Cultural intelligence: Organizational Growth Strategy Framework


Abstract


Achieving global success is becoming a necessity and a highly competitive process for organization with the rapid and continuous changes in technology and cultural expectations. Cultural intelligence – the ability to function efficiently across cultures is gaining global interest. The purpose of the proposed CQ organizational growth strategy framework is to

promote cultural intelligence growth in organizations. This paper utilizes current literature to create a CQ organizational growth strategy framework utilizing the four dimensions of CQ: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural and equating their relevance within a welfare development program with the dimensions of skill, strategy, assessment and business etiquette. Further correlations are made between the components of organizational CQ: process, position and path capabilities with the dimensions of CQ and the welfare development program within the CQ organizational growth strategy framework which are applicable throughout the relevant levels of the organization. A strong correlation is found between all three where complimentary effects by association are observed in figure 6,8,10 and 11. The primary limitation of the framework is that it is based on secondary research. The current framework is acceptable on a theoretical level, but further research is required to solidify the validity of the proposed framework.

 

Key words:

 

Cultural intelligence

CQ

Growth framework

Cross-cultural competence

Intercultural competence

Diversity management

Global mindset

 

 Introduction

Cultural intelligence (CQ) is the capacity to operate efficiently across culturally diverse circumstances (Earley & Ang, 2003; Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018). Expatriates, executives and others that utilize this capability successfully navigate culturally sensitive situations and interactions efficiently in a globalized world (Fang, Schei & Selart, 2018). The term cultural intelligence is a recent development and was introduced in 2002 (Earley, 2002). CQ as a concept has received increased attention in recent times (Fang, Schei & Selart, 2018) considering how crucial a high CQ is for professionals working in global or cross-cultural environments where their stakeholders are spread across geographic and cultural boundaries (Alon et al., 2016). CQ has thus become a crucial leadership competency that enables leaders to efficiently manage culturally ambiguous environments across national borders (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne & Annen, 2011). Global and multinational organizations lay emphasis on their capability to efficiently communicate across cultures to ensure organizational success (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). This has led to increased interest in human resource management to comprehend the nature of global teams (Butler et al., 2018; Presbitero & Teng-Calleja, 2019) and the examination of its organizational drivers such as business processes, local decision making, providing international services and organizational efficiency (Brewster, Sparrow & Harris, 2005). Culturally intelligent individuals are seen as stabilizing factors in organizational optimization (Alon et al., 2016). In fact, determining the level of cross cultural competence is now seen as a prerequisite for hiring, cultivating and retaining personnel (Leung, Ang, & Tan, 2014). In global organizations, leaders play a crucial role in efficient communication and collaboration within teams (Presbitero & Teng-Calleja, 2019). They need to understand social and cultural national behaviours in order to achieve organizational success, however cultivating and assessing such competence is hard to measure (Tuleja, 2014). An organizational growth strategy framework from a cultural intelligence lens can help cultivate and assess these competencies across the organization and provide for a culturally intelligent and aware workforce that comprehends the strategic mission of the organization and is motivated to achieve the requisite results.

 

Overview of globalization and the cultural revolution 

After World War II, the international community came together to build a shared future (Schwab, 2018) which focused on globalisation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, unification of Europe, establishment of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1989, the momentum of globalisation has accelerated substantially (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006) which has led to increased cross-cultural interactions. Cross-cultural competence, which is one’s ability to comprehend details of cross-cultural interactions and make applicable changes to one’s subsequent behaviour based on interpersonal skills (Bartel-Radic & Giannelloni, 2017; Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006) became an important attribute. Many global organisational failures have been attributed to lack of cross-cultural competence (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006). Around 25 years ago, researchers began taking interest in and studying multinational teams (Butler et al., 2018). Around the same time, the internet was introduced to the world. Within 5 years of its existence, it disrupted almost all industries from education to medicine. With the introduction of the world wide web, the world became connected (Keegan, 1999). The internet and globalisation brought about significant changes in social, cultural and organisational structures (Khiabany, 2003).

Globalisation is the amalgamation of systems that transcend national restraints and aspects (Wood, 2003). This concept is key in understanding the modern multicultural world where rapid technological advances in the past few decades has made international communication and travel easy and accessible. As organizations diversify and grow, working in global, multinational teams has become a regular affair (Zander, Mockaitis & Butler, 2012) in order to ensure maximum efficiencies while dealing with an increasingly disruptive, combative and culturally evolving business environment (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). Global teams are teams that operate within scattered environments that often have divergent national, cultural and lingual norms (Zander, Mockaitis & Butler, 2012). As organizations grow from domestic to multinational and global operations, the significance of cultural diversity increases (Bal & Bozkurt, 2013). To become globally successful, organizations need to be effective, locally aware, resilient, malleable within short time frames, capable of local and international knowledge sharing and transfer across geographically diverse locations (Schuler, Budhwar, & Florkowski, 2002). The term cultural intelligence is a recent development and was introduced in 2002 (Earley, 2002).

Organizational growth strategy framework

Organizations today employ and interact with people from a variety of diverse nationalities, education levels, sexual preferences, gender, age, social and professional abilities (Guirdham, 2005). These advances have brought about a host of opportunities and conflicts, therefore identifying competencies that can be influential in culturally diverse scenarios has gained prominence (Fang, Schei & Selart, 2018). In order to be culturally intelligent and competent, an individual should possess the following traits: strong personality, be knowledgeable of cultural norms and values, be sensitive to the cultural expectations and procedures, communicate and behave in a culturally relevant manner, maintain social relations and negotiate institutional structures of that culture (Byram, 1997; LaFromboise, Coleman & Gerton, 1993, p.396). Behavioural cues on expected and acceptable behavior still remain a challenge (Butler et al., 2018).


Diversity & inclusion initiatives

Research on workplace discrepancies is largely concentrated on gender and racial inequalities. This is also the larger theme of most diversity management programs at organizations where the focus is on high level employees of colour or sometimes gay and lesbian employees (Berrey, 2013). The aim becoming maximizing the efficient performance of women, people of colour and gaining the attention of the consumers (Berrey, 2013; Dobbin, 2009). By the year 1998, about 75% of Fortune 500 companies had a diversity program (Ryan, Hawdon & Branick, 2002). However, the value of diversity needs to be leveraged and acknowledged as the responsibility of all employees of an organization and not just the leadership and management teams (Coleman, 1994). The main purpose of diversity management is to decrease workplace disparity by addressing the behaviors and actions that create marginalization in organizations (Vallas & Cummins, 2013). By utilizing an organizational growth strategy framework, organizations can address the scope and magnitude of the required change in a systematic and sustainable manner. Organizations can tailor their employee development plans on the basis of their strategic objectives (Alon et al., 2016). Training should be customized to suit the inherent culture of an organization (Kaufmann, Englezou & García-Gallego, 2013) and to minimize bias. Bias transpires when the variance in measurement don’t expose the variance in the hypothesis (Benítez, Padilla, Van de Vijver & Cuevas, 2018). Cross cultural competence encompasses factors such as knowledge, skills, aptitude and other individual attributes (Caligiuri, 2006). If leaders and company executives demonstrate cross cultural competencies, they can influence organisational behaviours.

The boards that emphasize on a robust corporate culture, look out for threats and set clear behavioural expectations encourage ethical organisational behaviour. A board of directors, the CEO and top management team should establish transparency on the kind of behaviour they expect across an organisation irrespective of geographical or functional units by cultivating policies, processes and incentives that encourage the preferred culture (Vollmer, 2018). There is a growing emphasis is on organisational culture and engagement globally. A survey conducted by Deloitte in 2015 showed that 87% of all boards considered culture and engagement to be top areas of contention while another study from 2016 showed that only 28% of executives understood their organisational culture and only 12% agreed that their organisation was encouraging the right culture (Vollmer, 2018).

Most organisations have a mission, vision, value statements, code of conduct that promotes best behaviour practices. It is crucial that the board, chief executives and senior management comprehend and abide by the same set of rules that govern all employees, thus setting an example of model behavioural expectations for the entire organisation. The chief executive officers and top management teams of an organisation control its organisational strategy and direction where the chief executives influence how top management team behaviours (Lo & Fu, 2016). These leaders play a vital role in influencing team dynamics and behaviours (Butler et al., 2018; Zander et al., 2012). By promoting efficient communication and demonstrating teamwork within global and diverse teams, they promote collaboration.

Cultural intelligence – a competitive advantage

 

People with high CQ have superior capabilities in discovering, collecting, reasoning and acting suitably in culturally ambiguous situations (Van Dyne et al., 2012). CQ is an impressionable competency that can be improved by cross-cultural experiences, travel, international projects and education amongst other things (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2012). CQ is frequently acknowledged as a multifaceted concept that is made up of four dimensions: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural (Earley & Ang, 2003). In building the organisational growth strategy framework, these four dimensions and their subdimensions are taken into consideration as they are a crucial determining factor of cultural intelligence. Each dimension is attributed to a corresponding value. Figure 1 demonstrates the four-factor model of cultural intelligence and its corresponding subdimensions.

 

Figure 1 The Four-factor model of cultural intelligence

 

(Van Dyne, Ang & Livermore, 2010)

 

 

Metacognition is a critical dimension of CQ. It is an individual’s mental ability to develop and comprehend cultural information (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). This is the only CQ dimension that is intrinsic and cannot be learnt even after CQ training (Ramsey, Abi Aad, Jiang, Barakat & Drummond, 2016). Individuals with high metacognitive CQ are acutely aware of how their culture impacts their behaviour and their ability to understand cross-cultural settings (Triandis, 2006; Van Dyne et al., 2012). They are mindful, have situational awareness, self-regulate in order to process knowledge (Flavell, 1979) and comprehend the significance of planning for cross-cultural exchanges by subjecting themselves to ambiguous cultural situations (Van Dyne et al., 2012). These traits align with the three subdimensions of Metacognitive CQ: planning, awareness and checking. This behavioural pattern best aligns with that of organisational executives and leaders. Leaders often utilize their personal experiences of mutual learning in order to supplement their leadership skills and decisions (Robertson, 2009), thus they use their metacognitive skills in order to make beneficial decisions for their organisations. By utilizing the Organisational growth strategy framework, the metacognitive CQ competency of leaders will assessed and put to the test. This will be done in several forms such as self-assessments, observer assessments, performance-based assessment (Chaudhary, 2019) and 360-degree feedback to determine the most adequate results that demonstrate areas of improvement. By participating in the assessment’s leaders will utilize the subdimensions of metacognitive CQ of planning, awareness, checking. The assessments mentioned above will help organisational leadership in planning for the future, checking and being aware of their immediate and subsequent areas of improvement.

 

Figure 2 Relation between Metacognitive CQ of leaders and assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cognitive CQ is an individual’s ability and knowledge of cultural ambiguities, similarities, norms and expectations. (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2012). It reveals an individual’s ability to develop new cultural knowledge (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh & Tangirala, 2010). Its subdimensions are culture-general knowledge and context-specific knowledge. Culture-general knowledge is generic cultural knowledge that characterises how cultures are similar or different. This can constitute knowledge of economic, politics, social systems, traditions, religious beliefs, gender roles, communication styles, linguistic interpretation and comprehension (Van Dyne et al., 2012). Context specific knowledge is definitive knowledge about specific situations and assumptions. This can constitute national cultures and their assumptions such as Australia has a highly individualistic culture or India has high power distance thus indicating a preference for hierarchies and top down structures in society and organisations (Hofstede, 2019). In order to identify, assimilate and comprehend the circumstantial environment and social protocols, an individual should possess adequate cognitive skills. The cognitive and reasoning CQ competence can be categorised under knowledge and skill (Ramsey et al., 2016). This cognition and skills development are complimentary to each other. As part of welfare development for employee’s skills development will focus on teaching them the nuances of cultural intelligence via workshops, seminars, mentoring and professional development programs.

 

Figure 3 Relation between Cognitive CQ and skill development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motivational CQ is an individual’s capacity to engage in learning about and operating in culturally distinct circumstances (Ang &Van Dyne, 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2012) which is driven by individual values, personalities and desires. Motivational CQ has three subdimensions: intrinsic interest, extrinsic interest and self-efficacy to adjust. Intrinsic interest encompasses the value of culturally distinct experiences as they are characteristically satisfying. This can include working with individuals from varied cultural heritages. The intrinsic value of cross-cultural experiences is significant as it is individualistic and does not depend on others for its fulfilment. Extrinsic Interest is defined as the tangible and definite individual benefit that is accomplished from experiencing culturally varied experiences (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This can include a variety of benefits ranging from cross-cultural experiences, improved reputation, international assignments, promotions, monetary benefits to bigger responsibilities. Self-Efficacy is seen as adjusting to having task-specific abilities in culturally distinctive situations (Van Dyne et al., 2012).  It is an individual’s conviction in their capability to triumph in culturally ambiguous situations (Ramsey et al., 2016). Self-efficacy focuses on a sense of confidence and capability in settling into new cultures and interacting with locals from varied cultural backgrounds. Individuals with high motivational CQ thrive in cross-cultural scenarios as they comprehend the value of intercultural interactions and the intrinsic confrontations of culturally distinct situations. The three subdimensions of motivational CQ showcase the significance of tangible (extrinsic) and intangible (intrinsic and intercultural self-efficacy) benefits. For the purpose of the organisational growth strategy framework, motivational CQ will be equated with strategy where horizontal hierarchies, regular interactions with leadership team, international projects, career planning and mapping are executed regularly to ensure employee satisfaction and comprehension of the organisation’s strategic direction.

 

Figure 4 Relation between motivational CQ and organisational strategy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


As compared to metacognitive, cognitive and motivational CQ all of which involve mental function, behavioural CQ is an individual’s capacity to utilize their motor skills, their verbal and nonverbal abilities (Van Dyne et al., 2012). It is the ability of an individual to act in an appropriate manner verbally and nonverbally in a relevant circumstance (Earley, 2002). In order to find success in ambiguous cultural situations, an individual should have the ability to quickly adapt their actions to the expected behavioural patterns till the individual assimilates to the cultural norms (Lovvorn and Chen, 2011). Behavioural CQ is thus primarily an individual’s ability to interact with people from different cultures effectively by utilizing verbal and nonverbal cues (Ang& Van Dyne, 2008). It lets people adjust their social behaviour in a manner as to avoid any misinterpretation. Behavioural CQ has three subdimensions: verbal behavior, non-verbal behavior, and speech acts. Verbal behaviours include speed, volume, accent and tone of speech. These can be utilized to convey a massage in the appropriate cultural context by modulating one’s speech to suit the occasion and circumstances. Non-Verbal Behaviours are the bodily movements, facial expressions and body language vans words utilized in order to convey a message. These behaviours can be formal or informal in nature depending on the situation at hand and can stretch from greeting norms to formal and informal clothing expectations in certain cultural settings. Speech acts

is outlined as ease of manner in communicating certain types of massages like requests, summons, regrets, appreciation and variance in opinion in an appropriate local manner. This is considered a very subdomain as most cultures have very distinctive behavioural styles and expectations in conveying their communication across which includes words, tone of voice and degree of politeness (Van Dyne et al., 2012). For example, in Germany one can just say no when turning down a request but in Indonesia it would be more suitable to phrase a ‘no’ politely by saying ‘I will try’ (Van Dyne et al., 2012). The three subdimensions of behavioural CQ emphasise the intricate tractability required to communicate efficiently and appropriately in cross-cultural situations. When activated, these behavioural CQ subdimensions enhance adjustments to a new cultural background by relying on learning over old habits (Molinsky, 2007). Hence, behavioural CQ is equated with business etiquette within the organisational growth strategy framework where employees can be educated through a variety of quizzes, short videos, information booklets and online resources available on cultural norms, national cultures, behavioural expectations and dressing expectations.

 

Figure 5 Relation between behavioural CQ and business etiquette

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The four dimensions of cultural intelligence thus form the pillars for the organisational growth strategy framework where skills, strategy and business etiquette form the base supplemented by assessments for leaders on the next level. Figure 5 below demonstrates the foundations of the organisational growth strategy framework incorporating the four dimensions of cultural intelligence to ensure that sustainable cultural change can be attained by an organisation when it implements the final framework across its organisation.

 

 

 

Figure 6 Foundations of organisational growth strategy framework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The basis of the growth strategy framework focuses on the largest part of the organisation affected by organisational culture and its consequences first. The basic premise is to facilitate sustainable and steady change for all employees. While the four dimensions of cultural intelligence do not develop in any particular order, they do support the improvement of an individual’s CQ which in turn supports them in handling culturally diverse scenarios more effectively.

 

Culture and organisations

 

While Numerous factors affect the accomplishment and maintenance of an organisations competitive advantage in international markets, culture is amongst the most important of those factors (Moon, 2010; Triandis, 1989). CQ at an individual and group level is established on the premise of intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003). CQ at an organisational level is based on administrative proficiency (Moon, 2010) and the effect of organisational competence on a company’s performance and maintaining competitive edge in industry are well established in literature (Moon, 2010; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). The cultural ability or organisational CQ of a company is their capability to assimilate, construct and transform their internal and external skills and abilities to tackle varying disruptive situations (Moon, 2010). An organisation’s characteristic expertise and ability are a consequence of three factors: processes – the procedures and organisational practices; positions- explicit resources such as inherent knowledge and the paths an organisation chooses in its technological, managerial and cultural behaviours (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997).

 

How an organisation is run depends on the company’s inherent processes, brand position and the growth strategy path it adopts (Moon, 2010; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) which eventually establishes its competitive advantage. The organisational growth strategy framework focuses on establishing the relevance between the three factors: process, position, and path capability with how an organisation can leverage these factors to be culturally intelligent. Figure 7 demonstrates how the three factors of organisational cultural intelligence affect its capability.

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 The three-factor model of organisational cultural intelligence capability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


(Moon, 2010)

 

 

The Process capability function of organisational cultural intelligence has three characteristics: cross-cultural learning, cross-cultural integration and cross-cultural reconfiguration (Moon, 2010). These demonstrate an organisations ability to incorporate new circumstances into their existing work flows in order to optimize efficiencies in cross-cultural scenarios.

 

Cross-cultural learning in organisations takes place in a socially contextual interaction. When facilitation organisational change, social interaction is seen as a critical mechanism in sharing knowledge (Kang, Morris & Snell, 2007). Cross-cultural learning corresponds with the cognitive dimension of cultural intelligence that looks at skills development and improvement which can be achieved by facilitating workshops, seminars, mentoring and professional development opportunities.

 

Cross-cultural integration is a critical element in the process capability that helps facilitate an organisation’s strategic direction by managing and incorporating the optimum utilization of its resources. This can be best associated with the motivational dimension of individual cultural intelligence where motivated individuals will ensure they utilize regular interaction, horizontal hierarchies, career planning and international project opportunities in order to fulfil their and the organisations strategic goals.

 

For instance, Starbucks the global coffee chain was a huge failure in Australia. In 2013 it closed almost all of its 84 stores in the country. The lack of motivation in strategic planning and research became evident when the brand made several bad decisions such as not evaluating their competition (McDonald’s McCafe and Gloria Jean’s coffee) and the competition’s reach; opening stores in low-traffic locations and overcharging compared to their competitors (Lutz, 2014). A similar case was observed when Wal-Mart entered the German market with inadequate research and high-profile acquisitions. Their failure in Germany was a result of inadequate cross-cultural awareness and synchronization with the market (Moon, 2010).

 

Cross-cultural reconfiguration is an organisations ability to restructure the firm’s assets and behaviours in order to facilitate internal and external change. When organisations expand their business interests to international markets, they need to change their behaviours in order to assimilate into the new cultural environment (Hitt, Hoskisson & Kim, 1997). Cross-cultural reconfiguration lets an organisation redesign its resources and cultivate processes that support the cultural context of the environment. Organisations with high cross-cultural reconfiguration acclimatize and comprehend the dimensions of their undertakings by developing efficient behavioural patterns and practices that suit their immediate cultural context. This aligns very closely with the behavioural dimension of cultural intelligence. The process function of organisational cultural intelligence can be successful when resources are most suitably utilized to effectively organise for internal and external behaviours to suit culturally ambiguous and disruptive scenarios (Wernerfelt, 1984).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 The process of employee welfare development using the dimensions of individual CQ and organisational CQ capacity

Position capability in organisational cultural intelligence defined by assets and circumstantial factors that the company influences and possesses. The distinct processes followed by organisations are a result of the assets they possess and the market conditions they influence such as their financial, institutional, technological, market, institutional assets and their reputational resources (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). Thus, position capability is an organisations unique selling proposition that other organisations would find challenging to replicate. This unique selling proposition could be the organisation’s assets, knowledge base, research capabilities or cross-cultural adaptation skills. An organisation’s position capability is very closely associated with its leadership teams and thus the metacognitive dimension of cultural intelligence. Organisational leaders from the board of directors to the chief executive officer and the executive teams are all responsible for the company’s position capability. They utilize their metacognitive abilities to guide their decision-making process that affects the organisations position capability. A regular assessment process that includes self-assessment, observer assessment, 360-degree feedback and reverse mentoring processes ensures that leaders pivot and change any decisions that become unfavourable for the organisation.

 

Leaders of global and international organisations are expected to acclimatize to change and handle complicated interpersonal relationships to succeed in ambiguous and culturally diverse environments that are very different from their personal values, beliefs and behaviour. They possess intercultural competence or cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003) which enables them to observe, comprehend and act in a manner that is beneficial to the organisation. They are adept at understanding the cultural norms and practices followed by their stakeholders and subsequently acting in an appropriate manner to be able to reflect an open attitude towards doing business. Cultural intelligence in culturally ambiguous situations regulates the relationship between cultural alignment and conflict management attitudes (Caputo, Ayoko, Amoo & Menke, 2019). Recent studies have emphasised the crucial role leaders play in influencing team behaviours (Zander et al., 2012), cultivating efficient communication channels and encouraging collaboration within global and international teams (Presbitero & Teng-Calleja, 2019).

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9 The relation between position capacity, metacognition and leadership assessment

 

Path capability, the cultural ability of an organisation depends on the path it has taken over time. Path dependencies often influence organisations to stick to their inventory of known business practices and customs even for their future course of action (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). The more path dependencies an organisation has on continuing the same processes over an extended period of time, the more struggle it will face while trying to transform any processes, procedures, arrangements and inherent cultures due to organisational opposition to change (Moon, 2010). Successful organisations with strong path dependencies in domestic markets often find it difficult to re-establish their dominance in culturally divergent environments. Legislation, public policy and corporate law play a critical part in supporting or discouraging distinct practices in organisations. This is completely true for the business world where the only consideration is ‘what is most beneficial for the organisation’ (Vassilopoulou, Da Rocha, Seierstad, April & Ozbilgin, 2013). While public policy and legislations are outside the direct purview of most organisations, how these policies and legislations are implemented is entirely dependent on how human resources implement it.

 

Human resource management (HRM) plays a critical role in the implementation of organisational policies and procedures that help manage global teams and define the parameters within which they operate (Butler et al., 2018). From recruitment to selection, training, policy guidelines and behavioural expectations, HRM plays a critical role in the effective functioning of an organisation. HRM shapes the framework within which global teams operate (Nardon, 2017) by facilitating, providing for the selection and training of employees in the required skills for cultivating and utilizing cultural diversity. Divergent organisational and national interests can produce conflicting situations for global teams which can lead to conflict (Butler et al., 2018). HRM plays a critical part in sidelining such conflicting situations by liaising with strategic and executive managers to ensure that any external disruptions are managed in a way that leads to positive internal team dynamics (Butler et al., 2018). With nationalistic and anti-immigration sentiments running high across the U.S.A and Europe, HRM needs to improvise beyond their traditional subsidiary models by making the best of its diversity nationally and internationally (Butler et al., 2018). A crucial encounter for organizations across industries and sectors is the need to expand operations internationally (Brewster, Sparrow & Harris, 2005). In HR terms, in order to attain path capability efficiencies, organizations need to simplify, update and modernize their human resource management practices.

 

Figure 10 Cultural intelligence Organizational Growth Strategy Framework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Consequences of adopting a CQ organizational growth strategy framework

 

The mindfulness and ability to recognize and adopt to cultural and market diversity in order to assimilate into the respective environment leads to a global mindset (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002). Adopting a CQ organizational growth strategy framework like the one described in figure 10 will enable a global mindset. Which will further lead to the attainment of the components of a global mindset: intellectual capital, psychological capital and social capital.

 

Intellectual capital constitutes a leader’s understanding, knowledge and cognitive abilities with regards to varied cultural environments. It compromises of a leader’s skills such as a multi-cultural outlook, global business shrewdness and cognitive capabilities (Ramsey, Abi Aad, Jiang, Barakat & Drummond, 2016) that can be acquired through cross-cultural learning as part the organization’s strategic CQ growth plan.

 

Social capital emphasises on the behavioural aspect of internal and external associations in an organization which can be developed by experiencing cross-cultural reconfiguration. This includes an individual’s diplomatic ability, social behaviour and compassion.

Psychological capital indicates personality characteristics such as self-confidence, appreciation for diversity and varied cultural experiences which can motivate and help individuals better integrate in cross-cultural environments.

Figure 11 clearly represents the relation between individual CQ dimensions, organizational CQ attributes, global mindset components and how they correspond to the proposed CQ organizational growth strategy framework.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11 The relation between individual CQ dimensions, organisational CQ attribute and global mindset components

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Limitations and directions for further research

 

 

The research and proposed implications of the CQ organisational growth strategy framework are based on secondary research. Further research into the conceptualization of cultural intelligence and its subdimensions will help facilitate specific activities and refine the overall implementation and effectiveness of the CQ organizational growth strategy framework. An in-depth understanding of the relation between the dimensions of cultural intelligence and components of a global mindset should be explored to the implications of cultural intelligence training and its benefits to individuals and organizations alike.

 

Conclusion

 

 

With rapid advances in technology and global business expansions, in order to successfully do business, organizations need to focus on being culturally intelligent and competent.

Cultural intelligence – the capability to operate successfully in culturally ambiguous environments is gaining global traction. The  proposed CQ organizational growth strategy framework aims to facilitate cultural intelligence growth in organizations so they can drive sustainable and beneficial behavioural change throughout the organization which translates into better returns on investment, better employee satisfaction rates and a more culturally intelligent organization that is adaptable and able to function efficiently in culturally diverse environments. The current framework is based on research and establishing a correlation between the four CQ dimensions: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural and the organisational CQ capabilities of: process, position and path. These correlations are established and used within the proposed CQ organizational growth strategy framework to facilitate CQ enhancing activities throughout the scope of the organization. A consistent and complimentary correlation is found between the above-mentioned dimensions where the complimentary effects by association are observed in figure 6,8,10 and 11. This framework

is acceptable on a theoretical level and its limitation is that it is based on secondary research. Further research is required to verify the validity of the proposed framework.

 

 

 

References

 

 

Alon, I., Boulanger, M., Elston, J., Galanaki, E., Martínez de Ibarreta, C., & Meyers, J. et al. (2016). Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient: A Five-Country Study. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(3), 237-250. doi: 10.1002/tie.21826

 

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 3-15). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

 

Bal, Y., & Bozkurt, S. (2013). Globalization and Human Resources Management: Managing the Diverse Workforce in Global Organizations. In B. Christiansen, E. Turkina, & N. Williams (Eds.), Cultural and Technological Influences on Global Business (pp. 1-13). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-3966-9.ch001

 

Bartel-Radic, A., & Giannelloni, J. (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. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.003

 

Benítez, I., Padilla, J., Van de Vijver, F., & Cuevas, A. (2018). What Cognitive Interviews Tell Us about Bias in Cross-cultural Research. Field Methods, 30(4), 277-294. doi: 10.1177/1525822x18783961

 

Berrey, E. (2013). Breaking Glass Ceilings, Ignoring Dirty Floors. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 347-370. doi: 10.1177/0002764213503333

 

Brewster, C., Sparrow, P., & Harris, H. (2005). Towards a new model of globalizing HRM. The International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 16(6), 949-970. doi: 10.1080/09585190500120590

 

Butler, C., Minbaeva, D., Mäkelä, K., Maloney, M., Nardon, L., Paunova, M., & Zimmermann, A. (2018). Towards a strategic understanding of global teams and their HR implications: an expert dialogue. The International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 29(14), 2209-2229. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1428720

 

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.

 

Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 219-228. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.009

 

Caputo, A., Ayoko, O., Amoo, N., & Menke, C. (2019). The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles. Journal Of Business Research, 99, 23-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.011

 

Chaudhary, M. (2019). The impact of cultural intelligence as a leadership competency in global and multinational organisations. Unpublished manuscript, La Trobe University.

 

Chen, G., Kirkman, B., Kim, K., Farh, C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When Does Cross-Cultural Motivation Enhance Expatriate Effectiveness? A Multilevel Investigation of the Moderating Roles of Subsidiary Support and Cultural Distance. Academy Of Management Journal, 53(5), 1110-1130. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.54533217

 

Coleman, T. (1994). Managing diversity: Keeping it in focus. PM.Public Management, 76(10), 10. Retrieved from http://ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/docview/204178788?accountid=12001

 

DiStefano, J., & Maznevski, M. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63. doi: 10.1016/s0090-2616(00)00012-7

 

Dobbin, F. (2009). Inventing Equal Opportunity. doi: 10.1515/9781400830893

 

Earley, P. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. Research In Organizational Behavior, 24, 271-299. doi: 10.1016/s0191-3085(02)24008-3

 

Earley, P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Fang, F., Schei, V., & Selart, M. (2018). Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence. International Journal Of Intercultural Relations, 66, 148-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.04.002

 

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906

 

Guirdham, M. (2005). Communicating Across Cultures at Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2002). Cultivating a global mindset. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 116-126. doi: 10.5465/ame.2002.6640211

 

Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 787-798.

 

Hofstede, G. (2019). Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights. Retrieved 16 October 2019, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india/

 

Johnson, J., 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. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205

 

Kang, S., Morris, S., & Snell, S. (2007). Relational Archetypes, Organizational Learning, and Value Creation: Extending the Human Resource Architecture. Academy Of Management Review, 32(1), 236-256. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.23464060

 

Kaufmann, H., Englezou, M., & García-Gallego, A. (2013). Tailoring Cross-Cultural Competence Training. Thunderbird International Business Review, 56(1), 27-42. doi: 10.1002/tie.21594

 

Keegan, V. (1999). Te internet revolution. Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, 13(1), 174-179. doi: 10.1080/09557579908400282

 

Khiabany, G. (2003). Globalization and the Internet: Myths and Realities. Trends In Communication, 11(2), 137-153. doi: 10.1207/s15427439tc1102_05

 

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395-412. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.114.3.395

 

Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. (2014). Intercultural Competence. Annual Review Of Organizational Psychology And Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489-519. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229

 

Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 307. doi: 10.2307/25148842

 

Lo, F., & Fu, P. (2016). The interaction of chief executive officer and top management team on organization performance. Journal Of Business Research, 69(6), 2182-2186. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.027

 

Lovvorn, Al.S., & Chen, Jiun-Shiu. (2011). Developing a global mindset: The relationship between an international assignment and cultural intelligence.(Report). International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9), 275.

 

Lutz, A. (2014). Starbucks Was A Complete Failure In Australia. Retrieved 9 September 2019, from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/starbucks-closing-stores-in-australia-2014-5

 

Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-Cultural Code-Switching: The Psychological Challenges of Adapting Behavior in Foreign Cultural Interactions. The Academy Of Management Review, 32(2), 622-640. doi: 10.2307/20159318

 

Moon, T. (2010). Organizational Cultural Intelligence: Dynamic Capability Perspective. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 456-493. doi: 10.1177/1059601110378295

 

Nardon, L. (2017). Working in a Multicultural World. doi: 10.3138/9781442625006

 

Presbitero, A., & Teng-Calleja, M. (2019). Ethical leadership, team leader’s cultural intelligence and ethical behavior of team members. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1381-1392. doi: 10.1108/pr-01-2018-0016

 

Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. (2007). Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 46(4), 535-559. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20181

 

Ramsey, J., Abi Aad, A., Jiang, C., Barakat, L., & Drummond, V. (2016). Emergence of cultural intelligence and global mindset capital: a multilevel model. Multinational Business Review, 24(2), 106-122. doi: 10.1108/mbr-12-2015-0062

 

Robertson, J. (2009). Coaching leadership learning through partnership. School Leadership & Management, 29(1), 39-49. doi: 10.1080/13632430802646388

 

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond General Intelligence (IQ) and Emotional Intelligence (EQ): The Role of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness in a Globalized World. Journal Of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

 

Rockstuhl, T., & Van Dyne, L. (2018). A bi-factor theory of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence: Meta-analysis and theoretical extensions. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 148, 124-144. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.07.005

 

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

 

Ryan, J., Hawdon, J., & Branick, A. (2002). The Political Economy of Diversity: Diversity Programs in Fortune 500 Companies. Sociological Research Online, 7(1), 26-40. doi: 10.5153/sro.702

 

Schuler, R., Budhwar, P., & Florkowski, G. (2002). International Human Resource Management: Review and Critique. International Journal Of Management Reviews, 4(1), 41-70. doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00076

 

Schwab, K. (2018). Globalization 4.0 - what does it mean?. Retrieved 5 October 2019, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/globalization-4-what-does-it-mean-how-it-will-benefit-everyone/

 

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co;2-z

 

Triandis, H. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.506

 

Triandis, H. (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 20-26. doi: 10.1177/1059601105275253

 

Tuleja, E. (2014). Developing Cultural Intelligence for Global Leadership Through Mindfulness. Journal Of Teaching In International Business, 25(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1080/08975930.2014.881275

 

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Livermore, D. (2010). Leading across differences: Cultural Intelligence: A Pathway for Leading in a Rapidly Globalizing World (pp. 131-138). San Francisco, Calif.: Pfeiffer.

 

Vallas, S., & Cummins, E. (2013). Relational Models of Organizational Inequalities. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 228-255. doi: 10.1177/0002764213503327

 

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-Dimensions of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence: Expanding the Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Intelligence. Social And Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00429.x

 

Vassilopoulou, J., Da Rocha, J., Seierstad, C., April, K., & Ozbilgin, M. (2013). International Diversity Management. Cultural And Technological Influences On Global Business, 14-28. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3966-9.ch002

 

Vollmer, S. (2018). The board's role in promoting an ethical culture. Journal of Accountancy, 226(1), 24-27. Retrieved from http://ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/docview/2068010414?accountid=12001

 

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050207

 

Wood, S. (2003). National Affinities and Globalisation: Business and Beyond. Global Society, 17(1), 39-58. doi: 10.1080/0953732032000053999

 

Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Butler, C. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal Of World Business, 47(4), 592-603. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.012