


































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/). 
 


