EXPLORING INPATRIATE MANAGER ISSUES: ANvan/diverse/bellut-papers/sdarticle-15.pdf · 2008-03-03 ·...

EXPLORING INPATRIATE MANAGER ISSUES: ANEXPLORATORY EMPIRICAL STUDY

MICHAEL G. HARVEY*

University of Oklahoma, USA

NICHOLAS MICELI

Morgan State University, USA

ABSTRACT. Multinational corporations (MNCs) require managements that arediverse and multicultural to e�ectively compete in the global marketplace. Theneed to integrate the headquarters operations of many United States based MNCshas become a signi®cant strategic issue. Bringing quali®ed host and third countrynations into the United States on a semi-permanent basis appears to be a feasiblehuman resource management strategy for developing multicultural managementteams. This article reports on an exploratory survey to demonstrate why inpatriatemanagers need specialized training programs to insure/accelerate the acculturationprocess. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

KEY WORDS. Inpatriation, relocation of managers, mnc multiculturalism..

INTRODUCTION

How can multinational corporations (MNCs) gain strategic directionto e�ectively compete in the global marketplace?

. Marcel, O. Rohr, President and Chief Executive O�cer, K-TronInternational, Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ. Nationality: Swiss.

. S. W. W. `Guus' Lobsen, President and Chief Executive O�cer,Quaker Chemical Corporation, Conshohocken, PA. Nationality:Dutch.

Int. J. Intercultural Rel. Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 339±371, 1999# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0147-1767/99 $ - see front matter

PII: S0147-1767(99)00001-2

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

*Corresponding author. Puterbaugh Chair of American Free Enterprise, College of

Business and Administration, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA.

Tel.: +1-405-325-5941; Fax: +1-405-325-7688.

339

. Jack Halliday, President and Chief Executive O�cer, ABC

Laboratories, Columbus, MO. Nationality: Irish.

. Cornelis Boonstra, President and Chief Operation O�cer, Sara Lee

Corporation, Chicago, IL. Nationality: Dutch.

Lacking the time to groom and train American managers to be more

cosmopolitan, international companies are acquiring global expertise by

making a ``foreigner'' the boss (Pechter, 1993). Many companies cannotwait until Americans acquire the multilingual skills, expatriate experi-

ence, and global vision needed in today's top executives. As competition

becomes more di�cult, the next logical step for global enterprises would

be to develop into ``multicultural multinational'' organizations.

The need for cultural diversity in management has become a topic in

board rooms throughout the world. Matsushita's president has told

management that ``to become a truly global company, we have to havediversity in top management'' (Kano, 1994). Sony sells 80% of its pro-

ducts overseas and recognizes the need to become multicultural. It has

appointed two foreigners to its board of directors, and has plans to hirehost-country nationals as top executives for most if not all of its over-

seas subsidiaries. The management of multinational corporations

(MNCs), i.e., a company that engages in production or service activitiesthrough its own a�liates in several countries, maintains control over the

policies of the a�liates in several countries, manages from a global per-

spective, and derives 25% of its sales from foreign sources (Root, 1984),

are beginning to view their employees and managers as a globally diver-si®ed human resources portfolio. This requires the amalgamation of

managers at all levels into a uni®ed team. European giant, Royal

Dutch/Shell, has 38 nationalities represented in its London headquar-ters, exemplifying multicultural multinationalism (The Discreet, 1994).

The process of transferring host country and third country national

managers into the home/domestic market on a semipermanent basis isknown as `ìnpatriation'' (Harvey, 1993). The domestic in¯ow of man-

agers typically starts with top executives, but after a reasonable period,

all levels of a multicultural MNC should include inpatriate managers.The resulting multicultural management team provides a competitive

advantage, enabling MNCs to compete more successfully in the global

environment (Dadfar & Gustavsson, 1992; Granstrand, Hakanson, &

SjoÈ lander, 1993).

The CEOs mentioned in the introduction brought the skills needed to

work cross-culturally to their new ®rms. To stimulate ``downstream''

multiculturalism in a headquarters organization, human resource man-agers need to facilitate the inpatriates' acculturation process. Through

training inpatriate managers to manage in the North American cultural

setting their value to the domestic headquarters can be insured. When

M. G. Harvey and N. Miceli340

acculturated, inpatriate employees will be valuable resources for man-agerial development and will assist North Americans to work moree�ectively in cross-cultural situations (Black & Mendenhall, 1989;Smith, 1984).

Inpatriate managers will need training to be integrated into the dom-estic corporate culture. The major obstacle to inpatriate manager train-ing is obtaining upper management acceptance of the need to developunique training materials, train multicultural trainers, and allocate su�-cient time to inpatriate training sessions. This issue is similar to thereluctance of top management to support repatriation training forexpatriates returning from overseas assignments experienced ®fteenyears ago (Harvey, 1982, 1989).

North American managers may discount the view that the optimaltraining pedagogy for a relatively homogeneous group of Americans isnot the same pedagogy appropriate for a heterogeneous group ofinpatriates. Inpatriates can vary greatly in terms of individual culture,values, and learning and attributional styles. These di�erences a�ect theinpatriate's ability to learn the behaviors needed to succeed in theNorth American environment (Altman & Chemers, 1980; Hammer,1992; Hannigan, 1990; Middleton, 1989). It should not be assumed thatgroups of domestic managers that are being trained are homogeneousbecause they are not. There may be variation in cultural background aswell as learning styles and cognitive styles among American managers.What has been explored by other researchers such as Hofstede (1980)are the di�erences between cultural clusters is frequently greater thanwithin cultures. Therefore, inpatriates could have signi®cantly greatervariation in their training groups due to the mix of cultures representedin the group (Harvey, 1997).

In a recent article in the Journal of International Business Studies, pastand future academic research trends were discussed. A variation of aDelphi technique, i.e., an expert opinion, qualitative research methodwhich entails successive rounds or iterations of discussion, with feed-back on the results of each round, until ®nal consensus is reached(Douglas & Craig, 1983), was conducted with thirty internationalexperts from the academic and business communities. They were askedto identify future trends/issues in international business research. Twoissues that were identi®ed as key future research topics were: (1) Howcan managers of di�erent cultural backgrounds best be integrated into asingle company? and (2) The training of foreign managerial candidatesin the United States (Wright & Ricks, 1994).

Our goals in this paper are to examine the variation in cultural valuesand beliefs, learning styles, and attributional styles, and infer from thathow to e�ectively train inpatriate managers to adapt to the internal cor-porate culture as well as external environment in North America. As a

Exploring Inpatriate Manager Issues: Exploratory Empirical Study 341

result of these di�erences, it is hypothesized that a diverse group ofinpatriate trainees cannot be treated as if they are a relatively homo-geneous group of North Americans being trained for expatriate experi-ence. Due to the cultural diversity of inpatriates, training pedagogy,training materials, trainers, length of time to train, and assessment ofthe e�ectiveness of the training e�ort may need to be modi®ed from themore generic, standardized training and that for domestic employeesrelocating internationally.

COGNITIVE AND LEARNING STYLE DIFFERENCES

Field Sensitivity and Field Insensitivity

Educational researchers have characterized learners as ®eld sensitiveand ®eld insensitive for decades. The individual's degree of ®eld depen-dency relates to his/her ability to derive meaning from information,understanding concepts outside the context in which they occurred. Theinpatriate's dominant learning style is in the inpatriate's habitual orien-tation along a ®eld dependency continuum (Saracho, 1990; Willis, 1989;Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). The inpatriate's learningstrategy is strongly in¯uenced by his/her home culture (Riding &Cheema, 1991).

Cultural In¯uences

Hofstede (1980, 1984) illustrated that an individual's ®eld depen-dence/ independence (FDI) orientation (Kolb, 1984; Witkin et al., 1977)is culturally in¯uenced. Other researchers see FDI as linked to cultureat the ecological level (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Pelissier, 1991).Accordingly, the inpatriate's home culture and FDI orientation in¯u-ence his/her choice of a preferred learning strategy. Riding and Cheema(1991) have classi®ed FDI (Witkin et al., 1977) with Kolb's learningstyle typology (Green, Snell, & Parimanath, 1990; Kolb, 1981, 1984;Pelissier, 1991; Rogers, 1986); concreteness is associated with ®elddependence, and abstractness is associated with ®eld independence. Ifan inpatriate's preferred style varies with FDI, it would be logical to``®t'' training materials and trainers to the inpatriate's learning style tooptimize learning levels.

Other evidence supports the importance of matching the trainee's pre-ferred learning style and the instructor's instructional style. Culturalvariation in¯uences an individual's:

. perceptions (Cole, Gay, Glick, & Sharp, 1971; Deregowski, 1980;Rogo�, 1981; Stumpf & Dunbar, 1991);


. performance (Glaser & Bassok, 1989; Griggs & Dunn, 1989; Ratner,

1991);

. preferred learning style or strategy (Rogo�, 1981; Willis, 1989); and

. ability to recall information (Pick, 1980; Wagner, 1981).

Also, trainees' pre-existing beliefs moderate the e�ects of a training

pedagogy, and should be considered when designing the training pro-

gram (Bennett, 1986; Bochner, 1986; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Kolb,1984; Pick, 1980; Ratner, 1991; Rogo�, 1981; Walter & Marks, 1981).

While inpatriates' previous exposure to Western-style educational

methods (Booth & Winzar, 1993; Cole et al., 1971; Rogo�, 1981) in¯u-ences their ability to learn, they still have a preferred learning style in

which they are more e�ective learners. These lines of research support

the need to consider learner diversity when training inpatriate managers

and to match, where possible, an inpatriate's style of learning with atraining method which is complementary.

These results frame an examination of the e�ects of cultural back-ground and individual motivation on learning strategy preferences, in

terms of group versus individual learning approaches. In Hofstede's

(1980, 1984) terminology, this considers the trainee's orientation

between the extremes of individualism±collectivism (Bond, 1992; Cole etal., 1971; Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Griggs & Dunn, 1989; Owens,

1985). The ability of individuals to assimilate social skills appropriate to

their new setting impacts their e�ectiveness when interacting withothers, working cooperatively or competitively. Their success or failure

is a�ected by their ability to behave according to the norms of the

North American workplace.

In summary, an inpatriate's preferred learning style needs to be

accommodated for optimal learning and transfer of appropriate, cultu-

rally-based social skills (Cole et al., 1971; Glaser & Bassok, 1989; Kolb,1984; Pelissier, 1991; Pepitone, 1986; Ratner, 1991; Saracho, 1990;

Walter & Marks, 1981). If appropriate training is not provided for the

inpatriate manager, it may be considered unethical behavior because it

denies the inpatriate the opportunity to cope and succeed in a new en-vironment (Black & Mendenhall, 1989). Learning styles as well as cul-

ture di�erences in learning need to be accommodated on an individual

basis to increase learning levels of inpatriate managers. Pre-course test-ing for learning and attribution styles could provide the trainer with

insights as to how to direct individual learning as well as the degree of

learning diversity in the group which must be addressed. In addition,

training materials can be tailored to particular cultures represented inthe inpatriate training group. In doing so, inpatriate managers could

receive customized training materials which ®t both cultural and learn-

ing style preferences. Imposition of incorrect FDI and learning style


assumptions upon reality increases the chances of interpersonal con¯ict,reinforcing stereotypes (Cole et al., 1971; Kolb, 1984), and makingincorrect attributions about co-workers and managers (Bochner, 1986;Kolb, 1981; Pepitone, 1986; Rogers, 1986; Shaw, 1990; Yoshikawa,1988). Inaccurate attributions are likely rooted in culturally-based sche-mata, beliefs, and mismatching of actor and observer attributionalstyles.

ATTRIBUTIONAL OR EXPLANATION STYLE

The development of attribution theory has been extensive in the lastdecade. While a lengthy review is impossible in a paper of limited scope,it is su�cient to say that observers make sense of others' behavior viatheir attributional style. One model which depicts the observer's in-terpretation is Kelley's (1967) analysis of covariance. According to thismodel, the observer makes a situational or dispositional attributionabout a behavior based on the interaction between the action, the situ-ation, and the timing of the behavior. The observer's conclusions arealso in¯uenced by his/her pre-existing beliefs, attitudes, and schematicconstructs (Kelley & Michela, 1980; Peterson & Seligman, 1984;Seligman, 1990). Importantly for this analysis, past research indicatesthat attributional styles between cultures vary dramatically (MacCarthy,1986; Crittenden & Lammug, 1988).

Cultural Variation of Construct

Further re®nements of the attribution model have observers classify-ing causal factors for behaviors according to: (1) locus of control (in-ternal±external); (2) pervasiveness (globality±speci®city); and (3)permanence (stability±instability). An observer is habitually orientedalong these three axes. This means that their causal explanations varysystematically according to the in¯uence of the home culture upon eachaxis construct (Forgas, Furnham & Frey, 1989; Graham, 1991;Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993; Holloway, 1988; MacCarthy, 1986;Mendenhall & Oddou, 1986; Ronen, 1991; Schuster, Forsterlung, &Weiner, 1989). Similarity in locus orientation occurs within related cul-tural groups (Ehrenhaus, 1983), while di�ering cultures use ``luck'' attri-butions far more than do North Americans (Duda & Allison, 1989;Haraldsson, 1985; Little, 1987). Finally, temporal or cause and e�ectlinkages vary between cultures (Duda & Allison, 1989; Spadone, 1992).

Attributions may also be in¯uenced by the individualistic±collectivistorientation of the observer (Duda & Allison, 1989; Hamilton &Hagiwara, 1992; Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Kashima, 1992). Whenthe actor and observer have di�erent cultural origins, the chances of


misattribution are increased; such as the case of the inpatriate managerand his/her domestic managerial counterparts. Causal misattributionscan deny inpatriates the opportunity to derive social support from inter-action with North Americans, making their transfer into the domestic

FIGURE 1. Intercultural Stress Inducing Activities of Inpatriate Managers


environment and organization more stressful and less likely to succeed(Harvey, 1993).

The stress associated with inpatriation can be divided among four fac-tors, i.e., organizational, personal, family, and environmental. Each fac-tor may be further subdivided into three elements that identify type ofstress. Stress brought about by life-strains are typically thought of asundesirable personal outcomes originating from work or nonwork situ-ations, particularly those related to family, and may be divided intothree elements: cognitive, emotional/a�ective, and behavioral (Bhagat,1983). The presence of stress in the inpatriation process may be broughton by a wide variety of issues (see Figure 1). These elements havereceived a great deal of attention by researchers as they relate toexpatriates and their overseas assignments (Feldman, 1988; Ganster &Schaubroeck, 1991; Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992; Feldman & Thomas,1993). The cumulative impact of stress across the four factors heightensthe need for specialized/customized training for inpatriate managers.Without a means to reduce stress, i.e., learning to culturally ``®t'', thelevel of stress will have dysfunctional consequences for the inpatriatemanager over time.

Culture Shock

Beginning with Oberg's (1960) article, culture shock has been exam-ined in depth. Generally, culture shock is characterized by feelings ofhelplessness, and an inability to make sense of behavior and events in anew environment. It has been shown that there are many similaritiesbetween someone experiencing a stress reaction and someone su�eringfrom cultural shock (Barna, 1983). Stress reactions are frequently trig-gered by ambiguity, lack of certainty, and unpredictability; all of whichare present when a sojourner enters a new culture (Stokols, 1979;Barna, 1983). The learned or stored template of ``context'' which theinpatriate uses to make inferences about observed behaviors no longermatches reality. Also, the inpatriate's interpersonal skills and behaviorsdo not ``®t'' the new context or environment, leading to misperceptionof his/her behavior. In e�ect, until inpatriates can tolerate ambiguityand learn the appropriate social cues and behaviors, they are asocial, orhandicapped regarding the ability to perform e�ectively in the new en-vironment. Research suggests that speci®c explanatory style is not toblame, but rather, that a mismatch or lack of cultural ®t between the in-dividual and the culture compounds the problem (Church, 1989;Furnham, 1988; Olaniran, 1993; Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward &Kennedy, 1993; Westwood & Barker, 1990; Zaharna, 1989; Zapf, 1991).

Negative health outcomes which have been linked to culture shockare similar to those found in the attribution theory literature. Physical


illness, somatic complaints, and depression are linked to the loss ofsocial or familial support, and varying cultural distance. Signi®cantly,these problems are commonly found in inpatriate and internationalsojourner student populations. Some of the illnesses relate to ``hardi-ness,'' or the ability to cope, suggesting that matching the individualwith the target culture, and selection for assignment by this trait, couldminimize subsequent negative outcomes (Adeyanju, Tricker, & Spencer,1990; Creed, 1987; Dunbar, 1992; Oei & Notowidjojo, 1990; Redmond& Bunyi, 1993; Upadhyaya, Creed, & Upadhyaya, 1990; Weinstein,1989; Ying & Liese, 1990, 1991).

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

In this study, cultures are clustered (Hofstede, 1980) with thosecountries within a cluster being more similar to each other than to thoseoutside the cluster. It is believed that across all measures, Anglo,European, Latin, Asian, Middle Eastern, and African cultures will clus-ter together, as they did in the Hofstede (1980, 1984), and Ronen andShenkar (1985) studies.

Individuals vary dramatically in terms of their preferred learningstrategy and typical attributional style. However, the foundation oftheir underlying value system, or schemata, is the socialization providedby their home culture. As inpatriates' cultural distance from UnitedStates increases, their value system will change proportionally.Accordingly, the ®rst hypothesis is that:

H1: Value systems by country will vary systematically with cultural distancefrom the United States.In turn, a predominate value orientation in¯uenceshow individuals from a given culture view the world, and hence, their attribu-

tional style.

The socialization process, attitudes regarding individualism±collecti-vism, and other culturally determined values in¯uence the individual'shabitual attributional style. Past research indicates that cultural vari-ation will be found in the components of attributional style. Generally,North Americans favor internal dispositional attributions (Nisbett &Ross, 1980) over consensus and environmental attributions (Wright,1991). This is not surprising, given that an actor is always present inbehavioral situations (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Wright, 1991).

Other cultures place more emphasis on external, environmental expla-nations, and view temporal relationships in a more nonlinear mannerthan do North Americans (Duda & Allison, 1989; Spadone, 1992).Accordingly, non-North Americans should be more inclined to acceptexternal in¯uences as being more pervasive, and constant, than wouldNorth Americans. This suggests that they will place more emphasis on


TABLE 1

Demographic Pro¢les of Sample Respondents

Frequency Percent Cumulative

GenderMale 408 52.44 52.44Female 368 47.30 99.74Total 778 100.00

Age522 40.3422 86 11.23 51.5723 74 9.66 61.2324 42 5.48 66.7125 46 6.01 72.7226 34 4.44 77.1527 26 3.39 80.5528 25 3.26 83.8129 11 1.44 85.2530 22 2.87 88.1231^35 49 4.83 90.34>36 42 4.83 100.00Total 766 100.00

RaceWhite 354 45.50 45.50Black 10 1.29 46.79Hispanic 64 8.23 55.01Asian/PI 341 43.83 98.84Missing 9 1.15 100.00Total 778 100.00

National OriginPRC 21 2.70 2.70Taiwan 38 4.88 7.58Hong Kong 190 24.42 32.01Malaysia 19 2.44 34.45Singapore 22 2.83 37.28U.S. 207 26.61 63.88Germany 9 1.16 65.04Norway 54 6.94 71.98Argentina 24 3.08 75.06New Zealand 15 1.93 76.99Australia 19 2.44 79.43Other 160 20.57 100.00Total 778 100.00


external in¯uences, seeing them as being more global and stable, thanwould North Americans (Haraldsson, 1985; Little, 1987). This alsosuggests that while di�erent causal attributions can be made for positiveand negative events because of attributional biases (Martinko &Gardner, 1987), the relative orientation of non-North Americans shouldstill be more external, stable, and global than those of NorthAmericans. These factors lead to the following phrasing for the secondand third hypotheses:

H2: Attributional style by country for positive events will become more exter-

nal, stable, and global, compared with that of the U.S., as cultural distancefrom the U.S. increases.

H3: Attributional style by country for negative events will become moreexternal, stable, and global, compared with that of the U.S., as cultural dis-

tance from the U.S. increases.

Finally, individuals' preferred learning styles are in¯uenced by sociali-zation, individualism±collectivism, masculinity±femininity (Hofstede,1984), and other underlying values. Previous ®ndings suggest that FDIis also subject to culturally based variation. Since FDI has been linked

Table 1 (continued )

Frequency Percent Cumulative

ReligiousAffiliation

Buddhist 25 3.21 3.21Catholic 155 19.92 23.14Christian 103 13.24 36.38Hindu 8 1.03 37.40Missing 177 22.75 60.15Muslim 17 2.19 62.34None 118 15.17 77.51Baptist 44 5.66 83.16Lutheran 20 2.57 85.73Methodist 32 4.11 89.85Presbyterian 11 1.41 91.26Protestant 59 7.58 98.84Other 9 1.16 100.00Total 778 100.00

Educational LevelMissing 8 1.03 1.03Bachelor 515 66.20 67.22Masters 197 25.32 92.54Doctoral 58 7.46 100.00Total 778 100.00


to preferred learning strategies, similar e�ects may be found here. Thefourth hypothesis is that:

H4: Learning strategy by country will vary with the underlying value system,diverging from that of the U.S., as cultural distance from the U.S. increases.

The results of this examination may provide guidance as to howtraining strategies should be modi®ed to complement inpatriate trainee'slearning requirements.

METHODOLOGY

Sample and Data Collection

Selection of Subjects. The goal of this study is to measure the cultu-rally-based di�erences in values, attributional and learning styles,between Americans and non-Americans. The subjects were undergradu-ate and graduate students enrolled in business courses at universities inthe United States, Europe, Latin America, and Asia (see Table 1 fordemographic pro®le of respondents). The subjects residing outside theUnited States could plausibly be included in the labor pool of potentialinpatriates or employees of United States based MNCs.

The use of this sample group is somewhat conservative. All of thesubjects were university students and may be more similar to each otherthan to the majority of their home country's population. Hence, shoulddi�erences be found, they are likely to be reasonably strong. Because ofthe use of a student subject pool, this study has the limitations to gener-alizability which could be expected when making inferences to practisingmanagers. Therefore, this study should be viewed as exploratory innature but providing insights into potential problems when traininginpatriate managers in the United States.

Data were collected by interested parties in return for access to thecomplete data set. The sampling e�ort produced 592 usable responses.The number of respondents varies by instrument, in that not all subjectscompleted the same set of survey instruments. Some responses wereexcluded from ®nal analyses because there were too few individuals of aparticular national origin to form a group.

Measures

Subjects were randomly provided with one of two survey packets. Allsubjects completed an East±West Questionnaire (EWQ) (Gilgen & Cho,1979), and either a Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) (Kolb, 1985), or anAttributional Styles Questionnaire (ASQ) (Peterson et al., 1982). Allmeasures were administered in English. It was hypothesized that requir-ing English ¯uency of inpatriate managers was reasonable, since a


TABLE

2

Intercorrelation

Betwee

nLS

Iand

EWQSca

lesa

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

Varia

ble

Min.Max

.LS

I1A

LSI1B

LSI2

LSI3A

LSI3B

LSI4A

LSI4B

LSI5A

LSI5B

LSI6

LSI7

EWQ1

EWQ2

EWQ3EWQ4EWQ5EWQ6EWQ7EWQ8

1LS

I1A

(2.49)1.58

^2

LSI1B

(1.33)2.10ÿ0

.56%

^3

LSI2

(2.05)2.04ÿ0

.27%ÿ

0.29%

^4

LS13A

(2.09)1.99ÿ0

.11ÿ0

.42%ÿ

0.12

^5

LSI3B

(1.87)1

.56

0.55%ÿ

0.03ÿ0

.39%ÿ

0.45%

^6

LSI4A

(1.99)2.00ÿ0

.07

0.34%ÿ

0.27%ÿ

0.35%ÿ

0.05

^7

LSI4B

(1.60)1.74ÿ0

.08ÿ0

.22

0.01

0.46%ÿ

0.28ÿ0

.56%

^8

LSI5A

(2.18)1

.92

0.05ÿ0

.51%

0.06

0.54%ÿ

0.27ÿ0

.22$

0.24$

^9

LSI5B

(1.16)1

.90ÿ0

.40$

0.36%

0.34%ÿ

0.24$ÿ

0.15ÿ0

.26%

0.06ÿ0

.38%

^10

LSI6

(2.06)1.53

0.33%ÿ

0.07ÿ0

.20$ÿ

0.11

0.38ÿ0

.09

0.01ÿ0

.27%ÿ

0.29%

^11LS

I7(1.65)2.12ÿ0

.30%

0.03ÿ0

.14

0.32%ÿ

0.17

*ÿ0

.06

0.17

*0.18

*0.07ÿ0

.20

*^

12EWQ1

(2.48)2.31

0.10ÿ0

.19

*0.11

0.04ÿ0

.01

0.05ÿ0

.15

0.02ÿ0

.13

0.04ÿ0

.02

^13EWQ2

(3.03)3.32

0.02ÿ0

.04ÿ0

.01

0.03

0.05ÿ0

.05

0.03

0.10ÿ0

.10ÿ0

.03

0.07

0.00

^14

EWQ3

(2.50)2.18

0.10ÿ0

.09

0.00

0.02

0.07ÿ0

.05ÿ0

.01

0.02ÿ0

.04

0.13ÿ0

.02

0.32%

0.09

^15EWQ4

(2.31)

3.46ÿ0

.06ÿ0

.02ÿ0

.04

0.05ÿ0

.07

0.15ÿ0

.04

0.14ÿ0

.14ÿ0

.11

0.04

0.21$

0.05

0.11

^16

EWQ5

(2.86)3.71ÿ0

.02

0.03ÿ0

.07

0.08

0.05ÿ0

.05

0.03

0.06ÿ0

.07ÿ0

.09

0.05

0.03

0.18

*0.11ÿ0

.09

^17

EWQ6

(2.78)2

.63

0.11ÿ0

.21$

0.01

0.10

0.13ÿ0

.08ÿ0

.06

0.17

*ÿ0

.10

0.04

0.05

0.22$

0.23$

0.24$ÿ

0.00

0.15

^18EWQ7

(2.48)2.08

0.04

0.05ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.04

0.03ÿ0

.02

0.00ÿ0

.06ÿ0

.07

0.14ÿ0

.16

*0.03

0.12

0.21$

0.15

0.16

*0.02

^19EWQ8

(3.19)3

.16ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.03

0.08

0.01ÿ0

.05ÿ0

.09

0.18

*ÿ0

.07

0.08

0.03

0.05ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.06ÿ0

.04ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.04ÿ0

.150.09

^

aVaria

bles

stan

dardized

tomea

nof

zero,and

SDof

one.N=16

2.*PR

0.05an

d>0.01.$PR

0.01an

d>0.001.%PR

0.001.


TABLE

3

Intercorrelation

Betwee

nASQan

dEWQSca

lesa

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

14Varia

ble

Min.

Max

.ASQ1

ASQ2

ASQ3

ASQ4

ASQ5

ASQ6

EWQ1

EWQ2

EWQ3

EWQ4

EWQ5

EWQ6

EWQ7

EWQ8

1ASQ1

(3.47)

4.11

^2

ASQ2

(2.75)

2.10

0.00

^3

ASQ3

(4.16)

2.12

0.14

*0.37%

^4

ASQ4

(2.94)

3.17

0.33%

0.17$

0.25%

^5

ASQ5

(2.70)

1.67ÿ0

.07

0.30%

0.22%

0.06

^6

ASQ6

(3.58)

2.10

0.09

0.18%

0.15$

0.03

0.09

^7

EWQ1

(2.75)

2.16

0.12

*0.20%

0.28%

0.12

*0.08ÿ0

.05

^8

EWQ2

(2.43)

5.09

0.04ÿ0

.06ÿ0

.03ÿ0

.04

0.04ÿ0

.05

0.24%

^9

EWQ3

(4.29)

3.01ÿ0

.08

0.14

*0.06ÿ0

.06

0.09

0.00

0.21%

0.24%

^10

EWQ4

(3.11)

2.44ÿ0

.06ÿ0

.09ÿ0

.04

0.02ÿ0

.03ÿ0

.00

0.34%

0.13

*0.24%

^11

EWQ5

(2.61)

4.01ÿ0

.02ÿ0

.03ÿ0

.05ÿ0

.07ÿ0

.03ÿ0

.04

0.05ÿ0

.03

0.03

0.02

^12

EWQ6

(2.70)

3.10

0.02

0.03ÿ0

.01

0.02

0.02ÿ0

.07

0.26%

0.22%

0.28%

0.24%

0.06

^13

EWQ7

(2.36)

3.18

0.08ÿ0

.02ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.01ÿ0

.05

0.28%

0.20%

0.13

*0.22

*0.14

*0.22%

^14

EWQ8

(2.91)

3.03ÿ0

.04ÿ0

.02

0.06

0.10

0.03ÿ0

.04

0.05ÿ0

.02

0.14

*0.16$

0.02

0.07

0.06

^

aVaria

blesstan

dardized

tomea

nof

zero,and

SDof

one.N=339.*PR

0.05an

d>0.01.$PR

0.01an

d>

0.001.%PR

0.001.


MNC's potential inpatriate employees would be transferred to theUnited States for an extended period of time.

The alternative of translation and back-translation was thought toprovide a unique set of problems given the number of cultures includedin the study. Previous research ®ndings have indicated that results fromback-translated instruments could be replicated by English languageversion instruments (Gri�eth, Hom, DeNisi, & Kirchner, 1985; Gri�eth& Hom, 1987; Hofstede, 1980).

Values. Assessment of subjects' value orientation was made withGilgen and Cho's (1979) East±West Questionnaire (EWQ). The instru-ment examines the individual's orientation toward Eastern (Buddhist,Confucian, Taoist) or Western (Judeo±Christian) values. The instru-ment has been validated, and has been shown to distinguish between in-dividuals' relative orientation toward these di�ering belief systems.

Learning Styles. Subjects' learning style preferences were determinedwith Kolb's (1985) Learning Styles Inventory (LSI). The instrumentidenti®es an individual's tendency to utilize four learning modalities,falling along two continua. They are described as abstract conceptualiz-ation (AC) vs concrete experience (CE), and active experimentation(AE) vs re¯ective observation (RO). Scores along these two dimensionscan be compared, placing an individual into one of the four prototypestrategies: (1) accommodator; (2) diverger; (3) converger; or (4) assimila-tor. While it is less common to do so, it is also possible to score in sucha way that one does not ®t well into one of the prototypes. Examples ofthis would include being bipolar on one of the continua, or being at the``center'' or intersection of the two axes.

TABLE 4

Intercorrelation Between ASQ and EWQ Scalesa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Variable Min. Max. EWQ1 EWQ2 EWQ3 EWQ4 EWQ5 EWQ6 EWQ7 EWQ8

1 EWQ1 (2.48) 2.31 ^2 EWQ2 (3.03) 3.32 0.21% ^3 EWQ3 (2.50) 2.18 0.25% 0.21% ^4 EWQ4 (2.31) 3.46 0.29% 0.11$ 0.23% ^5 EWQ5 (2.86) 3.71 0.07 0.04 0.08* ÿ0.01 ^6 EWQ6 (2.78) 2.63 0.27% 0.24% 0.28% 0.18% 0.12$ ^7 EWQ7 (2.48) 2.08 0.21% 0.19% 0.17% 0.23% 0.12$ 0.18% ^8 EWQ8 (3.19) 3.16 0.05 ÿ0.01 0.05 0.10* 0.02 0.01 0.04 ^

aVariables standardized to mean of zero, and SD of one. N=592. *PR0.05 and >0.01. $PR0.01and>0.001. %PR0.001.


FIGURE2.D

ata

Collection/a

nalysisProce

sses


Attributional Style. Subjects' attributional style components weremeasured with Peterson et al.'s (1982) Attributional StyleQuestionnaire. This instrument explores an individual perception ofhow events and behaviors are caused. The subject bases his/her expla-nation on how they perceive the causative factor along three dimen-sions: (1) internality vs externality; (2) stability vs instability; and (3)globality vs speci®city.

Intercorrelations. Intercorrelations between the LSI and EWQ, theASQ and EWQ, and the ESQ with itself are provided in Tables 2±4.The pattern of intercorrelations indicates that the scales are morestrongly correlated within than between constructs, indicating a highlevel of construct independence.

DATA ANALYSIS

Factor Analysis

As shown in Figure 2, a ``two-step'' methodology was chosen fordata analysis. Each instrument was separately factor analyzed across allsubjects. The results were used to develop input for a subsequent clusteranalysis. This hybrid method, based on the results of Monte Carlosimulation, improves the accuracy of the clustering solution (Colihan &Berger, 1994). The factor analytic method chosen was principal factoranalysis, with orthogonal (Varimax) rotation of factors. Stable factorsolutions were obtained, and used to select surrogate variables as inputfor cluster analysis (Aldenderfer & Blash®eld, 1984; Colihan & Berger,1994; Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). This approach to the analysiswas helpful in reducing the complexity of the data. The number of fac-tors retained was based on analysis of the eigenvalues, the percentage ofvariance explained, and visual inspection of the scree plot (Hair et al.,1987).

Previous research indicated that the instruments used could di�eren-tiate between individuals based on their national origin. However, itwas unknown whether the theoretic constructs the instruments werebased upon would be valid with subjects di�ering from the normativegroup used to develop and validate the instruments. Additionally, thisstudy was exploratory and directed toward identifying cultural di�er-ences, not an analysis of the instruments. Some discussion of the factorsobtained will be useful in interpreting the analysis; however, a full treat-ment of the factor analytic results is beyond the scope of this paper.

Once the factor analysis was completed, surrogate variables were usedto form summary scales. Individuals' missing responses were replacedwith the mean value for that item, calculated within the subject'snational origin group. The next step was to calculate mean scores for


TABLE

5

Internal

Con

sisten

cy,S

coring,a

ndRes

earchHyp

othes

esRelated

toEac

hSub

-sca

lean

dCon

struct

Attitud

inalscales

Cronb

ach

Alph

aFactor

Item

SMC

Scorin

gRes

.Prop.

Preferred

Learning

Style(LSI)

ACvs

CE(LSI1A)

0.82

N/A

Positive

4AC

vsCE(LSI1B)

0.85

N/A

Positive

4RO(LSI2)

0.81

N/A

Positive

4AC

vsAE

(LSI3A)

0.81

N/A

Positive

4AC

vsAE

(LSI3B)

0.66

N/A

Positive

4CEvs

AC(LSI4A)

0.60

N/A

Positive

4CEvs

AC(LSI4B)

0.48

N/A

Positive

4AC

vsRO(LSI5A)

0.48

N/A

Positive

4AC

vsRO(LSI5B)

0.50

N/A

Positive

4AE

(LSI6)

0.65

N/A

Positive

4AC

(LSI7)

0.49

N/A

Positive

4AttributionStyleQue

stionn

aire

(ASQ)

Broad

Spec

trum

(Neg

ative

even

ts)

(ASQ1)

0.71

0.76

Positive

2,3

Rew

ards

(Internaleffort)(ASQ2)

0.76

0.75

Positive

2,3

Rew

ards

(Externa

lcon

firmation)

(ASQ3)

0.65

0.71

Positive

2,3

Disap

proval(Externa

ljud

gmen

t)(ASQ4)

0.28

0.66

Positive

2,3

Luck

(ASQ5)

0.67

0.68

Positive

2,3

Interpersona

lrelations

(ASQ6)

0.62

0.64

Positive

2,3

Valuean

dBeliefS

ystems(EWQ)

Pragm

atistÎndividu

alist(EWQ1)

0.74

0.83

Positive

1Ab

ility

toem

pathize(EWQ2)

0.38

0.79

Positive

1


Table5(con

tinue

d)

Attitud

inalscales

Cronb

ach

Alph

aFactor

Item

SMC

Scorin

gRes

.Prop.

Self-orientation(EWQ3)

ÿ0.18

0.77

Positive

1Cap

italistT̂echno

logist

(EWQ4)

0.57

0.73

Positive

1Moralaccoun

tability(EWQ5)

ÿ0.96

0.80

Positive

1Ac

quisitivene

ss(EWQ6)

0.07

0.69

Positive

1Indu

ctive^D

educ

tive(EWQ7)

ÿ0.35

0.67

Positive

1Suicide

(EWQ8)

ÿ2.77

0.70

Positive

1


each item and then recalculate, by country, from the individual's results.The resulting mean country scores were standardized across allcountries, with a mean value of zero, and standard deviation of one(Colihan & Berger, 1994; Gri�eth et al., 1985; Gri�eth & Hom, 1987;Hofstede, 1980, 1984; SAS Institute, 1990), and used as input for thecluster analysis.

Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis was chosen to determine which groups, distinguishedby national origin, were the most similar in terms of values, learningstrategies, and attributional styles. Ward's method (SAS Institute, 1990)was selected because of its superior ability to recover the `àctual'' clus-ter structure of a dataset (Aldenderfer & Blash®eld, 1984; Colihan &Berger, 1994; Hair et al., 1987; Hofstede, 1980, 1984).

Graphic analysis in the form of a tree diagram was an integral part ofinterpreting the results. Two, three, and four cluster solutions were com-pared to aid in the evaluation of the results. Generally, all instrumentsproduced an East±West, or two-cluster solution, having sub-clusters ofsigni®cant interest.

Value And Belief Systems

The factor analysis recovered eight factors. They were identi®ed as:(1) Pragmatist±Individualist; (2) Ability to Empathize; (3) Self-Orientation; (4) Capitalist±Technologist; (5) Moral Accountability; (6)Acquisitiveness; (7) Inductive±Deductive; and (8) Suicide. Cronbachalphas were calculated for the resulting sub-scales, based on selectedsurrogate variables. Results are provided in Table 5.

While Gilgen and Cho (1979) constructed this instrument with paireditems representing opposing Eastern and Western values, this group ofsubjects did not always view the items as being in the same factor. As aresult, scales were either composed of predominantly Eastern, orWestern items, or were balanced between Eastern and Western items.Further development of this instrument is warranted, as some of thefactors developed are similar to those of Bond (1992), Hofstede (1980,1984), and Hofstede and Bond (1988).

All of the clustering solutions obtained were intuitively appealing. Thetwo-cluster solution was consistent with both subsequent attributionalstyle results and previous ®ndings (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). Western(Judeo±Christian) countries were in one cluster, while Eastern countrieswere at the other extreme. The four-cluster solution revealed the presenceof Germanic/Nordic and British in¯uenced Asian sub-clusters.


East West

China±Taiwan NorwayMalaysia AustriaSingapore United StatesNew Zealand ArgentinaChina±PRC Germany

Hong Kong

Attributional Styles

Factor analysis of the ASQ resulted in recovery of six factors. Theywere identi®ed as: (1) Broad Spectrum (Negative Events); (2) Rewards(Internal E�ort); (3) Rewards (External Con®rmation); (4) Disapproval(External Judgment); (5) Luck; and (6) Interpersonal Relations.Cronbach alphas were calculated for these sub-scales with the resultsprovided in Table 5. Subjects collapsed the internal, stable, and globalcomponents in all factors, instead of distinguishing between them. Also,factors generally consisted of all positive, or all negative events, indicat-ing a strong situational e�ect for results. Examination of the rotatedfactor solution seems to indicate that subjects viewed the world in a sim-pler 2� 2 framework of situation (positive vs negative events) vs con-trollability (internal vs external locus) (Weiner, 1972), instead of thethree-way (Kelley, 1967, 1973; Kelley & Michela, 1980) model of attri-butional style.

The clustering solutions most appealing were the two and three clus-ter solutions. Western countries were characterized by higher scalescores, indicating higher levels of internal, stable, global attributions.Eastern countries' attributions were more external, unstable, and situa-tional. The mid-range countries fell between the two extremes. The twocluster solution indicated that the mid-range countries were more simi-lar to the Eastern extreme than the Western, as Norway and Argentinaclustered with the Eastern block.

East Mid-range West

China±PRC Norway New ZealandChina±Taiwan Argentina AustriaHong Kong United StatesSingapore


Learning Styles And Strategies

Factor analysis of the Learning Styles Inventory (Kolb, 1985) yieldedseven factors. They were: (1) Active Experimentation vs ConcreteExperience; (2) Re¯ective Observation; (3) Abstract Conceptualizationvs Active Experimentation; (4) Concrete Experience vs AbstractConceptualization; (5) Abstract Conceptualization vs Re¯ectiveObservation; (6) Active Experimentation; and (7) AbstractConceptualization. When two strategies were found in a factor, the re-lationship was inverse. The surrogate variables selected were placed intopositive and negative components. Results are provided in Table 6.

TABLE 6

MANOVA and ANOVAResults: Di¡erences Between Groups Based on National Origin

Attitudinal Scales Multivariate P-value

Univariate P-value

Res.Prop.

Preferred Learning Style (LSI) 0.0105AC vs CE (LSI1A) 0.0424 4AC vs CE (LSI1B) 0.0078 4RO (LSI2) 0.3466 4AC vs AE (LSI3A) 0.2290 4AC vs AE (LSI3B) 0.2406 4CE vs AC (LSI4A) 0.2622 4CE vs AC (LSI4B) 0.7689 4AC vs RO (LSI5A) 0.1051 4AC vs RO (LSI5B) 0.1568 4AE (LSI6) 0.6518 4AC (LSI7) 0.0867 4

Attribution Style Questionnaire (ASQ) 0.0001Broad Spectrum (Negative events)

(ASQ1)0.0696 2, 3

Rewards (Internal effort) (ASQ2) 0.0006 2, 3Rewards (External confirmation) (ASQ3) 0.0001 2, 3Disapproval (External judgment) (ASQ4) 0.0003 2, 3Luck (ASQ5) 0.0063 2, 3Interpersonal relations (ASQ6) 0.1889 2, 3

Value and Belief Systems (EWQ) 0.0001PragmatistÎndividualist (EWQ1) 0.0001 1Ability to empathize (EWQ2) 0.0001 1Self-orientation (EWQ3) 0.0001 1Capitalist T̂echnologist (EWQ4) 0.0014 1Moral accountability (EWQ5) 0.0001 1Acquisitiveness (EWQ6) 0.0001 1Inductive^Deductive (EWQ7) 0.0001 1Suicide (EWQ8) 0.1640 1


Examination of each scale's items indicated that situational in¯uencesassociated with individual items led subjects to group items di�erentlythan did the North American normative group. Future analysis will bewarranted as to how the factors relate to Kolb's four learning strategies.The fourth factor is similar to Kolb's Concrete Experience vs AbstractConceptualization scale. However, the Active Experimentation vsRe¯ective Observation dimension does not appear. It may be that theabstract vs concrete dimension dominates, as it has in previous ®ndingsregarding ®eld dependence vs ®eld independence (Cornwell, Manfredo,& Dunlap, 1991).

The cluster analysis mirrors previous results, with an East±West split,in¯uenced by Eastern, Mid-Range, and Western scores. The two clustersolution, along with this sample's modal values based on Kolb's (1985)scoring methodology follows.

East West Style (Kolb, 1985)

United States AssimilatorArgentina DivergerNorway Accommodator

Hong Kong Accommodator

Con®rmatory MANOVA And ANOVA

While not a major part of this analysis, MANOVA and univariateANOVAs were performed on each set of scales, using national origin asthe independent variable. The results of that analysis, provided in Table6, indicated that group scale measures di�ered signi®cantly betweengroups having di�erent national origins, at the individual subject level.This con®rms the aggregated results produced by the cluster analyticsolution. Subsequent analyses, not reported here, indicated that nationalorigin di�erences remained signi®cant at the individual subject level,even when using the EWQ sub-scales as covariates, with the ASQ andLSI used as dependent measures.

DISCUSSION

Our ®rst hypothesis was that value systems, examined at the countrylevel, would vary systematically with cultural distance from the UnitedStates. The results strongly support the hypothesis, and are consistentwith those of previous cross-cultural studies (Hofstede, 1980, 1994;


Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), placing countries into Eastern, Western, andintermediate clusters. The results suggest that even though signi®cantlevels of variance in beliefs exist at the individual level, strong, pervasivein¯uences are derived from dominant belief systems, leading to moresimilarity of beliefs within cultural group, than between cultural groups.

In terms of this paper's thesis, this means that sensitivity to cultu-rally-based di�erences will be necessary to facilitate the integration andacceptance of inpatriates. The e�ort will be necessary to minimize mis-understandings between inpatriates and home country nationals. As forthe structuring of training and selection of materials is concerned, trai-ners will need to consider that they may not be dealing with homo-geneous groups of students, and adjust not only their instructional style,but their implicit assumptions about shared frames-of-reference andbelief systems.

Our second and third hypotheses dealt with the relative attributionalstyles of particular cultures, as cultural distance from the United Statesincreased. Those hypotheses were supported, as subjects became moreexternally and situationally oriented, as cultural distance increased.Multivariate analysis indicated that the attributional factors, as awhole, di�ered signi®cantly, based on national origin. Unexpectedly,subjects combined the causative factors of locus of control, and stabilityand globality of causation. They gave more weight to factors outsidethe individual's control, compared with subjects of the United States.They also viewed causation for positive and negative events di�erently.Because attributions can be considered as similar to beliefs (Eagly &Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Green & Mitchell, 1979), therecommendations made regarding trainers and belief systems will holdtrue for attributional styles as well.

Given that the goals of training are to help the inpatriate ``®t'' wellwith the home country organization, as well as to help the homecountry nationals interact with inpatriates e�ectively, trainers will needto take inpatriates' ways of explaining behaviors into account. Habitualattributional styles, and the context of behaviors will need to be con-sidered, as di�erences in orientation will lead to di�ering conclusionsand interpretations. Cultural distance based di�erences in belief systemsand attributional styles both cluster into East±West distributions.Without taking pains to empathize and understand di�ering orien-tations, misinterpretation will likely lead to con¯ict, limiting the e�ec-tiveness of interaction.

Situational e�ects need to receive particular attention. NorthAmericans tend to place blame on the actor, while non-NorthAmericans tend to focus on more externally based factors. These cul-tural di�erences will likely amplify or reinforce the attributional biasespreviously documented. Overlaying cultural or national di�erences


upon a con¯ict merely makes the situation worse, as the core issue isdisregarded because of the interfering factors. Belief or culturally basedcon¯icts are di�cult to resolve because they tend to evoke a strong, im-mediate emotional response. The more strongly held the beliefs and atti-tudes, the more strong the reaction. In turn, it becomes more di�cult toempathize because one cannot distance oneself from the emotional reac-tion evoked. Accordingly, a concerted e�ort to empathize, understand,and improve ``®t'' through training, will need to be made to reap thebene®ts of diversity. Interpersonal communications and relations skillswill need to be sharpened to avoid misunderstandings.

Our fourth hypothesis was that favored learning styles would varywith belief systems, and cultural distance from the United States.Correlations between the EWQ factors and the LSI factors were typi-cally not signi®cant. However, multivariate analysis indicated that bothEWQ and LSI factors di�ered signi®cantly, based on national origin.Additionally, the cluster analysis revealed an East±West split, as did theother two constructs.

As a result of this analysis, a linear relationship between belief sys-tems and preferred learning styles was not found. However, it has beenshown that outcomes of both constructs do change with national origin,forming East±West clusters, in accordance with previous ®ndings ofincreasing cultural distance. Accordingly, trainers should consider theneed to tailor their materials and instructional style to their target audi-ence. Such adjustment would facilitate comprehension, thereby optimiz-ing the e�ect of training and development resources. Over time, bothinpatriates and home country nationals should be encouraged todevelop a more balanced, or ¯exible learning style. Initially, trainingneeds to be focused upon making the inpatriate comfortable in a newsituation, and thereby, more e�ective.

Overall, the consistency of the East±West split across all constructs isconsistent with previous research dealing with di�erences based on cul-tural distance or national origin. These di�erences go beyond attribu-tional styles, and are based in culturally in¯uenced belief systems. Thepervasiveness of such di�erences across constructs suggests that e�ortsto train e�ectively require heightened interpersonal sensitivity upon thepart of the trainer, as well as the need to guard against unintentionalethnocentrism.

Future Research

The issues/problems associated with integrating inpatriate managersinto the domestic organization has not been a signi®cant concern ofhuman resource managers in the past. But, as MNCs move to multicul-tural strategic management of their worldwide headquarters, the need to


integrate foreign managers into the domestic organization will become acritical human resource management issue. Training inpatriate man-agers will necessitate reorienting present training programs establishedto train expatriate managers. This research has attempted to demon-strate that inpatriate managers are not the converse of expatriate man-agers.

A summary of the results of the ®ndings of the survey are:

. Individual di�erences by national origin do exist as con®rmed bymultivariate and univariate ANOVA; for all three constructs exam-ined, e.g., EWQ, ASQ and LSI

. Individual di�erences do carry through to the country cluster analy-sis, e.g., all three constructs are signi®cantly di�erent by national ori-gin

. Clustering of the data provides an East/West bifurcation replicatedacross all three constructs

. Correlation analysis indicates the constructs are independent and notstrongly convoluted

. The ®ndings of the survey clearly support all the research hypotheses.

Inpatriate training necessitates modi®cation of the fundamental com-ponents of a training program due to their di�erences and the diversityof inpatriate cultures (for detailed discussion of training inpatriate man-agers see Harvey, 1997). The inpatriate training process should includethe following adaptations:

A. Goals of inpatriate training programÐthe goals of the inpatriationmanager training program should be based on the cultural distance ofinpatriate managers from that of the domestic culture. The traininggoals should be to adapt training methods to accommodate inpatriatemanagers from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds (Brislin, 1979;Cui & Awa, 1992).

B. Training the inpatriation trainerÐas with the experimenter e�ecton the results of a controlled laboratory experiment, so, too, can theinpatriate trainer signi®cantly impact the acculturation/training processof the inpatriate trainee (Goldman, 1992; Thornhill, 1993; Brislin &Yoshida, 1994). It is di�cult to establish a universal set of guidelines forinpatriation trainers because of the potential heterogeneity of the inter-culturally mixed inpatriate training groups. The cultural ``mix'' of thetrainees may have a substantial in¯uence on training techniques andhow to best lead a training seminar program.

C. Development of training materialsÐmaterials must be culturallyacceptable to the inpatriate trainees. This can be accomplished throughavoiding culturally inappropriate examples: cases, pictures, use of a sig-ni®cant number of graphics, visuals and demonstrations as if the trai-nees are learning a second language; use of handouts and materials; and


receiving continuous feedback on the training program to insure theprogram is reaching the inpatriation training goals (Sheehan & Murray,1990; Marquardt & Engle, 1993).

D. Composition of inpatriation training groupÐthe composition of thetraining group should be considered a key construct in implementing aninpatriation training program. Due to the number of independent vari-ables of each inpatriate manager, e.g., cultural background, level in theorganization, previous training, learning style, cultural distance to theUnited States, the level of heterogeneity of the group will impact train-ing and length of time needed to train inpatriate managers. The size,cultural mix, learning style, attribution orientation, outside vs inside theorganization experience of managers, line vs sta�, and the level of ``wes-ternization'' of managers will in¯uence the training.

E. Use of interactive training methodsÐvideo and computer simu-lations should be used in culturally diverse groups because materials canhave a high frequency of repetition, training elements can be viewed inprivate, materials can be more ``compressed'' for inpatriates more cultu-rally similar to domestic culture, multiple models can be used to rep-resent di�erent cultures or at the least cultural clusters, levels ofbusiness experience can be varied in their format, ethnically and sociallydesigned to inpatriate cluster and the material can be edited andupdated without signi®cant cost.

Training programs for inpatriate managers will require humanresource managers to analyze the cultures from which inpatriate man-agers will come in the future. At the same time, careful management ofthe group composition and appropriate learning venues for the variouslearning styles of inpatriate managers is essential. The ®rst requirementof training inpatriate managers is to recognize they have di�erent needsand require di�erent training methods than their expatriate counter-parts.

REFERENCES

Adeyanju, M., Tricker, R., & Spencer, R. (1990). Comparison of health status

of international and American university students: implications for healtheducation. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 10(2),145±166.

Aldenderfer, M., & Blash®eld, R. (1984). Cluster analysis. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Cultural aspects of environmentÐbehaviorrelationships. In H. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural

psychology: Social psychology (vol. 5). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.


Barna, L. (1983). The stress factor in international relations. In Landis & R.

Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, 2. New York: Pergamon

Press.

Bennett, M. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sen-

sitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179±196.

Bhagat, R. (1983). E�ects of stressful life events on individual performance

e�ectiveness and work adjustments process within organizational settings: a

research model. Academy of Management Review, 8, 660±667.

Black, J., & Mendenhall, M. (1989). A practical but theory-based framework

for selecting cross-cultural training methods. Human Resource Management,

28(4), 511±539.

Bochner, S. (1986). Coping with unfamiliar cultures: adjustment or culture

learning? Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 347±358.

Bond, M. (1992). The process of enhancing cross-cultural competence in Hong

Kong organizations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 395±

412.

Booth, P., & Winzar, H. (1993). Personality biases of accounting students: some

implications for learning style preferences. Accounting and Finance, 33(2),

109±120.

Brislin, R. (1979). Orientation programs for cross-cultural preparation. In H.

Marselle, G. Tharp & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural psy-

chology (pp. 287±304). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Brislin, R., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Individualism and collectivism as a source of

many speci®c cultural di�erences. In R. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds.),

Improving intercultural interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Church, A. (1989). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540±572.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. (1971). The cultural context of learning

and thinking. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Colihan, J., & Berger, G. (1994). Constructing job families: An analysis of quan-

titative techniques used for grouping jobs. In Paper presented at the Ninth

Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Cornwell, J., Manfredo, P., & Dunlap, W. (1991). Factor analysis of the 1985

revision of Kolb's learning style inventory. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 51, 455±462.

Cox, T., Lobel, S., & McLeod, P. (1991). E�ects of ethnic group cultural di�er-

ences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of

Management Journal, 34(4), 827±847.

Creed, F. (1987). Immigrant stress. Stress Medicine, 3, 185±192.

Crittenden, K., & Lammug, C. (1988). Causal attribution and depression.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(2), 216±231.

Cui, G., & Awa, N. (1992). Measuring intercultural e�ectiveness: an integrative

approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311±328.

Dadfar, H., & Gustavsson, P. (1992). Competition by e�ective management of

cultural diversity. International Studies of Management and Organization,

22(4), 81±92.

Deregowski, J. (1980). Perception. In H. Triandis & W. Lonner (Eds.),

Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes (vol. 3). Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon, Inc.


Douglas, S., & Craig, S. (1983). International marketing research. Englewood

Cli�s: Prentice±Hall, Inc.

Duda, J., & Allison, M. (1989). The attributional theory of achievement motiv-

ation: cross-cultural considerations. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 13(1), 37±55.

Dunbar, E. (1992). Adjustment and satisfaction of expatriate U.S. personnel.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 1±16.

Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Jovanovich, Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace.

Ehrenhaus, P. (1983). Culture and the attribution process: barriers to e�ective

communication. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 7,

259±270.

Feldman, D. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott±

Foresman.

Feldman, D., & Thomas, D. (1993). Career management issues facing expatri-

ates. Journal of International Business Studies, Second Quarter, 271±293.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison±Wesley.

Forgas, J., Furnham, A., & Frey, D. (1989). Cross-national di�erences in attri-

butions of wealth and economic success. The Journal of Social Psychology,

129(5), 643±657.

Furnham, A. (1988). The adjustment of sojourners. International and

Intercultural Communication Annual, 9, 42±61.

Ganster, D., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health.

Journal of Management, 17, 235±272.

Gilgen, A., & Cho, J. (1979). Questionnaire to measure eastern and western

thought. Psychological Reports, 44, 835±841.

Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction.

Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631±666.

Goldman, A. (1992). Intercultural training of Japanese for US±Japanese inter-

cultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16,

195±215.

Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts.

Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 5±39.

Granstrand, O., Hakanson, L., & SjoÈ lander, S. (1993). Internationalization of

R&DÐa survey of some recent research. Research Policy, 22, 413±430.

Green, D., Snell, J., & Parimanath, A. (1990). Learning styles in assessment of

students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70(2), 363±369.

Green, S., & Mitchell, T. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader±

member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,

429±458.

Greenhaus, J., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and

career advancement prospects: an examination of gender and race e�ects.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273±297.

Gri�eth, R., Hom, P., DeNisi, A., & Kirchner, W. (1985). A comparison of

di�erent methods of clustering countries on the basis of employee attitudes.

Human Relations, 38, 813±840.


Gri�eth, R., & Hom, P. (1987). Some multivariate comparisons of multinational

managers. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 173±191.

Griggs, S., & Dunn, R. (1989). The learning styles of multicultural groups and

counseling implications. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,

17(4), 146±155.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1987). Multivariate data analysis with

readings. New York: Macmillan.

Hamilton, V., & Hagiwara, S. (1992). Roles, responsibility, and accounts across

cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 157±179.

Hammer, M. (1992). Research, mission statements, and international student

advising o�ces. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 217±236.

Hannigan, T. (1990). Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural

e�ectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: a review of the

literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 89±111.

Haraldsson, E. (1985). Representative national surveys of psychic phenomena:

Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, USA and Gallup's multinational survey.

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 53(801), 145±158.

Harvey, M. (1982). The other side of foreign assignments: dealing with the inpa-

triation dilemma. The Columbia Journal of World Business.

Harvey, M. (1989). Repatriation of corporate executives: an empirical study.

Journal of International Business Studies, 20(1), 131±146.

Harvey, M. (1993). Training 'inpatriate' managers to succeed in the domestic or-

ganization. In Fourth Symposium on Cross-Cultural Concerns and Business

Studies, Proceedings, December.

Harvey, M. (1997). Inpatriation training: the next challenge for international

resource management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(3),

393±428.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International di�erences in work-re-

lated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International di�erences in work-re-

lated values (abridged ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1988). The Confucian connection: from cultural

roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4±21.

Holloway, S. (1988). Concepts of ability and e�ort in Japan and the United

States. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 327±345.

Kano, C. (1994). Matsushita shows how to go global. Fortune, 11, 159±166.

Kashima, Y., Siegal, M., Tanaka, K., & Kashima, E. (1992). Do people believe

behaviours are consistent with attitudes? Towards a cultural psychology of

attribution processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 111±124.

Kelley, H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),

Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192±241). Lincoln, NE: University of

Nebraska Press.

Kelley, H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28,

107±128.

Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual

Review of Psychology, 31, 457±501.

Kolb, D. (1981). In A. Chickering (Ed.), Learning styles and disciplinary di�er-

ences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey±Bass.


Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cli�s, NJ: Prentice±Hall.

Kolb, D. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Little, A. (1987). Attributions in a cross-cultural context. Genetic, Social and

General Psychology Monographs, 113(1), 63±79.

MacCarthy, B. (1986). Cultural determinants of depressive attributions. Archivio

di Psicologia Neurologia e Psichiatria, 48(3), 390±410.

Marquardt, M., & Engle, D. (1993). Global human resource development.

Englewood Cli�s, NJ: Prentice±Hall.

Martinko, M., & Gardner, W. (1987). The leader±member attribution process.

Academy of Management Review, 12, 235±249.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1986). Acculturation pro®les of expatriate man-

agers: implications for cross-cultural training programs. Columbia Journal of

World Business, Winter, 73±79.

Middleton, D. (1989). Emotional style: the cultural ordering of emotions. Ethos,

17(2), 187±201.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference. Englewood Cli�s, NJ:

Prentice±Hall.

Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments.

Practical Anthropology, 7, 177±182.

Oei, T., & Notowidjojo, F. (1990). Depression and loneliness in overseas stu-

dents. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 36(2), 121±130.

Olaniran, B. (1993). International students' network patterns and cultural stress:

what really counts. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), 69±83.

Owens, L. (1985). The learning preferences of students and teachers: An

Australian±American comparison. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(3),

229±241.

Pechter, K. (1993). The foreigners are coming. International Business,

September, 55±60.

Pelissier, C. (1991). The anthropology of teaching and learning. Annual Review

of Anthropology, 20, 75±95.

Pepitone, A. (1986). Culture and the cognitive paradigm in social psychology.

Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 245±256.

Peterson, C., Semmel, A., vonbaeyer, C., Abramson, L., Metalsky, G., &

Seligman, M. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy

and Research, 6(3), 287±299.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (1984). Causal expectations as a risk factor for de-

pression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347±374.

Pick, A. (1980). Cognition: Psychological perspectives. In H. Triandis & W.

Lonner (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes (vol. 3).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Ratner, C. (1991). Cultural variation in cognitive processes from a sociohistori-

cal psychological perspective. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 12(2), 281±

296.

Redmond, M., & Bunyi, J. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communi-

cation competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by inter-

national students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 235±254.


Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: an overview and integration.

Educational Psychology, 11(34), 193±204.

Rogers, K. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn di�erently? A review of recent

research and its implications for instruction. Journal for The Education of the

Gifted, 10(1), 17±39.

Rogo�, B. (1981). Schooling and the development of cognitive skills. In H.

Triandis & A. Heron (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:

Developmental psychology (vol. 4). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions:

A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435±454.

Ronen, S. (1991). Training the international assignee. In I. L. Goldstein &

Associates (Eds.), Training and Development in Organizations. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey±Bass.

Root, F. (1984). International trade and investment (5th ed.). Cincinnati South-

Western.

Saracho, O. (1990). The match and mismatch of teachers' and students' cogni-

tive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 54, 99±109.

SAS Institute (1990). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6 (vol. 1 & 2). Cary,

NC: SAS/STAT.

Schuster, B., Forsterlung, F., & Weiner, B. (1989). Perceiving the causes of suc-

cess and failure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(2), 191±213.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocul-

tural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 14, 449±464.

Seligman, M. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books.

Shaw, J. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural

management. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 626±645.

Sheehan, T., & Murray, K. (1990). The art of training abroad. Training and

Development Journal, November, 15±18.

Smith, M. (1984). Culture in international business: selecting employees for

expatriate assignments. Studies in third world societies (vol. 28) (pp. 1±16).

Williamsburg, VA: Department of Anthropology, College of William and

Mary.

Spadone, R. (1992). Internal±external control and temporal orientation among

Southeast Asians and White Americans. The American Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 46(8), 713±719.

Stokols, D. (1979). A congruence analysis of human stress. In I. Sarasm & C.

Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety (1(6)). Washington, DC: Hemisphere

Publishing.

Stumpf, S., & Dunbar, R. (1991). The e�ects of personality type on choices

made in strategic decision situations. Decision Sciences, 22(5), 1047±1072.

Sullivan, S., & Bhagat, R. (1992). Organizational stress, job satisfaction, and job

performance: where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 18(2), 353±

374.

The discreet charm of the multicultural multinational (1994). The Economist,

July 30, 57±58.

Thornhill (1993). Management training across cultures: the challenge for trai-

ners. Journal of European Industrial Training, 17(10), 42±52.


Upadhyaya, A., Creed, F., & Upadhyaya, M. (1990). Psychiatric morbidity

among mothers attending well-baby clinic: a cross-cultural comparison. ActaPsychiatrica Scandinavica, 81(2), 148±151.

Wagner, D. (1981). Culture and memory development. In H. Triandis & A.

Heron (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: developmental psychol-ogy (vol. 4). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Walter, G., & Marks, S. (1981). Experiential learning and change. New York:

Wiley-Interscience.Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where's the `culture' in cross-cultural tran-sition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24(2), 221±249.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation. Chicago: Rand McNally Chapter 5.Weinstein, L. (1989). Transcultural relocation: adaptation of older Americans toIsrael. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 13(4), 33±42.

Westwood, M., & Barker, M. (1990). Academic achievement and social adap-tation among international students: a comparison groups study of the peer-pairing program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(2), 251±

263.Willis, M. (1989). Learning styles of African American children: a review of theliterature and interventions. The Journal of Black Psychology, 16(1), 47±65.

Witkin, H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependentand ®eld-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications.Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1±64.

Wright, B. (1991). Labeling: the need for greater person±environment individu-

alism. In Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 469±487). NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Wright, R., & Ricks, D. (1994). Trends in international business records:

twenty-®ve years later. Journal of International Business Research, 25(4), 687±701.

Ying, Y., & Liese, L. (1991). Emotional well-being of Taiwan students in the

U.S.: an examination of pre- to post-arrival di�erential. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 15, 345±366.

Ying, Y., & Liese, L. (1990). Initial adaptation of Taiwan foreign students to

the United States: the impact of prearrival variables. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 18(6), 825±845.

Yoshikawa, M. (1988). Cross-cultural adaptation and perceptual development.International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 11, 140±148.

Zaharna, R. (1989). Self-shock: the double-binding challenge of identity.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(4), 501±525.

Zapf, M. (1991). Cross-cultural traditions and wellness: dealing with culture

shock. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 14, 105±119.


Date post:	11-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

EXPLORING INPATRIATE MANAGER ISSUES: ANvan/diverse/bellut-papers/sdarticle-15.pdf · 2008-03-03 ·...

Documents