Prácticas de aula

Within the management and organisational studies literature on cross-cultural interactions, international education and work experience, there is increasing interest in the international experience of hospitality and tourism managers and the preparation and education thereof. This is hardly surprising as the hospitality and tourism industry is one of the largest and fastest growing sectors of the world economy and by its very nature is highly internationalised and necessitates the regular interaction of employees and customers from diverse cultural backgrounds. However, multinational corporations within the international hospitality sector have for a long time undervalued the role of cross-cultural training and experience in the selection and development of its managers (Dewald, 2008: 353). Several studies have suggested that international hospitality and tourism businesses would benefit from a greater

43 realisation of the value of cross-cultural management skills within the industry as a whole and for the selection and training of managers who will be expected to work in an international environment in particular (Ayoun & Moreo 2008; Kaye 1997; Jassawalla et. al 2004; Maganini and Honeycutt 2003; Mwaura et al, 1998; Testa & Mueller, 2009; Connell 1997; Johns & Henwood, 2007; Charlesworth 2007; Strauss & Mang, 1999; Sizoo et al. 2005). However, there seems to be very little, if any, current published work on the interplay between intercultural knowledge and experience and the development of management students’ capabilities and employability and none within the field of international hospitality and tourism management.

Tung (1998) argues that overseas work experience could result in a form of cosmopolitan enhancement valuable in today’s business environments. Scholarly interest in the concept of global mindset or intercultural awareness or cosmopolitanism dates back to classical antiquity. According to Cheah (2006: 486) the concept of cosmopolitanism has developed from an intellectual ethos to “…a vision of an institutionally embedded global political consciousness”. Originating in the work of Aristotle and advanced by the writing of Emanuel Kant, modern interest in cosmopolitanism focuses on issues of globalisation, on the rise of transnational networks and post-national social formations created by different forms of migration. Habermas’s (1997) revival of Kant’s project of cosmopolitan democracy can be seen as one part of the many waves of scholarly interest in the concept of cosmopolitanism over recent years. Most notable of these is perhaps Appiah’s (2010: 69) twofold concepts that "…intertwine in the notion of cosmopolitanism". Firstly that we have obligations to others that are greater than shared citizenship. Secondly that we should become informed of the practices and beliefs of others.

44 Jones (2011) in a qualitative study of corporate employers’ attitudes towards students’ international work experience on volunteer programmes reported that corporate employers in the UK valued the “cultural-economic capital” accrued during international voluntary work placements carried out by undergraduates. This somewhat nebulous term referring to cultural sensitivity is not directed at a definite national, ethnic or cultural knowledge per se but in the view of recruiters, “…reflects the valuation of a set of skills acquired through the experience of working in a different cultural context overseas” (2011: 540). Although employers tended to be vague about values they sought in future employees, Jones (2011) states that it is clear that “…the capacity to develop informed opinions based on ‘global values’, loosely expressed as a positive view of globalisation and an interconnected global society, represents a relevant and desirable capacity for undertaking global corporate work” (2011: 241). This is resonant with Ng, Tan and Ang’s (2011) notions of cultural intelligence and cosmopolitan human capital discussed later in this review.

The early sociological theories of role orientation by Merton (1957) and Gouldner (1957) can be seen as the beginning of modern elaboration of the cosmopolitan-local demarcation. Within the domain of work and human capital, the term cosmopolitans most often refers to “…individuals who have the education, experience and skills that enable them to work effectively in many different cultures” (Ng, Tan & Ang 2009: 5.) Modern interest in the cosmopolitan-local division is therefore seen as a form of human capital of significance to the management sciences (Haas 2006; Kanter 1995; Tung 1998). A key area of investigation focuses on what cosmopolitanism can bring to the individual’s human capital and is defined by Haas (2006) among others, as relating directly to the degree of international experiences that individuals accrue. In many ways, the concept of cosmopolitanism can be seen as influential to research on international experience and international competencies discussed

45 in the literature on so called “global mindset” (Levy et.al. 2007, Osland et.al 2006). Levy et al. (2007) contend that although the term itself is not often mentioned in the burgeoning literature on global mindset, its associated attitudinal stance serves as an underlying theme in the corpus since the publication of Perlmutter’s (1969) seminal categorisation of ethnocentric, polycentric and geocentric orientations of managers in multinational settings. Perlmutter’s (1969) pioneering tripartite typology (and particularly his identification of geocentric [world-orientated] managerial mindsets) and the subsequent research stream on global mindsets marks a significant development in the social science literature for the well- established themes of cosmopolitanism and is perhaps the first application of cosmopolitan theory in the literature on international management.

At an individual level cosmopolitanism can be described as a psychological perspective or mindset. Cosmopolitanism represents “…a state of mind, or – to take a more process orientated view – a mode of managing meaning” (Hannerz, 1996: 102). Cosmopolitans are defined by their “… willingness to engage with the Other… openness toward divergent cultural experiences, a search for contrasts rather than uniformity” (Hannerz, 1996: 163). Cosmopolitanism can also be seen as “… a matter of competence… a personal ability to make one’s way into other cultures, through listening, looking, intuiting, and reflecting” (Hannerz, 1996:193). Visualised as an individual competence or personal ability it is therefore envisioned within the domain of human resources and human capital.

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) theory has been put forward as a framework for understanding successful cross-cultural interactions and as a method in the selection, development and training of international managers (Early & Ang, 2003). Arguably a development of Gardner’s (1993) multiple intelligences theory CQ is defined as a

46 ‘‘…multifaceted competency consisting of cultural knowledge, the practice of mindfulness, and the repertoire of behavioural skills’’ (Thomas & Inkson, 2004: 182-183). CQ has been described as a competency that enables the individual to recognize and react to cultural differences thereby acting appropriately in a wide variety of situations across a variety of cultures (Thomas, 2006). Cultural Intelligence is a culture free construct observed in individuals of any nationality who have developed the ability to adjust and adapt to diverse cultural situations and an enabling factor in successful cross-cultural interactions, for example see: Early, (2006), Early & Ang, (2003), Ang et al., (2006), Ng & Early, (2006). Peterson (2004 p89) views CQ as pertaining to skills and qualities within the individual. These skills may be communicative or knowledge based for example. Qualities pertaining to CQ may include but are not limited to those such as tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility and open mindedness. Moreover, these qualities are not unrelated to those within the literature on cosmopolitanism and global mindset.

Much of the literature on cross-cultural management research has an epistemological conformity. An objectivist-realist perspective dominates the literature. Most writers in the management literature on culture recognise culture as an objective phenomenon that can be observed, recorded and measured (Aycan 2000). A review of literature indicates that a positivist approach is usually adopted on epistemological levels in cultural management research (Yeganeh, 2006: 362). For more than 30 years since the first publication of Hofstede’s (1980) influential if sometimes controversial notion of cultural dimensions and their consequences in the workplace a major theme in global management research has focused on national culture as an influential variable in management performance (Leung, 2009). Although Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be traced back through the work of anthropologists such as Hall (1959, 1976) and Kluckhon and Stodtbeck (1961) he is arguably

47 among the first to apply the developing theory of cultural dimensions and cultural values to an international study of management. This path has been extended to a greater or lesser extent by Laurent (1983), Schwartz, (1992, 1994), Trompenaars (1993), House et al. (2004). This research represents a fairly unified epistemological position in that this view of culture is drawn from early to mid-twentieth century anthropology which viewed culture as consisting of distinct and measurable principles that can be classified (Bjerregaard et al. 2009). This functionalist and positivist approach which is preeminent in the so called “Hofstedian” tradition can be seen as part of a continuum in intercultural communication research since Hall (1959) that can be seen as a form of cultural determinism.

Earley (2006: 928) called for alternative approaches to conducting value surveys across international boundaries towards “…developing theories and frameworks for understanding the linkage among culture, perceptions, actions, organisations, structures, etc.” CQ has been suggested as an alternative paradigm to research philosophies which focus on the measurement and comparative analysis of values attributed to national culture and holds promise for investigating the effectiveness of cross cultural encounters (Gelfand, 2007).

The literature on managers who work in an internationalised environments and expatriate managers’ experiences on overseas assignments identifies an on-going need to develop methods for the selection and development of managers who operate across cultures (for example see: Darby 1995, Kaye 1997, Harvey 2001, Harvey, Speier & Novicevic 2001, Jayawardena 2003, Cappellen & Janssens 2005 Dewald & Self 2008, Harvey & Moeller 2009, Takeuchi 2010). As Earley and Ang (2003) claim, cultural intelligence requires cognitive, affective, and behavioural training, it might therefore be a quality which might be identified and developed in managers undertaking duties which involve high degrees of cross-cultural

48 interaction. Crowne (2008: 397) proposes that if organisations can develop CQ skills during internships, training, and expatriation, then successful cross-cultural managers should be developed. In multinational organisations, strong CQ competency may ultimately influence the success of global leadership, so firms should consider individuals who have had multiple global assignments and some education abroad.

In the literature on manager development, culture and overseas work experience there is increasing interest in the international experience of hospitality and tourism managers. This is hardly surprising as the hospitality and tourism industry is one of the largest and fastest growing sectors of the world economy and by its very nature is highly internationalised and necessitates the regular interaction of employees and customers from diverse cultural backgrounds. However, multinational corporations within the international hotel sector have for a long time undervalued the role of cross-cultural training in the selection and development of its managers (Dewald, 2008: 353). Several studies have suggested that the international hospitality and tourism business would benefit from a greater realisation of the value of cross cultural management within the industry as a whole and for expatriate managers in particular (for example see: Ayoun & Moreo 2008, 2008a, 2009; Kaye 1997; Jassawalla et. al 2004; Maganini and Honeycutt 2003; Mwaura et al, 1998; Testa & Mueller, 2009; Connell 1997; Johns & Henwood, 2007; Charlesworth 2007; Strauss & Mang, 1999; Sizoo et al. 2005). However there is little current published work on the interplay between cooperative education, overseas or expatriate work experience and the development of soft skills related to intercultural communication such as global mindset, cosmopolitanism or cultural intelligence and none within the field of international hospitality and tourism management.

49

Part II