Download Understanding Trigger Events

Trigger Event 6/24/2017
TRIGGER EVENTS IN INTERCULTURAL SENSEMAKING
Joyce Osland
San Jose State Unviersity
Allan Bird
University of Missouri-St. Louis
&
Allison Gundersen
Case Western Reserve University
ABSTRACT
In a global economy intercultural adaptability is an important skill for anyone working across cultures.
We adopt a social cognitive approach to explain trigger events – occasions that lead people to notice
cultural differences – which in turn generate opportunities for intercultural sensemaking. Because the
trigger event construct has received little attention and scant empirical study since its conception, we
performed a multidisciplinary review of trigger event definitions, resulting in an explicated list of
characteristics. In a process model, we delineate four moderators of the arousal-attention dynamic as
well as threshold moderators of situational characteristics that may constitute triggers leading to
intercultural sensemaking. We position trigger events within the larger context of intercultural
adaptation and effectiveness.
2
TRIGGER EVENTS IN INTERCULTURAL SENSEMAKING
The range of what we think and do
Is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice
That we fail to notice,
There is little we can do
To change
Until we notice
How failing to notice
Shapes our thoughts and deeds.
- R.D. Laing
An American was on a short-term assignment in Germany, a country with which he had little
personal experience. As he rode the bus or walked through the streets, he was surprised that people
ignored the nods and smiles he sent in their direction.
Although he didn’t take their reaction
personally, he was both puzzled and uncomfortable by this unexpected behavior. He drew on previous
experiences in Japanese culture where people sometimes avoid meeting strangers, thereby avoiding the
incurrence of more obligations, but this felt very different. After a while, he asked a trusted German
friend to explain the lack of greeting behavior. Since the German had no quick explanation, the
American began to quiz him, trying to figure out in what specific situations Germans interact in this
manner. He developed a working hypothesis about the development of intimacy in German culture,
which he tested out with his German subordinates. Over time, the American also began to see a
pattern in other behavioral contexts – for example, the relations between those with authority and
those without and the way junior colleagues adjusted their behavior when speaking with senior
colleagues. Eventually he saw the lack of greetings to strangers on the street as part of a larger
cultural pattern of social distance. Once he understood the pattern, he stopped nodding and smiling,
stopped expecting this behavior from others, and ceased to reflect on it.
What prompted the American to pause and try to figure out the German behavior he observed?
The absence of expected behavior served as a trigger event that initiated a period of focused cultural
3
sensemaking. Recent research into the intercultural adaptability of expatriates has taken a social
cognitive approach, focusing specifically on the processes by which managers make sense of
culturally different behaviors (Osland & Bird, 2000). However, as Starbuck and Milliken (1988)
insightfully point out, “If events are noticed, people make sense of them and if events are not noticed,
they are not available for sensemaking” (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988: 60). Our current investigation
focuses on “trigger” events in understanding what factors and conditions evoke intercultural
sensemaking behaviors and cognitions in intercultural settings.
Within the realm of managerial research, the trigger concept has remained largely unaddressed
since Louis (1980) and Louis and Sutton’s (1991) seminal work on surprise and sensemaking.
Consequently, few organizational scholars have empirically examined the concept or elaborated upon
it conceptually. One exception is Maitlis and Lawrence’s (2008) study of conditions that trigger
sensegiving in organizations. While some research on intercultural competence has focused more
extensively on conditions that prompt mindfulness (cf., Berger & Douglas, 1982; Ting-Toomey, 1999)
and the processes surrounding unexpected behavior and their outcomes for people in intercultural
interactions (cf., Storti, 1990), it, too, has left the nature of trigger events largely unexplored.
Therefore, this topic is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. First, a multidisciplinary
review and synthesis of prior work may lead to a clearer conceptualization of trigger events and
elaborate multiple facets of the phenomenon. Second, a more thorough understanding of the role of
trigger events that incorporates cognitive considerations in intercultural sensemaking and a delineation
of the process could contribute to intercultural training and coaching. Accurate cultural sensemaking
is an essential element of effective global leadership (Osland, Bird, Osland, & Oddou, 2007).
In the next section, we review and synthesize the definitions and treatment of trigger events in
various disciplines that utilize this concept. This is followed by an explanation of sensemaking and its
4
distinctive characteristics within the intercultural context. We present a process model of trigger
events in intercultural sensemaking and conclude with implications for future research and practice.
UNDERSTANDING TRIGGER EVENTS
In an organizational context, a trigger event has been defined as an interruption in a cognitive
flow (Weick, 1995); however, many disciplines – e.g., chemistry, computer science, operations
research, psychology, education, and so forth -- have developed their own definitions of trigger events.
For example, in chemistry, a trigger event is characterized by a chemical reaction or phase transition,
whereas in education it is defined as a “disorienting dilemma”; in intercultural communication, it is a
“culture bump” that indicates unexpected behavior and in computer science, it is a set of rules that
identify exceptionality. A multidisciplinary literature review led to the exploration and synthesis of
the varied definitions and applications, resulting in the following explication of various trigger event
characteristics.
Trigger events deviate from expectations. Louis (1980) identified one category of trigger
events, describing them as surprises or discrepancies from expected or deliberate initiatives to pay
attention because one does not know what to expect (Louis & Sutton, 1991). Archer (1986), for
example, coined the term “culture bump” to refer to a cultural difference that causes a disruption in
thinking or behavior flow, which is grounded in expectations stemming from the normal situational
behavior learned within one’s own culture.
Trigger events are disruptions to a stable state that lead to a new state. Trigger events are
described as perturbations that are responsible for moving a system from an initial state to a final goal
state (Senglaub, 2001).
For instance, an automated military training program that models
5
commander’s intent1 uses trigger events to move a system from a starting condition through a series of
intermediate states to a final goal state (Senglaub, 2001).
Trigger events prompt changes in direction or trajectory. In artificial intelligence, computer
science, and engineering, trigger events are rules that identify exceptionality and signal that a change
in function is needed. In a similar vein, decision making in operations research views trigger events as
changes in environmental circumstances or as new information that activates further decisions and/or
alterations in course (Joosten, 1994). For instance, expert schedulers use “'broken-leg' cues as a
decision making trigger event, i.e., an event or information that alters the certainty of a standard
determinant event” (McKay, Buzacott, Charness & Safayeni, 1992). On an organizational level,
triggers events may lead to a change in strategic direction as a response to internal or external stimuli
(Walsh & Ungson, 1991).
Trigger events initiate previously learned responses. Some trigger events are viewed simply
as behavioral or emotional prompts of the stimulus-response variety. As used in social work (Humair
& Ward, 1998; Parker & Randall, 1996), trigger events in operant conditioning, are formulated as
situations that activate negative behaviors. For example, identifying triggers is often a fundamental
component of smoking cessation and addiction programs.
Once the trigger-response linkage is
understood, the trigger can be eliminated or avoided, or the response behavior can be modified.
Trigger events can be multiple. Multiple triggers can occur within the same interactive
affective and behavioral incident, especially as humans react and interact with others. For instance,
Lewis argues that triggers in emotional sensemaking, what he calls “emotion appraisal,” can define the
onset of an emotional episode, as well “as any point in an ongoing appraisal-emotion stream” (Lewis,
2004: 27). For example, in a merger, a female manager from the acquired firm was offended by a
1
Commander’s intent is defined as a concise expression of the purpose of an operation and its desired end state that serves
as the initial impetus for the planning process.
6
pushy male executive from the acquiring company. Her forceful response elicited more aggressive
behavior on the executive’s part. The initial action and the subsequent responses that marked their
escalating conflict and disintegrating relationship constituted multiple trigger events.
Triggers,
therefore, can modify the ongoing sensemaking, replacing it or extending it, based on the current
context and state of the individual (Lewis, 2004).
Trigger events can be accumulative. Accumulative trigger events can take two forms. A
persistent cue or signal may come to be seen as a disruption, as noted in research on problem detection
(Billings, Milburn & Schaalman, 1980). For example, repeated complaints from the same supplier may
eventually prompt corrective action. An accumulative trigger may also result from multiple disparate
cues in aggregation (Cowan, 1986), such as the employee who ultimately realizes that he should start
looking for a new job after observing a series of events: slow promotion decisions that were formerly
automatic, buy-out rumors in the press, decreased stock prices, and a superstar employee who jumps
ship.
Trigger events can be transformative, leading to deeper understanding and higher
consciousness. In transformational learning, trigger events are called “disorienting dilemmas” that
lead students to self-examination, to critically question their beliefs and assumptions and, eventually,
to adopt a new perspective on their experience or the world, moving to a new paradigm (Cranton,
1994; Mezirow, 1991; 1997; 2000).
The common thread running through these many definitions and aspects is that a trigger event
is an interruption in a previously stable state or coherent flow that initiates a response, leading to a new
state. When trigger events involve cognition, that new state may involve sensemaking, learning and,
possibly, transformation.
7
THE INTERCULTURAL CONTEXT
Trigger events are inextricably linked to context. In the intercultural context, we view culture
as a communal response to the need for simplification and uncertainty reduction.
Different
communities reach different answers to common questions; thus, when people from diverse cultures
interact there is a large potential for misunderstanding, for gaps between the expected and the
experienced (Bird & Osland, 2006).
Culture is a society’s way of addressing basic issues and questions such as what is the nature of
the individual; what is the relationship of people to nature; how should relationships within a
community be structured; how should time be viewed; and what is the purpose of activity (Brannen et
al., 2004; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). The objective in answering these questions is to reduce
uncertainty so that through shared understandings -- both tacit and explicit -- the community can
function effectively.
Weick’s (1979) definition of organizing as a “consensually validated grammar for reducing
equivocality through sensible interlocks” aptly applies to culture as well. By means of shared values,
attitudes and beliefs, as well as norms, rituals and artifacts, cultures reduce the uncertainty surrounding
human interaction within a society.
Working within a community where there are shared
understandings, individuals can develop expectations regarding how events will unfold, how people
will behave and what behaviors are appropriate or efficacious. The cognitive element of culture
acquisition is supplemented by a physiological element. Recent brain research has identified mirror
neurons – neurons that fire both when a person acts and when a person observes actions performed by
another -- that may serve as a vehicle for unconscious culture learning (Blakeslee, 2006). Culture also
simplifies interpersonal interactions, thereby reducing the need for conscious cognitive effort. When
8
individuals venture outside their cultural group, they are confronted with a substantial increase in
uncertainty, which implies cognitive and emotional demands.
“It is the ambiguity of meaning that marks the boundaries of culture (Cohen, 1985: 55) – the
boundary is where the ambiguity begins, where managers can no longer be sure of the correctness of
their interpretation of what is going on” (Apfelthaler & Karmasin, 1998: 8).
Intercultural
communication researchers highlight the importance of anxiety and uncertainty reduction in
intercultural relations. Although they are not labeled as such, these two factors are described in the
literature as both triggers and motivating factors for sensemaking. Two types of uncertainty are
present in interactions with strangers (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The first type refers to uncertainty
about the strangers’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, and behavior, which hampers the ability to
predict their behavior. The second type of uncertainty concerns explanations for strangers’ behavior.
“Whenever we try to figure out why strangers behaved the way they did, we are engaging in
explanatory uncertainty reduction. The problem we are addressing is one of reducing the number of
possible explanations for the stranger’s behavior to understand it and thus be able to increase our
ability to predict their behavior in the future” (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997: 32-33). Because the ability to
predict how people make decisions is especially useful in business, uncertainty about what strangers
see as plausible goals and the appropriate actions to achieve them within a particular setting can
trigger uncertainty reduction efforts.
Confronted with uncertainty, people who work with other cultures are trained to be mindful,
which is closely related to attention and sensemaking. Mindful communication involves attending to
one’s internal assumptions, cognitions, and emotions, and simultaneously attuning to the other’s
assumptions, cognitions, and emotions (Ting-Toomey, 1999). It also means learning to see behavior
or information in a situation as fresh or novel; viewing a situation from several perspectives; attending
9
to the context and the person exhibiting the behavior; and creating new categories through which new
behavior may be understood (Langer, 1997; Thich, 1991). These responses can only be initiated
subsequent to a trigger event; thus, mindfulness can be readily conceptualized as an aspect of
sensemaking.
TRIGGER EVENTS
AND INTERCULTURAL SENSEMAKING
Sensemaking involves placing stimuli into a framework that enables people “to comprehend,
understand, explain, attribute, extrapolate, and predict" (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988: 51). Louis (1980)
described the role of sensemaking in newcomer socialization as a thinking process that uses
retrospective accounts to explain surprises.
Sensemaking can be viewed as a recurring cycle comprised of a sequence of events occurring
over time. The cycle begins as individuals form unconscious and conscious anticipations and
assumptions, which serve as predictions about future events. Subsequently, individuals
experience events that may be discrepant from predictions. Discrepant events or surprises,
trigger a need for explanation, or post-diction, and, correspondingly, for a process through
which interpretations of discrepancies are developed. Interpretation, or meaning, is attributed
to surprises…it is crucial to note that meaning is assigned to surprise as an output of the
sense-making process, rather than arising concurrently with the perception or detection of
differences (Louis, 1980: 241).
Thus, sensemaking is an ongoing activity. Within complex situations people “chop moments
out of continuous flows and extract cues from those moments” (Weick, 1995: 43). An interruption to
a flow often results in an emotional response when there is arousal in the autonomic nervous system.
Emotion typically signals a failed expectation and serves as a warning that attention must be paid to a
stimulus. The emotion lasts until individuals find an alternative action that maintains their sense of
10
well being (Berscheid, Gangestad, & Kulaskowski, 1984). When a cue is extracted from the general
flow of stimuli, it is “embellished” and linked to a more general idea, most commonly to a similar cue
from one’s past (Weick, 1995). Once causal relationships are developed, the sensemaking is encoded
into cognitive structures that are referred to as “schemas,” and the behavioral responses are called
“scripts” (Sims & Gioia, 1986).
The phenomenon of intercultural sensemaking is complex and incorporates interrelated
variables. Our goal in building the model found in Figure 1 was a parsimonious but comprehensive
representation of reality. The model includes only those essential variables supported by the limited
research findings, knowledge of the intercultural context, and pilot interviews. The model is based on
the assumption that there are various reactions to trigger events, but we are primarily interested in the
intercultural sensemaking reaction. The Trigger Events and Intercultural Sensemaking Model (see
Figure 1) consists of the following categories of variables: 1) The Trigger Event results from the
interaction between a Person, the Situation, and the arousal-attention aspect of sensemaking 2) which
sets off conscious or unconscious Event Reactions; 4) the most transformational and positive reaction
is Intercultural Sensemaking, which has 5) numerous cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
Consequences.
Our primary objective within this article is to explicate the relationship among
variables in the Trigger Event category process. Given space limitations and the article’s focus,
research propositions are presented only for this portion of the model.
=====
Insert Figure 1 here.
=====
11
The arousal-attention dynamic is a reciprocal interaction involving an emotional/physiological reason
and a cognitive act of appraisal. Arousal and attention are discussed separately below, but the
literature treats them as inextricably connected (Lewis, 2005; Gazzaniga, 2004CITE).
Arousal-Attention
Arousal can be defined as a physiological and psychological condition involving the autonomic
nervous system and various neural systems collectively known as the arousal system. Physiologically,
arousal primes people for fight or flight reactions. Psychologically, arousal sets off a rudimentary
form of sensemaking (Mandel, 1984; Berscheid, 1983). Arousal has three characteristics: more
sensitive to sensory stimuli, more physically active, and react more emotionally (Garey, et al., 2003).
Arousal helps regulate consciousness, attention and information processing (Posner & Rothbart,
1998). Bradley and Lang (2000) note that variations in arousal are used as a means of differentiating
types of emotion. Indeed, Lewis argues that, “Arousal of bodily systems is also a critical component
of emotions, as it is necessary to prepare for and support the behaviors they induce (2005:187).”
Emotional stimuli are associated with physiological responses involving body temperature, heart rate,
breathing, perspiration and sets of physical actions such as fight or flight behaviors (Lewis, 2005).
Reciprocally, bodily changes of the type noted above may in turn evoke emotions (Thayer & Lane,
2000).
Emotion, and attendant arousal, is highly influential in determining attention (Bower, 1992;
Wells & Matthews, 1994). Derryberry and Tucker (1994) use the term “motivated attention” to
emphasize that attention tends to focus on that which is emotionally compelling. Indeed, attention
motivated by emotional arousal tends to replace or interrupt the pre-existing attentional frame (Oatley
& Johnson-Laird, 1987). Emotion, including arousal, may also lead to a narrowing of attention
(Lewis, 2004; Weick, 1995). Lewis comments on the relationship between triggers, arousal and
12
attention when he writes, “Thus, perceptual, emotional, and attentional processes amplify one another
(positive feedback) but at the same time begin to tune or constrain each other (negative feedback)
(2005: 174).”
Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect of the environment
while ignoring others. Research on attention links it to detection, selection and discrimination of
stimuli, as well as allocating of limited processing resources to competing attentional demands (Lewis,
2005). Management of attention involves conscious and unconscious choices about what to scan for,
what to monitor and what to ignore (Klein et al., 2005). From a neurobiological standpoint there are a
range of attentional activities, reflecting lower- and higher-order attention (Lewis, 2005).
For
example, attention processes involving orienting and monitoring differ from processes involving
directed attention or error detection.
In trigger events, arousal and attention appear to be inextricably linked. This link is exhibited
in this description of a trigger event incident from one of our pilot interviews: “I was noticing how I
was reacting, responding, you know, shifting, reframing, and acting to what he was saying. There
were points where I could have easily become very angry. And so, at those points, …. I’m stepping
back.” In this instance, her emotional arousal directs attention to other cues in the situation which in
turn elicit arousal and, in combination serve as a triggering mechanism.
Arousal-Attention Moderators
According to Weick (1995), the predispositions and experiences of individuals contribute to
their sensitivity and openness to trigger events. Furthermore, “cues are not simply cues but rather
social constructions generated by people trying to understand situations (Klein et al, 2004: 17). Thus,
the meaning assigned to trigger events is often subjective. With respect to intercultural sensemaking,
13
four categories of individual differences influence the perception of trigger events: expertise, stance,
curiosity, and emotional resilience.
Expertise.
Intercultural competence is “the ability to communicate effectively and
appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes”
(Deardorff, 2004: 194). It includes self-awareness, motivation, perspective taking, the ability to shift
and expand one’s frame of reference (cognitive complexity), behavioral flexibility, interpersonal
skills, empathy, cultural sensitivity, and stress management (Deardorff, 2006; Gudykunst, 1994; Paige,
1993).
The skill component consists of analyzing, interpreting, relating, listening, observing,
comparative thinking and cognitive flexibility (Deardorff, 2006). All these competencies and skills
are important in heightening an individual’s arousal and attention in intercultural contexts.
People with extensive intercultural experience have previously confronted confusing cultural
situations, learned to decode cultural behavior, and develop appropriate goals and behavioral schemas
that lead to effectiveness. They have “conscious incompetence” (Howell, 1982), i.e., “they know that
that they do not always know.” Consequently, their expertise leads them to pay more attention to
situational and self-awareness cues.
Howell’s (1982) two-by-two learning model contains two axes: incompetence or competence;
and unconscious or conscious.
People begin at the unconscious incompetence level, move to
conscious incompetence, presumably after a trigger event occurs, and then to conscious competence
where they can perform it by concentrating, and finally, to unconscious competence when the skill
becomes second nature and requires no conscious thought. We argue that greater expertise will
correlate with increased sensitivity and higher levels of arousal and attention.
More generally, expert cognition includes a more extensive knowledge base developed by
experience and the increased ability to perceive and correctly interpret relevant cues, to recognize
14
patterns, anomalies and typicality, and devise creative solutions (Klein, 1998; Sternberg & Davison,
1994). Sometimes experts find meaning in the absence of events (Christoffersen, Woods & Blike,
2001). When an expected event fails to materialize, this can trigger sensemaking. Expectancies play a
large role in determining what events come to be seen as triggers; however, novices are less adept at
knowing what to expect. With respect to problem detection, Klein and his colleagues note that “the
knowledge and expectancies a person has will determine what counts as a cue and whether it will be
noticed” (Klein, Pliske, Crandall & Woods, 2005: 17). For example, on a visit to a new country
program, the director of a global development organization saw no carts, which are ubiquitous in
similar developing countries. This led him to question why the country lacked an inexpensive system
of transportation. Neither the local staff nor the less experienced international staff traveling with him
observed this cue (Osland, Bird, Osland & Oddou, 2007). Expertise in this model refers to intercultural
competence and experience.
Proposition 1: The greater the degree of expertise, the greater the level of arousalattention.
Stance. Another term for what Weick called individual predisposition to trigger events is
called stance, the orientation a person has to a situation (Chow, Christoffersen, & Woods, 2000). With
respect to problem detection, “stance is affected by a person’s level of general alertness, level of
suspicion, emotional status and so forth” (Klein et al, 2005: 23). Examples of stance with respect to
intercultural situations could include such things as positive regard for foreign people or cultures, or
the suspicion that one is being taken advantage of by members of the other culture (Osland, 1995).
Another intercultural example of stance is reflected in the taxonomy of mindsets depicting increasing
levels of intercultural sensitivity, ranging from extreme ethnocentrism at one end to extreme
ethnorelativism -- integrating and incorporating aspects of another culture into one’s self-identity -- at
15
the other (Bennett, 1993). People with ethnorelative mindsets would presumably have a higher
probability of arousal-attention.
Proposition 2: The nature of the person’s stance will influence the level of arousalattention.
Curiosity. Curiosity is defined as the motivation for exploratory behavior (Berlyne, 1960).
Exploration refers to all activities concerned with gathering information about the environment. The
definition of curiosity is further elaborated as “a recognition, pursuit and intense desire to explore
novel, challenging and uncertain events” (Kashdan & Silvia, 2008). According to Langevin (1971),
measures of curiosity treat it as either a motivational state with behavioral indices or as a personality
trait. Curiosity is a key component of intercultural effectiveness (Black & Gregersen, 1991; Kealey,
1996), as well as global mindset (Levy, Beechler, Taylor & Boyacigiller, 2007) and effective global
leadersship (Black, Gregersen & Morrison, 1999). While some people are frustrated by cultural
differences, others find them stimulating. Thus, the degree of curiosity can influence whether or not
people pay attention to anomalies and disturbances and are motivated to decode them. For instance,
one intercultural expert possessed a great deal of fundamental knowledge about a middle-eastern
culture; yet her curiosity led her to continue questioning host culture members until she could
understand their individual perspectives and discover whether they fit the cultural norm.
Proposition 3: The greater the degree of curiosity, the greater the level of arousalattention.
Emotional Resilience.
Resilience is the capacity to cope with, or recover relatively quickly from, stress (Luthar & Cicchetti,
2000). Studies on resilience and stress-coping often note a connection to positive emotion (cf. Ong, et
al., 2006). Consequently, it is more commonly referred to as “emotional resilience” in intercultural
contexts (Goldstein & Smith, 1999; Sizoo, et al., 2005). The presence of emotional resilience has been
16
consistently identified as one of the common indicators of intercultural effectiveness, implicitly
suggesting that it is positively associated with sensemaking. (Arthur & Bennett, 1995, 1997;
Caligiuri, 2000; Kealey, 1996; Ronen, 1989).
Weick (1995) notes that high levels of stress lead people to narrow their focal field, thereby
reducing what they attend to. In intercultural contexts, emotional resilience appears to moderate the
extent to which people are affected by stress, thereby enhancing their ability to cope with arousal and
engage in meaningful attention.
Proposition 4: The greater the degree of emotional resilience, the greater the level of
arousal-attention.
Trigger Conditions
Louis and Sutton (1991) categorized trigger events into three types of situations in which
actors shift to conscious engagement: novelty, discrepancy, and deliberate initiative. Novelty refers to
situations that are out of the ordinary, unique, and unfamiliar. Discrepancy refers to situations in
which expectations differ from reality and constitute disruptions or unexpected failures. Deliberate
initiatives are internal or external requests for a higher level of conscious attention, which occurs when
people are questioned or ordered to think or pay attention.
Novelty. In the intercultural context, novelty usually involves cultural incidents that come as a
surprise. Beforehand, actors have the mindset, “We don’t need to think,” (Howell’s unconscious
incompetence) (1982) as shown in the following example. A people-oriented Danish manager was
very effective in Denmark. He consulted with his subordinates on major decisions and encouraged
open communication channels. When his company sent him to manage the Philippines subsidiary, he
employed his participative style of leadership and decision-making. He soon began to notice that his
Filipino subordinates were afraid to express any disagreement with him and uncomfortable taking
initiative and accepting responsibility. He also learned that he was becoming the target of jokes and
17
had lost his subordinates’ respect. His negative emotional reaction to this news and the novelty of
having subordinates reject his leadership style triggered an exploration of differences in what his
Danish and Filipino subordinates expected of him.
Discrepancy. In the intercultural context, discrepancy often involves cultural paradoxes -situations that exhibit a contradictory nature and violate conceptualizations of expected cultural
behavior (Osland & Bird, 2000). The actor’s mindset before the trigger is “We think we know, but we
don’t,” as seen in this example. An American was supervising the turnaround of a department in an
international development agency in Guatemala.
Although her natural leadership style was
participative, she observed that her employees were not used to giving input on decisions and were
more comfortable with an autocratic leadership style, confirming what she already knew about the
culture. Therefore, she redesigned the department herself after interviewing each employee at length
about their jobs. They accepted her decisions without complaint for months until she and her boss
designed new workstations, prompting a mini-rebellion. She asked employees and cultural mentors
questions to determine why this particular decision, out of the hundreds of autocratic decisions she’d
made, provoked resistance.
The previous decisions fell into the employees’ extensive zone of
indifference (Barnard, 1968), whereas the workstations made it more difficult for employees to meet
their social needs at work in the accustomed manner. In this particular organizational context, she
learned that the importance of social relationships trumped the beliefs that superiors know best and
should make decisions. This cultural paradox triggered an occasion for sensemaking, which led, in
turn, to a synthesis that gave her a clearer understanding about when she needed to be participative
with a hierarchical workforce.
Deliberative Initiative. In the intercultural context, deliberate initiatives result from a
conscious acknowledgement of incompetence. Before being transferred to India, a Japanese executive
18
had spent his entire international career in Europe. He had no prior knowledge or experience of India,
which he and his boss viewed as a serious obstacle. With his boss’s support, he began reading, took a
seminar on doing business in India, and sought out cultural mentors to learn as much as possible about
the culture. In this case, the transfer to an unfamiliar country was the trigger event that prompted him
to initiate intercultural sensemaking (internal request) in conjunction with his boss’s recommendation
(external request).
Role of Expectation. Expectation plays a role in all three trigger conditions. The violation of
expectations is figural in both novelty and discrepant trigger events. In novelty, the surprise is
unexpected and refers to something that stands out, is unfamiliar or previously unknown.
In
discrepancy, the reality differs from the expected, and expectations can be either undermet (e.g., I was
not praised for my work as I expected) or overmet (e.g., I thought my work would be praised but not
so lavishly). In deliberate initiative, the message is communicated that one does not know what to
expect and should therefore pay closer attention and explore expectations.
Proposition 5: The greater the level of novelty, the more likely the event will trigger a
reaction.
Proposition 6: The greater the level of discrepancy, the more likely the event will
trigger a reaction.
Proposition 7: The presence of internal or external requests for deliberate initiative
will trigger a reaction.
Trigger Threshold
Not all disruptions come to be viewed as trigger events. More than one discrepancy may be
necessary to exceed a threshold level (Feldman, 1981), and individual differences in cognitive style
(Feldman, 1981) as well as practice and experience (Billings, Milburn & Schallman, 1980) influence
threshold levels. The factors that appear to moderate trigger conditions and determine the threshold
level for trigger events in intercultural sensemaking are:
intensity, salience, persistence, and
accumulation. Trigger events can be either instantaneous -- demanding immediate attention and action
19
(Louis & Sutton, 1991) -- or incremental -- receiving full attention only after an exposure period
(Billings, Milburn & Schallman, 1980).
Intensity.
The three trigger conditions identified by Louis and Sutton (1991) -- novel,
discrepant, and deliberate – can vary in strength. The more unique an event, the more it diverges from
one’s expectations, and the stronger the call to pay conscious attention constitute the intensity that
determines whether a disruption is perceived as a trigger event. The degree of intensity is also
reflected in the emotional or physiological reaction to the disruption.
Proposition 8: The greater the level of intensity, the more likely a condition will rise
to the threshold of a trigger.
Salience. Disruptions do not occur in a vacuum but against a noisy backdrop of numerous
stimuli and other disruptions. Not every disruption stands out sufficiently and shifts, in the terms of
Gestalt psychology, from ground to figure. Thus, the salience of a disruption will influence whether it
becomes a trigger event.
Proposition 9: The greater the level of salience, the more likely a condition will rise
to the threshold of a trigger.
Persistence. In Cowan’s model of the problem recognition process, persistence is defined as
“a single discrepant cue that lasts for an extended period of time” (Cowan, 1986: 769). A cultural cue
or event that persists over time is also more likely to be perceived as a trigger event than a one-time
occurrence.
Proposition 10: The greater the level of persistence, the more likely a condition will
rise to the threshold of a trigger.
Accumulation.
Cowan (1986: 769) notes that the problem recognition process is “the
accumulation of discrepancies between what is being observed and what is desired.” Discrepancies
build up until they exceed the threshold and prompt individuals to respond. With respect to trigger
events and intercultural sensemaking, individuals perceive a set of small events related to the
20
originally perceived disturbance. After the accumulation of a sufficient number, they constitute a
trigger event and a round of sensemaking ensues, as shown in the opening vignette.
Proposition 11: The greater the level of accumulation, the more likely a condition will
rise to the threshold of a trigger.
In our opening vignette, the American in Germany noticed the lack of greeting behavior in the
beginning of his stay but was too busy adjusting to a new country to pursue it; at that time it was not
salient. As time went on, he continued to notice the persistence of the behavior and the accumulation
of apparently related discrepancies, all dealing with intimacy and social distance. He strongly disliked
being ignored, an emotional reaction that contributed to the intensity of the trigger event.
He
mentioned instances in other cultures where he failed to understand behaviors but was not motivated
enough to decode their significance.
The lack of greeting behavior and related cues, however,
surpassed the trigger threshold and generated intercultural sensemaking.
Event Reactions
Disruptions and trigger events can cause cognitive, emotional and sometimes physiological
responses that may lead to event reactions. For example, one cognitive response is a conscious or
unconscious evaluation of the trigger event that prompts a fight-or-flight reaction (Cannon, 1932).
Cognitive reactions may also be driven by emotion, which is closely tied to trigger event perception.
An emotional response may be the first signal of a disturbance, for example, when negative feedback
causes anxiety that in turn leads to increased vigilance. “The cognitive function of emotions is to
direct attention to the relevant aspects of the environment in the service of action tendencies for
altering that environment….cognition is generally constrained by the type of emotional state” (Lewis,
2004: 8). When strong emotions accompany the trigger event, another form of sensemaking is likely
to occur, the emotional appraisal or interpretation that Lewis (2004) links to neurobiology. He argues
that a bidirectional interaction occurs between emotions and cognition because emotions are needed
21
“to cement emerging interpretations … and emotions are maintained by those same interpretations,
locking cognition and emotion into an enduring resonance.” In sum, emotions play an important role
in the perception of trigger events, the ensuing cognitive and emotional sensemaking, and the way
future trigger events are perceived.
Physiological responses, such as heart acceleration, nausea, and so forth may result from
trigger events (Lewis, 2004). As with emotion, such reactions can be the first signal that a trigger
event is significant and warrants attention.
On the heels of cognitive, emotional and physiological responses to trigger events, we find
three types of event reactions in the intercultural context: fight-or-flight, acceptance, or intercultural
sensemaking, described below.
Fight-or-Flight. Cannon’s (1932) fight-or-flight response describes the physiological reaction
to threats and stress, which originally primed humans for fighting or fleeing danger in order to survive.
In the intercultural context, the fight response takes the form of imposing one’s own meaning on the
situation and refusing to consider another perspective. The flight response is a withdrawal from the
other culture -- isolating oneself from contact, what anthropologists call “enclaving” with members of
one’s own culture. Flight may also be accompanied or rationalized by misattributions about the other
culture. Cultural differences are often explained using incorrect assumptions and negative evaluative
judgments. In other cases, the withdrawal may be accompanied by an emotional hijack in which
emotion overwhelms reason (Goleman, 1998).
Ranting tourists and expatriates serve as handy
examples. Fight-or-flight reactions represent a cognitive response that is restricted to one’s own
cultural framework.
Acceptance. The acceptance reaction implies a passive approach that neither rejects the
trigger event nor attempts to understand it. Instead, cultural novelty, discrepancy or information are
22
simply accepted as “this is the way it is.” When trigger events are perceived as a source of stress, they
might provoke an alternative to the fight-or-flight response that is more in keeping with an acceptance
reaction. Researchers identified a tend-and-befriend stress response in women that has a different
physiological makeup and involves nurturing children and forming social alliances for protection
(Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung & Updegraff, 2000). The acceptance reaction implies
adaptation to the expectations of another culture without necessarily understanding them.
Some authors assume that possessing attributional knowledge, an understanding of why certain
behavior is appropriate in a specific context (Bird, Heinbuch, Dunbar & McNulty, 1993), is positive.
For example, Archer (2001) addresses the importance of cultural understanding or sensemaking when
describing the reaction to culture bumps (unexpected behavior). “It is assumed that human beings feel
disconnected when encountering a cultural difference and adopt coping strategies in an attempt to
alleviate their feelings of anomie. Implicit within these strategies is the assumption that if the motive
for the behavior were known, then the discomfort would be alleviated” (Archer, 2001: 7).
Storti’s (1990) model of cultural adaptation also assumes that seeking to understand the other
culture is a better response than flight. His model also demonstrates the interplay of cognitive and
emotional responses to a cultural incident. The model begins by stating that people expect others to
behave like they do, but they do not. Thus, when a cultural incident occurs, it provokes a strong
reaction, such as fear or anger, prompting a choice point. People either withdraw from the other
culture, a negative coping reaction, or they make an effort to put aside their emotional reaction and
think about the incident cognitively—“What’s going on here?” In doing so, they become aware of
their emotional reaction and look for its cause, which in turn makes the reaction subside. This allows
them to observe and decode the situation and develop culturally appropriate expectations. As a result,
the trigger event -- the cultural incident -- is no longer novel or attached to discrepant expectations.
23
The underlying assumption of this model is that successful adaptation means acknowledging that one’s
own cultural scripts do not explain behavior in another culture. Once emotion has been dealt with,
Storti’s cultural adapters engage in a form of sensemaking when they observe the situation and
develop accurate expectations.
Like Archer and Storti, the authors assume that seeking cultural understanding is a positive
response to trigger events. The next section describes how this is done in intercultural sensemaking.
Intercultural Sensemaking
Osland and Bird (2000; see also Bird & Osland, 2006 for a more detailed description)
developed a model of intercultural sensemaking, which is based on the premise that culture is both
paradoxical (Fang, 2006) and contextual. Intercultural sensemaking is an ongoing process involving
an iterative cycle of sequential events: framing the situation, making attributions, and selecting scripts,
which are undergirded by constellations of cultural values and cultural history.
The process begins in Framing the Situation when an individual identifies a context and then
engages in indexing behavior, which involves noticing or attending to stimuli that provide cues about
the situation. The next phase is Making Attributions, a matching process in which cues are linked to
evaluation. Inferences are drawn about the people involved, such as their intent, reliability and so
forth. The third step, Selecting a Script, involves choosing an appropriate schema or cultural scripts
(Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1984: 1346). The process of sensemaking is subject to
the Influence of Cultural Values, e.g., individualism versus collectivism, high versus low power
distance (Osland & Bird, 2000).. The Influence of Cultural History, the shadow of tradition and
inherited mindsets (Fisher, 1997) must also be taken into consideration.
Returning to the American in Germany in our opening vignette, the discrepant trigger event
was the absence of smiles and greeting behavior and the American’s awareness of his emotional
24
response of discomfort. In his own culture, failure to acknowledge a greeting would be framed as
rudeness, which he speculated was not the correct explanation. He made a conscious decision to learn
about greeting behavior among strangers in the street (framing the situation). He tested a hypothesis
from his experience in another culture (avoiding incurring obligations), which is a sensemaking
strategy; but it did not match what he was seeing. As he paid closer attention to interactions and
quizzed a cultural mentor, he saw that greeting behaviors and, by extension, intimacy varied
depending on the contexts and the people involved (making attributions). He formed a second
hypothesis that greeting behavior was part of a larger cultural pattern of social distance (influence of
cultural values), which he tested with his subordinates. Satisfied with this explanation, he adapted his
expectations and behavior (selecting a script).
Outcomes
Learning and knowledge acquisition are frequently the outcome of intercultural sensemaking,
which translates into increased cultural understanding and perhaps effectiveness. There are, however,
other outcomes, proposed below: development of cognitive schema, automaticity, cue identification
and pattern recognition, increased attention/mindfulness to trigger events, emotional earmarks, and
ascending restabilization.
Sensemaking is a form of social learning that leaves a cognitive trail. Cues and actions form
schemas that will guide future behavior and influence the cues and patterns that are subsequently
identified and recognized. When similar events are observed, an automatic response is more likely.
Learned lessons from a prior round of sensemaking will determine the level of arousal, attention and
perception devoted to similar situations in the future. Such lessons also create expectancies that shape
what will be monitored in the future.
25
Another outcome is that uncertain situations in general may be more likely to trigger greater
attention and mindfulness.
The lesson from acknowledging “incompetence” or a lack of
understanding is that other uncertain situations warrant attention and perhaps require intercultural
sensemaking. The resulting sustained vigilance is a form of deliberate initiative directed at the
attention stage of the process.
Along with a cognitive trail, intercultural sensemaking is likely to produce emotional earmarks.
As noted previously, many trigger events involve emotions that generate an emotional appraisal that
accompanies sensemaking. These emotional connections and learned schemas are also filed in the
brain. Awareness of and sensitivity to similar emotions in the future could trigger attention leading to
intercultural sensemaking.
In addition, there is another emotional component to successful
sensemaking. The sense of mastery and achievement that people experience when they “crack the
code” of another culture can engender a feeling of pride (Osland,1995) that is reinforcing and makes
future sensemaking efforts more likely.
The final outcome relates to the definition of trigger events as disturbances in a phase transition
characterized by temporary disorder. Intercultural sensemaking can be viewed as a return to order, but
at a higher level of cultural understanding, which we refer to as ascending restabilization. Once
people reach a plateau of cultural understanding that allows them to function at an acceptable level,
trigger events seem to be the primary stimulus for acquiring a higher level of intercultural competence
in a specific culture.
DISCUSSION
The major contributions of this paper are the explicated definitions of trigger events in various
research and practitioner disciplines and a proposed process model of trigger events in intercultural
sensemaking.
The model begins with personal characteristics – intercultural expertise, stance,
26
curiosity, and emotional resilience – that moderate the arousal and attention paid to trigger conditions.
The typology of trigger conditions identified by Louis and Sutton (1991) – novelty, discrepancy, and
deliberate initiative – seems to be a thorough list with respect to the intercultural context. We
considered whether there might be additional categories, such as change or compelling problems in the
information stream (Thomas, Clarke, & Gioia, 1993; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005); but cultural
change could be categorized as either novelty or discrepancy and compelling cultural problems could
result from any of Louis and Sutton’s trigger conditions. Therefore, we did not expand the list of
trigger conditions.
Trigger conditions rise to the threshold of trigger events, moderated by the threshold
characteristics of intensity, salience, persistence and accumulation. At this junction, there is a choice
point among three event reactions: fight or flight, acceptance, or intercultural sensemaking. The last
choice consists of framing, attributing, and selecting the appropriate script by relying on a variety of
sensemaking strategies. Various outcomes of intercultural sensemaking are proposed, most of which
have implications for future sensemaking.
The model portrays attention, arousal, and the trigger threshold as precursors to intercultural
sensemaking in a unidirectional, iterative process, like a spiral moving upwards. The reality, however,
is doubtless less neatly linear and more iterative, doubling backwards and forward. One could argue,
for example, that intercultural sensemaking actually begins with the trigger event by setting the frame
that accounts for the disturbance. In their data/frame model of sensemaking, Klein and his colleagues
contend that:
“data are used to construct a frame (a story or script or schema) that accounts for
the data and guides the search for additional data. At the same time, the frame a
person is using to understand events will determine what counts as data. Both
27
activities occur in parallel, the data generating the frame, and the frame defining
what counts as data” (Klein et al., 2005: 20).
Thus, as soon as arousal and attention occur, individuals may begin questioning their assumptions and
start seeking additional cues related to the trigger event.
All aspects of the model, which is based on the literatures on trigger events, sensemaking and
intercultural competence, and on pilot interviews with intercultural experts, should be tested
empirically. The model has the following theoretical implications. It treats culture learning as an
organic emergent process, grounded in personal experience.
paradoxical nature of culture.
It acknowledges the inherently
It emphasizes meta-cognition skills required for intercultural
competence and cultural intelligence that are helpful to people who work in a variety of cultures
(Thomas & Inkson, 2004). Unlike some intercultural and sensemaking models, this holistic approach
recognizes the importance of both cognition and emotion.
Future research could develop measures for the basic triggering conditions of novelty,
discrepancy, and deliberative initiation.
As Griffith noted, “Louis and Sutton (1991) do not
empirically test their theory of triggers, although they do present concepts that could be used to
develop measures” (1999: 485). Perhaps one of the reasons trigger events have not been studied, is
that, like research on problem detection, laboratory studies present subjects with given situations or
problems. These situations or problems may function like deliberate triggers with some subjects, but
they do not necessarily constitute a disruption in the subjects’ cognitive flow. Therefore, trigger
events are best studied in naturalistic settings. More research is needed to understand why some
people pay attention to triggers and others do not and to discover which triggers are most commonly
perceived and by whom. There may be other situational contingencies that lead to the perception of
28
trigger events. Furthermore, future research might be able to relate certain types of trigger events with
specific sensemaking strategies, which would be helpful for training purposes.
Another line of research on trigger events in intercultural sensemaking would focus on experts
in intercultural competence. This is attractive for several reasons. First, unlike novices, they have
already reached a plateau of cultural understanding and have apparently moved beyond that plateau by
experiencing and working through significant trigger events. Second, they are more likely than
novices to avoid the fight or flight response and opt for sensemaking. Finally, they have presumably
developed more expertise in intercultural sensemaking and could explicate the reasoning and strategies
they employ. This expertise would be very useful in developing training materials and programs.
The impact of national differences in cognition on the perception of trigger events and
intercultural sensemaking represents another area of research that may hold promise. Choi & Nisbett
(2000) have addressed the influence of cultural variation related to surprise and contradiction.
According to Nisbett’s (2003) analytic-holistic framework, people from Western nations tend to be
analytical, focusing on separate elements that can be understood independent of one another and
dispositions (internal attribution). By contrast, people from East Asia tend to use holistic thinking that
focuses on relationships. Thus, Choi, Koo, and Choi (under review) contend that national differences
influence sensemaking along four dimensions: attention, causal attribution, tolerance for contradiction,
and perception of change. Lin and Klein (in process) argue further that national differences in
cognition influence the perception of anomalies and the subsequent search and use of information in
the sensemaking process.
One of the benefits of studying the intercultural context is that it serves as an extreme example
that provides lessons for more subtle issues in a domestic context. Trigger events and the need for
intercultural sensemaking are an inherent part of the struggle to comprehend cultural difference.
29
Living within one’s own culture, people are called upon less frequently to question or modify their
assumptions because their social networks may consist of people similar to them or of people who do
not threaten them.
Oftentimes the very minorities who could cause them to reevaluate their
perspectives are forced to tone down or silence discrepant views. Thus, members of the dominant
culture are more likely to operate on automatic pilot and unconscious thought and may face diversityrelated trigger events only sporadically. When they do, however, it seems likely that the proposed
model could also describe and perhaps guide their sensemaking efforts. Research could tell us
whether the same phenomenon occurs in the context of domestic diversity.
People can be trained to scan for and pay close attention to trigger events. Experiential training
sessions often design in trigger events as teachable moments. These could be used more consciously
and followed up with structured debriefings that lead participants through the model so they learn to
decode situations and use intercultural sensemaking on their own. Participants can be asked to analyze
personal trigger events using the model. Finally, training can be designed to teach participants
sensemaking strategies that are useful for specific types of trigger events and provide them with
opportunities to practice sensemaking. Trigger events play a significant role in moving people who
work across cultures from unconscious to conscious incompetence; intercultural sensemaking is a
means of helping them advance into the realm of competence and effectiveness.
30
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. 2008. International Dimensions of organizational Behavior.
Cincinnati, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Apfelthaler, G. and Karmasin, M. 1998. Do you manage globally or does culture matter at all? Paper
submitted to the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego.
Archer, C.M. l986. Culture bump and beyond. In J. M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture bound: Bridging the
cultural gap in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 170-178.
Archer, C. M. 2001. Training for effective cross cultural communication. (April 20). Accessed
1/12/07. http://www.culturebump.com/docs/whitepaper.doc,
Barnard, C.I. 1968. The functions of an executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bennett, M. J. 1993. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In
M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Berger, C. & Calabrese, R. 1975. Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1:
99-112.
Berger, C. R., & Douglas, W. 1981. Studies in interpersonal epistemology III: Anticipated interaction,
self-monitoring and observational context selection. Communication Monographs, 48: 183–
196.
Berscheid, E., Gangestad, S. W., & Kulakowski, D. 1984. Emotion in close relationships:
Implications for relationship counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of
counseling psychology. 435-476. New York: Wiley.
Billings, R.S., Milburn, T.W. & Schaalman, M.L. 1980. A model of crisis perception: A theoretical
and empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2): 300-316.
Bird, A., Heinbuch, S., Dunbar, R. & McNulty, M. 1993. A conceptual model of the effects of area
studies training programs and a preliminary investigation of the model’s hypothesized
relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(4): 415-436.
Bird, A. & Osland, J.S. 2006. Making sense of intercultural collaboration. International Journal of
Management and Organizations, 3(4): 115-132.
Black, J. S., Morrison, A., & Gregersen, H. 1999. Global explorers: The next generation of leaders.
New York: Routledge.
31
Black, J. S., & Gergersen, H. B. 1991. The other half of the picture: Antecedents of spouse crosscultural adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 461-477.
Blakeslee, S. 2006. Cells That Read Minds. New York Times January 10.
Bower, G. H. 1992. How might emotions affect learning? In S.Å. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook
of emotion and memory: Research and theory: 3-31. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Measuring emotion: Behavior, feeling, and physiology. In R. D.
Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. 242-276. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Brannen, M.Y., Gomez, C., Peterson, M.F., Romani, L., Sagiv, L. & Wu, P.C. 2004. People in global
organizations: Culture, personality, and social dynamics. In H.W., Lane, M.L. Maznevski, M.E.
Mendenhall & J. McNett (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of global management: A guide to
managing complexity: 26-54. London: Blackwell.
Cannon, W. B. 1932. The Wisdom of the Body. New York: Norton.
Choi, I. & Nisbett, R.E. 2000. Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of
contradiction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 890-905.
Choi, I, Koo, M., & Choi, J. (under review). Measurement of Analytic-Holistic Thinking Styles.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Cohen, A. P. 1985. The symbolic construction of community. London: Routledge.
Cowan, D. 1986. Developing a process model of problem recognition. Academy of Management
Review, 11(4): 763-776.
Cranton, P. 1994. Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of
adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christoffersen, K, Woods, D.D., Blike, G.T. 2001. Extracting event patterns from telemetry data. In:
Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 45th annual meeting,
Minneapolis/ St. Paul, 8–12 October 2001. HFES, Santa Monica: 409–413.
Chow, R., Christoffersen, K., Woods D. D. 2000. A model of communication in support of
distributed anomaly response and replanning. In: Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial
Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th annual meeting of the
human factors and ergonomics society, 1: 34–37
Deardorff, D.K. 2006. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in international Education, 10(3): 241-266.
32
Deardorff, D. K. 2004. The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of international education at institutions of higher education in the United States.
Unpublished dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. 1994. Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S.
Kitayama (Eds.), The heart's eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention: 167-196.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fang, T. 2006. From “onion” to “ocean”: Paradox and change in national cultures. International
Studies in Management & Organization, 35(4): 71-90.
Feldman, 1981. XXXX
Fisher, G. 1997. Mindsets: The role of culture and perception in international relations. Yarmouth,
ME: Intercultural Press.
Garey, J., Goodwillie, A., Frohlich, J., Morgan, M., Gustafsson, J., Smithies, O., Korach, K. S.,
Ogawa, S., & Pfaff, D. W. Genetic contributions to generalized arousal of brain and behavior.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(19): 11019-11022.
Gazzaniga, M. S. 2004. The Cognitive Neurosciences, 3rd Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gollwitzer, P. M. 1996. The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),
The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior: 287-312. London:
Guilford Press.
Griffith, T. 1999. Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management
Review, 24(3): 472-488.
Gudykunst, W.B. 1994. Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. (2nd. Ed.)
London: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. and Kim, Y. Y. 1997. Communicating with strangers: An approach to
intercultural communication. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Howell, W. S. 1982. The empathic communicator. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Humair, J. & Ward, J. 1998. Smoking-cessation strategies observed in videotaped general practice
consultations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(1): 1-8
Joosten, S. 1994. Trigger modelling for workflow analysis. In R. Oldenbourg (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 1994 Conference on Workflow Management: 236-247. Vienna: Munchen.
33
Kealey, D. J. 1996. The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis and R. S. Bhagat
(Eds.) Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 81-105.
Kashdan, T. B. & Silvia, P. J.. 2008. Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and
change. In S. J. Lopez, (Ed. ) Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press: In press.
King, K.P. 2004. Furthering the theoretical discussion of the journey of transformation: Foundations
and dimensions of transformational learning in educational technology. New Horizons in Adult
Education, 18(4): 4-50.
Klein, G. 1998. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Boston: MIT Press.
Klein, G., Pliske, R. Crandall, B. & Woods, D. 2005. Problem detection. Cognition, Technology
and Work, 7: 14-28.
Klein, G., Phillips, J.K., Rall, E.L., & Peluso, D.A. (forthcoming). A data/frame theory of
sensemaking. In. R.R. Hoffman (Ed.), Expertise Out of Context (NJ: Erlbaum, Mahwah).
Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, F. 1961. Variations in values orientations. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Langer, E. J. 1997. The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. 2007. “What do we talk about when we talk
about global mindset: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations, Journal of
International Business Studies. (In press).
Lewis, M.D. 2005. Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling.
Behavioral and Brain Science, 28: 169-194.
Lin, M., & Klein, H.. (In process) Culture and sensemaking: An examination of macrocognition.
Working Paper.
Louis, M. R 1980. Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226-251.
Louis, M. R. & Sutton, R. I. 1991. Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking.
Human Relations, 44: 55-76.
Luthar, S. S. & Cicchetti, D. 2000. The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and
social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12: 857-885.
McKay, K. N., Buzacott, J. A., Charness, N. & Safayeni, F. R. 1992. The scheduler’s predictive
expertise: An interdiciplinary perspective. In G. I. Doukidis and R. J. Paul (eds), Artificial
intelligence in operational research. 139-150. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
34
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1997. Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative
learning in action: Insights to practice (New Directions in Adult and
Continuing Education, No. 74): 5-12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 2000. Transformative learning as a meaning becoming clarified. In. C. Wiessner, S. R.
Meyer & D. A. Fuller (Eds.), Challenges of practice: Transformative learning in action,
proceedings of the third international transformative learning conference. New York:
Teacher’s College Columbia University: 3344-346.
Nisbett, R.E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…and
why. New York: The Free Press.
Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1987. Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and
Emotion, 1: 29-50.
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. 2006. Psychological resilience,
positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91(4): 730-749.
Osland, J. S. 1995. The adventure of working abroad: Hero tales from the global frontier. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Osland, J.S. and Bird, A. 2000. Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: cultural sensemaking in context.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(1): 65-76.
Osland, J.S., & Bird, A. 2006. Global leaders as experts. In W. Mobley & E. Weldon (Eds.),
Advances in Global Leadership, 4: 125-145. London: Elsevier.
Osland, J.S., Bird, A.,.Osland, A. and Oddou, G (2007). Expert Cognition in High Technology Global
th
Leaders.” Proceedings of the Proceedings, 8 Naturalistic Decision Making Conference,
Monterey.
Paige, M. 1993. (Ed.). Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Parker, J. & Randall, P. 1996. Using behavioural theories in social work. London: Open Learning
Foundation.
Posner, M. & Rothbart, M. 1998. Attention, self-regulation and consciousness. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, 353: 1915-1957.
Senglaub, M. 2001. Course of action analysis within an effects-based operational context.
Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
35
Sims, H.P., Jr., & Gioia, D.A. 1986. The thinking organization: Dynamics of organizational social
cognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Speilberger, C., & Starr, L. Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In XXXX.
Starbuck, W.H. & Milliken, F.J. 1988. Executives’ personal filters: What they notice and how they
make sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying
top managers. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Sternberg, R. & Davidson, J. (Eds.) 1994. The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Storti, C. 1990. The art of crossing culture, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Taylor, S.E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff, J. A. 2000.
Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight.
Psychological Review, 107(3): 411-429.
Thayer, J. F., & Lane, R. D. 2000. A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and
dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61: 201-216.
Thich, N, H. 1991. Peace is every step: The path of mindfulness in everyday life. New York Bantam
Books.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford
Thomas, D. & Inkson, K. 2004. Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. New York:
Berrett-Kohler.
Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Gioia, D. 1993. Strategic sense making and organizational
performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, acquisition and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 36: 239-270.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. 1984. Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54(2): 323-338.
Walsh, J.P. & Ungson, G.R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16:
57-91.
Weick, K.E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organising. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 1999. Organizing for high reliability: Processes of
collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 13-81.
36
Wells, A., & Matthews, G. 1994. Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
37
Trigger Event 6/24/2017
39