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
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