absorb emotional "blows." If we have someone shooting arrows at us but we have a good shield to protect us, the arrows might make little dents in the shield but they will be deflected and our state of being (in this case our emotional state) will be essentially untouched.

Nonstress Tendency, on the other hand, assesses the number of potential sources of stress we are affected by. One source, for example, is limited time. Another source might be the workload we are under. A third source might be dealing with difficult relationships. Some of us might be affected by one of those but not the others. Others might be affected by multiple sources.

Stress Management measures the strategies and techniques we utilize to reduce the stress we actually feel. This might include regular exercise, a form of meditation, a walk on the beach, and so on.

In summary, our Emotional Resilience is an important basic "shield" to keep us from experiencing stress; however, the more sources of stress that we are subject to, the more likely something might "get through" the shield. Nevertheless, if we practice good Stress Management, we can lessen the effects of whatever stress does get through.

8. How universal are your profiles/norms? The GCI seems to be developed from a Western or North American perspective, so does the GCI measure competencies that are culture specific or culture general?

When we look at the GCI scores and profiles across various countries and regions of the world, we do see some slight differences between them. This is called "between group" difference. However, those differences are not big enough to conclude that the measure is culture specific or only relevant to a North American or Western population. Rather, when looking at the GCI scores and profiles across all the people from a specific country or world region, we find scores and profiles across the entire range of the GCI, from very high to very low. This is called "within group" difference and is so strikingly large that we are very confident concluding that the GCI helps us identify people who are at all levels of global competency within any given country or culture or world region. In other words, the GCI is very much a universal and culture general measure of global competencies.



9. What were all those strange shapes about? In the 1970s, a researcher (Detweiler, 1978, 1980) developed this technique of using figures to see if there was a relationship between the identification and categorization of shapes with people who adapted to other cultures more easily. His hypothesis was that individuals who developed larger and more inclusive categories to identify common basic shapes were more likely to do the same with people; that is, despite the obvious differences in peoples (hair and skin color, size, eye configurations, nose size, clothing, behavior, etc.), the more that individuals saw similarities between themselves and the culturally different others, the greater the chance that they would make positive attributions about the host people. Positive attributions can lead to greater satisfaction, more optimism, increased relationship development, etc.

Detweiler, R.A. (1978). Culture, category width, and attributions: A model-building approach to the reasons for cultural effect. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9: 259-284.

Detweiler, R.A. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorization process: A conceptual analysis and behavioral outcome. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4: 275-293.

10. I don't think I'm as bad as this score indicates. Is the GCI really valid? This question really goes beyond the actual validity, as understood by psychologists, of the GCI. What most people really mean is "Can I trust the results?" or "Are the results accurate?" The answer to these latter questions really depends on several factors, one of which is the empirical validity of the assessment. The other factor, however, depends on whether the person's responses to the GCI survey questions reflect reality. For any number of reasons, a person's self-perception can be skewed, willingly or subconsciously, and his or her responses to the survey questions would be skewed as a result. This self-induced factor is not something that can be controlled and all surveys are subject to this problem. However, in general this self-perception bias almost always works to inflate a person's scores, rather than lower them. As a result, lower profile scores on the GCI can be trusted with a very high degree of confidence. In addition, a social desirability scale has been embedded in the GCI and the feedback report indicates whether a person may have been more positive or negative than expected. This score is indicated on the cover page of the GCI Feedback Report (Test Form: Version: 3.0 (#). The # in the parentheses is between 1 and 10. A score between 8 -10 would indicate that the person may have responded much more positively about him- or herself than would be expected relative to how most people were answering the questions. A score between 1-3, conversely, indicates that the person may have been much harder on him- or herself than the general population.

The second part of "Are the results accurate?" relates to "Does the GCI actually measure what it purports to?" In other words, do the questions that were asked, and does the way the composite scale scores were computed, all relate to the given dimensions in the GCI feedback report? The answer to this question is a very straightforward "yes." However, this is true only to the degree that the person was motivated to answer the survey questions conscientiously. When people take the survey questions seriously and do their best to answer them thoughtfully, then their final GCI profile will be an accurate representation of their global competencies. Remember, each person's GCI profile is the result of how he or she answered more than 150 survey questions; no one else provided input as to how much they agreed or disagreed with the questions. Each person's profile is the result of how he or she answered the survey questions.

11. How can a test like this accurately capture all the complexity of human behavior? It can't and no inventory ever will. That's not the goal of the GCI. To capture the complexity of our human behavior would require someone with absolute knowledge about how to understand human behavior (and this person does not exist) as well as the time required to observe to determine consistencies, exceptions, and so on (and no one has a lifetime to devote to this). So any assessment is a compromise between quality and efficiency. Observation of actual behavior over time by an expert is going to result in higher quality information; however, we live in a practical world where resources are limited and so efficiency becomes a valued commodity. In 30-45 minutes, if a person is responding conscientiously, we can gather some highly reliable, accurate information. This information, as with all information, needs to be examined in the context of the larger picture—the individual's self-perception, feedback from others (family, friends, coworkers, etc.), and other similar psychological assessments.



12. If these are stable predispositions, what's the use of working on them? Just how much can I improve?

Most of the competencies assessed by the GCI are what we call "stable" traits rather than "dynamic" traits. Stable traits are those that seem to be a combination of whatever tendencies we have at birth and those that are shaped and reinforced over many years.

Nonetheless, even stable traits can be modified and/or managed more effectively. With an effective personal development plan and consistent efforts, stable traits may be incrementally altered over time. For example, "John" might be low in Tolerance of Ambiguity but develops a workable plan to put himself in ambiguous situations where he can examine his reaction and fears to better understand why the uncertainty affects him that way. He can also have a plan that helps him effectively manage that ambiguity better; for example, he can apply steps to manage it. One of those steps could be taking action to acquire more information to better understand the context and issues. As a result of this action to better manage the ambiguity, over time, "John's" actual tolerance of uncertainty could improve so that his "baseline" reaction will have moved.

With Interpersonal Engagement, "John" might have a lot of anxiety around approaching people, especially about asking them to do things. If "John" develops an action plan that helps him create scripts of how to approach people, this could reduce his anxiety about not knowing what to say. Such efforts toward skill building can be very effective. Again, over time, "John" might not have to have essentially memorized scripts but might have internalized the words and principles enough to feel comfortable approaching a variety of people in a variety of situations.



FAQ’s by Potential Administrators of the GCI

1. What does the GCI measure?

The Global Competencies Inventory (GCI) assesses personal qualities associated with effectiveness in intercultural situations. The GCI assesses an individual's core capacity for intercultural adjustment.

Because intercultural interactions are predominant in the success of international assignments and transitions, the GCI can be used both as an aid to selection as well as a tool for training and development. Numerous assessments are available that identify cultural differences between and among individuals, which can be useful in highlighting "gaps" where cultural friction and the need for intercultural adjustment may occur.

The GCI focuses on three main factors influencing intercultural adaptability:

Perception Management: How an individual mentally approaches cultural differences.

Relationship Management: An individual's orientation toward developing and maintaining relationships with, and awareness of, culturally different others.

Self Management: The strength and clarity of an individual's sense of self-identity and ability to effectively manage thoughts, emotions, and responses to stressful situations.

These factors are further differentiated into sets of 17 dimensions, allowing for more detailed evaluation. Taken as a whole, the factors are aggregated to generate an Overall Global Competencies Index, which can be used to provide a general indicator of intercultural capability.

The GCI identifies qualities an individual may not have previously recognized as strengths; it may also reveal areas for growth and development.

2. What’s the format, and how long does it take?

The GCI is a self-report inventory consisting of 171 items, and takes most people approximately 45-60 minutes to complete.

Online and paper versions of the inventory are available.

Language support for the paper version of the GCI includes English, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish, with a Chinese version in development. The online version is available in English, with a Japanese version in development.

3. Is the GCI valid and reliable?

The GCI assesses the targeted content domain of intercultural capabilities in the same way as other rigorously developed psychological assessment inventories. The current 171-item iteration of the GCI has been developed and validated according to the highest professional standards of psychological measurement and test development. Reliabilities of all instrument subscales fall within the ranges of 0.72 to 0.83 (coefficient alphas). In addition, we have established significant convergence with other similar inventories, and predictive validity with important global business management skills learning and transfer. In addition, no gender, age, race or ethnic bias, or disparate impact has been found in any of our analyses. Further details of this empirical evidence can be provided upon request.

4. What is its scope?

The organizational domain of the GCI is global in scope. It is valid for use across functions and levels. It has been used with middle management, technical, and top management personnel. Nearly 70 different nationalities are reflected in the norm population of the GCI. Regionally, North America is the largest sub-population (56%), followed by Asia (26%), Europe (11%), with the remaining 7% coming from countries across Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.



5. Are there different population norms?

The GCI has population norms based on world regions, some select countries, age, education level, gender, job level, ethnic group, and purpose of the international assignment.

6. Can anyone give it? Is there training support?

Administration and debriefing of GCI results must be conducted by qualified GCI administrators. Qualification seminars, two days in length, are offered throughout the year; for available dates, please contact GCI sales and administration at the address given at the end of this document.

The Kozai Group assists companies in assessing and developing the global skills and competencies of their managerial cadre through the GCI and through the custom-designed training programs we develop based on assessment results. Our assessment inventories and training program designs are grounded in empirical research and provide the necessary rigor in content to ensure actual development of competencies associated with global leadership, global mindset, and strategic thinking.

We also assist companies in developing state-of-the-art mobility management programs, including selection, training, support, and repatriation management of expatriate managers and their families.

Debrief sessions are available, depending on the client's needs. Such sessions are typically offered as part of a training program, but they can also be done as separate, stand-alone coaching and feedback sessions.

A train-the-trainer option is available.

Although the GCI itself cannot be "customized" (since that would compromise its psychometric integrity), feedback and interpretation of results can be customized depending on the needs and interests of the client organization.

7. What’s the return on investment?

Organizations with international operations face the critical challenge of developing a team of managers and executives who can operate globally, from a business mindset, and manage culturally diverse units across geographic boundaries. To develop this group, global firms continually wrestle with how best to:

o Assess existing global management and leadership abilities

o Assess the global management and leadership abilities of prospective managers in selection processes

o Create global management and leadership development processes that are sophisticated enough to zero in on managers' specific global weaknesses, thus avoiding the "one size fits all" training trap

o Avoid the costs of expatriate failure and "brown-outs" through the development of effective expatriate assessment, training, in-country learning, and repatriation processes

o Leverage the global competence of repatriated managers and executives by developing effective "transfer of knowledge" processes

The GCI provides assessment in all five categories above, providing managers and executives with a clear self-understanding of their current level of expertise in the comprehensive set of fundamental global competencies that have been proven from empirical research to be critical to global management and leadership success.

The competencies assessed by the GCI have been empirically demonstrated to positively influence the acquisition of global business management skills and the subsequent transfer of those competencies to the firm, which in turn lead to heightened work commitment and performance.

The GCI provides the potential for significant return on investment as a tool for guiding firms-and their managers-to create selection, development, coaching, expatriate management, and knowledge transfer processes that are built upon a clear awareness of individuals' current strengths in empirically valid global competencies. This allows for telescopic and sophisticated program design on the part of firms as opposed to overly general, "one size fits all" traditional training formats that are common when attempting to "globalize" managerial and executive cadres.



8. What does it cost?

The standard price is $130 per assessment for both the paper and online versions. Volume discount rates are as follows:

100+ = 10% discount

500+ = 20% discount

1000+ = 20% discount

9. How do I order the GCI and associated services?

Administration and Sales:

The Intercultural Communication Institute [email protected] www.kozaigroup.com/gci.html 8835 SW Canyon Lane, Suite 238 Portland, OR 97225 Phone: +1-503-297-4622 Fax: +1-503-297-4695

Training and Consultation:

The Kozai Group [email protected]

10. Do you offer other cultural competency surveys?

Yes. The Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) is a less comprehensive version of the GCI, developed to address the need for an assessment tool that can be used in contexts such as those found in many educational settings, where economy and ease of administration are critical program elements.

1

Copyright© 2008. The Kozai Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

First published February 2008

by The Kozai Group, Inc.

16414 Sundance Creek Court

Chesterfield, MO 63005

USA

© 2008 The Kozai Group, Inc.

Typeset in Baskerville and Calibri

All rights reserved. No part of this monograph may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or

hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or

retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

1. Global competencies -- measurement. 2. Intercultural interaction. 3. Global

leadership. 4. Expatriate adjustment and performance.

84


The 21st century is one of unremitting globalization. The bumper sticker wisdom

that implores, “think globally, act locally,” has become a reality and a necessity for

educators, businesspeople, politicians, scientists, journalists, entertainers, athletes, and

inventors alike.

Globalization is an ever-increasing social complexity that arises from the ongoing

integration of cultural, technological, political, social, and business processes that results

in a teeming, unpredictable, ambiguous, ever-changing context that must be squarely faced

by everyone—but especially educators and businesspeople (Lane, Maznevski, &

Mendenhall, 2004).

For example, globalization has caused educators to consider how to develop in

students of all ages a better understanding of the world and its various cultures, and the

need to develop competencies within their students that will allow them to live and thrive

in a complex, ever-changing, globalized environment. Similarly, globalization has caused

many CEOs to aggressively reposition their companies to deal with the unparalleled

cross-border trade and investment, continual and rapid change in technological advances,

ongoing shifts in global products and consumers, higher global standards in production

and quality, and the inherent unpredictability in markets that are part and parcel of the

complexity we call “globalization.”

“How do we develop people who can thrive in the context of globalization?”

First, it is necessary to understand and delineate what competencies are associated with

thriving in global contexts. What competencies do people possess who exhibit success in

living and working in cross-culturally complex situations? And, what clues can these

“global leaders” give us in terms of educating and developing people who can be

successful in the age of globalization?

Since the early 1990s, an increasing number of scholars have been studying

effective global leaders and attempting to delineate the competencies that are critical to

their success. Reviews of this literature (Bird & Osland, 2004; Jokinen, 2005;

Mendenhall, 2001; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, 2008; Osland, Taylor, &

Mendenhall, in press) find that social scientists have delineated over fifty competencies

that influence global leadership effectiveness; however, many of these competencies

overlap conceptually and are often separated only by semantic differences in the labels

given them by researchers (Jokinen, 2005; Osland, 2008). The reviews also indicate

clearly that global leadership is a multi-dimensional construct.

85


Mendenhall and Osland (2002) categorized the global leadership literature as

exhibiting essentially six core dimensions of competencies, with numerous competencies

extant within each dimension. They labeled these six dimensions, respectively: cross-

cultural relationship skills, traits and values, cognitive orientation, global business

expertise, global organizing expertise, and visioning.

Source: Mendenhall, M., & Osland, J. “Mapping the Terrain of the Global Leadership Construct.” Paper

presented at the Academy of International Business, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 29th, 2002.

86


When the dimensions of global leadership and their attendant competencies were

compared to the literature of expatriate effectiveness, it was found that there was a

significant overlap between three of the competency domains of global leadership and the

competencies that are important to living and working in a foreign country as an

expatriate (Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall, 2001; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, Bird,

Mendenhall, & Osland, 2006; Osland, 2008). The six dimensions can be conceptually

divided between those that involve competencies directly related to intercultural

interaction at the person and small group level (which are critical to expatriate

effectiveness), and those that involve the mastery of more macro, global business

knowledge and skills.

To explore the evolution of knowledge in the field of expatriation, we analyzed the

reviews of the empirical expatriate literature since 1984 (Arthur & Bennett, 1995;

Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Gersten,

1990; Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004; Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen,

2003; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Kealey, 1996; Mendenhall, Kühlmann, Stahl, &

Osland, 2002; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Mol, Born, Willemsen, & Van der Molen,

2005; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989; Stahl, 2001;

Thomas, 1998; Thomas & Lazarova, 2006) to evaluate their assessment of the state of the

field.

Additionally, due to the fact that the expatriate research literature is spread across

various disciplines, thus making it difficult for reviewers to comprehensively cover all

extant empirical studies, we have included empirical studies that were not included in the

aforementioned reviews or that were published after the appearance of these reviews. To

assess the empirical literature of the global leadership field, we reviewed the most

prominent reviews of that literature to date (Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall, 2001;

Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, 2008; Osland, et al., in press).

87


The ability to adjust to the work, social, and general cultural dimensions of a new

culture has been shown to influence subsequent productivity of the expatriate during

his/her overseas assignment (Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Harrison & Shaffer,

2005). Successful expatriate adjustment predicts task completion and relationship

building effectiveness during the overseas assignment (Harrison & Shaffer, 2005), thus an

understanding of what competencies influence expatriate adjustment is critical to an

understanding of enhancing individual performance in the global workplace.

We began our review of the expatriate literature with the review and categorization

of competencies associated with expatriate adjustment conducted by Mendenhall &

Oddou in 1985. Based upon their oft-cited review of the literature, Mendenhall & Oddou

(1985) classified the numerous competencies that they found influenced expatriate

adjustment into one of three categories: the self-oriented dimension, the others-oriented

dimension, and the perceptual dimension.

The self-oriented dimension includes “activities and attributes that serve to

strengthen the expatriate’s self-esteem, self-confidence, and mental hygiene” (1985: 40).

The others-oriented dimension includes “activities and attributes that enhance the

expatriate’s ability to interact effectively with host-nationals” (1985: 41), while the

perceptual dimension contains cognitive processes that facilitate an expatriate’s “ability

to understand why foreigners behave the way they do,” thus enhancing their “ability to

make correct attributions about the reasons or causes of host-nationals’ behavior” (1985:

42).

This categorization has been a fruitful one over time in the literature (Thomas,

1998) and is, in part, the basis for the most rigorously tested, influential and robust model

of expatriate adjustment in the field, The International Adjustment Model (IA), which was

developed by J. Stewart Black, Mark E. Mendenhall, and Gary R. Oddou in 1991 (for

reviews and empirical validation of this model see: Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer,

& Luk, 2005; Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003; Mendenhall, Kühlmann, Stahl, &

Osland, 2002; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999).

In their IA model, Black et al. (1991) renamed Mendenhall and Oddou’s (1985)

earlier categories. Self-orientation was relabeled, self-efficacy, reflecting the degree to

which an individual believes he or she has the ability to succeed in new tasks and settings

(Bandura, 1977). The other two dimensions, others-oriented and perceptual, were

respectively re-labeled as relational and perceptual in the IA model.

These three dimensions constituted the Individual dimension of Black, et al’s

1991 model, which focused on traits and competencies that had been shown in the

88


literature to positively influence heightened levels of success in interacting with people

from other cultures in overseas or cross-culturally significant settings. This Individual

dimension constituted one of four dimensions of direct determinants of expatriate

adjustment (the others were labeled: job, organizational, and nonwork) in the IA model.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of the IA model by Bhaskar-Shrinivas and

colleagues (2005) of over 50 determinants of expatriate adjustment using data from 8,474

expatriates in 66 studies emphasized the “centrality, criticality, and complexity of

adjustment, strongly supporting Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou's (1991) model (p. 257).”

They also concluded that the “meta-analytic findings attest to the importance of some

individual factors--overall self-efficacy and relational skills -- in predicting expatriate

adjustment. The variance explained by the latter exceeded that explained by other

predictors by 30 percent (p. 272).” Thus, competencies associated with Mendenhall and

Oddou’s 1985’s categorization were found to have a powerful influence on a person’s

ability to be successful in cross-cultural and global milieus.

To summarize, the research suggests that the content domain of global

competencies can be usefully summarized using three broad facets or dimensions for

individuals: the cognitive/perceptual, other/relationship, and self/self-efficacy domains

(Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et al., 2005; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Black et al., 1991; Thomas,

1998: 247). For clarity and pedagogical purposes, these three dimensions have been re-

titled the Perception Management, Relationship Management, and Self Management

domains in the Global Competencies Inventory (GCI).

These three major competency dimensions will be reviewed below, along with

their sub-facts; a discussion of the empirical support for each sub-facet from the extant

literature is included as well.

The first dimension that will be reviewed is the Perception Management

dimension.

Based on their review of the pre-1985 research on expatriate adjustment

Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) concluded that a dimension was warranted that

encompassed the abilities to:

1) make correct attributions regarding host nationals’ behavior;

2) be nonjudgmental when evaluating host nationals’ behavior;

3) make loose vs. rigid evaluations of host nationals’ behavior;

4) update and modify cognitive schema regarding the host culture;

5) seek out information to better process host national cultural stimuli.

89


Subsequent reviews of the empirical literature support the perceptual dimension

as a forceful influencer of cross-cultural adjustment. Various cognitive and perceptual

variables have been linked to intercultural effectiveness; variables receiving general

support in the reviews of the literature include: tolerance of ambiguity (Arthur &

Bennett, 1995; Kealey, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989; Stahl, 2001),

nonjudgmentalness (Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Ronen, 1989; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984;

Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Stahl, 2001), flexibility (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Kealey,

1996; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989); openness

(Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Kealey, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989;

Thomas, 1998), categorization (Gersten, 1990), attributional complexity (Kealey, 1996;

Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984) and cognitive complexity (Boyacigiller, Beechler, Taylor, &

Levy, 2004; Levy, Beechler, Taylor, & Boyacigiller, 2007; Osland, et al, 2006).

The GCI dimension of Perception Management thus examines how people

cognitively approach cultural differences. It assesses people’s mental flexibility when

confronted with cultural differences, their tendency to make rapid judgments about those

differences, their ability to manage their perceptions when confronted with situations that

differ from what they expect, and finally, it also assesses people’s innate interest in, and

curiosity about, other cultures. In sum, our perceptions of people who are different from

us will ultimately affect what and how we think about them, and very importantly, our

behavior toward them.

Nonjudgmentalness (NJ) refers to the extent to which one is inclined to

withhold or suspend judgment about persons or situations or behavior that is new or

unfamiliar. If people are rigid or use only their own culture as the standard for evaluating

cultural differences, then they will be less effective working with people from other

cultures. A precursor to inquisitiveness, the next competency below, nonjudgmentalness

in part refers to what Kealey (1996) refers to as “the ability to question oneself and to

become genuinely open to the behavior and ideas of others (p. 87).”

Waiting to understand the situation or person before making a judgment or strong

attributions enhances intercultural effectiveness; the opposite tendency, making snap

judgments about situations or people—and being reluctant to change those judgments—is

not efficacious in cross-cultural interactions.

Black (1990) and Shaffer et al. (2006) referred to the obverse of this competency

as ethnocentrism, “the propensity to view one’s own cultural traditions and behaviors as

90


right and those of others as wrong (p. 114)” and argued that this mindset interferes with

making accurate perceptions in cross-cultural encounters. Shaffer et al. (2006) found that

ethnocentrism negatively predicted interaction adjustment and contextual performance,

and strongly influenced withdrawal from assignment cognitions in their sample of

expatriates.

This competency appears both in the global leadership and in the expatriate

literature as being related to intercultural effectiveness (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997;

Cui & Awa, 1992; Gersten, 1990; Ronen, 1989; Sinangil & Ones, 1997; Hudson &

Inkson, 2006; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Moro Bueno

& Tubbs, 2004; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984).

Inquisitiveness (IN) reflects an openness towards, and an active pursuit of

understanding ideas, values, norms, situations, and behaviors that are new and different.

It involves the willingness to seek to understand the underlying reasons for cultural

differences and to avoid stereotyping people from other cultures. It also includes one’s

capacity to actively take advantage of opportunities for growth and learning.

Tucker, Bonial, and Lahti (2004: 230) conceptualize it as “the capability to accept

new ideas and see more than one’s own way of approaching and solving problems.” It is

akin to the Big Five dimension of Intellectance or Openness to Experience, which reflects

the “breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential

life (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121).” Shaffer, et al. (2006) state that individuals high in

Intellectance, as well as exhibiting other tendencies, are “more curious and eager to learn”

new information about others and themselves (p. 113.); in their research it predicted

expatriate work adjustment, contextual performance, and task performance.

This competency also emerged in reviews of the global leadership literature (Bird

& Osland, 2004; Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, 2008) and has also

found support in work by Kealey and his associates (Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Kealey,

1989, 1994, 1996; Kealey & Ruben, 1983) and others in the expatriate literature (Arthur

& Bennett, 1995, 1997; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Mol, et al., 2005; Moro Bueno &

Tubbs, 2004; Ronen, 1989; Sinangil & Ones, 1997; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998;

Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984).

Based upon interviews with 90 senior executives and 40 nominated global leaders

in 50 companies located in Europe, North America, and Asia, Black, Morrison &

Gregersen (1999) found that inquisitiveness was the most important global competency

within the constellation of competencies identified in their study. Also, Black &

Gregersen (1991) found that individuals who took the initiative to learn about the new

culture to which they were assigned to live and work in had higher levels of intercultural

adjustment than did expatriates who did not do take such initiative or who relied only on

91


company-provided training. Kealey (1996; 87) cited this as a primary competency in his

review, stating that:

Being intrigued about different cultures and wanting to learn about them is

associated with effective collaboration across cultures…this interest

usually leads to a sincere desire to get to know the country, its people, and

its traditions.

The extended effect of inquisitiveness is often that it leads to a preparation and a

motivation to exhibit or improve competencies associated with the Relationship

Management dimension.

Tolerance of Ambiguity (TA) refers to the ability to manage uncertainty in

new and complex situations where there is not necessarily a “right” way to interpret

things. People may be open to new ideas and experiences, but not necessarily manage the

ambiguity and uncertainty associated with them. Those high in tolerance of ambiguity

enjoy complexity, are not threatened by it, and see it as a natural part of life; they are not

hindered making decisions in conditions of ambiguity.

Tolerance of ambiguity has commonly been found to be an important competency

related to intercultural effectiveness in both the global leadership (Jokinen, 2005;

Mendenhall & Osland, 2002) and expatriate literatures (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997;

Cui & Awa; 1992; Cort & King , 1979; Hermann, Stevens, & Bird, 2008; Kealey, 1996;

Goldsmith, et al., 2003; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002;

Mol, et al., 2005; Nishida, 1985; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989; Stahl, 2001).

For example, Black et al., (1999) found that the ability to not only manage

uncertainty—but to embrace it and find it challenging and motivating, is an important

competency of global leaders. Ruben & Kealey (1979) found that tolerance for ambiguity

acts as an important contributor to the ability to communicate well with people from

other cultures, indicating that this competency combines with relationship management

competencies to enhance overall intercultural effectiveness.

In his 1996 review of the empirical literature, Kealey again emphasized that

tolerance of ambiguity appeared to be an important competency necessary to succeed in

cross-cultural settings, stating that living and working in cross-cultural settings “demands

a capacity to live with the unknown and to work in situations of ambiguity [and] this is

difficult for people who need control (p. 86).”

Cosmopolitanism (CO) refers to a natural interest in and curiosity about

different countries and cultures, as well as the degree of interest in world and international

92


events. High cosmopolitans demonstrate an intense interest in traveling abroad and

learning about foreign places, and strive to stay current on world and international events.

To be effective in a global or cross-cultural milieu, it is necessary to have a

perspective of time and space that extends beyond one’s local milieu (Adler &

Bartholomew, 1992; Boyacigiller, et al., 2004; Kedia & Mukherji, 1999; Flango &

Brumbaugh, 1974; Goldberg, 1976). This is an important orientation for global leaders to

possess (Boyacigiller, et al., 2004; Levy, et al., 2007), and emerged in reviews of the

literature on effective global leadership competencies (Bird & Osland, 2004; Mendenhall

& Osland, 2002; Osland, et al., 2006; Osland, 2008).

Our conceptualization of cosmopolitanism reflects that of Levy, et al. (2007) who

argue, after reviewing the literature in this area, that cosmopolitanism “represents a state

of mind that is manifested as an orientation toward the outside, the Other…a willingness

to explore and learn from alternative systems of meaning held by others (p. 240).”

Similarly, in the expatriate and immigrant adjustment literature, an interest in

foreign cultures appears as a contributing variable to adaptation (Arthur & Bennett, 1995,

1997; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Pruitt, 1978; Ronen,

1989; Ward & Searle, 1991; also see Ward, 1996).

Category Inclusiveness (CI) refers to the tendency to cognitively include

and accept things (including people) based on commonalities rather than dividing things

into groups or categories (even though noticeable categories for differentiating things or

people may exist). People high on this dimension are more likely to minimize differences

between things (and people) and instead emphasize commonalities.

Detweiler (1975, 1978, 1980) identified category width as a construct that

captures the tendency of people to apply cognitive categories more loosely. He found

empirical support for the thesis that people with broader categories (i.e., people who

define categories to be more inclusive) will be similarly more inclusive when it comes to

people who are perceived to be culturally different. Category Inclusiveness is a

refinement of the category width construct developed by Detweiler (for reviews of the

category width construct, see: Gersten, 1990 and Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984).

Cognitive complexity, sense-making, and pattern recognition – concepts that rely

upon or relate to category inclusiveness -- represent other cognitive variables in the global

leadership literature that have been identified as being important to intercultural

interaction in cross-cultural settings (for reviews see: Bird & Osland, 2004; Gersten,

1990; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984; Osland, 2008).

Osland (2008) notes that, “the more cognitively complex people are, the more

dimensions and relationships they perceive—in other words, the more differentiated and

93


integrated their domains (p. 58.).” Category Inclusiveness, because it assesses the flexible

application of criteria used in categorizing, may be understood as contributing to the

ability to integrate varying cognitive categories. Osland (2008, p. 58) cites Bartunek’s

(1983) thesis that there is a correlation between high levels of cognitive complexity and

the ability to maintain “competing interpretations, balance contradictions, ambiguities,

and trade-offs (Tetlock, 1983), and deal with dualities or paradoxes (Evans, 2002 et al.,

2002; Levy et al., 2007).”

The next section will review the Relationship Management dimension along with

its associated competencies.

In their review of the research, Mendenhall & Oddou (1985: 41) concluded that a

dimension was warranted that encompassed “the ability to develop long-lasting

friendships with host-nationals,” due to the fact that this ability “emerged as an

important factor in successful overseas adjustment (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Brein &

David, 1971, 1973; Hammer, et al., 1978; Harris, 1973; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Ratiu,

1983), accounting for large portions of the variance in the factor analytic studies studying

adjustment (Hammer, et al., 1978; Harris, 1973).”

This trend in the literature has remained constant since the publication of

Mendenhall & Oddou’s 1985 review and categorization of the intercultural competencies

that positively influence cross-cultural adjustment. In all of the reviews in both the global

leadership and expatriate adjustment literature that we reviewed, the ability to create and

maintain relationships with individuals in cross-cultural/global settings was found to be a

key competency domain (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et al, 2005; Dinges

& Baldwin, 1996; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Harrison, et al., 2004; Kealey, 1996;

Mendenhall, et al, 2002; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Mol, et al, 2005; Oddou &

Mendenhall, 1984; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Osland, 2008; Ronen, 1989; Stahl, 2001;

Thomas, 1998; Thomas & Lazarova, 2006).

The GCI dimension of Relationship Management assesses people’s orientation

toward the importance of relationships in general; how aware they are of others and their

interaction styles, values, etc., and the level of awareness they have of themselves and

their impact on others. This dimension complements the Perception Management

dimension in that it looks at how mental structures shape behaviors, especially with

respect to the development and management of intercultural, interpersonal relationships.

Relationships also become a source of information to help people understand

other cultures and may also be a source of social support. The development of positive

94


relationships is a critical aspect of effective intercultural job performance (Harrison &

Shaffer, 2005; Mol et al., 2005). This dimension is assessed in the GCI using five sub-

facet scales.

Relationship Interest (RI) refers to the extent to which people exhibit

interest in, and awareness of, their social environment. People high in relationship

interest are curious about others with whom they interact, and thus strive to understand

the kind of people they are, what their cultural norms are, and so on. However, although

people may be high in relationship interest, they may still lack the actual ability to

develop effective relationships with those in whom they are interested.

Often in the literature this competency is bundled together conceptually with

other skills into broader measures of interpersonal skills; for example, Shaffer, Harrison,

Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi (2006) conceptualize their people orientation variable as

encompassing “a desire to understand and relate to HCNs [what we term, Relationship

Interest] and to develop close relationships with them [what we term Interpersonal

Engagement] (p. 113).” In their meta-analytic review of the expatriate performance

literature, Mol et al. (2005) found that the factor, interpersonal interest emerged as a solid

predictor of expatriate job performance.

This foundational competency in the Relationship Management domain has been

noted in both the expatriate literature (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Kühlmann & Stahl,

1996, 1998; Ronen, 1989; Shaffer, et al., 2006; Sinangil & Ones, 1997) and in the global

leadership literature (Mendenhall & Osland, 2002).

Interpersonal Engagement (IE) refers to the degree to which people have

a desire and willingness to initiate and maintain relationships with people from other

cultures. People high on this dimension will work hard to develop relationships with

others even though they may not necessarily be high in the competencies needed to

effectively develop or maintain those relationships. Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) defined

this competency as “the ability to develop long-lasting friendships with host nationals”

(p. 41). Black et al., (1999) describe it as the ability to “emotionally connect with

others.”

This competency has been substantiated as being critical to cross-cultural

effectiveness and adjustment by reviews of the literature, though it is been classified using

different terminology, such as: people orientation (Shaffer, et al., 2006) interaction

management (Ruben & Kealey, 1979), relationship building (Kealey, 1996),

95


outgoingness or extraversion (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Ronen, 1989), relational abilities

(Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Thomas, 1998), sociability and interest in other people

(Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Stahl, 2001), interpersonal skills (Hechanova, et al., 2003) and

intercultural competence (Dinges & Baldwin, 1996). Global leadership literature reviews

similarly note that this is an important competency for effective intercultural interaction

(Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002).

Empirical studies continue to sustain the role of relationship development, and its

attendant skills such as communication competence, as being critical to expatriate

adjustment and intercultural competence (Arthur & Bennett, 1997; Bikson, Treverton,

Moini, & Lindstrom, 2003; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Cui & Awa, 1992; Cui & Van Den

Berg, 1991; Hammer, 1987; Hechanova, et al., 2003; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998;

Martin, 1987; Martin & Hammer, 1989; Shaffer, et al., 2006; Sinangil & Ones, 1997;

Sudweeks, Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1990; Thomas, 1998; Torbiorn, 1982).

For example, Waxin (2004) found that “social orientation” had a significant overall

effect on French, German, Korean, and Scandinavian expatriates’ ability to adjust

productively to interacting with Indians. Similarly, Tucker, Bonial, & Lathi (2004) found

that the dimension in their model, social interpersonal style, which was made up of the

variables of “interpersonal interest” and “social adaptability” was significantly related to

intercultural adjustment in their sample of corporate expatriates.

Tsang (2001) argued that extroversion, which is positively related to sociability

and interpersonal involvement would be positively related to general and interaction

adjustment in his sample of expatriates. This hypothesis was supported in his findings,

reinforcing similar findings from past studies (Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Searle & Ward,

1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Social support, a variable in Tsang’s 2001 that he

defined as “help received from other people when encountering difficulties in coping with

a new environment (p. 356),” is similar to the aspect of relationship development, and

was also found to significantly influence general and interaction adjustment in his study

(Tsang, 2001).

Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) noted that exercise of relationship development had

the effect of establishing friendships with host nationals who then took on mentoring

roles to the expatriate, guiding “the neophyte through the intricacies and complexity of

the new organization or culture, protecting him/her against faux pas and helping him/her

enact appropriate behaviors.” (p. 41-42). Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et al., (2005) found strong

support for this competency in their meta-analytic review of the expatriate adjustment

literature, where they found that the variance explained by [relational skills] exceeded that

explained by other predictors by 30 percent.” (p. 272).

Emotional Sensitivity (ES) refers to the extent to which people have an

awareness of, and sensitivity to, the emotions and feelings of others. People high in

96


emotional sensitivity can assess and respond appropriately to the emotional and

psychological needs of people around them. Emotional sensitivity is akin to the Big Five

personality factor of Agreeableness, which refers to a prosocial and communal orientation

towards others without antagonism (John & Srivastava, 1999; Shaffer, et al, 2006) and

displaying courtesy and tact, empathy, kindness, and respect (Ones & Viswesvaran,

1997; Shaffer, et al., 2006). Mol and his colleagues (2005) found in their meta-analysis

of the expatriate literature that Agreeableness is a predictor of expatriate job performance.

Similarly, Shaffer et al., (2006) found it to be a key predictor of interaction adjustment.

Research in both the global leadership and expatriate literatures have found that

emotional sensitivity is critical to intercultural effectiveness as it contributes to an

individual’s ability to:

• show appropriate respect to others (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Cui & Awa,

1992; Gersten, 1990; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998;

Kealey, 1994; Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Koester & Olebe, 1988; Moro Bueno &

Tubbs, 2004; Olebe & Koester, 1989; Ronen, 1989; Ruben & Kealey, 1979)

• display both interpersonal and cultural empathy (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997;

Cui & Awa, 1992; Cui & Van Den Berg, 1991; Gersten, 1990; Hechanova, et al.,

2003; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Jokinen, 2005; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998;

Kealey, 1994; Koester & Olebe, 1988; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; Martin &

Hammer, 1987; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Moro

Bueno & Tubbs, 2004; Oguri & Gudykunst, 2002; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Ronen,

1989; Sudweeks, Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1990)

• show tolerance for differences in others (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Cui &

Awa, 1992; Gersten, 1990; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998;

Kealey, 1994; Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Ronen, 1989; Selmer, 1999, 2001).

Self Awareness (SA) refers to the degree to which people are aware of: 1)

their strengths and weaknesses in interpersonal skills, 2) their own philosophies and

values, 3) how past experiences have helped shape them into who they are as a person,

and 4) the impact their values and behavior have on relationships with others.

High scorers are extremely aware of their own values, strengths and limitations,

and behavioral tendencies and how they impact and affect others; they are constantly

evaluating themselves and this process in their lives. Low scorers report little concern or

interest in knowing themselves or how their behavioral tendencies affect other people, and

are not very interested in trying to understand their experiences. High self-awareness

provides a foundation for strategically acquiring new competencies and skills, whereas

low self-awareness promotes self-deception and arrogance.

97


Jokinen (2005) categorizes this competency as being one of the primary

competencies that is fundamental to effective global leadership. Similarly, Varner and

Palmer (2005) argue, from a theoretical standpoint that “conscious cultural self-

knowledge is a crucial variable in adapting to other cultures (p. 1).”

Goldsmith, Greenberg, Robertson, & Hu-Chan (2003) include self-awareness as an

important competency in the personal mastery component of their global leadership

model. One of the important benefits, according to Goldsmith, et al, (2003) regarding this

competency is that it allows one to strategically involve others in one’s work to

complement one’s personal weaknesses.

Wills and Barnham (1994) found that emotional self-awareness was an important

predictor of intercultural effectiveness, and Chen (1987) found that it related to

intercultural communication competence. Similarly, Bird and Osland (2004) concluded

that one of the byproducts of the competency of self-awareness, a sense of humility, is

an important competency for successful intercultural interaction.

Social Flexibility (SF) refers to the extent to which individuals present

themselves to others in order to create favorable impressions and to facilitate relationship

building. High social flexibility helps people adjust their behaviors to fit the situation and

to favorably impress and connect with people they do not know well. Social flexibility

also helps people better influence others to adapt their behaviors to fit the social

situation.

Kealey (1996: 86) refers to this as “the ability to modify ideas and behavior, to

compromise, and to be receptive to new ways of doing things” and this is commonly

manifested in both the global leadership research literature (Mendenhall & Osland, 2002)

and the expatriate research literature as being important to intercultural effectiveness

(Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Cui & Awa, 1992; Hechanova, et al., 2003; Kealey, 1994;

Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; Martin & Hammer, 1987; Moro

Bueno & Tubbs, 2004; Ronen, 1989; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Sinangil & Ones, 1997; also

see: Ward, 1996).

Scholars have operationalized social flexibility in a variety of ways. One

approach is via the constructs of self-monitoring or impression management. Mendenhall

and Wiley (1994) hypothesized a relationship between impression management and

expatriate adjustment, and Montagliani (1996) found that it significantly correlated with

cultural adjustment scores, suggesting that individuals who use behavioral cues in the

social environments of new cultures will increase their potential to enhance their ability to

adjust and be effective in those new cultures. Similarly, in their metanalysis of the

expatriate literature, Hechanova, et al., (2003) reported that Caligiuri (1995) found that

self-monitoring correlated with general expatriate adjustment and Harrison, Chadwick, &

98


Scales (1996) found it was associated with interactional adjustment on the part of

expatriates.

Social flexibility requires that one be attuned to perceiving, learning, and

complying with new behavioral norm structures. In their meta-analysis of the expatriate

job performance literature, Mol and his colleagues (2005 found that the Big Five

personality factor of Conscientiousness was a predictor of expatriate job performance.

This factor has to do with being oriented toward socially prescribed impulse control

processes, such as following norms and rules and thinking before acting (John &

Srivastava, 1999).

In the next section, we will review the last major competency area, Self-

Management, followed by a detailed look at its competencies.

Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) concluded that a domain of variables existed in the

cross-cultural adjustment literature that could be categorized as including “activities and

attributes that serve to strengthen the expatriate’s self-esteem, self-confidence, and mental

hygiene (p. 40).” They labeled this domain, the Self-Oriented dimension of intercultural

effectiveness.

Subsequent reviews of both the global leadership and the expatriate literature

support the validity of this dimension as an important contributor to intercultural

effectiveness. Various variables have been linked to intercultural effectiveness in this

domain; common variables receiving general support in the reviews of the literature

include: coping with stress (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998;

Kealey, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989; Thomas, 1998), psychological

hardiness (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Caligiuri, 2000; Kealey, 1996; Mendenhall,

2001; Osland & Mendenhall, 2002; Osland, 2008; Ronen, 1989), interest flexibility

(Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985); self-confidence (Arthur &

Bennett, 1995, 1997; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et al., 2005; Goldsmith, et al., 2003; Hechanova,

et al., 2003; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Kealey, 1996), and optimism (Arthur & Bennett,

1995, 1997; Caligiuri, 2004; Jokinen, 2005; Kealey, 1996; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998;

McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Ronen, 1989).

The Self Management dimension takes into account people’s strength of identity

and their ability to effectively manage their emotions and stress. To be successful in

intercultural situations, it is critical that people have a clear sense of themselves and a

clear understanding of their fundamental values. To be effective in a global context,

people must be able to understand, change and adapt appropriately to the foreign work

99


and intercultural environment, yet at the same time, they must also have a stable sense of

self in order to remain mentally and emotionally healthy. Seven competency scales

comprise this dimension.

Optimism (OP) refers to the extent to which people maintain a positive,

buoyant outlook toward other people, events, situations and outcomes. People high in

optimism view problems as solvable challenges and as exciting learning opportunities.

Thus, individuals who are high in optimism exhibit such tendencies as being persistent,

viewing setbacks as opportunities for learning, and believing that putting forth effort will

ultimately payoff in positive outcomes. Optimism and its derivative benefits are found

both in the global leadership and expatriate literatures (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997;

Caligiuri, 2004; Gersten, 1990; Jokinen, 2005; Kealey, 1996; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996,

1998; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Ronen, 1989).

Caligiuri, in a study of 256 global leaders, found that they were significantly higher

in the realm of “conscientiousness” and significantly lower on the dimension of

“neuroticism” in terms of their Big Five personality scores than less effective global

leaders (2004). Some of the lexical markers of Conscientiousness are being purposeful,

strong-willed, and determined (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997), all manifestations of

optimism. In his 1996 review of the literature, one of the skills that Kealey derived from

the literature was that of Positive Attitudes, what we term in the GCI as Optimism.

Kealey (1996: 86) observed:

One of the best predictors of professional effectiveness overseas is

positive attitudes on the part of the expatriate. Feelings of being positive,

excited, strong, and determined about undertaking the collaborative venture

are indicators of potential to succeed.

Self Confidence (SC) refers to the degree to which people have confidence in

themselves and have a tendency to take action to overcome obstacles and master

challenges. People high on this dimension believe that if they work hard enough and have

the will power, they can learn what they need to learn in order to accomplish whatever

they set out to do. Although people may be optimistic regarding cross-cultural

situations, they may nevertheless lack the self-confidence to act positively on their

optimism.

Self confidence was noted by Kealey in his 1996 review as being an important

competency “that is needed to be successful in another culture (p. 84).” Similarly, other

scholars have found self-confidence or self-efficacy to be important variables in

100


intercultural effectiveness and adjustment (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Bhaskar-

Shrinivas, et al., 2005; Gersten, 1990; Goldsmith, et al., 2003; Harrison, et al., 2004;

Hechanova, et al., 2003; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Shaffer, et al., 1999; Smith, 1966).

In their meta-analyses of the expatriate adjustment literature, Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et al.,

(2005) and Hechanova, et al. (2003) found that self-efficacy was a significant predictor of

expatriate adjustment.

Self confidence relates to the Big Five personality dimension of extraversion,

which, among other things, reflects an energetic approach toward the social and material

world, sociability, and positive emotionality (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion has

been shown to empirically predict expatriate performance (Mol, et al., 2005)

Additonally, self confidence is related to the construct of locus of control, which

refers to people’s beliefs regarding the degree to which they control events and outcomes

that impact their lives, or whether external actors or processes primarily control such

events and outcomes. The empirical literature indicates that individual’s with an external

locus of control exhibit significantly lower levels of expatriate adjustment and

effectiveness than individuals who have an internal locus of control (Dyal, 1984; Dyal,

Rybensky, & Somers, 1988; Kuo, Gray, & Lin, 1976; Kuo & Tsai, 1986; Ward, 1996;

Ward & Kennedy, 1992; 1993a; 1993b)

Self-Identity (SI) refers to the extent to which people maintain personal

values independent of situational factors and have a strong sense of personal identity.

People with high self-identity can adapt culturally, but will do it in a way that maintains a

strong framework of personal values, thus allowing them to maintain a sense of their

personal integrity. This allows them to integrate their new cultural knowledge into

existing mental models, whereas those low in self-identity are either unable to integrate

new knowledge, or when they do, they experience life crises that overwhelm them.

Self-Identity is akin to the construct of independent self-construal (Markus &

Kitayama, 1991), which involves “construing oneself as an individual whose behavior is

organized and made meaningful primarily by reference to one’s own internal repertoire of

thoughts, feelings, and actions rather than by reference to thoughts, feelings, and actions

of others (p. 226).”

Oguri & Gudykunst (2002) noted that interdependent self construals (the

opposite of independent construals,) results in individual identity and behaviors that “are

largely dependent on external factors such as …ingroups and social contexts (p. 580).”

Research findings suggest that expatriates with independent self-construals have higher

levels of psychological adjustment overseas than expatriates with interdependent self

construals (Cross, 1995; Oguri & Gudykunst, 2002; Pi-Ju Yang,Noels, & Saumure, 2006;

Yamaguchi & Wiseman, 2001)

101


Mendenhall & Osland (2002) found in their review of the global leadership

literature that self-identity emerged in a variety of studies (Black, et al., 1999; Goldsmith,

et al., 2003; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). Black and his colleagues found that global

leaders had to have a strong sense of their own values and ethical frameworks in order to

maintain integrity in a global context. Being able to find and maintain the balance between

what is ethically unacceptable on a global basis and what is locally permissible is an

important part of global leadership (Black, et al., 1999). Bird and Osland (2004) in their

review of this literature, argue that strongly that this competency is crucial to success in

working in global and cross-cultural settings.

Similarly, McCall and Hollenbeck (2002) reported that one of the primary

characteristics that emerged from their study of 101 global leaders was “operating from a

state of honesty and integrity” and Wills and Barnham (1994) also concluded that

integrity, holding true to one’s beliefs and values, was an important influence to

managerial success in a foreign environment. Bird and Osland (2004) place integrity as

one of their threshold competencies in the ION global competency framework. Spreitzer,

McCall, & Mahoney (1997) also found that integrity was an important competency in

identifying international executives.

In the expatriate literature, Kealey and Ruben (1983) refer to this competency as

positive self-image in their research (see also: Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Ronen,

1989). Kealey (1996: 86) classifies this as an important adaptation skill in his review,

noting that it reflects the ability to be comfortable with and accepting of oneself. . . . the

need to be acknowledged or rewarded is minimal [and the] ability to deal with the new

environment without excessive worry about one’s personal and professional security is

evident.”

Emotional Resilience (ER) refers to the extent to which a person has

emotional strength and resilience to cope with challenging cross-cultural situations.

Emotional resilience reflects the psychological hardiness that allows a global manager to

carry on through difficult challenges. Individuals who can manage and control their

emotions are also better equipped to deploy other global competencies than those who

are low in emotional resilience.

This competency emerged in Mendenhall & Osland’s 2002 review of the global

leadership literature, where they labeled it “hardiness.” It similarly emerged from the

ION review of global competencies (Bird & Osland, 2004). Emotional resilience is a

common indicator of intercultural effectiveness in the expatriate literature as well (Arthur

& Bennett, 1995, 1997; Caligiuri, 2000; Kealey, 1996; Ronen, 1989). Kelley and Meyers

(1992) assert from their research that:

The emotionally resilient person has the ability to deal with stress feelings

in a constructive way and to “bounce back” fro them. Emotionally

102


resilient people . . . have confidence in their ability to cope with ambiguity

. . . and have a positive sense of humor and self-regard.

The ability to carry on, perseverance, is described by Kealy (1996) in his review

of the literature as being an important attribute of working in foreign cultures. He

classifies it as being a key predictor of success in a cross-cultural/global work setting.

Non-Stress Tendency (NT) refers to the scope of the dysfunctional

stressors that may influence people in their daily work and social life in intercultural

situations. The greater the tendency people have to experience stress, the more likely it is

that they will find it difficult to deploy their global competencies in an effective way.

Shaffer, et al., (2006) label this emotional stability and define it as “the tendency to

experience positive emotional states and to respond calmly to stressful events (p. 112).”

Kealey (1996: 86) refers to this competency as “the ability to be calm and

steadfast despite opposition, difficulties, or adversity. . . Learning to be patient is critical

for success.” Sometimes referred to as patience in the literature, it has been shown to be a

critical element of intercultural effectiveness (Gersten, 1990; Kealey, 1994; 1996).

Responding to events naturally, with a calm, consistent bearing (Arthur &

Bennett, 1995, 1997; Gersten, 1990; Gordon, 1967; Mischel, 1965; Smith, 1966) or not

being “easily worried [or] nervous” (Mol, et al., 2005: 612) is an important competency

in living and working in cross-cultural settings. In their meta-analysis of 30 primary

empirical studies in the expatriate literature on predictors of expatriate job performance,

Mol and associates found that an orientation toward neuroticism was antithetical to

performance in cross-cultural settings. Shaffer, et al., (2006) found that this competency

to significantly 1) influence expatriate work adjustment, and 2) decrease withdrawal

cognitions regarding overseas assignments. Also, Selmer (1999; 2001) found that showing

tolerance and patience influenced all dimensions of expatriate adjustment.

Stress Management (SM) refers to the degree to which individuals actively

utilize stress reduction techniques in their personal lives and are willing to use new

techniques in the future. People who consistently use stress reduction techniques are

better able to manage or enhance their emotional resilience and innate tendency to be

unaffected by typical stressors and gain energy to deploy other global competencies

effectively.

Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) found that the management of psychological stress

in response to stressors inherent in living and working in the host country was an

important part of expatriate acculturation. Since then, numerous scholars have theorized

about the role of stress and its management in expatriate acculturation processes (for a

review of the theoretical literature, see Mendenhall, et al., 2002: 159-162).

103


Empirical testing of adjustment models and of the relationship of stress to

expatriate adjustment in general has provided the field with a better understanding of the

importance of this competency (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Coyle, 1988; Feldman &

Thomas, 1992; Feldman & Tompson, 1993; Hammer, 1987; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998;

Kealey, 1996; Redmond & Bunyi, 1991; Searle & Ward, 1990; Selmer, 2001; Stahl, 1998;

Stahl, 1999; Thomas, 1998; Tung, 1998; Ward & Kennedy, 1992; Ward & Kennedy,

1993a; Ward & Kennedy, 1993b). Stress reduction was also noted as being a primary

competency in Kealey’s 1996 framework based upon his review of the literature.

For example, Coyle (1988) found that relocating to a new country generates such a

high level of change that there is a highly elevated potential for health breakdown if

effective coping strategies are not deployed. Stahl (1998, 1999) found that among the

most frequent challenges expatriates face is role conflicts in the workplace, and that these

types of challenges are among the most difficult with which to cope. Work role issues

have been found by a variety of scholars to negatively influence adjustment if not

managed well (Black, 1988; Black & Gregersen, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991;

Gregersen & Black, 1992; Naumann, 1993). Managing the stress associated with the

challenges of working in an intercultural or global setting, and working through it in a

productive fashion, seems to be a key global competency.

Studies have consistently found that highly adjusted expatriates tend to draw on a

large repertoire of coping strategies in order to meet the challenge of managing the stress

inherent in living and working overseas (Feldman & Thomas, 1992; Feldman & Tompson,

1993; Stahl, 1998; Tung, 1998). Thus, focus on a single approach to stress reduction

(such as daily physical exercise) on the part of the expatriate, though useful, is necessary

but not sufficient to sustain an ongoing stress management process. For example,

Zimmerman, et al., (2003) found that in addition to other skills, maintaining a Western

atmosphere at home, and taking holidays to Hong Kong were critical coping mechanisms

of expatriates assigned to Hong Kong. Redmond & Bunyi (1991) found that reported

communication effectiveness, adaptation, and social integration best predicted effective

stress management among their sample of expatriates, again reinforcing the notion that

multiple skills are needed in order to manage stress effectively when living overseas.

Parenthetically, there is some evidence that training programs focusing on stress-

inoculation processes are relatively effective in enhancing subsequent levels of expatriate

adjustment (Befus, 1988; Walton, 1992).

Interestingly, there is some evidence that the stress associated with living and

working overseas is, in actuality, necessary for the breaking down of rigid behavior and

knowledge frameworks, and the subsequent acquisition of global competencies and a

global mindset (Kealey, 1989; Kim & Ruben, 1988; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland,

1995; Thomas, 1995). Thus, learning how to appropriately manage stress is not only

104


necessary for psychological survival and mental health overseas, but is a prerequisite for

intercultural skill development and personality growth as well.

Interest Flexibility (IF) refers to the willingness to substitute important

personal interests from one’s own background and culture with similar, yet different

interests in the host culture. For example, if people enjoy American football, high interest

flexibility would involve a willingness to substitute that with an interest in rugby if they

were assigned to live and work in New Zealand. The ability to find new interests and

activities to replace existing ones that do not fit within the new culture is important in

being successful in global or intercultural settings (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Brein &

David, 1973; David, 1976; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998;

Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; and Mumford, 1975; Shaffer, et al., 2006).

Recent research on this variable has supported the concept of interest flexibility as

a positive influence on expatriate adjustment. Zimmerman, Holman, & Sparrow (2003)

found that German expatriates in the People’s Republic of China had higher levels of

adjustment if they were able to adjust their habits to fit what was available in the host

culture. Regarding leisure activities, they concluded that “the principal mode of adjusting

to the perceived lack of leisure possibilities was to change their habits … [such as

changing] their sports, such as giving up mountain-biking for playing squash (p. 58).”

Similarly, Shaffer, Ferzandi, Harrison, Gregersen, & Black (2003) found that

interest flexibility had a significant positive influence on both cultural and work adjustment

for Japanese expatriates in twenty countries, Korean expatriates in twenty-two countries,

and American, British, Australian and New Zealand expatriates in Hong Kong. Finally,

Shaffer, et al. (2006) found that “the capacity to substitute activities enjoyed in one’s

home country with existing, and usually distinct, activities in the host country” predicted

cultural and work adjustment and task performance in their multi-sample study of

expatriates.

The body of theoretical and empirical research in global leadership competencies

and development, and in expatriate adjustment and performance, provide strong support

for the conceptual formulation of a three dimensional framework as represented in the

Global Competencies Inventory (GCI). Specifically, Perception Management,

Relationship Management and Self Management constitute three distinctive though related

domains. Moreover, each of these competencies can be broken down into separate

competencies, each of which captures an important aspect of overall intercultural

competency.

Development of the GCI Inventory Items and Scales

In developing the Global Competencies Inventory (GCI), the conceptual domain

presented in the previous chapter was used to guide the writing of a large and content

105


valid pool of self-report survey items. The goal at this early stage of item development

was to generate a thorough set of items that would ensure a more than adequate coverage

of the content domain across all of the 17 facets of the global competencies. In addition,

given the intended application of the GCI for predicting important job-related criteria

(such as effectiveness of expatriate selection and placement decisions), the potential for

self-report response bias was addressed by including a set of “unlikely virtues” survey

items (Ones, Viswesvaran & Reiss, 1996; Viswesvaran, Ones & Hough, 2001) in order to

control for socially desirable response patterns. In all, 311 self-report statements were

written for the initial pool of items, all of which were written to allow for subject

responses using a 5-point Likert format, ranging from 1=“Strongly Disagree”

2=“Disagree,” 3=“Neither Agree Nor Disagree,” 4=“Agree,” to 5=“Strongly Agree.”

Once the initial pool of items was developed, an extensive pilot study was

undertaken for the express purpose of collecting a data set sufficiently large to allow for

stable psychometric analysis of the items and the attendant facet subscales. The subjects

for the pilot study were recruited from as many professional backgrounds, ethnic groups,

and nationalities as possible. In the end, both randomly selected and convenience samples

were used to recruit the pilot study subjects, with the express purpose of targeting a

generalizable sample that would be as similar as possible in work, educational and

demographic background as the eventual cross-cultural populations on whom the final

validated version of the GCI would be used.

In the end, 2,308 subjects completed the pilot version of the GCI, with the

following self-report characteristics: 1) 8% of the subjects were under the age of 20

years, 64% were between 20 and 29 years, and 28% were 30 years and older. In response

to questions about “present work position,” 2% of the subjects self-identified as “top

level executives,” 12% as “middle management,” 16% as “entry level or supervisory

management,” 38% as “hourly/non-supervisory,” and 32% as “other” (including

students). Fifty-seven percent of the subjects self-identified as “male” and 43% self-

identified as “female.” Although subjects indicated 69 different nationalities of origin,

only 16 countries provided more than 10 unique subjects; when grouped by world

regions, North America (i.e., Canada and the U.S.) provided 56% of subjects, Asian

countries provided 26%, and Europe provided 11%, with the remaining 7% coming from

countries across Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

With a final usable sample size of 2,308 subjects, the pilot study provided more

than the recommended minimum subject-to-item ratio of 5-to-1 in order to conduct stable

psychometric analyses of Likert-scaled self-report surveys and questionnaires (Hair &

Black, 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Standard survey construction procedures and

techniques were used in evaluating the initial pool of 311 items. The overarching goal was

to refine individual items and eliminate redundant or unnecessary items from the final

version of the GCI so as to obtain the most reliable yet parsimonious subscales across the

17 GCI facets (plus the “unlikely virtues” social desirability scale). The results of these

106


scale refinement efforts along with the coefficient alpha reliabilities for each given scale are

reported in Tables 1-3 in the Appendix which follows the reference section below.

Abe, H., & Wiseman, R.L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of

intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7: 53-68.

Adler, N., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing globally competent people. Academy of

Management Executive, 6(3): 52-64.

Arthur Jr., W., & Bennett Jr., W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative

importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48: 99-

113.

Arthur Jr., W., & Bennett Jr., W. (1997). A comparative test of alternative models of

international assignee job performance. In Z. Aycan (ed,) New approaches to employee

management. Expatriate management: Theory and research vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press: 141-172.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84: 191 - 215.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26.

Bartunek, J.M., Gordon, J.R. & Weathersby, R.P. (1983). Developing 'Complicated'

Understanding in Administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 273-84.

Befus, C.P. (1988). A multilevel treatment approach for culture shock experienced by

sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(4): 381–400.

Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A., & Luk, D.M. (2005). Input-based

and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical

extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 259-281.

Bikson,T.K., Treverton, G.F., Moini, J., & Lindstrom, G. (2003). New challenges for

international leadership: Lessons from organizations with global missions. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND.

107


Bird, A. & Osland, J. (2004). Global competencies: An introduction. In Henry Lane,

Martha Maznevski, Mark Mendenhall and Jeanne McNett (eds), Handbook of global

management. Oxford: Blackwell: 57-80.

Black, J.S. (1988). Work-role transition: a study of American expatriate managers in

Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2): 274-291.

Black, J.S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of

Japanese expatriate managers. Management International Review, 30: 119-134.

Black J.S. & Gregersen, H.B. (1990). Expectations, satisfaction and intention to leave of

American expatriate managers in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

14: 485–506.

Black, J.S., & Gregersen, H.B. (1991). The other half of the picture. Antecedents of

spouse cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 461-477.

Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of

international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of

Management Review, 16(2): 291-317.

Black, J.S., Morrison, A. & Gregersen, H.B. (1999). Global explorers: The next

generation of leaders. New York: Routledge.

Black, J.S., & Stephens, G. (1989). Expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific

Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15: 529-544.

Boyacigiller, N., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Levy, O. (2004). The crucial yet illusive

global mindset. In Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (eds).

The handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing: 81-93.

Brein, M., & David, K.H. (1971). Intercultural communication and the adjustment of the

sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76: 215-230.

Brein, M., & David, K.H. (1973). Improving cross-cultural training and measurement of

cross-cultural learning (Volume 1). Denver: Center for Research and Education.

Caligiuri, P.M. (1995). Individual characteristics related to effective performance in

cross-cultural work settings (expatriate). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania

State University, University Park.

108


Caligiuri, P.M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of

expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance.

Personnel Psychology, 53: 67-88.

Caligiuri, P.M. (2004). Global leadership development through expatriate assignments

and other international experiences. Paper presented at the Academy of Management,

New Orleans, August 2004.

Caligiuri, P.M., & Day, D.V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual,

and assignment-specific performance. Group & Organization Management, 25(2): 154.

Caligiuri, P.M., Jacobs, R.R., & Farr, J.L. (2000). The Attitudinal and Behavioral

Openness Scale: Scale development and construct validation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 24(1): 27-46.

Chen, G. (1987). Dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Ph.D.

Dissertation. Ohio: Kent State University; 1987. Publication Number: AAT 8719577.

Clarke, C., & Hammer, M.R. (1995). Predictors of Japanese and American managers job

success, personal adjustment, and intercultural interaction effectiveness. Management

International Management Review, 35: 153-170.

Cort, D.A., & King, M. (1979). Some correlates of culture shock among American

tourists in Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3: 211-225.

Coyle, W. (1988). On the move: Minimizing the stress and maximizing the benefit of

relocation. Sydney: Hampden.

Cross, S. (1995). Self construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26: 673-697.

Cui, G., & Awa, N.E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative

approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(3): 311–326.

Cui, G., & Van den Berg, S. (1991). Testing the construct validity of intercultural

effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15: 227-241.

David, K.H. (1976). The use of social learning theory in preventing intercultural

adjustment problems. In P. Pedersen, W.J. Lonner, & J. Draguns (Eds.) Counseling

across cultures. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press: 123-137.

109


Deller, J. (1997). Expatriate selection: Possibilities and limitations of using personality

scales. In Z. Aycan (ed.) New approaches to employee management. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press: 93-116.

Detweiler, R.A. (1975). On inferring the intentions of a person from another culture.

Journal of Personality, 43: 591-611.

Detweiler, R.A. (1978). Culture, category width, and attributions: A model-building

approach to the reasons for cultural effect. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9:

259–284.

Detweiler, R.A. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorization process: A

conceptual analysis and behavioral outcome. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 4: 275-293.

Dinges, N.G., & Baldwin, K.D. (1996). Intercultural competence: A research

perspective. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (eds). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd

edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 106-123.

Dyal, J.A. (1984). Cross-cultural research with the locus of control construct. In H.M.

Lefcourt (Ed.) Research with the locus of control construct. San Diego: Academic Press:

209-306.

Dyal, J.A., Rybensky, L., & Sommers, M. (1988). Marital and acculturative strain

among Indo-Canadian and Euro-Canadian women. In J.W. Berry & R. Annis (Eds.)

Ethnic psychology: Research and practice with immigrants, refugees, native peoples,

ethnic groups, and sojourners. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J.L. (2002). The global challenge: Frameworks for

international human resource management. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Feldman, D.C., & Thomas, D.C. (1992). Career management issues facing expatriates.

Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2): 271-293.

Feldman, D.C., & Tompson, H.B. (1993). Expatriation, repatriation, and domestic

geographical relocation: An empirical investigation of adjustment to new job assignments.

Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3): 507-529.

Flango, V.E., & Brumbaugh, R.B. (1974). The dimesionality of the cosmopolitan-local

construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 198-210.

Gertsen, M.C. (1990). Intercultural competence and expatriates. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 3: 341–362.

110


Goldberg, A.I. (1976). The relevance of cosmopolitan/local orientations to professional

values and behavior. Sociology of Work and Occupation, 3(3): 331-356.

Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global

leadership: The next generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gong, Y. & Gan, J. (2004). A longitudinal examination of the role of goal orientation in

cross-cultural adjustment. Unpublished manuscript.

Gordon, L.V. (1967). Clinical, psychometric, and work sample approaches in the

prediction of success in Peace Corps training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2): 111-

119.

Gregersen, H.B., & Black, J.S. (1992). Antecedents to commitment to a parent company

and a foreign operation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 65-90.

Hair, A., & Black, T. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hammer, M.R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11: 65-88.

Hammer, M.R., Gudykunst, W.B., & Wiseman, R.L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural

effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2:

382-393.

Harris, J.G. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: Analysis of the character structure of

the Peace Corps volunteer. American Psychologist, 28: 232–247.

Harris, J.G. (1975). Identification of cross-cultural talent: The empirical approach of the

Peace Corps. Topics in Culture Learning, 3: 66–78.

Harrison, J.K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-

cultural adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring.


Harrison, D.A., & Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Mapping the criterion space for expatriate

success: Task- and relationship-based performance, effort and adaptation. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8): 1454-1474.

Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. (2004). Going places: Roads

more and less traveled in research on expatriate experiences. Research in Personnel and

Human Resources Management, 23: 199-247.

111


Hawes, F., & Kealey, D.J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance.


Hechanova, R., Beehr, T.A. & Christiansen, N.D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences

of employees adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 52(2): 213-236.

Herman, J., Stevens, M., & Bird, A. (2008). Tolerance for Ambiguity: A refined measure

for international management research. Unpublished manuscript.

Hudson, S., & Inkson, K. (2006). Overseas development workers: “Big Five”

personality scores. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 1(1): 5-9.

Hull, W.F. (1978). Foreign students in the United States of America: Coping behavior

within the educational environment. New York: Praeger.

Hullet, C.R., & Witte, K. (2001). Predicting intercultural adaptation and isolation: Using

the extended parallel process model to test anxiety/uncertainty management theory.


Janssens, M. (1995). Intercultural interaction: A burden on international managers?

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 155-167.

John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspective. In L. Pervin and O.P. Johns (Eds.) Handbook

of personality: Theory and research (2nd Edition). New York: Guilford.

Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: a review and discussion. Journal of

European Industrial Training, 29(2/3): 199-216.

Jordan, J., & Cartwright, S. (1998). Selecting expatriate managers: Key traits and

competencies. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19(2): 89-96.

Kealey, D.J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical

applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 387-428.

Kealey, D.J. (1994). Overseas screening and selection: A survey of current practice and

future trends. Hull, Canada: CIDA.

Kealey, D.J. (1996). The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis &

R.S. Bhagat (eds). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications; pp. 81-105.

112


Kealey, D.J., & Ruben, B.D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection: Criteria, issues

and methods. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training,

(Vol. 1, pp. 155–175). New York: Pergamon Press.

Kedia, B., & Mukherji, A. (1999). Global managers: Developing a mindset for global

competitiveness. Journal of World Business, 34(3): 230-247.

Klineberg, O., & Hull, W.F. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of

adaptation and coping. New York: Praeger.

Koester, J., & Olebe, M. (1988). The Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural

Communication Effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12: 233-

246.

Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., & Jaworski, R.A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate

performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54(1):

71-99.

Kühlmann, T.M., & Stahl, G.K. (1996). Fachkompetenz alien genügt nicht—

Interkulturelle Assessment Center unterstützen die gezielte Personalauswahl.

Personalführung Plus, 96: 22-24.

Kühlmann, T.M., & Stahl, G.K. (1998). Diagnose interkultureller Kompetenz:

Entwicklung und Evaluierung eines Assessment Centers. In C. Barmeyer & J. Bolten

(Eds.) Interkulturelle personalorganisation. Berlin: Verlag Wissenschaft & Praxis: 213-

223.

Kuo, W.H., Gray, R., & Lin, N. (1976). Locus of control and symptoms of distress

among Chinese-Americans. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 22: 176-187.

Kuo, W.H., & Tsai, V.-M. (1986). Social networking, hardiness, and immigrants’ mental

health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27: 133-149.

Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M.L., & Mendenhall, M.E. (2004). Hercules meets Buddha. In

Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (eds). The handbook of

global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing: 3-25.

Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (2004). The handbook of

global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

113


Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S. & Boyacigiller, N. (2007). What do we talk about when we

talk about global mindset: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal of

International Business Studies, 38: 231-258.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

and motivation. Psychological Review, 98: 224-253.

Martin, J.N. (1987). The relationship between perceptions of intercultural competencies and

previous sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11: 337-355.

Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M.R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication

competence: Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 13: 303-332.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J.A., Bernhard, R., & Gray, H. (2004). Unraveling the

psychological correlates of intercultural adjustment potential. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 28(3-4): 281-309.

Mendenhall, M. (2001). New perspectives on expatriate adjustment and its relationship

to global leadership development. In Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T., & Stahl, G. (eds.)

Developing global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innovations. Westport, CT:

Quorum Books: 1-16.

Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T., & Stahl, G. (2001). Developing global business leaders:

Policies, processes, and innovations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T., Stahl, G., & Osland, J. (2002). Employee development

and expatriate assignments: A review of the expatriate adjustment theory literature. In

Gannon, M. & Newman, K. (eds.) Handbook of cross-cultural management. Oxford,

U.K.: Blackwell Publishers: 155-183.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A

review. Academy of Management Review. 10(1): 39-47.

Mendenhall, M., & Osland. J.S. (2002). An overview of the extant global leadership

research. Symposium presentation at the Academy of International Business, Puerto

Rico, June 2002.

Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2008). Global

leadership: Research, practice, and development. London: Routledge.

114


Mendenhall, M., & Wiley, C. (1994). Strangers in a strange land: The relationship

between expatriate adjustment and impression management. American Behavioral

Scientist, 37(5): 605-620.

McCall, M.W. Jr. & Hollenbeck, G.P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons

of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Mischel, W. (1965). Predicting the success of Peace Corp volunteers in Nigeria. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(5): 517-520.

Mol, S.T., Born, M.P., Willemson, M.E., & Van der Molen, H. (2005). Predicting

expatriate job performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(5): 590-620.

Montagliani, A.J. (1996). Impression management and cross-cultural adaptation

measures. Dissertation. Virginia: University of Richmond. Publication Number: AAT

0665820.

Moro Bueno, C., & Tubbs, S. (2004). Identifying global leadership competencies: An

exploratory study. Journal of American Academy of Business 5(1/2): 80-87.

Mumford, S.J. (1975). Overseas adjustment as measured by a mixed standard scale.

Paper presented at the meetings of the Western Psychological Association, Sacramento,

CA.

Naumann, E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment

among expatriate managers. Group & Organization Management, 18(2): 153-187.

Navara, G.S., & James, S. (2002). Sojourner adjustment: Does missionary status affect

acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6): 695-709.99.

Nicholls, C.E., Rothstein, M.G., & Bourne, A. (2002). Predicting work attitudes: The

impact of cognitive closure and adjustment competencies. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management, 2(3): 297-320.

Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural

adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9: 247-269.

Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-

Hill.

115


Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1984). Cross-cultural person perception: A review of

cross-cultural and related literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2):

77-96.

Oguri, M., & Gudykunst, W.B. (2002). The influence of self construals and

communication styles on sojourners’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(5): 577-593.

Olebe, M., & Koester, J. (1989). Exploring the cross-cultural equivalence of The

Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness.


Ones, D.S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of

aspects of expatriate job success. In Z. Aycan (ed.) New approaches to employee

management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 63-92.

Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A.D. (1996). The role of social desirability in

personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81: 660-679.

Osland, J.S. (2008). Overview of the global leadership literature. In Mendenhall, M.,

Osland, J.S., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. Global leadership: Research,

practice and development. London: Routledge: 34-63.

Osland, J.S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M.E., & Osland, A. (2006). Developing global

leadership capabilities and global mindset: A review. In G.K. Stahl and I. Björkman

(eds.) Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham,

UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 197-222.

Osland, J.S, Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M.E. (in press). Global leadership: Progress and

challenges. In Bhagat, R.S., & Steers, R.M. (eds.) Handbook of culture, organizations,

and work. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.

Palthe, J. (2004). The relative importance of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment:

Implications for managing a global workforce. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 28(1): 37-59.

Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural

adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17: 355-79.

Pi-Ju Yang, R., Noels, K.A., Saumure, K.D. (2006). Multiple routes to cross-cultural

adaptation for international students: Mapping the paths between self-construals, English

116


language confidence, and adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

30(4): 487-506.

Pruitt, F.J. (1978). The adaptation of African students to American society.


Ratiu, I. (1983). Thinking internationally: A comparison of how international executives

learn. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13: 139-150.

Redmond, M.V., & Bunyi, J.M. (1991). The relationship of intercultural communication

competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students.


Ronen, S. (1989). Training the international assignee. In I.L. Goldsten (ed), Training and

development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 417-453.

Rosen, R., Digh, P., Singer, M. & Philips, C. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on

business leadership and national cultures. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ruben, B.D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and

contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 229-239.

Ruben, B.D., & Kealey, D.J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication

competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 3: 15-47.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and socio-cultural

adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 14: 449-464.

Selmer, J. (1999). Career issues and international adjustment of business expatriates.

Career Development International, 4(2): 77-87.

Selmer, J. (2001). Psychological barriers to adjustment and how they affect coping

strategies: Western business expatriates in China. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 12(2): 151-165.

Shaffer, M.A., Ferzandi, L.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., & Black, J.S. (2003). You

can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. BRC papers on

cross-cultural management. #200308. Business Research Center. Hong Kong Baptist

University.

117


Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., & Gilley, K.M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and

differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business

Studies, 30: 557-581.

Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., Black, J.S., & Ferzandi, L.A. (2006). You

can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 9(1): 109-125.

Sinangil, H.K., & Ones, D.S. (1997). Empirical investigations of the host country

perspective in expatriate management. In D.M. Saunders (Series Ed.) and Z. Aycan (Vol.

Ed), New approaches to employee management: Vol. 4. Expatriate management theory

and research. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Smith, M.B. (1966). Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers in

Ghana. American Psychologist, 21: 555-566.

Spreitzer, G.M., McCall, M.W., Jr., & Mahoney, J.D. (1997). Early identification of

international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1): 6-29.

Stahl, G.K. (1998). Internationaler einsatz von führungskräften. München: Oldenbourg.

Stahl, G.K. (1999). Deutsche führungskräfte im Auslandsensatz: Probleme und

problemlöseerfolg in Japan und den USA. Die Betribswirtschaft, 59: 687-703.

Stahl, G.K. (2001). Using assessment centers as tools for global leadership development:

An exploratory study. In M.E. Mendenhall, T.M. Kühlmann, & G.K. Stahl (eds).

Developing global business leaders. Westport, CT: Quorum Books: 197-210.

Stroh, L.K, Dennis, L.E., & Cramer, T.C. (1994). Predictors of expatriate adjustment.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2(2): 176-192.

Sudweeks, S., Gudykunst, W.B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1990).

Developmental themes in Japanese-North American interpersonal relationships.


Taveggia, T.C., & Gibboney, L.S.N. (2001). Cross-cultural adjustment: A test of the

Uncertainty Reduction Principle. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,

1(2): 153-171.

Tetlock, P.E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 45: 74-83.

118


Thomas, D.C. (1998). The expatriate experience: A critical review and synthesis.

Advances in International Comparative Management, 12: 237-273.

Thomas, D.C., & Lazarova, M.B. (2006). Expatriate adjustment and performance: A

critical review. In G.K. Stahl and I. Björkman (eds) Handbook of research in international

human resource management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 247-264.

Torbiörn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in the

overseas setting. New York: Wiley.

Tsang, E.W.K. (2001). Adjustment of Mainland Chinese academics and students to

Singapore. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4): 347-372.

Tucker, M.F., Bonial, R., & Lahti, K. (2004). The definition, measurement and

prediction of intercultural adjustment and job performance among corporate expatriates.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(3/4): 221-251.

Tung, R.L. (1998). American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans.

Journal of World Business, 33: 125-144.

Varner, I.I., & Palmer, T.M. (2005). Role of cultural self-knowledge in successful

expatriation. Singapore Management Review, 27(1): 1-25.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D.S., & Hough, L.M. (2001). Do impression management scales

in personality inventories predict managerial job performance ratings? International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9: 277-289.

Walton, S.J. (1992). Stress management training for overseas effectiveness. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16: 507-526.

Wang, X. (2002). Expatriate adjustment from a social network perspective: Theoretical

examination and a conceptual model. International Journal of Cross Cultural

Management, 2(3): 321-337.

Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of

intercultural training (2nd ed.): 124-147. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social

difficulty during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 16: 175-194.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993a). Acculturation and cross-cultural adaptation of British

residents in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 133: 395-397.

119


Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993b). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during

cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students at home and abroad.

International Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24: 221-249.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4): 659-677.

Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on

psychological and socio-cultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 15: 209-225.

Waxin, M.F. (2004). Expatriates’ interaction adjustment: The direct and moderator

effects of culture of origin. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1): 61-79.

Wills, S., & Barham, K. (1994). Being an international manager. European Management

Journal, 12(1): 49–58.

Yamaguchi, Y., & Wiseman, R.L. (2001). Locus of control, self construals, intercultural

effectiveness, and cross-cultural adjustment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

International Communication Association, Washington, D.C.

Yavas, U., & Bodur, M. (1999). Correlates of adjustment: A study of expatriate

managers in an emerging country. Management Decision, 37(3): 267-278.

Zimmerman, A., Holman, D., & Sparrow, P. (2003). Unraveling adjustment mechanisms:

Adjustment of German expatriates to intercultural interactions, work, and living

conditions in the People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Cross Cultural

Management, 3(1): 45-66.

120


Table 1. Factor Analysis Item Loadings for the Five Perception Management

Subscales (overall scale reliability = 0.86)

Nonjudgmentalness (reliability = 0.72)

NJ01 0.656

NJ02 0.670

NJ03 0.625

NJ04 0.604

NJ05 0.496

NJ06 0.521

NJ07 0.455

NJ08 0.489

NJ09 0.488

Inquisitiveness (reliability = 0.84)

IQ01 0.726

IQ02 0.725

IQ03 0.652

IQ04 0.648

IQ05 0.665

IQ06 0.608

IQ07 0.645

IQ08 0.583

IQ09 0.583

IQ10 0.593

Tolerance of Ambiguity (reliability = 0.73)

TA01 0.606

TA02 0.563

TA03 0.538

TA04 0.569

TA05 0.498

TA06 0.490

TA07 0.497

TA08 0.405

TA09 0.450

TA10 0.457

TA11 0.467

TA12 0.499

121


Table 1. cont.

Cosmopolitanism (reliability = 0.84)

CM01 0.823

CM02 0.735

CM03 0.775

CM04 0.611

CM05 0.704

CM06 0.709

CM07 0.584

Category Inclusiveness - Verbal (reliability = 0.72)

CI01 0.584

CI02 0.440

CI03 0.530

CI04 0.619

CI05 0.641

CI06 0.575

CI07 0.609

CI08 0.612

Category Inclusiveness - Visual (reliability = 0.89)

CI09 0.811

CI10 0.868

CI11 0.872

CI12 0.888

Note: See pages 63-64 for Table 2, and pages 65-66 for Table 3.

122


Table 2. Factor Analysis Item Loadings for the Five Relationship

Management Subscales (overall scale reliability = 0.91)

Relationship Interest (reliability = 0.80)

RI01 0.710

RI02 0.582

RI03 0.589

RI04 0.582

RI05 0.534

RI06 0.737

RI07 0.665

RI08 0.794

Interpersonal Engagement (reliability = 0.82)

IE01 0.804

IE02 0.696

IE03 0.674

IE04 0.628

IE05 0.499

IE06 0.808

IE07 0.625

IE08 0.620

Emotional Sensitivity (reliability = 0.74)

ES01 0.669

ES02 0.647

ES03 0.620

ES04 0.595

ES05 0.587

ES06 0.560

ES07 0.517

ES08 0.497

ES09 0.433

Self Awareness (reliability = 0.73)

SA01 0.633

SA02 0.627

SA03 0.605

SA04 0.552

SA05 0.583

SA06 0.549

SA07 0.525

SA08 0.510

SA09 0.505

123


Table 2. cont.

Social Flexibility (reliability = 0.72)

SF01 0.615

SF02 0.567

SF03 0.532

SF04 0.526

SF05 0.496

SF06 0.482

SF07 0.445

SF08 0.432

SF09 0.420

SF10 0.431

SF11 0.402

SF12 0.400

SF13 0.399

SF14 0.332

124


Table 3. Factor Analysis Item Loadings for the Seven Self Management

Subscales (overall scale reliability = 0.93)

Optimism (reliability = 0.74)

OP01 0.648

OP02 0.577

OP03 0.601

OP04 0.541

OP05 0.555

OP06 0.500

OP07 0.543

OP08 0.490

OP09 0.479

OP10 0.436

OP11 0.447

Self Confidence (reliability = 0.83)

SC01 0.700

SC02 0.691

SC03 0.680

SC04 0.688

SC05 0.663

SC06 0.663

SC07 0.581

SC08 0.556

SC09 0.587

SC10 0.577

Self Identity (reliability = 0.73)

SI01 0.601

SI02 0.609

SI03 0.632

SI04 0.498

SI05 0.657

SI06 0.664

SI07 0.584

SI08 0.457

125


Table 3. cont.

Emotional Resilience (reliability = 0.81)

ES01 0.703

ES02 0.698

ES03 0.697

ES04 0.708

ES05 0.596

ES06 0.608

ES07 0.583

ES08 0.525

ES09 0.538

Non-Stress Tendency (reliability = 0.81)

NS01 0.765

NS02 0.723

NS03 0.740

NS04 0.717

NS05 0.656

NS06 0.706

Stress Management (reliability = 0.74)

SM01 0.737

SM02 0.566

SM03 0.654

SM04 0.718

SM05 0.508

SM06 0.509

SM07 0.675

Interest Flexibility (reliability = 0.83)

IF01 0.652

IF02 0.675

IF03 0.607

IF04 0.614

IF05 0.633

IF06 0.610

IF07 0.598

IF08 0.614

IF09 0.596

IF10 0.535

IF11 0.538



The Kozai Group, Inc. The mission of the Kozai Group is to assist companies with global operations to develop effective human resource strategies to support their business objectives. We help clients create effective policies and practices for the selection, development, training, and reintegration of globally mobile personnel.

Formally founded in 2001 and headquartered in St. Louis, the Kozai Group is the product of over 20 years of collaboration in the area of international human resource management by its partners. Together they bring over a century of combined research and consulting experience with major U.S. and international business clients.

Who We Are The five partners of the Kozai Group include Allan Bird, Mark Mendenhall, Gary Oddou, Joyce Osland, and Michael Stevens. The partners have a combined total of 45 years living and working abroad and more than 100 years conducting intercultural research and training. They have published 15 books as well as over 200 articles and chapters, including several pioneering studies that are among the most widely cited in the areas of international management and intercultural effectiveness. Over the course of their careers they have delivered training to organizations in the private, public, and non-profit sectors on five continents.

Services We assist companies in assessing and developing the global skills and competencies of their managerial cadre through the GCI (Global Competencies Inventory), the IES (Intercultural Effectiveness Scale), and custom-designed training programs we develop based on assessment results. Our assessment inventories and training program design are based on empirical research and provide the necessary rigor in content to ensure actual development of competencies associated with global leadership, global mindset, and strategic thinking.

We also stand ready to assist companies in developing state-of-the-art expatriation management programs, including selection, training, support, and repatriation management of expatriate managers and their families.



Allan Bird, Ph.D., holds the Eiichi Shibusawa-Seigo Arai Professor of Japanese Studies in the College of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis. His Ph.D. (1988) is in Organization Studies from the University of Oregon. He received his M.A. (1983) in Comparative Culture and International Management from Sophia University in Tokyo. Allan’s research activities focus on several different areas relevant to managing in a global environment: Japanese top management team, career, and compensation issues; expatriate management; global leadership; and HRM in Japanese overseas affiliates. His work has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, the Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of International Business Studies, and numerous other academic and practitioner journals.

Allan is also the author of a book on Japanese boards of directors, Executive no Kenkyu (in Japanese). Other books include Japanese Multinationals Abroad: Individual and Organizational Learning (Oxford University Press, 1999) and The Encyclopedia of Japanese Business and Management (Routledge, 2002). He published, with Roger Dunbar and Tom Mullen, Bridging Cultures, a CD-ROM and workbook, for expatriates and their

families. Bridging Cultures won an International Gold Medal for Interactive Educational Software at the 1998 New York Film Festival. Allan has served as a consultant to Japanese and American companies as well as to the Japanese government and several trade organizations. His advice and commentary are also sought after by the media, as reflected in his appearances on business-related broadcasts at CNN, FNN, and CNBC, as well as regional television and radio in the U.S. and Japan. His comments have appeared in Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, and various regional newspapers such as the Dallas Morning News in the United States and national dailies in Japan such as the Mainichi Shimbun, Asahi Shimbun, and Japan Times.

Mark E. Mendenhall, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized scholar in the field of international human resource management. His areas of expertise are in the areas of global leadership development and assessment, and the cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates. He currently holds the Frierson Chair of Excellence in Business Leadership at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. He held the Ludwig Erhard Stiftungsprofessur Chair at the University of Bayreuth, and is a faculty member of the Europa Institut, the first MBA Program established in Germany. He is past president of the International Management Division of the Academy of Management. His most recent books are Managing Human Resources in Mergers and Acquisitions (Stanford University Press, 2005); International Assignments: An Integration of Strategy, Research, and Practice (Lawrence Erlbaum Press, 2004); and Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Innovations (Quorum Books, 2001). His book Developing People Through International Assignments (Addison-Wesley, 1999) is widely read by HR executives involved with expatriate management programs.

Mark has consulted with and conducted numerous training programs for many firms, including IBM-Asia Pacific, IBM-Japan, National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), Boeing, Monsanto, and J.C. Bamford Excavators (JCB). He has published numerous scholarly articles, some of which appear in Sloan Management Review, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Organizational Dynamics, Human Resource Management, Management International Review, and International Journal of Intercultural Relations.



Gary Oddou, Ph.D., has been teaching, researching, and consulting in the area of international human resource management for over 25 years. His research focus has been in the area of expatriate adjustment and training, repatriate reintegration and knowledge transfer, expatriate-repatriate best practices, and global leadership. He has published over 40 articles and book chapters on these topics and written or co-edited three books related to international human resource management and global leadership. He has been invited to speak on these topics at universities and at business conferences in Europe, Canada, the U.S., and Asia.

Gary has regularly taught outside the United States, including at top universities such as the National Economics University, Vietnam; Ecole de Management, Lyon, France; Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; and the University of Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. He has also been a research associate and facilitated management development experiences at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland. In addition, Gary has regularly consulted with multinational firms in the areas of expatriate and repatriate management in the United States, Japan, and in Europe.

Gary has held department chair positions at San Jose State University and Utah State University. He has developed and currently directs and teaches in the Global Business Management program at CSU San Marcos.

Joyce Osland, Ph.D., is an internationally known specialist in international management with a focus on global leadership, Latin America, and organization development. As the Lucas Endowed Professor of Global Leadership, Joyce founded the Global Leadership Advancement Center and co-founded the Global Leadership Lab in the College of Business at San Jose State University, located in California’s Silicon Valley. Her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior was earned at Case Western Reserve University. A former president of the Western Academy of Management, Joyce has won numerous awards for teaching, research, and leadership. She has been a Senior Research Fellow at the Army Research Institute since 2005.

Joyce’s research interests—global leadership development, expert cognition in global leaders, cultural sensemaking, and repatriate knowledge transfer—focus on practical ways to improve global skills and organizations. She has over 60 publications—research articles in leading academic journals like the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, and Human Resource Management as well as practitioner articles, book chapters, and cases. Her first book, The Adventure of Working Abroad:

Hero Tales from the Global Frontier (Jossey-Bass, 1995), was used in corporate training programs for expatriates. Joyce is currently working on the ninth edition of her two textbooks, The Organizational Behavior Workbook: An Experiential Approach and The Organizational Behavior Reader.

Joyce lived and worked overseas for 14 years in 7 different countries, mostly in Latin American and West Africa. She worked in the field of international development as a program manager, trainer, and consultant and also spent three years as a full-time faculty member and consultant at INCAE (The Central American Institute of Business Administration and Latin America’s top business school) in Costa Rica. Joyce is a visiting professor in graduate programs all over the world.

Due to her international reputation in experiential learning, Joyce has designed and taught hundreds of executive education workshops. She has been training executives and trainers in global leadership for a decade. Consulting clients during the last 20 years include General Motors, Standard Fruit, the World Intellectual Property Organization (United Nations), Costa Rica’s Ministry of Tourism, Bestfoods, and Spansion.



Michael J. Stevens, Ph.D., is a management professor at Weber State University. He also consults widely with organizations in the business and not-for-profit sectors. His primary areas of expertise include improving organizational performance through empowerment and teamwork, individual assessment and selection (especially for teams and cross-cultural assignments), executive coaching and leadership development, the impact of leadership on organizational culture and employee performance, and interpersonal effectiveness in the workplace.

He received his Ph.D. from the Krannert School of Management at Purdue University, where he won the Ralph G. Alexander Best Dissertation Award from the Academy of Management. He has published book chapters and research articles in highly respected management journals and regularly gives presentations at professional conferences and seminars.

Michael is a widely cited researcher who has conducted pioneering work in the area of measuring a person's interpersonal aptitude for working successfully in teams and is the

lead author of the commercially distributed "Teamwork-KSA" employment test. He is currently active in several professional societies and has held management and board positions in industry, government, consulting, and not-for-profit organizations.

Senior Representative

Norihito Furuya, Ph.D., is Senior Representative of the Kozai Group in Japan. He is also CEO of IGB Network Co., Ltd (Global Organization and Human Capital Development Institute). IGB Network specializes in global training and coaching for managers, global HR assessment, global HR capital solutions, HRM system and organizational development, and research and development. He has lived and worked in the United States, the Middle East, and the UK, totaling nine years of overseas working experience as an expatriate manager for Japan Airlines. He has over 30 years experience working internationally and has extensive experience in conducting training and consultation services in the arena of global human resource management for 35 of the leading firms in Japan.

Twelve years ago, he initiated the International Training Division of JAL Academy, a collaborative venture with JAL, BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), and Thunderbird (AGISM)). He holds a Bachelor’s degree of Social Science from Waseda University and an MBA from Aoyama Gakuin University. He received his Ph.D from Tsukuba University.



Books Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development. Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2008). London: Routledge.

Global leadership is an emerging field that seeks to understand and explain the impact of globalization processes on leadership. This is the first book to review the theoretical, empirical, and conceptual literature on this important subject and to analyze what this body of knowledge means for managers who lead in a global business context.

Accessible to both student and practitioner alike, it explains how changes in the global context have created a demand for a distinctive set of qualities for effective leaders. This volume defines the skill set that global organizations are now looking for, highlighting the need to establish communities across diverse groups of stakeholders and initiate change as key aspects of global leadership. It also presents a critical analysis of the training and development of global leaders of the future.

Global Leadership provides an important overview of a key emerging area within business and management. It is essential reading for students of leadership, organizational theory, strategic management, human resource management, and for anyone working and managing in the global arena.

Readings and Cases in International Human Resource Management. 4th ed. Mendenhall, M.E., Oddou, G., & Stahl, G.K. (2007). London: Routledge. This book addresses topics in human resource management from an international, cross-cultural perspective. The collection of cases and readings has been carefully selected from prominent authors and researchers to challenge students and help them fully explore human resource issues in a global context.

入門ビジネス・リーダーシップ [An Introduction to Business Leadership]. Higano, M., & Bird, A. (Eds.). (2007). Tokyo: Nippon Hyoronsha.

In February 2007, Rikkyo University and the University of Missouri-St. Louis jointly sponsored “Leadership in the 21st Century,” an international workshop and symposium, hosted by Rikkyo's Institute for Leadership Studies. This volume is a compilation of research and commentary presented at that event. Also included are additional chapters addressing several of the major themes of the symposium. Co-edited by Allan Bird, other Kozai Group contributors to the volume include Mark Mendenhall, Gary Oddou, and Norihito Furuya.

Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Culture and Human Resources. Stahl, G.K., & Mendenhall, M.E. (2005). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), special emphasis is usually placed on the strategic and financial goals of the deal, while the psychological, cultural, and human resource implications do not receive as much attention. This book examines the dynamics of the sociocultural processes inherent in M&A and “fleshes out” their implications for postmerger integration management.

The book’s contributors come from a variety of subdisciplines within the field of management and thus provide new insights into the managerial, social, and cultural processes inherent in M&A. Executives with extensive experience managing M&A have offered commentaries at the end of the chapters, providing a “real-world” perspective to empirical and theoretical insights.

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management: International Management (Volume 6). McNett, J. Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M., & O’Connell, J. (2005). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

This revised edition of The Blackwell Encyclopedia of International Management provides clear, up-to-the-minute definitions and explanations of the key concepts in the fast-changing field of international management. It covers recent developments arising from globalization, the Internet, e-commerce, and meta-markets. It also includes information on new International Standards, together with the impact of the European Union and the new geo-political areas of the Russian Federation and China.



Global Leaders, International Assignments: An Integration of Research & Practice. Stroh, L., Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M.E., & Gregersen, H. (2005). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This volume looks at such critical aspects of the assignment process as the selection process, the training required, factors that affect adjustment, performance, and commitment, and how to retain and capitalize on the international experience once employees return home.

It is written for human resource managers and executives whose focus includes the global economy and the strategic role of people in achieving international competitiveness. It can be used as a textbook for courses in international human resource management.

The importance of international human resource management cannot be overemphasized in our world of growing “global” markets. It is extremely important to develop globally competent leaders and managers. Authored by top researchers in this field, this book will provide a practical guide to help managers and researchers who are involved in international assignments.

The Handbook of Global Management: A Guide to Managing Complexity. Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (2004). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

This book provides an overview of current approaches and research in the field of international organizations with a focus on implementation issues in a globalized context. It was written by a team of recognized leaders in the field, associated with the growing and influential International Organizations Network (ION). The book covers topical issues such as managing virtual teams and globalization and makes a cohesive statement about the field of international organizations. It offers a solid contribution to closing the gap between researchers and practitioners.

Japanese Firms in Transition: Responding to the Globalization Challenge. Advances in International Management. Roehl, T., & Bird, A. (Eds.). (2004). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Globalizing People Through International Assignments (Japanese reprint) Black, J.S., Gregersen, H., Mendenhall, M., & Stroh, L. (2002). Tokyo: Hakuto Shobo Publishers.

Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Innovations.

Mendenhall, M., Kuhlmann, T., & Stahl, G. (2001). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

The widening gap between the requirements of multinational organizations and the strategic and managerial abilities of their leaders, whose core experiences often predated the globalization of business, has created the need for this book. Editors Mark E. Mendenhall, Torsten M. Kuhlmann, and Gunter K. Stahl have organized the results of their research and that of their colleagues in the fields of leadership development, international management, and organizational psychology for the benefit of scholars and practitioners alike. After surveying current practices to bring the reader up to speed on global leadership development as pursued by the United States, Germany, Japan, and with regard to women in leadership positions, the book's focus shifts to a discussion of effective organizational processes. In the third and final section, contributors analyze the research that has been done on extending human resource management functional practices, from selection instrumentation, the use of assessment centers, multinational work groups, cross-cultural training programs, and repatriation policies, to global leadership development.

Encyclopedia of Japanese Business and Management. Bird, A. (Ed.). (2001). New York: Routledge.

The Encyclopedia of Japanese Business and Management is the definitive reference source for the exploration of Japanese business and management. Reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of this field, the Encyclopedia consolidates and contextualizes the leading research and knowledge about the Japanese business system and Japanese management thought and practice. It will be welcomed by scholar and student alike as an essential resource for teaching, an invaluable companion to independent study, and a solid starting point for wider exploration.

“This Encyclopedia is accessible and readable by both specialists and non-specialists, and is recommended for business



people and students.” Choice. June 2002.

“A well produced and authoritative reference work, which will make a useful addition to all academic and reference collections.” Reference Reviews.

Cases in International Organizational Behavior.

Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1999). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Drawing on a diverse collection of examples from major organizations around the world, Cases in International Organizational Behavior examines the complexity of managing people across borders. The unique "multi-functional" nature of the case selected is designed to focus attention on the decision-making processes involved in international management.

The cases deal with issues such as conflict arising through cross-cultural interaction; the differing worldwide perception and value of business ethics; the importance of understanding local organizational designs; and how appropriate leadership, motivation, and communication are key to business success. Not only is Cases in International Organizational Behavior an ideal supplement to organizational behavior and international management courses, it also offers invaluable insights to practitioners who need to excel in the workplace.

Managing Internationally: A Personal Journey. Oddou, G., & Derr, C.B. (1999). Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

Japanese Multinationals Abroad: Individual and Organizational Learning. Beechler, S., & Bird, A. (Eds.). (1999). New York: Oxford University Press.

Globalizing People Through International Assignments. Black, J.S., Gregersen, H., Mendenhall, M., & Stroh, L. (1998). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

The book offers a systematic guide for constructing effective international assignment systems that will enable companies to achieve critical competitive results. It brings together best practices and solid science in an effort to improve the results of international assignments for organizations and individuals.

Global Management. Mendenhall, M., Punnett, B.J., & Ricks, D. (1995). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

"International business may seem to be a recent development, but business has been international for a long time. . ."

Documents

Global Competencies Inventory - RainDrop Laboratories€¦ · • Understand why the GCI is a credible instrument and be able to communicate this to others. • Understand the different