ijtd_324 148..164

The role of cross-culturalabsorptive capacity in theeffectiveness of in-country

cross-cultural training

Ibraiz Tarique and Paula Caligiuri

Based on the theory of absorptive capacity, this study exam-ines the following question. In the context of cross-culturaltraining, can the amount of previously accumulated culturalknowledge affect the ability of a trainee to absorb furtherlearning about a new culture, thus enhancing total knowledgeand presumably cross-cultural adjustment? In-country cross-cultural training was hypothesized to be more effective whenthe training components are divided and the sessions are dis-tributed over time – resulting in increased cultural knowledgeand greater cross-cultural adjustment. Results from an experi-mental design suggested that in-country cross-cultural trainingcan increase cultural knowledge, when distributed over time.The results also suggested that the training group had greaterdifferences between pre-training and post-training scores oncross-cultural adjustment, but the differences were not statis-tically different. The results, methodology and conclusions canbe generalized to a variety of populations (e.g. internationalmanagers and expatriates) and organizations (e.g. multina-tionals). For international managers and expatriates, theresults showed that in-country cross-cultural training, likepredeparture cross-cultural training, is also a viable interven-tion for knowledge acquisition.ijtd_324 148..164

❒ Ibraiz Tarique, Professor, Management Department, Lubin School of Business, Pace University, 1Pace Plaza, 4th Floor, New York, NY, USA. Email: itarique@pace.edu. Paula Caligiuri, Professor, Schoolof Management and Labor Relations, Department of Human Resource Management, Rutgers Univer-sity, 94 Rockafeller Road, Janice Levin Building, Piscataway, NJ, USA. Email: caligiur@smlr.rutgers.edu

International Journal of Training and Development 13:3ISSN 1360-3736

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

148 International Journal of Training and Development

Introduction

In today’s complex and dynamic environment, multinational organizations compete onthe competence of their core human talent across states, regions and countries. Increas-ingly, these core individuals, including all international managers and expatriatesworking outside of their own national borders, have collectively become vital for thesuccess of multinational organizations. These international managers and expatriates fillimportant strategic, developmental and functional purposes such as solving staffingshortages in markets where there is an absence of qualified local candidates, transferingknowledge and corporate culture across geography, working on multinational teams,developing individual employees for international mobility and maintaining goodcommunication, coordination, and control links between subsidiaries and corporateheadquarters.

International managers and expatriates face formidable challenges: they must succeedin an environment different from the one with which they are familiar. They mustinteract effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds – often in a differ-ent language. They must socially assimilate into a new culture – and if they are marriedwith children, so must their family members. Individuals who are able to manage thesechallenges achieve cross-cultural adjustment and can flourish in their internationalexperiences. Scholarly research that has been conducted in recent years suggests thatindividuals who are not prepared to confront these challenges often experience anxiety,depression, and hence incur, and impose on others, costly implications. For example,expatriate managers who are unable to adjust are more likely to prematurely terminatetheir job assignments, that is, return before completing their international assignment(Black et al., 1999; Briscoe et al., 2009; Caligiuri 2000a). Returning before completingtheir international assignment has costly implications for expatriates (e.g. low self-esteem), and organizations (e.g. lost business opportunities) (see Briscoe et al., 2009).Maladjusted expatriates who do not prematurely terminate their job assignments aremore likely to perform poorly (Caligiuri, 1997; Harzing, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran,1997). Thus, given the importance of cross-cultural adjustment for improving thesuccess of international managers and expatriates, the adjustment process should not be(and need not be) left to chance. For these reasons, researchers and practitioners alikehave been developing methods for increasing cross-cultural adjustment.

Cross-cultural adjustment can be facilitated if the individual has an awareness of thenorms and behavior that are appropriate in the host country (Black et al., 1999). Thus,many international organizations recognize the importance of cross-cultural trainingand increasingly use it to prepare individuals to live in a new country. Cross-culturaltraining has been advocated as a means of facilitating effective cross-cultural interac-tions and cross-cultural adjustment (e.g. Kealey & Protheroe, 1996; Littrell & Salas, 2005;Littrell et al., 2006; Morris & Robie, 2001). However, in the realm of academic research,studies that have examined the likely success of cross-cultural training have providedinconclusive results (Kealey & Protheroe, 1996; Puck et al., 2008; Waxin & Panaccio,2005). The majority of these studies have been criticized for lacking theoretical justifi-cation, for having a number of serious methodological deficiencies and for examiningthe effectiveness of poorly designed cross-cultural training programs. To address thesecriticisms, the present study will test the impact of a theory-based in-country cross-cultural training on cultural knowledge and on cross-cultural adjustment.

We borrow from Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) notion of absorptive capacity todevelop a theoretical model explaining how trainees learn or acquire cultural knowl-edge. Using this theory, we argue that training content should be delivered to traineesover time, or sequentially, after prior knowledge has been established to maximizeparticipants’ learning during training. This study hypothesizes that the design of across-cultural training program, based on the notion of cross-cultural absorptive capac-ity (CCAC) theory, will lead to increased cultural knowledge and greater cross-culturaladjustment of trainees. In the subsequent sections, the theory will be described alongwith the methodology for selecting the sequencing of information for an in-countrycross-cultural training program.

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 149© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

CCAC theory

The conceptual framework for this study is derived from Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990)notion of absorptive capacity. Although Cohen and Levinthal view absorptive capacityas a firm level construct, their conceptualization is based on research in cognitivesciences at the individual level (e.g. the cognitive process of learning at the individuallevel). More specifically, Cohen and Levinthal base their absorptive capacity theory onBower and Hilgard’s (1981) argument that memory development or the ability to putinformation into memory is self-reinforcing. That is, accumulated prior knowledge isnecessary for new knowledge to be recognized, assimilated and utilized because ‘themore objects, patterns and concepts that are stored in memory, the more readilyindividuals acquire new information about these constructs and the better they are atusing the information in new settings’ (Bower & Hilgard, 1981, p. 424). A cross-culturalsetting is particularly suited to the application of this learning process because inter-national managers and expatriates are often entering a foreign cultural context that theyhave no prior knowledge of. We borrow the term ‘absorptive capacity’ from Cohen andLevinthal, and build on Bower and Hilgard’s construct to argue that an individual’sability to recognize new cultural knowledge, assimilate it and apply it in new cross-cultural settings is dependent on his or her prior accumulated cultural knowledge.Furthermore, an individual’s learning of new cultural knowledge can vary with themagnitude of the individual’s prior accumulated cultural knowledge, that is, the largerthe individual’s prior accumulated cultural knowledge, the greater the learning of newcultural knowledge. We refer to this as the CCAC.

Applying CCAC theory to cross-cultural training

CCAC applied to the timing of cross-cultural trainingBased on CCAC, the timing of cross-cultural training delivery is a critical aspect oftraining effectiveness. With respect to the order and sequencing of training activities,past research on cross-cultural training has focused almost exclusively on examiningthe effectiveness of predeparture cross-cultural training (training provided prior toleaving the home country) because it has been the most widely utilized form ofcross-cultural training used by organizations. Advocates of this predeparture cross-cultural training argue that it allows individuals to enter the assignment alreadyequipped with realistic expectations about living and working in a new country (seeSelmer, 2001). Other studies, however, argue that although predeparture cross-culturaltraining may provide the trainee with greater confidence about being successful in thenew country, predeparture cross-cultural training is conducted apart from the actualexperience of realities in the host country (Black et al., 1999; Selmer et al., 1998). Thus,in-country cross-cultural training is likely to be more effective than predeparturecross-cultural training because individuals, after arrival in the new country, enhancetheir learning readiness by experiencing the host country’s culture, beliefs and values.Based on the CCAC theory, this study will examine the effectiveness of an in-countrycross-cultural training program, using an experimental design.

CCAC applied to the sequencing of cross-cultural trainingAlthough the CCAC theory advises the timing of cross-cultural training activities, italso advises the sequencing of training activities. Several studies have proposed that tomaximize trainees’ learning to cross-cultural training, different types of training activi-ties should be conducted at different times during an individual’s sojourn (Black et al.,1999; Selmer et al., 1998). Some studies have argued that effective cross-cultural trainingoccurs when the training activities are aligned with the individual’s psychologicalpredisposition occurring during the various phases of his/her adjustment process(Selmer et al., 1998). Other studies have proposed that cross-cultural training should beprovided one month after an individual arrives in the new country (Black et al., 1999).Although these arguments differ with the specific timing of training activities, they

150 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

share a common notion that distributing cross-cultural training activities over a rea-sonable period of time maximizes trainee learning. This notion is consistent with theCCAC theory.

The delivery of cross-cultural training based on CCACBecause CCAC theory relates to how individuals learn in a new culture, it providesgeneral guidelines on the delivery of training activities to facilitate learning of culturalknowledge. When these principals are used to arrange training activities, the argumentis that trainees would be able to develop an appropriate context into which subsequentcultural knowledge could be assimilated. A deductive approach to arranging trainingactivities can help provide this context (Harrison, 1994). This approach is based onresearch in cognitive psychology and recommends that, in general, the arrangement oftraining activities should provide trainees with culture-general knowledge (e.g. howcultures vary) to prepare them for cross-cultural encounters in general, and shouldprovide culture-specific knowledge to help them interact effectively within the specificculture (Harrison, 1994). Culture-general knowledge must precede culture-specificknowledge so that trainees may apply the general information (e.g. how cultures vary)with logic and reason to particular situations (e.g. a specific culture). In this manner,trainees’ prior accumulated cultural knowledge (how cultures vary) enhances theirability to learn new cultural knowledge (the understanding of a specific culture).

Hypotheses based on CCAC

Assuming that trainees follow the above-described deductive approach, the culturalknowledge provided to trainees is accurate and the cognitive associations they makeare correct, trainees will increase their understanding of cultural knowledge. This leadsto the following hypotheses:

H1a: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greaterincrease in cultural-general knowledge than those receiving no training.

H1b: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greaterincrease in cultural-specific knowledge than those receiving no training.

H1c: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greaterincrease in work-specific knowledge than those receiving no training.

Increase in cultural knowledge may influence the way individuals behave in the hostcountry. Black and Mendenhall (1990), for example, have suggested that culturalknowledge helps participants gradually develop familiarity regarding expected normsand behavior in the new culture. This familiarity leads to less anxiety and culture shock,and, hence, would facilitate cross-cultural adjustment. Similarly, Bird et al. (1993) notedthat ‘greater knowledge about a target country and its people fosters an emotivechange in the trainee from apathy, or possibly antipathy, to empathy. The empathybrought through greater knowledge is presumed to lead to a variety of more adjust-ment behavior in the context of the foreign culture’ (p. 417). Thus, a function of culturalknowledge is to produce adjustment behavior that is appropriate in the host country. Itis proposed that the increased cultural knowledge will help individuals develop behav-ior that will help them adjust to the general non-work environment (general non-workadjustment), adjust to interacting with people from different cultures (interactionadjustment) and adjust to working effectively with others (work adjustment):

H2a: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greaterincrease in general non-work adjustment than those receiving no training.

H2b: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greaterincrease in interaction adjustment than those receiving no training.

H2c: Individuals receiving in-country cross-cultural training will report greaterincrease in work adjustment than those receiving no training.

According to CCAC theory, an individual’s learning can vary with the magnitude ofhis/her prior accumulated cultural knowledge, that is, the larger the individual’s

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 151© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

accumulated prior cultural knowledge, the greater the learning of new cultural knowl-edge. Distributing training activities over time, with appropriate time interval betweenthe activities, allows trainees to experience the new culture in a variety of ways (e.g.interacting with people from the local culture), and allows them to sort out the manyexperiences and impressions of the host culture. Learning from these experiencesenhances their accumulated cultural knowledge that, in turn, enhances their capacity tolearn from later cross-cultural training activities. That is, their prior accumulated cul-tural knowledge is much greater than if there was no time interval between the cross-cultural training activities. Therefore, relative to a cross-cultural training program withno time interval between training activities (e.g. continuous in-country cross-culturaltraining), a cross-cultural training program that includes a time interval between train-ing activities (e.g. sequential in-country cross-cultural training) would lead to greateradjustment behavior in the host country. Assuming that trainees follow the proposedstructure of training contents, the cultural knowledge provided to trainees is accurateand the cognitive associations they make are correct, it is hypothesized:

H3a: Individuals receiving sequential in-country cross-cultural training will reportgreater increase in general non-work adjustment than those receiving continu-ous in-country cross-cultural training.

H3b: Individuals receiving sequential in-country cross-cultural training will reportgreater increase in interaction adjustment than those receiving continuousin-country cross-cultural training.

H3c: Individuals receiving sequential in-country cross-cultural training will reportgreater increase in work adjustment than those receiving continuous in-countrycross-cultural training.

The present study

As mentioned earlier, Kealey and Protheroe (1996) found methodological deficienciesin cross-cultural training research, including: lack of control groups, no random assign-ment and no pre-training/post-training assessment of the dependent variables inquestion. Considering these findings, Kealey and Protheroe (1996) concluded, ‘it isimpossible to take as definitive the general consensus of the literature that such train-ing is effective’ (p. 141). More recently, Mendenhall et al. (2004) conducted a literaturereview of all studies evaluating cross-cultural training published from 1988 to 2000.They concluded that ‘the non-rigorous nature of the research designs of many of theevaluation studies summarized in this review renders a comprehensive conclusionregarding the efficacy or lack of efficacy regarding CCT impossible’ (p. 21). Conse-quently, on the basis of the above findings, the evidence regarding the effectiveness ofcross-cultural training remains inconclusive until a controlled experimental design canbe employed. This study, therefore, employs an experimental design to test the CCACtheory.

MethodSubjects

This study was conducted at a large state university located in the northeastern UnitedStates. The sample used in the study consisted of 40 newly enrolled internationalgraduate student research assistants who had been in the United States for at least amonth but not more than 6 months. Extending the usual orientation these studentsreceive, students enrolled in the study for a chance to participate in training that mightenhance their work performance through improved cultural understanding. A gift of$500.00 was given to one of the participants through a random drawing that took placeat the end of the study. There were 19 (47 percent) females and 21 (55 percent) males.The mean age of participants was 26, the average age of females was 27, and the averageage of males was 25. The ethnic background included India, China, Malaysia, Indone-sia, Jordan, Germany, Japan, Pakistan, South Africa, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ghana and thePhilippines.

152 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Development of a CCAC-based cross-cultural training program

Table 1 summarizes the structure of the in-country cross-cultural training programwe developed and used to test the proposed hypotheses. The program consisted offour modules: (1) self-assessment; (2) general cultural awareness; (3) US cultureawareness; and (4) university environment. The first module consisted of a half-hourlecture and a short group discussion on factors that may influence one’s receptive-ness to effective cross-cultural interactions, such as resistance to change, clear under-standing of the purpose, value and benefits of studying at the university and theability to manage stress (cf. Harrison, 1994). The second module helped traineesbecome familiar with the general dimensions on which most cultures differ, and theimpact of these differences on international students. This module involved an hourof a simulation game on cultural clashes followed by a half hour of group discussion.The third module provided trainees with information on the US culture. During thishour-long module, participants received a lecture on US diversity, history, geography,climate, economy, political system, industrialization, attitudes, business attitudes andpractices, manners, food, shopping and religion. Finally, the fourth module wasdesigned to lecture trainees about the expectations of US professors, the appropriateclassroom norms, diversity on campus and how to effectively interact with faculty,staff and other students.

Two versions of the program were developed. Both versions were identical in termsof training content, training techniques, lesson plans and seating arrangements butdiffered with respect to the timing and sequencing of the modules. The first versionwas labeled ‘continuous cross-cultural training’ and offered the four modules in one4-hour session. The other version was termed ‘sequential cross-cultural training’ andoffered the four modules in two separate sessions of 2 hours each with an interval of 4weeks between the sessions. Both versions were taught by a trainer who was a memberof the international student services at the university.

Experimental design, procedure and timeline

A true randomized experiment with three conditions was developed and conducted totest the hypotheses (see Table 2). The dependent variables were cross-cultural knowl-edge and cross-cultural adjustment. Training design was the only independent variablein the design. The first condition involved an experimental manipulation consisting ofthe continuous cross-cultural training program, that is, participants received the first

Table 1: Structure of the in-country cross-cultural training program

Trainees New international studentsTraining goal Short term: increase knowledge and appreciation about the

US culture and increase awareness of the skills required tobe successful in the university

Long run: facilitate adjustment to the US cultureTraining design Deductive approachTraining content Integrated approach – four modules:

Module #1: self-assessmentModule #2: general cultural awarenessModule #3: US culture awarenessModule #4: university environment

Training techniques Integrated approach: lectures, discussions and simulationsTraining duration 4 hTraining timing 1 month after arrivalTraining effectiveness Measured by a change that occurs after training in cross-

cultural knowledge and cross-cultural adjustmentGuiding theory Cross-cultural absorptive capacity theory

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 153© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

version of the training program. The experimental manipulation in the second condi-tion involved the sequential cross-cultural training program, that is, participantsreceived the second version of the training program. The experimental manipulation inthe third condition involved no training.

The experiment was conducted for a 16-week period. All the activities during the first2 weeks related to the identification of the treatment and control groups, and pretestingof all participants. During this period, participants were recruited in three ways: (1)Flyers were distributed in residence halls and posted in student centers; (2) The centerfor international faculty and students informed new international students of the study;and 3) The author was provided a booth to recruit participants during the new studentorientation event organized by the university. As a result of these recruitment efforts,117 self-nominated students agreed to participate in the study and were providedwith an informed consent form along with a pretest and a campus mail envelope.The pretest assessed a participant’s cross-cultural adjustment, the level of culturalknowledge and personal demographics. They were asked to complete and return theinformed content form and the pretest within 2 weeks. Of the 117 possible participantsin the study, 76 completed and returned the pretest (response rate of 64 percent). The76 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: continuous cross-cultural training (group 1, possible n = 25), sequential cross-cultural training (group 2,possible n = 25) and no training (group 3, possible n = 26). Participants were informedabout their assignments through email and by telephone.

Demographic data (age, gender, prior cross-cultural experience and knowledge offoreign languages) were analyzed to establish group equivalence. The analyses indi-cated no significant differences among the groups in any of the demographic variables.Pretest scores of the dependent variables also indicated that no significant differenceamong the three groups existed.

All the activities during weeks 3 and 16 related to training and posttesting ofparticipants. During week 3, the participants in group 1, the continuous training group,received the first version of the cross-cultural training program (four modules). Imme-diately after training, the first posttest was administered, which assessed the partici-pants’ level of cultural knowledge. Questions on the first posttest were identical tothose used in the pretest to examine a participant’s level of cultural knowledge. Theparticipants were instructed not to discuss any aspect of their training session withparticipants of other groups. One day after group 1 received training, group 2, thesequential training group, received the first two modules of the training programand also completed the first posttest before the start of training, which assessed the

Table 2: Experimental design, procedure and timeline

Week Group 1One session

CCTn = 16

Group 2Sequential

CCTn = 8

Group 3Controlgroupn = 16

1–2 Pretest 1 (cross-culturaladjustment and culturalknowledge measures)

X X X

3 CCT modules 1, 2, 3 and 4 XPosttest 1 (cultural

knowledge measures)X

CCT modules 1 and 2 X7 CCT modules 3 and 4 X12–16 Pretest 2 (cross-cultural

adjustment measures)X X X

CCT, cross-cultural training.

154 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

participants’ level of cultural knowledge. Questions on the first posttest were identicalto those used in the pretest to examine participants’ level of cultural knowledge.During week 7, the participants in group 2 completed the final two modules of thetraining program and were asked not to discuss any aspect of their training sessionwith the participants of other groups. During weeks 12–16, all the participants weremailed the second, and the final, posttest, which assessed the participants’ currentcross-cultural adjustment, at that time, to the US culture. Questions were identical tothose used in the pretest to examine the participants’ cross-cultural adjustment. Fourweeks were allotted for the posttest questionnaire to be returned either by campus mailor the responses by email. After all the participants returned the posttest, the study wascomplete. All participants were debriefed by email about how the groups differed andwere provided with the objective of the study.

Final response rate for each group

Of the 25 participants in group 1 who were initially scheduled for training, 19 attendedtraining. Of these 19, 16 completed the posttest questionnaires; therefore, the finalresponse rate for group 1 was 76 percent (n = 16). There were no significant differencesbetween the participants and non-participants on any of the background measures andon the pretest scores of the dependent variables.

Of the 25 participants in the second group who were scheduled for training, only 12showed up and participated in the first training session, and of these 12, three did notshow up in the second training session. Of the nine who participated in the secondsession, eight completed the posttests. This provided a final response rate of 32 percent(n = 8) for group 2. There were no significant differences between the participants andnon-participants on any of the background measures and on the pretest scores ofthe dependent variables. Finally, of the 26 participants in the control group who com-pleted the pretest, 16 returned the posttest. Hence, the final response rate for group 3was 61 percent (n = 16). There were no significant differences between the participantsand non-participants on any of the demographic variables and on the pretest scores ofthe dependent variables.

Measures

DemographicsAge was assessed as the age reported by the participant. Nationality was assessed as thenationality reported by the participant. Experience of living in the United States wasmeasured by the following self-reported item: ‘How long have you lived in the US?’Fluency in English language skills was measured by the following self-reported item:‘What is your level of fluency in English?’ The participants rated their ability on a5-point scale: 1 = I am limited to very short and simple phrases; 2 = I know basicgrammatical structure, and speak with a limited vocabulary; 3 = I understand conver-sation on simple topics; 4 = I am mostly fluent in this language; and 5 = I am fluent inthis language. Foreign language was measured by asking the participant ‘How manylanguage(s), (other than your mother tongue) can you speak?’ 1 = one, 2 = two,3 = three and 4 = more than three.

Cross-cultural adjustmentCross-cultural adjustment was measured using the socioculture adjustment scalesdeveloped by Black (1988) and Black and Stephens (1989). Some of the items weremodified with Ward and Kennedy’s (1999) Sociocultural Adaptation Scales so theitems could measure cross-cultural adjustment of international students in an academicenvironment. The items measured three facets of in-country cross-cultural adjustment:(1) adjustment to the general non-academic work environment; (2) adjustment tointeracting with Americans; and (3) adjustment to academic work. The items asked theparticipants to rate, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), their degreeof adjustment to living and working in their host national country (sample items: rate

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 155© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

your adjustment to your living conditions in the United States, rate your adjustment tolocal cultural norms, rate your adjustment to interacting with Americans on campusand rate your adjustment to making friends). For both the pretests and posttests, thereliabilities of the three subscales were: ‘general adjustment’ alpha = 0.94, ‘interactionadjustment’ alpha = 0.92 and ‘work adjustment’ alpha = 0.94.

Cultural knowledgeThe items were developed to assess cultural-general knowledge (how cultures vary),cultural-specific knowledge (facts about the US culture) and university-specific knowledge(facts about studying in an American university). The items were derived fromcommonly accepted theoretical definitions and were influenced by the work of Adler(2001), and Kohls (1996).

Cultural-general knowledge was measured by a 10-item true/false knowledge test.Sample items include: When people talk about cultures, they tend to describe the differencesand not the similarities and Feelings of loneliness and lack of confidence are common during thefirst few months of visiting another culture. The score on the cultural-general knowledgevariable was calculated based on the number of correct responses that were made byeach participant. For both the pretests and posttests, the interval reliability of thecultural-general knowledge measure was acceptable (average alpha = 0.81).

Cultural-specific knowledge was also measured by 12 true/false items. Sample itemsinclude: The future is more highly valued by Americans than the present and Americansbelieve that all people are created equal. The score on the cultural-specific knowledgevariable was calculated based on the number of correct responses that were made byeach participant. For both the pretests and posttests, the interval reliability of thecultural-specific knowledge measure was acceptable (average alpha = 0.86).

The university-specific knowledge was measured by six true/false items. Sampleitems include: The US education is highly centralized and the responsibility for educationrests with the federal government and Americans dress very casually for classes. The score onthe university-specific knowledge variable was calculated based on the number ofcorrect responses that were made by each participant. For both the pretests and post-tests, the interval reliability of the university-specific knowledge measure was accept-able (average alpha = 0.84).

Analysis

To control for type I error because of more than one dependent variable, a general linearmodeling (GLM) analysis with repeated measures was used. Groups (continuous,sequential and control) constituted the between-subject variable, and timing (pretestand posttest) constituted the within-subject (repeated measure) variable. GLM analysisincludes both multivariate and univariate tests of significance for the treatment factor.We first examined the test for the significance for the multivariate group effect, multi-variate time effect and multivariate group ¥ time effect. If the multivariate group ¥ timeeffect was significant, then we discussed the univariate tests of significance for each ofthe dependent variables (Gardner, 2001).

Results1

To test for the first set of hypotheses (H1a–c), group 1 (continuous cross-culturaltraining) and group 2 (control group) were evaluated against one another. The first set of

1 A power analysis (Cohen, 1992) at the commencement of the study indicated that to detect mediumeffects, the relatively small sample sizes for this experiment may not be large enough to evaluate thestatistical significance of small mean differences. Some researchers (e.g. Cohen, 1992) have suggestedthat one way to manage the problem of ‘small sample size – low statistical power’ is to relax the controlof type I error as an additional way of increasing statistical power of an experiment. Cohen (1992)suggests that for exploratory research, which this study is, a less rigorous standard for rejection of thenull hypotheses, such as a = 0.10, is appropriate. Therefore, we decided to increase the significance levelfrom a = 0.05 to a = 0.10.

156 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

hypotheses (H1a–c) suggested that continuous cross-cultural training would result inincreases in three types of knowledge: culture-general knowledge, culture-specificknowledge and work-specific knowledge. The results indicated a non-significant maineffect for group (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 20] = 1.23, not significant [ns], h2 = 0.16,power = 0.28), that is, there were no significant group differences on any of the culturalknowledge variables. The results indicated a significant main effect for time (Pillai’strace = 0.37, F [3, 20] = 4.01, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.37, power = 0.75). This effect indicates that themean percentage correct on each of the three cultural knowledge measures collapsedacross between-subject groups was not the same for the two testing occasions (pretestand posttest). More importantly a time ¥ group interaction (Pillai’s trace = 0.32, F [3,20] = 3.22, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.32, power = 0.65) was significant. This indicated that differ-ences in mean performance, on each of the three cultural knowledge measures,depended on whether participants were in the training or the no training group.

In order to determine exactly which of the three cultural knowledge measuressignificantly differed over time (pretest and posttest), the univariate tests wereconducted. These analyses revealed significant group ¥ time effects for all three culturalknowledge variables. For culture-general knowledge: F (1, 22) = 3.32, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.131,power = 0.41; for culture-specific knowledge: F (1, 22) = 3.50, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.137,power = 0.43; and for work-specific knowledge: F (1, 22) = 5.54, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.20,power = 0.61. Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the group ¥ time interaction for each ofthe three cultural knowledge measures, and the means and standard deviations of thethree cultural knowledge measures. These results indicate that continuous cross-culturaltraining was effective in significantly increasing the trainees’ understanding of culture-general knowledge, culture-specific knowledge and work-specific knowledge. There-fore, the first set of hypotheses (H1a–c) was supported.

To test for the second set of hypotheses (H2a–c), group 1 and group 2 were combinedto form one cross-cultural training group. This cross-cultural training group was evalu-ated against group 3 (control group). The second set of hypotheses (H2a–c) suggestedthat participants in the cross-cultural training group would report greater adjustmentthan the control group. This pattern was hypothesized across three types of cross-cultural adjustment: increased general adjustment, interaction adjustment and workadjustment. The results indicated no significant main effect for group differences onany of the cross-cultural adjustment measures (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F [3, 36] = 0.79, ns,h2 = 0.06, power = 0.20). However, the main effect for time approached significance(Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 36] = 2.29, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.16, power = 0.53). This suggests thatthe three measures of cross-cultural adjustment significantly changed for participantsin all groups between the pretest and the posttest period. A significant time ¥ groupinteraction (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 36] = 2.36, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.16, power = 0.54) wasfound, suggesting that the three groups, with respect to the cross-cultural adjustmentmeasures, changed differentially. Subsequent univariate tests were conducted to deter-mine which of the three cross-cultural adjustment measures significantly differed overtime (pretest and posttest). These revealed non-significant group ¥ time effects on thethree cross-cultural adjustment measures.

To test for the third set of hypotheses (H3a–c), all three groups (group 1: continuouscross-cultural training, group 2: sequential cross-cultural training, group 3: controlgroup) were evaluated against one another. The third set of hypotheses (H3a–c)proposed that participants who receive sequential cross-cultural training will reportgreater general adjustment, interaction adjustment and work adjustment than par-ticipants in the continuous group. The results indicated no significant main effectfor group differences on any of the cross-cultural adjustment measures (Pillai’strace = 0.11, F [6, 72] = 0.72, ns, h2 = 0.05, power = 0.27). However, the main effect fortime approached significance (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, F [3, 35] = 2.30, p < 0.10, h2 = 0.165,power = 0.53). This suggests that the three measures of cross-cultural adjustment sig-nificantly changed for participants in all groups between the pretest and the posttestperiod. The results indicated a non-significant group ¥ time interaction effect (Pillai’strace = 0.11, F [6, 72] = 0.72, ns, h2 = 0.05, power = 0.27). Thus, hypotheses 3a–c were notsupported.

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 157© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Figure 1 takes the analysis a step further and considers how cultural knowledge isrelated to cross-cultural adjustment. To examine this, correlations between group 1’spost-training cultural knowledge measures and their post-training cross-culturaladjustment measures were analyzed. Culture-general knowledge was found to bepositively associated with general adjustment (r = 0.49, p < 0.05) and with interaction

Training group Control group (n = 24)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Measure M SD M SD

Culture-general knowledge Pretest 75.6 14.1 76.3 11.9 Posttest 91.3 8.9 80.0 13.1 Difference 15.6 14.6 3.8 16.0

(20.7%) (4.9%) Culture-specific knowledge Pretest 70.8 13.3 77.1 13.2 Posttest 85.9 16.0 78.1 14.0 Difference 15.1 15.3 1.0 21.1

(21.3%) (1.4%) Work-specific knowledge Pretest 80.4 22.7 83.9 11.9 Posttest 92.9 10.4 75.0 14.8 Difference 12.5 24.9 – 8.9 7.4

(15.6%) (–10.64%) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(n = 8)

Culture-general knowledge

After trainingBefore training

Means

100

90

80

70

Group

Training

Control

Culture-specific knowledge

After trainingBefore training

Means

90

80

70

60

Group

Training

Control

Work-specific knowledge

After trainingBefore training

Means

100

90

80

70

Group

Training

Control

Figure 1: Impact of cross-cultural training on cultural knowledge. Group ¥ time interactionfor each of the three cultural knowledge measures: means and standard deviations.

158 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

adjustment (r = 0.50, p < 0.05). Interestingly, a positive association between cultural-general knowledge and culture-specific knowledge (r = 0.56, p < 0.05) was found.Another significant association of interest was the positive association between thefluency in the English language and interaction adjustment (r = 0.53, p < 0.05).

Discussion, limitations and future research

This study was designed to determine whether a theory-based, in-country cross-cultural training program is effective in enhancing trainees’ cultural knowledge and infacilitating their cross-cultural adjustment. In addition, this study examined whether atheory-based, in-country cross-cultural training is more effective in facilitating trainees’cross-cultural adjustment if the training sessions are distributed over a reasonableperiod of time.

Impact of cross-cultural training on cultural knowledgeThe finding that cross-cultural training, of the design developed in this study, enhancescultural knowledge contributes to the cross-cultural training literature in several ways.First, this finding strongly supports conceptual and empirical research suggesting thatcross-cultural training can provide important knowledge preparation for sojourners(Bird et al., 1993). Second, as noted by Kealey and Protheroe (1996), if a general con-clusion can be drawn about predeparture cross-cultural training, it is probably thatalthough the long-term impact of predeparture cross-cultural training is not clear, inthe short-term, predeparture cross-cultural training does enhance trainees’ culturalknowledge (e.g. Bird et al., 1993). This study shows that in-country cross-cultural train-ing, like predeparture cross-cultural training, is also a viable intervention for knowl-edge acquisition. Finally, this study provides support to the CCAC theory by showingthat a CCAC-based cross-cultural training program, of the structure developed earlier,can increase the individuals’ understanding of cultural knowledge.

Impact of cross-cultural training on cross-cultural adjustmentAlthough in-country cross-cultural training increased the participants’ understandingof culture-general knowledge, culture-specific knowledge and work-specific knowl-edge, it did not have a significant effect on the participants’ cross-cultural adjustment.It is possible that the small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statisticallysignificant results, that is, the increased cultural knowledge yielded weak effects oncross-cultural adjustment but these effects failed to show significance. The smaller thesample size, the greater the treatment effect must be in order to achieve statisticalsignificance (Keppel, 1991).

Sequential cross-cultural training versus continuous cross-cultural trainingConcerning the effect of continuous cross-cultural training versus sequential cross-cultural training, the results of the present study are not consistent with the previouscross-cultural training effectiveness research, which proposes that to maximize train-ees’ receptiveness to cross-cultural training, training contents should be distributedamong several sessions (Selmer et al., 1998). Although the pretest and posttest differ-ence on work adjustment for the sequential cross-cultural training group was notsignificantly different, the trend certainly provides support to the argument that cross-cultural training has a greater impact on work adjustment if cross-cultural trainingactivities are distributed over time (see Figure 2).

As with all studies, this study is not without its limitation. The present study used astudent sample. Future studies should test the hypotheses using a sample of interna-tional assignees. As mentioned earlier, the small sample size is a clear limitation of thisstudy, limiting statistical power. In particular, the number of the participants across thethree different treatments is very small for any conclusions to be drawn. Because of thelimited sample size, it is also problematic to introduce additional control variables tothe analyses. Ideally, it is important to have a larger sample size. The effectiveness ofcross-cultural training is worth reinvestigating with a larger sample. Closely related,

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 159© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Control group One session Sequential (n = 16)

training training (n = 16)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Measure M SD M SD M SD

General adjustment Pretest 3.1 0.5 2.8 0.8 3.0 0.5 Postest 3.3 0.8 3.3 0.6 3.2 0.4 Difference 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.4

(5.3%) (16.9%) (7.7%)

Interaction adjustment Pretest 3.0 0.8 3.0 0.9 2.9 0.8 Posttest 3.0 1.0 3.2 0.9 3.2 0.6 Difference 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.7

(7.9%) (7.8%) (8.1%)

Work adjustment Pretest 3.3 0.7 3.0 0.9 3.0 0.8 Posttest 3.3 0.8 3.1 0.9 3.5 0.7 Difference –0.1 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.5

(–1.7%) (5.9%) (14.7%) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

cross-cultural cross-cultural

(n = 8)

General adjustment

After trainingBefore training

Me

an

s

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

Group

Control

One session

Sequential

Interaction adjustment

After trainingBefore training

Me

an

s

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

Group

Control

One session

Sequential

Work adjustment

After trainingBefore training

Means

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

Group

Control

One session

Sequential

Figure 2: Continuous cross-cultural training versus sequential cross-cultural training.Group ¥ time interaction for each of the three cultural knowledge measures: means and

standard deviations.

160 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

the student sample raises a concern about generalizability. Theoretically, one would notexpect substantial differences regarding the influence of cross-cultural training oncultural knowledge, but the impact of cross-cultural training on cross-cultural adjust-ment may vary with the type of population. Hammer et al. (1998) identified severaldifferences between the student experience and the expatriate assignment (e.g. differ-ent intercultural situations and responsibilities, different motivations and expectationstoward the international experience). Similarly, in a meta-analysis of studies of cross-cultural training using a combination of both students and non-student samples,Deshpande et al. (1994) show that there are several differences between students andnon-students in experience and familiarity with cross-cultural interactions. Futurestudies should test the CCAC training model with samples from different sojournpopulations.

Another limitation of this study is that it did not measure or examine potentialmoderators of the relationship between cross-cultural training and cross-culturaladjustment. Prior expatriate management research has indicated that cross-culturaladjustment and performance in a different cultural setting are because of variouscontributing and moderating variables. The impact of cross-cultural training on proxi-mal and distal measures of training effectiveness may be moderated by individualcharacteristics (e.g. Caligiuri & Tarique, 2006) such as the big five personality traits(e.g. Funder, 2001), self-efficacy (e.g. Ford et al., 1992), relational skills, listening skills,resourcefulness (e.g. Arthur & Bennett, 1995), willingness to communicate, social ori-entation, tolerance of ambiguity (e.g. Black et al., 1999), prior experience in the foreigncountry (e.g. Waxin & Panaccio, 2005) and country of origin (e.g. Parker & McEvoy,1993). Future research can examine how the personality trait of openness to experiencemoderates the relationship between cross-cultural training and cross-cultural adjust-ment. Several studies have shown that individuals high on openness to experience aremore likely to establish interpersonal relationships with people from different culturesthan those low on this trait (e.g. Caligiuri, 2000a,b; Herold et al., 2002). Openness toexperience tends to increase an individual’s curiosity about one’s environment, and awillingness to explore new experiences (Herold et al., 2002). These individuals arelikely to engage in new settings with a strong level of curiosity and a willingness toassess what is required to adapt to new and novel situations (Caligiuri, 2000a). In thecontext of this study, it is possible that some of the participants in this study had alreadybeen in the United States for 6 months, and those with strong adaptability power oropenness to experience may have acquired cultural knowledge or adjusted to the USculture regardless of cross-cultural training.

Another important task for future research is to examine the role of cultural distance(defined as the degree of cultural difference between the individual’s country of originand host country [the United States in this study]) in influencing the relationshipbetween cross-cultural training and cross-cultural adjustment. Prior research hasshown that cultural background does make a difference (Waxin & Panaccio, 2005). Thelarger the cultural distance, the more difficult it would be for the individual to attendand retain the various models of appropriate skill/behavior (Black & Mendenhall,1990). In a recent study, Waxin and Panaccio (2005) examined how different types ofcross-cultural training are related to cross-cultural adjustment and whether or not priorinternational experience and cultural distance have a moderating effect on the effec-tiveness of cross-cultural training. Based on data from over 200 expatriates from severalcountries, Waxin and Panaccio (2005) suggest that the effect of cross-cultural trainingdiffers according to the expatriate’s country of origin. Taking our study and Waxin andPanaccio’s (2005) findings as a point of departure, it would be interesting for futureresearch to probe into issues such as how cultural distance (at the individual level)facilitates or inhibits the learning of skills and behavior needed to live and work in anew culture.

Finally, this study assessed the impact of in-country cross-cultural training ontwo criteria of training effectiveness. There are many types of criteria such as organi-zational commitment, interpersonal effectiveness, performance in the host country,self-development, job performance and self-confidence. Therefore, to avoid general

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 161© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

conclusions about cross-cultural training effectiveness, future research needs toexamine the impact of cross-cultural training on the various measures of trainingeffectiveness. This is important because it cannot simply be assumed that what is trueof one kind of relationship between cross-cultural training and a criterion of effective-ness will also hold for other types.

Practical implications

Although this study was conducted with a sample of university students, the popula-tion to which the theory should generalize is all potential international managers andexpatriates. There are levels of criteria which range from the most general (i.e. appli-cable to all international managers and expatriates) to situation specific. Cross-culturaladjustment was used in this study because it is a general criterion relevant to allexpatriate situations. Given the nature of the student sample, the effect of spouses andfamilies on the expatriates’ adjustment was not assessed. Certainly, the adjustment ofexpatriates’ spouses and families would be a salient factor in a working sample. Futurework in this area should attempt to replicate the results for larger samples in a varietyof expatriate situations. In addition, the finding that a limited time cross-cultural train-ing increases cultural knowledge can provide valuable data to international managers(in multinational organizations) who face the dilemma of lack of time to deliver rel-evant cross-cultural training, knowing its importance to some expatriates yet havingalways to justify its costs to management.

Two specific recommendations are offered. First, the provision of increasing thecultural knowledge of individuals is a goal of virtually all cross-cultural training pro-grams. Therefore, the cross-cultural training program developed in this study providesa training foundation for organizations to build upon. For example, based on theperformance goals for expatriate assignments, Caligiuri (2006) has suggested a classi-fication of global assignments into four categories: (1) technical, (2) functional/tactical,(3) developmental/high potential, and (4) strategic/executive. These four categoriesrepresent the different types of global assignments most common in multinationalorganizations. The technical assignment requires only minimal interaction with hostnationals and is in an organizational setting fairly typical to the setting of the homecountry. The functional assignment is similar to the technical assignment with onedistinct difference – significant interactions with host nationals are necessary in orderfor the assignment to be deemed successful. Expatriates on developmental assignmentsare usually sent for a short period of time to gain some international exposure andexperience. The strategic assignments include high-profile employees (e.g. vice presi-dents) who are being groomed to move into higher levels of management in the nearfuture. Cross-cultural training programs of the structure developed in this study areideal for people sent on a technical assignment, but the cross-cultural training programcan be expanded to fit each of the other three types of assignments. It can be mademoderately rigorous for people sent on functional/tactical assignments and can bemade extremely rigorous for developmental and strategic assignments. In sum, thecross-cultural training program of the structure developed in this study can beexpanded and enhanced through the ‘rigorousness’ process and, hence, can help orga-nizations with developing the appropriate type of cross-cultural training needed forthe four types of global assignments.

Second, organizations expect expatriates who participate in cross-cultural trainingprograms to apply the acquired cultural knowledge to their global assignments. That is,organizations expect specific performance improvements from cross-cultural training.However, as mentioned earlier, in the realm of academic and applied research, studiesthat have examined the likely success of cross-cultural training have shown that cross-cultural training programs have failed to meet those performance improvement needs.The failure of cross-cultural training to produce a significant change in cross-culturaladjustment and in performance on the global assignment results in the classical ‘trans-fer of training problem’, which is defined as the failure of the trainee to effectively andcontinually apply the knowledge and skills gained in training to his/her job (Burke &

162 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Hutchins, 2007; Saks & Belcourt, 2006). It is well known in the domestic trainingliterature that training content often does not transfer to the actual work setting (Saks& Belcourt, 2006). It is possible that learning from cross-cultural training is related tocross-cultural adjustment through transfer of learning. Organizations need to realizethat cross-cultural training alone may not always improve cross-cultural adjustment.Organizations should consider using targeted post-training interventions (e.g. Broad,2005) that would enhance transfer and facilitate cross-cultural adjustment. Such inter-ventions may include post-training mentoring, post-training coaching and languagetraining. Finally, prior research (e.g. Caligiuri, 2000b; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2006)suggests that an expatriate’s interaction with people from the local culture facilitateshis/her transfer of learned capabilities; then, it is important for organizations to realizethat its support of an expatriate will extend past the boundaries of the work environ-ment. In addition to providing cross-cultural training to the expatriate, organizationsshould consider offering other types of support services, such as social events thatwould provide expatriates with opportunities to interact with people from the localculture.

In conclusion, the above findings provide preliminary support for the theoreticalcross-cultural training model. It must be acknowledged, however, that this studyrepresents only an exploratory investigation of an otherwise complex causal relation-ship. As such, it establishes a base theoretical model and some preliminary evidenceupon which subsequent work can be developed. Further analysis should concentrateon developing a more generalized model that includes other contingent influences.

ReferencesAdler, N. (2001), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (Cincinnati, OH:

South-Western).Arthur, W. and Bennett, W. (1995), ‘The international assignee: the relative importance of factors

perceived to contribute to success’, Personnel Psychology, 48, 99–114.Bird, A., Heinbuch, S., Dunbar, R. and McNulty, M. (1993), ‘A conceptual model of the effects of

area studies training programs and a preliminary investigation of the model’s hypothesizedrelationships’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 415–35.

Black, J. (1988), ‘Work role transitions: a study of American expatriate managers in Japan’, Journalof International Business Studies, 19, 277–94.

Black, J. and Mendenhall, M. (1990), ‘Cross-cultural training effectiveness: a review and a theo-retical framework for future research’, Academy of Management Review, 15, 113–36.

Black, J. and Stephens, G. (1989), ‘The influence of the spouse on American expatriate adjustmentand interest to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments’, Journal of Management, 15, 529–74.

Black, J., Gregersen, H., Mendenhall, M. and Stroh, L. (1999), Globalizing People through Interna-tional Assignments (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

Bower, G. and Hilgard, E. (1981), Theories of Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).Briscoe, D., Schuler, R. and Claus, L. (2009), International Human Resource Management, 3rd edn

(New York: Routledge).Broad, M. (2005), Beyond Transfer of Training: Engaging Systems to Improve Performance (San

Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer).Burke, L. and Hutchins, H. (2007), ‘Training transfer: an integrative review’, Human Resource

Development Review, 6, 263–96.Caligiuri, P. (1997), ‘Assessing expatriate success: beyond just being there’, in D. Saunders and Z.

Aycan (eds), New Approaches to Employee Management: Vol. 4, Expatriate Management: Theory andResearch (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 117–40.

Caligiuri, P. (2000a), ‘The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate success’,Personnel Psychology, 53, 67–88.

Caligiuri, P. (2000b), ‘Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: a moderating effect ofpersonality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural adjustment’,Management International Review, 40, 61–80.

Caligiuri, P. (2006), ‘Performance measurement in a cross-national context: evaluating the successof global assignments’, in W. Bennett, D. Woehr and C. Lance (eds), Performance Measurement:Current Perspectives and Future Challenges (London: Routledge), pp. 227–44.

Caligiuri, P. and Tarique, I. (2006), ‘International assignee selection and cross-cultural trainingand development’, in I. Björkman and G. Stahl (eds), Handbook of Research in InternationalHuman Resource Management (London: Edward Elgar Publishing), pp. 302–22.

Cross-cultural training effectiveness 163© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cohen, J. (1992), ‘A power primer’, Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–9.Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and

innovations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52.Deshpande, S., Joseph, J. and Viswesvaran, C. (1994), ‘Does use of student sample affect results of

studies in cross-cultural training? A meta-analysis’, Psychological Reports, 74, 778–85.Ford, J., Quinones, M., Sego, D. and Sorra, J. (1992), ‘Factors affecting the opportunity to perform

trained tasks on the job’, Personnel Psychology, 45, 511–27.Funder, C. (2001), ‘Personality’, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.Gardner, R. (2001), Psychological Statistics using SPSS for Windows (Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall).Hammer, M., Hart, W. and Rogan, R. (1998), ‘Can you go home again? An analysis of the

repatriation of corporate managers and spouses’, Management International Review, 38, 67–86.Harrison, J. (1994), ‘Developing successful expatriate managers: a framework for the structural

design and strategic alignment of cross-cultural training programs’, Human Resource Planning,17, 17–35.

Harzing, A. (1995), ‘The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates’, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 6, 457–75.

Herold, D., Davis, W., Fedor, D. and Parsons, C. (2002), ‘Dispositional influences on transfer oflearning in multistate training programs’, Personnel Psychology, 55, 851–70.

Kealey, D. and Protheroe, D. (1996), ‘The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: anassessment of the literature on the issue’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20,141–65.

Keppel, G. (1991), Design and Analysis. A Researcher’s Handbook (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Kohls, L. (1996), Survival Kit for Overseas Living, 3rd edn (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press).Littrell, L. and Salas, E. (2005), ‘A review of cross-cultural training: best practices, guidelines, and

research needs’, Human Resource Development Review, 4, 3, 305–34.Littrell, L., Salas, E., Hess, K., Paley, M. and Riedel, S. (2006), ‘Expatriate preparation: a critical

analysis of 25 years of cross-cultural training research’, Human Resource Development Review, 5,355–88.

Mendenhall, M., Stahl, K., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Osland, J. and Kühlmann, T. (2004), ‘Evaluationstudies of cross-cultural training programs: a review of the literature from 1988–2000’, in D.Landis and J. Bennett (eds), The Handbook of Intercultural Training (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage),pp. 129–44.

Morris, M. and Robie, C. (2001), ‘A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cultural training onexpatriate performance and adjustment’, International Journal of Training and Development, 5,112–26.

Ones, D. and Viswesvaran, C. (1997), ‘Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects ofexpatriate job success’, in D. Saunders and Z. Aycan (eds), New Approaches to Employee Man-agement: Vol. 4, Expatriate Management: Theory and Research (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp.63–92.

Parker, B. and McEvoy, G. (1993), ‘Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment’,International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 355–79.

Puck, J., Kittler, M. and Wright, C. (2008), ‘Does it really work? Re-assessing the impact ofpre-departure cross-cultural training on expatriate adjustment’, International Journal of HumanResource Management, 19, 2182–98.

Saks, A. and Belcourt, M. (2006), ‘An investigation of training activities and transfer of training inorganizations’, Human Resource Management, 45, 629–48.

Selmer, J. (2001), ‘The preference for predeparture or postarrival cross-cultural training – anexploratory approach’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 50.

Selmer, J., Torbiorn, I. and De Leon, T. (1998), ‘Sequential cross-cultural training for expatriatebusiness managers: predeparture and post-arrival’, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 9, 831–40.

Ward, C. and Kennedy, A. (1999), ‘The measurement of sociocultural adaptation’, InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 659–77.

Waxin, M. and Panaccio, A. (2005), ‘Cross-cultural training to facilitate expatriate adjustment: itworks!’ Personnel Review, 34, 51–67.

164 International Journal of Training and Development© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.