|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 INTERNATIONAL NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: A SURVEY OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE By KIMBERLY AMBAYEC A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQ UIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Kimberly Ambayec
3 To the hopeless and hopeful: Great things ALWAYS come in His time
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am utterly grateful to God for life an d the opportunity to pursue my dreams. To my parents: Thank you for being providers and seeing me through every up and down. To my siblings: Nikki, Gabby, Danni, Kristen and Kyle each of you always motivate me to be my best self; I hope I do the same for you. To my boyfriend and his Orlando family: Thank you for providing me with a home away from home the past two years. To endeavors. To Dr. Kumaran and Dr. Ostroff: Thank yo u for your feedback and endless support. It has been invaluable to my work. Last, thank you to my friends: Your prayers continue to sustain me.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 A BSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ .......... 10 Challenges for Leaders in International Non governmental Organizations ............. 11 Leadership and Intercultural Comm unication Competence ................................ .... 13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 History of International Non governmental Organizations ................................ ....... 17 Roles of International Non governmental Organizations ................................ ......... 19 Globalization ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 21 Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations ................................ ................................ .... 23 Research on Global Leadership ................................ ................................ ............. 25 A Global Leadership Mod el ................................ ................................ ..................... 26 Approaches to Measuring Intercultural Competence ................................ .............. 28 Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) ................................ ......................... 29 Cross Cultura l Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) ................................ ................... 31 Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI) ................................ ............................ 32 Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) ................................ ................................ .. 33 3 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY ................................ ................................ ............ 37 4 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 39 Research Instrument Construction ................................ ................................ ......... 39 The Intercultural Sen sitivity Scale ................................ ................................ .... 39 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 Procedure and Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Reliability Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 42 5 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 44 Participating International Non Governmental Organizations, Levels of Leadership and Other Demographics ................................ ................................ .. 44 .......................... 47 Average Scores of the Five Intercultural Sensitivity Variables ................................ 51 Hypotheses Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 52
6 Interview Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 55 Experiences Outside of International Development ................................ .......... 55 In the Field vs. In the Office ................................ ................................ ............. 56 Defining Success in International Non Governmental Organizations ............... 58 Advice for International Non Governmental Organization Leaders .................. 59 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ........ 61 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 64 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ 65 A INTERCULTURAL SEN SITIVITY SURVEY AND DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ............................ 68 B INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY SCALE ................................ ............................... 70 C DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ...... 71 D FOLLOW UP PHONE INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT ................................ 72 E FOLLOW UP PHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................ .................. 74 F HYPOTHESIS 1: RELIABILITY STATISTICS ................................ ......................... 75 G PARTICI PATING INTERNATIONAL NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 76 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 82 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 87
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5 1 L evel of Leadership ................................ ................................ ............................ 46 5 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 5 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 5 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 47 5 5 .................... 47 5 6 Hypothesis 1: Descriptive Statist ics for Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Items ...... 50 5 7 Hypothesis 1: Descriptive Statistics for Average Scores of the Five Intercultural Sensitivity Variables ................................ ................................ ........ 51 F 1 Hypothesis 1: Reliability Statistics for the 5 Constructs of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale ................................ ................................ ................................ 75 G 1 Participating International Non Governmental Organiz ations ............................. 76
8 ABSTRACT OF THESIS P RESENTED TO THE GRAD UATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL F ULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART IN MASS COMMUNICATION INTERNATIONAL NON GOVERNMENTAL OR GANIZATIONS: A SURVEY OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE By Kimberly Ambayec December 2011 Chair: Michael Leslie Major: Mass Communication Globalization has resulted in the increasing need of international non governmental organizations (INGOs) Given their increasing role as a player in international development, INGOs are being scrutinized for their visibility and credibility. More specifically, questions of whether or not INGO leaders are equipped with the intercultural tools they need to add ress international issues are being asked. This thesis asked if INGO leaders are interculturally sensitive, if they are interculturally competent competence. After sur veying 46 U.S. based INGO executives, vice presidents, directors and managers and interviewing ten of them, this thesis found that INGO leaders are interculturally sensitive and interculturally competent. It discovered that intercultural sensitivity and in tercultural competence is attributed to past personal experiences, not that intercultural sensitivity and competence could be developed without having to travel abroad On the contrary, given the variances in INGO budgets and missions, this thesis
9 was unable to draw a correlation between INGO size and intercultural sensitivity and mostl y white INGO leaders were surveyed. Thus, it would be valuable for future researchers to determine if demographics such as race, gender, age and/or education such factors ca n influence his or her participation in international development.
10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In a message from Irina Bokova, Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) the impact of globalizati on on our current world was addressed. She stated: We are living in a world that is increasingly marked by a growing interdependence in all areas of human activity. The resultant cross fertilization of our societies offers new opportunities to strengthen t he ties between peoples, nations and cultures at the global level. At the same time, with globalization, incomprehension and mistrust have increased in the last few years. The economic, environmental and ethical crisis has further increased this sense of i nsecurity and mistrust. (Bokova, 2010, para. 1) In order to address the negative effects of globalization, Bokova proposed the idea Year of the Rapprochement of Cultures ( Bok ova, 2010, para. 1). New humanism calls (Bokova, 2010, para. 1). The objective of the International Year wa from ignorance, prejudice and exclusion that create tension, insecurity, violence and s 2010, pa ra. 4). Bokova acknowledged that (Bokova, 2010, para. 5). devised: 1. Promoting reciprocal knowledge of cu ltural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity 2. Building a framework for commonly shared values
11 3. Strengthening quality education and the building of intercultural competences 4. Fostering dialogu e for sustainable development (Bokova, 2010, para. 5) which was non objectives and strategies. She acknowledged that the cooperation of some of the most influential i nal and 2010, para. 6). Given the rise of globalization, it must be the task solidarity between cultures so as to create a new univers (Bokova, 2010, para. 7). Some scholars believe that what Irina Bokova, UNESCO and the 20 10 International Year of Rapprochement of Cultures envision can best be achieved through the development of intercultural competencies of some of the leadership of international non governmental organization (INGO). Challenges for Leaders in International Non governmental Organizations When thrown into the international spectrum, nonprofit leaders face a world of challenges. From working long hours and having limited resources to help some of the dible challenges on both organizational and personal levels (Hailey, 2006). The lack of NGO leaders can also be attributed to the fact that they often work with little support (Hailey). Therefore, the growth of the role of NGOs, especially internationally has called for new practices in leadership development programs (Hailey). So as the role of NGO leaders evolves, it is
12 ned, NGOs are not only shaped by their individual leaders, but by the environment in which they work (Hailey). Another important consideration in a discussion of nonprofit leadership is that, in truth, little research has been done on it in the nonprofit a nd/or public sector (Hailey). And if there is research that has been done on nonprofit leadership, it has mostly focused on the Boards of Directors than on individual leaders (Hailey). So while some will argue that much of the leadership research that has been done is not relevant to the social, cultural and political scopes of NGO leaders and their work, leadership styles are erformance of NGO leaders must incorporate evaluated must be simultaneously evaluated with their diagnostic skills and judgment (Hailey). Research on NGO leaders in Keny a, Malawi and Uganda revealed, leaders have to adapt to new leadership roles, the stresses arising from pressure of come from donor pressures. Along with balancing dem ands from a number of competing stakeholders, of particular interest to NGO leaders promoting change is the need for him or her to internally change first. That is, self awareness and a change of his or her behaviors and attitudes take precedence to overal l change in an organization. In developing a new (Hailey, p. 18). Such transformational
13 collaboration and networking, but 19). about a highly intelligent, highly skilled executive who was promoted into a leadership position only to fail at the jo b. And they also know a story about someone with solid but not extraordinary intellectual abilities and technical skills who was promoted into a difficult (p. 93). V ariances in leadership styles are as varied as the organizations that call for them (Goleman). Goleman found, however, that the most effective leaders are similar in their eminent possession of emotional intelligence. And although leaders do still need oth er intelligences and technical skills, he deems emotional intelligence as find, sits at the core of global leadership research. Leadership and Intercultural Communicati on Competence In thinking about the work that leaders do, one cannot help, but wonder what skills, attitudes and intellectual capabilities make them successful in their roles and responsibilities (Pusch, 2009). When we begin to ponder our incredibly inter connected world, with human, economic, and environmental problems that cannot be solved without crossing borders, the need for interculturally competent global leadership is evident. Equally important is the need to determine how such intercultural compete ncies can be learned by the greatest amount of individuals and sustained through development workshops and trainings (Pusch).
14 While most scholars believe that intercultural communication competence is vely little consensus among those (Koester, Wiseman & Sanders, 1993, p. 3). This is mostly the result of the fact that scholars understand that different cultures with va rying beliefs, values and norms each research (Stewart & Bennett, 1991). Intercultural competence requires intercultural communication competence (Deardorff, 2004), and this has been given a significant amount of attention by multidisciplinary scholars. Although such scholars have been unable to come to an agreement about the term, there is certainty about some of its main characteristics (Lustig and Koester, 1999). C that is perceived as effective in fulfilling certain rewarding objectives in a way that is also 62). Such a defi nition provides better insight into understanding communication and intercultural competence (Lustig and Koester). That is, as communication competence is perceived, competence should be understood in the context of two or more interacting persons (Lustig the context, the relatio nship between the interactants, the goals or objectives that interactants want to achieve, and the specific verbal and nonverbal messages that are
15 as values, beliefs an d attitudes that affect an individual s way of receiving and categorizing messages. (Asuncion Lande, 1977). Furthermore, Alvino Fantini (2006) native language and cultural sys (Fantini, 2006, p. 8). Fantini ( to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are behaviors that lead the expectations generated by a given culture, the constraints of the specific situation, and the natur e of the relationship between the interactants (p. 67). The terms intercultural competence, intercultural effectiveness and intercultural adaptability can be traced back to the 1970s and 1980s (Hammer, Gudykunst & Wiseman, 1978). Between the 1970s and 198 0s, it was becoming more obvious that interculturally competent government, education and business leaders were needed (Spitzberg & Changnon). At the same time, however, no widely used tool for training and assessing intercultural competence was establishe d this still stands true today (Spitzberg & Changnon). And although efforts to develop, validate and refine intercultural competency measures were undertaken, the dilemma always came back to a question of dimension (Spitzberg & Changnon). That is, interc ultural competence is
16 multidimensional and it would be too difficult to distinguish some dimensions as more important than others, as intercultural competence depends greatly on the situation in which it is used (Spitzberg & Changnon). Since the 1990s, mo re elaborate models to measure intercultural competence have been developed. Most have been conceptual models based on contexts and processes of communication (Spitzberg & Changnon). And while plenty of these models have been able to assess knowledge and s kills, some fail to take into account the Changnon, p. 9). Furthermore, depending on the discipline in which intercultural communications is being explored, some models have focuse d more on relationship development and inquiries through intercultural interactions and interethnic contexts. The purpose of this study is to assess the intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence of international non governmental organization (INGO) leaders and to determine what kinds of intercultural skills they possess and what skills they lack, with a view to suggesting some ways in which they can improve their competencies and become better global leaders for the non profit se ctor. It is hoped that this study will expand the literature on intercultural communication competence and global leadership effectiveness.
17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW History of International Non governmental Organizations As a result of accelerated glob alization, since the 1960s INGOs have experienced rapid growth (Madon, 1999). Prior to World War I, states were mainly concerned in bilateral relations (Madon). And although such individual states continued to dominate the international spectrum, INGOs exp erienced rapid growth that resulted in a number From the late 1980s onward, the significance and scale of INGOs has significantly increased as they stand at the forefront of many international development projects (Madon). Such international development projects have mostly addressed issues of (Madon). And just like the issues they advocate (Madon, p. 252). Up until the 1970s, however, INGOs were seen as having little influence on global policy (Madon). This was a result of INGOs such as Oxfam and the Red Cross that 252). The first string of INGOs, as they are known tod ay, were charity relief event of natural disasters (Korten, 1987; Madon). The second string of INGOs, from the 1960s, was more focused on increasing their self reliance (Korten, 1987). Since the
18 local communities outside established channels of the nation state by mobilising opinion on a global basis on issues the nation states have treat (Madon, p. 252). Thus, the third wave after the grassroots work had been done (Madon, p. 25 2). According to Madon, INGOs have succeeded in their grassroots work as a result of their ability to engage local communities and cultures, while still remaining globally engaged. Furthermore, the end of the 1990s marked a significant point in the life of INGOs (Koenig, 2004). It was at this time that global communications experienced exceptional growth. The Internet and email had risen in functionality and popularity and as a result, grassroots and local organizations were able to communicate internationa lly. Sheldon Annis (1992) referred to the growing network of geographically dispersed grassroots technologies (ICTs) were empowering such organizations to take a more active role in world politics, where as in past years, such communication and action was nearly impossible and too costly. Beginning in 1992 with the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development, or more commonly referred to as the Earth Summit in Rio d e Janeiro, Brazil, UN sponsored conferences on social issues saw greater representation of NGOs (Koenig). In 1995, the parallel NGO forum to the Beijing Conference broke records for attracting over forty seven thousand government leaders and NGO participan ts (Koenig). These NGO forums proved to be significant, as they demonstrated to the
19 world the need for NGOs to be included in discussions about global issues. Also, these NGO forums contributed to the formation of global partnerships. It was often the case that many NGO forum participants sustained the relationships they had made at these conferences. Using the rapidly expanding ICTs of the 1990s, conference attendees were able to share and provide information with colleagues around the world and to network in ways they were unable to do so before. Resources such as web sites, electronic discussion groups and emails extensively served the NGO community. NGOs more actively pursued information about other NGOs and international trends and publicized it he year 2000, many NGOs had a lectronic forums, issues of war prevention, environment protection and human rights and democracy. Nonetheless, although ICTs had proved to be a powerful tool in INGO work, INGOs still had little success in influencing global policy (Edwards and Hulme, 199 5). Roles of International Non governmental Organizations from a different culture, includ According to Agg, INGOs have multiple identities as they are called on to represent varying entities of global civil society. While they are embedded in Western culture, their work is geared towards serving public and private donors, often found in a European country, preserving their autonomy and adhering to international human rights standards. Moreover, INGOs are a significant provider of social services in the
20 developing world. Agg says the nonpr ofit sector accounts for nearly $1 trillion in the global economy, thus making it the eighth largest in the world. While the position and role of INGOs can vary by region and country of origin, provide social services (Agg, 2006). Take for instance, when sub Saharan African states were enduring shifts in structural policies, Edwards and Hulme (1997) state that church based INGOs became a significant provider of health and educational services in the region. During the mid 1990s, INGO provisions in South and Southeast Asia were also increasing. Agg organization dedicated to alleviating poverty by empowering the poor to bring ab out infrastructure. With a core staff of over 28,000 people, 200,000 project employees and nearly four million partner village organization members, BRAC is a prime example of how vastly large NGOs can grow when it has the support of an international development community. ly enough. More so, as those in the NGO community become more aware of the vast amounts of development aid being fed through NGOs, even they believe that their work should be more heavily scrutinized (Edwards and Hulme, 1998). The question of NGO legitimacy and accountability often comes from a discussion of the differences between internationally based and locally based NGOs (Edwards and Hulme, 1998). While its
21 international their rhetoric about fostering locally determined development rather than imposing their own priori INGO partner s such as other NGOs, community based organizations, government agencies and business expect INGOs to keep the promises on which their partnerships a surprising degree o leaders who can appropriately address both their organizational and international needs (Herman, 2005, p. 123). Globalization In thinking about the definition of the term globalization a nd the way in which the world becomes interconnected, one might make the argument that globalization has been around since the first human beings started traveling to unknown lands. It was not until the 1990s, however, that the term was thrust into the pub lic realm (Wilpert, 2009) And since then, globalization has come to have various meanings, all of which do not fully capture the phenomenon it represents (Wilpert, 2009) (Husted, 2003) It is this understanding that has led to its various disciplinal definitions and explanations. In relation to economic studies, globalization means a world of little economi c and financial borders where the main players are international companies and banks that facilitate
22 the move of capital, goods and technology across borders (Wilpert, 2009). In sociology, an understanding of globalization is that it has resulted in dispar ities between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization (Wilpert). In the realm of information and communication, globalization is most noted for its result in information and communication technologies (ICTs) that have increased the amount of shared information worldwide and expedited the exchange of this information (Wilpert, 2009). In relation to tourism and migration, globalization has encouraged travel and disrupted globalization has interrupted is the flow of work. That is, instead of always working, people are taking vacations. And when choosing jobs, people are choosing jobs overseas. In these three multidisciplinary definitions alone, it is obvious that tion represents a major rupture with the way life is experienced by many (Husted, 2003 p. 427) J. Stewart Black, Allen J. Morrison and Hal B. Gregersen (1999) claim that inescapable force. If anticipated and understood, it is a powerful opportunit y. If not, it (Thorbecke & Nissanke, 2006). As an overlooked misfortune, it challenges and constraints on policymakers in the management of national, regional, and (Thorbecke & Nissanke, 2006, p. 1333) There were some global events however, that actually unified nations despite cultural differences. For
23 example, as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the deadly Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004, people around the world were awakened to the reality that catastrophe is univers al (Wilpert, 2009). So whether or not globalization is understood by strict definitions or through experiences that make individuals empathetic to the actuality of relative sameness, most will agree that it is in fact inescapable. Globalization, good or ba d, is upon us and persons and entities must act to address it. Given the forces that drive globalization technology, costs, consumers, global business customers, governments and competitors, to name a few it is difficult for groups or individuals to wh olly support globalization (Black, Morrison and Gregersen; Herman, 2005). Despite this inability of INGO leaders, political parties, governments, business executives and individuals to come to an agreement about the nature of globalization, however, there particularly and heavily impacted the nonprofit sector. As nations become more interdependent, INGOs have been forced to re consider their positions and roles in the world. Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations Leadership is vital to the life of nonprofit organizations. In a Brookings Institution survey of over 250 researchers and management providers, it was determined that 2005, p. 151). Furthermore, rather than a charismatic type of leadership, the kind of p. 69).
24 Furthermore, although much of leadership research is found in business management studies, Nanus and Dobbs (1999) argue that: Leadership of nonprofits is different from leadership of business and government organizations. First, nonprofits have un paid board members, many deliver their services through volunteers and most staff consider their inspiration, pass ion, coaxing, persuasion and peer pressure than upon authority, financial i Success in nonprofit organizations is measured not in terms of profits and fulfillment of legislative intent, but in terms of social good. This is a more value laden and less considerable room for nonprofit leaders to exercise judgment, intuition and innovation. (Hudson, 2005, p. 152) In a discussion of the multitudes of volunteers nonprofits oversee, leadership should not always be viewed as only existing at the top of an organization. Rather, position of authority has a responsibility to provid e leadership for his or her area of work and to contribute to the wider leadership of his or her department or division and the interview for the journal Leader to Leader : T he best leaders work from a place of integrity in themselves, from their own identity and integrity into the public arena. important to you and in the public arena you will always draw slings and arrows for doing that. But you will have the best cha nce of creating something of true and lasting value. (pp. 27 28) most attention worthy responsibilities: 1. Inside the organization, where the leader interacts with the bo ard, staff and volunteers to inspire, encourage, enthuse, and empower them.
25 2. Outside the organization, where the leader seeks assistance or support from donors, grant makers, potential allies, the media or other leaders in the business or public sectors. 3. On present operations, where the leader is concerned about the quality of services to clients and the community, and also organizational structures, information systems and other aspects of organizational effectiveness. 4. On future possibilities, wher e the leader anticipates trends and developments that are likely to have important implications for the future direction of the organization. (p. 17) Research on Global Leadership Most leadership research is rooted in a single culture and much of it is mos tly tied to how business practices in various countries par in comparison to Western business practices (Pusch, 2009). However, leadership research has shown differences in leadership practices in different countries, how leadership is responsible for work er motivation and a growing interest in global leadership both in the international private and public sectors (Pusch). Leaders, regardless of whether they primarily work in their home culture or in another different from their own, should always be able t o function in an environment of differing values and needs (Pusch). According to Margaret D. Pusch set, heart set, and skill Globalization has resulted in the need of global leaders (Brake, 1997; Black, Morrison & Gregersen, 1999; Goldsmith, Greenberg, Robertson & Hu Chan, 2003). challenges of global competition into personal and org anizational energy for creating
26 worldwide stakeholder value in order to build and sustain world class performance (p. underlying leadership process is essentially t needed to productively address them (Brake). And in a world of constant and dramatic pport leadership at all levels if they are however, distributing leadership at all levels and locations helps an organization executive officer must be able to form a leadership team that can help him or her drive leadership deep into his or her organization to include a maximum number of people (Markides & Stopford, 1995). Therefore, as management and leadership are seen as such as executives, vice presidents, directors, and managers who are in jobs with some global leadership activities such as globa Tarique, 2008, p. 336). A Global Leadership Model Numerous global leadership models exist and give different names for their components, but the essence of their components are the same. The global model most app licable to this study was created by Terence Brake and is titled the Global Leadership Triad. This triad while not the only model for global leadership, emphasizes the need for cultural understanding in an organization. The Global Leadership Triad is made up of three competency clusters: business acumen, personal effectiveness and relationship management (Brake, 1997, p. 42).
27 understanding of the overall business and an excellent grou nding in the professional individuals taking accountability for their own gr owth and development and having the desire and maturity to experience the unfamiliar world around them with an openness of others different from him or herself toward c ommon goals (Brake). Moreover, relationship management also understands the need for global leaders to be able to work in rapid environments (Brake). Mostly since globalization is occurring at a rapidly fluid pace, the relationship global leaders have with others members of an organization is essential in helping the organization successfully mobilize to address world issues (Brake). It is under relationship management that Brake identifies a need for cross cultural communication competence, which he define differences and [when a global leader] adapts his or her behavior to facilitate the culturally competent person: a. Recognizes his or he r own dominant cultural orientations and has a well developed sense of and respect for the visible and relatively invisible and relatively invisible cultural differences among groups. b. Appreciates the added value that different perspectives can bring to the table and is open to, and always listening for, different and more effective means for achieving shared objectives. c. Continuously works to move beyond ethnocentrism, the use of national stereotypes and generalizations, and toward authentic relationsh ips with individuals.
28 d. Demonstrates patience, civility, tolerance, empathy, and adaptability in seeking for, and responding to, substance over style in cross cultural relationships. e. Is aware of and sensitive to the cues communicated through nonverbal cross cultural communication (e.g., hand gestures, facial expressions, silences). f. Demonstrates a willingness and an ability to pursue learning other languages. (p. 43) Each of the three competencies that constitute The Global Triad cannot be used alone A pproaches to M easuring I ntercultural C ompetence As was previously stated, although there is consensus about the importance and necessity o f intercultural communication competence, among those studying the subject about how best to approach, conceptualize, study, or given the innate differences intercultural communication competence possesses (Koester, Wiseman & Sanders, p. 3). That is, depending on where a person is from and what their cultural experiences are, among other factors, will determine what he or she thinks is the best way to relate to other people. Furthermore, in a discussion of o rganizational cultures, expectations of what intercultural communication competence should or should not entail can differ between a private business and public nonprofit organization. Thus, given the irresolution around the best tool to measure intercultu ral communication competence, this study saw value in reviewing several intercultural competence tools to gain insight on the various elements that can or cannot impact an
29 I ntercultural Sensitivity Scale further affirmed why it is inherently the best tool for this particular study. Intercultu ral Development Inventory (IDI) The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is an assessment tool that was developed by Mitchell R. Ha mmer and Milton J. Bennett to measure intercultural competence/sensitivity (Hammer, 1998). It was derived from the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) that demonstrated how observable human behaviors and self reported attitudes are bot The DMIS is composed of six stages: denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation and integration. Respectively, the first three are ethno centric stages and the last three are ethno relative ( Bennett, 1993). To date, three versions of the IDI have been developed. The first version of the IDI (IDI v1) was developed in 1998, the second version (IDI v2) in 2003 and its third and most recent version (IDI v3) in 2010 (Hammer, 2011). IDI v1 consisted of 60 questionnaire items and was based on a sample of 40 individual in depth interviews (Hammer). It was mainly concerned with systematically representing the commonalities and differences of cultural experiences. IDI v2 retested the original 60 items an d an additional 122 items. It placed a greater focus on the orientations of defense/reversal mindedness scale, an intercultural anxiety to a completely new and diverse sample of 591 persons and while high world mindedness and low cultural anxiety proved to be significant to the IDI, social desirability did not (Hammer). IDI v2 also revealed that differences in gender, age and educational levels of
30 respondents constituted insignificant and unsystematic affects on questionnaire results (Hammer). In further development of the IDI, IDI v3 would be administered to another 4,763 individuals from 11 distinct cultures (Hammer). According to Hammer IDI v3 had the largest validation sample as it consisted of managers from numerous countries and NGOs, United States (U.S.) church members, students from major U.S. universities and high schools and other individuals from Austria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecu ador, Germany, Hong Kong and Italy. This version of the IDI was administered in the native language of stated that while the results of the 4,763 respondents were normally dis tributed and complemented previous findings, several other conclusions have been made about its Today, the IDI still consists of a 50 item questionnaire and several demographic and o pen ended questions. The open ended questions attempt to better capture a and pencil and online formats and can be completed in about 15 20 minutes. Upon completion of the IDI, an individual or administrators must take an intensive, three day IDI Qualifying Seminar ( Intercultural Developm ent Inventory, LLC, 2011, para. 2). Currently, there are 2,400 qualified administrators of the IDI and it is actively being used in the profit, nonprofit, educational and government sectors ( Intercultural Development Inventory, LLC 2011, para. 4).
31 Cross C ultura l Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) The Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) is a tool that assesses an cultural interactions and communications. Developed by Colleen Kelley and Judith Meyers, it can be applied anyone who was adapting to a new culture would share the same types of feelings and have used the CCAI to measure the effectiveness of cultu ral training programs for law enforcement officers, business and medical professionals and graduate students (Davis & Finney). Moreover, the instrument has also been used to predict the influence of second language proficiency, impression management and pe rsonality traits in cross cultural adaptability (Davis & Finney). Prior to developing the CCAI, Kelley and Meyers developed an exhaustive Cross Cultural Readiness list of characteristics deemed important for developing cross cultural adaptability (Davis & Finney). The list of characteristics was then evaluated in accordance to their relationship to cultural adaptation. This rating revealed that flexibility/openness, emotional resilience, perceptual acuity, personal autonomy and a positive regard for others were significant to successful cross cultural adaptation (Davis & Finney). From these distinct characteristics, ten items were written for five subscales that today, represent the five categories found in the CCAI (Davis & Finney). The first version of the CCAI was administered to an occupationally, educationally and agedly diverse sample of 653 participants in 1987 (Davis & Finney). From this first test, a revised 1989 version of the CCAI was developed and administered to a new sample in 1991. The results and revisions from the second administration would become the foundation for the most current version of the CCAI.
32 administered in 15 30 minutes. Scoring of the evaluation takes ab out 20 minutes and 2007, para. 3). Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI) The Intercul tural Sensitivity Inventory (ICS I) is an instrument that measures intercultur al sensitivity using a set of 56 items and a seven point Likert scale (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992). The seven points on the Likert scale include: very strongly agree, strongly agree, agree, not decided, disagree, strongly disagree and very strongly disagree (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992). The 56 items on the ICSI are grouped into three sections (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992). The first 26 questions also known as the US section, requires respondents to answer the question s and intende 420). The second section, also known as the JPN section JPN for Japan, requires respondents to answer the same 26 questions in the first section, but this time to use the United States and Japan was done so as the two countries were familiar to most of the participants and because of their individualistic and collectivistic differences (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992). Last, the third section of this instrument, also known as the Flex/Open section, consists of 30 items (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992). The 30 items are further divided as such: 11 items from the 1964 Marlow Crowne Social Desirability Scale, 10 i capture the construct of flexibility (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992, p. 420). The origins of the
33 cult point list suggested for people moving from one country to another in the individualist and collectivist direction and vice versa (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992, p. 420). All of the items on the ICSI were also written to study behaviors instead of attitudes or traits, as Bhawuk and Brislin wanted to ensure that their study captured more than cognitive responses (Bhawuk and Brislin, 1992). Thus, the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) In 2000, Guo Ming Chen and William Starosta developed a 24 item instrument to measure intercultural sensitivity as a component of intercultural co mmunication competence. The development and validation of this instrument took place in three stages (Chen & Starosta, 2000). In its initial phase, the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) consisted of 73 items (Fritz, Mllenberg & Chen, 2000). Similar to its current construct, the then 73 item scale provided study participants a five point Likert scale 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = uncertain, 2 = disagree and 1 = strongly disagree to respond to each ISS question (Chen & Starosta). With the intent ion of simplifying their scale, Chen and Starosta administered the ISS pre study to 168 US American college freshman in basic communication studies courses (Chen & Starosta). The results of this pre study lessened the number of questions on the ISS from 73 to 44 items with > 0.50 factor loadings and ensured the conceptual meaning of intercultural sensitivity was appropriately represented (Fritz, Mllenberg & Chen). item ISS to 414 college studen ts also enrolled in communication courses (Chen & Starosta). This time, they were interested in generating the factors of intercultural sensitivity (Chen & Starosta).
34 of actual ISS, this factor was labeled Interaction Engagement and consisted of six items numbers 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44 (Chen & Starosta). The second factor was c Interaction Confidence and consisted of question numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 34 (p. 7). The c in comprised of question numbers 26, 28 and 29 (p. 7). The second study Chen and Starosta administered sought to validate their scale using related measures. This time, they adm inistered the now 24 item survey to 162 college students in a communication course (Chen & Starosta, 2000). They found that p. 8). The additional related measures participants were also asked to complete item Self i tem Self
35 14 item Perspective Taking Scale (Chen & Starosta). Using Pearson product moment correlations, it was determined that all five related measures were significantly correlated to the ISS (Chen & Starosta). Chen and Staros validity. The ISS was given to 174 college students in communication courses to complete and showed that those with higher scores were suggestively more arosta, 2000, p. 10). This time the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .88 (Chen & Starosta). In addition to the ISS, students were also asked to complete the 13 item Intercultural Effectiveness Scale as was derived item Intercultural Communication Attitude Scale (Chen & Starosta). The results of these two predicted to be more effective in inte rcultural interactions and to show positive attitude Furthermore, a study administered by Wolfgang Fritz, Antje Mllenberg and Guo Ming Chen (2000) sought to determine the validity of th e ISS when given to participants other than Americans (Fritz, Mllenberg & Chen, 2000). They administered the ISS to a German sample and found that the instrument was satisfactorily valid when used in different cultural settings, although it still needed m operationalization of the concepts, which probably only can be resolved by using more 2000, p. 9). So while the ISS, like other intercultura l competence measurement tools, can still be improved as more research is done in the field of intercultural
36 ents for the selection of W hile effectiveness and appropriateness are frequently highlighted in definitions of intercultural competence, Chen and Starosta (1998) state that effectiveness an d appropriateness or intercultural adroitness is only one of three aspects of intercultural competence. The other aspects are intercultural awareness and intercultural sensitivity (Chen & Starosta). They also claim that: S uccessful intercultural communicat intercultural awareness by learning cultural similarities and differences, while the process of achieving awareness of cultural similarities and difference is enhanced and buffered by the ability of intercultural sensit ivity. Together with intercultural adroitness that concerns the behavioral effectiveness and appropriateness, the three concepts form the foundation of intercultural communication competence. (Chen & Starosta, 2000, p. 5) Chen and Starosta (1997) distingui sh intercultural sensitivity as one of the most capability for living an (p. 5). Because of its importance to the foundation of intercultural competence, intercultural sensitivity will be the aspect of intercultural competence measured in this study.
37 CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESES OF THE ST UDY Globalization, as it relates to this study, is twofold. First, globalization has resulted in the growth of the international nonprofit sector and consequently expanded the role of INGOs. Given the monumental reach and work that Un ited States based INGOs have and do globally and the understanding that the role and performance of NGO leaders must incorporate the environment in which they work and interculturally competent leadership, the following hypothesis is suggested: H1: Interna tional nongovernmental organization leaders are interculturally sensitive. A intercultural comp etence, a second hypothesis is suggested : H2: International nongovernmental organizat ion leaders are interculturally competent. As most research on global leaders or leadership shows, a level of empathy, ividual to psychologically put her or Empathy is one of five components self awareness, self regulation, motivation, empathy and social skill of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998). Emotional being interculturally competent (Olsen and Kroeger, 2001, p. 118). While this study will not measure global leadership effectiveness, it assumes a positive correlation between intercultural competence and global leadership effectiveness. In this study, global
38 leadership effectiveness is assumed to be related to the size of an INGO and the resources it has to expend on a variety of international de velopment projects. Thus, a third hypothesis is suggested: H3: The larger the INGO, the more interculturally competent and sensitive its leaders are. As the expectations and responsibilities of INGOs continue to exponentially increase, it is important that the beneficiaries of their work can be confident that their immediate needs are understood and will be appropriately met. W hile the leaders of such organizations often determine the work that INGOs will carry out and have the greatest ability to significa ntly influence their employees and volunteers, it is equally important that such leaders are interculturally competent. The first step of being interculturally competent is being interculturally sensitive or being aware of, able to tolerate, being confiden t in, positively reacting to and exercising the effort to understand varying intercultural communication settings (Chen & Starosta, 2000). The underlying assumption is that INGO leaders who are interculturally competent are the very global leaders who can encourage intercultural competence at all levels of an organization and
39 CHAPTER 4 METHOD S Research Instrument Construction The Interc ultural Sensitivity Scale The first portion of the research instrument was a component of intercultural communication competence, intercu ltural sensitivity is not s 24 items were constructed on the basis of five factors: interaction engagement (7 items), respect for cultural differences (6 items), interaction confidence (5 items), interaction enjoyment (3 items) and interaction attentiveness (3 items) (Chen and Star osta, 2000). In order to respond to the five questions, a five point Likert scale was used (Chen and Starosta). disagree and 1 = strongly disagree (Chen and Starosta). Th is tool was chosen to 8). item s, it was necessary to reverse code items 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20 and 22. Reverse coding was used for items keyed ISS item was item
40 coding negatively with (DeCoster). The SPSS function used to perform the reverse coding was the to a negatively prior to the reverse coding, received a low score of one. After the reverse coding, however, the individual then received a high score of five as if he or she act ually coding was done, all high scores equally and appropriately reflected the high presence of the attribute being measured by the ISS, which in this case was intercultur al sensitivity. The second portion of this research instrument was a demographic questionnaire gender age, racial background and educational background. The demographic q uestionnaire also asked whether or not an INGO leader who completed the survey and questionnaire would be willing to participate in an interview. If an INGO leader agreed to an interview, he or she was contacted to schedule an interview date and time. Popu lation and Sample most recognized U.S. professionals such as executives, vice presidents, directors, and managers who a re in (Caliguri & Tarique, 2008, p. 336). To better define the population that was measured
41 used as based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), with more than 190 members working in every developing based and secular, large and small, with a focus on the world 2011, para. 1). While this membership directory ca and lists to acqu ire a more reliable email address. Reliable emails addresses were needed to appropriately connect with leaders in the INGOs. Once an appropriate email address for each INGO was established, a pre study email requesting participation was sent to each of the 190+ organizations. This pre study email also requested approval from INGOs to share the subsequent and official study email with as many leaders as possible throughout its organization. Once INGOs responded to the pre study email and agreed to full parti cipation in this research study were identified, an Informed Consent Form and Intercultural Sensitivity Scale with additional demographical questions were then sent to them. From here, responses were gathered until a relevant sample size was reached. Proce dure and Data Analysis After Intercultural Sensitivity Scales and additional demographic questionnaires were distributed to INGO leaders, they were given two weeks to complete and return the research tools. If necessary, follow up email reminders were sent to INGO leaders and they were given additional time to return the tools until a relevant sample size was responsive and the total number of responses able to be gathered. And as variances in
42 possible outcomes of this study were expected, they will be addressed in the Limitations and Suggestions section. Furthermore, as H3 of this study attempted to show a correlation between the size of an INGO (i.e. the total number of employe es/volunteers, annual revenue, etc.) and its interculturally competent and sensitive leaders, Charity All responses to the ISS and demographical questions and all INGO capa city and financial information were organized and analyzed in SPSS Statistics 20 for Mac. Furthermore, in an attempt to more precisely understand the intercultural sensitivities and intercultural communication competences and/or lack thereof of INGO leader s, supplemental interviews were conducted. At the end of the demographic questionnaire, survey participants were asked if they were willing to participate in a follow up phone interview. Of the 46 INGO leaders that completed the survey, 28 (60.9%) of them agreed to an interview. Of the 28 INGO leaders that were emailed to confirm an interview date and time, only 10 (35.7%) actually participated in an interview. The leadership levels of interviewees ranged from executives to coordinators that came from a num ber of participating INGOs and departments. As the interviews were statements turned into open ended questions. Also, interviewees were asked to provide advice for other INGO l eaders and international development and intercultural most reoccurring answers. Reliability Analysis The five constructs of the ISS: Interaction engagement, respect fo r cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction enjoyment and interaction attentiveness,
43 had the highest ronba Table A 1 ranks the constructs from highest to lowest reliability coefficients. Lower appropriately capture the other concepts being measured. In this case, interaction enjoyment items 9, 12 and 15 can be revisited.
44 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS Participating International Non Governmental Organizations, Levels of Leadership and Other Demographics informed consent form that was shown prior to the scale, 46 (82.2%) individuals were actually sampled and completed the survey. As respondents were allowed to skip of the demographic questions varied from 41 to 46 responses. The break down of the 41 What international non ACDI/ VOCA, one (2.4%) respondent from the African Medical and Research Foundation, two (4.9%) respondents from American Refugee Committee International, two (4.9%) respondents from Baptist World Alliance/Baptist World Aid, one (2.4%) respondent from Bethany Chr istian Services, one (2.4%) respondent from the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), one (2.4%) respondent from the Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), one (2.4%) respondent from the Congressional Hunger Center, one (2.4%) re spondent from Creative Learning, three (7.3%) respondents from the Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO), five (12.2%) respondents from Global Giving, one (2.4%) respondent from Good360, one (2.4%) respondent from Heifer International, one (2 .4%) respondent from INMED Partnership for Children, one (2.4%) respondent from InsideNGO, two (4.9%) respondents from the Lions Club International Foundation, one (2.4%) respondent from Plant with Purpose (formerly Floresta USA Inc.), two (4.9%) responden ts from Stop Hunger Now, one (2.4%) respondent from the Trickle Up Program, Inc., three (7.3%)
45 respondents from the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, one (2.4%) respondent from World Hope International and one (2.4%) respondent from the World Socie ty for this question. s as follows: 11 ed to specify their answers. The other leadership levels that respondents identified included: Project Coordinator, Officer and Deputy Director. Therefore, while this study initially presidents, der qualified to participate in this study (Caliguri & Tarique, 2008, p. 336; Hudson, p. 153). The implications of collecting data from individuals who did not hold leadership levels of executive, vice president, director and manager will be further addres sed in the
46 Table 5 1. Level of Leadership Level Fre quency Percent Executive 11 25.0 Vice President 4 9.1 Director 16 36.4 Manager 10 22.7 Other 3 6.8 Total 44 100.0 Now, although six response options were given for the demographic question ere represented in the data collected. That is, of the 45 INGO leaders that responded to the question about race, 41 45 INGO leaders that responded What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If of answers is as follows: 1 (2.2%) individual respon dividuals responded Table 5 2. Gender Gender Frequency Percent Male 19 42.2 Female 26 57.8 Total 45 100.0
47 Table 5 Age Group Frequency Percent 25 or under 2 4.4 26 40 12 26.7 41 55 24 53.3 56 or olde r 7 15.6 Total 45 100.0 Table 5 Race Frequency Percent White 41 91.1 Asian 2 4.4 From Multiple Races 2 4.4 Total 45 100.0 Table 5 Degree/Level of School Frequency Percent Some college but no degree 1 2.2 Associate degree 2 4.4 Bachelor degree 11 24.4 Master degree 21 46.7 Professional degree 2 4.4 Doctorate degree 8 17.8 Total 45 100.0 I t is necessary to continuously look at the means and standard deviations of all the deviations will vary according to the differences in respondent demographics. While mean deviation shows that an item was similarly interpreted among respondents, while a higher standard deviation shows that an item was diversely interpreted among respondents. enjoy interacting with people from different cultures) (M = 4.76, SD = .480). The second
48 minded to people from .532). The fourth ways people from different cultures behave) (M = 4.39, SD = .614). The fifth highest differences betwe en my culturally distinct counterpart and me) (M = 4.30, SD = .701). people from different cultures) (M = 4.04, SD = .698). (i.e., try to obtain as much information as I c an when interacting with people from distinct counterpart my understanding 638). The tenth highest item was an impression of culturally distinct counterparts) (M = 3.91, SD = .915). The 12 th interaction) (M = 3.89, SD = .745). The 1 3 th
49 interaction) (M = 3.78, SD = .867). The 14 th (i.e., can be as sociable as I want to be when interacting with people from different cultures) (M = 3.43, SD = .981). The next and 15 th what to say when interacting with people from different cultures) (M = 2.78, SD = .7 58). The 16 th of people from different cultures) (M = 1.89, SD = .795). The 17 th highest item was th people from different cultures) (M = 1.72, SD = .621). The 18 th (M = 1.59, SD = .541). The 19 th (i.e., think my culture is better than other cultures) (M = 1.43, SD = .620). The 20 th people from different cultures) (M = 1.39, SD = .493). The 21 s t minded) (M = 1.28, SD = .455). The 22 nd would not accept the opinions of people from di fferent cultures) (M = 1.28, SD = .455). The 23 rd where I will have to deal with culturally distinct persons) (M = 1.26, SD = .444). The last and 24 th people from different cultures) (M = 1.14, SD = .347) (Table 4 8). I can be as sociable as I want to be when interacting with
50 statement with the third highest standard deviat I tend to wait before forming an impression of culturally discomfort in being able to respond to them honestly. Thus, in futures studies, these statements might be reworded for improvement of the ISS as a whole. Table 5 6. Hypothesis 1: Descriptive Statistics for Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Int eraction engagement 1 46 3 5 4.76 .480 Interaction engagement 13 46 4 5 4.65 .482 Respect for cultural differences 8 46 3 5 4.63 .532 Respect for cultural differences 16 46 3 5 4.39 .614 Interaction engagement 24 44 3 5 4.30 .701 Interaction confidenc e 10 46 2 5 4.11 .767 Interaction confidence 3 46 3 5 4.04 .698 Interaction attentiveness 17 46 1 5 4.04 .965 Interaction engagement 23 45 3 5 4.04 .638 Interaction attentiveness 14 46 2 5 4.00 .869 Interaction engagement 11 46 1 5 3.91 .915 Interact ion engagement 21 45 2 5 3.89 .745 Interaction attentiveness 19 46 1 5 3.78 .867 Interaction confidence 6 46 1 5 3.43 .981 Interaction confidence 5 46 2 5 2.78 .758 Interaction confidence 4 46 1 4 1.89 .795 Interaction enjoyment 15 46 1 4 1.72 .621 I nteraction enjoyment 12 46 1 3 1.59 .541
51 Table 5 6. Continued. N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Respect for cultural differences 20 46 1 3 1.43 .620 Interaction enjoyment 9 46 1 2 1.39 .493 Respect for cultural differences 2 46 1 2 1.28 .45 5 Respect for cultural differences 18 46 1 2 1.28 .455 Interaction engagement 22 46 1 2 1.26 .444 Respect for cultural differences 7 44 1 2 1.14 .347 Valid N (listwise) 0 Average Scores o f the Five Intercultural Sensitivity Variables Given the im portance of the five constructs to understanding intercultural sensitivity and to help better understand the data presented, the items of each of the five constructs were collapsed and tested to produce composite variable means and standard deviations. The construct with the third highes Table 5 7. Hypothesis 1: Descriptive Statistics for Average Scores of the Five Intercultural Sensitivity Variables N Mean Standard Deviation Respect for Cultural Differences Composite 44 4.66 .338 Interaction Enjoymen t Composite 46 4.43 .421 Interaction Engagement Composite 44 4.33 .389
52 Table 5 7. Continued. Interaction Attentiveness Composite 46 3.94 .693 Interaction Confidence Composite 46 3.70 .338 Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis one states that international no ngovernmental organization leaders are interculturally sensitive. The tests that were used for this included Cronbach Alpha, mean and standard deviation measurements of each of the five constructs: interaction engagement (items 1, 11, 13, 21, 22, 23 and 24 ), respect for cultural differences (items 2, 7, 8, 16, 18 and 20), interaction confidence (items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10), interaction enjoyment (items 9, 12 and 15) and interaction attentiveness (items 14, 17 and 19), as well as a mean and standard deviation m items. Now, assuming that only INGO leaders responded to the ISS and given the fact that > .70) and therefore acceptable, H ypothesis O ne was on of .65 and .63 respectively, it was necessary to reject them. On the contrary, the constructs of interaction confidence, respect for cultural differences and interaction engagement all received scores higher than .70 and were accepted. So while results of towards communicating with people from leaders are confident in the intercultural setting, do positively orient or tolerate their and do still have overall positive feelings in intercultural engagements (Chen, p. 8).
53 items, the top four items: item 7 (SD = .347), item 22 (SD = .444), item 2 (SD = .455 ) and item 18 (SD = .455) all fall under either the constructs of respect for cultural like to be with people from different cultures, I avoid those situations where I will have to deal with culturally distinct persons, I think people from other cultures are narrow minded and I would not accept the opinions of people from different cultures. Interestingly, each of these items was negatively keyed. Thus, as a result of the reverse coding that was performed, it is important to understand that these INGO leaders were actually making the claims that he or she likes to be with people from different cultures, embraces situations where he or she will have to deal with cultura lly distinct persons, thinks people from other cultures are open minded and would accept the opinions of people from different cultures. So while a number of outlying factors that entiveness to and enjoyment of interculturally sensitivity, the se leaders are still interculturally sensitive to certain degrees. Hypothesis T wo states that international nongovernmental organization leaders are interculturally competent. According to Fant ini and as was previously stated, intercul a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different ity to be able to effectively and appropriately interact with others who are interculturally different from oneself, an individual also needs to be both interculturally aware and sensitive. Moreover, Chen and Starosta
54 single out intercultural sensitivity a s one of the most important aspects of intercultural H ypothesis O ne found that IN GO leaders are interculturally sensitive, they are also interculturally competent and H ypothesis T wo can be accepted. Hypothesis T wo can also be supported on the basis that Penbek, Yurdakul & eed of living and working in intercultural circumstances. This definition of intercultural sensitivity directly correlates to the expectations and responsibilities of INGO leaders. That is, some of the INGO leaders that were interviewed claimed having work ed in the field on international grassroots projects where they were required to live in the local community for a period of time. These INGO leaders were aware of the fact that their efforts to learn the language and practices, try new foods and simply re spect and appreciate the cultures they worked in, resulted in more successful projects and wholesome experiences. projects, INGO leaders recognized that monetary values are not the only measure of it. Rather, INGO leaders deemed international development projects successful when culture. INGO leaders highlighted the importance of not imposi ng western goals and timelines on their local projects, but instead utilizing local resources for the outcomes that would best serve the local people. Thus, INGO leaders are interculturally helps in transcending his or her initial communicative competence (Fantini).
55 Hypothesis T hree states that the larger the INGO, the more interculturally competent and sensitive its leaders are. While this study attributed the size of an INGO only to its net assets within a calendar year, the variation in net assets of the INGOs from which leaders who participated in this study came from, proved to be insignificant. That is, net assets varied too largely the highest net asset figure w as $241,824,123 from the Lions Club International and the lowest figure was $118,352 from Creative Learning and as a result of a lack of resources, it was nearly impossible to pinpoint exactly how much of an INGOs yearly budget is spent on strictly inter national field projects or intercultural communication training classes. Therefore, with the unreliability and lack of information able to be gathered, hypothesis three was rejected. INGOs net assets will obviously vary according to the number of employees it has, which can range Interview Findings Experiences Outsi de of International Development Although questions about interc ultural experiences outside of his or her INGO leadership position were not asked, stories of such experiences surfaced in the interviews. That is, the INGO leaders that were interviewed often referenced past and personal intercultural experiences as influ ential on their current intercultural perspectives. For example, one INGO leader shared how him and his wife once lived on a military base in Scotland for several years and how the experience forced them to learn new foods, beliefs and cultures it helped them learn to cope with difficulties in
56 culture. This leader remembered the challenges of continuously having to adjust to new cultural environments, however, also remembered how the moves were always a source of new understanding and insight into what makes things work and not work for her. One INGO leader worked as a missionary in Kenya f or two years prior to taking on his leadership role at his INGO. While in Kenya, he grew to appreciate and respect Kenyan hospitality, community and family and learned Swahili. All of these experiences misleading for communities that simply have a different level of communication and infrastructure. Last, an INGO director at a Christian based INGO openly described how her relationship with God has influenced her intercultural sensitivity. When asked why she enjoys working with people from different cultures, she shared how working with people from other cultures is omen over 60, but a God who is So while INGO leaders are interculturally sensitive and competent, there is no doubt that each of them brings to that sensitivity and competenc e and the international development practice as a whole, different intercultural experiences and perspectives. In the Field vs. In the Office While results of the ISS portion of this study determined that INGO leaders are in fact both interculturally sensi tive and competent, the supplemental interviews showed some variances in their understanding of what makes an INGO leader interculturally sensitive and competent. For instance, while some leaders believe that an INGO leader does not need international trav el experiences in order to be interculturally sensitive,
57 communication, Octob er 3, 2011). On the contrary, an INGO coordinator was confident (personal communication, October 3, 2011). Furthermore, some INGOs declined to participate in the ISS altogeth er as they claimed to not have any employees or that such INGOs claimed to mostly and only work on the policy and advocacy sectors of international development. When in itially contacted for possible participation in this we're an advocacy organization that does not have programs on the ground in the region in which our work focuses. I'm not sure if we'll communication, September 20, 2011). Moreover, two individuals initially hesitated to participate in an interview, because of their INGO leadership positions not requiring regular international travel. The first such INGO leader was a director of financial services and the other was a director of the lacked the interaction with international persons necessary to be interculturally sensitive enough to participate in this study. Other leaders, however, pointed out that intercultural the conversations. In the case of email exchanges, an INGO executive described variances in email response times. She shared: Working with different cultures teaches you concepts of what constitutes an appropriate time elapse, say, for email. Because of differences between
58 cultures, you can expect someone to answer [an email] over th until you follow What constit utes disinterest in one culture [may just be] a different approach in another culture. Variances in responses should be expected. Before drawing conclusions you have to be aware of what passes as the norm in that culture to understand [its] unspoken expect ations. (personal communication, October 3, 2011). Thus, whether in the field or in the office, INGO leaders are aware of the situations that can contribute to greater intercultural sensitivity and competence. Defining Success in International Non Governm ental Organizations Open mindedness, listening and learning were three ideas that continuously international development projects successful, an INGO director described it a s communication, September 30, 2011). This INGO director also saw the value of being re open ector should] almost always use indigenous people to do the work on the ground because they kn Last, this director stated that
59 so m communication, September 30, 2011). One INGO executive, with the perspective that humility and respect are keys to a token way, we (personal communication, October 5, 2011). He shared that being a technical expert in a field does not necessarily mean you know what is best for a developmen t project in nec (person al communication, October 5, 2011). So, despite how strange a circumstance might first appear to be, the INGO executive emphasized being polite and listening discomfort is ac Advice for International Non Go ve rnmental Organization Leaders When asked about advice they could pass on to other INGO leaders, participants advice would you give to other INGOs to be more sensitive
60 historical issues that are rooted in race, ethnicity and cultures and how such things (personal communication, September 30, 2011). This INGO director, having worked in countries such as Kenya, Uganda, India and Thailand, has seen how international development projects can fail when they are not rooted in the place and context of where the problems are happening. Another ING O director, with more sustainable (personal communication, October 4, 2011 ). Last, an INGO director recommended having classes that focus on diversity. She stated ore
61 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USION The findings in this research are invaluable to leadership studies, globalization and the field of international development, as well as to the study of intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence for a number of reasons. First, in the case of leadership, this study affirmed the need for INGO leaders to take in to account the cultural environments their organizations work in (Hailey). As the qualitative findings of this study showed, cultural environments could be the numerous countries INGO projects are taking root in or INGO headquarter offices. In both instanc es, this study revealed that leaders are aware of how interacting with and learning to understand new cultures is invaluable to their work be it over Thai food in Asia or during a diversity class in a U.S. office. Intercultural communication competence i s, in fact, an important and significant dimension of leadership. Second, this study showed how relevant globalization is to INGO leaders given their demonstration of intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence. Everyday, INGO lead ers are required to use information communication technologies (ICTs) (e.g., compu ters, phones, etc.) to development issues (e.g., pollution, agricultural shortages, hunger, etc.). Moreover, in the case of international development, there is no stop ping the rate at For the INGO leaders who were surveyed and interviewed in this study, they recognized how their ability or lack thereof to be interculturally sensitive can affect his or her
62 personal effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of his or her INGO. And as the results of the ISS revealed, INGO leaders do in fact show positive consensus around Thus, this study both q uantitatively and qualitatively proves that intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence are essential to leadership, globalization and international development. More particularly, for the INGO leaders who participated in this stud y, it was discovered that along with a working knowledge of the international development field that past familial, educational and religious experiences contribute to his or her intercultural sensitivity. With that, it is important to recognize that INGO leaders have brought and will continue to bring different experiences to his or her leadership and the international development field. And given will also vary acc ording to his or her daily leadership responsibilities, as well as to the mission and vision of his or her INGO. But again, as this study revealed, it is intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence, because of and despite of differ ences that is necessary to making leadership work. Last, given the small sample size taken for this study, its results cannot be generalized to all INGO leaders. But, if the findings of this research were applied to a larger sample of INGO leaders and find ings proved to be comparable, it is sure to have lasting impacts on the way INGO leaders, employees and volunteers are perceived, trained and perform once abroad. Being trained to better understand and communicate with the cultures they serve might help IN GOs better plan and adhere to their budgets, as well as make their development projects more sustainable. More INGO leaders,
63 employees and volunteers might be more willing to learn a new language or take intercultural communication classes. And if and when interests in intercultural communication studies increases, it is likely that more economically efficient and sustainable ICTs could be developed to appropriately address such consequences. The results of this study determined that INGO leaders are interc ulturally sensitive and are also interculturally competent. However, given the unreliability of information gathered on INGO size and inability to gather information on assets given to intercultural trainings and/or classes, this study could not support th e hypothesis that leaders from larger INGOs are more interculturally competent than their counterparts from smaller INGOs. Moreover, as responses to the demo graphical race question showed, l. Such an overwhelming response from one demographic of people fails to be representative of other INGO leaders, who lik ely come from other races. This overwhelming response, however, can simply be attributed to the fact that most U.S. based INGO leaders are in fact white and people involved with INGO work in other countries expect for this to be the standard. Also, while this study was only able to draw statistical inferences about INGO litatively show the degree to which INGO leaders obtain their intercultural perspectives. Interviews conducted for this study determined that INGO leaders obtain a global perspective, from a variety of sources such as family, politics and religion, prior t o working in international development. Such INGO leaders also understood the value of bringing their global
64 perspectives and experiences to their grassroots projects in order for them to reach greatest success. So, as globalization continues to thrust ING Os into new and challenging situations, we can be confident that their leaders are equipped with the set, heart set, and skill 67). Limitations of the Study This study had several limitations. One such limitation was the way in which U.S. based INGOs were identified. As reliable contacts were being established at each of Some organizations on the list were goin g out of business, some had partnered with other INGOs and some were simply not aware of its InterAction membership. Furthermore, some INGOs did not feel they were suitable to participate in this study. For example, an INGO that claimed to be more policy a nd advocacy driven, stated that they the the lack intercultural ability. Another limitat ion to consider was the method used to identify INGO leaders who could take the survey. While a snowball sampling method was used, there is a international non governmental o electronic nature of the survey and the understanding that those in leadership positions often have plenty of responsib ilities, it may have been the case that an assistant or secretary filled out a surv ey on behalf of an INGO leader.
65 A final and major limitation of this study that is important to consider is the actual instrument used to measure intercultural sensitivity. That is, given the nature of the ISS statements, participants may have been able to identify what the scale was attempting Moreover, inaccurate responses to the ISS may have also resulted from participants narrow risk of saying something offensive while being in a position of high visibility. Last and as was previously mentioned, ISS statements with the highest standard deviations could be revisited for improvement. Recommendations for Future Research While this study did attempt to draw a correlation between the hi ghest level of education and/or degree an INGO leader received to his or her level of intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence, looking at the actual classes he or she took might prove to be more useful. That is, a person with a international relations might have taken more cross culturally focused classes (e.g., foreign language/s, intercultural communications, international marketing, etc.) versus a on here of course being courses. Furthermore, the actual schools from which the degrees were received might also be looked at, as it is likely that some universities have more r esources for intercultural exchange (i.e., study abroad programs, visiting international scholars and students, etc.) than others. And along with these educational factors, it would be ssional
66 development may have influenced his or her intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence. Another suggestion for future research would be to survey leaders at INGOs based in other countries. Each country brings to the interna tional development realm its own unique set of historical, political, socio economical, religious and other cultural understandings and expectations. Such understandings and expectations are also likely to influence how different nationalities perceive the ir leaders. So while INGO leaders in one country might be applauded for a display of intercultural sensitivity, INGO leaders in another country might be despised for such a display. In some cases, being interculturally sensitive might be misperceived as a culture. Furthermore, surveying or interviewing leaders from INGOs who do work in one specific country versus 10+ countries might prove to be equally interesting and/or more valuable to the study of international development. For example, when asked about intercultural sensitivity towards Latin American countries, leaders from U.S. based INGOs might demonstrate higher levels of intercultural sensitivity given such countries being closer in geographical proximity to the United States versus Asian countries. Also, recommendations for intercultural communication trainings for U.S. based INGO in this case, Hispanic persons versus trying to provide recommenda tions for how to work with multiple, highly diverse cultures. Not one person can learn everything there is to know about every culture.
67 Last, as for the instrument that was used for this study, the ISS items and constructs with lower reliability coefficien ts can be improved in future research. Some of the individual ISS items can either be reworded or more and better stated items can be added to each of the five constructs. In a future study, it might also be informative to use another tool that measures so me level of intercultural communication competence (e.g., the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), the Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) or the Intercultural Sen sitivity Inventory (ICSI) on the INGO leader population and to compare the res ults of such with those found in this study. Last, it might even be beneficial to construct completely new scales and tools for measuring intercultural sensitivity altogether.
68 APPENDIX A INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY SURVEY AND DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE INFORM ED CONSENT You are being invited to participate in a research study that will explore the intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence of U.S. based international non governmental organization leaders. Kimberly Ambayec, a graduate s tudent in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida, is conducting this research study. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Protocol Title: International Non Government al Organization Leaders: A Survey of Intercultural Communication Competence Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to assess the intercultural communication competence of international non governmental organization (INGO) leaders, to d etermine what kinds of intercultural skills they possess and what skills they lack and to suggest some ways in which they can improve their competencies and become better global leaders for the non profit sector. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to answer Guo Ming item Intercultural Sensitivity Scale using a five point Likert scale and a demographic questionnaire. Time required: The Intercultural Sensitivity Scale and demographic questionnaire can b e completed between 15 30 minutes. Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks and direct benefits to you as a participant in this study, however, you can take this opportunity to reflect on your experiences as a leader within your organization. Com pensation: There is no compensation for your participation in this research study. Confidentiality: While your international non your leadership title will be used, your name will not. Your identity will be kept as conf idential as possible. When the study is completed and the data has been analyzed, all informed consent forms, surveys and demographic questionnaires will be safely stored so that only my supervisor and I will have access to it. Voluntary participation: You r participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You are entitled to decline to answer any question that you do not want to answer. There is no penalty for not participating.
69 Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw f rom the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Kimberly Ambayec, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida Weimer Hall PO Box 118400 Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: ( XXX) XXX XXXX Email: XXX@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office University of Florida PO Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone : (352) 392 0433 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Agreement: I am 18 years old or older and have read the information above. I understand the nature of this research study and voluntarily agree to participate in it. Provision of my initials and date below indicates my consent. Participant Initials: __________ _________________________ Date: _______________
70 APPENDIX B INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY SCALE Below is a series of statements concerning intercultural communication. There are no right or wrong answers. Please work quickly and record your first impression by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Thank you for your cooperation. 5 = strongly agree 4 = agree 3 = somewhat agree (Please put the number corresponding to your answer 2 = disagree in the blank before the statement) 1 = strongly disagree ____ 1. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 2. I think people from other cultures are narrow minded. ____ 3. I am pretty sure of myself in interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 4. I find it very hard to talk in front of people from different cultures. ____ 5. I always know what to say when interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 6. I can be as sociable as I want to be when interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 8. I respect the values of people from different cultures. ____ 9. I get upset easily when interacting with peo ple from different cultures. ____ 10. I feel confident when interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 11. I tend to wait before forming an impression of culturally distinct counterparts. ____ 12. I often get discouraged when I am with people fr om different cultures. ____ 13. I am open minded to people from different cultures. ____ 14. I am very observant when interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 15. I often feel useless when interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 16. I respect the ways people from different cultures behave. ____ 17. I try to obtain as much information as I can when interacting with people from different cultures. ____ 18. I would not accept the opinions of people from different cultures. ____ 19 I am sensitive to my culturally our interaction. ____ 20. I think my culture is better than other cultures. ____ 21. I often give positive responses to my culturally different counterpart during our interacti on. ____ 22. I avoid those situations where I will have to deal with culturally distinct persons. ____ 23. I often show my culturally distinct counterpart my understanding through verbal or nonverbal cues. ____ 24. I have a feeling of enjoyment towards dif ferences between my culturally distinct counterpart and me.
71 APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE What international non governmental organization do you work for? ______________________________________________________________________ What is your level o f leadership in your organization? Executive Vice President Director Manager Other (Please specify your leadership level.) What is your gender ? Male Female What is your age? 25 or under 26 40 41 55 56 or older What is your race? White Black or Afric an American American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander From multiple races What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. Less than high school degree High school graduate or equivalent (e.g., GED) Some college but no degree Associate degree Bachelor degree Master degree Professional degree Doctorate degree Other Are you willing to participate in a follow up interview? Yes N o
72 APPENDIX D FOLLOW UP PHONE INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT You are being invited to participate in a research study that will explore the intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence of U.S. based international non governmental organ ization leaders. Kimberly Ambayec, a graduate student in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida, is conducting this research study. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this stud y. Protocol Title: International Non Governmental Organization Leaders: A Survey of Intercultural Communication Competence Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to assess the intercultural communication competence of international non governmental organization (INGO) leaders, to determine what kinds of intercultural skills they possess and what skills they lack and to suggest some ways in which they can improve their competencies and become better global leaders for the non profit sect or. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to respond to several questions about your level of intercultural sensitivity and your leadership responsibilities in your INGO. Time required: The phone interview can be completed between 15 45 minutes. Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks and direct benefits to you as a participant in this study, however, you can take this opportunity to reflect on your experiences as a leader within your organization. Compensation: There is no compensation for your participation in this research study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your interview responses will only be linked to a leadership level in your organization, not your official leadership title. All steps will be taken to ensure your interview responses cannot be linked to your name When the study is completed and the data has been analyzed, all data collected for this study will be safely stored so that only my supervisor and I will have access to it. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You are entitled to decline to answer any question that you do not want to answer. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to with draw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at
73 anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Kimberly Ambayec, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida Wei mer Hall PO Box 118400 Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: (XXX) XXX XXXX Email: XXX@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office University of Florida PO Box 112250 Gainesvill e, FL 32611 Phone: (352) 392 0433 Email: email@example.com Agreement: I am 18 years old or older and have read the information above. I understand the nature of this research study and voluntarily agree to participate in it. Provision of my initials and date below indicates my consent. Participant Initials: _________ _________________________ Date: _______________
74 APPENDIX E FOLLOW UP PHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS The following questions may or may not be asked if a research parti cipant is invited and agrees to a follow up phone interview. All interview questions are geared towards further understanding a participant's responses to Guo Ming Chen and Williams 24 item Intercultural Sensitivity Scale. Such questions are als o intended to elicit advice from international non governmental organization (INGO) leaders for future practices of U.S. based INGOs. Why do you enjoy working with people from different cultures? Why do you think people from other cultures are narrow mind ed? Why do you find it hard to talk to people from different cultures? Why do you/do you not like to be with people from other cultures? Why do you respect people from different cultures? What are some cultures you have worked with? What values do you resp ect about culture X? What makes you feel confident about working with people from different cultures? What makes you open minded to people from different cultures? What makes you respect/not respect people from different cultures? Why do you think your cul ture is better than others? Why do you avoid situations where you have to deal with culturally distinct persons? What advice would you give to other INGOs to be more sensitive to other cultures? onal development projects? What advice would you give to other INGO leaders to be more successful in their projects in other countries/cultures? Why do you think leaders are not interculturally competent? What projects do you think need to be pursued in or leaders, employees and/or volunteers more interculturally competent?
75 APPENDIX F HYPOTHESIS 1: RELIABILITY STATISTICS Table F 1. Hypothesis 1: Reliability Statistics for the 5 Constructs of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Cons truct Number (N) of Items Interaction Confidence .742 5 Respect for Cultural Differences .741 6 Interaction Engagement .705 7 Interaction Attentiveness .654 3 Interaction Enjoyment .634 3
76 APPENDIX G PARTICIPATING INTERNATIONAL NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Table G 1. Participating International Non Governmental Organizations INGO Countries/ Regions of Focus Sectors of Focus 2009/2010 Net Assets ACDI/VOCA North, Central and South America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe Promotio n of economic opportunities for cooperatives, enterprises and communities $27,099,430 African Medical & Research Foundation Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Southern Sudan and South Africa Encouragement of community partnering for better health, health systems and policy research and capacity building $2,299,441 American Refugee Committee International Africa and Asia Provision of opportunities and expertise to refugees, displaced people and host communities $20,046,007 Baptist World Alli ance/Baptist World Aid Africa, Asia and the Pacific Provision of religious and spiritual development, public safety, disaster preparedness and relief services $8,639,881
77 Table G 1. Continued. INGO Countries/ Regions of Focus Sectors of Fo cus 2009/2010 Net Assets Bethany Christian Services Albania, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan Provision of religious and social services for children $22,468,677 Center for Development & Population Activities (CEDPA) India, Nepal, Nigeria and South Africa Provision of educational opportunities, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS and $5,016,175 Center for Health & Gender Equity (CHANGE) Africa, Latin America and Asia Comprehensive sexual and reproductive health, family planning, women, girls and HIV, maternal health and U.S. foreign policy and funding $1,291,099 Congressional Hunger Center Af rica, Asia, Europe and Latin America Advocacy, policy and coalition building for food security $654,039 Creative Learning Africa, Asia and the Middle East Human rights, economic and social development and building peace $118,352
78 Table G 1. Contin ued. INGO Countries/ Regions of Focus Sectors of Focus 2009/2010 Net Assets Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO) North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Central and Southeast Asia and Africa Provision o f agricultural ideas, information, seeds and training opportunities $4,105,640 GlobalGiving North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Central and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa Provision of an efficient, open, thriving marketplace that connects people who have community and world changing ideas with people who can support them $4,539,780 Good360 (formerly Gifts in Kind International) North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Cen tral and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa Technological use to create new and engaging online solutions, strengthen nonprofits and expand corporate citizenship $78,468,325
79 Table G 1. Continued. INGO Countries/ Regions of Focus Se ctors of Focus 2009/2010 Net Assets Heifer International Africa, Latin and North America, Asia and the South Pacific and Central and Eastern Europe Provision of livestock and training to families, help improve nutrition and generate income in sus tainable way $45,799,775 INMED Partnership for Children Central and South America, the Caribbean, Africa and the U.S. Provision of health, development and safety resources for children and youth, family and community capacity support and the su stenance of positive change $15,243,037 InsideNGO North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Central and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa Sector specific training, benchmarking, advocacy, resources and networking $2,077,237 Lions Clubs International Foundation Australia, North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Central and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa Empowerment of people to serve their communities, meet humanitar ian needs, encourage peace and promote international understanding $241,824,123
80 Table G 1. Continued. INGO Countries/ Regions of Focus Sectors of Focus 2009/2010 Net Assets Plant With Purpose (formerly Floresta USA Inc.) Haiti, Dominican Republ ic, Tanzania, Mexico, Thailand and Burundi Deforestation, environmental restoration, economic empowerment and spiritual renewal $789,695 Stop Hunger Now North, Central and South America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe Provision of life saving ai d and help mobilize resources $498,995 Trickle Up Program, Inc India, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mali and Burkina Faso Provision of training and seed capital grants, launch or expand a microenterprise and support building assets $2,505,839 Unitarian Universalist Service Committee Australia, North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Central and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa Advocacy on behalf of civil liberties, economic justice, environmental justice an d rights and humanitarian crises $16,188,637
81 Table G 1. Continued. INGO Countries/ Regions of Focus Sectors of Focus 2009/2010 Net Assets World Hope International Haiti, Guatemala, Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Zambia, Mala wi, Mozambique, South Africa, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Philippines, Cambodia and Indonesia Provision of relief and development support to vulnerable and exploited communities to alleviate poverty, suffering and injustice $4,157,257 World Society for the Protection of Animals Africa, Asia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean, China, Germany, India, Middle East, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nordic, South America, Sweden, United K ingdom and the United States Provision of animal welfare and disaster management $2,368,248 Note. in formation was taken from either Charit yNavigator.com or Guidestar.com. In some instances, net assets were referred to as the fund balance. Net assets = total assets total liabilities.
82 LIST OF REFERENCES Agg, C. (2006). Trends in government support for non govern mental organizations: Is the ovements Programme Paper Number 23 (pp. 1 30). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nation s Research Institute for Social Development. Altvater, E. & Mahnkopf, B. (1996). Grenzen der globali sierung. Mnster, Germany: We stflisches Dampfboot. Annis, S. (1992). Evolving connectedness among envi ronmental groups and grassroots organisations in protected areas of Central America. World Development,20 (4), 587 595. Appadurai, A. (2000). Disjuncture and difference in the globa l cultural economy. In Lechner, F. J. & Boli, J. (Eds.). The Globalization Reader (pp. 322 330). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Auncion Lande, N. C. (1977, December). Intercultural com munication: Teaching strategies resources and materials Paper presente d at t he Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, DC. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A devel opmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21 71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bhawuk, D. P. S. &Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of inte rcultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. Interna tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16 (4), 413 436. Black, J. S., Morr ison, A. J., & Gregersen, H. B. (1999). Global Explorers: The Next Generation of Leaders. New York: Routledge. Bokova, I. (2010). I nternational year for the rapprochem ent of cultures: Message from Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO. Retrieved from ht tp://www.un.org/en/events/iyrc2010/message.shtml Brake, T. (1997). The Global Leader: Critical Factors for Creating the World Class Organization. Chicago: Times Mirror Higher Education Group, Inc. Brown, L. D. & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountabili ty, strateg y, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30 (3) 569 587. Caligiuri, P. & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities. Journal of World Business 44 336 346.
83 Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Human Communication, 1 1 16. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998 9). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. Human Communication, 2, 27 54. Chen, G. M., & Staros ta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3 1 15. Davis, L. & Finney, S. (2006). A factor analytic study of the cross cultural adaptability inventory. Educational and Psychological Measur ement, 66 (2), 318 330. Deardorff, D.K. (2004). The identification and assessment o f intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from htt p://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/5733/1/etd.pdf Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. DeCoster, J. (2000). Scale construction notes. Ret rieved September 13, 2011, from http://www.stat help.com/notes.html Edwards, M. (1997). Organisational learning in non governmen tal organisations: What have we learned? Public Administration and Development, 17 235 250. Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (1995). Non governmental organisations performance and accountability: Beyond the magic bullet London: Earthscan. Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (1997). NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort? London: Macmillan Press. Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (1998). Are NGOs overrated? R etrieved October 28 2011, from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/Issues/10.00/PDFs/10_Complete_Issue.pdf Fantini, A. E. (2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural comp etence. Retrieved May 2, 2011, f rom http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/feil_research_report.pdf Fritz, W ., Mllenberg, A. & Chen, G. M. (2001, July). Measuri ng intercultural sensitivity in different cultural context Paper presented at the Biannu al Meeting of the International Association for Intercultural Communication Stu dies, Hong Kong. Retrieved from htt p://www.eric.ed.gov:80/PDFS/ED456491.pdf Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C. L., Robertson, A., & Hu Chan, M. (2003). Global Leadership: The Next Generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Busines s Review, 93 102.
84 Hailey, J. (2006). NGO leadership development: A review of the literature. (International NGO Training and Research Centre P raxis Paper 10). Retrieved from http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/248/Praxis Paper 10 NGO Leadership Deve lopment.pdf Hammer, M. R. (1998). Intercultural communication comp etence. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 247 260). Newbury Park: CA: Sage. Hammer, M. R. (In press). Additional cross cultural validity testing of the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.014 Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (197 8). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness : An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2 382 393. Herman, R. D. & Associates. (2005). Jossey Bass han dbook of nonprofit leadership & management San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hudson, M. (2005). Managing at the leading edge : New c hallenges in managing nonprofit organizations San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Husted, B. (2003). Globalization and cultural change in international business research. Journal of International Management 9 (4), 421 433. InterAction Alliance ( 2011 ) Abo ut InterAction. Retrieved from http://www.interaction.org/about interaction Intercultural Development Inventory, LLC. (2011). What is the IDI?. Retrieved from http://idiinventory.com/about.php Koening, B. L. (2004). Going global for the greater good: S ucce eding as a nonprofit in the international community San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Koester, J., Wiseman, R. L. & Sanders, J. A. (1993). Multipl e perspectives of intercultural communication competence. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Ed.), Intercultural Commun ication Competence (pp. 3 15). Newbury Park, NJ: SAGE Publications, Inc. Korten, D. C. (1987). Third generation NGO strategies: a key to people centred development. World Development, 15, 145 59. Lambert, R. (1993). International education and internation al competence in the United States. European Journal of Education 28 (3). Light, P. C. (2002). Pathways to nonprofit excellence Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
85 Lustig, M. W. & Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural competen ce: Interpersonal communic ation across cultures, 3rd ed. New York: Longman. Madon, S. (1999). International NGOs: Networking, information flows and learning. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 251 261. Markides, C. & Stopford, J. M. (1995). From ugly ducklings to elegant swans: Transforming parochial firms into world leaders 6 (2), 1 24. Nanus, B. & Dobbs, S. M. (1999). Leaders who make a diffe rence: Essential strategies for meeting the nonprofit challenge. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Olsen, C. L. & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity Journal of Studies in International Education, 5 (2), 116 137. Penbek, S., Yurdakul, D. & Cerit, A. G. (2009, July). Intercultural communication competence: A study about the intercultural sensitivity of univ ersity st udents based on their education and international experiences. Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Izmir, Turkey. Pusch, M. D. (2009). The interculturally competent global leader. In D. K. Deardroff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 66 84). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Rittenhouse, L. J. (Interviewer) & Palmer, P. (Interviewee). (2001). Leadership and the Inner Journey (Interview transcript). Retrieved from http: //media.wiley.com/assets/45/45/ 0787958026_Palmer.pdf Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents. New York: The New Press. Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measu res of perceived effectiveness. C. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 67 105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Spitzberg, B. H. & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing int ercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 2 52). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pu blications, Inc. Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cult ural patterns: A cross cultural perspective (rev. ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norten & Co. Summary. 2007. In cross cultural adaptability inventory. Retrieved from http://ccaiassess.com/ Thorbecke, E. & Nissanke, M. (2006). Introduction: The impact of globalization on the poor. World Development, 34(8), 1333 1337.
86 Wilpert, B. (2009). Impact of glo balization on human work. Safety Science, 47(6), 727 732. Zhao, C.M. (2002). Intercultural Competence: A Quanti tative Study of Significance of Intercultural Competence and the Influence of C Intercultural Competence Developme nt. Retrieved from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Dissertations.
87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kimberly Ambayec was born in San Francisco, California and raised in the Bay Area. After receiving her Bachelor of Arts in Communication Studies from San Francisco State University in 2009, she immediately moved to Gainesville, Florida to pursue a Master of Arts in Mass Communication with a focus on International Communication and Nonprofit Organizational Leadership at the University of Florida. Prior to receiving her M.A. degree in December 2011, Kimberly accepted a position at in the near future, she hopes to move to Washington, D.C. or New York City to chase her d reams of working for an international non governmental organization and thereafter, the United Nations.