It is often easy to see when someone makes a cultural blunder. For instance, during a business meeting at the Paris location of a United States multinational company, a visiting Turkish employee used an aggressive tone in his attempt to discuss the financial status of the company with U.S. and French executives. The company had been performing poorly over the past few months and the employee not only highlighted the problem, but also criticized the executives who were his superiors. What he failed to recognize during this interaction was that he not only insulted the executives by his tone and aggressiveness, but also embarrassed himself and them. He believed that he was making a positive impression on those at the meeting via his knowledge of the company; yet, his difficulty adjusting to the cultural setting and inability to interpret the cultural cues present actually created a negative impression. The situation became uncomfortable for the other people at the meeting. What could have been a productive dialog about the financial status of the company developed into an argumentative session, which ended abruptly without resolution.
In another instance, during a meeting with people from all over the world at a German institution, an individual from the United States was eating an apple and drinking a large bottle of water while loudly discussing why she believed it was unfair that she could not rollerblade in the bike lane in Germany. She could not seem to understand why the Germans were so offended by her actions, and during the meeting she did not recognize how her current behaviors of eating, drinking, and conversing loudly were making those from other countries uncomfortable. Throughout the interaction, she failed to interpret the cultural cues others from around the world were displaying; later, she stated how surprised she was at her difficulty adjusting to life in Germany.
In both of these cases, the subjects were unaware of the cultural cues being conveyed to them. Each had problems adjusting to their new cultural setting; however, other individuals were able to make the adjustment. How is it that some individuals are more successful than others in a cross-cultural business situation? How can some people travel easily from country to country and effectively conduct business, while others may only be effective in a few countries or completely ineffective outside their home country?
The ability to interact effectively in multiple cultures has recently been labeled cultural intelligence (CQ). It is defined as a “multifaceted competency consisting of cultural knowledge, the practice of mindfulness, and the repertoire of behavioral skills” (Thomas & Inkson, 2004, pp. 182-183, italics in the original). CQ is a capability that allows individuals to understand and act appropriately across a wide range of cultures (Thomas, 2006). It is thought to be a “culture-free construct that applies across specific cultural circumstances” (Ng & Earley, 2006, p. 10). It is a person's capability to adjust to diverse cultural situations (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Earley & Ang, 2003) and effectively adapt to various cultural settings (Ng & Earley, 2006). It improves understanding in cross-cultural interactions (Earley, 2002; Sharma & Mulka, 1993). Peterson (2004) stated that CQ “is the ability to engage in a set of behaviors that uses skills (i.e., language or interpersonal skills) and qualities (e.g., tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility) that are tuned appropriately to the culture-based values and attitudes of the people with whom one interacts” (p. 89). In order to be culturally intelligent, an individual needs to know how to suspend judgment of a situation until multiple cues can be assessed, as well as integrate and understand the knowledge gained from the situation (Triandis, 2006). It is thought that individuals with a high level of CQ have “a strong mastery and sense of emotional display and physical presence” (Earley, Ang, & Tan, 2006, p. 34). Researchers of cultural intelligence are seeking to understand why some individuals are more effective than others in adapting to new cultural settings (Ng & Earley, 2006). Determining what contributes to this ability, which is grounded in multiple intelligence theory (Alon & Higgins, 2005; Ang, Van Dyne, Yee, & Koh, 2004; Earley & Ang, 2003), is a crucial question.
CQ is composed of four parts: meta-cognition, cognition, motivation, and behavior. High CQ individuals use all four in unison ( Ang et al., 2004 and Ang et al., 2006; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Ng & Earley, 2006). Meta-cognition is defined as an individual's knowledge or control over cognitions that leads to deep information processing (Ang et al., 2004). It is concentrated in the ability to process information and the knowledge of processing it (Earley & Ang, 2003), as well as the individual's motives, goals, emotions, and external stimuli (Thomas, 2006). It is not sufficient to simply know oneself to obtain high CQ; individuals must be able to be flexible in their self-concept, and have the ability to integrate new components into their self-concept (Earley & Ang, 2003).
Cognition refers to using knowledge of self, the social environment, and information processing (Earley & Ang, 2003); with regard to CQ, it involves the general knowledge about the structures of a culture (Ang et al., 2006; Ng & Earley, 2006). It is information gained from experience and education that involves specific norms, practices, and conventions, including universal facets of culture as well as culture-specific differences (Ang et al., 2004).
The motivation aspect of CQ involves a person's interest in learning and functioning in cross-cultural situations ( Ang et al., 2004 and Ang et al., 2006). This facet of CQ includes three primary motivators: enhancement, or wanting to feel good about oneself; growth, or wanting to challenge and improve oneself; and continuality, or the desire for continuity and predictability in one's life (Earley et al., 2006). This component directs and motivates an individual's adaptation to a new cultural setting, and it can be broken down into enhancement, efficacy, and consistency (Earley & Ang, 2003; Ng & Earley, 2006).
The final facet of CQ is behavior, or the action aspect of the construct (Earley et al., 2006). It includes a person's ability to exhibit the appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors when interacting with others from a different cultural background ( Ang et al., 2004 and Ang et al., 2006; Ng & Earley, 2006), and to generally interact competently with individuals from diverse backgrounds (Thomas, 2006). This may also include the inhibition of displaying certain behaviors (Earley & Ang, 2003), and the recognition that not interacting may be appropriate (Thomas, 2006).
Currently, no information exists regarding what leads to higher levels of CQ. Each of these aspects of CQ would be essential to individuals who are working with people from other cultures. It is crucial, therefore, for managers to understand what the antecedents to CQ are, in order to incorporate this knowledge into their global business plans.
Understanding CQ will provide some insight for organizational leaders as they select employees for international assignments, such as expatriate positions which occur when an individual lives and works outside his or her country of citizenship (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001; Inkson, Arthur, Pringle, & Barry, 1997; Reuber & Fischer, 1997; Sambharya, 1996; Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, & Lepak, 2005). These assignments, which are used to develop future organizational leaders and global managers (Baruch, 2002; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Luthans & Farner, 2002), are important when international experience is considered a critical component of firm strategy (Yan, Guorong, & Hall, 2002). Yet, they are costly for firms (Birdseye & Hill, 1995; Krell, 2005; McNulty & Tharenou, 2004; Stroh, Gregersen, & Black, 2000), and even more costly when the employee fails the assignment (Ashamalla, 1998; Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Despite the costs, multinational firms believe the increasing globalization of trade, commerce, and capital necessitates transferring individuals to foreign subsidiaries for assignments (Forster, 1997). Sending the right individual, meaning an employee who can be effective and successful in a foreign country, is critical. It has recently been suggested that aspects of CQ are antecedents to cross-cultural competence which may influence success or failures in international business (Johnson et al., 2006). Therefore, firms need to understand what could lead an employee to have a higher CQ, which in turn should lead to more effectiveness while abroad.
Since no information exists discussing what leads to increasing cultural intelligence and what contributes to higher levels of each facet of CQ, some primary questions arise: What leads to higher levels of cultural intelligence? What leads to higher levels of each of the facets of cultural intelligence?
