International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

The relationship between hotel employees’ cross-cultural competency

and team performance in multi-national hotel companies
Worarak Sucher ∗ , Catherine Cheung
School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the authors explored the benefits of understanding employee cross-cultural competency and
Received 29 August 2014 strengthening team performance, which are essential for improving the organizational effectiveness of
Received in revised form 15 May 2015 multi-national hotel companies as they expand globally. Data were collected from six multi-national hotel
Accepted 15 May 2015
companies in Thailand. A total of 738 valid questionnaires were obtained and analyzed using structural
equation modeling to test the proposed relationships, in which cross-cultural competency was developed
Keywords:
as determinant of multi-cultural team performance. The results indicate that cross-cultural competency
Cross-cultural competency
had a positive, direct effect on team performance. The authors provide significant cross-cultural the-
Team performance
Multi-national hotel company
oretical and practical management advice for stakeholders in the hospitality industry. In addition, the
Hotel employee authors establish the foundation for future studies into cross-cultural competency and multi-cultural
Hotel industry team performance in the context of Thai multi-national hotels.
Thailand © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A new form of organization is globally dominating the hotel
sector (Go and Pine, 1995). The isolation of economic activities in
individual countries has shifted toward worldwide integration. This
emerging market activity demonstrates the accelerating process of
globalization of international hospitality industry operations across
borders (Briscoe et al., 2009). The expansion of multi-national hotel
corporations (MHCs) has doubled the number of hotels over the
last decade (ITB, 2012). MHCs are poised to play a major role
in leading the sector, and thus, they are employing more peo-
ple across the globe and setting the standard for the industry
(Boardman and Barbato, 2008). This phenomenon constitutes an
increasing interaction, interconnection, and integration of people,
culture, corporations, and countries (Briscoe et al., 2009). As these
development trends continue, human resource operations require
significant changes in the management of the process of globaliz-
ing hospitality products and services for the worldwide market (Yu,
1999).
Multi-national hotels interact with many countries worldwide;
the differences in the national culture (NC) among these various
countries increase the flexibility in the values, beliefs, and behav-
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +86 852 2362 9362.
E-mail addresses: worarak.sucher@connect.polyu.hk (W. Sucher),
Catherine.cheung@polyu.edu.hk (C. Cheung).
ioral patterns of people (Briscoe et al., 2009). The global hospitality
industry has a strong tradition of diversity in its workforce (Baum
et al., 2007). As multi-cultural workforces become a major resource
for international hospitality provision, human resource manage-
ment (HRM) has become more difficult and complex (Watson et al.,
2002). Chappel et al., (2002, p. 123) suggested that hospitality work-
ers in this century must “understand, and be sensitive to, other
cultures.” This behavior is influenced to some extent by the cul-
tural norms of different societies as they have to interact with
people from different cultural backgrounds. Organizations that can
successfully implement global innovative business management
practices for this type of workforce will gain a competitive advan-
tage worldwide as multi-cultural workforces will become a major
resource for international hospitality provision; (Yu, 1999).
Given the rapid development of MHCs across Thailand (IOM,
2011), managing multi-cultural team (MCT) has important con-
sequences for strategic HRM when MCT members have diverse
cultural backgrounds (Hong, 2010) or different nationalities (Earley
and Gibson, 2002). Understanding MCTs is a critical issue for
MHCs (Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhm, 2001) if they wish to meet the
demands of high professional expertise in intercultural interac-
tions in the global business environment (Serrie, 1992; Triandis and
Singelis, 1998). Workforce diversity has elevated the value of effec-
tive cross-cultural competency (CCC) (Matveev and Nelson, 2004).
CCC has become an essential component of hospitality and tourism
practices (Nicolaides, 2010), particularly in multi-national hotels
where employees have to interact with guests and employees of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.007
0278-4319/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
94 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
Fig. 1. Multi-national hotel chains in Thailand.
different cultures. The understanding of an individual’s own culture
and competency to work with others can increase the capability and
enthusiasm of employees (Serrie, 1992). This understanding will
allow the management of MHCs to develop more efficient MCTs
(Halverson and Tirmizi, 2008; Hong, 2010).
Previous studies of CCC have investigated its relationship with
international management in the context of Western countries,
focusing on handling workplace diversity and cultural differences
(e.g., Mendenhall et al., 2001; O’sullivan, 1999). However, there
have been few studies examining the effect of CCC on MCTP in the
Asian or hotel industry context. Southeast Asia is a major market
for hospitality operation expansion (Meyer and Geary, 1993), mak-
ing further studies in this area are necessary. At the beginning of
this century, a new travel market trend emerged in the Asia-Pacific
region, with the fastest growing tourist destinations in the world
and where the largest growth opportunities in the global hospi-
tality industry are represented (UNWTO, 2012). These emerging
markets attracted the attention of international hotel developers to
invest more in the Asia-Pacific region. Thailand has been attracting
the interest of hotel investment companies. According to UNWTO
(2012), 6.9% of the total investment represented travel and tourism
investment, and the investment should increase by 9.7% over the
next decade.
Expansion efforts in Thailand were undertaken by the top
major MHCs worldwide, namely, IHG, Hilton worldwide, Marriott
International, Wyndham Hotel Group, Accor, Starwood Hotels and
Resorts, Best Western, and Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group. Fig. 1
shows the proportion of MHCs operating across Thailand. This
rapid expansion increases the opportunities for Thai employees
working with more multinational employees in the future (IOM,
2011). Diverse and large numbers of mobile workers have migrated
from different countries/regions. The top, or executive positions,
are imported from the parent companies to carry out the tradi-
tional corporate practices of major MHCs (Wickramasekara, 2002).
The executive expatriates are primarily from Europe, North Amer-
ica, Australia, and Japan, whereas migrant workers are primarily
from the Mekong region who are attracted by the low level of
skills required in hotel work (Chalamwong, 2007). The size of the
mobile workforce is increasing constantly in the service sector
(Chalamwong, 2001; IOM, 2011), and reflects the complexity of
HRM in this century.
Thailand is representative of increased number of MHCs and
multi-national workers and it is poised for the future to continue
to be, a favored international tourism destination (Selwitz, 2000). In
addition, existing studies have been limited in identifying the main
drivers of hotel employee performance in MCTs, and the factors
which affect MCTP. Thus, this study will address the following four
research objectives:
1. Identify the cross-cultural competency necessary among Thai
hotel employees to collaborate with multi-national and cross-
cultural team members.
2. Identify the key factors affecting the multi-cultural team perfor-
mance of hotel employees in multi-national hotel companies.
3. Examine the relationship between the cross-cultural compe-
tency of Thai hotel employees and their multi-cultural team
performance.
4. Develop a conceptual framework for the development of multi-
cultural team performance in MHCs.
2. Literature review
2.1. Cross-cultural competency
Competency refers to the ability of an individual to perform a
required task effectively (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). Zimmermann
(2010) noted that CCC can be defined as the capacities that are
required for the achievement of mutual understanding, as well
as for functional interaction and co-operation between people
who have different cultural backgrounds. A standard definition
for CCC cited in Barbara et al. (2009) is the ability to communi-
cate effectively and appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts,
with people who are different from oneself. The CCC proficiency
of an individual can be enhanced by drawing on an appropriate
inventory of knowledge, skills, and attributes in response to dif-
ferent cultural contexts (O’sullivan, 1999). Knowledge is required
to understand the lifestyles, thought processes, experiences, and
practices of others. Skills, including cross-cultural communication
skills, are used to customize personal behavior to interact with oth-
ers from diverse cultural backgrounds (Abbeet al., 2007; Thomas
and Inkson, 2004). Attitudes are a combination of the thoughts,
feelings, values, and assumptions that form an individual’s culture
and worldview. Cultural attitudes affect the way that individuals
understand the worldview of members of different cultures (Vonk,
2001).
The performance outcome of CCC are behavioral adaptations
that manifests themselves as an understanding of differences, com-
munication, or effective interaction with people from different
cultures, as well as integration across these differences (Iles, 1995;
Johnson et al., 2006). These attributes are essential tools for indi-
viduals working in culturally diverse teams. They “allow group
members to communicate more effectively with one another about
their differences, to evaluate more accurately how their own behav-
ior is affecting group processes, and to react in a more realistic
and less judgmental way to the different attitudes and behaviors
expressed by other group members” (Shaw and Barrett-Power,
1998; p. 1318). The major focus of this study is CCC in terms
of the appropriateness (Koester et al., 1993) and effectiveness
(Spitzberg, 1988) of the interactions between Thai hotel employees
with national cultures.
Thailand is a country with a rich ethnic diversity and organized
by cultural behavioral tendencies, including high power distance,
collectivism, femininity, and high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede
et al., 2010). These cultures determine the way in which Thais
interact with each other within their environment. National cul-
ture explains the behaviors and attitudes of people from different
nationalities and countries. The values and characteristics shape
and affect human thought and behavior, contributing to individual
differences in behavior (You et al., 2000), thus, the exploration of
a new culture should be concerned with the differences between
the two. Hofstede et al. (2010) studies the cultural differences with
emphasis on the value of work orientations, and offers another
approach to understanding the range of cultural differences. People
need to know and learn other culture to behave and act appropri-
 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
ately in a specific society due to the basic principles of interaction
(Walker et al., 2003). Culture can explicitly express the underlying
assumptions of a society in the complex fundamental interaction of
values, attitudes, and behavioral patterns; its essence is to describe
the basic representation members of particular shared social group
(Thomas, 2008).
Within MHCs, culture-general knowledge, skills, and attitudes
are required for MCT members to agree on a common work basis.
“MCT members must acknowledge differences in communication
and interaction styles of others from different cultures, demon-
strate flexibility in resolving communication misunderstandings,
and feel comfortable when communicating with foreign nationals”
(Matveev and Milter, 2004; p. 106). Members must be comfort-
able with their superiors, fellow workers, and customers, who may
exhibit a wide range of human variations, especially in relation
to culture (Nicolaides, 2010). CCC is an important component of
international HRM practice and is vital for people who work in the
international hospitality industry (Hong, 2010). CCC and diversity
can act as sources of competitive advantage and add value to a com-
pany (Yu, 1999). Consequently, MHCs can attain a more profitable
position by creating effective MCTs through CCC.
2.2. Multi-cultural team performance
MCTs are collective task-oriented groups whose members have
different nationalities and diverse cultural backgrounds (Earley and
Gibson, 2002; Marquardt and Horvath, 2001). The present study
includes token, bicultural and MCTs. Token teams have only one
member from a different culture, bicultural teams consist of mem-
bers from two cultural backgrounds, and MCTs contain members
from three or more cultural groups (Berger and Brownell, 2009).
The interactions between MCT members from different cultures
stimulate the formation of an emergent team culture (Earley and
Mosakowski, 2000). Team cultures are developed by MCT members
to simplify the few commonalities that exist among themselves and
to formulate rules, actions, performance expectations, and mem-
ber perceptions. This sharing has a positive effect on building trust,
improving performance, and enhancing team efficacy (Pearson and
Nelson, 2003). Team culture refers to a cooperative climate charac-
terized by qualities such as openness, patience, enjoyment, and the
ability of members to learn from one another (Matveev and Milter,
2004). A strong team culture supports team cohesion (Schneider
and Barsoux, 2003).
MCT effectiveness requires a long-term perspective on team
functionality, and has been defined in various ways (Thomas, 2008).
Effectiveness is contingent on a team’s cooperation and effective
use of resources to achieve its tasks (Adler, 2008). The effective-
ness of team processes can enhance the overall effectiveness of
a team. The five dimensional approaches to team effectiveness
proposed by Singh and Muncherji (2007) are team objectives, deci-
sion making, implementation, dynamics, and health. The first four
dimensions are self-explanatory and the final component refers to
the internal components of team well-being. These components
can include personal skills, attitudes, and competencies, such as
openness, respect, cohesion, trust, and team development. Orga-
nizational factors, such as strategy, policies, or human resource
practices, influence the effect of diversity on teams and team effec-
tiveness (Halverson and Tirmizi, 2008; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2004).
The composition of a group depends on the organization’s human
resource policy on recruitment and its selection process, and is
crucial in determining the skills, attitudes, values, and beliefs of
individuals in work groups, which can enhance the performance of
the team (Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000).
Teamwork is the interdependent performance of multiple indi-
viduals that results from effective coordination, and is vital to team
performance. Team performance occurs when team members work
95
Cross-Cultural Multi-Cultural
Competency Team
Performance
Fig. 2. Research model.
together cooperatively and are involved in a project throughout the
process; it lasts until the expected outcomes are obtained and the
goals are achieved at a certain level, during which time it may be
called effective performance (Salas et al., 2008). The term “effec-
tiveness” is typically used as an evaluative term for the outcome
of group performance. In dealing with MCTs, attention should be
given to team culture and cooperative climates in which cohesion,
commitment, and the clarity of responsibilities and intercultural
competence are essential (Matveev and Milter, 2004). Conflict and
communication breakdown between team members produce pro-
cess losses and discourage teamwork (Jehn and Mannix, 2001).
Communication can also be a source of conflict, as individuals from
different cultures display different communication styles, which
can lead to misunderstanding and poor performance (Jehn and
Bezrukova, 2004).
Adler (2008) suggested guidelines for maximizing the produc-
tivity of a team. Tasks should be selected by team members based
on their task-related abilities. Team members should recognize,
understand, and respect cultural differences. A common vision and
goals should be shared to direct the subsequent activities of team
members. Power among members should be based on individual
ability to contribute to the tasks. Members should have mutual
respect for one another. Positive feedback, recognition of contri-
butions, and trust are essential for team values. In addition, Zakaria
et al. (2004) provided another five guidelines to help MCT members
direct their diverse knowledge, skills, and abilities toward effec-
tive performance. Team goals and roles must be established with
face-to-face meetings. Team norms and codes of conduct for spe-
cific modes of communication must be defined. Team members
must support each other by helping the team to solve problems
and conflicts. Team learning must be facilitated through collabora-
tion. Relationships and social ties between team members must be
built.
3. Research model
CCC has been of interest to some researchers in determining
the ability of a person to work in a multi-cultural setting and suc-
cessfully interact with others from many cultures (Serrie, 1992;
Johnson et al., 2006). CCC within MCTs can create trust and cohe-
sion, which are essential for building teamwork (Adler, 2008). CCC
raises awareness of differences in cultural values, communication
styles, and approaches to decision making, problem solving, and
conflict resolution, allowing cultural differences among team mem-
bers to be overcome (Grosse, 2002). Previous studies have indicated
that CCC is positively related to the performance of MCTs (e.g., Abbe
et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2006; Thomas, 2008), and that CCC pre-
dicts MCTP (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). Such cultural differences
influence team dynamics and the ability of MCTs to achieve high
levels of performance (Matveev and Milter, 2004). A cross-cultural
competent member of a MCT should be able to establish an inter-
personal relationship with another team member from a different
culture, through effective behavioral exchanges at the verbal and
non-verbal levels (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). The following ini-
tial research model in Fig. 2 is proposed, based on our literature
review. This study postulated multi-cultural team performance as
an outcome of hotel employees’cross-cultural competency.
96 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
Table 1
Sample size and response rate.
IHG Marriot Starwood
Questionnaire distributed 60 220 140
Questionnaire returned
No. 47 163 104
Percentage 5.74 19.90 12.70
Valid questionnaire
No. 34 142 89
Percentage 4.61 19.24 12.06
Response rate 78.33 74.09 74.29
4. Methodology
The authors used a combination of qualitative and quantitative
research method to investigate the relationship between the two
constructs of CCC and MCTP, and to examine the relative contribu-
tion of CCC to the performance of MCTs. This study used a sample
size of 738 Thai hotel employees to represent the entire population,
to verify the measurement item scales and to verify the validity of
the structural model.
4.1. Instrument development
The development of measurement items follows the procedure
suggested by Churchill (1979). It is the most appropriate proce-
dure to develop the reliable and valid multi-item instrument, which
has been used in previous research and applied in diverse settings
(Getty and Thompson, 1994). The preliminary measurement scales
are derived from the extensive literature review and use the data
obtained from in-depth interviews to further supplement and mod-
ify the variables and finalize the reliable measurement scale items
based on the discussion and consultation with the expert panels;
five academic educators and three hotel managers. This step allows
the authors to develop the initial questionnaire for the pilot study.
The authors initially designed the measurement scales on the
basis of relevant literature on CCC and MCTP. The 20 items of cul-
tural intelligence developed by Earley and Ang (2003) were adopted
to measure the CCC construct. Cultural intelligence describes an
individual’s adaptive capability to function effectively in culturally
diverse situations with others and is used in several organiza-
tions with practical and direct relevance to employees. Cultural
intelligence also shows high internal consistency and test-retest
reliability for each factor. In determining the level of MCTP, the
authors used 26 items based on the group development question-
naire created by Wheelan and Buzaglo (1999), to which the authors
added the MCT assessment of Halverson and Tirmizi (2008).
The measurement instrument was tested in the pilot study to
ensure the validity and reliability of the initial questionnaire, and
its validity and high internal consistency were established. The
measurement scales were further modified based on preliminary
results by employing EFA with a varimax rotation to support the
determination of the scales of each dimension and the Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha is assessed to ensure its reliability. Finally, 26
items for CCC and 22 items for MCTP were retained and used
in the main survey. The final questionnaire with valid and reli-
able measurement scales items are developed for further analysis.
Each item was measured using a seven-point Likert-scale, ranging
from 7 (extremely agree) to 1 (extremely disagree), in the self-
administered questionnaire.
4.2. Data collection
For the purposes of this study, the population is defined as
the hotel employees who have been working in the multi-cultural
teams in multi-national hotels. The employees of different depart-
Accor Hilton Wyndham Total
410 130 40 1000
358 112 35 819
43.71 13.68 4.27 100
334 107 32 738
45.26 14.49 4.34 100
87.32 86.15 87.5 81.9
ments in different positions, such as sales and marketing, rooms
divisions, food and beverage, and others, were invited to participate
in the survey. This principle of selection was adopted to generate a
variety of opinions and views that can then be generalized to obtain
a relatively wide and representative range of responses. The sam-
pling was purposively selected based on the membership report of
the Thai Hotel Association in 2011, which listed 709 hotels. Only the
hotels affiliated with the six major western MHCs were selected for
the study, including IHG, Accor, Marriott, Wyndham, Starwood, and
Hilton. Such convenient purposive and snowball sampling method
were convenient and helped the researcher collect the most desir-
able data from the target respondents (Locke, 2001).
The questionnaires were distributed to Thai hotel employees
working in MCTs of different departments in multi-national hotels
with ratings ranging from four to five stars in IHG, Accor, Marriott,
Wyndham, Hilton, and Starwood, which are located in Bangkok and
Pattaya, Thailand. Data collection carried on a cautious framework
and an on-site intercept procedure by distributing hardcopies of
questionnaires to employees (Hsieh and Chang, 2006). Completed
questionnaires were collected by hotel human resource depart-
ments; the authors visited the hotels and contacted a key person
(i.e., the human resource director, human resource manager, or
training manager), who agreed to assist in survey distribution and
collection in 2-3 weeks’ time. When the number of questionnaires
met the requirement, the authors personally collected the com-
pleted hardcopies from the hotels.
One thousand questionnaires were distributed and 819 ques-
tionnaires were returned, which translates to an 81.9% response
rate, as shown in Table 1. The data were screened and filtered
by examining missing data using listwise deletion (Allison, 2003),
identifying outliers (Hair et al., 2010), assessing data normality
(Byrne, 2010), and testing reliability (Field, 2005), to ensure that the
dataset satisfied the structural equation modelling (SEM) require-
ments (Little and Rubin, 2002). Data reliability and validity were
tested and determined to be acceptable. After the screening pro-
cess, 81 cases (less than 10% of the total) were removed from the
dataset (Kline, 2005), leaving 738 valid questionnaires for further
analysis.
4.3. Data analysis
The dataset was analyzed using SEM on Amos 20. This method
was used to test the measurement and structural models by
describing the level of significance of the relationships and the
extent to which the model fit the data (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al.,
2010). First, descriptive analysis was used to illustrate the basic
demographic profiles and characteristics of the respondents and
to examine their responses (Finn et al., 2000). Second, exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) was used to filter the measurement items and
examine the construct dimensionality and the reliability of the vari-
ables. Third, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
examine the relationship between the observed variables under-
lying each construct and to assess the construct convergent and
discriminant validity. Cross validation was used to assess the data
 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104 97

structure’s representativeness of the population. The entire valid Table 2

Profile of the respondents (N = 738).
sample was randomly split into two subsets. One subset (N = 370)
was used for calibration in EFA and the other subset (N = 368) was Item Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
used for validation in CFA. Finally, SEM was applied to the entire Gender Male 254 34.4
dataset to examine the relationships between the latent constructs Female 484 65.6
(Hair et al., 2010). Age 20 years or below 11 1.5
21–25 years 206 27.9
26–30 years 212 28.7
5. Results 31–35 years 172 23.3
36–40 years 71 9.6
5.1. Profile of the respondents 41–45 years 47 6.4
46 years or above 19 2.6
Educational level High school 77 10.4
Table 2 shows detailed demographic information for the 738 College diploma or 71 9.6
respondents. The female respondents (65.6%) outnumbered their equivalent
male counterparts (34.4%). The respondents were Thai hotel Bachelor’s degree 525 71.1
employees working in MHCs in Thailand (Marriott, Accor, Star- Master’s degree 63 8.5
Ph.D. or doctoral degree 2 0.3
wood, IHG, Hilton, and Wyndham) in departments including the
Main area of study Hospitality and tourism 296 40.1
front office (34.3%), food and beverage (26.3%), sales and market- Business administration or 119 16.1
ing (17.5%), housekeeping (7.6%), and others, including recreation, general management
spa, security, and engineering (14.4%). Respondents aged between Arts and humanities 162 22.0
21 and 25 years (27.9%) and between 26 and 30 years (28.7%) Others 161 21.8
Department Sales and marketing 129 17.5
accounted for more than half of the total population. More than Food and beverage 194 26.3
89.2% of the respondents had completed college-level education or Front office 253 34.3
above. This indicated that majority of the respondents were well- Housekeeping 56 7.6
educated. About 40.1% studied hospitality and tourism programs, Others 106 14.4
22% studied arts and humanities, 16.1% studied business admin-
istration or general management, and around 21.8% studied other
subjects.
off point for factor interpretation (Field, 2005). Twenty-five items
5.2. Individual measurement model test were retained and categorized into relationship building, cultural
sensitivity, and cultural awareness, as shown in Table 3. The aver-
5.2.1. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of age community was equal to 0.68 and the factor loading ranged
cross-cultural competency from 0.62 to 0.78. These three factors produced 68% of the overall
EFA of 26CCC items was conducted using a 370 dataset. Varimax variance. The result of Barlett’s test of sphericity was highly sig-
rotation and an eigenvalue greater than 1 were adopted to examine nificant (2 = 7675.198, df = 300, p < 0.00) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
the underlying structure of the relationships between the items in (KMO) was 0.97. The Cronbach alpha coefficients of the three fac-
the construct. A factor loading of less than 0.50 was used as a cut- tors were extremely high (0.92 to 0.95). The authors concluded that

Table 3
Exploratory factor analysis results for cross-cultural competency (N = 370).

Code Item Factor loading Eigen-value % Var. ␣

Factor 1 cultural sensitivity 14.70 58.80 0.95

CS 7 Confidence of remaining calm in effectively dealing with stress 0.72
CS 8 Valued own ability of adapting to various cross-cultural encounters 0.71
CS 10 Harmonious relationship with multi-cultural team members 0.71
CS 13 Confidence of working with other cultures in harmony 0.71
CS 4 Ability of working in a team in which the majority of members from unfamiliar cultures 0.70
CS 5 Effective handling of own emotions and frustrations 0.69
CS 9 Appropriate adaptability of non-verbal behavior 0.69
CS 3 Utilization of a variety of effective communication strategies 0.67
CS 12 Enjoyment of working in unfamiliar team cultures 0.67
CS 11 Confidence in socialization with unfamiliar cultures 0.65
CS 2 Reflection of own behavior effecting on other team members 0.63
CS 1 Employment of appropriate strategies for adjusting to other cultures 0.62
Factor 2 cultural awareness 1.35 5.39 0.92
CA 3 Accuracy in evaluating multi-cultural knowledge 0.73
CA 4 Consciousness of the application of cultural knowledge 0.72
CA 1 Awareness of acceptable choices and consequences in other cultures 0.71
CA 6 Awareness of how other cultures view one own 0.71
CA 2 Comprehension of own culture in responding to other cultures 0.70
CA 5 Awareness of norms and taboos of other cultures 0.68
Factor 3 relationship building 0.95 3.81 0.93
RB 2 Ease of starting a friendship with those of different cultures 0.78
RB 1 Enjoyment of working with culturally diverse members 0.70
RB 5 Enjoyment of intercultural interaction 0.65
RB 3 Capability to contrast aspects of other cultures with one own 0.63
RB 4 Ability to adapt appropriate verbal behavior 0.63
RB 6 Capability to describe one own cultural behavior 0.58
RB 7 Attempt to behave in an appropriate way 0.56

Overall Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) = 0.970, Barlett’s test of sphericity: Chi-square = 7675.198, df. = 300, p < 0.000 % Var. = percentage of variance explained, ˛ = cronbach’s
alpha.
98 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104

Table 4
First-order confirmatory factor analysis results for CCC (N = 368).

Items Factor Estimate C.R. (t-value) Std. FL SMC

Factor 1cultural sensitivity

CS11 ←− Cultural sensitivity 1.000 0.778 0.606
CS3 ←− Cultural sensitivity 1.015 14.999 0.771 0.594
CS8 ←− Cultural sensitivity 1.049 15.260 0.789 0.622
Factor 2 cultural awareness
CA4 ←− Cultural awareness 1.000 0.882 0.778
CA3 ←− Cultural awareness 0.965 16.344 0.819 0.671
Factor 3 relationship building
RB7 ←− Relationship building 1.000 0.779 0.606
RB4 ←− Relationship building 1.102 16.267 0.826 0.682
RB5 ←− Relationship building 1.143 15.989 0.805 0.648

Noted: All are significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 5
Correlation (squared correlation), reliability, AVE, and mean.

Cultural sensitivity Cultural awareness Relationship building

Cultural sensitivity 1.000

Cultural awareness 0.641 (0.411) 1.000
Relationship building 0.748 (0.560) 0.647 (0.419) 1.000
Reliability 0.823 0.839 0.844
AVE 0.607 0.724 0.646
Mean 5.619 5.380 5.570
S.D. 0.891 0.999 0.907

Table 6
Second-order confirmatory factor analysis results for CCC (N = 368).

Factor Construct Estimate C.R. (t-value) Std. FL SMC

Cultural sensitivity ←− CCC 1.000 0.948 0.899

Cultural awareness ←− CCC 1.008 12.725 0.811 0.658
Relationship building ←− CCC 0.974 12.694 0.948 0.899

Noted: All are significant at the 0.001 level.

the CCC construct represented adequate sampling and good data
fitting, given the high internal consistency and the reliable scale.
CCC is a multi-dimensional construct consisting of two levels of
latent variables. Examination of each level should be conducted
separately to confirm the identification. A partial aggregation
model was chosen to examine the distinctiveness of the abstract
construct (Byrne, 2010). First and second-order CFAs were con-
ducted to test the 25 observable variables and the three factors.
The initial model fit indices of the first-order CFA (2 = 846.77,
df = 272, GFI = 0.835, CFI = 0.917, RMSEA = 0.076) indicated a poor
model fit. An examination of the modification indices (MIs)
revealed that the factor loadings were inappropriate and error
covariance had been mis-specified. Seventeen items were removed,
leaving eight items. The final model showed an excellent goodness
of fit (2 = 18.267, df = 17, GFI = 0.988, CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.014).
The validity of the model was further assessed by examining
convergent and discriminant validity. The convergent validity was
measured by standardized loading and the level of statistical sig-
nificance. As shown in Table 4, all of the standardized factor loading
exceeded 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010), ranging from 0.77 to 0.88, and the
statistics of all of the C.R. values were greater than 1.96, and were
therefore statistically significant (Byrne, 2010).
The average variance extracted (AVE) was also used to test for
both convergent and discriminant validity. Table 5 shows that all of
the AVE values were greater than the minimum requirement (0.50)
and reliability also exceeded the minimum standard (0.7). The AVE
value for each construct was greater than the squared correlation
coefficients for the corresponding inter-constructs, which showed
that each construct was distinct from the others. Thus, the con-
vergent and discriminant validity was statistically significant and
acceptable (Hair et al., 2010).
Finally, second-order CFA was conducted to examine the identi-
fication status of the higher order portion of the model. The overall
model fit indices (2 = 18.267, df = 17, GFI = 0.988, CFI = 0.999,
RMSEA = 0.014) indicated that the model fit the data acceptably
well. The standardized estimates (Std. FL and C.R.) were statistically
significant as shown in Table 6.
5.2.2. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of
multi-cultural team performance
EFA with varimax rotation was used for 370 cases. Three factors
were extracted as illustrated in Table 7 and 20 items were retained.
70% of the total variance was explained by the extracted factors. The
average communality was 0.70 and all of the factor loadings were
above the minimum standard (Field, 2005), ranging from 0.51 to
0.79. The overall KMO measure was 0.96, which indicated adequate
sampling, as it was greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Barlett’s test
of sphericity was highly significant (2 = 5991.10, df = 190, p < 0.00).
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.92, which was significant. The
items in this construct were internally and extremely consistent,
thereby forming a highly reliable scale, and three factors fit the
data well.
MCTP is also a multi-dimensional construct, consisting of three-
factor constructs (team function, team climate, and team skills)
measured by 20 observable variables. First- and second-order CFAs
were conducted on this construct. The initial statistical results of
the first-order CFA (2 = 615.604, df = 167, GFI = 0.851, CFI = 0.921,
RMSEA = 0.086) indicated a poor fit of the model to the sample
data. Thus, MIs were used to find inappropriate factor loadings
and mis-specified error covariance. Eight items were retained and
goodness of fit indices were examined. The results showed that the
 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104 99

Table 7
Exploratory factor analysis results for multi-cultural team performance (N = 370).

Code Item Factor loading Eigen-value % Var ␣

Factor 1 team foundation 11.89 59.49 0.92

TF 4 Attempt to accomplish a task 0.79
TF 2 Comprehension and acceptance of an assigned role 0.78
TF 3 Clarity of the purpose of work team 0.75
TF 5 Hold the essential skills and abilities 0.72
TF 1 Acceptance of common work values 0.67
TS 9 Spend sufficient time of working with team members 0.58
Factor 2 team climate 1.10 5.47 0.92
TC 4 Listening to each team member 0.79
TC 6 Highly cohesive and cooperative of the team 0.74
TC 1 Trust among team members 0.74
TC 5 Learning from each other and developing skills 0.74
TC 3 Individual’s performance praise with achievement celebration 0.73
TC 2 Feeling valued at work 0.59
Factor 3 team skills 1.01 5.05 0.92
TS 1 Empowerment for task completion and decision making 0.77
TS 2 Support of hotel management 0.70
TS 4 Effective conflict management strategies 0.68
TS 3 Implementation and evaluation of solutions 0.67
TS 5 Open communication among team members 0.61
TS 7 Enjoyment of working in the team 0.57
TS 6 Give, receive, and use feedback constructively 0.54
TS 8 Comprehension and respect cultural differences 0.51

Overall Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) = 0.964, Barlett’s test of sphericity: Chi-square = 5991.101, df = 190, p < 0.000 % Var. = percentage of variance explained, ˛ = cronbach’s
alpha.

Table 8
First-order confirmatory factor analysis results for MCTP (N = 368).

Items Factor Estimate C.R. (t-value) Std. FL SMC

Factor 1 team foundation

TF3 ←− Team foundation 1.000 0.877 0.770
TF2 ←− Team foundation 0.956 20.258 0.847 0.718
TF4 ←− Team foundation 0.878 18.567 0.799 0.638
Factor 2 team climate
TC1 ←− Team climate 1.000 0.890 0.793
TC4 ←− Team climate 0.941 19.584 0.866 0.749
Factor 3 team skills
TS3 ←− Team skills 1.000 0.803 0.644
TS2 ←− Team skills 0.954 15.095 0.806 0.649
TS1 ←− Team skills 0.918 12.440 0.660 0.436

Note: All are significant at the 0.001 level.

Table 10
Second-order confirmatory factor analysis results for MCTP (N = 368).

Factor Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. (t-value) Std. FL SMC

Team skills ←− MCTP 1.000 0.890 0.792

Team climate ←− MCTP 1.068 0.77 13.800 0.891 0.793
Team foundation ←− MCTP 0.878 0.70 12.591 0.853 0.727

Note: All are significant at the 0.001 level.

Table 9 of the AVE values were greater than 0.50 and the reliability was
Correlation (squared correlation), reliability, AVE, and mean.
also higher than the minimum standard (0.7). The AVE value for
Team foundation Team climate Team skills each construct was greater than the squared correlation coefficients
Team foundation 1.000 for the corresponding inter-constructs. Thus, the model success-
Team climate 0.696 (0.484) 1.000 fully confirmed satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.
Team skills 0.630 (0.397) 0.626 (0.392) 1.000 Second-order CFA was similarly conducted to test the identification
Reliability 0.879 0.870 0.796 status of the higher order portion of the model. The overall model fit
AVE 0.708 0.771 0.577
indices (2 = 11.843, df = 17, GFI = 0.992, CFI = .000, RMSEA = 0.000)
Mean 5.784 5.666 5.525
S.D. 0.907 0.999 0.887 indicated that the model fit the data very well. All of the stan-
dardized estimates (C.R. and Std.FL) were statistically significant
as shown in Table 10.
model perfectly fit the sample data (2 = 11.843, df = 17, GFI = 0.992,
CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000). 5.3. Overall measurement model test
As shown in Table 8, the estimates of standardized factor loading
ranged from 0.660 to 0.890, which were greater than the minimum The overall measurement model was examined with eight CCC-
criteria (Hair et al., 2010), and the statistics of all of the C.R. values related items and eight MCTP-related items, based on the results
were significant (Byrne, 2010). Additionally, Table 9 shows that all of the CFA. The model fit indices (2 = 201.510, df = 197, GFI = 0.968,
100 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104

Table 11
Results of overall measurement model (N = 738).

Factor Construct Estimate C.R. (t-value) Std. FL SMC

Construct 1 CCC
Cultural sensitivity ←− CCC 1.000 0.936 0.876
Cultural awareness ←− CCC 0.970 18.121 0.845 0.714
Relationship building ←− CCC 0.976 19.880 0.964 0.929
Construct 2 MCTP
Team foundation ←− MCTP 1.000 0.883 0.780
Team climate ←− MCTP 1.139 18.534 0.856 0.733
Team skills ←− MCTP 0.948 15.203 0.899 0.807

Note: All are significant at the 0.001 level.

Table 12
Correlation (squared correlation), reliability, AVE, and mean.

Cross-cultural competency Multi-cultural team performance

Cross-cultural competency 1.000

Multi-cultural team performance 0.641 (0.411) 1.000
Reliability 0.871 0.846
AVE 0.838 0.516
Mean 5.502 5.605
S.D. 0.828 0.838

CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.038) indicated a high degree of model fit.
Table 8 shows the critical ratio and the standardized factor loading.
All of the standardized factor loading estimates were greater than
0.50 (Hair et al., 2010) and the CR values were significant (Byrne,
2010). Thus, examining the items as indicators of the CCC and MCTP
construct should lead to convergence at a common high proportion
of variance (Hair et al., 2010). The AVE values were greater than
0.50 and reliability was also higher than the minimum standard
(0.7). The AVE value for each construct was greater than the squared
correlation coefficients for the corresponding inter-constructs. The
model successfully confirmed the satisfactory discriminant validity
(Hair et al., 2010) Tables 11 and 12.
5.4. Structural measurement model test
In the previous section, the authors described an acceptable
measurement model. The structural model was then evaluated
to determine the relationship between CCC and MCTP. The
model fit indices (2 = 201.510, df = 197, GFI = 0.968, CFI = 0.986,
RMSEA = 0.038) were all higher than the minimum criteria, which
indicated that the structural model fit the sample data well. The
results of the structural path estimates, including all of the latent
variables, between CCC and MCTP is represented in Fig. 3. The struc-
tural path estimates were statistically significant and had valid C.R.
values. The path coefficient from CCC to MCTP was 0.75 and the
C.R. (t-value) was 15.42 (Byrne, 2010). The path coefficient value
and significance level illustrated that the influence of CCC on MCTP
was positive and statistically significant.
6. Discussion and conclusion
This study examined the relationships between the CCC and
MCTP of Thai hotel employees. The proposed relationship was
developed based on a comprehensive literature review. The statis-
tical findings described the relationship between CCC and MCTP.
CCC has positive direct effects on MCTP. The multi-dimensional
measurements of CCC and MCTP were used in a CFA and structural
model testing. The measurement scales used in this study were
verified by statistical analysis. The results demonstrated that the
measurement scales were reliable and valid when used in the set-
ting of hotels in Thailand. The internal consistency and construct
validity were tested and were found to be acceptable. The results

Relationship Cultural Cultural

building awareness sensitivity

0.96*** 0.84*** 0.94***

Cross-cultural Multi-cultural
competency team
0.75*** performance

0.90*** 0.86*** 0.88***

Team Team Team

skills climate foundation

Fig. 3. Final structural model with standardized parameter estimates.

 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
Fig. 4. Conceptual framework.
indicated that the measurement and structural models adequately
fit the sample data. As such, the proposed model was shown to
be satisfactory and effective. The proposed structural model has
the statistical ability to predict the determinants of hotel employee
MCTP and the outcomes of CCC. Next, the authors discuss how to
the research objectives were achieved and propose the conceptual
framework of the relationship between cross-cultural competency
and multi-cultural team performance in multi-national hotel com-
panies.
6.1. Cross-cultural competency necessary for thai hotel
employees in multi-cultural hotel companies
Eight essential competencies that are necessary for Thai hotel
employees prior to joining MCTs were identified. These compe-
tencies fall into three dimensions of relationship building, cultural
sensitivity, and cultural awareness. They allow Thai hotel employ-
ees to work and communicate effectively with multi-national and
cross-cultural team members. These finding were consistent with
those of previous studies. Enjoyment in or motivation for “rela-
tionship building” competency is a vital foundation for achieving
higher CCC (Bennett, 2009; Earley and Ang, 2003), when combined
with cultural knowledge and skills, personal abilities, and inter-
ests (O’sullivan, 1999). The “cultural sensitivity” competency is an
important component of CCC, because it addresses the individual’s
affective perception of cultural diversity (Suh, 2004). Cultural sen-
sitivity likewise denotes the possession of affective recognition,
respect for cultural differences and an accepting attitude (Jones
et al., 1998). Individuals can increase their “cultural awareness”
competency by accumulating cultural knowledge and using it as
a reference for their own perceptions regarding cultural diversity.
Cultural awareness refers to an individual’s appreciation for and
sensitivity toward examining their own preconceptions toward
101
other cultures and their own culture (Campinha-Bacote, 2002). The
current study refined the measurement scale and determinants
of the CCC construct and verified its descriptions and categories,
which are important for hotel employees in MHCs to enhance
MCTP. This three-dimensional model was shown to be applicable
in Thailand. The refined measurement construct of CCC can be used
as a reference for future studies in this area and as a guideline for
Thai hotel employees’ cross-cultural training.
6.2. Key factors affecting the multi-cultural team performance of
hotel employees in multi-cultural hotel companies
The essential factors of the MCTP of hotel employees in MHCs
identified by the Thai hotel employees’ perceptions were catego-
rized into three components, team skills, team foundation, and
team climate. The contribution of these key factors to MCTP is a
suitable topic for investigation in MHCs. As in previous studies,
certain variables in the organizational and societal contexts also
influenced team effectiveness (Halverson and Tirmizi, 2008). The
“team foundation” component includes clarity of team goals and
responsibilities, complementary skills, and attitudes such as open-
ness, respect, and helpfulness. These factors positively influence
cohesion, trust, and team development (Earley, 2002; Marquardt
and Horvarth, 2001 Matveev and Milter, 2004; Zakaria et al., 2004).
The internal components of team cooperation (Adler, 2008) and
team well-being, such as a healthy team climate (Thomas, 2008),
are essential elements in supporting internal team factors that later
enhance the functioning of team processes and increase MCT effec-
tiveness (Earley and Garder, 2005; Singh and Muncherji, 2007). The
overall results indicated that the measurement of MCTP of Thai
hotel employees was valid and reliable, and can be effectively used
in the context of Thai MHCs.
102 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
6.3. Relationship between the cross-cultural competency of thai
hotel employees and their multi-cultural team performance
The findings illustrated that CCC has a significant positive effect
on MCTP, which was consistent with previous studies, and con-
firmed that CCC has theoretical influence on MCT collaborations
(e.g., Abbe et al., 2007; John et al., 2006 Thomas, 2008) and on
MCTP prediction (Matveev and Milter, 2004). The findings also
highlighted the importance of CCC in establishing interpersonal
relationships and working effectively with culturally diverse col-
leagues. In other words, hotel employees with higher levels of CCC
perform better in MCTs and contribute to a more successful MCTP.
The standardized estimate of the direct effect of CCC on MCTP
was 0.75, which meant that a one-point increase in CCC would
result in an increase of 0.75 in MCTP. Thai hotel employees’ percep-
tions of their own CCC were related to their performance in MCTs.
Furthermore, the three determinants of CCC had similar significant
positive effects on MCTP. The “relationship building” competency
factor had the highest contribution to MCTP, followed by the “cul-
tural sensitivity” and “cultural awareness” factors. All of the items
under investigation were found to be highly correlated with MCTP.
To overcome cultural differences within a team, members must
have CCC (Matveev & Nelson, 2004) and multi-cultural teamwork
values (Grosse, 2002).
6.4. Conceptual framework of the relationship between ccc and
mctps in MHCs
Fig. 4 demonstrates the conceptual framework derived from the
study findings. CCC contributed positively to MCTP in MHCs. The
enjoyment and application of appropriate behavior implied by the
“relationship building” competency allows individuals to develop
social ties (Zakaria et al., 2004) and increases the likelihood of par-
ticipation in cross-cultural exchanges (Abbe et al., 2007; Earley and
Ang, 2003; Suh, 2004). Individuals with a high level of “relation-
ship building” competency are predicted to have the capability to
strengthen their network, develop skills, and perform remarkably
well in MCTs.
The “cultural sensitivity” and “cultural awareness” competen-
cies are related to behavior or skills that are important in the
present international work environment (Bennett, 2009). There-
fore, these two competencies guide an individual to behave
appropriately and effectively in an intercultural situation, partic-
ularly in MCTs. Nevertheless, cultural knowledge had a positive
effect on the maximization of CCC attributes, especially the CCC of
other individuals (Koester et al., 1993). The accumulation of these
three competencies in MCT members helps them to perform suc-
cessfully in MCTs and enhance their team performance.
“Team skills,” “team foundation,” and “team climate”, as the
predominant factors in overall team performance, should be con-
sidered by all stakeholders, including the organization, team
members, and the individual in question. As the contributor to orga-
nizational success and growth in the global market is based on the
successful performance of MCTs (Guindi and Kamel, 2003), orga-
nizations that can successfully implement practices for improving
MCTP will gain a competitive advantage worldwide (Yu, 1999).
7. Research contributions
7.1. Theoretical contributions
The authors have contributed to the theoretical literature by
developing a model that is particularly relevant to MHCs. This study
has extended the existing theory of CCC and MCTP into the hotel
context. The authors have enhanced the current literature by devel-
oping a model based on a synthesis of the existing literature and
industry practices, and by assessing the relationship between CCC
and MCTP. Moreover, through the model, CCC was examined for
its relationship with and effect on MCTP. Our model enhances the
current understanding of the determinants of MCTP.
Statistical tests and instrument verification have shown that
CCC measures are feasible in the Eastern social context. Some mea-
surements and dimensions have been amended based on statistical
analysis; thus, these conform to the context of hotel employees.
The study also verified and developed measurement scales for CCC
and MCTP in the hotel context. The measurement items of CCC
and MCTP constructs were initially developed in the Western set-
ting. These studies used EFA to verify the measurements of the
constructs and CFA to examine the reliability and validity of mea-
surement items. All of the constructs were valid in the context of the
hotel industry in Thailand. These constructs indicated a high inter-
nal consistency, reliability, and validity. The measurements can
contribute to the existing theory and can be a basis for future stud-
ies in related areas under Thai settings, specifically in the context
of MHCs.
7.2. Practical contributions
This study provides key information for stakeholders on how
to prepare effective human resources in the international hospital-
ity industry setting, particularly in Thailand, as well as in tailoring
practices to produce the best match, which will eventually enhance
potential Thai employees’ competency in collaborating with multi-
cultural colleagues and in different cross-cultural settings. The
practical implications can be implemented by hotel practitioners
and hospitality academics as described below. The recommenda-
tions can be made to practitioners to emphasize the impact that
even they are common practices in multi-national hotel compa-
nies, they are useful references for Thai hotel companies and Thai
educators in their human resources planning and training.
Through the dimension of MCTs in MHCs in this study, manage-
ment can obtain an understanding of Thai employee perceptions
of MCTP, design effective HRM practices to fit the psychological
demands of employees, and assess employees’ CCC as a marker
for their ability to work in an international culture. This study
confirmed the effect of CCC on MCTs, showing that management
should concentrate on enhancing employee CCC to improve MCTP.
Moreover, when CCC is improved, employees express their sat-
isfaction with working in MCTs. Increased knowledge of the CCC
of Thai employees and their performance in MCTs may help the
management of MHCs with subsidiaries in Thailand to implement
appropriate and effective strategies for enhancing the abilities, sat-
isfaction, and performance of Thai hotel employees.
Furthermore, the study indicated that investment in cross-
cultural training for students will enhance their capabilities in
intercultural effectiveness before they enter the international hos-
pitality industry. Graduate cross-cultural training will enhance
performance in MCTs. Information on CCC and MCTP will be useful
for potential hotel employees in MHCs to understand the ways in
which they can enhance their CCC and develop relationships with
other employees who are from different cultures and backgrounds,
so that they can work effectively in MCTs. The information from this
study may provide insights for educators in developing an appro-
priate pedagogy for educating and training future generations of
employees in the hospitality industry, by integrating the influences
of cultural diversity on the industry today and in the future.
8. Limitations of the study
Despite the valuable contributions discussed previously, certain
limitations are evident in the sample selection and data collection
processes.
 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
The sample selected for this study may have biased the results.
Data were collected from only 29 hotels belonging to six MHCs in
Bangkok and Pattaya. This sample may not have been represen-
tative of the entire population. In future studies, the scope of the
sample should be broadened. The inclusion of multi-national cities
would make the findings more generalizable and lead to a compre-
hensive understanding of MCTP, which may benefit service MCTs.
Similarly, even though a large sample size is collected from multi-
ple international hotel chains and different star rating, the results
may not be generalized to every international hotels worldwide.
Snowball and convenient purposive sampling were used and
the hotel selection process may have been subject to bias. In addi-
tion, data collection was performed within a rigorous framework,
which covered the speed of collecting questionnaires, response
quotas, cost, time, accuracy of responses, and the samples. The
human resources departments offered their assistance in question-
naire distribution and collection in different departments in the
hotels. Nonetheless, bias could have arisen during the distribution,
collection, and retrieval of the questionnaires, which could have
negatively affected the research results.
9. Future studies
The authors have discovered that CCC at the interpersonal level
can be improved by cross-cultural training (CCT). CCT is one strat-
egy that could enhance an individual’s ability to manage cultural
diversity (Gamio and Sneed, 1992) and improve the effectiveness
of successive MCTs (Adler, 2008). Thus, well-planned longitudinal
studies should be conducted in the future to assess the intercultural
effectiveness of Thai hotel employees. Such studies should imple-
ment testing before and after CCT (Goldstein and Smith, 1999) to
obtain a more comprehensive understanding of MCTP in the hos-
pitality context. In the Thai hospitality context, there have been
limited studies of this scope. Therefore, future investigations could
focus on the ways that Thai hotel employees can improve their CCC,
increasing their future success in collaborating with MCTs in the
fields of hospitality and tourism. In addition, the sample size should
be increased to include more multi-cultural cities, representing the
entire population of MHCs in Thailand.
References
Abbe, A., Guilick, L.M.V., Herman, J.L., 2007. Cross Cultural Competency in Army
Leaders: A conceptual and Empirical Foundation. Virginia, U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Adler, N.J., 2008. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 5th ed.
Mason, Thomson South- Western.
Allison, P.D., 2003. Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. J.
Abnorm. Psychol. 112 (4), 545–557.
Barbara, F.S., Sheila, J.R., Gordon, C.W., 2009. From intercultural knowledge to
intercultural competence: developing an intercultural practice. In: Moodian,
M.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Exploring
the Cross-Cultural Dynamics Within Organizations. Sage Publications, London.
Baum, T., Dutton, E., Karimi, S., Kokkranikal, J., Devine, F., Hearns, N., 2007. Cultural
diversity in hospitality work. Cross Cult. Manage. Int. J. 14 (3), 229–239.
Bennett, M.J., 2009. Transformative training: designing programs for culture
learning. In: Moodian, M.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural
Competence: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dynamics Within Organizations.
London, Sage Publications.
Berger, F., Brownell, J., 2009. Organizational Behavior For The Hospitality Industry.
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Boardman, J., Barbato, C., 2008. Review Of Socially Responsible HR And Labour
Relations Practice In International Hotel Chains. Geneva, International Labour
Office.
Briscoe, D.R., Schuler, R.S., Claus, L., 2009. International Human Resource
Management: Policies And Practices For Multinational Enterprises, 3rd Ed.
New York, Routledge.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling With Amos: Basic Concepts,
Applications And Programming, 2nd Ed. New York, Routledge.
Campinha-Bacote, J., 2002. The process of cultural competence in the delivery of
healthcare services: a model of care. J. Transcult. Nurs. 13 (3), 181–184.
Chalamwong, Y., 2001. Recent trends in migration flows and policies in Thailand.
TDRI Quarterly Rev. 16 (2), 10–18.
103
Chalamwong, Y., 2007. Expanding the Number of Semi-skilled and Skilled
Emigrant Workers from Southeast Asia to East Asia. TDRI Quarterly Review,
Thailand Development Research Institute, 22(4), December.
Chappel, S., D’Annunzio-Green, N., Maxwell, G., 2002. Hospitality And Emotional
Labour In An International Context. Continum, London.
Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J. Marketing Res. 16 (1), 64–73.
Earley, P.C., 2002. Refining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving
forward with cultural intelligence. In: Staw, B.M., Kramer, R.M. (Ed.). Research
in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical
reviews, 271-299.
Earley, P.C., Ang, S., 2003. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across
Cultures. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Earley, P.C., Garder, H.K., et al., 2005. Internal dynamics and cultural intelligence in
multicultural teams. In: Sharpiro (Ed.), Managing Multicultural Teams: Global
Perspectives. Elsevier, Oxford.
Earley, P.C., Gibson, C.B., 2002. Multinational Work Teams: A New Perspective.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New Jersey.
Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd Ed. SAGE Publications,
London.
Finn, M., Elliott-White, M., Walton, M., 2000. Tourism And Leisure Research
Methods: Data Collection, Analysis And Interpretation. Pearson Education,
Essex, UK.
Gamio, M.O., Sneed, J., 1992. Cross-cultural training practices and needs in the
hotel industry. J. Hospitality Tourism Res. 15, 13–26.
Getty, J.M., Thompson, K.N., 1994. A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodging
quality. Hospitality Res. J. 18 (2), 75–96.
Gibson, C.B., Zellmer-Bruhm, M.E., 2001. Metaphors and meaning: an intercultural
of the concept of teamwork. Adm. Sci. Q. 46, 274–303.
Go, F.M., Pine, R., 1995. Globalization Strategy In The Hotel Industry. Routledge,
London.
Goldstein, D.L., Smith, D.H., 1999. The analysis of the effects of experiential training
on sojourners’ cross-cultural adaptability. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 23,
157–173.
Grosse, C.U., 2002. Managing communication within virtual intercultural teams.
Business Commun. Q. 65, 22–38.
Guindi, A.E., Kamel, S., 2003. The role of virtual multicultural teams. In: Felix, B.,
Tan, P.A. (Eds.), Chapter V, Advanced Topics in Global Information
Management, 2. Ideas Group Publishing, 62-63.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 2010. Multivariate Analysis, 7th
Ed. Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halverson, C.B., Tirmizi, S.A., 2008. Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory And
Practice. Springer Science VT, Business media B.V.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures And Organizations:
Software Of The Mind: Intercultural Cooperation And Its Important For
Survival, 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, London.
Hong, H.J., 2010. Bicultural competence and its impacts on team effectiveness. Int.
J. Cross Cult. Manage. 10 (1), 93–120.
Hsieh, A., Chang, J., 2006. Shopping and tourist night markets in taiwan. Tourism
Manage. 27 (1), 138–145.
Iles, P., 1995. Learning to work with difference. Personnel Rev. 24 (6), 44–60.
IOM, Thailand Migration Report 2011. Migration for Development in Thailand:
Overview and Tools for Policymakers. International Organization for Migration
Thailand. 2011.
ITB World Travel Trends Report 2011/2012, 2012. Retrieved on January 15, 2013
from http://www.itbberlin.de/media/itbk/itbk media/itbk pdf/WTTR Report
komplett web.pdf
Jehn, K.A., Bezrukova, B., 2004. A field study of group diversity, workgroup context,
and performance. J. Organiz. Behav. 25 (6), 703–729.
Jehn, K.A., Mannix, E.A., 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study
of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Manage. J. 44 (2),
238–251.
Johnson, J.P., Lenartowicz, T., Apud, S., 2006. Cross cultural competence in
international business: toward a definition and a model. J. Int. Business Stud.
37, 525–543.
Jones, M.E., Bond, M., Cason, C.L., 1998. Where does culture fit in outcomes
management. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 13 (1), 41–51.
Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles And Practices Of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd Ed.
Guilford Press, New York.
Koester, J., Wiseman, R.L., Sanders, J.A., 1993. Multiple perspectives of intercultural
communication competence. In: Wiseman, R.L., Koester, J. (Eds.), Intercultural
Communication Competence. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 3–15.
Little, R.J.A., Rubin, D.B., 2002. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Locke, K., 2001. Grounded Theory In Management Research. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Marquardt, M.J., Horvath, L., 2001. Global Teams: How Top Multinationals Span
Boundaries and Cultures with High-speed Teamwork. Palo Alto, CA,
Davies-Black.
Matveev, A.V., Milter, R.G., 2004. The value of intercultural competence for
performance of multicultural teams. Team Perform. Manage. 10 (5–6),
104–111.
Matveev, A.V., Nelson, P.E., 2004. Cross cultural communication competence and
multicultural team performance. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manage. 4 (2), 253–269.
Maznevski, M.L., Chudoba, K.M., 2000. Bridging space over time: global virtual
team dynamics and effectiveness. Organiz. Sci. 11 (5), 473–492.
104 W. Sucher, C. Cheung / International Journal of Hospitality Management 49 (2015) 93–104
Mendenhall M.E., Kuhlman T.M., Stahl G.K., 2001. Developing Global Business
Leaders: Policies, Processes and Innovations [online access]. Westport, CT,
Greenwood.
Meyer, R., Geary, T., 1993. Thailand: Challenges and Opportunities. The Cornell
H.R.A. Quarterly 34 (3). 50-55.
Nicolaides, A., 2010. Training Culturally Skilled Hospitality Employees. Educ. Res. 1
(12), 687–690.
O’sullivan, S., 1999. The distinction between stable and dynamic cross-cultural
competencies: implications for expatriate training. J. Int. Business Stud. 30 (2),
709–305.
Pearson, J.C., Nelson, P.E., 2003. Human Communication. McGraw–Hill, New York.
Salas, E., Cooke, n., Rosen, M., 2008. On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance:
Discoveries and Developments. The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 50, 540-547.
Schneider, J., Barsoux, J.L., 2003. Managing Across Cultures. Pearson Education,
Essex, Prentice Hall.
Serrie H., 1992. Teaching Cross Cultural Management Skills, Journal of Teaching in
International Business, 3, (3). 75–91.
Singh, A.K., Muncherji, N., 2007. Team effectiveness and its measurement: a
framework. Global Business Rev. 8 (1), 119–133.
Shaw, J.B., Barrett-Power, E., 1998. The effects of diversity on small work group
processes and performance. Hum. Relat. 51 (10), 1307–1325.
Spitzberg, B. H., 1988. Communication competence: Measures of perceived
effectiveness. A handbook for the study of human communication, 67-105.
Suh, E.E., 2004. The model of cultural competence through an evolutionary concept
analysis. J. Transcult. Nurs. 15 (2), 93.
Thomas, D.C., 2008. Cross-cultural Management: Essential Concepts, 2nd Ed. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks London.
Thomas, D.C., Inkson, K., 2004. People skills for global business: Cultural
Intelligence. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.
Triandis, H.C., Singelis, T.M., 1998. Training to recognize individual differences in
collectivism and individualism within culture. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 22 (1),
35–47.
UNWTO. 2012. Tourism Highlight 2012 Edition, Retrieved on 15 January 2012,
http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/
unwtohighlights12enlr 1pdf
Vonk, M.E., 2001. Cultural competence for transracial adoptive parents. Soc. Work
46 (3), 246–255.
Walker, D. M., Walker, T. D., Schmitz, J., Brake, T., 2003. Doing business
internationally: The guide to cross-cultural success.
S. Watson N. D’Annunzio-Green G.A. Maxwell Human Resource Management
Issues in Hospitality and Tourism: Identifying the Priorities N.
D’Annunzio-Green G.A. Maxwell S. Watson Human Resource Management:
International Perspectives in Hospitality and Tourism. New York, Bookcraft
Midsomer Norton 2002 1–14.
Wheelan, S.A., Buzaglo, G., 1999. Facilitating work team effectiveness: Case Studies
from Central America. Small Group Research 30 (1), 108–129.
Wickramasekara, P., 2002. Asian Labour Migration: Issues and Challenges in an Era
of Globalization, International Migration Papers no. 57, Geneva, International
Labour Office.
Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., Wilemon, D., 2004. Working together apart? building a
knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity Innovation
Manage. 13 (1), 15–29.
Zimmermann, K., 2010. Intercultural Competence as a Success Factor of Virtual
Multicultural Teams: A Case Study on the Team Effectiveness of Global HR
Teams (Master’s Thesis, Department of Communication, University of
Jyvaskyla), 1-116.
You, X., O’leary, J., Morrison, A., Hong, G.S., 2000. A cross-cultural comparison of
travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs Japan. Int. Hospitality Tourism
Manage. 1 (2), 1–26.
Yu, L., 1999. The International Hospitality Business: Management And Operations.
The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York.