measuring public manager cultural competence: the

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy

Volume 21 | Number 1 Article 3

June 2015

Measuring Public Manager Cultural Competence:The Influence of Public Service ValuesThomas LongoriaTexas State University

Nandhini RangarajanTexas State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp

Part of the Political Science Commons, Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public AdministrationCommons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Public Management & Social Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University. For moreinformation, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationLongoria, Thomas and Rangarajan, Nandhini (2015) "Measuring Public Manager Cultural Competence: The Influence of PublicService Values," Journal of Public Management & Social Policy: Vol. 21 : No. 1 , Article 3.Available at: http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol21/iss1/3

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol21?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol21/iss1?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol21/iss1/3?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/386?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages




http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol21/iss1/3?utm_source=digitalscholarship.tsu.edu%2Fjpmsp%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

Longoria and Rangarajan Measuring Public Manager Cultural Competence: The Influence of Public Service Values

- 24 -

P

S

Measuring Public Manager Cultural Competence:

The Influence of Public Service Values

Thomas Longoria

Texas State University

Nandhini Rangarajan

Texas State University

This study develops a public manager cultural competence instrument. The proposed

instrument includes items from existing cultural competence instruments from professional

fields (e.g., Nursing, Social Work, and Medicine) and new items developed specifically for

measuring public manager cultural competence. We find that self-reported bilingual

respondents have higher cross-cultural competence scores on three dimensions (attitudes,

skills, knowledge). Minority respondents have higher cross-cultural competence scores on

two dimensions (skills, and behavior). Gender and international travel experience do not

result in statistically significant differences. Implications for the promotion of cultural

competencies in graduate education settings and in public sector organizations are

considered and recommendations are made.

ublic administrators are increasingly expected to be mindful of changing demographics

and the influence of cultural elements as they make decisions, respond to issues and

implement policy. Public administrators encounter issues entwined with systems of

collectively held values (e.g. immigrant culture, youth culture, corporate culture) on a regular

basis. In this regard, cultural competence is essential because it plays a vital role in ensuring

effective policy responses to situations with cultural dimensions (Rice 2007). Before public

personnel administrators can develop effective programs and strategies to enhance individual

cultural competence, we need to better understand the measurement of cultural competence

of public employees.

Given the importance of understanding culture for effective service delivery and

public policy, cultural competence has been conceptualized for various levels of analysis and

for various domains (Cross et al. 1989; Isaacs and Benjamin 1991; Davis 1997; Cox and Beale

1997; Brach and Fraser 2000; Sue 2001; Ridley, Baker, and Hill 2001; Hurdle 2002;

Betancourt, Green, and Carrillo 2003; Farr et al. 2005; Rice 2007). Culturally competent

public sector organizations, for example, acknowledge “the importance of cultural assessment

of cross cultural relations, vigilance toward the dynamics that result from cultural differences,

expansion of cultural knowledge, and adoption of services to meet culturally unique needs”

(Betancourt, Green, and Carrillo 2003, 118; see also Rice 2007, 2008). Culturally competent

public sector organizations use a repertoire of professional practices, policies, tools, systems,

structures and standards for this purpose. Public sector organizations are also more likely to

1

Longoria and Rangarajan: Measuring Public Manager Cultural Competence: The Influence of Pu

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Spring 2015

- 25 -

be culturally competent if the individuals who make and implement policies and programs are

themselves culturally competent. Thus, at the individual level of analysis, “cultural

competence” refers to one’s ability to appropriately harness cultural knowledge, awareness,

skills, attitudes, behaviors, values, and experiences in crafting effective responses to address

culturally unique needs. Diversity scholars also emphasize the importance of understanding

the connection between management of diversity and cultural competence (Pitts and Wise

2010).

Given the significance of cultural competence in public administration, it is not

surprising that cultural competence has been examined from theoretical (Rice 2007, 2008),

practical (Rice 2007, 2008; Hewins-Maroney and Williams 2007; Johnson and Borrego 2009)

and pedagogical perspectives (Bernotavicz 1997; Weisinger 2001; White 2004; Brintnall

2008;Wyatt-Nichol and Antwi-Bosiako 2008; Carrizales 2010; Norman-Major 2012; Rivera,

Johnson, and Ward 2010). Surprisingly, there has been little attention to measurement of

public administrator cultural competence (PACC) at the individual level. While other fields

such as nursing (Campinha-Bacote 1999; Schim et al. 2003; Doorenbos et al. 2005), medicine

(Gozu et al. 2007) and social work (Boyle and Springer 2001) have developed validated

cultural competence instruments, there is no such instrument to measure PACC. A keyword

search of journal articles for the terms “public administration” “survey” “cultural

competence” yielded no results.

The main purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature. We aim to

accomplish this purpose by, first, setting the theoretical context for the development of an

instrument by reviewing different cultural competence models. Second, we describe our

strategy for the development of our multi-dimensional PACC instrument and discuss the

sources for the items selected for consideration as part of a PACC instrument. Third, we

provide details about our methods of data collection and analysis. After we present the results,

we conclude with a discussion of the applicability of this instrument in the field of public

administration and its implications for public administration education and research.

THEORY

Extant research on cultural competence emphasizes its multi-dimensional nature.

The multi-dimensional nature of this construct presents considerable challenges related to its

operationalization and measurement. Doorenbos et al. (2005) use the metaphor of a jigsaw

puzzle to illustrate how different elements come together to make a cohesive whole called

cultural competence. The different elements or parts identified in the literature include:

“cultural attitude,” “cultural awareness,” “cultural beliefs,” “cultural behavior,” “cultural

desire,” “cultural experience,” “cultural sensitivity,” “cultural skills” and “cultural

knowledge” (see for example, Campinha-Bacote 1999; Sue 2001; Johnson, Lenartowicz and

Apud 2006; Gozu et al. 2007; Rice and Matthews 2012). Sue (2001) in the context of

counseling psychology, and Purnell (2002, 195) in the context of transcultural nursing,

highlight the “nested” nature of personal, family, community, group, and societal cultural

2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1 [2015], Art. 3

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol21/iss1/3


- 26 -

competence. The “nested” aspect of cultural competence refers to the idea that these cultural

domains do not exist in isolation but are related to and affected by each other.

Some models of cultural competence assume that cultural competence is an inherent

trait and other models assume that cultural competence is a learned behavior (Ridley, Baler,

and Hill 2001, 828). Given our purpose in this paper, we clearly assume that cultural

competence can be instilled and developed. In this regard, Cross et al. (1989, v) emphasize

the developmental nature of cultural competence and propose negative-positive continuum of

cultural competence that ranges from cultural destructiveness to cultural proficiency. Purnell

(2002) views cultural competence on a continuum where individuals can be unconsciously

incompetent, consciously incompetent, consciously competent and unconsciously competent.

Making further sense of cultural competence is facilitated by use of a conceptual

model that organizes concepts into a framework. Deardorff’s (2006) model (summarized in

Figure 1) proposes that an individual’s culture-related attitudes such as openness to cultural

learning, curiosity and respect lead them to acquire culture-related knowledge and skills. In

theory, this acquisition of knowledge and skills will allow them to engage in culturally

competent behaviors such as being adaptive and flexible in cross-cultural situations. These

behaviors can be leveraged to result in culturally competent outcomes for the organization.

This process-oriented model focuses on how individual-level attitudes, knowledge, skills, and

behaviors translate into organizational strengths and result in positive outcomes such as

effectiveness and responsiveness (Deardorff 2006). This model suggests that investing in

cultural competence training for public organizations and addressing cultural competence in

MPA programs is a prudent choice that will produce socially beneficial outcomes.

Figure 1: Cultural Competence Model (Adapted from Deardorff 2006)

3




- 27 -

Based on our review of the literature from other fields, there are four common

individual-level dimensions of cultural competence (attitudes, knowledge, skills, and

behavior) (e.g. Deardorff 2006; Schim et al. 2003; Doorenbos et al. 2005; Gozu et al. 2007)

and these four dimensions logically lead to culturally relevant outcomes at the organizational

level. In the context of public administration, Rice and Matthews (2012) have also

emphasized the importance of knowledge, skills and awareness as essential components of

cultural competence for public managers. However, their work is conceptual in nature and

does not operationalize these dimensions as has been done in other fields. In addition, Rice

and Matthews (2012) do not discuss culturally competent behaviors as a dimension of cultural

Requisite

Attitudes:

- Respect (valuing

other cultures,

cultural diversity)

- Openness (to

intercultural

learning and to

people from other

cultures,

withholding

judgment)

- Curiosity and

discovery

(tolerating

ambiguity and

uncertainty)

Knowledge &

Comprehension:

- Cultural self-

awareness;

- Deep

understanding and

knowledge of

culture (including

contexts, role and

impact of culture

& others’ world

views);

- Culture-specific Skills:

- To listen,

observe, and

interpret,

communicate

- To analyze,

evaluate, and

relate

DESIRED

INTERNAL

OUTCOME:

Informed frame of

reference/filter

shift:

- Adaptability (to

different

communication

styles & behaviors;

adjustment to new

cultural

environments);

- Flexibility

(selecting and using

appropriate

communication

styles and behaviors;

cognitive

flexibility);

- Ethnorelative

view;

- Empathy

DESIRED

EXTERNAL

OUTCOME:

- Behaving and

communicating

effectively and

appropriately

(based on one’s

intercultural

knowledge, skills,

and attitudes) to

achieve one’s

goals to some

degree

4




- 28 -

competence.

It is not appropriate to take existing instruments from other fields and simply use

these questions to measure cultural competence among public managers. One reason for this

is that most of the existing cultural competence surveys in other fields use items written to be

more applicable to service providers rather than public managers. However, while many

public managers do not have direct contact with culturally diverse clients on a daily basis they

must still be culturally competent in their development of policies and programs. In addition,

given that the purpose of a cultural competence instrument for public administrators is to

improve public management education and training, the Network of Schools of Public Policy,

Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) “universal required competencies” for students are

integrated into the instrument (NASPAA 2009). These standards are discussed in more detail

below.

In summary, our approach to construction of a PACC instrument is to select items from

the literature to measure the four commonly found dimensions (cultural attitudes; cultural

knowledge; cultural skills; cultural behavior) and modify the items in ways that are more

relevant to the actions of a public manager when necessary. As we selected and developed

items, we used the following conceptual definitions:

(1) Cultural Attitudes are defined as personal dispositions or orientations

about cultural aspects as they relate to public service

(2) Cultural Knowledge is defined as the extent that information about

different cultures in the jurisdiction where a public manager serves has been

sought and retained

(3) Cultural Skill is defined as the ability to collect relevant cultural data

and develop programs that accurately utilize this information

(4) Cultural Behavior is defined as those behaviors that increase and refine

one’s cultural sensitivity such as seeking out information, openness, and

adaptability.

Six items were included for each of the four dimensions for a total of 24 items.

Eighteen items were taken entirely or in part from existing instruments identified by Gozu et

al. (2007) in a review essay on the measurement of cultural competence. The remaining six

items are original and developed by the authors of this study. Five of the items include

wording that reflects the NASPAA competencies. NASPAA proposes five “universal required

competencies” that are fundamental to the practice of public administration (NASPAA 2009)

and that form the basis of a Master of Public Administration (MPA) program’s curriculum.

These standards include the ability: (1) to lead and manage in public governance; (2) to

participate in and contribute to the policy process; (3) to analyze, synthesize, think critically,

solve problems, and make decisions; (4) to articulate and apply a public service perspective;

(5) to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and

citizenry (NASPAA 2009).

In addition, each of the items was written in such a way that the response categories

used the same seven point Likert type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree and three

5




- 29 -

of the items were reverse coded.

DATA AND METHOD

The 24-item survey was distributed to MPA students at a large comprehensive Texas

university during regular classroom meetings. The total student population of the university

is 34,000 and there are approximately 200 MPA part and full-time students currently enrolled

in the program. The full 24-item PACC survey was distributed in two phases. The first phase

allowed us to understand, through factor analysis, whether item loadings mirrored results from

previous studies that formed the basis of this study. Then based on what we learned, we

developed and distributed a modified version of the survey. A total of 122 completed the first

version and 66 completed the second version of the survey. We do not claim that this sample

is generalizable either to students in other MPA programs or to public managers generally.

Rather, we present these findings as an exploratory analysis to develop instruments prior to

future analysis with more representative samples.

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the respondents that completed the first and

second versions of the survey. The first and second samples do differ in a number of ways.

For example, the second sample has a higher percentage of women (55 percent compared to

50 percent) and Hispanics (42 percent versus 27 percent). There were more self-reports of bi-

lingual ability in the second sample (55 percent) compared to the first sample (44 percent).

Eighty-five percent of Hispanic respondents indicated that they were bilingual, compared to

71 percent of Asian Americans, 35 percent of African Americans, and 25 percent of white

respondents. The vast majority of students reported at least some international travel

experience in both samples (88 percent and 77 percent). Overall, 75 percent of the respondents

are in-service students that have full-time public sector experience (72 percent of the first

sample and 79 percent of the second sample).

The MPA program from which the samples are drawn was, in 2012, 49 percent

female and 41 percent non-white indicating that the sample is representative in terms of

gender and slightly over-represented in terms of students who are racial or ethnic minorities.

Because the purpose of this study is to examine these differences and not to generalize to

others, these differences in the sample characteristics are presented for informational

purposes. There are sufficient numbers of respondents in the first and second surveys for

conducting the relevant statistical analyses.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

First Sample Second Sample

6




- 30 -

Variable Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Gender

Male 59 50 29 46

Female 58 50 36 55

Ethnicity

White 65 56 30 46

Latino 32 27 27 42

African American 11 9 6 9

Asian 5 4 2 3

Native American 4 3 0 0

Language

Monolingual 66 56 29 45

Bilingual 51 44 36 55

Travel Outside US

No 14 12 15 23

Yes 103 88 50 77

Full-time Public

Managers

No

Yes

Number of Cases

26

88

117

23

77

100

9

52

65

15

85

100

Because we used many questions from established survey instruments and follow

the approach that there are four different dimensions of cultural competence, we conducted

confirmatory factor analysis and specified that four factors should be extracted with

VARIMAX rotation to facilitate interpretation.

FINDINGS

The results of the factor analysis on the first version of the survey distributed to the

first sample of students with all 24 items are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, the four

dimensions produce results that are different from the factor loadings suggested from findings

in other professional fields. Cross cultural knowledge and skill load on the same dimension

rather on separate dimensions. This finding suggests that these may be multiple measures of

the same underlying construct entered into the factor analysis. Four attitude items load on the

same dimension and four behavior items also load on the same dimension.

Table 2: Factor Structure Matrix for Varimax Rotated Factor Solution: First Version

7




- 31 -

No Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor

3

Factor

4

1-

S

I can analyze data in ways that

enhance my understanding of the

relationship between culture, public

policy, and public service delivery

.773 .047 137

.058

2-

S

I can lead and manage in the context

of cultural diversity

.715 .034 .124

.022

3-

S

I can define culture and list various

factors that influence culture

.674 -.087 .106

.079

4-

K

I know how to communicate how

and why culture matters .721 .320 -.045

.058

5-

K

I understand how my own cultural

background influences my

interaction with people of different

cultures

.649 .029 .010

.081

6-

K

I understand the cultural aspects of

interpersonal communication .562 .310 -.012 .268

7-

K

I understand the influence of a

client's culture on public service

delivery

.569 .362 -.007

.325

8-

S

I can describe the cultural practices

of different ethnic and racial groups .650 -.121 .388

.043

9-

S

I can incorporate culturally relevant

information into policy analysis .541 .131 .024

.561

10-

S

I know how to ask others if there are

culturally relevant dimensions to

their needs

.658 .137 .054

.090

11-

K

I can communicate well with

culturally diverse populations .629 .119 .152

.464

12-

K

I can describe the racial and ethnic

composition of the city where I

currently reside

.589 .065 .134

.145

13-

B

I feel uncomfortable interacting with

people whose cultural background is

different from my own (reverse

coded)

.058 -.102 .361

.608

14-

B

I have regular social interactions

with people of different ethnic or

racial groups outside of the

classroom or work

.391 -.069 .526

.458

15-

B

I seek out books, articles, movies and

other media on cultural dimensions

of public policy and public service

provision

.287 .246 .716

.042

8




- 32 -

16-

B

I use a variety of sources to learn

about the cultural heritage of other

people

.208 -.020 .746 .029

17-

B

I learn from others about different

cultural heritages

.087 .042 .709

.011

18-

B

I avoid using generalizations to

stereotype people

.082 .309 .436

.159

19-

A

I feel unsafe within communities of

color (reverse coded)

.012 .020 -.181

.574

20-

A

When people immigrate to the US,

they should learn enough English to

manage basic daily transactions on

their own (reverse coded)

.119 -.140 -.394

.043

21-

A

Public administrators need to be

aware of different cultures that exist

within their communities

.048 .842 .043

.106

22-

A

Public administrators have a

responsibility to learn about different

groups of people that make up

society

.200 .814 .134

.013

23-

A

I am open to feedback about how I

relate to people of different cultures

.237 .661 .041

.152

24-

A

Access to public services is not a

privilege but a right, regardless of

one's social or political status

-.070 .532 .186

.

.005

It is of note that two of the items intended to measure attitudes and two of the items

intended to measure behavior either do not load along any dimension or load on a separate

dimension. These items (shaded in Table 2) have the similar characteristic in that they reject

treating people who are different from one’s self (the “other”) with suspicion. Indeed, to treat

people that the public manager is charged to “serve” as “the other” directly contradicts public

service values. These items might be very useful for other fields to identify behaviors and

attitudes that might impede the client-provider relationship. Based on this insight, we drop

these items and perform factor analysis on the remaining items using the second sample to

refine the PACC survey.

Table 3 reports the results of the factor analysis for the second version of the survey

distributed to the second sample of students with the four incongruent items omitted. Again,

we conduct factor analysis specifying a four-factor solution and use VARIMAX rotation. The

first factor suggests a "cross cultural attitudes" dimension. Three of the four items that load

on that dimension load as cross cultural attitudes in the literature (Items 21, 22, and 23). In

addition, Item 5 (“I understand how my own cultural background influences my interaction

with people of different cultures”) loads as a cross-cultural attitude rather than cross-cultural

knowledge. This finding makes intuitive sense. From the perspective of the public manager,

9




- 33 -

self-awareness and recognizing one’s own biases are seen as a matter of having an attitude

that promotes effective leadership and service to others. The servant leadership view

(Greenleaf 1991) for example, puts others first by making sure other people's needs are being

served.

All six of the cross-cultural skills items now load along a single dimension and,

accordingly, Factor 2 is labeled as “cross-cultural skills.” Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 are viewed

as cross-cultural skills in the literature from other fields. Recall that our approach included

verbatim items from the literature as well as modified questions. This approach did not

undermine the integrity of the index suggesting that skills are skills regardless of the

perspective as a direct service provider or a public manager.

The four remaining behavior items (Items 14, 15, 16, and 17) load on the same

dimension, which suggests Factor 3, a “cross-cultural behavior” dimension. The four cross-

cultural behavior items load on a single dimension along with one cross-cultural attitude item

(Item 24) that logically aligns with behavior items when seen from the perspective of a public

manager. Specifically, “access to public services is not a privilege, but a right, regardless of

one’s social or political status” is perhaps understood not in the abstract but, rather, how they

expect services to be provided in practice.

Three items load together in what might be considered cross-cultural knowledge

(Items 6, 7, and 12) including understanding the influence of culture on service delivery,

describing the racial and ethnic composition of the city, and understanding cultural aspects of

communication. The fourth factor is, accordingly termed “cross-cultural knowledge.”

Table 3: Factor Structure Matrix for Varimax Rotated Factor Solution: Second

Version

No Item Attitudes Skill Behavior Knowledge

1-

S

I can analyze data in

ways that enhance my

understanding of the

relationship between

culture, public policy,

and public service

delivery

.166 .502 .490 -.210

2-

S

I can lead and manage in

the context of cultural

diversity

.292 .678 .070 .093

3-

S

I can define culture and

list various factors that

influence culture

.334 .599 .174 .102

4-

K

I know how to

communicate how and

why culture matters

.412 .458 .490 -.210

5-

K

I understand how my

own cultural background .771 .345 -.005 -.043

10




- 34 -

influences my interaction

with people of different

cultures

6-

K

I understand the cultural

aspects of interpersonal

communication

.359 .468 .077 .500

7-

K

I understand the

influence of a client's

culture on public service

delivery

.213 .261 .277 .684

8-

S

I can describe the

cultural practices of

different ethnic and

racial groups

.202 .732 .098 .220

9-

S

I can incorporate

culturally relevant

information into policy

analysis

.042 .584 .335 -.142

10-

S

I know how to ask others

if there are culturally

relevant dimensions to

their needs

-.016 .711 .346 -.013

11-

K

I can communicate well

with culturally diverse

populations

.493 .448 .037 .082

12-

K

I can describe the racial

and ethnic composition

of the city where I

currently reside

.324 .277 .250 .648

13-

B

I feel uncomfortable

interacting with people

whose cultural

background is different

from my own (reverse

coded)

14-

B

I have regular social

interactions with people

of different ethnic or

racial groups outside of

the classroom or work

.077 .215 .603 -.036

15-

B

I seek out books, articles,

movies and other media

on cultural dimensions of

public policy and public

service provision

-.101 .228 .672 .390

16- I use a variety of sources .093 .236 .791 .135

11




- 35 -

B to learn about the

cultural heritage of other

people

17-

B

I learn from others about

different cultural

heritages

.341 .347 .746 -.046

18-

B

I avoid using

generalizations to

stereotype people

19-

A

I feel unsafe within

communities of color

(reverse coded)

20-

A

When people immigrate

to the US, they should

learn enough English to

manage basic daily

transactions on their own

(reverse coded)

21-

A

Public administrators

need to be aware of

different cultures that

exist within their

communities

.896 .116 .228 -.005

22-

A

Public administrators

have a responsibility to

learn about different

groups of people that

make up society

.842 .111 .296 .051

23-

A

I am open to feedback

about how I relate to

people of different

cultures

.870 .132 .118 .022

24-

A

Access to public services

is not a privilege but a

right, regardless of one's

social or political status

.287 -.121 .725 -.013

The more items the more potentially reliable the index. In the case of cross, cultural

knowledge, only three items load on the same dimension. However, for the purposes of this

study, we perform reliability analysis on all four factors. Cronbach’s alpha determines the

internal consistency of survey items and if the items are multiple measures of the same

underlying construct. Computation of Cronbach’s alpha should be performed prior to creating

any summary indexes and a score greater than .7 is widely accepted as the point where the

index can be considered reliable.

12




- 36 -

Three of the four indexes have Cronbach’s alphas higher than .7 indicating the items

are multiple measures of the same underlying construct including cross-cultural attitudes

(Cronbach’s alpha = .867), cross-cultural skills (Cronbach’s alpha = .815), and cross cultural

behavior (Cronbach’s alpha = .785). Items that load on the same dimension of cross-cultural

knowledge in the factor analysis are not reliable multiple measures of the same underlying

construct (Cronbach’s alpha = .273).

In order to determine if these items can be turned into a useful index for the purposes

of future research, we examine differences in mean index scores. We summed the items for

each of the four dimensions, but of course noting that cross-cultural knowledge was not

reliable. The cultural attitude index has 5 items with a potential range of 5 to 35, where higher

values indicate more agreement with the different items. The mean cross cultural attitude

index is 31.6 (Std. Dev. = 4.45; range 5 to 35). The cross-cultural skill index has 6 items with

a potential range of 6 to 42, where higher values indicate more agreement with the different

items. The mean cross cultural skill index is 30.98 (Std. Dev. = 5.69; range 13 to 42). The

cross-cultural behavior index has 5 items with a potential range of 5 to 35, where higher values

indicate more agreement with the different items. The mean cross cultural behavior index is

27.49 (Std. Dev. 5.86; range 5 to 35). The cultural knowledge index has 3 items with a

potential range of 3 to 21, where higher values indicate more agreement with the different

items. The mean cross cultural knowledge index is 16.43 (Std. Dev. 2.56; range 6 to 21).

If we find expected statistically significant mean differences then this might indicate

some degree of validity. For example, we would expect that respondents with international

travel experience and second language ability would score higher on the indexes. In addition,

we expect that there will be racial and gender differences in index scores. Table 4 reports the

mean differences for different respondent characteristics. Self-reported bilingual respondents

have higher cross-cultural competence means on three dimensions (attitudes, skills,

knowledge) and these differences are statistically significant. Not surprisingly, minority

respondents have statistically significant higher cross-cultural competence means on two

dimensions (skills, and behavior). Gender and international travel experience do not result in

statistically significant differences. We explore the implications of these findings in the next

section

Table 4: Comparison of Means Female Male Bi-

Lingual

Mono-

Lingual

Travel No

Travel

Minority White

Attitudes 31.9 31.3 32.5 30.5+ 32.0 30.6 31.9 31.3

Skill 30.8 31.3 32.2 29.4* 31.3 31.1 32.5 29.2*

Behavior 27.5 27.5 28.2 26.6 27.7 26.9 28.9 25.7*

Knowledge 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.8+ 16.5 16.1 16.7 16.1

+ t = <.10; * t= <.05

DISCUSSION

This study represents a step toward development of a public administration cultural

competence survey instrument. We do not claim that this is the final word on the development

13




- 37 -

of a cultural competence instrument for public administration. The eventual development of

a valid and agreed upon cultural competence instrument is needed because an agreed upon

measure will promote more research and build knowledge through its application in different

contexts and with different populations. The major contribution of this study, in this regard,

is to indicate to future scholars that it may not be necessary to include cross cultural attitude

and behavior items that go against public service values. Because we developed an instrument

by first consulting other professional fields, this study helps us better understand cultural

competence and how it may be different for public administrators.

It is important to note that there are no benchmarks of what constitutes an “acceptable

level of cultural competence” and this study does not purport that this is a useful line of

inquiry. However, we do suggest that paying attention to this important dimension of public

service and public policymaking in ways consistent with other fields that have established

cultural competence as an important aspect of effective service delivery is a step in the right

direction for more effective teaching and assessment of public sector employees.

Innovative pedagogical techniques that encourage inclusive interaction in diverse

classrooms can help students look beyond the categories of race and gender and focus on the

politics of diversity and thereby enhance cultural competence (Rivera, Baker and Hill 2010).

We fully endorse the development of innovative pedagogical techniques and methods in the

promotion of cultural competence. However, cultural competence education is not the only

way to impact cultural competence measures. This study finds that self-reported bilingualism

is more consistently associated with higher cultural competence scores a finding that is

consistent with theory connecting these two constructs (see for example Sue 2001). Study

abroad programs with a strong language component, short courses, and similar opportunities

that encourage students and employees to acquire second-language skills may be the most

direct way to improve public administration cultural competence scores as measured with this

tool. Perhaps these types of experiences result in increased self-awareness and appreciation

of differences (Rivera, Baker and Hill 2010; Antonio et al. 2004).

In addition to university MPA and BPA programs, public sector organizations also

have an important role to play in the promotion of cultural competence at the individual level.

The term life-long learner has become cliché, but it is an important value that can be instilled

in employees through training. A public organization can promote individual cultural

competence in a number of ways including, for example, by promoting an environment that

encourages understanding and exploration of cultural differences. In terms of the findings of

this study, affirming public service values and communicating in training and other forums

how cultural competence is a skill that rests on the foundation of respect for others, technical

knowledge, and professional expertise might resonate best.

Organizations may be interested in enhancing the overall level of organizational

cultural competence by hiring more culturally competent individuals. This approach seems

more acceptable in the case of hiring direct service providers--especially in the medical and

psychological fields--where the lives and well-being of others is at higher risk. In the context

14




- 38 -

of this study’s findings, screening and hiring public managers based on their cultural

competence (either self-expressed in an interview or measured through a screening survey

tool) may not be as desirable. However, informing public managers that their performance

evaluations will include criteria such as their ability to demonstrate culturally competent

public management will promote individual-level commitment and organizational cultural

competence.

Authors Biography

Thomas Longoria, Ph.D. is a professor of political science of the Master of Public

Administration Program at Texas State University. His research interest includes local

government and administration and nonprofit management. Dr. Longoria received his Ph.D.

from Texas A&M University.

Nandhini Rangarajan, Ph.D. is associate professor of political science at Texas State

University. She earned a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the Rockefeller College of

Public Affairs and Policy, State University of New York at Albany. Her interests are in

creativity, innovation and public management. Her research has appeared in the Review of

Public Personnel Administration, Public Productivity and Management Review and the

Journal of Public Affairs Education. Her recently published book (co-authored with Dr.

Shields), A Playback for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project

Management, provides useful tools for graduate students to manage research process.

References

Antonio, Anthony L., Mitchell J. Chang, Kenji Hakuta, David A. Kenny, Shana Levin, and

Jeffrey F. Milem. 2004. Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college

students. Psychological Science 15(8):507-510.

Bernotavicz, Freda, 1997. A diversity curriculum: Integrating attitudes, issues, and

applications. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(3):345-360.

Betancourt, Joseph R., Alexander R. Green, and J. Emilio Carrillo. 2002. Cultural competence

in health care. Emerging frameworks and practical approaches. The commonwealth

fund, quality of care for underserved populations field report.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/betancourt_culturalcompetence_576.p

df

Boyle, David P., and Alyson Springer, 2001. Toward a cultural competence measure for

social work with specific populations. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in

Social Work 9(3-4):53-71.

Brach, Cindy, and Irene Fraser, 2000. Can cultural competency reduce racial and ethnic

disparities? A review and conceptual model. Medicare Care Research and Review

57(1):181-217.

Brintnall, Michael, 2008. Preparing the public service for working in multiethnic

democracies: An assessment and ideas for action. Journal of Public Affairs

Education 14(1):39-50.

15




- 39 -

Campinha-Bacote, Josepha, 1999. A model and instrument for addressing cultural

competence in health care. Journal of Nursing Education 38(5):203-207.

Carrizales, Tony, 2010. Exploring cultural competency within the public affairs curriculum.

Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(4):593-606.

Cox, Taylor, and Ruby L. Beale. 1997. Developing competency to manage diversity: Reading

cases and activities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publications

Crandall, S.J., G. George, G.S. Marion, and S. Davis, n.d. Applying theory to the design of

cultural competency training for medical students: A case study. Academic Medicine

78(6):588-594.

Cross, Terry, Barbara J. Bazron, Karl W. Dennis, and Mareasa R. Isaacs. 1989. Toward a

culturally competent system of care. CASSP Technical Assistance Center

Georgetown University Child Development Center.

Davis, King. 1997. Exploring the intersection between cultural competency and managed

behavioral health care policy: Implications for state and county mental health

agencies. Alexandria, VA: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental

Health Planning

Deardorff, Darla K., 2006. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a

student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International

Education 10(3):241-266.

Doorenbos, Ardith Z., Stephanie M. Schim, Ramona Benkert, and Nagesh N. Borse. 2005.

Psychometric evaluation of the cultural competence assessment instrument among

healthcare providers. Nursing Research 54(5):324-331.

Farr, Beverly P., Ursula Sexton, Cassidy Puckett, Maura Pereira-León, and Michelle

Weissman. 2005. Study of the availability and effectiveness of cultural competency

training for teachers in California—final report. Rockmanet al Wested 1-10.

Gozu, Aysegul, Mary C. Beach, Eboni G. Price, Tiffany L. Gary, Karen Robinson, Ana

Palacio, Carole Smarth, Mollie Jenckes, Carolyn Feuerstein, Eric B. Bass, Neil R.

Power, and Lisa A. Cooper. 2007. Self-administered instruments to measure cultural

competence of health professionals: a systematic review. Teaching and Learning in

Medicine 19(2):180-190.

Hewins-Maroney, Barbara, and Ethel Williams, 2007. Teaching diversity in public

administration: A missing component? Journal of Public Affairs Education

39(1):29-40.

Hurdle, Donna E., 2002. Native Hawaiian traditional healing: Culturally based interventions

for social work practice. Social Work 47(2):183-192.

Isaacs, Mareasa R., and Marva P. Benjamin, 1997. Towards a culturally competent system of

care. Volume II: Programs which utilize culturally competent principles. CASSP

Technical Assistance Center, Center for Child Health and Mental Health Policy,

Georgetown University Child Development Center.

Johnson, Joseph P., Tomasz Lenartowicz, and Salvador Apud, 2006. Cross-cultural

16




- 40 -

competence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of

International Business Studies 37(4):525-543.

Johnson III, Richard G., and Esiridion Borrego, 2009. Public administration and the increased

need for cultural competencies in the twenty-first century. Administrative Theory &

Praxis 31(2):206-221.

NASPAA. 2009. Commission on peer review and accreditation, national association of

schools of public Affairs and Administration. Retrieved from:

http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/docs/NS2009FinalVote10.16.20

09.pdf

Norman-Major, Kristen A. 2012. Cultural competency across the masters in public

administration curriculum. In Cultural competency for public administrators

Norman-Major, Kristen A., and Susan Gooden, eds. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, N.Y.

Greenleaf, Robert. 1991. The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert Greenleaf

Center.

Pitts, David W, and Lois R. Wise, 2010. Workforce Diversity in the New Millennium:

Prospects for Research. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 30(1):44-69.

Purnell, Larry, 2002. The Purnell model for cultural competence. Journal of Transcultural

Nursing 13(3):193-196.

Rice, Mitchell F., 2007. Promoting cultural competency in public administration and public

service delivery: Utilizing self-assessment tools and performance measures. Journal

of Public Affairs Education 13(1):41-57.

Rice, Mitchell F., 2008. A primer for developing a public agency service ethos of cultural

competency in public services programming and public services delivery. Journal of

Public Affairs Education 14(1):21-38.

Rice, Mitchell F., and Audrey L. Matthews. 2012. A new kind of public service

professional: Possessing cultural competency awareness, knowledge and skills, in

Cultural competency for public administrators. Norman-Major, Kristen A., and

Susan Gooden, eds. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, N.Y.

Ridley, Charles R., Debra M. Baker, and Carrie L. Hill, 2001. Critical issues concerning

cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist 29(6):822-832.

Rivera, Mario A., Greggory Johnson III, and James D. Ward, 2010. The ethics of pedagogical

innovation in diversity and cultural competence education. The Innovation Journal:

The Public Sector Innovation Journal 15(2):1-20.

Schim, Stephanie M., Ardith Z. Doorenbos, June Miller, and Ramona Benkert. 2003.

Development of a cultural competence assessment instrument. Journal of Nursing

Measurement 11(1):29-40.

Sue, Derald W., 2001. Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling

Psychologist 29(6):790-821.

Weisinger, Judith. Y., 2001. E-notes: Web-based diversity resources for learning and teaching

cultural competence. Journal of Public Affairs Education 7(1):41-47.

17




- 41 -

White, Susan, 2004. Multicultural MPA curriculum: Are we preparing culturally competent

public administrators? Journal of Public Affairs Education 10(2):111-123.

Wyatt-Nichol, Heather, and Kwame B. Antwi-Boasiako, 2008. Diversity across the

curriculum: Perceptions and practices. Journal of Public Affairs Education 14(1):79-

90.

18



measuring public manager cultural competence: the

Documents