7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 1/17
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of Management
Learning & Education.
http://www.jstor.org
The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a New Approach to InterculturalTraining for the Global ManagerAuthor(s): P. Christopher Earley and Randall S. PetersonSource: Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 100-115Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214236Accessed: 18-07-2015 14:21 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 2/17
®
Academy
f
Management earning
nd
Education, 004,
ol.
3.
No.
1,
100-115.
The Elusive
Cultural
Chameleon: Cultural
Intelligence
s a
New
Approach
to Intercultural
Training
for
he
Global
Manager
P. CHRISTOPHER EARLEY
RANDALL
S. PETERSON
London Business School
The
global economy
nd
shiftingolitical
tides make the need for
ntercultural
understanding
nd
educationobvious. Where
historically
hefocusof ntercultural
training
as been on
preparing
n
individual
to work n a new
culture,
oday's
organizations
outinely
sk
managers
to work
n
multinational
nvironments
nd move
from
ountry
o
country.
his
challenge
has created a
strong
ebate about
how to
prepare
managers
for uch
challenging ssignments.
ow
oughtpeople
be
assessed to
understand heir eadiness for
uch
assignments?
o
high
ntelligence uotient
IQ)
people adjust
better han others o new cultural
hallenges?
The
topic
ofcultural
adjustment
nd itsassessment emains
ompelling
ut
ncomplete.
urfocus
here s the
developmentnd exploration f theconceptof cultural ntelligence,r,CQ {Earley, 003;
Earley
&
Ang,
2003),
long
with ts
mplications
or
raining
nd educationfor
lobal
work
ssignments.
ur
approach suggests
that
raining
or he
global manager
should
include
metacognitive,
otivational,
nd behavioral
components.
he
CQ
approach
represents significant
reak from onventionalwisdom
of
focusing
n cultural
values
for ntercultural
ducation.
International
nd interculturalork
as become
thenorm
ormost
arge
companies
Adler,
997;
Dowling,
Welch,
&
Schuler,1999;
chneider&
Barsoux,
1997).
ntercultural
ifferences ave
long
been a
challenge onfronting
ultinational
organizationsHofstede,991), challengethat
has been
exacerbated
y
the
ncreasing reva-
lence of
teams made
up
of individuals from
many
nations
Earley
&
Gibson, 2002;
Snow,
The
core
conceptsunderlying
his
paper
are
presented
n
the
first
uthor's ollaborative
workwith rofs.
ng
Soon,
Joo-Seng
Tan,
Roy
Chua,
Chay-Hoon
ee and Klaus
Templer
s well
as
the
Nanyang
Business School
Cultural
ntelligenceWorking
Group.
A
reader
nterested
n
moredetail
concerning
ntercul-
tural
training
nd
assessment
using
a cultural
ntelligence
perspective
s referredo
Earley
nd
Ang
2003).
Snell,
Canney-Davison,
Hambrick, 996).
To
makematters ven more
hallenging,
managers
are
spending
horter
eriods
n
any ingle
oun-
try,
nd
they
ften
re moved rom
ne location
to
another,
making ountry-specific
nowledge
less relevant. ecause theirmanagersmust ften
operate
cross borders
n
teams
of nternation-
ally
diverse
nits,
many argeorganizations
x-
press
theneed for
managers
who
quickly
djust
to
multiple
ultures nd
workwell
in multina-
tional
teams. This makes the
challenge
of cul-
tural
rainingncreasingly
ifficultecause
con-
ventionalmethodshat
rely
n
country-specific
knowledge
often
prove inadequate
methods
that
orient
managers
o
dyadic
nteractions
n
new countries ail to
prepare
hem or he
com-
100
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 3/17
2004
Eailey
and Peterson
101
plexity
ncounterednmultinationaleams nd
work
ettings.
By
farthe most ommon
and traditional)
p-
proach
o
breaching
ultural nd
national
iffer-
ences s througheaching ountry-specificnowl-
edge
and
exposing
rainees o
different
ultural
values
stemming
rom ork
y
numerousnthro-
pologists
nd
cross-cultural
sychologists
Bhawuk,
1998;
Bhawuk&
Brislin, 992;Brislin, andis,
&
Brandt, 983;
Hall &
Hall 1990;Hofstede, 991;
Kluckhohn
Strodtbeck,961;Mead,1934;
arsons
&
Shils,
1951).
n
emphasis
n values orientation
and
understanding
thers
hrough
heir
elated e-
liefs nd
practices
nderliesmuch f urrent ork
on
ntercultural
raining
nd
management
duca-
tion. ntercultural
raining
as become
early yn-
onymous
ith
nderstanding
ultural
aluesmod-
elsby uch uthors s Hofstede,ampden-Turner,
and
Tompenaars,
luckhohn
nd
Strodtbeck,
nd
Triandis.
owever,
here
s a fundamental
roblem
with
cultural
alues
awareness
pproach
an
awareness
f ulturalalues
s not substitute
or
more
direct
nowledge
f
interpersonal
nterac-
tions,
ust
s
valuesalone
are not
strongly
re-
dictive eature
f human
ehavior
Ajzen
&
Fish-
bein,
1980;
riandis,
972).
lthough
he iterature
on
culturend
management
ver he
past
3 de-
cades
has
focused
lmost
xclusively
n
the ink
between
ultural
alues
and individual
ction,
this
ink s
not
particularly
trong
rclean
Trian-
dis, 1972).
To address hese imitationsn thefaceofnew
global
hallenges
nd
supplement
he
trengths
n
current
pproaches,
we introduce
nd
discuss
a
new
conceptual
ramework
or
nterculturalrain-
ing
that
niquely
dentifies
he
pecificapabili-
ties
of n
individual
ased
ona faceted
model
f
cultural
daptation
alled
the Cultural
ntelli-
gence
r
CQ
approach
Earley,
003;
arley
Ang,
2003).
ur
rgument
s that his
pproach
rovides
a
significant
mprovement
n
existingpproaches
for everal
easons:
a)
it
s
uniquely
ailored
o he
strengths
nd
deficits
f n
individual,
b)
it
pro-
vides
an
integrated
pproach
o
trainingealing
withknowledgend learning,motivational,nd
behavioral
eatures,
nd
c)
t
s built
pon
uni-
fying
sychological
odel f
cultural
daptation
rather
han he
iecemeal
nd
country-specific
p-
proach
o
trainingypically
mployed.
Our
focus
ere s
the
development
nd
explora-
tion
f
the
concept
f
CQ
along
with
ts
mplica-
tions
or
lobal
management.
e
begin y
review-
ing
briefly
xisting
ssessment
methods
nd
intercultural
raining rograms
hat
re used
in
most
rganizations
ith
critique
f their ffec-
tiveness.
ext,
we introduce
ultural
ntelligence
as a
concept
nd
frameworkor
tudying
ultural
adaptation.
We
then escribe
nd discuss ts
ap-
plicationenerally
nd to
multinational
eams. i-
nally,
we
discuss the future
f
CQ
and how
the
constructan be used to mproventerculturaln-
teractions
n
a work
ontext.
A BRIEF REVIEW
OF
EXISTING
APPROACHES
TO
INTERCULTURAL
TRAINING
Many
cholars ave
discussed
ppropriate
nter-
ventionsnd
assessmentmethods or
ntercultural
training
Bhawuk Brislin, 992;
Bochner, 982;
Brislin
t
al., 1983;
rislin
Yoshida, 994;
arris
Moran, 991;
Mendenhall t
al., 1987;
ee &
Tem-
pler,
003; riandis, 975;
riandis
Berry,
980).
We do not
rofess
o
provide
n
exhaustive eview
of he iteratureere, ather, ehighlightey ea-
tures f he iteratures
n
cultural
ssessment nd
program esign
o thatwe can contrast
xisting
approaches
with ur wn
CQ
approach.
Assessment
A
growing
onsensus
n thefield f ntercultural
training
s that
ppropriateedagogy
or
nypro-
gram
must
begin
with
thorough
nd suitable
assessment
of
managers' trengths
nd weak-
nesses.Methods or
ndividual ssessment
ange
from
imple aper-and-pencil
nventories,
o
elab-
orate
role-play
xercises,
o behavioral ssess-
ment enters. ee andTempler2003)pecifically
provide
thorough
eview
fvarious ntercultural
assessment
rocedures,
nd we draw
from heir
work n this
ection.
Paper-and-pencil
ssessments
are the most
widely
used
for heir elative
ase in admini-
stration.
nyder
1974),
or
xample, eveloped
self-report
easureof
individual ifferencesn
self-monitoring
f
expressive
ehavior
nd self-
presentation.
elf-monitoring
as defined
as
self-observation
nd self-control
uided
by
situa-
tional ues
to ocial
ppropriateness.ealey
1989)
foundhis
elf-Monitoring
cale
(SMS)
to be
pre-
dictiveor verseas uccess.Dodd 1998)ists few
short
elf-report
ssessments
pplied
to
ntercul-
tural
communication
ncluding
Cardot's Self-
Confidence
cale.
This 10-item
cale
attempts
o
assess
whetherhe ndividuals old
positive
t-
titude
oward
hemselves,
or
xample,
f
hey
eel
they
have a number f
good qualities
and are
satisfied
ith
hem,
rwhether
hey
eel ikefail-
ures
and useless at
times.These methods ake
existing
ndividual ifferencesssessments
s a
basis
for
redictingotential
or
ultural
djust-
mentnd interaction.
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 4/17
102
Academy
of
Management Learning
and Education
March
An
alternative
pproach
assesses
variables
more
irectly
ied oculture.
or
xample,
edden
(1975
s cited n
Kealey
&
Rubin,
983)
eveloped
theCulture hock
nventory.
his
elf-report
ea-
sure ttemptsopredictifficultiesndealingwith
culture hock
yassessingpeople
on a
variety
f
characteristicsuch
s, a)
degree
fdirect
xperi-
ence with
eople
from ther ountries
including
foreign
anguage
kills),b)
ndividuals'
penness
to
new deas and
beliefs,
nd
c)
specific
ultural
knowledge. closely
elated
nstruments the
n-
terculturalommunication
nventory
ICI).
This 5-
itemmeasure s used to assess
knowledge
nd
awareness
mong
employees
n
areas such as
workforce
iversity,
ulture
hock,
anguage
nd
accent,
ody anguage
nd
gestures,
ommunica-
tion
distortions,
ultural
misunderstandings,
us-
toms nd traditions,nd ethnocentrismLee &
Templer,
003).
More
recently,preitzer,
cCall,
and
Mahoney
1997)
eveloped
measurementool
named
Prospector
or
arly
dentificationf n-
ternational
xecutive
otential.
ntercultural
o-
tential s assessed in
Prospectorsing
14
empiri-
cally
derived cales
including:
a)
sensitivity
o
cultural
ifferences,
b)
business
knowledge,
c)
courage,
d)
brings
ut he est n
people,
e)
nteg-
rity,
f)
nsightful,
g)
committed,
h)
takes
isks;
s
well as
several
earning-oriented
imensionsn-
cluding:
i)
seeks
feedback,
j)
uses
feedback,
k)
culturally
dventurous,
1)
eeks
earning
pportu-
nities,
m)
pen
o
criticism,
nd
n)
flexibility.
Program
esign
Once
managers
re assessed
and selected for
training
rograms,
he
key uestion
ecomeswhat
design ptimizes
heir
raining
nd
development.
On the
whole,
most
ntercultural
raining ro-
gramsmphasize
ncreasing manager's
ultural
competence
n
dealing
with thers rom ifferent
cultural
ackgrounds
hroughnhancing
heir
og-
nitive
wareness nd
knowledge
fthe
proposed
host
ulture. rislin
nd Yoshida
1994),
or xam-
ple,
specificallyrovide
comprehensive
eview
of raining ethodsntheir valuation f ntercul-
tural
raining
y identifying
ive
pproaches
n
intercultural
raining:ognitive,
ttributional,
x-
periential,
elf-awareness,
nd behavioral.
og-
nitive
raining
ends o
focus n the transferf
cultural
knowledge
r basic information
the
techniques
nclude hort
ectures, ilms, ideos,
reading
materials,
nd
case studies. hese
cogni-
tive
raining
ethods
re
useful,
ut
hey
o have
a
number
fdrawbacks.
irst,
ognitive raining
focuses
on
specific
knowledge cquisition
nd
does not
ddress
metacognitive
ompetencies
s
we discuss ater.
ikewise,
t s
not
eadily ener-
alizable
o
global
managers
making
more
han ne
cultural ncounter.
ung
1981)
as
suggested
hat
purely
nformational
riefings
n the
host
ountry
are not ufficiento ncreasen individual'snter-
personal
nd
professional
ffectiveness
verseas.
As Edwardde Bono
sserted,
Unless
you
know
everything,
hat
you
need s
thinking
as
cited
n
Tan
&
Chua,
003:
23).
Nomatter
owdetailed
he
country
r cultural
nformation,
t is
impractical
and untenable
o
expect
manager
o
acquire
everything
bout
culture
rior
o
ourneying
o t.
In
attribution-based
raining,
he
mphasis
s on
differingnterpretations
f critical
ncidents
n-
volving
ntercultural
ncounters.ulture
ssimila-
tors re often sed
for his
ype
f
ntervention
n
which
articipants
re shown ultural
cenarios
and asked to nterprethe ituation.ulturals-similators ave
ncreasingly
mployed
critical-
incident
pproach
o
present xamples
f ulture
clashes between
ndividuals
rom ifferent
ack-
grounds
Cushner
Landis,
1996).
typical
ul-
tural ssimilator
xercisewould
ave
participants
read a
number f critical
ncidencecultural
clashes.For ach critical
ncident,
he
articipants
are asked
o ttributend
nterpret
he
ehavior
f
the actors
n
the conflict
ituations.
he
partici-
pants
rethen
resented
ith number
f lter-
native
xplanations
nd asked
to select
ne that
best accounts or
he conflict
n thecritical
nci-
dents. ushner nd
Landis
1996)
sed the ulture
assimilatormethod odevelop culture-general
assimilator.
he
culture-general
ssimilator
ro-
vides a
way
of
encouraging
he
development
f
global,
multicultural
erspectives
or
hosewho
workwith
eople
from
any
ultures.
A
variation
n a
traditional,
ountry-based
ul-
tural ssimilator
as
presented y
Bhawuk nd
Brislin
1992;
hawuk,
998,
001).
ather
hanfo-
cusing
n a
particular
arget
ountry,
heir
mpha-
sis is on
a
target
ultural alue
that an
be shared
across ountries.or
xample,
hawuk's
2001)
n-
dividualism ultural ssimilator
rawsfrom
ore
culture
heory
i.e.,
riandis',
995
heory
f
ndivid-
ualism-collectivism)o createcritical ncidents
that
pply
cross
ountries,
atherhan
mphasiz-
ing
n observed
i.e.,
theoretic)
ncident.
ritical
incidentsre drawn romndividualism-collectiv-
ism
heory
nd cover wide
range
f ocial
behav-
iorsbased
on the
elf,
oal prioritization,
nd
mo-
tivation
actors.
Cultural
ssimilators re
generally
seful e-
cause
theyprovide
asic
cultural
cripts
bout
specific
ultures
overing
wide
variety
f ocial
situations
nd
culturally
ppropriateesponses.
f
an individual nowswhich ulture
e or she will
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 5/17
2004
Earley
nd Peterson
103
be
visiting, ulture-specific
ssimilators an be
very
ffectivet
helping
he
ndividual
ain
nter-
cultural
xperiences
f he
argeted
ulture
Cush-
ner
&
Landis,
1996).
Most culture ssimilators
are limited, owever, ecause they re culture-
specific.
venBhawuk's
2001)
alues assimilator
has
some
significant
rawbacks hat re shared
with
ther
ultural
ssimilators.
irst,
ulturend
values
imulatorsan be
costly
o
design
nd
time
consuming
or
articipants.
ore
mportant,
ow-
ever,
s that t
remains nclear ow he
knowledge
gained
n cultural
alues-based
ssimilatorrain-
ingmight
ransfer
o
theoretically
imilar ircum-
stances
with
issimilarurface
eatures ithinhe
target
ulture,
iven
hedocumented
oor
ransfer
of
earning
ssociated
with
eaching y analogy
(Loewenstein,
hompson,
Gentner,
003).
hat
s,
what emains nclear s whetherulturalssimi-
lators
rovide
metacognitive
enefits
or
artici-
pants ny
more hando their
raditional
ountry-
based
counterparts.
urther,
he focus
on a
particular
ultural
alue in Bhawuk's
2001)
p-
proach
may
nadvertently
ead
global
managers
o
overemphasize
ne
aspect
ofculture ver
more
significant
ne's
for
particular
ountry.
orex-
ample,
lthough
hailand
may
be characterized
by
certain
evel
f
ndividualism,
ower
istance
and
hierarchy
re
more entral
o social
behavior
(Klausner,
993;
omin,
991).
In
experiential
raining,
n
emphasis
s
on
ap-
plied
training
nd
techniques
ncluding
ole-
plays,fieldvisits, nd simulations.articipants
are
more
ffectivelyngaged
s
they articipate
n
work
amples
f he
ctual
target
ulture.
or x-
ample,
articipants
an
be
put
n social
situations
with
epresentatives
rom ther
ultures
n simu-
lated
ocialor
work
vents.
he downside
fthis
kind
of
training,
owever,
s that
t is
typically
emotionally
emanding
or
oth
he
participants
and
the
rainers.
Self-awareness
raining
nvolves
raising
the
trainees'
wareness
ftheir
wn
culture,
s well
as
typical
eactions
hat
eople
romtherultures
have
to them.
hese
programs
lso
focus
n the
potentialossof elf-esteemnthese ettings.elf-
awareness
training
elps participants
ecome
more
ware
of
their
wn
values,attitudes,
nd
behaviors
sing
methods
hat
ontrast
heir
wn
andthe
arget
ultures.
rainers
ehave
n
sharp
contrast
ith he
preferred
ehavior
f
he
partic-
ipant
e.g.,
culture-contrast)
nd
explain
he ea-
sons
for
heir
ctions
nd
highlight
hetrainees'
discomfort
ith he
xperience.
s
with cultural
assimilator
pproach,
hese ontrasts
re
country
or
culture
pecific,
nd,
therefore
imited
ntheir
generalizability.
Finally,
n
behavior
raining,
n
emphasis
s on
observable ehavior
trainees
ractice
isplaying
behaviors
ppropriate
or
he
arget
ulture
cross
various
cenarios. his
training
lso
emphasizes
behavior egulationndmonitoringfone's own
actions
ncluding
onverbal
isplays
uch s
body
orientation,
roxemics,
nd
social
distances.
e-
havior
raining
s
demanding
f ts
participants
and time
onsuming,
o it s
not
ypically
sed n
intercultural
raining rograms.
s
we
discuss
shortly,
owever,
ehavior
raining
s critical n
delivering
coordinated
pproach
o
training
ul-
turally
ntelligent
ndividuals.
General
Commentary
n
ExistingApproaches
Inthe iteraturen intercultural
raining,
hat n-
formationalndexperientialrainingork est n
tandem
s
fairly
well established
Tan
&
Chua,
2003).
hus,
most
xisting
pproaches
o ntercul-
tural
raining
nd education
rovide omething
f
a cafeteria
tyle
f ducation that
s,
a bit f his
and a bit f
hat
nthe
hope
hat
omething
ill
be
useful.
This
approach
s
largely
onsistent ith
current
hinking
n education bout the
need to
provide
rainingsingmultiple
ethodso
ppeal
to
people
with ifferent
earning
tyles e.g.,
Kolb,
Boyatzis,
Mainemelis,
001).
owever,
e believe
this
pproach
as created number
f
nterrelated
problems
n
dealing
with heneeds of he
global
manager mostly
temming
rom lack ofunder-
lyingonceptualrameworkhat inks heparticu-
larsof he
raining
nterventionith he
trengths
and
weaknesses fthe
ndividual rainee. ather
than
rawing
selection f
raining
vents rom
seemingly
xhaustiveistof
possibilities,
he e-
lection f
trainingrogram
or
manager
hould
be based
on an individual
eeds ssessment nd
informed
y
theoretically
ound ramework.
The first nd
most
mportant
eakness ncur-
rent
pproaches
s the mbedded
ssumption
hat
all individuals
eed a similar
xposure
nd train-
ing egime.
or
xample,
ulturalssimilators
ro-
vide a
programmed
et of scenarios or rainees
regardless f their rior nowledgef thetarget
country
r its cultural alues.
Experiential
xer-
cises such
s BaFa
BaFa
(Shirts, 973)
rovide
n
activeformat or
earning
ut
gnore
ndividual
differences
n
cultural
xperience
nd
knowledge.
Similarly,
ntercultural
raining rograms
ener-
ally
ssume
similarevelof
nticipated
nterac-
tion
n the
arget
ite.These
programsgnore
he
unique
requirements
emanded
f an individual
in
terms
f
ntensity,
uration,
nd nature f nter-
cultural
nteraction
Tan
&
Chua,
2003).
hat
s,
training rograms
eed to consider
he
frequency
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 6/17
104
Academy
of
Management Learning
and Education
March
of
ontact
intensity),ength
f
ssignment
dura-
tion),
nd
type
f ontact
formal
ersus
nformal,
work
ersus
onwork)
hatwillbe demandedf he
individual ecause
thesedimensions ear direct
relevance o thetype ftrainingecommended.
Further,
hesecharacteristics ust
be
mapped
onto
he
pecific ualities
f he
participant
n
the
program.
o do this
equires
way
of
discerning
the
existing
trengths
f each individual
artici-
pant.
Thesecondgeneralweakness n most urrent
approaches
s thatntercultural
raining
ethods
tend
o focus
heavily
n
cognitive
r
knowledge-
based
informationnd
awareness of the
target
culture. he
problem
ith his
ype
f
mphasis
s
that t
does not
provide
he
metacognitive
kills
needed o earn n
new situationsnd cultures.f
theres a
direct
ransferencef cenario o henew
interculturalituation
i.e.,
ncluding
he
urface-
level
imilarities),
hesemethods
re useful. ow-
ever,
t is oftenhe case
that he
knowledge
c-
quired
s not
ignificantly
road o
encompass
he
likely
complexity
nd
uncertainty
aced
by
a
trainee nce n
thenew
ulture.
magine
he hal-
lengefaced y globalmanagerwhoruns mul-
tinationaleam
consisting
f members rom
ix
countries. eam
members
ossess
a
myriad
f
country-specific
haracteristicss
well s cultural
values.
Trainingpecific ognitive
nowledge
or
all
six
countriess
impractical
n this nstance.
What
s critical
s
equipping
manager
ithmeta-
cognitive
kills o that
with ime nd
experience
heor he
can
acquire
new
nformation
oncerning
the
ulturalssues n
the eam.
Third,
many
ntercultural
raining rograms
s-
sume
strong
ink
between ultural alues and
normsnd
ndividual
ehavior ithin
hat ulture.
That s, f know hat ingapores a collectivistic
culture,
hen can
predict
particular
ingapore-
an's actions.
owever,
riandis
1972),
mong
th-
ers,
ointed
o he
enuousink
f ultural alues
o
action
n
his framework
f
ubjective
ulture. al-
ues and
norms
epresent
nly
ne of
many
iffer-
ent
features
some
ultural
nd
social,
thers
er-
sonal
nd
diosyncratic)
ontributing
o
person's
behavioral
ntentions
nd action.
ocusing
n cul-
tural
alues
presents
n
overlyimplistic
asis for
understanding
ehavior
based in culture nd
country
Brockner,
003).
Finally,
urrent ethodsf
ntercultural
raining
rely
heavily
n
analogical
earning.
hese
pro-
grams
ssume
hat he rainee
an
make
he ntel-
lectual onnectionsetween
hevarious
eaching
tools used (e.g.,vignettes,ole-plays,nd facts)
and the
ituations
hey
willencounter
n the
new
culture. ecent
esearch
uggests,
owever,
hat
most
people
have
relatively
imited
apacity
or
transferring
concept
romn
example
ase to
a
novel ituationnless there
s a
specific
iscus-
sionof he
metacognitive
trategies
n thevarious
teaching
ools
Loewenstein
t
al.,
2003).
ffective
intercultural
raining
eeds
to draw
participants
into discussion f he roader
hemes r
oncepts
behind he correct
nswers o
earning
ctivities,
orrisk rainees'
bility
o
adapt
appropriately
e-
ing
imited o the
very
arrow
urface-levelimi-
larities fthe imulation.ctivitiesuchas field
visits
e.g.,
-2
day trip
o the
arget
ite)
an
pro-
vide a better
pportunity
o
generalize y
nvolv-
ing
hem
t a self-chosenevel
f
ngagement,
ut
these re
veryxpensive
nd
willnot
necessarily
deepen
he
earning
ithout
pecific
uidance
nd
discussion. uch
trips
may
vencreate
mini cul-
ture hocks hat
isrupt
urther
raining.acking
an
appropriate et-up
nd
ongoing
xperience,
fieldvisits an also
create r
perpetuate
tereo-
types
f he
arget
ulture.
In
sum,
we
argue
for
he notion f
designing
intercultural
raining
rograms
round he
unique
capabilities
f
person
o
adapt
to new cultural
settings
s
reflected
y
the hree acets f he
he-
oretical rientationn the
CQ
model.We describe
these eatures
f
CQ
below nd thenllustrateow
they an be used to ndividuallyailor programof ntercultural
raining.
THE
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE
APPROACH
TO
INTERCULTURAL TRAINING
Key
to all forms f
training
nd education
s a
learner's
apability
o
acquire,
etain,
nd inter-
pret
arious
ypes
f nformationnd
experiences.
Broadly
efined,
his
apability
or
daptation
s
reflected
y person'sntelligence
r
Q
(Gardner,
1983;
ternberg,
985).
midsthevarious
opular-
rhe
firstndmost
mportant
eakness
n
current
pproaches
s the
mbedded
assumption
hat
ll individuals eed a
similar
xposure
nd
training egime.
Most
eople
have
relatively
imited
capacity or ransferringconcept rom
an
example
ase
to a novel ituation
unless here s a
specific
iscussion
f
the
metacognitive
trategies
n the
various
eaching
ools.
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 7/17
2004
Earley
nd Peterson
105
ized versions f
work
n
intelligence
ome
a
num-
ber of
mportant
dvances
representing
signifi-
cant break from
raditional iews.
One
such idea
was described
by Salovey
and
Mayer
1990)
nd
discussedbyGardnern hisbooks, rames fMind
and
Multiple
ntelligences
1983, 993),
s
well
as
numerous
writings
f Robert
ternberge.g.,
1985).
People
having
a
high
social or emotional ntelli-
gence
are
thought
o be
relatively
more able to
empathize,
work
with, direct,
nd interactwith
other
people.
High
social
intelligence
reflects
person's
apacity
o
perform
ctions
such
as
prob-
lem
solving)
with
nd
through
thers.
High
emo-
tional
intelligence
eflects
person's
capacity
to
understand
nd
convey
human
emotion.
From
a cross-national
nd cross-cultural
er-
spective,
however,
he emotional
nd social intel-
ligence approaches lack cultural ontext s they
attempt
o
explain
how and
whypeople
act
as
they
do
(see
Robert
ternberg,
985,
or notable
excep-
tion).
There are a number
f differences
etween
emotional
and
social
intelligence
and our
con-
struct
f cultural
ntelligence.
Emotional
ntelli-
gence
captures
variety
f attributes
elated to a
person's
ability
o
read and
respond
to the
affec-
tive
states of
culturally
imilar
others
nd to self-
regulate
emotion.
Take,
for
example,
President
Kennedy's
harismatic
peech
about
American
a-
triotism
Ask
notwhat
your
ountry
an
do for
ou
but
what
you
can
do for
your
country
.
).
The
content
f
his
speech
drew
upon
the
American
ideal ofthe mportance feach personmaking
difference,
nd
his use
of dramatic
pauses
and
emotion
re
ideal
for
nspiring
Americans.How-
ever,
his
presentation
tyle
nd
content
would
not
have the emotional
ppeal
in dissimilar
ultures.
That
is,
the
symbolism
elating
o individual
ni-
tiative
and
differentiation
ay
be
alienating
in
cultures
or
which
personal
dentity
s
tiedto
group
context.
Emotional
ntelligence
resumes
degree
of
fa-
miliarity
ithin
culture
nd
context
hat
may
not
exist
across
many
cultures
or
given
ndividual.
Although
esearchers
dealing
with emotional
n-
telligencedo notpurposelyimit heirmodelsto a
single
culture,
hey
do
not
provide
an
adequate
discussion
of cross-cultural
ontext
nd
how the
concept
might
e
expanded
to include t.
Cultural
ntelligence
iffers
rom
ocial
intelli-
gence
as
well
for
many
f
hereasons
that t
differs
from
motional
ntelligence.
hat
is,
the
formula-
tions of
social
intelligence
re
relatively
oid of
multicultural
ichness.
According
o
Salovey
and
Mayer
1990),
ocial
intelligence
eflects
he
bility
to
understand
nd
manage people.
Cantor
and
Kihlstrom
1985)
argued
that
social
intelligence
may
be an
underlying
imensionof
personality.
According
o their
iew,
ocial
problem
olving
an
inherent
art
of social
intelligence)
s a
central
personality rocess
that
underlies ocial
behavior.
Theyplace the ocusofpersonalcharacteristicsn
social and
personal
schema thatwe
store n
mem-
ory
nd
retrieve
n
various
social
situations.
Many
of
the schema and social or
emotional
cues used
by people
from ne
culture o
ascertain
another
person's
emotional tate
e.g., empathize)
differ
adically
from
hose used in
other ultures.
A
friendly
mile for a Canadian
may
seem
straightforward
ntil she
encounters Thai em-
ployee
forwhom over
20
separate
smiles
provide
subtle cues for
adically
differentrames f mind
(Klausner,
993;Komin,
991).
hus,
a
person
hav-
ing high
emotional
ntelligence
n
their ative
ul-
turemay be entirely ncapable at generalizing
across cultural
ettings, iven
such
confusing
ig-
nals. Cultural
ntelligence
CQ)
captures
this ca-
pability
for
daptation
across cultures
nd it re-
flects
person's
apability
o
gather, nterpret,
nd
act
upon
these
radically
differentues
to
function
effectively
cross cultural
ettings
r n a multicul-
tural
ituation
Earley
&
Ang,
2003).
CQ
differs rom ocial and emotional intelli-
gence
in other
ways
as well.
Adaptation
cross
new cultural ontexts
equires
that
novel
ways
of
dealing
with thers e discovered.
xisting
trate-
gies
mustbe
adjusted, dapted,
or reinvented e-
pending
on
the situation nd culture.
Thus,
CQ
places a heavy emphasis on metacognition,r
thinking
bout
thinking.
ikewise,
he
activities
required
n new
cultures,
nlike
nacting
behavior
within ne's
own
culture,
may require people
to
develop
and
expand
theirbehavioral
repertoires.
That
s,
CQ
reflects
person's
capability
fdevel-
oping
entirely
ovel
behavior
e.g., peech
sounds,
gestures,
tc.)
f
required.
At its
core,
CQ
consists of
three fundamental
elements:
metacognition
nd
cognition
thinking,
learning,
and
strategizing);
motivation
efficacy
and
confidence,
persistence,
value
congruence
and affect
or he new
culture);
nd behavior
so-
cial mimicry,nd behavioral repertoire). hese
facets are
illustrated
n our
example
of the
Thai
smile
interpreted y
the Canadian
manager.
First,
he needs
to observe the various
cues
pro-
vided
in
addition
to the smile
gesture
tself
e.g.,
other acial
or
bodilygestures,
ignificance
foth-
ers
who
may
be in
proximity,
he
source of the
original
mile
gesture)
nd to assemble them nto
a
meaningful
whole and make sense of what is
reallyexperienced
by
the Thai
employee.
econd,
she must
have the
requisite
motivation
directed
effortnd
self-confidence)
o
persist
n
the face of
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 8/17
106
Academy
f
Management
earning
nd
Education
March
confusion,
hallenge,
r
apparently
mixed
ignals.
Third,
he
must
hoose,
generate,
nd execute the
right
ctions to
respond appropriately.
f
any
of
these
three lements s
deficient,
he is
likely
o be
ineffectiven dealing with the Thai national.A
high
CQ
manager
has
capability
with all three
facets as
they
ct in unison. We
argue
here that
this
CQ
approach
is
an advance
in
thinking
or
understandingmanager adjustment
because it
captures
xisting pproaches emphasizing
values
orientation
nd fact
finding,
ut
also
moves well
beyond
that
by identifying
niquely
the
CQ
strengths
nd
deficits
or
n individual
manager.
We now turn
o a more
n-depth
iscussionof he
featuresof cultural
ntelligence
drawn from he
Earley
nd
Ang
2003)
ramework.1
Metacognitive-Cognitiveacet Training
The
cognitive
acet
refers o
information-process-
ing aspects
of
ntelligence
nd it s
conceptualized
using
self-conceptheoryEarley,
003).
The self s
a
person's
mental
representation
f her own
knowledge
nd
experience,
ocial
identity,
nd so-
cial
roles. The
functioning
f
the self
depends
on
personal
motives
eing
served and on the
config-
uration f he
mmediate ocial situation nd roles
enacted. The self s a
dynamic nterpretive
truc-
ture
hat
mediates most
significant
ntrapersonal
and
interpersonal
rocesses.
Thus,
the
cognitive
facet f
CQ
can be viewed
as the total
knowledge
and experience oncerningultural daptationof
an
individual
tored n
memory. nowing
neself
is
not ufficient
or
high
CQ
-
awareness does not
guarantee
flexibility.
lexibility
of
self-concept
and
ease of
ntegrating
ew facets nto t
re,
how-
ever,
associated with
high
CQ
because under-
standing
new
cultures
may require abandoning
pre-existing onceptualizations
f how and
why
people
function
s
they
do.
Having high
CQ
also
means that a
person
s
capable
of
reformulating
conceptions
f
self and
others s new information
is
received.
Thus,
malleability
nd
an
ability
to
reorganize
ne's
self-concept
re
important.
A criticalstartingpointfordiscussing a new
perspective
n
cultural
daptation
is an
avenue
referred o as
metacognition
Flavell,
1979,
1987),
which
refers o
thinking
bout
thinking,
r knowl-
edge
and
cognition
bout
cognitive bjects.
Meta-
cognition
an be
further
roken down into
two
complementary
lements:
metacognitive
knowl-
edge
and
metacognitive
xperience.
Metacogni-
tive
knowledge
refers to one's
acquired
world
knowledge
that
has to do
with
cognitive
matters
and it
reflects hree
general
categories
of
knowl-
edge (Flavell, 1987).First, t reflects he person
aspects
of
knowledge
or the
cognitions
hat
we
hold about
people
as
thinking rganisms.
There
are three
ypes
of
person
categories
ncluding
n-
traindividual,
nterindividual,
nd universal.
The
second
type
of
metacognition
efers
o task
vari-
ables,
or the
nature f he nformation
cquired
by
an individual.A
person
earns
things
bout
how
the
type
of information
ncountered
nfluences
how it should
be dealt with
n various
contexts.
Manypeople
realize that
very enselypacked
and
unique
information
equires
great
deal of
effort
to
comprehend.
f uch nformation
s
encountered,
thena person spends moretime on tryingo ac-
quire
the nformation.or
example,
the
demands
placed
on
earning
bout
a new culture
hat hares
little n commonwith that
of an
expatriate
man-
ager
are
great,
nd the ndividual
s
likely
o
real-
ize that
great
deal of ttentionnd
persistence
s
required.
The
final
spect
of
metacognitive
nowledge
e-
fers o
trategy
ariables,
orthe
procedures
sed to
achieve some desired
goal.
Whereas
a
cognitive
strategymight
e
something
uch as
adding
a set
of
numbers
o attain
total,
metacognitive
trat-
egy
might
e to add thenumbers everal
times
o
ensure thatthe total
s correct.
he
original
ddi-
tion proceduregives a correct nswer to the
problem,
but the successive
checks
on the
total
function
ifferently.
he
follow-up perations
re
intended
o reassure that
the correct nswer
has
been found.Another
xample
is that
f one is
ex-
posed
to
very complicated
reading
material,
a
strategy
might
be to read the material
slowly
to
understand
t.
However,
metacognitivetrategy
would be to skim he material
briefly
o decide
its
difficulty
nd what
cognitive trategy
might
be
employed
o
master
he materialmost
ffectively.
This
type
of
metacognition
might
well
be
thought
of
as
a
strategy
f
earning
how to
earn,
or meta-
learning.
These
higher
evel
cognitive rocesses
are
part
of a
person's
metacognition,
r
thinking
bout
thinking.
Thus,
metacognition
an be broken
down nto wo
complementary
lements
ncluding
metacognitive
nowledge
what
and
how to deal
with
knowledgegained
under
variety
fcircum-
stances)
and
metacognitive xperience
what
and
how
to
ncorporate
elevant
xperiences
s
a
gen-
eral
guide
for uture
nteractions).
etacognition
s
a critical
spect
of
CQ
because much
of what is
required
n a
new culture s
putting ogether at-
1
The
description
f
ultural
ntelligence
n this
ection s drawn
from
arley
2003)
nd
Earley
and
Ang
2003).
The
interested
reader s
referredothese
sources for more
n-depth
iscus-
sion of
CQ.
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 9/17
2004
Earley
nd Peterson
107
terns
nto coherent
icture,
ven f ne
does
not
knowwhat
his oherent
icture ight
ook
ike.
o
do so
requires
higher
evel of
strategy
bout
people,
laces,
nd events. orthis eason
many
culturalrainingrogramsailbecausethey ver-
emphasize
he
pecific xample
t the
xpense
f
a more
eneralmeta-learningrocess.
Many
ompanies
rain heir
lobalmanagers y
providing
ountry-specific
nformation.his
ap-
proach
s not
only
imited
y
a
person's
nvolve-
mentn the
raining
ethod,
ut t does
not
pre-
pare
manager
dequately
or
nderstanding
nd
mastering
ovel situations he
training
id not
specifically
over.
With n effective
etastrategy,
this
roblem
s overcome.
Cognitive rocessing
apabilities
of
CQ
are
shown
n a number
f
ways. ncorporating
ew
informationndusing he elf s a complex ilter
for
nderstanding
ewcultural
ettings
s as
crit-
ical as inductive
easoning.
his s
not
merely
m-
pathy
cues
determining
nother
erson's
ffec-
tive tate elied
ponby
n
empathetic
ndividual
may
be
absent
or
conflicting
ithwhat s ex-
pected.
xpressed
motion
ay
e
misleading
e-
cause
t s the
nderlying
motional
tates hat re
truly
eflectivef
person's
eelings.
high
CQ
person
must
nductively
reate
proper
mapping
of
he ocialsituation
o
function
ffectively.
his
requires
general
utbroad oundation
fknowl-
edge
about
cultures
nd societies
imilar
o
the
training
ecommended
y
n
anthropological
iew
covering opics uchas economic ystems,eli-
gious
and
political
nstitutions,
ocial relation-
ships,
nd
so forth.
Motivation
acet
Training
The second
facet f
CQ
refers
o ts
motivational
aspect.
Knowledge
f another
roup's
ways
of
dealing
with he
world s
not ufficient.
ne
must
be able
and
motivated)
ousethis
nowledge
nd
produce
culturally
ppropriate
esponse.
Cul-
tural
ntelligence
eflects
elf-concept
nd
directs
and motivates
daptation
o new
cultural ur-
roundings.elf-efficacys a keyfacet f the elf
(Bandura,
986,
997;
rez &
Earley,
993)
nd it
refers
o
a
judgment
f ne's
capability
o ccom-
plish
a certain
evel
of
performance
Bandura,
1986:
91).
eople
end
o void
asks
nd situations
they
elieve
xceed
heir
apabilities,
nd
efficacy
judgments
romote
he
choiceof
situations
nd
tasks
with
high
ikelihood
f
success
and
elimi-
nate
he
hoice
f
hose
hat xceed
ne's
apabil-
ities.
Self-efficacylays
an
important
ole
n
CQ
be-
causesuccessful
ntercultural
nteraction
s based
on
a
person's
enseof
fficacy
or
ocial
discourse
in a
novel ultural
etting. person
whodoes
not
believe n
personal apability
o
understand
eo-
ple
from ovel ultures
s
likely
o
disengage
fter
experiencingarlyfailures. f themotivational
facet fcultural
ntelligence
s
weak,
daptation
does notoccur.
Highly
fficacious
eople
do
not
require
onstant
ewards o
persist
ntheir
ctions;
not
onlymay
rewards e
delayed,
heymay p-
pear
in a form
hat s
unfamiliar.
eople
having
low
efficacy
xpectations
re
unableto
maintain
commitmento a course
f ction
nder uchdu-
ress and
potential ersonal
hreat. n
additional
benefit
f
fficacy
s its
positive
mpact
n strate-
gic thought
nd
problem
olving
Locke Latham,
1990).
ndividuals hohave a
strong
ense of
ffi-
cacy engage
in a
problem-solving
nd
strategic
approach o overcomingbstacles.This is very
important
n ntercultural
ncountersecause m-
mediate nd obvious nswers
odilemmas
may
e
absent
Wood
&
Bandura,
989).
igh
CQ
people
have
a
strong
ense
of
fficacy
ith
egard
o n-
tercultural
ncounters,
o
they
work
mart s well
as
hard.
Efficacy
lone,however,
s not full
escription
of hemotivationalacet f
CQ.
An
mportant,
nd
related,
ddition
s
goal settingEarley Lituchy,
1991;
ocke&
Latham,
990).
he nteractive
mpor-
tance
of
goal setting
nd
efficacyxpectations
s
illustrated
n
work
ymany
cholars
seeBandura,
1997
or
review).
uman ctivities
y
their
ery
nature regoaldirectedndpurposeful.n an in-
tercultural
ncounter,
challenge
s to
determine
the
oals
of thers
oming
rom differentultural
and
personal
ackground.
oals
specify
he on-
ditional
equirement
or
positive
elf-evaluation
(Bandura,
997).
he
process
f
valuating
he
ig-
nificance f
knowledge
bout
what s
happening
with
ur
personal
well-being enerates
motions.
Only
hrough
he
recognition
hatwe have some-
thing
o
gain
or o
oose,
hat
s,
hat he utcomef
a transaction
s relevant o
goals
and
well-being,
do we
generate
n emotional eaction.
hus,
oal
appraisal
s
necessary
ot
only
for
ctivating
responseowardoalattainment,ut lsofor en-
erating
motions
hat
re
necessary
or
nergizing
action.That
s,
our
goals
may
act as
cognitive
anchors,
therebyguiding subsequent
actions
(Locke
Latham,
990).
Returning
o
ourdiscussion f
elf-efficacy
o-
tive
for
ersonal
rowth
Erez
&
Earley,
993),
e
can see
the
nterdependent
ature f
goals
and
efficacy
or
nderstanding
otivational
spects
f
CQ.
Self-efficacyeciprocally
nfluences
ersonal
goals
set,
o individuals
ho re
high
n
the
mo-
tivational
spects
f
CQ
are likewise
igh
n
per-
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 10/17
108
Academy
f
Management earning
nd Education
March
sonal
efficacy
nd will tend
to set
specific
nd
challenging oals
for
hemselves o master
he
cultural
uagmire hey
ace. ndividuals hohave
a
high
motivation
omponent
f
CQ
are efficacious
with egardo nterculturalnteractions.hese f-
ficaciousndividualsave
strong
ensethat
hey
are
able todeal with he
divergent
erspectives
f
others,
hanging
nd unfamiliar
ituations,
nd
handling omplexity
nd
uncertainty.
owever,
s
we stated
arlier,
strong
ense of
fficacy
lone
is
not
dequate
for
nderstanding
Q
because a
person's
ctions re
goal
directed;
henature nd
type
f
goals
that
people
set for hemselvesre
critical or
nderstanding
nd
predicting
heout-
comes f ntercultural
nteractions.
A
person's
orms nd
values are related o
CQ
and
they
re an
important
spect
f he
elf
n that
they uidewhat eaturesf he ocialenvironmentthat
person
ttends o nd whathe or he values
(Hofstede,
991;
chwartz,
994).
herole f
values
and norms
from
motivational
erspective)
or
CQ
is that
hey uide
our
choiceof
activities s
well
help
define ur
valuation f
hem
Triandis,
1972).
or
xample, person
aving
trong roup-
based values s
likely
o void
ituations
equiring
personal
ctions.
urther,
uch
person
s
likely
o
evaluate
ndividual,
diosyncratic
ehavior
ega-
tively.
hus,
ultural
djustment
ay
be
impaired
by
ne's ultural
alues nd
normsf
hey
re held
extremelytrongly
nd
nflexibly.
Values and
value
systems
erve a number
f
functionsor n individual. alues are standards
thatead individuals
o ake
positions
ver
ssues,
predispose
hem o favor
particular
deologies,
guide
heir
elf-presentations,
valuate nd
udge
themselvesnd
others,
ct as
a basis for
ompar-
isonsof
morality
nd
competence
ith
thers,
e-
termine
hich deas of
others
hould be chal-
lenged,
nd
tell how to
rationalize
eliefs nd
actions hatwould
therwise e
unacceptable
o
as to
preserve
elf-image
Rokeach,
973:
3).
Val-
ues serve o
motivate
nstrumentallyy
providing
enticement
hrough
esired
nd-statess well as
terminallyyrepresenting
uperordinate
oals,
andreinforcesense of elf.Weare now n a
position
ocombine
ur arlier
discussion n
values with uruse of
fficacy
nd
goals.
As researchers
ave
demonstrated
see
Locke&
Latham,
990
or
review),
he
goals
that
people
et re
determined
y
heir
fficacyxpec-
tations s well
s a
subjective
valuation
oncern-
ing
the
potential
utcomes
hey
ssociate with
goal
enactment
nd
completion.
hat s to
ay,
ur
goals
redetermined
ot
nly y
whether e think
we can
achieve hem
ut lso
by
whatweconsider
the
outcomes fsuch
accomplishments
o be.
In
everyday
asks
nd
goal
setting,
he
question
f
value
valence)
may
be an
embedded
xpectation
of he
erformance
ontract
hat ne
has with
ne's
organization.
Interculturalncountersrevery ifferenthan
the ontext
ypicallyxperienced
y
n
employee.
These encounters
hallenge person's
hinking
and
assumptions
bout heirwnculture
y
con-
trasting
heir eliefs bout
ight
nd
wrong
ith
potentially
ifferent
ystem.
nereaction
o
uch
challenge
s
for he ndividual o
solate
himself
fromhenew ulture.
or
xample, person
ow n
motivational
Q
who ncounters
nitial rustration
of
goal
attainment
e.g.,
successful
ultural
n-
counter)
ill
have
increasing
ower
fficacy
x-
pectations, egative
self-image,
nd
potential
disengagement
ith
thers. ne
manager
we
in-
terviewedommentedhat ftermaking culturalfaux
pas
he
simply topped
oing
ut n hishost
community
nd
stayed
n his own home.
Rather
than
aking
chance f
making
moremistakes
nd
feeling
ike cultural
misfit,
e isolated
himself.
BehaviorFacet
Training
The hird
acet
f ultural
ntelligence
efers
o he
behaviors hat
person ngages
n. The
behav-
ioral
spect
f
CQ
suggests
hat
daptation
s not
only nowing
hat
nd how odo
cognitive),
nd
having
hewherewithalo
persevere
nd exert
effort
motivational)
ut
lso
having
he
esponses
needed for given ituationn one'sbehavioral
repertoire.acking
hese
pecific
ehaviors,
per-
son must ave the
apability
o
cquire
hem.
Q
reflects
person's bility
o
acquire
or
adapt
be-
haviors
ppropriate
or
new
culture.
A
person's
ehaviors also tied o
CQ
in
many
indirect
ays.
There re nstances
n which
per-
son
may
know nd wish o enact
culturallyp-
propriate
ehavior
ut cannot o so
because
of
some
eep-set
eservation.or
xample,
magine
manager
who s thrust
nto n uncomfortable
o-
cial situationnd s not ble to ontrol is
nonver-
bal communicationues. This
ype
f
response
or
lack of t)can be thoughtf n behavioralerms.
Even f
person
s able to
provide
desired e-
sponse
n an
intercultural
ncounter,
hat he
host
may
detect
hesitation
nd react
negatively
e-
mains
problem.
ehavior
roperly
xecuted
e-
quires personwilling
o
persist
ver ime.
ersis-
tences
necessary
or he
cquisition
fnew
kills,
and so is a
person's
ptitude
o determine
hese
new kills. hat
s,
t s not
nough
obe
willing
o
try
nd learnnew behaviors a
high
CQ
person
has an
aptitude
odetermine
here ewbehaviors
are needed nd how o execute hem
ffectively.
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 11/17
2004
Earley
nd Peteison
109
Self-presentation
s
particularlymportant
n
so-
cial
behaviors because behaviors enacted
in
the
process
of social interactions re motivated
pri-
marilyby
the need for
mpressionmanagement
and self presentationGoffman, 967).For exam-
ple,
a
person
may
at at a local restaurant
n a
host
country.
is
primary oal
is
satisfyhunger
while
his concerns bout
self-presentation ay
be of ec-
ondary
oncern. ven
so,
he's
likely
o follow at-
ing
etiquette
o as to avoid
offending
thers
n
that
culture.
Byadapting
his
eating
behavior and eti-
quette,
he satisfies
both his
hunger
s well as a
desire to maintain
positive
elf-image.
Role
modeling rovides
n
important
ontribution
to behavioral
CQ,
and it s a featurentroducedn a
number f
raining
rograms
hroughole-play
xer-
cises. A
person
with
igh
CQ
is able to
dapt
behav-
ior to be appropriateoany givencultural ontext.
Adopting
hebehaviors
onsistent ith
target
ul-
ture s an
important
spect
of ntercultural
djust-
ment
nd interaction.his
mimicry
s not n
attempt
at
subterfuge
r
camouflage
it s
engaging
n
ac-
tions
hat
putpeople
from nother ulture t ease
and comfort.
myriad
f
ues are
provided hrough
observing
thers,
nd
observing
heir
eactions s
you
nteract
ith hem.
A
person
high
n behavioral
CQ
integrates
nd
mimics hese ues
and behaviors
(Bargh
&
Chartrand,
999;
hartrand
Bargh,
999).
Work
n
mimicryuggests
hat he ffective
imick-
ing
ofanother
erson's
behavior,
ven
if
done
sub-
consciously,
esults
n
an
increased atisfaction
ith
the nteraction. imicrys subtle nd oftenubcon-
scious
(Chartrand
Bargh,
1999)
but
it results
n
generally
ositive
ffects
n a social
encounter.
high
CQ
person
s a talented
mimicwho uses
mim-
icry
n moderate
oses.
That
s,
excessive
mimicry
may
be
misinterpreted
s
mocking
omeone.
How-
ever,
high
CQ
person
models ome
of hemanner-
isms
nd
posturing,
erbal nd
nonverbal
ues,
and
so
forth,
fthe
other
erson
o as to
create com-
fort
one.
For
example,
f I am
speaking
with a
Mexican
manager
whose
social distance
s
closer
than
mine nd
I maintain
my
distant
osition,
his
may
make the
manager
feel
uncomfortable.
l-
though emaynot dentifyhe ource fhis discom-
fort,
ewill
feel
pprehensive
nd
hesitant,
nd this
will nhibit
ffective
ommunication
nd interaction.
Mimicry
sed
intelligently
and
judiciously)
onsti-
tutes
type
f
ognitive
trategy
s well as
a behav-
ioral ntervention.
Integrating
he Facets
of Cultural
ntelligence
Although
e
have
presented
hese facets
f
CQ
as
if
they
were
independent
nd
not
overlapping,
there
re
relationships
mong
the
features.Obvi-
ously,metacognition
nd
cognition
re
relatedbe-
cause the atter s an
inevitable
by-product
f
the
former
although
not
a
requisite
forthe
latter).
Other
facets re
interrelateds
well,
n
a similar
manner s motivationnd metacognition.or ex-
ample,
one benefit
f
high
self-efficacy
s a
posi-
tive nfluence n
strategic hinking
Bandura,
997).
High
motivational
CQ
means
that a
person
will
engage
in more
strategic
hinking
s
well,
and
this,
n
turn,
as a
positive
mpact
n actual
adap-
tation.
Thus,
high
motivational
Q
impacts
meta-
cognition,
esulting
n
performance
ffectiveness
thatfurther
olsters
motivation.
Metacognition
nd
cognition
re related to
be-
havioral
CQ
as
well,
because
we are not
positing
learning
without
awareness.
Although
some
unconscious elements of behavior
may impact
behavioral functioninge.g., Triandis' notionof
habits),
ehavioral
CQ
operates
argely
n
the on-
scious domain.
That
s,
the
metacognitive
nd
cog-
nitive
knowledgegained
during
ultural ncoun-
ters
provides
a
foundation or
behaviors to
be
engaged
in.
This
may
be
largely
observational
(role model)
although metacognitive
trategies
might
be used to inform nd
shape
a
person's
behavioral
repertoire.
Although
he facets of
CQ
have
discriminant
validity,
here
re
relationships mong
them. hat
is,
an intervention
argeting
ne ofthe facets
may
have minimal
spillover
effects nto otherfacets.
Thus,
o maximizebenefits
training
ntervention
needs to focusonpotential verlapand synergies
of
CQ
facets.
COMBINING
FEATURES TO DESIGN
INTERCULTURAL
TRAINING
If we
map
the three
key
features f
CQ
onto the
training
eeds
described
by
Tan and
Chua
(2003)
f
intensity,
uration,
nd naturewe can see a con-
tentbasis for
ntercultural
raining
nterventions.
This s reflectedn
Figure
1,
nd it
provides guide
concerning
ow
one
might
hink
bout
matching
specific
training
methods with a needs-based
analysis ofparticipant apability.
Interventions
argeting
he
metacognitive
nd
cognitive
spects
of
CQ
require
an
emphasis
on
skill
development
n
several
areas. The three
en-
eral
metacognitive ompetencies
include
plan-
ning,
monitoring,
nd
evaluating.Planning
refers
to a
capability
o
generate ognitive
tructures
nd
strategies higher
evel
thinking trategies).
For
example,
trainee
not
nly
needs to
recognize
hat
male-femalework
elationships
iffer cross cul-
tures,
r that
a
particular elationship
olds in a
particular ountry,
ut she must also be able to
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 12/17
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 13/17
2004
Eailey
and
Peterson
111
structures
nderlying
elff social,
and
cultural
schemas.
Cognitive
structures re tacit
assump-
tions
nd beliefs hat
give
rise to habitual
ways
of
construing
elf,
thers,
nd the world.The ndivid-
ual's personal chemas, urrentoncerns,nd per-
sonal
goals
influence he
way
informations
pro-
cessed and the
way
the individual's
behavior s
organized.
Methods
focusing
n the motivational acet of
CQ
are most
heavily
ied to the values-orientation
approach
often
mployed
n
intercultural
raining.
That
s,
an
emphasis
on culturalvalues not
only
provides
specific knowledge
about
a
target
cul-
ture,
ut t s intended o
develop empathy
s well.
The
shortcoming
o this
approach
s that
mpathy
and
attraction o a new culture
n
no
way imply
efficaciousness
nd
perseverance.
That
is,
a
per-
son may feelhighly mpathetic nd positiveto-
ward a host
culture,
ut still lack the
efficacy
o
deal with
he
challenges
she
inevitably
aces.
Self-efficacy
s a
key
to effective ntercultural
training.
Cultural
experiences
need to be lever-
aged
as a means of
building
nd
enhancing
ffi-
cacy
through roximatemastery
ituations.This
implies
that
we
ought
to
incrementally
uild a
trainee's confidence
oward nterculturalnterac-
tion
by guiding
the
trainee
through
series of
successful
nteractions
with a new culture.One
possible
way
is to
expose
an uninitiated
erson
through
series
of
short,
imple,
and controlled
intercultural
nteractions
n a classroom
setting.
As thetrainee builds greater onfidence, reater
complexity
ould be
added,
progressively raduat-
ing
to an
actual encounter.
A
simple example
of
this
onfidence-buildingpproach
s to
nstructn
individual
to focus
on several
simple
but salient
rituals n a new
country
e.g.,finding
ut whereto
buy
a
newspaper
or
get
a
cup
of
coffee)
s initial
mastery xperiences
that,
n
turn,
uild
efficacy
with
regard
to
greater
challenges.
Once estab-
lished,
fficacy rovides
he
perseverance
needed
to tackle
greater
ultural
hallenges. Curiosity
s a
motivational
rerequisite
or
xploratory
ehavior,
and
this s
important
or ultural
djustment.
eo-
ple vary n their esire toexperimentnd observe;
curiosity
eflects
motivational
tate.
With
regard
to the
behavioral facet
of
CQ,
Tan
and Chua
(2003)
draw
fromGoffman's
heory
f
self
presentation
Goffman,
967)
nd
focus on a
dramaturgical
pproach
to the
training
f behav-
ioral
competencies
hrough
he use of
role-plays,
performing,
nd visual
arts s methods f
raining.
Although
he use
of
role-plays
s not new as a
training
method
n cross-cultural
raining,
heir
use
of narrative
lays
and theater
raining
meth-
odsfor he
purpose
f
raining
ultural
ntelligence
is
novel.
Through
he
medium
f
drama,
ndividu-
als
adopt
an
integrative,
ultisensorypproach
to
the
concept
of
learning.
They
are
encouraged
to
utilize he
physical,
motional,
ensory,
nd
cogni-
tiveprocessestoexperience earning nd improve
self-knowledge
nd
metacognition,
n
enhanced
understanding
f the
feelings
and
motivation f
others,
nd to
bolster
elf-efficacy.hey
suggest
that
a
dramaturgical
approach
helps
trainees
learn the
nuances
of behavior
and action.
Cer-
tainly
his
pproach
fits
icely
withwork
n
social
mimicry
y Bargh
and
Chartrand
1999)
that
we
described above.
Training
rograms
mphasizing
role
modeling
complement
uch a
drama-based
approach
as
well.
Finally,
ehavior
modifications
another
way
of
enhancing
he behavioral
spect
of
CQ.
Behaviors
that re sanctioned n a target ulture re identi-
fied nd transferredo a
learner.
imulations
nd
role-plays
re
conducted and
reinforcement
nd
punishment
re
used to
guide
behavior
change.
Individuals
wishing
to
increase cultural ntelli-
gence
learnto break
out of old
habits
and to
ac-
quire
a new
repertoire
f
behaviors considered
appropriate
n
the
target
ulture.
Applying
Q
to a
Multinational eam
Working
n
a
multinational eam
provides
num-
berof
trong
hallenges
for
member.
here re at
least three nternal
to
he
team)
ssues
confronting
multinational eams as theydevelop and build
momentum
establishment f
goals
and common
purpose,
clarification f roles
played by
team
members,
nd
delineation
of rules for conduct
and interaction
Earley
&
Gibson, 2002;
Earley
&
Mosakowski,2000;
Maznevski, 1994;Snow, Snell,
Canney-Davison,
Hambrick,
996).
Working
n
a
highly
diverse team
consisting
f
membersfrom
range
of
cultures and
back-
grounds
makes
the
problem
f
establishing
goals,
roles,
nd rules
highly roblematic
ecause of
the
additional
complexity
dded
due to cultural
iffer-
ences.
Take,
for
example,
the issue
concerning
rulesfor nteraction ithin multinationaleam.
How should members nteract
nd discuss
core
issues?
If
disagreements
ccurhow are
they
o be
resolved? Team
members who come from
more
confrontational
ultures
may
notnotice
he subtle
cues
coming
from eam
memberswho come
from
cultureswhere face
saving
is
important
rwhere
conflict ends to be
expressed
ndirectly.
he sec-
ond
big
issue is thedistributionfresources. f
he
team receives imited
esources,
how should
they
be distributed? nd how
might
eam members e-
cide
individual
responsibilities?
A team
member
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 14/17
112
Academy
f
Management earning
nd Education
March
coming
rom
strong
eed-based
ulture
might
well
expect
hat carce resources
re allocated
based on
needratherhan
ccomplishment,
hile
a
fellowmember
oming
romn
equity-based
ul-
turemight avean opposing iew.The unstated
assumptions
oncerningight
nd
wrong,
ue
pro-
cess,
expectations
or
membership,
nd so forth
are tied
o ultural
ackground
nd
experience.
o
although
hesekinds
f ssues are a
good tarting
point
or
uilding rusting
eamswithin
single
culture,
hey
an
easily
become ontentiousssues
inthe
multinationaleam.
CQ
competencies
ased
on
metacognition
nd
motivationre
of
particularly
igh mportance
or
the multinational
eam.
Functioning
n
such a
team
requires
hatmembers
cknowledge
heir
weak
overlapping nowledge
nd focuson the
most asiccommonalityocreate hybridr yn-
ergistic
ulture hat
rows
utof
omething
ore
fundamentalhan istributionfrewards nd de-
cision
rules
Adler,
997;
Adler&
Bartholomew,
1992;
arley
Mosakowski,
000).
hat
s,
ll teams
must uild
momentumrom heir
ommonalities,
but he
multinationaleam as a
special hallenge
insomuchs
their
ommonalities
ill
be harder o
identify.
ultinationaleamsneedto resist ocus-
ing nitially
n their
ifferences.ven
hough
he
long-term
trength
fmultinationaleams ies in
their
iversity
nd
unique xperiences
s a
team,
sharing
hose
uniqueperspectives
n a
teamtoo
early
n
the
process
s
riskyndividually
Witten-
baum,Hubbell, Zuckerman,999). etacognitive
CQ
is
critical or
eveloping
nd
dentifying
trat-
egies
that
might
e
usedtodeterminehe asis for
a
hybrid
ulture.
lthough
he ld
adage
of
goals,
roles,
nd rules s a
reasonable
tarting oint
or
developing
hybrid
ulture,
eam-specific
le-
ments hat
must e
uncovered
y
teammembers
are
ikely
s
well.
Multinational
eam
uilding
lso
requires trong
motivational
iscipline
ecause
many
unstated
practices
nd
assumptions
may
need to
be set
aside and
etiquette
iolations
verlooked. com-
mon
rap
or
managers
or
tudents)
articipating
ina
multinational
eamfrom
nationally
etero-
geneous
ompany
or
program)
s to
assume that
they
re
cosmopolitan
y
he
virtue f heir hoice
of institutionor
raining
r
past
travel
xperi-
ences.
Well-traveled
anagers
ften
ssume
hey
are
naturally ccepting
f cultural
ifferences.
However,
his
ssumption
s tested
otwhen he
team s experiencingalmwaters, utwhen he
seas are turbulent.
t ritical
oints
n
time,
uch
as
impending
eadlines
r
negative
erformance
feedback,
eams
acking strong
enseof rust
re
likely
o
xperience
igh
elationship
r motional
conflictnd
likely
elf-destruct
Earley
&
Mosa-
kowski, 000;
imons
&
Peterson, 000).
Once
a
group
eceives
egative
eedback,
ifferences
hat
wereonce
easily
overlooked
an
become
alient
and
whatwere
quaint
ccentricities
an become
unacceptable
rritants
esulting
n
personal
islik-
ing
Peterson
Behfar,
n
press).
amiliarity
an
breed
ontempt,specially
t
key
tress
oints
n
group'sife.Team members avinghighCQ rec-
ognize
his
ifficulty
nd remain
motivated
o ook
beyond
ndividual ifferences
oward
what
might
benefit
heentire
eam,
ven at critical
ressure
points.
Our
point
ere s
that uccessfor
multinational
teams oes not ie
with ultural
alues
training
r
broad rientationso
diversity.
ather,
t
requires
specific
Q
competencies
eld
by
members
oun-
cover
ommonality
cross
ts
membership,
ffec-
tive nd
appropriate
ole
llocations,
nd
clearly
defined ulesfor nteraction
ased
on the
pecific
needs
i.e.,
ome ultural
nd some
ndividual)
nd
interestsf eam
members. o uncover
hese ari-
ous elementsequireseammembersho re ble
to
recognize
hesefeatures
n fellow eammem-
bers s well as
themselves,
nd to
generate
ew
ways
to do
so as new teammembersre
encoun-
tered.
he best
strategy
or
earning e.g.,
direct
inquiry
ersus
passive
observation)
hat
Ken-
yan,
n
Indonesian,
r a German
may
define s
effective
eadershipmay
differs
much s the
contentnswer bout
themost esirable
ormf
leadership
tself
e.g.,
directive
ersus
participa-
tive).
Metacognitive
Q
training
ddresses hese
different
earning
trategies
n
the
way
hat
ogni-
tive
Q
training
ddresses
he ontent
ifferences.
MotivationalQ provideshe onfidenceopersist
when
rying
odeterminehebasis of
xperienced
differences.ehavioral
CQ
guides
appropriate
ways
of
nteracting
ith thers romifferentul-
tures.
CONCLUSIONS
AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Given he
mportance
f ntercultural
raining,
t
remains nfortunatehat odate a
comprehensive
frameworkf
cultural
daptation
has not
been
brought
orwardo
guide
raining
nd
pedagogical
All
teams
must uild
momentumrom
their
ommonalities,
utthe
multinationaleamhas a
special
challengensomuchs their
commonalities ill
be harder o
dentify.
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 15/17
2004
Earley
nd Peterson
113
interventions.
he dominant
pproach
used in
both
orporate
nd educational
ettings
s to
pro-
vide
managers
nd students
ith
ulture-specific
knowledge
n
the
case of a
targeted ssignment
(country-specific,imited urationssignmentr
educational
tudy-abroadrogram)
r culture-
general
eatures ominated
y
a discussion f a
limited et
of cultural
values. These culture-
general
briefings
re often ased on
conceptual
frameworks
osed by
cultural esearchers
Hof-
stede, 1991;
Trompenaars
Hampden-Turner,
1998),
nd
they
onsist f
diosyncratic
ists f ul-
tural alues.
Unfortunately,
hese ultural
alues
briefings
an
easily degrade
nto values-based
stereotyping
f
national ulturesnd
provide
en-
uous,
fnot
downright
nfounded,
inks o actual
behavior
f ultural
articipants.
These culture-specificnterventionsre prob-
lematic
or number
freasons
s we have
out-
lined
bove.
First,
hey
o not
djust
orndividual
differences
n
capability
cross
the
cognitive-
metacognitive,
otivational,
nd
behavioral o-
mains.
econd,
hey
ail
o consider
henature
f
the
target
ulture
nd
thework o be
performed
in terms
f
ntensity,
uration,
nd
nature.
hird,
they
o
not
provide
dequately
or
eneralization
across
ultural
ettings
r
formulticultural
xperi-
ences.
Our
dvocated
pproach
o
training
nd
devel-
opment
sing
CQ
represents
new direction
or
theory
nd
practice.
t
this
preliminary
tage,
group f cholars t theNanyang usiness chool
(Cultural
ntelligence
Working
roup)
n
Singa-
pore
with
olleagues
n the United
tates
and
England
re
developing
n
assessment
ool or
Q
using
paper-and-pencil
ethod.
arly
indings
suggest
hat
reliable
nd
valid scale
can be
developed,
nd
we are
using
his
ool
or
ssessing
MBA
tudents
t several
niversities
s
they
nter
the
program.
ubsequently,
e
hope
to
expand
this
ssessment
method
o
apture
he acets
f
CQ
using
imulations,
ork
amples,
nd
360-degree
feedback.
As with
ny
raining
ntervention
heres
a
prac-
ticalconcern boutthe costofassessment nd
intervention.
ill ur
pproach
sing
CQ
prove
o
be
costeffective
nd
practical?
We have
imple-
mented
small-scale
ntroduction
f
our
CQ
idea
in
the
entering
MBA
class
at
LondonBusiness
School.
The
first
ull-scale
pplication
f
our
p-
proach
has been
implemented
t the
Nanyang
Business chool
Ang
Tan,
ersonal
ommunica-
tions,
ingapore,
ugust
8, 003)
n
training
on-
Singaporean
tudents
ewly
ntering
heMBA
ro-
gram.
With
sample
of
approximately
0
new
students,
he esults
f heir
-day rogram
includ-
ing
ssessment nd
training
f he
CQ facets)
ere
well
received
by
the
participants.
full-scale
analysis
f
he
pproach
as notbeen
completed
at either
chool,
but
both
programs
ere suffi-
cientlyuccessful hattherespectiveniversity
administratorst bothhave
decidedto
adopt
t
more
roadly
n the
oming
ear.
Wehave
proposed
nd discussed
unifying
on-
ceptual
frameworkseful or
nderstanding
nd
training global
manager.
While
ast pproaches
haveoften ocused
n imited
nterventions
elying
on
empirical
bservations,
e have
suggested
n
alternative
pproach
nd
philosophy
f
pedagogy.
Note hat ur
pproach
oes not dvocate ne
pe-
cific
raining ethodology
ver nother
e.g.,
ole-
play
exercisesversus
documentaryearning)
it
provides guide
for
ssessing
a
manager's
pe-
cific ompetenciesoprovide rainingnspecific
areas. The
challenge acing global manager
s
daunting
rom cultural
erspective,
nd t s crit-
ical to
provide
nterventions
ailored o he
ndivid-
ual. After
ecades ofwork n
training
nd educa-
tion or nternational
ork
ssignments,
cholars
have not
xperienced
uccess
nd
mastery
f his
challenge. erhaps
with new
pproach ocusing
on fundamental
uman
apability
or
djustment
to
others,
reater
rogress
illnotbe so elusive.
REFERENCES
Adler,
N.
J.
1997.
nternational
imensions f
organizational
behavior 3rd d.).Cincinnati, H: SouthWestern.
Adler,
N.
J.,
Bartholomew,
. 1992.
Managingglobally ompe-
tent
eople.
Academy
f
Management
xecutive.
: 52-65.
Ajzen,
.,
&
Fishbein,
M.
1980.
Understanding
ttitudes nd
pre-
dicting
ocial behavior.
NJ:
rentice-Hall.
Bandura,
A. 1986. ocial foundations
f
thoughts
nd
action:A
social
cognitiveheory. nglewood
liffs,
J:
rentice-Hall.
Bandura,
A.
1997.
elf-efficacy:
he exercise ofcontrol.New
York:W. H.Freeman.
Bargh,
.
A.,
&
Chartrand,
. L. 1999. he
unbearable utomatic-
ity
f
being.
American
sychologist.
4: 462-479.
Bhawuk,
. P. 1998. he
role ofculture
heory
n cross-cultural
training.
multimethod
tudy
f culture
pecific,
ulture
general,
nd culture
heory-based
ssimilators.
ournal
f
Cross-Culturalsychology.9: 630-655.
Bhawuk,
D. P. 2001.Evolution
f culture ssimilators: oward
theory-based
ssimilators.
nternational
ournal
flntercul-
tural
Relations.
5: 141-163.
Bhawuk,
.
P.,
&
Brislin,
. W. 1992. he measurement
f nter-
cultural
ensitivitysing
he
oncepts
f ndividualism
nd
collectivism.
nternational
ournal
f
Intercultural ela-
tions.
6:413-446.
Bochner,
. 1982.Cultures
n contact: tudies
n cross-cultural
interaction.
ew York:
ergamon.
Brislin,
.
W., Landis,
D.(
&
Brandt,
M. E. 1983.
Conceptualiza-
tions f
ntercultural
ehavior nd
training.
n
D. D.
Landis
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 16/17
114
Academy
f
Management
earning
nd
Education
March
&
R. W.
Brislin
Eds.),
Handbook f ntercultural
raining,
(Vol.
1:
1-35).
New York:
ergamon.
Brislin,
.
W.,
&
Yoshida,
T.
1994. nterculturalommunication
training:
n
ntroduction.housand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Brockner,.npress.Unpacking ountryffects: n theneed to
operationalize
he
psychological
determinants f cross-
national
differences.
n B. M.
Staw,
&
R. M.
Kramer
Eds.),
Research n
organizational
ehavior.
Greenwich,
T:
JAI
Press.
Cantor,N.,
&
Kihlstrom,
.
.
1985. ocial
intelligence:
he
cog-
nitive asis of
personality,
eview of
Personality
nd So-
cial
Psychology,
:
15-33.
Chartrand,
.
L,
&
Bargh,
.
A.
1999. he
chameleon
ffect:
he
perception-behavior
ink nd social
interaction.
ournal
f
Personality
nd Social
Psychology,
6:
893-910.
Cushner, .,
&
Landis,
D. 1996. he
ntercultural
ensitizer.n D.
Landis
&
R.
S.
Bhagat
(Eds.),
Handbook of intercultural
training
2nd
d.,
185-201).
housand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Dodd,C. H. 1998. ynamics f nterculturalommunication5th
ed.).
Boston:McGrawHill.
Dowling,
.
J.,
Welch,
D.
E.,
&
Schuler,
R.
S. 1999.
nternational
human resource
management. Managing people
in a
multinational ontext
3rd ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: South-
western.
Earley,
P.
C. 2003.
Redefining
nteractions
cross
cultures
and
organizations:
Moving
forwardwith cultural
in-
telligence.
Research
n
Organizational
Behavior,
4: 271-
299.
Earley,
.
C,
&
Ang,
.
2003. ultural
ntelligence:
n
nalysis
f
individual
nteractionscross
ultures. alo
Alto,
A: Stan-
ford
niversity
ress.
Earley,
.
C,
&
Gibson,
C. B.2002.
Multinational ork eams:
A
new
perspective.
Mahwah,
NJ:
rlbaum.
Earley,
.
C,
&
Lituchy,
. R.
1991.
elineating oal
and
efficacy
effects: test f
threemodels.
Journal
f
Applied Psychol-
ogy,
6:
81-98.
Earley,
P.
C,
&
Mosakowski,
.
2000.
Creating hybrid
eam
cultures:
n
empirical
estof nternationaleam function-
ing.
Academy
f
Management
ournal,
3: 26-49.
Erez,
M.,
&
Earley,
.
C. 1993.
Culture,
elf-identity,
nd work.
NewYork:
Oxford.
Flavell,
J.
H.
1979.
Metacognition
nd
cognitive
monitoring:
new
area of
cognitive
nquiry.
merican
sychologist
4:
906-911.
Flavell,
J.
H.
1987.
peculations
bout the
nature nd
develop-
ment f
metacognition.
n F. E.
Weinert,
R. H.
Kluwe
Eds.),
Metacognition,
motivation,
nd
understanding:
1-29.
Hillsdale,NJ: rlbaum.
Gardner,
.
1983.
rames fmind:
The
theory
f
multiple
ntel-
ligences.
New York:
asic.
Gardner,
. 1993.
Multiple ntelligences:
he
theory
n
practice.
New
York:
asic Books.
Goffman,
.
1967.
nteractionitual:
Essays
n
iace-to-face e-
havior.
Chicago:
Aldine.
Hall,
E.
T.,
&
Hall,
M.R.
1990.
nderstanding
ultural
ifferences.
Yarmouth,
E:
ntercultural.
Harris,
.
R.,
&
Moran,
. T.
1991.
Managing
ultural
ifferences
(3rd
d.).Houston,
X:
Gulf.
Hofstede,
. 1991.
Culture
nd
organizations:
oftware
f
the
mind.London:
McGraw
Hill.
Kealey,
D.
J.
989.
A
study
f ross-cultural
ffectiveness:
heo-
retical
ssues,
practical
pplications.
nternational
ournal
of nterculturalelations, 3:387-428.
Klausner,
W.
J.
993.
eflectionsn
Thai culture.
angkok,
hai-
land: The Siam
Society.
Kluckhohn, .,
&
Strodtbeck,
. L. 1961.
Variations
n
value
ori-
entations.
ew York:
Harper
nd Row.
Kolb,
D.
A.,
Boyatzis,
.
E.,
&
Mainemelis,
C. 2001.
xperiential
learning theory:
revious
research
and new directions.
In R.
J.
Sternberg,
& L.
Zhang
(Eds.),
Perspectives
on
thinking,
earning,
and
cognitive
styles.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Komin,
. 1991.
sychology
fthe Thai
people.
Bangkok,
hai-
land: National nstitutef
Development
dministration.
Lee,
C.
H.,
&
Templer,
.
J.
003.
CQ
assessment nd
measure-
ment.
n P. C.
Earley
& S.
Ang
Eds.),
Cultural
ntelligence:
Ananalysisof ndividual nteractionscross cultures: 85-
208.
Stanford,
A: Stanford
niversity
ress.
Locke,
.
A.,
&
Latham,
G. P. 1990.A
theory
f
goal
setting
nd
task
performance.
nglewood
Cliffs,
J:
rentice-Hall.
Loewenstein,
.,
hompson,
.,
&
Gentner,
.
2003.
Analogical
learning
n
negotiation
eams:
Comparing
ases
promotes
learning
nd transfer.
cademy
f
Management
earning
Education,
(2):
119-127.
Maznevski,
M. L.
1994.
Understanding
ur differences:erfor-
mancein
decision-making roups
withdiverse
members.
Human
Relations,
7:
531-552.
Mead,
G.
H.
1934.
Mind,
elf
nd
society.
hicago,
L:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Mendenhall,M.,Dunbar, .,
&
Oddou,
G. 1987.
xpatriate
elec-
tion, raining,nd career-pathing: review nd critique.
HumanResource
Management,
6: 331-345.
Parsons,
T.,
&
Shils,
E. A.
1951.
Toward
general
theory
f
action.
Cambridge,
MA:Harvard
University
ress.
Peterson,
.
S.,
&
Behfar,
.
J.
n
press.
The
dynamic
elationship
between
performance
eedback,
trust,
nd
conflict n
groups:
A
longitudinal
tudy. rganizational
ehavior
nd
HumanDecisionProcesses.
Redden,
W. 1975.Culture hock
nventory.
redericton,
an-
ada:
Organizational
Texts Ltd.
(Cited
from
Kealey
&
Ruben
1983.)
Rokeach,
M.
1973. he nature f
humanvalues. NewYork: ree
Press.
Salovey,
P.,
&
Mayer,
J.
D.
1990. motional
ntelligence.magi-
nation, ognition,nd Personality,: 185-211.
Schneider,
.
C,
&
Barsoux,
.
. 1997.
Managing
cross
ultures.
London: rentice-Hall.
Schwartz,
.
H.
1994. re here niversal
spects
n the tructure
and contents fhumanvalues?
Journal
fSocial
Issues,
50:
19-45.
Shirts,
. G. 1973. aFa BaFa.
Del
Mar,
CA: Simulation
raining
Systems.
Simons,
T.
L.,
&
Peterson,
R.
S. 2000.Task conflict
nd rela-
tionship
onflict n
top management
eams: The
pivotal
role of
intragroup
rust.
Journal
f
Applied
Psychology,
85: 102-111.
This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Elusive Cultural Chameleon
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-elusive-cultural-chameleon 17/17
2004
Earley
nd Peterson
115
Snow,
C.
C, Snell,
S.
A.,
Canney-Davison,
.
C,
&
Hambrick,
D.
C.
1996.Use transnational
eams to
globalize your
om-
pany.Organizational ynamics,
2: 20-32.
Snyder,
M. 1974.The
Self-Monitoring
f
Expressive
Behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,0:
526-537.
Spreitzer,
.
M.fMcCall,
M.
W.,
&
Mahoney,
J.
D.
1997.
Early
identificationf
nternationalxecutive
potential.
ournal
of
AppliedPsychology,
2: 6-29.
Sternberg,
.
J.
1985.
Beyond
1Q:
A triarchic
heory
f human
intelligence.
ew
York:
ambridgeUniversity
ress.
Tan,
J.
S.,
&
Chua,
R. Y.
J.
2003.
Training
and
developing
cultural
ntelligence.
n P.
C.
Earley,
& S.
Ang
(Eds.),
Cultural
ntelligence:
An
analysis
of ndividual nterac-
tions across cultures: 258-303. Palo
Alto,
CA: Stanford
University
ress.
Triandis,
H.
C. 1972.The
analysis
of
subjective
ulture.New
York:Wiley.
Triandis,
H. C. 1975.Cultural
training, ognitive
omplexity,
and
interpersonal
ttitudes.
n
R. W.
Brislin,
.
Bochner,
W.
J.
onner
Eds.),
Cross
ultural
erspectives
n
earning:
39-78.
Beverly
ills,
CA:
Sage.
Triandis,
H. C. 1995. ndividualism
nd collectivism.
oulder,
CO: Westview ress.
Triandis,
H.
C,
&
Berry,
.
W.
1980.
Handbook
f cross-cultural
psychology
Vol.2).
New York:
Allyn
&
Bacon.
Trompenaars,
.,
&
Hampden-Tumer,
.
1998.
iding
he
waves
of ulture:
Understanding
iversity
n
global
business
2nd
ed.).
Chicago,
L: rwin.
Tung,
R. L. 1981. election nd
training
f
personnel
or
verseas
assignments.
olumbia
ournal
fWorld usiness,
6: 8-78.
Wittenbaum,
.
M.,
Hubbell,
A.
P.,
&
Zuckerman,
. 1999.
Mutual
enhancement:
oward n
understanding
f the
collective
preference
or hared
information.
ournal
f
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
7:
967-978.
Wood,
R.
E.,
&
Bandura,
A.
1989.
Social
cognitive heory
f
organizational
management. cademy
f
Management
e-
view,14:361-384.
P.
Christopher arley
is chair
and
professor
f
organizational
behavior at the London Busi-
ness School. He received his
PhD n ndustrialnd
organiza-
tional
psychology
from the
University
f
Illinois,
Urbana-
Champaign.
His research
nter-
ests include cross-cultural
nd
international
spects
of
organi-
zational behavior.Recent
pub-
lications ncludeCultural
ntel-
ligence: ndividual nteractions
Across ultures
with
oon
Ang)
and
Face,
Harmony,
nd Social
Structure:
n
Analysis
of Be-
havior
n
Organizations.
Randall S.
Peterson
s associate
professor
f
organizational
e-
havior at London
Business
School.His
current
esearch
c-
tivities
nclude
investigating
how
personality
fmembersf-
fects
roup
nteraction
nd
per-
formance,
owCEO
personality
affects
op
management
eam
interaction
and
firm
perfor-
mance,
nd the effects
f con-
flict
n
groups.
Professor
eter-
son holds a PhD in social and
organizational
sychology
rom
the
University
f
California,
Berkeley.