The Value of Cultural Intelligence in Intercultural Leadership Effectiveness

The definition of the leadership phenomena is an extensive and constant ongoing discussion, which is why leadership is perceived from several perspectives. Firstly, much literature focus on leadership being the influence of a person (Grint, 2010), which is connected to trait theory about the “Great Man” as well as the notion of a high general cognitive intelligence (IQ) (Zaccaro, 2004; Hodges, 2016; Riggio, Murphy, & Pirozzolo, 2013; Molz & Nielsen, 2018).

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified

Proficient in: Intelligence

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Secondly, literature develops to consider the interdependency between leadership and followership, for leadership to emerge (Hickman, 2010; Kelley, 1998; Molz & Nielsen, 2018). Hence, leadership becomes a process of relational and behavioral influence (ibid; Hodges, 2016). It relates to the concepts of social intelligence (SQ) (Thorndike & Stein, 1937) and emotional intelligence (EQ) (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) in leadership effectiveness, which goes beyond IQ by recognizing the need to adjust in different social interactions.

Based on the capabilities of emotional awareness of self and others in order to understand the social situation encountered, it will thus as a leader be possible to influence in adaptive ways (Hickman, 2010; Molz & Nielsen, 2018). Thirdly, leadership literature has moved from being mainly task-driven to become empowered by a greater purpose to drive change through the transformational leadership model (TL) (Hodges, 2010; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Molz & Nielsen, 2018). It is asserted by Bass (2002) that IQ, SQ and EQ are mutually effective leadership capabilities important in facilitating TL in order to build leader-follower relationship despite the situational factors (Deng & Gibson, 2009). However, the fact that the multiple intelligences do not take into consideration the cultural organizational context of the TL is yet perceived a critical limitation (Riggio, Murphy & Pirozzolo, 2013; Molz & Nielsen, 2018).

As IQ, SQ, EQ and other intelligences do not account for the impact of a culturally diverse context within MNEs, leadership challenges might arise (Ersoy, 2014; Molz & Nielsen, 2018). Therefore, recent research argues that the cultural context must be considered in order to understand the different leadership capabilities that a leader must posses to be effective (Sternberg & Grigerenko, 2006; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne & Amen, 2011). For this reason, Earley & Ang (2003) have developed the concept of Cultural Intelligence (CQ).

CQ is “an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in cultural diverse settings” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 3). In contrast to other intelligences, CQ thus reflects an individual’s ability to adapt in an intercultural setting (Early & Ang, 2003). It helps explain why individuals with for instance a strong EQ capacity might be effective in leading within ones own culture, but not necessarily in others (ibid.). The notion of CQ unfolds in Ang & Van Dyne’s (2008) conceptual model consisting of four components:

Meta-cognitive CQ refers to an individual’s higher-level mental ability to control cognition in the processes of gaining and understanding cultural knowledge (ibid.). It is the consciousness and awareness that an individual possess in interactions with cultural diverse others (ibid.). Those with high metacognitive CQ are capable of rethinking own cultural assumptions of people, situations, habits and norms at a deeper level to adjust such cultural knowledge in order to adapt its strategies to fit the intercultural encounters (ibid.) Hence, Livermore (2015) further refers to this component as CQ Strategy, as it is the cultural differences that influence how you plan.

Cognitive CQ denotes the way individual’s structure universal knowledge about differences and similarities of cultures, which has been learned through experiences (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Therefore, those with a strong cognitive CQ possess a greater understanding of a society’s general culture, which enhance the interaction with people from a culturally diverse society (ibid.).

Motivational CQ is an individual’s direction of energy that drives cognition of cultural differences and how to function in novel settings (ibid.). Therefore, motivational CQ is vital, as it is the engagement and self-efficacy that facilitates intercultural effectiveness in behavior (ibid.).

Finally, Behavioral CQ is an individual’s outward ability to translate cognition into actions effective in the cultural interaction encountered (ibid.). When interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds, those with high behavioral CQ is able to exhibit appropriate behavior based on the consideration of how these are interpreted by the receiver (ibid). This component of CQ is thus considered the most critical one, since verbal and nonverbal actions are visible and consequently significant in social processes opposite the mental capabilities (ibid.).

These four CQ components will be used to explore the former Danish expatriates’ intercultural leadership effectiveness in order to discover whether CQ or other outlined leadership capabilities are more developed and found useful in their leadership style domestically as opposed to within IAs. However, even though one might have strong personal competencies such as high CQ, several external factors might still affect an individual’s effectiveness in different settings, which CQ alone does not account for (Ersoy, 2014; Seiler, 2015). As such, Seiler’s (2015) conceptual framework of intercultural leadership behavior will be further applied as an analytical instrument to explore how other determining factors, besides individual CQ capabilities, affect the former expatriates’ intercultural leadership effectiveness. He emphasizes the impact of one’s team, organization, the overall context and the imminent situation.

The Handbook of Cultural Intelligence by Ang and Van Dyne (2008) also presents empirical work, which indicate that CQ are enhanced by factors such as “[…] knowing the local language, possessing cross-cultural work experience, having lived in diverse cultural setting, studying abroad and taking even short trips to other cultures” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 13). Therefore, it is argued that each individual possess a unique CQ capacity formed by individual experiences such as IAs (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Early & Ang, 2003). Moreover, a study by Offermann and Phan (2002) illustrates that leaders with high CQ capabilities are more able to develop relationship and manage expectations of followers with diverse cultural backgrounds in a cross-cultural context based on trust and respect, while minimizing exclusionary reactions (Rockstuhl et al., 2011). In relation an empirical research done by Groves and Feyerherm (2011), has found CQ to be a key competency to enable leadership performance outcomes in a cross-cultural context. Finally, Deng & Gibson (2009) demonstrates in a qualitative study of 51 expatriates operating in China that TL, EQ and CQ are interlinked. It is argued that all three elements must be in place to achieve intercultural leadership effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting.