Abstract
Cultural competency is critical to ensuring responsive public services. This article asks how we might develop individual cultural competency in a meaningful way, including which interventions are effective in enhancing cultural competence of experienced public employees. We examine the impact of targeted interventions on the development of individual public administrator cultural competence using a survey developed by Longoria and Rangarajan. The findings suggest the importance of understanding cultural competency as a developmental process that requires attention to the multidimensional aspects (knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors) of cultural competency and developing training that reflects these realities.
Introduction
As our society becomes more diverse, the need to respect and understand diverse cultural groups is essential (Bush, 2000). According to demographers, from 1960 to 2010, the percentage of persons who identified as non-White (i.e., Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other) increased from 15% to 36% of the U.S. population. By 2060, the foreign-born population is projected to grow to nearly 20% of the total U.S. population (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Moreover, there is an increased emphasis on embracing inclusion with the recognition and addition of individuals with disabilities, workers with nonconventional identities, women, and minorities into the U.S. workforce (Nishishiba, 2017).
Public administration, like many professional disciplines, has an obligation to be responsive to and reflective of the larger population and learn how to interact and engage with diverse populations (Blessett, 2016). Speaking directly to this responsibility, cultural competency is timely, relevant, and important in that it is a characteristic of good government (Norman-Major & Gooden, 2012). Culturally competent managers and organizations are able to, substantively rather than merely symbolically, impact the responsiveness of public services (Hewins-Maroney & Williams, 2007) and are, as a result, more relevant and effective (Rice, 2007a). To facilitate this, cultural competency goes beyond understanding, tolerating, and accommodating diversity: It is about embracing and harnessing the power of differences to address community challenges (Koliba, 2013). As Wilson (2015) aptly notes, municipalities now recognize that culturally competent practices “are essential to local governance in the 21st century.”
Social service–oriented fields such as health care and social work have given considerable attention to the conceptualization and measurement of cultural competency while public administration is still building this foundation (Carrizales, 2010). Although currently in development, we know that there are several factors to consider, including individual desire to engage with this concept, critical awareness/knowledge, skill development, and organizational support (Calzada & Suarez-Balcazar, 2014).
Given the importance of cultural competency for public administration scholars, practitioners, and communities at large, this article seeks to address the following questions. First, how can we develop cultural competency within public administration in a meaningful way? Second, and related to this, which interventions are most effective in enhancing individual cultural competency? And, finally, how can this information be used by organizations to “nudge” cultural competency development? Bartel-Radic and Giannelloni (2017) contend that despite the broad and burgeoning work on cultural competency, it remains a fuzzy concept that requires additional empirical evidence. This study is offered as a response to that call.
The quasi-experimental study described herein assesses the cultural competency of two samples of public employees before and after targeted interventions to build cultural competency. For the first sample, this study examines the impact of individual treatments designed to enhance cognitive and behavioral elements of cultural competency, including individual attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Calzada & Suarez-Balcazar, 2014). The analysis examines the impact of these targeted efforts, using a control group for comparison. For the second sample, this study examines the cultural competency of individuals before and after participation in a 2-day diversity training session. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare cultural competency interventions and also the first to apply the Longoria and Rangarajan (2015) measure of cultural competency to groups of experienced public-sector employees (rather than public administration students).
Defining and Framing Cultural Competency
A review of the extant literature on cultural competence suggests that there currently exists any number of definitions applicable to, as well as transmitted by and through, various organizational and service-delivery settings. The Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), through the accreditation of public administration degree programs, recognizes the impact of cultural competence in public service with ideas like “respect, equity, and fairness with citizens and fellow public servants” (NASPAA, Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation, 2014, p. 2). More specifically, NASPAA-accredited degree programs are expected to develop curriculum to achieve the competency “to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry” (NASPAA, Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation, 2014, p. 7).
The National Center for Cultural Competence defines cultural competency as “having the knowledge, skills, and values to work effectively with diverse populations and to adapt institutional policies and professional practices to meet the unique needs of client populations” (Satterwhite & Teng, 2007, p. 2). Cultural competence is the “ability of organizations and individuals to work effectively in cross-cultural or multicultural interactions” (Fernandopulle, 2007, p. 16) and impacts “one’s ability to understand, communicate with, serve, and meet the needs of individuals who look, think, and behave differently than themselves” (Balcazar et al., 2010).
It is important to note that cultural competence represents more than ensuring that federally protected groups (race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, disability) are free from discrimination. Over time, public organizations have moved from pursuing diversity as simply an effort to comply with legal equal opportunity requirements to a point of acknowledging the important ways in which differences can improve organizational processes and outcomes (Selden & Selden, 2001). Purposive action in this area recognizes that there are visible and invisible dimensions of cultural diversity (Egan & Bendick, 2008). Visible dimensions of cultural diversity are observable or readily detectable attributes such as race, gender, or age, and invisible (or less visible) dimensions of cultural diversity may include religion, education, and parental status (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Moreover, the complexity and interaction of these various cultural dimensions represent intersectionality; where diversity reflects distinct differences, cultural competence identifies and reflects upon the multiple constructs that contribute to one’s identity. The implication being that cultural competence represents the connection of individual knowledge, attitudes, and skills, and application of cultural competency to organizational mission. Recognizing this, the identification of specific organizational and training practices that integrate the concepts and constructs of cultural competency is becoming a priority for public administration.
To date, much of the emphasis on cultural competence in public administration has focused on educational tools and pedagogies. In other words, the emphasis has been on preparing individuals to meet cultural competency expectations and expanding the public administration curriculum to include cultural competence concepts. Ronnau (1994; see also Carrizales, 2010) outlines three objectives for educators in moving students toward cultural competence: (a) raise the students’ awareness about the importance of being culturally competent, (b) create an atmosphere in which students and teachers can ask questions and share their knowledge about cultures, and (c) increase the amount of information the students have about cultures, including their own (p. 31). Moreover, Ronnau (1994, p. 33; see also, Carrizales, 2010) asserts the value of a “culturally competent professional.” Students should be familiar with cultural attributes, including recognizing their own lack of knowledge and a commitment to learn about other cultures. Students increase self-awareness by acknowledging differences among cultures and the different meanings that actions may have among those differing cultures.
Cross et al. (1989) argue that cultural competence is not developed overnight, but “is a developmental process for the individual and the system . . . not something that happens because one reads a book, or attends a workshop, or happens to be a member of a minority group” (p. 21, emphasis added: see also Wittman & Velde, 2002). Similarly, cultural competence will only occur when specific learning experiences are designed, supervised, and implemented to foster necessary attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Wittman & Velde, 2002). For meaningful learning to take place, deliberate action to create structured and semistructured experiences is, from this perspective, both necessary and essential.
A key takeaway derived from extant research on cultural competency is that cultural competence is neither static nor innate; individuals are neither “born” with cultural competence traits nor do they exist in or exhibit “absolute fixed endpoints” of “complete cultural competency” (Lonner, 2007, p. 6). Rather, cultural competence is an “ongoing, contextual, dynamic, [and] experiential” (Balcazar et al., 2010), learning (Wittman & Velde, 2002), as well as developmental (Cross et al., 1989) process. Cultural competency is expressed on a continuum—from cultural destructiveness to cultural proficiency (Cross et al., 1989)—and/or experienced through various stages—unconsciously incompetent, consciously incompetent, consciously competent, and unconsciously competent (Purnell, 2002). Taken together, the process-oriented and developmental nature of cultural competence reflects a range or spectrum of competence that both identifies and builds upon the experience of the individual as well as develops and expands essential attitudes, and the necessary knowledge and skills, associated with cultural competency. In all, it is an iterative and cyclical, retrospective and prospective, approach to developing both culturally competent organizations as well as individuals.
The perspective is important, say Selden and Selden (2001), because too often diversity is discussed at the organizational level without sufficient attention to the individual level. Yet, it is the individual view that contributes to the aggregate valuing of differences in public organizations. One of the most important tools for developing such culturally competent individual attitudes, knowledge, and skills is training. However, training is not universally offered, similarly prioritized, or even consistently effective.
Kellough and Naff’s (2004) investigation of diversity efforts in federal agencies reveals that, at the time of their study and even in organizations with diversity programs in place, as many as 15% failed to include a training component. Their results indicate that fewer than 32% of those organizations required more than an initial course on diversity. Furthermore, some disappointing results have been observed from limited diversity training in federal agencies. Elaborating a U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board finding, Selden and Selden (2001) note that even when supervisors completed required diversity training, there were reports that some minority federal employees still felt they were not valued or treated equitably (p. 317). Harris (2012) contends that organizations’ symbolic or superficial support for such programs marginalize this priority. Harris’s local government study reveals that insufficient resources are often allocated to diversity programs, which ultimately threatens their effectiveness.
In addition to limited investment in training, there has been limited research on developing cultural competence for practicing public administrators and evaluating cultural competence of individuals. This may be because unlike the disciplines of social work, nursing, and other health professions that rely on certification and licensing processes, the profession of public administration, broadly speaking, recognizes cultural competency on a more ad hoc basis. This is not to say that public administration is now, or has been, either disinterested or unmoving with respect to recognizing the salience and implications of diversity. On the contrary, both NASPAA accreditation standards and the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Code of Ethics echo the importance of valuing diversity and acting in ways that demonstrate justice, fairness, and equity. What can be said, however, is that work still remains if we are to realize—in practice and through scholarship—the characteristics and qualities of good government: comprised of and intended for all peoples.
In light of the above, the intent of our study is to examine how targeted interventions instill, foster, and develop meaningful and effective domains of cultural competence among public administrators.
Methodology and Study Context
This study examined the impact of specific interventions on the development of cultural competency attributes at the individual level. Building on a survey instrument developed by Longoria and Rangarajan (2015), we measured the impact of specific interventions on public administrator cultural competence (PACC). Longoria and Rangarajan adapt their PACC survey instrument from existing surveys of cultural competence in other fields (primarily health care, nursing, social work). This survey, unlike others used in prior research on the subject, is distinctly for public administrators because many public managers do not have direct contact with culturally diverse clients; rather, cultural competence is more relevant for the development of public programs and policies. Moreover, the PACC instrument reflects the emphasis of public service values embedded in NASPAA competencies. The PACC instrument demonstrated the reliability of the 24-question survey statements to measure cultural competence knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors:
Cultural attitudes are defined as personal dispositions or orientations about cultural aspects as they relate to public service.
Cultural knowledge is defined as the extent that information about different cultures in the jurisdiction where a public manager serves has been sought and retained.
Cultural skill is defined as the ability to collect relevant cultural data and develop programs that accurately utilize this information.
Cultural behavior is defined as those behaviors that increase and refine one’s cultural sensitivity such as seeking out information, openness, and adaptability.
Individual responses to the 24-item cultural competency scale (Longoria & Rangarajan, 2015) serve as the dependent variable. All study participants were given a pretest to establish a baseline measure, participated in an intervention (either a randomly assigned individual reflective activity for Emerging Leaders Academy [ELA] participants, or, for Certified Public Manager [CPM] program participants, a 2-day diversity training program), and then completed a repeat cultural competency posttest (Table 1).
Study Design.
Note. ELA = Emerging Leaders Academy; CPM = Certified Public Manager; PACC = public administrator cultural competence.
Participants in this study were drawn from the Public Management Center at the University of Kansas. Nested in the School of Public Affairs and Administration, the Center offers educational opportunities in the areas of public leadership and public management to current and prospective public service professionals. This study draws participants from two programs: the ELA and the CPM program. These participants were selected for this study for three reasons. First, this study seeks to examine cultural competency among experienced public employees (rather than students, as explored in previous research). Second, the partnership between the Public Management Center and the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas provides an opportunity to engage in mutually beneficial projects that allow for timely data collection and also evidence-based programming. Third, given the participants’ voluntary enrollment in these leadership and management programs, their presumed individual interest in professional development is valuable and relevant to this study. Details on each program are offered below.
The ELA is a talent management program for nonsupervisory and nonmanagerial staff of public-sector and nonprofit agencies. “Developed by practitioners for practitioners,” participants in ELA meet in various locations around the state and engage with program facilitators, academicians, guest lecturers, and their peers, for the purpose of gaining insight, knowledge, and skills in leadership practices, organizational dynamics, communication, and career planning. A competency-based curriculum is provided that touches on various topics relevant to public service professionals, including effective communication, dynamics of conflict, ethics, budgeting, networking, organizational culture, as well as other topical and temporally relevant areas.
The CPM program (CPM) is a nationally accredited public management program and certification process for individuals who are currently, or are seeking, supervisory or managerial roles in public- and third-sector organizations. Offered annually in three locations across Kansas, enrollees in CPM interact with program directors and facilitators, experienced public management professionals, academicians, as well as their peers, and engage with a curriculum that focuses on managing work, leading people, and developing the self. Based on a competency model predicated on personal and organizational integrity, CPM programming highlights various perspectives of public leadership and emphasizes the exigencies of, and excellence in, public service.
As described above, the ELA and the CPM program differ in some key ways. One significant difference is related to curriculum on diversity. While the CPM program includes a 2-day component devoted to this topic, the ELA does not. This contrast provides an opportunity for investigation. Specifically, this study examines the ways in which self-managed, individual, targeted interventions influence cultural competency (ELA) as compared with participation in focused, group training sessions on the topic of diversity (CPM program).
To elaborate this distinction further, a description of the CPM program’s diversity training is warranted. To begin, the diversity sessions include attention to the need to build and sustain productive relationships in an increasingly diverse workplace, an overview of diversity including legal provisions for nondiscrimination, as well as a focus on understanding differences, including generational and disability differences. These topics are covered using a mix of instructional methods, including readings, discussion, and reflection. The session’s learning objectives align with the multiple aspects of cultural competency, including its cognitive (cultivating awareness and knowledge), behavioral (focusing on the skills and actions of managers), and organizational dimensions (using workplace examples and discussing management strategies).
Furthermore, the Certified Manager Program’s diversity training also utilizes the four approaches that are expected to maximize learning (Kolb, 1984). The training incorporates concrete experience (by relating content to participants’ real-life management experience), observation and reflection (by including the presentation of data and examples as well as opportunities to discuss and learn from peers), abstract conceptualization (by considering and reconsidering concepts like political correctness), and active experimentation (by providing action steps for implementation). See Table 2 for full details.
Certified Public Manager Program Diversity Training Description.
As mentioned above, in contrast, the ELA does not include a diversity training component. For the ELA participants, we developed three distinct individual interventions aimed at building cultural competency attitude, knowledge, and skills. In addition, we developed a control intervention that broadly dealt with culture in public service. The adaptations were designed so that participants could complete the “assignment” individually. Each had a reflective component, so that participants could respond in writing to guided statements or questions. The three interventions were adapted from the following teaching and training material.
Attitudes
Social Identity Mapping (SIM) is a technique that engages participants in the process of simultaneously representing a suite of social identity constructs in a way that allows for their systematic comparison and assessment: The procedure serves to create a visual representation of a person’s social world that captures key features of relevant social identities and their interrelationship. As we argue below, this has the potential to advance social identity theorizing and also to facilitate interventions in a range of applied contexts (Cruwys et al., 2016). The intent for the Attitude intervention was for individuals to become aware of their personal orientations of identity. The assignment modified an existing SIM worksheet to include reflective statements and questions that related to public administration (see Rice, 2007b):
Describe how your own cultural background influences how you interact with people of different cultures.
Describe how your assumptions about different cultures may impact building relationships in your community.
When you hear the term “cultural competence,” what comes to mind?
Knowledge
Adapted from Cultural Competence Planning Guidance Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. The worksheet introduces participants to key constructs of culture (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1995; Loden & Rosener, 1991), defines how culture is developed, and defines cultural competence. Rivera, Johnson, and Ward (2010) define knowledge in this context as an acute understanding of self and awareness for the attributes of diverse ethnic and cultural groups. In addition, that cognitive recognition would include comprehension of the sociopolitical, historical, and economic realities that form those groups. The prompts encourage participants to reflect on how various cultural constructs are relevant to their organizational context:
Using the diagram describe the different cultures your organization serves.
Give an example of cultural competence in your organization.
Describe how culture may influence interpersonal communication.
Skills
Training and teaching techniques that build skills in cultural competence use a variety of methods to represent the ability to put skills into practice. As compared with abilities, skills are observable and can be developed through reflection and practice. We prompted individuals to recall a specific instance in which they engaged with an individual whose culture that was different than their own. The reflective questions were intended to focus on their individual, specific actions in that scenario:
In this scenario, what actions did you take to understand a culture different from yours?
What would you have done differently?
What did you learn from the interaction that you can apply to the future?
Sample
The first set of participants, the 44 individuals in the ELA, enrolled in the program in two geographically dispersed locations. All enrollees received the pretest survey in March 2017 (Group 1: March 15; Group 2: March 17). Participants were randomly assigned to four intervention groups: (a) skills, (b) attitudes, (c) knowledge, and (d) control. Participants then completed a reflective exercise on the specific intervention topic (Group 1: March 29; Group 2: March 31). Finally, participants completed the posttest survey in April 2017 (Group 1: April 12; Group 2: April 14). A total of 35 usable responses were received (i.e., participants who completed both pre- and posttest surveys and also the randomly assigned intervention exercise).
The second set, the 67 participants in the CPM program, enrolled in the program in three geographically dispersed locations. All enrollees received the pretest survey before the start of the program’s 2-day diversity training sessions in March 2017 (Group 1: March 7; Group 2: March 14; Group 3: March 21). All enrollees received the posttest at the end of the diversity training sessions (Group 1: March 8; Group 2: March 15; Group 3: March 22). A total of 60 usable responses were received (i.e., participants who completed both pre- and posttest surveys and the diversity training).
As Table 3 notes, both programs had a slightly higher proportion of male participants, at least 75% of the participants identified as White, and less than 10% identified as Hispanic. There were some differences between the two groups in terms of demographics and professional experience. The ELA group had a higher proportion of individuals who identified as Black/African American (14.3%) compared the CPM group (3.3%). In terms of professional experience, 78% of participants in the CPM group indicated that they had supervisory experience compared with only 43% of respondents in the ELA group. In addition, the CPM participants yielded slightly higher number of years of experience than ELA participants.
Study Participant Demographics.
Note. ELA = Emerging Leaders Academy; CPM = Certified Public Manager.
Findings
First, to explore the effect of targeted individual interventions on the ordinal dependent variable (cultural competency scores of ELA program participants), a Kruskal–Wallis H Test was conducted. The Kruskal–Wallis H test is a nonparametric alternative to the one-way ANOVA for a between-subjects study design with small sample sizes. The test compares distributions around the median (rather than the mean) and is recommended in instances when treatment group sizes are less than 15. The usable number of responses for each ELA treatment group met this standard (Skills, n = 10; Attitudes, n = 9; Knowledge, n = 8; Control, n = 8).
The Kruskal–Wallis H test determined that the distribution of cultural competency scores is similar across intervention categories: No individual treatment can be said to make a meaningful impact on cultural competency scores. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the distributions of cultural competency scores by intervention category with medians marked in bold. A visual inspection of this boxplot alone does not determine similar distributions. Rather, the Kruskal–Wallis H test result (p = .749) indicates that a statistically significant difference was not observed. While this test is designed to examine differences in medians (see Table 4 for full survey results), descriptive statistical analysis reveals that the ELA mean cultural competency score (126) remained unchanged from the pretest measure to the posttest measure.
Distribution of Emerging Leaders Academy cultural competency scores by intervention category.
PACC Survey Results.
Note. PACC = public administrator cultural competence; ELA = Emerging Leaders Academy; CPM = Certified Public Manager.
Second, to explore the effect of participation in CPM diversity training on the dependent variable (cultural competency scores of CPM program participants), a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted. The Wilcoxon test is designed for a repeated-measures study that uses an ordinal dependent variable. It is a nonparametric alternative to the paired samples t test. A Wilcoxon test determined that there was a statistically significant median increase in cultural competency scores following participation in the diversity training. More specifically, 44 of the 60 participants demonstrated significant positive differences in their cultural competency scores (Figure 2, p = .000).
Certified Public Manager cultural competency scores following participation in diversity training.
When specific elements of the cultural competency scale are examined before and after training, it is revealed that training has a significant and positive impact on behavior (Figure 3, p = .020), knowledge (Figure 4, p = .000), and skills (Figure 5, p = .000). The only element that training does not have a statistically significant impact on is attitudes (Figure 6, p = .772). Furthermore, descriptive statistical analysis revealed that the posttest mean score (127) reflects enhanced cultural competency when compared with the pretest mean score (119) for CPM participants.
Impact of Certified Public Manager diversity training on cultural competency behavior.
Impact of Certified Public Manager diversity training on cultural competency knowledge.
Impact of Certified Public Manager diversity training on cultural competency skills.
Impact of Certified Public Manager diversity training on cultural competency attitudes.
Discussion
In this study, we sought to understand how cultural competency is developed in a meaningful way and which interventions are most effective in enhancing individual perceptions of cultural competency. The intent was to articulate how this evidence can be used by public organizations to “nudge” cultural competency development. Together, these findings underscore the importance of participation in training to develop cultural competency. One-time individual interventions focused on a single element of cultural competency do not enhance cultural competency assessments in meaningful ways. Rather, for our experimental group participants (ELA program), cultural competency measures remained stable and unchanged following the completion of a reflective exercise, regardless of whether the exercise focused on skills, attitudes, knowledge, or broader cultural competency in public service (control group). Even though the interventions prompted participants to respond individually to reflective guided prompts, the interventions did not require reflective sharing among the participants.
This finding suggests that organizations should address cultural competency in an intentional and holistic way rather than in a piecemeal fashion. As noted in the study’s sample description, it is expected that the enrollees in these programs have an interest in their own professional development. Yet, the findings suggest that this investment is insufficient on its own to result in meaningful change in cultural competency following an individual reflection exercise. Thus, it is recommended that organizations invest in dedicated training and development opportunities rather than presume that individual, independent efforts will have notable effects on cultural competency. Instead, organizations should recognize that cultural competency is a multidimensional construct and training programs should thus be structured to develop its multiple elements. For example, Kolb’s (1984) research identified four approaches that together maximize learning: (a) concrete experience, (b) observation and reflection, (c) abstract conceptualization, and (d) active experimentation. It is expected that the extent to which training programs allow participants to consider cultural competency via each of these, the learning experience will be enhanced.
The findings acknowledge the movement through the developmental stages of cultural competency that represents the intersection of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes. In applying the definitions provided by Longoria and Rangarajan (2015), only in the intensive, interactive diversity training intervention (CPM) were there changes in individual’s perception of (a) cultural knowledge (the extent that information about different cultures in the jurisdiction where a public manager serves has been sought and retained was only showed change), (b) cultural skill (the ability to collect relevant cultural data and develop programs that accurately utilize this information), and (c) cultural behavior (those behaviors that increase and refine one’s cultural sensitivity such as seeking out information, openness, and adaptability). Based on the findings, we offer the following specific recommendations for moving individuals through the cultural competency developmental stages in the public administration context.
First, we recommend that cultural competency be pushed along (rather than nudged along) with structured iterative and interactive interventions. The study findings suggest that individualized and one-off interventions have no impact on moving individuals through cultural competency stages. The interventions with the ELA group were completed individually and relied on their personal experiences to reflect on the application of knowledge, skills, and attitudes to implement cultural competence. The more extensive and interactive intervention yielded shifts in individual perceptions about their skills, knowledge, and behaviors to promote cultural competence in the public sector. We recommend that organizations invest in cultural competency training that not only offers supplemental guidance on developing specific knowledge, skills, and behaviors to achieve cultural competence but also opportunities for reflective practice. This is evident in findings from the CPM group that engaged in a 2-day diversity training session. The CPM training was more comprehensive in its examination of multiple elements of cultural competency, and it also featured multiple learning methods (including readings, discussion, and reflection). This approach supports the existing literature which notes that cultural competency development is a dynamic and experiential process (Balcazar et al., 2010; Cross et al., 1989).
Furthermore, this study finds that participation in a diversity training program (CPM group) positively impacts all elements of cultural competency with one exception: attitudes. While this may be surprising given the CPM diversity training program’s focus on cultural competency awareness, it is important to take a closer look at the data to offer potential explanations for this finding. As Table 4 demonstrates, responses to the PACC pretest attitude questions (Items 19-24) reveal positive attitudes at the start of the study. We may not see statistically significant improvement on these measures because they were strong to start. Furthermore, it could be that the training provided an opportunity for participants to critically consider their attitude assessment, which could have been initially inflated, and then adjusted following their participation in—and reflection upon—the training experience. Finally, there could be potential limitations to the data, including the possibility of social desirability bias, that warrants exploration in future studies.
Second, we recommend that more studies explore the application of cultural competency knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes with diverse public-sector contexts. This limited exploration of the impact of interventions on individual cultural competence is a first step in application of cultural competence in public-sector organizations. Calzada and Suarez-Balcazar (2014) provide a framework for enhancing cultural competency in public service agencies that reflect three components of cultural competence. First, a cognitive component that emphasizes critical awareness (i.e., awareness of one’s biases) and knowledge (i.e., understanding of a specific cultural group’s history, religion, historical context, or beliefs). Second, a behavioral component that emphasizes the ability to put skills into practice to build trust and effectively communicate with and serve diverse individuals. Third, an organizational component that emphasizes contextual issues and support for cultural competent practices from an organization that is committed to diversity and innovation to meet the needs of diverse individuals. As a next step, we plan to explore the relationship between individual and organizational cultural competency efforts.
Together, these findings and recommendations speak to the importance of understanding cultural competency as a developmental process that requires attention to the multidimensional aspects of this concept and also an investment in training that reflects these realities. Using these findings as a guide for the future, additional studies might consider long-term evaluations that examine the ways in which training participants apply cultural competency lessons learned to their work contexts: How do their experiences impact cultural competency development over time? Furthermore, new research could examine in greater detail the specific impact of varied training approaches on cultural competency development: Which curriculum components or teaching approaches are the most effective? Finally, the connection between demographic characteristics and cultural competency is worth exploring: How do individual identities impact perceptions of cultural competency?
While this study is intended to help move the continued scholarly and practitioner dialogue on cultural competency development for public administrators, it is not without limitations. First, this study relies on perceptual measures of cultural competency. Future studies could consider the development of more objective indicators of cultural competency. Second, this study acknowledges the subjective limitations of the topic: Cultural competency is ever evolving and exists at multiple levels. While we draw upon the extant literature to inform this study, it is acknowledged that total agreement about the definition and illustration of this construct is a scholarly and practical challenge. Finally, while this study provides a unique look at cultural competency interventions, the resulting sample sizes are small and generalizations are limited as a result.
As the calls for enhanced attention to cultural competency continue, we add a note to that growing chorus: Training and development matter in important ways. If organizations are tempted to rely on individual directed study in an era of shrinking training resources, we would caution that such a limited investment will likely have similarly limited returns for the individual employee, the organization, and the citizens they serve. Rather, if our public servants are to become more culturally competent, they need learning opportunities that combine diversity information and discussion with application and reflection. The findings from this study also speak to the importance of NASPAA program efforts to prepare students to interact with diverse communities. Yet, as in this study, preparing students must be similarly holistic. Simply offering statistics on diversity or information on cultural differences will not develop cultural competency in meaningful ways. Rather, this effort requires deliberate attention to the mix of individual cognitive and behavioral components of cultural competency that together will help students critically examine their assumptions, embrace the power of differences, and effectively serve an evolving and diverse citizenry.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the University of Kansas Public Management Center’s Certified Public Manager (CPM) and Emerging Leaders Academy (ELA) program participants and instructors, especially Terri Callahan and Noel Rasor. This research would not have been possible without their support.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.