Feedback ReportTHEINTERCULTURALEFFECTIVENESSSCALEG.docx

Feedback Report
THE
INTERCULTURAL
EFFECTIVENESS
SCALE
Group Name: MGMT 540 Fall Cohort B
Results for: SHYAM Bhanderi
ID: [email protected]
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
2
Contents
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
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
3
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
4
I. Your Intercultural Effectiveness Scores
Low Moderate High
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Continuous Learning
Self-Awareness
Exploration
Interpersonal Engagement
World Orientation
Relationship Development
Hardiness
Positive Regard

Emotional Resilience
Overall Intercultural Effectiveness Scale
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
5
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 [email protected]
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT

6
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
7
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
8
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
9
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
10
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
11
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
12
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
13
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
14
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT

15
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.●
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.).
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________

IES FEEDBACK REPORT
16
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
17
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.
World Orientation. Here are a few
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.●
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.
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
18
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
19
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.●
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.
Positive Regard. Here are a few
Learn to distinguish when stereotypes are helpful and not
helpful.●
Look for reasons that explain complex human behavior.●
_____________________________________________________

____________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
20
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.

IES FEEDBACK REPORT
21
Your Personal Development Plan
ELEMENT YOUR 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.

IES FEEDBACK REPORT
22
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.
IES FEEDBACK REPORT
23
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 www.intercultural.org/resources.php.
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
[email protected], or visit
www.kozaigroup.com
1
08 Fall
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.
2
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.
3
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;
4
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
AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCIES
DIMENSIONS IN THE GLOBAL
LEADERSHIP AND EXPATRIATION LITERATURES
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).
5
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.)

6
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 http://kozaigroup.com or
contact us at: [email protected]
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.
http://kozaigroup.com/
mailto:[email protected]
7
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

8
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.
9
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
10
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.
11
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.
12
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).
13
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.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE IES INVENTORY ITEMS AND
SCALES

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.
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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,
18
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-
19
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
20
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.
21
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.
22
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.

Feedback ReportTHEINTERCULTURALEFFECTIVENESSSCALEG.docx

Feedback ReportTHEINTERCULTURALEFFECTIVENESSSCALEG.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Feedback ReportTHEINTERCULTURALEFFECTIVENESSSCALEG.docx

Similar to Feedback ReportTHEINTERCULTURALEFFECTIVENESSSCALEG.docx (20)

More from mglenn3

More from mglenn3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Feedback ReportTHEINTERCULTURALEFFECTIVENESSSCALEG.docx