18. Oct. 06, 16:45
2. review on research: training of expatriates
[p.429]
The purpose of training is defined based on Bhawuk and Brislin (2000) as "formal efforts for preparing people for living in other cultures". Referring to Black and Mendenhall (1990) it should improve cultural awareness, interpersonal adjustment, and managerial effectiveness. Brislin and Yoshida (1994) further call for training to improve interpersonal relations and job success.
Training from 50 years ago aimed at shocking their participants. The cultural encounter was understood to provoke a culture shock which Oberg (1960) as an anxiety resulting "'from losing all your familiar signs and symbols of social discourse' (p.177)". The idea was to vorwegnehmen this shock and to then offer the possibility to discuss the matter in the safe environment of home grounds. The trainee was to be involved emotionally and actively. Consequently, lectures were substituted by experiental training methods (Harrison & Hopkins, 1967; Kolb, 1976) including area simulations (Trifonovitch, 1977) and a cultural self-awareness model developed by Kraemer (1973, 1974).
In the seventies the idea of a culture-assimilator became popular. These assimilators feature several incidents typical for cross-cultural interactions. An example would be the story of person XY who has lived in the country for 3 months already but does not find any social contact. How come? The trainee is then offered several possible answers of which one or more can be right.
While the given example bases on a general culture-assimilator, normally one of the given alternatives in a culture-specific assimilator would reflect the point of view of the host country, another the one of the expatriate's home country. The aim is to raise awareness and to prepare for better interpersonal realtionships (e.g., Chemers, 1969; Fiedler, Mitchel & Triandis, 1971; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983; Malpass & Salancik, 1977; Tolbert, 1990).
[p.430]
Other training methods would be the cultural analysis system as introduced by Lee (1966) or the contrast-America method developped by Stewart (1966). These two methods and the general culture-assimilator aim on the trainee to become aware of his/her own values and culture-specific behavior.
Black and Mendenhall (1999) further advised training to consider social learning theory principles as described/defined by Bandura (1977) and behavior modeling training. Furthermore, Bhawuk (1995, 1998) developed culture-assimilators based on theory, thus conceptualizing the training stages as intercultural expertise development.
Examining the effectiveness of cross-cultural training concerning self-development, perception, and relationships with the host country nationals Deshpande and Viswesvaran (1992) found that training had the strongest effect on the expatriate's self-development but not so much on his/her job performance.
Ones and Sinangile conclude their chapter on expatriate training with the following numbers:
back to expatriate staffing
further to criteria for expatriates
The purpose of training is defined based on Bhawuk and Brislin (2000) as "formal efforts for preparing people for living in other cultures". Referring to Black and Mendenhall (1990) it should improve cultural awareness, interpersonal adjustment, and managerial effectiveness. Brislin and Yoshida (1994) further call for training to improve interpersonal relations and job success.
Training from 50 years ago aimed at shocking their participants. The cultural encounter was understood to provoke a culture shock which Oberg (1960) as an anxiety resulting "'from losing all your familiar signs and symbols of social discourse' (p.177)". The idea was to vorwegnehmen this shock and to then offer the possibility to discuss the matter in the safe environment of home grounds. The trainee was to be involved emotionally and actively. Consequently, lectures were substituted by experiental training methods (Harrison & Hopkins, 1967; Kolb, 1976) including area simulations (Trifonovitch, 1977) and a cultural self-awareness model developed by Kraemer (1973, 1974).
In the seventies the idea of a culture-assimilator became popular. These assimilators feature several incidents typical for cross-cultural interactions. An example would be the story of person XY who has lived in the country for 3 months already but does not find any social contact. How come? The trainee is then offered several possible answers of which one or more can be right.
- Everybody is just very busy with work. Work and social life are clearly separated.
- The host nationals already have enough friends and expected XY to have other foreigners as friends.
- XY is regarded as member of a lower social and economic class and thus not suitable as friend.
While the given example bases on a general culture-assimilator, normally one of the given alternatives in a culture-specific assimilator would reflect the point of view of the host country, another the one of the expatriate's home country. The aim is to raise awareness and to prepare for better interpersonal realtionships (e.g., Chemers, 1969; Fiedler, Mitchel & Triandis, 1971; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983; Malpass & Salancik, 1977; Tolbert, 1990).
[p.430]
Other training methods would be the cultural analysis system as introduced by Lee (1966) or the contrast-America method developped by Stewart (1966). These two methods and the general culture-assimilator aim on the trainee to become aware of his/her own values and culture-specific behavior.
Black and Mendenhall (1999) further advised training to consider social learning theory principles as described/defined by Bandura (1977) and behavior modeling training. Furthermore, Bhawuk (1995, 1998) developed culture-assimilators based on theory, thus conceptualizing the training stages as intercultural expertise development.
Examining the effectiveness of cross-cultural training concerning self-development, perception, and relationships with the host country nationals Deshpande and Viswesvaran (1992) found that training had the strongest effect on the expatriate's self-development but not so much on his/her job performance.
Ones and Sinangile conclude their chapter on expatriate training with the following numbers:
- In the beginning of the 1990s only 25% of companies would train the employees prior to sending them abroad (Black & Gregersen, 1991).
- Of the 32 companies questioned (all ranked among the Fortune 500 companies) Anderson Consulting (Cuthill, 1997) found
94% to send their expatriates-to-be to language courses
69% to send their expatriates in preparation to a cross-cultural training - Numbers conducted by Windham International (1999) revealed 63% of 250 organization to send their expatriates to a preparing cross-cultural training.
back to expatriate staffing
further to criteria for expatriates
