Side Contact

Blog Posts

Perceptions of Gender in Thailand 

 

Leadership and the Internationalization of Universities in Thailand

Global economic...

Cross Cultural Training in Southeast Asia

Over the last 30 years, globalization of world economies has increased rapidly and a

large number of multinational companies have emerged. Population growth,
technological advancements in communication systems, hyper-commercialization,
interdependent financial networks, near constant transportation improvements, corporate consolidation via mergers and acquisitions and the adoption of English as the lingua franca have all led to an increase in cross border employment realities. Essentially, the world has become one giant marketplace and Asia, with the largest global population, is preparing for the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The economic integration is not limited to capital goods, information or technology. The internationalization of the human workforce has become a center point for organizations looking to expand to overseas markets. The AEC is yet another example of the pace of rapid globalization in Asia (Czinkota & Ronkaimen, 2008), yet Asia is also experiencing a normalization of career mobility (Cappellan & Janssens, 2010). Multinational corporations are necessarily becoming culturally diverse. This increase in organizational diversity creates many problems for both the local labor as well as the expatriate management in SE Asia.
 
Richardson and McKenna (2002) referred to expatriates as professionals who are living in an overseas country on a temporary basis, but normally for more than one year. Living in a new cultural environment, expatriates face challenges and make adjustments in their lifestyles in order to work effectively in their host culture (Ward & Rana-Deuba, 2000; Zakaria, 2000). These challenges often result in early return from an overseas assignment which results in a costly reassignment burden for the companies involved. Littrell and Salas (2005) claimed that up to 50% of expatriates quit or return prior to accomplishing their assigned tasks. Additionally, over half of those that do not return early function below their normal level of productivity (Black & Gregersen, 1999; Deshpande, 1992). As said, these early returns are not only detrimental for individuals and families, they also cost the multinational corporations involved. The direct cost per company has been estimated to be as high as US$150,000 per employee. For US firms alone this equates to nearly 2 billion USD annually. Cross cultural training has been suggested as a necessary vehicle to facilitate cross-cultural behavior and management and therefore decrease the number of unsuccessful or unproductive expatriates.
 
Broadly defined, cross cultural training is the use of human resources to facilitate
knowledge and develop or increase certain skills in a multicultural environment. This
educative process focuses on promoting intercultural learning through the acquisition of behavioral, cognitive and affective competency required for effective cross-cultural
interactions. This is not limited to mannerisms or understanding expectations of polite behavior within any given cultural milieu. Success requires developing empathy and the ability to think and act differently. This essentially means the development of an attitudinal change as opposed to simply acquiring information related to the history or demographics of any particular nation thus promoting a cultural sensitive situational leadership model among expatriates within ASEAN. This paper will provide a brief description of the AEC and an overview of the cultural indicators commonly used to compare ASEAN nations and the remaining non-ASEAN but economically and
geographically relevant China and India (ASEAN +2).
 
What is the AEC and what will happen?
The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars forming the new
ASEAN Community Councils. The goal is to attain regional economic integration by
2015. The areas of cooperation include human resources development and capacity
building recognition of professional qualifications, consultation on economic and financial policies, trade financing infrastructure and communications connectivity, electronic transactions through e-ASEAN industrial integration to promote regional sourcing and enhancing private sector involvement for the building of AEC (AEC Blueprint, 2010). In short, the AEC is designed to transform ASEAN into a region with free movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor, and freer flow of capital. Conceptually, this author understands two key areas of necessary development for those corporate entities interested in maximizing the benefits made accessible through the AEC; hard and soft infrastructure development.
 
Infrastructure development
It is essential that members of the AEC make definitive strides to establish essential
infrastructure. There have been discussions regarding the establishment of more highspeed rail systems linking key nations in ASEAN. Other member states, such as
Vietnam, have developed multiple ports along the coast to facilitate shipping among
ASEAN partners. Indeed China (non-ASEAN) has been most vocal in these propositions involving massive investment in both the development of hard infrastructure such as roads, ports, airports and rail systems.
Many other ASEAN members have discussed plans to upgrade their infrastructure, such as the three highways linking ASEAN - the North/South highway linking South China through Myanmar, Thailand, Lao and Vietnam; the East/West Corridor linking Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam; and the South/South one linking Myanmar’s Dawei deep seaport, Thailand’s Laem Chabang and Cambodia (ADB Report, 2011). The Thai government has long held discussions with China regarding the high-speed train project linking Laos and Thailand’s Nong Khai to the southern border and Malaysia. However, when one considers the development of regional unions such as NAFTA, the EU and ASEAN it is important not to undermine the significance of soft infrastructure. English speaking countries in ASEAN, such as Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines will have an advantage over other nations which have traditionally invested less in English as a second language within their national curriculums. For example, Thailand has not given enough attention to improving English skills throughout its education system and is now in a somewhat weaker position in comparison to countries such as Vietnam who have given increased attention to this and also benefit from having a western alphabet that makes learning of English both reading and writing easier than in Thailand. Other areas of soft infrastructure development include international communication and cross cultural understanding within an ASEAN context. Given the introduction of the AEC, managers will increasingly have to pursue sales opportunities across ASEAN while focusing on cost efficiencies by integrating their operations across the region, managing through lean techniques but also developing effective corporate centralization. This will include extensive travel within AEC countries. In addition, managers will need to develop better cross cultural understanding and awareness if they plan to lead a multinational team. Therefore, it is important that leaders become more sensitive to cross cultural issues and expectations.
 
Cultural Issues
Many areas of leadership and public administration in Asia are highly centralized
(Severino, 2007; Meesing, 1979; Ketudat, 1984). With the development of AEC and
regional changes, one can begin to see some movement away from the emphasis on
traditional Asian values and social norms (O’Toole, 1995). However, the implementation of a major change will face great resistance. In much of Asia, members of an organization assume that all orders or directives are from a higher position within the organizational hierarchy and are therefore tasks to be completed without questioning necessity or practicality. This lends to a compliance culture (Wheeler et al, 1997). Many of the changes that are expected as a result of the AEC are in conflict with traditional cultural norms in Thailand and other ASEAN nations (Sykes et al. 1997). The implementation of AEC may be delayed, curtailed and continually postponed as a result of the threats member states see to their traditional culture and the current economic grip by the urban elites within each member state.
 
Management Styles
Different cultures appreciate and value different leadership techniques. The leadership behavior in the west will not be as well received or as effective in the east. In many western organizations there is a clear boundary between work and life and leaders are aware not to get involved in the personal affairs of their employees. Other cross cultural studies of decision making introduced other important differences of leadership and decision making. For example, Yates and Lee (1996) found that people of East Asian cultures were more confident than Americans that their decisions were right. The authors suggest that people of South East Asia tend to select what appears to be the first adequate solution as opposed to considering a wide range of alternatives and narrowing down to the best solution. This problem solving preference for convergence rather than divergence can be seen by educators who regularly assign group work or team projects in Asia. Other examples of convergent tendencies can be found in project management and the ASEAN tendency to accept uncertainty which is often displayed in the lack of secondary or back-up systems which can be used when primary systems become inoperable. Other studies such as those by Smith, Wang, and Leung (1997), Radford and associates (1991), Hall, Jiang, Losocco, and Allen (1993) all found that Chinese organizations were more centralized than the Americans. The studies above all pointed to differences in culture, organizational structure and leadership. The need for international communication training and cross cultural behavioral competence is crucial to the organizations which plan to benefit from the AEC. 
 
Training Essentials and Specific Components
While lecture or teacher centered learning is the commonly employed method of
education in Asia, it is necessary for the participants involved in this area to receive
multi-modal training which include various methods, styles and presentation techniques. This author suggests the pre-training materials which focus on didactic elements be distributed to maximize fact to face training time. This didactic training guide should involve the factual information of the nation, population, labor law, working conditions, traditions, values, the role of the monarchy and cultural differences and is considered the most basic first step in acculturation. This material will provide the base to build on when the actual training seminars begin.
The second aspect of cross cultural training within an ASEAN context involves attribution training designed to help expatriates understand the meaning of host national behavior. This is important as it is commonly assumed that misunderstandings and failures of communication are commonly caused by perceptions of events. The expatriates will learn how to judge behavior based on its’ causes and possible explanations from a new perspective. The focus is on ‘isomorphic attributions’, which is learning how and why employees of the host culture make attributions about a variety of events so that the expatriates become able to make the same attributions and begins to see from the local perspective. Some necessary elements within this section of training include Hofstede’s work on cultural differences (1980, 1991, and 1998) while others are country specific:
a. Power distance
b. Collectivism vs. individualism
c. Uncertainty avoidance
d. Masculinity and femininity (hard vs. soft management)
e. High vs. low context communication stylesf. Short term vs. long term orientation
g. Patriarchy, nepotism, monarchy and social status
h. Specific cultural elements unique to that host culture. For
example, within the Thai setting an understanding of ‘sanuk’
(play) and ‘greng-jai’ (consideration) are essential.
A further aspect of this cross cultural training within an ASEAN context involves behavior modification training. This is designed to promote the development of habitual behaviors desired in the host culture. Expatriates will be taught how they can avoid inappropriate behavior and how to exemplify rewarded or encouraged behavior within the host culture. This is primarily done through visualization and discussion. The final aspect of cross cultural training within an ASEAN context should include specific experiential training. This refers to learning by doing. This should include the involvement of Asian nationals who role-play various situations which often cause cross-cultural conflict. Expatriate trainees will at first observe and then interact and become the ‘local’ in the role-plays. This is the primary method of learning appropriate behavior and the use of local ‘actors’ within each training session should provide the necessary reality which is missing in the majority of training sessions offered.
 
Conclusion
In conclusion, due to the clear increase in commercialization and globalization, the
formation of the AEC creates multiple opportunities to member states. While many of the national and regional advantages involving hard infrastructure development projects which await budgetary approval processes and cross-national agreements, the necessity of soft infrastructure training needs should not be overlooked by the relevant MNC’s currently position themselves in preparation for this regional integration. To maximize employee productivity and organizational benefits, cross cultural training with an ASEAN focus should be considered among leading organizations in the region. This training should eschew traditional teacher centered educative methodology and incorporate practical isomorphic elements with the intention of behavior change.
 
Reference List
Asian Development Bank. (2011). Guidelines for Climate Proofing Investment in the
Transport Sector Road Infrastructure Projects. Downloaded on March 21, 2014.
Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. (1999), "The Right Way to Manage Expats", Harvard
Business Review, March/April, 52-62.
Cappellan, T., & Janssens, M. (2010). The career reality of global managers: An
examination of career triggers. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management. 21: 1884-1910.
Czinkota, M., & Ronkainen, I. (2008). Trends and indications in international business:
Topics for future research. Management International Review. 49, 249-266.
Deshpande, S. P. (1992). Is Cross-Cultural Training of Expatriate Managers Effective: A
Meta Analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 16, 295 - 310.
Hall, R. H., Jiang, S., Loscocco, K. A., & Allen, J .K. (1993). Ownership patterns and
centralization: A China and U.S. comparison. Sociological Forum, 8(4), pp. 595-
608.
Hofstede, G. H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. H. 1998. Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national
cultures. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Ketudat, S. (1984). Planning and implementation of the primary education reform in
Thailand,
Littrell, L. N., & Salas, E. (2005). A review of cross-cultural training: Best practices,
guidelines, and research needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 305-
335.
Meesing, A. (1979). Social studies in Thailand in Mehlinger HD & Tucker JL (eds), Social
Studies in Other Nations, 31–43, ERIC Reproduction Document Service No. ED,
174 540.
O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. In Hallinger, P. (2004).
Meeting the Challenges of Cultural Leadership: the changing role of principals in
Thailand. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education. 25(1), March 2004.
Radford, M. H. (1991). Differences between Australian and Japanese students in
reported use of decision processes. International Journal of Psychology, 26(1), pp.
35-52.
03 June 2014, 10th International Academic Conference, Vienna ISBN 978-80-87927-02-1, IISES
Richardson, J. & McKenna, S. (2002). International experience and academic career:
What do academics have to say? Personnel Review, 32(6), 774 – 793.
Severino, R. (2007). ASEAN Beyond Forty: Towards Political and Economic Integration.
Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 29. No. 3 (2007). pp. 406-23.
Smith, P. B., Wang, Z. M., & Leung, K. (1997). Leadership, decision-making, and cultural
context: Event management within Chinese joint ventures. Leadership Quarterly,
8(4), pp. 413-431.
Sykes G, Floden, R. & Wheeler, C. (1997). Improving Teacher Learning in Thailand:
analysis and options, report to the Office of the National Education Commission
(#21/2540), Bangkok, Thailand.
Ward C. and rana-Deuba, A. (2000). Home and host culture influences on sojourner
adjustment. International Journal of International Relations, 24, 291-306.
Wheeler, C., Gallagher, J., McDonough, M., & Sookpokakit-Namfa, B. (1997). Improving school-community relations in Thailand, in Cummings, W.K. & Altbach, P.G. (eds),
The Educational Change in Thailand 205 Challenge of Eastern Asian Education:
Implications for America, pp. 205–319, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York
Press.
Yates, J. F., & Lee, J. W. (1996). Beliefs about overconfidence, including its crossnational variation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 65(2),
pp. 138-147.
Zakaria, N. (2000). The effects of ceoss-cultural training on the acculturation process of the global workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 219,

 

Comments

Introduction
Over the last 30 years, globalization of world economies has increased rapidly and a
large number of multinational companies have emerged. Population growth,
technological advancements in communication systems, hyper-commercialization,
interdependent financial networks, near constant transportation improvements, corporate consolidation via mergers and acquisitions and the adoption of English as the lingua franca have all led to an increase in cross border employment realities. Essentially, the world has become one giant marketplace and Asia, with the largest global population, is preparing for the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The economic integration is not limited to capital goods, information or technology. The internationalization of the human workforce has become a center point for organizations looking to expand to overseas markets. The AEC is yet another example of the pace of rapid globalization in Asia (Czinkota & Ronkaimen, 2008), yet Asia is also experiencing a normalization of career mobility (Cappellan & Janssens, 2010). Multinational corporations are necessarily becoming culturally diverse. This increase in organizational diversity creates many problems for both the local labor as well as the expatriate management in SE Asia.
 
Richardson and McKenna (2002) referred to expatriates as professionals who are living in an overseas country on a temporary basis, but normally for more than one year. Living in a new cultural environment, expatriates face challenges and make adjustments in their lifestyles in order to work effectively in their host culture (Ward & Rana-Deuba, 2000; Zakaria, 2000). These challenges often result in early return from an overseas assignment which results in a costly reassignment burden for the companies involved. Littrell and Salas (2005) claimed that up to 50% of expatriates quit or return prior to accomplishing their assigned tasks. Additionally, over half of those that do not return early function below their normal level of productivity (Black & Gregersen, 1999; Deshpande, 1992). As said, these early returns are not only detrimental for individuals and families, they also cost the multinational corporations involved. The direct cost per company has been estimated to be as high as US$150,000 per employee. For US firms alone this equates to nearly 2 billion USD annually. Cross cultural training has been suggested as a necessary vehicle to facilitate cross-cultural behavior and management and therefore decrease the number of unsuccessful or unproductive expatriates.
 
Broadly defined, cross cultural training is the use of human resources to facilitate
knowledge and develop or increase certain skills in a multicultural environment. This
educative process focuses on promoting intercultural learning through the acquisition of behavioral, cognitive and affective competency required for effective cross-cultural
interactions. This is not limited to mannerisms or understanding expectations of polite behavior within any given cultural milieu. Success requires developing empathy and the ability to think and act differently. This essentially means the development of an attitudinal change as opposed to simply acquiring information related to the history or demographics of any particular nation thus promoting a cultural sensitive situational leadership model among expatriates within ASEAN. This paper will provide a brief description of the AEC and an overview of the cultural indicators commonly used to compare ASEAN nations and the remaining non-ASEAN but economically and
geographically relevant China and India (ASEAN +2).
 
What is the AEC and what will happen?
The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars forming the new
ASEAN Community Councils. The goal is to attain regional economic integration by
2015. The areas of cooperation include human resources development and capacity
building recognition of professional qualifications, consultation on economic and financial policies, trade financing infrastructure and communications connectivity, electronic transactions through e-ASEAN industrial integration to promote regional sourcing and enhancing private sector involvement for the building of AEC (AEC Blueprint, 2010). In short, the AEC is designed to transform ASEAN into a region with free movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor, and freer flow of capital. Conceptually, this author understands two key areas of necessary development for those corporate entities interested in maximizing the benefits made accessible through the AEC; hard and soft infrastructure development.
 
Infrastructure development
It is essential that members of the AEC make definitive strides to establish essential
infrastructure. There have been discussions regarding the establishment of more highspeed rail systems linking key nations in ASEAN. Other member states, such as
Vietnam, have developed multiple ports along the coast to facilitate shipping among
ASEAN partners. Indeed China (non-ASEAN) has been most vocal in these propositions involving massive investment in both the development of hard infrastructure such as roads, ports, airports and rail systems.
Many other ASEAN members have discussed plans to upgrade their infrastructure, such as the three highways linking ASEAN - the North/South highway linking South China through Myanmar, Thailand, Lao and Vietnam; the East/West Corridor linking Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam; and the South/South one linking Myanmar’s Dawei deep seaport, Thailand’s Laem Chabang and Cambodia (ADB Report, 2011). The Thai government has long held discussions with China regarding the high-speed train project linking Laos and Thailand’s Nong Khai to the southern border and Malaysia. However, when one considers the development of regional unions such as NAFTA, the EU and ASEAN it is important not to undermine the significance of soft infrastructure. English speaking countries in ASEAN, such as Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines will have an advantage over other nations which have traditionally invested less in English as a second language within their national curriculums. For example, Thailand has not given enough attention to improving English skills throughout its education system and is now in a somewhat weaker position in comparison to countries such as Vietnam who have given increased attention to this and also benefit from having a western alphabet that makes learning of English both reading and writing easier than in Thailand. Other areas of soft infrastructure development include international communication and cross cultural understanding within an ASEAN context. Given the introduction of the AEC, managers will increasingly have to pursue sales opportunities across ASEAN while focusing on cost efficiencies by integrating their operations across the region, managing through lean techniques but also developing effective corporate centralization. This will include extensive travel within AEC countries. In addition, managers will need to develop better cross cultural understanding and awareness if they plan to lead a multinational team. Therefore, it is important that leaders become more sensitive to cross cultural issues and expectations.
 
Cultural Issues
Many areas of leadership and public administration in Asia are highly centralized
(Severino, 2007; Meesing, 1979; Ketudat, 1984). With the development of AEC and
regional changes, one can begin to see some movement away from the emphasis on
traditional Asian values and social norms (O’Toole, 1995). However, the implementation of a major change will face great resistance. In much of Asia, members of an organization assume that all orders or directives are from a higher position within the organizational hierarchy and are therefore tasks to be completed without questioning necessity or practicality. This lends to a compliance culture (Wheeler et al, 1997). Many of the changes that are expected as a result of the AEC are in conflict with traditional cultural norms in Thailand and other ASEAN nations (Sykes et al. 1997). The implementation of AEC may be delayed, curtailed and continually postponed as a result of the threats member states see to their traditional culture and the current economic grip by the urban elites within each member state.
 
Management Styles
Different cultures appreciate and value different leadership techniques. The leadership behavior in the west will not be as well received or as effective in the east. In many western organizations there is a clear boundary between work and life and leaders are aware not to get involved in the personal affairs of their employees. Other cross cultural studies of decision making introduced other important differences of leadership and decision making. For example, Yates and Lee (1996) found that people of East Asian cultures were more confident than Americans that their decisions were right. The authors suggest that people of South East Asia tend to select what appears to be the first adequate solution as opposed to considering a wide range of alternatives and narrowing down to the best solution. This problem solving preference for convergence rather than divergence can be seen by educators who regularly assign group work or team projects in Asia. Other examples of convergent tendencies can be found in project management and the ASEAN tendency to accept uncertainty which is often displayed in the lack of secondary or back-up systems which can be used when primary systems become inoperable. Other studies such as those by Smith, Wang, and Leung (1997), Radford and associates (1991), Hall, Jiang, Losocco, and Allen (1993) all found that Chinese organizations were more centralized than the Americans. The studies above all pointed to differences in culture, organizational structure and leadership. The need for international communication training and cross cultural behavioral competence is crucial to the organizations which plan to benefit from the AEC. 
 
Training Essentials and Specific Components
While lecture or teacher centered learning is the commonly employed method of
education in Asia, it is necessary for the participants involved in this area to receive
multi-modal training which include various methods, styles and presentation techniques. This author suggests the pre-training materials which focus on didactic elements be distributed to maximize fact to face training time. This didactic training guide should involve the factual information of the nation, population, labor law, working conditions, traditions, values, the role of the monarchy and cultural differences and is considered the most basic first step in acculturation. This material will provide the base to build on when the actual training seminars begin.
The second aspect of cross cultural training within an ASEAN context involves attribution training designed to help expatriates understand the meaning of host national behavior. This is important as it is commonly assumed that misunderstandings and failures of communication are commonly caused by perceptions of events. The expatriates will learn how to judge behavior based on its’ causes and possible explanations from a new perspective. The focus is on ‘isomorphic attributions’, which is learning how and why employees of the host culture make attributions about a variety of events so that the expatriates become able to make the same attributions and begins to see from the local perspective. Some necessary elements within this section of training include Hofstede’s work on cultural differences (1980, 1991, and 1998) while others are country specific:
a. Power distance
b. Collectivism vs. individualism
c. Uncertainty avoidance
d. Masculinity and femininity (hard vs. soft management)
e. High vs. low context communication stylesf. Short term vs. long term orientation
g. Patriarchy, nepotism, monarchy and social status
h. Specific cultural elements unique to that host culture. For
example, within the Thai setting an understanding of ‘sanuk’
(play) and ‘greng-jai’ (consideration) are essential.
A further aspect of this cross cultural training within an ASEAN context involves behavior modification training. This is designed to promote the development of habitual behaviors desired in the host culture. Expatriates will be taught how they can avoid inappropriate behavior and how to exemplify rewarded or encouraged behavior within the host culture. This is primarily done through visualization and discussion. The final aspect of cross cultural training within an ASEAN context should include specific experiential training. This refers to learning by doing. This should include the involvement of Asian nationals who role-play various situations which often cause cross-cultural conflict. Expatriate trainees will at first observe and then interact and become the ‘local’ in the role-plays. This is the primary method of learning appropriate behavior and the use of local ‘actors’ within each training session should provide the necessary reality which is missing in the majority of training sessions offered.
 
Conclusion
In conclusion, due to the clear increase in commercialization and globalization, the
formation of the AEC creates multiple opportunities to member states. While many of the national and regional advantages involving hard infrastructure development projects which await budgetary approval processes and cross-national agreements, the necessity of soft infrastructure training needs should not be overlooked by the relevant MNC’s currently position themselves in preparation for this regional integration. To maximize employee productivity and organizational benefits, cross cultural training with an ASEAN focus should be considered among leading organizations in the region. This training should eschew traditional teacher centered educative methodology and incorporate practical isomorphic elements with the intention of behavior change.
 
Reference List
Asian Development Bank. (2011). Guidelines for Climate Proofing Investment in the
Transport Sector Road Infrastructure Projects. Downloaded on March 21, 2014.
Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. (1999), "The Right Way to Manage Expats", Harvard
Business Review, March/April, 52-62.
Cappellan, T., & Janssens, M. (2010). The career reality of global managers: An
examination of career triggers. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management. 21: 1884-1910.
Czinkota, M., & Ronkainen, I. (2008). Trends and indications in international business:
Topics for future research. Management International Review. 49, 249-266.
Deshpande, S. P. (1992). Is Cross-Cultural Training of Expatriate Managers Effective: A
Meta Analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 16, 295 - 310.
Hall, R. H., Jiang, S., Loscocco, K. A., & Allen, J .K. (1993). Ownership patterns and
centralization: A China and U.S. comparison. Sociological Forum, 8(4), pp. 595-
608.
Hofstede, G. H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. H. 1998. Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national
cultures. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Ketudat, S. (1984). Planning and implementation of the primary education reform in
Thailand,
Littrell, L. N., & Salas, E. (2005). A review of cross-cultural training: Best practices,
guidelines, and research needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 305-
335.
Meesing, A. (1979). Social studies in Thailand in Mehlinger HD & Tucker JL (eds), Social
Studies in Other Nations, 31–43, ERIC Reproduction Document Service No. ED,
174 540.
O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. In Hallinger, P. (2004).
Meeting the Challenges of Cultural Leadership: the changing role of principals in
Thailand. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education. 25(1), March 2004.
Radford, M. H. (1991). Differences between Australian and Japanese students in
reported use of decision processes. International Journal of Psychology, 26(1), pp.
35-52.
03 June 2014, 10th International Academic Conference, Vienna ISBN 978-80-87927-02-1, IISES
Richardson, J. & McKenna, S. (2002). International experience and academic career:
What do academics have to say? Personnel Review, 32(6), 774 – 793.
Severino, R. (2007). ASEAN Beyond Forty: Towards Political and Economic Integration.
Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 29. No. 3 (2007). pp. 406-23.
Smith, P. B., Wang, Z. M., & Leung, K. (1997). Leadership, decision-making, and cultural
context: Event management within Chinese joint ventures. Leadership Quarterly,
8(4), pp. 413-431.
Sykes G, Floden, R. & Wheeler, C. (1997). Improving Teacher Learning in Thailand:
analysis and options, report to the Office of the National Education Commission
(#21/2540), Bangkok, Thailand.
Ward C. and rana-Deuba, A. (2000). Home and host culture influences on sojourner
adjustment. International Journal of International Relations, 24, 291-306.
Wheeler, C., Gallagher, J., McDonough, M., & Sookpokakit-Namfa, B. (1997). Improving school-community relations in Thailand, in Cummings, W.K. & Altbach, P.G. (eds),
The Educational Change in Thailand 205 Challenge of Eastern Asian Education:
Implications for America, pp. 205–319, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York
Press.
Yates, J. F., & Lee, J. W. (1996). Beliefs about overconfidence, including its crossnational variation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 65(2),
pp. 138-147.
Zakaria, N. (2000). The effects of ceoss-cultural training on the acculturation process of the global workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 219,