44435606

Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, September–October 2009, Vol. 48, No. 5, Pp. 717– 744

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20312

THE INTERCULTURAL COMMU-

NICATION MOTIVATION SCALE:

AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS

MOTIVATIONAL TRAINING

NEEDS OF CANDIDATES FOR

INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS

B E R N D K U P K A , A N D R É M . E V E R E T T, S T E P H E N G . AT K I N S , M A R I O N M E R T E S A C K E R , LY N N E W A LT E R S , T I M W A LT E R S , A N D R E A G R A F, L . B R O O K S H I L L , C A R L E Y D O D D , A N D J Ü R G E N B O LT E N

The Intercultural Communication Motivation Scale (ICMS) is a tool to assess the intercultural communication motivation of candidates for international assignments. The ICMS performed well in four studies conducted with under-graduate students in New Zealand, the United States, the United Arab Emir-ates, and Germany. Generally showing a stable fi ve-factor structure, high test-retest correlations, very high Cronbach’s alphas, and almost no social desirability bias in self and peer evaluations, the ICMS is sensitive enough to detect test-retest differences. Thus, socially responsible strategic internation-al HR programs can use this scale to reliably evaluate employees and their families for specifi c international locations. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: Intercultural Communication Motivation Scale, intercultural communication competence, strategic international human resource management, intercultural communication training, assessment, selec-tion, international assignments

Trade liberalizations, deregulation, change, and competition character-ize today’s tumultuous global eco-nomic environment. Organizations react to these transformations by

reconfiguring the structure of work and labor arrangements (Schippmann et al., 2000).

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) that strive to take a global orientation attempt to adjust their human resource strategy to support these corporate developments and adopt a strategic international human resource man-agement (SIHRM) perspective. In some MNEs the SIHRM function is primarily charged

Correspondence to: Bernd Kupka, University of Wisconsin Green Bay, Business Administration Department, Green Bay, WI 54311-7001, Phone: +1-920-465-2496, Fax: +1-920-465-2660, E-mail: [email protected]

718 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

with recruiting, selecting, and training suit-able candidates to fill international posts.

Selection of expatriates based on their motivational strength and training them to overcome their motivational deficiencies rep-resent a socially responsible SIHRM approach. Currently, IHRM professionals are at a loss when they attempt to fulfill their company’s social responsibility to select candidates and assess the training needs of future and cur-rent expatriates. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (1999) defines corporate social responsibility as “the con-tinuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic devel-opment while improving the quality of life of

the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large” (p. 3).

Adopting an IHRM perspective on corporate social responsibility means that MNEs need to protect their human capital (expatriates and their families and host culture employees) against any type of harm and loss. Human capital could be harmed by loss of self-esteem, anxiety, and stress because of insufficient levels of intercul-tural competence, which can lead to physical and psychological ill-ness. This might result in limited success and reduced productivity in the assignment. Harm could also spill over from home to work,

or vice versa, and negatively affect expatri-ates’ private and, consequently, work life, as described by Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, and Bross (1998). Human capital loss could occur as voluntary or forced turnover, either during or after the assignment, because of lack of suc-cess on the international job or because expa-triates believe that the assigning MNEs did not fulfill their part of the psychological con-tract. Kupka (2003) finds that voluntary turn-over rates can reach 20% within one year after the assignment. Not illuminated is the side of host culture employees, who have been insuf-ficiently researched. Yet the norm of reciproc-ity suggests that locals ought to experience similarly negative consequences.

As part of a socially responsible SIHRM program, a fair and thorough selection pro-cess and the provision of intercultural com-munication training enable expatriates to work effectively and efficiently during inter-national assignments (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2006; De Cieri & Dowling, 2006). The accu-rate assessment of future expatriates’ strengths and weaknesses is crucial to the implementa-tion of sound selection methods and inter-cultural communication training programs that serve expatriates’ particular needs (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Littrell & Salas, 2005; Tarique & Caligiuri, 2004). Intercul-tural communication motivation (ICM) deserves specific attention because only sufficient motivation enables trainees to apply their knowledge and skills appropri-ately and effectively (Spitzberg, 2000).

Numerous scholars have identified moti-vation as a central component of intercultural communication competence (ICC; Gertsen, 1990; Spitzberg, 2000; Wiseman, 2002). The motivation to communicate across cultural borders is particularly important for expatri-ates who frequently engage in face-to-face interactions (Black & Mendenhall, 1989). The process of intercultural communication, how-ever, poses the risk of heightened uncertainty and ambiguity, resulting in high levels of anxiety (Gudykunst, 2005). As a consequence, mutual misunderstandings with negative im-pressions of individuals and their culture can occur when individuals from different cul-tural backgrounds who are not interculturally competent communicators interact (Ham-mer, Nishida, & Wiseman, 1996).

Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) suggest that intercultural communica-tion motivation is one of the major criteria of intercultural communication competence. They state that “sojourners who are able to establish meaningful relationships with peo-ple from the host culture are more likely, it would appear, to integrate themselves into the social fabric of the host culture and to more effectively satisfy their own basic needs and concerns of friendship, intimacy, and social interaction” (p. 390). Caligiuri (2000a, 2000b) agrees and argues that expatriates who are motivated to establish intercultural

Selection of

expatriates based

on their motivational

strength and training

them to overcome

their motivational

deficiencies

represent a socially

responsible SIHRM

approach.

THE INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION MOTIVATION SCALE 719


relationships with both host nationals and other international assignees tend to adapt more quickly to the host culture, to be more productive during their sojourn, and to com-plete their missions successfully. De Cieri and Dowling (2006) suggest that managers who act in the context of global assignments need to engage less in competitive practices as the foundation of their relationships with organizational environments and more in cooperative efforts in networks and alli-ances through which value is added and competitive advantages are gained. The schol-ars argue that these connections are estab-lished through interpersonal relationships, built on trust, and maintained through long-term, pervasive, nonbinding social contracts among corporate stakeholders from home and host countries. De Cieri and Dowling (2006) and Johnson and Cullen (2002) point out the particular importance of trust in these relationship webs and agree with Tung (2002) that global organizations need to se-lect and retain employees who are motivated to develop, maintain, and extend a network of mutually satisfying relationships among stakeholders through collaborative work. Only then can they be perceived as compe-tent intercultural communicators, appear trustworthy, and positively contribute to the corporate bottom line. Björkman and Fan (2002) suggest that if HR personnel can fa-cilitate a well-rounded selection and training process, then HR can contribute to positive corporate financial outcomes and organiza-tional performance.

Many international assignees will require training to become motivated to communi-cate interculturally. If provided at important points during the expatriation process (prep-aration, expatriation, repatriation), intercul-tural communication training can help improve expatriates’ intercultural communi-cation competence (Bennett, Aston, & Colquhoun, 2000; Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Black & Gregersen, 2000; Bolten, 2001; Brewster & Pickard, 1994; Brislin, 1989; Earley, 1987; Kühlmann, 2001; Mendenhall, 2001; Men-denhall & Oddou, 1986; Mendenhall & Stahl, 2000; Ronen, 1989; Scullion & Brewster,

2001; Selmer, 1995; Stahl, Miller, Einfalt, & Tung, 2000; Tung, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1998). Earley and Peterson (2004) state that training can address identified motivation deficiencies. In the training process international as-signees can acquire knowledge and skills to manage their atti-tudes and emotions toward other cultures (Gudykunst, Guzley, & Hammer, 1996). In particular, anxiety can be reduced and trust and self-efficacy enhanced through training programs, result-ing in improved intercultural communication competence (Ca-ligiuri & Tarique, 2006; Gu-dykunst, 1992, 2005).

Despite the long history of re-search on and advances in train-ing as a corporate HR tool for ICC enhancement, a gap still exists in the operationalization and testing of valid tools to assess training needs and effectiveness (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006; Mc-Croskey, 1993). Because of an inappropriate focus on technical expertise as the main criterion for international assignment selec-tion (Clegg & Gray, 2002; Harvey & Novicevic, 2001; Tung, 1981, 1982), and because HR offices have limited or no influence on selection decisions in many MNEs (Halcrow, 1999; Swaak, 1995), there is a dearth of sophisticated and relevant HR selection meth-ods. Caligiuri and Tarique (2006) call for a concerted effort by aca-demics and HR practitioners to develop evaluation tools and methods to conduct a more thor-ough selection process and culti-vate a true SIHRM approach. The implementation of sound se-lection methods is crucial to the accurate assessment of future and current expatriates’ strengths and weaknesses because it enables

The accurate

assessment of future

expatriates’ strengths

and weaknesses

is crucial to the

implementation of

sound selection

methods and

intercultural

communication

training programs

that serve

expatriates’ particular

needs (Earley &

Peterson, 2004;

Littrell & Salas, 2005;

Tarique & Caligiuri,

2004). Intercultural

communication

motivation (ICM)

deserves specific

attention because

only sufficient

motivation enables

trainees to apply their

knowledge and skills

appropriately and

effectively (Spitzberg,

2000).



global corporations’ international HR func-tion to construct tailor-made training pro-grams that serve the particular needs of employees (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Littrell & Salas, 2005; Tarique & Caligiuri, 2004) and can “enhance the participants’ intercul-tural competence” (Gertsen, 1990, p. 351). A needs assessment process ought to be a central part of any training course

(Gudykunst et al., 1996) and should be conducted using a psy-chometrically sound instrument, allowing MNEs’ human resource personnel to make educated deci-sions on whom to select for inter-national assignments and how to train future expatriates and their partners. Caligiuri and Phillips (2003) propose that “an objective self-assessment tool for global assignments should enhance an individual’s self-efficacy for a global assignment” (p. 1106).

This article contributes to the development of relevant SIHRM tools for selecting and training expatriates and, thus, narrows the gap between research and SIHRM reality. The focus of this research is on intercultural com-munication motivation because of its relevance to the transfer of knowledge and skills from training contexts to international mission contexts. In the following sections, the ontological origins of ICM are investigated and a tool to measure it, the Intercul-tural Communication Motivation Scale (ICMS), is introduced. The epistemological approach of this article is interdisciplinary, inte-grating theoretical influences from a multitude of academic

domains, including SIHRM, communication, psychology, and sociology. In building this conglomerate of theories, we answer the call for multidisciplinary research to enhance the understanding of the issues involved in SIHRM (De Cieri & Dowling, 2006).

The Ontology of Intercultural Communication Motivation

Motivation has been recognized as a central factor of intercultural communication com-petence in communicative interactions (Bol-ten, 2001; Hammer et al., 1996; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Martin, 1993; Spitzberg, 2000; Wiseman, 2002). Intercultural communica-tion motivation is defined as “the set of feel-ings, intentions, needs, and drives associated with the anticipation of or actual engage-ment in intercultural communication” (Wise-man, 2002, p. 211). Previous research findings suggest it consists of three elements: anxiety, trust, and self-efficacy. These are related to two of the Big Five personality characteristics—emotional stability (anxiety and trust) and extroversion (self-efficacy)—which repeatedly have been linked to expatriate success (Caligiuri, 2000a, 2000b). Wiseman (2002) suggests that an individual may be skilled and knowledgeable, but anxi-ety and trust issues can negatively affect his or her perception of other cultures and in-hibit communication across cultural bound-aries. The resulting avoidance of interaction will reduce the effectiveness of the expatriate in the international assignment. To overcome this apprehension, expatriates and their part-ners need high levels of trust and self-efficacy to take the initiative to approach host culture natives actively to achieve organizational goals. The three ontological roots of ICM are outlined in the following.

Anxiety

Bandura (1997) defines anxiety as “a state of anticipatory apprehension over possible del-eterious happenings” (p. 137). Anxiety has long been a matter of academic interest in various fields, particularly in the disciplines of teaching, training, and performance management. One result of this research is Gudykunst’s (2005) anxiety and uncertainty management theory. Gudykunst (2005) states that “interacting with strangers is character-ized by anxiety and uncertainty” (p. 285). Strangers, according to Collier and Thomas (1988), are those whose cultural identity is

Intercultural

communication

motivation is

defined as “the

set of feelings,

intentions, needs,

and drives

associated with the

anticipation of or

actual engagement

in intercultural

communication”

(Wiseman, 2002,

p. 211). Previous

research findings

suggest it consists

of three elements:

anxiety, trust, and

self-efficacy.



saliently different from one’s own identity in the specific interaction context. This per-ceived deviance from the cultural norms of the in-group creates uneasiness, tension, communication apprehension and avoid-ance, and anxiety because of the associated uncertainty about relevant rules, goals, in-volved processes, interaction outcomes, and potentially negative consequences (Duronto, Nishida, & Nakayama, 2005; Gudykunst, 2005; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Communi-cators fear four negative repercussions in in-tergroup communication: 1) threats to their self-identity, 2) harmful behavioral conse-quences, 3) undesirable evaluations by mem-bers of the out-group, and 4) undesirable evaluations by members of the in-group (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Nevertheless, in-tercultural contexts also invoke a natural cu-riosity. In fact, Gudykunst (2005) argues that humans need moderate amounts of uncer-tainty and anxiety to be sufficiently and nonthreateningly motivated to engage in communicative exchanges.

To overcome the inherent ambiguity of such situations, manage the resulting anxi-ety, reaffirm identities, regulate the relation-ship, and achieve homeostasis and group inclusion, expatriates need to engage in com-municative information-seeking acts that reduce the predictive uncertainty (Berger, 1979; Gudykunst, 2005) if the context re-quires it. The need to manage uncertainty, however, is influenced by cultural conven-tions and individual factors, such as toler-ance for ambiguity (Gudykunst, 2005; Hofstede, 2001). Successful anxiety and un-certainty management in interactions with strangers is associated with the development of trust—that is, positive expectations of re-warding interactive outcomes (Gudykunst, 2005); increased empathy—that is, cognitive and emotional perspective taking (Stephan & Stephan, 1992); heightened attraction to and respect for strangers; decreased communica-tion apprehension and avoidance; and an appreciation for interdependence with strangers as well as their cultural difference (Duronto et al., 2005; Gudykunst, 2005).

In summary, anxiety caused by uncer-tainty through unfamiliarity with the behav-

ioral rules in foreign environments “narrows the focus of attention” and “feeds ethnocen-trism” (Stephan & Stephan, 1985, pp. 167–168). Therefore, we suggest that SIHRM combats anxiety in expatriates and their part-ners through the provision of tailor-made intercultural communication training that raises their levels of ICM. Lower anxiety allows international assignees to engage in intercultural exchanges in a more motivated fashion and can facilitate the creation of mu-tually trusting and satisfying relationships with host culture natives. These relationships can lead to an extension of social networks in the host culture, which involve not only cor-porate stakeholders, but also expatriates of other global entities. Such networks can lead to intercorporate ties that can produce jobs for expatriated partners, create new business opportunities, and foster symbi-otic information sharing. These acts of cooperation are motivated by an element that initially exists in all interactions: trust (Johnson & Cullen, 2002).

Trust

International communication training and SIHRM researchers have paid little attention to trust as a contributor to the success of international missions. In fact, Johnson and Cullen (2002) con-clude that “we do not yet have a generalizable and comprehensive model of trust in exchange” (p. 335). Lewicki and Bun-ker (1995) define trust as a state involving confident positive expectations about anoth-er’s motives regarding oneself in situations of risk. Risky situations—that is, circumstances that can trigger anxiety because of unknown outcomes—are particularly relevant to expa-triates. They are often bestowed with leader-ship positions in which they have to interact with host culture natives, from whom they expect mutually satisfying cooperation. At the same time, they are risking their own well-being (emotional, mental, physical, and career) and risking the investments of MNEs.

Anxiety: Bandura

(1997) defines

anxiety as “a state

of anticipatory

apprehension over

possible deleterious

happenings”

(p. 137).



The importance of trust was demon-strated by Rosen, Digh, Singer, and Phillips (2000), who find that socially literate leaders display behaviors that create environments in which trust fosters mutually satisfying re-lationships. Similarly, Chan, Huang, and Ng (2008) find a significant correlation between managers’ integrating conflict management style to trust and subordinates’ job satisfac-tion and turnover intention. Though their research was conducted in a national con-text, their findings extend to the expatriate work situation. Global missionaries need to gain the trust of host culture workers through satisfying communication, which should reduce their turnover intentions, thereby re-taining human capital in the international location.

Stressing the importance of trust in a glo-balized world, Doney, Cannon, and Mullen

(1998) summarize that trust can lower transaction costs, facilitate interorganizational relationships, and enhance manager-subordi-nate relationships. Wicks, Berman, and Jones (1999) add that manag-ers who develop trust in relation-ships with stakeholders will improve firm performance. Banai and Reisel (1999) also contend that “enhancing trust in subsid-iaries of MNEs may reduce mana-gerial reliance on formalization of control and thereby lower opera-tional cost structures” (p. 478). Therefore, trust has been estab-

lished as an aspect of interpersonal/interna-tional/intercultural relationships, particularly since Johnson and Cullen (2002) categorize trust as an element of motivation when they speak of necessary motivational investments to increase trust.

Despite the lack of a theory on trust in intercultural relationships, Spitzberg (2000) includes trust in his model of intercul-tural communication competence when he proposes that “as mutual trust increases, relational competence increases. The more partners trust one another, the more compe-tent interaction is likely to be, and the more competent the relationship is likely to be”

(p. 386). The scholar adds that trust provides the environment in which relationships can be more open, honest, spontaneous, and direct, and that mutual reciprocity in trust should result in more productive and satisfy-ing relationships.

Another scholar who addresses trust is the sociologist Jonathan H. Turner (1987), who identifies the need to trust as a motivat-ing factor in our interactions with others. This trust is particularly associated with the need to reduce anxiety and improve predict-ability and reliability. Turner (1987) states that our desire for trust is subconscious and shapes the behaviors that interlocutors dis-play, their agendas and identities, and the rules they follow. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) follow Turner’s lead and state that a lack of trust negatively influences ICM. In an em-pirical study that investigates trust and its relationships to expatriate effectiveness dur-ing international assignments, Hawes and Kealey (1981) state that technical advisers who are motivated on their international as-signments will make an effort to engage in intercultural interactions with host culture natives, familiarize themselves with local customs and codes of conduct, and gain an appreciation for hosts and their culture. When this effort triggers a reciprocal reaction from locals, a mutual perception of trust sets in.

Johnson and Cullen (2002) summarize the work on trust in intercultural relation-ships when they claim that all relationships are built on an initial level of trust that serves as a motor of relationship building, a notion that is supported by McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998). Johnson and Cullen (2002) conceptualize trust as a dynamic, cy-clical, reciprocal/interdependent, and train-able element of cross-cultural exchanges. The authors add that it can take on the form of situational trust, which is based on cost-benefit analyses, experiences (with a particu-lar type of coactors), and the reputation of the exchange members.

Those responsible for SIHRM and inter-cultural communication training programs, therefore, need to select individuals who are willing to trust culturally different

Johnson and Cullen

(2002) conceptualize

trust as a dynamic,

cyclical, reciprocal/

interdependent, and

trainable element

of cross-cultural

exchanges.



communicative partners. At the same time, expatriates need to conduct themselves in a trustworthy manner, particularly if the cul-tures of their target countries value trust and personal relationships. During training exer-cises, expatriates need to acquire the knowl-edge about their home and host cultures to understand traditions, behaviors, and rules so that they can accurately read cultural signals. International assignees also need to learn the skills to behave appropriately and effectively in a trustworthy manner—that is, they need to be trained to perform the behav-iors that elicit feelings of predictability, reliability, and trust. Only then will they have the necessary ICM to succeed in their international posts.

Individuals in trusting relationships feel more secure and can focus on the outcome of their interactions—that is, they can concen-trate on their self-efficacious intentions in the relationship.

Self-Effi cacy

Spitzberg (2000) makes self-efficacy a compo-nent of ICM when he contends that “as reward-relevant efficacy beliefs increase, com-munication motivation increases” (p. 381). Bandura (1986) also identifies it as a key facet of motivation and has defined self-efficacy as “a judgment of one’s capability to accom-plish a certain level of performance” (p. 391). Bandura (1977) claims that self-efficacy is one of the most powerful influences on behavior and behavioral change because it directly affects actual behavior execution, execution energy, and execution persistence. He also argues that self-efficacy is a more powerful predictor of behavior than either outcome expectations or past performance. Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) and Schunk (1991) present the empirical support for this contention.

Self-efficacy as a behavior predictor and factor of ICM works as a filter through which communicative situations are evaluated for their level of complexity, difficulty, and im-portance. Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2006) explain that “a weaker sense of efficacy, therefore, arouses anxiety as well as decreases

achievement” (p. 277). Communicators deeming certain encounters as too challeng-ing will avoid those situations, a disposition known as communication avoidance (Gu-dykunst, 1992). In contrast, self-efficacious communicators will seek out taxing circum-stances in which they want to succeed and, consequently, can see themselves and are perceived as competent communicative part-ners (Gudykunst, 1992). Phillips and Gully (1997) support this contention as they find that individuals’ self-efficacy affects their goal-setting behavior, with greater self-efficacy being associated with the setting of higher goals and ultimately with higher per-formance. Parallel to this, Ko-zlowski, Gully, Nason, and Smith (1999) find that self-efficacy affects the team performance of organizational members in that individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to contrib-ute to their teams’ effectiveness through their increased motiva-tion, higher goals, and greater persistence. Additionally, self-efficacy research stipulates that the interest level of individuals will increase when their self-efficacy increases (Lenox & Subich, 1994). In relation to interest and achievement, self-efficacy has both a general and a context-dependent dimension (Sherer et al., 1982). A variety of previous experiences from multiple spheres of life influence the level of general self-efficacy, and experiences made in specific contexts influence the performance expecta-tions in the same or similar situations (Sherer et al., 1982).

The implications for SIHRM programs in-volve the likely relationship between mission success and self-efficacy (Milstein, 2005). Kline Harrison, Chadwick, and Scales (1996) find that expatriates with high levels of self-efficacy show greater degrees of general, interaction, and work adjustment than less efficacious missionaries, a finding that Mak and Tran (2001) reproduce. Consequently, only expatriates and their partners who

Bandura (1986)

also identifies [self-

efficacy] as a key

facet of motivation

and has defined

[it] as “a judgment

of one’s capability

to accomplish a

certain level of

performance”

(p. 391).



project themselves to be successful in chal-lenging situations and who actually want to go abroad to prove themselves, despite the inherent uncertainty, diversity, cognitive dis-sonance, and adversity, should be selected for international assignments. These individuals have higher levels of expectations to succeed in social and professional contexts. Such can-didates not only should be more successful in their global missions but also should take this self-efficacy back to their home office once they return from their assignments, which should result in better retention, knowledge and skills transfer, and development of a global mind-set (Kühlmann, 2001). Training programs need to focus on the creation of positive experiences through a succession of increasingly difficult tasks and interactions, followed by specific feedback.

In summary, self-efficacy determines and predicts behavior execution and persever-ance, is negatively correlated to anxiety, and is based on previous general and specific ex-periences. To be successful in global mis-sions, expatriates need to demonstrate a high level of intercultural self-efficacy—that is, a high degree of confidence and persis-tence to reach desired goals in novel envi-ronments with challenging communicative patterns (Earley & Peterson, 2004).

The three components of ICM are inter-dependent, in that anxiety has a negative influence on ICM, while approach disposi-tions—that is, trust and self-efficacy beliefs—are associated with positive interaction motivation (Spitzberg, 2000). Table I summa-rizes the key components of ICM and their characteristics.

Measuring ICM

The literature provides support for the propo-sition that intercultural communication motivation influences the quality of the rela-tionships expatriates are able to build while abroad and that it deserves specific attention in selection processes and training needs as-sessments because only sufficient motivation enables trainees to apply knowledge and skills appropriately and effectively (Spitzberg, 2000). Therefore, measurement of ICM be-comes relevant, and the need for a validated instrument arises. But an extensive literature review revealed no existing instrument for doing so. Having determined that ICM con-sists of intercultural anxiety, intercultural trust, and intercultural self-efficacy, we devel-oped the Intercultural Communication Moti-vation Scale (ICMS) based on those three components. Until now academics have not

T A B L E I Key Components of ICM and Their Characteristics

Anxiety Trust Self-Effi cacy

• Anticipatory adjustment

• Saliently different cultural identities cause uncertainty and anxiety

• Fears of identity threats, physical harm, poor image/reputation among in- and out-group cause communica-tion avoidance

• Natural curiosity leads to information seeking acts for anxiety management

• Gudykunst (2005) Uncertainty & Anxiety Management Theory

• Positive expectations of rewarding outcomes

• Subconscious motivating factor for interactions and relationship building

• Driven by need to increase predictability and reliability

• Dynamic, cyclic, reciprocal process

• Mutual trust increases perception of competence

• Belief to accomplish per-formance level

• Evaluative fi lter for situational complexity, diffi culty, and importance

• Situations chosen in which success can be envisioned/predicted

• Directly affects behavior execution, execution energy, and execution persistence

• Affects goal-setting behavior

• Life experiences infl uence general and contextual self-effi cacy



provided an instrument that enables HR practitioners to assess ICM in the context of worldwide assignments. Anderson (2005) finds that, in retrospect, repatriates perceived psychological tests as a valuable selection method provided by SIHRM. Therefore, developing, testing, and applying of instru-ments such as the ICMS can facilitate a socially responsible and thorough approach to expatriate selection and training. In our initial analyses and validation of the ICMS, we focused on four questions:

Question 1: What are the psychometric qualities of the ICMS?

Question 2: Are there differences between self and peer perceptions of intercultural communication motivation that the ICMS can detect?

Question 3: Is the ICMS sensitive enough to measure changes in self and peer perceptions of intercultural communication motivation over time?

Question 4: What are the relationships among the three components (anxiety, trust, and self-effi cacy) of intercultural communication motivation?

Method

Mol, Born, and van der Molen (2005) state that “if delineating performance criteria for the selection of domestic employees is impor-tant, it surely is crucial for expatriates” (p. 351). Academics have struggled, however, with the development of valid and reliable diagnostic and predictive assessment instru-ments for various purposes (Matsumoto et al., 2001). Scholars have suggested identifying psychological qualities, such as motivational elements, to circumvent the restrictive cul-ture- and context-specificity, and instead to measure the potential to perform well in any intercultural contact situations. Gudykunst (1992) calls attention to another obstacle when he delineates that communicators often have a different perception of their own communication competence than their interaction partners’ evaluations reflect. “Un-

derstanding communication competence, therefore, minimally requires we take into consideration our own and the other person’s perspective” (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003, p. 252). Self-evaluations, however, need to be one element of such an evaluation program. Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005), Caligiuri and Tarique (2006), and Riggio and Riggio (2001) insist that self-evaluations have value in the assessment of communication motivation by fa-cilitating the development of a candidate pool through the cre-ation of more self-awareness in future expatriates and the provi-sion of a means to enhance the assignment-candidate fit through educated self-selections.

To supplement the diagnostic value of self-evaluations, Dinges and Baldwin (1996) support Matsumoto et al.’s (2001) and Gudykunst’s (1992) observations regarding the problems in inter-cultural communication compe-tence research. They suggest adopting an interactionist model for investigating intercultural communication competence through the use of behavioral observation methods. They point out a lack of research on intercul-tural communication competence from a “reciprocal cultural per-spective of the persons involved” (Dinges & Baldwin, 1996, p. 113) and lament the dominance of ret-rospective self-report measures. For a well-rounded evaluation of communication competence, it is imperative to use structured behavioral observation and assess-ment by those a person communicates with, especially since ICC is a form of impression management (e.g., Gudykunst, 1992; Martin & Hammer, 1989; Spitzberg, 2000).

The ICMS reflects this and uses a combina-tion of self-assessments in either online or paper-pencil modes as well as the behavioral observation method with structured feedback through peers and, potentially, supervisors,

For a well-rounded

evaluation of

communication

competence, it

is imperative to

use structured

behavioral

observation and

assessment by

those a person

communicates

with, especially

since ICC is a

form of impression

management (e.g.,

Gudykunst, 1992;

Martin & Hammer,

1989; Spitzberg,

2000).



marital partners/family members, and/or host country nationals. Ruben (1976) supports the behavioral assessment approach and states that this method is reasonably straightfor-ward. He emphasizes that the goal is to sys-tematically collect and analyze the behavior of individuals in situations that are “either con-trived or natural” and “are analogous to those for which they are being trained or selected” in comparison to “a predetermined set of cri-

terion dimensions” (p. 337). This should result in data that allow “reasonably valid predictions about how likely those individuals are to display similar behaviors in future situations” (p. 337). Analogously, the motivational elements as the basis for the displayed behaviors should be inferable in self and peer evaluations. Gersten (1990) also states that sole reliance on self-assessments risks misrepresen-tation of the real level of a candidate’s intercultural commu-nication competence. In keeping with previous research, she sug-gests a measurement approach that includes multiple sources of feed-back to create a more realistic picture, such as the behavioral assessment approach.

Such 360-degree measures, however, pose a formidable chal-lenge to the SIHRM function because of their complexity (Gertsen, 1990). In particular, there are conceptual difficulties with correlations between self-ratings and/or ratings by others and the actual performance on the job (Bailey & Fletcher, 2002; Beehr, Ivanitskaya, Hansen, Ero-feev, & Gudanovsky, 2001), and

the subjective nature of these evaluations and the false sense of objectivity through multiple feedback sources (Van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004). Additionally, the complex patterns of associations among self-evalua-tions, ratings by others, satisfaction, and commitment to developmental goals also are causes for concern (Bono & Colbert, 2005).

Nevertheless, Hagan, Konopaske, Bernar-din, and Tyler (2006) recently were able to demonstrate the supreme richness of the col-lected data and the validity of assessment centers as selection and training tools in human resource management. Additionally, Van der Heijden and Nijhof (2004) see the value of such 360-degree appraisals in that different perceptions can facilitate a better understanding of the working relations be-tween supervisors and employees, their personal performances, and the underlying motives for career development, which are particularly important for a socially respon-sible SIHRM program.

Besides the implementation of a behav-ioral assessment method, Dinges and Bald-win (1996) advise employing a repeated measure design to “focus on criteria research in which multidimensional standards of exemplary performance are identified at different points in time and across tasks” (p. 121). Wiseman (2002) supports such re-search designs. Ruben (1976) adds that these observations should be done not only at different times but also in varying con-texts, formal and informal. The test-retest format that the ICMS employs to evaluate training effectiveness as demanded by Tarique and Caligiuri (2004) is a first step beyond the snapshot approach often taken in training assessment and criticized by Lustig and Spitzberg (1993). The two-month period between measurements gives the relationships between individuals time to develop and allows the training content to have an impact on the motivation of the communicators and to include behavioral observations in a variety of contexts, mak-ing the assessment more reliable. Corre-spondingly, Ward and Kennedy (1999) state that “the soundness of developing theory and research on … psychological adjust-ment of sojourners rests on the measure-ment of the adjustive outcomes” (p. 661). In other words, the researchers favor a longitu-dinal research design to test differences in the motivational outcomes as a result of cultural learning. The authors define psy-chological adjustment as psychological well-being—that is, the acquisition of stress

The ICMS reflects

this and uses a

combination of

self-assessments

in either online

or paper-pencil

modes as well

as the behavioral

observation

method with

structured feedback

through peers

and, potentially,

supervisors, marital

partners/family

members, and/or

host country

nationals.



management and coping mechanisms that have been linked with relationship satisfac-tion.

In summary, the development of the ICMS was guided by the concerns raised and suggestions made by Dinges and Baldwin (1996), Gertsen (1990), Matsumoto et al. (2001), Ruben (1976), and Wiseman (2002). The scale reflects what are thought to be uni-versal motivational elements of the complex paradigm of intercultural communication competence. The ICMS can be used as either a culture-specific or a culture-general diag-nostic and predictive SIHRM tool to measure individual communication motivation differ-ences by incorporating contextually defined factors.

The following sections of this article describe the samples and process used to conduct empirical factor analyses and scale reliability tests of the ICMS. The psychomet-ric qualities of the ICMS are outlined and the diagnostic value of the ICMS is demon-strated.

Samples and Processes Used in Testing

The initial test of the ICMS used student re-sponses to generate a sample that resembles future expatriates who are exposed to inter-cultural training courses before embarking on global missions. Students attending 18 differ-ent courses that resemble intercultural communication training through a clear in-tercultural education component (such as courses in intercultural communication, in-tercultural business, and intercultural psychology) completed the ICMS as part of a larger study. Given many study participants’ interests in international/intercultural issues, they may be considered prospective expatri-ates or accompanying spouses or may become line managers working with expatri-ation candidates, inpatriates, and other inter-national staff. Even though not all students took the courses in which the ICMS was administered as electives (some needed them to complete graduation requirements), this situation still legitimizes this approach be-cause not all expatriates take international

missions voluntarily. Some reluctantly take them to gain the international experience needed to climb the corporate ladder (Kühl-mann, 2001). This approach enabled the re-search team to amass a sample size pertinent for the psychometric evaluation techniques that they used. Caligiuri, Jacobs, and Farr (2000); Graf (2004); Matsumoto et al. (2001); Matsumoto, LeRoux, Bernhard, and Gray (2004); Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, and DeJaeghere (2003); and others have used in-ternational student samples for similar reasons. This study uses a pathfinder ap-proach because actual expatriates are hard to recruit in sufficient numbers for exploratory research (Tharenou, 2005). This is in accor-dance with Sattler and Völker (2003), who suggest recruiting study participants who are suffi-ciently similar to the actual target group for early stages of investiga-tive efforts and using the results of such exploratory findings in sub-sequent confirmatory studies with target subjects.

We administered the ICMS during 2005 and 2006 as part of a larger study at 11 universities in four countries: five universities in the United States, three in New Zealand, two in Germany, and one in the United Arab Emirates, building four samples of under-graduate students. These countries were selected, in part, for reasons of accessibility (given the loca-tions of the researchers) and for diversity. Although a worldwide, comprehensive sample could be construed as ideal, that was well beyond the scale of this exploratory project. The sample employed does include subjects representing 56 differ-ent countries of birth. It should be noted that the sample from the United Arab Emir-ates (N = 55) consists exclusively of female students, and one university in the United States also recruited predominantly female students to participate in these studies be-cause of unbalanced enrollment in the course, resulting in approximately two-thirds of the

The test-retest

format that the

ICMS employs to

evaluate training

effectiveness as

demanded by

Tarique and Caligiuri

(2004) is a first step

beyond the snapshot

approach often

taken in training

assessment and

criticized by Lustig

and Spitzberg (1993).



total sample being female. Table II outlines the sample characteristics.

In the first sample created for the self-evaluation test, 816 students participated. The students were between 18 and 55 years

old, with the average age 21.8 years. Because of the reasons described, the gender distribu-tion was 67.5% female and 32.5% male. The participants were from 56 nations, with New Zealand (47.2%), the United States (11.9%),

T A B L E I I Sample Characteristics

Self-Test Self-Retest Peer Test Peer Retest

Number of universities 11 6 6 6Number of courses 18 14 14 13

Pilot test 28.3% 31.7% 27.6% 28.7%Study 1 17.2% 18.6% 22.7% 19.3%

Test Split Study 2 37.1% 43.3% 46.5% 40.5%Study 3 17.4% 6.5% 3.3% 5.5%

Total 816 587 613 529Number of students Male 265 (32.5%) 213 (36.3%) 152 (34.3%) 133 (35.3%)

Female 551 (67.5%) 374 (63.7%) 291 (65.7%) 244 (64.7%)M 21.8 22.0 21.8 21.8

SD 3.92 3.79 3.67 3.59Demographics Mode 21 21 20 21

Min 18 18 18 18 Max 55 49 48 49

Number of country of birth 56 47 36 43China 9.8% 12.6% 4.6% 5.7%

GER 4.3% n/a n/a n/aBiggest nationality groups NZ 47.2% 52.0% 29.7% 37.8%

UAE 6.4% n/a n/a n/aUSA 11.9% 11.9% 4.9% 10.0%

M 21.10 22.30Knowledge of peer SD 26.42 30.02(length in months) Mode n/a n/a 1 3

Min 0 (N = 3) 0 (N = 3) Max 210 (N = 1) 300 (N = 1)

I have a very detailed knowledge of my peer’s character in social settings (birthday parties, etc.).

M = 2.35 M = 2.77n/a n/a SD = 1.57 SD = 1.52

N = 20 N = 272 I have a very detailed knowledge of

my peer’s character in work/study settings (banquets, offi ce, classroom, etc.).

M = 2.70 M = 3.08n/a n/a SD = 1.26 SD = 1.35

N = 20 N = 273

I have frequently observed my peer in social settings (birthday parties, shop-ping in local stores, etc.) interact with people from the target culture.

M = 2.16 M = 2.79n/a n/a SD = 1.61 SD = 1.54

N = 19 N = 271

I have frequently observed my peer in work/study settings (banquets, offi ce, classroom, etc.) interact with people from the target culture.

M = 2.10 M = 2.93n/a n/a SD = 1.41 SD = 1.44

N = 20 N = 273



China (9.8%), the United Arab Emirates (6.4%), and Germany (4.3%) named most often.

The second sample consisted of 587 stu-dents who took part in the self-evaluation re-test, which was conducted approximately two months after the test. Therefore, a long enough time gap was created to avoid mem-ory effects (Matsumoto et al., 2001). Their average age was 22 years with a range from 18 to 49. The gender distribution reflects the de-scribed circumstances in that 63.7% were fe-males and 36.3% were males. The students registered 47 nations as their country of birth, with New Zealand (52.0%), China (12.6%), and the United States (11.9%) the most fre-quently represented home countries.

Because of cultural considerations, demo-graphic data were not collected in every sample of the peer evaluations. In the peer-evaluation test, which was conducted parallel to the self-evaluation test, 613 students par-ticipated. They made up the third sample. Age, gender, and nationality distributions were comparable to those of the self-tests. The peers knew the students they selected for the peer evaluation for an average of 21.1 months. Using a 6-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree; plus a “don’t know” option), they rated their knowledge of the students on four questions to indicate whether they knew the students in social and/or work/study contexts and whether they had observed them frequently interacting with foreign culture nationals in social and/or work/study situations. The scores for these variables in the peer test indicate that the peers had slightly more knowledge of their partners in work/study contexts than in social contexts and had observed them in both situ-ations with similar frequency.

The fourth sample consisted of the 529 peer-evaluation retest participants. This test was conducted simultaneously to the self-evaluation retest, and the peers rated the same students as in the peer-evaluation test. The demographic qualities of the peer retest were comparable to those of the other three samples in such categories as age, gender, and nationality. The peers in this retest round knew the students for, on average, 22.3

months. Using the same 6-point, Likert-type acquaintance rating scales, the scores illus-trate that the peers had observed the students more frequently in both circumstances and that, consequently, their knowledge of the students across contexts had improved.

Instrument

McCroskey (1993) points out the difficulty of operationalizing any component of intercul-tural communication competence, and Dinges and Baldwin (1996) state that opera-tionalization of its components is underde-veloped. With this challenge, the senior author and the first assistant author of this article developed the items for the ICMS, guided by the ontology of intercultural com-munication motivation as a theoretical foun-dation. The research team conducted an extensive literature review of research related to intercultural communication competence to generate items that most closely reflect this ontology.

The research team endeavored to incor-porate items from established scales or parts thereof to lend credibility and reliability to the ICMS. Gaps that could not be filled with existing scales were bridged through the cre-ation of new items, which were carefully worded in English with the intent of remain-ing semantically parsimonious and topic-focused. Considering the diversity of the participants in these studies, it is yet to be determined whether the use of the English language in the ICMS is a hindrance to its international usability (Harzing, 2005). The authors closely followed the recommenda-tions of Frey, Botan, and Kreps (2000) and DeVellis (2003) for the formulation and ar-rangement of ICMS items to assure a logical flow of relevant, straightforward, and non-threatening closed statements. They also took into consideration Nunnally’s (1978) suggestions to solve problems associated with self-description inventories and the scaling of the items in the ICMS. The scale is abso-lute, in numeric intervals, and attempts to avoid response styles by employing an even number of answer choices on the 6-point Likert-type scale from 0 to 5 (strongly dis-



agree to strongly agree). An answer option outside the scale (“don’t know”) was, how-ever, provided to avoid forcing participants to make uncomfortable judgments or skip questions (Frey et al., 2000; Nunnally, 1978).

After careful pilot testing at two universi-ties in New Zealand and in three subsequent studies in a third university in New Zealand, five in the United States, one in the United Arab Emirates, and two in Germany, an 18-item ICMS emerged.

Anxiety

Stephan and Stephan (1985) describe the cre-ation of an 11-item intergroup anxiety scale. To fit the ICMS, the introductory phrase wording of the items was adjusted to reflect the intercultural nature of the ICMS, but the

core remained identical with the original. The originators of the scale describe a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 in their study. In the ICMS, the rating scale also was adapted from a 10-point scale to a 6-point scale with a “don’t know” option. Stephan and Stephan do not cite the results of a factor analysis. Gudykunst and Nishida (2001) report using a slightly mod-erated anxiety scale. They achieved Cronbach’s alphas of 0.84 and

0.88 and report a one-factor solution with loadings of 0.60 or higher.

Trust

The research team could not locate estab-lished scales specifically dealing with trust in intercultural communication situations as a motivational factor. Therefore, all items in the intercultural trust scale were newly developed for the ICMS. The items of the intercultural trust scale reflect the dyadic and reciprocal nature of the trust relationship that is out-lined in the ontology section earlier.

Self-Effi cacy

Sherer et al. (1982) developed a 23-item self-efficacy scale. They used a 14-point Likert-

type rating scale and derived a two-factor so-lution: general self-efficacy dealing with performance attainment (Woodruff & Cash-man, 1993) and social self-efficacy dealing with the building of interpersonal relation-ships (Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). Sherer et al. (1982) report Cronbach’s alphas of 0.86 and 0.71 and factor loadings between 0.39 and 0.70. Sherer et al. (1982) also measured the social desirability effect of their scale and found correlations between Crowne and Mar-low’s (1964) social desirability scale and their self-efficacy scale of 0.43 (general self-efficacy subscale) and 0.28 (social self-efficacy sub-scale), with p < .0001.

Woodruff and Cashman (1993) tested Sherer et al.’s (1982) self-efficacy scale and achieved Cronbach’s alpha results of 0.84 (general self-efficacy) and 0.69 (social self-efficacy). They also report a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of 0.86, which is meritorious (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974). They developed a five-factor model, and their factor load-ings range from 0.35 to 0.66.

For reasons of practicality and psycho-metric prudence, the research team chose to accept only items that had the highest loadings and most relevance to the ICMS. Consequently, two items from the general self-efficacy subscale with the specific focus of “efficacy in the face of adversity” (Sherer et al., 1982, p. 665) were selected, because adversity is a constant companion in most international assignments. Additionally, two items from the social self-efficacy subscale were chosen, because social self-efficacy measures initiation persistence, which is an important element of any foreign posting.

Procedure

Complying with the dyadic nature of inter-cultural communication and following the call for peer-evaluation studies with longitu-dinal character (Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993) that document the development of commu-nication motivation through interventions such as training, we administered the ICMS in a test-retest design at the beginning

Anxiety: Stephan

and Stephan

(1985) describe

the creation of an

11-item intergroup

anxiety scale.



and the end of the semester. The ICMS underwent testing through a pilot at two universities in New Zealand and three subse-quent studies at nine more universities in four countries. Since some of the courses either were not completed yet at the time of this report (for example, those in Ger-many) or were conducted in countries in which peer evaluations are not possible because of cultural considerations, the num-ber of participants varies widely among the four samples.

In the self- and peer-evaluation pilot test round, the ICMS was administered as part of a bigger study in two forms: in a paper-pencil version at one university (N = 182; 22.3% of total sample) across three courses and in an online version at a second university in one course (N = 49; 6.0% of total sample). The paper-pencil test was distributed among stu-dents during their regular class meetings in the second week of the semester. The instru-ment contained an instruction sheet, ethical approval information, and a consent sheet, which was signed and separated from the questionnaire before submission. The stu-dents were given the option to find peers by themselves, based on their preferences and level of acquaintance. If students did not know anybody in the class, they were matched by the research team and instructed to get to know one another and submitted their sur-vey one week later. In the majority of the cases the peer evaluation was completed in class.

The online version of the ICMS is techno-logically supported by the online service provider WebSurveyor, located in Herndon, Virginia. The decision to administer the ICMS online was driven by the geographical dis-tance between the members of the research team at one university on the South Island of New Zealand and their global partners, as well as by the desire to expand the total sample size and breadth. The cost saving, ease, security, and confidentiality of the data transfer are additional arguments for online administration (Cobanoglu, Warde, & Moreo, 2001; Granello & Wheaton, 2004; Gunter, Nicholas, Huntington, & Williams, 2002; Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004; Rhodes,

Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003). The survey was completed outside class by the students, who were given a time frame of 10 days for submission.

The diagnostic and predictive purpose of the ICMS requires a research plan of a test-retest design to evaluate participants’ current intercultural communication competence state and their development after an inter-vention (Frey et al., 2000; Neuman, 2000). A two-month time gap between the two test rounds is sufficient to prevent a memory effect (Matsu-moto et al., 2001). The results of the ICMS scores were presented to the students without attaching names to them. To avoid social tension among students, only ag-gregate peer-evaluation results were revealed.

Completion of all four evalu-ations accounted for 5% of the class participation grade for the New Zealand students. Those who did not want to contribute to the study were given the op-tion to earn that credit through alternative assignments. Most students in the United States and the United Arab Emirates could earn 5% extra credit if they contributed to the study. Students in Ger-many did so completely voluntarily. This incentive did not compromise the data quality in online surveys (Cobanoglu & Cobanoglu, 2003).

The ICMS results of every study were analyzed with a variety of tests described in the results section. As a product of these procedures, one initially included item of foreign language motivation was excluded after the pilot test, and one item inquiring about the motivation to perform nonverbal communication signals accurately was added and cut after study 2. The original fifth item of the intercultural self-efficacy scale was cut, and a summarizing statement about the motivation to communicate with locals was also eliminated after study 1. The core of the ICMS, however, remained stable.

All items in the

intercultural trust

scale were newly

developed for the

ICMS. The items

of the intercultural

trust scale reflect

the dyadic and

reciprocal nature

of the trust

relationship.



Results

To investigate the multidimensional charac-ter of the intercultural communication skills represented in the ICMS, we exposed the ICMS scores to repeated exploratory factor analyses using the principal components analysis method with varimax rotation. We conducted internal consistency estimates of reliability tests, analyses of the explained variance, and tests for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO). The results for all four samples follow.

Question 1: What Are the Psychometric Qualities of the ICMS?

The exploratory factor analyses for the Inter-cultural Anxiety Scale across the four samples (see Table III) demonstrate a three-factor solu-tion. The most stable factor combines the items describing the feelings of irritation, awkwardness, impatience, defensiveness, and suspiciousness. We call this factor intercul-tural apprehension. In the second factor, a tendency to unite the items of certainty, con-fidence, acceptance, and happiness can be observed. This factor, however, is less stable. We name this factor intercultural poise. A third factor has materialized by unifying self-consciousness and carefulness. We call this factor intercultural prudence. Besides these three factors, which surfaced in the explor-atory factor analysis of the Intercultural Anxi-ety Scale, the components of intercultural trust and intercultural self-efficacy crystallized as two separate factors across all samples in the confirmatory factor analysis. Collec-tively, a five-factor solution emerged for the ICMS.

Factor loadings are generally solid and range from 0.49 to 0.86 across all four samples and all scales. In the self-test, 5.3% (N = 1) of the items have loadings in the 0.40 range, 10.5% in the 0.50 range, 5.3% in the 0.60 range, 31.6% in the 0.70 range, and 47.4% in the 0.80 range, putting the factor analytical results of the self-test on solid ground. Even more robust are the factor ana-lytical outcomes for the self-retest and the peer test, which show that 5.3% are in the

0.50 range, 10.5% are in the 0.60 range, 47.4% in the 0.70 range, and 36.8% in the 0.80 range. The peer retest is consistent in its factor loadings, because 31.6% are in the 0.60 range, 47.4% are in the 0.70 range, and 21.0% are in the 0.80 range. Collectively, the four samples perform rather convincingly in the factor analyses, since 1.3% (N = 1) are in the 0.40 range, 5.3% are in the 0.50 range, 14.5% are in the 0.60 range, 43.4% are in the 0.70 range, and 35.5% are in the 0.80 range.

According to Dziuban and Shirkey (1974), all KMO scores as a measure of sampling ad-equacy can be interpreted as either meritori-ous (KMO > .80) or marvelous (KMO > .90). The ICMS performs similarly well in its steadily high reliability scores, ranging between 0.88 and 0.93 across all four samples. The total variance explained in all four samples is rather consistent and satisfactory, as it ranges between 66.6% and 71.2%. With these results, the ICMS compares favorably to other studies on the intergroup anxiety and self-efficacy scales cited previously. Finally, solid test-retest correlations for both self- and peer evalua-tions support the stability of the ICMS.

In comparison to Sherer et al.’s (1982) correlation of the self-efficacy scale with Crowne and Marlow’s (1964) social desirabil-ity scale (SDS), the ICMS performs rather well, as the correlations are mostly nonsig-nificant or negligible. This is supported by the low SDS averages in all four samples, in-dicating a high degree of independence and honesty of the participants in all samples. Therefore, a social desirability bias is hardly detectable in the ICMS.

Question 2: Are There Differences Between Self and Peer Perceptions of Intercultural Communication Motivation That the ICMS Can Detect?

A sample of participants who had contributed a self-test and a retest and about whom their peers had completed a test and a retest evaluation was assembled to analyze the dif-ferences between ICMS self and peer evalua-tions. The differences for the scales were calculated using a paired-samples t test. The results for the intercultural anxiety scale,



TA

BL

E

II

I

ICM

S D

escr

iptiv

es a

nd F

acto

r Loa

ding

s

Se

lf T

est

Se

lf R

ete

st

Peer Test

Peer

Rete

st

Sta

tisti

cs

N=

53

1N

=4

09

N=

312

N=

274

MS

DL

oa

din

g

on

Fa

cto

r

MS

DL

oa

din

g

on

Fa

cto

r

MS

DLo

ad

ing

on

Facto

r

MS

DLo

ad

ing

on

Facto

rA

ge

21.8

3.92

22.0

3.79

21.8

3.67

21.8

3.59

Min

-max

18–5

518

–49

18–4

818

–49

Cer

tain

2.91

1.17

.84

(4)

2.89

1.10

.83

(4)

2.91

1.20

.73

(4)

2.96

1.14

.71

(3)

Co

nfi

den

t2.

991.

07.7

3 (4

)3.

091.

01.7

0 (4

)3.

281.

06.6

6 (2

2)3.

30.9

9.7

2 (1

)A

ccep

ted

3.18

.96

.49

(1)

3.25

.96

.52

(4)

3.29

.93

.69

(2)

3.34

.89

.70

(1)

Irri

tate

d*

3.19

1.12

.81

(2)

3.07

1.11

.80

(1)

3.09

1.08

.75

(1)

2.99

1.12

.62

(3)

Aw

kwar

d*

2.80

1.12

.54

(2)

2.80

1.13

.63

(1)

3.00

1.11

.75

(1)

2.88

1.11

.65

(3)

Imp

atie

nt*

3.19

1.11

.81

(2)

3.09

1.13

.83

(1)

3.16

1.05

.79

(1)

2.99

1.12

.66

(3)

Def

ensi

ve*

3.21

1.12

.72

(2)

3.14

1.09

.74

(1)

3.25

1.07

.79

(1)

3.05

1.11

.63

(3)

Su

spic

iou

s*3.

471.

12.6

9 (2

)3.

301.

13.7

5 (1

)3.

311.

10.8

0 (1

)3.

171.

15.6

7 (3

)S

elf-

Co

nsc

iou

s*2.

451.

22.8

4 (5

)2.

481.

13.7

2 (5

)2.

671.

15.7

4 (1

)2.

511.

19.6

9 (4

)C

aref

ul*

2.11

1.12

.77

(5)

2.22

1.11

.85

(5)

2.32

1.10

.54

(1)

2.41

1.12

.85

(4)

Hap

py

3.15

1.12

.58

(4)

3.14

1.04

.69

(4)

3.04

1.21

.78

(4)

3.18

1.12

.70

(3)

IC A

nxie

ty T

ota

l2.9

6.6

9 n

/a2

.94

.69

n

/a3

.02

.70

n

/a2.9

7.7

5 n

/a

I tru

st t

hem

so

cial

ly3.

001.

05.8

5 (1

)3.

12.9

8.8

2 (2

)3.

091.

04.8

2 (2

)3.

24.9

7.8

1 (1

)

I tru

st t

hem

at

wo

rk3.

30.9

2.8

1 (1

)3.

39.9

1.7

8 (2

)3.

34.9

0.8

2 (2

)3.

46.8

9.7

6 (1

)

Th

ey t

rust

me

soci

ally

3.23

.96

.82

(1)

3.33

.90

.82

(2)

3.29

.94

.83

(2)

3.35

.89

.81

(1)

Th

ey t

rust

me

at w

ork

3.38

.90

.81

(1)

3.47

.81

.70

(2)

3.40

.90

.80

(3)

3.50

.82

.75

(1)

IC T

rust To

tal

3.2

0.8

3 n

/a3

.31

.78

n

/a3

.28

.82

n

/a3.3

9.7

6 n

/a

I giv

e u

p*

3.40

1.07

.73

(3)

3.30

1.04

.79

(3)

3.23

1.10

.80

(3)

3.14

1.10

.79

(2)

I do

no

t w

ant

to t

ry*

3.48

1.14

.78

(3)

3.42

1.05

.81

(3)

3.43

1.08

.82

(3)

3.30

1.09

.86

(2)

dif

fi cu

lt m

akin

g f

rien

ds*

3.31

1.22

.81

(3)

3.24

1.18

.78

(3)

3.39

1.20

.73

(3)

3.23

1.15

.79

(2)

soci

al g

ath

erin

gs*

3.40

1.10

.76

(3)

3.40

1.01

.75

(3)

3.52

1.09

.72

(3)

3.38

1.11

.73

(2)

IC S

elf

-Effi

cacy T

ota

l3.3

9.9

2 n

/a3

.33

.91

n

/a3

.39

.92

n

/a3.2

7.9

7 n

/a

IC M

oti

vati

on

To

tal

3.1

9.6

2 n

/a3

.19

.63

n/a

3.2

3.6

4 n

/a3.2

0.6

6 n

/a

*=R

ever

sed

.



N = 309; self M = 2.96; peer M = 2.98; t(308) = −0.44, p = .66; the intercultural trust scale, N = 278; self M = 3.21; peer M = 3.31; t(277) = −1.61, p = .11; and the intercultural self-efficacy scale, N = 305; self M = 3.42; peer M = 3.40; t(304) = 0.22, p = .83, were not signifi-cant. The changes for the ICMS—N = 320; self M = 3.20; peer M = 3.22; t(319) = −0.46, p = .64—also were not significant in the test round between self and peer evaluations.

Using the same “perfect” samples and procedures described, the retest differences between self and peer evaluations were also evaluated with the same results. The means of the intercultural anxiety scale, N = 309; self M = 3.00; peer M = 2.98; t(308) = 0.29, p = .78; the intercultural trust scale, N = 293; self M = 3.37; peer M = 3.40; t(292) = −0.47, p = .64; the intercultural self-efficacy scale,

N = 310; self M = 3.39; peer M = 3.28; t(309) = 1.46, p = .15; and the ICMS, N = 318; self M = 3.25; peer M = 3.22; t(317) = 0.66, p = .51, also were not significantly different between self and peer retests.

Question 3: Is the ICMS Sensitive Enough to Measure Changes in Self- and Peer-perceptions of Intercultural Communication Motivation Over Time?

For the exploration of the changes in ICMS self-evaluations over time, a sample had to be filtered out of those students who had sub-mitted a test and a retest ICMS. To evaluate these differences, we conducted a paired-samples t test. The scale means of the Inter-cultural Trust Scale—N = 483; test M = 3.20;

T A B L E I V ICMS Psychometric Properties

Statistics Self Test Self Retest Peer Test Peer Retest

N = 531 N = 409 Nq = 312 N = 267

Number of Factors 5 5 4 4

KMO .86 .88 .86 .90

Total Variance Explained 66.64% 71.16% 68.53% 70.40%

Range of Factor Loadings (Principle Component

Analysis with Varimax Rotation.49-.85 .52-.85 .54-.83 .62-.86

Cronbach’s Alpha .88 .91 .89 .93

Social Desirability Scale (SDS) (Range 0–8)

M = 3.05 SD = 1.80 M = 2.79 SD = 1.92 M = 2.96 SD = 1.88 M = 2.86 SD = 1.99

Correlation SDS vs.

Intercultural Anxiety r (812) = .05 (n/s) r (586) = .01, p <.05 r (584) = -.01 (n/s) r (497) = .07 (n/s)

Intercultural Trust r (784) = .06 (n/s) r (575) = .01, p <.05 r (549) = .05 (n/s) r (479) = .04 (n/s)

Intercultural Self-Effi cacy r (807) = .07 (n/s) r (585) = .01, p <.05 r (581) = .03 (n/s) r (505) = .02 (n/s)

Intercultural Motivation Scale r (816) = .08 p <.05 r (586) = .12, p <.01 r (602) = .03 (n/s) r (518) = .06 (n/s)

Test vs. Retest Difference

Intercultural Anxiety t(482) = .09 (n/s) t(386) = .84 (n/s)

Intercultural Trust t(464) = -3.63, p <.01 t(354) = -2.66, p <.01

Intercultural Self-Effi cacy t(478) = 1.34 (n/s) t(388) = 2.75, p <.01

Intercultural Motivation Scale t(484) = 1.01 (n/s) t(410) = .53 (n/s)

Test - Retest Correlations

Intercultural Anxiety r(483) = .45, p <.01 r(387) = .46, p <.01

Intercultural Trust r(465) = .37, p <.01 r(355) = .40, p <.01

Intercultural Self-Effi cacy r(479) = .31, p <.01 r(389) = .39, p <.01

Intercultural Motivation Scale r(485) = .43, p <.01 r(411) = .50, p <.01

Interscale Correlations

Anxiety - Trust r (782) = .37, p <.001 r (575) = .44, p <.001 r (537) = .39, p <.001 r (465) = .40, p <.001

Anxiety - Self-Effi cacy r (803) = .50, p <.001 r (585) = .59, p <.001 r (565) = .55, p <.001 r (483) = .62, p <.001

Trust - Self-Effi cacy r (776) = .21, p <.001 r (574) = .32, p <.001 r (539) = .29, p <.001 r (472) = .31, p <.001



retest M = 3.33; t(482) = −3.34, p = .001—show a significant increase. The standardized effect size index, d, for the Intercultural Trust Scale was −.15, which is considered small (Green & Salkind, 2003). The remaining scales show consistency in the test-retest comparisons. The Intercultural Anxiety Scale means—N = 504; test M = 2.96; retest M = 2.95; t(503) = 0.27, p = .790—remain identi-cal; the Intercultural Self-Efficacy Scale means—N = 500; test M = 3.41; retest M = 3.36; t(499) = 1.16, p = .247—record a slight decrease; and the difference in the ICMS means—N = 506; test M = 3.18; retest M = 3.21; t(505) = −0.99, p = .323—constitute a marginal increase.

To examine changes in ICMS peer assess-ments between test and retest, we could only integrate peer ICM evaluations for those who had finished both test and retest for the same student. Using a paired-sample t test, we found the means of the Intercul-tural Trust Scale—N = 354; test M = 3.29; retest M = 3.41; t(353) = −2.75, p = .006—to show a significant increase. The standardized effect size index, d, for the Intercultural Trust Scale was −.15, which is considered small (Green & Salkind, 2003). The means of the Intercultural Self-Efficacy Scale—N = 388; test M = 3.43; retest M = 3.28; t(387) = 2.74, p = .006—denote a significant decrease. The stan-dardized effect size index, d, for the ISES was .14, which is considered small (Green & Sal-kind, 2003). In contrast, the means of neither the Intercultural Anxiety Scale—N = 386; test M = 3.03; retest M = 3.00; t(385) = 0.82, p = .414—nor the ICMS—N = 410; test M = 3.24; retest M = 3.23; t(409) = 0.49, p = .625—are significant. Table IV displays the results in detail.

Question 4: What Are the Relationships Among the Three Components of the ICMS?

The proposed interdependence of the ICMS components of intercultural anxiety, trust, and self-efficacy is supported through Pear-son correlation analyses. All correlations were significant at the p < .001 level. Table IV illustrates the correlations in detail.

Discussion

The goal of this research effort was to develop a measure of intercultural communication motivation that allows SIHRM professionals to act socially responsible by meeting the needs of employees, employers, and hosts through a thorough assessment of the motivational disposition of candidates for international assignments. The psychometric analysis of the ICMS has demonstrated that it repre-sents a viable tool. It has a reason-ably stable five-factor structure, with the first three factors being intercultural apprehension, poise, and prudence as a measure of in-tercultural anxiety. The remaining two factors are intercultural trust and intercultural self-efficacy. The interdependence of these factors could be confirmed to some de-gree. We proposed that anxiety is negatively correlated with trust and self-efficacy. This pattern, however, could only be confirmed for the anxiety (reverse coded)-trust relationship. The association of anxiety and self-efficacy de-serves further attention and research. The 19-item ICMS per-forms well, with consistently high factor loadings, internal consis-tency scores, explained variance in both self and peer evaluations, and solid test-retest correlations, demonstrating good con-struct stability.

The steady intercultural anxiety scores in self and peer evaluations are to be explained through the characteristics of the sample: interculturally interested students, most of whom had voluntarily chosen to be in the courses in which the ICMS instrument was administered. These students are attracted to intercultural interactions and are not afraid of the challenges that working with diverse populations present.

The training/courses can be assessed as effective because through them both self and peer perceptions of trust significantly in-creased, indicating mutually more satisfying

The 19-item ICMS

performs well, with

consistently high

factor loadings,

internal consistency

scores, explained

variance in both

self and peer

evaluations, and

solid test-retest

correlations,

demonstrating good

construct stability.



support for future, current, and returning expatriates and their families.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

One of the reasons MNEs engage in interna-tional business is to acquire global knowledge and skills to enhance their worldwide opera-tions. SIHRM can add strategic value to this process by selecting adequately motivated candidates for global missions who will en-gage in mutually satisfying relationships with locals and can consequently transfer the knowledge acquired abroad across the orga-nization (Hocking, Brown, & Harzing, 2004). The ICMS gives the SIHRM function a viable, theoretically grounded, and psychometrically reliable tool that is easy to administer. When strategically applied, the ICMS can be used to channel candidates in their training and de-velopment program toward certain target cultures for which candidates have shown an affinity based on their ICMS scores. Through the ensuing feedback candidates become aware of their strengths and weaknesses and can make a conscious effort to reduce their anxiety and increase their levels of trust and self-efficacy. Caligiuri and Tarique (2006) suggest that instruments such as the ICMS should be repeatedly and continuously ad-ministered to assess potential changes in candidates during career and life stages.

As a SIHRM guideline, we propose that a variety of organizational members should participate at several specific points in time in an assessment of their ICM. The first group would be those who would like to be consid-ered for future international assignments. Once they are part of the expatriate pool, these candidates ought to be assessed through the ICMS for specific international assign-ment locations. Via the ICMS, their need for intercultural communication training can be determined prior to departure. After the train-ing has been administered, the ICMS can be used as a training effectiveness analysis. Paral-lel to this practice, candidates’ spouses/part-ners and family members should be included in the ICM assessment for selection and train-ing purposes since they are a major influence

relationships. In contrast, self-efficacy per-ceptions decreased in self (approaching sig-nificance) and peer (significantly) evalua-tions. The stable perception of anxiety and the increased trust indicate a heightened awareness of the importance of the interac-tion process, and it seems students focus less on the interaction outcome. Changes in the ICMS are marginal for self and peer evalua-tions because the differences in trust and self-efficacy mean scores cancel each other out, while anxiety remains constant.

The lack of differences between self and peer evaluations in the test and retest rounds of the ICMS testifies to the harmonious per-ceptions of intercultural communication motivation between the students and their peers. The parallel development of all scale scores and, in particular, the trust mean scores is an indication of participants’ mu-tual perceptions of their satisfying relation-ships. Whether any other influences, such as the sample characteristics, the contexts, or the wording of the items, are the source of this congruence of perceptions deserves fur-ther investigation. It is certain, however, that neither of these scales was influenced by a social desirability bias because the ICMS per-formed well against that control measure.

In conclusion, the ICMS represents a new, psychometrically sound, and practical instrument for SIHRM practitioners to assess the intercultural communication motiva-tion of candidates who either could be se-lected for a particular foreign post or need custom-made training to enhance their com-munication motivation for the specific tar-get location. The ICMS not only enables SIHRM professionals to conduct assessments through retrospective self-evaluations but also provides a means for predictive selec-tion and training effectiveness measure-ments. The test-retest design has indicated that the ICMS is sensitive enough to detect significant differences. Samples of expatri-ates who go through an even more focused and rigorous training program should sup-port this trend. The ICMS is a significant contribution to the tool kit of SIHRM profes-sionals to assess the effectiveness of training programs designed to provide continued



on the expatriates and their success during the international assignment (Caligiuri, Hy-land, Joshi, & Bross, 1998). To address poten-tial problems while the expatriates are on-site, another ICM assessment should be administered three to six months into the international assignment to determine the potential need for additional training or men-toring. To close the expatriation circle, expa-triates about to complete their mission should take an ICM survey with a focus on their home culture six to three months before re-turning home to evaluate the need for reintegration intercultural communication training. Since the communication process is dyadic, host culture natives who interact with expatriates should not be neglected in a so-cially responsible SIHRM program.

Despite its best efforts, this study has not been able to overcome all limitations of aca-demic research. We would like to caution the reader that the results of this study were ob-tained through the cooperation of student samples, which are not ideal for research on SIHRM issues. Furthermore, these students were not involved in actual intercultural training courses but attended classes that had an intercultural educational element. Ideally, a real-world sample in a longitudinal study with a well-designed intercultural communi-cation training program should be employed to examine the validity of the ICMS. Simi-larly, the incorporation of participants with more international experience would help as-sess whether age, previous foreign culture

experience, and cultural membership or country of birth has an influence on the re-sults of the ICMS.

Another limitation this study was not able to overcome was the matching of candidates and their peers who are locals in the target culture where the future expatriates will be stationed. Parallel to this, future studies ought to try to match candidates and peers who have a higher level of acquaintance, particu-larly taking the level of analysis/assessment and the required knowledge and observation of the candidate into consideration. In com-bination with such future research foci, quali-tative studies to determine the causes for the variably appearing differences between self- and peer evaluations ought to be conducted. Finally, criterion validity studies with instru-ments that measure motivation in other re-lated areas could enhance our understanding of the qualities of the ICMS and possibly bet-ter illuminate the relationship between anxi-ety and self-efficacy.

In conclusion, the ICMS provides SIHRM program administrators with the possibility to be socially responsible by reliably assess-ing the ICM of their internationally operat-ing employees, their families, and locals. Through the strategic application of the ICMS, the development of mutually satisfy-ing relationships between MNEs and host culture natives should be facilitated and enhanced. This would result in a positive contribution by HR toward the corporate bottom line.

BERND KUPKA (Ph.D., University of Otago, New Zealand) is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Having studied in Germany, the United States, and New Zealand, he teaches (international) human resource management and develop-ment. In cooperation with Dr. André Everett and Dr. Stephen G. Atkins, he developed an instrument to assess intercultural communication competence for strategic international human resource management. His research interests include international human re-source management, cross-cultural management, international organizational behavior, leadership, team management, and training and development.

ANDRÉ M. EVERETT (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is an associate professor at the University of Otago, New Zealand, teaching international and strategic management. He has worked in a wide range of manufacturing and service industries in six countries.



His research interests include internationalization of management philosophies, evolu-tion of management strategies, measurement of customer satisfaction, and cultural in-fl uences on international business, with a particular focus on China.

STEPHEN G. ATKINS (Ph.D., Virginia Tech) serves as business school research director at New Zealand’s Otago Polytechnic. He is also a business psychology lecturer at Univer-sity of Otago. Previously, he was employed at the U.S. Department of Labor’s National O*Net Development Center as internal consultant for industrial psychometrics. Prior to that, he spent most of his work life in spacecraft engineering fi elds. Now he is prima-rily a social cognition, online teamwork, and organizational psychometrics researcher. Dr. Atkins is a graduate of the industrial psychology program at Virginia Tech and the industrial engineering program at Arizona State University.

MARION MERTESACKER, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Management and Organi-zation Design at the University of Regensburg, Germany, teaches international human resource management, intercultural management, and leadership. She graduated with honors with an MS in business studies and an MS in psychology from the University of Saarbrücken, Germany. She is fi nishing her dissertation, which focuses on the assess-ment and development of intercultural competencies in international human resource management and intercultural management.

LYNNE M. WALTERS (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison) is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University. She teaches international and intercultural education and research methodology. She was director of Texas A&M’s International Studies Degree Program, 2000–2004. Dr. Walters’s research focuses on gender, new technology, and intercultural competence. Her current efforts involve pre- and in-service teachers’ intercultural sensitivity and the impact of cross-cultural experiences on classroom teaching. She is certifi ed by the Intercultural Communication Institute to administer and analyze the Intercultural Development Inventory.

TIM WALTERS (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) is the associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at American University of Sharjah, University City, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. His research interests include creating the climate necessary to develop entrepreneurship, workplace readiness, successful internship placements, and the inter-cultural work environment in the United Arab Emirates.

ANDREA GRAF (Ph.D., Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany) is a professor and chair of the Department of Management and Organization Design at the University of Regensburg, Germany. Before her academic pursuits, she worked in management de-velopment for an international pharmaceutical company for several years. She also was a visiting professor in the United States, Austria, and Bulgaria. Her research focuses on intercultural management, organizational change management, negotiation strategies, and interfi rm relationships.

L. BROOKS HILL (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is a professor and chair of the Department of Speech and Drama at Trinity University. His areas of specialization are public and international/intercultural communication. He taught in both areas at the graduate and undergraduate levels for more than 40 years and has served government and industry as a consultant, trainer, and researcher. His scholarship includes three books and several



journal editions; more than 50 articles, chapters, or monographs; and more than 70 pa-pers and reviews. His most recent work examines international public relations, humor and ethnic relations, triadic communication, and challenges to the future study of inter-cultural communication.

CARLEY H. DODD (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is a professor of intercultural commu-nication at Abilene Christian University. He is the author/coauthor of 11 books and 125 ar-ticles and papers, primarily on intercultural communication studies. His current research is primarily in development and measurement of intercultural effectiveness predictors.

JÜRGEN BOLTEN (Ph.D., University of Düsseldorf) is a department head at the Institute for Intercultural Business Communication at the University of Jena, Germany. His main areas of research are intercultural human resource management, e-based intercultural knowledge-management, and methods of intercultural training and coaching.

success of international assignments. Human Resource Management, 39(2–3), 239–250.

Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interactions. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Björkman, I., & Fan, X. (2002). Human resource man-agement and the performance of Western fi rms in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(6), 853–864.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (2000). High impact training: Forging leaders for the global frontier. Human Resource Management, 39(2–3), 173–184.

Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1989). A practical but theory-based framework for selecting cross-cultural training methods. Human Resource Management, 28(4), 511–540.

Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 113–136.

Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291–317.

Bolten, J. (2001). Interkulturelle Kompetenz. Erfurt, Thüringen, Germany: Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Thüringen.

Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multiple-source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 171–203.

References

Anderson, B. (2005). Expatriate selection: Good management or good luck? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(4), 567–583.

Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Inter-cultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2): 137–163.

Bailey, C., & Fletcher, C. (2002). The impact of multiple source feedback on management development: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(7), 853–867.

Banai, M., & Reisel, W. D. (1999). Would you trust your foreign manager? An empirical investigation. Inter-national Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 477–487.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-effi cacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-effi cacy: The exercise of con-trol. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Beehr, T. A., Ivanitskaya, L., Hansen, C. P., Erofeev, D., & Gudanovsky, D. M. (2001). Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: Relationships with each other and with performance and selection predic-tors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 775–788.

Bennett, R., Aston, A., & Colquhoun, T. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A critical step in ensuring the



Brewster, C., & Pickard, J. (1994). Evaluating expatriate experience. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 24(3), 18–35.

Brislin, R. W. (1989). Intercultural communication training. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 441–457). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Caligiuri, P. (2000a). The big fi ve personality character-istics as predictors of expatriate success. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67–88.

Caligiuri, P. (2000b). Selecting expatriates for person-ality characteristics: A moderating effect of per-sonality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural adjustment. Manage-ment International Review, 40(1), 61–80.

Caligiuri, P., Hyland, A. M. A., Joshi, A., & Bross, A. S. (1998). Testing a theoretical model for examining the relationship between family adjustment and expatriates’ work adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 598–614.

Caligiuri, P., Jacobs, R. R., & Farr, J. L. (2000). The attitudinal and behavioral openness scale: Scale development and construct validation. Internation-al Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 27–46.

Caligiuri, P., & Phillips, J. (2003). An application of self-assessment realistic job previews to expatri-ate assignments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1102–1116.

Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2006). International assignee selection and cross-cultural training and develop-ment. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource man-agement (pp. 302–326). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Chan, K. W., Huang, X., & Ng, P. M. (2008). Managers’ confl ict management styles and employee attitudinal outcomes: The mediating role of trust. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Management, 25(2), 277–295.

Clegg, B., & Gray, S. J. (2002). Australian expatriates in Thailand: Some insights for expatriate manage-ment policies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 598–623.

Cobanoglu, C., & Cobanoglu, N. (2003). The effect of incentives in Web surveys: Application and ethical considerations. International Journal of Market Research, 45(4), 475–487.

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax and Web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 441–455.

Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity—an interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive—studies in evaluative dependence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

De Cieri, H., & Dowling, P. J. (2006). Strategic international human resource management in multinational enterprises: Developments and directions. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 15–35). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.): Vol. 26. Applied social research methods series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dinges, N. G., & Baldwin, K. D. (1996). Intercultural competence—a research perspective. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 106–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the infl uence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601–620.

Duronto, P. M., Nishida, T., & Nakayama, S. (2005). Uncertainty, anxiety, and avoidance in commu-nication with strangers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 549–560.

Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361.

Earley, P. C. (1987). Intercultural training for managers: A comparison of documentary and interpersonal methods. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 685–698.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 100–115.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gertsen, M. C. (1990). Intercultural competence and expatriates. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(1), 341–362.



Graf, A. (2004). Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: Evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies. Internation-al Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1124–1148.

Granello, D. H., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(4), 387–394.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for the Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1992). Being perceived as a competent communicator. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (pp. 382–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communi-cation: Making the mesh of the net fi ner. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., Guzley, R., & Hammer, M. (1996). Designing intercultural training. In D. Landis & R. B. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 61–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural com-munication (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2001). Anxiety, uncer-tainty, and perceived effectiveness of communica-tion across relationships and cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(1), 55–71.

Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Williams, P. (2002). Online versus offl ine research: Implications for evaluating digital media. Aslib Proceedings, 54,(4), 229–240.

Hagan, C. M., Konopaske, R., Bernardin, H. J., & Tyler, C. L. (2006). Predicting assessment center perform-ance with 360-degree, top-down, and customer-based competency assessments. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 357–390.

Halcrow, A. (1999). Expats: The squandered resource. Workforce, 78(4), 42–48.

Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11(4) 65–88.

Hammer, M. R., Nishida, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1996). The infl uence of situational prototypes on dimen-sions of intercultural communication compe-

tence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(3) 267–282.

Harvey, M., & Novicevic, M. M. (2001). Selecting expatriates for increasingly complex global as-signments. Career Development International, 6(2) 69–86.

Harzing, A. W. (2005). Does the use of English-language questionnaires in cross-national research obscure national differences? Internation-al Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5(2), 213–224.

Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance: Adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5(3), 239–258.

Hocking, B. J., Brown, M., & Harzing, A.-W. (2004). A knowledge transfer perspective of strategic assign-ment purposes and their path-dependent out-comes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(3), 565–586.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Compar-ing values, behaviors, institutions, and organiza-tions across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Imahori, T., & Lanigan, M. (1989). Relational model of intercultural communication competence. Inter-national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 269–286.

Johnson, J. L., & Cullen, J. B. (2002). Trust in cross-cultural relationships. In M. J. Gannon & K. L. Newman (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 335–360). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international busi-ness: Toward a defi nition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 525–543.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. 2004. A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–102.

Kline Harrison, J., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural adjustment and the personality variables of self-effi cacy and self-monitoring. International Journal of Intercul-tural Relations, 20(2), 167–188.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Team compilation: Development, per-formance, and effectiveness across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffi ng, motivation, and development (pp. 24–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass



Kühlmann, T. (2001). The German approach to develop-ing global leaders via expatriation. In M. Menden-hall, T. Kühlmann, & G. Stahl (Eds.), Developing global business leaders: Policies, procedures, and innovations (pp. 57–72). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Kupka, B. (2003). Current trends in intercultural communication training for expatriates in Ger-man MNCs. Unpublished master’s thesis, Radford University, Radford, VA.

Lenox, R. A., & Subich, L. M. (1994). The relationship between self-effi cacy beliefs and inventoried vo-cational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42(4), 302–338.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. (1995). Trust in relation-ships: A model of trust development and decline. In B. Bunker & J. Rubin (Eds.), Confl ict, cooperation and justice (pp. 133–173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Littrell, L. N., & Salas, E. (2005). A review of cross-cultural training: Best practices, guidelines, and research needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 305–334.

Lustig, M. W., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). Methodologi-cal issues in the study of intercultural communica-tion competence. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 153–167). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mak, A. S., & Tran, C. (2001). Big fi ve personality and cultural relocation factors in Vietnamese Australian students’ intercultural social self-effi cacy. Inter-national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(2), 181–201.

Martin, J. (1993). Intercultural communication com-petence: A review. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 16–32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication com-petence: Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 303–332.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Bernhard, R., & Gray, H. (2004). Unraveling the psychological correlates of intercultural adjustment potential. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(3–4), 281–309.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Ratzlaff, C., Tatani, H., Uchida, H., Kim, C., & Araki, S. (2001). Develop-ment and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(5), 483–510.

McCroskey, J. C. (1993). Communication compe-tence—the elusive construct. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 259–268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490.

Mendenhall, M. (2001). New perspectives on expa-triate adjustment and its relationship to global leadership development. In M. Mendenhall, T. Kühlmann, & G. Stahl (Eds.), Developing global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innova-tions (pp. 1–18). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1986). Acculturation profi les of expatriate managers: Implications for cross-cultural training programs. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21(4), 73–80.

Mendenhall, M., & Stahl, G. (2000). Expatriate training and development: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management, 39(2–3), 251–265.

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevalu-ation of the role of anxiety: Self-effi cacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening profi ciency. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 276–295.

Milstein, T. (2005). Transforming abroad: Sojourning and the perceived enhancement of self-effi cacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 217–238.

Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., & van der Molen, H. T. (2005). Developing criteria for expatriate effectiveness: Time to jump off the adjustment bandwagon. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 339–353.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-effi cacy beliefs to academic out-comes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38.

Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Hammer and Bennett Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(5), 467–486.



Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orien-tation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-effi cacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(2), 792–802.

Rhodes, S. D., Bowie, D. A., & Hergenrather, K. C., (2003). Collecting behavioral data using the World Wide Web: Considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(1), 68–74.

Riggio, R. E., & Riggio, H. R. (2001). Self-report meas-urement of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 127–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ronen, S. (1989). Training the international assignee. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 417–453). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rosen, R., Digh, P., Singer, M., & Phillips, C. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership and national cultures. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ruben, B. (1976). Assessing communication compe-tency for intercultural adaptation. Group & Organi-zation Studies, 1(2), 334–354.

Sattler, H., & Völckner, F. (2003). Bestimmungsfaktoren des Markenerfolgs—eine Replikation der Studie von Zatloukal. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 73(10), 1077–1102.

Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 703–740.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-effi cacy and academic moti-vation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 207–231.

Scullion, H., & Brewster, C. (2001). The management of expatriates: Messages from Europe? Journal of World Business, 36(4), 346–365.

Selmer, J. (1995). Conclusions: New ideas for inter-national business. In J. Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate management: New ideas for international business (pp. 293–312). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jabocs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-effi cacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A model of intercultural com-munication competence. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication—a reader (9th ed., pp. 375–387). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Stahl, G. K., Miller, E., Einfalt, C., & Tung, R. (2000). Auslandseinsatz als Element der internationalen Laufbahngestaltung: Ergebnisse einer Befragung

von entsandten deutschen Fach- und Führungskräf-ten in 59 Ländern. Zeitschrift für Personalforsc-hung, 14, 334–354.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–166.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1992). Reducing intercul-tural anxiety through intercultural contact. Inter-national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(1), 89–106.

Swaak, R. A. (1995). Expatriate failures: Too many, too much cost, too little planning. Compensation & Benefi ts Review, 27(6), 47–55.

Tarique, I., & Caligiuri, P. (2004). Training and develop-ment of international staff. In A. W. Harzing & J. Van Ruysseveldt (Eds.), International human resource management (pp. 283–306) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tharenou, P. (2005). International work in domestic jobs: An individual explanation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(4), 475–496.

Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(1), 68–78.

Tung, R. L. (1982). Selection and training proce-dures of U.S., European, and Japanese multina-tionals. California Management Review, 25(1), 57–71.

Tung, R. L. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure. Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), 117–126.

Tung, R. L. (1988). The new expatriates: Managing human resources abroad. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Tung, R. L. (1998). American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans. Journal of World Business, 33(2), 125–145.

Tung, R. L. (2002). Building effective networks. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(2), 94–101.

Turner, J. H. (1987). Toward a sociological theory of mo-tivation. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 15–27.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Nijhof, A. H. J. (2004). The value of subjectivity: Problems and prospects for 360-degree appraisal systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(3), 493–511.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 659–677.

Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic



implications. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99–116.

Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 207–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Woodruff, S. L., & Cashman, J. F. (1993). Task, domain, and general effi cacy: A re-examination of the self-effi cacy scale. Psychological Reports, 72(2), 423–432.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (1999). Corporate social responsibility—meeting changing expectations. Conches-Geneva, Switzer-land: Author.

44435606

Documents