Introduction

　We live in times of great change and transformation. The development of communication and transportation technology and numerous social and cultural revolutions over the last decades have been globalizing the world into a closely interconnected society.  The flux and complexity of the change will continue to increase in the years ahead and challenge the fundamental assumptions and beliefs on which modern people have learned to live with.  To successfully ride this turbulence of globalization, citizens of modern societies are required to acquire a set of knowledge and skills that account for global communication competence. Only through global communication competence can people from different cultures communicate effectively and productively in the globalizing society (Chen & Starosta, 1996, 2005).

　Knowledge and skills of global communication competence not only help to transform individuals into multicultural persons by fostering multiple cultural identities, but also function to nourish an awareness of these multiple identities and extend to maintain a multicultural coexistence in order to develop a global civic culture (Adler, 1982; Boulding, 1988; Frederick, 1992).  Therefore, global communication competence is the key to cultivating ability of tolerance and mutual respect for cultural differences, which marks the enlightened global citizenship in different levels of future human society (Belay, 1993).  It is the purpose of this paper to examine the concept of communication competence in the global context.

Globalization

Two major trends account for the emergence of globalization in human society: technology development and economic transformation.

　First, the rapid development of communication technologies over the past century has fundamentally transformed human society by linking every part of world into an interconnected network. The introduction of telegraph in 1844 launched the first steps of change on the planet.  Followed by the telephone developed by Alexander Graham Bell in 1875, the successful installment of submarine telephone cable in 1956, the first telecommunications satellite in 1960, the fiber optic communications system utilized in 1977, and the most recent electronic mail systems such as email, bulletin boards, computer conferencing, and web pages, , plus the development of transportation technologies, people with different cultural backgrounds around the world have been interconnected locally, regionally, and globally for education, business, travel, and social interactions. Technology development has made globalization inevitable and irreversible (Eichengreen, 1999; Harasim, 1993).  

　Among these communication and information technologies, internet makes the most significant contribution to the global interconnectivity. With the extensive use of networked computers, internet has blurred the line between mass and interpersonal communication and enables both personal and public messages to flow across national boundaries faster and more easily by providing an opportunity for acquainted and unacquainted individuals to communicate from different societies on a regular basis (Larson, 2000; Ma, 2000). It has been absorbed into our daily activities and integrated into the routines and structure of domestic life. The transformation of physical settings and social situations due to the usage of internet not only redefines the concepts of space and time, but also creates a global town square in which people can enjoy the freedom of expressions. Through the process of selfimage projection and reality construction on the internet, our physical being and environment are extended and new communities, which bring together people of disparate groups, are established (Chen, 2000; Moley, 1991).

　Second, the innovation of communication and transportation technology has led to a new landscape of economic world.  For example, companies such as Citicorp, CocaCola, Exxon, Gillette, and Sony derive over 50% of business revenues from markets other than their home countries, and industrial companies such as AT&T, GM, Marriott, Motorola, and WalMart as well began to make systematic efforts towards globalization during the last decade (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1997). The old structure of national economies and markets has gradually been transformed into a globalized system.  

　Adler (2002), from the perspective of management and communication, described the process of transformation of business organizations as the movement from domestic firms, multidomestic firms, multinational firms, to global firms. A global company demands the ability of transnational dynamics to understand the potential clients needs all over the world, and then quickly transform these worldwide needs into products and services and to deliver them to the clients in a culturally appropriate and acceptable fashion.

　The economic shifts to globalization inevitably change the contours of the world of work and bring in new consumers, new corporations, new knowledge, and new jobs (OHaraDevereaux & Johansen, 1994).  Because the new consumers are spreading throughout the world that are difficult to be concentrated, the global market represents a great challenge on almost every aspect of human society, including technology, management, culture, language, etc. The coming of new corporations indicates the challenge to the structure of organization that requires a new corporate culture to adjust to the new environment (Chen, 1999a). In other words, a new way of managing the diverse and crossfunctional employees will become basic tenets for the global business to survive. The new knowledge such as ideas, processes, and information will increasingly become intangible product accompanied with the traditional tangible goods. To effectively transfer this new knowledge, the process of global business transactions must be transformed and translated into a multiple cultural form. Moreover, the global new jobs reflect a fragmented workforce in which a new kind of employment relationship, embedded in cultural diversity, will be developed. Thus, an innovative plan of employees arrangement and managerial landscape is required to maintain the flexibility for handling the fragmentation of the labor force,

　The process of globalization not only abolishes the limit of space and time, but also extends human community into a global scale. However, it also reflects a dilemma, which represents a pulling and pushing between local identity and global diversity, or between a homogenized world culture and heterogenized local cultures (Chuang, 2000; Zhong, 2000). Naisbitt (1994) called the dialectical contradiction between the two forces "global paradox," dictating the phenomenon that the more globalized the world is, the more powerful its smallest players will be. Globalization then "demands an integration of cultural diversity in the global community, but at the same time also reflects peoples needs to develop a strong self or cultural identity(ies)" (Chen & Starosta, 2000a, p. 5). How people learn to integrate different cultural identities and interests and to negotiate and cocreate cultural identity through communication in order to establish a new global civic community will decide the future of human society (Boulding, 1988; Collier & Thomas, 1988; Lynch, 1992).  

　To summarize, globalization has broken through the boundaries of space, time, cultural assumptions, and the scope, structure, and function of human society. It not only demands new ways of thinking and organization, but also opens up "new imperatives for investigating power linkages between thought and action, knowledge and being, structure and process" (Kofman & Youngs, 1996, p. 1). These new imperatives of globalization demand a new way of communication in order to reach competence in the process of intercultural interaction.

Communication Competence

As the ability of individuals to adapt to and regulate the environment, "competence" has long been considered as an indispensable quality for human beings to build bridges and alliances for surviving, maintaining, and extending the life span of the society. As an individual trait, competence refers to an internal ability that is not related to personal intellect or education.  This internal ability is naturally enhanced and luminated through the promotion of empathy in the process of socialization (Weinstein, 1969).  It provides the ability to know the changing environment, and to establish a unique array of value that forms the basis of structuring the mental state, engineering the process of interaction, and inventing and generating behavioral strategies and skills for the adaptation of the environment.  As a state, competence refers to the learning ability that relates effectively to self and others in daily life.  It especially regards the behavioral skills used to formulate and achieve communication goals, collaborate effectively with others in the social network, and to adapt appropriately to situational and environmental variations (Bochner & Kelly, 1974).  

　Taken together, competence can be conceptualized from three aspects: first, it is the cognitive ability to understand situational and environmental requirements; second, it is the motivation to demonstrate the ability to understand situational and environmental requirements; and third, it is the effectiveness and appropriateness for accomplishing specific goals in interaction. The three conceptual aspects of competence echo the argument that competence integrates components based on an individuals cognitive, affective, and behavioral abilities (Chen, 2002; Chen & Starosta, 1996).  

　In the global communication context, competence further requires individuals to be equipped with the ability to acknowledge, respect, tolerate, and integrate cultural differences in order to be qualified for enlightened global citizenship (Chen & Starosta, 1997, 2003). Globally competent people not only are able to recognize the necessity of developing mindsets and skills to face the environmental trends, but also to acquire a new mode of thinking, organization, and behavior by seeing through the eyes, minds, and hearts of people from different cultures (Rhinesmith, 1996). Thus, global communication competence enables individuals to search for the vision, shared understanding, and sense of multiple identities that lead to the unlocking of human potential in the development of intelligence, knowledge, and creativity for a peaceful and productive society. 

A Model of Global Communication Competence

In order to foster the ability of global communication competence, the first step is to develop a global mindset, referring to openness to other cultures that facilitates intercultural interactions. Global mindset is the foundation of global communication competence.  A wellfounded global mindset enables individuals to envision the coming of a global society, and then execute intercultural communication skills appropriately and effectively. It fosters the ability to envisage the change of the world trends and to engage in the process of regulating the change, and to drive for a broader picture of context in which diversity and cultural differences are valued and balanced. That is, global mindset is the ability to learn to be a global citizen.

　In addition to having a global mindset, global communication competence comprises three more dimensions: unfolding the self, mapping the culture, and aligning the interaction (Chen, 1999b, 2000). Figure 1 shows the four dimensions and components of the model of global communication competence.

Figures 1: A Model of Global Communication Competence

Global Mindset

　As a psychological process, mindset represents patterns of individual or group thinking.  Through perception and reasoning process, which is predisposed by culture, mindset is a fixed mental attitude that leads people to see things and events from a specific lens. Mindset, to see things in a particular way, then serves as a cognitive filter through which we look at the world around us. Because we acquire cognitive filters through learning, which is embedded in the process of socialization and personal experience, the more diverse the personal and cultural background is, the more different the mindset would be.  Therefore, mindset can be used as a conceptual tool for examining why people look at a specific issue or act in a unique way in solving daily practical problem (Fisher, 1988).  

　Although mindsets often work like selffulfilling prophecies, the power of human mind cannot be overlooked. Human mind forms peoples total belief system that decides whether they accept as true of the world they live in  verbal and nonverbal, implicit and explicit.  It creates reality through perception, reasoning, and intuitive or spiritual process. The powerful and empowering implications of human mind have been studied and reported by scholars in different disciplines.  

　According to Gupta and Govindarajan (1997) and Rhinesmith (1992), global mindset calls for people to broaden and expand their thinking by eliminating those filters one possesses about other cultures and their differences. It equips individuals with a mental ability to scan the world in a broad perspective and always consciously expect new trends and opportunities, so that personal, social, and organizational objectives can be achieved in a harmonious way.  Built on the foundation of openness, global mindset represents the decrease or absence of ethnocentrism and parochialism. Ethnocentric persons tend to tie themselves closely with their cultural group members, and subjectively apply their cultural beliefs to interpret external stimuli and judge others behaviors.  Parochial persons see the world solely from their own perspectives without recognizing the different ways of living among people of different cultures.  Adler (1996) pointed out that both ethnocentric and parochial people are incapable of appreciating cultural diversity, one of the key elements of globalizing society.  Holding the perception of "our way is the best way," ethnocentric persons do not consider that cultural diversity will cause problems for individuals or organizations. They incline to live in the monocultural cocoon. By believing that "our way is the only way," parochial persons have a strong tendency to deny and ignore the potential impact of cultural diversity. They are often blinded by their own practice and unable to detect the changes and complexity of globalization trends (Adler, 2002).  

　In contrast to the closed worldview hold by ethnocentric and parochial mindsets, people with global mindset are able to foster a synergistic ability through a creative process of combining and balancing our own and their ways. Thus, cultural differences may lead to problems, but they as well provide advantages for nourishing personal and organization growth if we know how to recognize and use them to create positive opportunities.  In other words, the openness embedded in global mindset allows change, improvement, and innovation over time, while facing the impact of cultural differences and other trends such as technology development (Starosta & Chen, 2003, 2005). 

　As the foundation of global communication competence, global mindset is closely related to individuals' affective, cognitive, and behavioral abilities. In other words, global mindset forms a cycle of global communication competence in which individuals learn to unfold the self via the internal illumination of personal affect or attributes towards globalization, to reach the cognitive awareness of cultural varieties, and to develop behavioral skills of global interactions. As a result, individuals with global mindset possess five personal characteristics (Rhinesmith, 1996):

　First, they are culturally sensitive. Since globalization brings people of different cultures together in every level of communication and all aspects of life, crosscultural sensitivity becomes a great challenge for people to communicate constructively among one another. Individuals with global mindset not only have a welldeveloped ego and positive concept, but also possess a sensitive heart regarding cultural diversity. 

　Second, they are open.  Openness refers to two meanings.  Personally, it allows individuals to seek continuous improvements in the constantly changing environment that characterizes the process of globalization.  In communication, it concerns nonjudgmental attitude towards culturally different counterparts.  Together, openness demands a strong motivation for perpetual learning to deal with cultural differences.

　Third, they are knowledgeable. Individuals with global mindset are equipped with a drive force that impels them to broaden and deepen their perspective in terms of local and global events. Knowing cultural, social, business, and other similarities and differences ensures a sound action in making decisions, solving conflicts, and riding the wave of globalization.

　Fourth, they are critical and holistic thinkers. In addition to be knowledgeable in accurately perceiving cultural similarities and differences, individuals with global mindset have the ability to sort out the complexity of the changing globe through critical and analytical thinking. They are able to see the globe not only as one, but also as an orderly kaleidoscopic many.  That is, they have the ability to think deductively and inductively.

　Finally, they are flexible. Individuals with global mindset tend to show conceptual and behavioral flexibility in the process of global communication. They demonstrate abilities of accuracy and adaptability when attending to diverse information and rapid changing environment. The flexible ability nourishes the person to see the uncertainty caused by the change of globalization as an opportunity for moving forward.  Moreover, they respond and adjust to the change efficiently, effectively, and comfortably by altering and cooccurring verbal and nonverbal behavioral choices that mark the complex relationships of interactants in the global communication.

　To summarize, global mindset enables individuals to regulate the complexity, ambiguity, contradiction, and conflict embedded in the turbulent change of globalization process. Moreover, it functions to impel individuals to drive for a broad perspective, to motivate individuals to learn how to respect and value cultural diversity, to expect individuals to balance contradiction and conflict inherent in the various demands for global competition and cooperation, and to propel individuals to flow with the globalizing wave as comfortable fish swimming in the ocean.

Unfolding the Self

　Global communication competence requires individuals to unfold and expand the personal characteristics, including flexibility, sensitivity, openmindedness, and motivation.  As the centrality of the global society, the self must be mobilized to visualize its identity for the establishment of its continuity. Through the extension of personal attributes selfidentity begins to build a bridge between the personal and social gap. A connection of I and thou creates a web of meanings shared by the global community. In other words, the ability of unfolding the self is an important way to promote creativity, learning, and innovation in the process of globalization (Chen & Starosta, 2004). Unable to unfold the self to face the challenge of constant changes and complexities of the globalizing society often leads to an unsuccessful ride of the wave of future society. 

　As a cocreator, with heaven and earth, of the integrative whole of the universe, this human being, this individual, or this self plays the most important and fundamental role in achieving the productive living of globalizing society.  However, in order to fully unfold the potential, this self must be ceaselessly edified, constantly liberated, and perpetually purified. As Giddens (1991) indicated, globalization is a process in which the two extremes of extensionality and intentionality are increasingly interconnected. In other words, the two forces of globalizing and personalizing are pushing and pulling, adjusting and readjusting between each other to search for an integrative and holistic future of human society.  Thus, losing the selfidentity in the shrinking time and space scale of globalization may form a risky global culture which is reined by chaos and uncertainty.

　Since the intrinsic value of the self is in congruence with the cosmic order, Cornford (1952) described the self as the combination of prophet, poet, and sage, who is capable of being mutually transmuted with the world to reach the level of ideal and authentic existence.  Hence, it is evident that the self can deliberately choose to cast everything, including the development of the individual and other human companions, the frame of human society, and the achievement of value, into the mold of one's intention (Fang, 1980).  

　Cornford's metaphor is resonant with St Bonaventure's speculation that the self possesses three eyes for knowledge and illumination: the eye of flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation (in Wilber, 1983).  The individual employs the eye of flesh to empirically perceive the external world. Through human senses and their extensions, the individual comes to know the facts of the material world. This is the eye of sensory experiences for the realm of time, space, and matter.  The eye of reason is used to attain knowledge of logic, philosophy, and mind. Through this mental eye, the individual walks into the realm of mind where memory, ideas, image, reason, and will reside. Although the eye of reason often relies on the empirically sensory experiences for gaining information, it transcends the eye of flesh especially in the areas of imagination, will, logical reasoning, conceptual understanding, psychological insight, and creativity.  Finally, by the eye of contemplation, the individual rises to the realm of transcendent realities that are beyond sense and reason, and reveal the truth of selfliberation. It is the spiritual experience into the real self as the reality which demarcates the sphere of words or verbal expressions.

　The unfolding of the complete self is dependent on the integration of the three eyes of flesh, reason, and contemplation. Unfortunately, the separation and confrontation of the three eyes, represented by science, philosophy, and religion, characterizes the existence of human beings in modern age. This leads individuals to stay in the lower ladder of the development of human greatness stipulated by Confucius two milleniums ago.  

　Confucius classified five developmental types of individuals (Fang, 1983).  The first is the common run of people who can be cultivated into the second type, a learned and enlightened one, who maintains an insight of knowledge and a dignified action with the noble art of life.  The continuous improvements will move the second type to the superior individual, possessing a refined and elegant character and a balance of mind.  Further refinement and cultivation transforms the superior one into the individual of excellence, whose actions are in harmony with the high standard of values that are universally acceptable in all human societies and whose utterance of truth sets a good standard to the global citizens without disgracing his/her integrity. Finally, the holy individual is entitled with perfect wisdom, which gracefully adapts her/himself to the flux and complexity of change without confronting any crises or barriers.

　Unfolding the self is therefore a process of transforming and moving oneself from the lower to higher level of the developmental ladder of human beings, which represents the process of unceasingly edifying, liberating, and purifying personal attributes of the self. These personal attributes are ruled under the umbrella of great empathy which dictates the principle: unity is within diversities and particularity is identified with universality. In other words, the spirit of great empathy is manifested by the interfusion and interpenetration of human multiplicities (Chang, 1963). From the human perspective, the great empathy formulates the ideal of fellowfeeling by expanding the self consciousness to the consciousness of one's fellow persons.  

　Finally, on the global or intercultural communication level, unfolding the self refers to the ability to look for shared communication symbols and project the self into another person's mind by thinking the same thoughts and feeling the same emotions as the person (Chen & Starosta, 1997, 2000b). Individuals with great empathy are able to show deep concern for others' feelings and reactions, to adopt different roles as required by different situations, to demonstrate reciprocity of affect displays, active listening, and verbal responses that show understanding and lead to the establishment of an intercultural rapport (Barnlund, 1988). Together, unfolding the self demands ceaselessly purifying oneself, continuous learning, cultivating sensitivity, develop creativity, and fostering empathy.

Mapping the Culture

Global communication competence requires cognitive ability to map one's own and anothers cultures. It is the ability to acquire cultural knowledge.  To understand ourselves as a cultural being from our own cultural perspective is the basis of knowing our counterparts culture.  It is this mutual awareness of cultural knowledge that makes respect and integration of cultural difference possible. Thus, the awareness of cultural knowledge is a prerequisite of reducing situational ambiguity and uncertainty in the process of intercultural or global communication (Chen & Starosta, 2003). The lack of discomfort, confusion, or anxiety due to the understanding of cultural differences helps individuals adapt to situational demands of global environment and cope with changing environment rapidly.  

　Globalization indicates increasing encountering of culturally and coculturally diverse members and increasing demands of being aware of global interdependence of people and cultures. It not only requires us to develop a new mode of thinking, but also leads us to enmesh in external matters that are foreign to the village and community in which we have been living for many decades.  In the process of reaching out, individuals are forced to experience different life styles, thinking paradigms, and expression patterns, and gradually broaden cultural understandings. Thus, with each new encounter, we begin to contrast cultural differences that may motivate us to prefer alternative styles of cultural expressions and engender in us a desire to retool, so that we can better function with those of unfamiliar counterparts. This increasing awareness of other possibilities proves to be a cumulative process, by which we learn that it becomes irreversible once we encountered with and learned from people of different cultures.  Cultural awareness is then a necessary mechanism, soothing the anxious and uncomfortable feelings caused by the ambiguous and uncertain environment due to cultural diversity in the globalizing process.

　The ability of mapping a culture is the manifestation of cultural awareness. Through the cognitive process, we acquire knowledge and characteristics of our own and others' culture, and further draw a picture or map of the culture to reflect the degree of our understanding.  Global communication competence not only demands the understanding of one's own and one's counterparts' cultures, but also requires both passive and active understanding. According to Sikkema and Niyekawa (1987), a passive understanding of other cultures or cocultures only provides individuals with the feeling that they know others' culture. This kind of understanding usually is based on superficial experiences in crosscultural settings, such as traveling to other countries, meeting people from different cultures in conferences, and having some acquaintances of other cultures.  While the passive understanding only involves intellectual and rational components of knowing and will not guarantee that one can really function well or adapt to the other culture, an active understanding requires individuals to add affective and emotional elements into one's cognitive repertoire.  In other words, the ego is involved in the active understanding that helps to develop an attitude of respect, tolerance, and acceptance of cultural differences.  Thus, passive and active understandings form the continuum of cultural awareness, which indicates a developmental process.

　To conclude, according to Chen and Starosta (19989) and Hanvey (1987), the ability of mapping a culture is the manifestation of cultural awareness, which comprises four steps of its developmental process: (1) bewilderment  in which the knowledge based on the superficial cultural traits leads to the reaction of unbelievability, and individuals tend to evaluate the cultural differences as being exotic or bizarre, (2) frustration – in which the knowledge of deeper cultural traits that greatly contrast with ours leads to an internal conflict situation, and irrational interpretations of the differences tend to provoke feeling of frustration and disappointment, (3) analysis – in which individuals begin to intellectually analyze the differences of cultural traits that will gradually lead them to the cognitive understanding of cultural differences and begin to believe the existence of cultural differences, and (4) immersion – in which individuals move into the stage of empathic awareness, by which they are able to see the differences from their culturallydifferent counterparts' position. The ability will in turn lead to the ability of cultural immersion, or subjective familiarity, of core cultural traits that help individuals to live in another culture without feeling of distress. 

Aligning the Interaction

Finally, global communication competence requires a set of behavioral skills, which is indispensable for adjusting individuals to the changes and new patterns of interaction in the globalizing society. The behavioral requirement of aligning global interaction allows individuals to negotiate the multiple meanings and manage complexity and conflicts in the global context.  Hence, to act or align interactions effectively in the process of intercultural or global communication enables individuals to get the task done and attain communication goals for being a successful global citizen.

　The ultimate goal of fostering a global mindset, unfolding the self, and mapping the culture is to function effectively and appropriately in interactional level.  In other words, the mental, affective, and cognitive abilities must be integrated into a set of behavioral skills that lead to a successful and productive interaction in the globalizing society. To avoid the conceptual confusion with the commonly used term "intercultural effectiveness," Chen (2002) and Chen and Starosta (1996) suggested to using "intercultural adroitness," instead of "intercultural effectiveness," to describe this behavioral process of global competence.

　Adroitness as an individual's capacity is one of the basic needs of human beings to interact and adjust effectively with other human fellows and the environment.  As a common property of human behaviors, adroitness can be attained through behaviors instigated by drives in one's own right.  In other words, the degree of adroitness can be measured by the extent to which an individual produces an intended effect from interaction with his or her human fellows or the environment.  Adroitness is also increased through socialization, it is learned not only through incidentally, but also consciously manipulate the interaction. In this sense, adroitness is relied much on the ability of empathy which is based on personal intelligence and sensitivity (Weinstein, 1969).

　Intercultural adroitness is comprised of two components: effectiveness and appropriateness. Effectiveness refers to individuals' ability to select among a set of communication behaviors to accomplish specific goals in the process of global communication. These specific goals include getting relevant information about these goals, accurately predicting the other's responses, selecting communication strategies, and correctly assessing the results of interaction in a multicultural context. More specifically, effectiveness is the ability to maximize the functions of communication in terms of controlling and manipulating the communication process or environment, comfortably sharing feelings with culturally different counterparts, informing the necessary cultural cues, ritualizing the communication process, and imaging the picture of cultural similarities and differences (Chen 1990, 1992).

　Appropriateness is the ability to meet the contextual requirements in the global communication, or to recognize the different sets of rules in different situations (Chen, 2002).  It indicates the right quantity of message sending, the consistent quality of message delivered, the relevancy of the topical messages and situation, and the manner of expression (Wiemann, 1977).  This ability of maintaining the face of one's culturally different counterparts within the constraints of the situation is parallel to the verbal and nonverbal context, in which both kinds of expressions are making sense to interactants; to the relationship context, in which the structure and delivery of the messages are consonant with the particular relationship between the interactants; and to the environmental context, in which the constraints induced from the symbolic and physical environment and imposed on the interaction are well considered by the interactants (Wiseman, 2003).  Together, intercultural adroitness is the ability of interactants to execute communication behaviors to elicit desired responses in a global communication environment without violating their counterparts' norms and rules. 

　Hence, a successful interaction based on intercultural adroitness is embedded in the two aspects of the globalizing society: people and environment. From the perspective of people, intercultural adroitness demands a set of behavioral skills, including language ability, behavioral flexibility, interaction management, and identity maintenance.  From the perspective of environment, intercultural adroitness requires the ability to manage changes or complexity of globalization.

Conclusion

The trend of globalization, formed by the rapid technology development and economic transformation, is ceaselessly moving into the human society wave after wave. Global interdependence and interconnectivity has become a norm of life in the new millennium. How to nourish a new human personality and life style in order to maintain a multicultural coexistence will decide the future destiny of human society. Based on the concern of the impact of globalization on human society, this paper first discusses the concepts of "globalization" and "communication competence," and then proposes a model of global communication, through the discussion of the nature of globalization and communication competence.  

　It is argued that in order to survive in the globalizing society, individuals are required to acquire the ability of global communication competence, which comprises four dimensions: fostering a global mindset, unfolding the self, mapping the culture, and aligning the interaction. As a psychological process, global mindset helps people to broaden and expand their perspective to eliminate the inaccurate stereotypes and prejudices towards people of different cultures. Unfolding the self demands individuals to ceaselessly edify, liberate, and purify themselves to foster a sound selfidentity for collaboratively building an integrative and holistic future of human society. Mapping the culture refers to the process of acquiring knowledge and characteristics of our own and others' culture to reach a cognitive understanding of cultural similarities and differences. Finally, aligning the interaction requires individuals to foster the ability of intercultural adroitness, by which they can function effectively and appropriately in the global communication environment without violating their counterparts' norms and rules in order to reach a global civic society. 

References

Adler, N. J. (1996). Organizational development in a multicultural environment.  Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 349365. 

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior.  Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern.

Adler, P. S. (1982). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicultural man.  In L. A. Samovar and R. E. porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 389405).  Belmont, CA: Wadworth. 

Belay, G. (1993).  Toward a paradigm shift for intercultural and international communication: New research directions. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 16 (pp. 437457).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bochner, A. P., & Kelly, C. w. (1974).  Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework.  Speech Teacher, 23, 279301.

Boulding, E. (1988). Building a global civic culture.  New York: Teachers College.

Chang, Cy (1963). Creativity and Taoism: A study of Chinese philosophy, art, and poetry. New York: Harper & Row.

Chen, G. M. (1990).  Intercultural communication Competence: Some perspectives of research.  The Howard Journal of Communications, 2, 243261. 

Chen, G. M. (1992). A test of intercultural communication competence.  Intercultural Communication Studies, 2, 6382.

Chen, G. M. (1999a, November). The contours of globalization. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Chen, G. M. (1999b, November). Global communication competency: A demand of 21st century.  Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Chen, G. M. (2000, November). Globalization and intercultural communication competence. Paper presented at the 2000 Tamkang International Communication Conference. Taipei, Taiwan. 

Chen, G. M. (2002, December). A review of the concept of intercultural effectiveness.  Paper presented at the Tamkang University biannual International Communication Conference. Taipei, Taiwan. 

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis.  Communication Yearbook, 19, 353384.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity.  Human communication, 1, 116.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (19989). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness.  Human Communication, 2, 2754.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000a). Communication and global society: An introduction. In G. M. Chen and W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 116). New York: Peter Lang.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000b). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 115. 

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2003). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness.  In  L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 344353).  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.  

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2004). Communication among Cultural Diversities: A Dialogue. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 27, 316.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2005). Foundations of Intercultural Communication. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Chuang, R. (2000). Dialectics of globalization and localization.  In G. M. Chen and W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 1933). New York: Peter Lang

Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective.  In Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99120).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Cornfold, F. M. (1952). Principium sapientiae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Eichengreen, B. (1999, May/June). One economy, ready or not: Thomas Friedmans jaunt through globalization.  Foreign Affairs, 78, 118122.

Fang, T. H. (1980). Creativity in man and nature. Taipei, Taiwan: Linking.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and selfidentity.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fisher, G. (1988). Mindsets: The role of culture and perception in international relations.  Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.  

Featherstone, M. (1990).  Global culture.  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Frederick, H. H. (1992, September). Computer Networks and the Emergence of Global Civil Society: The Case of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Peace Studies Association, Boulder, Colorado.

Frederick, H. H. (1993). Global communication and international relations.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Friedman, J. (1994). Cultural identity and global process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1997).  Creating a global mindset \[on line\].  Available: http//www.bmgt.umd.edu/cib/wplist.html

Harasim, L. M. (1993). Global networks: An introduction. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Global networks: Computers and international communication (pp. 143151).  Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Herman, E. S., & McChesney, R. W. (1997). The global media. London: Cassell.

Harman, W. (1998). Global mind change: The promise of the 21st century.  San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler.

Kofman, E., & Youngs, G. (1996).  Introduction: Globalizationthe second wave.  In E. Kofman and G. Youngs (Eds.), Globalization: Theory and practice (pp. 18).  New York: Pinter. 

Larson, G. W. (2000). Globalization, computermediated interaction, and symbolic convergence. In G. M. Chen and W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 159179). New York: Peter Lang

Lynch, J. (1992).  Education for citizenship in a multicultural society.  London: Cassell.

Ma, R. (1994). Computermediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computermediated communication.  Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Ma, R. (2000).  Internet as a town square in global society. In G. M. Chen and W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 93106). New York: Peter Lang.

Moley, D. (1991). Where the global meets the local: Notes from the sitting room.  Screen, 32, 115.

Morgan, G. (1988). Riding the waves of change: Developing managerial competencies for a turbulent world.  London: JosseyBass.

Naisbitt, J. (1994).  Global paradox.  New York: Aven.

OHaraDevereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Globalwork: Bridging distance, culture, and time.  San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Naisbitt, J. (1997). Global paradox.  New York: Aven.

Peck, M. S. (1992). The true meaning of community.  In W. B. Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Readings on communication with strangers (pp. 435444).  New York: McGraw.

Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. A. (1994).  An introduction to intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 2642). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Rhinesmith, S. H. (1992). Global minsets for global managers. Training & Development, October, 6368.

Rhinesmith, S. H. (1996).  A managers guide to globalization.  Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Richmond, A. H. (1994). Global apartheid: Refugees, racism, and new world order.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Sikkema, M., & Niyekawa, A. (1987). Design for crosscultural learning.  Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2003). "Ferment," an ethic of caring, and the corrective power of dialogue. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 26, 323.

Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2005). Intercultural Listening:  Collected Reflections, Collated Refractions. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 28, 274285.

Stevenson, R. L. (1994). Global communication in the twentyfirst century.  New York:  Longman.

Thayer, L. (1987).  On communication.  Norwood, NJL Ablex.

Weinstein, E. A. (1969).  The development of interpersonal competence.  In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753775).  Chicago: Rand McNally. 

Wilber, K. (1983). Eye to eye: The quest of the new paradigm.  New York: Anchor Books.

Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of model of communication competence.  Human Communication Research, 3, 195213.

Wiseman, R. L. (2003). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Crosscultural and intercultural communication (pp. 191208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zhong, M. (2000). Dialectics of identity and diversity in the global society. In G. M. Chen and W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 3547). New York: Peter Lang.