Preparing a Globally Competent Workforce: A Mixed Methods Study of an Innovative Co-Curricular University Program

Abstract

Problem

Human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners have long sought ways to develop employees to meet the needs of globalized workplaces. However, given that many employers expect employees to possess global skills before they begin working, it is incumbent upon HRD educators in higher education contexts to develop and implement innovative programs to enrich global competence, which includes the knowledge, skills, experience, and mindset required for global work.

Solution

This mixed methods study describes and explores the efficacy of an innovative co-curricular program, the Global Competence Enrichment Program, designed to enhance the global competence of American and international graduate students enrolled at a higher education institution in the United States through a mutual intercultural learning process.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders include HRD scholars and practitioners as well as organizational leaders interested in designing and implementing HRD programs around global competence enrichment.

Keywords

global competence global workforce human resource development higher education cross-cultural learning

Human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners have long sought ways to develop employees to meet the needs of globalized workplaces (Cseh, 1999; Marquardt & Sofo, 1999). As a result, one of the critical roles of HRD practitioners is to enhance the global competencies of employees in organizations by providing “effective interventions to develop the abilities of global talent” (Kim & McLean, 2012, p. 575). However, estimates have long shown that American companies lose $2 billion annually “due to inadequate cross-cultural guidance for their employees in multicultural situations” (Committee for Economic Development, 2006, p. 6). And recent reports demonstrate that companies in the top quartile in terms of cultural and ethnic diversity outperform those in the bottom quartile by over 30% (McKinsey & Company, 2023). To avoid potential losses and capitalize on the advantages of cultural and ethnic diversity, many employers expect their employees to already possess global skills before starting at the organization. This expectation highlights higher education’s critical role in creating opportunities for students to enrich their global competence and prepare them for the demands of increasingly boundary-spanning workplaces (Byrd, 2022; Cseh & Crocco, 2020; Lilley et al., 2014). It is up to faculty to globalize HRD academic practice to avoid “content-related silos” that can generate ethnocentric graduates who are ill-prepared for global work (Cseh & Crocco, 2020, p. 59). This expectation has led to an increased focus on internationalization in higher education contexts.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this mixed methods study is to explore the efficacy of an innovative co-curricular program, the Global Competence Enrichment Program, designed to enrich the global competence of American and international graduate students engaged in a mutual process of intercultural learning. To address the purpose of this project, the following research questions were investigated:

1. What change, if any, occurred in participants’ global competence throughout the program?

2. How, if at all, do participants articulate their global competence enrichment as a result of the program?

3. How, if at all, do participants’ experiences in the program align with changes in their global competence throughout the program?

To answer these research questions and achieve the study purpose, this article first introduces the literature on internationalization and its connection with global competence in both organizational and higher education contexts. Then, it describes the methodology, findings, discussion, and implications for HRD practice, and offers conclusions.

Internationalization and the Need for Global Competence

The literature framing this study comes from higher education scholarship on internationalization as well as HRD scholarship as it relates to global competence and global workplaces. The relevant literature in each domain is discussed in an integrated way below to demonstrate the connection between these constructs and how they inform the mixed methods approach taken in this article. Given that this study emerges from a problem of practice, we have synthesized the literature within the context of higher education and HRD practice.

The phenomenon of internationalization in higher education has been conceptualized in various ways since it rose to prominence in the 1980s (de Wit & Altbach, 2021; Knight, 2012). In general, internationalization in higher education includes initiatives to promote international interactions both abroad and “at home” (Knight, 2012, p. 27). These activities include, but are not limited to, “study-abroad experiences, curriculum enrichment via international studies majors or area studies, strengthened foreign-language instruction, and sponsorship of foreign students to study on campus” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 293). These three key processes of internationalization of higher education—study abroad, internationally-focused curricula, and foreign student enrollment—each encompasses assumptions and challenges to enhancing global competence in higher education and deserves a more in-depth analysis.

Global competence, a core impetus for internationalization, is characterized as a combination of knowledge, abilities, and personality dimensions that increase one’s effectiveness in cross-cultural and multi-cultural environments (Caligiuri & Santo, 2001). It is defined as “having an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others, leveraging this gained knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment” (Hunter et al., 2006, p. 277). In HRD literature, global competence is a term with many akin constructs, such as intercultural competence, global mindset, and cultural intelligence (Rosenbusch, 2015). Global competencies make up core HRD competencies due to the increasingly global nature of work. Given their complexity, global competencies “need time to develop” and “should be offered in stages over time” (Berdrow & Evers, 2015). Facing these realities, it is not surprising that higher education institutions are seeking to begin developing global competence in students to prepare them for the global workforce through a variety of strategies.

When considering global competence enrichment at universities, studying abroad typically comes to mind. While thoughtfully designed study abroad programs are shown to have an impact on the enrichment of student global competence (e.g., Schenker, 2019), data from 2021-2022 show the number of students who engage in study abroad only represents 1.01% of all students enrolled in higher education institutions in the United States (Institute of International Education, 2023). While this is slightly down from the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, studying abroad is still inaccessible to most American students (Institute of International Education, 2023). This trend is found elsewhere around the world as well (Di Pietro, 2020). The lack of broad access to study abroad has created the need for alternative approaches at universities to create environments for enriching global competence for those students who do not or cannot travel abroad.

A second strategy for internationalization is attracting international students. In the United States, there has been an increased number of international students enrolling in universities, with over one million international students in the 2022-2023 academic year, up from 819,000 in 2012–2013 (Institute of International Education, n.d). The operative assumption in the strategy to attract international students regarding global competence is that having international students on home campuses will create opportunities for meaningful exposure and learning across cultures within the student body. However, research suggests that more than mere exposure is needed to bring about meaningful interaction and formation of relationships among international and domestic students (Groeppel-Klein et al., 2010). In reality, many international students have difficulty adjusting when studying in the United States (Akanwa, 2015) and lack opportunities to engage with American students at their respective universities (Sawir et al., 2008). Furthermore, there is little evidence that American students seek to learn about the international students’ cultures and their approaches to their disciplines (e.g., King & Bailey, 2021; Lee & Rice, 2007; Williams & Johnson, 2011).

A third common strategy for internationalization is promoting cross-cultural learning through intentional changes in university curricula (Leask, 2015). Internationalization can occur through courses with learning objectives related explicitly to cross-cultural communication, learning across cultures, or foreign language development (McDonald & Hite, 2010). In fact, “diversity/global learning” is one of the ten High-Impact Practices highlighted by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (Kuh, 2008, p. 20). Outside of these courses, however, there are few opportunities for American and international students to interact and learn from one another meaningfully. There is evidence of structured assignments in specific courses, such as global communications or intercultural communications, where students from different cultures work in pairs or groups to educate each other about their respective cultures as related to the course content (Leask, 2009, 2015). However, recent research shows that “US students have little lasting access to global themes and perspectives in their classes and thus have limited opportunities to develop global competence” (Majewska, 2023, p. 116). While many have heeded the call of McDonald and Hite (2010) to increase research on diversity in HRD academic curricula, more needs to be done on HRD-related co-curricular activities.

A fourth and increasingly popular component of internationalization is the idea of co-curricular international programs on campus. As noted by multiple researchers (e.g., Abe et al., 1998; Aktas et al., 2017; Burdett & Crossman, 2010; Campbell, 2012; Rose-Redwood, 2010), these programs offer the promise of broadening students’ learning and intercultural perspectives and preparing them for an increasingly globalized economy. Byrd (2022) has emphasized HRD education’s role in elevating diversity and social justice through innovative programs such as student-led conferences. However, our observation and discussion with international students over the past 25 years show that even at university-wide events organized by international offices at universities to celebrate different cultures and bring together the community of students, the participation of American students still needs to be improved. International students from various countries and regions are often seen socializing with other students within their own country or region, which is understandable considering the need for familiarity and comfort away from home. Most American and international students do not have opportunities outside of incidental classroom encounters to learn about and engage with each other’s cultures, develop meaningful relationships, and, in the process, enhance their global competence during their everyday experiences.

Therefore, higher education institutions should not assume that international and domestic students will form meaningful relationships simply through classroom assignments or co-curricular campus activities such as the ones organized by international student offices. Exposure is a necessary component, but more is needed for mutual learning. As noted by Campbell (2012), “the presence of cultural diversity does not automatically lead to intercultural contact” (p. 220). Researchers have noted that some well-intended programs for international students (e.g., having their own dorms, special events, or field trips) actually result in further segregating and isolating them from domestic students, the latter of whom, although invited, typically do not participate in such programs or events (Abe et al., 1998; Burdett & Crossman, 2010; Burdett & Crossman, 2010, 2010; Campbell, 2012; Fang et al., 2015; Rose-Redwood, 2010). Therefore, intercultural exchange and relationship-building between international and domestic students are vital for both groups.

Literature shows a dearth of co-curricular structured programs at universities designed to build meaningful relationships and intercultural exchanges. The few universities that have implemented co-curricular programs to pair international and domestic students for intercultural learning have shown positive results akin to those mentioned above (Abe et al., 1998; Andrade, 2006; Campbell, 2012; Leask, 2009). Thus, there is a need to further explore the impact of structured co-curricular programs designed to enrich the global competence of both international and domestic students.

Research shows that purposefully designed programs that foster meaningful interactions between international and domestic students in higher education institutions can positively impact both groups (Campbell, 2012). For example, benefits for international students include improved English language skills (Andrade, 2006), better adjustment, more satisfaction with the study abroad experience (Sam, 2001), improved coping skills, more acculturation, more robust social networks, lower stress, greater self-efficacy and sense of competence, better emotional health, a sustained local culture orientation, a higher sense of belonging, connectedness (Sawir et al., 2008), more contentment, greater self-knowledge, increased confidence, and increased intercultural competence (Leask, 2009). For domestic students, benefits include challenging assumptions and stereotypes about other cultures, critically examining their own culture and values, increased self-knowledge, greater empathy, cultural sensitivity, open-mindedness, valuable practical experience, and personal satisfaction in working with people from other cultures, as well as increased global perspective and intercultural competence (Andrade, 2006; Campbell, 2012; Leask, 2009; Sawir et al., 2008).

Although there is evidence of such programs, most co-curricular programs rely on a mentorship approach where the mentors are domestic students, which introduces power differentiation. While this approach may strengthen international students’ learning about the domestic culture, it does not necessarily allow for mutual learning across cultures. In response to this need, an innovative co-curricular program, the Global Competence Enrichment Program, was designed and studied at a research-intensive institution in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area based on a philosophy of mutual learning.

Methodology

To achieve the article’s purpose and answer the research questions, this mixed methods study employed a convergent parallel design (quan + QUAL) (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), which means it collected and analyzed both qualitative and quantitative data and then sought to integrate the results of both in a meaningful way to achieve the study purpose. This approach was selected to allow us to “compare statistical results with qualitative findings for a complete understanding of the research problem” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018, p. 68). The study employed a pragmatic philosophical worldview, which is common in mixed methods research (Creswell & Creswell, 2023) and allowed us to “draw liberally from both qualitative and quantitative assumptions” (p. 12). Mixed methods have also been a common approach in researching programs on developmental relationships and mentoring (e.g., Carter et al., 2022; Prieto-Flores et al., 2016). Since this design was non-experimental and did not randomly select participants, it serves as an initial exploration into the efficacy of these programs. It thus does not seek to generalize the results but to allow for their transferability to comparable contexts. We first describe the program before describing the data collection and analysis approaches.

Program Description

The Global Competence Enrichment Program was a voluntary co-curricular program offered by a university based in Washington, DC. The stated objectives of the program for its participants included building cross-cultural and global competence for professional development in a mutual learning environment, participating in a cross-disciplinary community of scholars and learners, applying cross-cultural and global knowledge and skills, immersing in the diverse DC community through a meaningful service-learning project, exploring Washington, DC, through the lenses of other cultures, and contributing to the globalization of the university.

The Global Competence Enrichment Program had the following four components throughout the program: (1) Monthly seminars, led by faculty, on topics related to globalization and intercultural understanding; (2) Mutual learning projects in which student pairs formed by one international and one American student used Washington, DC, as a platform to teach each other about their cultures (by going to festivals, restaurants, concerts, embassies, museum exhibits, family reunions, sporting events, etc.); (3) A group service-learning project in urban Washington, DC, in which students worked with children using violence-prevention discussions, activities, and games; and (4) Reflective discussions and activities related to each of the above three components, including facilitated discussions, interviews, and student journaling. The program’s flow included an orientation meeting with introductions, team building, project overview, pairing of students, and the pre-test of the global competence measurement instrument. While the program was ongoing, pairs were encouraged to plan and participate in intercultural sharing activities in pairs and small groups. A focus group discussion halfway through the program involved reflection on global competence enrichment and the learning process.

The program included a research component to explore the global competence enrichment of the students participating in this structured, co-curricular, mutual learning program. This study was conducted according to the Academy of Human Resource Development (n.d.) Standards on Ethics and Integrity in alignment with the principles of ethical and responsible research conduct. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the host institution, and participants in the program were invited to participate in the research component based on informed consent via an information sheet. No monetary incentives were offered to participate, risks to participation were minor, and all participants in the program were given the opportunity not to participate in the research study. To ensure confidentiality in data analysis and reporting the results, student names and identifying information were replaced with pseudonyms, and all files were stored on password-protected computers. In the reporting of results, no names or identifying information were revealed.

Study Participants

Spanning two years when the program was offered, the program included pairing 12 American and 12 international graduate students (N = 24). This convenience sample of 24 graduate students volunteered to participate in the program and were enrolled because their nationalities, genders, and degree programs allowed for meeting the selection and pairing criteria. Twelve students were international (representing Bolivia, China, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand), and 12 were from different states throughout the United States. Students represented four different master’s degree programs: Human Resource Development, International Education, Higher Education Administration, and Curriculum and Instruction) and two doctoral programs (Curriculum and Instruction and Human and Organizational Learning.) The international and American students were paired based on the following criteria: (a) students at the same degree level, (b) students representing different programs within the school, and (c) students of the same gender. These pairing criteria were employed to minimize potential power differentials, respect the religious practices of some of the students (e.g., cross-gender interaction with people outside one’s family), and maximize mutual learning.

The program focused on graduate students for several reasons. First, graduate students are often concerned with professional preparation and skill development. Second, whereas undergraduates are typically exposed to general education courses, graduate students tend to be more siloed as students of a particular discipline. Last, graduate students also tend to be working professionals, which allows the participants to transfer what they are learning in the program to their workplaces in an organic way. The program was offered over two consecutive years.

Positionality

This study’s design and implementation are situated within the positionalities of the authors (Holmes, 2020). The team of authors included full-time research faculty specializing in international education and HRD. The team also included two graduates of the host institution who served as Graduate Assistants at the time of implementation. In terms of “positionality of place” (Barefield & Crocco, 2023, p. 1), this study took place in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, which is home to many of the world’s embassies and is already somewhat predisposed to internationalization efforts. For example, the percentage of students studying abroad in DC is about three times the national average (Institute of International Education, 2023). However, as noted above, the location where this study occurred is also one where the presence of cultural diversity only sometimes translates into meaningful interactions.

Quantitative Design

After a review of inventories used to assess dimensions of global competence (Cumberland et al., 2016; Rosenbusch, 2015), the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) was selected for this study for its ability to measure changes in participants across four domains—emotional resilience, flexibility/openness, perceptual acuity, and personal autonomy—which are connected to the definition of global competence by Hunter et al. (2006). Developed in 1987 by psychologists Kelley and Meyers (2011) and administered by the training company HRDQ (HRDQ, n.d), the CCAI is a 50-item pre- and post-test questionnaire that has been shown to have “face, content, and construct validity and has an overall reliability of .90” (p. 4). The survey includes items such as, “When I meet people who are different from me, I am interested in learning more about them” (Flexibility/Openness) and “I believe that all cultures have something worthwhile to offer” (Perceptual Acuity). The intended audiences for the CCAI are education, business, and non-governmental sectors (Rosenbusch, 2015).

The 24 graduate students voluntarily completed the pre-test at the beginning of the program and the post-test at the end of the program. This non-experimental survey examined changes in cross-cultural adaptability among the participants in the program. After the students had completed the assessment, the results were entered into the statistical software Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) for data analysis. As recommended by the CCAI, a paired sample t-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in participants’ cross-cultural adaptability between the pre-test and post-test. Prior to running the analysis, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were tested and met. Means, standard deviations, and correlations were also calculated for each of the four domains and a combined score of all 50 items (see Table 1).

Table 1.

CCAI Pre-post Assessment Summary Results.

	Means		SD		Significance
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Corr	2-tailed t-test
All 50 items	4.56	4.74	.40	.30	.637*	.010*
Emotional resilience	4.45	4.72	.52	.33	.607*	.004*
Flexibility/Openness	4.58	4.72	.54	.44	.573*	.151
Perceptual acuity	4.71	4.88	.39	.41	.525*	.038*
Personal autonomy	4.62	4.64	.43	.44	.643*	.753

N = 24.

1 = Definitely not true, 2 = Not true, 3 = Tends to be not true, 4 = Tends to be true, 5 = True, 6 = Definitely true.

*Correlation is significant, 0.05 level (two-tailed) for all pre-post measures.

Qualitative Design

The qualitative portion of this study employed an “interpretive and descriptive qualitative” design (Merriam & Grenier, 2019, p. 7), previously called a “basic interpretive qualitative” design (Merriam, 2002, p. 6). Qualitative data collection methods included semi-structured interviews with individual students, a focus group discussion with each cohort, and student journals. Multiple data collection methods allowed for the triangulation of qualitative evidence (Merriam & Grenier, 2019). The student journals promoted written reflection on their experiences and metacognition throughout the learning process (Moon, 2006). The interview guide was designed deductively to corroborate the data from the CCAI and understand the four domains at the end of the program. The researchers analyzed the qualitative data using the thematic analysis techniques of repetition identification and cutting and sorting (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The researchers coded the data individually and then compared codes and discussed key quotes and emerging themes to ensure inter-coder reliability. Records of all project components were preserved, creating an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The interviews lasted 30–60 minutes, and the focus groups were 45–60 minutes.

Findings

Given the mixed methods convergent design in this study, the findings are divided into quantitative findings, qualitative findings, and integrated findings. The integrated findings explain areas of convergence and divergence between qualitative and quantitative findings.

Quantitative Findings

Table 1 summarizes the pre-test and post-test outcome data of the 24 participants’ overall mean scores for each of the four CCAI categories and an average of all 50 items.

To answer the first research question regarding what change, if any, occurred in participants’ global competence throughout the course of the program, quantitative data across the 24 students showed that the mean pre/post scores went up overall (i.e., across the four domains) as well as within each domain (paired samples t-test, 95% CI). Across the 24 students, gains were statistically significant overall, as well as in the specific areas of Emotional Resilience and Perceptual Acuity.

Qualitative Findings

In answering the second research question regarding how participants articulate their global competence enrichment as a result of the program, qualitative findings varied. There was consensus among participants that they enjoyed the program, were glad they participated, and that they learned more about other cultures. However, when asked which program components did the most to promote the enrichment of their global competence, some students mentioned the experiential components, others the seminars, and others the shared learning activities. The diversity in responses reflects the importance of multi-modality in program design and supports using an approach that includes academic, social, and experiential elements. One of the students referred to the experiential component in their interview:

I think the service-learning started to make me think more about my own duty as a citizen of China. Some days ago, I thought I would grow up, learn something, and then do something good for my family and that’s all of my life. But nowadays, I start to think about, “What can I do for my society to spread peace, to spread love to the country and for the whole world?”

Given that the service-learning activity took place in a low-income neighborhood in the Washington, DC area, another international student reflected on how this was “the first time for me to know the gentrification of DC and the first time I went to such a poor neighborhood or not a nice neighborhood to see how the children or how the children and students live.” This exposure to different ways of life within a single city in the United States opened up conversations and learning about cultural differences within countries. One domestic student reflected on this experience by saying, “In terms of culture… I was able to experience, I would describe it as a culture that I would not usually experience or be exposed to, so that was something I will always remember.”

The seminars also provided opportunities for students to build their global competence. One student shared in the focus group, “I have learned more from the seminars since we are very diverse in cultures. I have gotten to know more about all of you. I think that I have broadened my capacity to understand other cultures.” One of the seminars included visiting a local art museum with an Islamic art exhibit, followed by a group discussion about art and culture. One of the domestic students reflected on that experience by saying, “I thought that was really powerful being in a museum. Learning about calligraphy being an art in the Islamic world was really interesting to me. I did not know very much about that.” This experience opened the door for that student’s international partner, a Muslim, to be interested in Christian art, which sparked an introspective journey for the domestic student. She reflected, “So [going to the church with my international partner] also gave me an opportunity to ask those questions about myself and what is important and what is religiously important to me what is spiritually important to me, and maybe to speculate a little bit how that relates to American culture.” The experience of going to an Islamic art exhibit and discussing the role of culture and art led the domestic student to reflect on the convergence (or divergence) of a Christian church in the United States and American culture.

The seminars included discussions about various topics. As one student recalled, “there would be a question that you would ask how each of us dealt with things like eating or how you give flowers or how you celebrate birthdays.” These allowed students to share their perspectives on familiar topics in a safe space and discuss how they might be the same or different from others based on cultural practices and values. One international student from China reflected on the unique opportunity the discussions provided when compared to her educational experiences back home:

Back in China, I don’t remember any seminar like this, where we sit around a table and talk about our experience or a topic, and everyone has different opinions. We can have our own opinions, and we can have some controversy about our opinions. It’s a very new thing for me because back in China people are afraid of expressing their own opinions because they’re afraid of being different from others or afraid of offending someone.

This ability to express differing opinions in a constructive environment was also shared by a domestic student, who said,

Not being judgmental… Accepting maybe is a good word. Accepting the other person, accepting the other person’s religion and background. So basically accepting. Not necessarily in agreeing because you don’t have to agree; you don’t have to say, “Oh, this is the right way.” No, you don’t have to agree; you can talk about it, discuss it, and accept it.

All the students said the combination of activities was an effective program design, further arguing for an integrative approach.

When asked to define or describe global competence, students gave multi-layered and nuanced definitions. Students’ responses suggest that they view global competence as a combination of attitudes, abilities/skills, knowledge, and experience. In terms of abilities, one student described global competence as “… an ability to adapt to new change – it is an ability to learn from others”, and “…the ability to be – to go out of your comfort zone and somehow even to give a person a chance to know what that person is trying to say.” Another participant expounded more at length about their understanding of global competence:

I would describe global competence as really the ability to, number one, be interested in what is going on in other cultures and be able to not only be affected by it but to be able to communicate and be proactive in getting things done in practical matters... again that ability to question and to be considerate, being probably the top two, to really listen and hear what’s being said and to really be able to react to not only a person’s situation but their – the feeling that comes from their culture, to understand why people are behaving a certain way and to react appropriately.

Another student expounded more on the centrality of asking questions and being curious about others.

Asking questions is a great sign that a person is not trying to jump to conclusions because they want to learn. When they ask questions about cultures or religions, they’re not just basically happy, or they’re not like taking whatever knowledge, previous knowledge, and they’re happy with it. They’re not judging you based on their own experience, they’re trying to create something or confirm maybe or learn more about the other person’s culture, religion, background, ethnicity.

Others defined global competence as “having basic knowledge of other countries.” Having knowledge, however, related to this same kind of interest or curiosity in others. The student continued, “Having some type of knowledge about the other person’s background, country, or culture, is also because it means that they are interested and they learn and they try to do some type of research and so that in the future when they meet someone or they travel they have some basic information.”

Students perceived that the program contributed to the internationalization of the university. According to one participant, “…these kinds of programs that promote diversity, I think they’re very important for international students because they are going to come here and feel comfortable that their culture is going to be respected as all the other cultures and that they will be able to study at a university that values diversity in terms of ideas.”

Integrated Findings

As we integrated the findings to answer the third research question regarding alignment between qualitative and quantitative data using a joint display table (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), we found that the qualitative findings largely paralleled survey results (see Table 2). We also found, however, that where quantitative results were not statistically significant, there were still excerpts from the qualitative data that reflected deep learning in those dimensions.

Table 2.

Joint Display Table.

Global competence dimension	Quantitative results	Related qualitative extract
Emotional resilience	Statistically significant increase	“[D]uring the group it was nice to get to talk to everyone together in the group. I think it was a really good environment. I think everyone felt comfortable in it, so I think that was good, the interactions felt good, safe. Yeah and then as the program went on just deepening the relationships.”
Flexibility/Openness	No statistically significant increase	“[Partner] and I went hiking. How we both thought similarly and differently with the experience, that was really interesting to talk about that and see because I’ve never really thought to question how I view hiking or even think about a cultural possibility of the way we view hiking.”
Perceptual acuity	Statistically significant increase	“I’m better at overcoming a fear of awkwardness due to a misunderstanding and that understanding that humor can cross languages and there are other things that like, we will figure this out, even if it takes a few tries language wise, instead of, I’m going to avoid that because that’s scary.”
Personal autonomy	No statistically significant increase	“One of our pair activities with [Partner], we went to the church, then we visited Eastern market here and then we wanted to have Persian food but the restaurant was closed so we just had regular food but then we talked about poetry, and, I mean Persian poetry, and then we looked at the books from the book store, so for me it was experiencing both cultures at the same, and I really liked that day.”

The qualitative data provided additional insight in cases where the CCAI results did not show the domains of Flexibility/Openness and Personal Autonomy having a statistically significant increase throughout the program. A few students said participation made them realize they were less culturally open and competent than they thought. One of the students noted, “Before the pre-session I think the third question is about: ‘Do you feel confident to work with people from other cultures? And I said, ‘Definitely true.’ But post-session, I said, ‘no, it’s not tended to be true’ because now I feel…it’s hard to actually work with people from another country.” This finding shows the value of a mixed methods approach in this study, which illuminated that some students may have overinflated their sense of openness on the CCAI when assessing themselves at the program’s start. Then, throughout the program, students gained a more realistic understanding of the challenges associated with developing global competence. This issue also demonstrates the significance of reflection and learning about oneself, as expressed by the participants.

Discussion

Given the importance of global competence in HRD students’ professional lives as leaders, change agents, or designers of learning environments (Cseh & Coningham, 2012) and their personal lives as members of a global society, higher education programs play a major role in preparing students for the global workforce. Study findings support the idea that including cognitive, affective, and experiential components, engaged learning, service-learning, and significant reflection opportunities offer promise for enriching global competence. Therefore, a clear point of discussion in designing and implementing comparable programs is the integral role of multiple modalities. Given that employers often expect new employees to already have global skills upon starting their jobs, they will likely look toward graduates of universities with a reputation for internationalization, which further highlights the importance of varied approaches to global competence enrichment, such as through innovative co-curricular programs in addition to curricular interventions.

The operative assumption is that internationalization and meaningful cross-cultural exchanges will emerge if many international students are present on campus. However, the literature suggests that some international students struggle with social integration (Rienties et al., 2012). The findings of this study show that innovative co-curricular programs that focus on global competence enrichment can be a targeted approach in this endeavor. The model of pairing international and domestic students directly addresses the tendency of students to spend time mostly with people of similar cultural backgrounds. Then, adding seminars and personalized learning around culture promotes conversations and mutual learning through interaction within these pairs.

Internationalization is often understood as the number of students or programs involved in internationally-focused endeavors. However, this narrow perspective neglects to appreciate how students are learning about other cultures or the depth of cross-cultural learning. While having people attend an international food festival – a common internationalization tactic – has been shown to support openness to new foods (Organ et al., 2015), this only addresses superficial cultural learning and does not go into a deeper understanding of how cultural value dimensions play out in society. Furthermore, programs like the one described in this study are designed to facilitate high levels of interaction and mutual learning across cultures. This may not occur in internationalization efforts designed around curriculum changes if the students within the class are culturally homogeneous. Since assessing the internationalization of a university is typically done by calculating the number and presence of these programs and not by clear markers of quality and implementation, a point of discussion and policy recommendation is that universities employ more sophisticated methods of assessing global competence enrichment on campus through the collection and analysis of data as opposed to merely calculating number of participants.

This study’s findings have centered on the role of program philosophy and design when investigating these co-curricular programs. The program in this study was guided by a philosophy of mutual learning, in which each participant’s perspective was legitimized. This design differentiates it from other programs that use a typical mentoring structure (Binder et al., 2013), which immediately creates power distance and where some perspectives and paradigms are privileged over others. This is also true for student-led groups where selected students are in power positions over others. We know from the literature that gender, career stage, and power distance can influence outcomes in mentoring relationships (Ghosh et al., 2020; Ramaswami et al., 2014; Waight & Egan, 2022), so a program philosophy and design that mitigates these influences will maximize mutual learning. For cross-cultural dyads, face-to-face interaction provides the highest degree of “interactional richness” (Waight & Egan, 2022, p. 377).

Not only do students conceptualize their own global competence differently over time, but research shows that how students conceptualize global competence varies (Odag et al., 2016). Our data showed that some students emphasized different components of global competence to varying degrees. This variation shows the complexity of global competence enrichment and how it evolves over time.

Implications for HRD Practice

Preparing employees for the global workforce cannot be distilled into an isolated activity but rather is a lifelong learning process required to enhance global competence continuously. This study shows the need for innovative programs carefully designed to enrich global competence through mutual learning of individuals from different cultures studying together in a university setting. Multiple components, such as service learning, allow for unique opportunities to build global competence through local community outreach and collective and individual reflection in action and on action. However, the implications of this study should not be limited to higher education contexts.

Professionals working in organizations and communities, in addition to higher education professionals and faculty members, should design learning environments that allow for mutual learning and reflection across cultures. To do so, however, requires more opportunities and funding for professional development for those tasks with leading these types of innovative global and diversity-related programs (Cseh & Crocco, 2020; McDonald & Hite, 2010). Organizational leadership needs to send the message to all members of the organization that they value global competence by providing incentives and rewards for innovation around global competence development. In higher education contexts, one way to do this in an innovative way that would capture the benefits of curricular and co-curricular programs would be to offer a university-level certificate in global competence that would include curricular, co-curricular, and service-learning components. If a student completed a series of activities related to global skill development, they would receive this prestigious certificate upon graduation in addition to their diploma. In professional contexts, HRD managers could design programs around participating in global experiences that would capitalize on existing ethnic and cultural diversity within the organization and reward workers for engaging in meaningful mutual learning. A professional program such as this could pair employees could leverage mutual learning within the organization by pairing employees from different cultural and/or ethnic backgrounds. Or, in the case of more culturally homogenous organizations, pairs could be arranged between employees and community members or relevant stakeholders of different cultural backgrounds to cultivate those cultural skills within the organization.

As HRD practitioners and scholars seek to further understand the value of global competence for campuses and workplaces, there is also a need for follow-up studies to identify the many processes and mechanisms that facilitate global competence enrichment as a lifelong learning process of both higher education professionals and the people they serve. Given the performance-related impact of cultural and ethnic diversity in organizations (McKinsey & Company, 2023), leaders should be quick to ensure that employees understand the value of global skills within their organization so that diversity becomes a point of pride and competitive advantage.

Limitations

Regarding the methodology employed in this study, there are limitations involved with using a repeated measures design. Since the pre-and post-tests were administered five months apart, there is the potential for response-shift bias, i.e., “when the experimental intervention changes the subject’s evaluation standard for the dimension measured” (Howard, 1980, p. 93). In the case of this study, participants might have said some items, such as “I have a realistic perception of how others see me,” were true for them during the pre-test. However, upon participating in the program, they may have realized that item only tends to be true for them. This occurred in this study when one participant reflected during her interview on her shifting perspective about her degree of openness throughout the study. This highlights the value of a mixed methods approach, which can “determine in what ways the results confirm, disconfirm, or expand each other” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018, p. 222). In this case, if the study were only quantitative, readers would be compelled to see no statistically significant increase in openness/flexibility due to participation in the program. However, with the addition of qualitative data, we see more nuance emerge in interpreting these data regarding how program participants reflect on their perceptions of themselves over time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this mixed methods study points to the value of multi-modality in programs designed to cultivate global competence. Furthermore, the findings suggest that using a diversified approach that includes academic, social, and experiential elements provides the space for diverse learners to engage in mutuality. Throughout the program, the participants were empowered in their pairs to lead and teach their partners about their cultures by choosing the appropriate cultural activity in the Washington, DC, area. This cultivated an environment of mutuality in the global learning environment. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, even virtually, it is important for leaders in academic programs to design activities and programs that will prepare the workforce for these global realities by leveraging mutual learning.

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.

ORCID iD

Oliver S. Crocco

Author Biographies

Maria Cseh is an Associate Professor in Human and Organizational Learning (HOL) and Director of the HOL Doctoral Program at the George Washington University, USA. Her research interests include informal and indigenous learning, organizational development and change, global leadership, and the development of global mindset and cultural competence that will help leaders and change agents address the increasingly complex issues facing our world.

Oliver S. Crocco is an Associate Professor and the Associate Director of the School of Leadership and Human Resource Development at Louisiana State University. His research focuses on international adult learning and workforce development, adult development and critical reflection, and global leadership. He serves as the Associate Editor for Human Resource Development Review and on the editorial boards of Advances in Developing Human Resources and Human Resource Development International.

Laura Engel is a Professor of International Education and International Affairs, George Washington University, and co-chair of the UNESCO Chair in International Education for Development. As a policy sociologist, her interests focus on the effects of global education policy trends, including education for global citizenship and sustainable development, in national systems. In 2023–24, she was a Fulbright Scholar in Costa Rica. Dr. Engel earned her PhD from the University of Illinois.

Joseph Follman served and worked in national service for nearly thirty years, including directing the Learn & Serve America program in Florida for 18 years and then working at the Corporation for National and Community Service to support Senior Corps and AmeriCorps programs. He has over thirty publications, and his research and writing focus on service learning, volunteer management, and leadership. He also taught masters- and doctoral-level courses at George Washington University.

References

Abe

Talbot

D. M.

Geelhoed

R. J.

(1998). Effects of a peer program on international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39(6), 539–547.

Academy of Human Resource Development . (nd). Standards on Ethics and integrity (2nd ed.). https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ahrd.org/resource/resmgr/bylaws/AHRD_Ethics_Standards_(2)-fe.pdf

Akanwa

E. E.

(2015). International students in western developed countries: History, challenges, and prospects. Journal of International Students, 5(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i3.421

Aktas

Pitts

Richards

J. C.

Silova

(2017). Institutionalizing global citizenship: A critical analysis of higher education programs and curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316669815

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542

Andrade

M. S.

(2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240906065589

Barefield

Crocco

O. S.

(2023). Positionality of place: Calling attention to the role location plays in HRD research. Human Resource Development International. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2023.2293625

Berdrow

Evers

F. T.

(2015). Competence: Bases for employee effectiveness. In Chalofsky

N. E.

Rocco

T. S.

Morris

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 201–2014). Wiley.

Binder

Schreier

Kühnen

Kedzior

K. K.

(2013). Integrating international students into tertiary education using intercultural peer-to-peer training at Jacobs University Bremen, Germany. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v1i2.170

10.

Burdett

Crossman

(2010). “Checking the pulse”: The international student experience and social engagement across Australian universities: Reflecting on AUQA feedback to Cycle 2 reports. Journal of International Education in Business, 3(1/2), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/18363261011106885

11.

Byrd

M. Y.

(2022). The diverse voices conference: A model of diversity and social justice education beyond the classroom. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 24(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223211057326

12.

Caligiuri

Santo

V. D.

(2001). Global competence: What is it, and can it be developed through global assignments? Human Resource Planning, 24(3), 27–35.

13.

Campbell

(2012). Promoting intercultural contact on campus: A project to connect and engage international and host students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(3), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311403936

14.

Carter

A. D.

Sims

C. M.

Hutchins

H. M.

Williams

(2022). Coaching the imposter: Developing emerging leaders as they negotiate identity and imposter concerns. In Ghosh

Hutchins

H. M.

(Eds.), HRD perspectives on developmental relationships (pp. 64–95). Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Committee for Economic Development . (2006). Educating for global leadership: The importance of international studies and foreign language education for US economic and national security. https://www.ced.org/pdf/Education-for-Global-Leadership.pdf

16.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

18.

Cseh

(1999). The impact of globalization on managerial learning: The case of Romania. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(4), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/152342239900100406

19.

Cseh

Coningham

(2012). Working in multicultural and multilingual environments: HRD professionals as learning and change agents in the global workplace. In Wilson

J. P.

(Ed.), International human resource development: Learning, education and training for individuals and organizations (3rd ed., pp. 297–309). Kogan Page Limited.

20.

Cseh

Crocco

O. S.

(2020). Globalizing HRD academic practice: Developing a global mindset for teaching and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 22(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422319886288

21.

Cumberland

D. M.

Herd

Alagaraja

Kerrick

S. A.

(2016). Assessment and development of global leadership competencies in the workplace: A review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645883

22.

de Wit

Altbach

P. G.

(2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898

23.

Di Pietro

(2020). Changes in socioeconomic inequality in access to study abroad programs: A cross-country analysis. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 66, Article 100465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2019.100465

24.

Fang

Clarke

Wei

(2015). Empty success or brilliant failure: An analysis of Chinese students’ study abroad experience in a collaborative master of education program. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315587106

25.

Ghosh

Hutchins

H. M.

Rose

K. J.

Manongsong

A. M.

(2020). Exploring the lived experiences of mutuality in diverse formal faculty mentoring partnerships through the lens of mentoring schemas. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21386

26.

Groeppel-Klein

Germelmann

C. C.

Glaum

(2010). Intercultural interaction needs more than mere exposure: Searching for drivers of student interaction at border universities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.02.003

27.

Holmes

A. G. D.

(2020). Researcher positionality: A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232

28.

Howard

G. S.

(1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x8000400105

29.

HRDQ . (nd). Cross-cultural adaptability inventory. https://hrdqstore.com/products/cross-cultural-adaptability-inventory

30.

Hunter

White

G. P.

Godbey

G. C.

(2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306286930

31.

Institute of International Education . (n.d.). International students. https://opendoorsdata.org/data/international-students/

32.

Institute of International Education . (2023). US study abroad for academic credit trends. Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange. https://www.opendoorsdata.org/

33.

Kelley

Meyers

(2011). Cross-cultural adaptability inventory manual. Vangent, Inc.

34.

Kim

McLean

G. N.

(2012). Global talent management: Necessity, challenges, and the roles of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(4), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422312455610

35.

King

C. S. T.

Bailey

K. S.

(2021). Intercultural communication and US higher education: How US students and faculty can improve. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 82(6), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.04.007

36.

Knight

(2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In Deardorff

D. K.

de Witt

Heyl

Adams

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). Sage.

37.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.edu/

38.

Leask

(2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308329786

39.

Leask

(2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge.

40.

Lee

J. J.

Rice

(2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3

41.

Lilley

Barker

Harris

(2014). Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mind-set. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(3), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314547822

42.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc.

43.

Majewska

I. A.

(2023). Teaching global competence: Challenges and opportunities. College Teaching, 71(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2027858

44.

Marquardt

M. J.

Sofo

(1999). Preparing human resources for the global economy. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(4), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/152342239900100403

45.

McDonald

K. S.

Hite

L. M.

(2010). Diversity in the HRD curriculum: Concluding thoughts and next steps. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375032

46.

McKinsey & Company . (2023). Diversity matters even more: The case for holistic impact. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matters-even-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact#/

47.

Merriam

S. B.

(2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

48.

Merriam

S. B.

Grenier

R. S.

(2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

49.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

M. A.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

50.

Moon

J. A.

(2006). Learning journals: A handbook for academics, students and professional development. Kogan Page.

51.

Odag

Wallin

H. R.

Kedzior

K. K.

(2016). Definition of intercultural competence according to undergraduate students at an international university in Germany. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315587105

52.

Organ

Koenig-Lewis

Palmer

Probert

(2015). Festivals as agents for behaviour change: A study of food festival engagement and subsequent food choices. Tourism Management, 48(10), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.021

53.

Prieto-Flores

Feu

Casademont

(2016). Assessing intercultural competence as a result of internationalization at home efforts: A case study from the nightingale mentoring program. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(5), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316662977

54.

Ramaswami

Huang

J.-C.

Dreher

(2014). Interaction of gender, mentoring, and power distance on career attainment: A cross-cultural comparison. Human Relations, 67(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713490000

55.

Rienties

Beausaert

Grohnert

Niemantsverdriet

Kommers

(2012). Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity, academic and social integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9468-1

56.

Rosenbusch

(2015). Intercultural competence and HRD. In Poell

R. F.

Rocco

T. S.

Roth

G. L.

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to human resource development (pp. 592–605). Routledge.

57.

Rose-Redwood

C. R.

(2010). The challenge of fostering cross-cultural interactions: A case study of international graduate students' perceptions of diversity initiatives. College Student Journal, 44(2), 389–399.

58.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

59.

Sam

D. L.

(2001). Satisfaction with life among international students: An exploratory study. Social Indicators Research, 53(3), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007108614571

60.

Sawir

Marginson

Deumert

Nyland

Ramia

(2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299699

61.

Schenker

(2019). Fostering global competence through short-term study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 31(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v31i2.459

62.

Waight

Egan

(2022). Cross-cultural styles of related and connecting in developmental relationships. In Ghosh

Hutchins

H. M.

(Eds.), HRD perspectives on developmental relationships (pp. 367–394). Palgrave Macmillan.

63.

Williams

C. T.

Johnson

L. R.

(2011). Why can’t we be friends? Multicultural attitudes and friendships with international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.001