Does Cultural Intelligence Make Todays Manager Truly Global and Effective - Coursework Example

Does Cultural Intelligence Make Today’s Manager Truly Global and Effective? Table of Contents 0 Introduction 2 1 Concept of Cultural Intelligence 4 1.2 Why Cultural Intelligence is Important for Multicultural Organizations 5 1.2.1 Direct vs. indirect communication 6 1.2.2 Trouble with accents and fluency 6 1.2.3 Conflicting norms for decision making 7 1.3 Cultural Intelligence Testing 7 1.4 Practical implications 8 1.5 Conclusion 9 References 10 APPENDICES 12 APPENDIX A 12 APPENDIX B 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 someones unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures in just the way that persons 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 advantageous in intracultural situations, do not help in intercultural situations (p. 94). The problem with CQ testing lies in the fact that the known methods involve using self reports. As such, despite their validation, they still have bias limitation e.g. faking of test responses. In Emotional Intelligence (EQ) testing, despite the self report administration, the testing is actually performance-based e.g. the (MSCEIT) Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al, 2003). Therefore, the limitation involved in self reports does not apply in EQ but it has validity limitations. This is because, in EQ testing, there are no objective answers that apply to all cultural contexts and the questions cannot determine a highly superb person in EQ. 1.4 Practical implications Globalization has necessitated multicultural interactions today. CQ facilitates effective multicultural interactions and it is imperative for international companies to consider selecting employees based on their CQ to facilitate effective negotiation. Although people are essentially ethnocentric (Triandis, 1990), organizations can provide various kinds of training on CQ to facilitate effective intercultural interaction. However, the results of such training activities may not be successful and alternative solutions should also be explored. One of these alternatives, is selecting candidates who are former “third-culture kids” (Selmer and Lam, 2004, p. 431). “Third culture kids” (TCKs) are those people who as adolescents had lived in more than one country and had already experienced various cultures (Useem, 2011). These experiences of different cultures equip such individuals with influences from all the cultures they have been exposed to, enhancing their flexibility and effectiveness in handling multicultural situations (Selmer and Lam, 2004, p. 441). In relation to that, there are those individuals who are conversant with at least two different cultures. According to Morris (2005), bicultural individuals are able to straddle the cultural identity line, and alternate between their two cultural schemas based on situational factors. For effective negotiation with such, managers can employ subtle priming to influence the cultural perspective that will assist agreement. 1.5 Conclusion In today’s globalized world, CQ is an important predictor of effective intercultural interactions. CQ involves understanding and adapting to intercultural situations and acting in culturally appropriate ways as needed. Individuals with high CQ are more successful in multicultural companies and are key to an organization being effective in the global market. Therefore, multicultural organizations should incorporate CQ training programs or employ hiring strategies that target “third culture kids” for global assignments. References Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.) Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C. K. S., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). The measurement of cultural intelligence: Effects on cultural judgment and decision-making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335–371. Brett J, Behfer K and Kern M. C. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard Business Review Brislin, R., Worthley, R., and MacNab, B. (2006).Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people’s goals. Group and Organization Management, 31, 40–55. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Earley, P. C. & Mosakowski, E. (2004) ‘Cultural intelligence’, Harvard Business Review, 82(10):139-148 Imai L. and Gelfand M.J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112 (2010) 83–98 Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. Morris M. (2005).When Culture Counts—and When It Doesn’t. Negotiation. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Selmer J. and Lam H. (2004),""Third-culture kids": Future business expatriates?" Personnel Review, 33(4): pp.430 – 445 Tan J.S. (2004).Cultural Intelligence and the Global Economy. Leadership in Action, 24(5): pp19-21 Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31, 20–26. Useem, R.H. (2001). TCK ‘Mother’ pens history of field. NewsLinks: The Newspaper of International School Services, Available at: http://iss.edu/pages/kids.html Ward C., Fischer R.,Lam F.S.Z. and Hall L (2009).The Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of Scores on a Self-Report Measure of Cultural Intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement 69(1):pp. 85-105 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) - Self-Report Ang et al. (2007) Read each statement and select the response that best describes your capabilities. Select the answer that BEST describes you AS YOU REALLYARE Meta-cognitive 1. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. 2. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. 3. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. 4. I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures. Cognitive 5. I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. 6. I know the religious beliefs of other cultures. 7. I know the marriage systems of other cultures. 8. I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. 9. I know the rules (e.g., grammar) of other languages. 10. I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviors in other cultures. Motivational 11. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. 12. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. 13. I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. 14. I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture. 15. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. Behavioral 16. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. 17. I change my non-verbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it. 18. I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. 19. I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. 20. I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. APPENDIX B Diagnosing Your Cultural Intelligence Earley and Mosakowski (2004) These statements reflect different facets of cultural intelligence. For each set, add up your scores and divide by four to produce an average. Research with large groups of managers shows that for purposes of your own development, it is most useful to think about your three scores in comparison to one another. Generally, an average of less than 3 would indicate an area calling for improvement, while an average of great than 4.5 reflects a true CQ strength. Rate the extent to which you agree with each statement using the scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree ____ Before I interact with people from a new culture, I ask myself what I hope to achieve. _____ If I encounter something unexpected while working in a new culture, I use this experience to figure out new ways to approach other cultures in the future. _____ I plan how I am going to relate to people from a different culture before I meet them. _____ When I come in to a new cultural situation, I can immediately sense whether something is going well or something is going wrong. Total_____ /4 = ____ Cognitive CQ _____ It is easy for me to change my body language (for example, eye contact or posture) to suit people from a different culture. _____ I can alter my expression when a cultural encounter requires it. _____ I modify my speech style (for example, accent or tone) to suit people from a different culture. _____ I easily change the way I act when a cross-cultural encounter seems to require it. Total_____/4= ____ Physical CQ _____ I have confidence that I can deal well with people from a different culture. _____ I am certain that I can befriend people whose cultural backgrounds are different from mine. _____ I can adapt to the lifestyle of a different culture with relative ease. _____ I am confident that I can deal with a cultural situation that is unfamiliar. Total_____/4=____  Motivational (emotional) CQ Read More