Comparing French and Chinese students' intercultural competence: a focus on interpersonal engagement

Full text

1

ComparingFrenchandChinesestudents’interculturalcompetence:afocuson
interpersonalengagement
HélèneLanginier,KevinMacGabhann,BabakMehmanpazir,JoseVallejo
EMStrasbourgBusinessSchool,HumanisResearchLab,UniversityofStrasbourg
May2020

Theabilitytooperateeffectivelyacrossvariousculturalcontextsisnowcrucialformanagers(Molinsky,
2009) and multinationals companies (MNCs)enterinafierce competition to attract interculturally 
competentprofiles.Tomeetthisincreasingdemandandanswerthemandatetoadvanceintercultural
competencies (AACSB; 2011), business education offers cross‐cultural management classes as an
integralpartofitscurricula(Szkudlarek,McNett,Romani,&Lane,2013;Musil,2006)andfostersstudy
abroadprograms(Jackson,2015).Notsurprisinglythenumberofinternationalstudentshasincreased
significantly over the last decades, according to the international Organisation for Economic Co‐
operationand Development,thenumberofinternationalstudentsworldwiderosefrom0.8millionin
1975 to3.7million in 2009 (Sood, 2012). However while education abroad st udents are expected to
returnhomewithenhancedinterculturalcompetence,researchrevealsthat manydonotfullybenefit
fromtheirstayinthehostenvironment(Jackson,2015,Varela&Gatlin‐Watts,2014).Arecurringissue
is the integration of international students with domestic students ( Rienties, Beausaert, Grohnert,
Niemantsverdriet&Kommers,2012).Weknowthatnonwesternstudentsfacemoreadjustmentissues
thantheirwesterncounterpartsandthatsocialintegrationischallengingtothem(Rentiesetal,2012).
GiventhatChinesestudyingabroadareestimatedtoincreasefrom544500in2016to700000‐800000in
5years(Wangshu,2017),propelling internationalstudents’ interculturalcompetence especiallyin the
dimensionslinkedtosocialintegrationandrelationtohostcountrynationalsisacrucialendeavour.We
knowaswellthatChinesestudentslearndifferentlythanotherinternationalstudents(Selvarajah,2006,
Burrows,2016)andthat theyfacemorelanguage issues Selvarajah,(2006)asdo Chinese expatriates
(Zhang&Harzing,2016).OuraiminthispaperistocomparethewayChinesestudentsinFranceand
Frenchstudentsabroaddevelopthedimensionoftheirintercultural skills linked to social

2

integration.Wewanttoidentifythesituationstriggering the developmentofthatdimensionof
interculturalcompetenceandunderstandwhether thesesituations aredifferentaccordingtothe
Chinese or French background of the students.  For this purpose we use Bennett’s (2008, p 97)
definitionofinterculturalcompetence“Asetofcognitive,affective and behavioural skills and
characteristicsthatsupporteffectiveandappropriateinteractioninavarietyofculturalcontexts”.To
dosoweanalysetheresultsofthemeasureofaninterculturalcompetencytest:theIntercultural
EffectivenessScale(IES)test(Mendenhall,Stevens,Bird,Oddou&Osland(2007/2012))takenbyboth
French students abroad and Chinese students in France before and after their international
assignmentfocusingonthebehaviouraldimensionofinterpersonalengagement.Wethenanalyse
qualitativelybothstudents’populationself‐reflexivereportsontheirexperience.Wechosetofocus
ourinvestigationsonthedimensioninterpersonalengagementofInterculturalEffectivenessScalethat
relatestotheabilitytodeveloppositiverelationshipswithhostnationalsinlinewithourobjectiveof
understandinginternationalstudents’integration.Thisisimportanttogetaninsightonthedevelopment
ofthisdomainofinterculturalcompetencesincetheabilitytocreateandmaintainrelationshipswith
individualsincross‐cultural/globalsettingisakeycompetencydomainingloballeadershipandexpatriate
adjustment literature (Arthur & Bennet, 1995; Osland, 2008; Thomas & Lazarova, 2006). We know
indeed that developing relationship to locals is crucial, host‐countrynationalscanbeseenas
“socializingagents” enhancingexpatriates’adjustment(Toh&DeNisi,2007). Indeed,socialsupport
andinformationreceivedfromlocalscanhelpexpatriatestodecipherthehostcountry’ssocialand
culturalcodesandbehaviorsandamelioratemuchoftheadjustment‐relatedstresstheyexperience.
Afterdescribingourstudyabroadanditstheoreticalunderpinning,wewillprecisethedimensionsofthe
testInterculturalEffectivenessScale.Wewillthenpresentourmethodology,ourresultsanddiscusskey
findingsfromtheanalysisofthisstudyabroadsupportprogram.



3

Studyabroadfollow‐upprogramandtheoreticalunderpinning
Asmentionedbefore,wemeasuretheevolutionofstudents’interculturalcompetenceduring their
stayabroad,forthispurposewechosetheIESScale,developedbyMendenhall,Stevens,Bird,Oddou
&Osland(2007/2012)basedonasynthesisofseminalmodelsfromgloballeadershipandexpatriate
adjustmentliterature.Frenchstudentsaretested beforetheirdepartureforoneyearstudyabroad
The second stage of our programme consists in asking to the students to complete a personal
developmentplanbasedontheweakestdimensionoftheirInterculturalEffectivenessScaletestsore,
tasksuggestedbyMendenhall,Stevens,Bird,Oddou&Osland(2007/2012).Ontopoftheirpersonal
developmentplan,weasktothestudentstoreflectontheirexperience,toshare criticalsituations
linkedtoculturaldifferencesandtoexplainhowtheywentbeyondandhow theywill valorizeitfor
theircareer.Inthisperspective,theprogrammefollowstheexperiential training cycle, thelearner
gainsconcreteexperience,reflect onthisexperience, engage inabstractthinking and thenactively
experimentsputtingintopracticenewunderstandings(Kolb,1983).WhenFrenchstudentsareback
fromtheiryearabroad,theytakeagaintheIEStest.Chinesestudentsfollownearlythesameprotocol,
howevertheytakethefirstIEStestwhen theyarriveinFranceandthesecondaroundtwoyearsafter
beforetheyleavebackforChina.Bothcohortreceivefeedbackontheirtestbygroupoftwentywithan
Associate‐ProfessorIEScertified.
Thedimensionsassessedbytheinterculturaleffectivenessscale
Thethreebroadfacetsordimensionsforindividuals:thecognitive/perceptual,other/relationship,and
self/self‐efficacydomains (Bhaskar‐Shrinivas,et. al.,2005; Mendenhall& Oddou,1985;Blacket.al.,
1991;Thomas,1998:247)sustaintheconceptualisationofthethreemaindimensionsassessedbythe
Intercultural effectiveness scale: Continuous Learning, Interpersonal Engagement, and Hardiness
(Mendenhall, Stevens, Bird, Oddou & Osland; 2007/2012).  These three main dimensions are each
assessedbytwosubdimensionsintheIESscale.Thedimensionofcontinuouslearningexamineshow
peoplecognitivelyapproachculturaldifferenceandisassessedintheIESbymeasuringself‐awareness

4

and exploration. Self‐awareness influences one’s ability to continuously learn as well as how one
learns. Exploration consists in the willingness to understand ideas, values, norms, situation and
behaviorsthatarenewanddifferent.Thesecondmaindimension“Interpersonalengagement”relates
to the ability to develop positive relationships with host nationals. This dimension emerged as an
importantfactorinsuccessfuloverseasadjustment(Mendenhall&Oddou,1985,Toh&DeNisi,2007).
ThisfactorisassessedintheIESthroughtwoscales:worldorientationandrelationshipinterest.World
orientationmeasuresthedegreetowhichoneisinterestedinandseekstoactivelylearnaboutother
culturesandthepeoplethatlivewiththem.Relationshipinterestreferstothedegreetowhichpeople
haveadesireandwillingnesstoinitiateandmaintainrelationshipswithpeoplefromothercultures.
Thelastmaindimensionishardinessandreferstothedegreetowhichpeoplearepredisposedtobe
opentodifferencesinacognitiveandemotionalwayandavoidbeingjudgmental.Itismadeupiftwo
dimensions:Resilienceandpositiveregards.Resiliencemeasurespeople’sabilitytoeffectivelymanage
theiremotionsandstress (Osland,2008).Positiveregardsreferstotheabilitytoviewothercultures
andpeoplefromthose culturesinapositive way, toavoidstereotypingand to benonjudgmental
aboutnewideasandbehaviors.Theobverseofthiscompetencyisreferredtoasethnocentrism(Black,
1990;Schaffer&al,2006).

ThedevelopmentoftheIESinventoryitemsandscalesisbasedontheaboveconcepts,52self‐report
statementswerewritten,allofwhichwerewrittentoallowforsubjectresponsesusinga5pointslikert
format ranging from 1 = “Stronly disagree”, 2 = ”Disagree”, 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree”, 4 =
“Agree”,5=“Stronlyagree”(Mendenhall,Stevens,Bird,Oddou&Osland;2007/2012)




5

Methodology
Wemeasuredthedevelopmentofstudents’interculturalcompetencewiththeIESscale(Mendenhall,
Stevens,Bird,Oddou&Osland;2007/2012).Thensinceourstudyisexploratoryweuseaqualitative
approachtograspthecomplexityoftheprocessofinterculturalcompetencedevelopmentlinkedto
countryoforiginofourstudents(Miles&Huberman,1994).Westartedfromdescriptivecodingtolet
emergecategorieslinkedtointernationalstudents’waysofimprovingtheirdimensionofintercultural
effectiveness “interpersonal engagement”. To do so we analysed the kind of events the students
engagedinduringtheirstayabroad.Practicallyweanalysestudents’self‐reflexiveexercisesandfield
notestakenbytwooftheauthorsduringtheIEStestdebriefingsessionswithafocusontheoneswho
increasedordecreased theirIESscore ontheinterpersonalengagementdimensionafter theiryear
abroad.WereviewthosedatafirstfortheFrenchstudentsandthenfortheChinesestudentswiththe
initial orienting framework of understanding whether the development of the dimension of
interculturaleffectiveness“InterpersonalEngagement”differsornotamongbothpopulation.

Evaluationofstudents’improvement
DemographicCharacteristicsofparticipants
The French population consisted of 158 participants from Ecole de Management de Strasbourg,
BusinessschoolfromtheUniversityofStrasbourglocatedintheeastofFrance.TheytookthepreIES
testfromMarchtoJune2017beforetheirdepartureforoneyearabroad,spenttheiryearabroadin
thefollowingcountries,UK;Germany;Canada,Quebec,US,Mexico,Argentina,Korea,Japan,Hungaria
andcamebackintheir homeuniversityinSeptember2018. TheChinesepopulationthen tookthe
postIEStestfromSeptembertoOctober2018,thestudentsareallintheirtwentieswith65%female
and35%male.

6

TheChinese populationconsistedof23participants,Chinesestudents spending2yearsatthe Ecole
de Management de Strasbourg. They took the pre IES test in October 2017 after their arrival in
September2017andbeforetheirreturninChinainApril2019
WeusedIEStoassessinterculturalcompetenceatthebeginning(T1)andend(T2)ofthedevelopment
program,weconductedANOVA(arepeatedmeasureanalysisofvariance)analysis toevaluate the
differencebetweentheandpostIESscoresandtoassessthedevelopmentresults(Feng,2016;Huck
&McLean,1975)
ForFrenchstudents(Seetable1)thegroupachievedasignificantimprovementofthe overallIES
score(Pre:3,678,Post:3,898).ThemaindimensionofInterpersonalengagementexperiencedthe
highestincrease(Pre:3,749,Post:4,032)

TABLE 1. ANOVA Analyses for Pre and Post IES Results French students
Before
A
fter
Dimensions Mean SD Mean SD Difference
Continuous learning 3.952 0,308 4.168 0,305 0,216***
Self-awareness 3.705 0,457 3.942 0,388 0,237***
Exploration 4.199 0,343 4.394 0,322 0,195***
Interpersonal_Engagement 3.749 0,51 4.032 0,476 0,283***
World Orientation 3.309 0,733 3.712 0,694 0,403***
Relationship_Development 4.19 0,514 4.353 0,426 0,163***
Hardiness 3.31 0,446 3.481 0,446 0,171***
Positive Regard 3.25 0,593 3.487 0,558 0,237***
Emotional Resilience 3.37 0,535 3.474 0,563 0,104**
Overall IES Score 3.678 0,317 3.898 0,319 0,22***
∗∗p < .05. ∗∗∗p < .001.
ForChinesestudentstheoverallIESscoresurprisinglydecreases(Pré:3,692,Post:3,552)asthe
dimensioninterpersonalengagementonwhichwewanttofocus(Pre:3,619,Post:3,463)

7

TABLE 2. ANOVA Analyses for Pre and Post IES Results for Chinese students
Before
A
fter
Dimensions Mean SD Mean SD Difference
Continuous learning 4.289 0.37 3.982 0.373 -0.308***
Self-awareness 4.264 0.36 3.848 0.406 -0.416***
Exploration 4.315 0.413 4.115 0.408 -0.2**
Interpersonal_Engagement 3.619 0.515 3.463 0.398 -0.156
World Orientation 3.656 0.74 3.376 0.533 -0.28**
Relationship_Development 3.583 0.617 3.551 0.552 -0.032
Hardiness 3.167 0.564 3.212 0.447 0.045
Positive Regard 2.954 0.616 3.107 0.419 0.152
Emotional Resilience 3.378 0.595 3.317 0.611 -0.062
Overall IES Score 3.6920.366 3.552 0.337 -0.14**
∗∗p < .05. ∗∗∗p < .001.

Qualitativeanalysis
Basedontheseresultswefocusedonstudentshavingincreasedordecreasedtheirindividualscoreon
themaindimens ioninterp ersonalen ga gementofa minimumof0, 3pointsforbothChineseandFrench
populationsandanalysedtheirself‐reflexiveexercise.
ForFrenchstudentsweidentified56studentshavingprogressedinthatextentbutonly42completed
theirreportand8havingregressedamongthose4didnotcompletetheirreport‐
Weidentified8Chinesestudentshavingprogressedand9havingregressedinthatextend,allthe23
studentscompletedthoroughlytheirreport.
Wecodeddescriptivelythosereportsfocusingonthelearningsituations enabling the students to
engageinteractionwithhostnationals:

8


1. Frenchstudents
“Iwasscaredbut I improved mySpanishandbeing able to doanoralpresentation
helped me to develop self‐confidence” ( S. English B2; Spanish B2; Interpersonal
Engagement(IE),Sevilla)
“ImprovingmyChinesehelpedmereducedstressandbemoreconfident”(B.English
B2,ChineseB1;IE;China)
“The unknown does not scare me anymore, I am excited about it now, I can speak
Englishwithanybodyatanytime”(W.EnglishB2,SpanishC1,IE,Halifax)
I had to be accepting of my poor English, level I didn’t dare speaking to others ( S. 
EnglishB2,GermanB1,IE,Reading)
Gainconfidencethroughlanguageimprovement
“Ienrolledincountry’sculturecourse,Ilearnedabouttheculture,aboutthemassacre
ofaborigines,Iquestionedthe countryIwasin(O.EnglishB2,SpanishC1,Sydney,IE
,)
IwenttoLouvaintostayclosetohome,Ican’tsayIhadachangeofscenery(B.English
B1,SpanishB2,IE,Louvain,Belgium)
Motivationforthecountry,interestforitshistory
Throughgrou pprojecty ou learndiff erentapproa chesonhowto do work,bein gp atient
andunderstanding isnecessarywhenworkinginamulticulturalgroup(B.EnglishB2,
ChineseB1;IE,Taiwan)

Groupwork
“IhadabuddytherewithwhomIhadalotincommon,hewasthepresidentoftheuni
improclub,Icouldassisttotheirimprosessioneveryweek,theyintegratemefromthe
beginning(W.EnglishB2,SpanishC1;Halifax,IE)
“IwasFrenchteacherwithJapanesestudents,Idiscoverhowtoinitiatecontactsina
foreigncountryandthesocialcodes”(M.EnglishB1,SpanishC1,Tokyo,IE)
Extra‐curricularactivities
Jobs
Personalsupport
“IspentalotoffreetimeattheuniversitywithotherstudentsbecauseI feltreally
good in the building, students have access to a gym, a comfy library and a great
canteen”(M,EnglishB2,GermanC1,Friedrichshafen,IE)
Premises,feelingwellatuniversity


9

2ChineseStudents
“Languageisveryimportantbutthemostimportantistohaveconfidencetocommunicate
withothers,whenmyEnglishandmyFrenchimproved,Itooktheinitiativetocommunicate
withcolleagues»(Q.IE)
“French is my advantage, I studied French at the University, I could be confident and
qualifiedtohandlethings,especiallywhenweworkinmulticulturalgroup”(F.IE)
“IcanaskthebetterChinesestudentsinFrenchtohelpmeandletthemtakemeinthenew
group”(S.IE)
Gain confidence through language
improvement
“Intheclassroommostofthequestionsaskedbytheteachersareopen(…)Childrenunder
the exam oriented education are not ready to answer, I tried to find out why I felt
inadaptation”(A,IE)
“Meetpeoplefromdifferentcountries,learnaboutdifferentstylesofthinking,ifyouwant
tocooperatewiththem,youshouldrespectthemandtheirideas”(B,IE)
“EducationsystemandmethodsarecompletelydifferentthaninChina”(YC,IE9
Differentwaysofthinking
“ForexamplewhenIhavesomeargumentswithFrenchclassmates, I will let them do
anything they want, after professor disagrees with them, I willgivemyplanB”(Y.IE)
“IhavefoundthatIhavetocommunicatewithmyclassmatesespeciallyinworkgroup,team
workisthemostimportant”(YA.IE)
“Iwasnotfamiliarwiththeformofgroupproject,Iwasnotconfidentandnaturalenough”
(SH.IE)
“AfterthisgroupcooperationIfeltmoreconfidentnotonlydidIimprovemyeducationbut
IalsoIbecomemorecompetitiveonthejobmarket(D,IE)
Groupwork
“IhadatandemprojectwithaFrenchwomanwillingtolearnChinese,wehelpedeachother
andlearnalot,atthebeginningsometimeswedidnotunderstandeachother.”(Q.IE)
“Ididn’tliketopresentmyfeelingsandthinking,Iwasafraidofbeingrejectedorignored
buthelpandinfluenceofmyGermanclassmate,passionateandfriend,shealwaysasksfor
myfeeling,di scuss withmeandsho wmesomemethods,wa ystos olveproblems.Igradually
tendtopresentmyselfandtaketheinitiative”(Q.IE)
Personalsupport
“IlearnedfromaGermanclassmatetobeorganized(F.IE)
“IlearntheefficientlearningmethodsfromtheGermansandlearntheirrigorousworking
style”(X.IE)
Germanefficiency

10

Results
Basesonour comparison ofChineseand Frenchstudents,weobserved thatbothpopulationsgain
confidencetoconnectwithhostinternationalstudentswhentheyimprovedtheirlanguageskills.Most
oftheFrenchstudentswhoimprovedtheirdimensionofinterpersonalengagementhadaminimum
levelofB1orB2inEnglishandasecondlanguage(oftentheoneofthehostcountriesfornon‐English‐
speakinghostcountries).TheselevelsfromAbasicusertoCproficientuserisbasedforthe“Common
EuropeanFrameworkofreference”.
BothFrenchandChinesestudentsreflectontheir internationalworkgroupproject,the experience
appearsasmorechallengingforChinesestudentsthanfortheFrenchones.Themostdifficultaspect
is communication. Chinese students who improved reflect deeply on direct and indirect
communicationstyle.ChinesestudentsexplainedduringanIEStest‐debriefingsessionthattheywere
notusedtobeassessedonateambasis.
Not surprisingly French students who improved their interpersonalengagementdimensionwere
interestedandmotivatedbytheirhostcountriesandtheircultures,whereastheonewhoregressed
evendidnotmentiontheirhostcountryintheirreport,orchoseclosecountrylikeBelgium.
Chinesewerestruckbycompletedifferentwaysofthinkinganddifferenteducationsystems.French
studentsinChinaorTaiwannoticedthisdifferencebutreflectlessonit.
Forbothpopulationpersonalsupportandspecialacquaintanceofferanexcellentwaytodiscoverthe
culture and to adapt to difference. Yet the major difference is that Chinese students focus on the
academicenvironmentwhereasFrenchstudentsconsiderbuildingthesetiesthroughextra‐curricular
activitiesorsmalljobsaswell.
Premisesandtheopportunity tospendtimeon thecampusseemstobeofimportanceforFrench
students.

11

Forbothpopulations,the one who improvedaregenerallythe one who genuinely reflect on their
internationalexperience.Theone who completedsuperficiallytheir reports (ornotat all forsome
French)hadatendencytodecreaseontheirInterpersonalEngagementdimension.
Discussion
We identified differences in the way French and Chinese students develop their interpersonal
engagement dimension of intercultural effectiveness in spite of the limitations of our exploratory
study. French students stay abroad in different host countries among those Asian countries but i n
westerncountries aswell, whereasChinesestudentsallstudyinFranceexperiencingahighcultural
distance.AnotherlimitationconsistsonthetakingofthetestinFranceforbothFrenchandChinese
students,bothpopulationnotbeinginthesamesituation.
However,ourmaincontributionistoshowthatChinesestudentsconsidertheopportunitytodevelop
their intercultural competence only in the sphere of the academic environment whereas French
acknowledgetheassistanceofextracurricularactivitiesandsmalljobsinthisendeavour.Consistent
with Varela (2017) we confirm that the development of behavioural aspect of intercultural
competenceisnotanautomaticlearningoutcomeofstudyabroadprogrambutthatstudentsneedto
experience“meaningfulinteractions”during thosesojournsto developinthisregard.Thestudents
whodevelopmeaningfulrelationships(throughpersonalrelationshiporgroupwork)increasedindeed
their dimension of intercultural effectiveness “interpersonal engagement” linked to behaviour,
however for Chinese students these meaningful interactions occur mainly in the academic
environmentwhereas Frenchstudentsdevelopthemoutsideoftheuniversityaswell.Weobserved
thetendencyamongourChinesestudentstobuildrelationshipswithGermanclassmatestolearnfrom
theirorganizationskills
Internationalteamwork offerstheopportunity to bothFrenchand Chinesestudentsto experience
these meaningful interactions, we highlight the greater difficulty expr essed by Chinese students in
thosegroupsituationandthenecessitytohelptheminthisregardespeciallybasedonthequestion

12

of communication styles difference. (Meyer, 2014). The negative stereotyping faced by Chinese
students may explain as well the difficulty perceived during international group work (Bonache,
Langinier&Zarraga‐Oberty,2016;Selvarajah,2006)
A second contribution is that developing language proficiency abroad beyond being a cognitive
Learningoutcomeoftheexperience(Varela,2017)iscrucialtogainenoughconfidencetointeractwith
locals(Noels,Pon&Clement,1996)
Our last contribution is to illustrate the importance of reflexivitytosupportthedevelopmentof
students‘ behavioural dimension of intercultural effectiveness (Kassis‐Henderson, Cohen and
McCulloch, 2018; Feng, 2016, Mendenhall, Arnadottir, Oddou, Burke, 2013).  Indeed, for both
populationtheonewhoimprovedaregenerallytheoneswhogenuinelyreflectontheirinternational
experience.
References
AACSB(2011)ReportonGlobalizationofManagementEducation:ChangingInternationalStructures,
AdaptiveStrategies,andtheImpactofInstitutions.Bingley,UK:EmeraldGroup.
Arthur Jr., Winfred., & Bennett Jr., Winston. 1995. “The international assignee: The relative importance of factors
perceived to contribute to success”. Personnel Psychology, 48: 99-113.
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A., & Luk, D.M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of
international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal,
48: 259-281.
Black, J.Stewart. 1990). ´”The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of Japanese expatriate
managers”. Management International Review, 30: 119-134.
Bennett, Janet. 2008. “Transformative training: Designing programs for culture learning”. In M.A. Moodian (Ed).
Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Understanding and utilizing cultural diversity to build
success
Bennett, Milton. J. 1993. “Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity”. In R. M.
Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.ful
organizations (pp95-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Black, J. Stewart. & Gregersen, Hal. B. 1991. “The other half of the picture. Antecedents of spouse cross-cultural
adjustment”. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 461-477.
Black, J.Stewart., Mendenhall, Mark. & Oddou, Gary. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international
adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 291-317.
Bonache,J.,H.Langinier,andC.Zarraga‐Oberty.2016.Antecedentsandeffectsofhostcountry
nationalsnegativestereotypingofcorporateexpatriates.Asocialidentityanalysis.HumanResource
ManagementReview26(1):59‐68

13

Burroys, K. (2016) Engaging Chinese Students in Teaching and Learning at Western Higher Education
Institutions, by Karen Burrows. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 193 p
Feng,J.B.(2016).ImprovingInterculturalCompetenceintheClassroom:AReflectiveDevelopment
Model.JournalofTeachinginInternationalBusiness,27(1),4‐22.
Gudykunst, William. B., Hammer. Mitchell. R., & Wiseman, Richard. L. 1977. “An analysis of an integrated
approach to cross-cultural training”. International journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 99-110.
Huck,S.W.,&McLean(1975)R.A.UsingarepeatedmeasuresANOVAtoanalyzethedatafroma
pretestposttestdesign:Apotentiallyconfusingtask.PsychologicalBulletin,82,511‐518.
Jackson, Janet. 2015. “Becoming interculturally competent: Theory to practice in international education”.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 91–107.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: a review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 29(2/3): 199-216
Langinier, Hélène; Froehlicher, Thomas .2016. “Context matters: expatriates’ adjustment and contact with host
country nationals in Luxembourg. Thunderbird International Business Review.
Mendenhall,M.E.,Arnardottir,A.A.,Oddou,G.,&Burke,L.A.(2013).Developingcrosscultural
competenciesinmanagementeducationviacognitivebehaviortherapy.AcademyofManagement
Learning&Education,12,436‐451.
Mendenhall, Mark. & Oddou, Gary. 1985. The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of
Management Review. 10(1): 39-47.
Mendenhall, Mark. & Osland, Joyce. 2002. “An overview of the extant global leadership research”. Symposium
presentation at the Academy of International Business, Puerto Rico, June 2002
Meyer,E.(2014).TheCultureMap:BreakingThroughtheInvisibleBoundariesofGlobalBusiness.
PublicAffairs
Miles, Matthew. & Huberman, Michael. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (second edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Molinsky, Andrew. 2012. “3 skills every 21st century manager needs”. Harvard Business Review, January –
February: 139-141
Musil, C.M. 2006. “Assessing global learning: matching good intentions with good practice”. Washington DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities
Noels,K.A.,Pon,G.,&Clément,R.(1996).Language,identity,andadjustment:Theroleoflinguistic
self‐confidenceintheacculturationprocess.JournalofLanguageandSocialPsychology,15,246‐264.
Osland, Joyce. 2008. “Overview of the global leadership literature”. In Mendenhall, M., Osland, J.S., Bird, A.,
Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. Global leadership: Research, practice and development. London: Routledge: 34-63.
Ortega, Jaime. 2001. "Job Rotation as a learning mechanism".
Management Science, 47: 1361-1370.
Arora, Ashishs, Andrew Fosfuri and Alfonso Gambardella, 2001, Markets for technology: The economics of
innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(Use city where published, with abbreviation for state or province (North America) or full name of country, only if
needed to identify a small city or eliminate ambiguity).
Rienties,B.,Beausaert,S.,Grohnert,T.,Niemantsverdriet,S.,&Kommers,P.(2012).Understanding
academicperformanceofinternationalstudents:theroleofethnicity,academicandsocialint

14

Selvarajah,C.(2006).Cross‐culturalstudyofAsianandEuropeanstudentperception:Theneedto
understandthechangingeducationalenvironmentinNewZealand.CrossCulturalManagement:An
InternationalJournal,13,142–155.egration.HigherEducation,63(6),685‐700.
Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., Black, J.S., & Ferzandi, L.A. (2006). You can take it with you:
Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(1): 109-125.
Sood, Suemedha. (2012) “ The statistics of studying abroad BBC column, 26 September,
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20120926-the-statistics-of-studying-abroad, retrieved December 27, 2017
Stahl, Günter. K., & Caligiuri, Paula. (2005). The Effectiveness of Expatriate Coping Strategies: The Moderating
Role of Cultural Distance, Position Level, and Time on the International Assignment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(4), 603-615
Szkudlarek Bettina, McNett Jeanne, Romani Laurence, Lane Henry. 2013. The past, present, and future of
crosscultural management education: The educators' perspective. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 12(3): 477–493.
Thomas, D.C. (1998). The expatriate experience: A critical review and synthesis. Advances in International 24
Comparative Management, 12: 237-273.
Thomas, David. & Lazarova, Mila. 2006. “Expatriate adjustment and performance: A critical review”. In G.K. Stahl
and I. Björkman (eds) Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing: 247-264.
http://www.kozaigroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IESTechReport.pdf retrieved Janary 5th, 2018
Varela,O.E.(2017).Learningoutcomesofstudy‐abroadprograms:ameta‐analysis.Academyof
ManagementLearning&Education,16(4),531‐561.
Varela,O.E.,&Gatline‐Watts,R.(2014).Thedevelopmentoftheglobalmanager:Anempiricalstudy
ontheroleofacademicinternationalsojourns.AcademyofManagementLearning&Education,13,
187‐207.
Zhang,L.E.,&Harzing,A.W.(2016).Fromdilemmaticstruggletolegitimizedindifference:
Expatriates’hostcountrylanguagelearninganditsimpactontheexpatriate‐HCE
relationship.JournalofWorldBusiness,51(5).
Wangshu,L.2017,March8.MoreChinesesettostudyoverseas. ChinaDailyUSA.Retrievedfromhttp://usa.chinadaily.
com.cn/epaper/2017-03/08/content_28478439.htm on 6, December 2019