The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)

Transcription

1 The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) A reliable and valid measure of intercultural competence The IDI measures intercultural sensitivity. It is based on Milton Bennett s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and was constructed over a six year period with Mitch Hammer. It is a statistically reliable and valid measuring instrument that has been piloted and used successfully in both corporate and educational settings. It is widely used to create individual and group profiles, conduct needs analyses and evaluate programs. What is exactly IDI? The Intercultural Development Inventory is a short paper and pencil survey that measures an individual s awareness of and sensitivity to cultural differences. Based on Bennett s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), the IDI generates an individual or group profile that corresponds to a particular stage of intercultural development, ranging from ethnocentrisms, in which one s own culture is experienced as central to reality, to ethnorelativism, in which one s own culture is experienced in the context of other cultures. What is being measured? The IDI tracks an individuals movement from rigid and dualistic thinking patterns to higher-ordered cognitive processes characterized by openness, flexibility and the ability to incorporate multiple perspectives into one s world views. Who might use the IDI? The IDI can be used to assess business managers, diplomats, students, social workers, who will be dealing with cultural differences.

2 The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) A reliable and valid measure of intercultural competence By Patrick Schmidt Talk given at the Sprachen und Beruf Konferenz, 1 June 2005 (Slide 1)* Good morning. Before I begin with the IDI, we let me share with you of what can happen when executives are sent abroad and are not aware of their intercultural sensitivity. The first is about a brilliant executive employed at one of Germany s automobile companies. I say brilliant because by the age of 29, he had already become the personal assistant to the CEO. He was not only quick and smart, but also flexible, open and always did his work done with 110% Teutonic efficiency. The Board of Directors liked this young man, had high hopes for him, but they felt he needed to round off his skills with a two- or three-year foreign assignment. So, it was decided to name him Chief Financial Officer of their Brazilian subsidiary. As preparation, he and his wife were given four weeks of Portuguese language training. After that, he was off to Sao Paulo, where he took on his new responsibilities with great enthusiasm. But to his complete surprise, he found that the people in the finance department didn t keep all records of price changes. At that time, Brazil was suffering from run-away inflation of about 1000% per year, which meant prices were changed three to four times a day. When he asked why they didn t write down all the price changes, his subordinates just replied, We don t have time to note all the price changes. But don t worry; we know what we are doing. We always make money. This young German executive didn t at all like this and ordered them to write down all price changes. To no avail. This battle of who was going to set policy went on for six weeks. Finally, after seeing he couldn t get them to change, he threw in the towel and flew back to Germany with his family. *) Slides found at the end of this paper

3 What happened? Although highly intelligent, confident, and possessing a strong will to see projects through, he lacked the most important thing when working in a foreign country intercultural competence; i.e. the ability to communicate and behave appropriately in the new culture. No one, before his departure to Brazil, had made him aware that he would unconsciously project and try to impose his German cultural values on to the Brazilians. But this phenomenon of lacking intercultural competence doesn t only happen to Germans. Three years ago, Manager Magazine published a long article about the dilettantish efforts of a large American retail company that tried to set up operations in Germany. The Board of Directors chose three top American managers to start up the new subsidiary. What made their choice unique was that the managers didn t speak a word of German, had absolutely no idea of German culture and knew next to nothing on how business was done in Germany. But it didn t matter. In a combination of arrogance and ignorance, the company management declared What is good for the States, is good for Germany. Again, we have the same scenario. Although the three managers were highly capable, they were blind as a bat when it came to understanding and communicating with the Germans. After four years of operations, the company lost over one billion euros, mainly through the insensitive and unconscious behavior of the managers. Now, what is the moral of the two stories? If unconscious projections and attitudes toward cultural differences are not made clear before departure, huge and expensive fiascos are guaranteed. This is where the Intercultural Development Inventory, more commonly known as the IDI, comes in. It is a short paper and pencil survey that measures an individual s awareness of and sensitivity to cultural differences. If the executives in the two stories I just told you had been given feedback on their intercultural sensitivity by means of the IDI, it not only would have promoted greater self-awareness, but considerably lower the potential misunderstandings with their foreign counterparts. So what is IDI exactly? It tracks an individual s reaction to cultural difference; that is it indicates the movement from rigid and simplistic thinking patterns to higher-ordered

4 learning processes, which is characterized by openness and the ability to incorporate multiple perspectives into one s world view. Another words: a shift from rigid to more flexible thinking when dealing with cultural differences. The instrument was developed by Milton Bennett and Mitch Hammer and has proven to be a reliable and empirically valid measure of intercultural competence. But when I say reliable and empirically valid measure, people immediately raise the question: how do you measure intercultural competence empirically? Well, to do this, you first must define what is being measured, namely intercultural competence. For this talk, I will use the definition I just gave a minute ago: the ability to communicate and behave appropriately in a new culture. Having done that, the next question is raised: How can you empirically measure it? After all, intercultural competence seems to be a virtual, subjective state. Here we should refer to Milton Bennett s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), which describes intercultural competence in stages. (Slide 2) Created in 1986, DMIS is a theoretical framework to explain people s reactions to cultural differences. This framework is considered by the vast majority of intercultural professionals as the best explanation of how an individual develops intercultural competence. When developing his framework, Dr. Bennett observed in both the academic and corporate worlds that individuals confronted cultural difference in predictable ways as they learned to be more intercultural sensitivity. He organized these observations into six stages of increasing sensitivity to cultural difference. The underlying assumption of the model is that as one s experience of cultural difference becomes more complex and sophisticated, one s competence in intercultural relations increases. Each stage indicates a particular cognitive structure that is expressed in certain kinds of behavior related to cultural difference. By recognizing the underlying cognitive orientation toward culture difference, predictions about behavior can be made and education can be tailored to facilitate development into the next stage. The first three stages are ethnocentric, meaning events and behavior are interpreted from one s own cultural viewpoint. The second three stages are categorized in the et-

5 norelative phase, meaning that one s own culture is experienced in the context of other cultures. The IDI empirically measures how far one is on the scale of the DMIS by having respondents indicate their feelings to statements. But before I get into the actual workings of the instrument, let me explain each stage in more detail. (Slide 3) Denial is the most basic stage of ethnocentrism, where one s culture is experienced as the only real one. People in this stage essentially assume there are no real differences among people throughout the world. Cultural difference is either not experienced at all, or it is experienced as a kind of non-articulated something. Although they might be a witness to a tremendous number of foreign cultural experiences, they generally fail to make something out of them. There is no successive construing and reconstruing of what happens, as it happens, that enriches the experience of that person s life. In another words, foreign experiences are denied; they are simply not being registered. This sort of disinterest, or aggressive ignorance can be found, for example, when American students come back to the U.S. after a one-week stay in Munich and state that the Bavarian city is just like home. When asked how this is so, the reply is usually, Well, Munich has lots of buildings, too many cars and McDonald s. (Slide 4) In the Defensive stage, one s own culture is experienced as the only good one and all others are viewed as inferior. People in this stage are aware of other cultural differences, but have a relatively incomplete understanding of them. Differences are not only viewed suspiciously; they are considered a threat to their self-esteem and identity. This derogatory attitude toward difference is generally called negative stereotyping, undesirable characteristics are attributed to every member of a distinct group. A typical defensive statement might come from a European, who after a two-month stay in the USA, comes to the conclusion: Americans are superficial and uncultivated. (Slide 5) The DMIS predicts that as time goes by, people can move from Defense into the Minimization stage. As the term suggests, people minimize or trivialize cultural differences, while at the same time experience elements of their own culture as universal. This attitude is expressed by statements, such as We are all children of God or Just be yourself. People are very political correct by being excessively respectful of other

6 cultures and seek to avoid stereotypes by treating others as an individual or by treating other people as they would like to be treated. But deep down, they hope that others will all converge into their cultural position and become insistent about correcting other people s behavior to match their expectations. At one point, someone will say Why can t we all just be Americans? Because they don t understand how they are unconsciously projecting their values on others, such people at this stage will make subtle ethnocentric remarks, like We bankers are all the same all over the world. (Slide 6) Acceptance is the first of the three ethnorelative stages. Here, there is a fundamental shift in the mindset from the unconscious assumption that one s culture is the definer of reality to a more conscious assumption that one s own culture is just one of equally complex worldviews. Acceptance does not mean agreement cultural difference may be judged negatively but the judgment is not ethnocentric. It involves an acceptance of deep cultural differences in communication, non-verbal behavior and styles of thinking, with the insight that their ideas, feelings and behavior are just as rich as theirs. People are curious about other cultures and seek opportunities to learn more about them. An example of this is the statement of a young American woman, deeply in love with a German: I want to learn the German language so I can understand my Hans better. (Slide 7) The second ethnorelative stage, Adaptation, involves a more proactive effort to use cultural differences and intercultural skills. The goal is to maximize relationships with people from other cultures. People at Adaptation are able to look at the world through different eyes. Or as some call it cognitive frame-shifting, i.e. role reversal. It is a form of empathy that allows a temporary shift in perspective for the purpose of understanding or evaluating situations in either their own or another culture. For instance, a German manager may routinely use his frame-shifting ability to act as a bridge between Americans and Germans for conflict resolution. This means he or she intentionally changes their behavior to communicate better. If the person is a long-term expatriate, he or she may be bicultural the worldview contains two fairly complete cultural frames. So, an American having lived in Germany for five years, might say: I m beginning to feel like a member of this culture.

7 (Slide 8) The final ethnorelative stage is Integration. One s experience of self is expanded to include moving in and out of different cultural worldviews. People in this stage don t at all think in ethnocentric terms but are cross-cultural swingers, juggling two or more competing value-systems. Such a person is capable of seeing and feeling the relativity of beliefs there is no absolute standard of rightness. This may be a disadvantage for the ability to see one s self within a collection of different cultures can cause some to lose their primary cultural identity and create what might be described as internal cultural shock. The subsequent breakdown of identity leads toward cultural marginality that is not knowing which culture they belong to. This stage is common among long-term expatriates, global nomads and third culture kids. Despite the periodic confusion in identity, people in the integration stage will often say, I truly enjoy participating fully in both of my cultures. (Slide 9) With the DMIS in mind, we can look into how the Intercultural Development Inventory actually works. The IDI can be administered to individuals and groups depending on the particular goals of the institution. Before the IDI is actually given, there is a general introduction on the meaning of intercultural sensitivity and challenges facing cultural differences. However, the DMIS is not at all explained. Then, the IDI is past out to be completed. The instrument is easy to complete and takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As I said earlier, it is a paper and pencil instrument composed of 50 statements that reflect the different stage of the DMIS. Responses are scored on a five-point Likert-type scale. An example would be I like people from different cultures. If you agree with this statement, you would fill in the number 5. If you disagree somewhat more than agree with this statement, you would fill in the number 2. Other statements from the instrument are for example People are fundamentally the same despite apparent differences in cultures or Technology is creating a single world-wide culture. The results are then compiled into a special computer software. This, in turn, generates a graphic and textual profile of the individual or group s predominate stage of intercultural development. When the respondents receive their profile, the administrator en-

8 courages them to pose the question, what does this mean to me?, which can lead to a positive action plan and how they can continue to develop their intercultural sensitivity. This phase is what people find the most fascinating they see their behavior in terms of the different stages of DMIS. It is at this point that the DMIS is explained. In addition, the IDI also produces a respondent s perceived score versus the actual developmental score. This gives administrators a sense of where discrepancies lie between how one rates their perceived strengths in intercultural sensitivity versus the more objective assessment provided by the IDI. The most frequent question I get is how did Dr. Bennett and Dr. Hammer find the statements that would reliably measure intercultural sensitivity. Back in 1993 both researchers conducted extensive interviews with 40 international subjects about their experiences with cultural diversity. A team of four raters then categorized their statements according to the different stages of DMIS with an inter-rater reliability of It was then reviewed by a team of seven experts who removed those items that were not similarly classified by at least five of the seven experts. This resulted in an inventory of 145 items that corresponded to five of the six DMIS stages. Later, items were then tested on a sample of 226 international respondents, which resulted in the final set of 50 statements. The whole period of development spanned six years. The IDI is considered a valid and reliable psychometric instrument that measures cognitive structures rather than attitudes, thus making it less susceptible to situational factors and more stable. The editors of the International Journal of Intercultural Relations conducted an in-depth analysis of the instrument, and concluded that it reasonably approximates the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. The IDI is also related to other standardized tests, such as the Worldmindedness Scale and the Intercultural Anxiety Scale. More recent research has also demonstrated a positive relation between ethnorelativism, post conventional moral reasoning and multicultural experiences. Up to now I have been talking about the theory and development of IDI and how to use it. Let s now look at a concrete example of how the instrument measures intercultural

9 competence. I am going to show you the IDI results of Joe, the construction contractor in Colorado. But before I do that, let me read you his profile. Joe is a European American male who resides in a city close to where he was born. He traveled once to Alabama and Mississippi, where he was shocked by the segregation. He is a very successful construction contractor with a reputation for being a truly nice (and effective) guy. He is often in multicultural situations, both with outside contractors and with the workers he manages (the vast majority come from Mexico, who he fondly called his Mexicans. He says this, despite the fact there are other nationals, such as the El Salvadorians, Guatemalans and Costa Ricans). Joe s attitude toward multi-cultural groups is that those of us who are successful should reach back to bring others along. He firmly believes the organizations should create apprenticeship opportunities for minorities, so that can learn the ropes and have a chance for advancement. With that in mind, he often encourages his workers to stop speaking Spanish among themselves and to practice their English. In multicultural situations, he thinks that it is important to just be yourself and other people will respect you. This got him into disagreements with his workers, when he told them proudly American Western music is far better than that Mexican music. Concerning cross-cultural and diversity training for his company, Joe thinks that a major motivation is to be able to say, We got it done. The training should teach people not to stereotype or pigeon-hole people. He is concerned about white men being discriminated by minorities, known as white male bashing, since he doesn t think that anyone is really racist in his company. And he states openly that he s not a racist. However, he s somewhat disappointed that his workers just accept him, but don t show a genuine liking to him. Impression: A very nice guy, well intentioned and competent in his work. But he seems blind and ignorant to cultural difference and to his possibly patronizing and know-itbetter attitudes.

10 How would you rate his intercultural sensitivity? As you probably correctly guessed, Joe is basically still in the ethnocentric mode. But what is the extent of his ethnocentricity? (Slide 10) Now looking at Joe s IDI profile, the first thing we can note is that Joe s overall perceived intercultural sensitivity or rating is at the end of minimization, which is two scales above what the IDI actually measured, which is still in the denial/defensive mode. This is human. All people basically have a better self-image of themselves than what they actually are. Before we go any further, let me explain the top two parts, dimensions and scales. The dimension part corresponds to the DMIS framework, which you are now aware of. The second part corresponds to the scales of the IDI. When developing this instrument, Dr. Bennett and Dr. Hammer found the denial and defense stages fitted together, thus it was called the DD scale. There is also the R scale, which measures a worldview that reverses the cultural orientation. The reversal orientation is the mirror image of the denial/defense orientation and is similarly considered to be ethnocentric. An example is this is when a young Peace Corp volunteer is sent to, let say Costa Rica, and after 6 months there, he or she thinks it is better than the USA, an ethnocentric viewpoint. People say that person has gone native. But because of time limitations, I am not able to talk about this now. The next scale is minimization and thereafter, acceptance and adaptation, again fitted together as one stage. The last is encapsulated marginality, corresponding to integration, which measures a worldview that incorporates a multicultural identity with sometimes confused cultural perspectives. Going down to the Worldview Profile, we see on the first line that Joe is still in the transition phase of the DD scale. What this means is that Joe is still simplifying or polarizing cultural difference. Example would be when he said my Mexicans while ignoring there were other nationalities. This tell us his experiences with cultural differences may be somewhat negative, with a tendency toward disinterest in cultural difference and/or a tendency toward avoidance of interaction with culturally different people. Further, there may be a tendency to view the world in terms of us and them, where us is superior. American Western music is far better than that Mexican music

11 The R scale indicates that it is resolved. It means that Joe is not affected by a tendency to reverse an us and them polarization, where them is superior. On the M scale, we can see that it is still unresolved. According to the DMIS, this would mean Joe s attitude toward cultural difference is commonality. He seems to have a strong commitment to the idea that people from other cultures are basically like us. When he states, just be yourself or that they can learn the ropes, he is unconsciously imposing his U.S. values on his foreign workers, assuming that they want to be like him. It reflects difficulties in identifying important cultural differences that can influence intercultural relations. Joe needs to resolve them before he can realize a greater potential of intercultural competence. On the AA scale, Joe is in the transition area, indicating that he is dealing with issues around the acceptance of or adaptation to cultural difference. Due to the unresolved issues in the M scale, he is probably not yet able to shift his perspective or behavior easily into other cultural contexts. Lastly, on the EM (encapsulated marginality) scale, Joe s resolved area indicates that he is not experiencing identity cultural issues for the simply reason he is basically ethnocentric. He perceives all things from one cultural perspective and not from multi-cultural perspective. This was a short and quick example of how the IDI can identify the scale of intercultural sensitivity. How can you use IDI? You might want to consider using the IDI in the following situations: You have been asked to provide cross-cultural training for a family about to leave for an overseas assignment and you would like to help them assess their intercultural sensitivity toward other cultures. Your company has recently completed a major organizational change effort in which global management of cultural differences is a key ingredient for success. Now you have been asked to determine the impact of this change program.

12 As a human service provider, you recognize misunderstandings that have arisen between your staff and members from the multicultural groups you work with. To build more positive relations, you want to begin intercultural communication training for all of your staff that includes a large component of self-awareness. Experience has shown that the most positive outcome of using IDI is that the respondents are provided with valuable feedback of themselves and their intercultural sensitivity. As such, the IDI has the added benefit of being both an assessment instrument and a potential vehicle to promote greater self-awareness and intercultural skill development. I think all of you realize how important intercultural competence is in this increasingly globalized world. This means companies and educational institutions are incorporating cross-cultural programs into their training programs and the IDI is one of the most valid and reliable instruments currently available to assess the efficiency of such programs. I do hope my talk has provided you with insights as well as the positive benefits of IDI. Although it might at first difficult to understand, the IDI has shown to be powerful tool for indicating a person s degree of intercultural competence. And believe me, it does work. I have experienced it myself. All I can say in conclusion is that I recommend it to all of you. Should you wish to have any further information, feel free to contact me. I thank you very much for your attention.

13 Slide 1 Slide 2 American-German Cross-Cultural Consulting Where people and cultures intersect Milton Bennett s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Experience of Difference A reliable and valid measure of intercultural competence Denial Defense Minimization Ethnocentric Stages Acceptance Adaptation Ethnorelative Stages Integration Slide 3 Slide 4 Denial Defensive one s culture is the only real one unable to construe cultural difference aggressive ignorance Munich lots of buildings, too many cars, McDonalds one s culture is the only good one we are superior they are inferior highly critical of other cultures Americans are superficial and uncultivated Slide 5 Slide 6 Minimization Acceptance one s culture is viewed as universal obscure deep cultural differences insistently nice We bankers are all the same all over the world. one s culture is viewed as one of many complex systems judgment is not ethnocentric curious about cultural differences I want to learn German so I can understand Hans better.

14 Slide 7 Slide 8 Adaptation Integration internalize more than one complete worldview empathy may intentionally change behavior to communicate better I m beginning to feel like a member of this culture. one s self is expanded to include different worldviews cross-cultural swinger ability to facilitate contact between cultures I truly enjoy participating fully in both of my cultures. Slide 9 Slide 10 Using IDI introduction establishing intercultural context administer IDI present IDI profile to group or individual action planning