THE INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY an Approach for Assessing and Building Intercultural Competence

THE INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY An Approach for Assessing and Building Intercultural Competence

� Mitchell R. Hammer

� Mary’s Dilemma

Consider the following situation.1 It was 9 months ago that Acme Pharmaceutical Company formally agreed to a limited partnership arrangement with Jaca Marketing of Japan. The purpose of this partnership is to permit Acme to introduce a line of pharmaceutical products in Japan. Jaca is a well-respected and established marketing firm in Japan that knows the “ins and outs” of obtaining government approvals so that the medicines developed by Acme can be formally approved for sale to Japanese consumers. At the time of the signing of the agreements, both the president of Acme and the president of Jaca expressed their enthusi- astic support for and confidence in the newly formed partnership. For Acme, Jaca represents an essential method of introducing pharmacolog- ical products into the Japanese arena. For Jaca, the opportunity to represent a large, U.S.-owned multinational corporation that wants to do

� 203

Hammer, M.R. (2009). The Intercultural Development Inventory. In M.A. Moodian (Ed.). Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence (Ch.16, pp. 203-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 204 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

business in Japan solidifies Jaca’s position as her Acme team, they erupted with, “A timely a premier partner for foreign corporations manner! We are already 6 months behind on desiring to bring their services and products our agreed-upon objectives!” to the Japanese consumer. Mary is perplexed. It is clear to her (and You are an intercultural management the Acme and Jaca team members) that consultant, recently hired by Acme to help (a) both organizations genuinely desire suc - ensure the success of the partnership with Jaca cess for this partnership, (b) both organiza - Marketing. Your main contact at Acme is Mary tions are in agreement concerning the goals Jones, a European American female, age 35. and timeline, and (c) both organizations have Mary has been employed in the pharmaceutical committed sufficient financial and human industry for the past 15 years and is currently the resources to make this effort successful. After director of international marketing for Acme reviewing this situation, Mary has called you and team leader for this critical project. to come and help. What recommendations Soon after the contracts were signed, would you give Mary that would help restore problems began to emerge that were largely confidence among both the Acme and Jaca unanticipated among key Acme and Jaca team team members? What actions would you sug - members (who are responsible for coordinat - gest Mary take to specifically assess how cul - ing this large project). Mary, as team leader tural differences may be negatively affecting from Acme, has particularly felt the brunt of each group’s effort at working collaboratively confusion and misunderstanding with her toward an agreed-upon set of goals? marketing counterparts from Jaca. The fol - In formulating your response, the informa - lowing portrait seems to be emerging. tion presented in this chapter will likely be most Acme team members are quite frustrated helpful in developing a strategic intervention for as their carefully negotiated business goals the Acme team members (and later, possibly, for for each quarter during the past 9 months the Jaca team as well). One of the key tools you appear, from their perspective, to have been may wish to add to your toolkit is the either ignored or incompetently addressed by Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). For the Jaca team. On numerous occasions, Mary example, you can administer the IDI to the has been briefed by her confused team about Acme team members, and this will produce a how they feel their Jaca counterparts are profile of their collective capability to recognize dropping the ball and not trying hard enough and adapt to cultural differences between the to obtain the proper government approvals. American members and their Japanese col - Until these approvals are given, the overall leagues. The IDI profiles can also be developed marketing effort remains in a holding for individual team members. With this infor - pat tern. In addition, many of the frontline mation, you would be able to engage in targeted, Acme team members have commented that intercultural coaching of key team leaders that they feel they are not taken seriously and focuses on those cultural differences that are rarely receive a “straight answer” from Jaca. making a dif ference in the communication Mary has heard from some of the Jaca between the Acme and Jaca teams. In short, the team members that the American team IDI can provide the Acme team a clear picture of members don’t understand how “things are the way in which they approach the cultural done” in Japan. Recently, the Jaca team aspects of their working relationship with leader communicated in an email to Mary Jaca. Armed with this information, targeted that the Americans involved in this project interven tions can be undertaken to help the are making the situation most difficult for the team members more effectively deal with the project to move forward in a timely man ner. cultural differences that are negatively affecting When Mary shared this information with the success of the project. 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––205

o Introduction 1980) into 12 languages, thus ensuring both linguistic and conceptual equivalence.

Corporate leadership gurus and educators alike recognize that the sin qua non of effec - o What Is the IDI? tive management in our global community is the development of intercultural compe - tence at both the individual and organiza - The IDI is a 50-item paper and pencil (and tional level (Adler, 1997; Barnlund, 1998 online) questionnaire with selected demo - Harris, Moran, & Moran, 2004). Indeed, graphics that can be completed in about the ability to engage in effective interaction 15 to 20 minutes. Accompanying the across cultures is a core capability in the 21st IDI ques tionnaire are four open-ended century not only for our business leaders but “conte xting” questions individual respon - for our political leaders as well. Without sys - dents may com plete. These open-ended tematic efforts at developing intercultural questions help fur ther capture the experi - competence, our world community may well ences around cultural differences of the devolve into increased conflict and violence, respondent. Once the IDI is completed, the fulfilling Samuel Huntington’s (1996) IDI analytic structure generates an individ - observation that human conflict and vio - ual (or group) graphic profile of the respon - lence in the new millennium will not be pri - dent’s overall position on the intercultural marily generated from economic or development continuum. This continuum, ideological grounds but rather from the presented in Figure 16.1, identifies specific divide of cultural differences. orientations toward cultural differences that Historically, we have not had a sufficient range from more monocultural perspectives “intercultural competence toolkit” from to more intercultural mindsets. 3 which to assess how “competent” an individ - The intercultural development continuum ual or an organization is in terms of working represents a progression from a less complex across cultures nor a framework from which perception of and consequently a less complex systematic efforts at developing increased experience of culturally based patterns of dif - intercultural competence can be undertaken. ference to a more complex experience around With the development of the Intercultural cultural diversity. What does it mean to say that Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer, an individual has a less complex or a more 2007; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, complex perception and experience of cultural 2003), our “toolkit” has been greatly difference? In general, it suggests that individ - expanded. 2 The IDI is the premier cross- uals who have a more detailed set of frame - cul turally valid and reliable measure of inter - works for perceiving and understanding cultural competence. The IDI has direct patterns of cultural differences between them - application to global leadership, defined by selves and others have the capability of then Harris and colleagues (2004) as “being capa - experiencing observed cultural differences in ble of operating effectively in a global envi - ways that approximate how a person from that ronment while being respectful of cultural other culture might experience the world diversity” (p. 25). While a relatively new (M. J. Bennett, 2004). The capability of shift - assessment tool, the IDI is already demon - ing cultural perspective and adapting behavior strating significant impact with over 1,200 to cultural context represents an intercultural qualified IDI administrators from over 30 mindset. In contrast, perceiving cultural dif - countries. Further, the IDI has been rigor - ferences from one’s own cultural perspective is ously “back translated” (Brislin, 1970, 1976, indicative of a more monocultural mindset. 206 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

Figure 16.1 Intercultural Development Continuum

Denial Polarization/ Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Defense/ Reversal Monocultural Intercultural Mindset Mindset

o Dimensions of or “leading,” issues that directly face the respondent that, when systematically Culture Differences addressed, can result in further progression along the continuum. Also, the IDI profile While there are many and varied patterns of identifies “trailing” issues that are currently cultural difference that can be identified, holding back the respondent or group from Harris and colleagues (2004) offered a moving further along the developmental use ful framework of 10 “culture general” continuum. These trailing issues represent dimensions of cultural difference that often unresolved aspects associated with an earlier can make a difference in our effectiveness in orientation. In this sense, the IDI profile interacting with people from different cul - identifies an individual’s or group’s primary tural communities: (1) sense of self and space, orientation but also reflects the individual’s (2) communication and language, (3) dress experience of cultural differences in terms of and appearance, (4) food and feeding habits, the degree to which the respondent has (5) time and time consciousness, (6) rela - resolved issues associated with earlier (and tionships, (7) values and norms, (8) beliefs less complex) perspectives toward cultural and attitudes, (9) learning, and (10) work differences. It also indicates the immediate habits and practices. The underlying inter - challenges the individual faces in further cultural development continuum that is developing a deeper set of perceptions and assessed by the IDI posits that individuals consequently a more complex experience of and groups have a greater or lesser capability cultural diversity. to perceive differences between themselves and others that are “culturally grounded.” WHAT ARE THE CORE ORIENTATIONS TOWARD DEVELOPMENTAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES? TRAILING ISSUES The intercultural development contin - The IDI assesses a respondent’s or group’s uum identifies five core orientations that primary orientation toward cultural differ - reflect a distinct set of perceptions and ences (such as intercultural conflict styles; expe riences around cultural differences. Hammer, see Chapter 17, this volume; Movement along the continuum begins with Hammer, 2005) along this developmental the more monocultural orientations of con tinuum outlined in Figure 16.1. In additio n, denial and polarization (defense/reversal), the IDI profile indicates key developmental, through a more transitional mindset of 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––207 minimization, to the more intercultural or within the larger society. Denial represents a global mindsets of acceptance and adapta - low level of capability for understanding tion. The capability to more deeply shift cul tural differences and adapting to these dif - cultural per spective and adapt behavior to ferences (which are likely to go unnoticed). cultural context is most fully realized through Denial in an organization can be the orientation of adaptation. expressed in terms of emphasizing the need The monocultural orientations of denial for newly hired “diverse” members to fit in and polarization (defense/reversal) reflect a the culture of the company, the offer to help view that “one’s own culture is central to real - diverse members “learn the organization,” ity” (M. J. Bennett, 1993, p. 30) and is, and an overemphasis on maintaining his - therefore, more ethnocentric in the way torically derived core values and practices. individuals perceive and experience cultural The primary issue to be resolved is to begin diversity. At the other end of the develop - to notice and confront cultural differences ment continuum lie the intercultural orien - (M. J. Bennett, 2004; Hammer, 2007). tations of acceptance and adaptation. These This process begins to establish a set of cat - orientations reflect a sense that one’s own egories for understanding cultural diversity. cultural patterns are “not any more central to Unfortunately, these emerging categories reality than any other culture,” that cultural often take the form of stereotypes. It is this differences need to be understood relative to developmental process that typically leads an one another, and culturally based actions and individual to adapt a more polarization behavior must be seen within a specific (defense/reversal) orientation. A second cul tural context (M. J. Bennett, 1993, p. 46). factor that moves individuals from denial to Between the more monocultural mindset polarization is that as more people from dif - and the intercultural orientations is mini - ferent culture groups move into one’s com - mization. Minimization is a transitional state munity or organization, the need to increase between the more ethnocentric orientations interaction with people from these different of denial and polarization (defense/reversal) groups arises. and the more intercultural states of accep - This creates conditions for the emer - tance and adaptation (M. J. Bennett, 2004; gence of polarization , a judgmental orienta - Hammer et al., 2003). tion grounded in a sense of “us” and “them.” To add to the explanations in Chapter 8, A polarization orientation can take the form the earliest developmental state is that of of a defense or reversal perspective. Defense denial . Denial is most reflective of dominant is an orientation in which perceptions are culture individuals who have sparse experi - polarized in terms of “us versus them,” ence with people from different cultural where “our” ways of doing things are seen as backgrounds. As a result, they often have a superior to the way things are done in other limited, stereotypic set of perceptions of the cultural communities. There can also be a cultural “other.” Other cultures and the sense of denigration toward other cultural dif ferences they bring into social interaction patterns. Overall, cultural differences are are typically not recognized. Further, a denial experienced as divisive and threatening. orientation maintains a sense of disinterest Cultural difference is seen as an obstacle to and even avoidance of cultural diversity. In be overcome, and this sense of superiority contrast, nondominant culture members are can lead to overconfidence and a view that less likely to maintain a denial orientation “our” way of doings things is the best way. toward cultural diversity, as these members In an organization, defense can manifest often need to deal with cultural differences itself in terms of an insistence that “minori - (in terms of the dominant group’s practices) ties need to figure out how to get things done 208 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

in this organization” and an assumption that perspective. A minimiza tion perspective is able the goal of diversity efforts should be to help to recognize some patterns of cultural differ - diverse members adopt our ways (with little ence; but the orientation emphasizes dealing awareness of the need or value of adapting to with these identified dif ferences through a the ways of other, diverse groups). commonality lens that can mask underlying A distinct orientation—yet a variation differences. Typical commonality frameworks within polarization is that of reversal . can include an over-application of human Reversal, as the name implies, polarizes cul - (i.e., physical, psychological) similarity as well tural differences into “us and them” but as universal values and principles. reverses that polarization, where the cultural For dominant group members, this practices and values of the “other cultural emphasis on commonalities (generated group” are viewed as superior to one’s own largely from one’s own cultural framework) culture. This can take the form of “going native” may mask a deeper awareness of “privilege” or “passing.” Unlike defense, however, rever - and may lead to an overestimation of one’s sal consists of generally positive evaluations own cultural sensitivity or competence. For toward other cultures. However, these evalu - nondominant members, the experience of ations are also stereotypic and reflect little minimization can be different. That is, often deeper cultural understanding of the other nondominant members are aware of how cultural community. In reversal, individuals privilege functions in the community and are often uncritical toward other cultural organization. Minimization therefore func - practices and overly critical toward their own tions more as strategy for getting things done group. As such, they may idealize or roman ti - within a dominant cultural context. This can cize the other culture (M. J. Bennett, 2004). take the form, for instance, of “go along to get Whether polarization is more defense along.” In this sense, minimization (the use or reversal, the key resolution issue is to of commonality strategies) is a way to focus recognize the stereotypic nature of one’s attention away from deeper cultural differ - perceptions and experience of the other ences to accomplish some set of goals (e.g., culture and to actively identify commonal - maintain cordial relations in the workplace). ities between one’s own views, needs, and At the organizational level, minimization goals and that of the other. tends to pursue efforts at structural integra - This effort at focusing on shared common - tion and equity concerns and elimination alities (rather than what is experienced from a of bias, prejudice, and discrimination. This is defense/reversal orientation as divisive differ - accomplished by establishing common poli - ences) creates the conditions for the emer - cies, practices, and universal principles and gence of minimization —an orientation in values in the organization that clearly spell which cultural difference is subsumed into out the firm’s commitment and activities to more culturally familiar categories (M. J. eliminate cultural, ethnic, gender, age, sexual Bennett, 2004). Minimization is a state orientation, and other group stereotypes and whereby an individual may well be familiar discriminatory behavior. Clearly these goals with different cultures and aware of differences support improved intercultural relations. in cultural patterns (e.g., values, beliefs, com - Nevertheless, they do not adequately address munication styles). However, the approach issues focused on valuing diversity and, even taken in minimization toward these recog - less, on adapting to cultural differences. nized cultural differences is to focus on more The issue for resolution in minimization unifying frameworks within which the cultural is to deepen understanding of one’s own cul - differences may be better understood—albeit ture (cultural self-awareness) and to increase understood largely from one’s own cultural understanding of culture-general and 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––209 spe cific frameworks for making sense (and that other cultural perspective, and an more fully attending to) culture differences. increased capability to weigh one’s own cul - Resolution of this core minimization issue tural values alongside the values from the creates conditions for progression into an other cultural perspective in such as way as to acceptance orientation—that is, as individuals make ethical judgments in which cultural dif - begin to more deeply explore cultural differ - ferences are fully taken into consideration. ences, they recognize that these cultural These judgments are made, however, not by patterns need to be understood from the employing completely culturally relativistic perspective of the other culture. As this criteria (i.e., what is judged good in another develops, an appreciation of the complexity culture should remain so), but rather of cultural differences arises. From this employing reflective consideration of one’s van tage point, individuals are now able to cultural values and those of the other group experience their own cultural patterns of that ultimately address the existential ques - perception and behavior as one of a number tion, “What kind of world do we want to live of different but equally complex sets of per - in?” As Milton J. Bennett (2004) com - ceptions and behavioral patterns. Acceptance, ments, “resolution of the issue of value rela - therefore, involves increased self-reflexive ness tivity and commitment allows you to take the in which one is able to experience others as perspective of another culture without losing both different from oneself yet equally human. your own perspective” (p. 70). Individuals at the acceptance level are As this occurs, conditions for the emer - typically curious and interested in cultural gence of adaptation arise. Adaptation involves differences and committed to the cultural the capability of shifting perspective to diversity agenda. However, while they rec - another culture and adapting behavior ognize and acknowledge the relevance of according to cultural context. Adaptation culture and cultural context, they are involves the capability to at least partially take unclear on how to appropriately adapt to the perspective of one or more cultures, cultural difference. Within an organization, bridge between different cultural systems, and acceptance reflects a genuine desire to learn change behavior in culturally appropriate and about and adapt to cultural differences. authentic ways (Hammer, 2007). Adaptation The main issue of resolution for an accep - is characterized by an increased repertoire of tance orientation concerns value or ethical cultural frameworks and behaviors available to relativity. As Milton J. Bennett (2004) com - reconcile unity and diversity goals and a sense ments, “to accept the relativity of values to that one’s living in a multicultural world cultural context (and thus to attain the demands intercultural competence (perfor - potential to experience the world as orga - mance in adaptation). Within organizations, nized by different values), you need to figure adaptation orientations encourage the devel - out how to maintain ethical commitment in opment of intercultural competence/ the face of such relativity” (p. 69). In other adapta tion among all members. Further, words, the primary task for further develop - domestic and international cultural differ - ment is to reconcile the “relativistic” stance ences are often used as a resource for multi cul - that aids understanding of cultural differ - tural teams and the organization as a whole. ences without giving up one’s own cultural The major issue to resolve in adaptation is values and principles. Movement through how to maintain an authentically competent acceptance therefore involves deepening intercultural experience—one in which sub - one’s perceptions of other cultures, demon - stantial cognitive frame shifting and behav - strating a willingness to understand different ioral code shifting is occurring such that an (and even abhorrent) cultural practices from individual is able to experience the world in 210 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

ways that approximate the experience of the of cultural alienation from one’s own cul - cultural “other.” tural group can arise from any number of The obvious question arises, “How can you experiences, including significant adapta - have the same experience of someone who is tion to one or more cultures. In this latter from another culture?” Of course, the answer case, Bennett and Bennett (2004) suggested to this phrasing of the question must be, “I that “at some point, their sense of cultural cannot have the same cultural experience identity may have been loosed from any par - as you do because I am not you nor am I a ticular mooring, and they need to reestab - member of your cultural community.” Yet lish identity in a way that encompasses their this prompts the more important question: broadened experience. In so doing, their “Can you develop a perceptual set of cate - identities become ‘marginal’ to any one cul - gories of cultural difference as a new lens ture” (p. 157; see also J. M. Bennett, 1993). 4 within which to sufficiently shift your per - It is important to recognize, however, that spective and adapt behavior to a culturally dif - cultural disengagement may arise from any ferent context in ways that allow you to number of other experiences—experiences approximate the cultural experience of the that are not grounded in the developmental other?” The answer to this question is yes. state of adaptation. For example, cultural dis - After all, many, many individuals achieve just engagement may derive from an individual’s this level of adaptation—we often call this collective experience of being rejected or being bicultural or multicultural. That is, the made to feel deviant from his/her own cul - individual possesses a deep capacity to experi - tural group. When this occurs, the individual ence the world from two or more different may have the experience of alienation from cultural platforms. In short, they are authen - his or her own group. This sense of cultural tically able to shift perspective and adapt disengagement does not necessarily mean, behavior to cultural context. In this sense, to therefore, that the individual is functioning demonstrate complex intercultural compe tence at the developmentally complex level of adap - is grounded in this adaptation capability. tation. In fact, the individual may have lim - Being bicultural/multicultural in adapta - ited experience with other cultural groups tion does not suggest, however, that the indi - and therefore likely will not feel stuck vidual also has developed a bi/multicultural between two cultural identities. identity. Indeed, the development of such an From the perspective of the intercultural expanded identity “does not represent a sig - development continuum, cultural disen - nificant improvement in intercultural gagement is not developmentally a core ori - com petence” (M. J. Bennett, 2004, p. 72). entation. Cultural disengagement as assessed by the IDI is therefore an indepen - dent dimension of one’s experiences around THE DISTINCTIVENESS cultural identification but is not an orienta - OF CULTURAL IDENTITY tion that falls along the intercultural devel - opment (competence) continuum described The IDI also assesses, as a separate and in Figure 16.1. distinct dimension from those orientations To conclude, the IDI measures a number placed along the developmental continuum, of core orientations toward cultural difference the degree of cultural disengagement an along an intercultural development contin - individual or group possesses. Cultural dis - uum. These orientations range from more engagement reflects a sense of being discon - monocultural mindsets (denial, polarization, nected and not feeling fully a part of one’s defense, reversal) through minimization to cultural group (Hammer, 2007). This sense more intercultural mindsets (acceptance, 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––211 adaptation). In addition, the IDI also assesses original DMIS theory) as well as the results cultural disengagement (alienation from from factor analytic research conducted on one’s own cultural group identity). This mea - IDI v.1 by Paige, Jacobs-Casuto, Yershova, sure of cultural disengagement is indepen - and DeJaeghere (1999). Therefore, a new dent, however, from the progression of core sample of 591 individuals responded to 122 orientations that comprise the intercultural items. Analysis of these responses using con - development continuum. firmatory factor analysis (CFA) resulted in the best fit to the data of a five-factor model that consists of 50 items divided into the IS THE IDI VALID fol lowing scales: DD scale (13 items, ACROSS CULTURES? denial/defense, α = .85), R scale (9 items, reversal, α = .80), M scale (9 items, mini - The psychometric testing of the IDI indi - mization, α = .83), AA scale (14 items, cates that the IDI is a cross-culturally gener - acceptance/adaptation, α = .84), and an EM alizable, valid, and reliable assessment of an scale (5 items, encapsulated marginality, α = individual’s and group’s core orientations .80) 6 (Hammer et al., 2003). toward cultural differences (Hammer, 1999; Hammer et al., 2003; Hammer, 2007). There have been three distinct versions of IDI v.3 (Current Version) the IDI (v.1, v.2, and v.3). 5 Overall, these Recently, I decided to undertake a more various tests clearly demonstrate that the IDI comprehensive testing of the IDI across is a robust measure of the core orientations culturally different groups (see Hammer, of the intercultural development continuum 2007, for a more detailed description of (and cultural disengagement) and that the this additional research effort). I adminis - assessment is generalizable across cultures. tered the 50-item IDI to a significantly larger, cross-cultural sample of 4,763 individuals from 11 distinct cross-cultural IDI v.1 sample groups. These individuals came IDI v.1 was a 60-item measure derived from the profit sector, international orga - from a sample of 312 culturally diverse respon - nizations, nonprofit organizations, and dents. The following scales and relia bilities high schools and colleges. All participants were identified: Denial (10 items, α = .87), completed the IDI in their native language Defense (10 items, α = .91), Minimization using rigorously back-translated versions (10 items, α = .87), Acceptance (10 items, of the IDI unless English was the language α = .80), Cognitive Adaptation (10 items, of the organization (e.g., managers from α = .85), and Behavioral Adaptation (10 the international organization took the items, α = .80). In this first version, individ - IDI in English due to exceptionally high ual scale scores were obtained, but placement English language fluency). along the intercultural development contin - Results from this more comprehensive uum was not determined (Hammer, 1999). confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the data enable empirical distinctions to emerge between the denial and defense orientations IDI v.2 and between acceptance and adaptation per - IDI v.2 was a 50-item measure, the devel - spectives, resulting in the following seven opment of which was undertaken based on a scales: Denial (7 items, α = .66), Defense desire to develop additional measures for (6 items, α= .72), Reversal (9 items, α= .78), reversal and integration (as specified in the Minimization (9 items, α = .74), Acceptance 212 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

(5 items, α = .69), Adaptation (9 items, focused on the disconnection experienced α = .71), and Cultural Disengagement toward one’s own cultural group. (5 items, α = .79). In addition, two compos - ite mea sures were created. The Perceived Orientation score, computed using an WHAT ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE unweighted formula, reflects where the indi - APPLICATIONS OF THE IDI (V.3) ? vidual or group places itself along the inter - cultural develop ment continuum (PO, α= .82). The IDI assesses how individuals and The Developmental Orientation score (DO, groups construe their social interactions α = .83) is computed using a weighted for - with people from different cultural com - mula and identifies the main or primary munities. To date, over 1,200 individuals orientation of the individual or group along have attended the IDI Qualifying Seminar the inter cultural development continuum. The (QS) to learn how to administer this assess - developmental orientation is the perspective ment tool. Additional, more advanced sem - the individual or group is most likely to use inars are currently offered to help these in those situations that involve cultural dif fer - qualified IDI administrators effectively ence. Further, comparative CFA testing also implement IDI guided-development shows these seven core orientations are the best efforts in areas such as individual coaching, fit to the data compared to either a two-fac tor team building, training needs assessment, model of monoculturalism and inter cultu ral - program evaluation, organizational devel - ism or the five-factor model used in IDI v.2. 7 opment, and basic research efforts. Overall, these results testing IDI v.3 per - A key area of IDI impact is helping indi - suasively demonstrate the generalizability of viduals (e.g., managers) better assess their the IDI across cultural groups. Additional capability for recognizing and effectively analysis of the data by distinct sample groups responding to cultural diversity. Prior to the also clearly demonstrates the culture-specific development of the IDI, managers and applicability of IDI v.3 (i.e., across specific employees from different cultures in orga - cultural communities). In addition, the nizations often engaged in fruitless and at intercorrelations among the seven dimen - times divisive conversations around such sions of the 50-item IDI v.3 support the questions as the following: developmental continuum and the relation - ships among the core orientations: (a) there • Is there conscious or unconscious is a strong correlation between defense and bias in the way we hire, train, and denial ( r = .83), (b) there is a strong corre - promote people from different cul - lation between acceptance and adaptation tures in our organization? (r = .64), (c) reversal is positively correlated • To what extent is prejudice and with denial (.34) and with defense (.37) and racism present in our company? not significantly correlated with acceptance • To what degree do our own organiza - (.01) or adaptation (.12), and (d) there are tional practices reinforce “privilege” negative correlations between the Defense in the way we do things in our firm? and Denial scales and the Acceptance and Adaptation scales. Cultural disengagement • What does it mean when our annual is most correlated with reversal (.43) and, employee survey indicates that secondarily, denial (.22) and not signifi - people of color and/or women feel cantly correlated with defense, minimiza - our organization is less open and tion, acceptance, or adaptation, supporting less welcoming to culturally diverse the sense that cultural disengagement is managers and employees? 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––213

• How prepared are our human the organization can reveal what perspectives resources to fully engage the contribu - will be taken in answering the question tions of customers, clients, employees, “Who should adapt to whom?” and what and managers who are from different specific company policies, training pro - cultures? grams, and other interventions will likely be recommended. Further, the IDI profile • In our multicultural, global organi - results also indicate which of these perspec - zation, how do we establish common tives and actions taken will likely be more or frameworks, policies, and practices less effective in achieving a more intercul - that create a sense of shared vision turally capable and responsive organization. and at the same time value diversity? For individuals and groups with a pri - mary orientation of denial or defense, this These and other critical challenges question often reflects an underlying con - around cultural diversity face our organiza - cern that an increase in cultural diversity tions in the 21st century. The IDI provides in the organization is threatening the core a powerful assessment platform from which values and practices upon which this orga - to effectively engage these important ques - nization’s success and viability is based. tions in a deeper conversation. The IDI From this orientation, it is often recom - provides key insights on the capabilities of mended that the organization create managers and employees for dealing with opportunities for newly hired, culturally cultural differences. It provides a picture of diverse managers and employees to “learn both an individual’s and a group’s primary the ropes” and gain a sense of how things orientation toward cultural differences— need to done “around here.” Unfortunately, and this orientation frames how each of the this approach demands assimilation (one- questions above will be addressed. way adaptation) from cultural diversity. The result is that culturally diverse WHO SHOULD resources are not able to fully contribute ADAPT TO WHOM? to the organization’s core mission: They often feel less a part of the company, they One common question I am often asked are often at a disadvantage for promo - when I consult with organizations around tions, and they perceive little opportunity issues of cultural diversity is, “Who should to bring culturally different perspectives, adapt to whom?” Answers to this question values, or practices to the attention of the range from neither party should adapt to the organization at large. other to mutual adaptation among the par - In contrast, a primary orientation of min - ties. If one’s goal, however, is to more deeply imization would answer the question, “Who understand and relate to cultural practices, should adapt to whom?” by recognizing some values, and behaviors different from one’s of the differences culturally diverse groups own, then intercultural mindsets (e.g., bring to the organization and be open to adaptation orientation: the capability to shift changing current policies and practices based cultural perspective and appropriately adapt on this understanding of differences but behavior to cultural context; Harris et al., would attempt to find or establish a set of 2004; Wurzel, 2004 ) are more helpful common standards and policies believed to than monocultural (ethnocentric) mindsets apply equally (i.e., better) to all members of (e.g., denial, defense, reversal orientations; the organization. This effort will serve many M. J. Bennett, 1993; 2004). An IDI profile productive purposes when focused on issues of key leaders and the larger group profile of of racism and prejudice in the organization. 214 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

However, this effort will fall short when can be effectively employed for individual applied to management practices, perfor - assessment and coaching. When used in this mance appraisal processes, and other “inter - way, the IDI profile becomes an important active” arenas within which cultural tool for the individual—one in which devel - differences emerge. In these more interactive opmental issues and trailing issues are iden - situations, a limited focus only on common tified and learning activities agreed upon in solutions will likely mask culturally order to progress along the intercultural grounded, different ways people may deal development continuum. with disagreements, how emotion is The IDI can be used to assess a group’s expressed, how problems are addressed, how capability to deal with cultural differences. feedback is given, how goals are established, When used in this way, the IDI becomes a and how work is organized. In these areas, blueprint of the group’s overall capabilities minimization can create a situation in the and can help identify the struggles the organization where culturally diverse group will likely encounter as they attempt resources are not valued and the insights and to work together to accomplish tasks that practices available to the organization from involve bridging across cultural difference. this cultural diversity in the areas of human The IDI provides a benchmark assess - management and performance are not acti - ment of an organization as a whole. This vated. For people who possess these culturally can help pinpoint areas of development in different resources, they will likely employ various divisions and management levels minimization as a strategy to get along in a throughout the company. The IDI can also minimization-dominated organization. The be used as a training needs assessment. result is that culturally diverse resources are Knowing, for instance, the percentage of not fully integrated into the life of the firm. denial, defense/reversal, minimization, Finally, a developmental orientation of acceptance and adaptation developmental acceptance or adaptation would likely orientations within a training population respond to the question of “Who should can better target and leverage the specific adapt to whom?” with a clear statement that training interventions created. For example, mutual adaptation is expected among all training programs that emphasize a more managers and employees. From these per - sophisticated understanding of patterns of spectives, a deeper search for and conse - cultural difference will likely be more effec - quently a deeper recognition of those tive with minimization, acceptance, and cultural differences that are present among adaptation orientations. These same pro - diverse resources in the organization is grams might reinforce simpler stereotypes completed. With this more complex under - among denial and polarization (defense/ standing of how people construe their reversal) orientations, as these orientations experiences in the organization (e.g., plan - do not have a sufficiently complex under - ning, organizing, leading, communicat - standing of what a cultural difference is ing), more effective decisions around (compared to a personality difference, for cultural differences and their contributions instance) to adequately apply these more can be realized. From the acceptance and, complex frameworks to understand pat - even more, the adaptation orientation, all terns of cultural difference. members of the company are learning to Finally, the IDI can be used to evaluate adapt to cultural context and are gaining various programs. It has been successfully valuable intercultural skills in the process. used, for example, to evaluate a range of pro - Overall, the IDI is appropriate to use with grams, from corporate training to study- a wide variety of people and organizations. It abroad programs in high schools and 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––215 colleges. Additional areas where the IDI o Notes shows promise is in law enforcement, the court system, military operations, and the diplomatic community. 1. This is a composite case based on a set of To conclude, the IDI provides a conver - real events that reflects issues around cultural differences that can be involved in startup sational platform within which to engage the operations and joint-venture operations that are “other” in a deep and genuine conversation initiated outside one’s own culture. The names of around cultural diversity concerns. In addi - the individuals and the companies are hypothetical tion, the intercultural development contin - and do not represent real persons or corporations. uum provides a blueprint for how to 2. All versions of the IDI (v.1, v.2, and v.3) are encourage and assist individual and group solely owned by Mitchell R. Hammer, PhD. The development toward greater capability to current version (v.3) of the IDI and its analytical shift cultural perspective and adapt behavior structure was developed by Mitchell R. Hammer, to cultural context. Why is this important? PhD. The IDI v.3 is revised from earlier work on To quote the Vulcan greeting from Star Trek : the IDI (v.1 and v.2) developed by Dr. Hammer “Greetings. I am pleased to see that we are and Milton Bennett, PhD (see Hammer, different. May we together become greater Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, for a detailed review of the methodology used in developing earlier than the sum of both of us.” versions of the IDI). 3. This intercultural development continuum and the associated orientations toward cultural o Discussion Questions differences are adapted from Bennett’s (1986, 1993, 2004) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (see, for example, recent application of 1. As you reflect on your own experi - this developmental approach to international ences with cultural differences, education in Wilkinson, 2007). An additional where do you think your primary ori - orientation initially identified by Bennett (1986), entation is located along the inter - termed “integration,” is concerned with the cultural development continuum? construction of an intercultural identity. This orientation is not, however, conceptually related 2. Identify specific situations you to the development of increased intercultural have observed or been involved in competence (Bennett, 2004). In addition, the IDI which a denial, defense or reversal also assesses cultural disengagement—the degree to orientation was used. which an individual or group is experiencing a sense of alienation from their own cultural community. 3. Identify specific situations you This is a separate dimension assessed by the IDI and have observed or with which you is conceptually located (and empirically verified) have been involved in which a min - outside of the developmental continuum. imization orientation was used. 4. Bennett and Bennett (2004) and J. M. Bennett (1993) have termed this sense of 4. Identify specific situations you marginality “encapsulated marginality” and have observed or with which you theorize that encapsulated marginality is one have been involved in which an form of the DMIS orientation of integration (the acceptance or adaptation orienta - other form being constructive marginality). As tion was used. proposed by the DMIS model, the condition of encapsulated marginality is where “one’s sense of 5. How might minimization strategies self is stuck between cultures in a dysfunctional be useful in reducing prejudice and way” (Bennett & Bennett, 2004, p. 157). The even violence between cultural or notion of cultural disengagement assessed by the ethnic groups in our world? IDI is not the same as encapsulated marginality. 216 –––N–––Measuring Intercultural Competence

Cultural disengagement involves a sense of scale. However, as more data have been gathered alienation from one’s own cultural group. This since the development of IDI v.2 concerning the does not imply that the individual’s identity is correlations of this scale to other scales in the somehow between two different cultures in a IDI, this scale has been renamed Cultural dysfunctional way. What it measures is simply this Disengagement in IDI v.3 to better reflect its sense of feeling disconnected from one’s own independent status within the developmental group identity. The empirical results suggest that continuum. cultural disengagement as assessed by the IDI 7. Byrne (1998) noted that “evaluation of in fact is not significantly more related to an model fit should derive from a variety of sources adaptation orientation than any of the other and be based on several criteria that can assess orientations. That is, an individual can experience model fit from a diversity of perspectives” (p. 103). high or low levels of cultural disengagement across This suggests that a number of criteria should be all of the developmental orientations (Hammer, brought to bear on assessing the adequacies of 2007). In this sense, as stated earlier, cultural different models. These criteria typically include disengagement functions within the IDI as a parsimony, cross-sample consistency, inter- distinct and separate construct and measure and pretability, and theoretical relevance. In some is not conceptually situated as a “developmental cases, the application of these various criteria may orientation” along the continuum. result in equivocal recommendations. When this 5. Developing the IDI (v.1, v.2, and v.3) occurs, it is the researcher who ultimately involved a number of protocols, including (a) in- determines what is best, given the empirical depth interviews of 40 individuals from a variety evidence and theoretical constructs being tested. of cultures and preparation of verbatim transcripts This speaks directly to the validation study for IDI of these interviews, (b) inter-rater reliability v.2 (Hammer et al., 2003) in which there was testing to determine whether the discourse of the evidence that could have led to the choice of the respondents reflects core orientations delineated seven-dimension model and evidence that led to in Milton J. Bennett’s (1993) DMIS model, choice of the five-dimension model. At that time, (c) listing of all statements made by each the criterion of parsimony suggested that the five- respondent that are indicative of the agreed-upon dimension solution rather than the seven-factor developmental orientation followed by a review model (the original DMIS conceptualization) be (for redundancy, word clarity, etc) of these accepted. However, research should be evolving statements by two cross-cultural pilot groups, and developmental; it should assist in refining (d) rating of the remaining statements (randomly and amending our theoretical notions of the arranged) by a group of seven cross-cultural phenomenon under study. The current results experts (expert panel review method) in terms of testing IDI v.3 on a more extensive sample that is whether the items clearly reflect an identifiable more culturally diverse clearly indicate the core orientation, (e) submission of the remaining following core orientations, denial, defense, items to factor analysis (IDI v.1) and confirmatory reversal, minimization, acceptance, and factor analysis (IDI v.2 and v.3), and (f) content adaptation, which comprise the developmental and construct validity testing of the IDI with continuum along with the separate measure of modified versions of the Worldmindedness cultural disengagement. Questionnaire and an Intercultural Anxiety questionnaire. Additional testing found no significant correlations of the IDI with social desirability (Crown Marlow Social Desirability o References Index) and no significant systematic effects on the IDI in terms of gender, educational level, and age. Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions 6. In version 2 of the IDI, the Cultural of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Disengagement scale referred to earlier in this Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College chapter was labeled the Encapsulated Marginality Publishing. 16 The Intercultural Development Inventory –––N–––217

Barnlund, D. (1998). Communication in a SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and global village. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic programming . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence concepts of intercultural communication Erlbaum Associates. (pp. 35–51). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Hammer, M. R. (1999). A measure of Press. intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Bennett, J. M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Development Inventory. In S. M. Fowler & Identity issues in intercultural training. In M. G. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the inter- sourcebook: Cross-cultural training (Vol. 2, cultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 109–135). pp. 61–72). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Press. Bennett, J. M. & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Hammer, M. R. (2005), The Intercultural Developing intercultural sensitivity: An Conflict Style Inventory: A conceptual integrative approach to global and domestic framework and measure of intercultural diversity. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & conflict approaches, International Journal M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of of Intercultural Research, 29 , 675–695. intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147–165). Hammer, M. R. (2007). The Intercultural Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Development Inventory manual (Vol. 3). Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental Ocean Pines, MD: IDI, LLC. approach to training for intercultural Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, sensitivity. International Journal of R. (2003). The Intercultural Development Intercultural Relations, 10 (2), 179–196. Inventory: A measure of intercultural Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: sensitivity, International Journal of A developmental model of intercultural Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. for the intercultural experience (2nd ed., (2004). Managing cultural differences: pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Global leadership strategies for the 21st Press. century (6th ed.). New York: Elsevier. Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Towards civilizations and the remaking of world multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural order . New York: Simon & Schuster. education (2nd ed., pp. 62–77). Newton, Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for intercultural sensitivity: An empirical cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross- analysis of the Hammer and Bennett Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. Intercultural Development Inventory Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research [Special issue: Intercultural development; methodology: Cross-cultural studies. R. M. Paige, Ed.], International Journal of International Journal of Psychology, Intercultural Relations, 27 , 467–486. 11 (3), 215–229. Wilkinson, L. C. (2007). A developmental Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content approach to uses of moving pictures in analysis of oral and written materials. In intercultural education. International H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 1–27. of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, Wurzel, J. (Ed.). (2004). Towards multicultur- pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. alism: A reader in multicultural education Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation (2nd ed.). Newton, MA: Intercultural modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and Resource Corporation.