Roberts_Proposal Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development Volume 2, Issue 3, 2021 agdevresearch.org 1. John M. Diaz, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Florida, 1200 N. Park Rd., Plant City, FL 33563, john.diaz@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000--0002-2787-8759 2. Colby Silvert, Graduate Assistant, University of Florida, 305 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, colby.silvert@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000--0003-2055-7597 3. Cody Gusto, Graduate Assistant, University of Florida, 305 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, cgusto@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000--0003-0008-0533 4. K.S.U. Jayaratne, Professor, North Carolina State University, 200 Ricks Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695, ksjayara@ncsu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000--0002-9242-3961 5. Lendel Narine, Extension Assistant Professor, Utah State University, 4931 Old Main Hill, AGRS 128, Logan, UT 84322, lendel.narine@usu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000--0001-6962-2770 83 Toward Intercultural Competence: Using Expert Consensus to Identify Essential Personality Traits and Attitudes to Develop an Inclusive Extension Education Workforce J. Diaz1, C. Silvert2, C. Gusto3, K. Jayaratne3, L. Narine4 Abstract The rapid diversification of workforces and client stakeholder groups has prompted a growing emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion as a critical component of professional development across industry sectors. While the proliferation of intercultural competence training models has increased awareness among employers and workforces, the competencies advocated in these models may not always be relevant to an organization or institution’s operational context. This study addresses the need for contextually grounded intercultural competency models targeted to extension education contexts. Using a three-phased Delphi approach, data were gathered from a panel of 36 intercultural competency experts. The panel identified nine personal traits thought to be critical for the recruitment and development of culturally competent extension educators. The authors explain how these results may be used to recruit extension educators with traits conducive to engagement with a broad audience of stakeholders using culturally sensitive and responsive techniques. Given the distinct processes by which different components of intercultural competence are developed, we recommend specific measures and techniques administrators can utilize to recruit and develop extension educators who possess the agreed-upon intercultural personality traits. Keywords Competency training, diversity training, intercultural communication, nonformal education, professional development Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 84 Introduction and Problem Statement Today’s world is becoming more diverse and interconnected, creating a growing emphasis across extension organizations on developing strategies to better meet the unique needs of their diverse client communities (Deen et al., 2014; McKee & Bruce, 2019). Recognizing an increasingly globalized society, agricultural industries and extension services are adopting intercultural competence (ICC) frameworks to inform hiring protocols, professional development training curricula, goal setting exercises, and performance evaluations (Deen et al., 2014; Wille et al., 2019). Broadly defined as “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes,” (Deardorff, 2009 pp. 247–248) ICC has been conceptualized and operationalized in numerous ways across contexts, with more than 20 distinct definitions and frameworks having been identified over the years (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Despite its growing appeal as a model to guide the culturally responsive development of extension professionals, ICC remains a broad and highly malleable concept that necessitates the identification of discrete, measurable, and context-specific outcome objectives (Deardorff, 2009). Two core issues therefore exist when attempting to apply ICC assessments to the extension context. First, the frequent use of commercial instruments to assess ICC and related skills means that the indicators applied may not best reflect the knowledge, skills, and traits needed in extension work. Second, while a growing focus exists on developing agents’ intercultural competence, less emphasis is seemingly being placed on the identification of the personal traits required to be a successful extension educator, which may limit the value of using ICC related assessments to inform recruitment and hiring practices (Atiles, 2019). This is a critical gap that should be addressed as competency models such as Dostilio’s Cooperative Extension Professional (CEP) model (2017) identify certain personality traits, such as integrity, honesty, transparency, and inclusiveness, that extension professionals need to exhibit in order to successfully engage diverse communities. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework Despite researchers’ and practitioners’ increased interests in ICC, a lack of understanding remains regarding the concept, and no widely agreed upon conceptualization pervades (Bartel- Radic & Giannelloni, 2017; Leung et al., 2014; Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009). Adding to this conceptual confusion, often terms such as cross-cultural competence, ICC, global mindset, and cultural intelligence are used interchangeably or linkages between constructs are not made explicit (Bartel-Radic & Giannelloni, 2017). One specific area of complexity is how to identify and incorporate personality traits and attitudes within ICC constructs and frameworks (Bartel- Radic & Giannelloni, 2017; Li, 2020). Moreover, many scales have placed personality traits together in the same category with abilities while other scales simplify ICC to constitute only a few personality traits without including additional skill or knowledge components (Ang et al., 2007). Thus, in advancing an ICC framework specialized for extension educators, a need persists to explore how to best account for personality traits. Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 85 The literature reveals a lack of consensus in determining the components of ICC and how such components are related (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009). According to Deardorff (2006), ICC experts assert that personal attributes (i.e., personality traits) are a common component of ICC and necessary to build the requisite knowledge, skills, and behaviors to work across cultural differences. However, a 2017 study by Bartel-Radic and Giannelloni challenged notions that personality traits predict cross-cultural knowledge, which in turn shapes skills and behaviors, even though research exists that is grounded in this assumption. Although Bartel-Radic and Giannelloni (2017) came to this conclusion, they referred to the existing body of empirical research that contradicts their findings (e.g., Johnson et al., 2006; Schmitt et al., 2007; Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009), and asserted that their own research brought forth more questions than answers and called for continued inquiry. Five personality traits are typically discussed in the context of cross-cultural communication or cultural intelligence: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Schmitt et al., 2007). However, Caligiuiri (2000) and Ang et al. (2007) concluded that these five traits do not determine effectiveness in cross-cultural communication or exercising cultural intelligence. Beyond these five, the following personality traits and attitudes have been among the most frequently cited in the literature as integral to ICC and interchangeable terms: open-mindedness, empathy, sociability/extraversion, absence of ethnocentrism, self-confidence, tolerance of uncertainty, attributional complexity, and emotional stability (e.g., Black, 1990; Johnson et al., 2006; Li, 2020; Yeke & Semerciöz, 2016). Even though researchers and practitioners have invested efforts toward identifying and analyzing such personality traits, ambiguity still exists, including a lack of consensus, and the need to identify traits for ICC within extension education contexts. With respect to developing ICC, the literature suggests that personality traits can be changeable not unlike capacities, knowledge, and skills (Deardoff, 2006; Rings & Allehyani, 2020; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009; Xiaochi, 2012; Yeke & Semerciöz, 2016). Unfortunately, it is also thought that personality traits are frequently less malleable than attitudes, knowledge, and skills, making it important to identify the core traits most crucial on which to focus assessment and development (Ajzen, 2005; Deardorff, 2006; Yeke & Semerciöz, 2016). Although some personality traits may be more fixed than others, some researchers have contended that professional development trainings hold the potential toward changing personality traits and potentially improving ICC (Deardoff, 2006; Rings & Allehyani, 2020; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009; Xiaochi, 2012; Yeke & Semerciöz, 2016). As such, a nuanced understanding of relevant personality traits may help extension specialists develop effective professional development targeting ICC. Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 86 Purpose This study aimed to describe the personality traits most critical for extension educators’ intercultural competence. Using a consensus-building Delphi approach, the investigation aimed to accomplish three objectives: 1. Determine if extension ICC experts agreed upon personality traits and attitudes necessary for extension educators to work across cultural differences. 2. Identify the personality traits and attitudes agreed to have the greatest influence on extension educators’ intercultural competence. 3. Align the personality traits and attitudes with an extension educator’s years of service by which such competencies should have been developed. Methods We used a three-round Delphi process, modified in accordance with panelists’ input on the design, (Hasson & Keeney, 2011; Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004) to leverage the expertise of 35 purposively selected professionals, including diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) specialists, managers of education and outreach programs for underserved and underrepresented audiences, community development leaders, and contributors to extension educational intercultural curriculum (e.g., Navigating Differences, Coming Together for Racial Understanding). We used Qualtrics online survey questionnaires to facilitate anonymous discourse among the panel to arrive at consensus. We employed a multi-stage process, during the summer of 2020, to select and formalize the panel of experts. To start, the principal investigator (PI) researched and solicited recommendations from international and national organizations (e.g., Association of International Agricultural and Extension Education, American Evaluation Association, Epsilon Sigma Phi, National Association of Extension Program and Staff Development Professionals) to create the preliminary list of potential panelists. We then reviewed the list, provided feedback, and finalized the initial sampling frame of 51 individuals to contact about their potential interest in the study. Introductory, informational telephone calls were conducted between the lead author and the 39 panelists who agreed to the call to learn more about the study. Some snowball sampling (Johnson, 2014) occurred due to these contacts recommending four additional experts to potentially participate in the study. These four individuals were also contacted by telephone, increasing the sampling frame to 43 panelists. However, only 35 individuals ultimately agreed to participate in the first round of the Delphi. We used a modified three-round Delphi format in this study. Within this format, panelists were asked to identify and agree on a range of personality traits and attitudes. In the first Delphi round, panelists were asked to identify personal traits and attitudes they perceived necessary for a culturally competent extension educator. The questionnaire did not explicitly differentiate between domestic or international contexts to account for the work of extension educators in both U.S. and international settings. Twenty-five personal traits and attitudes were identified in Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 87 the first round, and we achieved a response rate of 100% (n = 35). For analysis, we differentiated between personality traits and attitudes using the definitions found in Ajzen’s (2005), which explains that attitudes are more evaluative in nature, expressing a favorable, unfavorable, or mixed evaluation. In contrast, personality traits describe an individual’s response tendencies in a given domain (e.g., conscientious, self-confident, and respectful) (Ajzen, 2005). The study’s second round was used for reaching consensus by the panelists and to refine the list of personality traits and attitudes identified in the first round by indicating the level of importance for building each personal trait and attitude to ensure successful programs among diverse audiences. Experts indicated their agreement on the importance of each personality trait and attitude, using a 7-point Likert agreement scale (Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Somewhat disagree (3), Neither agree nor disagree (4), Somewhat agree (5), Agree (6), or Strongly agree (7)). We defined consensus a priori as two-thirds of the panelists selecting or 6 (Agree) or 7 (Strongly agree). A response rate of 97% was achieved for the second round (n = 34). The panel achieved consensus on 23 items. In the study’s third round, we asked panelists to indicate the career stage during which extension educators should develop the personality traits and attitudes consented to in the second round. This modification was implemented in response to panelists’ involvement, together with the authors, in the study design. Our objective was to tailor the third round of the study to prioritize attitudes and personality traits based on career stage. This modification aligns with justifications and examples provided by Hasson and Keeney (2011), Linton and Turhoff (1975), and Okoli and Pawlowski (2005) that outline opportunities to tailor the Delphi to the problem-solving needs and intended outcomes of the process. Panelists were also asked to indicate, using a 5-point ordinal scale, the level of importance (Not important at all (1), Slightly important (2), Important (3), Fairly important (4), or Very important (5)) of developing each personality trait and attitude in the respective career stage. We changed the 7-point agreement scale from the second round to a 5-point ordinal scale of importance for the third round to help the panel prioritize the items in the different career stages based on perceived importance. Career stages were (a) year 1; (b) 1 to 3 years; (c) 4 to 7 years; (d) 8 to 10 years; and (e) 11 or more years. We created the specific career categories to help delineate some distinct stages in extension professionals’ career, including onboarding (i.e., within the first year, initial performance assessments (1 to 3 years), initial promotion assessments (4 to 7 years), and post-initial promotion assessment and late career (8 to 10 years; 11 or more years)). We applied the a priori level of consensus as two-thirds agreement to analyze the career stage data, with only Very important responses included in the third and final round. We achieved a 94% response rate for the final round (n = 33). At the end of the three stages, panelists arrived at consensus about nine personality traits and attitudes deemed most important for extension educators. Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 88 Findings First Round Table 1 lists the personality traits and attitudes that the panel provided during the first round of the Delphi study. The list includes four attitudinal attributes and 21 personality traits. Table 1 List of Personality Traits and Attitudes Produced by the Panel During Round 1 Personality traits and attitudes Approachability Commitment a Compassion Conscientiousness Consistency Curiosity Desire to be a lifelong learner around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion a Empathy Energetic nature Enthusiasm Genuine and authentic Having a positive attitude a Honesty Humility Inclusivity Open-minded Patience Resiliency Respect Sensitivity Transparency Trustworthiness Willing to take risks to reach across cultural barriers a Willingness to challenge one’s own attitudes, preexisting beliefs, and cultural assumptions a Willingness to gain experiences with cultures different from their own a Note. a indicates attitude item. Second Round Table 2 lists the personality traits and attitudes from the first round with the panel’s rating in the second round of their level of agreement on the importance of each item for an extension educator’s intercultural competence. Using the a priori level of consensus, two items were removed from consideration; these were enthusiasm and energetic nature. Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 89 Table 2 Personality Traits and Attitudes Rated for Agreement by the Delphi Panel Based on Level of Importance for ICC Personality traits and attitudes % Strongly agree/Agree Empathy 100.0 Genuine and authentic 100.0 Open-minded 100.0 Willingness to challenge one’s own attitudes, preexisting beliefs, and cultural assumptions a 100.0 Willingness to gain experiences with cultures different than their own a 100.0 Commitment 97.0 Compassion 97.0 Desire to be a lifelong learner around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion a 97.0 Honesty 97.0 Humility 97.0 Inclusivity 97.0 Respect 97.0 Sensitivity 97.0 Trustworthiness 97.0 Willing to take risks to reach across cultural barriers a 97.0 Patience 93.9 Approachability 90.9 Conscientiousness 90.9 Resiliency 90.9 Transparency 87.9 Having a positive attitude a 81.8 Consistency 81.8 Curiosity 75.8 Enthusiasm * 60.6 Energetic nature * 42.4 Note. a indicates attitude item. * indicates item did not meet consensus threshold and did not advance to the next round. Final Round We identified nine items comprising a mix of attitudes and personality traits most important for extension educators to develop ICC. The Delphi panel rated six personality traits as Very important for building ICC of extension educators during the first year of their professional career (see Table 3). These six traits included: open-mindedness, respect, humility, empathy, trustworthiness, and honesty. The Delphi panel also agreed that three attitudes were Very important to ICC for development during years 1, 2, and 3 of an extension educator’s career. These were: the willingness to challenge one’s own attitudes, preexisting beliefs, and cultural Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 90 assumptions, inclusivity, and desire to be a lifelong learner around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Table 3 Personality Traits and Attitudes Rated as Very Important by Career Stage Note. a indicates attitude item. No items resulted for 4-7 years and 8-10 years. The remaining 16 items that the panel rated were viewed as Fairly important for ICC but not prioritized as Very important to be developed during the designated career year(s)/stages. Table 4 provides the breakdown of the responses for these items. The panel did not rate any items to be Very important to develop in the associated career years, as designated. % of respondents who rated the item as Very important according to career stage Personality traits and attitudes In the first year 1-3 years Empathy 79.0 Honesty 85.0 Humility 73.0 Open-mindedness 64.0 Respect 82.0 Trustworthiness 67.0 Desire to be lifelong learning around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion a 94.0 Inclusivity a 70.0 Willingness to challenge one’s own attitudes, preexisting beliefs, and cultural assumptions a 85.0 Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 91 Table 4 Personality Traits and Attitudes Rated as Fairly Important by Career Stage Note. a indicates attitude item. No items resulted for 4-7 years and 8-10 years. Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations Personality traits and attitudes may impact extension educators’ ability to work effectively with diverse clientele. The Delphi panel agreed on six personality traits and three attitudes that they perceived were most important to ICC in an extension educational setting. The panel reinforced the importance of these traits by agreeing that they should be developed in the early years of an extension educator’s career. Findings from our Delphi study were consistent with the literature, which emphasized the need to consider personality traits and attitudes in professional development programs regarding ICC (Bartel-Radic & Giannelloni, 2017; Deen et al., 2014; Deardorf, 2006; Dostilio, 2017; Li, 2020; McKee & Bruce, 2019). Even though an additional 16 attitudes and personality traits were revealed that the panel agreed were important for ICC after the second round of this study, we strongly believe it is important to focus on the items in Round 3 rated Very important for extension educators to develop early in Personality traits and attitudes % of respondents who rated the item as Fairly important % of respondents who identified the career stage during which the knowledge area should be developed In the first year 1-3 years Approachability 76.0 85.0 Commitment 70.0 91.0 Compassion 79.0 70.0 Confidence 64.0 82.0 Conscientiousness 70.0 88.0 Consistency 70.0 82.0 Curiosity 82.0 82.0 Genuine and authentic 79.0 73.0 Having a positive attitude a 64.0 64.0 Patience 70.0 85.0 Professionalism 73.0 94.0 Resiliency 70.0 70.0 Sensitivity 73.0 64.0 Transparency 82.0 91.0 Willing to take risks to reach across cultural barriers a 82.0 73.0 Willingness to gain experiences with cultures different from their own a 76.0 82.0 Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 92 their careers. This is corroborated by literature (Ajzen, 2005, Bartel-Radic & Giannelloni, 2017; Deardorff, 2006; Deen et al., 2014; Schmitt et al., 2007) indicating that personal development in these areas is typically more arduous, given an individual’s personality traits and attitudes are not as malleable as knowledge and skill acquisition (Ajzen, 2005; Deardorff, 2006; Yeke & Semerciöz, 2016). Applying the results of this study has implications for hiring, onboarding, and training of new extension professionals. First, it is important to develop the identified six core personality traits during the first year. Extension educators and evaluators should consider targeting the development of these traits through preservice extension education curricula created by academic extension education faculty. The challenge is that preservice education differs across extension education institutions. So, efforts would need to be made to develop cross-cutting certificates, minors, or simply, broadly available course offerings to ensure linkages can be made to other programs to increase student accessibility and learning. In addition, extension administrators should consider using the traits to inform new extension educator interview screening questions and checklists. Although research has demonstrated that personality traits are changeable similar to capacities, knowledge, and skills (Deardoff, 2006; Rings & Allehyani, 2020; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009; Xiaochi, 2012; Yeke & Semerciöz, 2016), it may not be feasible to build a completely new set of personality traits in an individual, and, therefore, it may be more realistic to target individuals with threshold levels of existing core traits to enter the extension service. Once a new extension educator is hired, they are typically engaged in an onboarding program to help familiarize them with the organizational culture, their job responsibilities, organizational resources, and so forth. It is important that these efforts begin to integrate strategies for the development process of these core traits and foundational attitudes needed for ICC. These initial efforts should be considered only as a step towards preparing new extension educators to gain ICC and must be built on thereafter. To strengthen both onboarding and in-service training activities, extension specialists should consider leveraging theories and methodological approaches that connect personality, developmental, social, clinical, and educational psychology to the evolutionary and socio- cultural dynamics of the extension educators’ training pathways (Mroczek & Little, 2014). Strategically integrating the developmental activities into already existing structures may help manage extension educators’ development loads while also connecting the enhancement of these foundational traits to their job roles and responsibilities. Finally, assessment options exist that can be integrated into recruitment and professional development activities with the potential to advance development of the six personality traits and three attitudes that reached final consensus. The simplest approach is the single item, direct assessment where respondents are asked to directly self-report their own attitudes and personality traits (Ajzen, 2005; Boyle, 2014). Indirect approaches also may be used that assess personality traits and attitudes based on an individual’s self-assessment and responses to a given scenario or context (Ajzen, 2005; Boyle, 2014). The indirect approach helps to mitigate Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 93 the issues related to self-presentation bias which may occur from the direct, single item approaches. Although numerous existing assessments are available (e.g., offered from the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) such offerings are frequently direct item constructs. Therefore, the need exists for research, development, and validation of specialized, indirect assessments for ICC in extension. According to Deardoff (2009), assessment tools should be tied to the intercultural context. The results of this study may aid in strategically adapting existing measures to the extension education context. References Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x Atiles, J. H. (2019). Cooperative Extension competencies for the community engagement professional. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 23(1), 107–127. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1212491.pdf Bartel-Radic, A., & Giannelloni, J. L. (2017). A renewed perspective on the measurement of cross-cultural competence: An approach through personality traits and cross-cultural knowledge. European Management Journal, 35(5), 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.003 Birdsall, I. (2004). It seemed like a good idea at the time: The forces affecting implementation of strategies for an information technology project in the Department of Defense. [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech University]. Virginia Tech Electronic Thesis and Dissertations. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/11109 Black, J. S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of Japanese expatriate managers. MIR: Management International Review, 30(2) 119–134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40228014 Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Matthews, G. (Eds.). (2014). Measures of personality and social psychological constructs. Academic Press. Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621381 Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 94 Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00194.x Deardorff, D. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. SAGE. Deen, M. Y., Parker, L. A., Hill, L. G., Huskey, M., & Whitehall, A. P. (2014). Navigating difference: Development and implementation of a successful cultural competence training for Extension and outreach professionals. Journal of Extension 52(1). https://archives.joe.org/joe/2014february/a2.php Dostilio, L. D. (2017). Planning a path forward. In L. D. Dostilio (Ed.), The community engagement professional in higher education: A competency model for an emerging field (pp. 27–55). Campus Compact. Hasson, F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695-1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005 Johnson, T. P. (2014). Snowball sampling: Introduction. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05720. Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205 Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1, 489–519. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229 Li, M. (2020). An examination of two major constructs of cross-cultural competence: Cultural intelligence and intercultural competence. Personality and Individual Differences, 164(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110105 Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley. McKee, K. E., & Bruce, J. A. (2019). Creating inclusive extension programs. Journal of Extension, 57(6), Article 26. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1231&context=joe Mroczek, D. K., & Little, T. D. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of personality development. Psychology Press. Diaz et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.135 95 Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & management, 42(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002. Rings, G., & Allehyani, F. (2020). Personality traits as indicators of the development of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(1), 17-32. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1249552.pdf Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299 Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). SAGE. United States Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Policy, data, oversight: Assessment & selection. Retrieved 8 August 2021, from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data- oversight/assessment-and-selection/ Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2009). Methodological issues in researching intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 404–418). SAGE. Wille, C. G., Garcia, Z., & Garcia-Pabón, J. L. (2019). Collaborating across state lines to leverage intercultural competence expertise. Journal of Extension 57(3), Article 4. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol57/iss3/4/ Xiaochi, Z. (2012). Discussion on international internship and intercultural competence from a perspective of higher educational internationalization - A case study of the program work and travel USA. Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(5), 62-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120805.934 Yeke, S., & Semerciöz, F. (2016). Relationships between personality traits, cultural intelligence and intercultural communication competence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.036 © 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).