3. CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE (CQ)
3.6. Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Antecedents
66
Figure (3) CQ Facets According to Thomas et al. (2008) Adapted from Ott and Michailova (2016)
In summary, there are several CQ conceptualisations in the literature which indicate a level of disagreement to have a unique CQ conceptualisation where other forms could be developed from as a reference theory. This is due to the level of this concept newness that requires further investigation at the individual, group, organisation, and community levels.
67
Costa and McCare (2006) discussed extending the model to accommodate situational, team and organisational levels. However, the last three areas (situation, team and organisation) still require more investigations as argued by Ng et al. (2012). Hence, the CQ investigation in this research is going to focus on three main categories that summarise the CQ antecedents related to international experience, individual differences, and training and education at the individual, group, organisation, and community levels as provided in the following points.
3.6.1. International Experience and Cultural Exposure
Individuals exposure to a multicultural working or non-working environments might participate in increasing their CQ level. According to Ang and Van Dyne (2008), CQ is a set of capabilities that could be developed and shaped through international cultural exposure. There is a debate on which type of work or non-work experience could predict CQ better than the other. Also, debate extends to which extent education and duration of individual interaction in a multicultural environment would influence the CQ development. Some scholars like Crowne (2013) have shown that cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioural CQ could be predicted by work experience with several cultural, while non-work experience could predict cognitive and behavioural CQ. In the same context, other scholars like Moon et al. (2012), Sahin et al. (2014), and Engle and Crowne (2014) have demonstrated a positive correlation between international experiences with the development of the four CQ facets. Hence, exposing the individual to international experience might contribute to increase the cultural intelligence that leads to having individual better performance in such formal and nonformal settings.
68
On the other hand, some scholars did not find a significant relationship between international experiences and CQ facets development. For example, Varela and Gatlin-Watts (2014) showed merely cognitive and metacognitive with length experience could be predicted from the four CQ facets. In the same context, Wood and St. Peters (2014) stressed on the absence of the interaction with others from other cultures would negatively affect the development of the CQ behavioural facet. In response to these alterations, Eisenberg et al. (2013) argued on the necessity of international experience to develop the CQ after the completion of a cross-cultural management course, where the educational intervention was sufficient to develop the CQ without an international exposure to other cultures.
In conclusion, international exposure might and might not lead to a positive correlation that results in having a significant relationship with international experience and CQ development. Such ambiguity on the CQ facets development based on the international experience has led to inconsistent results. However, the CQ facets development rely on individual capabilities, educational interventions, and the work or non-work experience that differ from one to another.
So, there is an argument on CQ influence as an external or internal factor that led to considering CQ effects as a moderator and as a mediator in this research conceptual framework in chapter five.
3.6.2. Individual Differences.
CQ levels for individuals are related to their personal capabilities, differences, and self- efficacy that influence the development of the CQ facets as summarised by Ott and Michailova (2016). To study the influence of the personal characteristics on CQ development; Ang et al. (2007)
69
have stated that openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism which are named by Big Five Personalities (five-factor model (FFM)) are related to the CQ development. They also added, individual with CQ utilise suitable capabilities in a multicultural environment based on the situation without affecting the stability of personality traits in general. According to Costa and McCare (2006) and Harrison (2012), the most and the only critical personal characteristics that significantly predict the CQ facets are creativity and imagination, openness to experience, and the tendency to be adventurous. In this perspective, Ang et al. (2007) have additionally demonstrated the CQ facets prediction via the personal characteristics as “Conscientiousness predicts metacognitive CQ, agreeableness predicts behavioral CQ and extraversion predicts motivational, behavioral and cognitive CQ”.
Bandura (2002), over the years, established the Self-efficacy Theory and continued exploring self-efficacy within Social Cognitive Theory in a cultural context. He defined the perceived personal self-efficacy in Bandura (1994) as “people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives”. He also added. “Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave”.
Based on Badura’s outcomes, self-efficacy considered as antecedents of CQ and has been investigated by many scholars like MacNab and Worthely (2012) who have demonstrated that the individual general self-efficacy would influence CQ development. On the other hand, motivational and behavioural CQ facets development were significantly enhanced by providing training to individuals that led to improving task-specific and self-efficacy as concluded by Rehg et al. (2012).
In conclusion, Individual Big Five Personal Characteristics and Self-efficacy (general or task-specific) are predicting the CQ to a certain extent. However, individual capabilities differ from
70
one to another and directly are influencing the individual CQ development. As individual differences influence on CQ development been discussed in this part, the influence of the individual training and educational intervention will be discussed in the next point.
3.6.3. Cross-Cultural Training and Education
According to Kanter (1995), an organisation within the global economy requires a unique type of managers who have the capabilities to operate in more profound cross-cultural differences.
In the same context, Early and Ang (2003) have noticed this gap, and accordingly, they proposed a set of individual capabilities and relevant competency like mental, behavioural, and motivational to overcome the cross-cultural challenges. To investigate the education interventions influence the development of the CQ facets, scholars have conducted structure training programmes in general on students. For example, MacNab et al. (2012) found that such experiential training programmes with contact component have shown significant improvement at all CQ facets and more noticeable improvement was found mainly in the metacognitive and behavioural facets. On the other hand, Fischer (2011) have shown that by excluding the contact components from the training programme, cognitive and metacognitive for students were decreased, and there was no enhancement on their behavioural and motivational facets.
Usually, companies who are sending their employees to overseas assignments provide them with training on several items, including cultural constraints. There is a debate on how these programmes are affecting the development of the CQ facets for those employees. For example, Moon et al. (2012) shown that cross-cultural training length would influence only the CQ cognitive
71
facet, and all four CQ facets were positively influenced by the programme comprehensiveness.
Reichard et al. (2015) agreed with this understanding and added that all CQ facets development would witness enhancement if the cross-cultural training includes a simulation of the targeted culture main aspects. In there study, Rosenblatt et al. (2013) found that individual cognitive and metacognitive were enhanced as an outcome of the training programme, while behavioural and motivational CQ facets require an international experience for individuals to have the opportunity to be exposed to the other countries cultural and result in improving these two CQ facets. Therefore, the most comprehensive approached to increase the CQ for individuals would be in the integration between the training programme and international experience that includes practising situations.
In summary, international experience and cultural exposure, individual differences, and cross-cultural training and education are considered the primary CQ antecedents. There is a level of disagreement on to which degree these antecedents affect the individual CQ level. Again, CQ is becoming to a situation to be either internal factor, external factor, or both. Further investigation of this concept will be presented in the next point.