Intercultural Training: A Summary, Critique, Recommendations, and a

Plan for a US Church Group leaving for Mexico

Scholarly Paper
by
Sarah R. Holmquist
Spring 2014

Research Advisor: Dr. Adriana Medina

Second Reader: Dr. Edward Larkey

MASTERS OF ARTS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

DEPARTMENT OF MODERN LANGUAGES, LINGUISTICS &
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY

Holmquist

Intercultural Training: A Summary, Critique, Recommendations, and a Plan for a

US Church group leaving for Mexico
Scholarly Paper for M.A. Intercultural Communication
Sarah Holmquist, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
May 2014
Abstract
In this final paper for the MA degree in Intercultural Communication at the
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, I explain, examine, and critique the
intercultural communication and training field. I present a definition of culture and the
basic cultural values, the rationale for intercultural training, as well as its strengths and
shortcomings, a few critiques (Adrian Hollidays, Fidel Tubinos, and my own) of the
field of intercultural training, present the models for training design, and present my own
intercultural training project as a model for future trainers and students in the program
and in the field. Finally, I present my conclusions and recommendations for the field as a
result of two years of study in this program and my own wrestling with the topic. I hope
to provide helpful, thought-provoking information for others in my field and for future
students in the program.
Introduction
Introduction of Self and Background
My name is Sarah Holmquist and I have recently completed a Masters degree in
Intercultural Communication at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
completing also a specialization in Intercultural Training and the Hispanic Studies track
in the same program. As an undergraduate, I studied Spanish, with an emphasis on
Hispanic Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, and had the
opportunity to study abroad in Seville, Spain in the Spring of 2011. In preparation for my
experience abroad, I completed a course entitled Cross-Cultural Studies as a sophomore
undergraduate student, which introduced me to the concepts of intercultural
communication, as well as prepared me personally for the transitions, hardships,
difficulties, and opportunities for growth that would come during the semester abroad. As

Holmquist

a result of the course, I felt extremely well prepared for my semester abroad and was able
to keep a positive attitude and counsel friends on the program even when I felt the
symptoms of culture shock. More than simply helping me succeed in the study-abroad
experience, I felt the course opened my eyes to communication difficulties that exist not
only between different cultures but amongst people in the same culture as well. I was able
to communicate with others better, reduce stereotypes in my own thinking, and learned
how to control my own thoughts and reactions toward anyone with whom I
communicated. I desired to help others benefit from the same principles I had learned
through this course, and especially to help students prepare for success during and get the
most out of their abroad experience, since adequate preparation for students going abroad
is often an overlooked but very crucial part of their success. I searched for programs in
intercultural communication after talking with an intercultural trainer friend of the family,
who gave me some specific directions to take. In the end, I found and was admitted to the
Intercultural Communication M. A. program at UMBC, choosing to attend based on the
specialization offered in Intercultural Training, which was exactly the direction I wanted
to take in such a program, and the offer of a Graduate Teaching Assistantship, which
made the program affordable.
Interest in the Project
I am writing this paper as a way to further explore and critique the field of
intercultural communication and training, to summarize and integrate everything I have
learned from the program about intercultural communication and training, to provide a
model for developing and implementing an intercultural training program, and to provide

Holmquist

helpful experience, information, and thought-provoking direction for fellow colleagues in

the program and in the larger intercultural training field.
Introduction of Client
My client for this training was a small Christian Bible-study group heading to
Acapulco, Mexico from February 11-18, 2014 to work in an orphanage. The group was
very small, with five members but only four of them were planning to go on the trip. Two
of the members had previously been to this orphanage, it was a long-standing relationship
and they were going for their yearly visit. Their goals for their time were to serve the
people running the orphanage, run interesting childrens programs, and to love the
children they met there. There were four members of the trip. Hannah, my principal
contact, had been to this place twice before. Her husband Mike was also going, and he
had traveled around Europe before on a school study-abroad trip, but had not spent any
significant of time abroad. Emily, a third member, had the longest standing relationship
with this orphanage, as she had been there previously about nine or ten times, and spoke a
small amount of Spanish. Mercy had been to India before for a service/mission trip, but
not to Mexico. Training was necessary for this organization because none of the
participants had previously received much cultural training, although they had certainly
experienced cultural differences in their previous travels. My contact thought the group
would benefit from some general cultural awareness training and general Mexican culture
related training. The purpose of this training was not to help the group be more
productive in any sense, as the purpose of training an organization might be, but to assist
them in being more open to the Mexican culture they would experience and more aware
of their own cultural biases and their tendency to judge unfamiliar behavior. Thus, the

Holmquist

purpose, instead of productivity, was accessibility to their own culture and the Mexican
culture.
Intercultural Training
What is Intercultural Training? History, and Rationale
Intercultural training is a type of training that prepares people with the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes to engage in cross-cultural or multicultural interactions
and situations, whether international or at home. Sandra Fowler and Monica Mumford, in
their introduction to their Intercultural Sourcebook, Vol 1, say that the overarching goal
of most programs is to make participants more effective in overseas, cross-cultural, or
multicultural situations (xiii). Usually business corporations contract intercultural
trainers for effectiveness leading to monetary gain or financial savings in the long term,
but effectiveness can also mean successful communication and relationship building.
Trainers help prepare people in three ways: the ability to manage psychological stress, the
ability to communicate effectively, and the ability to establish interpersonal relationships
(xiii).
The field of intercultural training began in the United States after World War 2
and with the Marshal Plan, which sent US agents to developing countries to assist in
development activities and different exchange efforts (Pusch 13). In the following years,
intercultural training exploded to become the new vogue and the Agency for
International Development was created, along with multiple international exchange
programs which exchanged scholars, students, military, and employees usually from the
US to other countries (Pusch 14). Some of the very first training programs were for
foreign service personnel, implemented by Edward T. Hall, named the Father of the

Holmquist
field (Pusch 14). Intercultural training since then has exploded and branched off in a
multitude of different directions, with many different games and methods being created.
No longer is intercultural training simply for foreign service personnel, it is also
implemented for students preparing for their abroad experience, for adjustment of
immigrants to the United States, for domestic workplace inclusion, military personnel,
educational staff, and non-profit charitable service organizations, among other clients.
In short, it is necessary and beneficial because people have difficulties when
crossing cultures, whether at home or abroad, and it is a widely known fact that crosscultural interactions are increasing in frequency as corporations expand, more students
study abroad, international travel increases, and people are out of their own comfort
zone more than usual. When out of their natural cultural habitat, the behaviors and
attitudes that functioned well for them before no longer work, and this is why training is
necessary (Fowler Vol 2, xiii).
Strengths
Mitchell Hammer has written about some of the reasons for and benefits of
training. He includes large-scale reasons for training such as the increased economic
interdependence of the world, the dangerous weaponry dispersed around the world, and
the demand for cultural diversity training within the US to better incorporate different
ethnic groups (4). Based on research, training is effective because it results in reduced
anxiety, increased productivity, skills, financial savings, and reduced culture stress (2).
He writes: Cross-cultural training has been shown to develop cross-cultural skills that
affect subsequent success in an overseas assignment, improve expatriates psychological
comfort and satisfaction with living and working in a foreign culture, and improve task

Holmquist

accomplishment in the cross-cultural environment (8). In addition to benefitting crosscultural situations, intercultural training benefits intra-cultural communication and
relationships as well, since trainees learn helpful skills and knowledge that they can apply
to others around them, as there exists considerable personal diversity even within the
same culture.
Shortcomings
While intercultural training includes many benefits, there are also shortcomings in
all areas of the field, on the part of training itself, the trainers, and the trainees. Many of
these shortcomings will be discussed in detail in the later section critiquing intercultural
training, but they relate to the power differential in the field (conceptualized according to
the theories of Pierre Bordieu), the capital and knowledge holders, and the fact that the
majority of the prominent leaders and tools used are primarily North American and
Western European. Another shortcoming is that once the training is given, the trainees
may think they know everything related to intercultural communication, acting as know
it alls and thus closing themselves off to further learning that might occur. There is
often not much follow up after the training is given, on how people benefit from the
training, or how they actively practice and apply it to their daily lives. Intercultural
communication is something that needs to be daily practiced and even the professionals
in the field have a difficult time applying some of the concepts. Like anything else, if not
practiced or if the trainees are not held accountable, their enthusiasm for the training can
cool and they will forget the topics and skills learned in the training. A third shortcoming
is in the nature of the clients the ones paying for the intercultural training in their
organization. Often, they are only willing to allocate a length of time that is too short for

Holmquist

any real, helpful, intercultural training or skill-building to be done, thus making the
trainer reduce the goals or objectives of the training to smaller than they
could/should/need to be. Many clients either do not see the value of intercultural training
or expect too much from it. As a trainer, it is important to both show the client the great
importance of training as well as communicate clearly the goals and objectives for the
program to make sure they are suitable to both the clients and the trainees.
Culture:
Definition:
Cultural differences and similarities are the cornerstone of intercultural training
programs. As such, culture needs to be defined and understood, however, culture is hard
to define exactly and different definitions of culture can be given to fit each unique
training context as a way of guiding trainees through the training. The definition given by
Craig Storti is the following: Culture is the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs of a
group of people which result in characteristic behaviors (Storti 5). While this is a simple
and easy to understand definition for people not initiated into the intercultural
communication field, I believe it is an overly simplistic definition that is basically a
verbal iceberg model (further discussed below). It leads to grouping people according
to characteristic behaviors. Stella Ting-Toomey takes her definition from theorist
DAndrade, and gives a three-part definition, culture is a diverse pool of knowledge,
shared realities, and clustered norms . . . [which are] shared and transmitted through
everyday interactions among members of the cultural group . . . culture facilitates
members capacity to survive and adapt to their external environment (Ting-Toomey 9).
So culture is a system of knowledge, realities, worldviews, and beliefs that work

Holmquist

themselves out in everyday interactions among people and help people survive, adapt to,
and make sense of their environment. This definition of culture is deeper and more
advanced because it treats culture not as a thing like Storti does, but as interactions
which are constantly being enacted and worked out. My own definition (still in progress)
would be similar to Ting Toomeys: Culture is the unconscious knowledge and worldview
of people, which is worked out in everyday behaviors and interactions and allows people
to make sense of the world they live in, helps to distinguish themselves from others, gives
them identity and solidarity with others, and rules and values to live by.
Values
Intercultural trainings often focus on basic value differences between groups of
people to help trainees understand the basic differences in peoples worldviews and
behavior. Cultural differences are categorized based on basic value orientations, along
which people lie at different places along the continuum related to that value. Ting
Toomey writes: Cultural value orientations form the basic lenses through which we view
our own actions and the actions of others (58). They help us make sense of our own
world and the world and behaviors of others. Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks work in 1961
focused on some classic, basic value orientations, and then later Hofstede in 1980 and
1991 further defined the basic cultural values, which are the ones in use today (58).
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck defined five basic value orientations that all people
operate on at some level: People-Nature, Temporal, Human Nature, Activity, and
Relational (60). The first, People-Nature, talks about how people relate to nature,
whether their relationship is one of control, harmony, or subordination (60). Temporal is
their relationship to time, if the focus is on the past, present, or future (61). The third,

Holmquist 10
Human Nature, is about what people believe about all humans, whether their nature is
basically evil, neutral, or good (63). Activity determines whether the person is more
focused on being, becoming, or doing, and Relational determines whether the person is
autonomous or more group-oriented, and deals with how they relate to authority (64-66).
Hofstede identified four cultural value dimensions in his study on workplace
culture: Individualism-Collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and
masculinity-femininity (66). Individualism-Collectivism is one of the major cornerstones
of intercultural communication and training, as it covers so much of what a person
believes and how they act. Basically it deals with how a person sees themselves, as one
individual with an individual identity or as part of a group with a group identity (67).
Power distance deals with levels of formality and informality between those of power and
those with no power and uncertainty avoidance deals with risk taking and orientation
toward the future. The value of masculinity and femininity is very outdated, but the basic
idea is that masculine societies have defined gender roles, whereas feminine cultures
have more flexible gender roles (72). This was identified by Hofstede, who is Dutch and
looking at the world through his Western European mindset, so this category is very
defined by the Western worlds perspective on their own culture and on other world
cultures.
There are three other values brought up by Ting-Toomey, having to do with how
people conceive of themselves: Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal, Personal
and Collective Self-Esteem, and Universalistic-Particularistic based interactions (76-81),
all of which are related to the larger value continuum of individualism-collectivism.
Independent self-construal focuses on the individual as a unique person, while the

Holmquist 11
interdependent self-construal emphasizes the importance of relational connectedness (7677). Personal self-esteem involves how the person feels about themselves in compliance
with the duties of being an independent self, while collective self-esteem involves how a
person feels about themselves in relation to the relationships they have, e.g. if they have
maintained harmony in a relationship or not (80). Universalistic interaction behavior
treats each person equally and fairly, as individuals, while particularistic interaction
behavior treats others differently depending on the context and relationship setting (81).
While these values are helpful in learning about ones self and in teaching others
about the range of behaviors in other cultures in the world, it is wise to use them with
caution. While it is true that certain cultures as entire groups fall in a certain side or spot
along the value continuums, each person as well has their own set of behaviors which
might or might not be consistent with their general cultural group to which they belong.
When using the values, it is important to learn about them but to be open to differences
between people and let each person decide for themselves where they lie.
The Iceberg Model and Critique
One popular illustration of culture used in many trainings is the iceberg model.
This model shows the majority of culture, about 90%, lies underneath the surface of the
person, comprised of their worldviews, beliefs, attitudes, and values. These then show up
in the visible forms of culture, above the surface, in things like clothes, behaviors,
gestures, food, and practices. This model has been around for a while, and with new
research and perspectives on culture, some think that it is time to come up with a new
model for culture. Milton Bennett (Bennett, Culture is not like an iceberg), critiques the
model on many levels. He posits that comparing culture to an iceberg is essentializing

Holmquist 12
culture, making it a thing, when in fact it is a process of shared meaning-making, which
the members of any particular culture engage in. It also supports exoticizing and
romanticizing foreign cultures, implying that the part below the surface is murky,
mysterious, and possibly dangerous. He argues that as mindful intercultuturalists, we are
not accomplishing our goals or even doing our job ethically by using this model, as we
want our clients to be able to engage culture in a dynamic way, but then we give them
this over-simplistic, positivistic model, from which the world has moved on.
I did use this model for my own training, as detailed below, as I think it is a very
simple and quick model to teach and for trainees to grasp. It does a good job simplifying
a rather complex topic (though Bennett thinks it is too simplistic) but we as trainers
cannot start from the beginning in each training and attempt to explain how people
construct culture through interaction, or how culture is constantly evolving. We need
something solid as a starting point: people tend to think in pictures and metaphors, not on
a theoretical, academic level. They typically cannot understand ideas like constructivism
and we need to make the concept of culture a solid, sturdy one for our trainees otherwise
they will leave feeling confused. It is the responsibility of the trainer to present the model
well so that the trainees come away with a better understanding of what culture is. As
trainers, we have the responsibility to ethically transmit our knowledge and leave people
with the proper skills for intercultural interactions, but we also have a responsibility to
make that knowledge accessible for our audience. I am not wholeheartedly for or against
the iceberg model, but I believe that until another model, just as simple, basic, and
accessible is found, the iceberg will continue to be widely used.
The Process Model

Holmquist 13
While the iceberg model illustrates what culture is, the process model describes
how intercultural communication works. When two people are communicating, they are
engaged in a process of sending and receiving messages and meaning. The problem
comes when the intention of the message of the speaker is not decoded properly by the
receiver. As can be imagined, this problem is almost inevitable in intercultural
communication, when the parties are not from the same cultural group, or speech
community as the other(s). Because of this, the participants at all times in communication
are actively engaged in this meaning-negotiation process as they try to figure out what the
other party is communicating. In the communication process, each party comes to the
table with their own cultural frame of reference, including how to interpret verbal and
non-verbal cues. They may have different expectations of the other person, depending on
how they have been socialized into attitudes toward other cultures. When they come
together in communication is when the meaning negotiation and exchange process takes
place, as they try to figure out what the different verbal, linguistic, and non verbal
symbols mean to themselves, the other person, and how they should interpret the
situation. Both hindering and assisting in this process is their cultural frame of reference,
as that gives some rules on how certain words and behaviors should be interpreted, but
with people of different cultures it is almost certain that their respective cultural frames of
reference will not coincide. This process does not stop throughout the interaction, as they
are constantly negotiating content, their relationship in regard to each other, and their
identity inside of the interaction.

Critiques of the Field of Intercultural Training

Holmquist 14
There are many critical views of how the field is structured and managed. One of
the major critics is Adrian Holliday, who takes a critical cosmopolitan view of the field, a
view opposing the neat, tidy national boundary lines as cultural boundaries as well, and
instead views boundaries as blurred and negotiable, since culture and communication are
fluid in an increasingly globalized world. (Holliday 1). It offers a way to look at how
ideology influences culture and a place to start to critique and change the common
worldview dominated by the Centre-Wests ideology (35). He believes that the oftdichotomized way of looking at the world, a legacy left to us from the world of Geert
Hofstede, is socially constructed and politicized. The terms we use in the field, like
Centre, Periphery, Western, Non-Western, Individualism, Collectivism, etc., are clumsy
and influenced by the Centres political ideology. He believes that a start to remedying
the situation would be to move beyond simply gaining awareness of and sensitivity to the
different behaviors and values, and let the marginalized cultures express themselves
culturally, and from that the Centre can learn the real nature of culture (2, 18). He
believes we must search for de-centered solutions to cultural differences, and that those in
the Centre need to employ thick description (taking into account all influencing factors in
a situation, rather than looking at it through a priori lenses), bracketing (putting aside
established descriptions) and making the familiar strange as practices for de-centering
their own deeply-rooted cultural assumptions. Perhaps these skills should be taught
through intercultural training rather than the cultural dichotomies often used to explain
differences.
I agreed with much of what Holliday says when I analyzed the field of
Intercultural training in my final paper for MLL 603, Political Economy of Culture. I

Holmquist 15
used the theories of Pierre Bordieu to analyze and critique the field. I found the same
problem of essentialism with the commonly used cultural dichotomies from Hofstede,
such as Individualism and Collectivism. Beyond the problem of cultural essentialism that
comes from using these terms, Hofstede is from Western Europe, influenced by the
European mindset and his own cultural habitus as he created these cultural terms. I
critique the field more broadly in terms of power and capital differences. The field started
in the US in the 1940s after World War 2, and the US has remained the main capital
holder, symbolically, economically, and culturally in the field, as many of the main
intercultural organizations are based here, the main personalities are based here, the main
intercultural training tools are produced here (like the iceberg concept), the main schools
in intercultural communication and training are here, drawing students from all over the
world, and the US is reproducing its own intercultural training doxa, worldview, and
mindset into those who study here. By using the tools and habitus of the dominant class
in the field, symbolic violence is being imposed on the non-dominant class, the trainees,
and the students. People are even encouraged to participate in symbolic violence against
themselves, if they learn about themselves through the arbitrarily imposed dominant
intercultural training perspective (i.e. a student realizing they are individualistic). Even
the training methods, discussed below, are influenced by the dominant class, and largely
experiential, a catchphrase used by educators in the West, but not necessarily the
learning style of others in the world.
I mainly critiqued the use of intercultural training in the corporate sector, as the
purpose of intercultural training, in the end, is to help the relocating businessman to be
more successful abroad. Being more successful means increasing profit; it is important

Holmquist 16
for the re-locator to have a smooth transition so they can help their company make more
profit. This adds to the increasing inequality in the world, as the businesses that know of,
see the need for, and who can afford intercultural training are those in the West. This
means they have the economic capital (money) to pay for the training, and the symbolic
capital (expanding, globalizing company) to warrant such training (Holmquist 16). After
the training, the business people think they have more power over the people they have
learned about in their training simply because they possess knowledge about them (17).
Benita Szkudlarek brings up an interesting point in her critique of the field:
Do we really train culturally sensitive leaders, who will help to shape the openminded, tolerant and responsible corporate citizenship of tomorrow? Or do we
instead contribute to the development of highly sophisticated but ruthless
manipulators who apply their intercultural communication skills to pull the wires
of international business and politics, without due consideration to the disturbing
consequences of their actions? (977)
I conclude my critique with the conclusion that intercultural training is a Western
construction which reproduces itself, imposes cultural arbitraries on the non-dominant,
and is involved in perpetuating inequalities of capitalism in the world and imposes
symbolic violence on people even through its attempts at bringing harmony between
cultures (Holmquist, 18). Of course, there are other facets for training, such as
domestic workplaces, community building, study-abroad students, immigrant
incorporation, and domestic inclusion, (17), so not all intercultural training increases
capitalistic inequality, but it all imposes symbolic violence and is influenced by the
dominant Centre-Western power worldview and ideology.
The new movement about Cultural Intelligence (CQ) also critiques the field of
intercultural communication. In a session at the Intercultural Management Institutes
conference on Intercultural Relations this past March, 2014, Akram Elias presented on

Holmquist 17
the difference between cross cultural communication and cultural intelligence. He
believed that cross cultural communication helps to a certain extent: it helps us avoid
basic faux pas and builds cultural awareness, it helps us analyze behaviors, actions, and
reactions after the fact as we try to understand why something happened (Elias).
However, Cultural Intelligence helps us before a cross-cultural situation, as it allows us to
shape messages that resonate better in other contexts and shapes more effective
communication (Elias). Cultural Intelligence is all about being able to strategically think,
be motivated, and act according to different cultural values (Elias). Cultural intelligence
is targeted mainly at businesses as they try to globalize, or at government as they try to
shape attractive programs for other countries, thus it is targeted at maximizing outcome
for companies, allowing them to get their work done but doing it according to another
cultures values, so while it is more beneficial in a certain sense than intercultural
communication, it has the shortcomings of arbitrariness, stereotyping, and propagating
inequalities which I mentioned above.
Akram Eliass model of Cultural Intelligence and the state of intercultural training
today would fit with Fidel Tubinos notion of affirmative action: where people learn how
to be mutually tolerant and respectful of each other, recognizing that differences exist and
one must be mindful and respectful of them, possibly altering ones own behavior, but do
not really do anything more. Tubino, a contemporary Peruvian theorist in intercultural
communication, believes in transformative action, which is moving beyond simply
mutual respect and tolerance of others values, it is a concept of interculturality which
creates a dialogue between all cultural groups to achieve cultural, economic and political
equality with cultural diversity (Tubino 606). Currently, as discussed above, intercultural

Holmquist 18
training provides people with knowledge, skills, and attitudes to help them deal
harmonically with others, however it provides no real change for the groups who do not
hold the power. Tubino believes that interculturality should not just be left to the
educators or the intercultural trainers, it must be instituted as a policy change in the
political field as well for it ever to be truly transformative (606).
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Much time is spent on studying Verbal and Nonverbal communication in
intercultural training, helping trainees examine their own communication styles and the
styles they might encounter in others. Verbal communication is of course, of utmost
importance to intercultural communication, as words are essential to communication.
Language is one of the basic building blocks to communication, and is one that is
combined with our cultural identities. When we speak, name ourselves, name others, and
interact with others we are constantly engaged in constructing our cultural identities, and
thus it can be difficult to recognize how deeply our culture is linked with our language
and verbal/non verbal communication until we encounter striking differences (TingToomey 91-2).
On a basic level, languages are very important to verbal communication: if you
dont speak the same language as another person, the difficulty of communicating is
exponentially greater, even though communication can happen on a non-verbal level,
discussed below. When two persons or groups do speak the same language, verbal
communication is further complicated based on the rules by which the language is
governed, or the pragmatic rules of discourse particular to that language. This brings up
the idea of communicative competence, or being able to not only communicate verbally

Holmquist 19
in a certain language, but being able to communicate effectively and properly according
to the communicative situation in which you find yourself. John Gumperz defines this
competence as the knowledge of linguistic and related communicative conventions that
speakers must have to initiate and sustain conversational involvement (Gumperz 40-41).
Here Gumperz combines verbal and non-verbal communication into the definition of
communicative competence, and goes on to talk about how one must have a grasp of
conversational, pragmatical, and societal rules governing communicative interactions in a
particular context in order to be able to engage the situation effectively. This has all sorts
of important implications for language teaching, as that discipline strives to include more
culturally relevant and important communicative information in its curriculum, but as
intercultural trainers it is important to familiarize people with different verbal
communication styles and different components of non verbal communication in an effort
to alleviate culturally specific judgments and assumptions and allow for creative, mindful
communication between individuals. We are relieved from teaching people every
individual pragmatic rule they will experience in a particular culture, as that is
impossible, but it is our responsibility to adequately convey the importance of realizing
differences in verbal and non verbal communication and learning to ask the right
questions and be able to change ones communication style depending on the context.
Within different languages, different people have differing communication styles.
One of the basic differences is high context vs. low context communication, with high
context communication usually placing more emphasis on non-verbal communication,
talking around the point in a more spiral communication style, and placing the
responsibility on the listener for gathering the information. Low context communicators

Holmquist 20
typically talk in a linear fashion, mention the point directly, and place emphasis on words
to convey meaning, and the responsibility is on the speaker to clearly communicate the
message. Direct vs. indirect is another basic component, and frames how a message
should be communicated and interpreted. Direct communicators clearly reveal the
speakers intentions (Ting-Toomey 104) and specifically state the point of the
communication. Indirect communicators tend to imply, rather than state, the point of their
message, and the communication is based on the context of the communicative situation.
Person or Status-Oriented style is a third important component, with person-oriented
communicators more informal and equalizing in language and emphasizes the
importance of respecting unique, personal identities in the interaction (106). StatusOriented communicators emphasize the status roles of each person involved in
communication and typically do not use informal or equalizing language (106). SelfEnhancement and Self-Effacement are two more examples of verbal styles, with selfenhancement communicators emphasizing the importance of ones accomplishments and
individuality, while self-effacement communicators use more humbling, modest language
when talking about themselves and their accomplishments (107). Talk and silence are
other important factors in verbal communication, with different values attached to talk
and silence in each culture, and different rules governing the use and meanings of each.
(110-11).
Miscommunications and conflict arise when participants use their own
communication styles without allowing for differences in styles, when people stick
rigidly to their own cultural communication scripts and make evaluations of others
based on their own communication values and styles. When communicating, with anyone

Holmquist 21
but especially with those from other cultures and other speech communities, it is
important to be mindful and attentive to possible differences in verbal communication
styles to help us suspend our snapshot judgments of others (96) and think about how to
creatively communicate with them, by either changing our own communication style or
putting in additional energy and effort into the communication to continually evaluate
and negotiate meaning and to respond thoughtfully and carefully, instead of reacting
thoughtlessly, to the communication style the other person is using.
Nonverbal communication is linked with verbal communication, because while
one is communicating verbally, they are also communicating nonverbally by facial
expressions, gestures, tone of voice, eye contact, touch, space, pace/timing of
conversation, display of emotions, and even appearance. Like verbal communication
styles, different cultural rules govern nonverbal communication as well, with different
cultures showing more or less emotion, and different rules explaining when it is okay to
show emotion and when it is not. Different cultures manage conversations differently,
with markers like smiling, head nodding or handshaking meaning completely different
things in different cultures. Many miscommunications and conflicts happen because of
misinterpretation of nonverbal cues. It is necessary to be aware of differences in
nonverbal communication and to mindfully engage in communication on the nonverbal
level as well, to become aware of the judgments we are making according based on the
nonverbal cues and learn to describe, not evaluate the nonverbal behavior, or inquire
more into what the unfamiliar nonverbal behavior could mean.
Conflict Styles1
1 All information in this section adapted from Ting-Toomey,
Stella.Managing Intercultural Conflicts Effectively, pp. 366-77.

Holmquist 22
Training about conflict styles is essential to intercultural training, because how people
deal with and approach conflict and solutions is very basic to all human interactions, and
differences in style itself can be the cause of the majority of the conflict if there is no
understanding about differences in conflict styles. According to Mitchell Hammer, based
on their cultural identities, people approach and solve conflicts in different ways, giving
them different conflict styles, which largely depend on if the person is individualistic or
collectivistic, and a high or low context communicator. Hammer indicates that typically,
individualist and low context communicators follow a problem solving approach to
conflict, believing that it is better to approach the problem head-on instead of repressing
it, that conflict can be healthy and functional because it provides an opportunity to solve
issues, and that relationships can be separated from the conflict situation and even
strengthened through it. Conflict can be resolved so that all parties win. High context,
collectivist communicators on the other hand believe that conflict is most always
damaging and thus should be avoided, that it harms face and relational harmony. Having
conflict shows a lack of self-discipline, and problems cannot be separated from the
relationships, and effective management of conflict is a way to practice skillfully
managing group face negotiation. Ideas about time also figure into conflict management,
typically if the communicator is monochronic, they are only interested in dealing with the
situation in the present time, and not in the history of the problem, something extremely
important in how one approaches the conflict to polychromic communicators. Hammer
suggests that display of emotion during conflict is another factor affecting conflict styles:
some people are more emotionally expressive, they believe it is permissive and even
healthy to display your emotions and to let the other person know how you are engaging

Holmquist 23
emotionally with the subject. Other people are more emotionally restrained, where they
engage the problem in a more logical, restrained manner and believe that any display of
emotion is a sign of immaturity.
All other verbal communication factors, such as direct/indirect, talk and silence,
and status/person orientation also influence conflict styles, and influence how people
approach, deal with, and engage in conflict. It is very important to learn about differences
in conflict styles before having any cross-cultural conflict, so that in the heat of any
cross-cultural conflict participants can listen carefully, be mindful of how communication
and cultural differences affect how they themselves deal with conflict, and be willing to
let go of the situation or conflict if a fitting resolution is not working out. It would be
helpful to use a CMD during or after a conflict situation (explained below, as part of the
Personal Leadership portion) to uncover creative solutions to engaging in intercultural
conflict and to manage ones own judgments and emotions about the conflict. There is no
easy formula to dealing with cross cultural conflict, but engaging in it can become easier
as one learns about ones own style of conflict management, about the other styles that
exist, and mindfully reflects on different conflict situations experienced to continue to
learn more about culture and conflict.

Training Models: ADDIE and Kolb:

When designing a solid intercultural training workshop or program, it is important
to follow the ADDIE model of Instructional Systems Design (referenced in Hodell,
Chuck. ISD from the Ground Up: A No-Nonsense Approach to Instructional Design.

Holmquist 24
Alexandria, the American Society for Training and Development, 2011. Print) to ensure
clear objectives and a program designed to meet those objectives.
First, whenever training is proposed or requested, analysis (the A in ADDIE) is
the first step. This is when the trainer does the needs assessment to find out what the
current knowledge, skills, and attitudes are of the trainees about and toward the topic of
training and to see if what the client is asking for matches up with the needs of the
organization. Depending on the type of training, the needs assessment can be an interview
with the client or a broader survey of or interviews with future trainees. During the needs
assessment, the basics about when and where the training is going to take place should be
covered, detailed information about the participants should be gathered, and the clients
goals and rational for the training should be discussed. After the needs assessment is
finished and the trainer has begun to decide how the training will be delivered, the trainer
should send a written proposal to the client containing the needs assessment and the
beginnings of the design plan, with the rationale and objectives clearly identified and a
short description of the activities included in the training and deliverables.
The first D in ADDIE stands for design. The design step is the first step toward
creating the training program. During this stage, the trainer writes concrete, measureable
objectives for the program, decides on evaluation strategies, outlines the program, and
looks for activities to include.
The second D stands for development. This is the phase where the trainer puts
together the entire training, finding and designing training activities, figures out the cost,
writes the lesson plan, and gives it a pilot test.

Holmquist 25
The I stands for implementation, which is when the actual delivery of the program
takes place: the trainer goes to the organization and delivers the training. The E stands for
evaluation, which actually takes place at all stages of the training process, as the trainer is
constantly evaluating what works and what does not work for the training program, but at
the end of the program, the trainer him/herself decides what worked and didnt work for
the program, as well as takes participant feedback into account when evaluating the
program. From the evaluation, the trainer can refine or change the workshop for the
future, as well as learn from anything that happened for future workshops of any topic.
They also evaluate the participants at the end of the program to decide if the program was
successful, and then sends a final evaluation report to the client. The final report contains
a description of the training session and each training activity, the feedback from all of
the participants, and recommendations from the trainer for the client as to how the
training went and further training needs and possibilities.
The ADDIE components of instructional systems design work together with the
Kolb experiential learning model to construct a training program that is interesting,
engaging, experiential, and theory-based. These models inform training design and
delivery by providing principles upon which to base all the activities and help the trainer
make sure all types of learners benefit from the training.
The cycle is based on work by David Kolb and defines four types of learning
preferences which all work together to create a complete learning model. The learning
styles are: 1) Concrete Experience, where one learns from specific experiences, 2)
Reflective Observation, where one learns by observing carefully before doing or
reflecting on a certain experience, 3) Abstract Conceptualization, where one learns by

Holmquist 26
analyzing ideas logically and thinking about concepts theoretically, and 4) Active
Experimentation, where one leans by doing, instead of thinking or observing first.
Every person, and every trainer, has their preferred styles of learning, and it is
important for the trainer to keep this in mind as he/she designs their program, because
what works well and makes sense to him/her might not work well for other people. Each
training program needs to encompass something for everyone, however, and the cycle
can be entered from any point. As long as the training program competes the entire cycle,
the information will be learned from many different angles and each person will have had
their preferred style included.
The cycle can also go by different, easier to remember words: 1) Experience, 2)
Share or Process, 3) Generalize, and 4) Apply. In general, most training programs begin
with some type of experience in order to maximally engage all participants. Then they
share results together and with the large group, discussing their reactions and
observations. Then they process the activity by analyzing and reflecting, then they
generalize what happened during the small, controlled activity to the larger theory behind
it and to other situations, and finally apply their learning to their lives, be it the upcoming
international trip or their daily workplace encounters.

Personal Leadership
What is it?
Personal leadership is a way of taking leadership of our personal experience
(Schaetti,, et al., 3). It is comprised of two principles and six practices to help the
practitioner take control of their responses and reactions to anything and manage their

Holmquist 27
actions according to their personal vision for themselves. The practices help us recognize
what is happening internally, such as emotions, judgments we make, and what is
happening to us physically, so we can disentangle ourselves from our own personal
experience and engage the situation with mindfulness and creativity, which are the two
principles of personal leadership. Mindfulness is attending to the present moment with all
of our senses and all of our attention. Creativity is about tailoring a response specifically
for the particular dynamics of the situation in which we find ourselves, (27), meaning
that different situations call for different responses, many times the usual response we
give in a certain situation does not work, and we need to decide creatively what the
situation calls for.
Relevance
Utilizing mindfulness and creativity are key in intercultural situations, which is
why the discipline of personal leadership is discussed here. In addition to any
intercultural training the client receives, it is also necessary to help them grasp the
concepts of personal leadership, as cross-cultural situations and conflicts direly need to
be engaged with the participants entire intellectual and creative faculties. Participants
also need to be able to recognize and become witnesses of their emotions, physical
sensations, and judgments they are experiencing to be able to engage in managing their
response to the situation.
Six Practices
The six practices within Personal Leadership are: attending to judgment, attending
to emotion, attending to physical sensation, cultivating stillness, engaging ambiguity, and
aligning with vision. While these are excellent practices to use at any time, they are most

Holmquist 28
often used in conjunction with a Critical Moment Dialogue (CMD). The CMD is the
practice of recognizing when something is up, either we are feeling pushed,
challenged, and that we are going into resistance or perhaps inspiration (123), and using
the practices to help us figure out what exactly is going on and what the correct response
should be for us at that time.
Attending to judgment is being able to recognize what positive or negative
judgments you are making about the other person, yourself, or a situation. Often these
judgments control how we perceive the situation and are very important to release.
Whenever I process through a CMD, this section has the most content. As a naturally
critical and judgmental person, it has been good for me to recognize how many
judgments I tend to make and how most of them favor myself. Attending to emotion
consists of allowing ourselves to experience the emotion we are feeling, and witness it,
meaning to experience it without committing to it, fueling it, or denying it (55). Just
because we experience the emotion does not mean we need to be conquered by it.
Attending to physical sensation means recognizing what and locating where anything
physical is happening in your body. Our physical sensations are there for a reason, and
are meant to be listened to rather than ignored. Attending to emotion and attending to
physical sensation were the most freeing of the practices to me, because I was used to
stifling my emotions and did not realize that I can gain knowledge from emotion and
physical sensation, as well as logic, reason, and my thought process.
Cultivating stillness is taking a few minutes while processing the situation to be
completely still and allow any new insights about the situation to come to our minds, as
often we are smarter and more creative when we step back and become still. Engaging

Holmquist 29
ambiguity is asking What do I not know about this situation? to realize that there is
more than one side to the situation and figure out what questions we might need to ask or
what information we need to be at peace with not knowing. Aligning with vision is
holding the entire situation up to your personal vision statement and seeing what you
need to change about yourself, the situation, or the vision itself. This leads you in figuring
out a creative solution to the situation and encourages you to keep being the person
written into the vision statement. The solution might or might not be a change of
perspective, asking a question, becoming at peace with the situation as it is, or an action
step.
My Personal Leadership Practice
I began using the discipline of Personal Leadership as a student in MLL 625, the
Intercultural Communication course with Dr. Adriana Medina. As part of the coursework,
we worked through several CMDs and crafted a personal vision statement. I love this
practice because it resonates with many of my own personal religious principles. My
personal vision statement is as follows:
As a person at my highest and best, I am joyful, peaceful, secure, present, and
striving for excellence in all things. I am rooted and grounded in the love of Christ so
that I am an illuminating, impactful, image of Christ to the world, guiding others toward
harmony with one another and to the source of true beauty, joy, and life.
Due to teaching difficulties as a Graduate Teaching Assistant in a Spanish 101
course, I thought it would be a good idea to write a vision statement for myself as a
teacher. I wrote one after the class ended and read it out loud to myself each day before I
entered the classroom to teach the following summer:
As a teacher at my highest and best, I am comfortable in the class, approachable,
present, peaceful, enthusiastic, and engaging in prayer for my students so that they notice

Holmquist 30
a difference in my classroom and I create a safe, supportive, engaging, and communal
learning environment to motivate them to higher knowledge and love of the Spanish
language and Spanish speakers.
I have since written a trainer statement and a statement for myself in this current
year, 2014, containing a vision for what I want to be true of myself this year. My trainer
statement, still in progress, reads like this:
As a trainer at my highest and best, I am warm, enthusiastic, present, and
receptive to my trainees so that I create an engaging, inclusive, safe space in my training
sessions where my trainees come to understand themselves and others better, respect
differences in culture, and move beyond stereotypes toward unprejudiced understanding
of differences and the worth of all people.
I think the vision statement part of Personal Leadership is my favorite part and the
portion which I have made the biggest part of my life: I revisit my teaching statement
almost every class and the other vision statements on a regular basis. I also engage in
CMDs to process through difficult moments and make a consistent practice of cultivating
stillness through weekly yoga and personal devotional times each morning. I combine the
practices of personal leadership with my life as a Christian (seen clearly in my vision
statements), and take a few minutes to be still and refocus on God throughout the day.

Training Session
For this Intercultural Training project, I trained a four-member Bible-study group,
based in Ellicott City, Maryland, which was preparing to go to Acapulco, Mexico to work
in an orphanage for a week. I got in contact with the group through a mutual friend, who
attended church with my contact, Hannah Shoemaker, the trip coordinator. Part of the
reason I came to do the training for the group was because my friend framed the topic in

Holmquist 31
a way that the training session would be doing me a favor, so the group did not seem to
have any specific objectives they wanted fulfilled by the training. After doing the needs
assessment and talking with Hannah, I decided the group would benefit from some
general cultural awareness training, as well as awareness training of how cultural biases
affect judgments and behaviors. I also suspected they were looking for a general
orientation to Mexican culture, so toward the end of the training, I compared their culture
very generally with Mexican culture to give them a point of reference for some behaviors
they might encounter on their trip. The training is detailed below and the full lesson plan
and all related documents are attached in the appendix.
The session took place on Sunday evening, February 9, 2014, scheduled from
6:30-8:00pm, on the second floor of the Shoemaker Country furniture store on the main
street of Ellicott City. There were supposed to be four attendees, but one member could
not make it, and my original contact, Hannah, was sick, so out of the four people going to
Mexico only two were present. However, a third attendee came, who was part of the
Bible-study group but not going on the Mexico trip. He was, however, planning a trip to
Indonesia within the next few months, so the training was useful for him as well.
It was snowing that day, so we ended up starting about 10-12 minutes late, and I
ended about ten minutes late to make up for lost time. To prepare for the training, I talked
through the entire training to myself in my room a few days prior to make sure I knew
exactly what to say in each piece of the training. I did not practice with anyone, because
that usually makes me feel stupid and more unprepared than I actually am. I gathered all
of my things into a bag the night before to avoid forgetting something important. I did not
visit the site beforehand, because due to the nature of the site and the fact that it was a

Holmquist 32
very informal training, I thought that a request to visit the site would be strange. I did
make sure to check about the room set-up and availability of a chalkboard during the
needs assessment. The day of the training, I went to church in the morning because it was
Sunday, went swimming to make sure I worked off some of the nervous energy building
up in my body, showered and took a nap at home, and then left my house about an hour
and a half before the training. After parking near the location, I went to a caf to relax,
practice stillness, and look over the training materials. At the caf, I realized I had
forgotten to bring my trainer vision statement so I could read it over! Instead, I tried to
visualize how I imagined myself as a trainer. I prayed over the time, and then left the caf
and arrived at the site fifteen minutes early.
The Session:
I began the session by the icebreaker quiz (see attachments), instead of
introductions. Because one person was running late, I started the quiz with the two
participants already present while we waited for the third person. When she got there, she
started with the quiz as well. 2
After the quiz I began the session by introducing myself and the reason I was
there with them, a very condensed version of the introduction at the beginning of this
paper. I told them I had been to Ensenada, Mexico before to establish rapport with the
group. I asked them to quickly give me their name, what countries they had been to
2 Once they had finished, I talked briefly about each point. The knew where the city of
Acapulco was (Q1), we talked briefly about greetings and how they differ based on the
situation or how well people know one another (Q2), I revealed the true meaning of
Que Dios le bendiga! and mentioned how they will frequently hear that saying (Q3).
They all correctly guessed the proper time to arrive to a social event, (Q4), and I told
them this related to material later in the session when we would be learning about
differences in time management. The answer Q5, (the official name of Mexico) was a
surprise to everyone.

Holmquist 33
before, and what they were most looking forward to about their trip. Jeff had been to
Ireland and to North Africa for three months. Mike had toured for between a week to ten
days in Spain, Trinidad, and many different European countries. Emily had been nine or
ten times to Mexico for week-long trips, and spent a few months in 2006 in South Africa.
They were looking forward to loving on the kids in the orphanage and serving the
orphanage there. Everyone was happy, positive, and ready to get going on the session. I
welcomed them and told them that this was not meant to be a boring lecture, but a
participatory space where we all learn from each other in dialogue. They agreed and we
proceeded with the first activity.
I drew an iceberg on the chalkboard and told them that an iceberg is how some
have thought about culture. I asked them why they thought that was, and explained that it
was because parts of culture are visible and parts are invisible. I asked them which parts
are visible and invisible. They responded with some of the visible parts as: food, festivals,
celebrations, clothes, and greetings. Some of the invisible answers were: beliefs and
religion. They couldnt come up with much for the invisible part, so I added values and
attitudes to the list. On the visible list, I pulled from the greetings answer to explain
that culture teaches us how to behave, based on what we value. For example, my parents
taught me the value of respect for others, and one behavior that grew out of this was that
of looking people in the eye when I speak with them. I asked them to think of their own
lives, and how one of their behaviors stems from one of their held values. Their answers
were very good: one person said they valued hospitality and hosting, which showed itself
in cooking food for others. Another valued family, which manifested itself in the many
family holiday traditions they had, and in helping out around the house. The third valued

Holmquist 34
eating well and being connected to nature, manifested in the behavior of cooking his own
meals rather than eating out. I congratulated them for their responses and led two miniexperiences to demonstrate how, just like they now understood one of their own values
deeper through reflection, when interacting with another culture, we need to understand
the values behind the behavior, otherwise we misjudge and interpret the behavior in the
wrong way. I went up to one person and talked to him looking all the time at the ground.
Then I asked him what he thought about me, what his reactions were to me talking with
him in that manner. He said that he thought I might be lying, disrespectful, or
uninterested in the conversation. The others agreed. I then explained that he thought that
because we have been trained to interpret behavior that way, but in some cultures (the
Congo, for example), looking at the ground is a sign of respect and looking someone in
the eye is almost threatening. I went up to another person and talked to her very closely
and touched her arm. Then I asked her how she felt about me, felt about the situation, and
how she reacted internally. She said that she was semi-appreciative because she was
going deaf in that ear, but also felt weird and like I was in her personal space. The other
participants agreed with her feelings. Again, I pointed out that in the US we have a
personal space bubble that people stay out of, but in other cultures their idea of personal
space is different.
This led us into the second activity, the man/woman scenario.3 I asked them to
direct their attention to my computer, and pay close attention to the scenario they were
3 In this scenario, participants see a man and a woman enter a room and eat. The man
enters before the woman, he sits in a chair and she kneels on the ground. He takes a bowl
and eats a few bites before passing the bowl to the woman to eat. She eats, then places it
on the ground. He places his hand so it is hovering over her head and his hand and the
womans head lean toward the ground simultaneously a few times. He then rises and
leaves the room, with the woman rising and leaving behind him.

Holmquist 35
about to see. Afterwards we would discuss it and relate it to our topic of conversation. I
played the scenario and asked them to describe what they saw in the video. Their
responses ranged all over and were a good mixture of judgments and descriptions:
demeaning actions, hierarchy, woman under mans control, she got the leftovers, a ritual,
man sitting on chair and woman kneeling, no talking, man casual and woman formal, not
touching, woman acted puppet-like, two bites, woman lapped like a cat. I thanked them
for their comments and then read the paragraph explaining the scenario. They were very
surprised and laughed a little bit as if they were embarrassed. I pointed out I asked for
descriptions, not judgments or explanations. We went back through their responses to
decide if they were judgments or descriptions. Some they decided easily, others they were
divided, but the person who had said the statement in the first place usually decided that
it came from a place of judgment. I congratulated them on making some of their
statements as descriptions, and said that it would be a skill they will need to use a lot in
Mexico.
We next transitioned into a series of worksheets, based on activities in the book
Figuring Foreigners Out by Craig Storti (see attachments), which focused on different
cultural building blocks. First we focused on Individualist vs. Collectivist behavior. I
asked the participants if they had heard of these terms before: two had and one had not. I
asked the two that had to summarize what they meant. They said that individualist
behavior was more focused on one person and collectivist behavior was more related to a
group or close family. We worked through the sheet together, reading through the
descriptions and underlining what related to ourselves. After doing step 1, I asked them to
think about themselves and decide if they were more individualist or collectivist, and

Holmquist 36
write down an example from their own life reflecting that behavior. To demonstrate, I
gave my own example (see lesson plan). Then I gave them two minutes to write before
sharing with the group. It was very interesting: even though all were Americans, two of
the participants were very individualist but one was more collectivist. One person said
that as he was raised, his grandparents instilled in him the individualistic idea that you
can be whatever you want to be, and his school performance was for himself, not to
please his parents. The more collectivist participant said that he really desires community
and gets frustrated when each member of the family is doing their own thing on their
computers, because he doesnt see that as quality family time. He also does not like being
alone. We then worked quickly through part 2 of the worksheet, then I had them place
themselves on the continuum, and showed them where Mexico was on the line, referring
to the Storti book.
The next worksheet focused on time management, Monochronic vs. Polychronic.
To illustrate the concepts, I drew a shop-counter on the chalkboard and had one
participant come up to draw how six people would arrange themselves if they were
waiting to be checked out. He drew them all in a line, because I told him to draw from his
own cultural perspective, even though he had been to North Africa before and knew of
other ways to arrange people in a store. I showed them the picture on page 54 of the
Storti book of how people from monochronic and polychronic cultures arrange
themselves. None of the three participants had a good idea of what the two terms meant,
so we proceeded to read the descriptions and underline what described or resonated with
us from each description. We worked through step 1 of the worksheet, then I asked them
again to apply the concept to their lives and think about if they were raised more

Holmquist 37
monochronic or polychronic. I gave my example first (see Lesson Plan), and then asked
them to take two minutes to think and write before discussing with the group. All three
seemed to be more monochronic: one person could not stand when he made plans with
people and then they changed at the last minute. The value he believed was behind this
was that a person is supposed to honor their obligations. He also did not like wasting time
on useless things, the value for that being efficiency. Another person got stressed if tasks
at work are not completed. Another person believed that you concentrate on one task at a
time and finish one before starting another. These were great answers, For the sake of
time, I skipped step 2 since the group seemed to have a pretty good handle on the
concept, and then had them place themselves on the line between M and P. I then showed
them the comparison with Mexico in the Storti book. Emily, the participant who had
been to Mexico, was laughing when she found out how far Mexico was toward the
polychronic side. I asked her to explain, and also explained that this is where the fourth
question on the quiz comes in. She exhorted the other participant going to Mexico to be
patient and flexible, as she knew from experience, and now she knew the underlying
reason, that things never went as planned or on time. I encouraged them to not worry or
be offended if things are late or do not happen as planned, but to remember that time
flows differently and to focus on enjoying the time with people.
Finally, we worked through the third worksheet, on direct versus indirect
communication styles. It seemed like they all had a pretty good idea of the two styles. We
read the scenario at the beginning of the worksheet to see where the two communication
styles were at work, and it did not seem to work. They had the direct and indirect styles
reversed and were not seeing what I was seeing in the example. After some discussion

Holmquist 38
about this, I decided to move us on to reading the definitions and to step 1, telling them
that we would revisit the scenario after the worksheet to see if we could uncover more.
Unfortunately, we were never able to return, as I forgot about this and we ran out of time.
After step 1, they placed themselves on the continuum and I showed them where Mexico
lay. Then we worked quickly through step 2, which I thought was important because they
might experience some of the behaviors on the worksheet in Mexico, but the behaviors
will certainly not mean what they mean in the US. After that, as the time was up, I
directed them to finish with step 3 at home, as it is a very good idea for more direct
communicators to practice making their communication more indirect.
I wrapped up the training at this point, saying that I was very pleased to be able to
spend time with them that evening and to help them prepare. I received some preliminary
feedback, as one participant exclaimed how helpful and enlightening the training had
been for him. I asked each person to quickly share a personal takeaway from the training.
One participant said that he finally figured out why he was frustrated with people.
Another said he would remember to not make judgments about strange things he sees.
Another said she would remember to go with the flow, be relaxed, and enjoy
relationships. I thanked them again for their participation, asked them to take a few
minutes to complete the evaluation form, and stayed for a few minutes afterward to pack
up and chat.
Overall, this training went very well, and I was extremely pleased at how I felt
and acted as a trainer the entire time, how the participants responded and contributed to
the discussion, and at how easy the entire training seemed once it was over. I was a little
off at the beginning, due to starting late, getting used to the training space, and not

Holmquist 39
everyone being in attendance, but after a few minutes I got myself straightened out and
things proceeded as planned. I was so happy to hear, before I passed out the evaluation
forms, one of the participants exclaim: This was so helpful! I had a lot of fun and came
out of the training on a training high. One thing I think can be improved is the
beginning of the training. It is in accordance with my learning and teaching style that I
start with a question and more of a lecture type presentation, but this time it was rocky as
I was a little thrown off at the beginning and not everyone learns best that way. I think if I
started right away with an activity, perhaps putting the man/woman scenario at the
beginning, any off feelings could have been dealt with during the scenario when the
participants are not focusing on the trainer and it would have drawn in the participants in
a more engaging way to the training.

Learning:
Through this training, I remembered that I do, indeed, love training and facilitating. Even
though at the beginning before writing the objectives the project can seem overwhelming
and frightening, once I start planning I become excited, and then seeing it all come to
fruition, go well, and seeing participants enjoy and learn is what makes me the happiest.
Even though I can plan well, interacting with people, facilitating learning, and thinking
on my feet is what I enjoy the most. I learned how to be at ease in front of a smaller
group of people, and even sat down at the table with them for most of the training
because there were only three participants and I wanted them to feel as comfortable as
possible. I learned that training becomes better the more you do it, so I want to practice
with more trainings. I also realized that I have all of the tools for designing training

Holmquist 40
programs because of reading the instructional systems design textbook, but what makes
me feel insecure about training is the fact that I do not know of many training activities to
use for different objectives. I think as I continue investigating and gathering material on
my own, I will feel more confident.
According to my thoughts about the training, the group achieved two major
breakthroughs. One was the difference between describing and evaluating. Their faces
really lit up during the debriefing of the man/woman scenario, it was like a light bulb had
turned on in their head. According to one of the evaluations, the major take-away of one
of the participants was that he would remember to describe and not judge behavior. A
second major breakthrough was learning about their own culture. I think reflecting on and
sharing personal examples of values, behaviors, and cultural building blocks was very
helpful for them as they learned about themselves and started a longer-term reflection on
their own culture and how other people all have their own, unique stories, values, and
behaviors.
For one of the activities, I realize I employed the antiquated and much-critiqued
iceberg model of culture. Although now it is not believed to be the best way to illustrate
culture, I believe that it very adequately served the purpose of my training, as I was
intending to show how culture is both visible and invisible, and how the invisible impacts
the visible. Also, because of the time limits of the training, I needed a quick and
accessible visual for my trainees. I needed some point at which to start off the discussion
of culture, and think that until a better but just as efficient model of culture is drawn up,
the iceberg model will continue to be used by trainers. I also recognize that my training
was informed by power inequalities. This group of people from a first-world country was

Holmquist 41
going to a much poorer country for the sake of helping out the poor people and poor
children there. In all honesty, this did not affect or inform my training very much, as I
didnt give them too much Mexican cultural information (in order to avoid stereotypes
created by the dominant class), but instead focused on uncovering their own cultural
biases so that they could become more self-aware and have a point of reference for
comparing what they found in Mexico with their own culture. Tubino brings up an idea of
cultural identities as relational identities, one can not understand their own cultural self
unless it is constructed in relation to some other self (Tubino 612). I believe that I helped
my trainees contrast themselves and their values with opposite ones, whether Mexican
values or not, in order to give them insight into themselves as cultural beings and
vocabulary to employ when talking about their own culture. In this way, I was assisting
them in doing the same activity while in Mexico. Figuring out their own culture would
help them realize they can not expect everyone to be like themselves. I hoped that when
they encountered a difference in Mexico, they would describe it rather than judge it as
wrong. I believe that my training was actually designed to work against this power
dynamic of rich vs. poor, as I was intending to give them training to be less biased against
and more open to this new culture they would be experiencing. According to Tubinos
concept of transformative interculturality, I was hoping that my trainees would not just be
tolerant of the differences they found while in Mexico, but would let the differences
speak for themselves. I was also preparing them to be intercultural citizens, who are
aware of their own culture and thus able to engage in dialogue with others regarding
culture.
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Field

Holmquist 42
My training:
I realize that in my training, I utilized the faulty iceberg model as well what I
claimed as outdated concepts of culture, such as individualism-collectivism, and taught
my trainees general differences between themselves and the Mexican culture, basically
doing what I do not agree with after researching for and writing this paper. My rationale
for doing so is this: I designed and facilitated the training at the beginning of the semester
in which I began writing this paper, and so my thoughts on the subject were not as fully
or completely formulated as they are now. Other reasons were the nature of the clients
requests and the one and a half hour time constraint. Another reason is that the way that
intercultural training is set up at the current moment does not allow trainers to stray from
the established way of doing things. New models and new concepts are needed, discussed
below in the next conclusion section, that let trainers train better and in a more helpful,
ethical way for their clients.
Recommendations for the Field
Intercultural training is a very important job, one that proposes to bring harmony
between people and groups in the world. Clearly, the responsibility and mandate for the
trainer are huge. I end this program, project, and paper holding a more critical view of the
intercultural communication and training field I think it is time to take another look at
the traditional values of culture and ways of looking at peoples and cultures, to invite
people from the Periphery to engage in creating knowledge about people and culture
that is different from the traditional Western way of looking at the world, to engage in
dialogue between all groups and all cultures to truly transform the existing power,
educational, and societal structures. I think that continuing to train in the traditional

Holmquist 43
manner of teaching cultural values and dimensions is only helpful to an extent. It can give
people a sense of control about the unknown they are about to experience as they step
into an intercultural environment or experience, but that training should focus more on
Personal Leadership and on the techniques that Holliday proposes in his critique: thick
description, bracketing, and making the familiar strange. In no way are we as trainers
able to give people everything they need for success in intercultural environments, there
will always be something that is beyond their control. What we can give them is a way to
manage their own personal responses and a way to be continual learners about other
people and other cultures. No matter how much we try to define and pinpoint cultures and
cultural behaviors, the truth is that each person is an individual that breaks any
stereotype, there is always room for more learning and a need to be open to all
differences. We as trainers can provide our trainees with a way to manage their reactions
and the ability to learn from an encounter with any person different from themselves. I
believe that the field should move away from training about culture and into training
people how to personally lead themselves so they are more open to others and are in a
posture of learning from others and from the situation at all times. Intercultural training
should also move from being something looked down on by many clients to something
valued for all aspects of work, especially the political sphere, so that basic cultural
differences and existing power relationships can begin to change on a societal level
instead of only an individual and small group level.

Holmquist 44

References
Bennett, Milton. Culture is Not like an Iceberg. IDR Institute Blog. 5 June 2013.
http://www.idrinstitute.org/page.asp?menu1=14&post=1&page=.
Elias, Akram. Global Effectiveness through Cultural Intelligence. American University,
Intercultural Management Institute. 15th Annual IMI Conference on Intercultural
Relations, Washington, DC. 14 March 2014. Conference Session.
Fowler, Sandra M and Monica G. Mumford, Introduction. Intercultural Sourcebook:
Cross-Cultural Training Methods, Vol 1. Eds. Sandra M. Fowler and Monica G.
Mumford. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 1995. Xi-xviii. Print.
Fowler, Sandra M. Introduction. Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training
Methods, Vol 2. Eds. Sandra M. Fowler and Monica G. Mumford. Yarmouth:
Intercultural Press, 1995. Xiii-xviii. Print.
Gumperz, J. Communicative Competence. In: N. Coupland & A. Jaworski, eds.
Sociolinguistics: A Reader. New York: St. Martins Press. 1997. pp. 39-48.
Hammer, Mitchell R. Cross-Cultural Training: The Research Connection. Intercultural

Holmquist 45
Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods, Vol 2. Eds. Sandra M. Fowler and Monica
G. Mumford. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 1995. 1-17. Print
Hodell, Chuck. ISD from the Ground Up: A No-Nonsense Approach to Instructional
Design. Alexandria, the American Society for Training and Development, 2011. Print.
Holliday, Adrian. Intercultural Communication and Ideology. Chs. 1-2. London. SAGE
Publications Ltd, 2011. 1-40. Print.
Holmquist, Sarah. A Critique of the Field of Intercultural Training Using Bordieu.
Final Paper, MLL 603. University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Dec 2013. Print.
Pusch, Margaret. Intercultural Training in Historical Perspective. Handbook of
Intercultural Training. Eds. Dan Landis, Janet Bennett, and Milton Bennett. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, 2004. 13-36. Print.
Schaetti, Barbara F., Sheila J. Ramsey, and Gordon C. Watanabe. Making a World of
Difference: Personal Leadership: A Methodology of Two Principles and Six
Practices. Seattle: FlyingKite Publications, 2008. Print.
Storti, Craig. Figuring Foreigners Out. Boston: Intercultural Press, 1999. Print.
Szkudlarek, Betina. Through Western Eyes: Insights into the Intercultural Training
Field. Organization Studies. 2009, 30.9: 975-86. Print.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guilford Press,
1999. Print.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. Managing Intercultural Conflicts Effectively, Intercultural
Communication: A Reader. Ed. Samovar, L., R.E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, 2006. pp. 366-77. Print.
Ting-Toomey, Stella and Leeva C. Chung. Understanding Intercultural Communication.
2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2012. 24-27. Print.
Tubino, Fidel. Intercultural Practices in Latin American Nation States. Journal of
Intercultural Studies. 2013, 34.5: 604-619. Print.

Holmquist 46

Appendix: Training Lesson Plan and Materials

Needs Assessment
Needs assessment was conducted with:
Hannah Shoemaker (via telephone on 1/26 and 1/29/2013)
715-1218
elizabetheden27@gmail.com
Hi Hannah,
It was great to talk to you last night! I have a few more questions to ask you, so I can
know as much as possible about your group before the training to help me design better
the training for you!
1. Of the 4 people in the group, are there 2 women/2 men? What are the age ranges? (You
don't have to give me everyone's exact age =))
The age range is 29-33, the team members are Hannah, two other girls Emily and
Mercy, and Mike, Hannahs husband.
2. What exactly is everyone's cross-cultural experience? You had mentioned that most
people had been out of the country before, were they all short term trips or were they

Holmquist 47
longer? Where have they gone?
Emily and Hannah have both been on trips, and fairly long term mission trips,
doing gospel and mission work, Mercy has been to India, Mike with college traveling in
Europe. Mike and Mercy have never been on mission trips before.
3. Does anyone speak a second language, or speak Spanish?
Emily speaks most Spanish, has spoken a lot before, Hannah some basic Spanish.
4. Since we'll be meeting at the church, what is the room like we'll be meeting in? How is
it set up? Are there any whiteboards/chalkboards/large pads of paper/markers?
We will be doing the training in Mikes office where there is a table, chairs, and
chalkboard.
House: 8102 Main Street, APT B, Elicott city MD 21043
5. How has your group prepared so far for the trip?
So far, the group meets each week to do bible study, discuss logistical things and
planning activities, supplies, etc. no cultural preparation so far.
6. As far as you can tell, what is the attitude of the group regarding the trip?
Everyone is pretty excited and looking forward to it, some anxiety as far as safety,
but they are staying at the orphanage so they wont be going out too much.
7. I know we talked about giving a general intercultural awareness training, which is
great!, but do you or does anyone in the group have any concrete expectations or hopes
for the training session?
Not too many, Mike and Mercy have never been to Mexico, no experience
whatsoever, giving them an overview would be great, Hannahs been there just 3 times,
Emilys been down there several time and stayed longer.
8. We also talked about what you will be doing while you are there: working in the
orphanage with children. Do I have this right? Am I missing anything? Will you be doing
tourism at all? Will you be doing any non-orphanage related outreach? What are your and
your teams goals for the trip itself?
Nothing is planned so far related to non-orphanage work
Goals: love on the kids, help the orphanage, construction work (Mike), spend share time,
gospel, do crafts, show them the love of Christ.
9. How much spiritual preparation has your group gone through up until now and have
you done any vision/goal setting for your trip? I won't be attempting to give training in
spiritual preparation of course, I'm just curious to know how your group has prepared up
until now. If you haven't done any yet, do you plan on doing any?
They havent done too much spiritual training so far up until now, other than prayer
each week. Hannah is thinking it might be neat to get a little journal together for each of
them with questions/passages to read and write in while they are there.
10. What city is the orphanage located in?

Holmquist 48
Acapulco, Mexico
11. What is the churchs name they are from?
All members arent from one church. Hannah and Mike are from Colombia
Presbyterian Church, Emily is from Bridgeway Community Church, and Mercy is from
Grace Community Church
12. Has anyone in the group had cultural training before?
To Hannahs knowledge, no one in the group has had cultural training before.
Thank you so much for your time. If you could get the answers back to me as soon as
possible, that would be very helpful since the training is so soon! Please don't hesitate to
ask me any questions either if you are wondering about something.
Thanks again, I look forward to hearing from you,
Sarah

Proposal:
Contact: Hannah Shoemaker, of Colombia Presbyterian Church.
Phone: (843) 715-1218
Email: elizabetheden27@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014
6:30-8pm
Location: Main street, Ellicott City, across from 8102 Main Street, Apt B, Ellicott City,
MD 21043.
Facilitator: Sarah Holmquist
Understanding of needs:
A small group Bible Study of four people from your church are going to Mexico
from Feb 11-18 to work in an orphanage with the children. Some of you have taken other
international trips, of varying lengths, two of you have never been on a mission trip
before. So far, the group has prepared by meeting each week for Bible study, fellowship,
prayer, and logistical preparation for the trip, but hasnt prepared culturally for your time
as of yet. Everyone is pretty excited about the trip and looking forward to loving on the
kids there. From what Ive gathered, your group is hoping for a general cultural
awareness training and some general Mexican cultural information as well.

Holmquist 49

Objectives/Purpose:
This trainings overall goal is to address the need for a basic, cultural awareness
training and give some general Mexican cultural information. It focuses on understanding
what culture is and how it impacts behavior and communication, understanding ones
own culture, and comparing/contrasting US/personal culture with Mexican culture.
Formal Objectives:
Given a 1.5 hour training session, with content and activities related to general
cultural awareness, the basic components of culture, understanding ones own culture and
relating that to Mexican culture, the mission trip group member should be able to:
- describe what culture is
- give at least one example from their own lives about how culture impacts their behavior
and communication.
- Summarize the difference between describing and evaluating behavior.
- Name at least three building blocks of culture and locate where they fall and where
Mexico falls on the cultural continuum.
- Name at least one difference between Mexico and the United States.

Content:
I will be using an interactive, experience-based approach instead of a lecture to
make the training more personal, memorable, fun, and applicable.
The lesson plan will primarily include the following subjects and activities:
Activity 1: What is Culture? Part 1: Icebreaker and short lecture, mini-experiences. (10
minutes)
Activity 2: What is Culture? Part 2: Short video and discussion. (15 minutes)
Activity 3: Discovering your own culture and Mexicos culture: Worksheets and
discussion. (40 minutes)
Deliverables:
I am providing a proposal for the training now, and will provide handouts,
worksheets, writing implements, and other training materials during the training. I will
hand out and collect evaluation forms immediately after the training, and will provide
Hannah Shoemaker, as well as Dr. Medina with a final report after the training.
Facilitator Bio:
Sarah Holmquist is from Lancaster, California and a second-year student in the
MA program in Intercultural Communication at the University of Maryland, Baltimore
County. She has recently completed a specialization in intercultural training with Dr.
Adriana Medina and Dr. Nancy Young. She has a B.A. in Spanish from Westmont
College, CA, during which time she studied abroad in Seville, Spain, She spent a week

Holmquist 50
working in Ensenada, Mexico at the end of her undergraduate career, and served as a
translator on VBS team of fellow college students, and absolutely loved it! She hopes to
work in the international education field after graduation, where she can combine her
love of students, culture, going abroad, and skills in intercultural training.

Lesson plan:
Preparation:
Make sure computer/scenario is working.
Make sure board is located, near, and chalk/writing instruments are around.
Make sure table/chairs are set up.
Set out handouts/writing implements.
Set out writing papers.
Gaining Attention:
Introductions of self and others - 5 minutes:
Hi! My name is Sarah Holmquist and I am in my last semester of the Intercultural
Communication MA program at UMBC! I am specializing in Intercultural Training, and I
am so excited to be here with you today to help you prepare for your trip to Mexico! I
have been to Ensenada, Mexico before for a week with some students from my college
during my senior year, and we worked running VBS programs in a few different
churches. I was also able to serve as a translator while I was there so that made the trip
even better! I know some of you have been to Mexico before and all of you have been out
of the country before, tonight I want to specifically help you prepare for the cultural
aspect of your trip and tap into your prior cross-cultural knowledge.
I know you all know each other pretty well, but Id like to get to know you as well:

Holmquist 51
- Ask them all to give me a short introduction: Name, where they have been before, and
what they are most looking forward to about their trip. (Take notes to remember for the
paper)
Recall:
Icebreaker: Mexico quiz- 5 minutes
Answers: 1: Guerrero (show map if interested), 2. D (and C), 3. F 4. E 5. E
Direction: 3 minutes
Talk about my hope for them, objectives for the time together:
- This trainings overall goal is to address the need for a basic, cultural awareness training
and give some general Mexican cultural information. It focuses on understanding what
culture is, understanding your own culture, and comparing/contrasting US/personal
culture with Mexican culture.
My hope for you all by the end of this training is that you will be able to:
- describe what culture is and give examples from your life
- Name the three building blocks of culture we will examine and how they are visible in
your life.
- Name at least one difference between Mexico and the United States.
- This is not meant to be a boring lecture, but a fun, interactive time where everyone
contributes, so please dont be shy about participating and please feel free to ask
questions.
How does that sound? Great! Lets get started!
Content
1. What is culture? Invisible values - visible behavior 15 minutes
a. Draw an iceberg on the board and ask them how they think that relates to
culture. Label the board with their answer and fill in with answers as needed.
b. Answer: there are two parts to culture, the visible and the invisible. 90% is
invisible, 10% is visible. (Show picture on screen)
i. Visible parts: food, clothing, behavior, communication, symbols,
ii. Invisible: values, beliefs, attitudes.
iii. Culture is learned.: Culture is the shared assumptions, values, and
beliefs of a group of people which result in characteristic behaviors. (Storti).
(Write on board).
iv. Think about yourself. What does culture teach us? (how to act,
greet, touch, what/who to value, what to share with others, etc) What are parts
of your behavior that you learned from your parents or society? What is the
underlying value or belief?
1. My answer: (my parents taught me how to look people in
the eye when Im speaking to them. Especially older people. This is a sign
of respect, coming from the value of respect for others/elders)

Holmquist 52
v. Discuss in pairs for 2 minutes, report back to group in 1 minute.
vi. What is culture: A set of learned expectations that help us interpret
behavior. To understand a culture, we have to dig deeper to match the
underlying values with their norms, meanings, symbols, and behaviors,
otherwise we can misjudge if we interpret according to our own culture.
vii. Mini-experiences:
1. Go up to someone and talk to them looking at their shoes.
Ask them how they are interpreting my behavior. Relate it back to how they
are interpreting based on their own culture, and how their interpretation is
not the only one possible.
2. Go up to someone else and talk to them very closely. Ask
them how they feel/how they are interpreting my behavior. Relate it back to
how they are interpreting based on their own culture and how their
interpretation is not the only one possible.
2.
1.

Man/Woman Video - 10 minutes

We are now going to transition into another activity that further explores culture. First
we will watch a short scenario and later on we will explain and connect it to what we are
doing.
2. Bring up video. Please turn your attention now to the scenario played here on the
computer.
3. After: Please describe to me what you saw in the video.
4. Thank them for their comments, and read the following paragraph:
a. " In the scene you just saw, the woman and the earth are actually the two
most sacred and revered aspects of their specific culture, so much so, that only the
woman is holy and "good" enough to sit on the ground and touch it with her feet.
Men can only experience the earth "through" the woman (i.e., through her head as
she is bowing to say her prayers). The man is charged with testing the food before
it is proven "fit" for the woman if it is poisoned, he would died first. He also is
charged with walking in first to deflect any attacks, and thus, to safely lead the way
for her to walk unharmed."
5. Point out that I asked for descriptions, not for judgements. What are the judgements the
group made and what led them to make those judgements? Connect that we evaluate
behavior based on our own ideas of what that behavior means, IE based on our own
culture. When we see something we dont understand, we need to remember to
DESCRIBE the behavior and learn more about the culture, instead of just making a
judgement right away.
a. If they have been good at describing, congratulate them on their
descriptive skills! They are already very equipped to handle behavior that may
seem strange. Ask the ones who have been to Mexico for possible examples, if
they have experienced anything in their times abroad that has seemed strange,
where they had to reserve judgment. How did they deal with that?

Holmquist 53
6.

Make sure to stress that behavior has no meaning until we assign it a meaning.
Behavior means what we decide it means. We shouldnt be too quick to judge a behavior.
We should wait to interpret until we can find out what the behavior means
7. Congratulate them for the descriptions made =)
3. Own culture vs. Mexican Culture
1. We are now going to transition into some activities that teach us about the basic
building blocks of culture, and relate them to our own culture and to Mexican culture.
2. Activity 1: Individualism vs. Collectivism. 12 minutes
a. Have you heard these words before? What do they mean to you? Based on
what you know about yourself and the US culture, would you say you are more I or
C?
b. Have them silently read the scenario and fill in the money.
c. Give them answers and read explanation on page 24.
d. Have volunteers read the descriptions of I and C, have everyone as they
are following along underline the words in both paragraphs that define them.
e. Step 1: Decide if each behavior is I or C. (3 minutes). Read them the
answers on page 28.
f. Ask them to think about how they were raised, more I or C, talk about
examples from their own life that reflect their behavior, if they are more I or C.
g. My examples: Working with Ruth on a school project, my ideas vs her
ideas of working together.
h. Step 2: Decide which in the pair is I or C, circle the one that most
describes you.
i. Have them place two marks on the one: one where they feel their culture
typically falls, one for themselves. Can reference the descriptions on the previous
page if necessary. Remind them that none is better than the other, so dont feel like
one is wrong and the other is right.
j. Show them where Mexico is located, page 52. Generalization, based on
numerous workshops and surveys. Generalizations are helpful when we are trying
to interpret behavior or decide how to act in a certain situation, but what anyone
does in a particular situation will depend on part in culture and part on
circumstances
k. Ask Hannah and Emily if they have seen examples of this in Mexico.
3.

Activity 2: Monochronic Vs Polychronic 12 minutes

a. Draw a counter on the board and a shopkeeper behind it. Imagine there are
6 people in the shore, all ready to be checked out. How should these six people
arrange themselves vis a vis each other? Using circles, (volunteer!) draw how these
people are arranged.
b. Ask everyone to see if they agree. Show them pictures on page 54 of
difference between culture, and read them the description.

Holmquist 54
c. Have they heard the terms M and P before? What would they say they
mean?
d. Have volunteers read the descriptions of M and P, have everyone as they
are following along underline the words in both paragraphs that define them.
e. Step 1: Decide if each behavior or idea is M or P (3 minutes). Read them
answer on page 57.
f. Ask them to think about how they were raised, more M or P. Give
examples from their life.
g. My examples: Always on time or early - Dad waiting in the car for my
mom. Moms school schedules
h. IF TIME: Step 2. Remind them that neither is WRONG, so dont worry
about which one you are.
i. Have them place two marks on the one: one where they feel their culture
typically falls, one for themselves. Can reference the descriptions on the previous
page if necessary.Remind them that none is better than the other, so dont feel like
one is wrong and the other is right.
j. Show them where Mexico is located, page 82. Generalization, based on
numerous workshops and surveys. Generalizations are helpful when we are trying
to interpret behavior or decide how to act in a certain situation, but what anyone
does in a particular situation will depend on part in culture and part on
circumstances
k. What does this mean for their time? Dont worry if things are not going
on time. Dont be insulted if people are late or let others interrupt when you are
talking with them. They are not being rude. Enjoy time with people and remember
time flows differently. Relate this to Quiz Q3, about arriving on time.
4.

Activity 3: Communication Styles: Direct vs Indirect.12 minutes

a. Have you heard these terms before? What do they mean to you and which
would you say you are?
b. Differences in communication styles account for more cross-cultural
misunderstandings than any other factor, they affect communication a lot, even
when you are speaking the same language. Its hard to be aware of what people are
saying because you always filter what you hear through the lens of your own
communication style.
c. Read the scenario. Where do you see direct and indirect communication at
work here?
d. Have them read the definitions, volunteers for out loud, and mark which
sounds more like them
e. Quickly choose between D vs I in Step one and mark on the line, show
them where they are and where Mexico is on page 99
f. My example: Ruth and the Bus stop, Veena and saying NO
g. Work through steps 2 in pairs, Step 3 if time, otherwise they can work on
it at home.

Holmquist 55

Wrap up: 3 minutes

1.

Say: I hope this short exploration of some of the cultural building blocks was helpful to
you, I tried to select the most pertinent things you might experience while in Mexico. Be
on the lookout for demonstrations of the things we learned here today. Now that you
learned something about your own culture, you can have a reference point for discovering
the differences between Mexican culture and your own culture, and you can be free to
describe, rather than evaluate behavior once you realize that all behavior is culture.
2. Please go around and say one thing that you are taking with you to Mexico after today.
3. Thank you all for your participation and attention. It was a privilege to be here with
you, I wish you all to have a great time in Mexico and you are able to be a blessing and to
be blessed yourselves. I would love to hear about your trip afterwards and hear any
cultural insights you gained while there!
4. Please take a few minutes to fill out this evaluation form to help me know how I was
helpful to you.
Evaluation form 5 minutes
Photo of Iceberg: From Bing Images:

Handouts:

Holmquist 56

What do YOU know about

MEXICO????
1. In which state is the city of Acapulco located?
c.
Guerrero
d.
Chihuahua
e.
Yucatn
f.
Oaxaca
2.

How do Mexican Women usually greet each other?

a. shaking hands
b. hugging
c. kissing on the cheek
d. kissing twice, once on each cheek

3. What is the meaning of Que Dios le bendiga! ?

b. peace to your house
c. Bless you (after a sneeze)
d. Watch out!
e. God bless you
4.What is the proper time to arrive to a social event?
a. Exactly on time
b. 30-45 minutes late
c. 5 minutes early
d. 1.5 hours late
5.What is the official name of Mexico?
l. Los Estados nidos Mexicanos
m. Mxico
n. La Repblica Mexicana
o. La Democraca Mexicana

Holmquist 57

Cultural Building Block: Conception of Self: Individualist vs Collectivist

Scenario: For 6 weeks, you and the three other people in your division have been
working on an important, special project. Now the work is done and the four of you have
been awarded a cash prize of $20,000. how should this money be distributed? In
answering this question, you may find the following information useful:
- Person A did 25% of the work.
- Person B did 40% of the work.
- Person C did 25% of the work.
- Person D did 10% of the work.
How much should each person get?
Person A? ________________ Person B? ________________________.
Person C? ________________ Person D? ________________________.
Individualist: The smallest unit of survival is the individual. People identify primarily
with self, and the needs of the individual are satisfied before those of the group. Looking
after and taking care of oneself, being self-sufficient, guarantees the well-being of the
group. Independence and self-reliance are stressed and greatly valued, and personal
freedom is highly desired. In general, there is more psychological and emotional distance
from others. One may choose to join groups, but group membership is not essential to
ones identity, survival, or success.
Collectivist: The primary group, usually the immediate family, is the smallest unit of
survival. Ones identity is in large part a function of ones membership and role in a
group (e.g. the family, the work team). The survival and success of the group ensures the
well-being of the individual, so that by considering the needs and feelings of others, one
protects oneself. Harmony and the interdependence of group members are stressed and
valued. There is relatively little psychological or emotional distance between group
members, though there is more distance between group and non group members (ingroups and out-groups).
Step 1: Each of these 10 items are representative behaviors of either Individualist or
Collectivist Behavior. Decide which:
____1. Companies give employee of the year awards.
____2. Harmony and saving face are highly valued.
____3. Friendships tend to be somewhat opportunistic, people have many friends.
____4. Promotion is based on output, measurable results.
____5. There is less of a need for signed contracts in business.
____6. Friendships are for life; people have one or two close friends.
____7. Its okay to stand out.
____8. A mother asks her four-year-old what he or she wants to wear today.
____9. Self-help books are popular.
____10. Consensus decision making is the norm.

Holmquist 58
Step 2: Below are 5 sets of paired statements. Read each pair, circle the one which best
describes the way you feel, or the action you would take regarding that item. Then decide
which in the pair is an example of Collectivist behavior, and which is an example of
Individualist behavior.
____ 1a. I expect people to judge me by my achievements.
____ 1b. I expect people to judge me by the groups I belong to.
____ 2a. Before making a decision, it is best to make sure everyone agrees with it.
____ 2b. Before making a decision, you should get at least half of the people to agree
with it.
____ 3a. I am embarrassed by individual recognition.
____ 3b. If I do a good job, I feel I have earned individual recognition.
____ 4a. Making sure people dont lose face is more important than always being
completely honest.
____ 4b. Being honest with people is always the best in the end.
____ 5a. Confrontation is sometimes necessary to clear the air.
____ 5b. Confrontation almost always causes more problems than it solves.

Continuum: Concept of self.

I---------------------I--------------------------------I--------------------------I---------------------C

Adapted from Figuring Foreigners Out: A Practical Guide by Craig Storti, Intercultural Press, 1999

Holmquist 59
Cultural Building Block: Handling Time: Monochronic vs Polychronic
Scenario: See board.
Monochronic: Time is a commodity; it is quantifiable and there is a limited amount of it.
Therefore, it is necessary to use time wisely and not waste it. There is a premium on
efficiency, hence a sense of urgency in many matters. Time is the given and people are
the variable; the needs of people are adjusted to suit the demands of time (schedules and
deadlines, etc). It is considered most efficient to do one thing at a time or wait on one
person at a time. As far as possible, you shouldnt let circumstances, unforeseen events,
interfere with your plans. Interruptions are a nuisance.
Polychronic: Time is limitless and not quantifiable. There is always more time, and
people are never too busy. Time is the servant and tool of people and is adjusted to suit
the needs of people. Schedules and deadlines often get changed. People may have to do
several things simultaneously as required by circumstances. Its not necessary to finish
one thing before starting another, nor to finish your business with one person before
starting in with another. you always have to take circumstances into account and make
adjustments. Strictly speaking, theres no such thing as an interruption.
Step 1: Each of these 12 items is an example of either Monochronic or Polychronic
behavior or idea. Decide which, label with M or P.
___ 1. Time is money.
___ 2. To be late is rude.
___ 3. The focus is on the task, getting the job done.
___ 4. Having to wait is normal.
___ 5. Interruptions are life.
___ 6. Plans are fixed, once they are agreed upon.
___ 7. The focus is on the person, establishing a relationship.
___ 8. Everything depends on the circumstances.
___ 9. People follow an internal clock.
___ 10. Plans are always changing.
___ 11. Having to wait is an insult.
___ 12. People are sometimes too busy.

Holmquist 60

Step 2: Below are 5 sets of paired statements. read each pair, circle the one which best
describes your ideas and feelings about life. Then, decide which in the pair is more M or
P.
___ 1a. Interruptions can usually not be avoided and often quite beneficial.
___ 1b. Interruptions should be avoided wherever possible, they are inefficient.
___ 2a. Its more efficient if you do one thing at a time.
___ 2b. You can get just as much done working on two or three things at the same time.
___ 3a. Unanticipated events are hard to accommodate and should be avoided when
possible.
___ 3b. Unexpected things happen all the time; thats life.
___ 4a. Its important, in a meeting or conversation, not to become distracted or digress.
you should stick to the agenda.
___ 4b. Digressions and distractions are inevitable. An agenda is just a piece of paper.
___ 5a. Youre never too busy to see someone; he or she would never understand if
turned away.
___ 5b. Sometimes youre just too busy to see people; they will understand.
Continuum: Handling Time

M---------------------I-----------------------------I---------------------------I---------------------P

Adapted from Figuring Foreigners Out: A Practical Guide by Craig Storti, Intercultural Press, 1999

Holmquist 61
Cultural Building Block: Communication Styles: Direct vs Indirect
Scenario: Dialogue:
Magda:
I wonder where Hari is.
Bob:
Oh, I forgot to tell you. He called.
Magda:
He called?
Bob:
Yes, he said he was too busy to come over in person.
Magda:
But he always comes. And we have coffee together.
Bob:
I know. He said he was sorry and he would try to come next week.
Magda:
Id better get over there and talk to him.
Bob:
Id wait until next week if I were you.
Indirect/High Context: Tend to infer, suggest, imply rather than say things directly.
Harmony and saving face are the greatest good, a natural tendency toward indirectness
and away from confrontation. People have an intuitive understanding of each other,
because they tend to be from collectivist cultures and are established in their groups, so
they dont need to spell things out as much in order to get their message across. The goal
of most communication exchanges is preserving and strengthening the relationship with
the other person.
Direct/Low Context: Cultures tend to be less collectivist and more individualist.
Because people lead more independent lives, there is less instinctive understanding of
others. People need to spell things out and be more explicit, to say exactly what they
mean rather than merely suggest or imply. There is less context. The spoken word carries
most of the meaning; you should not read anything into what is not said or done. The goal
of most communication exchanges is getting or giving information.
Direct or Indirect?
____ You may have to read between the lines to understand what someone is saying.
____ Its best to tell it like it is.
____ Yes means yes.
____ Yes means I hear you.
____ People tell you what they think you want to hear
____ Silence may mean disapproval or dissatisfaction
Continuum: Direct vs. Indirect Communication, High Context vs. Low Context

D---------------------I----------------------------I-----------------------------I------------------IN
LC---------------------I--------------------------I--------------------------I------------------HC

Holmquist 62
Step 2:
Below are some common communication techniques, with their interpretations for Direct
and Indirect communicators. Choose which interpretation fits which communication
style.
- Understatement (Ex: I have one small suggestion):

____The speaker does not feel strongly about the matter.

- ____ The speaker is showing great concern/interest in the matter.
- Saying yes:
e.
____ Acknowledgement that the person hears you, being polite and
respectful.
f.
____ Agreement, approval, acceptance, understanding
- Asking what you think in response to your asking for an opinion or making a proposal:
g.
____ The person wants to know your opinion on the matter.
h.
____ This usually means no.
- Probably, I think so, Im almost sure, theres a good possibility:
i.
____ Suggest the likelihood that the thing will happen.
j.
____ The person is not in agreement or positive about the matter and
doesnt want to say so.
- Saying nothing in a response to a proposal or suggestion:
e. ____ The person does not approve or think it their place to comment.
They would rather say nothing than criticize.

f.

____ The person does not object or have a problem with the suggestion.

Step 3: Change the following direct statements to indirect statements that mean the same
thing.
1. Im not sure thats such a good idea:
________________________________________________________________________
2. Thats not the way to do that:
________________________________________________________________________
3. I think we should . . .
________________________________________________________________________
4. I dont agree:
________________________________________________________________________

Holmquist 63

Adapted from Figuring Foreigners Out: A Practical Guide by Craig Storti, Intercultural Press, 1999

Evaluation Form:
1. Do you feel that you have a better understanding of your own culture as a result
of this training? If so, what aspect?

2.What will you remember and take with you to Mexico from this training?

3.What was the most helpful part of the training?

4.What was the most unhelpful part of the training?

5.How would you rate Sarah as a facilitator?

a. Compliments?

b. Suggestions?

Thank you!

Holmquist 64

Final Report
The Session:
The topics and exercises covered were:
- Cultural Iceberg and Mini-Experiences discussion:
o Discussing how the iceberg relates to culture: invisible vs. visible, values
and beliefs manifest themselves in the visible behavior.
o Discussion of how a personal value manifests itself in our behavior.
o 2 mini experiences exemplified how values can manifest themselves in
behavior.
- Man/Woman cultural scenario:
o Discussion of how we always see through our cultural lens.
o Discussion and discovery of describing vs. judging behavior.
- Exploration of own culture and Mexican culture:
o 3 Worksheets exploring the following topics:
Individualist/Collectivist (Conception of Self)
Monochronic/Polychronic (Time Management)
Direct/Indirect (Communication Styles)
o Learned about each concept and related to own life.
o Placement of selves on the continuum, finding out where Mexico lies in
relation to self-placement.
Recommendation of Facilitator to client:
- The timing of this workshop was great since the trip was happening in 2 days,
the participants really felt the relevance of the workshop.
- Unfortunately not everyone was able to make it in the end try to have the entire
group there so everyone can benefit and everyone is on the same page.
- It would be interesting to have the group debrief at the end of the trip about what
cultural aspects related to the training they noticed, and how they dealt with the
differences noted on the trip, as well as any similarities they found, how they dealt
with describing/evaluating behavior, etc.
Feedback from Participants: (3 evals/3 Participants)
Do you feel that you have a better understanding of your own culture as a result of
this training? If so, what aspect?
- Yes, with how the US communicates with each other and in contrast with other
cultures.
- Yes, certainly got some insight into my own personal culture within American
culture.
- Yes particularly the graphs showing where US and Mexico stand; will help me
not take things personally.

Holmquist 65

What will you remember and take with you to Mexico from this training?
- Polychronic mentality, remember importance of relationships over task
completion
- Their culture is in many ways on the other end of the scale. Be aware, especially,
how I communicate verbally.
- Observe! Be slow to make judgments on differences in cultures.
What was the most helpful part of the training?
- Seeing the spectrums of handling time, concept of self, etc.
- The video/analysis, discussion, graphs.
- Watching the scenario and coming up with judgments and descriptions.
What was the most unhelpful part of the training?
- Nothing was unhelpful. I cannot pinpoint anything Id say was least helpful.
- I cant really think of anything.
How would you rate Sarah as a Facilitator? (1-5).
- 5
- 5
- 5
Compliments:
- Very understandable, friendly and welcoming.
- Helpful to both speak of and draw out personal scenarios for X
- Great job moving through, asking good questions, using different media to help
with learning and retaining info.
Suggestions:
- No improvements that I can think of. Very helpful stuff and greatly enjoyed the
refresher course.
- More videos or scenarios to analyze.

Holmquist 66