Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) Self-Evaluation2 And Application To The Global Mindset

Table of Contents

Intercultural Effectiveness Scale
Intercultural Effectiveness Scale

Assignment 1: Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) self-evaluation and application to the global mindset (Individual, 20%)Total word count 1400-1500 words

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper


Word count: 700 – 750 words, part 1


1. Read Mendenhall 1 – Specification of the content domain) (attached)

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

2. Read personal survey report thoroughly (IES Survey filled by me). Reflect on accurateness/fit of the results. (attached)

3. Discuss strengths and how you might build upon your intercultural competence. In addition, highlight one area and make suggestions for development.

4. Do not simply state that competencies are high or low; rather discuss the implications for developing intercultural competence.

5. Articulate the meaning of the competencies.

6 .Diagnose personal strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for development

Grading Criteria

· Your assignment should conform to the following criteria:

Intercultural Effectiveness Scale
Articulates meaning of competenciesRestates definitions. Does not differentiate between dimensions.Provides satisfactory understanding of three main dimensions and sub-dimensionsInterprets competencies and provides examples. Illustrates understanding of the competency model.
Analyzes the overall resultsRestates results high/low and does not interpret outcomes to intercultural competencyProvides satisfactory broad overview and analysis.Identifies specific implications of results to intercultural competency development. Discusses interactions among competencies
Recommends suggestions for developmentRestates competencies and does not articulate how to achieve developmentProvides satisfactory suggestions that broadly contribute to development planIdentifies specific activities that will contribute to experiential learning and development

Word count: 675 – 750 words part 2


Intercultural Effectiveness Scale

The purpose of this part is to apply an intercultural lens to the mind-set of a corporate leader .

Upon completion of this assignment the student will be able to:

Identify other competencies that influence executive perceptions and actions.

Better understand the scale of the intercultural challenge in international business

Instructions based on ARTICLE 2   Building cross-cultural leadership competence: An interview with Carlos Ghosn ) ( Attached )

· List the competencies mentioned by Carlos Ghoshn

· Identify where competencies overlap with those identified in Mendenhall et al. and others which are important to Ghoshn

· Discuss the importance of intercultural competencies and how they are developed for global businesses.

Identifies and understands competenciesRestates terms. Does not show appreciation of their impactProvides satisfactory understanding of competencies and their impactInterprets competencies and provides examples. Illustrates understanding of the executive perspective.
Compares and discusses competency setsRestates both sets of terms but does not discuss them adequatelyProvides satisfactory broad overview and discussion.Understands and discusses the individual view of competencies and the organizational perspective.
Recommends suggestions for developmentRestates competencies and does not articulate how to achieve development in businessProvides satisfactory suggestions that broadly relate competency to organizational performanceCritically discusses activities and actions that may contribute to cross-cultural learning and development in the business organization

Please Ensure:

Intercultural Effectiveness Scale


· APA Formatting with proper referencing and citation

· Proper paraphrasing

Building Cross-Cultural Leadership Competence:

An Interview With Carlos Ghosn

GÜNTER K. STAHL Vienna University of Economics and Business, and INSEAD

MARY YOKO BRANNEN Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, and INSEAD

Carlos Ghosn is chairman and chief executive of- ficer of the Renault-Nissan Alliance, and he holds the same roles at both Renault and Nissan. Born in Brazil to Lebanese parents in 1954, Ghosn moved to Beirut when he was 6 years old, and he completed his primary education at a Jesuit school. He then earned engineering degrees from two of the most highly esteemed schools of higher education in France—École Polytechnique and the École des Mines de Paris, both noted for their highly selec- tive entrance exams. He holds French, Brazilian, and Lebanese citizenships.

Ghosn’s first job was at Michelin, Europe’s larg- est tire maker, where he worked for 18 years. He started in manufacturing and was rapidly pro- moted at 27 years old to plant manager in Le Puy, France, where he started honing his leadership skills. Industrial Scion François Michelin later asked him to turn around Michelin’s ailing South American division, naming Ghosn chief operating officer during Brazil’s inflationary economic crisis. After restoring the South American operations into

one of the company’s most successful divisions, Ghosn became the head of Michelin’s North Amer- ican unit and supervised a restructuring after the acquisition of American Uniroyal/Goodrich Tire Company. His skill in transforming troubled busi- nesses caught the attention of Louis Schweitzer, president of Renault, who asked Ghosn to become his second in command in 1996. When Renault acquired a large stake in Nissan in 1999, Schweitzer asked Ghosn to turn around the nearly bankrupt Japanese automaker.

His radical restructuring that returned Nissan to profitability earned Ghosn the nicknames “le cost killer” and “Mr. Fix It,” as well as Asia’s CEO of the Year Award (2001) from Fortune Magazine. The Renault-Nissan Alliance, a unique business plat- form in which each company helps the other and has mutual cross-shareholdings, is now the lon- gest surviving cross-cultural combination among major automakers. It has become the world’s third largest car group, after General Motors and Volks- wagen. The Alliance is responsible for more than one in 10 cars sold worldwide.

Ghosn is the recipient of Automotive News’ 2000 Industry Leader of the Year Award, the Strategic Management Society Lifetime Achievement Award (2012), and the INSEAD Transcultural Leadership Award (2008), which honors “an individual who exemplifies the importance and necessity of work- ing across borders.” Ghosn travels extensively and splits his time mainly between Paris and Tokyo. He also frequently visits his companies’ major mar-

We would like to thank Associate Editor Carolyn Egri and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. We also would like to thank Carlos Ghosn, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Renault and Nissan, for providing us with this generous interview opportu- nity, as well as Frédérique Le Greves, CEO Chief of Staff, Anja Wernersbach, Assistant to Chairman and CEO, and Masaaki Nishizawa, Head of Marketing and Sales Japan, Nissan, Motor Co. for their support. Final thanks go to Allan Bird, Mansour Javidan, and Martha Maznevski who provided thoughtful and enriching commentaries on our interview.

� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2013, Vol. 12, No. 3, 494–502.


494 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

kets, including emerging economies of Brazil, Rus- sia, India, and China.

On June 14, 2012, Carlos Ghosn talked with Pro- fessors Mary Yoko Brannen and Günter K. Stahl about challenges in managing across borders, his multicultural background, the mind-set and skill sets that managers require to create cultural syn- ergies, and how global corporations can utilize their cultural diversity to build cross-cultural com- petence in individuals and teams. Following the interview, three leading cross-cultural manage- ment scholars and educators were invited to com- ment on selected issues and to place the interview in the context of existing research. These are Allan Bird, Darla and Frederick Brodsky Trustee Profes- sor in Global Business, D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University; Mansour Javi- dan, Garvin Distinguished Professor and founding director of the Najafi Global Mindset Institute, Thunderbird School of Global Management; and Martha Maznevski, professor of organizational be- havior and international management and MBA program director at IMD.


Mr. Ghosn, you have been touted as a “leader without borders,” the “quintessential global executive,” and “multiculturalism’s poster boy”— and have even inspired a manga comic book in Japan, where your efforts to turn around and transform Nissan made you a Japanese hero. From your extensive experiences in managing across borders, how important is cross-cultural management education for global corporations such as Renault and Nissan today?

It is critical. More and more, managers are dealing with different cultures. Companies are going global, and teams are spread across the globe. If you’re head of engineering, you have to deal with divisions in Vietnam, India, China, or Russia, and you have to work across cultures. You have to know how to motivate people who speak different languages, who have different cultural contexts, who have different sensitivities and habits. You have to get prepared to deal with teams who are multicultural, to work with people who do not all think the same way as you do.

You have also talked about cultural differences as being a source of cultural synergies, as opposed to the general concern that they present barriers and impediments to doing business. In fact, in many teaching cases and anecdotal reports about the Nissan turnaround in the wake of the Renault-Nissan alliance, there have been examples of such synergistic outcomes. How do such synergies actually come about and, specifically, what kinds of cross-cultural skill sets do you look for in people that help foster these synergies in real life? Can you provide an example from the Renault-Nissan alliance?

I can give you many examples. A very prominent example is around the concept Japanese refer to as “monozukuri.”

[Note from the interviewers: Monozukuri literally means “making things.” However, rather than fo- cusing on the operational aspects of making things, the phrase embodies the concept of the spirit that energizes individuals to produce excel- lent products and continually improve them. Rather than mindless repetition, monozukuri relies on creativity and perseverance earned through lengthy apprenticeship practice rather than the structured course curricula taught at traditional schools. In that sense, monozukuri is art rather than science.]

We all know that monozukuri is a core compe- tence of Japan. And it’s embedded in the culture of Japan about how to work together coming from different functions for a specific objective. You have purchasing people working with engineer- ing, working with logistics, working with manufac- turing in order to get this car out of the door of the plant at the best quality and lowest cost possible. It’s not optimization by function; it’s an optimiza- tion as a whole by people coming together and, often in a disorganized manner, coming to a good conclusion. This is one area where culturally Nis-

You have to know how to motivate people who speak different languages, who have different cultural contexts, who have different sensitivities and habits. You have to get prepared to deal with teams who are multicultural, to work with people who do not all think the same way as you do.

2013 495Stahl and Brannen

san and Renault are completely different. Obvi- ously, we as French absolutely do not have this culture. The synergies in this example are created by the fact that Renault, by trying to learn from a different culture, can advance a lot in terms of monozukuri. It translates into better quality and lower cost for the product by just having a com- pletely different approach. This is for me a great example of how cultural differences and having completely different approaches to the same prob- lem create synergies. In this case, Renault employ- ees are learning something that they could not have done by themselves, by just going and sitting down with monozukuri teams, by learning the pro- cesses of Nissan and implementing them in the Renault way back home.

I could give you lots of other examples where in one national or organizational culture something is a blind spot or weakness and in another culture it’s a strength, and by working together, synergy is created. We all know that the Japanese culture is very strong in engineering, very strong in manu- facturing, very weak in communication, and very weak in finance. The Renault culture generally is very strong in some of the places where the Nissan culture is weak—for example, in finance, in telling the company narrative, and in artistic and emo- tionally evocative advertising and marketing. That’s why I think the Renault-Nissan Alliance works so well—because the cultures are different, yet complementary.

Can you elaborate on how these cultural complementarities lead to synergies in the Renault-Nissan alliance?

The Japanese culture is very “sectionalist.” The principle of the “chimneys” that exists in France also exists in Japan, except that it’s called “sec- tions” in Japan. The Japanese are sectionalists; you have it in the Japanese bureaucracy, and we have it at Nissan. But the flip side of this is an incredible strength of community and common purpose— what I call “neighborhood collaboration.”

In Japan, the plant is a sacred place. If the plant manager calls all the functions to come to work around him, to help him optimize the product, they will come. Because there is a sense of community in Japan, there is a sense of collective purpose. It’s a community which has a sense that the car com- ing out of the plant is our car. They are proud of it, they want to come and help the plant manager do the best possible job. This is the essence of mono-

zukuri. The purchasing guys are going to contrib- ute, the engineering guys are going to contribute. They will overcome even the strongest sectional- ism because the one thing even more important than sectionalism is a shared sense of community and purpose. Monozukuri or other Japanese con- cepts, such as nemawashi have become key words of the Alliance. [Note from the interviewers: Nema- washi refers to collective project planning through cross-functional team input, advance communica- tion and consensus; literally, “preparing the roots of a tree for transplant”]. Even Renault people— people in France and those in Brazil, Morocco, and elsewhere—now talk about monozukuri and nema- washi, which they learned from their Japanese col- leagues. So, there are words which used to belong to one culture which now belong to the Alliance.

You have given us examples of synergies that result from optimizing the best of both worlds— what the French bring and what the Japanese bring. These kinds of cultural synergies might be said to come about naturally due to economies of scale. Another way to think of synergies is to think of them as economies of scope where there is colearning—something new for both parties arises from working together. Have you seen something like this that has emerged at Renault-Nissan?

Yes, for example the electric car. This is something that neither company could have done by itself— something that came about because the compa- nies are working together. Because we have the scale and we have the complementary skills and resources, we were able to pursue something com- pletely new to both. We have many projects that would have never been realized if each company had tried to do it alone. So, yes, synergy is not only what exists in one company or the other. It is not just about transferring best practices. It’s also about creating together something that neither one could have done alone.

[S]ynergy is not only what exists in one company or the other. It is not just about transferring best practices. It’s also about creating together something that neither one could have done alone.—Ghosn

496 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education


Let’s dig a little bit deeper into the competencies and the individual-level factors that enable such synergies to arise. You have said that what’s really important now is for managers to be prepared for working in multicultural teams, that they have to understand there are cultural differences and need to be able to not only overcome cultural barriers but to leverage cultural diversity. Could you discuss four or five competencies that you have observed in individuals that enable them to work effectively across cultures, and that companies operating in culturally diverse environments need to develop in their managers?

Working in a multicultural environment necessi- tates from the beginning a kind of thirst for learn- ing. If you don’t have a thirst for learning, if you think you know it all, and your system is the best, and you don’t even try, this is not going to work. That’s the most basic thing—that you want to learn more, develop your skills, broaden your horizon, and that you want to work in a multicultural envi- ronment because you are going to discover new things—about your business and also about your- self. The beauty of being in a multicultural envi- ronment is it eliminates your blind spots. When you are alone, there are parts of things you cannot see. But, if I am with you, you are going to see and tell me things I don’t know and I cannot see. So by working in a bigger group you get wider horizons.

But working within a diverse community is diffi- cult. A sense of humbleness is important. Arro- gance is one of the reasons for which many merg- ers or acquisitions in our industry didn’t work: You generally have one executive or one management team that is very arrogant, thinking that they know everything, and they are going to teach the others what they have to do. It doesn’t work this way. It’s always a “give and take,” and even the company that is weaker or smaller has a lot to teach the stronger company.

Let me give you an example from our industry. The American car industry collapsed in 2008 be- cause two car manufacturers went bankrupt and the third one barely escaped. These three compa- nies had joint ventures with Japanese partners. General Motors had a joint venture with Isuzu and Suzuki, Ford had Mazda, and Chrysler worked with Mitsubishi. The CEO of one of these American car

manufacturers told me one day: “I am amazed at how much the Renault-Nissan Alliance is exchang- ing, because we had these joint ventures for so many years but we didn’t learn from them, we didn’t take anything significant back home.” So the collaboration in this case didn’t contribute to effi- ciency or creativity.

Another thing that is extremely important in multicultural environments (it’s important every- where but particularly in a multicultural environ- ment) is what I call common sense. [Note from the interviewers: Mr. Ghosn uses the word “common” innovatively with the implication of building a shared basis for understanding as in a “common ground.”] When you don’t have common sense in a monocultural environment, you can escape. If you are in a multicultural environment you cannot es- cape, because what enables people of different cultures to work together is this common ground, nothing else. Because when you are of the same culture, let’s say Germans together, French to- gether, Japanese together, you can do a lot of things because you already have common ground, having been socialized in the same cultural con- text, so you have a basic understanding of each others’ habits and traditions, and each others’ lan- guage and history. But, when the French are sitting with Japanese, or with Germans, there is no way you are going to make a decision together without establishing common ground rooted in solid facts. Ultimately, this is the only common denominator. This is why I always strive to make decisions based on common sense—business logic and a shared understanding of all sides of the issue tak- ing into consideration everyone’s context, cultures, functions, and so on. The only way to make sound decisions in a multicultural environment is to use facts and common sense.

Are the competencies that you mentioned equally important at all levels of the organization?

Everybody has to be a manager of diversity, but especially senior executives because people al- ways look to the top. They look at the top and say, “OK, is he doing what he is saying?” If employees see top management talking about openness and learning—but they see an arrogant person who is closed down—they will not take it seriously. So the top management in a multicultural environment has an important role: They must walk the talk.

2013 497Stahl and Brannen

It would seem that you are suggesting that authenticity and role modeling on the part of top managers are critical in creating a culture that values diversity.

Yes, authenticity is critical, particularly at top management level. When Renault people go to Japan to work with Japanese colleagues, that’s not their normal environment. When Japanese people come to work in the Renault Technical Center, that’s not their normal environment. Engineers from France and Japan think differently from each other. Their languages are different, their environ- ments are different. They need some common ref- erence, support, and guidance. They need a frame- work, and this is where top management plays a big role—setting priorities, representing the cul- ture, signaling what to do and what not to do.

The ability to find creative and mutually benefi- cial solutions is also important. For instance, we have a rule that we can never make a decision to pursue a project in which one side wins and the other side loses. Never—even if that means that ultimately the project is completed at a slightly slower pace than if we had imposed a top-down decision in which one team had to surrender. Some people don’t understand this. In particular, some outside observers have said, “Come on, you are slowing down the Alliance. There are so many opportunities. You should decide today to make a decision where Renault wins and Nissan loses, and tomorrow you can make a decision where Nis- san wins and Renault loses, and then everything’s going to be okay because, at the end of the day, everybody wins.” But this doesn’t work.

So, in your experience the capability of envisioning a “win–win” scenario for both parties is a critical cross-cultural skill set as well?

Yes. Understanding this issue is fundamental to understanding human nature: People, in the long run, always remember when they lose, and they always forget when they win in a relationship. So if you do the win–lose stuff, after one or two years you have a bunch of people who remember every time they lost. And then the relationship is going to burst.

This philosophy served us well in the Renault- Nissan Alliance. I have always believed that an alliance is about partnership and trust rather than power and domination. People will not give their best effort if they feel that their identities are being threatened. This relates back to what I said earlier if you are not able to establish some common ground, and if you do not believe anything can be learned from your partner, the venture is doomed from the beginning.

Just to review then, the desire to learn, knowing you have blind spots, humbleness, finding common ground, authenticity, and a win–win attitude are key competencies for effective cross- cultural interactions. Have we left anything out? Are there other skill sets that we might develop in managers to help them attain cross-cultural synergies?

Perhaps overall, a key quality that you need to possess—or develop, because you often don’t have it from the beginning—is mutual respect. This was a critical success factor in the Renault-Nissan Al- liance. Mutual respect means that you don’t focus on the weaknesses and limitations of your partner. You focus on the strengths. This is basic, but it allows a total change of atmosphere when instead of focusing on the weaknesses of your partner you try to see the partner’s strong points. Only then are you able to learn from your partner.

How do you instill this mind-set in your managers and employees?

It is a continuous battle, and you are never really “finished.” For instance, we have done a good job solidifying relations between Renault and Nissan, but now we are moving to expand our business model to include AvtoVAZ, which is Russia’s larg- est car company and the maker of the Lada brand. Even some of my best managers—ones who were at the beginning of the Renault-Nissan Alliance— need to be reminded about respect and tolerance and win–win relationships. I need to remind them,

The ability to find creative and mutually beneficial solutions is also important. For instance, we have a rule that we can never make a decision to pursue a project in which one side wins and the other side loses. Never—even if that means that ultimately the project is completed at a slightly slower pace than if we had imposed a top-down decision in which one team had to surrender.—Ghosn

498 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

“You can’t impose your beliefs or processes. You need also to learn from the Russian team because they are our partners. We may have a 51% stake, but this is a partnership and we are here to make our partner more competitive—and ultimately that is how we are also going to make Renault and Nissan more competitive.” You constantly have to remind people that we are taking this approach because otherwise the tendency would be similar to a conventional acquisition where people say, “OK, we have 51% stake, we control it, so I want this place on the board, I want to put a controller here, I want to control these processes.” I always remind people that the CEO is Russian, the com- pany is Russian, the brand is Russian. The Rus- sians are in charge. You have to instill this mind- set from the beginning and then constantly reinforce it.

The next question is about distinguishing between what we call “culture-specific” skill sets and “culture-general” skill sets. For example, you yourself have exhibited strong culture-general skill sets in leading the Nissan recovery. From what we understand, you didn’t know that much about Japan at the time of the initial alliance. However, based on your Lebanese–Brazilian cultural origins—both what are known as “high- context” cultures where a great deal of attention is given to tacit and the relational aspects—you were able to leverage your pre-existing cultural knowledge to guide you. That is part of a culture- general skill set. A culture-specific one would be knowledge about Japanese customs and values that you can get from reading books about Japan, making a field trip to Japan, and so on. So, the question is, “Are you aware of the difference between culture-general and culture-specific skill sets?” And do you think they are complementary, or is one more important than the other?

I don’t think of it this way. Instead, you need to consider the situation that you are facing at the time, and you need to leverage the skills and ex- perience that you’ve acquired so far. When I ar- rived in Japan in 1999, Nissan faced a desperate situation and was close to bankruptcy. I knew I had to make significant, radical changes to turn it around—and to make these changes, I needed some culture specifics for credibility. I knew about the car industry, so that gave me some credibili- ty—more than if, for example, I had been in charge of a distribution company. I also had another thing

that I used to my advantage: I’m not Japanese. I’m a mixture of Brazilian and Lebanese, with a long history in France—so people don’t necessarily as- sociate me with any single culture. I might have met up with some fierce resistance if I were more characteristic of one particular background, whether it was Chinese or American or German. Why? Because people might think you are not lis- tening to them. People think you are trying to im- pose on them your preconceived ideas and culture. When you have a more vague, hybrid, multicul- tural background, people feel they have a chance to talk to you. They say, “He is going to listen, he is not taken by one particular concept or representing one particular culture.” So one of the things that I benefited from without knowing it—I discovered it only later—is that people did not see me as typical French. They saw me as a Franco-Brazilian- Lebanese guy. So, they said, “Hmm, he doesn’t come with a typical talk, with a particular ap- proach, he is more open.” That’s why I think em- bracing multiculturalism opens up more opportu- nities for you than if you operate in a monocultural world. So, back to your question: My background was probably a big asset for me. Being able to navigate in new cultural contexts, not being rigid or uncomfortable in unfamiliar surroundings, was absolutely fundamental.


We spoke about the mind-set and skill sets that are required for success in a culturally diverse environment. Let’s talk about how to develop these skills. In the HR development field the so- called 70-20-10 rule is now widely accepted. It holds that most learning comes from on the job experience and challenging assignments—that’s the 70%; a substantial proportion of learning— approximately 20%—comes from coaching, feedback, informal social learning, and formal training and education, that is, traditional management development programs, training seminars, and so on, contributes relatively little— only about 10%—to the development of leadership competences. This is not based on strong scientific evidence, but many companies have organized their leadership development activities around this principle. Do you agree with this rather pessimistic view of what can be

2013 499Stahl and Brannen

achieved in management development programs? If classroom training contributes so little to the development of leadership competences, then how do you develop cross- cultural skills in managers?

Based on my own experience, I would tend to agree with the 70-20-10 rule. I am an engineer. I have never been to a business school. I have been trained in engineering in France, which is very formal, very technical, we barely spoke English, we didn’t have training in communication and in- terpersonal skills, nothing, only mathematics, physics, that kind of training. And I started my career as an engineer. But very quickly I moved to business and into management. I learned nearly everything “on the job” because the Michelin man- agement said, “Well, he has good people skills, he is interested, he can influence other people.” They moved me from manufacturing to business, and promoted me to management. But I had zero man- agement training. I was a pure on-the-job learner. I would have loved to get a solid education in business, but I never had the time or opportunity to go to a business school. So, in my case, I would say, it’s even more than 70-20-10; it’s 80-20-0. It was a lot of learning on the job, and from time to time having the opportunity to learn from a boss that I trusted and respected.

By the way, in terms of learning from the boss, I generally learned more from his mistakes than from his teachings. When you see someone that you respect doing something wrong, well, then you say, “I’ll never do that.” Does that mean that the 10%—formal training and education—is not impor- tant? No, I think academic learning is very impor- tant. For my kids, I am encouraging them to take the time and go to Stanford, Harvard, INSEAD, or others. And the 10% part of the equation is also important for management development. Why? Be- cause you can accelerate your learning by taking a little bit of distance from the day-to-day-work and thinking with peers who have different experience about what you are going through. I probably would have benefited a lot from formal manage- ment training, but I didn’t have this luxury.

From your experience, what are the best approaches and practices to increase cultural awareness and prepare managers for working in a multicultural environment?

Exposure and on the job training are very impor- tant here. You have to be working in a multicul- tural environment or put in a situation where you have to overcome cultural barriers. If you are lucky enough to get an overseas position at a multicul- tural company, then you will quickly develop some international management skills. But extracting yourself from time to time, learning some useful frameworks and tools, and having the opportunity to reflect on some of the notions which are the fruit of the experience of others, that’s very helpful, too. Instead of only learning from your own mistakes, you can then also learn from the mistakes of other people. That’s the value of business school educa- tion. So I am very positive about what you [busi- ness schools] are doing, even though I didn’t have the privilege to do it.

Can we dig a little deeper here? What would you say are the most effective ways to help people develop those intercultural skills that we talked about earlier? Traditional cross-cultural management courses, as they are taught at business schools, are certainly of value. But we all agree that global leaders cannot be developed in the classroom. Obviously, sending people on international assignments is a powerful leadership development tool, but it is not always possible. Are there any alternatives to sending people abroad for training?

You can get some good multicultural management skills by working on international projects inside of many organizations, even if you are based in your own country. Some people are mobile to go abroad, some people are not. If you are not, be- cause you have family constraints or health con- straints, or for whatever reason, you can still have international exposure and a multicultural experi- ence just by working on a project which involves people from other countries, or involves people of different companies. You can be based in Paris and have a job in which you only work with French people, and only with French people who are en- gineers and who went to the same school as you did. Or you could be in Paris, sitting at your own desk but working with colleagues who are Rus- sian, Japanese, or Brazilian, working with people from sales and finance and engineering, and com- munication. I would encourage people to take these types of challenging assignments—those that have international flavor and cross-cultural contact.

500 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

Also, encouraging people to learn other lan- guages is important; getting them out of their com- fort zone with their own language can have a big learning effect. Encouraging people to travel, whenever it’s possible, go and see on the ground how things are. So, all these small things where you take people out of their comfort zone allow you to develop their multicultural skills. That’s for me something extremely important, that’s what we try to do at Renault and Nissan. Obviously you cannot travel all over the place for development purposes, you have to do it in a way which makes busi- ness sense.

But the key point is to get people out of their comfort zone, learn new languages, travel to dif- ferent countries, go to places where you don’t un- derstand the culture, and expose yourself to situa- tions where you have to deal with uncertainty. All of this helps you to put yourself in the shoes of people who are different from you. This is particu- larly important if you are a German working for a German company, or a Frenchman working for a French company. If you work in a monocultural environment, you have to find some other way to immerse yourself in other cultures or subcultures, to put yourself in Turkish shoes or in Korean shoes or in Brazilian shoes. You are going to work much better with these people when they come and visit you.

How much do you think your own multicultural background has shaped your ability to work effectively in cross-cultural environments?

Let’s put it this way, in regard to your 70–20–10% rule, I would say 90% of my cross-cultural learning has come from real-life experience. Because I didn’t learn about multiculturalism in a book. I was born in Brazil and I lived in a city where we had people from Poland, from Italy, from England.

My childhood was in Lebanon and I had friends who were Jews, Muslims, Christians. . . It was a melting pot, and I could see as a child the difficulty of blending these different people, but I also saw the beauty and the wealth which was created by it. I could see it! I had the same thing in Lebanon where you had people of different origins and dif- ferent religions fighting each other, battling against each other, but at the same time so at- tached to their shared identity as a Lebanese com- munity even though they were at war. They were very proud of being Lebanese even though they were Sunni, Christians, Druze, or Jews, and I didn’t read it from a book. It was a life-training. So, when you come out of this environment you know that diversity can be a threat, or it can be an asset, depending how you manage it, what you do with it, and what is the purpose of it. I think that when you have different people coming together, if you don’t give them a collective purpose, if you don’t give them a project, there’s going to be chaos. Putting diverse people together without the same vision or the same purpose creates chaos . . . you are simply going to create conflict.

We would like to bring the interview to a close with a question that is directed toward the future of cross-cultural learning. As the economy goes from West to East, and from North to South, one of the things that we reflect upon is the applicability of Western models of management in other cultures. We are teaching Western linear logic, and in terms of cross-cultural management, we are teaching more the cross-cultural comparisons that are binary, like the French are like this, the Japanese are like this. This is the predominant mode of teaching about cross- cultural management. What kind of changes are needed in terms of how we go about teaching cross-cultural management? Do you think we need to adjust this kind of logic?

No, frankly, I think this way of teaching cross- cultural management is quite appropriate. It’s like at school: You have physics classes and you have literature and other subjects, and they are all part of a comprehensive learning plan. How do you teach physics? In teaching physics, you caricature reality, you put it in an equation and you teach people the most important equations and how to apply them. That does not reflect the real world, but helps to understand it. This is useful. And in cross-cultural management education, when you

But the key point is to get people out of their comfort zone, learn new languages, travel to different countries, go to places where you don’t understand the culture, and expose yourself to situations where you have to deal with uncertainty. All of this helps you to put yourself in the shoes of people who are different from you.—Ghosn

2013 501Stahl and Brannen

say the Japanese are like this, the French are like this, obviously this is not an accurate reflection of the reality, but you are helping people to under- stand by giving them simplification, a caricature of reality. You reduce the complexity of the reality to manageable proportions. People need this; if you don’t start by simplifying, it gets too compli- cated, it’s overwhelming, and they don’t know where to start. It is the same in physics, in chem- istry. . . you need to do this caricature, you need to say the Japanese are process-oriented, the Japa- nese are community people, they prefer an indirect style of communication, and so on. Not all Japa- nese are like this, but you need to say Japanese are X, French are Y, and Americans are Z. This is a caricature, but it’s like an equation. The equation does not give an accurate picture of reality, but it helps you understand some general rules related to reality.

Now, after you have a physics class with all these equations then you go to the literature class, and in literature it is all about exceptions that are confirming the rules, and these are the things that make it completely different and rich and complex, and it helps you understand the world from a new perspective. Again, it is not always an accurate picture of reality, it is sometimes distorted and exaggerated and sometimes it’s total fiction. But you’ll learn about life and about the world.

So, coming back to your question, I think you need both: You need to draw a caricature of reality to attract students’ attention and to simplify. Be- sides, it’s human nature to want to simplify: People

love caricatures and can understand them—and frankly, they know that they aren’t always true. But they are a simple, easy to digest starting point. By contrast, if you start with very complicated stuff, even though it’s closer to reality, people get over- whelmed or bored. They shut down. Why? Because they don’t have a reference point to understand fully what you are saying. So, in cross-cultural management education, you need both: Start by simplifying, then paint a more complex picture of reality.

Thank you for granting this interview. It will make a real contribution to advancing the frontiers of cross-cultural management learning and education.

Comments on the Carlos Ghosn Interview

In the papers that follow, three leading cross- cultural management scholars and educators were invited to comment on selected issues and to place the interview in the context of existing research. These include Allan Bird, Darla and Frederick Brodsky Trustee Professor in Global Business, D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University; Mansour Javidan, Garvin Distin- guished Professor and founding director of the Na- jafi Global Mindset Institute, Thunderbird School of Global Management; and Martha Maznevski, professor of organizational behavior and interna- tional management and MBA program director at IMD.

Günter K. Stahl is professor of international management at WU Vienna and adjunct professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD. He received his PhD from the University of Bayreuth, Germany, and was a visiting professor at the Fuqua School of Business, Northeastern Uni- versity, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Hitotsubashi University, among others. Stahl’s research interests include leadership and leadership development; corporate social responsibility and ethics; and the sociocultural processes in international teams, alliances, mergers and acquisitions, and how to manage people and culture effectively in those contexts.

Mary Yoko Brannen is professor of international business and holds the Jarislowsky East Asia (Japan) Chair at the University of Victoria Gustavson School of Business. She received her MBA and PhD from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Brannen’s current research focuses on knowledge sharing across distance and the role of biculturals in MNCs.

502 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Fall 12

Specification of the Content Domain

of the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale

MARK E. MENDENHALL J. Burton Frierson Chair of Excellence in Business Leadership

University of Tennessee-Chattanooga

MICHAEL J. STEVENS Weber State University

ALLAN BIRD Eiichi Shibusawa-Seigo Arai Professor of Japanese Studies

University of Missouri-St. Louis

GARY R. ODDOU California State University, San Marcos

JOYCE OSLAND Lucas Endowed Professor of Global Leadership

San Jose State University

T h e K o z a i M o n o g r a p h S e r i e s V o l u m e 1 , N u m b e r 3 , N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2

Copyright © 2008 The Kozai Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Kozai Group, Inc.


First published September 2008 by The Kozai Group, Inc. 16414 Sundance Creek Court Chesterfield, MO 63005 USA © 2012 The Kozai Group, Inc. Typeset in Baskerville and Calibri All rights reserved. No part of this working paper may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. 1. Intercultural effectiveness — measurement. 2. Intercultural interaction. 3. Global leadership. 4. Expatriate adjustment and performance.


SPECIFICATION OF THE CONTENT DOMAIN AND RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS SCALE (IES) The 21st century is one of unremitting globalization. The bumper sticker wisdom that implores, “think globally, act locally,” has become a reality and a necessity for educators, businesspeople, politicians, scientists, journalists, entertainers, athletes, and inventors alike. Globalization is an ever-increasing social complexity that arises from the ongoing integration of cultural, technological, political, social, and business processes that results in a teeming, unpredictable, ambiguous, ever-changing context that must be squarely faced by everyone—but especially educators and businesspeople (Lane, Maznevski, & Mendenhall, 2004). For example, globalization has caused educators to consider how to develop in students of all ages a better understanding of the world and its various cultures, and the need to develop competencies within their students that will allow them to live and thrive in a complex, ever-changing, globalized environment. Similarly, globalization has caused many CEOs to aggressively reposition their companies to deal with the unparalleled cross-border trade and investment, continual and rapid change in technological advances, ongoing shifts in global products and consumers, higher global standards in production and quality, and the inherent unpredictability in markets that characterize the complexity we call “globalization.” “How do we develop people who can thrive in the context of globalization?” First, it is necessary to understand and delineate the competencies associated with thriving in global contexts. What competencies do people possess who exhibit success in living and working in cross-culturally complex situations? And, what clues can these “global leaders” give us in terms of educating and developing people who can be successful in the age of globalization? Since the early 1990s, an increasing number of scholars have been studying effective global leaders and attempting to delineate the competencies that are critical to their success. Reviews of this literature (Bird & Osland, 2004; Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall, 2001; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, 2008; Osland, Taylor, & Mendenhall, in press) find that social scientists have delineated over fifty competencies that influence global leadership effectiveness; however, many of these competencies overlap conceptually and are often separated only by semantic differences in the labels given them by researchers (Jokinen, 2005; Osland, 2008). The reviews also indicate clearly that global leadership is a multi-dimensional construct. After analyzing the findings of the above reviews, we found that the framework developed by Mendenhall and Osland (2002) to categorize the numerous competencies found within the global leadership literature continues to be relevant to current research in the field, and elegantly conceptually organizes the numerous global leadership competencies into six core dimensions of competencies. They labeled these six dimensions, respectively: cross-cultural relationship skills, traits and values, cognitive orientation, global business expertise, global organizing expertise, and visioning When these six dimensions of global leadership competencies were compared to the literature of expatriate effectiveness, it was found that there was a significant overlap between three of the competency dimensions of global leadership (cross-cultural relationship skills, traits and values, cognitive orientation) and the competencies that are important to living and working in a foreign country as an expatriate (Jokinen, 2005;


Mendenhall, 2001; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2006; Osland, 2008). The six competency dimensions can be conceptually divided between those that involve competencies directly related to intercultural interaction at the person and small group level, cross-cultural relationships, cognitive orientation, traits and values (which are critical to expatriate effectiveness), and those that involve the mastery of more macro, global business knowledge and skills (global business expertise, global organizing expertise, visioning).

Intercultural Competencies

(person/small group level skills)

Global Business Competencies

(macro skill level)

Cross-Cultural Relationships Global Business Expertise

Cognitive Orientation Global Organizing Expertise

Traits and Values Visioning


We will now present an overview of the major competencies that exist in the three domains of intercultural competencies above (cross-cultural relationships, cognitive orientation, and traits and values) from both the expatriate and global leadership research literature. To explore the evolution of knowledge in the field of expatriation, we analyzed the reviews of the empirical expatriate literature since 1984 (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Gersten, 1990; Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004; Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Kealey, 1996; Mendenhall, Kühlmann, Stahl, & Osland, 2002; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Mol, Born, Willemsen, & Van der Molen, 2005; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989; Stahl, 2001; Thomas, 1998; Thomas & Lazarova, 2006) to evaluate their assessment of the state of the field. Additionally, due to the fact that the expatriate research literature is spread across various disciplines, thus making it difficult for reviewers to comprehensively cover all extant empirical studies, we have included in the paper empirical studies that were not included in the aforementioned reviews or that were published after the appearance of these reviews. To assess the empirical literature of the global leadership field, we reviewed the following reviews of that literature (Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall, 2001; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, 2008; Osland, et. al., in press).


EXPATRIATE ADJUSTMENT COMPETENCIES The ability to adjust to the work, social, and general cultural dimensions of a new culture has been shown to influence subsequent productivity of the expatriate during his/her overseas assignment (Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Harrison & Shaffer, 2005). Successful expatriate adjustment predicts task completion and relationship building effectiveness during the overseas assignment (Harrison & Shaffer, 2005), thus an understanding of what competencies influence expatriate adjustment is critical to an understanding of enhancing individual performance in the global workplace. We began our review of the expatriate literature with the review and categorization of competencies associated with expatriate adjustment conducted by Mendenhall & Oddou in 1985. Based upon their oft-cited review of the literature, Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) classified the numerous competencies that they found influenced expatriate adjustment into one of three categories: the self-oriented dimension, the others-oriented dimension, and the perceptual dimension. These three dimensions align conceptually with the three dimensions of intercultural competencies we have noted above; specifically, others-oriented = cross-cultural relationships, perceptual dimension = cognitive orientation, self-oriented dimension = traits and values. The self-oriented dimension includes “activities and attributes that serve to strengthen the expatriate’s self-esteem, self-confidence, and mental hygiene” (1985: 40). The others-oriented dimension includes “activities and attributes that enhance the expatriate’s ability to interact effectively with host-nationals” (1985: 41), while the perceptual dimension contains cognitive processes that facilitate an expatriate’s “ability to understand why foreigners behave the way they do,” thus enhancing their “ability to make correct attributions about the reasons or causes of host-nationals’ behavior” (1985: 42). This categorization has been a fruitful one over time in the literature (Thomas, 1998) and is, in part, the basis for the most rigorously tested, influential and robust model of expatriate adjustment in the field, The International Adjustment Model (IA), which was developed by J. Stewart Black, Mark E. Mendenhall, and Gary R. Oddou in 1991 (for reviews and empirical validation of this model see: Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003; Mendenhall, Kühlmann, Stahl, & Osland, 2002; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999). In their IA model, Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou. (1991) renamed Mendenhall and Oddou’s (1985) earlier categories. Self-orientation was relabeled, self-efficacy, reflecting the degree to which an individual believes he or she has the ability to succeed in new tasks and settings (Bandura, 1977). The other two dimensions, others-oriented and perceptual, were respectively re-labeled as relational and perceptual in the IA model. These three dimensions constituted the Individual dimension of Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou’s 1991 model (see below), which focused on traits and competencies that had been shown in the literature to positively influence heightened levels of success in interacting with people from other cultures in overseas or cross-culturally significant settings. This Individual dimension constituted one of four dimensions of direct determinants of expatriate adjustment (the others were labeled: job, organization culture, organization socialization, and nonwork) in the IA model.)


A comprehensive meta-analysis of the IA model by Bhaskar-Shrinivas and colleagues (2005) of over 50 determinants of expatriate adjustment using data from 8,474 expatriates in 66 studies emphasized the “centrality, criticality, and complexity of adjustment, strongly supporting Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou’s (1991) model (p. 257).” They also concluded that the “meta-analytic findings attest to the importance of some individual factors–overall self-efficacy and relational skills — in predicting expatriate adjustment. The variance explained by the latter exceeded that explained by other predictors by 30 percent (p. 272).” Thus, competencies associated with Mendenhall and Oddou’s 1985’s categorization were found to have a powerful influence on a person’s ability to be successful in cross-cultural and global milieus. To summarize, the research suggests that the content domain of global competencies can be usefully summarized using three broad facets or dimensions for individuals: the cognitive/perceptual, other/relationship, and self/self-efficacy domains (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et. al., 2005; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Black et. al., 1991; Thomas, 1998: 247). The Kozai Group developed a comprehensive assessment of competencies associated with the Invidiual dimension of the IA Model, The Global Competencies Inventory (GCI). For more information about this inventory please visit our website at or contact us at: The Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) is a less complex version of the GCI, developed to address the need for an assessment tool that can be used in contexts such as those found in many educational settings, where economy and ease of administration are critical program elements. The IES measures fewer competencies than the GCI, but focuses on those competencies that are foundational for intercultural effectiveness. The IES measures competencies associated with three critical factors of intercultural effectiveness: Continuous Learning, Interpersonal Engagement, and Hardiness.


These three factors will be reviewed below, along with each of the two competencies that are measured within each factor; a discussion of the empirical support for each compegtency from the extant literature is included as well. The first dimension that will be reviewed is the Continuous Learning dimension.

CONTINUOUS LEARNING Individuals’ orientation toward the world of culture, and people from different cultures, influences their effectiveness in their cross-cultural social and business interactions. The IES dimension of Continuous Learning examines how people cognitively approach cultural differences. It assesses the degree to which individuals engage the world by continually seeking to understand themselves and also learning about the activities, behavior, and events that occur in the intercultural environment. The dimension of Continuous Learning is assessed in the IES by measuring two important competencies: Self-Awareness and Exploration. These competencies influence intercultural success by acting as internal motivators to learn about why people in other cultures behave and think the way they do. People who consistently strive to learn new things about cultures and people are more successful at living and working effectively with people from other cultures than individuals who are comfortable and secure with what they already know. Self-Awareness (SA) refers to the degree to which people are aware of: 1) their strengths and weaknesses in interpersonal skills, 2) their own philosophies and values, 3) how past experiences have helped shape them into who they are as a person, and 4) the impact their values and behavior have on relationships with others. Self-awareness influences one’s ability to continuously learn as well as how one learns. High scorers are extremely aware of their own values, strengths, limitations, behavioral tendencies, and how they impact and affect others; they constantly evaluate themselves and this process in their lives. Low scorers report little concern or interest in knowing more about themselves or how their behavioral tendencies affect other people, and are not very interested in trying to understand their experiences. High self-awareness provides a foundation for strategically acquiring new competencies and skills, whereas low self-awareness can promote self-deception and arrogance. Jokinen (2005) categorized this competency as being one of the primary competencies that is fundamental to effectively work with people from other cultures. Similarly, Varner and Palmer (2005) argued that, “conscious cultural self-knowledge is a crucial variable in adapting to other cultures (p. 1).” Goldsmith, Greenberg, Robertson, & Hu-Chan (2003) included self-awareness as an important competency in the personal mastery component of their global leadership model. One of the important benefits, according to Goldsmith, et. al, (2003) regarding this competency is that it allows one to strategically involve others in one’s work to complement one’s personal weaknesses. Wills and Barnham (1994) found that emotional self-awareness was an important predictor of intercultural effectiveness, and Chen (1987) found that it was related to intercultural communication competence. Similarly, Bird and Osland (2004) concluded that one of the byproducts of the competency of self-awareness, a sense of humility, is an important


competency for successful intercultural interaction. These findings are in harmony with the research literature in domestic management where self-awareness has been found to be one of the crucial competencies possessed by effective managers (Whetten & Cameron, 2005). Exploration (EX) reflects openness towards and an active pursuit of understanding ideas, values, norms, situations, and behaviors that are new and different. It involves the willingness to seek to understand the underlying reasons for cultural differences and to avoid stereotyping people from other cultures. It also includes one’s capacity to actively take advantage of opportunities for growth and learning. It reflects a fundamental inquisitiveness, curiosity, an inner desire to learn new things, and the ability to learn from mistakes and to make adjustments to one’s personal strategies to ensure success in social and work settings. Tucker, Bonial, and Lahti (2004: 230) conceptualized it as “the capability to accept new ideas and see more than one’s own way of approaching and solving problems.” It is akin to the Big Five dimension of Intellectance or Openness to Experience, which reflects the “breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121).” Shaffer, et. al. (2006) stated that individuals high in Intellectance, as well as exhibiting other tendencies, are “more curious and eager to learn” new information about others and themselves (p. 113.); in their research it predicted expatriate work adjustment, contextual performance, and task performance. This competency also emerged in reviews of the global leadership literature (Bird & Osland, 2004; Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, 2008) and has also found support in work by Kealey and his associates (Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Kealey, 1989, 1994, 1996; Kealey & Ruben, 1983) and others in the expatriate literature (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Mol, et. al., 2005; Moro Bueno & Tubbs, 2004; Ronen, 1989; Sinangil & Ones, 1997; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984). Based upon interviews with 90 senior executives and 40 nominated global leaders in 50 companies located in Europe, North America, and Asia, Black, Morrison & Gregersen (1999) found that inquisitiveness was the most important global competency within the constellation of competencies identified in their study. Also, Black & Gregersen (1991) found that individuals who took the initiative to learn about the new culture to which they were assigned to live and work in had higher levels of intercultural adjustment than did expatriates who did not do take such initiative or who relied only on company-provided training. Kealey (1996; 87) cited this as a primary competency in his review, stating that:

Being intrigued about different cultures and wanting to learn about them is associated with effective collaboration across cultures…this interest usually leads to a sincere desire to get to know the country, its people, and its traditions.

The extended effect of Exploration is that it often leads to a preparation and a motivation to exhibit or improve competencies associated with the Interpersonal Engagement dimension. The next section will review the Interpersonal Engagement dimension along with its two associated competencies, Global Mindset and Relationship Interest.


INTERPERSONAL ENGAGEMENT In their review of the research, Mendenhall & Oddou (1985: 41) found that the ability to develop positive relationships with host-nationals “emerged as an important factor in successful overseas adjustment (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Brein & David, 1971, 1973; Hammer, et. al., 1978; Harris, 1973; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Ratiu, 1983), accounting for large portions of the variance in the factor analytic studies studying adjustment (Hammer, et. al., 1978; Harris, 1973).” Strong relationships with people from the new culture also serve as sources of information to help one understand the new culture and social support. The development of positive relationships is a critical aspect of effective intercultural job performance (Harrison & Shaffer, 2005; Mol et. al., 2005). Developing positive relationships depends in large part on one’s interest in learning about people from other cultures, their customs, values, etc. The more information that is known about them, the greater the common ground that can then become a more solid basis for an effective relationship. This factor is assessed in the IES using two scales, Global Mindset and Relationship Interest. Global Mindset (GM) measures the degree to which one is interested in and seeks to actively learn about other cultures and the people that live in them. This learning can take place from such things as newspapers, the Internet, movies, foreign media outlets, course electives in school, or television documentaries. The degree to which one actively seeks these outlets, by one’s own choice, to expand personal knowledge about people and their cultures, reflects the strength of one’s global mindset. It provides the basis upon which one can interact more effectively with people from other cultures. To be effective in a global or cross-cultural milieu, it is necessary to have a perspective of time and space that extends beyond one’s local milieu (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992; Boyacigiller, et. al., 2004; Kedia & Mukherji, 1999; Flango & Brumbaugh, 1974; Goldberg, 1976). This is an important orientation for global leaders to possess (Boyacigiller, et. al., 2004; Levy, et. al., 2007), and emerged in reviews of the literature on effective global leadership competencies (Bird & Osland, 2004; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002; Osland, et. al., 2006; Osland, 2008). Our conceptualization of global mindset reflects the notion of cosmopolitanism of Levy, et. al. (2007) who argue, after reviewing the literature in this area, that cosmopolitanism “represents a state of mind that is manifested as an orientation toward the outside, the Other…a willingness to explore and learn from alternative systems of meaning held by others (p. 240).” Similarly, in the expatriate and immigrant adjustment literature an interest in foreign cultures appears as a contributing variable to adaptation (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Pruitt, 1978; Ronen, 1989; Ward & Searle, 1991; also see Ward, 1996). Relationship Interest (RI) refers to the degree to which people have a desire and willingness to initiate and maintain relationships with people from other cultures. People high on this dimension work hard to develop relationships with others; Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) defined this competency as “the ability to develop long-lasting friendships with host nationals” (p. 41). Black et. al., (1999) describe it as the ability to “emotionally connect with others.” This relationship between relationship development and adjustment to foreign cultures has remained constant in the literature since the publication of Mendenhall & Oddou’s 1985 review and categorization of the intercultural competencies that positively influence cross-cultural adjustment. In all of the reviews in both the


global leadership and expatriate adjustment literature that we reviewed, the ability to create and maintain relationships with individuals in cross-cultural/global settings was found to be a key competency domain (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et. al, 2005; Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Harrison, et. al., 2004; Kealey, 1996; Mendenhall, et. al, 2002; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Mol, et. al, 2005; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Osland, 2008; Ronen, 1989; Stahl, 2001; Thomas, 1998; Thomas & Lazarova, 2006). Reviews of the literature have also shown specifically that the development of relationships is critical to cross-cultural effectiveness and adjustment, though this dimension has been classified using different terminology, such as people orientation (Shaffer, et. al., 2006) interaction management (Ruben & Kealey, 1979), relationship building (Kealey, 1996), outgoingness or extraversion (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Ronen, 1989), relational abilities (Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Thomas, 1998), sociability and interest in other people (Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Stahl, 2001), interpersonal skills (Hechanova, et. al., 2003) and intercultural competence (Dinges & Baldwin, 1996). Global leadership literature reviews similarly note that this is an important competency for effective intercultural interaction (Jokinen, 2005; Mendenhall & Osland, 2002). Empirical studies continue to sustain the role of relationship development, and its attendant skills such as communication competence, as being critical to expatriate adjustment and intercultural competence (Arthur & Bennett, 1997; Bikson, Treverton, Moini, & Lindstrom, 2003; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Cui & Awa, 1992; Cui & Van Den Berg, 1991; Hammer, 1987; Hechanova, et. al., 2003; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; Martin, 1987; Martin & Hammer, 1989; Shaffer, et. al., 2006; Sinangil & Ones, 1997; Sudweeks, Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1990; Thomas, 1998; Torbiorn, 1982). For example, Waxin (2004) found that “social orientation” had a significant overall effect on French, German, Korean, and Scandinavian expatriates’ ability to adjust productively to interacting with Indians. Similarly, Tucker, Bonial, & Lathi (2004) found that the dimension in their model, social interpersonal style, which was made up of the variables of “interpersonal interest” and “social adaptability” was significantly related to intercultural adjustment in their sample of corporate expatriates. Tsang (2001) argued that extroversion, which is positively related to sociability and interpersonal involvement would be positively related to general and interaction adjustment in his sample of expatriates. This hypothesis was supported in his findings, reinforcing similar findings from past studies (Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Social support, a variable in Tsang’s 2001 that he defined as “help received from other people when encountering difficulties in coping with a new environment (p. 356),” is similar to the aspect of relationship development, and was also found to significantly influence general and interaction adjustment in his study (Tsang, 2001). Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) noted that exercise of relationship development had the effect of establishing friendships with host nationals who then took on mentoring roles to the expatriate, guiding “the neophyte through the intricacies and complexity of the new organization or culture, protecting him/her against faux pas and helping him/her enact appropriate behaviors.” (p. 41-42). Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et. al., (2005) found strong support for this competency in their meta-analytic review of the expatriate adjustment literature, where they found that the variance explained by [relational skills] exceeded that explained by other predictors by 30 percent.” (p. 272). In the next section, we will review the last major domain area, Hardiness, followed by a detailed look at its two competencies, Positive Regard and Emotional Resilience.


HARDINESS To work effectively with those who are culturally different and adapt to the new cultural environment, it is crucial to be predisposed to be open to differences in a positive cognitive/emotional way, and avoid being judgmental. Having a positive regard for cultural differences and people who are culturally different increases the potential for developing positive relationships. It increases the desire to learn more and better understand the new culture. In sum, it helps to build cultural bridges rather than build walls between cultures. However, even if an individual reflects the orientation just discussed, he/she will always run into encounters and challenges in intercultural settings that will cause some frustration and stress. Not always knowing what to do are stressful experiences; as a result, the ability to withstand stress and remain calm is also a critical competency for long term intercultural success. Activities and attributes that serve to strengthen self-esteem, self-confidence, and mental hygiene are therefore key to intercultural effectiveness (Mendenhall & Oddou,1985, pg. 40). We measure people’s ability to effectively manage their emotions and stress, along with their ability to view other cultures and people from those cultures in positive ways and to be nonjudgmental about ideas and behaviors that are new within the factor of Hardiness. It is made up of two dimensions, Positive Regard and Resilience. Positive Regard (PR) refers to the predisposition to view other cultures and people from those cultures from a positive perspective. This reflects a tendency to avoid negative stereotypes in favor of a more positive view of human nature. Higher scorers assume the best about people and are more accepting of different behaviors. They seldom resort to negative stereotypes about other cultures or people, but will tend to make positive assumptions instead. In turn, people from other cultures tend to respond positively toward them, which leads high scorers to have more successful intercultural encounters and experiences and thus their levels of stress and frustration are lower. Low scorers have a tendency to hold negative assumptions about other cultures, making them more vulnerable to focusing on negative aspects of their interactions people from other cultures. They are more likely to make sense of the world around them by negatively stereotyping people and the situations they encounter, and are less likely to give others the benefit of the doubt. As a result, this limits their ability to develop effective relationships with people from other cultures and thus increases their stress and frustration levels.

Osland (1995) found that expert interculturalists were able to maintain a paradox within themselves: simultaneously feeling both positive regard toward the host nationals yet at the same time being able to discern the faults or “dark side” of the local culture, so that they were “savvy” about the host nationals and their culture. Expatriates who were able to balance this paradox well were not taken advantage of by the people around them, but were instead accepted by them and were able to successfully work and live with them. She termed this the Expatriate Marginality Paradox, and noted that

“The first truth in this paradox, positive regard, means “thinking well of the local culture.” It has been identified as one of the competencies possessed by effective U.S. Information Agency officials working abroad (McClelland and Dailey 1973). Positive regard for one’s employees has also been found to be a competency of successful managers in the United States (Boyatzis, 1982). The other side of this paradox, being savvy about being taken advantage of by members of the local cultures, is usually more apparent to expatriates living in countries whose cultural attitudes toward honesty and manipulation differ from such attitudes in the United States.


Another factor that affects whether expatriates experience this paradox is their perceptual system. Some people are innately suspicious of ethnic groups they do not understand. For them, being wary about being taken advantage of may be rooted in ignorance or ethnocentrism rather than in experience. (Conversely, sometimes locals really are trying to exploit expatriates who are unwilling to see it.) The inability to perceive the positive regard/caution paradox may also indicate a lack of cultural understanding. (p. 110-111).

Black (1990) and Shaffer et. al. (2006) also referred to the obverse of this competency as ethnocentrism, “the propensity to view one’s own cultural traditions and behaviors as right and those of others as wrong (p. 114)” and argued that this mindset interferes with making accurate perceptions in cross-cultural encounters. Shaffer et. al. (2006) found that ethnocentrism negatively predicted interaction adjustment and contextual performance, and strongly influenced withdrawal from assignment cognitions in their sample of expatriates. This competency, though labeled by varying terms, appears both in the global leadership and in the expatriate literature as being related to intercultural effectiveness (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Cui & Awa, 1992; Gersten, 1990; Ronen, 1989; Sinangil & Ones, 1997; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Moro Bueno & Tubbs, 2004; Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984) and is also found. Emotional Resilience (ER) refers to the extent to which a person has emotional strength and resilience to cope with challenging cross-cultural situations. Emotional resilience reflects the psychological hardiness that allows a global manager to carry on through difficult intercultural challenges. Individuals who can manage and control their emotions are also better equipped to deploy other global competencies than those who are low in emotional resilience. This competency emerged in Mendenhall & Osland’s 2002 review of the global leadership literature, and in Bird & Osland’s 2004 review of global competencies. Emotional resilience is a common indicator of intercultural effectiveness in the expatriate literature as well (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Caligiuri, 2000; Kealey, 1996; Ronen, 1989). Emotional resilience is akin to the ability to carry on in the face of adversity, perseverance, which is described by Kealy (1996) in his review of the literature as being an important attribute of working in foreign cultures. He classifies it as being a key predictor of success in a cross-cultural/global work setting. Kelley and Meyers (1992) assert from their research that:

The emotionally resilient person has the ability to deal with stress feelings in a constructive way and to “bounce back” fro them. Emotionally resilient people . . . have confidence in their ability to cope with ambiguity . . . and have a positive sense of humor and self-regard.

Various variables that conceptually related to the importance of Resilience in intercultural success include: coping with stress (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Kealey, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989; Thomas, 1998), psychological hardiness (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Caligiuri, 2000; Kealey, 1996; Mendenhall, 2001; Osland & Mendenhall, 2002; Osland, 2008; Ronen, 1989), self-confidence (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, et. al., 2005; Goldsmith, et. al., 2003; Hechanova, et. al., 2003; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; Kealey, 1996), and optimism (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Caligiuri, 2004; Jokinen, 2005; Kealey, 1996; Kühlmann & Stahl, 1996, 1998; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Ronen, 1989).


CONCLUSION The body of theoretical and empirical research in global leadership competencies and development and in expatriate adjustment and performance provide strong support for the conceptual formulation of the three- factor framework as represented in the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES). Specifically, Continuous Learning, Interpersonal Engagement and Hardiness constitute three distinctive though related domains and each of these factors can be broken down into separate competencies, each of which captures an important aspect of overall intercultural competency. A short overview of the process used to develop the IES inventory and its scales is provided below.


In developing the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale, the conceptual domain presented earlier in this technical repost was used to guide the writing of a large and content valid pool of self-report survey items. The goal at the early stage of item development was to generate a thorough set of items that would ensure a more than adequate coverage of the content domain across all of six facets of the intercultural competencies. In all, 115 self-report statements were written for the initial pool of items, all of which were written to allow for subject responses using a 5-point Likert format, ranging from 1=“Strongly Disagree” 2=“Disagree,” 3=“Neither Agree Nor Disagree,” 4=“Agree,” to 5=“Strongly Agree.”

Once the initial pool of items was developed, an extensive pilot study was undertaken for the express purpose of collecting a data set sufficiently large to allow for stable psychometric analysis of the items and the attendant facet subscales. Subjects for the pilot study were recruited by the researchers from as many professional backgrounds, ethnic groups, and nationalities as possible. In the end, both randomly selected and convenience samples were used to recruit the pilot study subjects, with the express purpose of targeting a generalizable sample that would be as similar as possible in work, educational and demographic background as the eventual cross-cultural populations on whom the final validated version of the IES would be used. In the end, 2,308 subjects completed the pilot version of the IES, with the following self-report characteristics: age included 8% of subjects under age 20, 64% between 20 and 29 years, and 28% were age 30 years and older. In response to questions about “present work position,” 2% of subjects self-identified as “top level executives,” 12% as “middle management,” 16% as “entry level or supervisory management,” 38% as “hourly/non-supervisory,” and 32% as “other” (including students). Fifty-seven percent of subjects self- identified as male, with the remaining 43% female. Although subjects indicated 69 different nationalities of origin, only 16 countries provided more than 10 unique subjects; when grouped by world regions, North America (i.e., Canada and the U.S.) provided 56% of subjects, Asian countries provided 26%, and Europe provided 11%, with the remaining 7% coming from countries across Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

With a final usable sample size of 2,308 subjects, the pilot study provided more than the recommended minimum subject-to-item ratio of 5-to-1 in order to conduct stable psychometric analyses of Likert-scaled self-report surveys and questionnaires (Hair & Black, 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Standard survey construction procedures and techniques were used to reduce the initial pool of 115 items to the final set of 52 items for the present version of the IES. The overarching goal was to refine individual items and eliminate redundant or unnecessary items from the final version of the IES so as to obtain the most reliable yet parsimonious subscales across the six IES facets. The results of these scale refinement efforts are reported in the tables below, along with the coefficient alpha reliabilities for each given scale.


Table 1. Factor Analysis Item Loadings for the Two Continuous Learning Subscales (overall scale reliability = 0.85)

Self Awareness (reliability = 0.76)

SA01 0.633

SA02 0.627

SA03 0.605

SA04 0.552

SA05 0.583

SA06 0.549

SA07 0.525

SA08 0.510

SA09 0.505

Exploration (reliability = 0.82)

EX01 0.726

EX02 0.725

EX03 0.652

EX04 0.648

EX05 0.665

EX06 0.608

EX07 0.645

EX08 0.583

EX09 0.583

EX10 0.593


Table 2. Factor Analysis Item Loadings for the Two Interpersonal Engagement Subscales (overall scale reliability = 0.86)

Global Mindset (reliability = 0.84)

GM01 0.823

GM02 0.735

GM03 0.775

GM04 0.611

GM05 0.704

GM06 0.709

GM07 0.584

Relationship Interest (reliability = 0.80)

RI01 0.804

RI02 0.696

RI03 0.674

RI04 0.628

RI05 0.499

RI06 0.808

RI07 0.625

RI08 0.620


Table 3. Factor Analysis Item Loadings for the Two Hardiness Subscales (overall scale reliability = 0.84)

Positive Regard (reliability = 0.79)

PR01 0.656

PR02 0.670

PR03 0.625

PR04 0.604

PR05 0.496

PR06 0.521

PR07 0.455

PR08 0.489

PR09 0.488

Emotional Resilience (reliability = 0.81)

ER01 0.703

ER02 0.698

ER03 0.697

ER04 0.708

ER05 0.596

ER06 0.608

ER07 0.583

ER08 0.525

ER09 0.538


REFERENCES Abe, H., & Wiseman, R.L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7: 53-68. Adler, N., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing globally competent people. Academy of Management Executive, 6(3): 52-64. Arthur Jr., W., & Bennett Jr., W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48: 99-113. Arthur Jr., W., & Bennett Jr., W. (1997). A comparative test of alternative models of international assignee job performance. In Z. Aycan (ed,) New approaches to employee management. Expatriate management: Theory and research vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 141-172. Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A., & Luk, D.M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 259-281. Bikson,T.K., Treverton, G.F., Moini, J., & Lindstrom, G. (2003). New challenges for international leadership: Lessons from organizations with global missions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Bird, A. & Osland, J. (2004). Global competencies: An introduction. In Henry Lane, Martha Maznevski, Mark Mendenhall and Jeanne McNett (eds), Handbook of global management. Oxford: Blackwell: 57-80. Black, J.S. (1988). Work-role transition: a study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2): 274-291. Black, J.S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of Japanese expatriate managers. Management International Review, 30: 119-134. Black J.S. & Gregersen, H.B. (1990). Expectations, satisfaction and intention to leave of American expatriate managers in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14: 485–506. Black, J.S., & Gregersen, H.B. (1991). The other half of the picture. Antecedents of spouse cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 461-477. Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 291-317. Black, J.S., Morrison, A. & Gregersen, H.B. (1999). Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. New York: Routledge. Black, J.S., & Stephens, G. (1989). Expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15: 529-544. Boyacigiller, N., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Levy, O. (2004). The crucial yet illusive global mindset. In Lane,


H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (eds). The handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing: 81-93. Brein, M., & David, K.H. (1971). Intercultural communication and the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76: 215-230. Brein, M., & David, K.H. (1973). Improving cross-cultural training and measurement of cross-cultural learning (Volume 1). Denver: Center for Research and Education. Caligiuri, P.M. (1995). Individual characteristics related to effective performance in cross-cultural work settings (expatriate). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Caligiuri, P.M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53: 67-88. Caligiuri, P.M. (2004). Global leadership development through expatriate assignments and other international experiences. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, New Orleans, August 2004. Caligiuri, P.M., Jacobs, R.R., & Farr, J.L. (2000). The Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness Scale: Scale development and construct validation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1): 27-46. Chen, G. (1987). Dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio: Kent State University; 1987. Publication Number: AAT 8719577. Clarke, C., & Hammer, M.R. (1995). Predictors of Japanese and American managers job success, personal adjustment, and intercultural interaction effectiveness. Management International Management Review, 35: 153- 170. Cort, D.A., & King, M. (1979). Some correlates of culture shock among American tourists in Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3: 211-225. Cui, G., & Awa, N.E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(3): 311–326. Cui, G., & Van den Berg, S. (1991). Testing the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15: 227-241. David, K.H. (1976). The use of social learning theory in preventing intercultural adjustment problems. In P. Pedersen, W.J. Lonner, & J. Draguns (Eds.) Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press: 123-137. Deller, J. (1997). Expatriate selection: Possibilities and limitations of using personality scales. In Z. Aycan (ed.) New approaches to employee management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 93-116. Dinges, N.G., & Baldwin, K.D. (1996). Intercultural competence: A research perspective. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (eds). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 106-


123. Dyal, J.A. (1984). Cross-cultural research with the locus of control construct. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.) Research with the locus of control construct. San Diego: Academic Press: 209-306. Dyal, J.A., Rybensky, L., & Sommers, M. (1988). Marital and acculturative strain among Indo-Canadian and Euro-Canadian women. In J.W. Berry & R. Annis (Eds.) Ethnic psychology: Research and practice with immigrants, refugees, native peoples, ethnic groups, and sojourners. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J.L. (2002). The global challenge: Frameworks for international human resource management. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Feldman, D.C., & Thomas, D.C. (1992). Career management issues facing expatriates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2): 271-293. Feldman, D.C., & Tompson, H.B. (1993). Expatriation, repatriation, and domestic geographical relocation: An empirical investigation of adjustment to new job assignments. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3): 507-529. Flango, V.E., & Brumbaugh, R.B. (1974). The dimesionality of the cosmopolitan-local construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 198-210. Gertsen, M.C. (1990). Intercultural competence and expatriates. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 3: 341–362. Goldberg, A.I. (1976). The relevance of cosmopolitan/local orientations to professional values and behavior. Sociology of Work and Occupation, 3(3): 331-356. Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global leadership: The next generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gregersen, H.B., & Black, J.S. (1992). Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a foreign operation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 65-90. Hair, A. & Black, T. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Hammer, M.R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11: 65-88. Hammer, M.R., Gudykunst, W.B., & Wiseman, R.L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2: 382-393. Harrison, D.A., & Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Mapping the criterion space for expatriate success: Task- and relationship-based performance, effort and adaptation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8): 1454-1474. Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. (2004). Going places: Roads more and less traveled in


research on expatriate experiences. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23: 199-247. Hawes, F., & Kealey, D.J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5: 239-258. Hechanova, R., Beehr, T.A. & Christiansen, N.D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of employees adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(2): 213-236. Hudson, S., & Inkson, K. (2006). Overseas development workers: “Big Five” personality scores. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 1(1): 5-9. Hull, W.F. (1978). Foreign students in the United States of America: Coping behavior within the educational environment. New York: Praeger. Hullet, C.R., & Witte, K. (2001). Predicting intercultural adaptation and isolation: Using the extended parallel process model to test anxiety/uncertainty management theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25: 125-139. John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspective. In L. Pervin and O.P. Johns (Eds.) Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd Edition). New York: Guilford. Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: a review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(2/3): 199-216. Jordan, J., & Cartwright, S. (1998). Selecting expatriate managers: Key traits and competencies. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19(2): 89-96. Kealey, D.J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 387-428. Kealey, D.J. (1994). Overseas screening and selection: A survey of current practice and future trends. Hull, Canada: CIDA. Kealey, D.J. (1996). The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (eds). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; pp. 81-105. Kealey, D.J., & Ruben, B.D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection: Criteria, issues and methods. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, (Vol. 1, pp. 155–175). New York: Pergamon Press. Kedia, B., & Mukherji, A. (1999). Global managers: Developing a mindset for global competitiveness. Journal of World Business, 34(3): 230-247. Klineberg, O., & Hull, W.F. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of adaptation and coping. New York: Praeger.


Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., & Jaworski, R.A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54(1): 71-99. Kühlmann, T.M., & Stahl, G.K. (1996). Fachkompetenz alien genügt nicht—Interkulturelle Assessment Center unterstützen die gezielte Personalauswahl. Personalführung Plus, 96: 22-24. Kühlmann, T.M., & Stahl, G.K. (1998). Diagnose interkultureller Kompetenz: Entwicklung und Evaluierung eines Assessment Centers. In C. Barmeyer & J. Bolten (Eds.) Interkulturelle personalorganisation. Berlin: Verlag Wissenschaft & Praxis: 213-223. Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M.L., & Mendenhall, M.E. (2004). Hercules meets Buddha. In Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (eds). The handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing: 3-25. Lane, H.W., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M.E., & McNett, J. (2004). The handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S. & Boyacigiller, N. (2007). What do we talk about when we talk about global mindset: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 231-258. Martin, J.N. (1987). The relationship between perceptions of intercultural competencies and previous sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11: 337-355. Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M.R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication competence: Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 303-332. Mendenhall, M. (2001). New perspectives on expatriate adjustment and its relationship to global leadership development. In Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T., & Stahl, G. (eds.) Developing global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innovations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books: 1-16. Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T., & Stahl, G. (2001). Developing global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innovations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T., Stahl, G., & Osland, J. (2002). Employee development and expatriate assignments: A review of the expatriate adjustment theory literature. In Gannon, M. & Newman, K. (eds.) Handbook of cross-cultural management. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers: 155-183. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management Review. 10(1): 39-47. Mendenhall, M., & Osland. J.S. (2002). An overview of the extant global leadership research. Symposium presentation at the Academy of International Business, Puerto Rico, June 2002. Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2008). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development. London: Routledge.


Mendenhall, M., & Wiley, C. (1994). Strangers in a strange land: The relationship between expatriate adjustment and impression management. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(5): 605-620. McCall, M.W. Jr. & Hollenbeck, G.P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Mol, S.T., Born, M.P., Willemson, M.E., & Van der Molen, H. (2005). Predicting expatriate job performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(5): 590-620. Moro Bueno, C., & Tubbs, S. (2004). Identifying global leadership competencies: An exploratory study. Journal of American Academy of Business 5(1/2): 80-87. Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9: 247-269. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill. Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1984). Cross-cultural person perception: A review of cross-cultural and related literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2): 77-96. Ones, D.S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success. In Z. Aycan (ed.) New approaches to employee management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 63-92. Osland, J.S. (2008). Overview of the global leadership literature. In Mendenhall, M., Osland, J.S., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. Global leadership: Research, practice and development. London: Routledge: 34-63. Osland, J.S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M.E., & Osland, A. (2006). Developing global leadership capabilities and global mindset: A review. In G.K. Stahl and I. Björkman (eds.) Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 197-222. Osland, J.S, Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M.E. (in press). Global leadership: Progress and challenges. In Bhagat, R.S., & Steers, R.M. (eds.) Handbook of culture, organizations, and work. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17: 355-79. Pruitt, F.J. (1978). The adaptation of African students to American society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21: 90-118. Ratiu, I. (1983). Thinking internationally: A comparison of how international executives learn. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13: 139-150. Ronen, S. (1989). Training the international assignee. In I.L. Goldsten (ed), Training and development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 417-453. Rosen, R., Digh, P., Singer, M. & Philips, C. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership and national


cultures. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ruben, B.D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 229-239. Ruben, B.D., & Kealey, D.J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3: 15-47. Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross- cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14: 449-464. Shaffer, M.A., Ferzandi, L.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., & Black, J.S. (2003). You can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. BRC papers on cross-cultural management. #200308. Business Research Center. Hong Kong Baptist University. Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., & Gilley, K.M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business Studies, 30: 557-581. Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., Black, J.S., & Ferzandi, L.A. (2006). You can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(1): 109-125. Sinangil, H.K., & Ones, D.S. (1997). Empirical investigations of the host country perspective in expatriate management. In D.M. Saunders (Series Ed.) and Z. Aycan (Vol. Ed), New approaches to employee management: Vol. 4. Expatriate management theory and research. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Spreitzer, G.M., McCall, M.W., Jr., & Mahoney, J.D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1): 6-29. Stahl, G.K. (1998). Internationaler einsatz von führungskräften. München: Oldenbourg. Stahl, G.K. (1999). Deutsche führungskräfte im Auslandsensatz: Probleme und problemlöseerfolg in Japan und den USA. Die Betribswirtschaft, 59: 687-703. Stahl, G.K. (2001). Using assessment centers as tools for global leadership development: An exploratory study. In M.E. Mendenhall, T.M. Kühlmann, & G.K. Stahl (eds). Developing global business leaders. Westport, CT: Quorum Books: 197-210. Stroh, L.K, Dennis, L.E., & Cramer, T.C. (1994). Predictors of expatriate adjustment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2(2): 176-192. Sudweeks, S., Gudykunst, W.B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1990). Developmental themes in Japanese- North American interpersonal relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14: 207-233. Tetlock, P.E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 74-83. Thomas, D.C. (1998). The expatriate experience: A critical review and synthesis. Advances in International


Comparative Management, 12: 237-273. Thomas, D.C., & Lazarova, M.B. (2006). Expatriate adjustment and performance: A critical review. In G.K. Stahl and I. Björkman (eds) Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 247-264. Torbiörn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in the overseas setting. New York: Wiley. Tsang, E.W.K. (2001). Adjustment of Mainland Chinese academics and students to Singapore. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4): 347-372. Tucker, M.F., Bonial, R., & Lahti, K. (2004). The definition, measurement and prediction of intercultural adjustment and job performance among corporate expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(3/4): 221-251. Varner, I.I., & Palmer, T.M. (2005). Role of cultural self-knowledge in successful expatriation. Singapore Management Review, 27(1): 1-25. Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed.): 124-147. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social difficulty during cross- cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16: 175-194. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993a). Acculturation and cross-cultural adaptation of British residents in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 133: 395-397. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993b). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students at home and abroad. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24: 221-249. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4): 659-677. Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and socio-cultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15: 209-225. Waxin, M.F. (2004). Expatriates’ interaction adjustment: The direct and moderator effects of culture of origin. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1): 61-79. Wills, S., & Barham, K. (1994). Being an international manager. European Management Journal, 12(1): 49–58.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark E. Mendenhall is a Senior Vice-President of the Kozai Group, Inc. He also holds the J. Burton Frierson Chair of Excellence in Business Leadership at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. He is past president of the International Management Division of the Academy of Management, and has authored numerous books and scholarly articles in the areas of global leadership and international human resource management. His most recent books are: Global Leadership: Research, Practice and Development (2008, Routledge), Readings and Cases in International Human Resource Management (2007, Routledge), and Managing Human Resources in Mergers and Acquisitions (2005, Stanford University Press), and his research has been published in journals such as Sloan Management Review, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, and Organizational Dynamics. He has consulted with, and conducted numerous training programs for many firms, some of which include: IBM-Asia Pacific, IBM-Japan, National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), Boeing, General Motors, United States Army, J.C. Bamford Excavators (JCB), BlueCross BlueShield, and The Dixie Group.

Michael J. Stevens is a Senior Vice President of the Kozai Group, Inc. He also holds an appointment as a professor of management at Weber State University. His primary areas of expertise include: improving organizational performance through teamwork, empowerment and cross-cultural effectiveness; individual assessment and selection (especially for teams, emotional intelligence, and cross-cultural work assignments); leadership training and development, and its impact on organizational culture and employee performance; and interpersonal effectiveness in the global workplace. Dr. Stevens received his Ph.D. from the Krannert School of Management at Purdue University, where he received the Ralph G. Alexander Best Dissertation Award from the International Academy of Management. He is a widely cited author who has conducted pioneering research in the areas of predicting a person’s aptitude for working successfully in teams and in culturally diverse global work environments. He is the lead author of the commercially distributed “Teamwork-KSA” employment test, and also consults with a wide variety of organizations. He has held leadership and board positions in industry, government, and not-for-profit enterprises, and is active in several professional societies. His research has been published in such places as the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of International Business, Journal of Management, and International Journal of Human Resource Management. Allan Bird is President of the Kozai Group, Inc. He is also the Eiichi Shibusawa-Seigo Arai Professor of Japanese Studies and Director of the International Business Institute at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He has authored/edited numerous books, including Global Leadership: Research, Practice and Development, The Encyclopedia of Japanese Business and Management, Japanese Multinationals Abroad: Individual and Organizational Learning and Ekuzekuchibu no Kenkyuu (Research on Executives). With more than 90 articles and book chapters, his work has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, the Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of International Business Studies and other academic and practitioner journals. His research interests focus on effective management in intercultural contexts, with a particular focus on intercultural sensemaking and global leadership development. Some of the companies he has worked with include AT&T, Fujitsu, GE, Molex, Monsanto, Nippon Express and Watchmark.

Gary R. Oddou is a Senior Vice President of the Kozai Group, Inc. He received his Ph.D. in organizational psychology from Brigham Young University and currently serves as a professor of international management at California State University, San Marcos, where he directs the Global Business Management program. He has taught and given business seminars in a number of countries, including the U.S, U.K, France, Switzerland, Yugoslavia (at that time), Vietnam and Taiwan, and Japan. His research is principally in two areas: international human resource management and global leadership, specializing in the factors related to effective cross-cultural competence and global leader effectiveness. He has authored or co-authored several books, including Cases in International Organizational Behavior, Managing Internationally: A Personal Journey, Managing an Organization: A Workbook Simulation, and most recently International Human Resource Management: Readings and Cases, 4th edition (2007), and Global Leadership (Routledge, 2008). His management consulting and training activities have been in the areas of expatriate and repatriate program effectiveness and global management competency evaluation. He has worked with such organizations as IBM, Applied Materials, Molex, and Doctors Without Borders. He speaks French and English fluently and has basic conversational Vietnamese and Spanish language skills. He has lived in the U.S, France, England and Yugoslavia.

Joyce Osland is a Senior Vice President of the Kozai Group, Inc. and is an internationally known specialist in international management with a focus on global leadership, Latin America and organization development. As the Lucas Endowed Professor of Global Leadership, Joyce founded the Global Leadership Advancement Center and co-founded the Global Leadership Lab in the College of Business at San Jose State University located in California’s Silicon Valley. Her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior was earned at Case Western Reserve University. A former president of the Western Academy of Management, Joyce has won numerous


Sticky Note

, 2012




Sticky Note

, 2012


awards for teaching, research, and leadership. She has been a Senior Research Fellow at the Army Research Institute since 2005. Her research interests—global leadership development, expert cognition in global leaders, cultural sensemaking, and repatriate knowledge transfer—focus on practical ways to improve global skills and organizations. She has over sixty publications—research articles in leading academic journals like the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, and Human Resource Management, as well as practitioner articles, book chapters, and cases. Her first book, The Adventure of Working Abroad: Hero Tales from the Global Frontier (Jossey-Bass, 1995), has been used in corporate training programs for expatriates. Joyce is currently working on the ninth edition of her two textbooks, The Organizational Behavior Workbook: An Experiential Approach and The Organizational Behavior Reader. Joyce lived and worked overseas for fourteen years in seven different countries, mostly in Latin America and West Africa. She worked in the field of international development as a program manager, trainer and consultant and also spent three years as a full- time faculty member and consultant at INCAE (The Central American Institute of Business Administration and Latin America’s top business school) in Costa Rica, where she is a visiting professor in graduate programs all over the world. Due to her international reputation in experiential learning, Joyce has designed and taught hundreds of executive education workshops. She has been training executives and trainers in global leadership for more than a decade. Consulting clients during the last 20 years include General Motors, Standard Fruit, the World Intellectual Property Organization (United Nations), Costa Rica’s Ministry of Tourism, Bestfoods and Spansion.






Sticky Note







Sticky Note

from 2005-2009


Sticky Note


Feedback Report

THE INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS SCALE Group Name: MGMT 540 Fall Cohort B Results for: Pradip Sudani ID: Test Date: Thursday, 18 Oct 2018 Test Form: Version 3.1(6) Report Generated: Thursday, 18 Oct 2018

This report is based on research using normal adult samples and provides information on dimensions of global and intercultural competency. The information in this report should be viewed as only one source of evaluation and no decisions should be based solely on the information contained in this report. This report is confidential and intended for use by the individual being evaluated and his or her employer or trainer.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani



Overview: Working with People Different from You 3

I. Your Intercultural Effectiveness Scores 4

Interpreting Your IES Results 5

Who Is the Comparison Group? 5

The Elements of Intercultural Effectiveness 5

How the Dimensions Work Together 8

Entering Your Scores on the Profile Graph 9

Your IES Profile 10

II. Your Current and Potential Competency 14

Continuous Learning: General Tendencies 14

Effective Continuous Learning Strategies 15

Interpersonal Engagement: General Tendencies 16

Effective Interpersonal Engagement Strategies 18

Hardiness: General Tendencies 20

Effective Hardiness Strategies 21

Creating a Personal Development Plan 23

General Suggestions For Developing Intercultural Capacity 25

III. Other Userful Resources 26

Suggested Readings 26

Additional IES Resources 26

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Overview: Working with People Different from You

Culture is the entire set of values, attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, and social rules that govern the behavior of a group of people. Because these can vary so widely from culture to culture, it is often challenging to understand and work with people from other cultures. The same challenge exists among diverse demographic groups: different generations, ethnic groups, socio-economic classes, religious affiliations, genders, political parties, and so forth. Although this assessment is called the “Intercultural Effectiveness Scale,” the dimensions it assesses are applicable to any difference related to beliefs, values, assumptions, and behaviors that are not shared between two people or two groups of people.

In fact, no two people are alike, but often it seems easier to get along and therefore work more effectively with people whom we perceive as similar to us in some obvious (skin color, facial features) or important way (similar interests, values, experiences, etc.). That’s only natural—what we share in common gives us a foundation for building a relationship. In today’s world, however, most of us work with people who differ from us in a variety of ways. Although it is sometimes challenging to work with them, it helps if we first begin with a clear understanding of ourselves. If we understand how our tendencies might help or hinder our ability to work well with those who are different from us, we have a starting point that helps us know how we might improve.

The Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) focuses on six key areas that influence whether we are likely to get along with people whose cultural or demographic background differs from ours. Those six dimensions relate to three major competency areas:

How we learn about other people and the accuracy of that learning: Continuous Learning● How we develop and manage relationships with people who are different from us: Interpersonal● Engagement How we manage the challenges and stress involved in interacting with people representing● cultural and demographic differences: Hardiness

Each of these major competency areas is comprised of two dimensions that you have been assessed on, and they are labeled in the grid on the next page.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


I. Your Intercultural Effectiveness Scores

Low Moderate High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Continuous Learning



Interpersonal Engagement

World Orientation

Relationship Development


Positive Regard

Emotional Resilience

Overall Intercultural Effectiveness Scale

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Interpreting Your IES Results Your results on each competency area and its related dimensions place you into one of three categories: low, moderate, or high. These categories indicate your relative position within a large sample comprised of a cross-section of tens of thousands of people who have already completed the IES.

The following pages will help you understand your placement on each of the IES competency areas and their dimensions relative to all the other people who have taken the instrument.

Keep in mind that your results reflect your perceptions of yourself at the time you answered the IES questions for each dimension. The survey items are tested for their reliability and stability, so small differences in your mood or circumstances will not really affect your results. However, large swings in mood or lack of careful attention when answering the survey questions could result in misrepresentations in your profile.

Who Is the Comparison Group? The norm group you are being compared to includes undergraduate and graduate students as well as working adults across a broad range of occupations, ages, and nationalities. Specifically, 8% of the norm group is under age 20, 64% is between 20 and 29, and 28% is age 30 and above; 57% are male and 43% female. In addition, the norm group is drawn from 69 different nationalities. When grouped by world regions, North America provided 56% of the norm group, Asian countries provided 26%, and Europe provided 11%, with the remaining 7% coming from countries across Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. For more detailed information about the normative comparison group or about IES validation research, contact the Kozai Group directly at

The Elements of Intercultural Effectiveness

1. Continuous Learning (CL) Do you continually seek to understand and learn about the activities, behavior, and events that occur around you? People who consistently strive to learn new things are more successful working across cultures or demographic differences than those who are comfortable only with what they already know. Continuous Learning is an important factor of intercultural effectiveness, and it is made up of two dimensions, Self-Awareness and Exploration.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Self-Awareness (SA)

This dimension measures to what degree you are continuously learning about yourself. It assesses how aware you are of your personal strengths, weaknesses, interpersonal style, and behavioral tendencies and how they impact others. It also measures how much you reflect on this knowledge in order to pursue personal development and healthy relationships with various kinds of people.

Higher scorers constantly evaluate their personal growth and reflect on what they can learn from their experiences. Lower scorers tend to be less interested in self-discovery and find it difficult to discern how they affect other people; they tend not to be self-motivated to understand this process or to really discover what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Exploration (EX)

Being open to ideas, values, norms, situations, and behaviors that are different from your own is another important element of Continuous Learning. The Exploration dimension assesses your fundamental desire to learn new things and strategically seek out new experiences that can cause learning or a change in your perspective and behavior. It also includes the ability to learn from mistakes.

Higher scorers in Exploration are extremely inquisitive, curious, and open to new ideas and experiences; they are active learners, often initiating their own learning. Lower scorers tend to have a strong preference for maintaining current habits, traditions, and ways of thinking; they usually are not that curious about the world around them and learn mostly because the situation they find themselves in requires them to do so to meet someone’s expectations.

2. Interpersonal Engagement (IE) Are you passionately interested in other cultures or in people who are different from you? Do you believe it is important to develop relationships with these people? The development of positive interpersonal relations is essential for effective performance in an intercultural or diverse environment. Two dimensions make up the factor of Interpersonal Engagement: World Orientation and Relationship Development.

World Orientation (WO)

This dimension measures the degree to which you are interested in other cultures and the people who live in them. This proactive learning can take place from books, the Internet, movies, foreign media outlets, courses in school, television documentaries, newspapers, and so on. Having a strong World Orientation provides a foundation from which you can learn to interact more effectively with people who do not share your beliefs, customs, values and attitudes.

Higher scorers in World Orientation consistently expose themselves to information about other cultures, and this expands their ability to find common ground with different kinds of people. Lower scorers tend to be content with familiar things and people, and exert little effort to learn about other cultures; as a result, this decreases their opportunities to engage others, understand important differences, and find common ground.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Relationship Development (RD)

Initiating and maintaining relationships with people from other cultures is crucial to intercultural and diversity effectiveness. The dimension of Relationship Development includes your inclination to seek out people from different cultures or demographic groups, as well as your desire and ability to maintain personal relationships with them. This dimension also measures whether engaging others is an energy-producing or energy-depleting activity for you, and also gauges your willingness to learn a foreign language to enable better communication.

Higher scorers in Relationship Development are very interested in initiating new relationships and then maintaining those friendships; they find this process stimulating and would be willing to learn and use a foreign language in order to develop relationships with people from other cultures or demographic groups. Lower scorers tend to put little effort into developing new friendships and prefer to focus on maintaining existing relationships; they perceive developing new relationships as requiring too much effort and risk exposing oneself to potentially awkward situations.

3. Hardiness (H) Do you have the ability to effectively manage your thoughts and emotions in intercultural and diverse situations? Can you be open-minded and nonjudgmental about ideas and behaviors that are new to you? Can you learn from failures and setbacks and then put them in the past? These are crucial elements of the Hardiness factor. Being able to manage your emotions with resilience has a direct influence on both your learning and your ability to develop healthy relationships. Hardiness consists of two dimensions, Positive Regard and Emotional Resilience.

Positive Regard (PR)

This dimension measures the degree to which you naturally assume people are trustworthy, hardworking and generally good. This is important because it guards against unnecessary negative stereotyping of those who differ from you culturally or demographically. It also helps you to avoid getting upset, stressed, frustrated, or angry when you encounter situations, people, behaviors, and ideas that are different from what you expect.

Higher scorers in Positive Regard seldom resort to negative stereotypes about people; they assume the best about others and are more accepting of different behaviors, and in turn, people, including those from other cultures or demographic groups, are more likely to respond positively toward them. Lower scorers have a tendency to hold negative assumptions and stereotypes about people and are less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt; as a result, this limits their attraction to individuals from other cultures and groups and their ability to relate to them.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Emotional Resilience (ER)

This dimension measures your level of emotional strength and your ability to cope with challenging emotional experiences. It also assesses your capacity to recover quickly from psychologically and emotionally stressful situations and setbacks. How you manage these kinds of experiences influences your tendency to remain open, develop relationships, and interact effectively with others.

Higher scorers in Emotional Resilience cope well with challenging emotional situations and, as a result, their recovery from psychologically or emotionally difficult experiences usually takes little time; this means they have more energy to continue learning about the foreign culture or diverse groups and develop and maintain effective relationships with them. Lower scorers tend to find it difficult to handle psychologically and emotionally challenging experiences well, and their recovery from such experiences tends to be energy depleting and time consuming; as a result, this tends to limit their ability to remain open to others, lessens their interest in learning about and from those who share different beliefs and values, and reduces their motivation to develop relationships with them.

How the Dimensions Work Together When operating in a cross-cultural or diverse environment, our success depends on the combination of competencies we utilize.

The competency that most fundamentally affects our ability to adapt and perform well is our general motivation to learn (Exploration).

Confronting new environments where norms, communication styles, and people are different also requires a keen interest in foreign things (World Orientation).

The accuracy and completeness of what we learn depends on our openness to understand what we experience (Positive Regard).

Knowledge gives us a sense of confidence, which is important to be fully engaged in a new environment. Other people become an additional source of information and give us a feeling of connectedness and enjoyment. Our learning and emotional experience, therefore, is incomplete without developing and maintaining healthy relationships (Relationship Development).

The quality of those relationships is dependent on the extent to which we communicate and interact appropriately with others. To do so, we must have an excellent understanding of our own values, norms, and tendencies (Self-Awareness).

Confidence in our understanding of the environment and high-quality relationships give us a greater sense of belonging, which leads to a positive attitude. This, combined with a natural ability to manage stress (Emotional Resilience), enables us to perform at high levels.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Entering Your Scores on the Profile Graph Refer back to your profile on page 4 and note the number (ranging from 1–7) at the top of each column1. for your scores on Continuous Learning, Interpersonal Engagement, and Hardiness. On the diagram below, place a dot at that point along each of the scales. For example, if your score in2. Continuous Learning was in the column labeled “4”, make a dot next to the 4 on the Continuous Learning scale Connect the three dots to form a triangle—your IES profile. The following pages provide interpretations3. of the various possible IES profiles.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Your IES Profile Find the triangle on the following pages that best matches your IES profile from the previous page. Note that these profiles are based on extreme ranges—the highest and lowest results possible on the three factors of Continuous Learning, Interpersonal Engagement, and Hardiness (most people will fall somewhere between the extremes).

Globalist (High CL / High IE / High H)

Globalists Enjoy Learning about foreign places and people, easily initiate relationships with those who are different from them, and find such experiences rewarding

People with this profile are quite attentive to their social environment and very interested in learning—about themselves and others. Globalists tend to ask a lot of questions, observe, and read to satisfy their curiosity. They are likely to be very interested in and more positive about people and things that are new and different. Globalists believe developing relationships with people from other cultures is exciting and a means to more knowledge and understanding. They naturally engage people and places different from them. Although this can be stressful, Globalists are psychologically strong and able to withstand the hardships and interpersonal differences that often arise. They get excited about how this process helps them understand themselves and their own culture better. Globalists use this self-knowledge to help them build and manage their relationships more effectively.

Detective (High CL / Low IE / High H)

Detectives Are Interested In Learning about people more than they care about actually engaging people and developing quality relationships with them. They are also quite resilient in the face of challenges.

Individuals with this profile enjoy learning. They pay attention to others reactions to what they say and do, and reflect on their lives and experiences to gain self-knowledge. They tend to ask a lot of questions, observe, and read to satisfy their curiosity. However, their interest is often more intellectual than it is personal. When Detectives engage people from other cultures, it is equally likely driven by an interest in or need to complete a task as it is to develop a relationship. Still, although they may lack a natural interest in other peoples and cultures, they maintain a positive attitude toward them. As a result, although Detectives often do not initiate new relationships, others may find them enjoyable to be around. In addition, their positive communications with people from other cultures and their natural resilience to stress enables Detectives to function quite effectively given the limited number of relationships they are likely to develop.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Networker (Low CL / High IE / High H)

Networkers Focus On Developing Links with people more than on understanding why they are different from them. They are also quite resilient.

People with this profile tend to be satisfied with their current level of knowledge and with their own personal development. Reading, observing, and traveling to places to learn new things are of less interest to Networkers than developing new relationships. Maintaining the status quo comes more naturally to them than initiating new discoveries. Networkers interest in social interactions tends to be more for the enjoyment of the relationship than for learning things about diverse people (such as their culture, their personal histories, etc.), although that may happen as a by-product of their interactions with them. They may easily connect with people who are different from them; however, because Networkers tend not to explore differences, or the reasons for those differences, their relationships will likely remain more superficial. Their acceptance of others—regardless of apparent differences—puts others at ease and helps the development of networks and friendships. Networkers are also resilient to challenges they confront in new situations, though they tend to avoid challenges that require learning and adapting to new environments.

Explorer (High CL / High IE / Low H)

Explorers Enjoy Developing Friendships with and learning about people who differ from them, but it is also emotionally challenging for them to do so.

This profile describes people who are quite attentive to their social environment and quite interested in learning more about themselves and others. Developing relationships with those who are different is exciting to Explorers because it leads to more knowledge and self-understanding. However, while this self-knowledge and interest in other cultures serves as a foundation to build and manage their interpersonal relationships more effectively, it can be undermined by the Explorers tendency to assume more negative things about people whom they see as different. This tendency can discourage others from wanting to develop deep, lasting, cooperative relationships with Explorers. Further, Explorers are driven to search the world around them and find it intellectually exciting, but are usually less able to withstand the accompanying emotional and psychological challenges that confrontations with differences bring. They may need “timeouts” to retreat and rejuvenate before continuing their explorations.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Intellectual (High CL / Low IE / Low H)

Intellectuals Are Interested In Analyzing Others Behavior more than they are in forming relationships. They generally avoid challenges because of the stress it creates.

This profile describes people who naturally seek learning opportunities. Intellectuals enjoy acquiring new information and do so by reading, asking questions, and observing. They also enjoy reflecting on their lives and experiences in order to gain self-knowledge. However, Intellectuals are usually more interested in people and places familiar to them than in those that are different. They tend to have negative assumptions about people and this colors their interactions, often discouraging others from cooperating with them. In fact, interaction with others is typically more for learning new information than for the relationship itself, and this can be visible to the other members of a team. Intellectuals difficulties in working with others and their inability to deal well with the differences that come with a new environment often lead to dissatisfaction and significant personal challenges. They may well need “timeouts” to rejuvenate and seek to interact with people or things with which they are already familiar.

Individualists (Low CL / Low IE / High H)

Individualists Are Confident in their abilities to undertake challenges, but are less interested in understanding people or exploring differences.

This profile describes people who are fairly satisfied with their current level of knowledge and with their own personal development. Reading, observing, and traveling to places to learn new things are of less interest. Individualists prefer things that are familiar to them, so meeting new people and developing new relationships will likely occur out of necessity more than personal motivation. Because they are not particularly interested in expanding their personal learning and understanding, and differences in culture and languages don’t excite them, they don’t see the development of new relationships as a way to learn useful information. In addition, even though Individualists do not particularly feel a need to develop or maintain new relationships with those who are different from them, their tendency to be open and accepting of differences can still attract others to them. This can lead to a network of relationships that may be helpful to them. Finally, Individualists have a natural resilience to challenges and are able to deflect many of the normal stresses that others will feel. They tend to reflect a steadiness that others can depend on.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Extrovert (Low CL / High IE / Low H)

Extroverts Enjoy Being With People and creating new relationships. They are less interested in understanding differences and may find some diverse settings challenging.

Individuals with this profile are very people-focused in general and typically will have a number of social skills that help them develop and maintain good relationships. They find it interesting to meet people who are different from them and this can help them develop positive relationships across a diverse set of people. Although they are not always motivated to seek new experiences that can lead to understanding themselves and other things better, they do find it interesting to learn about a variety of people and places unfamiliar to them. Sometimes, however, their lack of resilience can make such experiences more challenging because they can take an emotional toll. This, combined with a tendency to label people, can negatively affect some of their relationships and “color” their interpretations of other cultures and ethnicities.

Traditionalist (Low CL / Low IE / Low H)

Traditionalists Are Satisfied with the status quo, preferring familiar people and places, and are apprehensive when placed in new situations where they need to learn or develop new associations.

People with this profile are satisfied with their current level of knowledge and are likely not to pursue opportunities for their own personal development. Differences in others ethnicity or culture are not of particular interest. Putting themselves in new situations and learning new things or developing new relationships is usually more a result of external requirements than internal motivation. Traditionalists relationships will tend to be made up of family members or others who have been in close proximity to them over time and where there is clear functionality. Rather than expend effort to develop social networks, Traditionalists are more likely to spend time with a small group of friends or engage in solitary activities they enjoy—watching TV, taking a walk, and so on. Because they have generally surrounded themselves with the familiar and do not often trust or easily accept others outside their close circle, Traditionalists usually have not developed the interpersonal skills or the emotional stamina necessary to interact with and understand people who are different from them. Going outside their realm of familiarity can cause a great deal of stress.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


II. Your Current and Potential Competency Awareness of our personal tendencies in these six areas is usually a prerequisite for change. On the following pages, the general tendencies of different competency categories are paired with strategies for development.

Continuous Learning: General Tendencies Continuous Learning consists of Self-Awareness and Exploration. Refer to page 4 and enter your scores for these dimensions on the horizontal and vertical scales below. The intersection of your two scores will fall into one of the four quadrants below. Read the description of the profile in your quadrant and, on the next page, see suggested sample strategies for leveraging high results, compensating for low results, and developing each dimension.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Effective Continuous Learning: Strategies

Leveraging High Self-Awareness Hold a clear picture of your strengths and weaknesses.● Use your understanding of the source of your emotions to help control them.●

Compensating for Low Self-Awareness Listen and think carefully before reacting; monitor others reaction to what you say and do.● Request feedback from trusted others on how you should act in specific situations.●

Write in your ideas below for what you can do to increase your Self-Awareness. Here are a few ideas for you, to trigger your thinking:

Take self-assessment surveys for feedback on your strengths and weaknesses, traits, and behavioral● styles. Keep a self-reflection journal in which you analyze your behavior and how it seems to affect others.●



Leveraging High Exploration Volunteer for new assignments, responsibilities or other experiences.● Seek work that requires creativity, adapting to new circumstances and continuous learning.●

Compensating for Low Exploration Seek new information or different practices about an issue you’re dealing with before making decisions● or taking action. Ask for explanations about an issue from a wide variety of people whose perspectives differ from yours.●

Write in your ideas below for what you can do to increase your Exploration. Here are a few ideas to trigger your thinking:

Seek out people who are different from you, ask their viewpoint about an issue, and listen to them● without judgment. Get in the practice of questioning your habits and accustomed way of thinking; ask “why?” (e.g., “Why● do I always . . . ?” “Why is it so important to me that I . . . ?”) Go exploring where you live and see how many interesting things you can find (e.g., take a different● way to and from work; shop at a different grocery store; go into a different ethnic neighborhood and take notes about what things look like, what’s different and similar, how people behave, etc.).




Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Interpersonal Engagement: General Tendencies Interpersonal Engagement consists of Relationship Development and World Orientation. Refer to page 4 and enter your scores for these dimensions on the horizontal and vertical scales below. The intersection of your two scores will fall into one of the four quadrants below. Read the description of the profile in your quadrant and, on the next page, see suggested example strategies for leveraging high results, compensating for low results, and developing each dimension.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Effective Interpersonal Engagement Strategies

Leveraging High World Orientation Use your knowledge about different cultures and diverse practices to develop creative, synergistic● ideas on assignments you’re given. Work on multicultural teams and projects.●

Compensating for Low World Orientation Hire people with international experience and listen to their ideas.● Acknowledge that your views may be limited and ask for perspectives from people you see as different● from you.

Write in your ideas below for what you can do to increase your World Orientation. Here are a few ideas for you, to trigger your thinking:

Watch foreign movies and news programs.● For vacation, travel to a foreign country or to a different geographical area.● Seek opportunities to work overseas.●





Leveraging High Relationship Development Build an extensive social network that contributes to your effectiveness.● Get work done in relationship cultures where people work harder for people they like.●

Compensating for Low Relationship Development Surround yourself with those who have well-developed relationship skills.● Hire a translator who is also good at relationships.●

Write in your ideas below for what you can do to increase your Relationship Development. Here are a few ideas for you, to trigger your thinking:

Seek out new friends from other cultures or ethnic groups.● Commit to devoting a set amount of time to resurrecting past good relationships and maintaining● existing ones.




Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Hardiness: General Tendencies Hardiness consists of Positive Regard and Emotional Resilience. Refer to page 4 and enter your scores for these dimensions on the horizontal and vertical scales below. The intersection of your two scores will fall into one of the four quadrants below. Read the description of the profile in your quadrant and, on the next page, see suggested example strategies for leveraging high results, compensating for low results, and developing each dimension.

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Effective Hardiness Strategies

Leveraging High Emotional Resilience Take on challenging, stressful jobs that others might shy away from.● Draw upon your stamina to deal with conflict situations.●

Compensating for Low Emotional Resilience Do not react to situations until emotions are under control.● Build in psychological safety zones where you can retreat.●

Write in your ideas below for what you can do to increase your Emotional Resilience. Here are a few ideas for you, to trigger your thinking:

Work with a coach, learn to recognize your stress triggers.● Develop coping mechanisms that work for you.●





Leveraging High Positive Regard When appropriate, show others how their negative views might not be representative of the whole● person or situation. Solidify your reputation as a fairminded individual. Provide others with objective feedback that takes more factors into consideration, including the● positive.

Compensating for Low Positive Regard In new situations, remind yourself that you need to refrain from making quick judgments. Take your● time to notice additional things beyond your initial impressions. Remember there is a reason for the behavior of others, even if you do not understand it. Seek to find● those reasons.

Write in your ideas below for what you can do to increase your Positive Regard. Here are a few ideas for you, to trigger your thinking:

Learn to distinguish when stereotypes are helpful and not helpful.● Look for reasons that explain complex human behavior.●




Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Creating a Personal Development Plan You can increase your intercultural effectiveness by creating and carrying out a personal development plan. Your IES scores provide you with the basis for a solid plan, which may consist of the following elements.

Assessment: Determine which of the IES dimensions is your weakest, most urgent to change, and/or most important for your career. Which one are you most motivated to develop?

Let’s say you decide Relationship Development is the dimension that you want to improve.

General Plans: List a few broad objectives to help you focus your efforts. Set a deadline by which you will accomplish these plans.

“Develop an above average level of communication with the people I will be living and working with in Germany.” “Develop friendships with the locals in my three months there.”

Tactics: These are the concrete “howto’s” that help you achieve your general plan. Tactics need to be measurable. Pick tactics you can actually accomplish (not too easy, but not too hard). We learn best when real effort is required.

“I will study the language 15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the evening every day, and I will practice a new vocabulary word with three different Germans every day.” “I will say ‘Yes’ to my German colleagues when invited to hang out.”

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

Who: “I will report my language study and interaction to my cousin back home.” How and When: “I will send my report by email every Sunday evening.”

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

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


Your Personal Development Plan


Assessment: Determine which of the IES dimensions is your weakest, most urgent to change, and/or most important for your career. Which one are you most motivated to develop?

General Plans: List a few broad objectives to help you focus your efforts. Set a deadline by which you will accomplish these plans.

Tactics: These are the concrete “howto’s” that help you achieve your general plan. Tactics need to be measurable. Pick tactics you can actually accomplish (not too easy, but not too hard). We learn best when real effort is required.

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

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


General Suggestions for Developing Intercultural Capacity

Know yourself. Learn about your own culture so that you understand the lens through which you view1. the rest of the world. Become conscious of the behaviors and routines you’ve learned and enact unconsciously.

Know other cultures. Educate yourself on the ways that cultures generally differ. When dealing with a2. specific culture, study it to understand why they hold certain values and tend to think and behave as they do. This will help you make more accurate attributions and interpretations about cultural behavior.

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

Practice reading people. Get in the habit of closely observing people and trying to interpret their4. behavior. When working across cultures, we need to be keen observers of behavior and decode the norms and values that guide it.

Clearly identify expectations. Negative reactions often result when other’s behavior does not meet5. our expectations, and those expectations are influenced by our own culture and past experiences. Surfacing and discussing our expectations paves the way for smoother interactions.

Suspend judgment. Intercultural encounters often derail when people judge or incorrectly interpret6. the other party’s actions. Practice nonjudgmentally describing their behavior and, if puzzled, ask someone with more cultural knowledge to explain its meaning. Give the other party the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a logical reason for their beliefs and behaviors, even if you don’t yet understand.

Seek out cultural mentors. In today’s global environment, it’s impossible to master every culture or7. understand every co-worker or situation. Cultural mentors can help us fill in our knowledge gaps and coach us to be more effective.

Focus on the individual. Culture doesn’t explain everything—personality, in particular, plays a large8. role in understanding behavior in social interactions. When we’re trying to understand someone’s behavior, we also have to take into consideration things like their personality traits, occupational status, gender, age and generation, religion, life experiences, and so on.

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

Personal & Confidential IES FEEDBACK REPORT

Results for: Pradip Sudani


III. Other Useful Resources There are many good books and articles on working effectively across cultures. Below are some we highly recommend. For more suggestions, please contact the Intercultural Communication Institute or visit

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

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

Caligiuri, P. (2012). Cultural agility: Building a pipeline of successful global professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., Maznevski, M., Stevens, M.J., & Stahl, G.K. (2013). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York: Public Affairs.

Molinsky, A. (2013). Global dexterity: How to adapt your behavior across cultures without losing yourself in the process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

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

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

Sparrow. T. & Knight, A. (2006). Applied EI. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

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

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

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

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

Additional IES Resources For more information about the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale and its uses, please contact the Intercultural Communication Institute at 503-297-4622 or, or visit

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with Scholary Essays
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
See why 20k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Thank you.
Customer 452723, April 22nd, 2021
Since I will be needing assistance from your Team, please do not block me from editing the paper. The entire did an awesome job on last semester and I never once encountered a situation as such. Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to working with the Team for the next 7 weeks of the semester.
Customer 452919, January 15th, 2022
Thank you, Team I sincerely appreciate your service.
Customer 452919, April 13th, 2022
Human Resources Management (HRM)
Thank you for your time and help. I was concerned that I would not make my deadline due to a family emergency, and you guys came through in the clutch. you are appreciated and i will be letting friends and family know of my experience here.
Customer 453045, February 24th, 2022
The second attempt was an unplagiarized paper. Thank you
Customer 452545, September 25th, 2020
Thank you. You all have been timely, and amazing.
Customer 452919, May 3rd, 2022
Customer 452725, April 23rd, 2021
Paper wad received on time there was also support with revision.
Customer 453101, June 8th, 2022
WRTG 393 6360 Advanced Technical Writing (2222)WRTG-393
Patience and truly superb service considering all the information was not uploaded.
Customer 452995, February 4th, 2022
Great paper thank you so much
Customer 452667, March 19th, 2021
Great Job !!
Customer 453117, September 17th, 2022
Thank you for your service. I hope that everyone had a happy Thanksgiving.
Customer 452919, November 23rd, 2021
Customer reviews in total
Current satisfaction rate
3 pages
Average paper length
Customers referred by a friend
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP