CROSS CULTURAL TRAINING FOR INTERNATIONAL HRM

“CROSS CULTURAL TRAININGS FOR INTERNATIONAL HRM"

Authors :

Awais Farooq

Muhammad Ansab Qureshi

Saad Sattar

Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................3

Increased internationalization in the economic, political, and social arenas has led to greater interpersonal cross-cultural contact. Because much of this contact has not been successful, cross-cultural training has been proposed by many scholars as a means of facilitating more effective interaction. A review of the cross-cultural training literature is presented, along with the literature of many of the theories which have been proposed by scholars regarding what makes cross-cultural training programmes effective...................................................................................................3

Introduction.................................................................................................................3

Literature Review.........................................................................................................5

Need for cross-cultural training...................................................................................6

Cross-cultural training: Costs and Benefits..................................................................6

Effectiveness of cross-cultural training........................................................................7

Importance of cross-cultural training...........................................................................8

Theories of cross-cultural training...............................................................................9

Social Learning Theory: An Overview.....................................................................10

Attention............................................................................................................10

Retention...........................................................................................................10

Reproduction.....................................................................................................11

Incentives and the Motivational Processes........................................................12

Bandura’s empirical findings..................................................................................13

Designing Effective Diversity Training........................................................................13

Training group composition...................................................................................14

Trainee experience................................................................................................15

Diversity training outcomes.......................................................................................16

Development of Theory-Based Assimilators..............................................................17

Alternative Criterion Measures..................................................................................18

Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI).................................................................19

Category Width......................................................................................................19

Reaction Measures................................................................................................20

Learning Measures.................................................................................................21

Behavioral Measures..........................................................................................21

Experiential Learning Theory.....................................................................................22

Experiential Learning Process and Cycle................................................................22

Theoretical Framework..............................................................................................23

of 44

Dependent Independent...................................................................................23

Variable Variables..........................................................................................23

Methodology.............................................................................................................24

Chi-square analyzes...................................................................................................24

Summary Of Sample’s Cultural Interactions..............................................................32

Conclusion.................................................................................................................34

References.................................................................................................................35

of 44

Abstract

Increased internationalization in the economic, political, and social arenas

has led to greater interpersonal cross-cultural contact. Because much of this

contact has not been successful, cross-cultural training has been proposed by

many scholars as a means of facilitating more effective interaction. A review

of the cross-cultural training literature is presented, along with the literature

of many of the theories which have been proposed by scholars regarding what

makes cross-cultural training programmes effective.

IntroductionIn the past, commerce and busniness in a particular region prevailed and

thrived in that particular region only. Whenever there were incedents of inter-

regional commerce, business, and interaction, the scale was very large and the

incedents were not frequent.

With the advent of advanced transportation, infrastructure, technology, and

globalization, international business and cross-cultural interactions have

become extreme widespread and commonplace. Studies have showen that not

only large businesses partake in cross-cultural interactions; small businesses,

students, employees, and even tourists come across a wide variety of different

cultures on a very regular bases.

Through everyone is now living a very culturally diverse life, for businesses,

their managers, and their employees, the pertinance of effectively dealing with

cultures different from their own is paramount. Researchers who have studied

the importance of effective cross-cultural diversity management suggest that

in today’s world, the costs for business to overlook the importance of effective

cross-cultural diversity management is extremely heavy. This is so because

managers who are dealing with different cultures are, in fact conducting

business on behalf of their parent company and are behaving as that

company’s agent, and if these managers do not effectively deal with cross-

cultural differences, the company as a whole takes a hit. This hit, researchers

suggest, can well be in millions of dollars in net worth most of the times.

of 44

Thus, in order to remain in business and combat competition, it would

behoove the busnisses to take steps to better the cross-cultural management

skills of their managers and employees. One such step, which has now become

quite popular, is to have the managers and employees undergo corss-cultural

training programmes. These programmes are aimed at bettering the cross-

cultural management skills of the managers and empolyees.

Despite the apparent importance and benefit of cross-cultural training, cross-

cultural programmes still face many apprehensions from senior managers, who

believe that these programmes are ineffective and merely a waste of time and

money.

To counter these cynicisms, researchers have long strived to prove empirically

and theoretically that these training programmes are very effective.

This paper goes over the literature which is extant today related to the need of

cross-cultural training, their importance, their costs and benefits, and their

current and future fate in the arena of international human resource

management. The paper then moves towards presenting the current theories

which have been proposed by researches which attempt to explain how and

why cross-cultural training is effective, and which also attempt to describe

how training programmes can be made more effective.

The paper ends with the analysis of the primary data which was collected to

support the importance of cross-cultural training programms, their perceived

importance, benefits, and costs. This data also attempts to pique the sample

poopulation’s opionion regarding what theories enhance the effectiveness of

cross-cultural training programmes.

of 44

Literature Review

The field of international management, up till the late 1980s, had been

observed to be in a nascent, pre-paradigm state of development (Adler, 1983;

Beaty & Mendenhall, 1989; Kyi, 1988; Roberts, 1970; Roberts &

Boyacigiller, 1984; Schollhammer, 1975). Kyi (1988) perhaps best

summarized these findings when he stated, "The paucity of papers in the

hypothetico-deductive category ... is related to the stage of the development of

the field and the nature of comparative analysis.At this stage, there are no

deductively developed theories in [international] management and most so-

called 'theories' are experienced-based hunches or empirical generalizations.

Well-integrated deductive theories with a central core concept, such as 'market

and rationality' in economic theory, have not appeared yet" (p. 209).

This pre-paradigm state was especially descriptive of the newer subfield of

cross-cultural international human resource management (Adler, 1983; Beaty

& Mendenhall, 1989). Adler (1983) found that from 1971 to 1980 only one

percent of the 11,000 articles published in 24 management journals focused on

cross-cultural work interaction. Of the major international business journals

from 1984 to 1988, only 9 percent of the articles were devoted to international

human resource management issues, and in the Academy of Management

Review, for the same period, only one and one half percent of the articles dealt

with international human resource management issues; however, none were

attempts at theory building (Beaty & Mendenhall, 1989).

The decade of 1990-2000, however,saw rapid growth in the popularity of

diversity training in corporate America. One indication of this can be seen in

Training Magazine 's annual Industry Report, a survey of training practices in

medium and large sized firms. In 1988, diversity management was not even

listed among the 40 most common training topics (Rynes and Rosen, 1995).

By 1994, more than half of the surveyed organizations reported offering

diversity training. Data from the late 1990s showed that most government

agencies and 60 per cent of Fortune 500 companies provided some kind of

diversity training to their employees (Hemphill and Haines, 1997). Academic

scholars have noted that substantive change is unlikely to be realized in a

of 44

single diversity training workshop (Ellis and Sonnenfeld, 1994), and many

organizations no longer treat diversity training as a one-time seminar

experience.

Need for cross-cultural trainingWork-related cross-cultural interactions are not always successful. For

example, studies have found that between 16 and 40 per-cent of all expatriate

managers who are given foreign assignments end these assignments early

because of their poor performance or their inability to adjust to the foreign

environment (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Black, 1988; Dunbar & Ehrlich,

1986; Tung, 1981), and as high as 50 percent of those who do not return early,

function at a low level of effectiveness (Copeland & Griggs, 1985). Other

studies have found that negotiations between businessmen of different cultures

often fail because of problems related to cross-cultural differences (Adler,

1986; Black, 1987; Graham, 1985; Tung, 1984). Unsuccessful cross-cultural

interactions become even more important when the costs of failure are high,

and they often are. For example, studies have estimated that the cost of a failed

expatriate assignment is $50,000 to $150,000 (Copeland & Griggs, 1985;

Harris & Moran, 1979; Misa & Fabricatore, 1979). For a firm that has

hundreds of expatriate employees worldwide, such costs can easily reach into

the tens of millions of dollars. In fact, Copeland and Griggs (1985) have

estimated that the direct costs to U.S. firms of failed expatriate assignments is

over $2 billion a year, and this does not include unmeasured losses such as

damaged corporate reputations or lost business opportunities.

Cross-cultural training: Costs and BenefitsCross-cultural training (CCT) has long been advocated as a means of

facilitating effective cross-cultural interactions (Brislin, 1981; Landis &

Brislin, 1983; Bochner, 1982; Harris & Moran, 1979; Mendenhall & Oddou,

1986; Tung, 1981). Despite the normative arguments for the use of cross-

cultural training, its use in American business organizations is not always very

widespread. Various reasons have been cited by business organizations for the

low use of cross-cultural training, and the most prevalent of these is that such

training is not thought to be effective (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Mendenhall

& Oddou, 1985; Schwind, 1985; Tung, 1981; Zeira, 1975); thus, top

of 44

management sees no need for the training (Runzheimer Executive Re-port,

1984) and is unwilling to support it, financially or otherwise.

Essentially, American top managers believe that a good manager in New York

or Los Angeles will be effective in Hong Kong or Tokyo as well (Miller,

1973). This is illustrated not only in the lack of training provided but also in

the use of the domestic track record as the primary criterion for selecting

candidates for overseas assignments (Miller, 1973). Such a culturally

insensitive perspective seems to be an important reason for many faulty

international human resource practices and the high expatriate failure rates

(Adler, 1986; Black, 1988; Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Mendenhall & Oddou,

1985; Ronen, 1986; Tung, 1982).”

Effectiveness of cross-cultural trainingWhile diversity training programmes have proliferated, the evaluation of these

training programmes has not kept pace. Diversity training programmes rarely

are subjected to systematic evaluation (Ellis and Sonnenfeld, 1994; Noe and

Ford, 1992; Rynes and Rosen, 1995). When programmes are evaluated,

qualitative feedback from trainees is the most prevalent evaluation method

(Bhawuk and Triandis, 1996); few organizations measure how employees'

behavior is influenced by the training (Carnevale and Stone, 1994). In

addition, as in other types of training programmes, there has been little

attention devoted to understanding how trainee characteristics influence

training effectiveness (Kossek et al., 1998; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992). The

lack of systematic evaluation of diversity training, especially with respect to

trainee characteristics and behavioral outcomes, is an increasingly serious

problem. In the absence of systematic evaluation efforts, human resource

professionals are left uncertain about how to conduct training for maximum

effectiveness (Day, 1995).

In order to dispel the negativity surrounding cross-cultural training, and in

order to prove that cross-cultural training is in fact effective in making

managers more adept at managing organizational functions in foreign cultures,

it is imperative to employ scientific, quantitative, and conclusive data and

procedure to prove this point. It would seem, as is suggested by the study of

Black & Mendenhall(1990), that an attempt to comprehensively review the

empirical literature on cross-cultural training in an effort to examine its of 44

effectiveness or ineffectiveness and an attempt to advance a theoretical

grounding for valid cross-cultural training program development and

evaluation is especially important. However, no study so far has attempted a

comprehensive review of cross-cultural training and its effectiveness in an

empirical manner(Black and Mendenhall, 1990).

Mendenhall and Oddou's researchof 1985maintains that though no

comprehensive review of cross- cultural training and its effectiveness in an

empirical mannerexist, based on qualitative studies and experiential

knowledge, researchers claim that the skills needed to be successful in a new

culture can be included under three dimensions: skills related to the

maintenance of self (mental health, psychological well-being, stress reduction,

feelings of self-confidence), skills related to the fostering of relationships with

host nationals, and cognitive skills that promote a correct perception of the

host environment and its social systems (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985).

Importance of cross-cultural trainingThe importance of cross-cultural training for international human resource

managers is critical, because the success of practicing management and

business is directly related to the managers ability to understand and

effectively navigate the culture in which the management and the business

activities are being conducted. Kluckhohn and Kroeberg (1952) concluded

that culture consists of patterns of behaviors that are acquired and transmitted

by symbols over time, which become generally shared within a group and are

communicated to new members of the group in order to serve as a cognitive

guide or blueprint for future actions. Thus, cross-cultural interactions bring

people together who have different patterns of behaving and believing and

who have different cognitive blueprints for interpreting the world (Triandis,

Vassiliou, Tanaka, & Shanmugam, 1972).

Moreover, the importance of cross-cultural training practically speaks for itself

when we consider the everyday duties which the new manager has to perform

in the foreign culture, and the difficulties (s)he faces while interacting with

other managers in the foreign culture. If people who have different culturally

based behaviors and beliefs must interact, difficulties arise because faulty

attributions are made about the motives and meanings of the others' behaviors

of 44

since the attributions are based on the attributor's own cultural norms and

worldview (Bochner, 1982).

The research of Black and Mendenhall (1990) suggests cross-cultural training

enables the individual to learn both content and skills that will facilitate

effective cross-cultural interaction by reducing misunderstandings and

inappropriate behaviors. If this is accepted as the major objective of cross-

cultural training, it becomes necessary to understand how people learn to

appropriately interact with others and how they use that knowledge for

effective interactions (Black and Mendenhall, 1990).

Theories of cross-cultural trainingIn an effort to focus learning theory on the more specific issue of training, Noe

(1986) proposed a model of how training facilitates performance. This

suggested that two aspects of an individual's motivation had an important

impact on the effectiveness of training. Noe argued that an individual's

motivation to learn and his or her motivation to transfer what was learned into

action were critical elements in the relationship of training and performance.

However, Noe did not delineate how individuals actually learn or how they

transfer that learning to behaviors. In order to understand the relationship

between training and performance, these aspects of the model require

additional attention. Cognitive and behavioral theorists have long competed to

explain how individuals learn and how they use this knowledge (for reviews

on cognitive and behavioral learning theories and the debate between them see

Bochner, 1982; Hilgard & Bower, 1975; Swenson, 1980). According to the

cognitive theories of learning, learning takes place through the mental

processing of information and the determination of subsequent behavior.

Behavioral theories argue that learning is determined by behaviors and

experienced consequences.

Social learning theory (SLT) has been advocated as a synthesis of the

cognitive and behavioral learning theories (Bandura, 1977; Hilgard & Bower,

1975). Davis and Luthans (1980), who compared SLT with other theories of

behavior, argued that it is the most useful in understanding organizational

behavior. Additionally, general reviews of learning in particular have argued

for the superiority of SLT (Hilgard & Bower, 1975; Swenson, 1980). For

example, Swenson (1980) stated that SLT was viewed as a consensus position of 44

on most aspects of learning. SLT not only integrates cognitive and behavioral

theories, it also encompasses the motivational aspects stressed by Noe (1986)

within the concept of self-efficacy, and it covers the issues of how individuals

both learn and utilize what they learn during a training situation, aspects that

Noe did not emphasize. In addition, SLT is becoming the dominant framework

in U. S. management training (Latham & Saari, 1979; Manz & Sims, 1981).

These make for compelling reasons to use SLT as the theoretical framework

for understanding cross-cultural learning and training. However, greater depth

and breadth of novel behaviors that trainees must learn during cross-cultural

training present a challenge to SLT's explanation of the success or failure of

cross-cultural training.

Social Learning Theory: An OverviewAccording to SLT, learning is affected by both observation and experience

(Bandura, 1977). A central premise is that individuals use symbols to engage

in anticipatory action, that is, they anticipate actions and their associated

consequences. This enables people to determine how they will behave before

an actual situation. Also, it is argued that individuals learn from experience

and that the experienced consequences of their behavior shape what they learn

as well as their future behavior. As described by Bandura (1977), SLT has

four central elements: attention, retention, reproduction, and incentives.

AttentionBefore behavior can be modeled, the subject must notice it. Several factors

influence the attention process of the subject, including: (a) the status of the

model, (b) the attractiveness of the model, (c) the similarity of the model, (d)

the repeated availability of the model, and (e) past reinforcement for paying

attention to the model (actual or vicarious).

RetentionRetention is the process by which the modeled behavior becomes encoded as a

memory (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Two representational systems are

involved in this process. The imaginal system is utilized during exposure to

the model. At this time the subject associates sequences of corresponding

sensory images with the physical contiguity of the model. The research of

Black and Mendenhall (1990) suggests that these images are stored as

cognitive maps, which can guide the observer when he or she tries to imitate

the behavior. In the second system, a verbal system, the coded information is

of 44

abbreviated into verbal systems, and groups of constituent patterns of behavior

are integrated into larger units. It should be noted that both the repeated

modeling of a behavior and the repeated cognitive rehearsal of the modeled

behavior help to secure the retention process (Black & Mendenhall, 1990).

of 44

ReproductionThe third major component involves the translating of the symbolic

representations into actions. As individuals try to imitate the modeled

behavior, they check their performance against their memory of what was

modeled. Motoric reproduction of the modeled behavior can, of course,

beinhibited by physical differences between the model and the person

imitating the model, how well the model is observed, and how well the

modeled behavior is retained.

Incentives and the Motivational ProcessesThe fourth element of SLT, incentives, can come from the environment, from

vicarious association, and from the individual. Each of these can affect several

aspects of the learning process. For example, incentives (a) can affect which

models are observed and how much attention is paid to them, (b) can influence

the degree to which the modeled behavior is retained and rehearsed, and (c)

can influence which learned behaviors are emitted. It is important to note that

Bandura (1977) argued on the basis of empirical work that incentives play a

much larger role in influencing what behavior is emitted as opposed to what

behavior is learned. He concluded that individuals learn numerous behaviors

that are not emitted because they are not positively rewarded. However, if the

reward structure is changed, the behaviors are performed.

In relation to the motivational processes of learning, Bandura (1977)

distinguished between two types of expectancies: efficacy expectations and

outcome expectations. Self-efficacy is the degree to which the individual

believes he or she can successfully execute a particular behavior. This

expectation is similar to the effort-to-performance expectancy proposed by

Vroom (1964). In his review of the literature, Bandura (1977) found that

higher levels of self-efficacy led individuals to persist at imitating modeled

behavior longer and to be more willing to try to imitate novel behavior. The

sources for increasing self-efficacy, in order of importance, include past

experience ("I've done it or something like it before"), vicarious experience

("other people have done it"), and verbal persuasion ("people say I can do it").

Outcome expectations are people's beliefs that the execution of certain

behaviors will lead to desired outcomes. There is a clear similarity between

this type of expectation and the expectancy-of-performance-to-outcome

(instrumentality expectancies) proposed by Vroom (1964). Bandura concluded

of 44

that incentives influence what people learn and that incentives, efficacy,

expectations, and outcome expectancies influence what learned behaviors are

acted out.

Bandura’s empirical findingsAlthough a number of empirical findings are reviewed by Bandura (1977),

three are important to summarize because they provide insight about

fundamental elements in the learning process.

The first finding is that gradual modeling is more effective than one-shot

modeling, especially if the modeled behaviors are novel. Gradual modeling

involves providing successive approximations of the final behavior and it is

more effective because (a) observers pay more attention to models and

modeled behaviors that are familiar, (b) observers can more easily retain

models that are similar to cognitive maps they already possess, (c) observers

have higher expectations of efficacy and outcome of behaviors that are

familiar, and (d) observers are more likely to be able to reproduce familiar

behaviors.

The second finding is that individuals can learn completely through symbolic

modeling, that is, by watching actions and mentally rehearsing them. As

previously mentioned, this symbolic learning process can be facilitated by

other variables and by the use of multiple models.

Finally, Bandura found that participative reproduction, in general, is more

effective than symbolic processes. Participative reproduction simply means

that the observer actually practices (compared to only cognitively rehearsing)

the modeled behavior. The external, and especially the internal, feedback

processes serve to refine the observer's ability to reproduce the modeled

behavior at a later time.

Designing Effective Diversity TrainingHow should training groups be formed (demographically heterogeneous or

homogeneous) to enhance the effectiveness of cross-cultural training? To

answer this question, the research of Lorainn Roberson, Carol T. Kulik and

Molly B. Pepper of 2001 offers some insight, as well as some theories.

of 44

Training group compositionThe diversity/cross-cultural literature frequently advises organizations to

assemble groups of trainees who are

demographicallyheterogeneous,particularlywith respect to visible dimensions

of diversity such as gender, racioethnicity, and age. For example, Ellis and

Sonnenfeld (1994: 101) recommend that organizations 'try to recruit a mix of

participants that minimizes the likelihood that individual participants will be

obligated to assume token roles as unwilling representatives of their racial,

gender, or other such group.' Kirkland and Regan (1997) advocate the use of

mixed race groups for racial diversity training not to protect individuals with

token status, but for the educational benefits. They argue that the quality of

discussion around racial issues is enhanced by racial heterogeneity.

These suggestions for diverse training groups may be taken quite seriously. In

some organizations employing limited numbers of racioethnic minority

employees, the few employees of color have been asked to attend multiple

training sessions so that group heterogeneity could be achieved (Caudron and

Hayes, 1997; Markels, 1997).

But are demographically heterogeneous training groups desirable? There is

another side to this debate. Some diversity trainers argue that racially mixed

groups are more likely to reinforce prejudiced attitudes among trainees

(Gordon, 1995) and advocate racially homogeneous training groups instead.

Groups homogeneous with respect to gender or racioethnicity may reduce

complaints of white males who say that they sometimes feel threatened or

attacked in diverse training groups (Galen and Palmer, 1993). Homogeneous

groups may enable trainees to engage in frank discussions about the training

content, without feeling distracted by impression management concerns or

pressures to behave in a 'politically correct' fashion (Allen, 1995; Kitfield,

1998). In addition, homogeneous groups avoid placing minorityparticipantsin

the 'hot seat' of educatingthe majoritygroup (Katz, 1978).

Kirklandand Regan (1997) and Alderfer et al. (1992) also see a place for same

race groups in racial diversity training, again for educational purposes.

Theories of group relations (Alderfer, 1986) argue that people must learn

about how they relate to their own group as well as how they relate to other

of 44

groups. The process of learning about one's own group membership is

facilitated by a same-race training group.

While both sides of the heterogeneous/homogeneous debate have passionate

supporters, many researchers, Black and Mendenhall to name a few, have been

unable to identify any research that systematically evaluated the effect of

training group composition on diversity training outcomes. It may be,

however, that the effects of training group composition depend on another

factor that has received little attention in the diversity literature-the experience

level of the trainee (Black & Mendenhall, 1990).

Trainee experienceThe research of Black and Mendenhall (1990) proposes that the trainee's prior

experience with diversity training may influence the relative effectiveness of

demographically heterogeneous and homogeneous diversity training groups.

Noe and Ford (1992) emphasize that evaluations of diversity training

programmes need to consider individual differences to determine what kinds

of people are most affected by the training.

In the training literature, the trainee's knowledge of the subject matter is an

important individual difference variable, and has been found to interact with

training methods to affect outcomes (Tobias, 1987).

Experience with the subject matter is also theoretically important in the

intercultural training literature. When trainees have had little exposure to

diversity issues, they are likely to be at very early stages of cultural

competence. In these early stages, activities focusing on raising cultural

awareness are most effective (Landis and Bhagat, 1996) and heterogeneous

training groups may facilitate the learning process. Hearing about the

experiences of different others can increase the ability to empathize, and

meeting members of different groups face-to-face is a potent technique for

countering racial and national stereotypes (Rossett and Bickham, 1994).

Awareness training frequently emphasizes having people share experiences

with one another (Loden, 1996), and, for trainees with limited diversity

training experience, interactions within heterogeneous groups may help them

to recognize the need for change.

of 44

As trainees gain more experience with diversity issues, their needs are likely

to change. Trainees need to know what to do with their new learning and how

to apply that knowledge in the work setting (Carnevale and Stone, 1994). At

these more advanced stages of cultural competence, diversity in the training

group may not be an advantage. As trainees try to generate and practice

alternative strategies for managing diversity, they may use the other trainees as

models. Behavioral modeling is more likely to occur if the model is perceived

as similar to the trainee (Decker and Nathan, 1985), because trainees can

easily visualize themselves performing the newly learned behaviors. However,

behavioral modeling is also facilitated when trainees experience rewards as a

result of adopting the model's behavior (Decker and Nathan, 1985).

Homogeneous groups may offer greater intrinsic rewards to trainees, since

interactions among similar individuals are generally viewed as more satisfying

and rewarding than interactions among dissimilar individuals (Triandis et al.,

1993). In addition, behavioral learning is more likely to increase anxiety than

is cognitive learning (Landis and Bhagat, 1996). Trainees need a safe

environment in which to rehearse new behaviors and feelings of psychological

safety may be enhanced with similar others. Paige and Martin (1996) suggest

that trainees are likely to be resistant to behavioral learning unless they have

formed relationships among themselves. Because of the greater attraction and

rapport among similar others (Alderfer and Tucker, 1996; Millikin and

Martins, 1996), relationships may form more quickly in a demographically

homogeneous group.

Diversity training outcomesAuthors have expressed concern about the best way to evaluate the

effectiveness of cross-cultural training (Deering and Stanutz, 1995; Wiggins

and Follo, 1999). Although attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive changes are

expected from diversity training, diversity training typically is evaluated using

trainees' reactions to the training (Rynes and Rosen, 1995), ignoring other out-

comes. Training evaluations focused solely on reactions can give misleading

results regarding training effects (Goldstein, 1993), and although reaction

measures are important, they cannot substitute for measures of learning.

Kraiger et al. (1993) argued that learning is a multi-dimensional construct,

of 44

including changes in affective, cognitive and behavioral (skill-based)

capacities.

Development of Theory-Based AssimilatorsAnother development deals with the role of culture theory in cross-cultural

training (Bhawuk,1998; Bhawuk & Triandis, 1996b), and the development of

a theory-based culture assimilator,which is based on the concepts of

individualism and collectivism (Bhawuk, 1995, 1996).

Bhawukand Triandis (1996b) proposed that culture theory could be effectively

used in cross-culturaltraining. Bhawuk (1998) further refined this model by

integrating the literature on cognition andstages of learning, and presented a

model of stages of intercultural expertise development. Hedefined a lay person

as one who has no knowledge of another culture, a novice as a person

withextended intercultural experience, which is acquired through overseas

experience or an interculturaltraining program, an expert as a novice who has

acquired knowledge of culture theories that arerelevant to a large number of

behaviors so that they can organize cognitions about culturaldifferences more

meaningfully around a theory, and advanced experts as experts who have had

thenecessary practice to perform relevant tasks proficiently, almost

automatically.

He postulatedthat experts are different from novices in that they use theory to

organize knowledge as well as toretrieve information to solve problems, and

that a theory-based training would lead a lay personto become an expert,

whereas, a culture-specific, a culture general and a behavior

modificationtraining would lead a lay person to become a novice. The model

also postulates that to become anadvanced expert, one would have to go

through additional behavior modification training, or liveabroad for cross-

cultural experience.

To test the model, Bhawuk (1995) developed a theory-based culture

assimilator using the fourdefining attributes and the vertical and horizontal

typology of individualism and collectivism(Triandis, 1995b; Bhawuk, 1999).

He argued that a theory-based assimilator using fewer categoriesis likely to

avoid the cognitive load experienced during a cross-cultural interaction, and

carried outa multimethod evaluation of cross-cultural training tools to test this.

of 44

In this study (Bhawuk,1998), he found that, trainees who received the theory-

based Individualism and CollectivismAssimilator (ICA), compared to a

culture-specific assimilator for Japan, a culture-generalassimilator (Brislin et

al., 1986), and a control group, were found to be significantly

moreinterculturally sensitivity, had larger category width, made better

attribution on given difficultcritical incidents, and were more satisfied with the

training package.

The findings of this studyshow promise for using over-arching theories like

individualism and collectivism in cross-culturaltraining, and it can be expected

that many such theories will be used in future for developingtheory-based

training tools.

There is also some evidence that some researchers are developing exercises

for cross-culturaltraining that are grounded in theory, and two volumes of such

exercises have appeared recently(Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Cushner & Brislin,

1997). Development of many training videos hasmoved the field away from

the paper medium to other media (Copeland & Griggs, 1985). There isalso a

move toward the development of multimedia based culture assimilators

(Bhawuk, Lim,Copeland, & Yoshida, 1999), which may change the way

cross-cultural training has been.Institutional developments include Summer

Workshop for Intercultural Coursework Developmentat Colleges and

Universities at the University of Hawaii and the Intercultural Summer

Instituteat Portland. The creation of the International Academy of Intercultural

Research is also likely toshape the research in this field.

Alternative Criterion MeasuresThe search for appropriate criterion measures to evaluate cross-cultural

training programscontinues. The most acceptable framework for evaluation of

training programs includes reaction,learning, behavior, and performance

related criteria (Kirkpatrick, 1987). A number of tests haveevolved in the past,

and more theory-based measurement instruments are likely to emerge infuture.

Some of the promising paper-pencil-tests include intercultural sensitivity

inventory,category width, reaction measures, and learning measures (Bhawuk,

1998). Behavioral measuresare also being tested (Harrison, 1992; Bhawuk,

1998). Some of these tools are discussed below.

of 44

Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI)Intercultural sensitivity is a concept that is frequently viewed as important in

both theoreticalanalyses of people’s adjustment to other cultures and in

applied programs to prepare peopleto live and work effectively in cultures

other than their own. Attempts to measure this concepthave not always been

successful, and one reason is that researchers and practitioners havenot

specified exactly what aspects of the other culture people should be sensitive

to duringtheir sojourn.

Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) developed a scale to measure intercultural

sensitivity by examining(a) people’s understanding of the different ways they

can behave, depending upon whetherthey are interacting in an individualistic

or a collectivist culture, (b) their open-mindednessconcerning the differences

they encounter in other cultures, and (c) their flexibility concerningbehaving

in unfamiliar ways that are called upon by the norms of other cultures.

TheIntercultural Sensitivity Inventory is a 46-item scale that was developed

and tested amongparticipants at the East-West Center in Hawaii and among

graduate students in an MBAprogram who were contemplating careers in

international business. The instrument wasfound to have adequate reliability

and validity.

Category WidthCategorization is an organizing process through which the human mind creates

a cluster ofsimilar things, to reduce the complexity of the environment and to

reduce the necessity ofconstant learning. For example, the human mind can

discriminate about 7,500,000 differentcolors, but most English speakers find it

functional to categorize the color spectrum into adozen or so frequently cited

color categories (Triandis, 1972). Some people categorize differentthings

minutely while others categorize things broadly. “Category width” is a term

used todescribe the amount of discrepancy tolerable among category members

(i.e., how similarthings have to be, to be called by the same name?)

(Detweiler, 1978).According to thisdefinition, a narrow categorizer would put

highly similar things in a category, whereas abroad categorizer would put

more discrepant things in the same category.

Narrowcategorizers, compared to broad categorizers, make different

attributions concerning foreignersand non-foreigners (Detweiler, 1975), adjust

of 44

less well to different cultures (Detweiler, 1978),and are more ethnocentric

(Rokeach, 1951).

Detweiler (1980) validated his instrument by using a sample of Peace Corps

volunteers. Hefound that volunteers who had a broad category width score

were able to successfully completetheir tasks overseas when compared to

those who had a narrow category width score, whooften returned without

completing their assignments.

Reaction MeasuresBhawuk used six items, adapted from Harrison (1992), to measure generic

reaction to tapparticipants’ opinions about the training. These included: “I

knew everything that was a partof the training,” “The training was a waste of

time,” “I think the program was much too short,”“I enjoyed the training

program very much” “I would tell my friends to avoid such a

trainingprogram,” and “I enjoyed learning at my own pace.” These items

measure the opinion of theparticipants about training program. In addition,

Bhawuk (1998) used 8 items identified asimportant goals of cross-cultural

training programs in the literature (Underhill, 1990) tomeasure the relevancy

of the material in preparing people for cross-cultural interactions.

These included items like “I learned from the training program to effectively

solve seriousproblems with people who are culturally different from me” and

“The training program helpedme to understand the difference between the

values of the host culture and those of NorthAmerican culture.” Underhill

(1990) found that stakeholders agreed upon nine objectives asthe most

important ones for cross-cultural training programs and of these nine, eight

wereincluded, with minor adaptations, to examine the participants satisfaction

with the trainingprograms in achieving these objectives. These items also

measure reaction since they ask forparticipants’ self-report about the

effectiveness of the training, and are relevant because oftheir specific focus on

cross-cultural interactions. These items could be used as a measure ofthe

relevancy of the material used in training programs.

Brethower and Rummler (1979)suggested that negative reactions may result

from poor design, unrealistic expectations fromthe training, and inclusion of

irrelevant material in the training programs. By including thereaction measures

discussed here would allow the researcher to examine if the training

of 44

materialgiven to various treatment and control groups caused negative

reactions among theparticipants.

Learning MeasuresBhawuk (1998) used nine difficult critical incidents to measure their skills in

making correctattributions in intercultural interactions, and found them to be

useful as a measure of learning.

Some of the critical incidents were selected from Brislin et al. (1986), which

have been used inthe past as criterion measures (Broaddus, 1986; McIlveen-

Yarbro, 1988; Cushner, 1989), andothers from Bhawuk (1995). Bhawuk

(1998) also asked participants to recall five conceptsthat they had learned from

the training program. The purpose of this measure was to see ifthere was a

significant difference in recalling information learned through

differentassimilators. This method did not distinguish treatment from control

groups, but it may beuseful in other situations, e.g., when comparing a culture

assimilator to a behavioral trainingprogram.

Behavioral MeasuresHarrison (1992) developed a cross-cultural interaction task as a measure of

behavioral change.In this task, participants are required to interact in the

capacity of a manager with a Japaneseworker, who was a confederate. The

interaction is analyzed by using the five-item criteriarecommended by

Harrison (1992). These items measure the extent to which a participantwould

show personal concern, reduce conflict, maintain harmony, emphasize group

consensus,and solicit employee input. By examining the audio or video taped

interactions, two or morejudges can rate each of the participants’ conversation

with the confederate on a five-pointLikert scale for each of the five criteria of

personal concern, reducing conflict, and so forth. Itis recommended that the

judges discussed their ratings, and to achieve a consensus rating foreach of the

interactions. This procedure of obtaining a consensual rating for an

interactiontask has been recommended by Latham and Saari (1979) since it

avoids the mechanicalcalculation of the average of the independent ratings.

of 44

Experiential Learning TheoryYoshitaka Yamazaki of the International University of Japan and D.

Christopher Kayes from The George Washington Universityadvocate that

experienceforms the basis of cross-cultural learning, we begin with details of

experiential learningtheory.

Experiential Learning Process and CycleKolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (ELT) remains one of the

mostpervasive theories of how managers learn from experience (see Kayes,

2002; Yuen &Lee, 1994). The theory continues to exert broad influence in a

number of professionalareas including education, psychology, medicine,

nursing, general management,computer science, accounting, and law (Kolb &

Kolb, 2004). The broad influence ofELT is evident in the more than 1,800

studies that have either directly used or beeninfluenced by the theory in the

last 30 years (Kolb & Kolb, 2004).

Basing this integrative model of learning on the works of Dewey, Lewin,

Piaget, James,and Freire, Kolb argued that experiential learning encompasses

the totality of the humanlearning process, where experience forms the

foundation for four modes of learning:feeling, reflecting, thinking, and acting.

Taken in order, these four modes represent afour-phase learning cycle. The

learning cycle describes how immediate concreteexperiences (CE) serve as the

basis for observation and reflection (RO), in which theexperience is

subsequently assimilated into abstract conceptualization (AC). From AC,the

experience is then formed into active experimentation (AE) with the world.

AE bothcompletes the cycle of learning and ensures that it begins anew by

assisting the creationof new CE experiences. Experiential learning theory

makes important distinctionsbetween learning abilities, learning style, learning

skills, and adaptive flexibility.

of 44

Theoretical Framework

Dependent Independent

Variable Variables

In this research paper and the questionnaire which was developed to support this paper, one dependent was identified which was dependent upon three independent variables. These dependent and independent variables and their relationship is demonstrated in the above hierarchy.

As shown, the effectiveness of the cross-cultural training programme is dependent, among other things, upon employee motivation, trainer and trainee experience, and the sound understanding and knowledge of the foreign culture. Higher the employee’s motivation in doing well at the training programme, higher is the effectiveness of the training programme. Likewise, the training programme is likely to be more effective if the trainer and the trainee is

of 44

Effec

tiven

ess o

f Cro

ss-

cultu

ral t

rain

ing Employee/Trainee

Motivation

Trainer/Trainee Experience

Understanding/Knowledge of Foreign Culture

experienced. Lastly, if the effectiveness of the training programme will be greatly increased if the trainer and trainee have an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the foreign culture in question.

Methodology

The date gathered to test and support the claims of this research paper has been gathered through the primary data gathering technique of questionnaires. This technique has been used so as to ascertain the opinions of people from different walks of life regarding the importance of cross-cultural training, upon what factors is the effectiveness of cross-cultural training dependent, and in case they have partaken in cross-cultural training programmes in the past, how effective they think these programmes have been in improving their performance.

The sample comprised of 60 individuals. Following are the particulars regarding their occupational background:

Occupation NumberStudent 41Faculty 9Professional 10

Using this data, the SPSS statistical software was used to analyze the responses. Following is the rendering of the Chi-square analyzes performed by this software:

Chi-square analyzes

Frequencies

Q1

Observed N Expected N Residual

Strongly Disagree 3 12.0 -9.0

Disagree 8 12.0 -4.0

Not Sure 22 12.0 10.0

Agree 22 12.0 10.0

Strongly Agree 5 12.0 -7.0

Total 60

of 44

Q2



Disagree 17 12.0 5.0

Not Sure 11 12.0 -1.0

Agree 21 12.0 9.0


Total 60

Q3



Disagree 29 12.0 17.0

Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0

Agree 9 12.0 -3.0


Total 60

Q4




Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0

Agree 17 12.0 5.0

Strongly Agree 16 12.0 4.0

Total 60

of 44

Q5




Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0

Agree 31 12.0 19.0


Total 60

Q6




Not Sure 18 12.0 6.0

Agree 22 12.0 10.0


Total 60

Q7



Disagree 29 15.0 14.0

Not Sure 10 15.0 -5.0

Agree 13 15.0 -2.0

Total 60

Q8




Not Sure 13 12.0 1.0

Agree 17 12.0 5.0


Total 60

of 44

Q9



Disagree 22 12.0 10.0

Not Sure 14 12.0 2.0

Agree 13 12.0 1.0


Total 60

Q10




Not Sure 15 12.0 3.0

Agree 19 12.0 7.0


Total 60

Q11




Not Sure 9 12.0 -3.0

Agree 28 12.0 16.0


Total 60

of 44

Q12




Not Sure 6 12.0 -6.0

Agree 28 12.0 16.0


Total 60

Q13


Disagree 5 15.0 -10.0

Not Sure 8 15.0 -7.0

Agree 35 15.0 20.0


Total 60

Q14



Not Sure 4 15.0 -11.0

Agree 36 15.0 21.0


Total 60

Q15



Disagree 10 12.0 -2.0

Not Sure 8 12.0 -4.0

Agree 30 12.0 18.0


Total 60

of 44

Q16



Not Sure 15 15.0 .0

Agree 31 15.0 16.0


Total 60

Q17




Not Sure 8 12.0 -4.0

Agree 39 12.0 27.0


Total 60

Q18




Not Sure 18 12.0 6.0

Agree 14 12.0 2.0


Total 60

of 44

Q19




Not Sure 17 12.0 5.0

Agree 20 12.0 8.0


Total 60

Q20



Disagree 29 12.0 17.0

Not Sure 7 12.0 -5.0

Agree 11 12.0 -1.0


Total 60

Q21




Not Sure 15 12.0 3.0

Agree 13 12.0 1.0


Total 60

of 44

Q22




Not Sure 10 15.0 -5.0

Agree 32 15.0 17.0

Total 60

Q23



Disagree 23 12.0 11.0

Not Sure 12 12.0 .0

Agree 14 12.0 2.0


Total 60

Q24




Not Sure 20 12.0 8.0

Agree 26 12.0 14.0


Total 60

of 44

Q25




Not Sure 13 12.0 1.0

Agree 20 12.0 8.0


Total 60

Q26



Disagree 22 12.0 10.0

Not Sure 20 12.0 8.0

Agree 5 12.0 -7.0


Total 60

Summary Of Sample’s Cultural Interactions

Following is the compilation and computation of the data related to the

different cultures which the sample has interacted with and had cross-cultural

interactions with:

Countries/Culture People Have Interacted WithNumber Of People

1. USA 112. SCOTLAND 23. YAMEN 14. UK/ENGLAND 135. SAUDI ARABI 6

of 44

6. SRI LANKA 27. MALAYSIA 38. DUBAI 39. CHINA 710. NEPAL 111. NIGERIA 112. INDIA 313. OMAN 114. UAE 115. THAILAND 116. IRAN 117. AFGHANISTAN 318. CANADA 519. AUSTRALIA 420. GERMANY 321. TUNISIA 122. SWEDEN 223. NORWAY 124. FINLAND 125. GREECE 126. France 227. BANGLADESH 128. PALESTINE 129. MOROCCO 130. JORDAN 131. NETHERLAND 132. ITALY 233. RUSSIA 134. EGYPT 135. QATAR 1

TOTAL 90

of 44

USASCOTLAND

YAMENUK/ENGLANDSAUDI ARABI

SRI LANKAMALAYSIA

DUBAICHINANEPAL

NIGERIAINDIA

OMANUAE

THAILANDIRAN

AFGHANISTANCANADA

AUSTRALIAGERMANY

TUNISIASWEDEN

NORWAYFINLANDGREECEFrance

BANGLADESHPALESTINE

MOROCCOJORDAN

NETHERLANDITALY

RUSSIAEGYPT

QATAR

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Summary of Cross-cultural In-teractions

Numer Of People

of 44

Conclusion

The first purpose of this paper was to provide a comprehensive review of the

extant empirical literature on cross-cultural training. This review suggests that

cross-cultural training has a positive impact on the individual's development of

skills, on his or her adjustment to the cross-cultural situation, and on his or her

job perfor-mance in the cross-cultural situation. However, compared to the

training literature in general (see Latham, 1988, for a review), the area of

cross-cultural training has received little empir-ical attention.

Several conclusions are worth noting. First, based on the published empirical

evidence, it seems that cross-cultural training is effective in developing

important cross-cultural skills, in facilitating cross-cultural adjustment, and in

enhancing job performance. Second, most past empirical research on this

subject has lacked theoretical grounding. The area of cross-cultural training

will be facilitated by correcting this practice, and using SLT as a heuristic

framework is a first attempt to move the field in a more theoretically based

direction. Third, although SLT seems to be a robust theory that can be applied

to both domestic and international training contexts, the importance of certain

variables of SLT is different in cross-cultural training situations.

The primary data collected through questionnaires suggests that, even though

most of the sample population comprised of students, the number and variety

of corss-cultural interaction which the sample has had is impressive. This goes

to show that cross-cultural training is extremely important.

of 44

References

1. Adler, N. (1983) Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and

the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8, 226-232.

2. Adler, N. (1986) International dimensions of organizational behavior.

Boston, MA: Kent.

3. Alderfer CP, Alderfer CJ, Bell EL, Jones J. 1992. The race relations

competence workshop: theory and results. Human Relations 45:

1259-1291.

4. Alderfer CP, Tucker RC. 1996. A field experiment for studying race

relations embedded in organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior 17: 43-57.

5. Alderfer CP. 1986. An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In

Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Lorsch J (ed.). Prentice-

Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 190-222.

6. Allen E. 1995. Surviving diversity training. Working Woman 20: 55-

58.

7. Baker, J. C., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1971) The assignment of American

executives abroad: Systematic, haphazard, or chaotic?

California Management Review, 13(3), 39-44.

8. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

9. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

10. Beaty, D., & Mendenhall, M. (1989) International management

research: Toward an agenda. Unpublished manuscript.

11. Bhawuk DPS, Triandis HC. (1996). Diversity in the workplace:

emerging corporate strategies. In Human Resources

Management: Perspectives, Context, Functions, and Outcomes,

Ferris GR, Buckley MR (eds). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs,

NJ; 84-96.

12. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1995). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural

training: A comparative evaluation ofculture-specific, culture-

of 44

general, and theory-based assimilators. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

13. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1996). Development of a culture theory-based

assimilator: Applications of individualismand collectivism in

crosscultural training. Best Paper Proceedings (pp. 147-150)

Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Cincinnati.

14. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural

training: A multimethod study of culturespecific,culture-

general, and culture theory-based assimilators. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology 29 (5), 630-655.

15. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1999). Evolution of culture assimilators: Toward

theory-based assimilators. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of Academy of Management, Chicago, August 6-11,

1999.

16. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (1992). The measurement of

intercultural sensitivity using the concepts ofindividualism and

collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

16, 413-436.

17. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Triandis, H. C. (1996b). The role of culture theory

in the study of culture and interculturaltraining. In D. Landis &

R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 17-

34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

18. Bhawuk, D. P. S., Copeland, J., Yoshida, W., & Lim, K. (1999). The

development of a multimedia culture assimilator: Issues facing

adaptation from text to multimedia. Manuscript under

preparation.

19. Black, J. S. (1988) Work role transitions: A study of American

expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business

Studies, 19, 277-294.

20. Bochner, S. (1982) Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural

interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.

21. Bochner, S. (1982) Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural

interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.

22. Brethower, K., & Rummler, G. (1979). Evaluating training. Training

and Development Journal, 33, 14-22. Brislin, R. W. (1981).

of 44

Cross-cultural encounters: Face to face interaction. New York:

Pergamon.

23. Brislin, R. W. (1981) Cross-cultural encounters. New York: Pergamon

Press.

24. Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (Eds.) (1994). Improving intercultural

interactions: Models for cross-cultural training programs.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

25. Brislin, R. W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C., & Yong, M. (1986).

Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications.

26. Broaddus, D. L. (1986). Use of the culture-general assimilator in

intercultural training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The

School of Graduate Studies, Indiana State University.

27. Carnevale AP, Stone SC. 1994. Diversity beyond the golden rule.

Training and Development 48: 565-602.

28. Caudron S, Hayes C. 1997. Are diversity programmes benefiting

African Americans?. Black Enterprise 27: 121-132.

29. Copeland, L, & Griggs, L. (1985). Going international. New York:

Random House.

30. Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1985) Going international. New York:

Random House.

31. Cushner, K. (1989). Assessing the impact of a culture-general

assimilator. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13,

125-146.

32. Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (Eds.) (1997). Improving intercultural

interactions: Models for cross-cultural training programs,

(Volume 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

33. Davis, T., & Luthans, F. (1980) A social learning approach to

organizational behavior. Academy of Management Re-view, 5,

281-290.

34. Day LEO. 1995. The pitfalls of diversity training. Training and

Development 49: 24-29.

35. Decker PJ, Nathan BR. 1985. Behavior Modeling Training: Principles

and Applications. Praeger: New York. of 44

36. Deering TE, Stanutz A. 1995. Preservice field experiences as a

multicultural component of a teacher education program.

Journal of Teacher Education 46: 390-394.

37. Detweiler, R. (1978). Culture, category width, and attributions: A

model building approach to the reasons for cultural effects.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 259-284

38. Detweiler, R. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorization

process: A conceptual analysis and behavioral outcome.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 275-295.

39. Dunbar, E., & Ehrlich, M. (1986) International practices, se-lection,

training, and managing the international staff: A survey report.

New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Project on

International Human Resource.

40. Ellis C, Sonnenfeld JA. 1994. Diverse approaches to managing

diversity. Human Resource Management 33: 79-109.

41. Galen M, Palmer AT. 1993. White, male, and worried. Business Week

January 31: 50-55.

42. Gordon J. 1995. What if it isn't just lousy facilitators? Training 32: 28-

29.

43. Graham, J. (1985) The influence of culture on the process of business

negotiations: An exploratory study. Journal of International

Business Studies, 16(1), 81-95.

44. Harris, P., & Moran, R. T. (1979) Managing cultural differences.

Houston, TX: Gulf.

45. Harrison, J. K. (1992). Individual and combined effects of behavior

modeling and the culture assimilator in cross-cultural

management training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 952-

962.

46. Hemphill H, Haines R. 1997. Discrimination, Harassment, and the

Failure of Diversity Training: What to Do Now. Quorum

Books: Westport, CT.

47. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975) Theories of learning.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

48. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975) Theories of learning.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. of 44

49. Katz JH. 1978. White Awareness: Anti-Racism Training, University of

Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK.

50. Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving

the role of experience in management learning and education.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 137-

149.

51. KirklandSE, Regan AM. 1997. Organizational racial diversity

training.In Racial IdentityTheory:Applicationsto Individual,

Group, and Organizational Interventions, Thompson CE, Carter

RT (eds). Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 159-175.

52. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1987). Evaluation. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training

and development handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 301-319). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

53. Kitfield J. 1998. Boot camp lite. Government Executive 30: 45-49.

54. Kluckhohn, C., & Kroeberg, A. L. (1952) Culture: A critical review of

concepts and definitions. Vintage Books.

55. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Bibliography on experiential learning

theory. Retrieved July 2002 from http://www.experience.com.

56. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of

learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

57. Kossek EE, Roberts K, Fisher S, Demarr B. 1998. Career self-

management:a quasi-experimentalassessment of the effects of

a training intervention. Personnel Psychology 51: 935-962.

58. Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E. 1993. Application of cognitive, skill-

based and affective theories of learning outcomes to new

methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology

78: 311-328.

59. Kyi, K. M. (1988) APJM and comparative management in Asia. Asia

Pacific Journal of Management, 5, 207-224.

60. LandisD., BhagatRS. 1996. A model of intercultural behaviorand

training.In Handbookof Intercultural Training, 2nd edn,

Landis D, Bhagat RS (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 1-13.

of 44

http://www.experience.com/

61. Landis, D., & Brislin, R. (1983) Handbook on intercultural training

(Vol 1). New York: Pergamon Press.

62. Latham, G., & Saari, L. (1979) Application of social learning theory to

training supervisors through behavior modification. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 64, 239-246.

63. Loden M. 1996. Implementing Diversity. Irwin: Chicago.

64. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1981) Vicarious learning: The influence

of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 6, 105-113.

65. Markels A. 1997. A diversity program can prove divisive. Wall Street

Journal January 30: B l-B2.

66. McIlveen-Yarbro, C. L. (1988). An assessment of the ability of the

culture-general assimilator to createsensitivity to

multiculturalism in an educational setting. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.

67. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985) The dimensions of expatriate

acculturation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 39-47.

68. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1986) Acculturation profiles of

expatriate managers: Implications for cross-cultural training

programs. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21(4), 73-79.

69. Miller, E. (1973) The international selection decision: A study of

managerial behavior in the selection decision process.

Academy of Management Journal, 16, 234-252.

70. Millikin FJ, Martins LL. 1996. Searching for common threads:

understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational

groups. Academy of Management Review 21: 492-433.

71. Misa, K. F., & Fabricatore, J. M. (1979) Return on investment of

overseas personnel. Financial Executive, 47(4), 42-46.

72. Noe RA, Ford JK. 1992. Emerging issues and new directions for

training research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management 10: 345-384.

73. Noe, R. A. (1986) Trainee's attributes and attitudes: Neglected

influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management

Review, 11, 736-749.

of 44

74. Paige RM, Martin JN. 1996. Ethics in intercultural training. In

Handbook of Intercultural Training 2nd edn, Landis D, Bhagat

RS (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 35-60.

75. Roberts, K. H. (1970) On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of

cross-cultural research related to organizations. Psychological

Bulletin, 4(5), 327-350.

76. Roberts, K. H., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (1984) Cross-national

organizational research: The grasp of the blind men. In B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 17-31). Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.

77. Ronen, S. (1986) Comparative and multinational management. New

York: Wiley.

78. Rossett A, Bickham T. 1994. Diversity training: hope, faith and

cynicism. Training 31: 40-46.

79. Runzheimer Executive Report (1984) Expatriation/ repatriation survey.

(No. 31). Rochester, WI: Runzheimer Associates, Inc.

80. Rynes S, Rosen B. 1995. A field survey of factors affecting the

adoption and perceived success of diversity training.

Personnel Psychology 48: 247-270.

81. Schollhammer, H. (1975) Current research in international and

comparative management issues. Management International

Review, 13, 17-31.

82. Schwind, H. F. (1985) The state of the art in cross-cultural

management training. In R. Doktor (Ed.), International human

resource development annual (Vol. 1, pp. 7-15). Alexandria,

VA: American Society for Training and Development.

83. Swenson, L. L. (1980) Theories of learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

84. Swenson, L. L. (1980) Theories of learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

85. Tannenbaum S., Yukl G. 1992. Training and developmentin work

organizations. AnnualReview of Psychology 43: 399-441.

86. Tobias S. 1987. Learner characteristics. In Instructional Technology:

Foundations, Gagne RM (ed.). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ; 207-

232.

87. Triandis HC, Kurowski LL, Gelfand MJ. 1993. Workplace diversity. In

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd of 44

edn, Vol. 2, Dunnette MD, Hough L (eds). Consulting

Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA; 769-827.

88. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York:

Wiley.

89. Triandis, H. C. (1995b). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

90. Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., Tanaka, Y., & Shanmugam, A. (Eds.)

(1972) The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.

91. Tung, R. (1981) Selecting and training of personnel for overseas

assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(1), 68-

78.

92. Tung, R. (1982) Selection and training procedures of U.S., European,

& Japanese multinationals. California Management Review,

25(1), 57-71.

93. Tung, R. (1984) Key to Japan's economic strength: Human power.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

94. Underhill, F. (1990). An application of social learning theory using

stakeholder evaluations to assess cross-cultural training

programs for business people. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Washington.

95. Vroom, V. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

96. Wiggins RA, Folio EJ. 1999. Development of knowledge, attitudes,

and commitment to teach diverse student populations. Journal

of Teacher Evaluation 50: 94-105.

97. Yuen, C., & Lee, S. N. (1994). Applicability of the learning style

inventory in an Asian context and its predictive value.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 541-549.

98. Zeira, Y. (1975) Overlooked personnel problems in multinational

corporations. Columbia Journal of World Business, 10(2), 96-

103.

of 44

CROSS CULTURAL TRAINING FOR INTERNATIONAL HRM

Documents

Transcript of CROSS CULTURAL TRAINING FOR INTERNATIONAL HRM