Handbook of Cultural Intelligence

Theory, Measurement, and Applications

Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317469094
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Cultural intelligence is defined as an individual's ability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity. With contributions from eminent scholars worldwide, the "Handbook of Cultural Intelligence" is a 'state-of-the-science' summary of the body of knowledge about cultural intelligence and its relevance for managing diversity both within and across cultures. Because cultural intelligence capabilities can be enhanced through education and experience, this handbook emphasizes individual capabilities - specific characteristics that allow people to function effectively in culturally diverse settings - rather than the approach used by more traditional books of describing and comparing cultures based on national cultural norms, beliefs, habits, and practices.The Handbook covers conceptional and definitional issues, assessment approaches, and application of cultural intelligence in the domains of international and cross-cultural management as well as management of domestic activity. It is an invaluable resource that will stimulate and guide future research on this important topic and its application across a broad range of disciplines, including management, organizational behavior, industrial and organizational psychology, intercultural communication, and more.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

Conceptualization of
Cultural Intelligence

Definition, Distinctiveness, and
Nomological Network

---

---

SOON ANG AND LINN VAN DYNE

As organizations globalize and the workforce becomes more diverse, it is increasingly important to understand why some individuals function more effectively than others in culturally diverse situations (Erez & Earley, 1993; Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Triandis, 1994). Responding to this need, Earley and Ang (2003) drew on Sternberg and Detterman’s (1986) multidimensional perspective of intelligence to develop a conceptual model of cultural intelligence (CQ)—defined as the capability of an individual to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity. CQ research aims to provide insight into the age-old sojourner problem of why some people thrive in culturally diverse settings, but others do not.

This chapter introduces a four-factor measure of CQ, positions it in a nomological network and in the broader domain of individual differences, and concludes with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.

THE FOUR-FACTOR MODEL OF CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE

Conceptualization of CQ

Cultural intelligence, defined as an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings, is consistent with Schmidt and Hunter’s (2000, p. 3) definition of general intelligence as, “the ability to grasp and reason correctly with abstractions (concepts) and solve problems.” Although early research tended to view intelligence narrowly as the ability to grasp concepts and solve problems in academic settings, there is now increasing consensus that “intelligence may be displayed in places other than the classroom” (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). The growing interest in “real-world” intelligence has identified new types of intelligence that focus on specific content domains, such as social intelligence (Thorndike & Stein, 1937), emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1993), and practical intelligence (Sternberg et al., 2000). CQ similarly focuses on a specific domain-intercultural settings, and is motivated by the practical reality of globalization in the workplace (Earley & Ang, 2003). Thus, following the definition of general intelligence by Schmidt and Hunter (2000), CQ is conceptualized as a specific form of intelligence focused on an individual’s ability to grasp and reason correctly in situations characterized by cultural diversity. Just as emotional intelligence (EQ) complements cognitive intelligence (IQ), in that both are important for an individual to find success at work and in personal relationships in an increasingly interdependent world (Earley & Gibson, 2002), we suggest that CQ is another complementary form of intelligence that can explain variability in coping with diversity and functioning in new cultural settings. Since the norms for social interaction vary from culture to culture, it is unlikely that cognitive intelligence, EQ, or social intelligence will translate automatically into effective cross-cultural adjustment and interaction.

Cultural Intelligence as a Multidimensional Construct

Earley and Ang (2003) built on the increasing consensus that investigation of intelligence should go beyond mere cognitive abilities (Ackerman, 1996; Gardner, 1993), and theorized that CQ is a multidimensional concept that includes metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions. CQ as a multifactor construct is based on Sternberg and Detterman’s (1986) framework of the multiple foci of intelligence. Sternberg integrated the myriad views on intelligence to propose four complementary ways to conceptualize individual-level intelligence: (a) metacognitive intelligence is knowledge and control of cognition (the processes individuals use to acquire and understand knowledge); (b) cognitive intelligence is individual knowledge and knowledge structures; (c) motivational intelligence acknowledges that most cognition is motivated and thus it focuses on magnitude and direction of energy as a locus of intelligence; and (d) behavioral intelligence focuses on individual capabilities at the action level (behavior). Sternberg’s framework is noteworthy because it proposes that intelligence has different “loci” within the person, i.e., metacognition, cognition, and motivation are mental capabilities that reside within the “head” of the person, while overt actions are behavioral capabilities. Metacognitive intelligence refers to the control of cognition, the processes individuals use to acquire and understand knowledge. Cognitive intelligence refers to aperson’s knowledge structures and is consistent with Ackerman’s (1996) intelligence-as-knowledge concept, which similarly argues for the importance of knowledge as part of a person’s intellect. Motivational intelligence refers to the mental capacity to direct and sustain energy on a particular task or situation, and is based on contemporary views that motivational capabilities are critical to “real-world” problem solving (Ceci, 1996). Behavioral intelligence refers to outward manifestations or overt actions—what the person does rather than what he or she thinks (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986, p. 6). Hence, unlike metacognitive, cognitive, and motivational intelligence, which involve mental functioning, behavioral intelligence refers to the capability to display actual behaviors.

The four factors of CQ mirror contemporary views of intelligence as a complex, multifactor, individual attribute that is composed of metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral factors (see Sternberg & Detterman, 1986; Sternberg et al., 2000). Metacognitive CQ reflects the mental capability to acquire and understand cultural knowledge. Cognitive CQ reflects general knowledge and knowledge structures about culture. Motivational CQ reflects individual capability to direct energy toward learning about and functioning in intercultural situations. Behavioral CQ reflects individual capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions in culturally diverse interactions.

Metacognitive CQ. The term metacognitive CQ refers to an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness during cross-cultural interactions. People with strength in metacognitive CQ consciously question their own cultural assumptions, reflect during interactions, and adjust their cultural knowledge when interacting with those from other cultures. Metacognitive CQ involves higher-level cognitive strategies that allow individuals to develop new heuristics and rules for social interaction in novel cultural environments, by promoting information processing at a deeper level (Flavell, 1979; Nelson, 1996).

For example, a Western business executive with high metacognitive CQ would be aware, vigilant, and mindful about the appropriate time to speak up during meetings with Asians. Those with high metacognitive CQ would typically observe interactions and the communication style of their Asian counterparts (such as turn-taking), and would think about what constituted appropriate behavior before speaking up.

The metacognitive factor of CQ is a critical component of CQ for a number of reasons. First, it promotes active thinking about people and situations in different cultural settings; second, it triggers active challenges to rigid reliance on culturally bounded thinking and assumptions; and third, it drives individuals to adapt and revise their strategies so that they are more culturally appropriate and more likely to achieve desired outcomes in cross-cultural encounters.

Metacognitive CQ therefore reflects mental processes that individuals use to acquire and understand cultural knowledge, including knowledge of and control over individual thought processes (Flavell, 1979) relating to culture. Relevant capabilities include planning, monitoring, and revising mental models of cultural norms for countries or groups of people. Those with high metacognitive CQ are consciously aware of the cultural preferences and norms of different societies prior to and during interactions. These individuals also question cultural assumptions and adjust their mental models during and after relevant experiences (Brislin, Worthley, & MacNab, 2006; Nelson, 1996; Triandis, 2006).

Cognitive CQ. While metacognitive CQ focuses on higher-order cognitive processes, cognitive CQ reflects knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures that has been acquired from educational and personal experiences. The cognitive factor of CQ therefore refers to an individual’s level of cultural knowledge or knowledge of the cultural environment. Cultural knowledge includes knowledge of oneself as embedded in the cultural context of the environment. Given the wide variety of cultures in the contemporary world, cognitive CQ indicates knowledge of cultural universals as well as knowledge of cultural differences.

Cultural anthropology has documented large variations in culture. Triandis (1994) and Murdock (1987), however, suggest that at a higher level of abstraction, cultures share some common features. These are cultural universals based on fundamental needs (because all human beings have similar basic needs). Cultural universals include technological innovations (e.g., tools), methods of getting food (e.g., hunting, agriculture), economic activity (e.g., trading), patterns of social interaction (e.g., does one talk to one’s mother-in-law?), child-rearing practices, beliefs and behaviors that relate humans to the universe (e.g., religion), aesthetic preferences, patterns of communication (language, gestures), and so on.

In sum, all societies possess fun...