The present study was designed to assess the viability of developing quantitative measures of cross-cultural competence as an emergent organizational-level construct using samples of military organizations. Cross-cultural competence has predominantly been discussed as an individual-level construct but has not been extensively assessed as an organizational-level phenomenon. A synthesis of the cross-cultural competence, organizational intelligence, and multilevel analysis literatures was used to construct a theoretical basis for organizational cross-cultural competence and the development of quantitative measures of the construct. Based on this synthesis, three strategies were identified for assessing cross-cultural competence at the organizational level of analysis. Three studies were conducted to test these three strategies, each of which was supported empirically through the successful generation of interpretable organization-level scales and subscales. In a fourth study, each of the organization-level measures developed in Studies 1, 2, and 3 was found to be related to organization-level indices of organizational climate, perceived organization effectiveness, and cohesion.Cross-cultural competence has been treated traditionally as an individual-level characteristic that is assessed, trained, or incorporated in models of overseas adjustment and performance using measures and techniques similar to other individual difference constructs such as leadership or emotional intelligence (e.g., Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall, 1992). However, cross-cultural competence as exhibited by organizations at a "meso-level" level of analysis has received little attention in the literature (e.g., Gröschke, 2010;Janssens & Brett, 2006;Moon, 2010). A rapidly developing body of research identifies attitudinal attributes, knowledge, and skills that facilitate individuals' successful adaptation to and performance in novel cultural settings (e.g.

Organizations engaged in international operations must navigate complex intercultural dynamics for successful performance, necessitating identification of individuals who are likely to succeed in these environments and training personnel in cross-cultural competence (3C). To do so, adequate competency models of 3C need to be developed and valid 3C assessment instruments must be identified or generated. The present chapter reviews issues and challenges in 3C model development and illustrates these problems in an analysis of the Defense Language Office's Framework for Cross-Cultural Competence. The comparative advantages of competency versus causal models of 3C are discussed and an integration of competency and causal models is suggested. An examination of 34 instruments that have been recommended in the 3C civilian and military literatures for assessing cross-cultural competencies and their antecedent factors showed that existing 3C measures suffer from poor construct validity and have not been empirically linked to important outcome variables. A measurement strategy that eschews self-report methods and broadly assesses KSAOs and behavioral competencies is advocated.

No abstract

Research conducted in the United States indicates that people exert greater effort in a variety of task situations when they perform individually than when they do so in a group that obscures identifiability of members' individual outputs, a phenomenon termed "social loafing." It was hypothesized that members of cultures whose value emphases and social institutions have been characterized as "group-oriented" would tend to form more cohesive groups and be more likely to place group benefit over individual benefit than members of individualistic U.S. culture, hence evidencing less social loafing. Contrary to this expectation, Chinese school children on Taiwan (grades 2 through 9), asked to produce sound by clapping and shouting alone and in pairs, evidenced levels of social loafing similar to those obtained in U.S. research employing this procedure. Several sources of this absence of a relationship between social loafing and cultural values are discussed, including the effects of the social restrictiveness of the sound production procedure on its ability to tap cultural differences.

Research has shown that individuals' causal attributions are affected by the degree of public scrutiny of their behavior (Bradley, 1978). An experiment was conducted to test a self-presentational explanation of this finding. High and low self-monitors were or were not closely scrutinized (videotaped) during their performance of a task at which they either succeeded or failed. Low self-monitors were expected to provide an attributional baseline (little or no self-presentation) against which the self-presentational tendencies of high self-monitors could be assessed. It was found that high self-monitors assumed significantly greater responsibility for success than for failure when videotaped, but assumed only somewhat more responsibility for success than for failure when not taped. Surprisingly, low self-monitors' attributions were affected by the manipulation of evaluation intensity. Low self-monitors assumed more responsibility for success than for failure when they were not taped, but assumed no more responsibility for success than for failure when they were taped.