Abstract
As a review of the literature, this paper highlights how three dimensions - task performance, skill development, and cross-cultural adjustment, have been used to understand cross-cultural performance. With respect to task performance, two criteria should be measured for all those working cross-culturally, including remote or virtual cross-cultural work: (1) how accurately employees read the unique contextual demands of a cross-cultural context and (2) how effectively they respond given the contextual and strategic demands of the task. Focusing on development of cross-cultural competencies as a performance goal we highlight the dimensions most important for assessment, focusing on self- and relationship management competencies. Regarding cross-cultural adjustment, we offer a more precise and nuanced approach which accounts for the person-environment fit in the context of working in cultural novelty.
Keywords
In 1997, “Expatriate Success: Beyond Just Being There” was published. At that time, it had not even been a decade since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Global foreign direct investment inflows had increased for the seventh year in a row and outflows for the third year in a row (Mallampally and Sauvant, 1999). During that period, the focus for multinational enterprises (MNEs) was, rightly so, on growing the firms’ global footprint. To accomplish this expansion, MNEs engaged in global mobility of talent, sending expatriates (or international assignees) to different parts of the world to execute on plans for strategic growth. The number of expatriate assignments expanded rapidly during this period as technically oriented employees were relocated to different countries to fill skill gaps that were not available (or perceived to not be available) in the host country. Managers were relocated to different countries from headquarters to oversee operations, impart a headquarters’ way of doing things, and provide the conduit for cultural synergy by integrating the best of their own business practices with the practices of other cultures (Adler and Bartholomew, 1992; Adler and Ghadar, 1990; Edström and Galbraith, 1977; Harris and Moran, 1987).
Nearly 25 years ago, determining the “success” of globally mobile talent was rudimentary: did the expatriate accept (and remain on) the international assignment? If so, the assignment was deemed to be successful merely because the expatriate employee had completed the assignment. Clearly shortsighted (as it is possible to remain on an assignment without succeeding in it), the field pivoted in the late 1990s to a collective understanding that success for an expatriate was “beyond just being there” and research identified three factors related to expatriate success: (1) completion of the assignment, (2) performance on the assignment, and (3) cross-cultural adjustment while on assignment. In that original 1997 article, using confirmatory factor analysis, three factors, while often treated as a unitary construct, were determined to be distinct constructs. Two of the three constructs, desire to complete the assignment and cross-cultural adjustment, were found to be orthogonal but related, suggesting an overarching construct which measured assignees’ affective response to being on the assignment.
Since this initial research was published, there has been a subsequent over-emphasis on one portion of the criterion space: predicting the assignees’ affective responses to being on an assignment. Specifically, for over two decades, research has tilted more toward investigating the predictors of cross-cultural adjustment, a socio-emotional response, and with less of a focus on either actual task performance or skill development (Caligiuri and Tarique, 2016; Glikson and Erez, 2020; Schlaegel et al., 2021). We believe that the latter is an important direction for future research given that there are different types of assignments with varying performance goals which have diverse predictors of success. To illustrate using the expatriate example, the primary goal of technical international assignments is to successfully backfill skill shortages in a host country, whereas the primary goal of developmental assignments is to successfully acquire cultural agility competencies. Performance success for these two types of assignments should have different performance criteria.
This overemphasis of cross-cultural adjustment has also fostered a disproportionate focus on international assignments, with less emphasis on those individuals who have significant cross-cultural interactions but are not living outside their home countries. Initially, task performance in a cross-cultural context was studied through international assignments (i.e., expatriates’ performance; Caligiuri, 1997). This was particularly relevant in the 1990s when the workplace was less multicultural and, therefore, cross-cultural performance was mainly of interest for MNEs with expatriate employees working abroad. However, professionals today don’t necessarily have to go on assignments in another country to work with people from different cultures and thus successful cross-cultural performance is needed for an ever-increasing number of employees.
The need for a wider definition of cross-cultural performance has been recently underscored by Wildman et al. (2016), who highlight “a lack of research that explicitly focuses on providing an unambiguous definition regarding what constitutes successful performance in cross cultural interactions”. Adopting this focus beyond international assignments, we refer to a broad label of “cross-cultural performance”. This call for knowledge creation in cross-cultural performance, if heeded, will enable our field to be more theoretically comprehensive and practically useful. Recognizing that cross-cultural work is no longer the purview of just international assignees or expatriates, researchers need to consider a multitude of contexts in which cross-cultural interactions, decisions, and behaviors occur.
In this paper, we revisit the earlier research published in 1997 by Caligiuri and examine how the criterion space can be expanded by considering aspects of cross-cultural performance that are broadly relevant across contexts (i.e., whether individuals are on expatriate assignments or working from home with colleagues, clients, or vendors located in a different culture or from a different cultural background) and some aspects that are unique to a specific context, such as international assignment or competency development. To that end, we organize the paper around three specific objectives, each with an associated set of criteria relevant for understanding the full domain of cross-cultural performance.
Our first objective is to propose redefining task performance in a cross-cultural context. Employees today work all over the world, often without leaving their home country (or even their home, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic started (Kaushik and Guleria, 2020)). As these current global trends clearly suggest, cross-cultural performance needs to be considered more generally, regardless of the location of the work.
Cross-cultural performance has become intertwined with general work-related outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors, job satisfaction, career success, and the like. Cultural context has also been the focus in previous literature with constructs such as cultural intelligence (CQ), cross-cultural competencies (3C), cross-cultural adjustment, etc investigated as predictors of work outcomes and attitudes (Rockstuhl and Van Dyne, 2018; Schlaegel et al., 2021). These contributions have mainly focused on the predictors in these relationships, with less development of cross-cultural performance as an outcome.
The goal of this paper is to focus on the construct of cross-cultural performance and, more specifically, identify elements in task and job performance that are unique to a cultural context (as opposed to task and job performance in a domestic context). Therefore, advancing to any role with a cross-cultural reach, the first section of the paper identifies and discusses two criteria that are critical to cross-cultural performance across settings: (1) how accurately employees read the unique contextual demands of a cross-cultural context and (2) how effectively they respond given the contextual and strategic demands of the task.
The second objective of the paper is to emphasize the importance of recognizing how developing cross-cultural competencies can be and often is a goal on its own. When that is the case, the performance criteria should be specific to the developmental context. One such criterion that we discuss in detail in this section is development of cultural agility, or more precisely, how well employees have advanced the competencies of tolerance of ambiguity, resilience, curiosity, perspective-taking, relationship-building, and humility within a cross cultural context.
Our third objective is to advocate for the reframing of cross-cultural adjustment as one aspect of performance. We believe that for those individuals who do need to spend time in another culture, the ability to adjust to living in the new culture is still a relevant aspect of the cross-cultural criterion space. What is needed, however, is to integrate newer theoretical approaches into our existing conceptualization of cross-cultural adjustment. In our third section, we highlight and discuss Hippler’s Person-Environment Fit model (2014b), as an example of the recent work that advances our understanding of the construct and offers a more precise and nuanced definition of cross-cultural adjustment as a performance criterion.
Redefining task performance in a cross-cultural context
With the increasing development and usage of technological means and social media channels to connect with people everywhere in the world, organizations have taken advantage of technology to bring talented individuals across the globe to work together (Connaughton and Shuffler, 2007; Shuffler et al., 2016). This results in an even more multicultural workforce where employees are not necessarily bound by the geographical location, and multicultural teams (i.e., individuals working in the same team with diverse values and beliefs based on their cultural orientation, Von Glinow et al., 2004) are becoming more widespread. Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an increase in virtual work. The percentage of employees worldwide who reported working remotely increased from 15% prior to the onset of the pandemic to over 70% by the end of 2020 (Sava, 2022).
With the heightened level of connection among people around the world, it is not surprising that the Institute for the Future (2020) found cross-cultural competence to be one of the top 10 most critical skills needed in the workforce of the future. This working style, however, poses a variety of challenges for teamwork effectiveness whereby teams are facing the management and execution of shared work plans and tasks across time zones, locations, and cultures (Shuffler et al., 2016). This is further complicated because cross-cultural context is not limited to national culture, but can also include professional, generational, organizational, regional culture, and the like. Thus, as mentioned earlier, parsing out aspects of cross-cultural performance from broader task performance presents a significant challenge for researchers. In our view, for employees operating in this context, effective task performance may be inextricably linked to two cross-cultural performance criteria: (a) knowing how to accurately read the cultural environment, and (b) knowing how to effectively respond to the contextual and strategic demands of the task.
Reading the cultural environment: How accurately do employees read the unique demands of a cross-cultural context?
If individuals do not recognize they are in a culturally novel situation, they cannot possibly select an appropriate cultural response. Unable to perceive any cultural differences, they are likely to respond as if they were in a more familiar context. This failure to account for the cultural context, leads to avoidable mistakes. In contrast, when individuals are equipped with a better understanding of cultural differences, they are more adept at predicting the behaviors of others (Thomas et al., 2008). Thomas and Inkson (2003) referred to this as the outcomes of Cultural Intelligence, which they defined as a type of intelligence that “. . . involves understanding the fundamentals of intercultural interaction, developing a mindful approach to intercultural interactions, and finally building adaptive skills and a repertoire of behavior so that one is effective in different intercultural situations”.
There are several factors that are implicated in effectively reading the cultural environment. The first is having a framework for recognizing and understanding cultural differences. Cultural frameworks are organized around key dimensions (e.g., communication style, preference for individual vs group interests, relationship to authority and power, sense of time); these dimensions help simplify and make sense of the behavioral norms and cultural values of any particular culture. The next factor involves learning about the norms and rules that guide other cultures. Learning the basics of a new culture requires effort and may involve a combination of approaches, from observation to immersion. Finally, one often overlooked factor is understanding one’s own cultural norms and values and the influence they exert on one’s actions (Caligiuri, 2021). Reading and interpreting any cultural context is always done through the observer’s own cultural lens. Being unaware of this dynamic, and thus not accounting for it, will likely result in inaccurate readings. Together, adopting a cultural framework, acquiring knowledge about a particular culture’s norms and values, and possessing self-awareness are critical for accurately reading the cultural environment. This, in turn, is necessary for effectively responding to the contextual and strategic demands of the tasks, and ultimately for performance.
Responding to the cultural environment: How effectively do employees respond to the contextual and strategic demands of the task?
Effective performance in a cross-cultural context means that employees can select an appropriate cultural response and execute it successfully. When responding to the contextual and strategic demands of the tasks, a range of responses are possible, of which some are more appropriate than others for a particular business situation. A multi-dimensional perspective on cross-cultural business situations identifies three specific responses: cultural adaptation, cultural minimization, and cultural integration (Caligiuri and Tarique, 2016). According to this view, one cultural response is not superior to another. Nor are cultural responses part of a stage model, such that someone develops out of one and into another. They are three equally valid situational responses.
In some cases, the appropriate response is cultural adaptation. Cultural adaptation refers to the ability to adapt one’s behaviors to fit the context of the cross-cultural situation. Selecting this response means behaving as others in the cultural context would expect you to behave, even if that would not be your typical behavior. Cultural adaptation can generally be selected as a response for workers in different sectors (e.g., marketing, public relations, sales) as they might need this approach to motivate, persuade, and gain the trust of host nationals or coworkers from different cultures (Caligiuri and Bonache, 2020). Successful cultural adaptation requires learning new behaviors and, in some cases, overcoming the mental resistance to behaving “out of character”.
Cultural minimization, on the other hand, is an appropriate cultural response when there is a necessity to adhere to global standards, ensure operational consistency, or achieve a higher goal, irrespective of the cultural context. Regardless of cultural differences in either people or the environment, the focus is on creating, modeling, and ensuring the acceptance of a common standard. This does not imply that the cultural context is entirely ignored. Rather, cultural differences are reduced through actively socializing behaviors necessary to uphold a standard, regulation, or a value even when they differ from the cultural norms. Cultural minimization is often used by professionals who need to maintain organizational health and safety standards, industry standards, production schedules, ethical norms, and the like (Caligiuri and Bonache, 2020; Caligiuri, 2021). To be effective at cultural minimization, one must master skills in socialization, persuasion, and motivation, and then apply them in a culturally nuanced way.
The third possible response, cultural integration, is required when an entirely new set of norms needs to be created by the group, or for the group. Previous research suggests that cultural integration is a particularly appropriate response for cross-cultural teams, and possibly the best approach for Global Virtual Teams (GVT; Dekker et al., 2008; Earley and Mosakowski, 2000; Glikson and Erez, 2020) and interdependent teams (Miloslavic et al., 2015; Polzer et al., 2002; Swaab et al., 2014; Wildman and Bedwell., 2013). In fact, Earley and Mosakowski (2000) found that, over time, transnational teams functioned best when they established a hybrid team culture that created space for their own norms for interactions, communications, and goal setting, which helped develop a common identity and manage conflicts effectively. When multicultural workgroups form, it is common to observe a group of diverse individuals collectively determine the group’s shared approach to collaboration, setting goals, and creating their own behavioral expectations. In this approach, the focus is not on cultural differences or variations in individual norms. Rather, it is on creating the new norms for the group.
The three possible cultural responses (i.e., cultural adaptation, cultural minimization and cultural integration) might all be needed to a greater or lesser extent by any worker facing tasks within a cross-cultural context (Caligiuri and Bonache, 2020). Being able to execute all three responses and then knowing when to leverage each to achieve desired outcomes represent two critical performance criteria that are relevant across multiple contexts.
Recognizing cultural agility development as a performance criterion
Effective cross-cultural task performance is one of the outcomes of cross-cultural competence (3C), which Wildman et al. (2016) define as the ability to interact successfully with members of unfamiliar cultures. More precisely, according to the Department of Defense (DoD), 3C is defined as, “a set of culture-general knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes developed through a continuing process of education, training, and experience that provide the ability to operate effectively in interactions with other cultures” (Abbe et al., 2007, as cited in Gallus et al., 2014). Most of the 3C literature comes from the studies of expatriates (e.g., Harari et al., 2018), international students (e.g., Bender et al., 2019), global leaders (e.g., Caligiuri and Tarique, 2012), and, more recently, military personnel (e.g., Brenneman et al., 2016). Although progress has been made, there are still considerable challenges associated with the operationalization of the construct and an ongoing debate over what knowledge, skills, and abilities encompass 3C. Additionally, 3C has primarily been studied as a predictor of effective cross-cultural performance and has proven even more elusive when conceptualized as an outcome (e.g., Chiu et al., 2013). That is unfortunate as we believe that developing 3C can be a goal on its own, especially in the training context. However, when considering 3C as an aspect of cross-cultural performance, a more nuanced approach might be needed.
More specifically, we propose that an appropriate performance criterion would involve a mix or combination of cross-cultural competencies, some of which, depending on the situation, would be used simultaneously for maximum effectiveness. In other words, every situation could potentially require a different combination of cross-cultural competencies. We refer to this process of selecting and simultaneously using a suitable mix of cross-cultural competencies as a meta competency - cultural agility. Conceptually, cultural agility is related to both 3C and cultural intelligence as all three constructs are conceptualized in terms of combination of skills, knowledge, and abilities that enable an individual to be effective in a cultural context (for review of cultural intelligence, see Thomas et al., 2008).
Superficially, it may appear that constructs are the same; however, there are several unique aspects of cultural agility which, when combined with 3C and cultural intelligence, provide a more comprehensive approach for understanding an individual’s level of effectiveness in a novel cultural context.
First, cultural agility relates to an ability to draw on a variety of competencies and abilities (including, but not limited to, 3C and cultural intelligence), to articulate the most appropriate response in each cultural situation. As a multi-faceted construct, cultural agility consists of task-management, self-management, and relationship-management competencies (discussed in more detail in this paper). The essence of these cultural agility competencies is that each one has a “recipe”, a mix of knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality traits that combine uniquely for individuals. Undoubtedly, cultural intelligence and 3C are part of that mix; however, individuals with the same expressed level of a given cultural agility competency may have resulted from a different absolute level in each ingredient comprising the competency. In the case of cultural agility, a single individual rarely has a high level of each cultural agility competency. It is more likely that individuals will have their own set of competency strengths and can leverage diverse strengths in situations when they are working in different cultural contexts. Thus, individual cultural agility competencies can be compensatory for one another, and learning how to compensate is part of cultural agility development.
Another distinct aspect of cultural agility is that the focus is on making the right decision for each situation – where not just culture, but also other contextual factors are considered. Unlike cultural intelligence and 3C which exist within, and because of, the cross-cultural context, cultural agility competencies exist independent of a cross-cultural context. In other words, individuals can possess cultural agility competencies (e.g., humility, resilience, tolerance of ambiguity) and even develop these competencies without ever experiencing a novel cross-cultural situation. Thus, the competency aspect of cultural agility (unlike the cultural responses), although leveraged in a cultural context, is independent of it. Cultural intelligence and 3C exist within the cultural context, facilitating the ability to accurately read culturally novel environments. It is through a dynamic process of leveraging cultural competencies to accurately read and effectively respond to the demands of a culturally novel environment that cultural agility development occurs, and cross-cultural performance is enhanced (see Figure 1). The development process for effective cultural responses and task performance.
Finally, cultural agility, more so than 3C and cultural intelligence, reflects the dynamic nature of cross-cultural interactions, as professionals need to continuously evaluate and select potential cultural responses and shift their approach based on a good understanding of the context, and by employing a range of more specific cross-cultural competencies (Caligiuri, 2021; 2021). Ultimately, cultural agility represents an ability to seamlessly vary contextual responses (i.e., adaptation, minimization, or integration) to achieve maximum effectiveness in a given situation (Caligiuri and Caprar, 2022). In other words, just as physical agility involves the ability to move quickly and easily, without losing one’s balance, cultural agility is the ability to recognize, assess, and respond appropriately within a cultural context, without losing one’s figurative cultural “balance”. As with physical agility, everyone is born with baseline competencies that then must be developed through practice. By actively developing those competencies, one can increase culturally agile. The process of cultural agility development itself is an iterative and purposeful combination of (1) cultural awareness, (2) cross-cultural competencies, and (3) cultural experiences. Next, we discuss each of the aspects of cultural agility in more detail.
Cultural awareness
As mentioned previously, if individuals do not recognize when they are in a culturally novel situation, they cannot possibly respond in a culturally appropriate way. From the lens of cultural intelligence, being mindful of the cultural context enables individuals to draw on their knowledge of cultural differences and behave in a culturally consistent manner based on their behavioral repertoire (Thomas, 2006). Thus, the knowledge facet of cultural intelligence is closely tied to cultural awareness. Cultural awareness involves, in part, adopting a cultural framework to understand how cultures can differ, which implies knowledge about other cultures as well as one’s own. For example, when someone who adheres to protocol and etiquette, uses professional titles and dresses more intentionally, it is likely they come from a formal culture (Caligiuri, 2021). Other cultural dimensions include individual versus group interests, transactional versus interpersonal relationships, direct versus indirect communication, fluid versus controlled time, external versus internal control, balance versus status motivation. Each dimension is measured on a continuum, such that cultures or people with a similar combination of dimensions may, in fact, be quite different because of where they fall on each dimension. Thus, it is important to not make generalizations about any given individual based solely upon their membership in a given culture or group.
Cultural awareness works together with cross-cultural competencies. For example, humility, discussed in more detail below, is a key relationship-management competency, but how it is exhibited matters. In cultures with hierarchical structures as opposed to egalitarian structures, leaders are expected to provide direction and asking for recommendations would be perceived as a sign of weakness (Caligiuri, 2021). Awareness can be increased by leveraging at least two cross-cultural competencies: tolerance for ambiguity and curiosity (Caligiuri, 2021), to which we turn to next.
Cross-cultural competencies
As mentioned earlier, there are three sets of competencies - task management, self-management, and relationship-management - that collectively enable culturally agile individuals to be effective in a cultural context. With respect to work, we already discussed task-management competencies (i.e., cultural adaptation, cultural minimization, and cultural integration) in the context of cross-cultural performance. In the following section, we turn our attention to how developing cross-cultural competencies can be - and often is - a goal on its own. In that developmental context, cross-cultural performance criteria should include how well employees have advanced both their self-management (tolerance for ambiguity, resilience, curiosity) and relationship-management competencies (humility, relationship-building, perspective-taking) within a cultural context.
Self-management competencies
A critical aspect of cultural agility is the ability to manage one’s own emotions, reactions, and cognitions, i.e., self-regulate, in cross-cultural situations. There are a number of reasons why bolstering self-regulation and developing self-management competencies is beneficial to those who work in a cross-cultural context. Effective self-regulation has been linked to many important personal and social outcomes, including good mental and physical health, improved adjustment, positive emotional outcomes, and occupational success (e.g., see Baumeister and Vohs, 2018; Vohs and Baumeister, 2004). Additionally, self-regulatory processes are believed to play an important role in the acquisition of complex skills and competencies (Kanfer, 1996), especially those, such as cultural agility, that are acquired, refined, and applied in ambiguous and unpredictable environments. Interacting with another culture often comes with a greater likelihood of experiencing unfamiliar, unexpected, or novel situations. There is considerable evidence that human beings find such experiences stressful, both physiologically and psychologically. For example, research shows that professionals working in another country differ in levels of stress hormones compared to those working in their own country and that these changes can persist for years (Anderzen and Arnetz, 1999). Moreover, living and working as expatriates has also been associated with a higher risk for mental health and substance use disorders when compared to non-expatriate groups (Truman et al., 2011). Therefore, enhancing self-regulation and developing self-management competencies is a way for professionals to buffer against the psychological discomfort and physiological stress that often accompanies cross-cultural experiences and which hinders learning and performance in cross-cultural context. Three self-management competencies that are especially useful in a cross-cultural context are increasing tolerance of ambiguity, resilience, and curiosity.
Tolerance for ambiguity refers to how comfortable a person is with uncertain and ambiguous situations. This dispositional quality has implications for cognitive information processing (i.e., how we categorize, draw conclusions, and make judgments) (Caligiuri, 2021) as well as coping and well-being (Frone, 1990; Yakhnich and Ben-Zur, 2008). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that having a higher tolerance of ambiguity can reduce negative effects of job-related stress caused by uncertainty (Frone, 1990). Although tolerance for ambiguity has a strong biological component, there are strategies that can help increase one’s level of tolerance. For instance, practicing mindfulness, using less hyperbole in conversation, and deliberately slowing down judgment and opinion formation have all been found to make uncertainty more tolerable (Caligiuri, 2021).
Another important self-management competency, resilience, is viewed as an adaptive response in the face of adversity that is aimed at restoring prior levels of functioning (King and Rothstein, 2010; McLarnon et al., 2021). Cross-cultural experiences are often stress-laden because there can be a great deal of unpredictability and a higher risk for mistakes. Thus, having healthy coping strategies that enable an individual to quickly “bounce back” (i.e., handle and overcome challenges) is critical for success and well-being, especially in cross-cultural context. A bonus is that “bouncing back”, expands the personal resources available to the individual in the future (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). This, in turn, bolsters confidence and increases the likelihood that the individual will engage in stretch challenges that are key to increasing cultural agility and competence.
The final self-management competency is cultivating curiosity, as it relates to expanding one’s understanding of cultural differences. In general, curiosity reflects the desire to seek and find answers. While curiosity has a genetic component, aspects of it can be fostered by asking questions, looking for patterns, and seeking explanations for our observations. In that sense, curiosity is an integral part of sensemaking, a process by which people infer meaning and decide on the future course of action (Weick et al., 2005). Sensemaking starts with curiosity and evolves with constant questioning and active adaptation of existing interpretations, all of which are critical in complex environments and unfamiliar contexts (Griffith et al., 2016). When applied to cross-cultural settings, curiosity is often expressed through an active interest in learning about and engaging with other cultures. Besides being one of the key drivers of sensemaking, research has also shown that curiosity heightens creativity and improves problem-solving (Hagtvedt et al., 2019), thus offering broad career-enhancing benefits. Interestingly, curiosity has also been associated with having more engaged relationships, as people that are naturally curious tend to express sincere interest in getting to know others (Kashdan et al., 2013). This desire to learn about another culture is the foundation for both acquiring culture-general and culture-specific knowledge and also for developing a deeper understanding of interpersonal dynamics, the hallmarks of culturally agile professionals.
Relationship management competencies
Whereas self-management competencies are focused on managing one’s own state, relationship-management competencies are focused on managing relationships with others through humility, relationship building, and perspective-taking. In the context of cross-cultural work, developing relationship-management strategies requires mastering both the behaviors inherent in the competency and the capacity to adapt such behaviors to align with cultural norms of a specific culture.
For instance, one of the relationship-management competencies is humility. Humility is believed to be a cognitive and motivational competency that has been associated with more effective leadership and improved team processes (Hess and Ludwig, 2020; Kerr, 2017; Ou et al., 2018). It is gained through experiences, socialization, and learning. However, in cross-cultural situations, being humble is only the beginning of a positive cultural interaction. In fact, how you express humility is equally important. The expression of humility needs to be aligned with culturally appropriate norms. Thus, effective use of humility requires understanding of the cultural context (i.e., cultural awareness) and the ability to adjust behavior to meet cultural expectations (i.e., knowing how to effectively respond to the contextual and strategic demands of the task).
Relationship building is another critical competency in cross-cultural setting that can pay significant dividends throughout one’s career. Engaging and having positive interpersonal relationships with people from different cultures increases understanding, bolsters social support, and strengthens the professional network (Caligiuri, 2021). For those to whom it does not come naturally, however, it can be a challenging competency to develop because it requires overcoming an innate tendency to shy away from many social interactions. However, research has found that introverts can learn to appear more social if their work demands it, effectively becoming “socialized extraverts” (Furnham, 2018). Some of the recommended strategies to develop relationship-building competency in cross-cultural settings include consciously increasing proximity, frequency, and duration of interactions, looking for similarities to connect early on, and using positive, engaging communication in interactions with colleagues (Caligiuri, 2021). The caveat, of course, is that every culture has its nuances when it comes to personal space, greetings, use and meaning of silence, self-disclosure, etc. As mentioned earlier, the second step in increasing one’s relationship-management competencies is adapting interpersonal behaviors to align with cultural norms.
Finally, perspective-taking is a critical relationship-management competency that refers to the ability to understand how a situation appears to another person. Being able to put oneself “in another person’s shoes”, so to speak, can give critical insight into how that person might be reacting to a situation, both emotionally and cognitively. Perspective taking has clear benefits across contexts, from personal relationships to business interactions. However, in cross-cultural settings, perspective taking can be especially challenging. The ability to imagine how someone else feels is rooted in our ability to accurately interpret facial cues, tone of voice, and nonverbal language, all of which might have a different meaning depending on the culture in which a person was socialized. Research has shown that not only are people the most accurate at interpreting the positive and negative emotions of people from the same culture, but empathetic accuracy peaks when around those who are demographically similar (e.g., age, profession, race, sex) (Neumann et al., 2013). However, perspective taking is a skill that can be practiced by deliberating, slowing down interpretations, forming alternative interpretations, and engaging in active listening.
It is important to note that we are not suggesting that these competencies are unique to the cross-cultural context. They have clear benefits across a multitude of contexts, and in most, if not all, segments of life especially those where one experiences situations of novelty. What we are arguing is that possessing a level of baseline competencies enables individuals to engage in “broaden and build” (Fredrickson, 1998). In this sense, these competencies enable one to experience more positive states in a cross-cultural context to engage more adaptive functions and further develop their cross-cultural competencies. When someone with higher levels of baseline cross-cultural competencies engages in meaningful cross-cultural experiences, their competencies are practiced, fine-tuned, developed, and effectively applied in a cross-cultural setting. Unfortunately, too many organizations consider merely being in a multicultural environment as sufficient to acquire cross-cultural competencies. That is certainly not the case. Exposure does not automatically translate into the ability to perform. It takes a deliberate and iterative process of exposing employees to experiences that are suitable for their specific level of self-awareness and baseline competencies for cultural agility to begin to take shape.
Cultural experiences
Cultural experiences, whether they involve spending time with people from other cultures or spending time in another country, have an enormous potential to be highly developmental and often serve as a spark that ignites a life-long interest in culture. As noted, they are not in and of themselves enough to develop cultural competence or build cultural agility (Berg et al., 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2013). In some cases, mere exposure to a culture can backfire. For instance, having negative stereotypes about a group has been found to interact with exposure and negatively influence one’s liking of the group (Crisp et al., 2009). Additionally, holding the implicit belief that cultural attributes are fixed and immutable has been found to increase sensitivity to rejection which adversely impacted cross-cultural adjustment and cultural intelligence of international exchange students (Chao et al., 2017).
To benefit from cultural experiences, it is necessary to consider the interaction between the person and the cultural environment. For instance, international corporate volunteers made noticeable gains in cross-cultural competencies only when 1) those with higher pre departure cross-cultural competencies were sent to situations with high contextual novelty, and 2) when those with lower pre departure cross-cultural competency volunteered in situations with low contextual novelty (Caligiuri et al., 2019). Clearly, the research supports that for development to occur, the cultural experiences need to provide opportunities to stretch someone just enough to grow but not so far as to become overwhelmed. In this arena, researchers and practitioners who are interested in development of cross-cultural competencies can draw from what is known about experiential learning in general. Learning effectively from experiences requires self-awareness, forethought and planning, feedback and monitoring (by self or others), and opportunities to frequently reflect on the experiences (Griffith et al., 2016). When these behaviors are practiced routinely, they have the potential to transform cultural experiences into cultural agility.
People often view the number of countries someone has visited or even lived in to be an indication of cultural agility and cross-cultural competency. However, breathing the air of another country does not necessarily lead to deep and meaningful cultural experiences (Caligiuri, 2021). For cultural experiences to be meaningful, they need to include high-quality interactions that come from collaborations with peers from different countries and cultures. In light of this, companies should assess and strive to help employees in multicultural environments develop cultural agility even if they are not on an international assignment. This is especially true for organizations that are building their global presence where cultural agility will be needed at a higher rate than the available international assignments would allow. To sum up, we propose cultural agility should be part of the criterion space of cross-cultural performance within the developmental.
Reframing cross-cultural adjustment
Similar to task performance and 3C, adjustment to cross-cultural situations has also been investigated through employees’ global mobility and expatriates’ assignment overseas (Black, 1990; Church, 1982; Heenan, 1970; Anderzen and Arnetz, 1999). Within this context, living abroad and out of one’s comfort zone leads to stress and discomfort, which has previously been referred to as culture shock (Oberg, 1960). Successfully overcoming this discomfort reflected the extent to which expatriates were cross-culturally adjusted (Black, 1990). This is similar to acculturation, wherein immigrants to a new country “change their cultures and behaviors in various ways and eventually adapt to living interculturally” (Berry and Hou, 2021: p. 142). In fact, cross-cultural adjustment has been conceptualized as the degree to which expatriates feel psychologically comfortable in the new hosting country (Black and Gregersen, 1991). As discussed earlier, expatriates also face physiological reactions which make the cross-cultural experience more demanding (Anderzen and Arnetz, 1999). Therefore, given the challenges of working in a new environment, it is crucial to examine cross-cultural adjustment as a part of the performance space (Caligiuri and Bonache, 2016).
Earlier measurement and theory: Black’s model and its criticism
The predominant and most cited paradigm of adjustment in the expatriate literature is Black’s (1988) three-facet framework for adjustment. This model consists of three dimensions: (a) general, (b) interaction, and (c) work adjustment. The first facet (i.e., general adjustment) is the overall adjustment that one goes through while living in a foreign country, leading to ultimately becoming accustomed to the “new “, foreign culture (Black, 1988). The second facet (i.e., interaction adjustment) reflects the degree to which one feels comfortable interacting with host country nationals, whether at work or in other social situations (Black and Stephens, 1989). Finally, the third facet (i.e., work adjustment) refers to adapting oneself to the new job tasks, roles, and environment.
This model and its corresponding 14-item scale (Black and Stephens, 1989) have been criticized in previous literature (Brewster, 1993; Hippler et al., 2014a, 2014b; Lazarova and Thomas, 2012) for several reasons. First, the conceptualization of adjustment is based upon Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT; Berger and Calabrese, 1975), which alone, is not sufficient to fully explain cross-cultural adjustment (Benson, 1978; Caligiuri, 1997; Selmer, 2004; Hippler et al., 2014a). The theory posits uncertainty to be at the center of the adjustment process. Specifically, uncertainty is at its peak, at the beginning of encountering a new context. It then decreases over time as expatriates learn the norms and expectations of the host company, and acquire job-related knowledge, information and skills (Berger and Calabrese, 1975; Gudykunst, 1995). With decreased uncertainty, expatriates experience higher levels of cross-cultural adjustment (Ashforth, 2012). However, this might not be the only mechanism through which adjustment occurs. Another factor that could affect adjustment is the expatriates’ openness and/or willingness to adopt these new behaviors (Benson, 1978; Caligiuri, 1997; Selmer, 2004; Hippler et al., 2014a). For instance, the expatriate may understand the cultural norms, and yet, still reject them (Hippler et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Second, it is not clear whether this three-facet solution provides a valid or universal representation of the expatriate experience. That is to say, the underlying assumption that all expatriates perceive these adjustment facets to be equally important should be questioned (Hippler et al., 2014a). Third, by dividing the variable “environment” dichotomously into a work and a nonwork (i.e., general) domain, a third discrete dimension (i.e., interaction) is not readily apparent as it occurs in both work and nonwork domains. This potentially results in overlapping construct dimensions (Brewster, 1993).
Finally, the lack of concrete operationalization of the concept “adjustment”, which is the basis of Black and Stephens’ (1989) scale for measuring cross-cultural adjustment, is an important limitation. Specifically, all 14 items of the measure, which are meant to assess the three different facets of adjustment (i.e., general, interaction, work), refer to the term “adjustment”, without explaining exactly what is meant by it. This leaves the door open for an interpretation bias in which expatriates may interpret the meaning of adjustment differently (Ady, 1995; Hippler et al., 2014a; Haslberger et al., 2014).
Taken together, the validation limitations of Black’s (1988) model and scale exposed the need for a more comprehensive model aimed at overcoming some of the aforementioned challenges. In view of this, the Person-Environment (P-E) relationship (Hippler et al., 2014a, 2014b) has been proposed as a way to address the theoretical gaps of conceptualizing cross-cultural adjustment.
New theoretical lens and measurement: Hippler’s person-environment relationship
The most recent theoretical work in cross-cultural adjustment was started by Thomas Hippler and colleagues (Hippler et al., 2014a, 2014b) and it centers around individually determined facets of adjustment. The authors have adopted the psychological definition of adjustment which is based on the P-E relationship. According to this definition, an individual’s well-being and ability to function across different areas of their life are reflected in their P-E relationship (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). In the case of someone who, for work purposes, has to relocate to another city, country or region, the P-E relationship is affected because some facets of the environment change in the process. In view of this, to fully understand cross-cultural adjustment, one needs to understand the inherent interactions between the individual and the environment (Haslberger et al., 2013). With this lens, the P-E relationship is essential in determining the level of harmony and comfort that individuals may feel when they’re in an unfamiliar context. Whether the employee is on a new mission abroad or is experiencing a cross-cultural situation, either virtually or in person, some aspects of their environment may change which, in turn, requires them to find an equilibrium in the new environment. While there are an infinite number of possible variations in an individual’s environment, what matters in cross-cultural adjustment research is the specific adjustment that comes from being in a new work context (e.g., assignment abroad, virtual distributed team, etc.) as opposed to a single generic type of adjustment that is valid for all individuals and all times (Hippler et al., 2014a). From this perspective, adjustment is examined by looking at how expatriates individually determine the most important dimensions of their host country’s environment when compared to their home country and how they respond to those differences (whether for better or for worse). Consequently, the importance and magnitude of each adjustment dimension depends on the individual and needs to be understood accordingly. For example, the climate in an individual’s home country may not seem to be relevant to cross-cultural adjustment when a person moves to a new country. However, it could be if the individual perceives a change between his or her original (familiar) environment and the new (unfamiliar) one. If an expatriate was living in a moderate climate before the assignment abroad and it did not change in the new country, then climate is not relevant in terms of adjustment. However, if they move from a moderate climate to a tropical one, then they will have to adjust to this new condition, which makes the climate an important variable to be investigated (Hippler et al., 2014b).
To overcome the limitations of Black and Stephens’ (1989) measurement, Hippler et al. (2014b) developed an instrument that: (a) is based on a clear operationalization of the term “adjustment” following Ady’s (1995) criteria, (b) consists of items sampled from the full content domain based on empirically grounded, large-scale, qualitative efforts, (c) takes into account the saliency of different facets of the environment for expatriates, and (d) acknowledges whether the perceived change in the new environment is positive, neutral or negative. The final version of the scale has 35 items and covers 10 dimensions (i.e., work environment, language, job or task characteristics, leisure time, urbanity, work-life balance, living quarters, family life, local friendships, and contact with those left behind). For each item, respondents need to first indicate whether or not they have experienced a change or difference when comparing their previous work environment to their current one. Second, they need to indicate how significant the change was on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 = very insignificant, 4 = very significant), and whether it was perceived positively, neutrally, or negatively.
Inherent in the person-environment fit is the notion that cross-cultural adjustment does not follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach, but rather can vary from person to person, since the salience of environmental facets are specific to the individual (Caligiuri and Bonache, 2016). A good example of such a nuanced approach to examination of cross-cultural adjustment is the longitudinal study by Zhu and colleagues (Zhu et al., 2016). Applying a dynamic framework, they examined within-person variation in adjustment over time as well as between-person differences in distal outcomes. Results of their study suggest that expatriates experience a gradual adjustment over time but that the trajectory of the adjustment is moderated by two resources expatriates bring to their assignment (i.e., previous culture-specific work experience and core self-evaluations). In other words, adjustment can unfold differently from person to person, depending on the resources they bring to the assignment. Their study offered another important insight: expatriates who experience a steeper or faster increase in their adjustment, report better career outcomes within 1.5 years of survey. The authors speculated that this might be due to the significant developmental growth that arises from challenging assignments. Beyond these important insights, the larger point we are trying to make is that, by thoughtfully examining the person × environment interaction, the study offered us a much deeper understanding of cross-cultural adjustment with implications both for theory and for practice.
Conclusion
To cross-cultural management scholars, this call for papers conceptualizing, measuring, and studying cross-cultural performance plays an important role in advancing the field of cross-cultural management. Researchers have long understood that the lack of an agreed upon conceptualization and operationalization makes it challenging to study cross-cultural performance in the organizational context. We wholeheartedly agree that this call to address the “criterion problem” is both timely and necessary to advance the field.
We started this paper by revisiting the state of cross-cultural research 25 years ago, when “Expatriate Success: Beyond Just Being There” was published. As we look back, we are happy to acknowledge that progress has been made. As a field, we have clearly considered a number of additional constructs, contexts, and measures. Yet, the problems of conceptual overlap, and theoretical and methodological issues still persist. To address some of those challenges, in this paper we begin by examining how the criterion space can be expanded to consider which aspects of cross-cultural performance could be relevant across contexts and which ones might be unique to a specific context.
First, we proposed two criteria that we believe are essential to cross-cultural performance across settings, whether individuals are on expatriate assignments or working in a cross-cultural environment from home. Our position is that when work is done in any cross-cultural setting, it is not the content of the job but the context of the job that should be a primary focus. Thus, understanding the context and responding accurately should be at the center of effective cross-cultural performance.
Next, we discussed two performance criteria that could be viewed as unique to a specific context: cultural agility and cross-cultural adjustment. With regard to cultural agility, we propose it should be part of the criterion space within the developmental context. Cultural agility, as a performance criterion, is demonstrated when an individual can select and simultaneously use an appropriate mix of cross-cultural competencies within a given context. The development of cultural agility is a worthwhile pursuit, for its own sake. However, it should be done through a deliberate process that builds on existing cultural awareness and baseline competencies by using cultural experiences that are individually tailored with increasing complexity. Finally, we advocate for the reframing of cross-cultural adjustment when examined as an aspect of performance. Although the construct has been overused, we argue that it is still a relevant aspect of the criterion space for those who need to spend time in another culture. Integrating new theoretical approaches into our existing conceptualization of cross-cultural adjustment can help us leverage decades of research while turning our eyes to the future.
We end as we began, with a nod to our progress over the last 25 years of increasing globalization and a call to further expand our efforts and our research by revisiting the criterion space of cross-cultural performance.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
