Call For Papers >> Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Studying Cross Cultural Performance
PublicationInternational Journal of Cross Cultural Management
TitleConceptualizing, Measuring, and Studying Cross Cultural Performance
TypeJournal Special Issue
EditorsJessica L. Wildman (Florida Institute of Technology), Richard Griffith (Florida Institute of Technology), Jennifer Klafhen (HUMRRO)
DeadlineJune 30, 2021
Call for papers for a special issue of International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Studying Cross Cultural Performance
(Optional) Abstract submission deadline: April 30, 2021
Full paper submission deadline: June 30, 2021
Initial decisions: August 20, 2021
Final decisions: November 15, 2021
Expected publication: from April 2022
Jessica L. Wildman, Florida Institute of Technology, USA (email@example.com)
Richard Griffith, Florida Institute of Technology, USA (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Jennifer Klafehn, HUMRRO, USA (email@example.com)
We invite articles that address the theoretical conceptualization of, measurement of, or study of cross cultural performance as a criterion in organizational contexts (e.g., multi-national corporations, non-governmental organizations, military) that provide novel and cutting edge perspectives on cross cultural performance as a construct.
In the past 20 years, global integration has peaked, the movement of people around the world has increased, and migration has more than doubled (Strauss, 2019). Increased globalization in the workplace has brought about increases in international assignments, travel, and collaborations (Hammond and Grosse, 2003; Shaffer et al., 2012), all of which require organizational employees to engage in any number of cross cultural interactions. Accordingly, the extent to which individuals succeed in these cross cultural interactions is an important focal topic for organizational leaders and researchers. Successful performance in cross cultural settings has been studied in a number of different organizational groups and contexts, including expatriate employees (e.g., Wang et al., 2013), international students (e.g., Burke et al., 2009), non-governmental organizations (e.g., Charleston et al., 2018), military populations (e.g., Hardison et al., 2009), global leaders (e.g., Caligiuri and Tarique, 2012), and global or multicultural teams (e.g., Yitmen, 2013). Given the increased globalization in multiple organizational settings, the need to appropriately define and measure cross cultural performance is becoming more pronounced.
To date, much of the cross cultural management research has centered its focus on the operationalization of predictors that influence how individuals perform in cross cultural situations. There is a wide body of research examining constructs such as cross cultural competence, cultural intelligence, and intercultural competence, which are terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably (Deardorff, 2015), but are generally conceptualized as some combination of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics that enable individuals to perform effectively in cross cultural settings (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008; Charleston et al., 2018; Chiu et al., 2013; Gallus et al., 2014; Hammer et al., 2003; Jyoti and Kour, 2017; Li, 2020; Velez-Calle et al., 2018).
Upon closer examination of the research on cross cultural competence, cultural intelligence, intercultural competence, and related constructs, most of the time, the predicted outcome of these constructs has not been well-defined or consistently measured. There is generally a lack of research that explicitly focuses on providing an unambiguous definition regarding what constitutes successful performance in cross cultural interactions, or what we will refer to as cross cultural performance (e.g., Kour, 2017; Lima et al., 2016; Velez-Calle, 2018). Few studies have explicitly defined (e.g., Gallus et al., 2014; Klafehn et al., 2013) or developed specific taxonomies (e.g., Hardison et al., 2009; Wisecarver et al., 2014) of cross cultural performance. More commonly, empirical studies have used any number of inconsistent concepts and measures to represent cross cultural performance including, but not limited to, expatriate failure rates (Chen et al., 2014; Okpara, 2016), subjective adjustment (Matsumoto and Hwang, 2013; Selmer and Lauring, 2016; Okpara, 2016), adaptability and adaptation (Matsumoto and Hwang, 2013), communication competence (Matsumoto and Hwang, 2013), interaction success (Charleston et al., 2018; Matsumoto and Huang, 2013), taking on a task or project (Charleston et al., 2018), multinational team leadership (Hajro and Pudelko, 2010), and multicultural team performance (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). In other words, most research examining cross cultural performance defines the concept using very general and vague terms, such as effective performance, effective interaction, success, functioning, and appropriate behavior in cross cultural contexts (e.g., Charleston et al., 2018; Li, 2020; Velez-Calle et al., 2018) without providing any careful analysis regarding what those terms actually mean and how they should be measured.
Examining the approaches and measures used to assess cross cultural performance also reveals an area ripe for study. There are existing validated measures of cross cultural competence (Matsumoto and Huang, 2013; van Driel and Gabrenya, 2013), cultural intelligence (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 2008), and intercultural competence (e.g., Hammer et al., 2003), and, generally, more research has focused on assessing the predictors of cross cultural performance than on assessing cross cultural performance itself (e.g., Lima et al., 2016; Velez-Calle et al., 2018). While many theoretical and methodological issues remain for existing cross cultural competence measures (van Driel and Gabrenya, 2013), the measurement of cross cultural performance is even less well developed. Cross cultural performance has been assessed using validated measures of adaptability (Lima et al., 2016, Matsumoto and Huang, 2013), adjustment (Chen et al., 2014; Okpara, 2016), and job performance (e.g., Jyoti and Kour, 2017), but no widely accepted and validated measure specific to cross cultural performance currently exists.
Furthermore, criterion measures of cross cultural performance often overlap conceptually with predictor measures. In fact, in some cases, cross cultural competence measures have been used and interpreted as criterion measures of performance (e.g., Lima et al., 2016, Velez-Calle, 2018) rather than as the predictor. Some researchers have argued in favor of more performance-based measures of cross cultural competence and its related constructs (e.g. Deardorff, 2015; Chiu et al., 2013). In other words, there exists ample conceptual muddiness around these concepts that suggests a need to detangle the conceptualization and measurement of cross cultural competence from the conceptualization and measurement of cross cultural performance.
In sum, cross cultural management research seems to be experiencing a criterion problem (Austin and Villanova, 1992) in which there is not a consistent framework for how to define and measure cross cultural performance. Without an agreed upon conceptualization and operationalization, it is difficult to systematically study the nomological network surrounding cross cultural performance in a way that moves toward scientific consensus. As a first step toward addressing this criterion problem within cross cultural management research, we invite scholarly articles that grapple with some aspect of the conceptualization, measurement, and study of cross cultural performance as a criterion in organizational contexts broadly defined (e.g., multi-national corporations, educational settings, non-governmental organizations, military). Consistent with the aim of this call for papers, we are not interested in works that focus primarily or only on predictors of cross cultural performance without giving careful attention to the criterion space, and/or works focused on culture-specific performance (e.g., what behaviors are most appropriate in a certain culture or country). Instead, we aim to bring together a set of scholarly works that clarify or provide novel perspectives on what cross cultural performance is as a criterion before building its nomological network. Submissions may take many forms including empirical studies, theoretical or conceptual papers, or integrative reviews. Ideal submissions will address key issues such as, but not limited to, the following:
- Theoretical/conceptual papers that explicitly and systematically define cross cultural performance and explore the implications of that new conceptualization.
- Theoretical/conceptual papers that explore the nuances of what cross cultural competence is and is not, and how it is similar or different from related concepts such as cultural intelligence, general intelligence/cognitive ability, cross cultural competence or general job performance.
- Theoretical/conceptual and/or measurement-oriented papers exploring the dimensionality of cross cultural performance as a criterion.
- Critical and integrative reviews of existing theories and research regarding cross cultural performance aimed at spurring new theory and research in this area.
- Papers considering the impact of context on cross cultural performance, for example, unifying definitions across multiple organizational contexts, or exploring the nuances of cross cultural performance within a particular/unique context.
- Empirical studies that include predictors of cross cultural performance but that are focused primarily on the conceptualization and/or measurement of cross cultural performance as a criterion rather than just on the predictors.
- Papers that describe the systematic development, validation, and/or use of new methods or tools for assessing cross cultural performance and that highlight implications for future research and/or practice.
If you would like to discuss a possible submission, and for any further information, please contact the special editors: Jessica L. Wildman, PhD, at firstname.lastname@example.org, Richard L. Griffith, PhD, at email@example.com, and Jennifer Klafehn, PhD, at firstname.lastname@example.org. Editors will be reviewing and providing feedback on optional 1000-word abstracts through April 30, 2021. After that date, full papers should be submitted through the IJCCM online submission system. Please visit our SAGE webpages at http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ccm, for more information on formatting and submission criteria, and submit your article via our online submission system at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/IJCCM, ensuring you submit to the special issue. Submissions are subject to a rigorous double-blind review.
Ang S and Van Dyne L (2008) Handbook of cultural intelligence: theory, measurement, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Austin JT and Villanova P (1992) The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(6): 836–874.
Burke MJ, Watkins MB and Guzman E (2009) Performing in a multi-cultural context: The role of personality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33(6): 475–485.
Caligiuri P and Tarique I (2012) Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness. Journal of World Business 47(4): 612–622.
Charleston B, Gajewska-De Mattos H and Chapman M (2018) Cross-cultural competence in the context of NGOs: bridging the gap between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29(21): 3068–3092.
Chen ASY, Wu IH and Bian MD (2014) The moderating effects of active and agreeable conflict management styles on cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 14(3): 270–288.
Chiu CY, Lonner WJ, Matsumoto D and Ward C (2013) Cross-cultural competence: Cross-Cultural Competence: Theory, Research, and Application. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44(6): 843–848.
Deardorff DK (2015) Intercultural competence: Mapping the future research agenda. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48: 3–5.
Gallus JA, Gouge MC, Antolic E, Fosher K, Jasparro V, Coleman S, Selmeski B and Klafehn, JL (2014) Cross-cultural competence in the department of defense: an annotated bibliography (No. SR-71). Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Hajro A and Pudelko M (2010) An analysis of core-competences of successful multinational team leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10(2): 175–194.
Hammer MR, Bennett MJ and Wiseman R (2003) Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(4): 421–443.
Hammond C and Grosse R (2003) Rich man, poor man: Resources on globalization. Reference Services Review 31(3): 285–295.
Hardison CM, Sims CS, Ali F, Mundell B and Villamizar A (2009) Cross-cultural skills for deployed Air Force personnel: Defining cross-cultural performance. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Jyoti J and Kour S (2017) Cultural intelligence and job performance: An empirical investigation of moderating and mediating variables. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 17(3): 305–326.
Klafehn J, Li C and Chiu CY (2013) To know or not to know, is that the question? Exploring the role and assessment of metacognition in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44(6): 963–991.
Kour S (2017) Cultural intelligence as an effective cross-cultural competency: A literature review. International Journal in Management & Social Science 5(12): 123–131.
Li M (2020) An examination of two major constructs of cross-cultural competence: Cultural intelligence and intercultural competence. Personality and Individual Differences 164: 1–6.
Lima JE, West GB, Winston BE and Wood JA (2016) Measuring organizational cultural intelligence: The development and validation of a scale. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(1): 9–31.
Matsumoto D and Hwang HC (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44(6): 849–873.
Matveev AV and Nelson PE (2004) Cross cultural communication competence and multicultural team performance: Perceptions of American and Russian managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4(2): 253–270.
Okpara JO (2016) Cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates: Exploring factors influencing adjustment of expatriates in Nigeria. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(3): 259–280.
Selmer J and Lauring J (2016) Work engagement and intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(1): 33–51.
Shaffer MA, Kraimer ML, Chen YP and Bolino MC (2012) Choices, challenges, and career consequences of global work experiences: A review and future agenda. Journal of Management 38(4): 1282–1327.
Strauss D (2020) Globalisation Not To Blame For Rise In Inequality, Research Finds. [online] Ft.com. Available at: <https://www.ft.com/content/c8eacdfa-c375-11e9-a8e9-296ca66511c9> [Accessed 14 August 2020].
Van Driel M and Gabrenya Jr WK (2013) Organizational cross-cultural competence: Approaches to measurement. Journal of cross-cultural psychology 44(6): 874–899.
Van Dyne L, Ang S and Koh C (2008) Development and validation of the CQS. In: Ang and Van Dyne (eds) Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and application. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.16–38.
Velez-Calle A, Roman-Calderon JP and Robledo-Ardila C (2018) The cross-country measurement invariance of the Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient (BCIQ). International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 18(1): 73–86.
Wang D, Freeman S and Zhu CJ (2013) Personality traits and cross-cultural competence of Chinese expatriate managers: A socio-analytic and institutional perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(20): 3812–3830.
Wisecarver M, Foldes H, Adis C, Gallus J and Klafehn J (2014). Army Sociocultural Performance Requirements. Personnel Decisions Research Institute Inc, Arlington, Virginia.
Yitmen I (2013) Organizational Cultural Intelligence: A Competitive Capability for Strategic Alliances in the International Construction Industry. Project Management Journal 44(4): 5–25.