Study 

Report 

2008-04 

 Building Cultural Capability 

 for Full-Spectrum Operations 

 Allison Abbe 

 U.S. Army Research Institute 

 

United States Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Janua 

 January 2008 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

BARBARA A. BLACK, Ph.D. MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

Research Program Manager Director 

Technical review by 

Michelle Wisecarver, U. S. Army Research Institute 

Kathleen A. Quinkert, U. S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Study Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Study Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Study Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

February 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

November 2006 – January 2008 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

Building Cultural Capability for Full-Spectrum Operations 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

622785 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

354 

6. AUTHOR(S): 

Allison Abbe (U.S. Army Research Institute) 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-RK 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Study Report 2008-04 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Subject Matter POC: Allison Abbe 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

This report describes findings and recommendations from a research-based analysis on increasing linguistic and 

cultural capability in Army leaders and Soldiers. Findings from a workshop and literature review strongly support 

the role of culture-general skills and affect. In particular, interpersonal skills, non-ethnocentric attitudes, and 

openness emerged from workshop discussions and the literature as some of the most consistent contributors to 

success in cross-cultural settings. Workshop discussions also emphasized that cultural capability must be 

addressed throughout DOTMLPF and recommended that culture be incorporated at all levels of training and 

education. Findings from this analysis have contributed a research perspective to the development of a culture 

and language strategy at TRADOC. This research can further be used in identifying and prioritizing learning 

domains for education, training and leader development. Findings point to areas where existing training can be 

strengthened and to gaps that future training and education can address. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Cross-Cultural Competence, Cultural Understanding, Culture, Intercultural Communication

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publication 

Specialist 

703-602-8047 

i 
ii 
Study Report 2008-04 

Building Cultural Capability 

for Full-Spectrum Operations 

Allison Abbe 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Leader Development Research Unit 

Stanley M. Halpin, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

January 2008 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and 

622785A790 Training Technology 

 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 iii 
 iv 
FOREWORD 

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is the 

Army’s lead laboratory conducting research, development, and analysis on training, leader 

development, and Soldier issues. ARI’s focus is the human element in the Army. Within its 

mission, ARI conducts analyses to address short-term issues and respond to emerging topics as 

requested by Army leaders or organizations. 

The Cultural Understanding and Language Proficiency (CULP) research analysis was 

conducted in response to a request from the U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC), carried out under a memorandum for record between the Director of Center for 

Army Leadership, Combined Arms Center, and the Chief of the Leader Development Research 

Unit (LDRU), ARI. The goal of this effort was to provide a scientific research perspective on the 

topic of increasing linguistic and cultural capability in the Army. 

The CULP analysis had three objectives: 1) to identify the knowledge of culture and 

identity needed by Army leaders, 2) to identify measures and predictors of effective performance 

in cross-cultural settings, and 3) to determine the extent to which proficiency in a foreign 

language provides transferable skills. Measures and predictors of cross-cultural competence are 

reviewed in a separate report, as are language transfer issues. The first objective, to identify 

components of culture and identity that are relevant to Army leaders, was addressed in a 

workshop. 

This report summarizes findings from the workshop and also presents recommendations 

from both the cross-cultural competence and language reports. The research summarized here 

was presented to the sponsor, Center for Army Leadership, in a final project briefing on 13 

November 2007, and portions of this work have been presented at other meetings and 

conferences. Findings were presented at the Culture and Language Strategy Conference hosted 

by TRADOC G-2 on 29 August 2007 and at the Army Language and Culture Enterprise meeting 

hosted by HQDA G-3/5/7 on 6 September 2007. This work was also presented at the Department 

of Defense Regional and Cultural Expertise Summit, 6 June 2007, and Pedagogy for the Long 

War, a joint conference sponsored by the Marine Corps Training and Education Command and 

the U.S. Naval Academy, 31 October 2007. 

 MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

 Director 

v 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The author would like to thank the Center for Army Leadership for their 

support of this work. Colonel Bruce Reider, Jon Fallesen, Angela Karrasch, and Lieutenant 

Colonel Bradley Schriewer were particularly instrumental in shaping the direction of this 

analysis. Special thanks to Major Timothy Kreuttner for his contributions in planning and 

conducting the workshop. 

Thanks also to the staff of the Leader Development Research Unit, U.S. Army Research 

Institute, for their contributions to the workshop. Donna Cramer and Mike Steffens provided 

logistical and technical support. Sena Garven, Kim Metcalf, Sharon Riedel, and Michelle Zbylut 

served as facilitators for workshop discussions. Consortium Research Fellows Jason Brunner, 

Lisa Gulick, Jeff Herman, Chris Vowels, and Margo Woller provided note-taking and other 

administrative support for workshop discussions. Special thanks to Stan Halpin for his guidance 

throughout the project and his closing remarks at the workshop. 

Many individuals contributed their time and expertise by participating in the workshop. Thanks 

to Colonel Jeffrey D. Ingram, Colonel Frank Miskena, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Vaughn, Kim 

Brown, Laurene Christensen, Mitch Hammer, and Joan Rentsch for their presentations and to the 

participants named elsewhere in this report. Finally, thanks to Kathy Quinkert and Michelle 

Wisecarver for their thoughtful comments on this work and to Dorothy Young for being so 

responsive to my many requests for help in finding research references. 

 

 

vi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

Recent and ongoing military operations have required Army leaders and Soldiers to 

interact with and influence people from diverse regions and cultures. Language skills and 

cultural understanding are increasingly critical to the success of Army leaders, particularly for 

stability and support operations. The importance of cultural considerations has been widely 

recognized across the Army, appearing throughout current Army doctrine and in reports of 

leaders’ operational experiences. 

In 2006, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) requested that the 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conduct a researchbased analysis to answer questions on three topics: 

1) What do Army leaders need to know and understand about culture and identity? 

2) What traits and characteristics correlate with learning about and operating in different 

cultures? 

3) What is the relationship between language proficiency and cultural understanding, and 

to what extent does learning a second language affect learning other languages? 

Procedure: 

ARI approached these topics using two different methods. Topics 2 and 3 were each 

addressed in a review of the relevant research literature. Topic 1 was addressed through a 

workshop co-sponsored by the Center for Army Leadership and ARI. This report describes 

themes and findings from the workshop and presents a synthesis of conclusions and 

recommendations derived from an integration of the workshop results with findings from the 

literature reviews. 

Findings: 

Findings strongly support the role of culture-general skills and affect. Workshop 

discussions emphasized that cross-cultural training should place priority on generalizable 

concepts about culture and skills that enable leaders and Soldiers to learn about and adapt to 

unfamiliar cultural environments on their own. In particular, interpersonal skills, nonethnocentric attitudes, and openness emerged from workshop discussions and the literature as 

some of the most consistent contributors to success in cross-cultural settings. Foreign language 

plays a role, but its contribution to a broad cultural capability is limited and small relative to 

culture-general affect, skills, and characteristics. 

Workshop discussions also emphasized that cultural capability must be addressed 

throughout DOTMLPF and recommended that an Army proponent for culture be established to 

ensure implementation of a coherent strategy. It is also recommended that culture be 

incorporated at all levels of training and education, with differing emphasis of cross-cultural 

vii 
competence, culture-specific knowledge, and language proficiency at various levels, so that 

culture is seen as an integral consideration in full-spectrum operations. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

Findings from this analysis inform the Army of the research foundation for increasing 

linguistic and cultural capability in Soldiers and leaders. Findings have already contributed a 

research perspective to the development of a culture and language strategy at TRADOC. This 

research can further be used in identifying and prioritizing learning domains for education, 

training and leader development. Findings point to areas where existing training can be 

strengthened and gaps that future training and education can address. 

viii 
 BUILDING CULTURAL CAPABILITY FOR FULL-SPECTRUM OPERATIONS 

CONTENTS 

 Page 

WORKSHOP ....................................................................................................................................3 

Participants.........................................................................................................................................3 

Format................................................................................................................................................3 

Results ...............................................................................................................................................4 

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................8 

What do Army leaders need to know and understand about culture and identity?............................8 

What traits and characteristics correlate with learning about and operating in different cultures?...9 

What is the relationship between language proficiency and cultural understanding, and to what 

 extent does learning a second language affect learning othe languages? ...................................13 

Other considerations for education, training, and self-development .................................................14 

CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................15 

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................17 

APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS ...........................................................................................................21 

APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ..............................................................................23 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1. WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS ..................................................................................3 

TABLE 2. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION TOPICS ...........................................................................4 

TABLE 3. THEMES FROM WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS ..........................................................5 

TABLE 4. THREE DIMENSIONS OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE.............................12 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. COMPONENTS OF CULTURAL CAPABILITY .......................................................2 

FIGURE 2. A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE..............11 

ix 
x 
Building Cultural Capability for Full-Spectrum Operations 

Recent and ongoing military operations have required Army leaders and Soldiers to interact 

with and influence people from diverse regions and cultures. Language skills and cultural 

understanding are increasingly critical to the success of Army leaders, particularly for stability and 

support operations. The importance of cultural considerations has been widely recognized across the 

Army, appearing throughout current Army doctrine. For example, doctrine on stability and support 

operations, Field Manual (FM) 3-07, and on counterinsurgency, FM 3-24, discuss the role of culture in 

understanding the impact of operations on the civilian population and on negotiations with indigenous 

leaders. FMs 3-0 and 3-16 describes the importance of cultural understanding in establishing effective 

relationships with multinational partners. In addition, in FM 6-22, leader competencies and attributes 

include consideration of cultural factors in communication and knowledge of cultural differences. 

Cultural considerations are similarly pervasive in Army leaders’ operational experiences. In a 

recent Company Command survey of current and recent company commanders, some of the most 

frequently cited wartime leadership challenges included an intercultural component (Company 

Command, 2007). Three of the top six challenges included interacting or working with indigenous 

leaders, security forces, or members of the population. In addition to impacting these tactical 

interactions in a foreign culture, culture is an operational and strategic factor in full-spectrum 

operations. Of Operation Iraqi Freedom, LTG Chiarelli noted that, “Understanding the effect of 

operations as seen through the lens of the Iraqi culture and psyche is a foremost planning consideration 

for every operation” (Chiarelli & Michaelis, 2005, p. 14). 

 Lessons from recent and current operations reflect consensus that culture is important; the 

challenge now is to determine how training, education, and leader development can best equip leaders 

and Soldiers with the necessary knowledge and skills. Building this cultural capability includes three 

interrelated components, including knowledge of the specific region or culture, proficiency in the 

language spoken in that culture, and general knowledge and skills that support adaptation in any crosscultural setting, referred to here as cross-cultural competence (see Figure 1). The CULP analysis was 

designed primarily to address the role of general knowledge and skills and their relationship with 

foreign language proficiency. 

1 
Language 

Proficiency

Regional/ 

Culture-Specific 

Knowledge 

Cross-Cultural

Competence 

Figure 1. Components of cultural capability 

In 2006, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) requested that the U.S. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conduct a research-based 

analysis to provide a scientific perspective on increasing cultural understanding and language 

capability in the Army. In response to this request, ARI conducted the Cultural Understanding and 

Language Proficiency (CULP) analysis in collaboration with, and under a Memorandum for Record 

with, the Center for Army Leadership (CAL)1. 

The goal of the Cultural Understanding and Language Proficiency (CULP) analysis was to 

address the role of general knowledge and skills in cultural capability and to examine their relationship 

with foreign language proficiency, thus informing the Army of the research foundation for increasing 

linguistic and cultural capability in Soldiers and leaders. CAL posed questions on three topics: 

1) What do Army leaders need to know and understand about culture and identity? 

2) What traits and characteristics correlate with learning about and operating in different 

cultures? 

3) What is the relationship between language proficiency and cultural understanding, and 

to what extent does learning a second language affect learning other languages? 

ARI approached these topics using two different methods. Topics 2 and 3 were each addressed 

in a review of the relevant research literature (see Abbe, Gulick, & Herman, 2007, and Brown, 

Christensen, & Abbe, in preparation). However, because no single, empirical body of literature could 

be identified that explicitly addressed the first question, that topic was addressed through a workshop 

co-sponsored by CAL and ARI. This report describes themes and findings from the workshop and will 

present a synthesis of conclusions and recommendations derived from an integration of the workshop 

 

1

 A list of acronyms appears in Appendix A 

2 
results with findings from the literature reviews on cross-cultural competence and second language 

acquisition. 

Workshop 

The workshop was held 11-13 July 2007 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The goal of the 

workshop was to specify the cultural knowledge and skills needed by Army leaders and Soldiers to 

work effectively across cultures. The workshop included formal presentations on topics from the 

CULP analysis and working group discussions on specific topics. 

Participants 

Participants in the workshop included subject matter experts from within and outside the 

Department of Defense (DoD). Representatives from within DoD included personnel from the Army 

and other services involved in culture and language training. Participants from outside DoD were 

university faculty from the disciplines of anthropology, applied linguistics, intercultural 

communications, international management, political science, and psychology. The organizations and 

academic institutions represented at the workshop are listed in Appendix B. ARI-LDRU staff served as 

facilitators for the working group discussions. 

Format 

Presentations on Days 1 and 2 of the workshop provided operational and research perspectives 

on cultural and language knowledge and skills. The workshop included a presentation from COL 

Jeffrey Ingram, Commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, on cultural training for 

Military Transition Teams. Other presentations addressed cross-cultural perspective taking, 

intercultural development and intercultural conflict, and the relationship between knowing a foreign 

language and development of cultural understanding (see Table 1). Slides from these presentations are 

available from the author on request. 

Table 1. Workshop Presentations 

Speaker Title 

COL Jeffrey Ingram 

with COL Frank Miskena 

and LTC Chris Vaughn 

Where we are now vs. where we want to be: An operational 

perspective 

Dr. Joan Rentsch Schema for cultural understanding: Developing a key multicultural 

perspective taking competency 

Dr. Kim Brown and 

Laurene Christensen 

Entering the language and culture contact zone: A view from the 

air and a view from the field 

Dr. Mitchell Hammer Intercultural conflict resolution and competence development for 

operational environments 

3 
On each day of the workshop, participants met in working groups of to discuss questions 

related to their areas of expertise. Working groups discussed cultural knowledge, the relationship 

between language skills and cultural understanding, the role of cultural identity, the development of 

general cross-cultural skills, and other topics. Discussions on Day 1 focused on cultural knowledge; 

Day 2 focused on application of that knowledge; and Day 3 focused on training and education. In 

addition, two groups on Day 3 were asked to discuss the CULP standards (2006). The topics and 

sample discussion questions from the working group sessions are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2. Workshop discussion topics 

Cultural knowledge

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of existing frameworks for culture and 

cultural differences? 

• Which dimensions or aspects of culture are most relevant to the Army context? 

• What are the critical cultural differences between military cultures of difference nations? 

Relationship between language and cultural understanding

• What is the relationship between language proficiency and regional expertise? 

• What degree of proficiency is needed to be beneficial? 

Cultural identity

• How does culture influence the development of an individual’s identity? 

• How does cultural identity influence behavior in intercultural interactions? 

Development of general cross-cultural skills

• What skills or abilities are needed to operate effectively in cross-cultural settings? 

• How do the relevant skills or abilities differ across operational contexts? 

• How should the relevant knowledge, skills, and other competencies be assessed? 

Revisiting the CULP standards 

• What is the appropriate progression of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)? 

• To what extent to the KSAs converge to form a core set needed by all Army leaders? 

Where should they diverge? 

Training and education considerations

• What training delivery methods are most appropriate for different knowledge or skills? 

• Which skills or knowledge are most responsive to training and education? 

• What is the appropriate balance of culture-general and culture-specific education or 

training? 

Results 

Seven themes emerged from the working group discussions. These themes are summarized in 

Table 3 and discussed in greater detail below. Keep in mind that these findings are the informed 

opinions of the experts convened in the workshop, and are not derived directly from empirical 

evidence. 

4 
Table 3. Themes from Workshop Discussions 

1. Learning about culture is at least as important as knowing about culture. 

2. Knowledge is not enough. 

3. Despite effective means to teach and measure it, foreign language proficiency continues to 

present challenges. 

4. Culture is relevant to the full spectrum of operations. 

5. Culture should be incorporated into training and education at all levels. 

6. Culture must extend beyond training and education. 

7. Self-development in these areas should be supported, but not mandated. 

1. Learning about culture is at least as important as knowing about culture. 

Leaders will inevitably encounter situations in another culture that do not meet their 

expectations. Even if provided with highly accurate region- or culture-specific information in training, 

leaders will not be able to anticipate every impact of cultural differences. In addition, time constraints 

sometimes limit cross-cultural training to a focus on generalizations about a culture and its members. 

It is important that cross-cultural training address how to detect cultural impacts and how to make 

sense of new information about a foreign culture. 

Workshop participants frequently emphasized that cross-cultural training should prioritize how

to think over what to think. Teaching how to acquire and make sense of cultural information will 

enable Soldiers to avoid converting generalizations that can guide behavior into rigid stereotypes that 

merely limit understanding. Focusing on facts about a culture and a list of Do’s and Don’ts ignores the 

complexities of culture. Culture is dynamic, and although national boundaries may be clear, cultural 

boundaries frequently are not. Soldiers and leaders need not only cultural understanding, but also 

perceptual acuity – the ability to observe and interpret cultural information encountered through one’s 

own experiences. 

2. Knowledge is not enough. 

Workshop participants identified existing general cultural frameworks that may provide a 

knowledge base for military leaders. For example, dimensions from the Global Leadership and 

Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & 

Gupta, 2004) were suggested as one approach with potential utility for the Army. The dimensions 

identified in the GLOBE study of 62 national/societal cultures are power distance, future orientation, 

uncertainty avoidance, gender egalitarianism, performance orientation, institutional collectivism, 

family collectivism, assertiveness, and humane orientation. The advantage of such frameworks is that 

they provide a basis for understanding both cultural differences and cultural similarities, which was 

identified by workshop participants as an area insufficiently addressed by current cultural training. 

However, relatively little discussion during the workshop focused on cultural knowledge. 

Instead, working groups emphasized the importance of skills and affect. In particular, good 

5 
interpersonal skills may overcome deficits in language skills or in cultural knowledge. Interpersonal 

skills are highly generalizable, enabling one to interact effectively across cultures. Flexible thinking 

and self-regulation (e.g., emotional intelligence) were also identified as skills needed for any crosscultural setting. 

Workshop discussions also emphasized the importance of affect, which has been overlooked 

relative to cultural knowledge and skills. In this context, affect includes non-ethnocentric attitudes and 

motivation for culture and language training and education. Affect is an integral part of developing 

knowledge and skills; attitudes can either inhibit or facilitate learning. Training that includes the role 

of culture in one’s own beliefs, values, and behavior may be one way to address the affective 

component. 

3. Despite effective means to teach and measure it, foreign language proficiency continues to present 

challenges. 

Consensus emerged that learning a foreign language is beneficial, even if the particular foreign 

language is not needed or used in future operations. Potential benefits include facilitation in learning 

additional languages and implications for affect and motivation, such as learning the value of 

languages and otherwise increasing positive attitudes toward foreign language learning. Participants 

recommended compiling a list of target languages that includes not just languages of strategic 

importance, but also languages that may contribute to a broader cultural capability or greater ability to 

learn additional languages. 

However, beyond these recommendations, workshop discussions on language proficiency 

generated more questions than answers. Some questions were a) what degree of proficiency is needed 

to yield benefits; b) what are the language needs by military occupational specialty (MOS); c) 

assuming that not everyone can or will study a strategic language, what are the best languages to 

study; d) how can we increase motivation to learn foreign languages among non-language 

professionals; e) for non-language professionals, do higher levels of proficiency correspond with 

higher levels of effectiveness? Participants recommended a language needs analysis by MOS. 

4. Culture is relevant to the full spectrum of operations. 

Although it has particular relevance to stability and support operations, culture was viewed as a 

factor even in conventional combat operations. Cultural understanding is important in considering the 

impact of the local civilian population on military operations, as well as in predicting and 

understanding adversary intent in planning and conducting conventional operations. In addition, the 

need to transition between types of operations in any particular conflict further blurs distinctions that 

may attempt to isolate where culture is a central vs. peripheral issue. 

Workshop participants also highlighted the overlap between skills needed to work effectively 

in foreign cultures and those needed to respond to diversity within the U.S. Army. Some skills are 

relevant to situations in which there is any perception of difference, which may be cultural in nature, 

but may sometimes involve other differences, such as race or gender. One way to overcome barriers 

that result from the perception of difference is to find elements of shared identity. The ability to look 

past gender, racial, or cultural differences to find common ground contributes to collaboration and 

6 
teamwork, as well as positive intergroup relations more generally, and where similarities may not 

already exist, new shared patterns can be established (e.g., in hybrid or negotiated cultures; Brannen, 

1998; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). Although an emphasis on commonality does not eliminate salient 

and potentially important differences, it can help minimize the negative impact of those differences. 

5. Culture should be incorporated into training and education at all levels. 

The development of cross-cultural knowledge and skills takes time and should not be left to 

pre-deployment training. Some skills were identified as relevant across echelons, whereas others were 

identified as more relevant for mid- to senior-level leaders. Developing these more advanced 

competencies, such as negotiation and mediation skills and the ability to anticipate second and third 

order effects of operations, will require some foundational skills, such as basic interpersonal skills and 

cultural knowledge. Although necessary to short-term knowledge needs, a country- or region-specific 

briefing during pre-deployment will be insufficient to develop the more general and advanced 

knowledge and skills. 

This recommendation does not necessarily entail linear increases in the number of hours of 

training or resources required. To maximize learning and development opportunities under time and 

resource constraints, efforts should identify where culture can be incorporated into existing training. 

Incorporating culture into training and education, rather than simply adding it on, will also help 

convey that cultural considerations are integral to full-spectrum operations and not an alternative to or 

a distraction from warfighting capabilities. 

Workshop participants noted that the Army already has many resources and mechanisms for 

improving cultural knowledge and cross-cultural competence. The Combat Training Centers were 

noted as an excellent opportunity to practice cross-cultural skills introduced elsewhere in training and 

education. Center for Army Lessons Learned and the TRADOC Culture Center were also identified as 

excellent resources that are currently not well-utilized for cultural training and education. A 

clearinghouse for these resources would ensure greater awareness and accessibility of these resources 

for operational units. 

6. Culture must extend beyond training and education. 

It is not enough just to incorporate culture into training and professional military education. 

Cultural capability must be addressed in an overall strategy addressing doctrine, organization, training, 

materiel, leader development, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). In particular, a broad and 

enduring cultural capability will not be achieved until the relevant competencies are recognized and 

rewarded through the personnel system. Workshop participants discussed the need for an Army-wide 

proponent for cultural capabilities, to ensure the development and implementation of a coherent 

strategy on language and culture. Participants also recommended that a needs analysis be conducted to 

identify which language and cross-cultural knowledge and skills are needed for different job functions. 

7. Self-development in these areas should be supported, but not mandated. 

Self-development of language proficiency and cultural capability has a role, but workshop 

participants expressed concern about mandating self-development, especially for language. Self7 
development is beneficial in that it draws on an individual leader’s personal motivation and is more 

likely to fit the individual’s current state of development than are training and education efforts. 

However, additional demands on the personal time of personnel are likely to decrease motivation and 

may elicit negative reactions among military personnel. Thus, the Army should provide resources for 

self-development, but should see self-development as supplemental rather than as central to building 

cultural capability, particularly at lower levels. Certain experiences, both personal and professional, 

may facilitate the development of cross-cultural competence, but the nature and role of those 

experiences is not yet clear. 

Discussion and Recommendations 

The workshop discussions and literature reviews provided partial answers to the questions 

posed in the proposal and helped to identify where additional research is needed. In this section, 

conclusions and recommendations for each of the three major analysis questions are presented, and 

gaps in the research literature are noted. 

What do Army leaders need to know and understand about culture and identity? 

Cultural knowledge may be either culture- or region-specific, consisting of in-depth knowledge 

about a particular culture, or may be culture-general, consisting of knowledge of cultural differences in 

general. Though knowledge is a common focus of cross-cultural training, very little research has 

addressed what knowledge is important to guide behavior in cross-cultural settings. Cultural selfawareness is a critical first step. Understanding that one’s own beliefs, values, and behavior are 

embedded in a cultural context is necessary to understanding the cultural basis for others’ beliefs, 

values, and behavior. 

Beyond this cultural self-awareness, there is little consensus on how much and what type of 

cultural knowledge is needed to yield benefits in terms of cross-cultural outcomes. This is particularly 

true for individuals for whom cultural understanding is an enabling factor, not a primary focus for their 

role. Furthermore, research has not yet examined the knowledge that facilitates adjusting to any 

culture. General cultural dimensions are used in corporate cross-cultural training, but evidence for the 

utility of this training approach is not yet available in the research literature. Future research must 

address what the knowledge content of training should look like – e.g., whether this comparative 

approach is appropriate, or whether teaching a set of principles and methods along the lines of those 

used in anthropology is more effective. 

In any case, workshop findings support the development of a culture-general approach to 

cultural knowledge acquisition. Evidence suggests that such an approach will build the transferable 

knowledge structures, or cross-cultural schema, needed by general-purpose forces that may deploy to 

multiple countries or regions over a career. In addition, culture-general knowledge is a useful 

supplement to overcome some of the limitations of culture-specific training. Developing culturespecific training materials that have high validity and relevance is dependent on subject matter experts 

(SMEs) who are highly knowledgeable of the nation or region of interest. It can sometimes be difficult 

to assess the degree of expertise or to attain agreement among SMEs. In addition, new training content 

8 
must be developed for every region separately. Cross-cultural schema would reduce dependence on 

this type of training as the sole or primary source of cultural knowledge. 

Furthermore, knowing about a culture may not be the same as understanding culture. Rather 

than acquiring a fixed set of facts about cultures in general, or about a region or group of people, 

understanding culture requires the ability and willingness to update one’s knowledge as new 

information is encountered. Understanding culture demands increasing complexity in one’s knowledge 

structures to accommodate new information. An increasingly complex understanding of culture takes 

time to develop, and should therefore be addressed at different levels of the Army’s Professional 

Military Education system (PME). 

Increasing cognitive complexity enables one to get beyond the “sophisticated stereotyping” 

(Osland & Bird, 2000) of some approaches to cultural difference, in which cultures are characterized 

by where they fall on a small set of dimensions (House et al., 2004). Such frameworks have some 

utility but do not address variation within cultures. Variation between individuals within a given 

culture is of critical importance when interacting with or attempting to anticipate the behavior of 

individuals or groups. 

One perspective on cultural differences that addresses such variation views cultural influences 

on individuals as situation-dependent (Hong & Chiu, 2001). This dynamic constructivist perspective 

views the effects of culture as a function of the interaction between individual cultural identity and 

situational factors activating (or dampening) that identity (e.g., Hong, Ip, Chiu, Morris, & Menon, 

2001). Some variables shown to activate culturally-based cognition and affect in previous research 

include the language (Perunovic, Heller, & Rafaeli, 2007) and the symbols (e.g., national flag; Hong, 

Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000) of one’s home culture. This emerging theoretical perspective 

continues to gain support in the literature, and it shows great promise as a source for understanding 

how culture is manifested in individual identity and behavior. 

What traits and characteristics correlate with learning about and operating in different cultures? 

Cross-cultural competence model. We conducted an extensive review of the empirical 

literature in order to address this question (Abbe et al., 2007). Although there is a long history of 

research on a broad array of factors that influence behavior in cross-cultural settings, there is no single 

coherent integration of the various findings on different aspects of the question. Abbe et al. (2007) 

therefore developed a model that helps to clarify the relationships among the various individual 

characteristics which influence outcomes in this domain (see Figure 2). 

The core element in the model is cross-cultural competence, defined here as the mix of 

knowledge, skills, and affect/motivation that enable individuals to adapt and perform effectively in 

cross-cultural environments. As defined here, cross-cultural competence develops over time and 

contributes to intercultural effectiveness regardless of the particular intersection of cultures. The 

knowledge, skill and affective elements included in the competence definition are limited to those 

characteristics that are directly related to cross-cultural outcomes and are amenable to education, 

training, or experience. This concept of cross-cultural competence shares similarities with that 

proposed by Selmeski (2007), particularly in that both argue for the importance of culture-general 

9 
knowledge and skills and emphasize the role of learning and development in acquiring those 

knowledge and skills. 

As depicted in Figure 2, both language capability and culture- or region-specific knowledge 

may contribute to intercultural effectiveness, but are not themselves within the core definition of crosscultural competence; this is discussed further below. In addition, characteristics that cannot be 

influenced may also be relevant, but would have to be targeted through selection rather than education 

or training. These characteristics are discussed as antecedent variables below. 

Intercultural effectiveness. Interest in cross-cultural competence is due to a very practical 

interest in predicting and improving intercultural effectiveness. To address effectiveness, the model in 

Figure 2 identifies three primary types of outcomes that would be of interest. These outcomes of 

interest include job performance and work adjustment, personal adjustment, and success in building 

interpersonal relationships. Although job performance may often be the primary outcome of interest, 

personal adjustment and interpersonal adjustment are treated as equally important due to their longterm implications. In particular, personal adjustment is expected to be relevant to retention, and 

interpersonal relationships are expected to be relevant to establishing and maintaining relationships 

that may have long-term operational or strategic importance. 

Although the term ‘intercultural’ is generally used in the literature to mean ‘international,’ it 

may also include cultural differences other than those at the national or societal level. Some 

researchers have argued that organizational differences may be even more important than national 

differences in the military context (e.g., Soeters, Poponete, & Page, 2006). Because the research 

foundation for this effort focused almost exclusively on individuals working in foreign countries, the 

regional and culture-specific portion of the model is primarily intended to refer to nations or regions, 

although other levels of culture may also be relevant. 

Antecedent variables. Other characteristics, shown in Figure 2 as Antecedent Variables, are 

expected to contribute to the development of cross-cultural competence, but do not in themselves 

provide the knowledge, affect, or skills needed for intercultural effectiveness. Stable, dispositional 

traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and self-monitoring have been 

identified as predictors of adjustment and performance in cross-cultural settings (e.g., Mol, Born, 

Willemsen, & Van der Molen, 2005; Caligiuri & Day, 2000). 

In addition to these broad traits, antecedents to cross-cultural competence include life-history, 

or biographical, variables like prior international experience. International experiences provide 

opportunities to develop cross-cultural competence, but frequently do not by themselves lead to 

greater cross-cultural competence (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005, Hechanova, 

Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003; Mol et al., 2005). 

10 
Dispositional 

Biographical 

Self and Identity 

 

Knowledge 

Affect/ 

Motivation 

Skills 

Job performance 

and work adjustment 

Personal 

adjustment 

Interpersonal 

relationships 

Situational and 

Cross-Cultural 

Competence 

Intercultural 

Antecedent Effectiveness 

Variables 

Regional/ 

CultureSpecific 

Knowledge

Language 

Organizational 

Variables 

Figure 2. A general framework for cross-cultural competence 

Another set of antecedents includes variables related to self and identity. For example, previous 

research has indicated that ego strength and self-efficacy, or beliefs about one’s own capabilities are 

predictive of expatriate success (Mischel, 1965; Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). Although direct links 

between identity and cross-cultural outcomes are less well-established in empirical research, recent 

research suggests that cultural aspects of identity may be important to the development of crosscultural competence (cf. Benet-Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Chao & Moon, 2005). 

Recommended emphasis in training and education. Empirically established relationships 

between the antecedent variables and outcomes of interest are small relative to relationships between 

dimensions of cross-cultural competence and outcomes. In addition, the relationships of language and 

regional knowledge with outcomes have been found to be relatively small. These findings support an 

education and training approach rather than a selection approach to intercultural readiness and, more 

specifically, point to the need for education that is culture-general in nature. Culture-general education 

can build the knowledge, affect, and skills that support effectiveness in any culture, thereby building a 

more generalizable capability for general-purpose forces. 

Table 4 lists variables within each dimension of cross-cultural competence that previous 

research has shown either are directly related to greater intercultural effectiveness or have strong links 

to other dimensions. In particular, interpersonal skills are among the strongest predictors of successful 

performance and adjustment in cross-cultural settings (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Cui & Awa, 

1992; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Hechanova et al., 2003). In addition, self-regulation has been shown to 

be critical for adjustment (Matsumoto et al., 2003; van Oudenhoven, Mol, & Van der Zee, 2003). 

11 
In the affective domain, holding non-ethnocentric attitudes is predictive of job performance 

and adjustment (Mol et al., 2003; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006), showing 

stronger effects than both language proficiency and prior international experience (Mol et al.). 

Empathy, or that ability to feel the emotions of others (without personally adopting them), has also 

emerged in recent research as an important to adjustment, health, and social interaction in a foreign 

culture (Leong, 2007; van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). 

Each of the three components of cross-cultural competence is expected to shift over time. 

These shifts are not necessarily uni-directional; cross-cultural experiences can lead to development of 

cross-cultural competence, but also to regression if Soldiers and leaders are not prepared for those 

experiences. For example, the stress of combat operations and repeated deployments could lead to the 

adoption of knowledge structures that simplify culture. Bi-directional shifts along the affective 

dimension may also occur. 

It should be noted that the extent to which each dimension and its various components are 

trainable is unclear. Some are readily trainable, whereas others may be more stable and dispositional. 

Previous research does not provide a clear basis for distinctions between stable traits and the more 

dynamic dimensions comprising cross-cultural competence as defined here. Thus, this aspect of the 

model has yet to be tested. 

 

 

Table 4. Three Dimensions of Cross-Cultural Competence 

Knowledge and Cognition Affect and Motivation Skills 

Cultural self-awareness Attitudes and initiative Interpersonal skills 

Cross-cultural schema Openness Self-regulation 

Cognitive complexity Empathy Flexibility: 

Frame shifting, perspective taking 

As discussed above and in more detail in Abbe et al. (2007), neither culture-specific 

knowledge nor prior international experience has been shown to have much impact on individuals’ 

intercultural effectiveness. The culture-general elements of cross-cultural competency as shown in 

Figure 2 and listed in Table 3 need to be explicitly addressed and emphasized in cultural training and 

education in the Army. Although cultural self-awareness is addressed to some extent in existing 

training, the other aspects of cross-cultural competence have not yet been targeted. Current education 

and training may implicitly address some of these components, but typically do not include them in the 

learning objectives. The affect and skills dimensions have been particularly neglected despite the fact 

that they are critical to success in cross-cultural settings. 

Measurement of cross-cultural competence. In reviewing the literature on cross-cultural 

competence and related constructs, existing measures were identified, several of which have 

accumulated a body of evidence supporting their reliability and validity. Some well-established 

measures are the Intercultural Development Inventory, the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, 

and the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale. Measures with emerging support include the Cultural 

12 
Intelligence Scale and the Global Competencies Inventory. However, existing measures were 

developed for student or manager populations and have not yet been validated with military personnel 

(Abbe et al., 2007). These measures are potentially useful for selecting personnel for specific roles 

(e.g., advisors) or for evaluating training effects, but should not be adopted for use with a military 

population without additional research. A critical first step is to confirm which traits, knowledge, 

skills, and affect comprise general cross-cultural competence and therefore are related to intercultural 

effectiveness as shown in Figure 2. Additional research is also needed to adapt or develop and validate 

measures of: a) components of cross-cultural competence; b) general cross-cultural competence as a 

whole; and c) outcomes of interest. 

It will be necessary to develop a set of tools to address the range of assessment needs in the 

Army for this domain. For example, a measure that helps identify personnel best suited for advising 

foreign security forces may be quite different from a measure that assesses development resulting from 

training or experience. At a minimum, an assessment tool or set of tools that meet Army needs will 

ideally: 

• be based on a model of cross-cultural competence that allows for development over 

time; 

• show evidence of validity in military personnel drawn from general-purpose forces; and 

• use a multimethod approach to minimize the limitations of self-report. 

 

What is the relationship between language proficiency and cultural understanding, and to what 

extent does learning a second language affect learning other languages? 

Language proficiency, cultural understanding, and language understanding are interrelated. 

However, at lower levels, language proficiency beyond some minimal vocabulary is neither a 

necessary nor sufficient condition for learning about or operating within a culture. A little language 

can go a long way in conveying respect for members of the local population or coalition partners, but 

interpersonal skills frequently enable Soldiers to overcome language barriers. Indeed, meta-analyses 

have shown that interpersonal skills and cultural sensitivity contribute more to successful intercultural 

outcomes than language proficiency (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Hechanova et al., 2003; Mol et 

al., 2005). Nevertheless, the empirical research shows that language proficiency is generally overrated 

as a contributing factor to success. For some, inability to speak the language may be perceived as a 

source of stress and frustration (Paige, 1993), which may lead some to overestimate the role of 

language proficiency in intercultural success. 

In addition, although communicating with members of a culture in their native language helps 

one learn about the culture, language proficiency may not provide the same benefit to every second 

language learner. One’s motivation for learning and using the language may be a factor. For those 

motivated to communicate with and learn about the local population, second language proficiency is 

likely to be beneficial in learning about the culture. In contrast, for those who see second language 

proficiency primarily as a means to achieve other ends, such as getting a job done, second language 

proficiency may not contribute to cultural understanding. 

Despite the limited role of language in producing cultural understanding and successful 

outcomes, learning a second language may have benefits for learning additional languages. Knowing a 

13 
second language provides a language learner with a larger set of strategies on which to draw when 

learning an additional language. More specifically, bilinguals tend to have greater cognitive flexibility 

and metalinguistic awareness (Jessner, 1999), which are then applied to acquisition of a third 

language. Findings are equivocal, however, with one study finding no difference in metalinguistic 

awareness between students highly competent in two languages and students highly competent in one 

(Lasagabaster, 1998). Further research is needed to determine whether a second language produces 

demonstrable benefits in learning additional languages and what level of proficiency may be necessary 

to achieve those benefits. In addition, much of the research on third language acquisition has sampled 

bilingual children or adolescents learning a third language at school, and it is unclear how 

generalizable those findings are to older learner populations. Further research is needed to examine the 

benefits of second and third language acquisition in adult learners. 

Other considerations for education, training, and self-development 

Preparing Soldiers and Army leaders to operate in foreign cultures has taken a variety of forms. 

Some cross-cultural training focuses on improving an individual’s knowledge of the specific region or 

culture they will encounter. Recent approaches to cross-cultural training within the Army have 

frequently taken this approach (e.g., the GlobeSmart Soldier tool). Another approach is to teach 

individuals the language spoken in the region to which they will deploy. A third approach is to provide 

individuals with generalizable concepts and skills related to culture. Findings from the CULP analysis 

indicate that this latter approach warrants greater attention and resources, particularly in PME. This 

culture-general approach is not new, but rather was the focus of earlier research and training, examples 

of which were previously funded by the Army (Kraemer, 1973; Stewart, Danielian, & Foster, 1969). 

However, these earlier attempts focused primarily on developing cultural self-awareness, which CULP 

findings indicate is only one aspect of cross-cultural competence and does not directly address the 

skills needed in cross-cultural settings. 

The ideal solution for cross-cultural education and training likely includes some combination 

of the three components of cross-cultural competence, region-specific knowledge, and language 

proficiency described above. These three approaches reflect the three components of overall cultural 

capability depicted in Figure 1. The relative emphasis of each should shift over the professional life 

cycle and in response to operational demands. With fewer competing demands, PME can best 

incorporate a greater culture-general focus, with an increasing regional focus for mid- to senior-level 

leaders. PME can also provide opportunities to develop deeper language skills that will either be 

maintained or contribute to further language learning. In contrast, pre-deployment training should 

focus on the region-specific knowledge essential to operating in the relevant culture, as well as critical 

vocabulary in the relevant language(s). Constraints on time during pre-deployment do not allow for the 

acquisition of more advanced knowledge and skills training; this period instead provides opportunities 

to practice the skills acquired through PME and self-development. 

Leader education already addresses some of the skills identified in the CULP analysis as 

contributing to intercultural effectiveness; however, the generalization of these skills to cross-cultural 

situations may not occur without explicitly emphasizing them and providing opportunities for practice. 

Providing supplemental materials to instructors and ensuring they are prepared to use them 

appropriately is one way to capitalize on the overlap between leadership competencies and cross14 
cultural competence. Incorporating culture into learning objectives and explicitly addressing culture in 

existing training and education will be the best way to integrate cultural considerations into fullspectrum operations. 

Conclusions 

 The CULP analysis did not fully address all of the initial questions to an equal degree; findings 

were somewhat limited by the available literature and input of workshop participants. For example, the 

empirical research literature did not clearly indicate what aspects of cultural knowledge are most 

useful to functioning outside one’s home culture, nor did empirical evidence indicate what cultural 

differences are most important to operational contexts in the Army. Education and training for cultural 

knowledge remain based primarily in anecdotal accounts and theory, and future research should 

address the knowledge domain more systematically. 

 A second limitation is that although previous research has produced a large body of literature 

on predictors of success in cross-cultural settings, less research has addressed intercultural, or global, 

leadership. This topic is often discussed in management research, with some notable contributions in 

recent years (e.g., Mendenhall & Oddou, in press). However, empirical research has lagged behind 

theoretical developments and behind research on cross-cultural competence more generally. Thus, this 

analysis focused instead on cross-cultural competence, aspects of which likely contribute to and 

provide a foundation for developing global leadership. But the knowledge, skills, and characteristics 

needed to lead across cultural boundaries have not yet been differentiated from dimensions of crosscultural competence. Future research will need to address the extent to which global leadership and 

cross-cultural competence are similar concepts, possibly focusing on different points in an individual’s 

development, and the extent to which they diverge. 

 Although some questions remain, the CULP analysis offers some clear conclusions on the role 

of culture-general knowledge and skills. Even in samples who must adapt to only one foreign culture, 

such as students studying abroad or managers on an international assignment, culture-general 

constructs consistently emerged as important characteristics. For the Army, the role of cross-cultural 

competence is likely even stronger. Preparing general-purpose forces to engage in full-spectrum 

operations around the globe, with a diverse and potentially changing group of coalition partners, is a 

complex challenge that cannot be met with a single approach. Language and culture-specific 

knowledge are important tools, but do not in themselves provide full-spectrum cultural capability. 

General-purpose forces must have a broad set of tools to draw from, which include skills and affect, 

and continue their development over time. 

The Army has already made steps in that direction. Cultural considerations are now evident 

throughout Army doctrine, and training and education have changed as a result of lessons learned in 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Other developments will help ensure that 

such changes are institutionally supported, such TRADOC G-2’s work on drafting a culture and 

language training strategy, which the CULP analysis has helped to inform. This analysis can further be 

used to identify learning domains to be targeted by education, training, and leader development and for 

building assessment tools that support individual development and highlight training needs. Continued 

15 
research in this area will be an important resource as the Army refines its institutional changes in 

anticipation of future operational demands. 

16 
References 

Abbe, A., Gulick, L. M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2007). Cross-cultural competence in Army leaders: 

 A conceptual and empirical foundation. (ARI Study Report 2008-01). Arlington, VA: 

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

The Army in Multinational Operations. (1997). Field Manual 100-8 (FM 3-16). Washington, DC: 

Headquarters, Department of the Army. 

Army Leadership. (2006). Field Manual 6-22. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the 

Army. 

Benet-Martinez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. X. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in 

cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386-407. 

Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and timebased models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. 

Academy of Management Journal, 48, 257-281. 

Brannen, M. Y. (1998). Negotiated culture in binational contexts: A model of culture change 

 based on a Japanese/American organizational experience. Anthropology of Work Review, 

18. 

Caligiuri, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and 

assignment-specific performance. Group & Organization Management, 25, 154-174. 

Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity 

of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1128-1140. 

Chiarelli, P. W., & Michaelis, P. R. (2005, Jul-Aug). Winning the peace: The requirement for 

full-spectrum operations. Military Review, , 4-17. 

Center for Army Leadership. (2006). Cultural understanding and language proficiency standards. 

Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combined Arms Center. 

Company Command. (2007, Sep). Leadership challenges in Iraq. Army, 77-82. 

Counterinsurgency. (2006). Field Manual 3-24. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the 

Army. 

Cui, G., & Awa, N. E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311-328. 

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of 

transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49. 

17 
Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258. 

Hechanova, R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of 

employees' adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: 

An International Review, 52, 213-236. 

Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social 

cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social Cognition, 19, 

181-196. 

Hong, Y., Ip, G., Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., & Menon, T. (2001). Cultural identity and dynamic 

construction of the self: Collective duties and individual rights in Chinese and American 

cultures. Social Cognition, 19, 251-268. 

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic 

constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709-720. 

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, 

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language 

learning. Language Awareness, 8, 201-209. 

Kraemer, A. J. (1973). Development of a cultural self-awareness approach to instruction in 

intercultural communication. (Human Resources Research Organization Technical Report 73-

17). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. 

Lasagabaster, D. (1998). The threshold hypothesis applied to three languages in contact at school. 

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1, 119-133. 

Leong, C. (2007). Predictive validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A longitudinal 

study on the socio-psychological adaptation of Asian undergraduates who took part in a study 

abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.01.004. 

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Iwamoto, M. Choi, J. W., Rogers, D., Tatani, H., & Uchida, H. (2003). 

The robustness of the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS): The search for a 

universal engine of adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 543-562. 

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (in press). Global leadership: Research, practice, development. 

Routledge Press. 

Mischel, W. (1965). Predicting the success of Peace Corps volunteers in Nigeria. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 510-517. 

18 
Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., Willemsen, M. E., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting expatriate job 

performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of Cross-Cultural 

Psychology, 36, 590-620. 

Operations. (2001). Field Manual 3-0. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. 

Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. 

Academy of Management Executive, 14, 65-77. 

Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In R. M. 

Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). Yarmouth, Maine: 

Intercultural Press. 

Perunovic, W. Q. E., Heller, D., & Rafaeli, E. (2007). Within-person changes in the structure of 

emotion: The role of cultural identification and language. Psychological Science, 18, 607-613. 

Selmeski, B. R. (2007). Military cross-cultural competence: Core concepts and individual 

development. (Occasional Paper Series – Number 1). Royal Military College of Canada, 

Centre for Security, Armed Forces, and Society. 

Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., Black, J. S., & Ferzandi, L. A. (2006). You can take it 

with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

91, 109-125. 

Soeters, J. L., Poponete, C., & Page, J. T., Jr. (2006). Culture’s consequences in the military. In T. W. 

Britt, A. B. Adler, & C. A. Castro (Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and 

combat, Vol. 4 (pp. 13-34). Westport, CT: Praeger Security International. 

Stability and Support Operations. (2003). Field Manual 3-07. Washington, DC: Headquarters, 

Department of the Army. 

Stewart, E. C., Danielian, J., & Foster, R. J. (1969). Simulating intercultural communication 

through role-playing. (Human Resources Research Organization Technical Report 69-7). 

Alexandria, VA: The George Washington University. 

van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of 

international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal 

of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679-694.

van Oudenhoven, J. P., Mol, S., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2003). Study of the adjustment of Western 

expatriates in Taiwan ROC with the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Asian 

Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 159-170. 

19 
20 
Appendix A 

Acronyms 

ARI U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

CAC Combined Arms Center 

CAL Center for Army Leadership 

CGSC Command and General Staff College 

CULP Cultural Understanding and Language Proficiency 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leader Development, Personnel, Facilities 

FM Field Manual 

GLOBE Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness 

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army 

MOS Military Occupational Specialty 

PME Professional Military Education 

SME Subject matter expert 

TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command 

21 
 22 
Appendix B 

Participants 

Dr. Michael Agar American University/Ethnoworks 

MSG Michael Beemer Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance 

COL John Bird US Army Intelligence Center 

Mr. Henri Bore Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Cultural Learning 

MAJ Jim Borovilos Defense Language Institute – Foreign Language Center 

Dr. Kimberly Brown Portland State University 

Dr. Georgia Chao Michigan State University 

Ms. Laurene Christensen University of Minnesota 

Mr. Mark Crowson Center for Army Leadership 

Dr. Paul D’Anieri University of Kansas 

LTC Rense de Vries Royal Netherlands Army, Foreign Liaison Officer 

Mr. Clark Delavan Center for Army Leadership 

COL Richard Dixon Combined Arms Center 

Dr. Richard Dunbar HQDA G2 

LTC Greg Ebner U.S. Military Academy 

Mr. Rick Everett Center for Army Lessons Learned 

Mr. James Fain CGSC, International Military Student Division 

Dr. Jon Fallesen Center for Army Leadership 

COL (Ret) Gregory Fontenot University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies 

Dr. Kerry Fosher Air University Culture and Language Center 

LTC Mark Gagnon US Military Academy 

Ms. Gabriele Griffiths Center for Army Lessons Learned 

MAJ Remi Hajjar TRADOC Culture Center 

Dr. Stanley Halpin US Army Research Institute 

Dr. Mitch Hammer American University 

Dr. Paul Hanges University of Maryland 

MAJ Harold Haugton Center for Army Lessons Learned 

Dr. Dan Henk Air University Culture and Language Center 

Dr. Michael Hogg Claremont Graduate University 

Dr. Mansour Javidan Thunderbird School of Global Management 

LTC Walter (Tripp) Jensen Army G3/5/7 

Dr. Angela Karrasch Center for Army Leadership 

Mr. Bill Kenny Army G3/5/7 

LTC Yongjae Lee Korean Army, Foreign Liaison Officer 

Mr. Robert Link CTCD 

COL Julie Manta Army War College 

Mr. Rob Markiewicz Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Cultural Learning 

COL (Ret) Nick Marsella TRADOC G-2 

Dr. David Matsumoto San Francisco State University 

LTC Frank Maudie Combined Arms Center G3 

Ms. Penny Mellies TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity - Threats 

Dr. Mark Mendenhall University of Tennessee, Chattanooga 

COL Frank Miskena 308th Civil Affairs Brigade 

 23 
Mr. Fred Mohrmann Combined Arms Center G3 

Ms. Deborah Morris Center for Army Leadership 

Mr. Charles Morrison TRADOC Culture Center 

COL Mark Neate United Kingdom, Foreign Liaison Officer 

Dr. Joyce Osland San Jose State University 

Mr. Karl Prinslow Foreign Military Studies Office 

Mr. Eugene Purvis Accessions Command 

Mr. Larry Reid Center for Army Leadership 

COL Bruce Reider Center for Army Leadership 

Dr. Joan Rentsch University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

Mr. Frank (Chip) Reynolds Cadet Command 

Dr. Robert Rubinstein Syracuse University 

COL Sean Ryan Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance 

LTC Bradley Schriewer Center for Army Leadership 

MAJ Niel Smith Counterinsurgency Center 

LTC Kazuyoshi Sugimura CAC International Liaison Officer 

Mr. Walt Williams TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity - Threats 

COL Francois Xavier Yves France, Foreign Liaison Officer 

 

 

 24