Cultural Intelligence - Assignment Example

Cultural Intelligence Table of Contents Cultural Intelligence Introduction 3 Recent Definitions and Theories in Cultural Intelligence 3 Emotional and Social Intelligence 5 Relevance of Cultural Intelligence 6 Assessment of Cultural Intelligence 7 Developing CQ and its Limitations 8 References 9 Introduction Cultural Intelligence refers to the capability of a person to function effectively in a culturally diverse environment. Cultural intelligence is a mind-set that enables individuals, for example, managers to effectively interact with people from diverse backgrounds (Ang & Van, 2008). According to Thomas & Inkson (2004), cultural intelligence enables to identify cultural differences through knowledge and mindfulness, and gives the individual the ability to act appropriately across cultures. Researchers introduced the concept in an attempt to understand the differences in individual’s performance under culturally diverse settings. Questions regarding the IQ level of highly regarded individuals such as Albert Einstein or Helen Keller fuelled the need to comprehend human intelligence (Sternberg, 1982). The study of cultural intelligence is essential and relevant as it enables the understanding of the factors that influence cultural intelligence, its development and relevance to interaction between cultures and business activities worldwide. Recent Definitions and Theories in Cultural Intelligence Researchers defined intelligence as the ability to grasp concepts and solve problems, particularly in an academic setting (Ang & Van, 2008). Later, it became apparent that intelligence exists beyond the classroom environment. According to Francis Galton, human intelligence is a low-level property of the nervous system that children inherit from the parents (Mackintosh & Mackintosh, 2011). Galton believed that differences in individual intelligence resulted from differences in the operation of simple neural processes. Galton supported this theory by constructing extensive family trees of ‘Persons of Reputation’, which he later published in 1869 in his publication, Hereditary Genius. (Mackintosh & Mackintosh, 2011). The growing interest and research led to gradual evolution of intelligence into various categories. These categories include social intelligence, emotional intelligence, practical intelligence and cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence emerged from globalisation in the workplace due to the existence of inter-cultural domains (Ang & Van, 2008). According to the unitary theory, the cognitive intelligence of an individual determines how that individual operates in the society. This theory of general intelligence supports the fact that intelligence entails pervasive capacities (Plum et al., 2007). However, the theory was deemed as being too simple. The multi-factor theory by Thordonke stated that intelligence is a result of specific stimuli and how an individual responds to that stimuli. Thordonke identified four factors in intelligence; level of difficulty of a particular task to an individual, range or the number of tasks at varying levels of difficulty that an individual is capable of solving, area or the total number of situations that an individual can respond to at each level, and the speed at which an individual responds to situations (Earley et al., 2006). The group factor theory by Thurtone also seeks to explain human intelligence. Thurtone contradicted with the specific factor theory stated by Thordonke. According to Thurtone, individual intelligence is influenced by mental operations that constitute a primary factor. This primary factor results in psychological and functional unity that is different from other mental operations. Thordonke argued that intelligence advanced with the increase in age and differences in abilities (Earley et al., 2006). Gardener viewed the classical theory of intelligence as bias. He maintained that classical view of intelligence, as theorised by Thordonke, Thurtone and Spearman, reflected a Western bias towards logical reasoning. This bias is derived from the education system. He stated seven behavioural factors that constitute to intelligence, such as, the presence of core operations and a place in the history of evolution He listed intelligence, for example, linguistic, naturalist and spiritualist as forms of intelligence (Herrmann, 2007). Gardener stated that there is no general factor of intelligence, and went on to propose factors that constitute intelligence, that is, social, cognitive and biological (Herrmann, 2007). However, evidence to support this theory was insufficient. Later on, Detterman theorised that intelligence is real and is based on a complex system consisting of multiple intelligence. He argued that the individual would require a number of basic abilities to perform complex tasks. The minimal cognitive architecture theory of Anderson stated that individuals acquire knowledge through two different means. The first means is through thought, while the second is through cognitive development (Herrmann, 2007). Sternberg and Detterman suggested that cultural intelligence is a multidimensional concept that consists of meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural dimensions in their1986 model (Ang & Van, 2008). Emotional and Social Intelligence Over the years, the notion of intelligence as a single measure of competence could no longer be supported (Goleman et al., 2013). This resulted in the identification of other categories of intelligence such as emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Emotional intelligence refers to individual’s ability to identify his emotions and those of others for the purpose of managing those emotions and ensuring healthy relationships with others. Emotions are critical when it comes to thinking clearly and making the right decisions (Goleman, 1998). According to Goleman (1998) the inability to control emotions inhibits intellect. He further adds that human beings contain two minds, that is, the rational mind and the emotional mind. The two are used in order to operate normally and to make accurate decisions in life. Social intelligence refers to the individual’s ability to become socially aware, thus managing relationships intellectually. It is defined as the ability to coexist with others, and consists of a set of practical skills that enable people to interact successfully in any setting (Albrecht, 2006). Albrecht (2006) identified skills such as situational awareness, authenticity and empathy as core skills in enabling peaceful interaction in the society. According to Emmerling (2012), social intelligence refers to the individual’s ability to influence others in the society. The difference between the two levels of intelligence is that emotional intelligence is based on the individual’s ability to master their emotions so as to ensure proper thinking and action. Relevance of Cultural Intelligence Recent developments such as globalisation have enhanced the interactions of people from various cultural backgrounds. For instance, the workforce in a workplace environment consists of individuals from various cultural backgrounds. This diversity is beneficial but may also result in intercultural conflicts between workers and between managers. The differences in culture may also lead to poor communication, inhibited interaction, and consequently inhibited workflow. According to Thomas & Inkson (2004), intercultural conflicts occur when individuals are unaware of key features and biases of their culture. Inter-cultural conflicts result when individuals perceive people from other cultures as a threat, and when individuals are unable to transfer knowledge about one culture to another culture. Globalisation has accelerated the need for cultural intelligence in order to ensure establishment of healthy relationships within the society and workplace environment (Thomas & Inkson, 2004). Assessment of Cultural Intelligence The current assessment of cultural intelligence involves a series of questions. These questions are designed towards identifying an individual’s ability to function effectively in a variety of cultural contexts. Cultural Intelligence involves four capabilities; the level of interest of an individual to adapt to multicultural situations, knowledge or the ability to perceive and comprehend differences and similarities in different cultures, action or the ability of an individual to adapt while relating and working with people from different cultural backgrounds, and strategy or an individual’s awareness of the presence of cultural diversity and the ability to plan for such an interaction. The cultural intelligence assessment results of these four capabilities can be measured in terms of low, moderate and moderate to high scale (Hunt, 2010). There are four complementary factors to assess cultural intelligence. The meta-cognitive dimension refers to the means of acquiring, understanding and utilising knowledge. Cognitive intelligence refers to knowledge and its structures, whereas, motivational intelligence focuses on the magnitude and direction of cognitive intelligence. Motivational Intelligence states that a majority of cognitive intelligence is motivated. Lastly, behavioural intelligence focuses on individual capabilities and level of action (Earley & Mosawkowski, 2004). While evaluating cross-cultural competence across multiple studies, Matsumoto (2013) found that domain of cultural intelligence scale, comprising aforementioned factors, had comparatively strong construct validity and provided promising evidence for higher degree of correlation to cross-cultural competence tests, including personality traits, emotional intelligence and leadership style. Developing CQ and its Limitations According to Livermore (2009), individuals may develop cultural intelligence through learning. In contemporary settings particularly, technological advancements have made cultural learning even more accessible. While investigating relationship between cultural intelligence and cultural exposure, Crowne (2008) found that people who lived abroad and had exposure to other cultures had higher level cultural intelligence and the level of cultural intelligence increased with increase in depth or extent of exposure to different cultures. The author also argued that cultural intelligence could be developed and enhanced in business managers through foreign education and internships, training, expatriate assignments and global leadership positions. According to Johnson et al (2004), an individual may carry out research concerning a particular country and its cultures. It will enable the individual to identify the unique characteristics of a particular culture and thus prepare him for interaction with people from such backgrounds. Cultural intelligence has its limitations. Multinational companies find it hard to maintain sufficient unity and flexibility in multiple-societies environment to adapt to fluctuating situations (Rozkwitalska, 2010). Rozkwitalska (2010) has comprehensively described the barriers and limitations to development of cultural intelligence including cultural distance, organisational and individual rooted factors such as ethnocentrism, global efficiency and cost pressure, time zones and communication. Although many studies have demonstrated that cultural intelligence is a strong predictor of interaction and general adjustment, and is associated with lower social problems, Ward et al (2011) found that predictive validity of cultural intelligence over time was not significant. They further argue that factors which influence facilitation and hindrance in acquiring culture-specific skills and capabilities, and cognitive processes largely remain unknown. References Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of success. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Crowne, K. A. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51(5), 391-399. Earley, P. C. & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 139-146. Earley, P. C., Ang, S. & Tan J. S (2006). CQ: Developing cultural intelligence at work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Emmerling, J. R, & Boyatzis, E. R. (2012). Emotional and social intelligence competencies: cross cultural implications. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19, 1, 4-18. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership, with a new preface by the authors: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialised skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360-1366. Hunt, E. (2011). Human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, J. P., 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. Livermore, D. (2009). Leading with cultural intelligence: The new secret to success. New York: AMACOM. Mackintosh, N., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 849–873. Plum, E., Achen, B., Dræby, I. & Jensen, I. (2007). KI – Kulturel intelligens. København: Børsens Forlag. Rozkwitalska, M. (2010). Barriers of cross-cultural interactions according to the research findings. Journal of Intercultural Management, 2(2), 37-52. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, D.C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Ward, C., Wilson, J. & Fischer, R. (2011). Assessing the predictive validity of cultural intelligence over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 138-142. Read More