Internotronol Journal of Intercultural Relatrons, Vol. 14, pp. 40-424, Prmted in the USA. All rights reserved.

1990

0147-1767/W $3 00 + .W CopyrIght 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS PERCEIVED BY AMERICAN MANAGERS IN SAUDI ARABIA AND FRENCH MANAGERS IN THE U.S.

AS

OZZIE DEAN School of Psychology and Human Behavior, National University

and

GARY E. POPP Graduate School of Business and Management, United States International University
ABSTRACT This study investigated agreement between American managers in Saudi Arabia and French managers in the US. regarding their subjective evaiuation of the importance of I6 personal abilities for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness (ICE). Of these abilities, respondents were asked to select the 5 abilities that greatly facilitate intercultural functioning. Demographic data were collected, as weN as respondents satisfaction with stay in the host culture and degree of intercultural effectiveness. Both groups reported the ability to work with other people and to deal with unfamiliar situations, communication misunderstandings, and changes in life styles greatly facilitate functioning in a foreign culture. They disagreed on the importance of seven other ICE abilities. Results support both a culture-general and a culture-specific interpretation of ICE. Implications of the results for ICE and cross-cultural management were discussed.

INTRODUCTION The increasing globalization of business produces a need for managers to learn to function effectively in another culture. For this reason, an increasing number of multinational companies are training their personnel in intercultural communications. In a foreign environment, Knowing how to listen, how to interrupt, how to praise, and how to scold, are more important to a foreign manager than learning the language (Berger, 1987). When managers fail to adjust to life in another culture, compulsive behavior of one kind or another is often the result: overworking, overeating, overcleaning, overdrinking or smoking, overmedication, overexercise, overthinking, or oversexing (Ratiu, 1988, p. 23). In overseas living, managers often need the acquisition of both effectiveness skills
(which empower the expatriate to translate
U.S. International

his managerial
University,

and technical
Rd.,

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Drs. Gary E. Popp & Ozzie Dean, Graduate
School of Business and Management, San Diego, CA 92131. 10455 Pomerado

405

406

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

competence successfully) and coping skills (which enable a person to become reasonably comfortable, or at least to survive, in a foreign environment (Copeland, 1985). Interestingly, in a study of Canadian technical advisors abroad, Kealey (1989) reported that people who were most technically competent tend to be the least interculturally effective and tend to experience more culture shock. This reinforces the notion that, in terms of adjusting successfully to life in another culture, communication effectiveness is as important as technical effectiveness. One calls for the ability to get a job done, the other calls for the abilities to relate effectively to people of other cultures and become interpersonally and interculturally effective. As Harris and Moran (1983, p. 52) put it Interest in getting things done is not enough. Every human endeavor which involves getting things done calls for attention to both the work that needs to be done and peoples needs in the transaction. The latter is as important as the former because in transferring skills and knowledge to persons in another culture, there is the requirement of getting the job done. However, this requires the ability to get it done in such a way that people feel a part of the completed project and have benefitted from being involved. Too much concern for getting the job done and neglect of people maintenance can lead to failure in transferring skills (1983, p. 52). Global managers today need to learn and practice the coping and effectiveness skills their assignments require (Murray & Murray, 1986). Managers also need to learn flexibility and sincerity in intercultural contacts because flexibility is possibly the most important of the precautions necessary to minimize mistakes and misunderstandings in intercultural relationships. A flexible manager avoids jumping to the usual attributions about people of other cultures when in presence of a strange behavior he doesnt understand (Knotts, 1987). Sincerity also contributes to cross-cultural understanding because a sincere attitude conveys acceptance and empathy which will be received in a trusting, positive manner (Knotts, 1989, pp. 32-33). For enhancing success and minimizing failure living in another culture, the literature on intercultural communication effectiveness suggests that sojourners need to be equipped with a number of personality characteristics and behavior skills, Reviewing this literature with these occupations (Peace Corps, military, technical assistance workers, or overseas businessmen) Kealey and Ruben (1983, pp. 155-175) reported that the same traits are shared by all sojourners. They are empathy, flexibility, tolerance, interest in local culture and people, sociability, kindness, patience, intellectual curiosity, and openmindedness (Kealey & Ruben, p. 165). Given that these groups have very different occupations and living and working conditions, researchers such as Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer (1977), Miller (1972), and Ruben and Kealey (1979) have arrived at a high degree of consensus regarding what factors are related to ICE.

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

407

According to Kleinjans (1972), the effective intercultural communicator: (1) (2) (3) (4) sees people first, representative of cultures second, knows people are basically good, knows the value of other cultures, and has inner security and is able to feel comfortable being different from other people.

Bochners (1973) conception of the effective cross-cultural communicator rested on the notion of mediating man. According to Bochner, some attributes of the mediating man are a belief in the common unity of mankind, cultural relativism of values, cognitive flexibility, membership in international and trans-national social networks, and supra-national reference groups (p. 35). Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer (1977, p. 415) hypothesized a general cross-cultural attitude accounting for cross-cultural effectiveness. This attitude includes 7 factors: (1) open-mindedness toward new ideas and experiences, (2) the ability to empathize with others, (3) accuracy in perceiving differences and similarities between the sojourners own culture and the host culture, (4) nonjudgmental attitudes, (5) ability to be astute noncritical observers of their own and other peoples behaviors, (6) the ability to establish meaningful relationships with people in the host culture, and (7) minimal ethnocentrism. Ruben (1985, p. 339) reviewed the literature on communication competence in the U.S. and identified seven behaviors to account significantly for ICE: (1) display of respect (conveyed through eye contact, body posture, voice tone and pitch), (2) interaction posture (the ability to respond to others in a descriptive, non-evaluative and non-judgmental way), (3) orientation to knowledge (recognizing that ones knowledge, perception and beliefs are valid only for oneself and not for everyone else), (4) empathy, (5) interaction management, (6) tolerance for ambiguity, and (7) self-oriented role behavior (ones capacity to be flexible and to adopt different roles for the sake of greater group cohesion and

408

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

group communication, for example, clarifications, and gatekeeping). One approach to ICE for ICE using American three months (Hammer, dimension/abilities were

initiating

of ideas,

seeking

attempted to specify the most important abilities students who had sojourned in other cultures for Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978). Three important identified:

(1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, (2) the ability to communicate effectively, and (3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. When the Hammer et al. study (1978) was replicated with Japanese subjects touring the U.S.A., Abe and Wiseman (1983) reported five dimension/abilities accounting for ICE: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) the the the the the ability ability ability ability ability to to to to to communicate interpersonally, adjust to different cultures, adjust to different societal systems, establish interpersonal relationships, understand others.

and

Using larger samples of American students who have sojourned abroad, Hammer (1987) confirmed the existence of these dimensions. The purpose of the present study was to find out if American and French managers agree on the importance of 16 personal abilities suggested by a review of the literature as being important for intercultural communication effectiveness.

METHODS

Subjects
The data were collected from 61 American managers in Saudi Arabia and 31 French managers in the U.S. representing, respectively, 17 American companies operating in Saudi Arabia and 16 French companies in the U.S. (Dean, 1986). The managers represented various industries. For the Americans they were: construction & engineering (81%), oil industry (9%), and banking (8%). For the French they were: banking (29%), hotel management (45 %), and manufacturing (25 %). Sixty-four percent of the American and 55% of the French were middle managers (e.g., sales manager) while 36% and 45% of the American and French managers were upper-level middle managers (e.g., vice president of sales and marketing, product development manager, etc.). Furthermore, equal numbers of French and American managers had equal numbers of employees working under them in their respective host countries. The average age was

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

409

46.5 years for Americans and 40.8 years for French. Selection was based on a single criterion: The manager must have lived or has been living in the host culture for at least 6 months. Mean length of stay in the host culture was 4.2 years for Americans and 4.6 years for French. About 51% of American managers and 72.4% of French managers lived three or more years in the host country. Forty-seven percent of American managers were living in Saudi Arabia when the research was conducted. The remaining 53% (32 managers) had to recall past overseas experience in rating their perception of ICE. Of these, 50% left the host country less than a year ago, 41% left the country three years ago, and 9% left the country over three years ago. All of the French managers were living in the host country at the time the research was conducted. Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of 16 abilities suggested by the review of the literature (Hammer et al., 1978) as being important in facilitating functioning in another culture. The 5point scale for each of these ratings ranged from Important (+2) to Unimportant (-2). Subjects were asked (1) to indicate how important each ability was in facilitating their effective functioning in the host culture. (2) to select the 5 most important abilities for ICE, (3) How do (did) you perceive your overall ability to function in the host culture?, and (4) Were you satisfied with your stay in the host culture? Data Analysis 1. For all questions, descriptive statistics (means, percentages, and standard deviations) were applied to discover (a) how American and French managers rated the importance of each ability, (b) Which five abilities collected the highest ratings, (c) how satisfied they were with their stay in the host culture, and (d) how they rated their overall degree of intercultural effectiveness. A tallying procedure was also used to reveal the most and least important abilities for each group based on which abilities collected a rating of +2 (important) and which abilities collected a rating of -2 (unimportant). 2. ANOVA was then used for a comparison of the abilities selected by the American managers with the abilities selected by the French managers. Two types of analyses were undertaken. First, subjects were compared at the single ability level (each ability taken separately). Second, they were compared at the dimensional ability level (2 to 5 abilities taken

410

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

together as a factor because of their similarities in the Abe and Wiseman (1983) study. There is a total of 5 factors (Table 1). The ability to deal with Educational Systems is common to Factor I and IV, and the ability to deal with Changes in Life Styles is common to Factor II and III. They are common because in the Abe and Wisemans (1983) study the abilities to deal with Educational Systems and Changes in Life Styles were found to correlate highly with these Factors.

RESULTS

Satisfaction With Stay in the Host Culture

The majority of American (66%) and French managers (84%) perceived themselves as being highly satisfied with their sojourn in the host culture. When asked How do (did) you perceive your overall ability to function in the host country? 53 % of the American managers rated their overall ability to function in the Arabian culture as high. French managers (48%) rated their ability to function in the U.S. culture as high.

Descriptive Statistics for Abilities Items

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and the F ratios for ratings of the importance of 16 abilities for ICE. The 5 abilities rated most important for ICE by American managers were (in descending order of importance, mean scores) the abilities to work with other people (1.80), to deal with unfamiliar situations (1.75), stress (1.70), communication misunderstanding (1.65), and changes in life styles (1.60). The 5 abilities rated least important for ICE included (in descending order of importance): to empathize with another person (.91), to maintain interpersonal relationships with others (.90), to deal with the pressure to conform (.81), different political systems (.77), and social alienation (.73). For French managers the 5 most important abilities for ICE were the abilities to deal with unfamiliar situations (1.58), to deal with changes in life styles (1.41), to enter meaningful dialogue with others (1.41), to work with other people (1.38), and communication misunderstandings (1.32). For French managers, the 5 least important abilities for ICE included the abilities to empathize with another person (.73), to maintain interpersonal relationships with others and to deal with the pressure to conform (.61 each), different educational systems (.45), to deal with social alienation (. 16), and to deal with different political systems (- .64).

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

411

A Comparison

TABLE 1 With Abe and Wisemans

Factors ICE culturegeneral or culture-specific? Specific

Dean* (1988) Abe and Wiseman (1983) factors # 7 # 8 # 9 #11 #12 # # # # 1 2 3 4 Abrlity items Unforseen pbs Dialogue Comm.misunder. Commsystems Educa.systems Stress Unfam. situat. Life styles Pressure to Conf F 9.91 3.95 4.82 NS NS 15.18 NS NS NS NS 5.69 40.34 P < ,002 < .04 < .03

Factor I To communicate interpersonally Factor II To adjust to different cultures Factor III Different societal systems Factor IV To establish Interpersonal relationshrps Factor V To understand others NS = #12 is # 3 is *a.k.a.

< .0002

Specific

# 3 Life styles # 5 Social alrena. # 6 Political sit.

General < .Ol < .oooo

#12 Educa.systems #13 Interp.relati. #lO Dev. interprsl #14 Underst. feel. #15 Empathize #16 Work

NS NS NS NS NS 8.66

General

General < .004

not significant. common to Factors I and IV. common to Factors II and Ill. Azzedine Mezbache.

Comparisons of Managers Perceptions at the Single Ability Level American managers differed significantly from French managers on the ratings of the importance of seven abilities for ICE. These abilities included the abilities to deal with stress (I? < .OOO),social alienation (p < .Ol), different political systems (p < .OOOO), unforeseen problems (p c .002), to enter meaningful dialogue with others (p < .04), communication misunderstandings (p < .03), and to work with other people (p < .004). Ranking the importance of the 5 most important abilities for ICE, both groups agreed on the ranking of only one item; the ability to deal with communication misunderstanding, which was given the fifth ranking. They disagreed on the ranking of the remaining 15 abilities. Of the significant abilities for ICE, only two abilities (i.e., to deal with different political systems and unforeseen problems) were rated on the

412

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

TABLE 2 Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Samples Relative to Ratings of the Importance of 16 Abilities for ICE American n = 61 Ability items 16. To work effectively with other people 2. Unfamiliar with situations 1. To deal with stress 9. Communication misunderstandmgs 3. Changes in life styles 7. To deal with unforseen problems 14. To accurately understand the feelings of others 8. To enter meaningful dialogue with others 10. To develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with others 11. Different communication systems 12. Different educational systems 15. To empathize with another person 13. To maintain Interpersonal relatlonships with others 4. The pressure to conform 6. Different political systems 5 To deal with social alienation 1.80 1.75 1.70 1.65 1.60 1 44 1.24 1.06 1.00 1 .oo 1 00 .91 .90 .81 .77 .73 .44 .43 .49 .51 .58 .75 .92 .84 .84 .82 1.08 .74 .85 1.02 1 02 1.04 1.38 1 58 1.12 1.32 1.41 .76 1.26 1.41 1.09 .90 .45 .73 .61 .61 - .64 .16 .91 .84 1.12 .94 .72 1.27 - .64 .72 .97 .90 .99 .78 1.14 .95 .98 1.18 8.66 1.69 15.16* 4.82 1.79 9.91 .Ol 3.95* .24 .26 1.88 1.17 1.81 .92 40.34* 5.69* Mean SD French n = 31 Mean SD F

l p < .05. **p < ,001.

Note: Amencan managers self-perceived abilities for ICE are listed for most important to least Important (1 through 16, means considered). The numbering (1 through 16) indicates the order in which the abilities appeared in the instrument.

extreme ends of the scale (from a high of 1.44 to a low of - .64). One ability (to deal with social alienation; U.S. mean = .73, French mean .16) was rated on the middle lower end of the scale. The remaining 4 abilities were rated on the high end of the scale with American managers tending to rate these abilities more importantly than French managers.

Major Rating Differences

A comparison of the groups means differences exist on three abilities. on each ability reveals that large

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

413

1. Ability to Deal with Different Political Systems. (U.S. mean = .73, French mean = -.64, p < .OOOO) was one of the least important
abilities for ICE for both groups. Regarding this ability, French managers differed substantially from their American counterparts. French responses were significantly lower (12.9% rated this item somewhat important as opposed to 41% for American managers); 22.9% of French managers gave this item a rating of unimportant, as opposed to 4.9 percent for American managers).

2. Ability To Deal With Stress. American responses were significantly

higher (71.7% rated this item important): French managers (43.3 percent) did not list this ability among the 5 most important abilities for ICE, while American managers gave it a ranking of three.

3. Ability To Enter Meaningful Dialogue With Others. French responses were significantly higher (54.8% rated this item important) versus Americans (33.3%). American managers did not list this ability among the 5 most important abilities for ICE, while French managers gave it a ranking of four.

Comparisons of Managers Perceptions at the Dimensional Ability Level

At the factorial or dimensional level, the abilities items in this study were divided among the five dimensions or factors established by Abe and Wiseman (1983). These five factors are listed in Table 1, with the numbering assigned in the present study to the abilities correlating with each respective factor in the Abe and Wiseman study.

Factor I. Ability to Communicate Interpersonally (5 Abilities)

Five abilities had high loadings on this factor in the Abe and Wiseman study (1983). In the current study the loadings were #7, #8, #9, #l 1, and #12. There were significant differences between the samples relative to Factor I because, as Table 1 shows, three of these abilities (#7, 8, and 9) had high enough F ratios to make this factor significant. Based on this finding, it can be said that Factor I, Ability to Communicate Interpersonally, is culture-specific which means that at the dimensional level, French and American managers differed significantly in their subjective evaluation of the importance of this dimension/ability for ICE.

Factor II. Ability to Adjust to Different Cultures (4 Abilities)

In this study these abilities were #l, #2, #3, and #4, of which 3 abilities did not reach significance. However, there were significant differences

414

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

between the samples relative to Factor II because, as shown in Table 1, the Ability To Deal With Stress has a high enough F ratio (p < .OOOl) to make this factor significant. Based on this finding, it can be said that Factor II, Ability to Adjust to Different Cultures, is culture-specific. This means that at the dimensional level, the two groups differed significantly in their subjective evaluation of the importance of this factor for ICE.

Factor III. Ability to Deal With Different Societal Systems (3 Abilities)

In this study these abilities were #3, #5, and #6. Although abilities #5 and 6 had high F ratios, the application of ANOVA shows that there were no significant differences between the samples relative to Factor III. Based on this finding, it can be said that Factor III, Ability to Deal With Different Societal Systems, is culture-general, suggesting that, at the dimensional level, the two groups had similar subjective evaluations of the importance of this factor for ICE.

Factor IV Ability To Establish Interpersonal Relationships (3 Abilities)

In this study these abilities were #12, #13, and #lo. There were no significant differences between the samples relative to Factor IV because, as indicated in Table 1, abilities #12, #13, and #lO did not reach significance. It can then be concluded that Factor IV is culture-general.

Factor K Ability To Understand Others (3 Abilities)

In the present study these abilities were #14, #15, and #16. There were no significant differences between the samples relative to Factor V because, as indicated in Table 1, ability #16, although significant, did not have a high enough F ratio to make this factor significant. These results suggest that Factor V is culture-general. SUMMARY At the factorial level, American and French managers differed significantly in their subjective evaluation of the importance of Factor I (Ability to Communicate Interpersonally) and Factor II (Ability to Adjust to Different Cultures). However, they did not differ significantly in their subjective evaluation of Factor III (Ability To Deal With Different Societal Systems), Factor IV (Ability To Establish Interpersonal Relationships), or Factor V (Ability to Understand Others).

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

415

DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to find out if American and French managers agree on the importance of 16 personal abilities suggested by a review of the literature as being important for intercultural communication effectiveness. The similarities and differences between American and French managers perceptions of ICE can be discussed in terms of both the nature and the number of dimensions found in the present study. This study has provided evidence for both the culture-general and the culture-specific interpretations of ICE. There is evidence for a culturegeneral interpretation of ICE because both nationality groups reported (at the single ability level) that the abilities to deal with unfamiliar situations, to work with other people, to deal with changes in life styles, and to deal with communication misunderstandings were primary in facilitating intercultural communication effectiveness. There is evidence for a culture-specific interpretation of ICE because American and French managers differed in their views on the number and the nature of the abilities that facilitate intercultural communication effectiveness. For ex-. ample, some abilities obtained a different ranking by the groups because they were judged either less important or more important (e.g., abilities to deal with stress and with different political systems). At the factorial (dimensional) level as well, there were significant differences between the two groups. American and French managers were found to differ significantly in their subjective evaluation of the importance of a number of abilities (Table 1) included in Factor I (Ability to Communicate Interpersonally) and Factor II (the Ability to Adjust to Different Cultures). The 5 abilities in Factor I have in common that they all relate to communicating effectively with others in the host culture. For this reason, saying that Factor I is culture-specific means that American and French managers were using different and culture-specific communication styles to adjust to their respective host cultures. This is probably true particularly when it comes to the ability to deal with unforeseen problems, to enter meaningful dialogue with others, and to deal with communication misunderstandings which were found to be significantly different. Regarding the ability to deal with unforeseen problems, American managers gave it more importance than the French did (a rank of 6 versus a rank of 8) probably because American managers felt that to adjust successfully to life in Saudi Arabia, you need to be able to deal with the unknown, the unfamiliar, and all kinds of unexpected situations because the Saudi culture is extremely different from the U.S. culture. This ability did not weigh as heavily with the French. One possible explanation may be that perhaps because French managers were more or less

416

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

familiar with the U.S. culture and did not have to fear as many unexpected cross-cultural situations as the Americans did in Saudi Arabia. Regarding the ability to enter meaningful dialogue with others, which was ranked 8th by the Americans and 4th by the French, it is culture-specific probably because to Americans entering a meaningful dialogue with the nationals is not as important as entering a dialogue within a work context. To the French, entering a meaningful dialogue with the nationals probably meant going beyond dialogue in a work context to getting to know the people they meet in the host culture on a more personal basis. Concerning the ability to deal with communication misunderstandings, Americans felt it was more important (rank of 4) than the French did (rank of 5). American managers believed this ability to be essential for adjustment to life in the Saudi culture, possibly because Saudi culture contrasts so much with the U.S. culture, and communication misunderstandings could be expected. A possible reason why this might be is that Americans have a long history of dealing with foreigners immigrating to the U.S. This experience may result in believing that effective intercultural communication is necessary in order to get anything done. Over 32% of the French spoke English (as opposed to 8.2% for their American counterparts who spoke Arabic); this could explain why the French gave the ability to deal with communication misunderstandings less weight than their American counterparts. Regarding Factor II (Ability To Adjust to Different Cultures) which included the abilities to deal with stress, unfamiliar situations, life styles, and pressure to conform, American managers differed significantly from their French counterparts regarding the abilities to deal with stress only. This ability was ranked 3rd by U.S. respondents, 6th by the French, and collected the second highest F ratio. It was, therefore, concluded that this factor is culture-specific. One possible meaning might be that in adjusting to life in Saudi Arabia, American managers may tend to believe that the ability to handle stress is primary. Again Americans were living in a host culture that was much different from their own. In a country where U.S. respondents probably do not speak the language or understand the religions and customs, a manager would be confronted with considerable stress and constant adjustments. French subjects could perceive less stress in the U.S., which in many ways is similar to France. The authors of the present study are inclined to conclude that some abilities were culture-specific and others culture-general. Explanations for this tentative conclusion follow. Ability to work with other people. This ability was rated the highest by American managers (1.80) and the third highest by French managers (1.38). This result supports similar results found in previous studies of ICE, for example, Hammer et al. (1978) and Abe and Wiseman (1983). This ability is probably culture-general, not culture-specific. This sug-

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

417

gests that American students, Japanese tourists, and American or French managers must be able to work effectively with other people in a specific culture in order to become interculturally effective. All studies, including the present one, compared groups means and single abilities, not dimensions. The abilities to develop satisfying relationships with others (ranked, respectively, #9 and #7 by American and French managers), to maintain interpersonal relationships with others (ranked, respectively, #15, and #11 by American and French managers) were among the least important abilities for ICE but were more important for American than for French managers. One possible explanation for this finding may be that since Americans tend to be achievement oriented, when relating to others they tend to focus more on getting things done than developing interpersonal relationships. This achievement orientation might make the nature of societal contacts in the American culture based more upon the shared achievement of mutual objectives, rather than the Japanese, for example, where social contacts are based more on relationships (Abe & Wiseman, 1983, p. 55). Interest only in getting things done is not enough. Every human endeavor that involves getting things done calls for attention both to the work that needs to be done and to peoples needs in the transaction (Harris & Moran, 1983). The ability to deal with stress. American managers rated this ability the third most important ability for ICE, while French managers did not list this ability among their five most important abilities. The samples differed significantly (p < .OOOl)on the rating of its importance for ICE. This result was consistent with Hammer and colleagues (1978) finding that for American students intercultural communication effectiveness required primarily the ability to deal with stress. Japanese subjects (Abe & Wiseman, 1983) did not rate this ability highly enough to correlate with any of the five dimensions established by the authors. To summarize, since American students (Hammer et al., 1978) and American managers (the present study) found this ability important for ICE, and since Japanese tourists (Abe & Wiseman, 1983) and French managers (the present study) did not find this ability to be important for ICE, it can be concluded that, at least with these samples, the ability to deal effectively with stress is culture-specific, meaning that people from different cultures will likely vary in their subjective evaluation of this particular ability for ICE. In addition to environmental factor (i.e., life in a foreign environment) there may be another reason why the American group thought the ability to deal with stress to be more important than the French did. In the American culture children are taught from a young age to rely on them-

418

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

selves and value individualism more than groups. When an American manager is living abroad he may find it hard to rely on others for help and support with the psychological problems encountered during the process of adjustment. Such an individual may carry all the burden of the day to day stress by himself rather than talking things over with friends or colleagues in the immediate environment. Abe and Wiseman (1983) pointed out that for the Japanese intercultural stress results from a fear of not conforming to the social norms of the host culture, while for Americans, stress results from the Americans need to solve or improve a problematic situation in the host culture. While the Japanese tend to seek their psychological security in conformity, Americans . . . brought up on individualism . . . seem to take it for granted that they are different from other cultures. Therefore they seem to spend more energy on fighting back the uncomfortable feeling of violating the host culture social norms. They may feel more psychological stress this way and might have thought the ability to handle stress very important (Abe & Wiseman, 1983, p. 65). Commenting on the importance of the ability to deal with stress for successful cross-cultural adjustment by American managers abroad, Kepler, Gaither, and Gaither (1983, p. 119) warned that the normal crises of life are doubly charged in an overseas situation and that often many American expatriates abroad tend to use the fight-or-flight response to react to these crises in a foreign environment. They either fight by facing up to emotional anxiety, frustration, and pressures or flee these situations by returning home to familiar surroundings. Kepler, Gaither, and Gaither (1983, p. 125) suggested that the American expatriate manager makes an effort to know the nationals as part of a program to cope with the stress of living in a foreign culture. Kepler acknowledged that the ability to get to know the nationals is important for ICE and mentioned that this has left many Americans with a feeling of failure that they have not been able to establish close and meaningful ties. He added that many times when Americans show interest in and concern for the nationals through sports, church, or volunteer activities they were able to cross the barriers between themselves and the nationals. French managers did not list the ability to deal with stress among their 5 most important abilities for ICE. This finding does not mean that to French managers the ability to deal with stress is not important for ICE. It may only mean that to French managers the ability to deal with stress is not as important as for American managers. There may be several reasons for this result. First, French managers may have been more willing to talk things over with their fellow countrypersons, thus diffusing the stress of adjusting to life in the U.S. Second, due to the fact that 32% of the French managers spoke English while only 8.2% of the American managers spoke Arabic, the former had a better language preparation than their

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

419

American counterparts. This language competency may have made it easier for French managers to get to know and interact with the host country nationals. Being aware of how Americans communicate probably helped French managers decrease their level of intercultural stress. Concerning the ability to deal with different political systems, French managers consistently felt this ability to be unimportant for effective functioning in another culture. None of the French managers gave this ability a rating of important. In the present study, French managers had the lowest mean (- .64) on this ability while American managers had a mean of .77. When only these samples are compared, American managers still see this ability as more important than French managers, but both nationality groups rated it among the least important abilities for ICE. This is consistent with previous research, probably because to American students, Japanese tourists, and American and French managers, knowledge of political systems and conditions in a foreign country does not appear to be a prerequisite for intercultural effectiveness. This ability is probably culture-general rather than culture-specific. In all studies including the present one, single abilities, not dimensions, and group means (when available) were compared. But why, unlike American managers, did French managers consistently feel the ability to deal with political systems to be unimportant for effective functioning in another culture? There may be several reasons for this result. First, being idealistic (Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite is the French motto printed on the French franc). French managers may be skeptical of political systems and probably believe that to adjust effectively to life in another culture whats important are people-to-people relationships and not the overall political situation in a country. Second, French managers may have thought this ability unimportant because while living in the U.S., there is little to worry about political conditions since the U.S. is more politically stable than most countries. Third, it could be that French managers did not feel that the U.S. political system was very different from the French political system, they felt comfortable living under a democratic system, and therefore the ability to deal with different political systems was not important. The difference in number of abilities reported as important for ICE may be methodological in its basis: for ratings of personal abilities for ICE, all French managers were asked to recall immediate experience based on current cultural participation in the U.S. culture. Unlike French managers, only 47% of the American managers were asked to recall immediate experience based on current participation in the Saudi culture. The remaining 53% had to recall past experience in rating their perception of ICE because they responded months, or in some cases, years after they had lived in the host culture.

420

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

Limitations of the study. This study didnt assess how accurate managers recall of past cultural adjustment was. Also, whether differences between the groups may be due to industry differences rather than cultural differences is not known. However, in adjusting to life in another culture, industry differences may have only a minor role to play because often adjustment problems and the severity of culture shock depend more on ones ability to adjust to life in another culture than ones technical skills. Interactional skills are more important when it comes to effective intercultural adjustment. After all, how many people on overseas assignment are sent back home because of inadequate technical competence? Very few. Often, variables dealing with the adjustment process per se (i.e., personality, psychological, and environmental factors, etc.) and other sociopsychological factors of a relational nature cause failure overseas. Tung (1987) surveyed 80 multinationals about the most important factors accounting for overseas failure. Of the 7 important factors for failure overseas, lack of technical competence ranked 6th. According to Tung, primary factors for overseas failure in order of importance were (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) the spouse cant adjust to a different culture, the manager cant adjust to a different culture, other family related problems, the managers personality or emotional immaturity, the manager cant cope with work overseas.

and

Tungs findings seem to suggest that in intercultural adjustment ones personality and flexibility are more important factors than the type of work one does in the host country. For example, its one thing to teach someone how to use a tractor. Its another to try to get along with that person with a minimum of cross-cultural misunderstandings. Illman (1980) reported that most failures overseas tend to be the result of an inability to adjust to the foreign way of life rather than a matter of technical competence. Illman described four typical causes of failure in overseas assignments: (1) the personality that the manager projects to the world around him (e.g., coldness, mistrust, or personal insecurity), (2) intolerance, which can lead to disaster when the American manager doesnt accept foreign habits, attitudes, and behaviors, (3) the inability to adjust to a number of things, including the climate, shopping, bargaining habits, and the host language, and (4) a lack of appreciation for cultural differences, which Illman attributed to a lack of preparation for overseas assignment. One trait that particularly irritates nationals, Illman reported is a demeanor of superiority. It makes little difference where the managers might be . . . Europe, Asia, the Orient or the Middle East. . . . Any

Intercultural Communication Effectiveness

421

denigrating comparisons of life there with life in the U.S., are certain to create antipathy and conflict (Illman, p. 15). How much real interaction managers had with their respective host nationals as well as whether those who were bilingual adjusted better than those who were monolingual, are also not known. In terms of interaction with the host, French managers probably had more contact with Americans in the U.S. than American managers had with the Saudis. American managers may have had little contact with the locals because many companies in Saudi Arabia have their own compounds where they create a little America and do not interact very much with the local people. In terms of the relationship between speaking the local language and effective intercultural adjustment, one cant deny that speaking the local language can facilitate intercultural adjustment, but linguistic competence is not always synonymous with intercultural competence. There is more to cultural adjustment than just speaking the host language.

Implications for Cross-cultural Training

This study suggests some important implications in the area of intercultural communication effectiveness and cross-cultural training programs by multinational firms for future deployment of American managers to Saudi Arabia and French managers to the U.S.A. First, the study suggested the existence of culture-general and culture-specific abilities for ICE. The study illustrates as well the difficulties that can be encountered in investigating the nature of intercultural communication effectiveness as well (i.e., imprecise terminology, varying methodologies, and unreliable instrumentation). Second, in designing cross-cultural training programs for their managers, multinational companies should give more consideration to the following variables. When training American managers to be interculturally effective in the Arabian culture and French managers to be interculturally effective in the U.S. culture, special attention should be paid to four primary culturegeneral abilities found to facilitate a managers effective functioning in a foreign culture. They are the abilities to work effectively with other people, to deal with unfamiliar situations, and to expect communication misunderstandings and to deal with changes in life styles. For multinational firms selection purposes, a managers performance, personality, and life style in the home country should be interpreted in light of these abilities. When training American managers for assignment to Saudi Arabia, greater consideration should be given to the ability to deal with stress, which was found to be especially important to American managers. A cross-cultural training program for American managers should teach participants to diffuse the anger and frustration stemming from stressful

422

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

intercultural encounters by talking things over with colleagues and significant others in their immediate environment. Managers should be taught that the key to successful cross-cultural adjustment is not to try to solve or ameliorate a problematic situation in the host culture but to go with the flow. In future research, larger samples should be used. For cross-cultural research, Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndicke (1973) recommended the use of a sample with a number of subjects equal to the square of the variables in the study plus 50. A minimum sample should include as many subjects as variables. How perceptions of intercultural effectiveness vary between male and female managers should also be examined. Future studies should explore whether there are differences in perceptions of ICE when the host cultures for American and French managers are switched (i.e., American managers working in France and French managers working in Saudi Arabia). The purpose of such an investigation would be to discover whether switching the host cultures will lead to a change in perceptions of ICE with the same nationality groups. Future study of multicultural samples would compare groups from a variety of cultures to determine whether the perception of cross-cultural effectiveness is culture-specific or culture-general. Methodological considerations require that future studies compare managers who are living in the host country at the time of the investigation so that all subjects in the samples are recalling immediate instead of remote cross-cultural experience. Frequency of interaction with the host nationals should also be taken into consideration because in the case of American personnel in Saudi Arabia, for example, often Americans interact very little with the local people. The ability to enter meaningful dialogue with other people was found to be especially important to French managers. Future researchers could investigate whether there is a cultural basis for French managers singling out such an ability. Other studies are needed to clarify whether the abilities for effective functioning in another culture are shaped by ones culture or by ones tiredispositions, character, and traits? Can polarities like these be used at all to describe such ability? Should ICE be viewed in such a context at all? Further research is needed to provide a better explanation of these culture-specific and sojourner-specific abilities.
REFERENCES
ABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-

tions, 1, 53-N.
M. (1987). Building bridges over the cultural rivers. International 42 (July/August), 61-72. BOCHNER, S. (1973). The mediating man and cultural diversity. Topics in CulBERGER,

Management,

ture Learning, 1, 23-37.

Intercultural Communication

Effectiveness

423

BRISLIN, R., LONNER, W., & THORNDICKE, R. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley. COPELAND, L. (1985, July). Cross-cultural training: The competitive edge. Training, p. 49-53. DEAN, 0. (a.k.a. AZZEDINE MEZBACHE). (1986). American and French managers self-perceived abilities for effective functioning in another culture: A comparative study. Unpublished Dissertation. U.S. International University, San Diego, CA. GUDYKUNST, W., WISEMAN, R., & HAMMER, M. (1977). Determinants of a sojourners attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Brislin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: HAMMER, M., GUDYKUNST, W., & WISEMAN, R. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploration study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-393. HAMMER, M. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65-68. HARRIS, P., & MORAN, M. (1983). Managing cultural differences (3rd ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. ILLMAN, P. (1980). Developing overseas managers and managers overseas. American Management Association. KEALEY, D. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 387-428. KEALEY, D., & RUBEN, B. D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection: Criteria, issues and methods. In D. Landis & R. Brislin (Eds.). Handbook of Zntercultural Training (Vol. 1). New York: Pergamon Press. KEPLER, J., GAITHER, O., & GAITHER, M. (1983). Americans abroad: A handbook for living and working overseas. New York: Praeger Publications. KLEINJANS, E. (1972). Opening remarks on a Conference on World Communication held at the East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. KNOTTS, R. (1989). Cross-cultural management: Transformations and adaptations. Business Horizons, 32(l), 29-33. MILLER, E. L. (1982). The overseas assignment: How managers determine who is to be selected. Michigan Business Review, 24(3), 12-19. MURRAY, F., & MURRAY, A. (1986, Winter). Global managers for global businesses. Sloan Management Review, pp. 75-80. RATIU, I. (1988). New age shock. International Management, 48 (July, August), 22-24. RUBEN, B. (1985). Human communication and cross-cultural effectiveness. In L. Savomar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. RUBEN, B., & KEALEY, D. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. TUNG, R. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure. Academy of Management Executive, l(2).

424

0. Dean and G. E. Popp

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS Le but de cette Etude &it de comparer 61 managers (gestionaires) Am&icains vivant en Arabie Skudite avec 31 managers Franpis vivant aux Etats-Unis sur 16 abilitb de lCfficacitC interculturelle. On a demand6 aux managers 1) d%valuer leur degrb de satisfaction dans le pays hote, 2) de classer ces 16 abilitb suivant leur importance dans la simplification de l%fficacite interculturelle et 3) de choisir parmi les 16 abilitb, 10s cinq, qui, a leur avis, facilitent le plus la vie dans un pays &ranger. Des managers Ankicains aussi bien que les managers Fran@ avaient identifie 4 abilites qui, a leur avis, facilitent le plus lefficacite interculturelle. Ces abilitb sont: 1) la capacitb de travailler Bfficacement avec les autres, 2) la capacitk de se dkbrouiller darts des situations non-familieres, 3) la capacitC linguistique et 4) la capacitb de sadapter fl un style de vie diffkent. Les 2 groups, par contre, ont diff&k sur limportance attach& ii 7 abilitb pour ICfficacit6 interculturelle. Les rbultats de cette dtude indiquent que quelques unes de ces abilitb sont communes aux 2 cultures alors que dautres sont spkifiques & une culture don&e. Les implications de cette dtude pour Iefficacitb interculturelle et la gesttion interculturelle sont analyskes. (author-supplied abstract).

Este estudio examinb que habilidades personales son necesarias para una efectiva comunicacidn entre culturas. Utilizando administradores Americanos que trabajan en Arabia Saudidita y administradores Franceses que trabajan en Estados Unidos, el estudio bus& descubrir las similitudes y diferencias en la percepci6n de la efectividad en la comunicaci6n intercultural (ECI). Los sujetos fueron preguntados 1) Su grad0 de satisfaccidn al permanecer en una cultura extraiia, 2) el grado de importancia de cada una de las 16 habilidades para EC1 al facilitar su proprio funclonamiento intercultural, y 3) seleccionar las 5 mas importantes entre las 16 habilidades. Ambos grupos sintieron que las habilidades para trabajar con otra gente, negociar en situaciones no familiares, comunicar misinterpretaciones y cambios en estilos de vida, fuertemente facilitan operar en una cultura foranea. Estuvieron en desacuerdo con respect0 a la importancia de 7 habilidades pensadas coma facilitantes de ECI. A la luz de estos resultados, el estudio provey6 evidencia para interpretacicin de EC1 tanto en una cultura-general coma en una cultura-especifica. (author-supplied abstract).