Training Cross-Cultural Competence in Organisations
-A Qualitative and Cultural Intelligence Based Evaluation of ECCO’s Cross-Cultural Training Programme
Anne Tværsig Olesen
10th semester, Communications
Thesis supervisor: Søren Frimann Trads
Resumé I kraft af globaliseringen og den øgede internationalisering af arbejdsmarkeder og arbejdspladser er det i stigende grad afgørende for virksomheder at have kompetente medarbejdere, som kan tilpasse sig og agere i forskelligartede kulturer. Dette er især aktuelt for internationale virksomheder, der udstationerer medarbejdere i længere perioder – de såkaldte expatriates eller expats. For at forberede medarbejderne på udstationering, og dermed øge muligheden for at udstationering bliver en succes, tilbyder virksomheder i stigende grad kurser, som træner medarbejdernes tværkulturelle kompetencer. Træning af tværkulturelle kompetencer kaldes på engelsk cross-­‐cultural training (CCT), og det er dette felt, der udgør omdrejningspunktet i specialet. I problemfeltet argumenteres der for, at CCT er en effektiv måde at forberede medarbejdere på udstationering, da det er påvist, at CCT bl.a. fremskynder udviklingen af tværkulturelle kompetencer, øger tværkulturel tilpasning og forbedrer medarbejdernes generelle præstation. Det er derimod vanskeligt at evaluere effektiviteten af de mange forskelligartede CCT programmer. Det skyldes, at tværkulturelle kompetencer og tilpasning i sig selv er et komplekst emne, og derudover er det vanskeligt at sammenligne CCT programmer, idet træningen tilgås på mange forskellige måder, benytter forskellige metoder og arbejder med forskellige konceptualiseringer af begrebet succes. På trods af vanskelighederne med at evaluere CCT programmer, så er det netop afgørende at lave sådanne evalueringer for at afgøre værdien af CCT og forbedre CCT programmer. Dette speciale udgør således en kvalitativ evaluering af det tredages CCT seminar, som den danske skoproducent ECCO udbyder til nyansatte trainees. Den metodiske tilgang til evalueringen af ECCO’s CCT seminar består i indsamlingen af empirisk data: kvalitative interviews med to ECCO medarbejdere, CCT træneren og ni trainees, som deltog i seminaret. Herudover en teoretisk ramme bestående af teorier om socialkonstruktionisme, kultur, kommunikation, læring og konceptet kulturel intelligens (CQ). CQ konceptet blev udviklet af Earley og Ang i 2003 og beskriver den intelligens, dvs. de kognitive, motivationelle og adfærdsmæssige kompetencer, som kulturel tilpasning kræver. Derudover giver CQ-­‐konceptet en række retningslinjer for design af CCT programmer. Samlet set udgør den teoretiske ramme forståelsen af feltet, og sammen med empirien danner den basis for at evaluere seminarets program, dets tilgang til CCT og de forskellige trainees’ udbytte af seminaret. Empirien og teorierne danner grundlag for fire former for evaluering af seminaret: 1)
2)
3)
4)
Evaluering af seminarets læringspotentiale Evaluering af deltagernes udbytte af seminaret Evaluering af seminarets evne til at forberede deltagerne på udstationering Evaluering af seminarets evne til at opnå ECCO’s og trænerens mål med seminaret I kraft af analysen og fortolkningen af den indsamlede empiri kan det konkluderes, at seminaret havde et stort læringspotentiale i forhold til kulturel, personlig og interpersonel læring. Dette skyldtes bl.a., at alle tre facetter af CQ bliver trænet via en integreret tilgang, som kombinerer informationelle og erfaringsmæssige metoder. Det evaluerede læringspotentiale stemmer i vid udstrækning overens med det udbytte, de forskellige trainees udtrykte, de havde fået af seminaret. Dette udbytte bestod bl.a. i øget selvindsigt, generel og specifik viden om kulturer, forståelse for kulturforskelle og en strategi for at tilpasse sig nye kulturer. I forhold til de sidste to evalueringer viser analysen og fortolkningen, at de fleste trainees følte, at seminaret gjorde dem klar til udstationering, og dermed opnåede seminaret sit primære mål. Øvrige mål omhandlede, at seminaret gav deltagerne kulturspecifik viden, øget selvindsigt og øget motivation for udstationering. Disse mål gav de ni traineeinterviews samlet udtryk for, at seminaret havde opnået. Samlet set kan det konkluderes, at seminaret via sit omfang af metoder, sin tilgang og sit internationale læringsmiljø udgør et omfattende CCT program, der øger deltagernes kulturelle, personlige og interpersonelle forståelse. Samtidig giver analysen og fortolkningen anledning til en række forbedringsforslag til seminaret. Disse forslag omhandler overordnet set et større fokus på kulturel læring i forhold til personlig læring, mere fokus på kulturgenerel information samt øget fokus på metakommunikation om seminarets læringsaspekter og begrænsninger. Disse forslag skulle øge deltagernes forståelse af, at seminaret kan forberede dem på hele traineeperioden – og ikke kun første udstationering – samt gøre dem mere motiverede for at lære af seminaret og lære i selve udstationeringsperioden. Table of Contents Problem Area 1 Problem Formulation 4 Social Constructionism 6 The Concept of Culture 9 -­‐ Rohner’s Culture Concept 9 -­‐ Social System and Culture 10 -­‐ Society, Social System and Culture 11 -­‐ Summary 12 13 Model of Communication -­‐ The IMK-­‐model Learning 14 18 CQ – Cultural Intelligence 21 23 24 25 27 -­‐ Cognitive CQ -­‐ Motivational CQ -­‐ Behavioural CQ -­‐ Summary CQ’s Approach to CCT -­‐ Five General Approaches to CCT -­‐ Additional Methods -­‐ Designing CCT Programmes -­‐ Summary Method -­‐ Data Collection -­‐ Interview Subjects -­‐ Data Analysis and Interpretation Analysis – Part One -­‐ The EITE Programme -­‐ Recruitment Requirements -­‐ Objectives with the Seminar 28 29 31 32 37 38 38 39 41 42 42 43 44 -­‐ Teacher’s Approach to CCT -­‐ Seminar’s Programme Design Dorte’s Presentation Exercises Country Presentations Film on Emotional Intelligence Feedback Sessions Role-­‐play by Trainees Interpretation of Analyses – Part One -­‐ Evaluation of Programme Design -­‐ Teacher’s Approach to CCT -­‐ Recruitment -­‐ Summary -­‐ Trainees’ Evaluation of Design and Approach -­‐ Summary Analysis and Interpretation – Part Two 45 48 48 49 50 50 50 53 53 54 54 57 60 60 -­‐ Summary of Outcomes -­‐ Individual Needs -­‐ Prepared for Expatriation -­‐ Additional Information 62 62 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 71 72 73 76 76 77 -­‐ Learned and Applied Knowledge Culture Theory Emotional Intelligence Country Presentations Simulations Role-­‐play by Trainees Cases Discussions Hot-­‐seat Personal Feedback Teacher’s Approach -­‐ Suggestions for Improvements Discussion 79 Conclusion 81 Bibliography -­‐ Online Sources Articles Websites 83 83 85 85 86 14 -­‐ Books Table of Figures Figure 1: The IMK-­‐model Figure 2: The IMK-­‐model applied to ECCO’s CCT seminar 15 Figure 3: The complex learning model 19 Figure 4: Elements of cultural intelligence 22 Figure 5: Designing a cross-­‐cultural training programme 34 Figure 6: Detailed structure of CQ training levels 35 Figure 7: Training methods and cultural intelligence 36 Figure 8: Overview of interviewed trainees 40 Figure 9: The dichotomies of the MBTI’s personality typologies 44 Figure 10: Culture dimensions from ECCO’s CCT seminar 46 Figure 11: Culture shock – phases of expatriation and re-­‐entering 51 Figure 12: Coping strategies for culture shock 52 Contents of Memory Stick – Appendices and Audio Files App. 1 – Assessing CQ using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) App. 2 – ECCO trainee handbook App. 3 – EITE manual 2011 App. 4 – PowerPoint for ECCO’s CCT Seminar 2011 App. 5 – Interview guide Bente App. 6 – Interview guide Henrik App. 7 – Interview guide Dorte App. 8 – Interview guide trainees App. 9 – Role-­‐play w. green and blue cards App. 10 – Task; personal norms and values App. 11 – Self-­‐assessment example App. 12 – ECCO case; China App. 13 – Gesteland case; A Woman Negotiating in with Koreans App. 14 – Gesteland case; Dane Negotiating in Southern Europe App. 15 – Trainee presentation example App. 16 – Culture shock slides App. 17 – Feedback slides Aud. A – Bente Aud. B – Henrik Aud. C – Dorte Aud. D – Adam Aud. E – Ann Aud. F – Mads Aud. G – Mette Aud. H – Nicholas Aud. I – Rikako Aud. J – Sophia Aud. K – Tommy Aud. L – Yinan Problem Area In 2000, Richard Brislin – a professor of management and author of several books on cross-­‐
cultural training – wrote: Everyone can make with certainty three predictions about the 21st century. These are that people will continue to experience death, will continue to be taxed, and will continue to experience extensive intercultural contact (Brislin, 2000: 196). Globalization is what prompted Brislin’s statement and made increased intercultural contact a certainty in the 21st century. We increasingly communicate, travel and trade across national and geographic boundaries, and although intercultural contact is arguably not as gloomy or troublesome a phenomenon as death or taxes, it does, however, pose challenges: Challenges in understanding, in communicating and cooperating with “others”. These challenges in intercultural contact are caused by our differences, and – as the name of the phenomenon suggests – we tend to ascribe our differences to our cultural backgrounds (Askehave & Norlyk, 2006: 7). Cultural differences and similarities have been studied for thousands of years by Western and Eastern civilizations, but with globalization prompting an urge to understand the relevance of cultural differences, research within the field has peaked in the past decades (Earley, 2006: 922). Especially the amount of research dedicated to cross-­‐cultural issues in the workplace and cross-­‐cultural training has surged since the 1990s (Littrell & Salas, 2005: 305). With the internationalisation of business and cultural diversification of workplaces, companies have come to struggle with “national, regional, and local differences among their employees, shareholders, and customers” (Earley et al., 2006: vii). Therefore, it has become increasingly important for companies to have competent employees “who possess the necessary skills and expertise to understand, communicate and cooperate with people who in various ways and to varying degrees are different” (Askehave & Norlyk, 2006: 7). As employees do not necessarily possess these skills or expertise, companies can either recruit competent employees or educate employees through cross-­‐cultural training (CCT). Although CCT is, arguably, relevant for all employees working in international settings, it is primarily applied in relation to expatriation1 of employees. It is this aspect – the cross-­‐cultural training of expatriates – I will focus on in this thesis. Since the 1970s, researchers within the 1
An expatriate is an employee who is sent to live and work abroad for a defined period time (Financial Times Lexicon, 2013). 1 field of International Human Resource Management have emphasised CCT’s ability to minimize expatriate failure. More specifically, they have emphasised the vital importance of organisations providing “comprehensive, strategic, country-­‐specific programmes of preparation for expatriates […] if the costs of expatriate failure for organizations and expatriates are to be minimized and cross-­‐cultural capability achieved” (Joshua-­‐Gojer, 2012: 50). Failed expatriation is a costly affair for companies, and as the overall purpose of CCT is to improve an expatriate’s probability of success on the foreign assignment (Littrell & Salas, 2005: 307-­‐308), CCT seems the obvious method to avoid failure. Researchers, however, have not yet been able to provide conclusive, empirical evidence substantiating CCT’s effectiveness on expatriate assignment. What researchers have been able to substantiate empirically is that CCT is critical to cross-­‐cultural interaction, enhances cross-­‐
cultural adjustment, quickens the development of cross-­‐cultural competence, and adds to the overall performance (Ko & Yang, 2011: 162). That CCT’s effectiveness on expatriate assignment remains inconclusive is due to the challenges which researchers face, when trying to compare and evaluate CCT. Firstly, comparing results across studies is very difficult because of the many operational, but floating definitions regarding success and failure (Joshua-­‐Gojer, 2012: 52). Secondly, evaluating the effectiveness is not only a challenge for researchers, but for providers, clients and other stakeholders as well, because of “the complexity of the subject and the wide range of approaches, models and styles of learning” employed in CCT (Joshua-­‐Gojer, 2012: 47). Furthermore, as there exists no certification of trainers (Szkudlarek, 2009: 976), no general guidelines for working with trainers and designing programmes (Joshua-­‐Gojer, 2012: 47), and consequently, no standardised form of CCT; one could argue that it becomes a moot point to make a conclusive, general evaluation of CCT’s effectiveness. In the past years, CCT has gained mainstream acceptance (Lang, 2004), and it is estimated that more than 60 percent of multinational companies 2 offer some form of CCT in relation to expatriation (Littrell & Salas, 2005: 307). What then becomes relevant for researchers and these companies to determine in relation to CCT’s effectiveness is, whether the CCT they provide is effective. Some researchers argue that CCT will be effective “if it takes into account the cultural transition for the expatriate as well as the short term and long term goals of the organization” (Joshua-­‐Gojer, 2012: 51). Others argue that the effectiveness of a CCT programme is primarily determined by its ability to narrow the gap between an expatriate’s expectations and reality, and, thereby, giving the expatriate a realistic perspective of the challenges ahead, both at work and outside work (e.g. Sylvain, 2012; Joshua-­‐Gojer, 2012: 54). 2
It is unclear whether the estimates only concern US multinational corporations (MNCs) or MNCs in general. 2 The effectiveness of CCT is – however one defines it – not easily determined, but it is in any case dependent on individual abilities for learning, adapting and applying knowledge in cross-­‐
cultural encounters. These individual abilities are captured by Christopher Earley and Soon Ang (2003) in their concept of cultural intelligence (CQ). Their CQ framework is one of the latest approaches to CCT, and it particularly focuses on intercultural adaptation and intercultural understanding in a work context. I will use the concept of CQ as the theoretical basis for analysing and evaluating the case presented in this thesis: ECCO’s CCT programme. 3 Problem Formulation ECCO is a Danish multinational shoe manufacturer and retail company employing over 20.000 people with more than 50 different nationalities (ECCO, 2013a). ECCO partly recruits through trainee programmes, and these trainee programmes – particularly the EITE programme, which I focus on here – involve expatriation to sales and production units outside of Denmark. During the one-­‐month introduction period at ECCO’s headquarter in Denmark, the trainees are given three days of CCT to prepare them for their expatriation. It is this CCT seminar3 that I will examine here. My thesis, consequently, falls under the category of organisational communication. As I base the examination of ECCO’s CCT seminar on qualitative interviews, the thesis can be described as a qualitative case study. Through interviews with the trainer of the CCT programme and the two HR-­‐employees responsible for recruiting and training trainees, I will ascertain the goals with the CCT programme as well as the contents of it. Through interviews with nine trainees, I will evaluate the CCT programme and seek to determine the outcomes. This includes what the trainees gained from the programme, what learned knowledge they applied during their expatriation, and whether the programme sufficiently prepared them for their expatriation. Furthermore, I will use the interviews as well as information about the trainee programme to describe the specific conditions of the trainees’ expatriation and role in the ECCO organisation. These conditions are important to describe, as they greatly influence what information and training the trainees need to effectively fill their roles as both ECCO trainees and expatriates. The thesis’ theoretical framework provides an understanding of concepts and processes that are essential to CCT, i.e. knowledge production, culture, communication and learning. Together with the CQ framework, these theories and the empirical data constitute my basis for analysing and evaluating ECCO’s CCT programme. Where the empirical data will give a subjective evaluation, the CQ framework will evaluate the programme based on an approach to CCT as a means of increasing an individual’s CQ. Through the empirical data and the theoretical framework presented in the following chapters, I, ultimately, seek to evaluate the outcome of ECCO’s CCT programme and, if called for, give suggestions for improvements. The research questions of my thesis, consequently, are: 3
ECCO calls their three-­‐day CCT programme a seminar, and I will use ‘seminar’ and ‘programme’ interchangeably to refer to ECCO’s CCT. 4 -­‐
What does ECCO’s CCT seminar seek to prepare the trainees for and how? -­‐
Based on the empirical data and the theoretical framework, how can the seminar and its outcomes be evaluated? -­‐
Provided that the evaluation(s) call for it, how can ECCO’s CCT seminar be improved? In the following, I will account for the thesis’ theoretical framework and the theory of science that forms the basis of it: Berger and Luckmann’s conceptualisation of social constructionism (1987). Furthermore, I will relate social constructionism to my other choices of social theories on culture, communication and learning. These theories are Rohner’s concept of culture (1984), Frandsen et al.’s intercultural marketing model (1997) and Illeris’ complex model of learning (2007). The theoretical framework is completed with Earley and Ang’s CQ framework (2003), and I will give a thorough account of the concept and its three facets, i.e. cognition, motivation and behaviour. Furthermore, I will present five general approaches to CCT to provide an insight into the field’s methods, and conclude by presenting the CQ framework’s guidelines for designing CCT programmes. In the method section, I will initially account for an additional project I did for ECCO – a trainee handbook (App. 2). Subsequently, I will account for my methodological choices in respects to data collection, analysis and interpretation of data. In the method, I will, consequently, account for my approach to evaluating ECCO’s CCT seminar, and describe how the data and theoretical framework allow me to evaluate the seminar in four ways. The method section is followed by the analysis and interpretation, which I have divided into two parts. In addition to evaluating the seminar, these analyses and interpretations also present a number of suggestions for improving the seminar. I will present these suggestions and, subsequently, discuss my theoretical and methodological choices – e.g. what they enabled me to examine and what they could not examine. Finally, I will summarise the thesis’ objectives and findings in a conclusion. 5 Social Constructionism The theory of science, which I found this thesis on, is the conceptualisation of social constructionism presented by Berger and Luckmann in The Social Construction of Reality (1987). This theory is purely epistemological as it does not object to the existence of a natural world, but concerns the social construction of knowledge – that is, the “taken for granted” knowledge or reality of everyday life. In the following, I will briefly account for this understanding of social constructionism and relate this theory to my choices of theories on culture, communication and learning. In Berger and Luckmann’s understanding, society exists as both objective and subjective reality, and their theory describes how society is socially constructed in an on-­‐going dialectical process of externalisation, objectivation and internalisation. This process is dependent on the human ability to attach meaning to signs, and I will describe this in further detail later on. Initially, I will describe how the objective and subjective realities of societies are created. The objective reality is created through institutionalisation of social processes, which again is created through habitualization of social interaction. An institutional world is a world of taken-­‐for-­‐granted routines. When the routines of this institutional world is transmitted to the new generation as “this is how things are done”, the objectivity of the institutional world “thickens” for both children and parents, and, thereby, reinforces the objective reality. Furthermore, this objectivity is continually affirmed in the individuals’ daily interaction. As such, “all social phenomena are constructions produced historically through human activity” (Berger & Luckmann, 1987: 123). The relation between society and the producer of society – i.e. the human – is, however, a dialectical one as man is a social product. An individual becomes a member of society through primary and, to a smaller degree, secondary socialisation4. From significant others, the child learns about the world and internalises it as an objective reality. For the child, this internalised world becomes the only conveyable world, the reality, and this is why the world internalised in primary socialisation is so firmly ingrained in consciousness. In this primary process of socialisation and internalisation, “[s]ociety, identity and reality are subjectively crystallized” (Berger & Luckmann, 1987: 153), and the individual experiences society as subjective reality. The objective reality and the subjective reality correspond to each other, but the symmetry between them can never be complete as “no individual internalizes the totality of what is objectivated as reality in his society” (Berger & Luckmann, 1987: 154). Furthermore, not all elements of subjective reality – e.g. the awareness of one’s own body – originate in 4
Secondary socialisation is any subsequent process that inducts an already socialised individual into new sectors of the objective world of his society (Berger & Luckmann, 1987: 158). 6 socialisation. Therefore, the symmetry between objective and subjective reality is never static, but must always be produced and reproduced. Society is, consequently, produced by human interaction, and it becomes an objective reality that acts back on the producer through internalisation. As mentioned, Berger and Luckmann see this circular process as an on-­‐going dialectical process composed of three moments: Externalisation, objectivation and internalisation. This cycle is possible because of human beings’ capability to create symbols, i.e. things that can carry meaning beyond the “here and now”. As such, “[e]xternalisation is possible because we attach meaning to objects and turn them into signs [i.e. objectivation]” (Burr, 2003: 186). Objectivation is not limited to physical objects. Words and gestures are objectivations too as they also express and externalise meaning, and it is through our shared use of such symbolic systems that we construct social structures (Burr, 2003: 186). In Berger and Luckmann’s words: “Language now constructs immense edifices of symbolic representations that appear to tower over the reality of everyday life” (1987: 55). It is, consequently, through language, communication and interaction that we produce our identities, subjective realities and our societies’ objective realities. In this sense, concepts such as nationality and culture are social constructs, which are part of our society’s objective reality and become part of our subjective realities through primary socialisation. While culture influences us in more ways than nationality, both concepts work to define us and differentiate us from “others” and other societies. Furthermore, these constructs are created in a context – a society – and the meaning of these constructs, therefore, depend on context. When we travel to a foreign country, we leave the context of our subjective realities and enter into a new society and, thereby, a foreign objective reality and culture. The challenge for ECCO’s trainees and any expatriate is, consequently, adapting to such new realities. Adaption and integration does not require expatriates to renounce the culture they acquired through primary socialisation, but it requires them to acquire knowledge and understanding of their new context. That is, they must integrate part of the foreign society’s objective reality and culture into their subjective reality. This is necessary in order to behave and communicate in a context appropriate manner, which is, ultimately, what adaption is all about. The ability to adapt into a new cultural context is what Earley and Ang (2003) describe in their concept of cultural intelligence. I will describe these abilities further in the exposition on CQ. Berger and Luckmann’s treatise on the social construction of reality provides an analysis of the reality of everyday life, or rather, the knowledge that guides conduct in everyday life (Berger & Luckmann, 1987: 33). Their theory of social constructionism focuses on the human as a social 7 being, and my choice of theories is guided by this social focus. As such, I have chosen Rohner’s conceptualisation of culture, in which he describes culture as a symbolic meaning system maintained socially and transmitted over time (Rohner, 1984: 119). In this way, culture is a dynamic and ideational concept, internalised in primary socialisation and part of the knowledge that guides conduct in everyday life. For this thesis’ understanding of communication, I use Frandsen et al.’s IMK-­‐model (1997), which is built on a basic understanding of communication as social interaction. Similarly to social constructionism, this model draws on semiotics, and it sees interpretation as the central element of the communication process. Lastly, I use Knud Illeris’ (2007) complex model of learning as this thesis’ basic understanding of the learning process. The complex model incorporates interactional and situational aspects to the learning process, which corresponds with social constructionism’s understanding of socialisation as a learning process. A further correspondence to social constructionism is the emphasis on the importance of context, which both the IMK-­‐model and the complex model of learning share. All of the theories employed in this thesis are, consequently, social theories that could be criticised for disregarding nature in favour of nurture. While I recognise the influence of nature, I have chosen social theories as this thesis is concerned with social constructs and interaction. In the subsequent chapter, I will account for the chosen culture theory. 8 The Concept of Culture Culture is a complex and elusive concept. With the linguistic turn of the social sciences, the use of the concept has only increased, leaving ‘culture’ a rather diffuse concept. It is applied in countless ways both in everyday life and within academics; e.g. in narrow ways to describe fine arts and artefacts (Sørensen et al., 2008: 40) and in broader ways to describe “ways of life” (Geertz, 1973: 4). To anthropologist Clifford Geertz, such broad definitions as “way of life” undermine the culture concept and make it meaningless. In Geertz’ opinion, it is only possible to ensure the continued importance of ‘culture’ by narrowing and cutting down the concept (Geertz, 1973: 4). For my conceptualisation of the concept, I, therefore, follow Earley and Ang (2003) and turn to anthropologist Ronald P. Rohner (1984), who narrows culture down to a symbolic system of meaning. Earley and Ang (2003) employ Rohner’s definition in their CQ-­‐framework, as they find that Rohner’s definition holds advantages over others such as Geert Hofstede’s “software of the mind” definition (Hofstede, 2001: 2). One such advantage is that Rohner, unlike Hofstede, acknowledges that “culture represents imperfectly shared attributes of members within a social system” (Earley & Ang, 2003: 64). In this chapter, I will present Rohner’s culture concept and, furthermore, elaborate on the differences between this understanding and the understanding of culture which Hofstede presents in his book Culture’s Consequences (2001). Rohner’s Culture Concept Rohner defines culture as: [T]he totality of equivalent and complementary learned meanings maintained by a human population, or by identifiable segments of a population, and transmitted from one generation to the next (Rohner, 1984: 119-­‐120). As such, Rohner’s definition reflects the general understanding among anthropologists that culture is a learned phenomenon, highly variable from one population to another and shared in some way. While some cultural theorists define culture in terms of behaviour and artefacts, Rohner belongs to the category of theorists who define culture in terms of ideas, beliefs, values, norms, preferences and other symbolic meanings. That is, he understands culture as a symbolic meaning system maintained socially and transmitted over time. Although Rohner describes these meanings as learned, he argues that this may be a redundant description, as probably all meanings are learned (Rohner, 1984: 134). In any case, Rohner’s understanding of 9 meaning and knowledge as social constructs is consistent with the social constructionist approach of this thesis. In his definition, Rohner uses the term ‘equivalent’ to indicate that these learned meanings are imperfectly transmitted and approximately shared (Rohner, 1984: 121). In other words, Rohner objects to the myth of cultural homogeneity, as he acknowledges that meanings are imperfectly transmitted from generation to generation, and furthermore, that meanings are typically not uniformly shared within a cultural group (Earley, 2006: 925). It is probable that no single individual ever knows the totality of equivalent and complementary learned meanings that define the “culture” of a given population (Rohner, 1984: 122). In this way, it becomes clear that ‘culture’ is a theoretical construct that exists in the mind of the researcher, and rarely in the minds of individual actors within a sociocultural system (Rohner, 1984: 124). When culture is defined as a system of learned meanings, artefacts cannot be considered culture: It is rather the ideas or meanings associated with artefacts that can be designated as culture. Similarly, culture is not behaviour, but rather the meanings associated with certain behaviour. Rohner enables this conceptual separation of meaning and behaviour by defining and distinguishing the three concepts of ‘culture’, ‘social system’ and ‘society’. While ‘culture’ is a meaning system, ‘social system’ is a behavioural system and ‘society’ a concept synonymous with the term nation. Rohner argues that it is not possible to understand ‘social system’ or ‘society’ apart from their relation to a cultural system – which the following definitions of the concepts will show – but neither concepts “can be explained or reduced to culture either“ (Rohner, 1984: 127). Social System and Culture ‘Social system’ is defined as the behaviour of “multiple individuals within a culturally organized population, including their patterns of social interaction and networks of social relationships” (Rohner, 1984: 127) [my italics]. To Rohner the relationship between culture and social system is, to a degree, problematic. Unlike some cultural theorists who argue that culture determines behaviour, Rohner merely acknowledges a probabilistic relation between the two, as behaviour in human populations “is variable with respect to virtually every dimension one wishes to explore” (Rohner, 1984: 123). This does not mean that social behaviour is random. Rather, it means that one cannot predict the social behaviour – i.e. the social system – of a culturally 10 organised population based on knowledge of that culture, i.e. the symbolic meaning system. What cultural knowledge enables one to do is to interpret the meaning of events, rituals and other occasions belonging to a social system. To exemplify this relation between culture and social system further, Rohner draws on White’s American football analogy: Knowing the rules of football does not imply that one can anticipate or predict the next play that will be made during a game. Cultural knowledge allows the observer to interpret the behavior and judge the appropriateness or legitimacy of a given play, but not to predict a specific play or behavior (Earley, 2006: 925). In this way, culture does not determine social behaviour but is merely one of the constructs needed to understand social behaviour. Social system and society are other constructs that help understand social behaviour. Rohner, therefore, argues that behaviour in social interactions is often more effectively explained via the concepts of ‘social system’ or ‘sociocultural system’5. Rohner’s conceptualisation of culture is purely ideational, and in this way, Rohner’s definition differs from Hostede’s. To Hofstede, culture is “the collective programming of the mind” (Hofstede, 2001: 9), but as ‘mind’ stands for thinking, feeling, and acting, this definition makes culture an ideational as well as a behavioural concept. While Hofstede’s figurative description of culture as “software of the mind” is useful enough for everyday use, it does not provide the same theoretical clarity as Rohner’s conceptualisation. Rohner’s separation of the three interrelated systems is not unproblematic, but it makes it possible to distinguish the effects of culture, social system and society on individuals’ actions and behaviour (Earley, 2006: 925). Society, Social System and Culture The concept of society is, as mentioned, generally synonymous with the term nation. By Rohner’s definitions, individuals are members of society, who participate in social systems and share cultures (Rohner, 1984: 132). It is, however, not given to which degree cultural groups share beliefs, values and other forms of meanings, as Rohner understands culture to be imperfectly shared. Rather differently, Hofstede conceptualises culture as a possession of a nation, i.e. a society (Earley, 2006: 924). This allows for little intracultural diversity or disagreement within a culture. Hofstede has received some critique for assuming the population of a society to be a homogeneous whole (Jones, 2007: 7). In line with this critique, Rohner argues that “an adequate conception of culture must allow for the possibility of conflict 5
Rohner uses the term ’sociocultural’ to refer to “the entire system of ideas (that is, meanings) and behaviors designated jointly by the terms culture and social system” (Rohner, 1984: 135). 11 [within cultures] as well as allow for within-­‐cultural commonalities and stabilities” (Rohner, 1984: 124). Summary Rohner’s conceptualisation of culture narrows culture down to a symbolic meaning system and separates it from the interrelated realms of social system and society. In this way, Rohner’s conceptualisations make it possible to separate variables from the respective concepts and do “true “cultural” or “cross-­‐cultural” analysis (or comparative “social-­‐systems” analysis)” (1984: 134). Furthermore, Rohner’s conceptualisation of culture embraces culture’s complexity in that it allows for intracultural variation and describes culture as influencing – not determining – social behaviour. Rohner’s separation of culture from behavioural system does, however, have practical implications as the term ‘culture’ is used generically to describe both ideational and behavioural aspects of nations and organisations. This is what Rohner calls the sociocultural system of a nation or of a subcultural system, e.g. an organisation. In this thesis, I will, therefore, have to distinguish between e.g. national culture (an ideational construct) and the sociocultural system of a nation (an ideational and behavioural construct). A further complication is that Rohner’s culture concept does not correspond with the understanding of culture that is used in the model of communication, which this thesis’ understanding of the communication process builds on. In the next chapter, I will account for this model of communication. 12 Model of Communication The understanding of communication, which I employ in this thesis, is based on Frandsen et al.’s intercultural marketing model, the IMK-­‐model (1997). Although the IMK-­‐model is intended specifically for strategic marketing, it can be applied to any form of communication as it is based on communication models from communication sciences and media research, e.g. reception analysis and Roman Jakobson. The IMK-­‐model is especially useful in this context of cross-­‐cultural and organisational communication, as it incorporates the cultural context that frames communication. Furthermore, the IMK-­‐model draws on semiotics6 to incorporate code – that is, sets of rules governing our usage and interpretation of signs – as a parameter in intercultural communication. As these codes are culturally determined and, therefore, not universally shared, the IMK-­‐model accounts for culture’s influence on communication both in the way we use and interpret signs and the context in which we use them. Frandsen et al. do, however, describe the relation between culture and behaviour – in the sense of producing, communicating and interpreting a text – as a much more deterministic relation than Rohner does in his conceptualisation of culture (Frandsen et al., 1997: 66). This theoretical disagreement merely illustrates the complex relation between culture and social behaviour. In the following paragraphs, I will describe the IMK-­‐model, relate it to the specific situational context of ECCO’s CCT seminar and, thereby, illustrate the model’s general applicability to any form of intercultural communication. Although Frandsen et al.’s conceptualisation of culture is more accurately described in Rohner’s terminology as sociocultural system, I will maintain the IMK-­‐model’s terminology here to avoid further theoretical complication. 6
Frandsen et al. particularly draw on Peirce’s theory of signs (1997: 43). 13 The IMK-­‐Model The IMK-­‐model is an interactional model of communication built on a basic understanding of communication as social interaction. In this understanding, communication involves two acts: Production of text and interpretation of text. More specifically, Frandsen et al. see the communication process as a dynamic process involving both sender and receiver actively interpreting the meaning of messages. As such, the receiver is not passively “injected” with a message, as the hypodermic needle model suggests, but is, conversely, as actively involved with the interpretation of a text as the producer of it is. Consequently, the central element of the communication process is, in Frandsen et al.’s understanding, how the producer and receiver interpret texts or messages from their individual communicative starting point (1997: 35-­‐41). The IMK-­‐model approaches communication through the concept of genre. This approach allows for three factors influencing a communication or text’s configuration: The concrete linguistic aspects (rhetorical strategies), media (the physical transmission) and, lastly, the context/culture (the specific situational context and the cultural context) (Frandsen et al., 1997: 41). Figure 1: The IMK-­‐model (Frandsen et al., 1997: 52) CONTEXT/CULTURE ê
MEDIA ê
GENRE ê (code) sender PRODUCTION TEXT (rhetorical strategies) referent receiver RECEPTION 14 Frandsen et al. define genre as a group of texts with the same communicative purpose. These purposes are identified through the producers’ intentions with the genre and the receivers’ expectations of it. These communicative purposes affect the genre’s move structures and rhetorical strategies, i.e. the linguistic aspects of the communication. Furthermore, the genre – and ultimately the configuration of the text – is also influenced by the choice of media and both the situational and cultural context framing the communication. The final parameter – the referent – concerns the subjects of a text. More specifically, the referent is what a text “talks about” or refers to and the connotative and denotative meanings, which the sender and receiver attach to this subject (Frandsen et al., 1997: 41+56). As such, the IMK-­‐model provides a general understanding of the parameters involved in the communicative process of intercultural communication. In the following, I will apply the model to ECCO’s CCT seminar, and, thereby, illustrate the parameters of the seminar’s communicative process. Figure 2: The IMK-­‐model applied to ECCO’s CCT seminar CONTEXT/CULTURE CCT seminar/Danish culture ê
MEDIA Interaction, slides ê
GENRE class teaching ê
(code) the English language senders ECCO/trainer TEXT design of ECCO’s CCT seminar receivers trainees (rhetorical strategies) PRODUCTION referent the various subjects of the CCT seminar RECEPTION 15 The communicational text of ECCO’s CCT seminar belongs to the genre of class teaching. This genre’s communicative purpose – that is, the senders’ intentions and the receivers’ expectations – is, in general terms, to pass on knowledge to the trainees about culture and cultural differences. Although the class-­‐teaching genre is familiar to all trainees, they are likely to have culturally different understandings of the rhetorical strategies belonging to this genre. Similarly, the chosen media – interaction and slides – may be recognisable to all trainees, but the specific content or style is not necessarily familiar to all trainees. Based on the situational and cultural context of the CCT seminar, it is, in all probability, the trainees with a Danish cultural background who are most familiar with the seminar’s text or design. The situational context of the text is a three-­‐day CCT seminar in ECCO’s Danish headquarter, and the Danish culture, consequently, constitutes the macro-­‐cultural context of the communication. Similarly to Rohner, Frandsen et al. understand national culture to contain various subcultures, and, in their definition, company culture is such a subculture (Frandsen et al., 1997: 73). ECCO’s company culture is, therefore, part of the cultural context influencing the configuration or design of the CCT seminar. To Frandsen et al., the situational context of a communication is embedded in a cultural context, and numerous cultural factors, consequently, affect the situational context. This includes conditions concerning sender, receiver and way of communicating (Frandsen et al., 1997: 64). As such, the trainer of the CCT seminar is affected by her Danish background in e.g. her understanding of the class teaching genre, her choice of teaching style and her way of communicating. Similarly, the cultural background of the trainees affect their understanding of the genre and their interpretation of the trainer’s teaching style and way of communicating. Although the communication is conducted in the code of the English language, not all communicative codes – that is, rules guiding the trainer’s and trainees’ way of selecting and combining signs – are shared. This is due to codes being culturally determined, and some codes will, therefore, be shared while others will apply only to the sender or the receiver (Frandsen et al., 1997: 57). Furthermore, the trainer and the trainees are bound to have somewhat different denotative and connotative meanings attached to the various subjects covered in the seminar; that is, the referent in the IMK-­‐model. In this way, the IMK-­‐model accounts for a number of parameters influencing both the production and interpretation of ECCO’s CCT seminar. By including the abovementioned cultural parameters in the IMK-­‐model, the model provides an understanding of culture’s influence on the communication process. More specifically, it puts forth a number of parameters that account for the challenges presented by intercultural communication. Following the IMK-­‐model, the central element of the communication process is the way in which producers and receivers interpret a text. My choice to use the IMK-­‐model as 16 this thesis’ understanding of communication, consequently, supports my methodological choice to conduct qualitative interviews with respectively the producers – the ECCO employees and the trainer of the seminar – and the receivers of the CCT seminar, i.e. the ECCO trainees. Next, I will account for the thesis’ understanding of learning. 17 Learning The term learning is, similarly to the culture construct, used very broadly and sometimes also with different meanings. Learning is, furthermore, a complex and many-­‐sided matter. In this thesis, I draw on Illeris’ understanding of learning (2007), which is influenced by the work of e.g. Piaget and Wenger. Illeris defines learning very broadly as ”any process that in living organisms leads to permanent capacity change and which is not solely due to biological maturation or ageing” (3). By this definition, a number of processes – e.g. socialisation, competence development and therapy – are regarded as learning processes. According to Illeris, these processes happen continuously – both consciously and unconsciously. One of Illeris’ points is that it is possible to learn something without being conscious of it, and this knowledge can be described as tacit knowledge. In my evaluation of ECCO’s CCT programme, I must be aware that the trainees may not recognise everything they have gained from the seminar and that the interviews, therefore, may not account for the trainees’ full outcomes. In these next paragraphs, I will outline Illeris’ complex model of learning. 18 Figure 3: The complex learning model (Illeris, 2007: 98) INDIVIDUAL incentive content acquisition interaction social situation societal situation ENVIRONMENT In Illeris’ understanding, learning concerns two different processes: Interaction and acquisition. The process of interaction is social, whereas the acquisition process is an individual process that is “basically biological in nature” (Illeris, 2007: 23). As such, learning has both a social and an individual level. In Illeris’ interactive model of learning, learning is always situated and ‘environment’ is, therefore, placed at the bottom of the model to form the general basis on which the whole rests. In addition to the two social and individual levels of learning, Illeris describes three dimensions as fundamental to any learning process: Content, incentive and interaction. In learning there is always a subject and an object – i.e. a “someone” learning “something” – and content is the “something” that is acquired in learning. Content could also be described as knowledge, understanding or skills. The incentive dimension concerns motivation, emotion and volition, and incentive is fundamental to learning because mental energy is needed to carry a learning 19 process. Lastly, the interaction dimension of learning concerns the individual’s interaction with the environment on two levels: The close social level in which the interaction takes place – e.g. a classroom or workgroup – and the general societal level. The general societal level establishes the premises for the interaction on the basis of the society’s norms and structures. In respect to these two contextual levels, Illeris’ model of learning greatly resembles Frandsen et al.’s communication model, the IMK-­‐model, presented in the previous chapter. Illeris’ complex model of learning provides a general understanding of the levels and dimensions of a learning process. I have chosen it, partly because it takes both individual and social processes into account, but also because it corresponds well with Earley and Ang’s cultural intelligence concept (2003). Both Illeris and the CQ concept consider motivation essential and, furthermore, the three dimensions of learning – content, incentive and interaction – resemble CQ’s three facets of cognition, motivation and behaviour. I will account for the framework of cultural intelligence in the subsequent chapter. 20 CQ – Cultural Intelligence The concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) was introduced by Earley and Ang in 2003 and is one of the most recent approaches to cross-­‐cultural training (CCT). Their development of the CQ concept was driven by a commitment to understanding why it is that some people are able to adjust to new cultures, understand the existing practices, and behave appropriately and effectively while others flounder (Earley & Ang, 2003: 91). In other words, Earley and Ang set out to create a framework that would capture the universal capability of a person to adjust to various cultural settings and not just within a single one. Drawing on research from various fields such as cognitive and cross-­‐cultural psychology, anthropology, sociology and management, Earley and Ang developed the conceptual framework of cultural intelligence and defined CQ as “a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (2003: 59). Following Gardner’s theory on multiple intelligences, Earley and Ang describe CQ as one of many human intelligences. Furthermore, CQ is – similarly to social intelligence and emotional intelligence – defined as a real-­‐world intelligence. CQ, however, differentiates itself from these intelligences as it is related specifically to the domain of intercultural settings. As such, CQ describes the universal intelligence that enables an individual to adapt to any cultural context (Ng et al., 2012: 32+34). While all people have CQ capabilities, some have them to a greater extent than others (Earley et al., 2006: 22). It is, however, possible to increase one’s CQ level, as CQ is defined as a dynamic, malleable capability that can be developed over time (Ng et al., 2012: 34). Such a development can be achieved through e.g. intercultural experience or CCT. The CQ framework builds on Sternberg and Detterman’s multiple-­‐loci-­‐of-­‐intelligence framework. Similarly to this framework, Earley and Ang describe CQ as comprising of mental capabilities – metacognition, cognition and motivation – and behavioural capabilities in the form of overt actions (Ng et al., 2012: 32). In this sense, CQ capabilities – the capabilities required to adjust to new cultural contexts – concern cognition, motivation and behaviour. 21 Figure 4: Elements of cultural intelligence (Earley et al., 2006: 23) These three overarching facets are what constitute a person’s CQ, and they address the following questions to an individual experiencing a new cultural encounter: Do I know what is happening? Am I motivated to act? And can I respond appropriately and effectively? (Earley & Ang, 2003: xii). The three facets of cognition, motivation and behaviour are tied to one another, so if a person is lacking in any of the three facets, a person is lacking in CQ. The CQ framework is, consequently, more than a cognitive framing of intelligence as it requires that an individual observes, comprehends, feels compelled to react/interact, and is able to effectively implement action in a new cultural encounter (Earley & Ang, 2003: 91). In the following, I will describe CQ’s facets of cognition, motivation and behaviour in greater depth primarily drawing on chapters from Earley and Ang (2003). 22 Cognitive CQ Adapting to new cultural contexts involves learning how people behave and act in the given context. Furthermore, it involves making sense of what one experiences and sees. In other words, to adjust effectively one must not only acquire knowledge of the cultural situation, but also create new mental frameworks for understanding one’s experiences and observations (Earley et al., 2006: 6). Consequently, CQ involves both cognitive and metacognitive abilities, and Earley and Ang argue that “[t]he foremost challenge faced by an intercultural traveller is observing, identifying, and creating cognitive and metacognitive strategies for dealing with a new culture” (2003: 115). While both cognition and metacognition concerns abilities to think, learn and strategize, metacognition can be thought of as higher order thinking or the skills we use to manage our learning process. As such, metacognition regulates our cognition. The three essential metacognitive skills we use to regulate cognition are planning, monitoring and evaluating. Planning is the ability to generate one’s own cognitive structures and strategies. Monitoring includes abilities to reason inductively, formulate hypotheses and self-­‐monitor, while evaluating involves thinking critically and reflexively on own performance. It is these metacognitive skills that enable a person to adjust cognition, incorporate new cultural schemas and, thereby, create new mental frameworks for understanding foreign cultural encounters and situations (Tan & Chua, 2003: 277-­‐278). In order to have high CQ, a person must, therefore, possess the metacognitive ability to “learn to learn” in new cultural contexts. Furthermore, as new cultural situations require constant adaptation, it is critical for CQ to have a certain level of cognitive flexibility (Earley & Ang, 2003: 18+71). In addition to metacognitive skills, adjustment requires knowledge of the new cultural context. This includes knowledge of norms, practices, basic frameworks of cultural values, political institutions and legal system – i.e. knowledge of the foreign sociocultural system (Ng et al., 2012: 33). These types of cognition can be described as declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. While declarative knowledge refers to knowing “about” things, procedural knowledge refers to knowing “how to do” things, whereas conditional knowledge refers to knowing when and why to use certain cognitive actions instead of others. The challenge an expatriate faces when seeking to acquire this knowledge is that some aspects of culture are unstated. Some practices and assumptions belonging to a sociocultural system – i.e. tacit cultural knowledge – may be difficult to articulate even for people brought up in the given culture. Similarly, procedural and conditional knowledge can also be difficult to articulate, because the procedures people use in social interactions may become automatic through repeated use. Therefore, an expatriate cannot rely purely on inquiring or asking to acquire 23 knowledge, but must use various gathering tools. Direct observation, mimicking others and personal interaction in the target culture are other useful tools to gather information and make inferences about a sociocultural system (Earley & Ang, 2003: 109-­‐110). CQ is a universal construct, partly because all people have the metacognitive and cognitive capacity to store, process and retrieve social information. What is not universal, however, is how we use this capacity and the extent of our capacity. For instance, many studies confirm differences between Western and non-­‐Western cultures in the pattern of thinking and style of decision making. This may be explained through cultural orientations such as individualism-­‐
collectivism7. From a CQ perspective, it is important to be aware of such differences – and similarities – in order to understand how people can be like and why. Furthermore, it is equally important to be aware of one’s own mental framework and personal preconceptions since intercultural social interactions require knowledge of both self and target (Earley & Ang, 2003: 122). While highly complex cognitive and metacognitive skills are crucial for cultural adjustment and CQ, a person cannot have high CQ without having high motivational CQ. Motivational CQ The motivational facet of CQ “refers to the mental capacity to direct and sustain energy on a particular task or situation” (Ng et al., 2012: 32). Expatriates must be motivated to learn and adjust, and Earley and Ang use the concept of self to explain the importance of motivation for cultural adjustment. Self-­‐concept is defined as a universal medium or conduit through which a person filters and interprets information (Earley & Ang, 2003: 105). All people have a concept of self, and this self-­‐concept influences our cognition, e.g. how we perceive ourselves, our abilities and our mental frameworks. The two aspects of self-­‐concept, which I will focus on here, are self-­‐enhancement and self-­‐efficacy. The motive of self-­‐enhancement influences the self-­‐regulation of information processing. Self-­‐
enhancement, thereby, manifests itself in biased information processing. People are, for instance, more sensitive to information they find relevant for their concept of self, and they are also better at recalling self-­‐referent information. Another example of the self-­‐enhancement motive is “the general tendency to distort reality in the service of maintaining a positive self-­‐
7
Individualism-­‐collectivism is one of the value-­‐based dimensions used by e.g. Hofstede to describe cultures and cultural differences (2001: xx). Such cultural dimensions are part of the culture theory taught in ECCO’s CCT seminar, and they will, therefore, be explained in further detail later on (cf. Analysis – Part One: 46-­‐47). 24 conception through selective perception and bias in attribution” (Earley & Ang, 2003: 128). These examples, consequently, illustrate self-­‐concept’s centrality for cognition. Self-­‐efficacy, another aspect of motivation, is defined as the judgements people make about their own capability to accomplish a certain level of performance. In this way, self-­‐efficacy is reflected in a person’s self-­‐confidence. In order to be successful in intercultural interactions, a person must have a general sense of confidence in own social abilities in a new setting. Furthermore, Earley and Ang argue that people with high efficacy motives do not give up when they face obstacles, setbacks or failures, but, conversely, increase their efforts. Seeing as expatriates are likely to make mistakes in their initial attempts to adjust to a new cultural context, efficacy motives can be vital. Additionally, highly efficacious people are able to persist in their actions without constant rewards. This ability is important for CQ because the rewards of cultural adjustment may be delayed or come in unknown forms. Another important ability, which efficacious people are likely to have, is the ability to set goals. As goals are partly determined by whether people think they can achieve them, goals and self-­‐efficacy are tightly linked (Tan & Chua, 2003: 282). Goal-­‐setting is known to have a highly positive effect on performance. This positive effect is not only achieved through working harder, but also smarter, and both efficacy motives and goal-­‐setting intensify a person’s search for the best way to perform (Earley & Ang, 2003: 74-­‐77). To Earley and Ang, the integration of motivation and cognition in an intelligence theory is one of the most important aspects of their CQ framework. While motivation is a key element in this thesis’ understanding of learning, most intelligence theories do not incorporate motivation, although adaptation – a central element in nearly all definitions of intelligence – requires both “intelligent” and “motivated” action. Through the arguments presented above, Earley and Ang validate their assertion that personal motivation and cognitive processing are intertwined when it comes to cultural adjustment. Motivation is, consequently, a key element to CQ as it influences both cognition and behaviour (Earley & Ang, 2003: 154). Behavioural CQ Behaviour is the third facet of CQ, and it refers to overt behaviours, i.e. what a person does or says rather than thinks (Ng et al., 2012: 32). As CQ concerns social adjustment, the behavioural facet focuses on social behaviours in the form of both verbal and nonverbal behaviours, e.g. gestures, body movements and facial expressions. In this respect, intercultural communication skills become highly important for an expatriate’s ability to interact and behave appropriately in the target culture. While appropriate behaviour cannot be generalised, Earley and Ang argue 25 that the behavioural competencies that enable a person to adjust and behave appropriately can be generalised and described through the theory of self-­‐presentation and Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to social interaction. Self-­‐presentation refers to “the process of controlling how people perceive oneself” (Earley & Ang, 2003: 162). The theory of self-­‐presentation asserts that people’s behaviour is usually constrained by concerns with others’ impressions of them, and furthermore, that people rarely intentionally act in a way that makes them appear incompetent, unattractive or socially undesirable (Earley & Ang, 2003: 163). Through a dramaturgical approach to social interaction, Erving Goffman illustrated how self-­‐presentation permeates social behaviours. Goffman saw a parallel between social behaviours in everyday life and theatrical performances, not only in the sense that people behave or perform to make positive impressions of self, but also in the sense that people must act differently in different contexts. As such, the dramaturgical approach can describe how expatriates must adjust their performances in order to adapt to new cultures and situations. Goffman argued that people must put on a “performance” to have effective interpersonal encounters, and he identified a number of behavioural competencies that affect a person’s performance. These five competencies – self-­‐
presentation, framing, scripting, staging and performing – can be used in the CQ framework to explain the general behavioural abilities that an expatriate must possess to have high behavioural CQ. The following brief exposition is based on Tan and Chua’s chapter in Earley and Ang’s Cultural Intelligence – Individual Interactions Across Cultures (Tan & Chua, 2003: 298-­‐
301). Firstly, self-­‐presentation is the competency to create positive and favourable impressions of one’s self. People with high CQ know how to shape the perceptions of others and, thereby, create a favourable image of themselves. Secondly, framing is the ability of individuals to appropriately identify a context and, subsequently, behave in a way that is perceived as appropriate for that context. As such, culturally intelligent people would know why, when and how to use certain verbal or nonverbal behaviours. Scripting – the third competency – involves the ability to change one’s behaviour. Scripts can be defined as emergent guides for interactions, which provide cues for behaviour when unexpected events occur and yet flexible enough to permit improvisation. Being culturally intelligent requires this ability to flexibly use one’s knowledge of behavioural scripts to adapt behaviour to various situations and improvise. If one has assembled a repertoire of behavioural scripts through experience, Earley and Ang argue that one’s level of CQ is higher. The fourth behavioural competency – staging – concerns the ability to appropriately use culturally appropriate symbols when staging or presenting oneself. These symbols could be verbal, nonverbal and artifactual, and the way one dresses is, 26 therefore, an important aspect of staging. Language is also part of staging. The ability to speak in the language of the host culture can only be considered a useful communicational skill, and Earley and Ang argue that language skills increase a person’s CQ. The fifth and last behavioural competency is performing. Performing is the ability to “actually enact culturally appropriate behaviours in diverse cross-­‐cultural interactions” (Tan & Chua, 2003: 300). Being culturally intelligent, consequently, means being able to communicate appropriately, display appropriate body language and express the appropriate emotions even though one may not feel these emotions. In summation, a person’s ability to frame, script, stage and perform influences one’s ability to give a positive self-­‐presentation. Earley and Ang consider this ability to make a good impression important, because they argue that a favourable impression precedes other positive outcomes such as completion of tasks, recognition and respect (Earley & Ang, 2003: 181). These five competencies give an overall understanding of the behavioural elements required of cultural adjustment, but the specific way in which one makes such a positive self-­‐presentation is a very complex matter. Self-­‐presentation is a process of social interaction or communication, and in the communication process both sender and receiver actively produce meaning. So although one seeks to behave culturally intelligent, one can never ensure that others interpret this behaviour as appropriate (cf. The IMK-­‐Model: 14). In addition to this, culture is a dynamic concept, and cultural adjustment is, therefore, a bit of a moving target (Earley & Ang, 2003: 94). Summary In Earley and Ang’s own words, the CQ framework is the first framework that provides us “with a roadmap for understanding cultural intelligence and the quagmire facing international sojourners” (Earley & Ang, 2003: xii). The framework explains why people vary in their ability to adjust to new cultures, and it presents a multifaceted skillset that reflects the complexity of both the intelligence concept and cultural adjustment. Finally, the CQ framework provides a basis for improving CQ through training, which – unlike most approaches to cross-­‐cultural training – entails motivational and metacognitive training. In the subsequent paragraphs, I will account for the guidelines the CQ framework presents for designing cross-­‐cultural training (CCT) programmes. Initially, however, I will present five general approaches to CCT. This presentation will provide insight into the field’s methods, and as ECCO’s CCT seminar uses some of these methods, this presentation will also allow me to evaluate the seminar’s methods. 27 CQ’s Approach to CCT In Earley and Ang’s Cultural Intelligence – Individual Interactions Across Cultures (2003), Tan and Chua – two assistant professors of management – contribute with a chapter on how to develop CQ through CCT (2003: 258-­‐303). I will primarily draw on this chapter to account for the CCT field and CQ’s approach to CCT. The guidelines, which Tan and Chua present, constitute the first CQ-­‐based suggestion for CCT programme design. As such, their approach, which I will be referring to as a CQ approach, is one way to approach CCT through the CQ framework. In Tan and Chua’s CQ approach to CCT, it is recognised that CCT is likely to be culturally bound: That is, a training technique that works well in one culture, might not work in another (2003: 303). For this reason, the CQ approach to CCT does not advocate one specific training methodology over another. Rather, it provides guidelines for designing CCT programmes. One of these guidelines is to train all facets of CQ, i.e. metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural skills. As such, any method that trains either of these facets could be included in a CCT programme designed on the basis of a CQ approach. In a review of CCT methods made by Brislin and Horvath (1997), it was established that in general “there has been a lot of emphasis on cognitive and attributional training, […] however, there has been scant or no mention of motivational and metacognitive training” (Tan & Chua, 2003: 268). Due to this past focus of CCT, there are many CCT techniques available for cognitive training, fewer for behavioural training and virtually no CCT methods for metacognitive and motivational training. In 1997, Brislin and Horvath categorised five approaches in CCT – cognitive, attributional, experiential, self-­‐awareness and behavioural – and I will describe these in the following to provide examples of widely used training techniques. Furthermore, this description of general approaches will give an understanding of the CCT field and account for some of the techniques’ advantages and difficulties. 28 Five General Approaches to CCT Cognitive training is mainly concerned with transferring cultural knowledge or basic information in the forms of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. The information can either be culture-­‐specific or culture-­‐general. Culture-­‐specific information focuses on aspects of the specific culture to which the trainee is travelling, and it can involve facts about socio-­‐economic systems, information about superior-­‐subordinate relations, typical methods for conflict resolution etc. Culture-­‐general information, on the other hand, focuses on issues that are relevant when entering any culture. This could involve information about culture shock and other challenges that people face when they enter a new culture. The techniques used in cognitive training include short lectures, presentations by e.g. former expats, films and videos, reading materials, case studies and group discussions of critical incidents. It is, however, virtually impossible to know or learn everything about a culture no matter how detailed the cultural information is. Also, it can be taxing for the participants to retain so much information, especially if the information is not integrated through exercises (Brislin & Horvath, 1997: 336). Nevertheless, cognitive training is perhaps the easiest form of CCT to plan and administer. Furthermore, it is relatively cheap, and it can provide highly useful information. Attributional training focuses on cultural relativity; that is, the differing interpretations people make about cross-­‐cultural interactions based on their different cultural backgrounds. The usual technique for this training is culture assimilators. A culture assimilator “consists of a number of real-­‐life scenarios describing puzzling cross-­‐cultural interactions and explanations for avoiding the resulting misunderstandings” (Bhawuk & Brisling, 2000: 169). These puzzling cross-­‐cultural encounters are called critical incidents. By describing these incidents, proposing alternative reactions and providing possible explanations for the outcome of these encounters, a culture assimilator requires participants to reflect on cultural encounters and their own response to such critical incidents. Most culture assimilators are culture-­‐specific, which means that they are generally designed for people from one cultural background about to live in another culture (Brislin & Horvath, 1997: 337). There are, however, also culture-­‐general assimilators. In general, research indicates that culture assimilators are effective training tools on the cognitive level, while they have some positive impact on behavioural and emotional criteria (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000: 173). Through attributional training, participants can increase awareness of personal preferences, values and biases. This increased self-­‐awareness is relevant not only for cognition, but also for motivation, because it provides an understanding of the individual preferences that motivate a participant to act (Tan & Chua, 2003: 283). Experiential training is the third approach to CCT described by Brislin and Horvath. This training is more “hands-­‐on”, and it involves techniques such as field trips, role-­‐plays and simulations. 29 There are numerous published role-­‐plays and simulations for cross-­‐cultural training, and each has a specific focus or target group. While role-­‐plays are usually developed for a specific group, e.g. business people, simulations tend to either capture specific cultural differences – such as differences in decision making – or capture as much as possible of what life will be like in the target culture. In these forms of experiential training, participants are more actively and emotionally engaged as they can be put in very lifelike social situations. This kind of training can, therefore, be emotionally demanding for both trainer and participants (Brislin & Horvath, 1997: 339). The next two general approaches to CCT – self-­‐awareness training and behavioural training – can be described as experiential training too as they also concern more “hands on” training. Self-­‐awareness training focuses on making the participants’ aware of both their own culture and the typical reactions people have when their self-­‐esteem is challenged in other cultures. Through techniques such as role-­‐plays, the trainer seeks to make the participants aware of how their cultural background affects their behaviour, values and attitudes (Brislin & Horvath, 1997: 339). Another aspect of these techniques is that participants are often challenged to explain how their culture influences their behaviour. Self-­‐awareness training, consequently, prompts reflection and has the potential to increase participants’ awareness of how culture affects behaviour and interpretation of behaviour. In behavioural training focus is on outward or observable behaviour. It typically involves giving the participants an opportunity to practice and display appropriate behaviour in different scenarios and cultural settings. According to Tan and Chua, this form of training is rarely included in CCT programmes because it is time-­‐consuming and demanding of participants. Behavioural training is, however, significant for developing higher CQ, and I will describe the specific techniques that Tan and Chua suggest below. In this description of general approaches to CCT, I have accounted for some of the widely used training techniques in the CCT field. As they train facets of CQ, each of these informational and experiential training techniques could be part of a CCT programme designed on the basis of a CQ approach. However, as the abovementioned techniques do not specifically train metacognitive and motivational skills, Tan and Chua suggest a number of techniques that focus on these facets. Additionally, they introduce a dramaturgical approach to behavioural training, which I will account for in the following. 30 Additional Methods In the previous description of the behavioural elements of CQ, I explained how Earley and Ang used a dramaturgical approach to describe the behavioural competencies that enable a person to adjust and behave appropriately. These competencies involve a person’s ability to create favourable self-­‐presentations, frame, script, stage and perform. Following this dramaturgical approach, Tan and Chua suggest the use of narrative plays and theatre-­‐training methods to train behavioural competencies and increase CQ. This approach is new to CCT, but studies in other fields, e.g. psychotherapy, describe the benefits of the drama process: Through the medium of drama, individuals adopt an integrative, multisensory approach to the concept of learning. They are encouraged to utilize the physical, emotional, sensory, and cognitive processes to experience learning and improve self-­‐
knowledge and metacognition, an enhanced understanding of the feelings and motivation of others, and bolster self-­‐efficacy (Tan & Chua, 2003: 302). The dramaturgical approach, consequently, has the potential to train several elements of CQ. To find training techniques that train metacognitive skills, Tan and Chua turn to experimental and clinical psychology. Metacognitive training concerns the development of metacognitive skills – planning, monitoring and evaluating – that help manage one’s learning process. Self-­‐
awareness or becoming aware of how one best learns and processes information is, therefore, crucial. There are several possible training techniques usable for metacognitive training, and one of them is Cognitive Behavior Modification (CBM). This technique is from clinical psychology and seeks to make people aware of their cognitive structures. This is typically done by interrupting participants in their thoughts or actions and, subsequently, asking them to talk to themselves and appraise the situation and their behaviour. CBM, thereby, seeks to influence the participants’ internal dialogue and teach skills such as self-­‐questioning, planning and self-­‐
monitoring. In respect to motivational training, there are also several ways to develop motivation for cross-­‐
cultural experience and CCT. The training techniques Tan and Chua suggest originate from fields such as educational psychology, management and organisational behaviour, and they focus both on internal and external motivation. As I have previously accounted for self-­‐efficacy and goal-­‐setting’s importance for motivation, I will describe two training techniques that focus on these aspects. For training goal-­‐setting skills, Tan and Chua suggest the use of Locke and Latham’s Goal Setting Theory. Part of this theory is learning to set specific and challenging goals which help improve performance (Lunenburg, 2011: 1). To develop self-­‐efficacy, positive reinforcement techniques could be used as confidence builds on successes. One way of using positive reinforcement in CCT could be to initially expose a participant to a series of short, 31 simple cross-­‐cultural encounters and then gradually increase the complexity of the encounters as the participant’s confidence builds (Tan & Chua, 2003: 285). In respect to external factors influencing motivation, Tan and Chua point out the importance of framing a cross-­‐cultural experience or participation in a CCT programme as relevant and related to the participant’s overall goals. I will elaborate further on the importance of external factors at the end of this chapter. Although I have generally categorised the above training techniques as targeting either the cognitive, motivational or behavioural facet, it should be evident that some techniques are more complex and target several CQ facets. While short lectures, for instance, mainly target the cognitive facet of CQ, a culture assimilator may involve increasing both self-­‐awareness and self-­‐
efficacy, i.e. cognition and motivation (Tan & Chua, 2003: 271). As the above illustrates, the training techniques Tan and Chua suggest are not new in themselves, but new to CCT. As such, other techniques concerning metacognition, cognition, motivation and behaviour from other fields of study could also be usefully implemented in a CCT programme to develop CQ. Within the field of CCT, new methods involving various media have also been developed, and more methods are likely to come (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000: 187). The challenge in designing CCT programmes is, consequently, selecting the most useful training techniques. Next, I will account for the guidelines the CQ approach provides for selecting training techniques and designing CCT programmes. Designing CCT Programmes In Tan and Chua’s CQ approach to CCT, it is the three facets of CQ and the individual training needs that guide the design of a CCT programme. Other guidelines provided by the CQ approach concern the combination of informational and experiential training techniques, emphasis on culture-­‐general approaches and focus on trainable competencies. Furthermore, the CQ approach accounts for the limitations of training and the important influence of external factors on learning and expatriation. I will elaborate on these guidelines and factors in the next paragraphs. In the literature on CCT, it “is fairly well established that informational training and experiential training work best in tandem” (Tan & Chua, 2003: 270). One overall guideline in the CQ approach to CCT is, therefore, that effective CCT programmes combine training techniques in a multifaceted and integrated approach. In order to design such CCT programmes, developers must be aware of the different costs and benefits of different training techniques. Furthermore, 32 the CQ framework emphasises a culture-­‐general approach in training cultural intelligence. Although culture-­‐specific training is valuable: It is important to complement it with a culture-­‐general approach and train participants how to learn and use the knowledge acquired as heuristic schema by which they can adapt to various cultural situations (Tan & Chua, 2003: 297). In the CQ framework, there is a distinction between trainable and non-­‐trainable competencies. The latter concern competencies that reflect personality, and as they are described as non-­‐
trainable, the CQ framework focuses on trainable competencies. While a person’s CQ is a dynamic and trainable construct, it is also affected by innate, non-­‐trainable factors such as personality. Certain personality traits such as curiosity and extraversion enhance a person’s CQ level, and Tan and Chua, therefore, argue that training can only go so far in achieving successful expatriation. Organisations must, consequently, set new and higher standards for selecting people with the right personality and attitude for expatriation (Tan & Chua, 2003: 303). Assessing a person’s CQ level is not only important in relation to hiring, but also in relation to training. In this CQ approach, it is the individual training needs that guide the design of CCT programmes. These needs are initially identified on the basis of the intensity, duration and nature of the cross-­‐cultural interaction that the expatriate is expected to undergo. Intensity is defined as the frequency of contact with one or more foreigners, and it is classified as either high or low. Duration refers to the length of time a person is in contact with a foreign culture and is classified as short or long. Lastly, nature refers to the types of interaction a person has with people from other cultural backgrounds. For simplicity, these interactions can be categorised as either formal or casual, but as with the other criteria, cross-­‐cultural interactions can fall between these two ends (Tan & Chua, 2003: 272-­‐274). By comparing the abilities required for the specific expatriation to the future expatriate’s actual CQ abilities, a CCT trainer can identify gaps and design the CCT programme to fill these gaps. 33 Figure 5: Designing a cross-­‐cultural training programme (Earley & Peterson, 2004: 110) Designing a CCT programme that develops the appropriate level of CQ, consequently, involves assessing a trainee’s CQ, identifying the demands of the expatriation and, subsequently, linking these demands to the required skills and training needs. Tan and Chua present a possible framework that provides CCT trainers with a useful guide for finding the appropriate level of CQ training. This framework is illustrated in the figures below. 34 Figure 6: Detailed structure of CQ training levels (Tan & Chua, 2003: 273) 35 Figure 7: Training methods and cultural intelligence (Tan & Chua, 2003: 276) Tan and Chua’s framework is the first suggestion for linking setting demands to CQ training needs. Since Earley and Ang presented their CQ framework in 2003, the concept has received much attention globally and across diverse disciplines (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008: xv). There has, therefore, been produced much literature on CQ since 2003, which has developed – and continues to develop – the framework. This literature includes methods for assessing CQ, and I have yet to account for such methods. CQ levels can be assessed through various forms of observation, interviews and surveys (Lee & Templer, 2003), but I will highlight Ang et al.’s Cultural Intelligence Scale from 2007 (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008: 389-­‐390). This scale can be used to assess one’s own and others’ CQ through questionnaires, and it presents one of the most thorough research-­‐developed methods for assessing CQ (App. 1). 36 Summary As stated in the above, Tan and Chua use the CQ framework to provide a set of guidelines for designing CCT programmes. In this CQ approach, no technique or learning method is favoured over others as training is likely to be culturally bound. It is, therefore, the CCT trainers’ responsibility to choose the most appropriate methods for their expatriates. A further aspect of this approach is the recognition of CCT’s limitations and the influence of external factors. Some individuals have higher CQ due to their personality and experience, and as training can only go so far in increasing CQ, recruitment becomes crucial. Furthermore, this approach recognises that the motivational aspect of CQ is highly influenced by external factors. For instance, a work environment where employees are negative about expatriation is likely to hamper motivation. Tan and Chua further argue that organisations have the responsibility for making expatriation and CCT relevant for trainees as well as providing appropriate levels of support and reward systems (2003: 277). In this way, the organisation and its sociocultural system influence both expatriation and CCT. While these external factors are not the focus of this thesis, the subsequent analyses and interpretations will address the external factor concerning ECCO’s responsibility for making the CCT seminar relevant for the trainees. In the next chapter, I will account for this thesis’ method. This account will commence with a description of the original research subject, which prompted my collaboration with ECCO. 37 Method The objective of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate ECCO’s three-­‐day CCT seminar for newly hired trainees. This was, however, not the initial assignment that ECCO presented me with. Their original project proposal concerned the production of a trainee handbook. However, as I found the CCT seminar a more interesting research subject, we agreed that I would do my thesis on the CCT seminar and do research for the handbook simultaneously. As such, the trainee interviews (Aud. D-­‐L) and their interview guide (App. 8) concern both research topics. I produced the handbook in August 2012 (App. 2), and it describes ECCO’s specific expectations of trainees through the three-­‐year trainee period. I will use this handbook as a reference in the following analysis. In regards to the trainee interviews, I will mainly account for the trainees’ answers to questions on the CCT seminar, but when relevant for this thesis’ research questions, I will also include answers to handbook related questions. In the following, I will account for my methodical choices regarding data collection and interview subjects. Furthermore, I will describe how this thesis can evaluate ECCO’s CCT seminar. Data Collection My academic objective in this thesis is to evaluate the organisational communication, which ECCO’s CCT seminar makes up. I chose to approach this evaluation in part through qualitative interviews, as I am interested in how the producers and receivers of this communication experience it. More specifically, I am interested in researching the intents, interpretations and outcomes of the CCT seminar as it is experienced by respectively producers and receivers, i.e. ECCO employees, the trainer and the ECCO trainees. Following Steinar Kvale, qualitative interviews are particularly useful for collecting such information about subjective experiences: The qualitative interview is a key venue for exploring the ways in which subjects experience and understand their world. It provides a unique access to the lived world of the subjects, who in their own words describe their activities, experiences and opinions (Kvale, 2011: 9). Drawing on Kvale (2011), I chose to conduct 12 qualitative, semi-­‐structured interviews8 with an average length of 53 minutes. To gain information about the senders’ objectives and interpretation of the CCT seminar, I interviewed the ECCO employees responsible for the 8
Through these interviews, I also obtained teaching materials (App. 3+9-­‐17), which are attached on the memory stick. 38 trainee programme, Bente and Henrik. Furthermore, I interviewed the seminar trainer, Dorte, to gain information about the contents of the CCT seminar and this sender’s learning objectives. To collect data about the receivers’ interpretation and outcome of the CCT seminar, I interviewed nine trainees from respectively China, Japan, Indonesia, Australia, USA, Germany and Denmark. I will account for the selection of these trainees later on. For each type of interview, I produced an interview guide, which gave structure to the interviews, but also room to follow the interviewees’ trail of thought (App. 6-­‐9). Although all interviewees were proficient English speakers, the interviews were conducted in either English or Danish, as it seemed forced to conduct interviews with native Danish speakers in English. All interviews were conducted in June 2012 and audio recorded to provide documentation (Aud. A-­‐L). The interviews with Bente, Henrik, Dorte and the six trainees, who were in Denmark at the time, were conducted in person. The remaining three trainees were interviewed via Skype or telephone. I found that all interviews – mediated as well as personal – were marked by a confidential tone and candour. Furthermore, I consciously sought to decrease ambiguity in my interpretation of the interviews by asking clarifying questions – e.g. about the meaning of a statement, an expression or use of word. Considering my approach to evaluating ECCO’s CCT seminar and my understanding of interpretation as essential to the communication process, I argue that the qualitative interview is the most useful data collection method. For practical reasons, I was not able to observe the seminar. Observation would, however, not have been a useful method, as it does not provide insight into the producers’ and receivers’ interpretation of the seminar, which is the research subject of this thesis. Furthermore, interviews with trainees arguably give the most insight into personal outcomes of the seminar. I do, however, acknowledge that the trainees may not be conscious of all they have learned, as learning does not require awareness (cf. Learning: 18). Interview Subjects The purpose of the trainee interviews was to make a qualitative evaluation of the seminar and its outcomes, which was broadly founded on individual experiences. I, therefore, asked to interview minimum eight trainees, who had participated in CCT seminars taught by Dorte and had been expatriated. Furthermore, I asked for a diverse group in respects to gender and cultural background. I did this to ensure that these social constructs were taken into account and to make the interview subjects representative of the trainees’ diversity. Based on these criteria, Bente and Henrik presented me with nine trainees, who were available and whom they 39 believed would be particularly helpful. The figure below provides an overview of the trainees, whom I will also be referring to by their first name9. Figure 8: Overview of interviewed trainees Name Country of origin Year of traineeship Adam USA 1. year Ann Australia 1. year Mads Denmark 2. year Mette Denmark 1. year Nicholas China 1. year Rikako Japan 2. year Sophia Germany 1. year Tommy Indonesia 2. year Yinan China 2. year As the figure indicates, the trainees were on different years, so they either participated in the CCT seminar in September 2010 or 2011. Although Dorte generally used the same information and training methods, there were some varieties in choices of assignments. Furthermore, there were differences in the two seminars’ composition of participant nationalities and expatriation destinations, which affected the content and the cultural knowledge available in the learning situation10. As such, the two seminars shared the same approach to CCT, but due to differences in participants, they inevitably constituted two different learning situations. When the interviews were conducted in June 2012, the nine trainees’ participation in the CCT seminar was either six or 18 months back. Therefore, many of the trainees had difficulty recalling the details of the seminar. In anticipation of this, I supplemented the trainee interview guide with a list of all the seminar’s training methods to jolt their memory (App. 8: 2). 9
All interviewees are referred to by their first name as they all declined my offer of anonymity. 10
At the seminar in 2010, the 15 participating trainees were from USA, Denmark, Germany, Indonesia, China and Japan. In 2011, the 15 participants came from USA, England, Portugal, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Germany, Australia, China and Japan (Aud. A: 16:07). 40 Data Analysis and Interpretation In the following analyses, I will be referring to the recorded audio files as Aud. A-­‐L. These audio files are enclosed on a memory stick together with the other appendices. I found that the benefits of transcribing the interviews were too small, as I will not be conducting in-­‐depth textual analysis. Instead, I will focus on the meaning of the trainees’ statements and include direct quotes. Quotes from interviews conducted in Danish are translated into English. These quotes are translated directly and idiomatically in the sense that I translated all words into equivalent English language that conveyed the meaning of the original Danish statements. As I began analysing an interpreting the data, I found that the data and the theoretical framework allowed me to evaluate the seminar and its outcomes in four ways: 1) By evaluating the seminar’s learning potential 2) By evaluating the trainees’ learning outcomes 3) By evaluating the seminar’s ability to prepare the trainees for expatriation 4) By evaluating the seminar’s ability to achieve the senders’ objectives The first evaluation concerning the seminar’s learning potential will be based on the analysis and interpretation of the senders’ interviews and the teaching materials. The second evaluation, which concerns the trainees’ learning outcomes, will be based on the analysis and interpretation of the trainee interviews. The third evaluation, which deals with the seminar’s ability to prepare the trainees for expatriation, will also be based on the trainee interviews. These analyses and interpretations will, furthermore, form the basis of the fourth evaluation concerning the seminar’s ability to achieve the senders’ objectives. I have chosen to conduct these four evaluations through two parts of analyses and interpretations. In the first part, I have separated analysis and interpretation. In the second, I have combined them and will, therefore, be changing between the descriptive and interpretive level. The analyses and interpretations will be followed by a discussion on the thesis’ framework and a summarising conclusion on the thesis. In the subsequent analysis, I will firstly account for the EITE trainee programme and, thereby, describe the trainees’ trainee period and role in ECCO’s organisation. 41 Analysis – Part One The EITE Programme The nine trainees that I interviewed are all part of the three-­‐year ECCO International Trainee Education programme, EITE. The programme has run in its current form since 2000 with the intent to provide ECCO with “a pipeline that produces […] either midlevel managers or project managers for positions around the world” (Aud. A: 04:30). Unlike ECCO’s other trainee programmes – the two-­‐year Graduate programme and the three-­‐year Specialist programme – the EITE programme does not lead to a specific position. Instead, EITE trainees decide in which position or part of the ECCO organisation they wish to build a career during their trainee period (App. 2: 12). To be eligible for the EITE programme, applicants must as a minimum have a high school level education. As such, applicants for the EITE programme are not required to have a particular professional competence, and they can be rather young11. They are, therefore, given three years to integrate into the organisation (Aud. A: 02:20). In these three years, the trainees work in various countries and areas of the ECCO organisation. The purpose of this is to give them a holistic understanding of ECCO’s departments, processes and value chains, which they can draw on in their future job at ECCO (App. 2: 12). While the trainee period can be modified to suit the career wishes of the trainee, the EITE programme is generally structured in the following way: -­‐ 1 month introduction in HQ (Denmark) -­‐ 1 month in tannery (Holland) -­‐ 5 months in production unit (Portugal, Slovakia, China or Indonesia) -­‐ 3 ½ months in retail (primarily England) -­‐ 8 months in an HQ department (Denmark) -­‐ 8 months in a sales unit (e.g. USA, Europe or Asia) -­‐ 8 months in an HQ department (Denmark) (App. 3: 3-­‐4) The EITE Manual describes two of these periods as expatriations (App. 3: 4), but as the above indicates, the EITE trainees are exposed to a number of cultures – both national and organisational – in their trainee period. Furthermore, the periods in HQ Denmark could also be considered expatriations for trainees who are unfamiliar with Denmark. 11
At the time of the interview, EITE trainees were between the age of 19 and 27 (Aud. A: 05:55). 42 Recruitment Requirements In recognition of the professional and personal challenges that EITE trainees are faced with, ECCO has a number of recruitment requirements. The requirements, which I focus on here, are those that concern expatriation and cultural adaptability. In addition to the requirement of having at minimum a high school level education, ECCO requires applicants to have good English skills as ECCO’s corporate language is English (Aud. A: 13:18). Furthermore, ECCO prefers applicants who have experience with living alone abroad and integrating in a foreign culture: Among other things, we see if they have done a year at a high school in the US or some other place in the world. Or if they have done a semester somewhere abroad, so they know what it means to try and integrate into another culture. And in the interview, we specifically ask them how they integrate – what they focus on when they’re trying to become part of the local culture (Aud. A: 03:25). Ultimately, Bente and Henrik recruit trainees whom they believe can handle living abroad (Aud. A: 13:12). As the purpose of the trainee program is to produce employees for positions all over the world, ECCO has become increasingly aware of hiring trainees “who are mobile” (Aud. A: 04:42). In Bente’s words: “We make an effort to – in quotation marks – “scare” them. […] We really probe to see, if they are ready for it” (Aud. A: 06:50). In ECCO’s Code of Conduct, the first of 10 commitments is: “ECCO is a guest in each of the countries in which it operates and respects the local culture” (ECCO, 2013b: 3). ECCO expects trainees to live up to this by adapting to the host culture (Aud. A: 24:53). At the time of the interviews, ECCO did not use a personality test that tested the applicants’ ability to adapt. They were, however, considering implementing a new test in the recruitment process, which would also test for adaptability (Aud. A: 13:00). The two tests ECCO uses in the recruitment process are Predictive Index (PI) and Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The PI test is rather simple and consists of two pages of adjectives. On the first page, applicants are asked to mark the adjectives others use to describe them, and on the second page they are asked to mark the adjectives they think describe themselves. If the applicant went on from the first round of interviews, the applicant was asked to fill out an MBTI test. The MBTI is a more comprehensive test building on Jung’s typological theories on psychological preferences (Ringstad & Ødegård, 2002). The test divides people into 16 personality types based on their preferences in four personality dimensions: Energy, information, decisions and lifestyle. 43 Figure 9: The dichotomies of the MBTI’s personality typologies (Gestaltreality, 2013) The MBTI is not, however, a personality test but a preference test that focuses on common characteristics in personality types rather than individual nuances. In this way, two people who belong to the same MBTI type will share some characteristics, but they will also be very different individuals. The common characteristics of the personality types concern preferred ways of being, behaving and communicating. Knowledge of these types can, consequently, give an insight into the commonalities and differences between people, which is useful e.g. in education and conflict management and to develop cooperation and self-­‐awareness (Ringstad & Ødegård, 2002: 7). While ECCO initially employs the MBTI in the recruitment process, it is also used in many aspects of the introduction period (Aud. A: 09:16). The purpose of this is to give the EITE trainees “more self-­‐awareness and awareness of others” (Aud. A: 08:40). Objectives with the Seminar The overall purpose with ECCO’s CCT seminar is to prepare trainees for expatriation and aid them in the cultural transitions (Aud. B: 01:20). Bente describes the seminar as “a crash course to going out – a preparation for the culture12 they’re going to” (Aud. A: 21:00). Furthermore, 12
The CCT seminar focuses on the trainees’ first expatriation country. 44 Henrik states that the seminar should teach trainees “do's and don’ts, so we know they won’t go and offend someone with their conduct” (Aud. B: 02:39). These intents correspond with an expectation that Bente expresses ECCO has of trainees: “They must be able to behave well” (Aud. A: 24:22). Aside from these general intents, ECCO has no specific learning goals for the seminar (Aud. A: 23:25). The assignment Dorte was given, when she became the seminar trainer in 2008, was to “groom [the trainees] for the new culture” (Aud. C: 19:50) and apply “a more practical approach” as opposed to the theoretical approach hitherto applied (Aud. B: 3:14). On her own initiative, Dorte chose to add personal learning to the seminar as she sees “a symbioses between the personal […] and culture” (Aud. C: 1:20:18). This aspect of personal learning concerns questions such as “how do I affect other people, and what is it that other people see in me?” (Aud. B: 03:51). ECCO’s CCT seminar, consequently, has two focus points: Cultural understanding and personal learning. In continuation of this, part of Dorte’s goals with the seminar is that the trainees learn about practical dimensions of culture (Aud. C: 1:42:50) and that “they have grown personally” (Aud. C: 1:44:18). Furthermore, she hopes that “they have looked at themselves and have a greater understanding of how it is going to work when they get to their respective countries” (Aud. C: 1:42:02). Finally, it is Dorte’s ultimate goal “to motivate them to get the absolute most out of their sojourn as possible” (Aud. C: 1:41:12) and give them “an extra energy injection […] that motivates them even more for going” (Aud. C: 1:44:18). Similarly to ECCO, Dorte has not formulated her objectives into specific learning goals. Teacher’s Approach to CCT The seminar teacher, Dorte, is a Danish self-­‐employed business owner. She describes herself as autodidact and has a background in teaching language – English and Spanish – and experience with coaching multinational teams at Danfoss (Aud. C: 1:42-­‐6:20). In ECCO’s CCT seminar, she draws on her background – her personal experiences with travels and cross-­‐cultural encounters – and combines this knowledge with theory on culture (Aud. C: 1:11:54). The theory that Dorte uses to describe cultural dimensions is primarily literature on cross-­‐cultural business behaviour by Hofstede (2001) and Richard Gesteland (2005) (App. 5: 85). This literature is combined with literature on specific countries – e.g. books from the Culture Shock! series13 and Seligman’s Chinese Business Etiquette (2008) (Aud. C: 1:29:17) (App. 5: 97). In order to account for Dorte’s theoretical approach, I will describe Hofstede and Gesteland’s theories in the ensuing paragraphs. 13
The Culture Shock! series is described as “a bestselling series of culture [that] provide a […] crash course on the do’s and don’ts in foreign cultures” (MarshallCavendish, 2013). 45 Hofstede’s theory can be described as taking a functionalist approach to culture as he equates culture with nationality and sees a causal relationship between nationality and certain social behaviour (cf. The Concept of Culture: 11). Hofstede, Edward T. Hall and other functionalists have “collected and systematized a huge amount of data on various issues such as e.g. the attitude towards power and authority, […] directness versus indirectness etc.“ (Askehave & Norlyk, 2006: 10). By mapping these cultural characteristics of nationalities to dimensions of e.g. power distance and directness-­‐indirectness, functionalist theory provides predictions and tools to handle intercultural interactions (Askehave & Norlyk, 2006: 9). Gesteland draws on functionalist theory, and he too works with cultural dimensions. The six culture dimensions, which Dorte includes in the CCT seminar, are a combination of those Hofstede and Gesteland work with, and they concern behaviour, communication styles and understandings of hierarchy and time: Figure 10: Culture dimensions from ECCO’s CCT seminar (App. 5: 85) Task focus (behaviour) Relationship focus Direct (communication style) Indirect Low hierarchy (hierarchy) Steep hierarchy Monochronic (time) Polychronic Reserved (communication style) Expressive Achievement oriented (behaviour + comm.) Care oriented Each country or nationality is placed on these culture dimensions, and the dimensions, thereby, describe characteristics of nationalities as well as similarities and differences between them (App. 4: 30+43+51+62+73+81). Looking at Denmark’s placement on these six dimensions, Danes are expressively task focused and will mainly talk business at the first business meeting 46 rather than seek to build relations. They will use a direct communication style – i.e. what they say is what they mean – and they will use a softer voice volume and consider conversational overlaps rude because they are reserved. Being a monochronic culture, Danes find punctuality important and will consider it rude to be late for a meeting. Furthermore, as a low hierarchy culture, Danes will be less formal in their interactions with superiors, and they will tend to be consensus seeking as Danish culture is care oriented. In this way, the culture dimensions can give an understanding of “what you can say, what you can do, what you can avoid doing [in a culture]” (Aud. C: 1:22:15). While theory can provide a general understanding of culture and do’s and don’ts, Dorte states that there may not always be correlation between theory and practice (Aud C: 1:20:31). Consequently, “we must be cautious not to stereotype […] because it is the individual who reacts” (Aud. C. 1:03:50). In recognition of culture being a dynamic construct and to avoid stereotyping, Dorte, therefore, continually follows up on the culture theory by discussing and asking trainees; “how is it now? […] is it like this [in your culture]?” (Aud. C: 1:40:50+13:05). Due to the richness of these discussions, Dorte finds that the seminar “works better” when the participating trainees represent different cultures (Aud. C: 14:42). Dorte’s approach to designing the seminar programme is to look at the individual trainees – their cultural background, their MBTI results and their first destination country (Aud. C: 11:16) – and assess “what could be good for these young people to have in their “luggage”” (Aud. C: 10:59). As such, focus is on preparing the trainees for the culture of their first expatriation destination and enabling them to see “how they fit into that culture” (Aud. C: 23:41). For instance, if a trainee was going to China, Dorte would include information about the Chinese culture – e.g. the steep hierarchy – and then look at the trainees’ personal challenges in the Chinese culture (Aud. C: 1:00:24). In Dorte’s opinion, her job is to teach the trainees how culture works in real life, and she, therefore, uses “theory, but I turn it into something practical” (Aud. C: 1:38:45). She tells them about the cultural dimensions, and through techniques such as role-­‐plays, she “shows them how it actually works” (Aud. C: 11:55). Next, I will account for the design of ECCO’s CCT seminar and the methods Dorte uses. 47 Seminar’s Programme Design Based on Dorte’s interview and the seminar schedule (App. 4: 3-­‐5), the main elements of ECCO’s CCT programme are: -­‐ Dorte’s presentation on culture dimensions (App. 4) -­‐
Exercises: Simulations and hand-­‐outs e.g. tasks and discussions of cases -­‐
Presentations by trainees on their destination country – 15 min. max -­‐
Film on Emotional Intelligence with Daniel Goleman (Digital Films, 2013) -­‐
Feedback sessions: Role-­‐play by trainees -­‐
Sounding board (in pairs) Hot seat (all in circle) Personal feedback from Dorte (individual) While the seminar follows a schedule, Dorte skips and includes exercises in an eclectic manner to accommodate the situations that arise during the seminar (Aud. C: 1:05:43). In this sense, there are some differences between the specific contents of the 2010 and 2011 seminar, but the main elements – and, consequently, the methods – are the same. In the following, I will describe these methods and present examples (App. 9-­‐17). Dorte’s Presentation It is in the PowerPoint presentation that Dorte introduces the trainees to culture theory and the six culture dimensions mentioned above. The 97-­‐slide presentation generally describes national cultures’ behaviour and communication styles – verbal as well as non-­‐verbal – and how nationalities may be similar or clash because of their cultural differences (App. 4: 18-­‐
20+89). The presentation, furthermore, includes examples and country-­‐specific information, e.g. about negotiating in China (App. 4: 84). In order to exemplify culture’s influence on an individual’s perception, behaviour and communication, the presentation also includes simulations and discussion points – e.g. discussions on cultural stereotypes and what culture is (App. 4: 28+8): If I say Russia to you then what comes to mind? (Aud. C: 1:15:38) I ask: “What is culture to you?” Well, it is all sorts of things. Some say it is the food we eat or it is buildings, it is religion, it is tradition, it is the relations we have with each other, it is upbringing […]. Everything is culture. (Aud. C: 58:08) 48 In this way, the presentation is an interaction between Dorte and the trainees, and the presentation becomes a product of “what arises” through this interaction (Aud. C: 36:39). Exercises As mentioned, Dorte uses various small exercises to turn the theory “into something practical” (Aud. C: 1:38:45). The specific techniques are simulations, tasks and discussions of e.g. real ECCO cases and case studies by Gesteland. I will give an example of each of these techniques. One of the simulations is based on giving each trainee a cue card in one of two colours (App. 9). Both colours represent a culture, and the card has cues about how this culture will communicate verbally and non-­‐verbally. Based on these cues, the trainees are asked to act like that culture and talk to each other: You belong to red culture and in red culture you come very close to people. When you say hello it is with a firm handshake and you come very close, talk loud and you pad people on the shoulder. And in the other culture you sort of look down – the Asian culture for instance (Aud. C: 12:04). In Dorte’s experience, the trainees all think it was “fun to feel how uncomfortable it actually is to behave completely different from how you actually are as a person” (Aud. C: 29:40). In addition to simulations, Dorte gives the trainees small tasks. In one of the tasks, the trainees are asked to reflect on norms and values (App. 10). This particular task concerns four questions about the trainees’ personal norms and values, how these values influence them and, finally, what drains and gives them energy both at work and in life. Another task that Dorte gives the trainees is a self-­‐assessment of personal characteristics (App. 11). The trainees are asked to assess their strength in cultural self-­‐awareness, open-­‐mindedness and self-­‐confidence and eight other characteristics, which are described as vital for success in cross-­‐cultural settings. The final exercise technique is discussions of cases. These cases describe various puzzling cross-­‐
cultural encounters – i.e. what I previously described as critical incidents. These cases are taken from “personal experiences, some I have written, some Richard Gesteland has done – case studies – some I have from books” (Aud. C: 32:39). In addition to this, Dorte uses cases from previous trainees’ experiences with expatriation (App. 12). Dorte describes these ECCO cases as “so fantastic, because someone experienced them” (Aud. C: 1:13:46). The cases taken from Gesteland also describe real-­‐life encounters between two cultures. To each case, Gesteland asks a number of questions, which require the trainees to discuss and reflect on e.g. the 49 cultural explanation for the misunderstanding, alternative ways to act or how the trainees would have handled the situation (App. 13+14). In this sense, the Gesteland cases are what the theory on CCT described as culture-­‐specific culture assimilators. Country Presentations For the second day of the seminar, the trainees are asked to prepare and give a 15-­‐minute presentation on their destination country (example app. 15). Usually, two trainees go to the same production unit, and the presentation is, therefore, a collaboration between the two going together. The presentation is based on the trainees’ own research and information from the seminar – e.g. Dorte’s presentation (App. 4). In this way, the purpose is to give the trainees a chance to learn about the destination culture and to get to know their travel companion. At the same time, it is a chance for Dorte to “read [the trainees] a little” (Aud. C: 57:27). Film on Emotional Intelligence As part of the trainees’ personal learning, Dorte shows them a film on Goleman’s conceptualisation of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) (Digital Films, 2013). The film is a recording of a talk with Goleman, where he explains the EQ concept and how emotions affect behaviour, thinking and decision-­‐making. In this talk, he gives several examples of emotionally intelligent behaviour and situations where people got “emotionally hijacked”, i.e. let anger and other feelings get the best of them and reacted without thinking. In this way, EQ concerns understanding of emotions’ impact and how to handle emotions intelligently: “This understanding itself can help to some degree; […] altering what is being observed” (Goleman, 1996: xii). In Dorte’s words, EQ concerns the ability “to think before you speak […]. That is so important, if you have a temper” (Aud. C: 1:04:42). After the showing, the film is followed up by a class discussion on EQ (App. 4: 4). Feedback Sessions Through the seminar, the trainees are given personal feedback in three sessions: Sounding board, hot seat and personal feedback from Dorte. In the sounding board session, the trainees are paired up two and two. Based on their respective self-­‐assessments (App. 11) and their perception of each other, they ask each other questions and give feedback; e.g. “do you think that this is a strength for me?” (Aud. C: 43:02). Prior to this session, Dorte gives the trainees a short presentation about culture shock (App. 16). Culture shock is a common reaction, which occurs after the initial excitement of coming to a new culture and the excitement of coming home, i.e. the honeymoon phase. 50 Figure 11: Culture shock – phases of expatriation and re-­‐entering (App. 16: 1) Culture shock can be compared to a marriage: [I]t is also crazy infatuation at first and then everyday life sets in, and then you think there is a lot that is not as fun, and then you can expect kind of a depression. You start missing your family, your partner at home or whatever. And that is theory again […] – these are the things you can expect (Aud. C: 1:30:32). In the presentation, there is also information about coping strategies: 51 Figure 12: Coping strategies for culture shock (App. 16: 2) The purpose of giving the trainees information about culture shock is, consequently, to prepare them: “It is good for them to be prepared, for ECCO to know that everything has like been said – and yet it can still go wrong” (Aud. C: 1:31: 35). The second feedback session is the hot seat. In this session, a trainee is placed in the middle of a circle and gets personal feedback from the other trainees. Prior to this session, the trainees are given information about constructive feedback in order to provide some ground rules for giving and receiving feedback (App. 17). In turn, each person gives the trainee in the hot seat constructive feedback about how they see him or her. This feedback can be points for improvement, reflections about development or praise. Dorte acknowledges that some trainees are apprehensive about the hot seat at first, but in her experience they all feel safe when it starts (Aud. C: 47:43-­‐50:30). The third and last feedback session is personal feedback from Dorte. Based on her observations from the three-­‐day seminar, the trainees’ background and first expatriation culture, Dorte gives each trainee personal feedback. In this session, Dorte states that while she is very frank and gets very “up-­‐close” to enhance the trainees’ personalities, she is always positive (Aud. C: 46:51). The intent with this session is to sum up the seminar to a whole (Aud. C: 1:33:01). Based on this feedback, each trainee is asked to make some sort of personal development plan by writing down what areas or skills they would like to develop (Aud. C: 1:32:48). 52 Role-­‐play by Trainees To round off the three-­‐day seminar, the trainees are arranged into groups and asked to make a role-­‐play or sketch. The trainees are given somewhat free reins to concoct and enact a situation which shows what they have learned during the seminar. It could be a scene from a restaurant or an airport where the trainees use the theory to play the role of different cultures and “react like their culture would react […] they only need to show me that they have understood that” (Aud. C: 1:36:40). To Dorte, “[i]t is very important that they are actors – that they play, act [a] culture” (Aud. C: 1:35:54). The trainees are free to exaggerate the culture dimensions to make it entertaining, so while it can be a very serious, theoretical role-­‐play, the intent is to have fun with it (Aud. C: 57:07). Summary In summation, ECCO’s CCT programme focuses on enhancing the trainees’ cultural, personal and interpersonal understanding. This is done through personal feedback and by integrating culture theory into various exercises, discussions and presentations. As such, ECCO’s CCT seminar concerns personal development as much as the development of cross-­‐cultural competence. In the subsequent interpretation, I will evaluate ECCO’s CCT programme and its approach to CCT based on the theoretical framework – particularly the chapters on CQ and CQ’s approach to CCT. 53 Interpretation of Analysis – Part One The analysis shows that ECCO’s CCT seminar uses a variety of methods. It includes methods from all the five general training approaches to CCT, which I described in the theory section, and additional methods that were not described in the theory. From cognitive training, the seminar uses the techniques of presentations, reading materials, films, case studies and group discussions. From attributional training, which focuses on cultural relativity, i.e. people’s differing interpretations of cross-­‐cultural encounters, the seminar uses culture assimilators in the form of Gesteland’s cases. And from the last three training approaches – self-­‐awareness, experiential and behavioural training – the seminar uses the techniques of simulations and role-­‐plays. The remaining techniques used in the seminar – that is, the various feedback sessions and tasks such as the self-­‐assessment of personal characteristics – mainly concern self-­‐
awareness. They can, therefore, be considered self-­‐awareness training techniques too. By combining these varied techniques in the programme design, ECCO’s CCT seminar becomes a comprehensive, multifaceted programme. In correspondence with the guidelines which the CQ framework presents for CCT, the seminar combines informational and experiential training methods in an integrated approach that trains all three facets of CQ to some degree. In the following, I will elaborate on the seminar’s design – i.e. methods and learning aspects – and, subsequently, evaluate ECCO’s approach to CCT. I will mainly do this by comparing ECCO’s programme design and their approach to CCT with CQ’s guidelines for designing CCT programmes (cf. Designing CCT Programmes: 32-­‐37). Evaluation of Programme Design Through cognitive techniques such as presentations, reading materials and case studies, the trainees are given information about culture. As such, these techniques target the cognitive facet of CQ. The given information mainly concerns declarative knowledge, e.g. societal facts about countries, and do’s and don’ts on how to behave in certain sociocultural systems, i.e. procedural knowledge. While the information is largely country-­‐specific, the seminar also includes some culture-­‐general information on culture shock and coping strategies. From a CQ perspective, it is important to gain culture-­‐specific information and complement it with a culture-­‐general approach, which teaches the trainees how to use the acquired knowledge to adapt to new cultural situations. In the second part of the analysis and interpretation, it will be evaluated whether the trainees felt that they were taught how to apply knowledge to adapt. In addition to providing declarative and procedural knowledge, the cognitive techniques have another learning aspect, which they share with the culture assimilator technique: They can give 54 an understanding of cultural differences and similarities, and thereby, an understanding of what people can be like and why. Furthermore, the trainees may gain a better understanding of how their own cultural background influences their personal preconceptions and their mental frameworks. As such, these techniques can increase knowledge of self and others. This knowledge may affect the trainees’ metacognition and cause the development of new mental frameworks for e.g. understanding cross-­‐cultural encounters. From a CQ perspective, engaging in cross-­‐cultural encounters requires knowledge of both self and others. As the seminar trainer Dorte stated in the analysis that she sees a “symbiosis” between the personal and cultural, she, too, finds it important to acquire knowledge of both self and others. Dorte’s programme design, however, puts additional emphasis on personal and interpersonal learning. To further increase the trainees’ knowledge of self and others, Dorte incorporates the MBTI results and information on Goleman’s conceptualisation of Emotional Intelligence. As stated in the analysis, Goleman argues that the understanding of emotions’ impact in itself can alter what is being observed. Goleman, consequently, draws the same conclusions as I do above on the basis of the CQ theory: That increased knowledge of self and others can affect metacognition and, subsequently, cause the development of new mental frameworks or metacognitive strategies for dealing with others. The seminar’s focus on self-­‐awareness and personal development is particularly clear in the various feedback sessions and in the tasks used as examples in the previous analysis; that is, the self-­‐assessment and questions on personal values and motivations. By prompting reflections, these tasks can give awareness of strengths, weaknesses and personal sources of energy. An additional task – the personal development plan – can be considered a goal-­‐setting method. According to the theory on motivational CQ, goal-­‐setting has a highly positive influence on performance. As such, these tasks concern cognitive as well as motivational CQ. The feedback sessions also concern cognitive and motivational CQ, and they give the trainees a unique insight into other people’s perceptions of them and their behaviours. In the case of negative feedback, this insight may prompt the change of certain behaviours. In the case of positive feedback, the insight may work as a positive reinforcement technique that increases self-­‐efficacy – that is, the person’s level of trust in own ability to accomplish a task – and, thereby, increase motivation for expatriation. Furthermore, Dorte’s personal feedback includes advice on how to approach new cultures, and this information may enable the trainees to develop a culture-­‐specific and/or culture-­‐general cognitive strategy for adaptation. The methods that I have evaluated so far, consequently, train cognitive, metacognitive and motivational CQ. While these methods can also affect behaviour by providing procedural 55 knowledge and prompting reflections on own behaviour, it is primarily the two methods yet to be evaluated – simulations and role-­‐plays – that target behavioural CQ. In the beginning of this interpretation, I described the seminar as taking an integrated approach. This is due to the seminar’s use of simulations and role-­‐plays, which work to integrate the provided information on culture. According to CQ’s approach to CCT, such an integrated approach is widely acknowledged as more effective in comparison to a purely informational approach. The simulations and role-­‐plays in the seminar are country-­‐specific and, consequently, seek to integrate country-­‐specific information by practising certain behaviours and communicative patterns. In this way, the trainees can increase understanding of culture, self, and others and, additionally, expand their repertoire of behavioural scripts. In the role-­‐
play, Dorte finds it very important that the trainees are actors, and this method, therefore, has some resemblance to the dramaturgical approach which the CQ framework suggests for training behavioural CQ. To a greater extent than the simulations, the role-­‐play trains the trainees’ abilities to frame, script, stage and perform: They must identify a context and a situation to which they apply various forms of cultural behaviours – i.e. framing. They must change their behaviour and act as people from different cultures using the behavioural scripts that they have learned in the seminar – i.e. scripting. They must use the said culture’s verbal and non-­‐verbal symbols appropriately – i.e. staging. And, finally, they must demonstrate to Dorte that they are able to enact culturally appropriate behaviours – that is, performing. The fifth aspect of Goffman’s theory – the ability to make a favourable self-­‐presentation – also comes into play, as the trainee theoretically will seek to make a favourable self-­‐presentation, e.g. by making the audience laugh. According to the theory, the dramaturgical method has several learning aspects: It can improve knowledge of self, metacognition, bolster self-­‐efficacy and enhance understanding of others’ feelings and motivations. As such, the role-­‐play trains all facets of CQ. Goffman’s dramaturgical approach builds on his understanding of the relationship between life and performance and the seminar itself can, consequently, be considered a performance. The trainees perform in the new role of ECCO trainees, in the new context of ECCO’s organisational culture and – for the non-­‐Danish trainees – in the foreign context of the Danish culture. In this sense, they will seek to make a favourable self-­‐presentation through their abilities to frame, script, stage and perform. Furthermore, the trainees will receive feedback on their performance from the others, which they can use to improve their performance, increase understanding of how other people perceive them or bolster self-­‐efficacy. In respects to increasing cultural understanding and preparing for expatriation, the feedback is particularly relevant as it comes from people with diverse cultural backgrounds. The seminar in itself, 56 consequently, constitutes a cross-­‐cultural encounter, and the seminar, therefore, becomes a cross-­‐cultural learning experience for the trainees. Dorte utilises this in exercises and discussions as she draws on the trainees’ individual cultural knowledge. Through these cross-­‐
cultural interactions, the trainees are able to gain knowledge and compare some of the culture theory to actual representatives of cultures. This may diversify the trainees’ understanding of how others can be and teach them not to stereotype, which Dorte cautions. As such, several learning aspects originate from the trainees’ cultural diversity, and Dorte recognises this in the analysis by stating that the seminar works better when more cultures are represented (cf. Analysis – Part One: 47). In summation, the seminar trains the trainees’ ability to perform in a new context and also, for some, a new cultural context. Through various methods the trainees have the opportunity to increase their cross-­‐cultural competence, their personal and interpersonal knowledge and, thereby, their CQ. Due to the seminar’s length and variety of methods, the programme design can only be described as extensive and multifaceted. While the seminar incorporates methods that target all facets of CQ, there is a majority of methods targeting cognitive CQ. Nevertheless, ECCO’s CCT seminar complements the informational training with other methods. For instance, it includes some motivational methods – e.g. the personal development plan – as well as time-­‐
consuming and, consequently, costly behavioural methods such as role-­‐plays. In this way, ECCO’s seminar stands out from most CCT programmes, which do not incorporate motivational and behavioural methods (cf. Five General Approaches to CCT: 30). Furthermore, as the seminar targets all facets of CQ and takes an integrated, multifaceted approach, ECCO’s CCT programme follows several of the guidelines the CQ framework presents for designing CCT programmes. The CQ guidelines also state that country-­‐specific information should be complemented with culture-­‐general information, which the seminar also does to some extent. Finally, the CQ framework advocates an individual approach, which uses the individual training needs to guide the programme design. In some respects, Dorte takes an individual approach when designing the seminar’s programme, and I will evaluate this approach next. Teacher’s Approach to CCT As stated in the analysis, Dorte looks at the trainees’ individual cultural background, MBTI results and first destination country in order to assess what would be useful for them to have in their “luggage”. In this sense, Dorte takes an individual approach as she looks at each trainee’s personal and immediate training needs. She uses her own judgement to assess these personal needs and mainly focuses on the culture-­‐specific aspects of the first expatriation. Similarly, the CQ guidelines advocate that programmes are designed based on the individual training needs. 57 These needs are, however, determined by a comparison of the individual trainee’s CQ level and the CQ abilities required of the specific expatriation – that is, the intensity, duration and nature of the expatriation. As such, the CQ guidelines take the individual’s CQ into account and, thereby, compare culture-­‐general abilities to the specific training requirements of the expatriation. Dorte’s approach, consequently, does not take the trainees’ CQ – their cross-­‐
cultural experience, abilities and CQ related personality traits – into account. In this way, ECCO’s CCT programme may needlessly seek to teach trainees things they already know and competencies they already have. In respects to assessing the abilities required of expatriation, Dorte mainly looks at the first destination country and compares this culture to the individual trainee. From a CQ perspective, it would be beneficial to look more into the intensity and nature of the expatriations – that is, the frequency of contact with foreigners and the types of cross-­‐cultural interactions. As such, it would be beneficial for the trainees to be prepared for more than their first expatriation. This preparation could be achieved by including more culture-­‐general information in the seminar. Incorporating a CQ assessment into the seminar could also work as a goal-­‐setting method and a personal development plan that would specifically target CQ abilities for adapting. In this sense, it could help the trainees formulate more specific development goals and, thereby, create efficacy motives. Furthermore, it would enable the trainees to measure their progress, which would increase self-­‐efficacy. A CQ assessment could, consequently, have a positive effect on the trainees’ performance as expatriates. While an assessment of the trainees’ CQ can be a useful tool, it does pose challenges to use such assessments to design ECCO’s CCT seminar. These challenges arise from the trainees being very different. They have different cultural and educational backgrounds, and they have very different experience with cross-­‐cultural encounters. As such, they are likely to have diverse CQ training needs, and in order to take all these needs into account, the seminar would have to include information or methods that are irrelevant to some. CQ’s approach to assessing training needs works to ensure that the CCT programme is relevant and useful for the trainees, but Dorte’s assessment also focuses on relevance. By seeking to induce the trainees’ personal growth and looking at their specific personal challenges in the respective destination countries, she ensures a high level of relevance particularly in the feedback sessions. In this way, the information becomes relevant for the trainees – i.e. self-­‐referent – and people are not only more sensitive to self-­‐referent information, they are also better at recalling it. As such, CQ’s and Dorte’s different approaches to assessing training needs have different challenges and advantages. In the following analysis and interpretation, it will evaluated whether Dorte’s personal approach to CCT focuses too much on personal learning at the expense of cultural learning. 58 The approach Dorte takes to designing ECCO’s CCT seminar has resulted in a seminar that focuses equally on enhancing the trainees’ cultural, personal and interpersonal understanding. In the analysis, it was established that Dorte made the choice to add elements of personal and interpersonal learning to the seminar. As such, Dorte’s intent with the seminar is more comprehensive than HR’s intent. ECCO HR’s objective with the seminar is mainly to provide the trainees with do’s and don’ts, enable them to behave appropriately and, ultimately, make expatriation a success. In addition to these objectives – which primarily concern cognitive and behavioural CQ – Dorte intends the seminar to induce personal growth and give the trainees “an extra energy injection” that motivates them to get the most out of their expatriation. As such, Dorte seeks to target all CQ facets. Despite these differences in the senders’ objectives with the seminar, the overall and shared intent is to prepare the trainees for expatriation. One of Dorte’s statements concludes that she finds that the seminar succeeds in providing the trainees with all the information they need, but that this does not guarantee success: “It is good for them to be prepared, for ECCO to know that everything has like been said – and yet it can still go wrong” (cf. Analysis -­‐ Part One: 52). As such, Dorte’s statement indicates that she as a sender interprets the seminar as fulfilling its intent, but also that the seminar is no guarantee for success. In this sense, Dorte and the CQ framework both recognise the limitations of CCT. This interpretation of the analysis has so far shown that ECCO’s CCT seminar is comprehensive and targets all facets of CQ. While it has not yet been established whether the seminar fulfils the trainees’ training needs, it has been established that the seminar – through its content, approach to CCT and its cross-­‐cultural learning situation – holds a profound learning potential. Based on this interpretation, it is only possible to conclude that the seminar has the potential to achieve the senders’ objective – particularly in respects to providing country-­‐specific information, e.g. do’s and don’ts, and increasing personal and interpersonal understanding. The following analysis and interpretation will enable me to evaluate further on the seminar’s achievement of the senders’ intent – e.g. whether the seminar succeeds in motivating the trainees for expatriation. Before going to this next part of the analysis and interpretation, I will evaluate ECCO’s recruitment process as the CQ guidelines emphasise the importance of recruiting the right people for expatriation. 59 Recruitment Part of CQ’s approach to CCT is that CQ is affected by personality and that training, consequently, can only go so far. Due to certain personality traits – e.g. curiosity and extraversion – some people have a higher CQ than others, and it is, therefore, crucial to hire people with the right personality and attitude for expatriation. In the recruitment process, ECCO is very conscious of hiring people with cross-­‐cultural competence and mainly hires trainees with cross-­‐cultural experience. Furthermore, Bente and Henrik specifically ask applicants how they integrate and try to become part of the local culture. By enquiring about their integration strategies, HR probes to see if the applicants already have metacognitive and cognitive strategies for adapting and integrating. As the company language is English, HR also ensures that the applicants have good English skills. Based on this thesis’ theoretical framework, sharing a language is essential for communication and helps integrating into the organisation. While the MBTI test gives an additional understanding of the trainees’ personality types, ECCO’s recruitment process does not specifically involve testing the applicants’ ability to adapt. Seeing as the EITE trainees are intended to become highly mobile ECCO employees, an adaptability test would assist HR in recruiting people with the right personality and attitude for expatriation. Such adaptability tests should, however, be used with the awareness of their individual limitations in respects to dependability and depth. Summary This interpretation has mainly focused on evaluating ECCO’s CCT seminar on the basis of CQ’s guidelines for designing CCT programmes. The seminar follows these guidelines to a great extent by training all CQ facets and taking a multifaceted, integrated and individual approach. From a CQ perspective, there could, however, be included more culture-­‐general information. While the CQ guidelines define individual training needs by assessing and comparing CQ levels with expatriation demands, Dorte takes a more personal and culture-­‐specific approach to assessing training needs. She uses her personal experience to assess needs and choose training methods, and differently from the CQ guidelines, she focuses on meeting the trainees’ individual information needs rather than enhancing their CQ skills. In this sense, the CQ guidelines could be a useful tool for designing a CCT seminar that focuses more on the skills needed for adaptation and less on personal learning. This interpretation has evaluated ECCO’s CCT seminar based on the CQ framework and its guidelines for CCT programme design. Furthermore, focus has been on the senders’ – i.e. ECCO HR and Dorte’s – interpretation of the seminar. In the following, I will evaluate the seminar on the basis of the nine trainee interviews. More specifically, the following analysis and 60 interpretation will allow me to evaluate the seminar in three additional respects: 1) The trainees’ learning outcomes, 2) their perception of the seminar’s ability to prepare them for expatriation, and 3) by comparing the senders’ objectives with the seminar to the trainees’ outcomes of it. As such, the theoretical and methodological framework of this thesis enables me to evaluate ECCO’s CCT seminar in four ways. 61 Analysis and Interpretation – Part Two As stated in the method section, I have chosen to combine this second part of the analysis and interpretation, and I will, therefore, be changing between the descriptive and interpretive level. The descriptive level concerns the trainee interviews, and as I indicated in the method section, the trainees’ statements depended on what they were able to recall. Furthermore, the trainees’ answers also depended on the trainees’ awareness of what they had learned. As it is possible to acquire knowledge unconsciously, the trainees may have internalised tacit knowledge, which they, consequently, did not convey in the interviews. This circumstance merely illustrates the difficulty in assessing learning outcomes and methods. As such, this second half of the analysis and interpretation focuses on the trainees’ perception of the seminar and their individual learning outcomes. Based on the trainees’ statements, I will evaluate ECCO’s CCT seminar in three additional ways and through these evaluations, I will conclude by giving suggestions for improvements. Learned and Applied Knowledge When asked about what they remembered learning from the seminar, the trainees’ answers mainly concerned four aspects: Self-­‐awareness, a basic knowledge of culture, awareness of cultural differences and a way to approach new cultures. In respect to self-­‐awareness, the American trainee Adam stated that: I learned more about my own like culture, or how other people view American culture […]. I took away more things about me than what I did about the culture I, we were supposed to be learning about (Aud. D: 3:14+10:50). The German trainee Sophia stated that “you learn a lot about yourself like where your limits are” (Aud. J: 3:12), and similarly, the Danish trainee Mette remembered gaining the most from “learning to know oneself better” (Aud. G: 6:40). As such, these statements indicate that the seminar focused more on personal than cultural learning. In regards to cultural learning, both Mette and Adam stated that the seminar gave them a “baseline knowledge of culture” (Aud. D: 4:39; Aud. G: 13:09). In the Australian trainee Ann’s words, they learned “what not to do and what to do and understand a bit more like how people behave and why they behave in such a way” (Aud. E: 4:04). To the Chinese trainee Nicholas, the difference between reading about culture and ECCO’s seminar was that it gave “more a full picture of knowledge of the culture. It tells you what it is and why it happens” (Aud. H: 6:54). As such, the trainees found that the seminar taught them both the what and why of culture. The why of culture – i.e. the meaning of certain behaviour – is what this thesis’ culture concept understands as culture. The seminar’s 62 conceptualisation of culture is significantly broader and more operational for the trainees, who do not need to distinguish between culture’s, social system’s and society’s influence on behaviour. As such, the seminar managed to provide the trainees with culture-­‐specific knowledge – e.g. behavioural scripts – and the understanding that there is meaning behind different behaviours. In respect to cultural differences, the Japanese trainee Rikako stated: [W]e learned very basic stuff […] we learned Asian[s] are more introvert, we are more closed. European[s], American[s] are more extrovert, so we had to be little bit careful about the difference (Aud. I: 5:37). In this way, the seminar gave the trainees a terminology – e.g. introvert-­‐extrovert, direct-­‐
indirect – to describe individual and cultural differences. Tommy, an Indonesian trainee, also learned that “we express things differently and that’s why we really need to respect each other and then understand the motive behind each action” (Aud. K: 3:21). Other trainees – e.g. Nicholas and the Chinese trainee Yinan – also mentioned respect and understanding as key to dealing with cultural differences and approaching new cultures: [T]he first thing which is real important is that each and every culture makes sense from their own environment […] and the second most important thing regarding the cultures is that you have to have the respect towards them (Aud. H: 2:59+5:09). [F]irst you should know […] it’s different from one culture to another, and second you should respect different cultures. [T]hird is you should somehow try to […] be involved and to adapt yourself into the culture (Aud. L: 4:35). Tolerance was also mentioned as key when approaching new cultures (Aud. G: 3.21), and these ECCO values (App. 2: 13+15) were repeated throughout the one-­‐month introduction period: “It was repeated many times. Just be thankful, be humble […] do it in the way they do it […] see the world through their eyes – that kind of stuff” (Aud. D: 15:00). As such, the trainees found that the seminar and the introduction period gave them culture-­‐general guidelines for approaching and adapting to new cultures – i.e. metacognitive and cognitive strategies. Furthermore, the trainees gained awareness of their own and other cultures. In the terminology of social constructionism, this essentially means that they became aware of their own socialisation and realised that their objective reality differed from others’. Such an understanding of socialisation’s and culture’s influence on behaviour and interpretation of behaviour is key to understanding cultural differences. Additionally, this understanding – or frame of mind – also functions as a metacognitive strategy for adapting to other cultures, and it 63 is, therefore, part of the culture-­‐general guidelines which the seminar gives for cultural adaptation. When asked about what knowledge they applied during their expatriation, Yinan and Nicholas mentioned following the above mentioned guidelines (Aud. L. 9:02; Aud. H: 9:33). In addition to this, eight of the trainees answered that they applied knowledge of do’s and don’ts and other culture-­‐specific information (e.g. Aud. D: 8:35). It was, however, difficult for the trainees to recall specifically what they applied, and Nicholas explained that what he had learned was a “more internalised thing” (Aud. H. 8:41). In this way, Nicholas’ reflections illustrate how knowledge can be internalised and become part of an individual’s subjective reality. In this next section, I will account for the trainees’ perception of the seminar’s programme design – i.e. the various methods – as well as Dorte’s approach to CCT. This account will, thereby, give a qualitative evaluation of the seminar’s design and approach. As this account will also provide insight into the trainees’ learning outcomes, I will summarise and conclude on the trainees’ outcomes at the end of the following section. Trainees’ Evaluation of Design and Approach In regard to the trainees’ experience of the seminar’s methods, the trainees initially remembered these the most: The hot seat, the personal feedback, the final trainee role-­‐play and the general experience of being in an international setting. As I went through the list of methods used in the seminar (App. 8, 2), the trainees were able to recall more details about the various methods. Culture Theory As mentioned in the previous analysis, Dorte introduced culture theory to the trainees through presentations and readings. Yinan found that this information was “solid knowledge” (Aud. L: 27:21), and Mette described the presentation as “very good” (Aud. E: 9:08). While all trainees found information on e.g. do’s and don’ts useful, many of them mentioned that theory is one thing and reality another (e.g. Aud. G: 9:47; Aud. D: 8:59). Tommy phrased it like this: It’s good information, but in reality you have to really deal with the people in order to understand and, yeah, get an understanding of what is really happening in the country and how to behave” (Aud. K: 6:55). 64 Nevertheless, Tommy found that information on the cultural dimensions – e.g. direct-­‐indirect – “is always interesting […] because we can examine ourselves and then compare it with people from other countries” (Aud. K: 41:26). Conversely, Nicholas found that ranking different countries I think is a little bit too fussy, because you know people are different […] all we want to know is just a general idea […] what kind of culture in general are in different countries (Aud. H: 15:30). In this way, Tommy and Nicholas touched on the dilemma of functionalist culture theory, which arises from culture being a social, dynamic construct imperfectly shared by individuals: While some characteristics of sociocultural systems can be generalised, there are cultural subsystems and individual differences which functionalist culture theory – and CCT – cannot account or prepare for. As such, it is not surprising that the trainees experienced both agreements and discrepancies between the provided culture theory and their personal cross-­‐cultural experiences. It is, furthermore, something Dorte expressed awareness of in the first analysis (cf. Teacher’s Approach to CCT: 47). One suggestion for improvement is, consequently, to specifically relate the limitations of theory and CCT to the trainees. In addition to the culture-­‐specific information that Dorte included in the seminar, she also provided culture-­‐general information on culture shock. Adam specifically remarked on the usefulness of this information and described the seminar as “a nice way to prepare yourself for the culture shock” (Aud. D. 5:10). In this sense, the trainees valued both the culture-­‐specific and culture-­‐general information and generally found it useful. Emotional Intelligence While all trainees watched the video on EQ, only four of the trainees were able to recall what the concept was about. Ann found it “really helpful” (Aud. E. 26:03) and thought about it a month after when dealing with people in everyday situations (Aud. E: 27:03). To Sophia “it was quite interesting to learn how much you get influenced by your emotions and how you should control them especially in business life” (Aud. J: 19:52). Nicholas also found EQ important but lacked tools to practice and enhance his EQ with (Aud. H: 17:59). In this sense, EQ has become part of these trainees’ cognition. Adam had difficulty recalling the EQ concept, but said: “I think I took a little bit away right after the course […], but it’s just, maybe it’s the way I do think now or it’s changed me a bit” (Aud. D: 25:27). As such, Adam’s reflections illustrate how knowledge can be internalised as tacit knowledge. Based on these statements, knowledge of EQ had an impact on some trainees’ cognition, while others were unaware of EQ’s influence on them or unable to recall it. A suggestion for improvement could, consequently, be to either take EQ out 65 of the seminar or incorporate it more into the seminar by e.g. practicing it in simulations. In view of the previous finding that the seminar teaches the trainees more about themselves than culture, I would suggest that information on EQ was replaced with more culture-­‐general information. Country Presentations The presentations on destination countries gave the trainees an opportunity to do research and collaborate with their travel partner(s). All trainees found the presentations useful to some extent and enjoyed getting to know their travel partner(s) better. Due to the teambuilding aspect of this and other exercises, Ann found that the seminar was “more like teambuilding than like cultural exploration” (Aud. E: 8:23). Furthermore, she stated that “research for the presentation was really good” (Aud. E: 6:46), and that it was good to “be more mentally prepared than I would have been” (Aud. E: 7:12). Mette said that “of course it was relevant and it was exciting to read about, because you were like going there” (Aud. G: 11: 47). Additionally, she found that it made a difference that they had to present their country to each other: “[B]ecause what that also does is that you of course read it a little more in-­‐depth than if you only had to read it through” (Aud. G: 11:57). Furthermore, Adam found that he learned from listening to the others’ presentations (Aud. D: 16:46). In this sense, the method of country presentations was relevant to the trainees, enhanced their efforts, and had the potential to teach the trainees about several countries. Additionally, this method helped build relations and gave the trainees a method for collecting culture-­‐specific information. Simulations During the seminar, the trainees were asked to do some simulations on the basis of cards, hand-­‐outs or similar. While some trainees could not recall specific simulations, Rikako distinctly remembered one with cue cards, where they walked around greeting each other: “One of the things I remember most is how to give a handshake” (Aud. I: 6:44). To Rikako, it was surprising “that the way of handshaking is different in different cultures” (Aud. I: 37:16). Adam described this simulation as “another one of those funny ones” (Aud. D: 33:15) and thought that: “It was nice to put yourself in another culture’s shoes” (Aud. D. 33:46). To Ann it was “a little bit too extreme to sort of be a little bit realistic, but I guess it was good to see how it feels to be an introvert […]. I learned a little bit I guess“ (Aud. E: 6:08). Mette described these role-­‐plays and exercises as “very pedagogical” (Aud. G: 24:05), and Nicholas did not find that he learned something from “putting on a show” (Aud. H: 37:36). As such, there was great variety in the trainees’ outcomes and opinions on role-­‐plays and exercises. Some gained cultural understanding through the simulations and through reflections, while others were unable to 66 see the learning aspect of the simulations. In Sophia’s opinion, it was “good that [Dorte] had these little interferences between the power point presentations” (Aud. J: 27:51). Sophia described the exercises as relating to the information Dorte had just given them, and “you would just experience that so […] the understanding would be better of it” (Aud. J. 28:40). In this sense, some trainees were aware that Dorte’s combination of informational and experiential techniques worked to integrate information and enhance understanding. In respects to the next method – the role-­‐play – the trainees expressed somewhat similar opinions. Role-­‐play by Trainees The final role-­‐play or sketch was one of the techniques that all trainees remembered. To most – e.g. Adam, Ann, Mads, Tommy and Yinan – it was a fun experience: “[T]hat was really fun […], we sort of like made everything a bit extreme and just having a bit of a laugh was quite good” (Aud. E: 23:26). In Tommy’s opinion it was pretty funny to see people from different places trying to behave like person[s] in other cultures. […] it was a good exercise because we […] try to really understand and then behave and talk like people in other countries (Aud. K: 26:13+ 26:31). Furthermore, Adam found that “we didn’t learn anything new at this point, we were just reinstilling the things we had already learned and that was a nice way to do it” (Aud. D: 20:21). To Mads, the main learning aspect of the role-­‐play was the collaboration with the others: “We learned much from [that] […] because we talked about a whole lot” (Aud. F: 7:28). Sophia shared Mads’ opinion, as she found the role-­‐play “very stereotypical” and did “not like role-­‐
plays” (Aud. J. 17:37): I think what was more useful was the actual planning of the role-­‐play. How people reacted in the group, and how different approaches they would have, and you learned about yourself again (Aud. J: 18:05). In this way, the trainees described the role-­‐play as containing several learning aspects. The role-­‐play gave them an opportunity to perform and exhibit culture appropriate behaviour, which required understanding of the given culture-­‐specific information. Additionally, the planning of the role-­‐play constituted a cross-­‐cultural experience and increased understanding of self and others. Finally, the trainees’ diverse opinion on the role-­‐play method illustrated that their learning depended on individual preferences. The trainees’ opinions on the usefulness of the next method – cases – were also very diverse. 67 Cases When asked about the case method, the trainees mostly remembered the ECCO cases and had very divided opinions on them. Adam found the cases helpful and thought “it would be nice if we had the opportunity to read all the ECCO cases” (Aud. D: 23:06). The cases gave Ann “a good idea of […] what I’m in for” (Aud. E: 25:06): It’s really good to see from like I guess a personal experience […] obviously they’ve already been through what we are about to go through so then it was quite good to I guess see what their challenges were (Aud. E: 25:32). Sophia found the real-­‐life examples from the ECCO and Gesteland cases to be the best part of the seminar (Aud. J. 18:43): “I think more like real-­‐life examples would have been better ‘cause that was really interesting” (Aud. J. 6:05). Mads, conversely, found the ECCO cases “insignificant, I couldn’t relate to that – it’s an [individual] experience […]. It was just a negative story” (Aud. F: 21:57+23:22). While Adam experienced that a specific ECCO case from China prepared him for kids peeing in cups (Aud. D: 22:26), other trainees found the cases less useful and “a bit inaccurate” (Aud. H: 29:43; Aud. K: 9:01). Rikako recalled that: When we went to Slovakia it was not like that – managers wanted to talk to us directly, we had personal meetings quite often – maybe because the top-­‐manager at that time was from England (Aud. I: 33:09). As such, some trainees found the cases highly useful, while others found them less so or even unhelpful. The trainees’ opinions depended on whether they found the cases relevant for themselves – i.e. self-­‐referent – and whether they saw learning potential in them. Discussions Through the seminar, the trainees had several discussions that originated from e.g. Dorte’s presentation, cases and exercises. Ann considered these discussions good, but thought they dragged out when everyone had to “participate on every question” (Aud. E: 32:47). Mette found it positive that “we had this on-­‐going dialogue all the time” (Aud. G: 22:12), and Sophia also recalled the discussions as “good” (Aud. J. 26:14). To Tommy, the discussions were better in helping them than other methods, e.g. the country presentations (Aud. K: 21:34), and Japanese Rikako agreed: “It was mostly best through the discussions” (Aud. I: 38:27). She found that personal experiences gave the biggest impression (Aud. I: 39:19): “Ahhh, a Danish boy who’s been in America thinks like that […]. Ahhh, Chinese people think like that” (Aud. I: 39:05). Through these talks, Nicholas found that trainees from the various cultures could confirm or reject cultural stereotypes (Aud. H: 36:24). In this and other ways, the trainees gained 68 substantial cultural and interpersonal understanding through the participants’ different cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, the discussions gave a personal experience with individuals from various cultures, which – depending on the individual trainee – might diversify the trainees’ understanding of others and the inaccuracy of stereotypes. It was not only during discussions that the trainees found that they benefitted from being with a diverse cultural group. Both Mads and Tommy used the opportunity to talk to trainees from their first destination country and learn more about that culture (Aud. F: 6:13; Aud. K: 4:10). Furthermore, the trainees benefitted from the whole experience of being around foreign cultures. In Nicholas’ words: [w]e are a bunch of people who have different values and cultures […] the everyday interaction between us is kind of first-­‐hand training or first-­‐hand touch of different values, cultures (Aud. H: 7:36). In this sense, the trainees were both aware of and able to exploit the cross-­‐cultural learning experience, which the seminar and introduction period constituted. Hot-­‐seat Through the interviews, I learned that the hot seat had not been part of the 2010 seminar due to time issues (Aud. L: 21:40). The trainees, who had experienced the hot seat, did, however, remember it vividly. In Adam’s words: “This was one of my favourite activities and also one thing I thought about weeks following the cross-­‐cultural course” (Aud. D: 10:30). To Ann, Mette and Sophia, the hot seat was initially “scary”, “challenging” and “transgressing” (Aud. J: 16:30; Aud. E: 17:41; Aud. G: 14:03), but they all thought it was an exciting and good exercise: It was challenging to hear, but I think it was also good to hear, because sometimes you don’t see yourself from another perspective and it’s good to sort of like listen to like what everyone had to say (Aud. E: 18:00). To Mette, the exercise gave an “insight into what the others thought of you and […], how you like think of yourself, but how it is perceived by other people” (Aud. G: 14:38). Sophia also thought that the feedback was interesting, “especially from a cultural perspective” seeing as the trainees had different backgrounds and might perceive you differently because of that (Aud. J. 14:51). In this way, the trainees gained self-­‐awareness and valuable insight into others’ perceptions of them through the exercise. Following the theory on self-­‐enhancement motives, the trainees’ outcome of the constructive feedback depended on how strong their motives 69 were for maintaining a positive self-­‐conception. As such, these trainees’ were able to listen to and make use of the feedback. Personal Feedback To most of the trainees, the individual talk with Dorte was encouraging and motivational. Nicholas said that “it is helpful that she made you feel good about yourself – almost all the feedback from her are positive ones” (Aud. H: 28:03). In Mads’ opinion, Dorte gave him good advice on things to remember and take with him (Aud. F: 19:49). Mette found that “it was super good, because she like gave us tools14 to work with ourselves […], what it’s like to go abroad” (Aud. G. 2:43). Furthermore, Mette said: She told each of us things like you are really good at this and she just gave us a lot of self-­‐confidence and like affirmed us that you can easily handle this expatriation and things like that, and it was actually really cool, because then you thought, well, yeah, I’ll just breeze through this – it’s nothing (Aud. G: 3:49). The Chinese trainee Yinan stated that: Personally I really need this kind of recognition […] and also she gave me some feedback like, I shall be open, but at the time I was looking for more self-­‐confidence, because I just moved to Tønder (Aud. L. 14:08). Adam also described the personal feedback as a “boost of confidence” (Aud. D: 18:21). Similarly to Yinan, Adam had left his home country for the first time, and he had “been thrown into this group of new people and just hearing these words of encouragement at the time meant a lot” (Aud. D: 17:25). In this sense, the personal feedback worked as a positive reinforcement technique that boosted these trainees’ confidence and motivation for expatriation. While Tommy agreed that “it is always nice to hear encouragement” (Aud. K: 23:53), Ann “felt like [Dorte] probably said the same thing to everyone” (Aud. E: 20:02), and although she liked hearing it, she “didn’t take it to heart” (Aud. E: 20:49). Additionally, both Adam (Aud. D: 18:25) and Nicholas would have liked to get more critical feedback, “more comments that I can improve myself, because that’s the real life” (Aud. H: 28:20). Consequently, these trainees did not gain the same level of motivation from the feedback and would have preferred the feedback to focus more on points of improvement. 14
These tools were the culture theory (Aud. G: 3:39). 70 This difference in the trainees’ outcome may reflect their different needs for training and motivation in respects to expatriation. These differences in needs were also illustrated in diverging opinions on the seminar’s length: While Ann thought that “in terms of being specific on cross-­‐cultural, it didn’t need to go on for so long probably” (Aud. E. 22:23), Mads did not think that three days was enough considering the large number of destination countries and trainees (Aud. F. 6:02). In a later section, I will go further into the trainees’ different needs (cf. Individual Needs: 73-­‐75). Teacher’s Approach The trainees all approved of Dorte’s choice to include personal and interpersonal learning in the seminar. In Mette’s opinion, the outcome of the seminar would not have been as great, if it had been less personal (Aud. G: 25:27). Adam stated that: “I think it’s very important – to be able to understand others you should be able to understand yourself first” (Aud. D: 11:32). Similarly, Mads emphasised the important relation between understanding your own culture and other cultures: You also have to know your own culture to like be able to see the differences, and you also do that by being asked about it and basically realise that you are like that. You might not think about it on a daily basis […] – but that it is really also a culture because you do that, that and that (Aud. F: 11:08). As such, these trainees found that self-­‐awareness and understanding of own cultural background was strongly related to understanding culture and cultural differences. The trainees, Dorte and the CQ framework, consequently, share this understanding. In regards to interpersonal learning, Nicholas found that the MBTI test gave an understanding of different personality types, which “is also very significant in our future lives in dealing with people with different personalities” (Aud. H: 24:24). In Ann’s opinion, however, Dorte’s use of MBTI results had some drawbacks: “MBTI is really good, but I think it made us focus too much into like which MBTI profile we fell into […] and then some people sort of pushed themselves into those profiles” (Aud. E: 11:07). This was actually the case for Rikako, who prior to taking the MBTI considered herself extrovert: “[O]kay, I might be introvert, and I kept thinking about it and that actually closed my mouth” (Aud. I: 43:37). In this sense, the trainees are not made aware of the test’s limitations, which caused confusion and self-­‐doubt in some. The usefulness of the MBTI, consequently, depends on Dorte and HR’s ability to explain the trainees what the test is – that is, a preference test and a general description of a type, which they should not change to fit into. 71 Overall, the trainees enjoyed the seminar and liked Dorte’s approach to CCT (e.g. J: 30:43; G: 4:27; F: 1:51). Dorte’s personality also played a part in this, and while Mette described her as “super good and […] a real judge of character” (Aud. G: 25:32), Tommy stated that “we enjoyed hearing her stories […] that was also helpful” (Aud. K: 38:01). In respect to Dorte’s approach, Mette found that the seminar “was a lot about expressing yourself” (Aud. G: 5:42), and she liked that Dorte chose to include them more than telling them about culture (Aud. G: 24:26). Ann found that Dorte’s approach was very good in respect to the combination of exercises, self-­‐
development, team building and cross-­‐culture (Aud. E: 22:34). In Nicholas’ opinion: Learning about culture should be fun […] you can get [hard facts about culture] in Wikipedia. I think by having fun and having more interaction not only [do] we understand more about cultures at the same time it is a good teambuilding exercise for us (Aud. K: 28:25). In this sense, the trainees liked the seminar’s high level of interaction. Based on these and previous statements, it can also be concluded that some trainees found that exercises – such as discussions and role-­‐plays – integrated given information and increased understanding. In this sense, these statements validate the CQ guidelines’ advocacy of an integrated approach. In regards to the seminar’s design, the trainees, consequently, had differing opinions on the methods, but generally liked Dorte’s approach and learned from it. Summary of Outcomes The preceding analysis and interpretation gave an insight into the trainees’ outcomes of the seminar. While I recognise that there are differences and variations in the trainees’ outcomes, the trainees generally gained self-­‐awareness, knowledge of culture and understanding of cultural differences. The seminar in itself constituted a cross-­‐cultural learning situation, and through discussions and interactions, the trainees gained an interpersonal and cultural understanding that went deeper than stereotypes. Finally, the seminar taught the trainees a culture-­‐general strategy for approaching cultures. This strategy consisted of being respectful, humble, tolerant, seeing the world through “their eyes” and being understanding. Implicit in this strategy is that it is part of the trainees’ job to adapt into the various cultures. In addition to this, the personal feedback gave some of the trainees a boost of confidence and increased motivation for expatriation. As three of the trainees stated that they learned more about themselves than about culture, it suggests that the seminar focuses too much on personal development at the expense of cultural learning. It is, therefore, a suggestion for improvement to focus less on personal development and more on training cross-­‐cultural competence. 72 When comparing the trainees’ collective outcomes to the previous interpretation, the trainees’ outcomes seem equal to the seminar’s profound learning potential (cf. Analysis – Part One: 59). As the trainees’ CQ is not assessed, it is not possible to determine whether the trainees increased their CQ level through the training. It is, however, possible to determine that the trainees learned from the seminar and increased their cultural, personal and interpersonal understanding. A third method of evaluating the seminar is to compare the senders’ objectives – i.e. HR and Dorte’s objectives – with the seminar to the receivers’ outcomes of it. The seminar achieves the senders’ objectives in so far as the trainees gained knowledge of do’s and don’ts, increased personal understanding and – in some cases – increased confidence and motivation for expatriation. In regards to HR’s objective of ensuring that the trainees behave appropriately, the previous analysis showed that Dorte is aware of CCT’s limitations and that the seminar is no guarantee for expatriate success. As the seminar gave the trainees knowledge and strategies to guide their behaviour, the seminar, consequently, fulfils this objective within the limitations of CCT. In regard to these objectives, the seminar must be evaluated as achieving the senders’ goals. At this point, it is not possible to determine the seminar’s fulfilment of the senders’ shared and final objective; preparing the trainees for expatriation. This will be evaluated in a later section, which specifically concerns the trainees’ statements on feeling prepared (cf. Prepared for Expatriation: 76). In the following, I will look further into the trainees’ individual training needs, and – through the trainees’ statements – I will identify three circumstances influencing these needs. Individual Needs The previous evaluation of the seminar’s methods illustrated that the trainees had differing opinions on the methods and – in some respects – different outcomes of the seminar. This is in part due to method or learning preferences, which this thesis’ theoretical framework does not account for. The difference in outcome is, however, also due to the trainees’ individual background and situation. The three influences on training needs, which I will focus on here, are cross-­‐cultural experience, difference between cultural background and expatriation culture and, lastly, information relevance. Those trainees, who had experience with cross-­‐cultural encounters and stayed for longer periods in foreign countries, already had a sense of their own culture and understanding of cultural differences. Sophia, a German trainee who had attended an international school in 73 Holland, stated that she had “always been aware of culture thing” (Aud. J: 34:49). And Tommy – an Indonesian who had just studied in Canada for three years – felt that “I understand myself, really, really better because I was always contrasting my […] ideas, my emotions, my […] culture” (Aud. K: 30:10). Cross-­‐cultural experience, consequently, gave these trainees cultural understanding and self-­‐awareness. As such, previous cross-­‐cultural experience influenced the trainees’ needs in respect to the CCT seminar. For instance, Tommy stated that had it not been for the information on Danish culture and other European cultures, he could have done without the seminar (Aud. K: 32:46). Conversely, Yinan – a Chinese trainee, who had never travelled before – experienced “a lot of culture shock” (Aud. L: 5:47) when coming to Denmark, and she had a great need for the seminar: “[W]hen you are like a plain paper you really absorbing all the knowledge” (Aud. L. 17:02). In this sense, some trainees benefitted mostly from the country-­‐specific information, while others benefitted from most or all aspects of the seminar. When designing the seminar, Dorte does not take these individual needs or skills into account, but as stated in the previous interpretation, it would be difficult to target all trainees’ needs in one seminar. Awareness of these diverse needs could, however, prompt ECCO or Dorte to incorporate modules of differentiated training into the seminar. Such modules could concern the Danish culture or provide information on cultural adaptation that suited the trainees’ needs. Another aspect influencing the training needs concerned how great the difference was between the trainees’ cultural background and their destination country’s culture. Yinan, for example, stated that: For me, especially for Chinese people, […] we are just from different ends of the world. It’s just too different from every single angle. I have to say, I have been struggling with understanding and adapting myself into either Danish lifestyle or Danish office culture (Aud. L: 44:55). Somewhat similarly, the Danish trainee Mette felt that it was highly useful for her that the CCT seminar prepared her for her destination country Thailand, as “it was so extreme because it was in Asia” (Aud. G: 28:27). In respect to Mette’s second expatriation to Holland, she did, however, not feel the need for CCT: “I didn’t think that was necessary at all, also because it was in Europe, and Holland resembles Denmark a lot” (Aud. G: 28:43). In this sense, ECCO HR should be aware of some trainees having greater needs for information and greater difficulty in integrating. For the non-­‐Danish trainees, there was also the added challenge of being in an unfamiliar setting or, as German Sophia phrased it, “[stepping] out of our comfort zone” (Aud. J: 32:36). In Sophia’s experience, this was a great challenge for those, who had never previously 74 been out of their comfort zone: “[Y]ou could just see a really big difference of how they dealt with it” (Aud. J: 35:09). Being in a new situation and being unfamiliar with the seminar’s general societal level or cultural context – i.e. the Danish culture – did, consequently, affect some of the trainees. Awareness of these challenges and different needs might enable HR to assist these trainees with integrating into the ECCO organisation. The last aspect that influenced the trainees’ outcome of the seminar was relevance. Yinan, Rikako and Sophia were all going to Slovakia, but as “we used most of our time introducing about Asia to Europeans” (Aud. I: 12:53), they felt that their outcome of the seminar was limited in this respect (Aud. J. 4:06). During the seminar, Sophia’s focus was on her first destination, and therefore, she was not able to see the relevance of information on other countries (Aud. J. 25:37). It was not until going to Slovakia and Holland that Yinan understood how useful the course was “at least for my level” (Aud. L: 6:57), and Rikako also stated that “since I’m going to Singapore soon, I can now finally use my learning from that session – so I don’t think it was a waste at all” (Aud. J: 9:35). As such, some trainees initially only considered information on their first destination relevant – i.e. self-­‐referent information. This affected how they perceived their outcome of the seminar and, arguably, their motivation for learning about other countries. Nevertheless, some later recognised the relevance of this information and were able to recall it. As such, it might increase the trainees’ outcome of the seminar if ECCO or Dorte made it clearer that the seminar is useful for the whole trainee period – not just the first destination. By articulating the seminar’s relevance, the trainees would find more of the information self-­‐referent. In summary, these aspects of the trainees’ individual needs are not taken into consideration in the seminar’s programme design. While the seminar cannot take all these needs into consideration, HR’s and Dorte’s awareness of the individual needs might enable them to assist the trainees better in their integration. Furthermore, the trainees’ outcome might improve if they were made aware of the seminar’s full usefulness and personal relevance for them. In the following, I will account for the trainees’ perception on the seminar’s ability to prepare them for expatriation. This account will, consequently, enable me to conclude on the last two evaluations. 75 Prepared for Expatriation When asked if they felt prepared for expatriation after the CCT seminar, six of the trainees – Adam, Ann, Mads, Mette, Tommy and Yinan – answered yes. Nicholas jokingly expressed that he felt 60 percent ready (Aud. H: 19:08) but also stated that the seminar had made him more curious and “very willing to get to know different cultures” (Aud. H. 19:18). Sophia said that, because the seminar had focused on Asia more than her destination country Slovakia, she felt prepared for Asia, but not Slovakia (Aud. J: 11:13). As Rikako was also going to Slovakia, she also felt that the seminar was not “100 percent useful” for her first expatriation but found it very useful for “learning about yourself [and] others” (Aud. I: 25:14). It was more on a personal level that Rikako felt unprepared: “I was not really aware of what was gonna happen, even though I knew the whole schedule” (Aud. I: 19:34). While most of the trainees felt prepared for expatriation, several of them said that it is difficult to prepare people fully for expatriation (e.g. Aud. F: 14:04; Aud. G: 9:32). This realisation is related to previous statements trainees made about having to live in a culture in order to really get to know it (e.g. Aud. G: 10:37). It is also related to the trainees’ experience that “you will never encounter the same and you are also different – it is different, how you perceive it and take it” (Aud. F: 15:26). In view of CCT’s limitations, most of the trainees, consequently, agreed with Adam’s statement that “the cross-­‐
cultural programme did what it was designed to do, I don’t think there was anything more I could have asked for” (Aud. D: 13:27). So apart from two trainees’ want for more information on destination countries, the trainees generally felt the seminar prepared them as much as possible for expatriation, and the seminar, thereby, achieved all of the senders’ objectives. To conclude this analysis and interpretation, I will account for what the trainees’ would have liked to know more about before expatriation. On the basis of these statements and the previous analyses and interpretations, I will then present some suggestions for improving ECCO’s CCT seminar. Additional Information While the trainees recognised that they would “never encounter the same”, it was precisely information on what to expect the trainees would have liked more of before expatriation. For instance, Ann would have liked to know more about what she could expect the trainee period to be like (Aud. E: 35:45). Mette would have liked to know something “a little more concrete about the place you are going” (Aud. G: 31:05). Mads would have liked to know how to behave in production (Aud. F: 12:38) and, additionally, what expectations ECCO and the various units have for trainees; “because it is so different, how you are being received” (Aud. F: 35:30). Adam would also have liked to be more prepared for the tough lifestyle in production, but he did not 76 think the CCT seminar could have done it (Aud. D: 6:46): “[H]aving those types of expectations drawn out for you would be nice in the handbook” (Aud. D: 39:58). It was based on this feedback I developed a culture handbook that states ECCO’s expectations for the trainees during the trainee period (App. 2). However, I focused on general expectations, as specific information on e.g. each production unit presents the same dilemma as functionalist culture theory: The trainees may experience it as inaccurate because of individual differences or changes. As such, there is an element of uncertainty, which specific information cannot eliminate. Although the trainees were generally satisfied with the seminar, some trainees mentioned things that they would have liked to get from the CCT seminar. Four of the trainees did not feel the seminar focused enough on their destination countries and would, therefore, like more information on these countries (e.g. Aud. F: 5:39; Aud. J: 10:05). Nicholas would have liked to know more about Danish culture (Aud. H: 39:31). And Mads lacked information on how to act in a business situation – e.g. “how meetings are run” (Aud. F: 12:01). These statements reflect individual needs, which further indicate that the seminar could focus more on cultural learning. Based on these needs and the previous analyses and interpretations, I will present suggestions for improvements. Suggestions for Improvements Overall, the previous evaluations of ECCO’s CCT seminar have shown that it is a comprehensive, multifaceted seminar, which achieves the senders’ objectives and generally prepares the trainees for expatriation by increasing their cultural, personal and interpersonal understanding. They did, however, also show that the seminar can be improved through a greater focus on cultural learning and meta-­‐communication. Based on the expressed needs in the above, the seminar should assure that the trainees are provided equal amounts of culture-­‐specific information on their first destination country. Furthermore, the trainees could benefit from being prepared for other expatriations than production, and this preparation could include culture theory on business behaviours – e.g. differences in conduction of business meetings. As all trainees will be working in Denmark during the three-­‐year trainee period, information on Danish culture could also be specifically provided for the trainees who had a need for it. This need could be ascertained by asking the trainees. 77 In addition to covering these expressed needs, ECCO and Dorte could do more to inform the trainees about the seminars goals, usefulness and limitations. By stating the learning objectives and framing the seminar as useful for the trainees’ entire trainee period – and not just the first destination country – the trainees might find more of the seminar’s information self-­‐referent. This would increase their motivation for learning and possibly increase their outcome of the seminar. In any case, it would increase their perception of the seminar’s relevance. Additional meta-­‐communication on CCT’s learning potential and limitations would also help the trainees prepare for expatriation. By telling the trainees that culture theory can help prepare – but not fully prepare – them for their individual cross-­‐cultural experiences, the trainees would gain an understanding of the seminar’s usefulness and limitations. This information would address the trainees’ need for knowing precisely what to expect, and by acknowledging that it is not possible to provide such information, ECCO might change the trainees’ frame of mind and, thereby, diminish this need. The framing of expatriation as an individual experience should then be complemented with culture-­‐general information on how to adapt in a new culture. In many respects, the seminar does provide a culture-­‐general strategy for approaching new cultures. Furthermore, it provides a culture-­‐general coping strategy, which advices the trainees to seek out information, be out-­‐
going, build relations and learn some of the language (cf. Figure 12: 52). These strategies do include tools for gathering information and a strategy for how to learn in a new culture, but the seminar could do more to emphasise the importance of being able to learn in a new culture. Through the CQ framework, the trainees could be made aware that some cultural knowledge is tacit, and that their ability to gather such information depends on their CQ and their knowledge of information gathering tools. In addition to the tools presented in the seminar, the CQ framework mentions mimicking and observation as tools for gathering information in situations where inquiry is impossible e.g. due to language barriers. As such, emphasis on the importance of being able to learn in foreign cultures and awareness of available tools might improve the trainees’ ability to adapt. Finally, an assessment of the trainees’ CQ level prior to and after expatriation could work as a goal-­‐setting method and, additionally, enhance the trainees’ self-­‐
efficacy in respects to expatriations. In view of CCT’s limitations, this thesis also suggests the use of an adaptability test in the recruitment process. In this sense, the thesis presents a number of suggestions for improving ECCO’s CCT seminar. These suggestions generally concern preparing the trainees for their job rather than developing their personality, and they, thereby, indicate that the seminar should focus more on increasing cross-­‐cultural competence and less on personal development. In the subsequent chapter, I will discuss the benefits and limitations of this thesis’ research design and discuss other approaches to evaluating ECCO’s and other CCT programmes. 78 Discussion The theoretical and methodological framework of this thesis’ research design enabled me to evaluate ECCO’s CCT seminar qualitatively and in four ways. The theories provided useful insights into various facets of the seminar’s design, learning aspects and, furthermore, aspects influencing the communication and learning process. While the narrow definition of the chosen culture concept did not prove particularly useful in this research context, it did provide theoretical insight into the complexity of the culture concept and the limitations of functionalist culture theory (cf. The Concept of Culture: 9-­‐12). The CQ framework presented guidelines for designing CCT programmes through a focus on the capabilities – i.e. CQ – that cultural adaptation requires. While the CQ framework and these guidelines constituted a useful approach to evaluating and designing CCT programmes, they also had their limitations. These limitations concern the general nature of the guidelines and the difficulty of assessing learning outcomes. Firstly, the guidelines did not describe any methods as more useful than others, which left selection of methods up to the trainer’s judgement. This limitation, however, is not specific to the CQ framework as it is a general challenge for researchers, trainers and the likes to assess a learning method’s effectiveness (cf. Problem Area: 2). Secondly, while the framework did provide a method for assessing the learning outcomes in regards to impact on CQ levels, no such assessments had been made. As such, I was unable to use this tool for evaluating the learning outcomes. This tool would, however, also have limitations in respects to assessing the full learning outcome of the seminar, which is due to the virtual impossibility of measuring learning outcomes. In view of these difficulties in assessing learning methods and outcomes – and in view of the resources available to me – this thesis’ research design presented a thorough, multifaceted approach to evaluating ECCO’s CCT seminar and, additionally, enabled me to present suggestions for improvements. The four evaluations each had a different focus and, thereby, presented different approaches to evaluating CCT programmes. Despite the multiple facets of this thesis’ evaluation, it still remains a subject for discussion how CCT programme’s effectiveness should be evaluated (cf. Problem Area: 2-­‐3). This discussion does not only concern the difficulties in evaluating CCT programmes, but also concerns the diverse interest of stakeholders and evaluators. For researchers and CCT trainers for instance, evaluations of programme designs and their learning potential are highly interesting and can help improve CCT programmes. For the companies that offer CCT to their employees, other evaluations may be more interesting. For instance, an evaluation that compared a two-­‐day seminar to a three-­‐day seminar by looking at the participants’ respective outcomes could serve as a cost-­‐benefit analysis. Such evaluations 79 could, consequently, provide insight into how much training it takes to develop the necessary level of cross-­‐cultural competence or CQ. In this sense, it is the interests of researchers, trainers and others stakeholders that determine both the value of evaluations and the approach to evaluating CCT programmes. Furthermore, this thesis illustrates that while four types of evaluations provide a comprehensive understanding of a CCT programme, there are still aspects of the seminar that could be explicated through other types of evaluations. In the last paragraphs of the discussion, I will reflect on my methodological approach to evaluating ECCO’s CCT seminar by discussing alternative approaches. Furthermore, I will give a suggestion for future evaluations on ECCO’s seminar and CCT programmes in general. In this thesis’ evaluations, I focused on the senders’ and receivers interpretation of the CCT seminar. A different way to evaluate the seminar could have been to take an ethnographic approach and conduct participant observations. Had it been possible, observation of the seminar would have provided additional data that I could have used both to describe the seminar’s design and compare to the sender’s and receiver’s interpretations of it. This would have added an additional perspective to base the evaluations on. Furthermore, it would have provided me with a prior understanding of the seminar, which would have aided me when producing interview guides and when conducting interviews. The evaluation of the seminar’s outcomes could also have been supplemented with a participant observation of the trainees after the seminar. By observing their behaviour in e.g. a work environment, I could have described how they put their knowledge into play and, furthermore, compared this behaviour to the trainees’ statements about their learning outcomes. In future research and evaluations of CCT programmes, it would be interesting to use CQ assessments as a tool for evaluating outcomes. A suggestion for such future evaluations could be a research design that combined CQ assessments and observations of the participants’ behaviour. These assessments and observations should be conducted prior to and after CCT. By basing the CQ assessments on the participants’ self-­‐report and by supplementing the observations with observer reports of the participants’ CQ (App. 1), this research design would provide insight into both the receivers’ interpretation of outcomes and an observer’s interpretation of outcomes. This research design would, however, require more resources and, most likely, more than one researcher. 80 Conclusion The research objective of this thesis was to evaluate ECCO’s CCT seminar on the basis of the theoretical framework and the collected data. The data collection consisted of material from the seminar and qualitative interviews with two HR employees, the seminar teacher and nine trainees – i.e. the senders and receivers of the seminar. As such, it was the respective senders’ and receivers’ interpretations of the seminar that formed the basis of this thesis’ analysis. The theoretical framework consisted of social theories that focused on the social construction of reality, interpretation’s centrality to the communication process and, furthermore, context’s and motivation’s importance for learning. The theoretical framework was completed with the theory on cultural intelligence (CQ). The CQ framework described how cultural adjustment requires cognitive, motivational and behavioural skills – i.e. the three facets of CQ – and, furthermore, presented guidelines for designing CCT programmes. As such, the CQ framework and the additional theories provided a framework for interpreting the empirical data. Collectively, the empirical data and the theoretical framework enabled me to evaluate the seminar in four ways: 1) By evaluating the seminar’s learning potential 2) By evaluating the trainees’ learning outcomes 3) By evaluating the seminar’s ability to prepare the trainees for expatriation 4) By evaluating the seminar’s ability to achieve the senders’ objectives The first evaluation concerned the seminar’s learning potential, and it was based on the analysis of the senders’ interviews and the teaching materials. This analysis described the seminar’s design, the senders’ objectives with the seminar and the teacher’s approach to CCT. By interpreting this analysis and comparing the teacher’s approach to CQ’s guidelines for programme design, I found that the seminar to a large extent followed CQ’s guidelines. The seminar’s design consisted of informational and experiential methods that trained all facets of CQ, and as the seminar particularly focused on training self-­‐awareness, it had a profound potential to increase the trainees’ CQ and their cultural, personal and interpersonal understanding. The second evaluation treated the trainees’ outcome of the seminar. This evaluation was based on the analysis and interpretation of the trainee interviews. It was established that the trainees through the seminar had gained self-­‐awareness, culture-­‐specific and culture-­‐general knowledge, understanding of cultural differences and a strategy for approaching new cultures. These gains were also due to the cross-­‐cultural learning situation, which the seminar 81 constituted through the trainees’ diverse cultural backgrounds. As such, the trainees found that the seminar did increase their cultural, personal and interpersonal understanding. The third evaluation dealt with the seminar’s ability to prepare the trainees for expatriation. This was established on the basis on the trainee interviews, and the analysis of these interviews showed that the trainees generally felt that the seminar did what it could to prepare them for expatriation. Furthermore, the trainees liked the trainer’s integrated approach and focus on personal learning. As such, the seminar managed to prepare most of the trainees for expatriation. The final evaluation concerned the seminar’s ability to achieve the senders’ – i.e. HR and the trainer’s – objectives. Through the analyses and interpretations, it was established that the seminar achieves the senders’ objectives in so far as the trainees felt prepared for expatriation, gained knowledge of do’s and don’ts, increased personal understanding and – in some cases – increased confidence and motivation for expatriation. A further objective was to ensure that the trainees’ behaved appropriately. While CCT can provide knowledge and strategies to guide the trainees’ behaviour, training cannot guarantee expatriate success. As such, the senders’ objectives were largely achieved within CCT’s limitations. Through these four evaluations, this thesis has, consequently, established that ECCO’s CCT seminar is comprehensive, has various learning aspects, fulfils its purpose and generally manages to prepare the trainees for expatriation. While these evaluations were largely positive, the thesis found that the seminar should focus more on training cross-­‐cultural competence and less on personal development. Other suggestions for improvements mainly concerned meta-­‐communication and addition of culture-­‐specific and culture-­‐general information that would prepare the trainees for their entire trainee period. By meta-­‐
communicating about the seminar’s usefulness and limitations, the trainees would find more of the seminar self-­‐referent, which would possibly increase their outcomes of it. By emphasising that expatriation is an individual learning experience and by providing additional tools for information gathering, the trainees’ ability to learn and adapt might increase. Finally, an assessment of the trainees’ CQ before and after expatriation could work as a goal-­‐setting method that motivated the trainees to increase their CQ – i.e. their ability to adapt. 82 Bibliography Books Ang, Soon & Linn Van Dyne (eds.). 2008. Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Askehave, Inger & Birgitte Norlyk (eds.). 2006. Meanings and Messages – Intercultural Business Communication. Aarhus: Academica Berger, Peter & Thomas Luckmann. 1987. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Brislin, Richard. 2000. Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior, 2nd edition. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Brislin, Richard & Ann-­‐Marie Horvath. 1997. Cross-­‐cultural training and multicultural education in Handbook of cross-­‐cultural psychology -­‐ Volume 3: Social behaviour and applications, 2nd edition by John W. Berry, Marshall H. Segall & Cigdem Kagiticibasi (eds.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon Burr, Vivien. 2003. Social Constructionism, 2nd edition. Routledge Earley, P. Christopher & Soon Ang. 2003. Cultural Intelligence – Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Earley, P. Christopher, Soon Ang & Joo-­‐Seng Tan. 2006. CQ: Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Frandsen, Finn, Winni Johansen & Anne Ellerup Nielsen. 1997. International markedskommunikation i en postmoderne verden. Aarhus: Forlaget Systime A/S Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, Inc. 83 Gesteland, Richard R. 2005. Cross-­‐Cultural Business Behavior – Negotiating, Selling, Sourcing and Managing Across Cultures, 4th edition. Copenhagen Business School Press Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Illeris, Knud. 2007. How We Learn -­‐ Learning and non-­‐learning in school and beyond. Routledge Kvale, Steinar. 2011. Doing Interviews. SAGE Publications Lee, Chay Hoon Lee & Klaus J. Templer. 2003. Cultural Intelligence Assessment and Measurement (pp. 185-­‐208) in Cultural Intelligence – Individual Interactions Across Cultures by P. Christopher Earley and Soon Ang. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Ng, Kok-­‐Yee, Linn Van Dyne & Soon Ang. 2012. Cultural Intelligence: A Review, Reflections, and Recommendations for Future Research (pp. 29-­‐58) in Conducting Multinational Research: Applying Organizational Psychology in the Workplace by Ann Marie Ryan, Frederick T. L. Leong & Frederick L. Oswald (eds.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Ringstad, Hallvard E. & Thor Ødegård. 2002. Typeforståelse: Jungs typepsykologi – en praktisk indføring. Bergen, Norway: Optimas organisasjonspsykologene Seligman, Scott D. 2008. Chines Business Etiquette: A Guide to Protocol, Manners, and Culture in the People’s Republic of China. Grand Central Publishing Sørensen, Anne Scott, Ole Martin Høystad, Erling Bjurström & Halvard Vike. 2010. Nye kulturstudier -­‐ teorier og temaer. Copenhagen: Tiderne skifter 84 Tan, Joo-­‐Seng & Roy Yong-­‐Joo Chua. 2003. Training and Developing Cultural Intelligence (pp. 258-­‐303) in Cultural Intelligence – Individual Interactions Across Cultures by P. Christopher Earley and Soon Ang. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Online Sources Articles Bhawuk, Dharm P. S. & Richard W. Brislin. 2000. Cross-­‐cultural training: A Review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 162-­‐191. Earley, P. Christopher. 2006. Leading Cultural Research in the Future: A Matter of Paradigms and Taste. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 6 (November), pp. 922-­‐931. Earley, P. Christopher & Randall S. Peterson. 2004. The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a New Approach to Intercultural Training for the Global Manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 100-­‐115. Jones, Michael. 2007. Hofstede – Culturally Questionable? Originally from the Oxford Business & Economics Conference. Oxford, UK, 24-­‐26 June, 2007. Accessed via Research Online – the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong – on February 13, 2013. URL: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1389&context=commpapers Joshua-­‐Gojer, A. Esther. 2012. Cross-­‐Cultural Training and Success Versus Failure of Expatriates. Learning and Performance Quarterly, vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 47-­‐62. Ko, Hsiu-­‐Ching & Mu-­‐Li Yang. 2011. The Effects of Cross-­‐Cultural Training on Expatriate Assignments. Intercultural Communication Studies, vol. 20, issue 1 (June), pp. 158-­‐174. Lang, Gretchen. 24 January, 2004. Cross-­‐cultural training: How much difference does it really make? The New York Times online. Accessed 6 January, 2013 via www.nytimes.com. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/news/24iht-­‐rcross_ed3_.html 85 Littrell, Lisa N. & Eduardo Salas. 2005. A Review of Cross-­‐Cultural Training: Best Practices, Guidelines, and Research Needs. Human Resource Development Review, vol. 4, no. 3 (September), pp. 305-­‐334. Lunenburg, Fred C. 2011. Goal-­‐Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, vol. 15, no. 1. Accessed 1 April, 2013. URL: http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C.
%20Goal-­‐Setting%20Theoryof%20Motivation%20IJMBA%20V15%20N1%202011.pdf Rohner, Ronald P. 1984. Toward a Conception of Culture for Cross-­‐Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-­‐Cultural Psychology, vol. 15, no. 2 (June), pp. 111-­‐138. Sylvain, Nathalie-­‐Michéle. 16 February, 2012. How to Make Cross-­‐Cultural Training Effective. Published on The International HR Forum’s website. Accessed 15 January, 2013. URL: http://internationalhrforum.com/2012/02/16/how-­‐to-­‐make-­‐cross-­‐cultural-­‐training-­‐
effective/ Szkudlarek, Betina. 2009. Through Western Eyes: Insights into the Intercultural Training Field. Organization Studies, vol. 30, issue 9, pp. 975-­‐986. Websites Digital Films. 2013. Emotional Intelligence, with Daniel Goleman. Accessed 14 April, 2013. URL: http://digital.films.com/play/6KHRP5 ECCO. 2013a. About ECCO – Organisation. Accessed 4 March, 2013. URL: http://www.ecco.com/en-­‐GB/About-­‐ECCO/Who-­‐we-­‐are/Organisation ECCO. 2013b. The ECCO Code of Conduct. Accessed 12 April, 2013. URL: http://www.ecco.com/en-­‐GB/About-­‐ECCO/CorporateResponsibility/~/media/Files/ Pdf/The_ECCO_Code_of_Conduct.pdf Financial Times Lexicon. 2013. Expatriate definition. Accessed 6 January, 2013. URL: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=expatriat 86 Gestaltreality. 2013. Myers-­‐Briggs Personality Typology. Accessed 14 April, 2013. URL: http://www.gestaltreality.com/articles/myers-­‐briggs/ MarshallCavendish. 2013. Culture Shock! About the series. Accessed 23 April, 2013. URL: http://www.marshallcavendish.us/marshallcavendish-­‐
us/trade/catalog/travel/cultureshock/index.xml 87