3. CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE (CQ)
3.5. Cultural Intelligence CQ Conceptualisation Models
61
62
Bandura (2002) indicated that a high motivational CQ would help those individuals to gain cross- cultural effectiveness and confidence to interact and direct their energy in multicultural situations.
Cognitive CQ as stated by Ng et al. (2012) “reflects knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures acquired from education and personal experiences”, which is somehow similar to the definition of traditional intelligence. Individual cognitive knowledge includes the knowledge of the multicultural interpersonal system of interacting; this is in addition to the knowledge of legislation, sociolinguistics, and economic (Triandis 1994), and the knowledge of fundamental cultural values paradigms (Hofstede 2001). Brislin et al. (2006) argued that those individuals with high cognitive CQ have a better understanding of cross-cultural differences and similarities.
Metacognition CQ is higher-order cognitive processes that reflect the individual mental process that emerges to obtain cultural knowledge, also, to understand how these processes in the cultural context would control over individual thought processes (Flavell 1979). This definition was extended to groups and communities by Ng et al. (2012) when defined the Metacognition CQ capabilities as “planning, monitoring, and revising mental models of cultural norms for countries or groups of people”. As a result of having high motivational CQ, Triandis (2006) argued that individuals with such qualities have the capabilities to adjust their mental model within and after the multicultural engagement, also, they are prepared for any multicultural interaction through possessing the knowledge of others preferences prior and within the interaction.
63
Finally, Behavioural CQ is the individual capabilities to effectively interact in a multicultural environment using appropriate verbal and non-verbal actions as been defined by Ang et al. (2006).
This definition was based on the emphasis of Hall (1959) as within certain cultural values in a specific setting; the individual would exhibit adequate verbal and non-verbal actions if they complement it with the mental ability and motivation to understand the multicultural context. These qualities were outlined by Ng et al. (2012) as these capabilities should be associated with “a wide and flexible repertoire of behaviors”. As a result, individuals with high behavioural CQ possess the ability to interact in multicultural situations with adequate behaviour through appropriate using of facial expression, gestures, tone, and selected words during their verbal and nonverbal engagement.
On the other hand, Ang et al. (2006) emphasised on the fact that all these four facets illustrate different types of capabilities as individuals and together are forming the construct of CQ, which provides the flexibility to have one integral CQ facet from other factors. .
Figure (2) CQ Facets According to Earley and Ang (2003)
64
Adapted from Ott and Michailova (2016)
In summary, this conceptualisation will be initially adopted and further investigations will take place in chapter five to agree on the final CQ construct.
3.5.2. Thomas et al. (2008) CQ conceptualisation model
Drawing from the intelligence theories and through distinguishing CQ from social intelligence and emotional intelligence, and building on Earley and Ang’s (2003) definition of CQ;
Thomas et al. (2008) has introduced the second conceptualisation of CQ as “an interrelated construct consisting of knowledge, mindfulness and behavioural abilities that combine to result in effective interaction across cultures” as stated by Ott and Michailova (2016). CQ in Thomas et al.
(2008) words is a “ system of interacting knowledge and skills, linked by cultural metacognition that allows people to adapt to, select, and shape the cultural aspects of their environment”.
Thomas et al. (2008) through building their CQ construct as intelligence rather than intercultural competency; they have segregated between intelligence as knowledge and skills and intelligence as behaviour that is based on theknowledge and skills (Solomon and Steyn 2017).
Thomas et al. (2008) have differed studying the variation of the aspects of multicultural and focused on capturing these aspects similarities, which resulted in cultural intelligence behaviour that as based on the general cultural process and metacognition (Bücker, Furrer and Lin 2015). The conclusion of this concept modelling is to present CQ as a system of abilities where metacognitions
65
is playing an essential role at the CQ construct level that connecting its three facets with culturally intelligent behaviour (Ott and Michailova 2016).
Concerning Thomas et al. (2008) definition, CQ as a concept model is built on three main facets: Cultural Metacognition, Cultural Knowledge, and Cross-Cultural Skills. They have described cultural metacognition as a facet that includes: “processes to monitor and regulate conscious and deliberate thoughts, including cognitive self-regulation, abstraction of specific knowledge, the focus of cognitive resources, and compensatory effects”. They also added,
“Cultural Knowledge, includes both culture-specific content knowledge about the values, beliefs and behaviors of other cultures, and the values and beliefs of the individual, and general procedural knowledge about the processes used to evaluate cultural differences, understand the effect of culture on behavior, solve problems, and the fundamental processes of cross-cultural interactions”.
To provide more details on the required skills, Thomas et al. (2008) have provided three primary Cross-cultural skills as follows: “(1) perceptual skills about how an individual develops their perceptions of others and their behavior, and how they interpret the meaning of displayed behaviors”. “(2) relational skills about how an individual develops and maintains relationships with others”. “(3) adaptive skills about the abilities to adjust general approaches to social interaction to new situations”.
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.