Page - (000072) - in Knowledge and Networks

63 uum ranging from denial of difference to integration of difference. Denial of cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture is experienced as the only real one. Other cultures are either not perceived at all, or they are construed in rather vague ways. Defense against cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture is experienced as the only viable one. Minimization of cultural difference is the state in which elements of one’s own cultural worldview are experienced as universal. Acceptance of cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture is experi- enced as just one of a number of equally complex worldviews. Adaptation to cultural difference is the state in which the experience of another culture yields perception and behavior appropriate to that culture. Integration of cultural difference is the state in which one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003 , p. 424–425). Hammer et al. ( 2003 ) summarized that, in general, the more ethnocentric orien- tations can be seen as ways of avoiding cultural difference, either by denying its existence, by raising defenses against it, or by minimizing its importance (p. 426). The more ethnorelative worldviews are ways of seeking cultural difference, either by accepting its importance, by adapting perspective to take it into account, or by integrating the whole concept into a defi nition of identity. This theoretical framework provided conceptual guidance for Hammer et al. ( 2003 ) as they undertook the construction of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) to measure the orientations toward cultural differences described in the DMIS. The result of this work is a 50-item, paper-and-pencil instrument (with 10 additional demographic items). Referring to Lewin’s fi eld theory it is important to consider individual points of view and competencies as well as the social network, social support, cultural pro- cesses, and the current economic and political environment. The intercultural learning process, as well as intercultural sensitivity, is also important for foreign assignments and can help establish and connect networks more successfully. For this purpose, psychologists offer a measuring instrument, for example, the intercultural development inventory (Hammer et al., 2003 ). In addition to further intercultural learning and sensitivity, suitable trainings are also interesting and helpful. The process of a foreign assignment can be viewed within the framework of Lewin’s fi eld theory, with the interaction between people and their environment clearly recognizable. According to the cited research (Stroppa & Spieß, 2010 , 2011 ; Podsiadlowski et al., 2013 ), a personal characteristic such as personal initiative is important, with it moderating the relationship between social support from cowork- ers and job performance. Environmental factors such as the size of the company also play a role. Social support importantly involves a social interaction between the provider of support and the recipient, who can not only ask for support or aid, but also reject it. In the context of foreign assignments the support of superiors and colleagues and especially of host-country nationals (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013 ) has proven to be very important. Social support can also be seen as an aspect of networks, which can form connections within the fi eld, possibly bringing together different strengths. I would therefore recommend a stronger coordination between the existing networks. 3 Interpersonal Networks in Foreign Assignments and Intercultural Learning Processes