screening and training inter-cultural competencies usa and germany

8/2/2019 Screening and Training Inter-cultural Competencies USA and Germany

1/26

This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 23 March 2012, At: 12:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Internat ional Journal of Human ResourceManagement

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ rij h20

Screening and training inter-cultural competencies:evaluat ing the impact of nat ional culture on inter-cultural competenciesAndrea Grafa

Technical Universit y of Braunschweig, Germany, Coll ege of Business Administrat ion,Depart ment of Management , Abt Jerusalem St r. 4, Braunschweig, Germany D- 38106

Phone: +49 0 531 391 3641 Fax: +49 0 531 391 3641 E-mail:

Available onl ine: 17 Feb 2007

To cite this art icle: Andrea Graf (2004): Screening and t raining int er-cult ural competencies: evaluat ing the impact of natioculture on inter-cultural competencies, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15:6, 1124-1148

To link to t his art icle: http:/ / dx.doi. org/ 10.1080/ 09585190410001677340

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190410001677340http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20


2/26

Screening and training inter-culturalcompetencies: evaluating the impactof national culture on inter-culturalcompetencies

Andrea Graf

Abstract Inter-culturalcompetencieshave becomeincreasinglyimportant for international

personnel selection and training. The purpose of this article is to evaluate psychometric data

regarding the controversy as to whether inter-cultural competencies are culture-free or

culture-bound. In two empirical research projects in the USA and Germany national

differences in inter-cultural competencies are evaluated. National culture is indicated as a

significant independent variablefor inter-culturalcompetencies in bothstudies. However, the

impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies seems to be minor in relation

to the impact of gender culture as well as of organizational culture. Therefore, inter-cultural

competencies are judged to be culture-general in the two nations. Conceptual conclusions as

well as practical conclusions for IHRM are discussed, based on the results. Finally, the

limitations of the studies are pointed out.

Keywords Inter-cultural competence; international personnel selection; inter-cultural

training.

Increased global competition has been the most influential trend in economics during

the last decade (Adler, 2002). Explosive growth in globalization has led to a growing

number of individuals with international assignments, international joint ventures

and people moving to other countries to find work and prosperity. As a consequence,

the concept of inter-cultural competence has become increasingly important in

business management.

Worldwide, the number of international assignees is expected to continue increasing,

according to the most recent global relocation survey (Windham International, 2001).

However, when using a broad definition of failure (i.e. the expatriate assignment did not

accomplish the goals of the company or the expatriate broke off the assignment), global

failure rates have been estimated at 1640 per cent (Shaffer et al., 1999), 20 40 per cent

(Solomon, 1996), 30 50 per cent (Blacket al., 1991) and 50 per cent (Allerton, 1997).

The average monetary cost of an expatriate failure is placed at anywhere from 200,000 to

1.2 million dollars (Solomon, 1996; Swaak, 1995). In addition to monetary costs, failed

expatriate efforts can also lead to negative organizational outcomes, such as delayed

productivity, poor relationships with local nationals, negative perceptions of

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/09585190410001677340

Dr Andrea Graf, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany, College of Business

Administration, Department of Management, Abt Jerusalem Str. 4, Braunschweig, Germany

D- 38106 (tel: 49 0 531 391 3641; fax: 49 0 531 391 8145; e-mail: [email protected]).

Int. J. of Human Resource Management 15:6 September 2004 1124 1148


3/26

the company, problems for expatriate successors and ineffective repatriation (Bennett

et al., 2000). Difficulties with the host national culture have been identified as the main

reason for the lack of success in the majority of analysed expatriate failures (Bennett

et al., 2000; Forster, 2000). One mechanism identified to enhance the chances of

expatriate success is effective expatriate selection (Solomon, 1996). Increased emphasis

is being placed on utilizing selection procedures that go beyond technical skills and

assess factors such as inter-cultural competence (Bennett et al., 2000; Forster, 2000).

Inter-cultural competence has also been recognized as a crucial factor for international

co-operation among companies. In general, international joint ventures are characterized

by instability and complexity (Fedor and Werther, 1996; Pausenberger and Nocker, 2000).

Moreover, studies show that approximately 50 per cent of international joint ventures fail,

because they do not accomplish the prearranged goals or the co-operation is broken off

(Elmuti and Kathawala, 2001; Geringer and Hebert, 1991). Several studies found that

cultural differences among the nations of co-operating organizations are decisive for the

instability and even for the failure of global joint ventures (Barkema and Vermeulen,

1997: 845; Fedor and Werther, 1996: 39; Li, et al., 2002: 321). Moreover, some authors

attribute the majority of failed international joint ventures to cultural conflicts among

individual managers (Ertel et al., 2001; Gordon and Salganik, 2001).

As a result of the recognition of the importance of inter-cultural competence in

international business, studies on inter-cultural competencies have constituted an

increasing stream in the literature. The focus of research efforts has been to identify

skills, attitudes and behaviours that contribute to effective inter-cultural interactions and

successful cultural adaptation (for an overview, see Dinges and Baldwin, 1996). From an

international perspective this research effort entails the question of whether the identified

skills, attitudes and behaviours differ among nations according to their national cultures.

Indeed, the fundamental question as to whether inter-cultural competencies are culture-

free or culture-bound has not been answered yet (Muller and Gelbrich, 2001: 259).

The answer to this question is imperative for the concept of inter-culturalcompetencies (Dinges, 1998; Martin, 1997). Additionally, this issue entails guiding

information for international human resource management (IHRM). In fact, international

personnel selection as well as inter-cultural training may considerably improve if IHRM

knows which competencies are required in the national culture in question. For example,

this information would allow the development of relevant skill profiles for different

national cultures. Consequently, selection and training procedures could be more focused

on the respective requirements, both for expatriates and employees working in

international joint ventures. In general, if inter-cultural competencies were culture-

bound, then IHRM might select and train employees culture specifically. On the other

hand, if inter-cultural competencies were culture-general, selection and training

processes could be more generalized.

The purpose of this article is to do a psychometric analysis in the USA and Germany in

order to approach the controversy as to whether inter-cultural competencies are culture-

bound or culture-free. To that end, nations are equated with national cultures, followingHofstedes approach evaluating national cultures (1998a: 481). The studies are done in

the USA and Germany for methodological reasons. Evaluating capabilities and

characteristics in different nations requires measures that are valid in the countries as far

as both the language and the culture is concerned (Berry, 1989). In the evaluated nations

numerous scientific questionnaires assessing (inter-cultural) competencies are available,

and some of them have been validated in an American as well as a German version.

The procedure in this article is as follows. Based on literature research, capabilities

that are important variables in inter-cultural interactions are identified they are

Graf: Screening and training inter-cultural competencies 1125


4/26

referred to as inter-cultural competencies. Then, questionnaires assessing these inter-

cultural competencies are selected. In two empirical research projects the identified

inter-cultural competencies are evaluated with the chosen measures based on four

research questions.

The following starting points guided the development of the research questions. One

prerequisite in inter-cultural studies focusing on national or cultural differences is

to select appropriate standards of comparison in order to relate inter-cultural impacts to

intra-cultural impacts (England and Negandhi, 1979; Helfrich, 1999; Hofstede, 1992;

Muller and Gelbrich, 2001). Only if differences among national cultures

exceed differences of cultural groups within the respective national cultures, can inter-

cultural differences be concluded. Therefore, the article relates the impact of national

culture on inter-cultural competencies to the impact of gender culture and to the impact

of organizational culture. Gender culture refers to the social roles dependent on male and

female identities and the gendered nature of particular functions and structures

(Maddock, 1999: 8493). Although the suppression of sexual differences is actively

sought in Western bureaucracies and corporations alike, gender-related attitudes and

behaviours are apparent in the organizational context (Aaltio and Mills, 2002).

According to Schein (1997) organizational culture refers to the shared, taken-for-granted

basic assumptions held by the members of an organization.

The following aspects were taken into consideration when selecting these cultural

factors for the intracultural evaluation. The analysis of cultural levels by Sackmann

(1997) was taken to get an overview of cultural factors in business. Gender culture was

selected for two reasons. First, gender-related differences in organizational behaviour are

crucial for IHRM, especially in international personnel selection (Adler, 1995). Second,

the classification of gender culture into male and female can be assessed unequivocally in

every culture. Organizational culture was selected as the other cultural factor because

inter-cultural competencies are discussed in the organizational context in this article.

Therefore, it is useful to evaluate the impact of national culture on inter-culturalcompetencies in relation to organizational culture. Besides, the competing impact of

national culture and organizational culture on various aspects of organizational

behaviour has already been the focus of considerable research (for an overview, see

Adler and Bartholomew, 1992). Finally, Hofstede and his associates also related the

influence of national culture to gender culture and organizational culture in their value

studies (Hofstede, 1980, 1998a; Hofstede et al., 1990).

Evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies in relation to

both gender culture and organizational culture requires two empirical studies. The

comparison of the impact of national culture and gender culture on inter-cultural

competencies is the focus in the first study, which is conducted at universities (for an

explanation of the selection of this population, see the section on Samples below). The

evaluation in this study is guided by research questions 1a and 1b. The first question is

asked to analyse whether there are significant differences in inter-cultural competencies

between the two national cultures. The second question aims at relating the results in thefirst question to the intracultural differences between men and women. The second study

is conducted in two insurance companies in the USA and two insurance companies in

Germany (again, see Samples for an explanation for this choice). This study focuses

on the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies and on the comparison of

this impact to the influence of organizational culture. Research questions 2a and 2b guide

the analysis in the second study. The first question is intended to analyse whether national

culture is an independent variable of inter-cultural competencies in this study. The

second research question is asked to compare the inter-cultural differences to

1126 The International Journal of Human Resource Management


5/26

intracultural differences among the organizational cultures. The four research questions

are as follows:

Research question 1a: Does national culture represent a significant independent

variable for inter-cultural competencies in the university

sample?

Research question 1b: How is the impact of national culture evaluated compared to

the impact of gender culture?

Research question 2a: Does national culture represent a significant independent

variable for inter-cultural competencies in the industry

sample?

Research question 2b: How is the impact of national culture evaluated compared tothe impact of organizational culture?

Inter-cultural competencies: understanding and focus of evaluation

There is neither an accepted definition of inter-cultural competencies nor an agreement as

to which abilities and characteristics constitute inter-cultural competence (Bradford et al.,

1998). There are several lists of competencies, both from literature research and

empirical studies, which are described to be important in inter-cultural interactions

(for an overview, see Kealey and Ruben, 1983). These lists will be the basis for

identifying inter-cultural competencies to be evaluated in the studies.

Inter-cultural competencies are currently clustered into three components: cognitive,

affective and behavioural (Bennett, 2001; Chen and Starosta, 1996; Fritz, 2001; Muller

and Gelbrich, 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1999). Implicit in this understanding is the notion thatan individual must possess the cognitive dimension (e.g. knowledge about other

cultures), the affective dimension (e.g. sensitivity, desire to act in a competent way) and

the behavioural dimension (e.g. skills to manage the situation) in order to interact

effectively with culturally different others. However, it is assumed that the three

components merge into one another (Snyder and Stukas, 1999).

In his model, Spitzberg (2000) distinguishes three systems of inter-cultural

competence: the individual system, the episodic system and the relational system.

The individual system includes what is referred to as inter-cultural competencies, namely

characteristics an individual possesses that facilitate competent interaction. Within the

individual system he also depicts three components of inter-cultural competencies:

knowledge functions (which can be assigned to the cognitive component), motivation

(which can be assigned to the affective component) and skills (which can be assigned to

the behavioural component). Spitzberg emphasizes that inter-cultural competencies

increase the likelihood that an actor will produce behaviours that are normativelycompetent, but that, however, further factors are decisive. The episodic system view is

that there is no guarantee that a person who has performed behaviours that would

normally be viewed as competent will be judged as competent by a particular

conversational partner in a particular relational encounter. This system concerns those

characteristics of an actor that predict co-actors impressions of the actors competence

(e.g. co-actors expectancies). The third level, the relational system, includes those

components that assist a persons competence across the entire span of relationships

rather than in just a given episode of interaction (e.g. mutual confidence).



6/26

For the purpose of this paper, inter-cultural competencies are very broadly considered

as cognitive, affective or behavioural abilities or characteristics, which facilitate in a

normative social sense competent interaction with a person from a different national

culture. The focus of the article will be on the individual system of inter-cultural

competence. In accordance with Spitzberg (2000), it is assumed that different

profiles of inter-cultural competencies are likely to result in different behaviours.

The term inter-cultural competencies is used because it is postulated that various

abilities and characteristics constitute inter-cultural competence.

Methods

Samples

In international studies non-random samples are accepted, because random samples

cannot always be compared due to various influences, e.g. age of subjects, level of

education (see, e.g., Brislin and Baumgardner, 1971; Lonner and Berry, 1986).

Holzmuller (1995: 242) recommends the use of matched samples in order to reduce the

error of variance. Therefore, matched samples in the USA and Germany are chosen in

order to be able to attribute resulting differences to national differences.

The population in the first study are MBA students. Students were chosen as

participants for different reasons. First, students are the type of employees (educated

professionals) likely to be sent on expatriate assignments. Second, there is only a

minimal impact of organizational culture in student samples. Of course, universities also

have some kind of organizational culture and part-time employment has become

increasingly common for students. However, the impact of organizational culture may

not be as influencing for students as for employees in full-time employment. Moreover,

student samples can be matched very well.

The university samples were matched according to the following criteria: age,

male/female percentage, level of education, study subject and size of university.Two medium-sized universities were selected (approximately 14,500 students are

enrolled at both). In two successive semesters, at both universities, all students

being enrolled at the college of business administration having lectures in management

were included in the study. Students majoring in management were selected because

there was a balanced male/female percentage in those classes at both universities. The

sample consists of 188 students in the USA and 179 students in Germany having same

majors (management), similar education (final examination), similar age (average 30)

and balanced male/female percentage. Five questionnaires assessing inter-cultural

competencies were administered during class. The measures were completed in the order

named in the following section.

The sampling criteria in the second study were as follows: line of business, market

segment and office workers. The sampling populations were four large-scale insurance

companies, two in the USA and two in Germany. Employees were chosen as participants

as one focus in this study is the impact of organizational culture on inter-culturalcompetencies. The insurance industry was selected because the insurance industry

seems to be an attractive field for climate and culture research (Hofstede, 1998a: 486).

Other studies of insurance companies were reported, for example, by Gordon and

Ditomaso (1992), Morgan (1986: 121) and Schneider and Snyder (1975). In this

study, three of the five questionnaires were administered (for an explanation for the

selection of questionnaires, see the results section). The measures were handed to 100

randomly selected office workers in every company. That selection was random because

there was no appropriate sampling criterion within the population of office workers.



7/26

Overall, 177 employees sent back the measures (40 respectively 39 in the American

companies and 61 respectively 37 in the German companies). In the sample, 70 per cent

are female, the average age is 32. The questionnaires were completed in the order named

in the following section.

Evaluated inter-cultural competencies and questionnaires

In the following sections, the abilities and characteristics, which have been

evaluated to be inter-cultural competencies in several studies, are specified.

Moreover, for every inter-cultural competency the questionnaire utilized in the

studies is described. It was a prerequisite for the measures to be based on a sound

theoretical foundation and to be valid for the American culture and language as well

as for the German.

Three of the selected measures were not available in a German version and had to be

translated and validated. The German adaptations were developed based on the

translation/back-translation method (Berry, 1989). In that process, the American original

was translated into German by a bilingual person who is educated in psychology.

A second bilingual person, educated in psychology as well, translated the German

version into English. Afterwards, the original version and the retranslated version were

compared and semantic differences were identified. The process of translation,

retranslation and comparison was repeated until no semantic differences could be found

any more. Afterwards, the German versions were empirically evaluated according to the

criteria recommended by Hui and Triandis (1985) and Meredith (1993)

(e.g. measurement invariance). The results of the validation studies are published in

separate articles (Graf, 2002, 2003, 2004).

Inter-cultural communication skills Communication skills have been identified

in the majority of studies focusing on inter-cultural skills (e.g. Bradford et al.,1998; Cui and Awa, 1992; Dean and Popp, 1990; Gudykunst and Lee, 2002; Martin

and Hammer, 1989; Wiseman et al., 1989). Some authors even use inter-cultural

competence and inter-cultural communication competence synonymously

(Wiseman, 2002).

The Behavioural Assessment Scale for Inter-cultural Communication Effectiveness

(BASIC), developed by Koester and Olebe (1988), was used to assess inter-cultural

communication competence. According to Spitzberg (1989: 246) , the BASIC is one

of the most commonly used measures for inter-cultural effectiveness; for instance,

Nishida (1985) and Ruben and Kealey (1979) utilized it in their studies. A German

version of the BASIC was developed and validated for the German samples

(Graf, 2002). The BASIC assesses seven dimensions of inter-cultural communication

effectiveness. Those seven dimensions were developed by Ruben (1976) and are as

follows: 1) display of respect the ability to express respect for another person;

2) interaction posture the ability to respond to others in a non-judgemental way;3) orientation to knowledge how one explains the world; 4) empathy the capacity

to put oneself in anothers shoes in communication; 5) task role behaviours

verbal and non-verbal behaviours contributing to group problem-solving activities;

6) relational role behaviours verbal and non-verbal behaviours contributing

to building or maintaining relationships in a group; 7) interaction behaviour/manage-

ment communication skill in governing interactions to meet the needs and desires

of group members; and 8) tolerance of ambiguity the ability to react to new and

ambiguous situations with little visible discomfort.



8/26

Each of the eight BASIC dimensions is assessed by one item. For example, the item

measuring display of respect is as follows:

Individuals express respect or positive regard for other people around them to different degrees.

This is shown through their behaviour, which can take many forms. These range from spoken

and unspoken expressions of low interest and regard to statements, gestures and tones of voice

that are very supportive and show high regard and respect. Listed below are five descriptions of

patterns of expression. Please indicate on the rating scale shown below which of these five

describes your communication best.

One response option for the above item includes I show deep respect for the worth of

others as persons of high potential and worth. I indicate (through eye contact, general

attentiveness, appropriate tone of voice, and general interest) a clear respect for

the thoughts and feelings of others. I am committed to supporting and encouraging their

development.

Inter-cultural sensitivity The emotional capability to be sensitive towards individuals

from a different national culture has been identified as crucial for competent inter-

cultural interactions by several authors (e.g. Abe and Wiseman, 1983; Chen and Starosta,

1996; Cui and Awa, 1992; Fritz et al., 2002; Koester and Olebe, 1988; Martin, 1987).

The Inter-cultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) by Chen and Starosta (2000) was selected to

assess this inter-cultural competency in the studies. The German version by Fritz and

Mollenberg (1999) was utilized for the German samples. The ISS is based on the authors

concept of inter-cultural sensitivity (Chen and Starosta, 1996, 1997). The ISS consists of

twenty-four items and uses a 5-point Likert-type response scale. Scale anchors range

from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The ISS is composed of five scales:

1) engagement in inter-cultural interactions (e.g. I enjoy interacting with people from

different cultures); 2) respect for cultural differences (e.g. I respect the values of

people from different cultures); 3) self-confidence in inter-cultural interactions

(e.g. I am pretty sure of myself in interacting with people from different cultures);

4) enjoyment of inter-cultural interactions (e.g. I get upset easily when interacting with

people from different cultures (reverse-coded)); and 5) attentiveness in inter-cultural

interactions (e.g. I try to obtain as much information as I can when interacting with

people from different cultures).

Interpersonal competence The majority of studies concerning inter-cultural abilities

emphasize the importance of interpersonal competence (e.g. Abe and Wiseman, 1983; Cui

and Awa, 1992; Dean and Popp, 1990; Hammer, 1987; Hammer et al., 1978; Hawes and

Kealey, 1979; Kealey, 1989; Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989).

For the studies, the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ), which was

developed by Buhrmester et al. (1988), was selected to evaluate interpersonal

competence. The German version of the questionnaire by Riemann and Allgo wer (1993)

was utilized for the German samples. The ICQ contains forty items assessing thefollowing five domains of interpersonal competence: 1) initiation of interactions and

relationships (e.g. Asking or suggesting to someone new that you get together and do

something, e.g. go out together); 2) assertion of personal rights and displeasure with

others (e.g. Telling a companion you dont like a certain way he or she has been treating

you); 3) self-disclosure of personal information (e.g. Confiding in a new friend/date and

letting him or her see your softer, more sensitive side); 4) emotional support of others

(e.g. Helping a close companion work through his or her thoughts or feelings about a

major life decision, e.g. a career choice); and 5) management of interpersonal conflicts



9/26

(e.g. Being able to take a companions perspective in a fight and really understand his or

her point of view). Respondents use a 5-point rating scale to indicate their levels of

success and comfort when engaging in the described behaviours. Scale anchors range

from I usually succeed rather badly acting in the described way. I feel very uneasy in

such a situation to I usually succeed well acting in the described way. I feel very well in

such situations.

Social problem-solving capability Research recognizes social problem-solving

capability to be a fundamental factor in adjustment (Heppner, 1990; DZurilla, 1990;

DZurilla and Maydeu-Olivares, 1995) and acculturation (Ward, 1996).

Socialproblem-solving refersto the process with thehelp of which individuals attempt to

identify, discover or invent effective or adaptive coping responses for situations

encountered in everyday life, for which no effective response is immediately apparent or

available (DZurilla and Nezu, 1982). DZurilla and Nezu (1990) developed the

Social Problem-Solving Inventory (SPSI), which was revised based on several empirical

studies (DZurilla and Maydeu-Olivares, 1995; Maydeu-Olivares and DZurilla, 1995,

1996),into the SocialProblem-SolvingInventory-Revised (SPSI-R) (DZurilla etal., 1999).

The SPSI-R, which was used in the study (German version by Graf, 2003), assesses

the following five dimensions of social problem-solving capability: 1) positive problem

orientation (PPO) (e.g. When I have a problem, I try to see it as a challenge or

opportunity to benefit in some positive way from having the problem); 2) negative

problem orientation (NPO) (e.g. I feel threatened and afraid when I have an important

problem to solve); 3) rational problem solving (RPS) (e.g. When I have a decision to

make, I try to predict the positive and negative consequences of each option); 4)

impulsivity/carelessness style (ICS) (e.g. When I am trying to solve a problem, I go with

the first good idea that comes to mind); and 5) avoidance style (AS) (e.g. I wait to see if

a problem will resolve itself first, before trying to solve it myself). Respondents use a

5-point response scale ranging from Not at all true of me to Extremely true of me.Besides the scale scores, one all-encompassing score was calculated for every subject

based on the scoring instructions provided by the authors.

Self-monitoring Several studies identify self-monitoring as facilitating inter-cultural

interactions and cultural adjustment (Gangestad and Snyder, 2000; Gudykunst, 1985;

Harrison et al., 1996; Kealey, 1989; Weierter et al., 1997). The concept of self-

monitoring was originally defined by Snyder (1974) as self-observation and self-control

guided by situational cues to social appropriateness.

Based on his concept of self-monitoring, Snyder (1974) developed the Self-

Monitoring Scale (SMS) revised by Snyder and Gangestad (1986). As the questionnaire

was not available in a German version, it was translated into German and empirically

validated for the German samples (Graf, 2004). In the studies the original scale was

administered as it is stronger in evaluating the other-directedness dimension (Briggs

and Cheek, 1988). The SMS consists of twenty-five truefalse items. Subjects receive ascore between zero and twenty-five. A sample item of the scale is as follows: When I am

uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look for the behaviour of others for cues.

Results

Statistical analyses

Poortinga and van de Flier (1988) emphasize the necessity, in inter-cultural studies, to

compare the correlations among the individual tests between the samples. In the case of



10/26

different structures of the evaluated dimensions among the populations the means are not

comparable. In order to evaluate the interrelationships among the inter-cultural

competencies in the German and the American sample, the intercorrelations (correlations

by Pearson) of the scales (BASIC, ISS and ICQ) and the total score of the SPSI-R as well

as the SMS are determined. This correlation analysis is done in the university sample

because all five questionnaires are administered. Subsequently, the intercorrelation

coefficients of the American and the German sample are compared, that is to say,

the Z-score and test on significance is calculated (see Bortz, 1999: 211). These results

indicate that only a few intercorrelations of the scales significantly distinguish between

the American and the German sample. Therefore, rather than comparing each of the 190

correlation coefficients individually between the samples, the following summary

information is compared.

First, the percentage of statistically significant correlations among the subscales of

the questionnaires is provided for the American as well as the German sample.

This percentage information facilitates comparisons across measures with varying

numbers of subscales within one sample. For example, the evaluation of the

interrelationship of the BASIC and the ISS is based on forty correlations, whereas

between the ICQ and the SPSI-R:S the total score is based on five correlations. Presenting

the percentage of significant correlations provides an appropriate way of evaluating using

thesamemetric (e.g.between theBASIC andthe ISSboth in theAmerican andthe German

sample 70 per cent of the correlations were statistically significant, whereas between the

ICQ and the SPSI-R:S 100 per cent were statistically significant in both samples).

The second component of summary information is the average value of the subscale

intercorrelations among the measures. This average correlation provides another crucial

piece of information about the interrelationship among the questionnaires within one

sample. Finally, the summarized findings are descriptively compared between the

American and the German sample.

Then, a principal components factor analysis (with varimax rotation) including allscales is conducted in the American and the German university sample. The purpose is to

determine whether the underlying interrelationships of the scales are comparable in both

samples.

The following statistical analyses are calculated in the first study. The descriptive

statistics of the scales are determined (mean, range, standard deviation and coefficient

alpha for internal consistency). In order to address research questions 1a and 1b, a two-

way analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the whole university sample is conducted

taking the nation (referred to as national culture) and gender (referred to as gender

culture) as fixed factors. This analysis is done in order to evaluate whether the

interaction of the factors national culture and gender culture has a significant impact

on any of the scales. Due to the fact that no significant impact can be found, two one-way

MANOVAs are calculated, one taking national culture as a fixed factor and the other

taking gender culture as a fixed factor. One-way MANOVAs are conducted in order

to determine the coefficient of determination (adjusted R

2

) for each factor. The coefficientof determination is a standardized measure of how much of the variance in the dependent

variable is explained by the independent variable in the regression model (Glantz

and Slinker, 2001: 256). Finally, the variances explained by the factor national culture

and by the factor gender culture are descriptively compared.

In the second study thefollowing statistical analyses aredone in order to address research

questions 2a and 2b. Again, the descriptive statistics of the scales are provided. Afterwards,

a two-way MANOVA for the whole industry sample is calculated taking the nation

(referred to as national culture) and organization (referred to as organizational culture)



11/26

as fixedfactors. Theintention is to analyse whether theinteraction hasa significantimpact on

any of the scales. However, the interaction of the two factors shows no significant influence

on the scales. Therefore, two one-way MANOVAs are conducted and the adjusted R2 is

determined for every factor. The variation due to the country is descriptively related to the

variation due to the organization.

Study one: university sample

Descriptive statistics The psychometric properties of the scales in the American and

German university sample are presented in Table 1. The developers of the BASIC

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the scales in the university sample

Nation M SD Min. Max. Alpha

1 BASIC-respect USA 4.06 .70 1.00 5.00 NA

GER 3.85 .74 1.00 5.00

2 BASIC-posture USA 2.81 .78 1.00 4.00 NA

GER 2.71 .76 1.00 4.00

3 BASIC-knowledge USA 3.10 .73 1.00 4.00 NA

GER 3.23 .55 1.00 4.00

4 BASIC-empathy USA 3.72 .83 1.00 5.00 NA

GER 3.64 .98 2.00 5.00

5 BASIC-task USA 3.86 .68 2.00 5.00 NA

GER 3.73 .75 2.00 5.00

6 BASIC-relational USA 3.69 .73 2.00 5.00 NA

GER 3.67 .71 2.00 5.00

7 BASIC-interaction USA 3.29 .99 1.00 5.00 NA

GER 3.49 .85 1.00 5.00

8 BASIC-ambiguity USA 3.63 .83 1.00 5.00 NAGER 3.53 .93 1.00 5.00

9 ISS-engagement USA 3.85 .45 1.71 5.00 .71

GER 3.77 .44 1.29 4.57 .59

10 ISS-respect USA 4.16 .52 1.83 5.00 .73

GER 4.11 .57 2.33 5.00 .66

11 ISS-confidence USA 3.39 .61 1.80 4.80 .75

GER 3.35 .52 1.80 4.80 .63

12 ISS-enjoyment USA 4.06 .61 1.00 5.00 .70

GER 4.32 .54 2.67 5.00 .60

13 ISS-attentiveness USA 3.61 .56 2.00 5.00 .47

GER 3.61 .61 2.33 5.00 .54

14 ICQ-initiation USA 3.40 .75 1.50 5.00 .87

GER 3.27 .73 1.13 5.00 .85

15 ICQ-assertion USA 3.21 .72 1.50 4.88 .85

GER 3.27 .62 1.38 4.63 .7916 ICQ-disclosure USA 3.22 .71 1.38 4.88 .81

GER 3.26 .67 1.00 4.88 .77

17 ICQ-support USA 3.96 .58 2.00 5.00 .87

GER 3.97 .56 1.50 5.00 .85

18 ICQ-conflict USA 3.40 .58 1.50 4.75 .77

GER 3.42 .52 2.00 4.63 .64

19 SPSI-R PPO USA 13.44 3.44 4.00 20.00 .71

GER 13.09 3.23 3.00 20.00 .69



12/26

consider each of the eight BASIC items to be conceptually distinct; thus every item is

utilized on its own and is not combined into a scale. For this reason, no internal

consistency measures of reliability are shown for the BASIC.

Table 1 reveals that several scales show low alpha coefficients (below .70).

Forexample, in theISS allscales show a very lowalpha coefficient in theGerman sample,

and for the attentiveness scale also in the American sample. The psychometric quality of

the German ISS has been focused in two recent articles (Fritz et al., 2002, 2003)

concluding that the ISS is a reliable measure. Additionally, the results from the

factor analysis are satisfying for the ISS (see next section on Factorial analysis).

Consequently, the results of the ISS will be used in the study. The ICQ-scale

management of interpersonal conflicts also shows a low reliability. In addition, this

scale is not correlating with the same factor in the USA and in Germany (see factorial

analysis below). Consequently, the results from this scale will not be used in the study.

In the SPSI-R two scales show an alpha coefficient of .69. However, the reliability of

the total score is satisfactory (.84). Therefore, the results of the total score and not of the

single scales will be discussed in the study. Finally, the Self-Monitoring Scale exhibits

low alpha coefficients in both samples. The low reliability of the SMS has also been found

in former studies (Briggs and Cheek, 1988; Snyder, 1974; Snyder and Gangestad, 1986).

However, Gangestad and Snyder (2000) can show in their appraisal of the SMS that it

assesses a single underlying dimension. Consequently, the results will be used.

Analysis on intercorrelations of scales In both samples inter-cultural communication

skills (assessed by the BASIC), inter-cultural sensitivity (assessed by the ISS),

interpersonal competence (assessed by the ICQ) and social problem-solving

capability (assessed by the SPSI-R) show high percentages of significant

intercorrelations one below the other one (from a low of 50 per cent to a high of 100

per cent) (see Table 2, also section above on Statistical analyses). In the American as

well as in the German sample the correlation coefficients are small to moderate

Table 1 (Continued)


20 SPSI-R NPO USA 6.30 3.54 0.00 20.00 .77

GER 6.18 3.31 0.00 15.00 .74

21 SPSI-R RPS USA 11.96 3.21 3.00 20.00 .72

GER 12.46 3.15 2.00 19.00 .69

22 SPSI-R ICS USA 5.30 3.51 0.00 17.00 .77

GER 6.12 3.50 0.00 15.00 .72

23 SPSI-R AS USA 4.96 3.26 0.00 17.00 .76

GER 5.30 3.62 0.00 18.00 .82

24 SPSI-R total score USA 68.82 11.06 36.00 94.00 .84

GER 67.94 11.25 35.00 93.00 .84

25 SMS USA 12.76 3.95 2.00 22.00 .68

GER 11.08 3.89 2.00 20.00 .69

Notes

NA not applicable for this scale due to single-item subscales

GER Germany

N (USA) 188; N (Germany) 179.



13/26

(ranging from a low of .164 to a high of .322). The SMS exhibits low interrelations with

the other questionnaires in both populations.

The percentages of significant intercorrelations, as well as the average correlations of

scales, do not considerably differ between the American and German samples. Therefore,

the interrelationships among the dimensions of inter-cultural competencies are judged to

be essentially similar in the two populations. Consequently, the means of the inter-

cultural competencies between the American and the German samples can be compared.

Factorial analysis In the principal components analysis the scales in both samples

correlate with six factors. The initial eigenvalue and the percentage of explained variance

are comparable in the American and the German samples (see Table 3). In addition, the

correlation of the scales with the factors is comparable between the American and

German sample (see Table 4). Only two scales do not show the highest correlation with

the same factor: BASIC-posture and ICQ-conflict. The first scale shows the highest

Table 3 Initial eigenvalues and percentage of explained variance in the American sample

N 188 and the German sample N 179

Component Initial eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative %

USA GER USA GER USA GER

1 5.12 5.43 22.26 23.63 22.26 23.63

2 2.48 2.65 10.80 11.53 33.06 35.16

3 2.02 1.84 8.78 8.03 41.85 43.19

4 1.70 1.28 7.40 5.59 49.25 48.79

5 1.12 1.18 4.88 5.13 54.14 53.92

6 1.03 1.11 4.50 4.86 58.64 58.79

Note

GER Germany.

Table 2 Percentage of significant correlations of scales and average correlation of scales with

Fisher Z-Transformation (university sample)

BASIC ISS ICQ SPSI-R

(Total score)

SMS

(Total score)

BASIC 70% 67.5% 50% 0%

r .179 r .196 r .164 r .014

ISS 70% 68% 100% 0%

r .202 r .190 r .224 r 2.038

ICQ 65% 76% 100% 20%

r .184 r .218 r .214 r .028

SPSI-R (Total score) 75% 100% 100% 0%

r .250 r .337 r .322 r 2.110

SMS (Total score) 25% 0% 60% 0%r .077 r 2.016 r .099 r .030

Notes

Above the diagonal the results of the US-American university sample are provided N 188: Below the

diagonal the results of the German university sample are provided N 179:



14/26

Table4

Componentmatr

ixofthescalesintheAmericansampleN

188andtheGermansampleN

179

F

actor1

Factor2

Factor3

Factor4

Factor5

Factor6

U

SA

GER

USA

GER

USA

GER

USA

GER

USA

GER

USA

GER

BASIC-respect

.29

.09

.69

.73

.04

.04

2

.02

.12

.00

.16

2

.02

.01

BASIC-posture

.21

.17

.10

.53

.01

2

.10

.32

2

.09

2

.27

2

.11

.49

.33

BASIC-knowledge

.09

.10

.10

.00

2

.01

.11

2

.15

.04

.13

.10

.84

.78

BASIC-empathy

.20

.15

.45

.67

2

.06

2

.03

.26

.19

2

.23

.15

.20

2

.09

BASIC-task

.15

.29

.34

2

.04

.04

.18

.10

.19

.56

.44

2

.13

2

.28

BASIC-relational

.05

.21

.57

.46

.16

.24

.18

.11

.22

.04

.21

2

.21

BASIC-interaction

.00

.17

.62

.44

2

.06

.14

2

.01

2

.08

.03

.22

2

.12

.15

BASIC-ambiguity

.09

2

.09

2

.14

.16

.21

2

.07

.21

.05

.61

.77

.14

.16

ISS-engagement

.88

.77

.15

.17

.08

2

.04

.04

.22

.11

2

.00

.01

.16

ISS-respect

.75

.60

.29

.23

2

.11

2

.19

2

.08

.01

2

.02

.01

.21

.15

ISS-confidence

.67

.48

2

.04

.00

.12

2

.04

.22

.14

.22

.29

2

.00

.17

ISS-enjoyment

.80

.61

.09

.09

2

.11

.10

.00

.01

.00

.38

.12

2

.10

ISS-attentiveness

.67

.44

.18

.27

2

.02

2

.04

.10

.25

.16

.05

2

.01

.01

ICQ-initiation

.13

.15

.28

.24

.25

.25

.55

.56

.27

.38

2

.12

.07

ICQ-assertion

.09

.14

.02

2

.25

2

.07

2

.08

.60

.71

.29

.14

2

.09

2

.04

ICQ-disclosure

.00

.06

.20

.26

.04

.11

.74

.78

.10

.00

.10

.00

ICQ-support

.11

.14

.61

.55

2

.04

.11

.22

.45

.23

.14

.26

.12

ICQ-conflict

.19

.13

.58

.50

2

.04

2

.09

.22

.07

.06

.05

.15

.48

SPSI-Rtotalscore

.23

.21

.16

.25

2

.09

2

.02

.08

.25

.57

.58

.06

2

.04

SMStotalscore

2

.00

2

.04

2

.02

2

.00

.98

.97

.04

.09

2

.10

.03

2

.01

.05



15/26

correlation with factor 6 in the American and with factor 2 in the German sample.

However, as in both samples there is a reasonable correlation with factor 6, the scale will

be retained in the study. The ICQ scale conflict management correlates with factor 2

and 6 in both samples. Due to this result and the low coefficient alpha of this scale, the

results of this scale are not included. The other scales correlate with the same factor in

both samples.

Research questions 1a and 1b: analysis of the impact of national culture versus gender

culture In the MANOVA with national culture as the fixed factor, a significant impact

can be identified for four scales (see Table 5). The mean scores in Table 1 reveal that in

two of the identified dimensions the American sample shows higher scores (display of

respect and self-monitoring). The German sample indicates higher scores in two scales

(interaction engagement and interaction enjoyment). The gender culture is indicated as

having a significant impact for seven scales (see Table 5).

The findings supply some evidence for answering research question 1a affirmatively.

National culture is shown to be a significant variable for several dimensions of inter-

cultural competencies. It exhibits most impact on inter-cultural communication, assessed

by the BASIC, and on self-monitoring, assessed by the SMS. However, the impact of

national culture is very modest (R2 ranging from .011 to .046).

Turning to research question 1b the results display the fact that gender culture also

constitutes a significant independent variable on several inter-cultural competencies.

On the one hand, the explanation of variance by the factor of gender is modest

Table 5 One-way MANOVAs with national culture (USA and Germany) as fixed factor and with

gender culture (male and female) as fixed factor (university sample)

National culture Gender culture

F Sig. R2 F Sig. R2

1 BASIC-respect 6.34 .012* .018 23.51 .000** .063

2 BASIC-posture 2.50 .114 .007 5.17 .024* .014

3 BASIC-knowledge 2.65 .104 .007 3.46 .064 .010

4 BASIC-empathy .33 .565 .001 5.29 .022* .015

5 BASIC-task 2.75 .098 .008 1.98 .160 .006

6 BASIC-relational .08 .775 .000 .66 .415 .002

7 BASIC-interaction 5.30 .022* .015 .06 .800 .000

8 BASIC-ambiguity .36 .548 .001 .67 .412 .002

9 ISS-engagement 3.08 .080 .009 4.57 .033* .013

10 ISS-respect .95 .330 .003 6.99 .009** .019

11 ISS-confidence .15 .691 .000 1.73 .189 .005

12 ISS-enjoyment 21.27 .000*** .057 .09 .756 .000

13 ISS-attentiveness .00 .974 .000 5.32 .022* .015

14 ICQ-initiation 3.02 .083 .008 1.66 .198 .00515 ICQ-assertion .57 .450 .002 .01 .903 .000

16 ICQ-disclosure .38 .534 .001 .87 .351 .002

17 ICQ-support .06 .797 .000 12.31 .001*** .034

18 SPSI-R total score .35 .555 .001 1.72 .190 .005

19 SMS 14.89 .000*** .040 3.66 .056 .010

Notes

N 367.

* p # .05; ** p # .01; *** p # .001.



16/26

(R2 ranging from .013 to .063). On the other hand, gender culture explains group

differences for more dimensions of inter-cultural competencies than does national

culture. Altogether, in this study, gender culture appears to be at least as influential as

national culture on inter-cultural competencies.

Study two: industry sample

Introduction Due to the request of two companies to restrict the time for the study, the

samples in the four organizations completed only three out of the five questionnaires

identified at the beginning of the article. The Inter-cultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) was

chosen for the second study because, out of the two measures assessing skills specifically

in inter-cultural situations (BASIC and ISS), the items of the ISS can be combined to a

scale. From the remaining questionnaires, the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire

(ICQ) was selected because it assesses various dimensions of interpersonal and social

competence. Finally, the Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS) was utilized in the second study.

Descriptive statistics The psychometric properties of the ISS and ICQ scales and

the SMS are summarized for the two American and the two German organizations

(see Table 6). Table 6 shows, according to the results from study one, low alpha

coefficients for the ISS-scales and the SMS-total score. Due to the arguments already

given in the section on study one, the scales will be retained.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics of the scales in the industry sample


1 ISS-engagement USA 3.71 .62 2.57 5.00 .78

GER 3.73 .36 2.86 4.71 .382 ISS-respect USA 3.97 .71 2.67 5.00 .79

GER 4.04 .56 2.33 5.00 .66

3 ISS-self-confidence USA 3.58 .68 2.50 5.00 .74

GER 3.38 .50 2.00 5.00 .53

4 ISS-enjoyment USA 3.90 .78 2.00 5.00 .67

GER 4.09 .69 1.00 5.00 .66

5 ISS-attentiveness USA 3.62 .70 2.00 5.00 .65

GER 3.70 .56 2.33 5.00 .54

6 ICQ-initiation USA 3.55 .63 2.25 5.00 .84

GER 3.48 .66 1.75 4.75 .84

7 ICQ-assertion USA 3.45 .71 1.63 5.00 .85

GER 3.11 .74 1.50 4.50 .87

8 ICQ-disclosure USA 3.43 .61 2.00 4.88 .78

GER 3.32 .62 1.75 4.88 .78

9 ICQ-support USA 3.98 .72 2.50 5.00 .91GER 4.09 .54 2.63 5.00 .85

10 ICQ-conflict USA 3.43 .64 1.75 5.00 .83

GER 3.39 .53 2.25 4.63 .75

11 SMS USA 11.22 3.78 2.00 19.00 .55

GER 9.00 3.93 0.00 19.00 .59

Notes

GER Germany.

N (USA) 79; N (Germany) 98.



17/26

Research questions 2a and 2b: analysis of the impact of national culture versus

organizational culture The results of the MANOVA with national culture as the fixed

factor are demonstrated in Table 7. National culture shows up as a significant

independent variable for three scales. Table 6 shows that the American sample indicates

higher scores in the identified dimensions of inter-cultural competencies. Organizational

culture exhibits a significant impact on eight scales.

Addressing research question 2a, the findings confirm that national culture represents

a significant independent variable on several dimensions of inter-cultural competencies.In accordance with the results in the university sample, the impact of national culture is

modest (R2 ranging from .028 to .069).

With regard to research question 2b, organizational culture influences eight of the

eleven evaluated dimensions of inter-cultural competencies (compared to three of eleven

influenced by national culture). Additionally, the variance explained by the factor

organizational culture (range from 6.6 to 14.6 per cent) is higher than by the

factor national culture (range from 2.8 to 6.9 per cent). In sum, it can be concluded that

organizational culture displays more impact on inter-cultural competencies in this study

than national culture.

Discussion

The two research questions, asking if national culture represents a significant

independent variable in the university sample (research question 1a) or in the industrysample (research question 2a), are answered affirmatively. The MANOVAs in both

studies indicate that national culture has a significant impact on several inter-cultural

competencies. However, the impact is evaluated to be modest based on the low

coefficients of determination. England and Negandhi emphasize that one should not get

overly exited about observed national differences, unless they are rather large in

magnitude, in an absolute sense and in a relative sense, when compared to observed

differences within a given country (1979: 188). For this reason, research question 1b was

asked to compare the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies to

Table 7 One-way MANOVAs with national culture (USA and Germany) as fixed factor and with

organizational culture (organizations) as fixed factor (industry sample)

National culture Organizational culture

F Sig. R2 F Sig. R2

ISS-engagement .09 .761 .001 6.98 .000*** .111

ISS-respect .44 .506 .003 5.64 .001*** .092

ISS-self-confidence 4.95 .027* .028 9.51 .000*** .146

ISS-enjoyment 3.03 .083 .018 6.04 .001*** .098

ISS-attentiveness .58 .445 .003 3.94 .009** .066

ICQ-initiation .69 .406 .004 2.56 .056 .044

ICQ-assertion 9.67 .002** .054 5.74 .001*** .094

ICQ-disclosure 1.47 .227 .009 2.20 .089 .038

ICQ-support 1.32 .251 .008 6.87 .000*** .110

ICQ-conflict .27 .601 .002 1.84 .141 .032

SMS 12.52 .001*** .069 5.64 .001** .092

Notes

N 177.

* p# .05; ** p# .01; *** p# .001.



18/26

the impact of gender culture and research question 2b to compare the impact of national

culture to the impact of organizational culture. It turned out that both gender culture and

organizational culture were significant independent variables for more inter-cultural

competencies than was national culture. Additionally, organizational culture explained

more variance of the differences in the group means than national culture. Moreover,

different dimensions of inter-cultural competencies (except for self-monitoring) were

influenced by national culture in the two studies, showing that the impact of national

culture on inter-cultural competencies may vary considerably within one country. In sum,

the results indicate that inter-cultural competencies may be culture-general as far as the

two national cultures are concerned. Conceptually, the studies supply some first evidence

that a general model of inter-cultural competencies might be justified (for Western

countries). Of course, findings from two national cultures do not allow conclusions for

further nations (see the section on Study limitations below); however, the significant

tendency for inter-cultural competencies to be national-culture-free in the evaluated

nations may attract further research attention.

Given the finding that organizational culture exerted more impact on the evaluated

inter-cultural competencies in the study than national culture, it may be useful to look

closely at the influence of both cultural factors on inter-cultural competencies. Generally

speaking, national culture influences the way of thinking, the attitudes and behaviours in

a population and consequently in organizations as well. On the other hand,

organizational cultures also influence the way of thinking and acting of their employees.

In this sense, organizational culture is a subset of national culture. However, this does not

imply that national culture is necessarily more powerful than organizational culture.

A current perspective is to consider national culture and organizational culture as

phenomena of a different order, both influencing behaviour at work (Hofstede, 1998b;

Schreyogg, 1992: 133ff.). In accordance with this understanding, the different patterns of

influence of national culture and organizational culture will be reflected.

Findings concerning the impact of national culture on specific competencies are mainlyderived from value research (Adler, 2002; Hofstede, 2002; Schwartz and Sagie, 2000).

Thus, it is stated that a societys value system modifies individual competencies, as far as

theseare strengthened or weakened dependingon their culturalevaluation (Durham,1990;

Helfrich, 1999). In relations to the nations investigated, several studies have found

significant differences in value system between the USA and Germany (Hofstede, 1980,

2002; Schwartz, 1994). Consequently, it is not surprising that the profile of (inter-cultural)

competencies differs between the USA and Germany. Regarding the pattern of influence

of organizational culture several aspects might be considered. Generally, the skill profiles

within a company areclosely related to HRMefforts. In fact, one major objective of HRM

is to create a capability focus within the firm (Ulrich, 1997: 63). Thus, HRM aims at

adjusting personnel selection processes as well as training and development interventions

to organizational requirements. Besides, a process of organizational socialization takes

place: (inter-cultural) competencies that arein harmony withthe organizational culture are

strengthened and those not desired are weakened.The influential role of organizational culture in respect of inter-cultural competencies

may enlarge the vista on some global issues. Currently, the reasons for failures in

international assignments as well as international joint ventures are mainly reduced to

obstacles due to different national cultures. However, these results supply some

indication that cultural obstacles may not exclusively arise due to variant national

cultures but possibly also due to variant organizational cultures. Indeed, the importance

of organizational identification processes in international business has been increasingly

emphasized (Gotz and Bleher, 2002; Li et al., 2002). From a scientific perspective,



19/26

the results recommend that organizational culture be taken into account in competency

research. From a professional perspective, the results suggest that potential cultural

differences among companies be considered in making management decisions as is

usually done with potential differences among nations.

Gender culture displayed a significant impact on seven out of nineteen dimensions of

inter-cultural competencies. Emotional support of others (assessed with the ICQ) has

already been identified to show a main effect of sex in former studies. Buhrmester et al.

(1988: 996) found women reporting greater emotional support than men. Likewise in this

study women stated higher capabilities M 4:12 than men M 3:89: For the other

scales no sex bias has been identified in former studies. In this study, women showed

better results in the following BASIC subscales than men: display of respect M 4:20

versus M 3:82; interaction posture M 2:90 versus M 2:70 and empathy M

3:84 versus M 3:59; and in the following ISS subscales: engagement in inter-cultural

interactions M 3:88 versus M 3:78 and respect for cultural differences M 4:24

versus M 4:08:

Altogether, the results indicate better scores on the evaluated inter-cultural competencies

for women than for men. Research on gender issues in inter-cultural competencies has been

minor (Bradford et al., 1998; Dinges and Baldwin, 1996). However, Selmer (2001), who

investigated whether gender is related to international adjustment like interaction

adjustment, work adjustment or subjective well-being, found no gender-related effect.

Concerning the evaluation by co-actors as to whether a behaviour demonstrated is

competent, Biernat and Kobrynowicz (1997), as well as Foschi (1992), supplied evidence

that women have more difficulty in documenting their ability in competence-related

domains than men. Referred to the concept of inter-cultural competence by Spitzberg

(2000), this suggests that the episodic system of inter-cultural competence may be different

for men than for women. On the other hand, some authors state that this disadvantage for

women is cancelled out in international business. In fact, it is argued that local managers

seewomenexpatriatesas foreigners, whohappento be women,not as women whohappentobe foreigners (Adler, 1987, 1995). Given the increasing number of women in international

business (Adler, 1995), the issue of gender related impacts on inter-cultural competencies

would benefit from further research.

Despite the preliminary character of the study, the finding regarding the significant

impact of several cultural factors (national culture, organizational culture and gender

culture) on inter-cultural competencies will be used to reconsider the understanding of

inter-cultural competencies. One suggestion is to describe inter-cultural competencies as

cognitive, affective and behavioural abilities or characteristics which facilitate

competent interaction with a person from a different culture and not only from a

different national culture. Indeed, Pearce argues, in accordance with this extended

perspective on inter-cultural competencies, that inter-cultural communication can occur

in a conversation between neighbours or even siblings if they do encounter their horizons

as boundaries (1994: 314). Consequently, a tentative assumption is that inter-cultural

competencies may not only be required when interacting with an individual from adifferent national culture, but whenever interacting with an individual from a different

culture (e.g. gender culture, organizational culture).

Recommendations for international human resource management

Inter-cultural competencies were indicated to be national-culture-free in these studies.

Moreover, the results give some first indication that inter-cultural competencies may be

required not only when interacting with an individual from a different national culture



20/26

but, additionally, when interacting with an individual from a different organizational

culture. Consequently, it is suggested that inter-cultural trainings be generalized to a

certain degree and, additionally, the focus be expanded from national culture to various

cultural factors. As Triandis (1994: 2756) argues, there are so many topics relevant to

getting along in other cultures that are not specific to any culture (e.g. learn to suspend

judgement, to live with ambiguity). Moreover, training (future) expatriates on cultural

influences in general might prepare them better for the various cultural differences they

have to deal with during their assignment.

Based on the results it may be concluded that an individual possessing excellent

communications skills, interpersonal skills, inter-cultural sensitivity and so on has the

potential to interact successfully with both Americans and Germans. The results do not

allow conclusions for further national cultures (see Study limitations below); however, it

is supposed that this individual might also be successful in further Western nations. Stick-

ing to this assumption, an interesting opportunity for IHRM might be considered: managers

could be screened on inter-cultural competencies and those possessing outstanding

inter-cultural competencies could be flexibly assigned to tasks in different countries. For

example, IHRM may identify a profile of required inter-cultural competencies for the

company, develop specific assessment tools and screen and select inter-cultural high

potentials. These individuals, meeting the skill requirements for successfully working

with individuals from a foreign Western culture, may be flexibly assigned to international

projects (in Western cultures). However, inter-cultural high potentials for international

tasks may differ from high potentials for national tasks. Frequently, the appropriate skill

profiles for national and for international projects are considerably distinguished. In fact,

persons who are successful in their home country are often wholly inappropriate for

cross-cultural postings precisely because of the orientations that ensured success here

(Ruben, 1989: 232). For example, an individual who is extremely ambitious and task-

oriented, and an aggressive problem-solver, may be successful in getting to the top in the

home company, whereas he or she might not be appropriate for inter-cultural tasks, whichrequire outstanding soft skills (sensitivity, empathy, etc.). Therefore, screening and

selection procedures for international assignments should fairly be independent from an

individuals past success in the home company.

Conclusions

National culture represents a significant independent variable for several inter-cultural

competencies in the study. However, the inter-cultural differences of the assessed inter-

cultural competencies were moderate in comparison with the evaluated intracultural

differences. The findings indicate that inter-cultural competence is national-culture-free

in the two nations. Overall, the results contribute an argument for the assumption that a

general model of inter-cultural competence is justified for the two nations (and possibly

for Western cultures). However, several cultural factors seem to influence inter-cultural

competencies, like gender culture and organizational culture. For IHRM the findings

suggest that selection and training processes might be generalized to a certain extent forWestern cultures. Moreover, screening inter-cultural high potentials might be reflected

by companies.

Study limitations

The current studies have several limitations to be considered in evaluating the results.

One major limitation is that only two (Western) nations are included. Therefore, it has

been emphasized that this article can serve only as a first approach towards the question



21/26

of whether inter-cultural competencies are culture-free or culture-bound. Moreover, the

first study focused on five and the second study on three inter-cultural competencies

leaving open the possibility that other inter-cultural competencies would have exhibited

different results. Additionally, it may be possible that the (subjective) choice of the

measures may have created a bias for or against any of the dependent variables.

Another potential limitation of this research project concerns the use of self-report

measures, facing the threats to validity associated with self-report measures. The major

threat is a potential systematic bias, which occurs when individuals misrepresent or

misinterpret their own behaviour (Paulhus, 1986). The most frequent systematic bias

reported by researchers is that participants answer based on social desirability. Another

potential systematic bias is that the individuals being judged by others to be incompetent

may themselves be inaccurate in judging their own (inter-cultural) competencies (Firth

et al., 1986). An alternative data source for the studies would have been to utilize non-

self-report measures (e.g. peer ratings). However, partner or third-party evaluations pose

other serious methodological challenges (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989: 5861).

Future research should try to replicate and extend the focus of these studies. Since the

selection of nations may have biased the findings, preferably non-Western nations should

also be included to test the validity of the results. Given the restricted availability of

measures validated in several cultures, further empirical research in this field would be

beneficial.

References

Aaltio, I. and Mills, A.J. (2002) Gender, Identity and the Culture of Organizations. London:

Routledge.

Abe, H. and Wiseman, R. (1983) A Cross-Cultural Confirmation of the Dimensions of Inter-

cultural Effectiveness, International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 7: 5367.Adler, N.J. (1987) Pacific Basin Managers: A Gaijin, Not a Woman, Human Resource

Management, 26(2): 16991.

Adler, N.J. (1995) Expatriate Women Managers. In Selmer, J. (ed.) Expatriate Management:

New Ideas for International Business. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Adler, N.J. (2002) International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, 4th edn. Cincinnati,

OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Adler, N.J. and Bartholomew, S. (1992) Academic and Professional Communities of Discourse:

Generating Knowledge on Transnational Human Resource Management, Journal of

International Business Studies, 3: 55169.

Allerton, H. (1997) Expatriate Gaps, Training & Development, 51(7): 78.

Badke-Schaub, P. and Strohschneider, S. (1998) Complex Problem-Solving in the Cultural

Context, Le Travail Humain: A Bilingual and Multi-Disciplinary Journal in Human Facto ,

61(1): 1 28.

Barkema, H. and Vermeulen, F. (1997) What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners

Are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures?, Journal of International Business Studies,

28(4): 84564.

Beamish, P.W. and Inkpen, A.C. (1998) Japanese Firms and the Decline of Japanese Expatriate,

Journal of World Business, 33: 3550.

Bennett, M.J. (2001) Developing Inter-cultural Competence for Global Leadership. In Reineke,

R.-D. and Fuinger, C. (eds) Interkulturelles Management: Konzeption Beratung Training.

Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 20526.

Bennett, R., Aston, A. and Colquhoun, T. (2000) Cross-Cultural Training: A Critical Step in

Ensuring the Success of International Assignments, Human Resource Management, 39(23):

23950.



22/26

Berry, J.W. (1989) Introduction to Methodology. In Triandis, H. and Berry, J.W. (eds) Handbook

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 128.

Biernat, M. and Kobrynowicz, D. (1997) Gender- and Race-Based Standards of Competence:

Lower Minimum Standards but Higher Ability Standards for Devalued Groups, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3): 544 57.

Black, J., Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1991) Towards a Comprehensive Model of International

Adjustment: An Integration of Multiple Theoretical Perspectives, Academy of Management

Review, 16(2): 291 317.

Bortz, J. (1999) Statistik fur Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer.

Bortz, J. and Doring, N. (1995) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation. Berlin: Springer.

Bower, G.H. (1981) Mood and Memory, American Psychologist, 36: 129292.

Bradford, L., Allen, M. and Beisser, K. (1998) An Evaluation and Meta-Analysis of Inter-cultural

Competence Research. Milwaukee, WS: University of Wisconsin, Research Report.

Briggs, S.R. and Cheek, J.M. (1986) The Role of Factor Analysis in the Development and

Evaluation of Personality Scales, Journal of Personality, 54(1): 106 48.

Briggs, S.R. and Cheek, J.M. (1988) On the Nature of Self-Monitoring: Problems with

Assessment, Problems with Validity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54:

66378.

Brislin, R.W. and Baumgardner, S.R. (1971) Non-Random Sampling of Individuals in Cross-

Cultural Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4: 397400.

Brooks, I. (1994) Managerial Problem-Solving: A Cultural Perspective, Management Decision,

32(7): 53 9.

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. and Reis, H. (1988) Five Domains of Interpersonal

Competence in Peer Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6):

9911008.

Chen, G.-M. and Starosta, W.J. (1996) Inter-cultural Communication Competence: A

Synthesis. In Burleson, B. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

pp. 35383.

Chen, G.-M. and Starosta, W.J. (1997) A Review of the Concept of Inter-cultural Sensitivity,

Human Communication, 1: 116.

Chen, G.-M. and Starosta, W.J. (2000) The Development and Validation of the Inter-cultural

Communication Sensitivity Scale, Human Communication, 3: 115.

Cui, G. and Awa, N.E. (1992) Measuring Inter-cultural Effectiveness: An Integrative Approach,

International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 16: 31128.

Dean, O. and Popp, G.E. (1990) Inter-cultural Communication Effectiveness as Perceived by

American Managers in Saudi Arabia and French Managers in the US, International Journal of

Inter-cultural Relations, 14: 40524.

Dinges, N. (1998) Inter-cultural Competence. In Landis, D. and Brislin, R.W. (eds) Handbook of

Inter-cultural Training Issues in Theory and Design. New York: Pergamon, Vol. 1,

pp. 176202.

Dinges, N.G. and Baldwin, K.D. (1996) Inter-cultural Competence: A Research Perspective.

In Landis, D. and Bhagat, R.S. (eds) Handbook of Inter-cultural Training. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage, pp. 10623.

Durham, W.H. (1990) Advances in Evolutionary Culture Theory, Annual Review of

Anthropology, 19: 187210.

DZurilla, T.J. (1990) Problem-Solving Training for Effective Stress Management andPrevention, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 4: 32755.

DZurilla, T.J. and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1995) Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Social

Problem-Solving Assessment, Behaviour Therapy, 26: 40932.

DZurilla, T. and Nezu, A. (1982) Social Problem-Solving in Adults. In Kendall, P. (ed.)

Advances in Cognitive-Behavioural Research and Therapy, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press,

pp. 20174.

DZurilla, T.J. and Nezu, A.M. (1990) Development and Preliminary Evaluation of the Social

Problem-Solving Inventory, Psychological Assessment, 2(2): 15663.



23/26

DZurilla, T.J., Maydeu-Olivares, A. and Kant, G.L. (1998) Age and Gender Differences in Social

Problem-Solving in College Students, Middle Age and Elderly Adults, Personality and

Individual Differences, 25: 24152.

DZurilla, T.J., Nezu, A.M. and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1999) Manual for the Social Problem-

Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Elmuti, D. and Kathawala, Y. (2001) An Overview of Strategic Alliances, Management Decision,

39(3): 20517.

England, G.W. and Negandhi, A.R. (1979) National Contexts and Technology as Determinants of

Employees Perceptions. In England, G., Negandhi, A. and Wilpert, B. (eds) Organizational

Functioning in a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Kent, OH: Kent State University, pp. 17590.

Ertel, D., Weiss, J. and Visioni, L.J. (2001) Managing Alliance Relationships: Ten Key Corporate

Capabilities. Boston, MA: Vantage Partners.

Fedor, K. and Werther, W. (1996) The Fourth Dimension: Creating Culturally Responsive

International Alliances, Organizational Dynamics, 24(fall): 3953.

Firth, E.A., Conger, J.C., Kuhlenschmidt, S. and Dorcey, T. (1986) Social Competence and Social

Perceptivity, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4: 85100.

Forster, N. (2000) Expatriates and the Impact of Cross-Cultural Training, Human Resource

Management Journal, 10(3): 6378.

Foschi, M. (1992) Gender and Double Standards for Competence. In Ridgeway, C.L. (ed.)

Gender, Interaction and Inequality. New York: Springer, pp. 181207.

Fritz, W. (2001) Die interkulturelle Kompetenz von Managern ein Schlusselfaktor fur den Erfolg

auf Auslandsmarkten. In Oelsnitz, D. von and Kammel, A. (eds) Kompetenzen moderner

Unternehmensfuhrung: Joachim Hentze zum 60. Geburtstag. Bern: Haupt, pp. 87101.

Fritz, W. and Mollenberg, A. (1999) Die Messung der interkulturellen Sensibilitat in verschiedenen

Kulturen eine internationale Vergleichsstudie. Braunschweig: Technical University.

Fritz, W., Mollenberg, A. and Chen, G.-M. (2002) Measuring Inter-cultural Sensitivity in Different

Cultural Contexts, Inter-cultural Communication Studies, 11(2): 16576.

Fritz, W., Graf, A., Hentze, J. and Mollenberg, A. (2003) Eine neue Analyse des Chen/

Starosta-Modells der Interkulturellen Sensibilitat in Deutschland und den USA. Braunschweig:

Technical University.

Gangestad, S.W. and Snyder, M. (2000) Self-Monitoring: Appraisal and Reappraisal,

Psychological Bulletin, 126(4): 530 55.

Geringer, M. and Hebert, L. (1991) Measuring Performance of International Joint Ventures,

Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2): 24963.

Glantz, S.A. and Slinker, B.K. (2001) Applied Regression & Analysis of Variance. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Glinow, M.A. and von and Teagarden, M.B. (1988) The Transfer of Human Resource Technology

in SinoUS Cooperative Ventures: Problems and Solutions, Human Resource Management,

27: 20129.

Gordon, G.G. and Ditomaso, N. (1992) Predicting Corporate Performance from Organizational

Culture, Journal of Management Studies, 29: 78398.

Gordon, M. and Salganik, J. (2001) Making Alliances Work: Improving Return on Relationship,

Global Finance, 15(10): 734.

Gotz,K. andBleher, N. (2002)Unternehmenskultur und interkulturelles Training. In Gotz,K. (ed.)

Interkulturelles Lernen/Interkulturelles Training, 4th edn. Munchen: Rainer Hampp, pp. 11 58.

Graf, A. (2002)Eine deutschsprachige Version der Behavioural Assessment Scale for Inter-culturalCommunication Effectiveness,unpublishedmanuscript, Technical Universityof Braunschweig.

Graf, A. (2003) Psychometrische Uberprufung einer deutschsprachigen Ubersetzung des Social

Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised, Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische

Psychologie, 24(4): 277 91.

Graf, A. (2004) Eine deutschsprachige Version der Self-Monitoring Skala, Zeitschrift fur Arbeits-

und Organisationspsychologie, 48(3): 113.

Greif, S. (1997) Soziale Kompetenzen. In Frey, D. and Greif, S. (eds) Sozialpsychologie: Ein

Handbuch in Schlusselbegriffen, 4th edn. Munchen: Psychologie Verlags Union, pp. 31220.



24/26

Gudykunst, W.B. (1985) The Influence of Cultural Similarity, Type of Relationship,

and Self-Monitoring on Uncertainty Reduction Processes, Communication Monographs, 52:

20317.

Gudykunst, W.B. and Lee, C.M. (2002) Cross-Cultural Communication Theories. In Gudykunst,

W.B. and Mody, B. (eds) Handbook of International and Inter-cultural Communication.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 2550.

Hammer, M.R. (1987) Behavioural Dimensions of Inter-cultural Effectiveness: A Replication and

Extension, International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 11: 6588.

Hammer, M.R., Gudykunst, W.B. and Wiseman, R.L. (1978) Dimensions of Inter-

cultural Effectiveness: An Exploratory Study, International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations,

2: 38292.

Harrison, J.K., Chadwick, M. and Scales, M. (1996) The Relationship between Cross-Cultural

Adjustment and the Personality Variables of Self-Efficacy and Self-Monitoring, International

Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 20(2): 16788.

Hawes, F. and Kealey, D.J. (1979) Canadians in Development: An Empirical Study of Adaptation

and Effectiveness on Overseas Assignment Technical Report. Ottawa: Canadian International

Development Agency.

Helfrich, H. (1999) Beyond the Dilemma of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Resolving the Tension

between Etic and Emic Approaches, Culture & Psychology, 5(2): 1313.

Heller, F. (2003)Participative Decision Making in a Cross-National Framework.In Bergemann, N.

and Sourisseaux, A. (eds) Interkulturelles Management, 3rd edn. Berlin: Springer, pp. 16578.

H

screening and training inter-cultural competencies usa and germany

Documents