Cultural Intelligence (Research Paper Sample)

Does Cultural Intelligence Make Today’s Manager Truly Global and Effective?
Student’s Name:
Institution:
Date:
Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u 1.0 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc351311786 \h 31.1 Concept of Cultural Intelligence PAGEREF _Toc351311787 \h 41.2 Why Cultural Intelligence is Important for Multicultural Organizations PAGEREF _Toc351311788 \h 51.2.1 Direct vs. indirect communication PAGEREF _Toc351311789 \h 61.2.2 Trouble with accents and fluency PAGEREF _Toc351311790 \h 61.2.3 Conflicting norms for decision making PAGEREF _Toc351311791 \h 71.3 Cultural Intelligence Testing PAGEREF _Toc351311792 \h 71.4 Practical implications PAGEREF _Toc351311793 \h 81.5 Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc351311794 \h 9References PAGEREF _Toc351311795 \h 10APPENDICES PAGEREF _Toc351311796 \h 12APPENDIX A PAGEREF _Toc351311797 \h 12APPENDIX B PAGEREF _Toc351311798 \h 13
1.0 Introduction
In today’s globalized world, situations that call for individuals to adapt to different cultural situations and manage interactions with different people from diverse cultures is more frequent than not. In order for people to be effective in managing such interactions successfully, they need to cultivate cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence (CQ) is defined as an individual’s ability to adjust well enough to different cultural situations ((Earley & Ang, 2003, p. 59). Earley and Mosakowski (2004, p.139) term CQ simply as the natural ability of a person unfamiliar to another person’s culture, to interpret their alien and ambiguous gestures similar to the way that unfamiliar person’s colleagues or nationals would.
In organizations today, cultural intelligence is steadily being seen as a contributing factor to competitive and strategic advantage. Research studies show that in terms of affective or performance-related outcomes in multicultural situations, CQ is a key factor of success. Ang et al (2007, p. 85) established that people with high CQ make more precise cultural judgments, interact better with diverse cultures and adjust to diverse cultural situations much better than those with lower CQ.
Based on evidence that suggests that CQ is an important predictor of effective intercultural outcomes, this report seeks to analyze the role of CQ in managerial competence. The author seeks to answer the question "Does Cultural Intelligence make today’s manager truly global and effective?" This will be done by exploring how CQ is useful, its implications and the challenges involved in cultural intelligence testing.
1.1 Concept of Cultural Intelligence
Cultural intelligence (CQ) is defined in various ways by theorists. According to Earley and Ang (2003), CQ is a comprehensive attribute that is a construct of four components; which are Meta-cognitive, Cognitive, Motivational and Behavioural. The meta-cognitive aspect relates to the level to which an individual is culturally aware and mindful during intercultural interactions (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008). A person with high meta-cognitive CQ when in an intercultural situation plans the processes he or she intends to use to learn about the new culture and at the same time checks their cultural assumptions and adjusts accordingly during and after encounters (Imai and Gelfand, 2010, p.85; Brislin et al, 2006; p. 42 Triandis, 2006, p.22). Cognitive CQ considers an individual’s knowledge regarding the customs and practices a particular culture subscribes to. Here, an individual with high cognitive CQ has general knowledge on what a culture is about e.g. legal systems, religious beliefs, etc that is got from learning or experience (Khodady and Ghahari, 2011, p. 66). Motivational CQ refers to the way an individual is invested in adapting his or her behavior to new cultures. People with high motivational CQ actually enjoy relating to people of different cultures and have faith in their intercultural interaction competence. Behavioral CQ relates to the level to which an individual is adept at using verbal and non-verbal cues appropriately as relating to a different culture (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008). A person with high behavioral CQ is flexible in adapting their verbal and non-verbal responses according to the immediate intercultural situation.
Earley and Mosakowski (2004) observed CQ to be the "seemingly natural ability of an outsider to interpret someone's unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures in just the way that person's compatriots and colleagues would, even to mirror them" (p. 139). The authors built on Earley and Ang’s (2003) four components of CQ and applied it into best practice model which managers can use to handle multicultural interaction challenges. Earley and Mosakowski (2004) theorized that CQ has three components of the cognitive, the physical and the emotional/motivational, which they related to the mind, the body and the heart respectively (p. 141). By use of relevant examples, Earley and Mosakowski (2004) demonstrate how managers become effective by employing CQ.
Tan (2004, p. 19) theorized that CQ has three parts, namely: - cultural strategic thing (thinking and solving challenges in a certain way), motivational (being eager and determined to act in certain ways) and behavioral (choosing to act in particular ways). The author provides evidence on corporations that use CQ as part of their corporate strategy and shows how that has worked for them. For instance people with high CQ are skilled at using cultural diversity to support marketing and product innovation strategies that will appeal to consumers in different countries, which Levi Straus capitalizes on (p.21). Additionally, Tan (2004) observes how multinational corporate giants like IBM, Nokia, Novartis, Lloyds TSB, Lufthansa and Barclays realize the importance of CQ in achieving organizational goals and competitive advantage (p. 21).
The conceptual frameworks of CQ as reflected by Earley and Ang (2003, Earley and Mosakowski (2004) and Tan (2004) demonstrate that CQ is very important to an individual’s or organization’s success in today’s global world. Thus, understanding the qualities of CQ is important in order to cultivate it.
1.2 Why Cultural Intelligence is Important for Multicultural Organizations
Early and Mosakowski (2004) observed that even companies have their own culture. In large companies, sub-cultures may exist, for instance between departments, which may cause conflicts. A new employee who experiences a new organizational culture or sub-culture may feel like an outsider unless they possess high CQ. Brett et al (2006) observed that multicultural teams are often frustrating to manage due to cultural differences that may arise. These differences if not understood and well handled may create obstacles that may damage a company’s effectiveness. Culturally diverse interactions pose a number of challenges on multicultural situations. These challenges include:-
1.2.1 Direct vs. indirect communication
Different cultures have different communication styles. For instance, in Western cultures it is typically straightforward and precise and the listener takes it at face value. In other cultures, e.g. Japanese, the listener has to be keen on hidden meaning given during communication in the way the message is passed across. In cross-cultural communication, a lack of understanding may arise if indirect communication is not correctly deciphered (Brett, 2006, p.86). Thus, CQ is important to maintain effectiveness.
1.2.2 Trouble with accents and fluency
Global business is usually conducted in English but non-native speakers may have issues with pronunciation, translation or accents which hampers communication and influence perceptions of incompetence (Brett, 2006, p.87). A person with low CQ involved in such a situation may dismiss an affected nonnative speaker’s contribution as unimportant or of low value even if that person could have the most expertise on the team, thus missing out on possibly significant insights to avoid potential business risks. This may also lead to interpersonal conflicts that could destroy effective negotiations in teams or companies.
1.2.3 Conflicting norms for decision making
People in different cultures make decisions in different ways, usually according to the timeliness and input involved. Expectedly, Western culture emphasizes quick decision making and not much analysis compared to other cultures. Not fully understanding the particular norm of the cultures involved during a negotiation may stall progress or completely end it due to misunderstandings. CQ calls for involved parties to make comprises by acknowledging differences and creating strategies around them.
In multicultural situations, one cannot make judgment about a person unless they consider a host of information regarding that person, including situation (Triandis, 2006, p.20). In all cultures, there are people who are idiocentric and allocentric (Triandis, 2006, p.21) and situations arise that cause people to act in idiocentric ways even if that is not who they are, CQ calls for one to suspend judgment until one has all information relating to a person’s conduct.
1.3 Cultural Intelligence Testing
Studies involving the assessment of CQ identify a four-factor self report constructed by Ang et al (2007) and a three-set assessment by Early and Mosakowski (2004). The self reports tests are shown in Appendices A and B. A study conducted by Imai and Gelfand (2010) testing the impact of CQ and other individual differences (e.g. emotional intelligence, openness, extraversion) in intercultural negotiation processes and outcomes used Ang t al’s (2007) self report. The researchers identified CQ as an important contributor to intercultural negotiation outcomes, more so than individual attributes which though advantag...