This chapter aimed to provide relevant literature regarding to intercultural context, intercultural competence, intercultural communication, the task and role for financial professionals and developmental methods for intercultural competences.
Intercultural
Over the past 30 years, numerous scholars have focused on a variety of aspects of intercultural content, such as selecting expatriates, cross-cultural adaptation and adjustment, intercultural communication, intercultural training development and global competence (Kim, 2001). Here, the study firstly gave definition of intercultural, and then reviewed recent trends in research approach.
Definition of Intercultural
In extant literature, some scholars consistently used cross-cultural to refer to interactions among people from different cultures, while others think cross-cultural and intercultural are interchangeable used. To date, the distinction between cross-cultural and intercultural is still not universally accepted, but a commonly accepted distinction between “cross-cultural” and
“intercultural” is that cross-cultural research involves comparative study in multiple cultures, whereas intercultural research involves in the study of people from different cultures who are interacting together (Jolene, Richard & Judith, 1993). According to Landreman (2003), intercultural is preferable used in present study because “inter” encompasses both domestic and international contexts and implies cultures interacting. Kim and Ruben (1992) also thought the term intercultural is not bounded by any specific cultural attributes. Thus, the term “intercultural” is preferred used rather than “cross-cultural” at present research. Since
7
the purpose of this research is not comparing two cultures, but studying people who encounter different cultures, the study adopted the term “intercultural” in the whole paper.
Recent Trends in Research Approach
There is an issue discussed in most intercultural research is that whether the study approach is from “culture specific” or “culture general” approach (Jolene et al., 1993).
Culture specific approach is based on specific ethnographies, an intercultural form of emic cultural analysis. Culture general approach describes general cultural contrasts that are applicable in many cross-cultural situations, is etic cultural analysis of intercultural research (Bennett, 1998).
Till to date, there are many scholars committed themselves to invest intercultural research either from culture specific approach or from culture general approach. The key point is that do not use the finding of study by members of specific cultures to generalize principles that applied to other cultures (Jolene et al., 1993).
Within culture specific approach, most of researches were investigated by western cultures. Nowadays, perspective from indigenous such as Arab, African, Latin American and China is booming. As Darla (2009) said, various perspectives of contexts becomes
foundational in understanding the true complexity of intercultural competence, thus how can future research and modeling of intercultural competence provide a more holistic and
contextualized juxtaposition of intercultural competence within larger societal and global issues (p. 266-268), the trend of future study will more likely to be culture general approach and integrate finding that can apply to larger societal and global issues.
Intercultural Competences
The paper firstly reviewed the terminology of competence and intercultural competence, mainly following the outcomes of previous research. Then, an attempt was made to combine
8
these outcomes into a more integrative framework of intercultural competence which fits into financial industry.
Competences
To get better understanding of the concept of intercultural competence, the researcher briefly explored the nature of competence firstly. According to Michelle (2008), McClelland (1973) was the first person to discuss and access competence. He thought competences were recognized as significant predictors of employee performance and success. It is equally important as tests scores or results of individual’s academic aptitude and knowledge contents.
Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) summarized many literatures (cited in Darla, 2004) on competence by noting that competence is an individual’s ability to adapt to changing
environmental and social conditions. Chen and Starosta (1996) observed that there remained a debate about whether competence refers to “performance” or “knowledge” or whether it refers to “inherent ability (trait)” or “learned ability (state).” Leanne, Helena, and Keith (2005) said competence is defined as outcomes, knowledge, skills and attitudes. It required for role performance, and assessed by a criterion, usually a behavioral standard. The researcher prefers the definition of competence by Michelle (2008) due to its holistic (pp. 4-5):
A competency is the capability of applying or using knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and personal characteristics to successfully perform critical work tasks, specific functions, or operate in a given role or position. Personal characteristics may be mental/intellectual/cognitive, social/emotional/attitudinal, and physical/psychomotor attributes necessary to perform the job.
In competence, there is a famous model developed by Spencer and Spencer (1993) called “iceberg model,” which divided competence into the “observable” and “invisible”
9
competence. Observable competences include technical knowledge and skill, and invisible competences relating to individual performance capability such as the self-concept, social roles and values, motives and personality traits. Through above review, one can see that the definition and concept of competence is complex.
Definition of Intercultural Competence
The complexity of competence shows the involution of intercultural competence.
Examining the terminology of intercultural competence begins to show the variations of perspectives. There are many different words that have been used as a synonym for intercultural competence: cross-cultural adaptation, intercultural sensitivity, multicultural competence, transcultural competence, global competence, cross-cultural effectiveness, international competence, global literacy, global citizenship, cultural competence,
cross-cultural adjustment, and intercultural communication competence (Darla, 2004, p. 32).
For purposes of this study, the term “intercultural competence” were be used, given to Kim and Ruben’s (1992) rationale for intercultural is not bounded by any specific cultural attributes.
What is intercultural competence? Kim (1992) looked it as an “adaptive capacity” and gave the definition of adaptability as “the individual’s capacity to suspend or modify some of the old cultural ways, and learn and accommodate some of the new cultural ways, and
creatively find ways to manage the dynamics of cultural difference/unfamiliarity, intergroup posture, and the accompanying stress (p. 377).” Chen and Strarosta (1999) said intercultural competence is “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors that negotiate each other’s cultural identity or identities in a culturally diverse environment (p.
28).” Bennett and Bennett (2001) referred it as “the ability to communicate effectively in cross-cultural situations and to relate appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts (p. 149).”
While there are some common notions about this concept, there is no clear consensus
10
among intercultural scholars. As a result, Darla (2004) held a 3-round Delphi technique study among intercultural experts and generated a top-rated definition of intercultural competence as “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes (p. 184).” The study adopted the definition of Darla because it integrated the definitions in extant literature and got high agreement among experts in Darla’s Delphi study.
Components of Intercultural Competences
The study further explored the components of intercultural competences. Paige (1993) noted that intercultural effectiveness is the major issue in the intercultural communication field, and it was influenced by six factors, which knowledge of target culture, one’s personal qualities (i.e., flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, sense of humor, openness), behavioral skills, self-awareness (i.e., one’s values and beliefs), technical skills (i.e., ability to accomplish tasks), and situational factors (i.e., clarity of expectations, psychological pressures).
Lustig and Koester (1993) proposed four approaches to researching intercultural communication competence, which were trait approach (i.e., personality), perceptual approach (i.e., attitudes, perceptions), behavior approach, and culture-specific approach.
Byram (1997) proposed five components of intercultural competence which are knowledge (knowledge of others and of social processes of social group and knowledge of self and of critical cultural awareness, which involves an ability to evaluate practices and products of one’s own and others’ cultures), skills (skills to interpret and relate; skills to discover and/or to interact), and attitudes (one’s values, beliefs and behaviors, and valuing others’ values, beliefs and behaviors, and Byram viewed attitudes as fundamental to intercultural
competence.
Spreitzer, McCall and Mahoney (1997) also proposed 14 components. They divided these into end-state skills and learning ability. The end-state skills include sensitivity to
11
cultural differences, ability to bring out the best in people, broad business knowledge, courage to take stand, acting with integrity, insightfulness, commitment to success, and risk taking. Learning ability includes openness to criticism, using feedback, seeking feedback, being cross-culturally adventurous, seeking opportunities to learn, and being flexible.
Caligiuri and Santo (2001) categorized global competence into three dimensions, which were ability (to change leadership style based on the situation, to transact business in another country), knowledge (of the company's worldwide business structure, of international
business issues, of an individual's network of professional contacts worldwide), and personality characteristics (increase openness, flexibility, and reduce ethnocentrism). They found that personality aspect cannot be developed through global assignments but ability and knowledge can, thus they suggested that the priority of companies is to select the person with certain personality that needed in global assignments rather than recruit people with ability and knowledge but without needed personality.
Bennett and Bennett (2001) thought intercultural communication is a process of how people adapt to other cultures. Additionally, they proposed two dimensions, mindset
(behavior) and skillset. Skillset is the ability to analyze interaction, predict misunderstanding, and fashion adaptive behavior. While mindset is a clear understanding about how to use cultural generalizations without stereotyping, the maintenance of attitudes such as curiosity and tolerance of ambiguity that acts as motivators for seeking out cultural differences, and one’s cultural self-awareness.
Jokinen (2005) integrated frameworks of literature, and proposed three dimensions later.
The first dimension is core of global leadership competencies, which is fundamental components, including self-awareness, engagement in personal transformation, and inquisitiveness. The second dimension is components affecting guiding people’s behavior, including optimism, self-regulation, social judgment skills, empathy, motivation to work in international environment, cognitive skills, and acceptance of complexity and its
12
contradictions. The third dimension is more explicit skills and tangible knowledge, including social skills, networking skills, and knowledge.
Combining Darla’s (2004) definition of intercultural competence, and components listed above, the researcher sorted these components into knowledge, ability, skill and other
characteristics, which well-known as KAOS. Knowledge consists of business knowledge, knowledge about general culture, knowledge about own cultural, and knowledge of target culture. Ability includes language proficiency, cross-cultural adaptability, negotiation
capacities, and conflict management. Skill includes interpersonal skills/networking skills and communication skills. Other characteristics include personality, behavior, and cognitive and attitude. Personality consists of curiosity for seeking out cultural differences, tolerance of ambiguity, open-mind, flexibility, willing to reduce ethnocentrism, pleasure of taking risks, empathy, optimism, using and seeking feedback, seeking opportunities to learn, courage to take stand, and openness to criticism. Behavior includes appropriate behavior in intercultural situations and intercultural adroitness. Cognition and attitude has cultural sensitivity, cultural self-awareness, be willing to step outside of their cultural comfort zone, global mindset, a clear understanding about how to use cultural generalizations without stereotyping, respect for other cultures.
Below, the researcher listed a table which summarized components proposed in reviewed literature.
13
Table 2.1
Summary of Components of Intercultural Communication in Extant Literatures
Dimension Components (proposed scholars)
Cognitive/
perceptual
Cultural sensitivity (Bennett & Bennett, 2001; Byram, 1997; Cant, 2004; Chen & Strarosta, 1999; Spreitzer et al., 1997)
Cultural self-awareness (Bennett & Bennett, 2001; Byram,1997; Cant, 2004; Darla, 2004; Paige, 1993)
Cultural consciousness (Byram,1997; Cant, 2004; Kim, 1992)
Be willing to step outside of their cultural comfort zone (Byram,1997;
Cant, 2004)
Global mindset. (Cant, 2004; Wiseman, 2002)
A clear understanding about how to use cultural generalizations without stereotyping (Bennett & Bennett, 2001)
Respect for other cultures (Darla, 2004)
Recognition of nonverbal message(Wiseman, 2002)
Personality Curiosity for seeking out cultural differences (Bennett & Bennett, 2001)
Tolerance of ambiguity (Bennett & Bennett, 2001; Koester & Olebe, 1989; Paige, 1993; Rakotomena, 2005)
Openness or open-mind (Caligiuri & Santo, 2001; Rakotomena, 2005;
Paige, 1993)
Flexibility (Caligiuri & Santo, 2001; Kim, 1992; Rakotomena, 2005;
Paige, 1993; Wiseman, 2002)
Willing to reduce ethnocentrism (Caligiuri & Santo, 2001) Pleasure of taking risks (Rakotomena, 2005; Spreitzer et al., 1997) Courage (Spreitzer et al., 1997)
Empathy (Jokinen, 2005; Rakotomena, 2005) Optimism (Rakotomena, 2005)
Using feedback (Spreitzer et al., 1997) Seeking feedback (Spreitzer et al., 1997)
Seeking opportunities to learn (Spreitzer et al., 1997) Courage to take stand (Spreitzer et al., 1997)
Openness to criticism (Spreitzer et al., 1997)
Behavior Appropriate Behavior In Intercultural Situations (Bennett & Bennett, 2001; Darla, 2004)
Intercultural Adroitness (Chen & Strarosta, 1999)
(Continued)
14
Table 2.1(continued)
Dimension Components (proposed scholars)
Display Of Respect (Koester & Olebe, 1989)
Knowledge Business knowledge (Caligiuri & Santo, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997) Knowledge about culture in general, (Darla, 2004; Rakotomena, 2005) Knowledge about own cultural (Byram,1997; Rakotomena, 2005) Knowledge of target culture (Byram,1997; Paige, 1993; Rakotomena, 2005)
Skill Skills to interpret and relate (Byram,1997)
Interpersonal skills/ networking skills (Byram,1997; Darla, 2004;
Jokinen, 2005; Spreitzer et al., 1997) Communication skills (Darla, 2004)
Ability Language proficiency (Bennett & Bennett, 2001; Darla, 2004) Ability to establish relationships (Wiseman, 2002)
Conflict management (Rakotomena,2005) Negotiation (Rakotomena,2005)
Cultural adaptability (Bennett & Bennett, 2001; Byram,1997; Cant, 2004; Darla, 2004)
Intercultural Communications
Intercultural communication is a broad concept. Communications which take place in intercultural contexts all include in this field. Through the definition of intercultural competence “the ability to communicate effectively in cross-cultural situations,” one can see that intercultural competence is a subcategory under intercultural communication. The intercultural expert Darla (2004) also stated that intercultural competence is often considered to be a subfield of communication competence since many of the issues are similar to both. Thus, the study discussed literature related to intercultural communications.
In order to gain a better understanding of the field of intercultural
communication, the researcher firstly clarified the distinctions among three terms, intercultural communication, intra-cultural communication, and international communication. These terms are often used interchangeably in intercultural
literature, while there are certain distinctions among them (Chaney & Martin, 2003).
Intercultural communication is generally conceptualized as communication between people from different cultures, and many scholars limited it to face-to-face communication (Gudykunst, 2002, p. 179). Myron and Jolene (1998) defined the term more specifically as “a symbolic, interpretive, transactional, contextual process in which the degree of difference between people is large and important enough to create dissimilar interpretations and expectations about what are regarded as competent behaviors that should be used to create shared meanings (p. 51)”.
Intracultural communication is defined as communication between members of the same culture or country, although they may have distinct cultural backgrounds, such as race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and distance. International communication takes place between nations and governments, rather than
intercultural and intracultural communication focus on the communication patterns
of individuals. It is formal and ritualized, such as the dialogue between Taiwan and Japan (Danielle, Julia, & Dawn, 2002; Chaney & Martin, 2003).
Given to the purpose of this study, the researcher adopted the term
“intercultural communication,” to focus on communication between people from different cultures.
Barriers in Intercultural Communications
In intercultural communication, barriers are the common obstacles people encountered. Communication barriers may cause ineffective communication.
Moreover, it may make you lose the deal in business cases. There are many communication barriers discussed in literature, such as attitude, high anxiety, tendency to evaluate, stereotype and perception, cultural difference (i.e., language, nonverbal behavior, and communication style), ethnocentrism, and nonverbal
misinterpretations (Barna, 1994; Bennett, 1998; Rober, 2002). Besides, Alder (2002) thought miscategorization, lack of culture awareness, subconscious cultural blinders, and projected similarity are the factors caused misunderstanding between cross cultural communication.
Chaney and Martin (2007) concluded nine categories of barriers in intercultural communication, which are a) physical: time, environment, comfort and needs, and physical medium; b) cultural: ethnic, religious, and social differences; c) perceptual:
viewing what is said from your own mindset; d) motivational: the listener’s mental inertia; e) experiential: lack of similar life happenings; f) emotional: personal feelings of the listener; g) linguistic: different language spoken by speaker and listener; h) nonverbal: non-word messages; i) competition: the listener’s ability to do other things rather than hear the communication.
Hiroko (1999) brought up a new concept, schemas, which are generalized
collection of knowledge of past experience which are organized into related
knowledge groups and are used to guide our behavior in familiar situations (Hiroko, 1999, p. 755). There are eight types of schemas, which are schemas of fact and concept, person, self, role, context, procedure, strategy, and emotion. Schema is a stereotypical conceptualization of a culture. Although it is easy to judge situations through schemas, the information is incomplete, thus may be a barrier to
intercultural communication.
The researcher further described the barriers which mention repeatedly in most extant literature as below, which include communication style, stereotypes and perception, and nonverbal language.
Communication Styles
Since the way we think and communicate is determined by culture and differ from culture to culture, in intercultural communication we should see contrasts in these styles of communication.
Basically, there are two kinds of style of habitual patterns of thought, which are linear and circular style. European Americans tend to use linear style that marches through point a, point b, and point c, establishes links from point to point, then states an explicit conclusion; while circular style is more like a contextual discussion that tell you everything you need to get that point. Africans, Latin, Arab, and Asian cultures are more like this style. Bennett (1998) thought, the strength of the former may be efficient, short-term task completion, while its limit is in developing inclusive relationship; the strength of the latter is its facilitation of building and consensual creativity, while its limits is slow (p. 13).
Another difference in communication style is direct style or indirect style to confrontation. The direct style prefers face conflict or problem directly, relatively
open expression of feelings, and a willing to give a certain answer to questions (Bennett, 1998). Indirect style tends to seek a third group as intermediaries to avoid direct confrontations and deal with dispute (Jandt, 2010). As different style of communication, barriers often take place in intercultural communication.
Stereotypes and Perceptions
Stereotypes is a broaden term referring to negative or positive judgments.
Stereotypes help people reduce the threat of the unknown situation, but have many negative effects, such as interfering to objective viewing of stimuli, and a false sense of understanding our communication partners (Jandt, 2010). Stereotypes are not easy to overcome because they are firmly established as myth or truisms by one’s own culture. They are selectively perceived and cause prejudices (Bennett, 1998).
However, stereotypes still have some advantage. According to Alder (2002), a stereotype becomes helpful when it is
Consciously held. People should be aware they are describing a group norm rather than the characteristics of a specific individual.
Descriptive rather than evaluation.
The stereotype should accurately describe the norm for the group to which the person belongs.
The first best guess about a group prior to acquiring information about the specific person or persons involved.
Modified based on further observation and experience with the actual people and situations (p. 81).
In conclude, stereotype may cause prejudice, or misunderstanding of one culture, but holding an accurate attitude and consciously holding stereotype, it may become helpful to one in a unfamiliar culture.
Nonverbal Language
Nonverbal communication includes all communication beyond the spoken or written word, such as tone, paralanguage, facial expression, gestures, eye contact, timing in spoken exchange, silence, space, appearance, and distance. Thus, some scholars have taken it as silent language. Nonverbal language is influenced by cultural background, or socioeconomic background. Even gender, age, or education will impact the usage of nonverbal language (Linda & Iris, 2003).
Jandt (2010) thought that nonverbal language has several functions. Firstly, it can replace spoken language. It can be used in situations which are difficult to use words or situations that is embarrassing to express in words. Secondly, it regulates interaction in communication, such as, the timing for one to talk in a conversation, or appropriate way to reply a conversation. Thirdly, it reveals the relationship among people in communication. For example, we can tell the relationship of a family through the order they sit in a Chinese family gathering. Lastly, it can reinforce and modify verbal messages. For instance, we may lean forward to show we are
interested in this conversation, or we may use hands or fingers to indicate the point we want to emphasis in a presentation.
The usage of nonverbal language is different in each culture; hence we need to
The usage of nonverbal language is different in each culture; hence we need to