Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Leonard Barnett and Edward Carter
2.3 Intercultural communication competence
Studies <strong>of</strong> intercultural communication competence emphasize traits, perceptions, behaviors or <strong>the</strong>
culture-specific (Lustig and Koester 1993). For example, approaches include uncertainty reduction
strategies (Gudykunst 1994), non-verbal communication (Anderson 1994), identity maintenance
(Ting-Toomey et al. 2004) cultural knowledge, skills and motivation (Wiseman 2001) and many more
(Cegala 1984; Hammer 1987; Kim 1993). O<strong>the</strong>rs emphasize interactional and relational aspects
(Imahori and Lanigan 1989) while Chen and Starosta (1999) stress affect and social relaxation in
intercultural dealings.
2.4 Intercultural competence
Trait, interactional and developmental approaches predominate in intercultural competence. Fantini,
Arias-Galicia and Guay (2001) define intercultural competence as “multiple abilities that allow one to
interact effectively and appropriately across cultures.” Kohls (1996) adds humor and accepting failure.
O<strong>the</strong>r notable trait studies include Fantini (2000) and Samovar and Porter (2001). Pusch (2004) and
Lustig and Koester (2003) stress <strong>the</strong> milieu, context and interactional aspects <strong>of</strong> intercultural
competence. Developmental and process approaches include increasing awareness, cultural
knowledge and skill (Pederson 1994), ‘intercultural transformation’ (Kim and Rubin 1992) and
movement, through <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> cultural knowledge and perceptual change, from ethnocentric to
ethnorelative (Bennet 1993; Fennes and Hapgood 1997)—stressing changing one’s internal frame <strong>of</strong>
reference. O<strong>the</strong>r process approaches are reconciling cultural differences (Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner 2001), “global people skills” (Gundling 2003) and “global literacy” (Rosen et al.
2000).
Regarding second language pr<strong>of</strong>iciency, some (Gudykunst 1994) ignore it while o<strong>the</strong>rs promote it
(Lambert 1994; Gannon 2008; Bryam 1997; Piller 2007). Roberts et al. (2005) report that most socalled
cultural misunderstandings are due to language difficulties.
2.5 Intercultural competence and tourism
Tourism provides millions <strong>of</strong> intercultural interactions each year. Notable studies from this important
area deal with intercultural competence and adaptation (Hottola 2004), cultural knowledge,
sustainable tourism and customer satisfaction (Shapero 2006; Tse, E. C-Y. and Ho, S-C. 2009;
Samovar and Porter 2001). Gannon (2008) laments that business and educational institutions
devalue <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> knowledge transfer in <strong>the</strong> area. Baum and Devine (2008) note that an
“employee’s ability to be productive depends on <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> cultural awareness learning/training
received.”
2.6 Intercultural competence and management
Intercultural management is concerned with <strong>the</strong> effective functioning <strong>of</strong> diverse groups <strong>of</strong> people in
organizations (Jacob 2004). H<strong>of</strong>stede (1980), arguing for culturally appropriate management styles,
introduces ‘dimensions <strong>of</strong> culture’. Wong (1991) stresses similarities, not differences, between
international managers. Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) state that management must integrate diversity
by understanding target markets’ cultures.
Trompenaars (1993, 2001)’s studies investigate intercultural relationships, reconciling cultural
dilemmas and patterns <strong>of</strong> organizational culture and structure. His renowned ‘dilemmas <strong>of</strong> culture’
are: 1. Communitarianism vs. individualism, (group vs. individual), 2. Universalism vs. particularism
(rules vs. relationships), 3. Neutral vs. emotional (how and what feelings are expressed), 4. Diffuse
vs. specific (range <strong>of</strong> involvement we have with each o<strong>the</strong>r), 5. Achievement vs. ascription (how
status is accorded), 6. Time (sequential vs. synchronic and orientation to <strong>the</strong> past, present and future)
and 7. Environment: (internal vs. external locus <strong>of</strong> control). Although at times controversial, even his
critics call him a “luminary in <strong>the</strong> field” (Jacob, 2004).
3. Methodology
This section describes <strong>the</strong> study’s overall research methodology and rationale, methods employed,
data collection processes, validity and reliability, limitations and ethical issues. The research
questions and objectives were specified in this paper’s Introduction.
67