Overview

1. Predictive Validation of an Intercultural Assessment Centre(Elisabeth Prechtl, Ph.D. student at University of Bayreuth, Germany)

2. Overview 1. Introduction: purpose of the study 2. Intercultural assessment centre 3. Design of the study 4. Validation strategy: Validation by prediction 5. Results 6. Implications and discussion

3. 1. Introduction: Purpose of the Study • International companies send employees abroad • Increase in all kinds of assignments, expecially short-term assignments (< 1 year, according to Cartus Global Mobility Policy & Practices Survey, 2007) • Success of the assignment is crucial to the company and subsidiary • more and more SME send employees abroad (e.g. frequent commuting) Key issue for international HRM: selection of candidates, assessment of an employee´s competences/ skills in dealing with different cultures (before assignment),

4. 1. Introduction: Purpose of the Study Common practice: - employees are sent abroad because of their previous overseas experience and the number of languages they speak - high reliance on self-selection of employees (in SME, Schmidt& Minssen, 2007) however, instruments for assessing intercultural competences are available: - Questionnaires (Matsumoto et al., 2001, Earley et al., 2004), - Assessment Centres (Lievens et al., 2003, Ehret, 2006)  can an instrument such as an Intercultural Assessment Centre increase the prediction of success when other information is available?

5. 2. Overview of the Intercultural Assessment Centre • Aim of this assessment centre: to assess a candidate’s potential for intercultural encounters before being sent abroad or working in an international team • Assessment of six intercultural competences (Inca-model, Prechtl& Davidson-Lund, 2007): - tolerance for ambiguity - Behavioral flexibility - Respect for otherness - Empathy - Knowledge discovery - Communicative awareness • The candidates participate in different tasks which simulate „critical“ situations in contact with other cultures, like role-plays, group exercises and written scenarios

6. Tolerance for ambiguity Behavioral flexibility Respect Empathy Knowledgediscovery Communi- cative awareness Group roleplay Video exercise Roleplay 1 Roleplay 2 Written scenario 2. Overview of the Intercultural Assessment Centre - Dimensions and Tasks-

7. 3. Design of the Study • t 1 Intercultural Assessment Centre • t 2 candidate participates in an interview during assignment concerning intercultural performance (telephone interview) • t 3 supervisor/ collegue (from foreign culture) answers questionnaire on candidate´s performance Candidates are sent abroad, regardless of the result of this assessment

8. 3. Design of the Study Sample: employees of small and medium-sized companies (+students on internships) to be sent on short-term assignments/ commuting assignment • t 1 112 subjects participate in 1day assessment (run in Germany, 2004-2005) • t 2 51 subjects are interviewed during assignment in different countries (self-rating,2005-2008) • t 3 29 supervisors/ collegues rate them (other-rating)

9. 3. Design of the Study Countries of assignment

10. 4. Validation by Prediction Approach: Validation by Prediction -> Can intercultural success be predicted by the result of the Assessment Centre? (predictive validity) -> Can the Assessment Centre predict more of the success criteria than biographical information? (incremental validity) Method: Ordinal Regression Analysis Parameters: R 2 according to Nagelkerke significance of model fit

11. 4. Validation by Prediction Predictors: Intercultural Assessment Centre (6 intercultural competences) Biographical data previous overseas experience, number of foreign languages Criteria of intercultural success: Effectiveness Adaptation to work Commitment to foreign organization Satisfaction with work/ in general

12. 5. Results: a) Success rated by Candidate Effectiveness and adaptation to work (self-rated): variance explained by predictors

13. 5. Results: a) Success rated by Candidate Commitment to foreign organization (self-rated)

14. 5. Results: a) Success rated by Candidate Satisfaction with living in the host country and generally (self-rated)

15. 5. Results: a) Success rated by Candidate Summary for self-rated success: • Biographical information accounts for 2-21% of variance • Intercultural assessment (dimensions of intercultural competence) accounts additional 4-13% (increment) • However, a large part of variance remains unexplained: model of all predictors together is significant only for adaptation to work

16. 5. Results: b) Success rated by Supervisor Effectiveness and adaptation to work (other-rated)

17. 5. Results: b) Success rated by Supervisor Commitment to foreign organization (other-rated)

18. 5. Results: b) Success rated by Supervisor Satisfaction with living and generally (other-rated)

19. 5. Results: a) Success rated by Supervisor Summary for other-rated success: • Biographical information accounts for 3-18% of variance • Intercultural assessment (dimensions of intercultural competence) accounts for additional 33-49% (increment) • Both predictors together can explain a large part of variance: model is significant for adaptation to work, commitment and satisfaction

20. 6. Some Implications… Intercultural Assessment Center (intercultural dimensions) does have an incremental validity over biographical data  an Intercultural Assessment Centre rating does enhance the accuracy of prediction  amount of variance explained by predictors differs among success criteria (e.g. more explained for other-rated criteria)  intercultural dimensions are most useful for the prediction of success criteria, when other-rated success is important (e.g. when persons are rated by others from a different culture) Discussion: is there an effect due to a self-other-rating-bias?

21. Thank you very much for your attention!!contact:elisabeth.prechtl(at)web.de