Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Intercultural Training
and
New Competencies.
By
December 2009
Chapter 1. Some examples of Cultural intelligence ...................................................5
Known authors like Geert Hofstede, Nancy Alder, Edward T. Hall, Andre
Laurent, Jean Claude Usunier, William Ouchi, Gareth Morgan, Rosalie Tung, Harry
Triandis, Charles Hampden-Turner, Frons Trompenaars, e.o., created new
“management schools” based on their own made cultural “structures”. At the same
time, other authors went deeper into the physiology and psychology of human
behaviour to point out that intelligence is more than what we know as the
intelligence and emotional coefficients: ( known as IQ or EQ) .
The aim of this paper is to look and challenge the existing literature on this
topic of so called “cultural intelligence” as part of a theoretical approach to address
how this “ability” or special “skill” is being taught and/ or trained in higher
education as part of training and developing for new managers, who can “think
globally and act locally”.
In the construction of the argumentation, the two authors make use of and
refer to the work of Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, David Livermore and especially
Jürgen Bolten. Beside that the authors make also use of their personal experience
as management teachers/ trainers in higher education and business.
The main idea and perception of the authors behind this paper is that cross-
cultural teaching as done nowadays in business bachelor and master studies is not
one that encourages the adaptability of the future managers into a globalized
world.
In order to make clear what the concept and relevance behind the new
competency and the approach is, the authors have included in this paper several
sections. In chapter 1 we will give the reader some theoretical formulation of
cultural intelligence as existing so far based on the research of several known
authors of this subject. In Chapter 2 we will explain the approach of teaching
intercultural topics as presented by Professor J. Bolten. In chapter 3 we will try to
define the competency “intercultural adaptability” and in the last chapter we will
give proposals on how to achieve results in teaching this new competency in a
newly formulated approach.
Chapter 1. Some examples of Cultural intelligence
In this approach the choice is to think of culture as a “tool kit” or as a “design” for
living. If we look inside that kit, we can find tangible creations such as favourite
books, clothing, computer etc. Other creations are more intangible or abstract, such
as personal values, religious beliefs, and ideas about how people should act in
different situations.
Given this as inclusiveness of the term culture, this can lead to the conclusion that
differences and similarities among cultures refer to any number of things. People
might share a common history, family background, political viewpoint or religion.
They might also differ in terms of where they grew up, their age, social class,
education, or exposure to cultures other than their own. There is clearly an infinite
variety of ways in which we and others might be culturally alike and dissimilar.
In 2004 Christopher Earley and Elaine Mosakowsk described in the October Issue of
Harvard Business Review the term “cultural intelligence” (also called cultural
quotient or CQ). They started this theory within management and organisational
psychology, explaining that understanding the impact of an individual's cultural
background on their behaviour is essential for effective business.
• cognitive means: the head (learning about your own and other cultures, and
cultural diversity)
• physical means: the body (using senses and adapting movements and body
language to blend in)
1
Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications Edited
by: Soon ANG; Linn Van Dyne, 2009, ME Sharpe
d) Behavioural CQ intelligence is the last component of the four factor model,
which refers to the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions in
interactions with people from different cultures.
2
Leading with Cultural Intelligence, The New Secret to Success, David Livermore,
Ph.D, 2009, AMACOM.
Chapter 2. The Theoretical Foundations of Training
Courses in Intercultural communication – J.
Bolten
In his article in the “European Journal of Education” in 1993, the German Professor
Jürgen Bolten describes the “Practice of Acting ‘Globally’”
He explains that we already for a long time recognize that the world is developing
into a technologically bound ‘global village’. The theory about how to approach this
was and is very hypothetical. Today it has more relevance than ever. However, the
emphasis has changed: questions relating to the technological feasibility of the
‘global village’ are increasingly being complemented by questions relating to the
impact of such a development. The focus is nowadays no longer on how the ‘global
village’ can be achieved. It is there.
This approach is typical for the business approach of “solving the problems”. Bolten
explains that the meaning of the word ‘global’ by no means is clearly defined. On
the one hand it can mean a world orientation which is unified and therefore less
differentiated like presented in the style of marketing strategies as those of
McDonalds or Benetton and on the other hand it can be used to express the
achievement of overall business synergies at the same time as cultural
differentiation: ‘think global, act local’.
Both points of view are based on different perceptions and explanations of future
social, political and economic developments. It suggests on the one hand that the
ever-increasing worldwide concentration of economic power will lead to a succes-
sive convergence of company cultures and in the end also to a convergence of
everyday culture.
If this would happen, this ‘convergence theory’ (Levitt, 1983) would lead the way to
a unified global culture as well as to worldwide use of one language: English.
On the other hand, opponents of this theory expect ethno cultural to prove resistant
against the process of international convergence.
The ‘divergence theory’ can be seen as a plea for the protection of cultural and
language diversity within the process of internationalization.
Both theories can be seen with scepticism. The doubts can be found in the
experience made with the artificial language “Esperanto” as well as in countless
failed attempts to make international contacts, especially in the area of business
and trade.
As analyses of the causes are still rare. Those that are available point out that the
reasons for failures in ‘global’ trade are to be found not so much in the area of
verbal communication, but in that of cultural understanding and in the ability to
empathize within intercultural contexts (Müller, 1991).
Bolten explains in a very interesting way the difference between intercultural and
intra-cultural approaches. According to him the concept of culture can be explained
in a perspective of: “intercultural versus intra-cultural communication”.
The border between this intercultural and intra cultural is depending on the
definition of culture. Approaches to research are very divergent and have led to
many different models of the process of intercultural communication.
The deficiency in research into intercultural communication is due to the fact that
the different and factually incompatible definitions are used for the concept of
culture. Looking at random sample of publications from 1990 illustrates this:
‘culture’ is linked in one case to ‘nation’ (Mead, 1990) in another to ‘society’ (Knapp
& Knapp-Potthoff, 1990), and in a third to ‘social unit’ (Kiechl, 1990).
In those many cases where definitions are not given (this occurs frequently) or
limits to the definition are not considered, communication between specialists can
become a vague mass of words.
Bolten explains that the more differentiated the concept of culture is, the less clear
is the border. He goes deeper into the subject by explaining another approach to
culture that he calls “The Contrastive versus the Interactive Approach”
It gives a static image of ‘the other’ and an insight into how members of another
cultural group behave within their own group. The fact that this behaviour, which is
present within one group, can change when contacts are made outside the group or
when intercultural contacts are made, is not considered. This is due to the
interdependence of ‘self-image’, ‘image of the other’ and ‘meta-image’ (judgment of
others’ opinion of oneself).
For example: the British often assume that Germans always shake hands;
however, Germans know that the British usually do nor do this. The course of
events during a meeting of the two is therefore unpredictable. Thus, knowledge of
behavioural traits of a foreign culture alone does not help much in the dynamic
situation of an intercultural meeting, as this can be affected by expectations about
the differences which will be encountered.
The divergence between the contrastive and interactive approach becomes clear in
the practice of intercultural training: There are programmes which work with a
culture specific approach and describe the foreign culture as foreign; other
trainings are more based on intercultural sensitising training courses, which direct
more towards creating empathy for the contact situations.
Both models are of little use when taken to extremes (Bolten, 1991, p. 42), as in
the first case stereotypes and prejudices become easily manifested, and in the
second case intercultural situations are excluded
In reality the areas of course overlap and in this respect the next shown Figure
showing intercultural process is over-simplified. However it shows to what extent
intercultural interaction, as a unique, never again repeatable, event, must be
regarded as a constant negotiation with the momentarily present ‘interculture’ and
therefore must be understood as a ‘game’ (Bolten, 1992)
3
Grusec, Joan E.; Hastings, Paul D. "Handbook of Socialization: Theory and
Research", 2007, Guilford Press; ISBN 1593853327, 9781593853327; at page 547.
The start in this figure is a formal analysis of the structures in the life-world model.
It is based on three structural components - culture, society and personality:
Habermans explains them as followed: “For me Culture is the store of knowledge
which supplies participants in communication with interpretations when they are
communicating about something in a specific ‘world’. Society is for me the
legitimate order by which participants in communication regulate their membership
to social groups, thereby ensuring certain solidarity. Personality I understand to
mean the competences which enable a subject to speak and act and therefore
enable him to take part in the processes of communication and understanding,
thereby confirming his identity... The interactions, which are tied up in a web of
everyday communicative practice, form the medium by which culture, society and
individual are reproduced “(Habermas, 1981, vol. 2, p. 209).
We can assume that different social groups have different stores of knowledge. It
therefore seems appropriate that we speak of communicative interaction between
different life-worlds. This could for example, refer to contacts between French and
Russians. It could, however, also by definition refer to intra-cultural interaction
between Saxons and Rhinelanders.
The given figure is meant to illustrate the interaction process as such. It explains
that interculturality can be understood as a process or event which results from a
contact between two or more people, which is specific to culture and the individual
and is therefore unique. The ‘game’ between the life-worlds (Bolten, 1991, 1992).
With this help, the culture-specific part of an intercultural training can prepare
students to approach the real situation between ‘self’ and the ‘other’.
A good analysis of actual critical incidents would serve as a medium for this.
At the same time a sensitising effect could be achieved in relation to the possible
series of events during intercultural interaction which is not attainable through a
fact oriented regional studies programme.
Chapter 3: Defining a new competency –
intercultural adaptability
After explaining the different approaches of CQ and the theory behind the
intercultural training method approach of Jürgen Bolten the authors want to express
with all authors the need of a new competence for managers.
“The sensitivity related with the awareness to recognize, understand, and work
effectively across cultural differences.”
The authors have recently written articles about this specific approach. The most
recent one in their article “Another look at leadership in organizations, a new
approach in defining leadership”5.
Without giving a further explanation of this approach, which can be found in several
articles, this approach in which the self-realization and individual self learning is
stimulated. We are making use of the Management simulation game as developed
by Jürgen Bolten showing a very interactive and simulated situation in which the
participants get fully into the intercultural setting. The fact that the groups consists
mostly of international students from several cultures stimulates this extra.
This combination of the didactical approach and the use of Bolten’s theory seems to
have a very positive effect on students and participants. The explanation for this
can, according to the authors, partly be found in a conclusion that the researcher
Barmeyer wrote after his research on “Learning styles and their impact on cross-
4
http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%20wetenschappelijke
%20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf
5
November 2009, To be published
cultural training: An international comparison in France, Germany and Quebec”6 in
2004.
Barmeyer concluded: “Knowing more about learning styles, trainers may orient
their training methods according to the aspirations and learning preferences of the
participants, who can differ, for example, in gender or culture, as was shown in this
article. An analysis of the participants’ learning styles at the beginning of a training
session may be very useful and can make a real improvement in the outcome of
the training.
Nevertheless, as the literature and practice show, the exploration of learning styles
and their use in cultural trainings has just begun.”
6
http://www.phil.uni-
passau.de/fileadmin/group_upload/54/Zeitungsartikel_pdf/47.LeaningStylesBarmeyer.pdf
Chapter 4: Proposals on how to achieve results in
teaching cultural adaptability in a new approach.
Most trainings are based on developing and improving skills. Looking at the basics
of the CQ approach there is also a clear approach to measure the level of cultural
awareness on given criteria.
The difference between measuring skills of a participant and perceiving the showing
of a competence like Cultural adaptability is, according to the authors a very
important issue in this. If skills are defined as “abilities” to do, it is important to
realise that these abilities can be available, but still not used.
Practise is needed to combine the knowledge with the skills and integrated it with
the most important part... the “I “, meaning myself. In this case “my culture”.
This part is very related with the awareness and sensitivity part. Training this part
is important and also very risky and biased. Sensitivity trainings are often criticized.
They are often defined as forms of training that claims to make people more aware
of their own prejudices, and more sensitive to others. According to its critics, it
involves the use of psychological techniques with groups and is often identical to
“brainwashing” tactics. Critics believe these techniques are unethical.
Based on this assumption trainers tend to become uncertain and cover this by
making the training more measurable and less vague... In this way trying to go
around the before mentioned critical part of giving the impression of training the
sensitivity and in that way “brainwashing” the participants.
Of course this is a critical and discussable point and is related with the intention and
perception of trainer and participants. Several times both authors experienced that
this given point and situation leads to a so called: “safe” approach of the trainer to
stick to the measurable parts and leaving the more intangible and vague parts out
of the training.
This results into a more theoretical and scientific approach on the one side that
explain everything in research approaches and cases and in that way building up a
huge amount of cases, studies and figures. On the other hand it tends to go into
directions of trainings and teaching methods that stick to training of pure skills in
the form of “tricks, tips and tools”
Both sides are visible and probably will be recognizable for the reader of this paper.
The authors believe that, to gain the competence of “Cultural adaptability” needs
the involvement of sensitivity in relation with the awareness and that is necessary
for (young) managers to approach the fast developing globalization.
Using the theory and practice as given by Jürgen Bolten and relating that with the
didactical approach as mentioned in “Gyroscopic management” it is possible to find
a way for teachers and trainers to deal with this.
A very important part in this is of course the ethical behaviour and approach of
both, the trainer and the participant. Ethical behaviour is related with ‘me” and “I”.
This is explained by the authors as “being responsible for own ethical approach”.
Both authors would therefore like to conclude this article by repeating what is
earlier stated in an article by Frank Vonk, Toine Sterk and Joop Vinke. Senior
lecturers of Arnhem Business School in 20067:
“That this special way of training does not always take place in a safe
environment, is probably obvious. If we want to prepare our students as
well as possible for their future professional career, we do that best when
we create the situations and atmosphere that reflects this professional
field.
This of course is not a safe environment, especially from the point of view
of business students. To re-create this business environment, with its
perils, culturally and personally, especially when there are forced (ethical)
decisions at stake, we do things the students do not expect.
Timisoara/ Arnhem
December 2009
7
http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%20wetenschappelijke
%20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf
Literature
Adler, N.J. , Doktor, R. & Redding, G.S. (1986) From the Atlantic to the Pacific
Century. Cross-cultural Management Reviewed, in: J. G. Hunt & J. D. Blair (Eds)
Yearly Review of Management of the Journal of Management 12 (1986).
Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1985) Verborgene Signale. Über den Umgang mit Japanern
(Hamburg).
Vinke. J ; “don’t try to motivate people, just try to reward their motives”, Master
thesis SHRM, 2001; available by author.