The Elusive Cultural Chameleon

7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 1/17

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of Management

Learning & Education.

http://www.jstor.org

The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a New Approach to InterculturalTraining for the Global ManagerAuthor(s): P. Christopher Earley and Randall S. PetersonSource: Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 100-115Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214236Accessed: 18-07-2015 14:21 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214236

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214236

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom

http://www.jstor.org/



®

Academy

f

Management earning

nd

Education, 004,

ol.

3.

No.

1,

100-115.

The Elusive

Cultural

Chameleon: Cultural

Intelligence

s a

New

Approach

to Intercultural

Training

for

he

Global

Manager

P. CHRISTOPHER EARLEY

RANDALL

S. PETERSON

London Business School

The

global economy

nd

shiftingolitical

tides make the need for

ntercultural

understanding

nd

educationobvious. Where

historically

hefocusof ntercultural

training

as been on

preparing

n

individual

to work n a new

culture,

oday's

organizations

outinely

sk

managers

to work

n

multinational

nvironments

nd move

from

ountry

o

country.

his

challenge

has created a

strong

ebate about

how to

prepare

managers

for uch

challenging ssignments.

ow

oughtpeople

be

assessed to

understand heir eadiness for

uch

assignments?

o

high

ntelligence uotient

IQ)

people adjust

better han others o new cultural

hallenges?

The

topic

ofcultural

adjustment

nd itsassessment emains

ompelling

ut

ncomplete.

urfocus

here s the

developmentnd exploration f theconceptof cultural ntelligence,r,CQ {Earley, 003;

Earley

&

Ang,

2003),

long

with ts

mplications

or

raining

nd educationfor

lobal

work

ssignments.

ur

approach suggests

that

raining

or he

global manager

should

include

metacognitive,

otivational,

nd behavioral

components.

he

CQ

approach

represents significant

reak from onventionalwisdom

of

focusing

n cultural

values

for ntercultural

ducation.

International

nd interculturalork

as become

thenorm

ormost

arge

companies

Adler,

997;

Dowling,

Welch,

&

Schuler,1999;

chneider&

Barsoux,

1997).

ntercultural

ifferences ave

long

been a

challenge onfronting

ultinational

organizationsHofstede,991), challengethat

has been

exacerbated

y

the

ncreasing reva-

lence of

teams made

up

of individuals from

many

nations

Earley

&

Gibson, 2002;

Snow,

The

core

conceptsunderlying

his

paper

are

presented

n

the

first

uthor's ollaborative

workwith rofs.

ng

Soon,

Joo-Seng

Tan,

Roy

Chua,

Chay-Hoon

ee and Klaus

Templer

s well

as

the

Nanyang

Business School

Cultural

ntelligenceWorking

Group.

A

reader

nterested

n

moredetail

concerning

ntercul-

tural

training

nd

assessment

using

a cultural

ntelligence

perspective

s referredo

Earley

nd

Ang

2003).

Snell,

Canney-Davison,

Hambrick, 996).

To

makematters ven more

hallenging,

managers

are

spending

horter

eriods

n

any ingle

oun-

try,

nd

they

ften

re moved rom

ne location

to

another,

making ountry-specific

nowledge

less relevant. ecause theirmanagersmust ften

operate

cross borders

n

teams

of nternation-

ally

diverse

nits,

many argeorganizations

x-

press

theneed for

managers

who

quickly

djust

to

multiple

ultures nd

workwell

in multina-

tional

teams. This makes the

challenge

of cul-

tural

rainingncreasingly

ifficultecause

con-

ventionalmethodshat

rely

n

country-specific

knowledge

often

prove inadequate

methods

that

orient

managers

o

dyadic

nteractions

n

new countries ail to

prepare

hem or he

com-

100






2004

Eailey

and Peterson

101

plexity

ncounterednmultinationaleams nd

work

ettings.

By

farthe most ommon

and traditional)

p-

proach

o

breaching

ultural nd

national

iffer-

ences s througheaching ountry-specificnowl-

edge

and

exposing

rainees o

different

ultural

values

stemming

rom ork

y

numerousnthro-

pologists

nd

cross-cultural

sychologists

Bhawuk,

1998;

Bhawuk&

Brislin, 992;Brislin, andis,

&

Brandt, 983;

Hall &

Hall 1990;Hofstede, 991;

Kluckhohn

Strodtbeck,961;Mead,1934;

arsons

&

Shils,

1951).

n

emphasis

n values orientation

and

understanding

thers

hrough

heir

elated e-

liefs nd

practices

nderliesmuch f urrent ork

on

ntercultural

raining

nd

management

duca-

tion. ntercultural

raining

as become

early yn-

onymous

ith

nderstanding

ultural

aluesmod-

elsby uch uthors s Hofstede,ampden-Turner,

and

Tompenaars,

luckhohn

nd

Strodtbeck,

nd

Triandis.

owever,

here

s a fundamental

roblem

with

cultural

alues

awareness

pproach

an

awareness

f ulturalalues

s not substitute

or

more

direct

nowledge

f

interpersonal

nterac-

tions,

ust

s

valuesalone

are not

strongly

re-

dictive eature

f human

ehavior

Ajzen

&

Fish-

bein,

1980;

riandis,

972).

lthough

he iterature

on

culturend

management

ver he

past

3 de-

cades

has

focused

lmost

xclusively

n

the ink

between

ultural

alues

and individual

ction,

this

ink s

not

particularly

trong

rclean

Trian-

dis, 1972).

To address hese imitationsn thefaceofnew

global

hallenges

nd

supplement

he

trengths

n

current

pproaches,

we introduce

nd

discuss

a

new

conceptual

ramework

or

nterculturalrain-

ing

that

niquely

dentifies

he

pecificapabili-

ties

of n

individual

ased

ona faceted

model

f

cultural

daptation

alled

the Cultural

ntelli-

gence

r

CQ

approach

Earley,

003;

arley

Ang,

2003).

ur

rgument

s that his

pproach

rovides

a

significant

mprovement

n

existingpproaches

for everal

easons:

a)

it

s

uniquely

ailored

o he

strengths

nd

deficits

f n

individual,

b)

it

pro-

vides

an

integrated

pproach

o

trainingealing

withknowledgend learning,motivational,nd

behavioral

eatures,

nd

c)

t

s built

pon

uni-

fying

sychological

odel f

cultural

daptation

rather

han he

iecemeal

nd

country-specific

p-

proach

o

trainingypically

mployed.

Our

focus

ere s

the

development

nd

explora-

tion

f

the

concept

f

CQ

along

with

ts

mplica-

tions

or

lobal

management.

e

begin y

review-

ing

briefly

xisting

ssessment

methods

nd

intercultural

raining rograms

hat

re used

in

most

rganizations

ith

critique

f their ffec-

tiveness.

ext,

we introduce

ultural

ntelligence

as a

concept

nd

frameworkor

tudying

ultural

adaptation.

We

then escribe

nd discuss ts

ap-

plicationenerally

nd to

multinational

eams. i-

nally,

we

discuss the future

f

CQ

and how

the

constructan be used to mproventerculturaln-

teractions

n

a work

ontext.

A BRIEF REVIEW

OF

EXISTING

APPROACHES

TO

INTERCULTURAL

TRAINING

Many

cholars ave

discussed

ppropriate

nter-

ventionsnd

assessmentmethods or

ntercultural

training

Bhawuk Brislin, 992;

Bochner, 982;

Brislin

t

al., 1983;

rislin

Yoshida, 994;

arris

Moran, 991;

Mendenhall t

al., 1987;

ee &

Tem-

pler,

003; riandis, 975;

riandis

Berry,

980).

We do not

rofess

o

provide

n

exhaustive eview

of he iteratureere, ather, ehighlightey ea-

tures f he iteratures

n

cultural

ssessment nd

program esign

o thatwe can contrast

xisting

approaches

with ur wn

CQ

approach.

Assessment

A

growing

onsensus

n thefield f ntercultural

training

s that

ppropriateedagogy

or

nypro-

gram

must

begin

with

thorough

nd suitable

assessment

of

managers' trengths

nd weak-

nesses.Methods or

ndividual ssessment

ange

from

imple aper-and-pencil

nventories,

o

elab-

orate

role-play

xercises,

o behavioral ssess-

ment enters. ee andTempler2003)pecifically

provide

thorough

eview

fvarious ntercultural

assessment

rocedures,

nd we draw

from heir

work n this

ection.

Paper-and-pencil

ssessments

are the most

widely

used

for heir elative

ase in admini-

stration.

nyder

1974),

or

xample, eveloped

self-report

easureof

individual ifferencesn

self-monitoring

f

expressive

ehavior

nd self-

presentation.

elf-monitoring

as defined

as

self-observation

nd self-control

uided

by

situa-

tional ues

to ocial

ppropriateness.ealey

1989)

foundhis

elf-Monitoring

cale

(SMS)

to be

pre-

dictiveor verseas uccess.Dodd 1998)ists few

short

elf-report

ssessments

pplied

to

ntercul-

tural

communication

ncluding

Cardot's Self-

Confidence

cale.

This 10-item

cale

attempts

o

assess

whetherhe ndividuals old

positive

t-

titude

oward

hemselves,

or

xample,

f

hey

eel

they

have a number f

good qualities

and are

satisfied

ith

hem,

rwhether

hey

eel ikefail-

ures

and useless at

times.These methods ake

existing

ndividual ifferencesssessments

s a

basis

for

redictingotential

or

ultural

djust-

mentnd interaction.






102

Academy

of

Management Learning

and Education

March

An

alternative

pproach

assesses

variables

more

irectly

ied oculture.

or

xample,

edden

(1975

s cited n

Kealey

&

Rubin,

983)

eveloped

theCulture hock

nventory.

his

elf-report

ea-

sure ttemptsopredictifficultiesndealingwith

culture hock

yassessingpeople

on a

variety

f

characteristicsuch

s, a)

degree

fdirect

xperi-

ence with

eople

from ther ountries

including

foreign

anguage

kills),b)

ndividuals'

penness

to

new deas and

beliefs,

nd

c)

specific

ultural

knowledge. closely

elated

nstruments the

n-

terculturalommunication

nventory

ICI).

This 5-

itemmeasure s used to assess

knowledge

nd

awareness

mong

employees

n

areas such as

workforce

iversity,

ulture

hock,

anguage

nd

accent,

ody anguage

nd

gestures,

ommunica-

tion

distortions,

ultural

misunderstandings,

us-

toms nd traditions,nd ethnocentrismLee &

Templer,

003).

More

recently,preitzer,

cCall,

and

Mahoney

1997)

eveloped

measurementool

named

Prospector

or

arly

dentificationf n-

ternational

xecutive

otential.

ntercultural

o-

tential s assessed in

Prospectorsing

14

empiri-

cally

derived cales

including:

a)

sensitivity

o

cultural

ifferences,

b)

business

knowledge,

c)

courage,

d)

brings

ut he est n

people,

e)

nteg-

rity,

f)

nsightful,

g)

committed,

h)

takes

isks;

s

well as

several

earning-oriented

imensionsn-

cluding:

i)

seeks

feedback,

j)

uses

feedback,

k)

culturally

dventurous,

1)

eeks

earning

pportu-

nities,

m)

pen

o

criticism,

nd

n)

flexibility.

Program

esign

Once

managers

re assessed

and selected for

training

rograms,

he

key uestion

ecomeswhat

design ptimizes

heir

raining

nd

development.

On the

whole,

most

ntercultural

raining ro-

gramsmphasize

ncreasing manager's

ultural

competence

n

dealing

with thers rom ifferent

cultural

ackgrounds

hroughnhancing

heir

og-

nitive

wareness nd

knowledge

fthe

proposed

host

ulture. rislin

nd Yoshida

1994),

or xam-

ple,

specificallyrovide

comprehensive

eview

of raining ethodsntheir valuation f ntercul-

tural

raining

y identifying

ive

pproaches

n

intercultural

raining:ognitive,

ttributional,

x-

periential,

elf-awareness,

nd behavioral.

og-

nitive

raining

ends o

focus n the transferf

cultural

knowledge

r basic information

the

techniques

nclude hort

ectures, ilms, ideos,

reading

materials,

nd

case studies. hese

cogni-

tive

raining

ethods

re

useful,

ut

hey

o have

a

number

fdrawbacks.

irst,

ognitive raining

focuses

on

specific

knowledge cquisition

nd

does not

ddress

metacognitive

ompetencies

s

we discuss ater.

ikewise,

t s

not

eadily ener-

alizable

o

global

managers

making

more

han ne

cultural ncounter.

ung

1981)

as

suggested

hat

purely

nformational

riefings

n the

host

ountry

are not ufficiento ncreasen individual'snter-

personal

nd

professional

ffectiveness

verseas.

As Edwardde Bono

sserted,

Unless

you

know

everything,

hat

you

need s

thinking

as

cited

n

Tan

&

Chua,

003:

23).

Nomatter

owdetailed

he

country

r cultural

nformation,

t is

impractical

and untenable

o

expect

manager

o

acquire

everything

bout

culture

rior

o

ourneying

o t.

In

attribution-based

raining,

he

mphasis

s on

differingnterpretations

f critical

ncidents

n-

volving

ntercultural

ncounters.ulture

ssimila-

tors re often sed

for his

ype

f

ntervention

n

which

articipants

re shown ultural

cenarios

and asked to nterprethe ituation.ulturals-similators ave

ncreasingly

mployed

critical-

incident

pproach

o

present xamples

f ulture

clashes between

ndividuals

rom ifferent

ack-

grounds

Cushner

Landis,

1996).

typical

ul-

tural ssimilator

xercisewould

ave

participants

read a

number f critical

ncidencecultural

clashes.For ach critical

ncident,

he

articipants

are asked

o ttributend

nterpret

he

ehavior

f

the actors

n

the conflict

ituations.

he

partici-

pants

rethen

resented

ith number

f lter-

native

xplanations

nd asked

to select

ne that

best accounts or

he conflict

n thecritical

nci-

dents. ushner nd

Landis

1996)

sed the ulture

assimilatormethod odevelop culture-general

assimilator.

he

culture-general

ssimilator

ro-

vides a

way

of

encouraging

he

development

f

global,

multicultural

erspectives

or

hosewho

workwith

eople

from

any

ultures.

A

variation

n a

traditional,

ountry-based

ul-

tural ssimilator

as

presented y

Bhawuk nd

Brislin

1992;

hawuk,

998,

001).

ather

hanfo-

cusing

n a

particular

arget

ountry,

heir

mpha-

sis is on

a

target

ultural alue

that an

be shared

across ountries.or

xample,

hawuk's

2001)

n-

dividualism ultural ssimilator

rawsfrom

ore

culture

heory

i.e.,

riandis',

995

heory

f

ndivid-

ualism-collectivism)o createcritical ncidents

that

pply

cross

ountries,

atherhan

mphasiz-

ing

n observed

i.e.,

theoretic)

ncident.

ritical

incidentsre drawn romndividualism-collectiv-

ism

heory

nd cover wide

range

f ocial

behav-

iorsbased

on the

elf,

oal prioritization,

nd

mo-

tivation

actors.

Cultural

ssimilators re

generally

seful e-

cause

theyprovide

asic

cultural

cripts

bout

specific

ultures

overing

wide

variety

f ocial

situations

nd

culturally

ppropriateesponses.

f

an individual nowswhich ulture

e or she will






2004

Earley

nd Peterson

103

be

visiting, ulture-specific

ssimilators an be

very

ffectivet

helping

he

ndividual

ain

nter-

cultural

xperiences

f he

argeted

ulture

Cush-

ner

&

Landis,

1996).

Most culture ssimilators

are limited, owever, ecause they re culture-

specific.

venBhawuk's

2001)

alues assimilator

has

some

significant

rawbacks hat re shared

with

ther

ultural

ssimilators.

irst,

ulturend

values

imulatorsan be

costly

o

design

nd

time

consuming

or

articipants.

ore

mportant,

ow-

ever,

s that t

remains nclear ow he

knowledge

gained

n cultural

alues-based

ssimilatorrain-

ingmight

ransfer

o

theoretically

imilar ircum-

stances

with

issimilarurface

eatures ithinhe

target

ulture,

iven

hedocumented

oor

ransfer

of

earning

ssociated

with

eaching y analogy

(Loewenstein,

hompson,

Gentner,

003).

hat

s,

what emains nclear s whetherulturalssimi-

lators

rovide

metacognitive

enefits

or

artici-

pants ny

more hando their

raditional

ountry-

based

counterparts.

urther,

he focus

on a

particular

ultural

alue in Bhawuk's

2001)

p-

proach

may

nadvertently

ead

global

managers

o

overemphasize

ne

aspect

ofculture ver

more

significant

ne's

for

particular

ountry.

orex-

ample,

lthough

hailand

may

be characterized

by

certain

evel

f

ndividualism,

ower

istance

and

hierarchy

re

more entral

o social

behavior

(Klausner,

993;

omin,

991).

In

experiential

raining,

n

emphasis

s

on

ap-

plied

training

nd

techniques

ncluding

ole-

plays,fieldvisits, nd simulations.articipants

are

more

ffectivelyngaged

s

they articipate

n

work

amples

f he

ctual

target

ulture.

or x-

ample,

articipants

an

be

put

n social

situations

with

epresentatives

rom ther

ultures

n simu-

lated

ocialor

work

vents.

he downside

fthis

kind

of

training,

owever,

s that

t is

typically

emotionally

emanding

or

oth

he

participants

and

the

rainers.

Self-awareness

raining

nvolves

raising

the

trainees'

wareness

ftheir

wn

culture,

s well

as

typical

eactions

hat

eople

romtherultures

have

to them.

hese

programs

lso

focus

n the

potentialossof elf-esteemnthese ettings.elf-

awareness

training

elps participants

ecome

more

ware

of

their

wn

values,attitudes,

nd

behaviors

sing

methods

hat

ontrast

heir

wn

andthe

arget

ultures.

rainers

ehave

n

sharp

contrast

ith he

preferred

ehavior

f

he

partic-

ipant

e.g.,

culture-contrast)

nd

explain

he ea-

sons

for

heir

ctions

nd

highlight

hetrainees'

discomfort

ith he

xperience.

s

with cultural

assimilator

pproach,

hese ontrasts

re

country

or

culture

pecific,

nd,

therefore

imited

ntheir

generalizability.

Finally,

n

behavior

raining,

n

emphasis

s on

observable ehavior

trainees

ractice

isplaying

behaviors

ppropriate

or

he

arget

ulture

cross

various

cenarios. his

training

lso

emphasizes

behavior egulationndmonitoringfone's own

actions

ncluding

onverbal

isplays

uch s

body

orientation,

roxemics,

nd

social

distances.

e-

havior

raining

s

demanding

f ts

participants

and time

onsuming,

o it s

not

ypically

sed n

intercultural

raining rograms.

s

we

discuss

shortly,

owever,

ehavior

raining

s critical n

delivering

coordinated

pproach

o

training

ul-

turally

ntelligent

ndividuals.

General

Commentary

n

ExistingApproaches

Inthe iteraturen intercultural

raining,

hat n-

formationalndexperientialrainingork est n

tandem

s

fairly

well established

Tan

&

Chua,

2003).

hus,

most

xisting

pproaches

o ntercul-

tural

raining

nd education

rovide omething

f

a cafeteria

tyle

f ducation that

s,

a bit f his

and a bit f

hat

nthe

hope

hat

omething

ill

be

useful.

This

approach

s

largely

onsistent ith

current

hinking

n education bout the

need to

provide

rainingsingmultiple

ethodso

ppeal

to

people

with ifferent

earning

tyles e.g.,

Kolb,

Boyatzis,

Mainemelis,

001).

owever,

e believe

this

pproach

as created number

f

nterrelated

problems

n

dealing

with heneeds of he

global

manager mostly

temming

rom lack ofunder-

lyingonceptualrameworkhat inks heparticu-

larsof he

raining

nterventionith he

trengths

and

weaknesses fthe

ndividual rainee. ather

than

rawing

selection f

raining

vents rom

seemingly

xhaustiveistof

possibilities,

he e-

lection f

trainingrogram

or

manager

hould

be based

on an individual

eeds ssessment nd

informed

y

theoretically

ound ramework.

The first nd

most

mportant

eakness ncur-

rent

pproaches

s the mbedded

ssumption

hat

all individuals

eed a similar

xposure

nd train-

ing egime.

or

xample,

ulturalssimilators

ro-

vide a

programmed

et of scenarios or rainees

regardless f their rior nowledgef thetarget

country

r its cultural alues.

Experiential

xer-

cises such

s BaFa

BaFa

(Shirts, 973)

rovide

n

activeformat or

earning

ut

gnore

ndividual

differences

n

cultural

xperience

nd

knowledge.

Similarly,

ntercultural

raining rograms

ener-

ally

ssume

similarevelof

nticipated

nterac-

tion

n the

arget

ite.These

programsgnore

he

unique

requirements

emanded

f an individual

in

terms

f

ntensity,

uration,

nd nature f nter-

cultural

nteraction

Tan

&

Chua,

2003).

hat

s,

training rograms

eed to consider

he

frequency






104

Academy

of

Management Learning

and Education

March

of

ontact

intensity),ength

f

ssignment

dura-

tion),

nd

type

f ontact

formal

ersus

nformal,

work

ersus

onwork)

hatwillbe demandedf he

individual ecause

thesedimensions ear direct

relevance o thetype ftrainingecommended.

Further,

hesecharacteristics ust

be

mapped

onto

he

pecific ualities

f he

participant

n

the

program.

o do this

equires

way

of

discerning

the

existing

trengths

f each individual

artici-

pant.

Thesecondgeneralweakness n most urrent

approaches

s thatntercultural

raining

ethods

tend

o focus

heavily

n

cognitive

r

knowledge-

based

informationnd

awareness of the

target

culture. he

problem

ith his

ype

f

mphasis

s

that t

does not

provide

he

metacognitive

kills

needed o earn n

new situationsnd cultures.f

theres a

direct

ransferencef cenario o henew

interculturalituation

i.e.,

ncluding

he

urface-

level

imilarities),

hesemethods

re useful. ow-

ever,

t is oftenhe case

that he

knowledge

c-

quired

s not

ignificantly

road o

encompass

he

likely

complexity

nd

uncertainty

aced

by

a

trainee nce n

thenew

ulture.

magine

he hal-

lengefaced y globalmanagerwhoruns mul-

tinationaleam

consisting

f members rom

ix

countries. eam

members

ossess

a

myriad

f

country-specific

haracteristicss

well s cultural

values.

Trainingpecific ognitive

nowledge

or

all

six

countriess

impractical

n this nstance.

What

s critical

s

equipping

manager

ithmeta-

cognitive

kills o that

with ime nd

experience

heor he

can

acquire

new

nformation

oncerning

the

ulturalssues n

the eam.

Third,

many

ntercultural

raining rograms

s-

sume

strong

ink

between ultural alues and

normsnd

ndividual

ehavior ithin

hat ulture.

That s, f know hat ingapores a collectivistic

culture,

hen can

predict

particular

ingapore-

an's actions.

owever,

riandis

1972),

mong

th-

ers,

ointed

o he

enuousink

f ultural alues

o

action

n

his framework

f

ubjective

ulture. al-

ues and

norms

epresent

nly

ne of

many

iffer-

ent

features

some

ultural

nd

social,

thers

er-

sonal

nd

diosyncratic)

ontributing

o

person's

behavioral

ntentions

nd action.

ocusing

n cul-

tural

alues

presents

n

overlyimplistic

asis for

understanding

ehavior

based in culture nd

country

Brockner,

003).

Finally,

urrent ethodsf

ntercultural

raining

rely

heavily

n

analogical

earning.

hese

pro-

grams

ssume

hat he rainee

an

make

he ntel-

lectual onnectionsetween

hevarious

eaching

tools used (e.g.,vignettes,ole-plays,nd facts)

and the

ituations

hey

willencounter

n the

new

culture. ecent

esearch

uggests,

owever,

hat

most

people

have

relatively

imited

apacity

or

transferring

concept

romn

example

ase to

a

novel ituationnless there

s a

specific

iscus-

sionof he

metacognitive

trategies

n thevarious

teaching

ools

Loewenstein

t

al.,

2003).

ffective

intercultural

raining

eeds

to draw

participants

into discussion f he roader

hemes r

oncepts

behind he correct

nswers o

earning

ctivities,

orrisk rainees'

bility

o

adapt

appropriately

e-

ing

imited o the

very

arrow

urface-levelimi-

larities fthe imulation.ctivitiesuchas field

visits

e.g.,

-2

day trip

o the

arget

ite)

an

pro-

vide a better

pportunity

o

generalize y

nvolv-

ing

hem

t a self-chosenevel

f

ngagement,

ut

these re

veryxpensive

nd

willnot

necessarily

deepen

he

earning

ithout

pecific

uidance

nd

discussion. uch

trips

may

vencreate

mini cul-

ture hocks hat

isrupt

urther

raining.acking

an

appropriate et-up

nd

ongoing

xperience,

fieldvisits an also

create r

perpetuate

tereo-

types

f he

arget

ulture.

In

sum,

we

argue

for

he notion f

designing

intercultural

raining

rograms

round he

unique

capabilities

f

person

o

adapt

to new cultural

settings

s

reflected

y

the hree acets f he

he-

oretical rientationn the

CQ

model.We describe

these eatures

f

CQ

below nd thenllustrateow

they an be used to ndividuallyailor programof ntercultural

raining.

THE

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE

APPROACH

TO

INTERCULTURAL TRAINING

Key

to all forms f

training

nd education

s a

learner's

apability

o

acquire,

etain,

nd inter-

pret

arious

ypes

f nformationnd

experiences.

Broadly

efined,

his

apability

or

daptation

s

reflected

y person'sntelligence

r

Q

(Gardner,

1983;

ternberg,

985).

midsthevarious

opular-

rhe

firstndmost

mportant

eakness

n

current

pproaches

s the

mbedded

assumption

hat

ll individuals eed a

similar

xposure

nd

training egime.

Most

eople

have

relatively

imited

capacity or ransferringconcept rom

an

example

ase

to a novel ituation

unless here s a

specific

iscussion

f

the

metacognitive

trategies

n the

various

eaching

ools.






2004

Earley

nd Peterson

105

ized versions f

work

n

intelligence

ome

a

num-

ber of

mportant

dvances

representing

signifi-

cant break from

raditional iews.

One

such idea

was described

by Salovey

and

Mayer

1990)

nd

discussedbyGardnern hisbooks, rames fMind

and

Multiple

ntelligences

1983, 993),

s

well

as

numerous

writings

f Robert

ternberge.g.,

1985).

People

having

a

high

social or emotional ntelli-

gence

are

thought

o be

relatively

more able to

empathize,

work

with, direct,

nd interactwith

other

people.

High

social

intelligence

reflects

person's

apacity

o

perform

ctions

such

as

prob-

lem

solving)

with

nd

through

thers.

High

emo-

tional

intelligence

eflects

person's

capacity

to

understand

nd

convey

human

emotion.

From

a cross-national

nd cross-cultural

er-

spective,

however,

he emotional

nd social intel-

ligence approaches lack cultural ontext s they

attempt

o

explain

how and

whypeople

act

as

they

do

(see

Robert

ternberg,

985,

or notable

excep-

tion).

There are a number

f differences

etween

emotional

and

social

intelligence

and our

con-

struct

f cultural

ntelligence.

Emotional

ntelli-

gence

captures

variety

f attributes

elated to a

person's

ability

o

read and

respond

to the

affec-

tive

states of

culturally

imilar

others

nd to self-

regulate

emotion.

Take,

for

example,

President

Kennedy's

harismatic

peech

about

American

a-

triotism

Ask

notwhat

your

ountry

an

do for

ou

but

what

you

can

do for

your

country

.

).

The

content

f

his

speech

drew

upon

the

American

ideal ofthe mportance feach personmaking

difference,

nd

his use

of dramatic

pauses

and

emotion

re

ideal

for

nspiring

Americans.How-

ever,

his

presentation

tyle

nd

content

would

not

have the emotional

ppeal

in dissimilar

ultures.

That

is,

the

symbolism

elating

o individual

ni-

tiative

and

differentiation

ay

be

alienating

in

cultures

or

which

personal

dentity

s

tiedto

group

context.

Emotional

ntelligence

resumes

degree

of

fa-

miliarity

ithin

culture

nd

context

hat

may

not

exist

across

many

cultures

or

given

ndividual.

Although

esearchers

dealing

with emotional

n-

telligencedo notpurposelyimit heirmodelsto a

single

culture,

hey

do

not

provide

an

adequate

discussion

of cross-cultural

ontext

nd

how the

concept

might

e

expanded

to include t.

Cultural

ntelligence

iffers

rom

ocial

intelli-

gence

as

well

for

many

f

hereasons

that t

differs

from

motional

ntelligence.

hat

is,

the

formula-

tions of

social

intelligence

re

relatively

oid of

multicultural

ichness.

According

o

Salovey

and

Mayer

1990),

ocial

intelligence

eflects

he

bility

to

understand

nd

manage people.

Cantor

and

Kihlstrom

1985)

argued

that

social

intelligence

may

be an

underlying

imensionof

personality.

According

o their

iew,

ocial

problem

olving

an

inherent

art

of social

intelligence)

s a

central

personality rocess

that

underlies ocial

behavior.

Theyplace the ocusofpersonalcharacteristicsn

social and

personal

schema thatwe

store n

mem-

ory

nd

retrieve

n

various

social

situations.

Many

of

the schema and social or

emotional

cues used

by people

from ne

culture o

ascertain

another

person's

emotional tate

e.g., empathize)

differ

adically

from

hose used in

other ultures.

A

friendly

mile for a Canadian

may

seem

straightforward

ntil she

encounters Thai em-

ployee

forwhom over

20

separate

smiles

provide

subtle cues for

adically

differentrames f mind

(Klausner,

993;Komin,

991).

hus,

a

person

hav-

ing high

emotional

ntelligence

n

their ative

ul-

turemay be entirely ncapable at generalizing

across cultural

ettings, iven

such

confusing

ig-

nals. Cultural

ntelligence

CQ)

captures

this ca-

pability

for

daptation

across cultures

nd it re-

flects

person's

apability

o

gather, nterpret,

nd

act

upon

these

radically

differentues

to

function

effectively

cross cultural

ettings

r n a multicul-

tural

ituation

Earley

&

Ang,

2003).

CQ

differs rom ocial and emotional intelli-

gence

in other

ways

as well.

Adaptation

cross

new cultural ontexts

equires

that

novel

ways

of

dealing

with thers e discovered.

xisting

trate-

gies

mustbe

adjusted, dapted,

or reinvented e-

pending

on

the situation nd culture.

Thus,

CQ

places a heavy emphasis on metacognition,r

thinking

bout

thinking.

ikewise,

he

activities

required

n new

cultures,

nlike

nacting

behavior

within ne's

own

culture,

may require people

to

develop

and

expand

theirbehavioral

repertoires.

That

s,

CQ

reflects

person's

capability

fdevel-

oping

entirely

ovel

behavior

e.g., peech

sounds,

gestures,

tc.)

f

required.

At its

core,

CQ

consists of

three fundamental

elements:

metacognition

nd

cognition

thinking,

learning,

and

strategizing);

motivation

efficacy

and

confidence,

persistence,

value

congruence

and affect

or he new

culture);

nd behavior

so-

cial mimicry,nd behavioral repertoire). hese

facets are

illustrated

n our

example

of the

Thai

smile

interpreted y

the Canadian

manager.

First,

he needs

to observe the various

cues

pro-

vided

in

addition

to the smile

gesture

tself

e.g.,

other acial

or

bodilygestures,

ignificance

foth-

ers

who

may

be in

proximity,

he

source of the

original

mile

gesture)

nd to assemble them nto

a

meaningful

whole and make sense of what is

reallyexperienced

by

the Thai

employee.

econd,

she must

have the

requisite

motivation

directed

effortnd

self-confidence)

o

persist

n

the face of






106

Academy

f

Management

earning

nd

Education

March

confusion,

hallenge,

r

apparently

mixed

ignals.

Third,

he

must

hoose,

generate,

nd execute the

right

ctions to

respond appropriately.

f

any

of

these

three lements s

deficient,

he is

likely

o be

ineffectiven dealing with the Thai national.A

high

CQ

manager

has

capability

with all three

facets as

they

ct in unison. We

argue

here that

this

CQ

approach

is

an advance

in

thinking

or

understandingmanager adjustment

because it

captures

xisting pproaches emphasizing

values

orientation

nd fact

finding,

ut

also

moves well

beyond

that

by identifying

niquely

the

CQ

strengths

nd

deficits

or

n individual

manager.

We now turn

o a more

n-depth

iscussionof he

featuresof cultural

ntelligence

drawn from he

Earley

nd

Ang

2003)

ramework.1

Metacognitive-Cognitiveacet Training

The

cognitive

acet

refers o

information-process-

ing aspects

of

ntelligence

nd it s

conceptualized

using

self-conceptheoryEarley,

003).

The self s

a

person's

mental

representation

f her own

knowledge

nd

experience,

ocial

identity,

nd so-

cial

roles. The

functioning

f

the self

depends

on

personal

motives

eing

served and on the

config-

uration f he

mmediate ocial situation nd roles

enacted. The self s a

dynamic nterpretive

truc-

ture

hat

mediates most

significant

ntrapersonal

and

interpersonal

rocesses.

Thus,

the

cognitive

facet f

CQ

can be viewed

as the total

knowledge

and experience oncerningultural daptationof

an

individual

tored n

memory. nowing

neself

is

not ufficient

or

high

CQ

-

awareness does not

guarantee

flexibility.

lexibility

of

self-concept

and

ease of

ntegrating

ew facets nto t

re,

how-

ever,

associated with

high

CQ

because under-

standing

new

cultures

may require abandoning

pre-existing onceptualizations

f how and

why

people

function

s

they

do.

Having high

CQ

also

means that a

person

s

capable

of

reformulating

conceptions

f

self and

others s new information

is

received.

Thus,

malleability

nd

an

ability

to

reorganize

ne's

self-concept

re

important.

A criticalstartingpointfordiscussing a new

perspective

n

cultural

daptation

is an

avenue

referred o as

metacognition

Flavell,

1979,

1987),

which

refers o

thinking

bout

thinking,

r knowl-

edge

and

cognition

bout

cognitive bjects.

Meta-

cognition

an be

further

roken down into

two

complementary

lements:

metacognitive

knowl-

edge

and

metacognitive

xperience.

Metacogni-

tive

knowledge

refers to one's

acquired

world

knowledge

that

has to do

with

cognitive

matters

and it

reflects hree

general

categories

of

knowl-

edge (Flavell, 1987).First, t reflects he person

aspects

of

knowledge

or the

cognitions

hat

we

hold about

people

as

thinking rganisms.

There

are three

ypes

of

person

categories

ncluding

n-

traindividual,

nterindividual,

nd universal.

The

second

type

of

metacognition

efers

o task

vari-

ables,

or the

nature f he nformation

cquired

by

an individual.A

person

earns

things

bout

how

the

type

of information

ncountered

nfluences

how it should

be dealt with

n various

contexts.

Manypeople

realize that

very enselypacked

and

unique

information

equires

great

deal of

effort

to

comprehend.

f uch nformation

s

encountered,

thena person spends moretime on tryingo ac-

quire

the nformation.or

example,

the

demands

placed

on

earning

bout

a new culture

hat hares

little n commonwith that

of an

expatriate

man-

ager

are

great,

nd the ndividual

s

likely

o

real-

ize that

great

deal of ttentionnd

persistence

s

required.

The

final

spect

of

metacognitive

nowledge

e-

fers o

trategy

ariables,

orthe

procedures

sed to

achieve some desired

goal.

Whereas

a

cognitive

strategymight

e

something

uch as

adding

a set

of

numbers

o attain

total,

metacognitive

trat-

egy

might

e to add thenumbers everal

times

o

ensure thatthe total

s correct.

he

original

ddi-

tion proceduregives a correct nswer to the

problem,

but the successive

checks

on the

total

function

ifferently.

he

follow-up perations

re

intended

o reassure that

the correct nswer

has

been found.Another

xample

is that

f one is

ex-

posed

to

very complicated

reading

material,

a

strategy

might

be to read the material

slowly

to

understand

t.

However,

metacognitivetrategy

would be to skim he material

briefly

o decide

its

difficulty

nd what

cognitive trategy

might

be

employed

o

master

he materialmost

ffectively.

This

type

of

metacognition

might

well

be

thought

of

as

a

strategy

f

earning

how to

earn,

or meta-

learning.

These

higher

evel

cognitive rocesses

are

part

of a

person's

metacognition,

r

thinking

bout

thinking.

Thus,

metacognition

an be broken

down nto wo

complementary

lements

ncluding

metacognitive

nowledge

what

and

how to deal

with

knowledgegained

under

variety

fcircum-

stances)

and

metacognitive xperience

what

and

how

to

ncorporate

elevant

xperiences

s

a

gen-

eral

guide

for uture

nteractions).

etacognition

s

a critical

spect

of

CQ

because much

of what is

required

n a

new culture s

putting ogether at-

1

The

description

f

ultural

ntelligence

n this

ection s drawn

from

arley

2003)

nd

Earley

and

Ang

2003).

The

interested

reader s

referredothese

sources for more

n-depth

iscus-

sion of

CQ.






2004

Earley

nd Peterson

107

terns

nto coherent

icture,

ven f ne

does

not

knowwhat

his oherent

icture ight

ook

ike.

o

do so

requires

higher

evel of

strategy

bout

people,

laces,

nd events. orthis eason

many

culturalrainingrogramsailbecausethey ver-

emphasize

he

pecific xample

t the

xpense

f

a more

eneralmeta-learningrocess.

Many

ompanies

rain heir

lobalmanagers y

providing

ountry-specific

nformation.his

ap-

proach

s not

only

imited

y

a

person's

nvolve-

mentn the

raining

ethod,

ut t does

not

pre-

pare

manager

dequately

or

nderstanding

nd

mastering

ovel situations he

training

id not

specifically

over.

With n effective

etastrategy,

this

roblem

s overcome.

Cognitive rocessing

apabilities

of

CQ

are

shown

n a number

f

ways. ncorporating

ew

informationndusing he elf s a complex ilter

for

nderstanding

ewcultural

ettings

s as

crit-

ical as inductive

easoning.

his s

not

merely

m-

pathy

cues

determining

nother

erson's

ffec-

tive tate elied

ponby

n

empathetic

ndividual

may

be

absent

or

conflicting

ithwhat s ex-

pected.

xpressed

motion

ay

e

misleading

e-

cause

t s the

nderlying

motional

tates hat re

truly

eflectivef

person's

eelings.

high

CQ

person

must

nductively

reate

proper

mapping

of

he ocialsituation

o

function

ffectively.

his

requires

general

utbroad oundation

fknowl-

edge

about

cultures

nd societies

imilar

o

the

training

ecommended

y

n

anthropological

iew

covering opics uchas economic ystems,eli-

gious

and

political

nstitutions,

ocial relation-

ships,

nd

so forth.

Motivation

acet

Training

The second

facet f

CQ

refers

o ts

motivational

aspect.

Knowledge

f another

roup's

ways

of

dealing

with he

world s

not ufficient.

ne

must

be able

and

motivated)

ousethis

nowledge

nd

produce

culturally

ppropriate

esponse.

Cul-

tural

ntelligence

eflects

elf-concept

nd

directs

and motivates

daptation

o new

cultural ur-

roundings.elf-efficacys a keyfacet f the elf

(Bandura,

986,

997;

rez &

Earley,

993)

nd it

refers

o

a

judgment

f ne's

capability

o ccom-

plish

a certain

evel

of

performance

Bandura,

1986:

91).

eople

end

o void

asks

nd situations

they

elieve

xceed

heir

apabilities,

nd

efficacy

judgments

romote

he

choiceof

situations

nd

tasks

with

high

ikelihood

f

success

and

elimi-

nate

he

hoice

f

hose

hat xceed

ne's

apabil-

ities.

Self-efficacylays

an

important

ole

n

CQ

be-

causesuccessful

ntercultural

nteraction

s based

on

a

person's

enseof

fficacy

or

ocial

discourse

in a

novel ultural

etting. person

whodoes

not

believe n

personal apability

o

understand

eo-

ple

from ovel ultures

s

likely

o

disengage

fter

experiencingarlyfailures. f themotivational

facet fcultural

ntelligence

s

weak,

daptation

does notoccur.

Highly

fficacious

eople

do

not

require

onstant

ewards o

persist

ntheir

ctions;

not

onlymay

rewards e

delayed,

heymay p-

pear

in a form

hat s

unfamiliar.

eople

having

low

efficacy

xpectations

re

unableto

maintain

commitmento a course

f ction

nder uchdu-

ress and

potential ersonal

hreat. n

additional

benefit

f

fficacy

s its

positive

mpact

n strate-

gic thought

nd

problem

olving

Locke Latham,

1990).

ndividuals hohave a

strong

ense of

ffi-

cacy engage

in a

problem-solving

nd

strategic

approach o overcomingbstacles.This is very

important

n ntercultural

ncountersecause m-

mediate nd obvious nswers

odilemmas

may

e

absent

Wood

&

Bandura,

989).

igh

CQ

people

have

a

strong

ense

of

fficacy

ith

egard

o n-

tercultural

ncounters,

o

they

work

mart s well

as

hard.

Efficacy

lone,however,

s not full

escription

of hemotivationalacet f

CQ.

An

mportant,

nd

related,

ddition

s

goal settingEarley Lituchy,

1991;

ocke&

Latham,

990).

he nteractive

mpor-

tance

of

goal setting

nd

efficacyxpectations

s

illustrated

n

work

ymany

cholars

seeBandura,

1997

or

review).

uman ctivities

y

their

ery

nature regoaldirectedndpurposeful.n an in-

tercultural

ncounter,

challenge

s to

determine

the

oals

of thers

oming

rom differentultural

and

personal

ackground.

oals

specify

he on-

ditional

equirement

or

positive

elf-evaluation

(Bandura,

997).

he

process

f

valuating

he

ig-

nificance f

knowledge

bout

what s

happening

with

ur

personal

well-being enerates

motions.

Only

hrough

he

recognition

hatwe have some-

thing

o

gain

or o

oose,

hat

s,

hat he utcomef

a transaction

s relevant o

goals

and

well-being,

do we

generate

n emotional eaction.

hus,

oal

appraisal

s

necessary

ot

only

for

ctivating

responseowardoalattainment,ut lsofor en-

erating

motions

hat

re

necessary

or

nergizing

action.That

s,

our

goals

may

act as

cognitive

anchors,

therebyguiding subsequent

actions

(Locke

Latham,

990).

Returning

o

ourdiscussion f

elf-efficacy

o-

tive

for

ersonal

rowth

Erez

&

Earley,

993),

e

can see

the

nterdependent

ature f

goals

and

efficacy

or

nderstanding

otivational

spects

f

CQ.

Self-efficacyeciprocally

nfluences

ersonal

goals

set,

o individuals

ho re

high

n

the

mo-

tivational

spects

f

CQ

are likewise

igh

n

per-






108

Academy

f

Management earning

nd Education

March

sonal

efficacy

nd will tend

to set

specific

nd

challenging oals

for

hemselves o master

he

cultural

uagmire hey

ace. ndividuals hohave

a

high

motivation

omponent

f

CQ

are efficacious

with egardo nterculturalnteractions.hese f-

ficaciousndividualsave

strong

ensethat

hey

are

able todeal with he

divergent

erspectives

f

others,

hanging

nd unfamiliar

ituations,

nd

handling omplexity

nd

uncertainty.

owever,

s

we stated

arlier,

strong

ense of

fficacy

lone

is

not

dequate

for

nderstanding

Q

because a

person's

ctions re

goal

directed;

henature nd

type

f

goals

that

people

set for hemselvesre

critical or

nderstanding

nd

predicting

heout-

comes f ntercultural

nteractions.

A

person's

orms nd

values are related o

CQ

and

they

re an

important

spect

f he

elf

n that

they uidewhat eaturesf he ocialenvironmentthat

person

ttends o nd whathe or he values

(Hofstede,

991;

chwartz,

994).

herole f

values

and norms

from

motivational

erspective)

or

CQ

is that

hey uide

our

choiceof

activities s

well

help

define ur

valuation f

hem

Triandis,

1972).

or

xample, person

aving

trong roup-

based values s

likely

o void

ituations

equiring

personal

ctions.

urther,

uch

person

s

likely

o

evaluate

ndividual,

diosyncratic

ehavior

ega-

tively.

hus,

ultural

djustment

ay

be

impaired

by

ne's ultural

alues nd

normsf

hey

re held

extremelytrongly

nd

nflexibly.

Values and

value

systems

erve a number

f

functionsor n individual. alues are standards

thatead individuals

o ake

positions

ver

ssues,

predispose

hem o favor

particular

deologies,

guide

heir

elf-presentations,

valuate nd

udge

themselvesnd

others,

ct as

a basis for

ompar-

isonsof

morality

nd

competence

ith

thers,

e-

termine

hich deas of

others

hould be chal-

lenged,

nd

tell how to

rationalize

eliefs nd

actions hatwould

therwise e

unacceptable

o

as to

preserve

elf-image

Rokeach,

973:

3).

Val-

ues serve o

motivate

nstrumentallyy

providing

enticement

hrough

esired

nd-statess well as

terminallyyrepresenting

uperordinate

oals,

andreinforcesense of elf.Weare now n a

position

ocombine

ur arlier

discussion n

values with uruse of

fficacy

nd

goals.

As researchers

ave

demonstrated

see

Locke&

Latham,

990

or

review),

he

goals

that

people

et re

determined

y

heir

fficacyxpec-

tations s well

s a

subjective

valuation

oncern-

ing

the

potential

utcomes

hey

ssociate with

goal

enactment

nd

completion.

hat s to

ay,

ur

goals

redetermined

ot

nly y

whether e think

we can

achieve hem

ut lso

by

whatweconsider

the

outcomes fsuch

accomplishments

o be.

In

everyday

asks

nd

goal

setting,

he

question

f

value

valence)

may

be an

embedded

xpectation

of he

erformance

ontract

hat ne

has with

ne's

organization.

Interculturalncountersrevery ifferenthan

the ontext

ypicallyxperienced

y

n

employee.

These encounters

hallenge person's

hinking

and

assumptions

bout heirwnculture

y

con-

trasting

heir eliefs bout

ight

nd

wrong

ith

potentially

ifferent

ystem.

nereaction

o

uch

challenge

s

for he ndividual o

solate

himself

fromhenew ulture.

or

xample, person

ow n

motivational

Q

who ncounters

nitial rustration

of

goal

attainment

e.g.,

successful

ultural

n-

counter)

ill

have

increasing

ower

fficacy

x-

pectations, egative

self-image,

nd

potential

disengagement

ith

thers. ne

manager

we

in-

terviewedommentedhat ftermaking culturalfaux

pas

he

simply topped

oing

ut n hishost

community

nd

stayed

n his own home.

Rather

than

aking

chance f

making

moremistakes

nd

feeling

ike cultural

misfit,

e isolated

himself.

BehaviorFacet

Training

The hird

acet

f ultural

ntelligence

efers

o he

behaviors hat

person ngages

n. The

behav-

ioral

spect

f

CQ

suggests

hat

daptation

s not

only nowing

hat

nd how odo

cognitive),

nd

having

hewherewithalo

persevere

nd exert

effort

motivational)

ut

lso

having

he

esponses

needed for given ituationn one'sbehavioral

repertoire.acking

hese

pecific

ehaviors,

per-

son must ave the

apability

o

cquire

hem.

Q

reflects

person's bility

o

acquire

or

adapt

be-

haviors

ppropriate

or

new

culture.

A

person's

ehaviors also tied o

CQ

in

many

indirect

ays.

There re nstances

n which

per-

son

may

know nd wish o enact

culturallyp-

propriate

ehavior

ut cannot o so

because

of

some

eep-set

eservation.or

xample,

magine

manager

who s thrust

nto n uncomfortable

o-

cial situationnd s not ble to ontrol is

nonver-

bal communicationues. This

ype

f

response

or

lack of t)can be thoughtf n behavioralerms.

Even f

person

s able to

provide

desired e-

sponse

n an

intercultural

ncounter,

hat he

host

may

detect

hesitation

nd react

negatively

e-

mains

problem.

ehavior

roperly

xecuted

e-

quires personwilling

o

persist

ver ime.

ersis-

tences

necessary

or he

cquisition

fnew

kills,

and so is a

person's

ptitude

o determine

hese

new kills. hat

s,

t s not

nough

obe

willing

o

try

nd learnnew behaviors a

high

CQ

person

has an

aptitude

odetermine

here ewbehaviors

are needed nd how o execute hem

ffectively.






2004

Earley

nd Peteison

109

Self-presentation

s

particularlymportant

n

so-

cial

behaviors because behaviors enacted

in

the

process

of social interactions re motivated

pri-

marilyby

the need for

mpressionmanagement

and self presentationGoffman, 967).For exam-

ple,

a

person

may

at at a local restaurant

n a

host

country.

is

primary oal

is

satisfyhunger

while

his concerns bout

self-presentation ay

be of ec-

ondary

oncern. ven

so,

he's

likely

o follow at-

ing

etiquette

o as to avoid

offending

thers

n

that

culture.

Byadapting

his

eating

behavior and eti-

quette,

he satisfies

both his

hunger

s well as a

desire to maintain

positive

elf-image.

Role

modeling rovides

n

important

ontribution

to behavioral

CQ,

and it s a featurentroducedn a

number f

raining

rograms

hroughole-play

xer-

cises. A

person

with

igh

CQ

is able to

dapt

behav-

ior to be appropriateoany givencultural ontext.

Adopting

hebehaviors

onsistent ith

target

ul-

ture s an

important

spect

of ntercultural

djust-

ment

nd interaction.his

mimicry

s not n

attempt

at

subterfuge

r

camouflage

it s

engaging

n

ac-

tions

hat

putpeople

from nother ulture t ease

and comfort.

myriad

f

ues are

provided hrough

observing

thers,

nd

observing

heir

eactions s

you

nteract

ith hem.

A

person

high

n behavioral

CQ

integrates

nd

mimics hese ues

and behaviors

(Bargh

&

Chartrand,

999;

hartrand

Bargh,

999).

Work

n

mimicryuggests

hat he ffective

imick-

ing

ofanother

erson's

behavior,

ven

if

done

sub-

consciously,

esults

n

an

increased atisfaction

ith

the nteraction. imicrys subtle nd oftenubcon-

scious

(Chartrand

Bargh,

1999)

but

it results

n

generally

ositive

ffects

n a social

encounter.

high

CQ

person

s a talented

mimicwho uses

mim-

icry

n moderate

oses.

That

s,

excessive

mimicry

may

be

misinterpreted

s

mocking

omeone.

How-

ever,

high

CQ

person

models ome

of hemanner-

isms

nd

posturing,

erbal nd

nonverbal

ues,

and

so

forth,

fthe

other

erson

o as to

create com-

fort

one.

For

example,

f I am

speaking

with a

Mexican

manager

whose

social distance

s

closer

than

mine nd

I maintain

my

distant

osition,

his

may

make the

manager

feel

uncomfortable.

l-

though emaynot dentifyhe ource fhis discom-

fort,

ewill

feel

pprehensive

nd

hesitant,

nd this

will nhibit

ffective

ommunication

nd interaction.

Mimicry

sed

intelligently

and

judiciously)

onsti-

tutes

type

f

ognitive

trategy

s well as

a behav-

ioral ntervention.

Integrating

he Facets

of Cultural

ntelligence

Although

e

have

presented

hese facets

f

CQ

as

if

they

were

independent

nd

not

overlapping,

there

re

relationships

mong

the

features.Obvi-

ously,metacognition

nd

cognition

re

relatedbe-

cause the atter s an

inevitable

by-product

f

the

former

although

not

a

requisite

forthe

latter).

Other

facets re

interrelateds

well,

n

a similar

manner s motivationnd metacognition.or ex-

ample,

one benefit

f

high

self-efficacy

s a

posi-

tive nfluence n

strategic hinking

Bandura,

997).

High

motivational

CQ

means

that a

person

will

engage

in more

strategic

hinking

s

well,

and

this,

n

turn,

as a

positive

mpact

n actual

adap-

tation.

Thus,

high

motivational

Q

impacts

meta-

cognition,

esulting

n

performance

ffectiveness

thatfurther

olsters

motivation.

Metacognition

nd

cognition

re related to

be-

havioral

CQ

as

well,

because

we are not

positing

learning

without

awareness.

Although

some

unconscious elements of behavior

may impact

behavioral functioninge.g., Triandis' notionof

habits),

ehavioral

CQ

operates

argely

n

the on-

scious domain.

That

s,

the

metacognitive

nd

cog-

nitive

knowledgegained

during

ultural ncoun-

ters

provides

a

foundation or

behaviors to

be

engaged

in.

This

may

be

largely

observational

(role model)

although metacognitive

trategies

might

be used to inform nd

shape

a

person's

behavioral

repertoire.

Although

he facets of

CQ

have

discriminant

validity,

here

re

relationships mong

them. hat

is,

an intervention

argeting

ne ofthe facets

may

have minimal

spillover

effects nto otherfacets.

Thus,

o maximizebenefits

training

ntervention

needs to focusonpotential verlapand synergies

of

CQ

facets.

COMBINING

FEATURES TO DESIGN

INTERCULTURAL

TRAINING

If we

map

the three

key

features f

CQ

onto the

training

eeds

described

by

Tan and

Chua

(2003)

f

intensity,

uration,

nd naturewe can see a con-

tentbasis for

ntercultural

raining

nterventions.

This s reflectedn

Figure

1,

nd it

provides guide

concerning

ow

one

might

hink

bout

matching

specific

training

methods with a needs-based

analysis ofparticipant apability.

Interventions

argeting

he

metacognitive

nd

cognitive

spects

of

CQ

require

an

emphasis

on

skill

development

n

several

areas. The three

en-

eral

metacognitive ompetencies

include

plan-

ning,

monitoring,

nd

evaluating.Planning

refers

to a

capability

o

generate ognitive

tructures

nd

strategies higher

evel

thinking trategies).

For

example,

trainee

not

nly

needs to

recognize

hat

male-femalework

elationships

iffer cross cul-

tures,

r that

a

particular elationship

olds in a

particular ountry,

ut she must also be able to








2004

Eailey

and

Peterson

111

structures

nderlying

elff social,

and

cultural

schemas.

Cognitive

structures re tacit

assump-

tions

nd beliefs hat

give

rise to habitual

ways

of

construing

elf,

thers,

nd the world.The ndivid-

ual's personal chemas, urrentoncerns,nd per-

sonal

goals

influence he

way

informations

pro-

cessed and the

way

the individual's

behavior s

organized.

Methods

focusing

n the motivational acet of

CQ

are most

heavily

ied to the values-orientation

approach

often

mployed

n

intercultural

raining.

That

s,

an

emphasis

on culturalvalues not

only

provides

specific knowledge

about

a

target

cul-

ture,

ut t s intended o

develop empathy

s well.

The

shortcoming

o this

approach

s that

mpathy

and

attraction o a new culture

n

no

way imply

efficaciousness

nd

perseverance.

That

is,

a

per-

son may feelhighly mpathetic nd positiveto-

ward a host

culture,

ut still lack the

efficacy

o

deal with

he

challenges

she

inevitably

aces.

Self-efficacy

s a

key

to effective ntercultural

training.

Cultural

experiences

need to be lever-

aged

as a means of

building

nd

enhancing

ffi-

cacy

through roximatemastery

ituations.This

implies

that

we

ought

to

incrementally

uild a

trainee's confidence

oward nterculturalnterac-

tion

by guiding

the

trainee

through

series of

successful

nteractions

with a new culture.One

possible

way

is to

expose

an uninitiated

erson

through

series

of

short,

imple,

and controlled

intercultural

nteractions

n a classroom

setting.

As thetrainee builds greater onfidence, reater

complexity

ould be

added,

progressively raduat-

ing

to an

actual encounter.

A

simple example

of

this

onfidence-buildingpproach

s to

nstructn

individual

to focus

on several

simple

but salient

rituals n a new

country

e.g.,finding

ut whereto

buy

a

newspaper

or

get

a

cup

of

coffee)

s initial

mastery xperiences

that,

n

turn,

uild

efficacy

with

regard

to

greater

challenges.

Once estab-

lished,

fficacy rovides

he

perseverance

needed

to tackle

greater

ultural

hallenges. Curiosity

s a

motivational

rerequisite

or

xploratory

ehavior,

and

this s

important

or ultural

djustment.

eo-

ple vary n their esire toexperimentnd observe;

curiosity

eflects

motivational

tate.

With

regard

to the

behavioral facet

of

CQ,

Tan

and Chua

(2003)

draw

fromGoffman's

heory

f

self

presentation

Goffman,

967)

nd

focus on a

dramaturgical

pproach

to the

training

f behav-

ioral

competencies

hrough

he use of

role-plays,

performing,

nd visual

arts s methods f

raining.

Although

he use

of

role-plays

s not new as a

training

method

n cross-cultural

raining,

heir

use

of narrative

lays

and theater

raining

meth-

odsfor he

purpose

f

raining

ultural

ntelligence

is

novel.

Through

he

medium

f

drama,

ndividu-

als

adopt

an

integrative,

ultisensorypproach

to

the

concept

of

learning.

They

are

encouraged

to

utilize he

physical,

motional,

ensory,

nd

cogni-

tiveprocessestoexperience earning nd improve

self-knowledge

nd

metacognition,

n

enhanced

understanding

f the

feelings

and

motivation f

others,

nd to

bolster

elf-efficacy.hey

suggest

that

a

dramaturgical

approach

helps

trainees

learn the

nuances

of behavior

and action.

Cer-

tainly

his

pproach

fits

icely

withwork

n

social

mimicry

y Bargh

and

Chartrand

1999)

that

we

described above.

Training

rograms

mphasizing

role

modeling

complement

uch a

drama-based

approach

as

well.

Finally,

ehavior

modifications

another

way

of

enhancing

he behavioral

spect

of

CQ.

Behaviors

that re sanctioned n a target ulture re identi-

fied nd transferredo a

learner.

imulations

nd

role-plays

re

conducted and

reinforcement

nd

punishment

re

used to

guide

behavior

change.

Individuals

wishing

to

increase cultural ntelli-

gence

learnto break

out of old

habits

and to

ac-

quire

a new

repertoire

f

behaviors considered

appropriate

n

the

target

ulture.

Applying

Q

to a

Multinational eam

Working

n

a

multinational eam

provides

num-

berof

trong

hallenges

for

member.

here re at

least three nternal

to

he

team)

ssues

confronting

multinational eams as theydevelop and build

momentum

establishment f

goals

and common

purpose,

clarification f roles

played by

team

members,

nd

delineation

of rules for conduct

and interaction

Earley

&

Gibson, 2002;

Earley

&

Mosakowski,2000;

Maznevski, 1994;Snow, Snell,

Canney-Davison,

Hambrick,

996).

Working

n

a

highly

diverse team

consisting

f

membersfrom

range

of

cultures and

back-

grounds

makes

the

problem

f

establishing

goals,

roles,

nd rules

highly roblematic

ecause of

the

additional

complexity

dded

due to cultural

iffer-

ences.

Take,

for

example,

the issue

concerning

rulesfor nteraction ithin multinationaleam.

How should members nteract

nd discuss

core

issues?

If

disagreements

ccurhow are

they

o be

resolved? Team

members who come from

more

confrontational

ultures

may

notnotice

he subtle

cues

coming

from eam

memberswho come

from

cultureswhere face

saving

is

important

rwhere

conflict ends to be

expressed

ndirectly.

he sec-

ond

big

issue is thedistributionfresources. f

he

team receives imited

esources,

how should

they

be distributed? nd how

might

eam members e-

cide

individual

responsibilities?

A team

member






112

Academy

f

Management earning

nd Education

March

coming

rom

strong

eed-based

ulture

might

well

expect

hat carce resources

re allocated

based on

needratherhan

ccomplishment,

hile

a

fellowmember

oming

romn

equity-based

ul-

turemight avean opposing iew.The unstated

assumptions

oncerningight

nd

wrong,

ue

pro-

cess,

expectations

or

membership,

nd so forth

are tied

o ultural

ackground

nd

experience.

o

although

hesekinds

f ssues are a

good tarting

point

or

uilding rusting

eamswithin

single

culture,

hey

an

easily

become ontentiousssues

inthe

multinationaleam.

CQ

competencies

ased

on

metacognition

nd

motivationre

of

particularly

igh mportance

or

the multinational

eam.

Functioning

n

such a

team

requires

hatmembers

cknowledge

heir

weak

overlapping nowledge

nd focuson the

most asiccommonalityocreate hybridr yn-

ergistic

ulture hat

rows

utof

omething

ore

fundamentalhan istributionfrewards nd de-

cision

rules

Adler,

997;

Adler&

Bartholomew,

1992;

arley

Mosakowski,

000).

hat

s,

ll teams

must uild

momentumrom heir

ommonalities,

but he

multinationaleam as a

special hallenge

insomuchs

their

ommonalities

ill

be harder o

identify.

ultinationaleamsneedto resist ocus-

ing nitially

n their

ifferences.ven

hough

he

long-term

trength

fmultinationaleams ies in

their

iversity

nd

unique xperiences

s a

team,

sharing

hose

uniqueperspectives

n a

teamtoo

early

n

the

process

s

riskyndividually

Witten-

baum,Hubbell, Zuckerman,999). etacognitive

CQ

is

critical or

eveloping

nd

dentifying

trat-

egies

that

might

e

usedtodeterminehe asis for

a

hybrid

ulture.

lthough

he ld

adage

of

goals,

roles,

nd rules s a

reasonable

tarting oint

or

developing

hybrid

ulture,

eam-specific

le-

ments hat

must e

uncovered

y

teammembers

are

ikely

s

well.

Multinational

eam

uilding

lso

requires trong

motivational

iscipline

ecause

many

unstated

practices

nd

assumptions

may

need to

be set

aside and

etiquette

iolations

verlooked. com-

mon

rap

or

managers

or

tudents)

articipating

ina

multinational

eamfrom

nationally

etero-

geneous

ompany

or

program)

s to

assume that

they

re

cosmopolitan

y

he

virtue f heir hoice

of institutionor

raining

r

past

travel

xperi-

ences.

Well-traveled

anagers

ften

ssume

hey

are

naturally ccepting

f cultural

ifferences.

However,

his

ssumption

s tested

otwhen he

team s experiencingalmwaters, utwhen he

seas are turbulent.

t ritical

oints

n

time,

uch

as

impending

eadlines

r

negative

erformance

feedback,

eams

acking strong

enseof rust

re

likely

o

xperience

igh

elationship

r motional

conflictnd

likely

elf-destruct

Earley

&

Mosa-

kowski, 000;

imons

&

Peterson, 000).

Once

a

group

eceives

egative

eedback,

ifferences

hat

wereonce

easily

overlooked

an

become

alient

and

whatwere

quaint

ccentricities

an become

unacceptable

rritants

esulting

n

personal

islik-

ing

Peterson

Behfar,

n

press).

amiliarity

an

breed

ontempt,specially

t

key

tress

oints

n

group'sife.Team members avinghighCQ rec-

ognize

his

ifficulty

nd remain

motivated

o ook

beyond

ndividual ifferences

oward

what

might

benefit

heentire

eam,

ven at critical

ressure

points.

Our

point

ere s

that uccessfor

multinational

teams oes not ie

with ultural

alues

training

r

broad rientationso

diversity.

ather,

t

requires

specific

Q

competencies

eld

by

members

oun-

cover

ommonality

cross

ts

membership,

ffec-

tive nd

appropriate

ole

llocations,

nd

clearly

defined ulesfor nteraction

ased

on the

pecific

needs

i.e.,

ome ultural

nd some

ndividual)

nd

interestsf eam

members. o uncover

hese ari-

ous elementsequireseammembersho re ble

to

recognize

hesefeatures

n fellow eammem-

bers s well as

themselves,

nd to

generate

ew

ways

to do

so as new teammembersre

encoun-

tered.

he best

strategy

or

earning e.g.,

direct

inquiry

ersus

passive

observation)

hat

Ken-

yan,

n

Indonesian,

r a German

may

define s

effective

eadershipmay

differs

much s the

contentnswer bout

themost esirable

ormf

leadership

tself

e.g.,

directive

ersus

participa-

tive).

Metacognitive

Q

training

ddresses hese

different

earning

trategies

n

the

way

hat

ogni-

tive

Q

training

ddresses

he ontent

ifferences.

MotivationalQ provideshe onfidenceopersist

when

rying

odeterminehebasis of

xperienced

differences.ehavioral

CQ

guides

appropriate

ways

of

nteracting

ith thers romifferentul-

tures.

CONCLUSIONS

AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Given he

mportance

f ntercultural

raining,

t

remains nfortunatehat odate a

comprehensive

frameworkf

cultural

daptation

has not

been

brought

orwardo

guide

raining

nd

pedagogical

All

teams

must uild

momentumrom

their

ommonalities,

utthe

multinationaleamhas a

special

challengensomuchs their

commonalities ill

be harder o

dentify.






2004

Earley

nd Peterson

113

interventions.

he dominant

pproach

used in

both

orporate

nd educational

ettings

s to

pro-

vide

managers

nd students

ith

ulture-specific

knowledge

n

the

case of a

targeted ssignment

(country-specific,imited urationssignmentr

educational

tudy-abroadrogram)

r culture-

general

eatures ominated

y

a discussion f a

limited et

of cultural

values. These culture-

general

briefings

re often ased on

conceptual

frameworks

osed by

cultural esearchers

Hof-

stede, 1991;

Trompenaars

Hampden-Turner,

1998),

nd

they

onsist f

diosyncratic

ists f ul-

tural alues.

Unfortunately,

hese ultural

alues

briefings

an

easily degrade

nto values-based

stereotyping

f

national ulturesnd

provide

en-

uous,

fnot

downright

nfounded,

inks o actual

behavior

f ultural

articipants.

These culture-specificnterventionsre prob-

lematic

or number

freasons

s we have

out-

lined

bove.

First,

hey

o not

djust

orndividual

differences

n

capability

cross

the

cognitive-

metacognitive,

otivational,

nd

behavioral o-

mains.

econd,

hey

ail

o consider

henature

f

the

target

ulture

nd

thework o be

performed

in terms

f

ntensity,

uration,

nd

nature.

hird,

they

o

not

provide

dequately

or

eneralization

across

ultural

ettings

r

formulticultural

xperi-

ences.

Our

dvocated

pproach

o

training

nd

devel-

opment

sing

CQ

represents

new direction

or

theory

nd

practice.

t

this

preliminary

tage,

group f cholars t theNanyang usiness chool

(Cultural

ntelligence

Working

roup)

n

Singa-

pore

with

olleagues

n the United

tates

and

England

re

developing

n

assessment

ool or

Q

using

paper-and-pencil

ethod.

arly

indings

suggest

hat

reliable

nd

valid scale

can be

developed,

nd

we are

using

his

ool

or

ssessing

MBA

tudents

t several

niversities

s

they

nter

the

program.

ubsequently,

e

hope

to

expand

this

ssessment

method

o

apture

he acets

f

CQ

using

imulations,

ork

amples,

nd

360-degree

feedback.

As with

ny

raining

ntervention

heres

a

prac-

ticalconcern boutthe costofassessment nd

intervention.

ill ur

pproach

sing

CQ

prove

o

be

costeffective

nd

practical?

We have

imple-

mented

small-scale

ntroduction

f

our

CQ

idea

in

the

entering

MBA

class

at

LondonBusiness

School.

The

first

ull-scale

pplication

f

our

p-

proach

has been

implemented

t the

Nanyang

Business chool

Ang

Tan,

ersonal

ommunica-

tions,

ingapore,

ugust

8, 003)

n

training

on-

Singaporean

tudents

ewly

ntering

heMBA

ro-

gram.

With

sample

of

approximately

0

new

students,

he esults

f heir

-day rogram

includ-

ing

ssessment nd

training

f he

CQ facets)

ere

well

received

by

the

participants.

full-scale

analysis

f

he

pproach

as notbeen

completed

at either

chool,

but

both

programs

ere suffi-

cientlyuccessful hattherespectiveniversity

administratorst bothhave

decidedto

adopt

t

more

roadly

n the

oming

ear.

Wehave

proposed

nd discussed

unifying

on-

ceptual

frameworkseful or

nderstanding

nd

training global

manager.

While

ast pproaches

haveoften ocused

n imited

nterventions

elying

on

empirical

bservations,

e have

suggested

n

alternative

pproach

nd

philosophy

f

pedagogy.

Note hat ur

pproach

oes not dvocate ne

pe-

cific

raining ethodology

ver nother

e.g.,

ole-

play

exercisesversus

documentaryearning)

it

provides guide

for

ssessing

a

manager's

pe-

cific ompetenciesoprovide rainingnspecific

areas. The

challenge acing global manager

s

daunting

rom cultural

erspective,

nd t s crit-

ical to

provide

nterventions

ailored o he

ndivid-

ual. After

ecades ofwork n

training

nd educa-

tion or nternational

ork

ssignments,

cholars

have not

xperienced

uccess

nd

mastery

f his

challenge. erhaps

with new

pproach ocusing

on fundamental

uman

apability

or

djustment

to

others,

reater

rogress

illnotbe so elusive.

REFERENCES

Adler,

N.

J.

1997.

nternational

imensions f

organizational

behavior 3rd d.).Cincinnati, H: SouthWestern.

Adler,

N.

J.,

Bartholomew,

. 1992.

Managingglobally ompe-

tent

eople.

Academy

f

Management

xecutive.

: 52-65.

Ajzen,

.,

&

Fishbein,

M.

1980.

Understanding

ttitudes nd

pre-

dicting

ocial behavior.

NJ:

rentice-Hall.

Bandura,

A. 1986. ocial foundations

f

thoughts

nd

action:A

social

cognitiveheory. nglewood

liffs,

J:

rentice-Hall.

Bandura,

A.

1997.

elf-efficacy:

he exercise ofcontrol.New

York:W. H.Freeman.

Bargh,

.

A.,

&

Chartrand,

. L. 1999. he

unbearable utomatic-

ity

f

being.

American

sychologist.

4: 462-479.

Bhawuk,

. P. 1998. he

role ofculture

heory

n cross-cultural

training.

multimethod

tudy

f culture

pecific,

ulture

general,

nd culture

heory-based

ssimilators.

ournal

f

Cross-Culturalsychology.9: 630-655.

Bhawuk,

D. P. 2001.Evolution

f culture ssimilators: oward

theory-based

ssimilators.

nternational

ournal

flntercul-

tural

Relations.

5: 141-163.

Bhawuk,

.

P.,

&

Brislin,

. W. 1992. he measurement

f nter-

cultural

ensitivitysing

he

oncepts

f ndividualism

nd

collectivism.

nternational

ournal

f

Intercultural ela-

tions.

6:413-446.

Bochner,

. 1982.Cultures

n contact: tudies

n cross-cultural

interaction.

ew York:

ergamon.

Brislin,

.

W., Landis,

D.(

&

Brandt,

M. E. 1983.

Conceptualiza-

tions f

ntercultural

ehavior nd

training.

n

D. D.

Landis






114

Academy

f

Management

earning

nd

Education

March

&

R. W.

Brislin

Eds.),

Handbook f ntercultural

raining,

(Vol.

1:

1-35).

New York:

ergamon.

Brislin,

.

W.,

&

Yoshida,

T.

1994. nterculturalommunication

training:

n

ntroduction.housand

Oaks,

CA:

Sage.

Brockner,.npress.Unpacking ountryffects: n theneed to

operationalize

he

psychological

determinants f cross-

national

differences.

n B. M.

Staw,

&

R. M.

Kramer

Eds.),

Research n

organizational

ehavior.

Greenwich,

T:

JAI

Press.

Cantor,N.,

&

Kihlstrom,

.

.

1985. ocial

intelligence:

he

cog-

nitive asis of

personality,

eview of

Personality

nd So-

cial

Psychology,

:

15-33.

Chartrand,

.

L,

&

Bargh,

.

A.

1999. he

chameleon

ffect:

he

perception-behavior

ink nd social

interaction.

ournal

f

Personality

nd Social

Psychology,

6:

893-910.

Cushner, .,

&

Landis,

D. 1996. he

ntercultural

ensitizer.n D.

Landis

&

R.

S.

Bhagat

(Eds.),

Handbook of intercultural

training

2nd

d.,

185-201).

housand

Oaks,

CA:

Sage.

Dodd,C. H. 1998. ynamics f nterculturalommunication5th

ed.).

Boston:McGrawHill.

Dowling,

.

J.,

Welch,

D.

E.,

&

Schuler,

R.

S. 1999.

nternational

human resource

management. Managing people

in a

multinational ontext

3rd ed.). Cincinnati,

OH: South-

western.

Earley,

P.

C. 2003.

Redefining

nteractions

cross

cultures

and

organizations:

Moving

forwardwith cultural

in-

telligence.

Research

n

Organizational

Behavior,

4: 271-

299.

Earley,

.

C,

&

Ang,

.

2003. ultural

ntelligence:

n

nalysis

f

individual

nteractionscross

ultures. alo

Alto,

A: Stan-

ford

niversity

ress.

Earley,

.

C,

&

Gibson,

C. B.2002.

Multinational ork eams:

A

new

perspective.

Mahwah,

NJ:

rlbaum.

Earley,

.

C,

&

Lituchy,

. R.

1991.

elineating oal

and

efficacy

effects: test f

threemodels.

Journal

f

Applied Psychol-

ogy,

6:

81-98.

Earley,

P.

C,

&

Mosakowski,

.

2000.

Creating hybrid

eam

cultures:

n

empirical

estof nternationaleam function-

ing.

Academy

f

Management

ournal,

3: 26-49.

Erez,

M.,

&

Earley,

.

C. 1993.

Culture,

elf-identity,

nd work.

NewYork:

Oxford.

Flavell,

J.

H.

1979.

Metacognition

nd

cognitive

monitoring:

new

area of

cognitive

nquiry.

merican

sychologist

4:

906-911.

Flavell,

J.

H.

1987.

peculations

bout the

nature nd

develop-

ment f

metacognition.

n F. E.

Weinert,

R. H.

Kluwe

Eds.),

Metacognition,

motivation,

nd

understanding:

1-29.

Hillsdale,NJ: rlbaum.

Gardner,

.

1983.

rames fmind:

The

theory

f

multiple

ntel-

ligences.

New York:

asic.

Gardner,

. 1993.

Multiple ntelligences:

he

theory

n

practice.

New

York:

asic Books.

Goffman,

.

1967.

nteractionitual:

Essays

n

iace-to-face e-

havior.

Chicago:

Aldine.

Hall,

E.

T.,

&

Hall,

M.R.

1990.

nderstanding

ultural

ifferences.

Yarmouth,

E:

ntercultural.

Harris,

.

R.,

&

Moran,

. T.

1991.

Managing

ultural

ifferences

(3rd

d.).Houston,

X:

Gulf.

Hofstede,

. 1991.

Culture

nd

organizations:

oftware

f

the

mind.London:

McGraw

Hill.

Kealey,

D.

J.

989.

A

study

f ross-cultural

ffectiveness:

heo-

retical

ssues,

practical

pplications.

nternational

ournal

of nterculturalelations, 3:387-428.

Klausner,

W.

J.

993.

eflectionsn

Thai culture.

angkok,

hai-

land: The Siam

Society.

Kluckhohn, .,

&

Strodtbeck,

. L. 1961.

Variations

n

value

ori-

entations.

ew York:

Harper

nd Row.

Kolb,

D.

A.,

Boyatzis,

.

E.,

&

Mainemelis,

C. 2001.

xperiential

learning theory:

revious

research

and new directions.

In R.

J.

Sternberg,

& L.

Zhang

(Eds.),

Perspectives

on

thinking,

earning,

and

cognitive

styles.

Mahwah,

NJ:

Erlbaum.

Komin,

. 1991.

sychology

fthe Thai

people.

Bangkok,

hai-

land: National nstitutef

Development

dministration.

Lee,

C.

H.,

&

Templer,

.

J.

003.

CQ

assessment nd

measure-

ment.

n P. C.

Earley

& S.

Ang

Eds.),

Cultural

ntelligence:

Ananalysisof ndividual nteractionscross cultures: 85-

208.

Stanford,

A: Stanford

niversity

ress.

Locke,

.

A.,

&

Latham,

G. P. 1990.A

theory

f

goal

setting

nd

task

performance.

nglewood

Cliffs,

J:

rentice-Hall.

Loewenstein,

.,

hompson,

.,

&

Gentner,

.

2003.

Analogical

learning

n

negotiation

eams:

Comparing

ases

promotes

learning

nd transfer.

cademy

f

Management

earning

Education,

(2):

119-127.

Maznevski,

M. L.

1994.

Understanding

ur differences:erfor-

mancein

decision-making roups

withdiverse

members.

Human

Relations,

7:

531-552.

Mead,

G.

H.

1934.

Mind,

elf

nd

society.

hicago,

L:

University

of

Chicago

Press.

Mendenhall,M.,Dunbar, .,

&

Oddou,

G. 1987.

xpatriate

elec-

tion, raining,nd career-pathing: review nd critique.

HumanResource

Management,

6: 331-345.

Parsons,

T.,

&

Shils,

E. A.

1951.

Toward

general

theory

f

action.

Cambridge,

MA:Harvard

University

ress.

Peterson,

.

S.,

&

Behfar,

.

J.

n

press.

The

dynamic

elationship

between

performance

eedback,

trust,

nd

conflict n

groups:

A

longitudinal

tudy. rganizational

ehavior

nd

HumanDecisionProcesses.

Redden,

W. 1975.Culture hock

nventory.

redericton,

an-

ada:

Organizational

Texts Ltd.

(Cited

from

Kealey

&

Ruben

1983.)

Rokeach,

M.

1973. he nature f

humanvalues. NewYork: ree

Press.

Salovey,

P.,

&

Mayer,

J.

D.

1990. motional

ntelligence.magi-

nation, ognition,nd Personality,: 185-211.

Schneider,

.

C,

&

Barsoux,

.

. 1997.

Managing

cross

ultures.

London: rentice-Hall.

Schwartz,

.

H.

1994. re here niversal

spects

n the tructure

and contents fhumanvalues?

Journal

fSocial

Issues,

50:

19-45.

Shirts,

. G. 1973. aFa BaFa.

Del

Mar,

CA: Simulation

raining

Systems.

Simons,

T.

L.,

&

Peterson,

R.

S. 2000.Task conflict

nd rela-

tionship

onflict n

top management

eams: The

pivotal

role of

intragroup

rust.

Journal

f

Applied

Psychology,

85: 102-111.






2004

Earley

nd Peterson

115

Snow,

C.

C, Snell,

S.

A.,

Canney-Davison,

.

C,

&

Hambrick,

D.

C.

1996.Use transnational

eams to

globalize your

om-

pany.Organizational ynamics,

2: 20-32.

Snyder,

M. 1974.The

Self-Monitoring

f

Expressive

Behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,0:

526-537.

Spreitzer,

.

M.fMcCall,

M.

W.,

&

Mahoney,

J.

D.

1997.

Early

identificationf

nternationalxecutive

potential.

ournal

of

AppliedPsychology,

2: 6-29.

Sternberg,

.

J.

1985.

Beyond

1Q:

A triarchic

heory

f human

intelligence.

ew

York:

ambridgeUniversity

ress.

Tan,

J.

S.,

&

Chua,

R. Y.

J.

2003.

Training

and

developing

cultural

ntelligence.

n P.

C.

Earley,

& S.

Ang

(Eds.),

Cultural

ntelligence:

An

analysis

of ndividual nterac-

tions across cultures: 258-303. Palo

Alto,

CA: Stanford

University

ress.

Triandis,

H.

C. 1972.The

analysis

of

subjective

ulture.New

York:Wiley.

Triandis,

H. C. 1975.Cultural

training, ognitive

omplexity,

and

interpersonal

ttitudes.

n

R. W.

Brislin,

.

Bochner,

W.

J.

onner

Eds.),

Cross

ultural

erspectives

n

earning:

39-78.

Beverly

ills,

CA:

Sage.

Triandis,

H. C. 1995. ndividualism

nd collectivism.

oulder,

CO: Westview ress.

Triandis,

H.

C,

&

Berry,

.

W.

1980.

Handbook

f cross-cultural

psychology

Vol.2).

New York:

Allyn

&

Bacon.

Trompenaars,

.,

&

Hampden-Tumer,

.

1998.

iding

he

waves

of ulture:

Understanding

iversity

n

global

business

2nd

ed.).

Chicago,

L: rwin.

Tung,

R. L. 1981. election nd

training

f

personnel

or

verseas

assignments.

olumbia

ournal

fWorld usiness,

6: 8-78.

Wittenbaum,

.

M.,

Hubbell,

A.

P.,

&

Zuckerman,

. 1999.

Mutual

enhancement:

oward n

understanding

f the

collective

preference

or hared

information.

ournal

f

Personality

and

Social

Psychology,

7:

967-978.

Wood,

R.

E.,

&

Bandura,

A.

1989.

Social

cognitive heory

f

organizational

management. cademy

f

Management

e-

view,14:361-384.

P.

Christopher arley

is chair

and

professor

f

organizational

behavior at the London Busi-

ness School. He received his

PhD n ndustrialnd

organiza-

tional

psychology

from the

University

f

Illinois,

Urbana-

Champaign.

His research

nter-

ests include cross-cultural

nd

international

spects

of

organi-

zational behavior.Recent

pub-

lications ncludeCultural

ntel-

ligence: ndividual nteractions

Across ultures

with

oon

Ang)

and

Face,

Harmony,

nd Social

Structure:

n

Analysis

of Be-

havior

n

Organizations.

Randall S.

Peterson

s associate

professor

f

organizational

e-

havior at London

Business

School.His

current

esearch

c-

tivities

nclude

investigating

how

personality

fmembersf-

fects

roup

nteraction

nd

per-

formance,

owCEO

personality

affects

op

management

eam

interaction

and

firm

perfor-

mance,

nd the effects

f con-

flict

n

groups.

Professor

eter-

son holds a PhD in social and

organizational

sychology

rom

the

University

f

California,

Berkeley.

Documents

The Elusive Cultural Chameleon