APPENDIX A
Intercultural Development inventory v.3 (IDI)
ORGANIZATION INDIVIDUAL PROFILE REPORT
Prepared for: Tamara Lebak, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association FCC
Prepared by: Beth Zemsky, Lead Consultant, April 30, 2012
In conjunction with Mitchell R. Hammer, Ph.D. IDI, LLC
The IDI v.3 is developed and copyrighted (2007-2011) by
Mitchell R. Hammer, Ph.D., IDI, LLC,
P.O. Box 1388 Berlin, Maryland 21811 USA
For information or ordering the IDI, contact: www.idiinventory.com
Introduction
Success in the 21st century in our corporations and nonprofit organizations demands the development of intercultural competence. Intercultural competence spans both international and domestic workplace contexts and is essential for leaders and staff in our organizations.
A Profile Specific to Your Experience
Your IDI Individual Profile Report provides valuable information about your own orientations toward cultural difference and commonality. Please be assured that the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a cross-culturally valid and reliable assessment of intercultural competence. It is developed using rigorous psychometric protocols with over 5,000 respondents from a wide range of cultures. Further, “back translation” procedures were followed in accurately translating the IDI into a number of languages.
The IDI Individual Profile can help you reflect on your experiences around cultural differences and similarities. As you review your IDI profile results, consider past situations in which you attempted to make sense of cultural differences and similarities. Re-framing your understanding of past events in this way can help you uncover assumptions that may have guided your actions in these situations. In addition, you may wish to focus on a situation or challenge you are currently facing in which cultural differences and similarities have emerged. In the workplace, these challenges can range from changing community demographics, achieving organizational profit or human resource goals, creating a diverse and inclusive work environment, globalizing your organization’s service or product offerings, maintaining safety within all global operations, facilitating successful mergers and acquisitions, selecting and preparing expatriates for international assignments, and global leadership development As an individual, cross-cultural challenges in the workplace can arise around manager-employee relations, developing cooperative relations with other key executives, motivating others toward increased effectiveness and efficiency in achieving identified goals, and successful leadership of a diverse workforce. Your IDI Profile results can help you proactively address these and other concerns as well as increase your cultural “self-awareness” of your own, unique experiences around cultural differences and commonalities. As you reflect on your IDI Individual Profile results, consider the following:
- Did you respond to each of the statements in the IDI honestly? If so, then the IDI profile will be an accurate indicator of your approach for dealing with cultural differences.
- Did you think about your culture group and other cultures with which you have had the most experience when responding to the IDI? For example, if you thought of some idealized “other culture” with which you have had little experience, then you might consider re-taking the IDI.
- Have you had or are currently experiencing a significant professional or personal transitional experience (e.g., moving to another country, traumatic event)? If so, in some cases, your responses to the IDI may reflect your struggle with this transitional situation rather than your more stable orientation toward cultural differences. If this is the case, you may consider re-taking the IDI at a later date.
Intercultural Development Continuum
Intercultural competence is the capability to accurately understand and adapt behavior to cultural difference and commonality. Intercultural competence reflects the degree to which cultural differences and commonalities in values, expectations, beliefs, and practices are effectively bridged, an inclusive environment is achieved, and specific differences that exist in your organization are addressed from a “mutual adaptation” perspective.
People are not alike in their capabilities to recognize and effectively respond to cultural differences and commonalities. The intercultural development continuum (figure 1 below), adapted from the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity originally proposed by Dr. Milton Bennett, identifies specific orientations that range from more monocultural to more
intercultural or global mindsets.
This continuum indicates that individuals who have a more intercultural mindset have a greater capability for responding effectively to cultural differences and recognizing and building upon true commonalities. That is, your success in achieving workplace goals is better served when you are able to more deeply understand culturally learned differences, recognize commonalities between yourself and others, and act on this increased insight in culturally appropriate ways that facilitate performance, learning and personal growth among diverse groups.
The specific competence orientations identified in the developmental continuum are Denial, Polarization (Defense & Reversal), Minimization, Acceptance, and Adaptation (figure 1). The IDI also measures Cultural Disengagement as a separate dimension. Cultural Disengagement is not a dimension of intercultural competence along the continuum. Nevertheless, it is an important aspect of how people relate to their own culture group and other cultures.
SUMMARY ORIENTATION DESCRIPTIONS
How to Interpret the IDI Profile
The IDI Profile presents information about how you make sense of and respond to cultural differences and commonalities. In addition to demographic and statistical summaries, the IDI profile presents the following information:
- Perceived Orientation (PO): Your Perceived Orientation (PO) reflects where you place yourself along the intercultural development continuum. Your Perceived Orientation can be Denial, Polarization (Defense/Reversal), Minimization, Acceptance or Adaptation.
- Developmental Orientation (DO): The Developmental Orientation (DO) indicates your primary orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities along the continuum as assessed by the IDI. The DO is the perspective you most likely use in those situations where cultural differences and commonalities need to be bridged. Your Developmental Orientation can be Denial, Polarization (Defense/Reversal), Minimization, Acceptance or Adaptation.
- Orientation Gap (OG): The Orientation Gap (OG) is the difference along the continuum between your Perceived Orientation and Developmental Orientation. A gap score of seven points or higher indicates a meaningful difference between the Perceived Orientation and the assessed Developmental Orientation. The larger the gap, the more likely you may be “surprised” by the discrepancy between your Perceived Orientation score and Developmental Orientation score.
- A Perceived Orientation score that is seven points or higher than the Developmental Orientation score indicates an overestimation of your intercultural competence.
- A Developmental Orientation score that is seven points or higher than the Perceived Orientation score indicates an underestimation of your intercultural competence.
- Trailing Orientations (TO): Trailing orientations are those orientations that are “in back of” your Developmental Orientation (DO) on the intercultural continuum that are not “resolved”. When an earlier orientation is not resolved, this “trailing” perspective may be used to make sense of cultural differences at particular times, around certain topics, or in specific situations. Trailing Orientations, when they arise, tend to “pull you back” from your Developmental Orientation for dealing with cultural differences and commonalities. The IDI identifies the level of resolution you have attained regarding possible Trailing Orientations.
- Leading Orientations (LO): Leading Orientations are those orientations that are immediately “in front” of your Developmental Orientation (DO). A Leading Orientation is the next step to take in further development of intercultural competence. For example, if your Developmental Orientation is Minimization, then your Leading Orientations (LO) would be Acceptance and Adaptation.
- Cultural Disengagement (CD): The Cultural Disengagement score indicates how connected or disconnected you feel toward your own cultural community. Cultural Disengagement is not a dimension of intercultural competence along the developmental continuum. Rather, it is a separate dimension of how disconnected or detached people feel toward their own cultural group.
IDI Individual Profile
Perceived Orientation (PO)
Your Perceived Orientation Score indicates that you rate your own capability in understanding and appropriately adapting to cultural differences within Adaptation, reflecting a capability to deeply understand, shift cultural perspective, and adapt behavior across cultural differences and commonalities. This capability may be reflective of individuals and groups who are bi-cultural in their experiences.
Developmental Orientation (DO)
Your Developmental Orientation Score indicates that your primary orientation toward cultural differences is within Adaptation, reflecting a capability to understand, shift cultural perspective, and adapt behavior across cultural differences. This capability may be reflective of individuals and groups who are bi-cultural in their experiences.
The Orientation Gap between your Perceived Orientation score and Developmental Orientation score is 2.09 points. A gap score of 7 points or higher can be considered a meaningful difference between where you perceive “you are” on the developmental continuum and where the IDI places your level of intercultural competence.
A Perceived Orientation score that is 7 or more points higher than the Developmental Orientation score indicates you have overestimated your level of intercultural competence. A DO score that is 7 points or more than the PO score indicates that you have underestimated your intercultural competence. Your Perceived level of intercultural competence matches your Developmental Orientation.
An Organization Example
Assume “Mary” is a manager of a diverse work team and her Developmental Orientation is within Adaptation. She is likely able to describe a number of strategies she is using to make sure “everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the accomplishment of our goals”. Her Developmental Orientation of Adaptation suggests she is likely attending to how cultural differences and commonalities need to be recognized within the group in order to accomplish team goals. Further, she is engaged to some degree in identifying and implementing effective adaptations within the group so that all members can fully contribute. For instance, Mary may observe that a number of her team members “are not participating in the same way other team members participate in brainstorming sessions”. In fact, Mary may well sense that there are different “culturally learned” ways her staff engage in verbal dialogue. Further, Mary may be able to identify creative, mutually adaptive strategies for leading these sessions that result in full contributions from her culturally diverse team. For Mary, her challenge is to engage in deeper cognitive-frame shifting and behavioral code-shifting toward an every expanding arena of cultural differences. In this instance, Mary’s continual challenge is to engage in mutual adaptation strategies around cultural differences in order to achieve team objectives and more effectively manage her team.
Trailing Orientations
Trailing Orientations are those orientations that are “in back of” your Developmental Orientation (DO) on the intercultural continuum that are not “resolved”. When an earlier orientation is not resolved, this “trailing” perspective may be used to make sense of cultural differences at particular times, around certain topics, or in specific situations. Trailing Orientations essentially represent alternative “currents” that flow through your varied experiences with cultural differences and commonalities. Not everyone has “trailing orientations”. However, when individuals have Trailing Orientations, they may respond to a specific situation from the perspective of this “earlier” orientation rather than the Developmental Orientation or mindset that characterizes their predominant way of dealing with cultural difference challenges. When this happens, there may be a sense at times of “going two steps forward and one step back.” When individuals have trailing orientations, it is not uncommon for “progress” in building intercultural competence to have a “back and forth” quality in an organization, when these earlier orientations arise. As you begin to “move past” or resolve the trailing orientations, a more consistent sense of progress and “shared focus” emerges. Below are graphs for each of the orientations that come before your Developmental Orientation that remain unresolved. That is, scores of less than 4.00 indicate a Trailing Orientation for you because they are not “resolved”. There are no trailing or secondary orientations for you.
Leading Orientations
Leading Orientations are the orientations immediately “in front” of your primary (developmental) orientation. The Leading Orientations for you are to continue Adaptation. Adaptation is focused on both increasing capability to shift deeply into one or more cultural perspectives and to appropriately adapt behavior when in other cultural communities. This can develop into a bi-cultural capability in which you move between two or more cultures as a cultural mediator.
Cultural Disengagement is a sense of disconnection or detachment from one’s cultural group. Scores of less than 4.00 indicate you are not “resolved” and may be experiencing to some degree a lack of involvement in core aspects of being a member of a cultural community. Overall, your Cultural Disengagement score is 5.00, indicating you are Resolved.
IDI Individual Profile
Demographic Information
1. First (Given) Name Last (Family) Name Age category:
Tamara Lebak 31-40
2. Total amount of time you have lived in another country:
1-2 years
3. Education level (completed):
M.A. degree or equivalent graduate degree
4. In what world region did you primarily live during your formative years to age 18 (please select one):
North America
5. Nationality and/or ethnic background
American/Caucasian/English/Irish/Creek/Cherokee
6. Are you a member of an ethnic minority in your country?
No
7. Country of citizenship (passport country). Indicate the country that you consider yourprimary country of citizenship.
UNITED STATES
8. At your organization, on average over the past six months, what percent of time do youdirectly (face-to-face) interact with people from other cultures (e.g., national, ethnic) per week:
0-10%
9. At your organization, on average over the past six months, what percent of time do you interact through email, telephone, texting and other virtual communication with people from other cultures (e.g., national, ethnic) per week:
0-10%
10. Name of the organization:
All Souls Unitarian Church
11. General organizational sector:
Religious organization
12. Percentage of customers or clients who are international and from minority (underrepresented) populations:
0-10%
The following questions have been identified by your organization.
13. Gender
Female
14. Sexual Orientation
Bisexual
Contexting Questions Summary (if completed)
What is your background (e.g., nationality, ethnicity) around cultural differences?
In high school I was a minority at a primarily African American High School where two of my close friends were exchange students one from Germany and another from Holland. Following High School, I was a Rotary International Exchange Student to Belgium at 16 and was in regularly with a group of exchange students from all around the world. I went to a French speaking Belgian college prep school there where I also took Flemish as a foreign language in French. While in Belguim I had the opportunity to travel extensively with the exchange program as well as with my host families. I had three different host families over the course of my 14 months abroad. On returning to Oklahoma I majored in French and my first profession was as a French teacher in an International Baccalaureate High School as well as Community College. In my seven years as an educator I delighted in taking students and adults abroad and have lead groups to France, England and Italy. Following college I participated in an an intensive Gestalt Organizational Development Training program at both the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland and the Gestalt International Study center, both of which had a very international population. Both programs challenged participants to become clear about our cultural assumptions as well as the role of hierarchy in a variety of cultural settings.
I will graduate in September of 2012 from the International Coaching Academy which is an International Coaching Federation certified program that is based in Australia that has students from all over the world. I have coached and been coached by people from India, Pakistan, Japan, France, Denmark, Brazil, Holland, England, Wales, and Canada.
What is most challenging for you in working with people from other cultures (e.g., nationality, ethnicity)?
Honestly, my own pacing can often be the reason why miscommunication happens when I am working within a diverse cultural setting. Slowing to accomodate someone of a slower pace often requires and enormous amount of energy at first. Once I have slowed, I am usually capable of maintaining the pace with less of an energy drain. Slowing down also gives me an opportunity to check assumptions both my own as well as the person to whom I am speaking. Because I am so direct as a default way of being, I have the most trouble mediating situations where the other person is indirect culturally. Interestingly though in my preaching I often use metaphor and story to address a congregational issue and do so often in pastoral settings, both of which assume more of a designated role for me. I am less likely to be able to make this transition to indirect communication under extreme stress or when my role is unclear.
What are key goals, responsibilities or tasks you and/or your team have, if any, in which cultural differences need to be successfully navigated?
Worship planning, creation, hiring, conflict resolution, staff party planning, minister evaluation, pastoral care, memorial services, when and how to respond to community issues that affect those from the minority present in Tulsa.
Please give examples of situations you were personally involved with or observed where cultural differences needed to be addressed within your organization, and:
The situation ended negatively—that is, was not successfully resolved. Please describe where and when the situation took place, who was involved (please do not use actual names), what happened and the final result.
Making choices about worship creation with our diverse staff requires that we not leave anything up to chance. That means our music staff is having to function on a completely different timeline than they would prefer. Excellence in worship requires advance planning so that what we can stay true to the cited mission of each worship experience and who we are trying to serve. We often discover that we have overlooked a detail that can prevent our second (contemporary) service from fully becoming what we have a vision that it could be…which predominantly serves our minority population
The situation ended positively—that is, was successfully resolved. Please describe where and when the situation took place, who was involved (please do not use actual names), what happened and the final result.
We were able this year to slow down our intern hiring process and have face to face interviews in addition to the online submission of applications and phone interviews. In that process we became more aware of what our default hire would have been which is find someone who appears competent on paper and in a single hour long phone interview that we think would “fit in” with the staff and plow ahead. This year we checked everyone’s references even those we did not think would be a first or second choice based on the applications. Following the phone interviews we invited our top three candidates to visit the church and interview in person. After the additional information and opportunity to relate to the candidates we ended up not going with the person we chose in the initial round. The positive result was that the entire committee was invested in a way I have never seen before and came to a 100% consensus on the choice. It’s a positive outcome so far 🙂 He starts in August.