The role of cross-cultural absorptive capacity in the effectiveness of in-country cross-cultural training

International Journal of Training and Development 13:3 ISSN 1360-3736 The role of cross-cultural absorptive capacity in the effectiveness of in-count...
5 downloads 2 Views 189KB Size
International Journal of Training and Development 13:3 ISSN 1360-3736

The role of cross-cultural absorptive capacity in the effectiveness of in-country cross-cultural training Ibraiz Tarique and Paula Caligiuri Based on the theory of absorptive capacity, this study examines the following question. In the context of cross-cultural training, can the amount of previously accumulated cultural knowledge affect the ability of a trainee to absorb further learning about a new culture, thus enhancing total knowledge and presumably cross-cultural adjustment? In-country crosscultural training was hypothesized to be more effective when the training components are divided and the sessions are distributed over time – resulting in increased cultural knowledge and greater cross-cultural adjustment. Results from an experimental design suggested that in-country cross-cultural training can increase cultural knowledge, when distributed over time. The results also suggested that the training group had greater differences between pre-training and post-training scores on cross-cultural adjustment, but the differences were not statistically different. The results, methodology and conclusions can be generalized to a variety of populations (e.g. international managers and expatriates) and organizations (e.g. multinationals). For international managers and expatriates, the results showed that in-country cross-cultural training, like predeparture cross-cultural training, is also a viable intervention for knowledge acquisition. ijtd_324

148..164

❒ Ibraiz Tarique, Professor, Management Department, Lubin School of Business, Pace University, 1 Pace Plaza, 4th Floor, New York, NY, USA. Email: [email protected]. Paula Caligiuri, Professor, School of Management and Labor Relations, Department of Human Resource Management, Rutgers University, 94 Rockafeller Road, Janice Levin Building, Piscataway, NJ, USA. Email: [email protected] © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

148 International Journal of Training and Development

ijtd_324

148..164

Introduction In today’s complex and dynamic environment, multinational organizations compete on the competence of their core human talent across states, regions and countries. Increasingly, these core individuals, including all international managers and expatriates working outside of their own national borders, have collectively become vital for the success of multinational organizations. These international managers and expatriates fill important strategic, developmental and functional purposes such as solving staffing shortages in markets where there is an absence of qualified local candidates, transfering knowledge and corporate culture across geography, working on multinational teams, developing individual employees for international mobility and maintaining good communication, coordination, and control links between subsidiaries and corporate headquarters. International managers and expatriates face formidable challenges: they must succeed in an environment different from the one with which they are familiar. They must interact effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds – often in a different language. They must socially assimilate into a new culture – and if they are married with children, so must their family members. Individuals who are able to manage these challenges achieve cross-cultural adjustment and can flourish in their international experiences. Scholarly research that has been conducted in recent years suggests that individuals who are not prepared to confront these challenges often experience anxiety, depression, and hence incur, and impose on others, costly implications. For example, expatriate managers who are unable to adjust are more likely to prematurely terminate their job assignments, that is, return before completing their international assignment (Black et al., 1999; Briscoe et al., 2009; Caligiuri 2000a). Returning before completing their international assignment has costly implications for expatriates (e.g. low selfesteem), and organizations (e.g. lost business opportunities) (see Briscoe et al., 2009). Maladjusted expatriates who do not prematurely terminate their job assignments are more likely to perform poorly (Caligiuri, 1997; Harzing, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997). Thus, given the importance of cross-cultural adjustment for improving the success of international managers and expatriates, the adjustment process should not be (and need not be) left to chance. For these reasons, researchers and practitioners alike have been developing methods for increasing cross-cultural adjustment. Cross-cultural adjustment can be facilitated if the individual has an awareness of the norms and behavior that are appropriate in the host country (Black et al., 1999). Thus, many international organizations recognize the importance of cross-cultural training and increasingly use it to prepare individuals to live in a new country. Cross-cultural training has been advocated as a means of facilitating effective cross-cultural interactions and cross-cultural adjustment (e.g. Kealey & Protheroe, 1996; Littrell & Salas, 2005; Littrell et al., 2006; Morris & Robie, 2001). However, in the realm of academic research, studies that have examined the likely success of cross-cultural training have provided inconclusive results (Kealey & Protheroe, 1996; Puck et al., 2008; Waxin & Panaccio, 2005). The majority of these studies have been criticized for lacking theoretical justification, for having a number of serious methodological deficiencies and for examining the effectiveness of poorly designed cross-cultural training programs. To address these criticisms, the present study will test the impact of a theory-based in-country crosscultural training on cultural knowledge and on cross-cultural adjustment. We borrow from Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) notion of absorptive capacity to develop a theoretical model explaining how trainees learn or acquire cultural knowledge. Using this theory, we argue that training content should be delivered to trainees over time, or sequentially, after prior knowledge has been established to maximize participants’ learning during training. This study hypothesizes that the design of a cross-cultural training program, based on the notion of cross-cultural absorptive capacity (CCAC) theory, will lead to increased cultural knowledge and greater cross-cultural adjustment of trainees. In the subsequent sections, the theory will be described along with the methodology for selecting the sequencing of information for an in-country cross-cultural training program. Cross-cultural training effectiveness 149 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

CCAC theory The conceptual framework for this study is derived from Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) notion of absorptive capacity. Although Cohen and Levinthal view absorptive capacity as a firm level construct, their conceptualization is based on research in cognitive sciences at the individual level (e.g. the cognitive process of learning at the individual level). More specifically, Cohen and Levinthal base their absorptive capacity theory on Bower and Hilgard’s (1981) argument that memory development or the ability to put information into memory is self-reinforcing. That is, accumulated prior knowledge is necessary for new knowledge to be recognized, assimilated and utilized because ‘the more objects, patterns and concepts that are stored in memory, the more readily individuals acquire new information about these constructs and the better they are at using the information in new settings’ (Bower & Hilgard, 1981, p. 424). A cross-cultural setting is particularly suited to the application of this learning process because international managers and expatriates are often entering a foreign cultural context that they have no prior knowledge of. We borrow the term ‘absorptive capacity’ from Cohen and Levinthal, and build on Bower and Hilgard’s construct to argue that an individual’s ability to recognize new cultural knowledge, assimilate it and apply it in new crosscultural settings is dependent on his or her prior accumulated cultural knowledge. Furthermore, an individual’s learning of new cultural knowledge can vary with the magnitude of the individual’s prior accumulated cultural knowledge, that is, the larger the individual’s prior accumulated cultural knowledge, the greater the learning of new cultural knowledge. We refer to this as the CCAC.

Applying CCAC theory to cross-cultural training CCAC applied to the timing of cross-cultural training Based on CCAC, the timing of cross-cultural training delivery is a critical aspect of training effectiveness. With respect to the order and sequencing of training activities, past research on cross-cultural training has focused almost exclusively on examining the effectiveness of predeparture cross-cultural training (training provided prior to leaving the home country) because it has been the most widely utilized form of cross-cultural training used by organizations. Advocates of this predeparture crosscultural training argue that it allows individuals to enter the assignment already equipped with realistic expectations about living and working in a new country (see Selmer, 2001). Other studies, however, argue that although predeparture cross-cultural training may provide the trainee with greater confidence about being successful in the new country, predeparture cross-cultural training is conducted apart from the actual experience of realities in the host country (Black et al., 1999; Selmer et al., 1998). Thus, in-country cross-cultural training is likely to be more effective than predeparture cross-cultural training because individuals, after arrival in the new country, enhance their learning readiness by experiencing the host country’s culture, beliefs and values. Based on the CCAC theory, this study will examine the effectiveness of an in-country cross-cultural training program, using an experimental design. CCAC applied to the sequencing of cross-cultural training Although the CCAC theory advises the timing of cross-cultural training activities, it also advises the sequencing of training activities. Several studies have proposed that to maximize trainees’ learning to cross-cultural training, different types of training activities should be conducted at different times during an individual’s sojourn (Black et al., 1999; Selmer et al., 1998). Some studies have argued that effective cross-cultural training occurs when the training activities are aligned with the individual’s psychological predisposition occurring during the various phases of his/her adjustment process (Selmer et al., 1998). Other studies have proposed that cross-cultural training should be provided one month after an individual arrives in the new country (Black et al., 1999). Although these arguments differ with the specific timing of training activities, they 150 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

share a common notion that distributing cross-cultural training activities over a reasonable period of time maximizes trainee learning. This notion is consistent with the CCAC theory. The delivery of cross-cultural training based on CCAC Because CCAC theory relates to how individuals learn in a new culture, it provides general guidelines on the delivery of training activities to facilitate learning of cultural knowledge. When these principals are used to arrange training activities, the argument is that trainees would be able to develop an appropriate context into which subsequent cultural knowledge could be assimilated. A deductive approach to arranging training activities can help provide this context (Harrison, 1994). This approach is based on research in cognitive psychology and recommends that, in general, the arrangement of training activities should provide trainees with culture-general knowledge (e.g. how cultures vary) to prepare them for cross-cultural encounters in general, and should provide culture-specific knowledge to help them interact effectively within the specific culture (Harrison, 1994). Culture-general knowledge must precede culture-specific knowledge so that trainees may apply the general information (e.g. how cultures vary) with logic and reason to particular situations (e.g. a specific culture). In this manner, trainees’ prior accumulated cultural knowledge (how cultures vary) enhances their ability to learn new cultural knowledge (the understanding of a specific culture). Hypotheses based on CCAC Assuming that trainees follow the above-described deductive approach, the cultural knowledge provided to trainees is accurate and the cognitive associations they make are correct, trainees will increase their understanding of cultural knowledge. This leads to the following hypotheses: H1a: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in cultural-general knowledge than those receiving no training. H1b: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in cultural-specific knowledge than those receiving no training. H1c: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in work-specific knowledge than those receiving no training. Increase in cultural knowledge may influence the way individuals behave in the host country. Black and Mendenhall (1990), for example, have suggested that cultural knowledge helps participants gradually develop familiarity regarding expected norms and behavior in the new culture. This familiarity leads to less anxiety and culture shock, and, hence, would facilitate cross-cultural adjustment. Similarly, Bird et al. (1993) noted that ‘greater knowledge about a target country and its people fosters an emotive change in the trainee from apathy, or possibly antipathy, to empathy. The empathy brought through greater knowledge is presumed to lead to a variety of more adjustment behavior in the context of the foreign culture’ (p. 417). Thus, a function of cultural knowledge is to produce adjustment behavior that is appropriate in the host country. It is proposed that the increased cultural knowledge will help individuals develop behavior that will help them adjust to the general non-work environment (general non-work adjustment), adjust to interacting with people from different cultures (interaction adjustment) and adjust to working effectively with others (work adjustment): H2a: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in general non-work adjustment than those receiving no training. H2b: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in interaction adjustment than those receiving no training. H2c: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in work adjustment than those receiving no training. According to CCAC theory, an individual’s learning can vary with the magnitude of his/her prior accumulated cultural knowledge, that is, the larger the individual’s Cross-cultural training effectiveness 151 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

accumulated prior cultural knowledge, the greater the learning of new cultural knowledge. Distributing training activities over time, with appropriate time interval between the activities, allows trainees to experience the new culture in a variety of ways (e.g. interacting with people from the local culture), and allows them to sort out the many experiences and impressions of the host culture. Learning from these experiences enhances their accumulated cultural knowledge that, in turn, enhances their capacity to learn from later cross-cultural training activities. That is, their prior accumulated cultural knowledge is much greater than if there was no time interval between the crosscultural training activities. Therefore, relative to a cross-cultural training program with no time interval between training activities (e.g. continuous in-country cross-cultural training), a cross-cultural training program that includes a time interval between training activities (e.g. sequential in-country cross-cultural training) would lead to greater adjustment behavior in the host country. Assuming that trainees follow the proposed structure of training contents, the cultural knowledge provided to trainees is accurate and the cognitive associations they make are correct, it is hypothesized: H3a: Individuals receiving sequential in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in general non-work adjustment than those receiving continuous in-country cross-cultural training. H3b: Individuals receiving sequential in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in interaction adjustment than those receiving continuous in-country cross-cultural training. H3c: Individuals receiving sequential in-country cross-cultural training will report greater increase in work adjustment than those receiving continuous in-country cross-cultural training. The present study As mentioned earlier, Kealey and Protheroe (1996) found methodological deficiencies in cross-cultural training research, including: lack of control groups, no random assignment and no pre-training/post-training assessment of the dependent variables in question. Considering these findings, Kealey and Protheroe (1996) concluded, ‘it is impossible to take as definitive the general consensus of the literature that such training is effective’ (p. 141). More recently, Mendenhall et al. (2004) conducted a literature review of all studies evaluating cross-cultural training published from 1988 to 2000. They concluded that ‘the non-rigorous nature of the research designs of many of the evaluation studies summarized in this review renders a comprehensive conclusion regarding the efficacy or lack of efficacy regarding CCT impossible’ (p. 21). Consequently, on the basis of the above findings, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of cross-cultural training remains inconclusive until a controlled experimental design can be employed. This study, therefore, employs an experimental design to test the CCAC theory.

Method Subjects This study was conducted at a large state university located in the northeastern United States. The sample used in the study consisted of 40 newly enrolled international graduate student research assistants who had been in the United States for at least a month but not more than 6 months. Extending the usual orientation these students receive, students enrolled in the study for a chance to participate in training that might enhance their work performance through improved cultural understanding. A gift of $500.00 was given to one of the participants through a random drawing that took place at the end of the study. There were 19 (47 percent) females and 21 (55 percent) males. The mean age of participants was 26, the average age of females was 27, and the average age of males was 25. The ethnic background included India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Jordan, Germany, Japan, Pakistan, South Africa, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ghana and the Philippines. 152 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Development of a CCAC-based cross-cultural training program Table 1 summarizes the structure of the in-country cross-cultural training program we developed and used to test the proposed hypotheses. The program consisted of four modules: (1) self-assessment; (2) general cultural awareness; (3) US culture awareness; and (4) university environment. The first module consisted of a half-hour lecture and a short group discussion on factors that may influence one’s receptiveness to effective cross-cultural interactions, such as resistance to change, clear understanding of the purpose, value and benefits of studying at the university and the ability to manage stress (cf. Harrison, 1994). The second module helped trainees become familiar with the general dimensions on which most cultures differ, and the impact of these differences on international students. This module involved an hour of a simulation game on cultural clashes followed by a half hour of group discussion. The third module provided trainees with information on the US culture. During this hour-long module, participants received a lecture on US diversity, history, geography, climate, economy, political system, industrialization, attitudes, business attitudes and practices, manners, food, shopping and religion. Finally, the fourth module was designed to lecture trainees about the expectations of US professors, the appropriate classroom norms, diversity on campus and how to effectively interact with faculty, staff and other students. Two versions of the program were developed. Both versions were identical in terms of training content, training techniques, lesson plans and seating arrangements but differed with respect to the timing and sequencing of the modules. The first version was labeled ‘continuous cross-cultural training’ and offered the four modules in one 4-hour session. The other version was termed ‘sequential cross-cultural training’ and offered the four modules in two separate sessions of 2 hours each with an interval of 4 weeks between the sessions. Both versions were taught by a trainer who was a member of the international student services at the university. Experimental design, procedure and timeline A true randomized experiment with three conditions was developed and conducted to test the hypotheses (see Table 2). The dependent variables were cross-cultural knowledge and cross-cultural adjustment. Training design was the only independent variable in the design. The first condition involved an experimental manipulation consisting of the continuous cross-cultural training program, that is, participants received the first Table 1: Structure of the in-country cross-cultural training program Trainees Training goal

Training design Training content

Training Training Training Training

techniques duration timing effectiveness

Guiding theory

New international students Short term: increase knowledge and appreciation about the US culture and increase awareness of the skills required to be successful in the university Long run: facilitate adjustment to the US culture Deductive approach Integrated approach – four modules: Module #1: self-assessment Module #2: general cultural awareness Module #3: US culture awareness Module #4: university environment Integrated approach: lectures, discussions and simulations 4h 1 month after arrival Measured by a change that occurs after training in crosscultural knowledge and cross-cultural adjustment Cross-cultural absorptive capacity theory Cross-cultural training effectiveness 153 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Table 2: Experimental design, procedure and timeline Week

1–2 3

7 12–16

Pretest 1 (cross-cultural adjustment and cultural knowledge measures) CCT modules 1, 2, 3 and 4 Posttest 1 (cultural knowledge measures) CCT modules 1 and 2 CCT modules 3 and 4 Pretest 2 (cross-cultural adjustment measures)

Group 1 One session CCT n = 16

Group 2 Sequential CCT n=8

Group 3 Control group n = 16

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

CCT, cross-cultural training.

version of the training program. The experimental manipulation in the second condition involved the sequential cross-cultural training program, that is, participants received the second version of the training program. The experimental manipulation in the third condition involved no training. The experiment was conducted for a 16-week period. All the activities during the first 2 weeks related to the identification of the treatment and control groups, and pretesting of all participants. During this period, participants were recruited in three ways: (1) Flyers were distributed in residence halls and posted in student centers; (2) The center for international faculty and students informed new international students of the study; and 3) The author was provided a booth to recruit participants during the new student orientation event organized by the university. As a result of these recruitment efforts, 117 self-nominated students agreed to participate in the study and were provided with an informed consent form along with a pretest and a campus mail envelope. The pretest assessed a participant’s cross-cultural adjustment, the level of cultural knowledge and personal demographics. They were asked to complete and return the informed content form and the pretest within 2 weeks. Of the 117 possible participants in the study, 76 completed and returned the pretest (response rate of 64 percent). The 76 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: continuous crosscultural training (group 1, possible n = 25), sequential cross-cultural training (group 2, possible n = 25) and no training (group 3, possible n = 26). Participants were informed about their assignments through email and by telephone. Demographic data (age, gender, prior cross-cultural experience and knowledge of foreign languages) were analyzed to establish group equivalence. The analyses indicated no significant differences among the groups in any of the demographic variables. Pretest scores of the dependent variables also indicated that no significant difference among the three groups existed. All the activities during weeks 3 and 16 related to training and posttesting of participants. During week 3, the participants in group 1, the continuous training group, received the first version of the cross-cultural training program (four modules). Immediately after training, the first posttest was administered, which assessed the participants’ level of cultural knowledge. Questions on the first posttest were identical to those used in the pretest to examine a participant’s level of cultural knowledge. The participants were instructed not to discuss any aspect of their training session with participants of other groups. One day after group 1 received training, group 2, the sequential training group, received the first two modules of the training program and also completed the first posttest before the start of training, which assessed the 154 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

participants’ level of cultural knowledge. Questions on the first posttest were identical to those used in the pretest to examine participants’ level of cultural knowledge. During week 7, the participants in group 2 completed the final two modules of the training program and were asked not to discuss any aspect of their training session with the participants of other groups. During weeks 12–16, all the participants were mailed the second, and the final, posttest, which assessed the participants’ current cross-cultural adjustment, at that time, to the US culture. Questions were identical to those used in the pretest to examine the participants’ cross-cultural adjustment. Four weeks were allotted for the posttest questionnaire to be returned either by campus mail or the responses by email. After all the participants returned the posttest, the study was complete. All participants were debriefed by email about how the groups differed and were provided with the objective of the study. Final response rate for each group Of the 25 participants in group 1 who were initially scheduled for training, 19 attended training. Of these 19, 16 completed the posttest questionnaires; therefore, the final response rate for group 1 was 76 percent (n = 16). There were no significant differences between the participants and non-participants on any of the background measures and on the pretest scores of the dependent variables. Of the 25 participants in the second group who were scheduled for training, only 12 showed up and participated in the first training session, and of these 12, three did not show up in the second training session. Of the nine who participated in the second session, eight completed the posttests. This provided a final response rate of 32 percent (n = 8) for group 2. There were no significant differences between the participants and non-participants on any of the background measures and on the pretest scores of the dependent variables. Finally, of the 26 participants in the control group who completed the pretest, 16 returned the posttest. Hence, the final response rate for group 3 was 61 percent (n = 16). There were no significant differences between the participants and non-participants on any of the demographic variables and on the pretest scores of the dependent variables. Measures Demographics Age was assessed as the age reported by the participant. Nationality was assessed as the nationality reported by the participant. Experience of living in the United States was measured by the following self-reported item: ‘How long have you lived in the US?’ Fluency in English language skills was measured by the following self-reported item: ‘What is your level of fluency in English?’ The participants rated their ability on a 5-point scale: 1 = I am limited to very short and simple phrases; 2 = I know basic grammatical structure, and speak with a limited vocabulary; 3 = I understand conversation on simple topics; 4 = I am mostly fluent in this language; and 5 = I am fluent in this language. Foreign language was measured by asking the participant ‘How many language(s), (other than your mother tongue) can you speak?’ 1 = one, 2 = two, 3 = three and 4 = more than three. Cross-cultural adjustment Cross-cultural adjustment was measured using the socioculture adjustment scales developed by Black (1988) and Black and Stephens (1989). Some of the items were modified with Ward and Kennedy’s (1999) Sociocultural Adaptation Scales so the items could measure cross-cultural adjustment of international students in an academic environment. The items measured three facets of in-country cross-cultural adjustment: (1) adjustment to the general non-academic work environment; (2) adjustment to interacting with Americans; and (3) adjustment to academic work. The items asked the participants to rate, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), their degree of adjustment to living and working in their host national country (sample items: rate Cross-cultural training effectiveness 155 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

your adjustment to your living conditions in the United States, rate your adjustment to local cultural norms, rate your adjustment to interacting with Americans on campus and rate your adjustment to making friends). For both the pretests and posttests, the reliabilities of the three subscales were: ‘general adjustment’ alpha = 0.94, ‘interaction adjustment’ alpha = 0.92 and ‘work adjustment’ alpha = 0.94. Cultural knowledge The items were developed to assess cultural-general knowledge (how cultures vary), cultural-specific knowledge (facts about the US culture) and university-specific knowledge (facts about studying in an American university). The items were derived from commonly accepted theoretical definitions and were influenced by the work of Adler (2001), and Kohls (1996). Cultural-general knowledge was measured by a 10-item true/false knowledge test. Sample items include: When people talk about cultures, they tend to describe the differences and not the similarities and Feelings of loneliness and lack of confidence are common during the first few months of visiting another culture. The score on the cultural-general knowledge variable was calculated based on the number of correct responses that were made by each participant. For both the pretests and posttests, the interval reliability of the cultural-general knowledge measure was acceptable (average alpha = 0.81). Cultural-specific knowledge was also measured by 12 true/false items. Sample items include: The future is more highly valued by Americans than the present and Americans believe that all people are created equal. The score on the cultural-specific knowledge variable was calculated based on the number of correct responses that were made by each participant. For both the pretests and posttests, the interval reliability of the cultural-specific knowledge measure was acceptable (average alpha = 0.86). The university-specific knowledge was measured by six true/false items. Sample items include: The US education is highly centralized and the responsibility for education rests with the federal government and Americans dress very casually for classes. The score on the university-specific knowledge variable was calculated based on the number of correct responses that were made by each participant. For both the pretests and posttests, the interval reliability of the university-specific knowledge measure was acceptable (average alpha = 0.84). Analysis To control for type I error because of more than one dependent variable, a general linear modeling (GLM) analysis with repeated measures was used. Groups (continuous, sequential and control) constituted the between-subject variable, and timing (pretest and posttest) constituted the within-subject (repeated measure) variable. GLM analysis includes both multivariate and univariate tests of significance for the treatment factor. We first examined the test for the significance for the multivariate group effect, multivariate time effect and multivariate group ¥ time effect. If the multivariate group ¥ time effect was significant, then we discussed the univariate tests of significance for each of the dependent variables (Gardner, 2001).

Results1 To test for the first set of hypotheses (H1a–c), group 1 (continuous cross-cultural training) and group 2 (control group) were evaluated against one another. The first set of 1

A power analysis (Cohen, 1992) at the commencement of the study indicated that to detect medium effects, the relatively small sample sizes for this experiment may not be large enough to evaluate the statistical significance of small mean differences. Some researchers (e.g. Cohen, 1992) have suggested that one way to manage the problem of ‘small sample size – low statistical power’ is to relax the control of type I error as an additional way of increasing statistical power of an experiment. Cohen (1992) suggests that for exploratory research, which this study is, a less rigorous standard for rejection of the null hypotheses, such as a = 0.10, is appropriate. Therefore, we decided to increase the significance level from a = 0.05 to a = 0.10.

156 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

hypotheses (H1a–c) suggested that continuous cross-cultural training would result in increases in three types of knowledge: culture-general knowledge, culture-specific knowledge and work-specific knowledge. The results indicated a non-significant main effect for group (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 20] = 1.23, not significant [ns], h2 = 0.16, power = 0.28), that is, there were no significant group differences on any of the cultural knowledge variables. The results indicated a significant main effect for time (Pillai’s trace = 0.37, F [3, 20] = 4.01, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.37, power = 0.75). This effect indicates that the mean percentage correct on each of the three cultural knowledge measures collapsed across between-subject groups was not the same for the two testing occasions (pretest and posttest). More importantly a time ¥ group interaction (Pillai’s trace = 0.32, F [3, 20] = 3.22, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.32, power = 0.65) was significant. This indicated that differences in mean performance, on each of the three cultural knowledge measures, depended on whether participants were in the training or the no training group. In order to determine exactly which of the three cultural knowledge measures significantly differed over time (pretest and posttest), the univariate tests were conducted. These analyses revealed significant group ¥ time effects for all three cultural knowledge variables. For culture-general knowledge: F (1, 22) = 3.32, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.131, power = 0.41; for culture-specific knowledge: F (1, 22) = 3.50, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.137, power = 0.43; and for work-specific knowledge: F (1, 22) = 5.54, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.20, power = 0.61. Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the group ¥ time interaction for each of the three cultural knowledge measures, and the means and standard deviations of the three cultural knowledge measures. These results indicate that continuous cross-cultural training was effective in significantly increasing the trainees’ understanding of culturegeneral knowledge, culture-specific knowledge and work-specific knowledge. Therefore, the first set of hypotheses (H1a–c) was supported. To test for the second set of hypotheses (H2a–c), group 1 and group 2 were combined to form one cross-cultural training group. This cross-cultural training group was evaluated against group 3 (control group). The second set of hypotheses (H2a–c) suggested that participants in the cross-cultural training group would report greater adjustment than the control group. This pattern was hypothesized across three types of crosscultural adjustment: increased general adjustment, interaction adjustment and work adjustment. The results indicated no significant main effect for group differences on any of the cross-cultural adjustment measures (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F [3, 36] = 0.79, ns, h2 = 0.06, power = 0.20). However, the main effect for time approached significance (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 36] = 2.29, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.16, power = 0.53). This suggests that the three measures of cross-cultural adjustment significantly changed for participants in all groups between the pretest and the posttest period. A significant time ¥ group interaction (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 36] = 2.36, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.16, power = 0.54) was found, suggesting that the three groups, with respect to the cross-cultural adjustment measures, changed differentially. Subsequent univariate tests were conducted to determine which of the three cross-cultural adjustment measures significantly differed over time (pretest and posttest). These revealed non-significant group ¥ time effects on the three cross-cultural adjustment measures. To test for the third set of hypotheses (H3a–c), all three groups (group 1: continuous cross-cultural training, group 2: sequential cross-cultural training, group 3: control group) were evaluated against one another. The third set of hypotheses (H3a–c) proposed that participants who receive sequential cross-cultural training will report greater general adjustment, interaction adjustment and work adjustment than participants in the continuous group. The results indicated no significant main effect for group differences on any of the cross-cultural adjustment measures (Pillai’s trace = 0.11, F [6, 72] = 0.72, ns, h2 = 0.05, power = 0.27). However, the main effect for time approached significance (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 35] = 2.30, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.165, power = 0.53). This suggests that the three measures of cross-cultural adjustment significantly changed for participants in all groups between the pretest and the posttest period. The results indicated a non-significant group ¥ time interaction effect (Pillai’s trace = 0.11, F [6, 72] = 0.72, ns, h2 = 0.05, power = 0.27). Thus, hypotheses 3a–c were not supported. Cross-cultural training effectiveness 157 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Training group (n = 24)

Control group (n = 8)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Measure Culture-general knowledge Pretest Posttest Difference Culture-specific knowledge Pretest Posttest Difference

M

SD

M

SD

75.6 91.3 15.6 (20.7%)

14.1 8.9 14.6

76.3 80.0 3.8 (4.9%)

11.9 13.1 16.0

70.8 85.9 15.1 (21.3%)

13.3 16.0 15.3

77.1 78.1 1.0 (1.4%)

13.2 14.0 21.1

Work-specific knowledge Pretest Posttest Difference

80.4 22.7 83.9 11.9 92.9 10.4 75.0 14.8 12.5 24.9 – 8.9 7.4 (15.6%) (–10.64%) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Culture-general knowledge

Culture-specific knowledge

90

80

Means

90

Means

100

80

70

Group

Group

Training Control

70 Before training

After training

Training Control

60 Before training

After training

Work-specific knowledge 100

Means

90

80

Group Training Control

70 Before training

After training

Figure 1: Impact of cross-cultural training on cultural knowledge. Group ¥ time interaction for each of the three cultural knowledge measures: means and standard deviations. Figure 1 takes the analysis a step further and considers how cultural knowledge is related to cross-cultural adjustment. To examine this, correlations between group 1’s post-training cultural knowledge measures and their post-training cross-cultural adjustment measures were analyzed. Culture-general knowledge was found to be positively associated with general adjustment (r = 0.49, p < 0.05) and with interaction 158 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

adjustment (r = 0.50, p < 0.05). Interestingly, a positive association between culturalgeneral knowledge and culture-specific knowledge (r = 0.56, p < 0.05) was found. Another significant association of interest was the positive association between the fluency in the English language and interaction adjustment (r = 0.53, p < 0.05). Discussion, limitations and future research This study was designed to determine whether a theory-based, in-country crosscultural training program is effective in enhancing trainees’ cultural knowledge and in facilitating their cross-cultural adjustment. In addition, this study examined whether a theory-based, in-country cross-cultural training is more effective in facilitating trainees’ cross-cultural adjustment if the training sessions are distributed over a reasonable period of time. Impact of cross-cultural training on cultural knowledge The finding that cross-cultural training, of the design developed in this study, enhances cultural knowledge contributes to the cross-cultural training literature in several ways. First, this finding strongly supports conceptual and empirical research suggesting that cross-cultural training can provide important knowledge preparation for sojourners (Bird et al., 1993). Second, as noted by Kealey and Protheroe (1996), if a general conclusion can be drawn about predeparture cross-cultural training, it is probably that although the long-term impact of predeparture cross-cultural training is not clear, in the short-term, predeparture cross-cultural training does enhance trainees’ cultural knowledge (e.g. Bird et al., 1993). This study shows that in-country cross-cultural training, like predeparture cross-cultural training, is also a viable intervention for knowledge acquisition. Finally, this study provides support to the CCAC theory by showing that a CCAC-based cross-cultural training program, of the structure developed earlier, can increase the individuals’ understanding of cultural knowledge. Impact of cross-cultural training on cross-cultural adjustment Although in-country cross-cultural training increased the participants’ understanding of culture-general knowledge, culture-specific knowledge and work-specific knowledge, it did not have a significant effect on the participants’ cross-cultural adjustment. It is possible that the small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistically significant results, that is, the increased cultural knowledge yielded weak effects on cross-cultural adjustment but these effects failed to show significance. The smaller the sample size, the greater the treatment effect must be in order to achieve statistical significance (Keppel, 1991). Sequential cross-cultural training versus continuous cross-cultural training Concerning the effect of continuous cross-cultural training versus sequential crosscultural training, the results of the present study are not consistent with the previous cross-cultural training effectiveness research, which proposes that to maximize trainees’ receptiveness to cross-cultural training, training contents should be distributed among several sessions (Selmer et al., 1998). Although the pretest and posttest difference on work adjustment for the sequential cross-cultural training group was not significantly different, the trend certainly provides support to the argument that crosscultural training has a greater impact on work adjustment if cross-cultural training activities are distributed over time (see Figure 2). As with all studies, this study is not without its limitation. The present study used a student sample. Future studies should test the hypotheses using a sample of international assignees. As mentioned earlier, the small sample size is a clear limitation of this study, limiting statistical power. In particular, the number of the participants across the three different treatments is very small for any conclusions to be drawn. Because of the limited sample size, it is also problematic to introduce additional control variables to the analyses. Ideally, it is important to have a larger sample size. The effectiveness of cross-cultural training is worth reinvestigating with a larger sample. Closely related, Cross-cultural training effectiveness 159 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Control group (n = 16)

One session cross-cultural training (n = 16)

Sequential cross-cultural training (n = 8)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Measure General adjustment Pretest Postest Difference

Interaction adjustment Pretest Posttest Difference

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

3.1 3.3 0.2 (5.3%)

0.5 0.8 0.6

2.8 3.3 0.5 (16.9%)

0.8 0.6 0.8

3.0 3.2 0.2 (7.7%)

0.5 0.4 0.4

3.0 3.0 0.2 (7.9%)

0.8 1.0 0.6

3.0 3.2 0.2 (7.8%)

0.9 0.9 0.9

2.9 3.2 0.3 (8.1%)

0.8 0.6 0.7

Work adjustment Pretest Posttest Difference

3.3 0.7 3.0 0.9 3.0 0.8 3.3 0.8 3.1 0.9 3.5 0.7 –0.1 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 (–1.7%) (5.9%) (14.7%) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General adjustment

Interaction adjustment

3.4

3.3

3.3 3.2

Means

Means

3.2

3.1

3.1

Group

3.0

Group 3.0

Control

Control

2.9 One session

One session 2.9

Sequential

2.8 Before training

After training

Sequential

Before training

After training

Work adjustment 3.6

3.5

Means

3.4

3.3

3.2

Group 3.1 Control 3.0

One session Sequential

2.9 Before training

After training

Figure 2: Continuous cross-cultural training versus sequential cross-cultural training. Group ¥ time interaction for each of the three cultural knowledge measures: means and standard deviations.

160 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

the student sample raises a concern about generalizability. Theoretically, one would not expect substantial differences regarding the influence of cross-cultural training on cultural knowledge, but the impact of cross-cultural training on cross-cultural adjustment may vary with the type of population. Hammer et al. (1998) identified several differences between the student experience and the expatriate assignment (e.g. different intercultural situations and responsibilities, different motivations and expectations toward the international experience). Similarly, in a meta-analysis of studies of crosscultural training using a combination of both students and non-student samples, Deshpande et al. (1994) show that there are several differences between students and non-students in experience and familiarity with cross-cultural interactions. Future studies should test the CCAC training model with samples from different sojourn populations. Another limitation of this study is that it did not measure or examine potential moderators of the relationship between cross-cultural training and cross-cultural adjustment. Prior expatriate management research has indicated that cross-cultural adjustment and performance in a different cultural setting are because of various contributing and moderating variables. The impact of cross-cultural training on proximal and distal measures of training effectiveness may be moderated by individual characteristics (e.g. Caligiuri & Tarique, 2006) such as the big five personality traits (e.g. Funder, 2001), self-efficacy (e.g. Ford et al., 1992), relational skills, listening skills, resourcefulness (e.g. Arthur & Bennett, 1995), willingness to communicate, social orientation, tolerance of ambiguity (e.g. Black et al., 1999), prior experience in the foreign country (e.g. Waxin & Panaccio, 2005) and country of origin (e.g. Parker & McEvoy, 1993). Future research can examine how the personality trait of openness to experience moderates the relationship between cross-cultural training and cross-cultural adjustment. Several studies have shown that individuals high on openness to experience are more likely to establish interpersonal relationships with people from different cultures than those low on this trait (e.g. Caligiuri, 2000a,b; Herold et al., 2002). Openness to experience tends to increase an individual’s curiosity about one’s environment, and a willingness to explore new experiences (Herold et al., 2002). These individuals are likely to engage in new settings with a strong level of curiosity and a willingness to assess what is required to adapt to new and novel situations (Caligiuri, 2000a). In the context of this study, it is possible that some of the participants in this study had already been in the United States for 6 months, and those with strong adaptability power or openness to experience may have acquired cultural knowledge or adjusted to the US culture regardless of cross-cultural training. Another important task for future research is to examine the role of cultural distance (defined as the degree of cultural difference between the individual’s country of origin and host country [the United States in this study]) in influencing the relationship between cross-cultural training and cross-cultural adjustment. Prior research has shown that cultural background does make a difference (Waxin & Panaccio, 2005). The larger the cultural distance, the more difficult it would be for the individual to attend and retain the various models of appropriate skill/behavior (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). In a recent study, Waxin and Panaccio (2005) examined how different types of cross-cultural training are related to cross-cultural adjustment and whether or not prior international experience and cultural distance have a moderating effect on the effectiveness of cross-cultural training. Based on data from over 200 expatriates from several countries, Waxin and Panaccio (2005) suggest that the effect of cross-cultural training differs according to the expatriate’s country of origin. Taking our study and Waxin and Panaccio’s (2005) findings as a point of departure, it would be interesting for future research to probe into issues such as how cultural distance (at the individual level) facilitates or inhibits the learning of skills and behavior needed to live and work in a new culture. Finally, this study assessed the impact of in-country cross-cultural training on two criteria of training effectiveness. There are many types of criteria such as organizational commitment, interpersonal effectiveness, performance in the host country, self-development, job performance and self-confidence. Therefore, to avoid general Cross-cultural training effectiveness 161 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

conclusions about cross-cultural training effectiveness, future research needs to examine the impact of cross-cultural training on the various measures of training effectiveness. This is important because it cannot simply be assumed that what is true of one kind of relationship between cross-cultural training and a criterion of effectiveness will also hold for other types. Practical implications Although this study was conducted with a sample of university students, the population to which the theory should generalize is all potential international managers and expatriates. There are levels of criteria which range from the most general (i.e. applicable to all international managers and expatriates) to situation specific. Cross-cultural adjustment was used in this study because it is a general criterion relevant to all expatriate situations. Given the nature of the student sample, the effect of spouses and families on the expatriates’ adjustment was not assessed. Certainly, the adjustment of expatriates’ spouses and families would be a salient factor in a working sample. Future work in this area should attempt to replicate the results for larger samples in a variety of expatriate situations. In addition, the finding that a limited time cross-cultural training increases cultural knowledge can provide valuable data to international managers (in multinational organizations) who face the dilemma of lack of time to deliver relevant cross-cultural training, knowing its importance to some expatriates yet having always to justify its costs to management. Two specific recommendations are offered. First, the provision of increasing the cultural knowledge of individuals is a goal of virtually all cross-cultural training programs. Therefore, the cross-cultural training program developed in this study provides a training foundation for organizations to build upon. For example, based on the performance goals for expatriate assignments, Caligiuri (2006) has suggested a classification of global assignments into four categories: (1) technical, (2) functional/tactical, (3) developmental/high potential, and (4) strategic/executive. These four categories represent the different types of global assignments most common in multinational organizations. The technical assignment requires only minimal interaction with host nationals and is in an organizational setting fairly typical to the setting of the home country. The functional assignment is similar to the technical assignment with one distinct difference – significant interactions with host nationals are necessary in order for the assignment to be deemed successful. Expatriates on developmental assignments are usually sent for a short period of time to gain some international exposure and experience. The strategic assignments include high-profile employees (e.g. vice presidents) who are being groomed to move into higher levels of management in the near future. Cross-cultural training programs of the structure developed in this study are ideal for people sent on a technical assignment, but the cross-cultural training program can be expanded to fit each of the other three types of assignments. It can be made moderately rigorous for people sent on functional/tactical assignments and can be made extremely rigorous for developmental and strategic assignments. In sum, the cross-cultural training program of the structure developed in this study can be expanded and enhanced through the ‘rigorousness’ process and, hence, can help organizations with developing the appropriate type of cross-cultural training needed for the four types of global assignments. Second, organizations expect expatriates who participate in cross-cultural training programs to apply the acquired cultural knowledge to their global assignments. That is, organizations expect specific performance improvements from cross-cultural training. However, as mentioned earlier, in the realm of academic and applied research, studies that have examined the likely success of cross-cultural training have shown that crosscultural training programs have failed to meet those performance improvement needs. The failure of cross-cultural training to produce a significant change in cross-cultural adjustment and in performance on the global assignment results in the classical ‘transfer of training problem’, which is defined as the failure of the trainee to effectively and continually apply the knowledge and skills gained in training to his/her job (Burke & 162 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Hutchins, 2007; Saks & Belcourt, 2006). It is well known in the domestic training literature that training content often does not transfer to the actual work setting (Saks & Belcourt, 2006). It is possible that learning from cross-cultural training is related to cross-cultural adjustment through transfer of learning. Organizations need to realize that cross-cultural training alone may not always improve cross-cultural adjustment. Organizations should consider using targeted post-training interventions (e.g. Broad, 2005) that would enhance transfer and facilitate cross-cultural adjustment. Such interventions may include post-training mentoring, post-training coaching and language training. Finally, prior research (e.g. Caligiuri, 2000b; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2006) suggests that an expatriate’s interaction with people from the local culture facilitates his/her transfer of learned capabilities; then, it is important for organizations to realize that its support of an expatriate will extend past the boundaries of the work environment. In addition to providing cross-cultural training to the expatriate, organizations should consider offering other types of support services, such as social events that would provide expatriates with opportunities to interact with people from the local culture. In conclusion, the above findings provide preliminary support for the theoretical cross-cultural training model. It must be acknowledged, however, that this study represents only an exploratory investigation of an otherwise complex causal relationship. As such, it establishes a base theoretical model and some preliminary evidence upon which subsequent work can be developed. Further analysis should concentrate on developing a more generalized model that includes other contingent influences. References Adler, N. (2001), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western). Arthur, W. and Bennett, W. (1995), ‘The international assignee: the relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success’, Personnel Psychology, 48, 99–114. Bird, A., Heinbuch, S., Dunbar, R. and McNulty, M. (1993), ‘A conceptual model of the effects of area studies training programs and a preliminary investigation of the model’s hypothesized relationships’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 415–35. Black, J. (1988), ‘Work role transitions: a study of American expatriate managers in Japan’, Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 277–94. Black, J. and Mendenhall, M. (1990), ‘Cross-cultural training effectiveness: a review and a theoretical framework for future research’, Academy of Management Review, 15, 113–36. Black, J. and Stephens, G. (1989), ‘The influence of the spouse on American expatriate adjustment and interest to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments’, Journal of Management, 15, 529–74. Black, J., Gregersen, H., Mendenhall, M. and Stroh, L. (1999), Globalizing People through International Assignments (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley). Bower, G. and Hilgard, E. (1981), Theories of Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Briscoe, D., Schuler, R. and Claus, L. (2009), International Human Resource Management, 3rd edn (New York: Routledge). Broad, M. (2005), Beyond Transfer of Training: Engaging Systems to Improve Performance (San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer). Burke, L. and Hutchins, H. (2007), ‘Training transfer: an integrative review’, Human Resource Development Review, 6, 263–96. Caligiuri, P. (1997), ‘Assessing expatriate success: beyond just being there’, in D. Saunders and Z. Aycan (eds), New Approaches to Employee Management: Vol. 4, Expatriate Management: Theory and Research (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 117–40. Caligiuri, P. (2000a), ‘The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate success’, Personnel Psychology, 53, 67–88. Caligiuri, P. (2000b), ‘Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: a moderating effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural adjustment’, Management International Review, 40, 61–80. Caligiuri, P. (2006), ‘Performance measurement in a cross-national context: evaluating the success of global assignments’, in W. Bennett, D. Woehr and C. Lance (eds), Performance Measurement: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges (London: Routledge), pp. 227–44. Caligiuri, P. and Tarique, I. (2006), ‘International assignee selection and cross-cultural training and development’, in I. Björkman and G. Stahl (eds), Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management (London: Edward Elgar Publishing), pp. 302–22.

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 163 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cohen, J. (1992), ‘A power primer’, Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–9. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52. Deshpande, S., Joseph, J. and Viswesvaran, C. (1994), ‘Does use of student sample affect results of studies in cross-cultural training? A meta-analysis’, Psychological Reports, 74, 778–85. Ford, J., Quinones, M., Sego, D. and Sorra, J. (1992), ‘Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job’, Personnel Psychology, 45, 511–27. Funder, C. (2001), ‘Personality’, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221. Gardner, R. (2001), Psychological Statistics using SPSS for Windows (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Hammer, M., Hart, W. and Rogan, R. (1998), ‘Can you go home again? An analysis of the repatriation of corporate managers and spouses’, Management International Review, 38, 67–86. Harrison, J. (1994), ‘Developing successful expatriate managers: a framework for the structural design and strategic alignment of cross-cultural training programs’, Human Resource Planning, 17, 17–35. Harzing, A. (1995), ‘The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 457–75. Herold, D., Davis, W., Fedor, D. and Parsons, C. (2002), ‘Dispositional influences on transfer of learning in multistate training programs’, Personnel Psychology, 55, 851–70. Kealey, D. and Protheroe, D. (1996), ‘The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: an assessment of the literature on the issue’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 141–65. Keppel, G. (1991), Design and Analysis. A Researcher’s Handbook (Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall). Kohls, L. (1996), Survival Kit for Overseas Living, 3rd edn (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press). Littrell, L. and Salas, E. (2005), ‘A review of cross-cultural training: best practices, guidelines, and research needs’, Human Resource Development Review, 4, 3, 305–34. Littrell, L., Salas, E., Hess, K., Paley, M. and Riedel, S. (2006), ‘Expatriate preparation: a critical analysis of 25 years of cross-cultural training research’, Human Resource Development Review, 5, 355–88. Mendenhall, M., Stahl, K., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Osland, J. and Kühlmann, T. (2004), ‘Evaluation studies of cross-cultural training programs: a review of the literature from 1988–2000’, in D. Landis and J. Bennett (eds), The Handbook of Intercultural Training (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 129–44. Morris, M. and Robie, C. (2001), ‘A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cultural training on expatriate performance and adjustment’, International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 112–26. Ones, D. and Viswesvaran, C. (1997), ‘Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success’, in D. Saunders and Z. Aycan (eds), New Approaches to Employee Management: Vol. 4, Expatriate Management: Theory and Research (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 63–92. Parker, B. and McEvoy, G. (1993), ‘Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 355–79. Puck, J., Kittler, M. and Wright, C. (2008), ‘Does it really work? Re-assessing the impact of pre-departure cross-cultural training on expatriate adjustment’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 2182–98. Saks, A. and Belcourt, M. (2006), ‘An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organizations’, Human Resource Management, 45, 629–48. Selmer, J. (2001), ‘The preference for predeparture or postarrival cross-cultural training – an exploratory approach’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 50. Selmer, J., Torbiorn, I. and De Leon, T. (1998), ‘Sequential cross-cultural training for expatriate business managers: predeparture and post-arrival’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 831–40. Ward, C. and Kennedy, A. (1999), ‘The measurement of sociocultural adaptation’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 659–77. Waxin, M. and Panaccio, A. (2005), ‘Cross-cultural training to facilitate expatriate adjustment: it works!’ Personnel Review, 34, 51–67.

164 International Journal of Training and Development © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Suggest Documents