Cultural Intelligence: A Culture-Specific Examination Of Expatriate Leaders In Two Countries

Dr. Shanker MENON, University of Phoenix, smenonsara@aol.com

Dr. Lakshmi NARAYANAN, Florida Gulf Coast University, lnarayan@fgcu.edu

Dr Michel Plaisent, University of Quebec in Montreal, Michel.plaisent@uqam.ca

Dr Prosper Bernard, university Consortium of Americas, prosper1941@yahoo.com

　

Abstract

A culture-specific method was used to examine expatriate leaders in two different countries UK and India. Qualitative measures were used to examine the types of challenges faced by leaders in each country and the specific leadership role they played by examining the specific actions they take as they face these challenges. Cultural intelligence was measured using this qualitative approach. The emotional reactions of these leaders as they encountered these challenges were also measured. Some significant differences emerged in the types of challenges, actions taken and the emotional reactions. The findings may have valuable implications for leaders in global organizations.

In today’s highly complex world global business organizations are faced with a dilemma of developing effective global management strategies. This requires effective leadership and understanding of diverse cultures. Good leadership includes elements of vision and strategic thinking. How effective are leaders in including elements of cultural diversity into their visioning process? How cultural sensitive are business leaders appointed in different parts of the world in understanding complex cultural differences and how do they integrate these differences into their strategy making process? Are they able to understand how culture permeates social, cultural, economic, technological, political and legal processes? Thus the business manager of the future needs have leadership skills that are able to understand and utilize different cultural elements and include them a strategic vision to maximize competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The seminal work of Earley and Ang (2003), introduced the construct of cultural intelligence (CQ) as the capability to function in culturally diverse settings and interest has grown tremendously in this subject. Earley and Ang (2003) came up with a convincing theory about this capability. They argued that general capabilities such as cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and social intelligence will not adequately explain individual behavior in certain cultural contexts such as when they are interacting with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. What they need is Cultural Intelligence or CQ. Ang and colleagues in a series of studies (Ang et al., 2007; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) developed and validated a four-dimensional CQ model consisting of meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral scales

Many studies found have that cultural intelligence to be a key predictor of international assignment effectiveness (Kim, Kirkman, & Chen,2008), integration in multinational teams (Flaherty, 2008), and expatriate adjustment and performance (Shaffer & Miller, 2008), but there is still a lack of empirically based studies linking CQ to leadership in specific cultural contexts.

Very few empirical studies have examined the unique contribution of leaders’ Culturally intelligent behavior in specific contexts related to specific cultures although many studies point to the predictability and usefulness of cultural intelligence. (Lugo,2008). However, these issues have received scant attention in the current literature (Groves and Feyerham , 2011). Although the present authors have done several studies on cultural intelligence (Menon & Narayanan, 2008; 2009) and looked at strategic models for a global economy and a empirical test of some of these models, leaders were not specifically examined in specific cultural contexts in any of the previous studies.

The present study

As identified above there are several important gaps in the research on Cultural Intelligence particularly in understanding the unique contribution of leaders in specific cultures. In this study we attempt to address this by examining leaders in two different cultures/countries and the relationship of cultural intelligence to specific leadership practices in specific cultures. As several researchers have pointed out ((Groves and Feyerham , 2011; Menon & Narayanan, 2008; 2009) there is a scarcity of research on global leadership and in particular there is a dire need to understand cross-cultural competencies in leaders and the unique contribution of cultural intelligence. In this study we will examine the relationship between leadership and cultural intelligence.

Most of the previous research have relied upon traditional close ended measures that ask respondents to answer questions on CQ. These may not adequately capture the unique and culture-specific experiences in the situations specific to each culture. It might be reasonable to expect that the situations that are challenging in one culture may be different from situations in another culture. This study will differ from other studies as we will use a culture-specific approach to examining the relationship of cultural intelligence specific situations in culture-specific contexts.

The sample

The sample comprised on 145 expatriates who were in leadership or supervisory positions in the UK and 153 expatriates who were in supervisory positions in India. In order to control for gender differences the samples in both countries were male. Out of these we had 138 usable respondents from the UK and 151 from India. The participants’ age ranged from 28 -45 for the Indian sample and 32 – 48 for the UK sample. The sample in India were mainly from the South of India, and the sample from UK were from many regions in the UK.

Measures

We used a modified version of the SIR, stress incident record adopted by Keenan and Newton (1985) and the present authors in earlier studies (Narayanan and Menon, 1999). Participants were asked to describe an event their work environment that involved successful leadership, where they had resolved a challenging situation. More specifically they were asked to recall an event that was very stressful for them in the workplace that they had successfully managed to handle that had happened recently where they had made culturally intelligent decisions and demonstrated superior leadership skills.

First, they described this event, then they were also asked(1) why this event was challenging and( 2) what action didto deal with this challenge, and why they felt this was demonstrative of culturally intelligence and effective leadership in this specific situation. They were asked to specify only the most significant action they took. To minimize memory distortions, they were asked to only describe events that had happened in the last six months. If there was no such event they were simply asked to state none. Their emotional reactions to these events were also measured. They were asked how they felt at that time.

Content analysis

We used a similar procedure that has been used in past research by the present authors (Narayanan & Menon, 1999) where two independent raters began to develop exhaustive categories of responses to each of the 2 specific questions. Categories that had the same theme were combined into higher-order categories. Categories that could not be combined in any way were placed in the "other" category. In the next stage a third rater was given these responses and categories scrambled and inter-rater agreement was the percent of times placed the responses in the original categories developed by the first two raters. Inter-rater agreement was relatively high and ranged from 92-94%. If there was disagreement this was resolved by consensus.

Results

Table 1 presents the frequencies of responses obtained from each category from the open-ended data. This includes the Type of Challenge and the Action taken. The emotional reactions frequencies are also presented for each country.

A 2 (country) X 9 (type of challenge) Chi-square was done to test for significant differences on type of challenges by country. There were some significant differences found. χ²= (24.51, df ,8 ), p < .002, It was significant to find that the types of challenges faced in each country are significantly different, a culture-specific approach is needed to address each challenge and those who are high in CQ will presumably work on actions based on the specific environment and culture. In the UK, interpersonal conflict seemed to be the most frequent challenge, whereas in India, it was communication problems, lack of local knowledge and rules not being taken seriously.

　

　

　

Table 1: Proportion of frequencies of responses falling in each category for each country

Type of challenge	UK sample	Indian sample
Communication problem	19	25
Interpersonal conflict	32	17
Time related problems	10	21
No cooperation among teams	18	13
Lack of local knowledge	15	25
Rules not taken seriously	10	24
Control issues	21	9
Offense due to customs/beliefs	4	10
Other	8	7

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　　

Action taken	UK sample	Indian sample
Spoke slowly, changed tone/body language	4	16
Spoke slowly, changed tone/body language	12	10
Changed Reward and incentives	26	6
Showed flexibility/Modified and changed work plan	20	14
Got involved with employees socially	8	16
Listened more, talked less	13	12
Lowered role expectations	6	16
Tried a new practice or a new method	17	12
Altered and changed my beliefs	4	10
Changed expectations about results	3	6
Became less formal	3	11
Other	7	5

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

Emotional reactions	UK sample	Indian sample
Calm	7	19
Confused	10	17
Angry	11	14
Empathy	6	18
Frustrated	11	17
Disappointed	11	12
Anxious/Nervous	10	8
Annoyed	8	15
Self-confident	21	4
Encouraged	15	14
Optimistic	16	5
Relaxed	12	8

　

　

　

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 2 (country) X 13 (Action taken) Chi-square was also done to test for significant differences on the kinds of action taken in country. There were some significant differences found, χ²= (33.95, df. 12), p < .001

The leaders in each country are significantly different, changing rewards and incentives seemed to be most frequent in the UK sample, in the Indian sample, being social with employees, changing employee deadline, changing the mode of communication, and changing role expectations were most frequent.

Finally, emotional reactions were also examined by each leader for each country. Again there was a significant difference in the frequencies obtained. A 2 (country) X 12 (emotion) chi square yielded a χ²= (33.95, df. 11) p < .001. The most frequently portrayed emotions in the UK sample were being self-confident, optimistic and encouraged, in India there were some positive emotions displayed, such as being calm and encouraged, and showing empathy but there were also a high frequency of emotions such as confusion, frustration and annoyance.

We compared these qualitative responses to the Ang et al (2007) CQ scales. It appears that all the four scale components are reflected in the actions taken. However the motivation and behavioral responses are more frequent here and this could be because the measure required these leaders to state what actions they took.

The significant results obtained in this study points out the important of examining the construct of cultural intelligence in a culture-specific context unique to the conditions of each country. These authors are not aware of any other studies that have taken this unique approach. Future studies should examine the relationship of CQ as measured by the CQS, the Cultural Intelligence Scales and qualitative measures using these approaches. Using close-ended measures that ask questions about CQ will not adequately address the unique and specific conditions in any culture and may not always be adequate to address culture-specific challenges and problems.

This study has valuable implications for multinational and transnational corporations. Managers working in different cultures need to incorporate cultural elements into the strategic management process as earlier researchers (Menon & Narayanan, 2008) had discussed.. However this study in particular adds to their earlier researches by providing a new dimension as it takes a idiographic approach and looks at leader behavior in a culture-specific context.

REVUE  E.J.D.E.  ISSN  1776-2960

N° 28

http://www.scientifics.fr/ejde

References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh S.K., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, Cheryl, & Chandrasekar A. (2007), Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance, Management and Organization Review, 3(3):331-357.

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement,and applications. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Flaherty, J. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 192-205). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Groves K.S. & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader Cultural Intelligence in Context : Testing the Moderating Effects of Team Cultural Diversity on Leader and Team Performance. Group & Organization Management. Retrieved from

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/36/5/535

Keenan, A. & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors and psychological strains in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151-156

Kim, K., Kirkman, B., & Chen, G. (2008). Cultural intelligence and international assignment effectiveness: A conceptual model and preliminary findings. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory measurement,Lugo, M. (2008). An examination of cultural and emotional development of global transformational leadership skills dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

Menon, S. & Narayanan, l. (2008). Cultural intelligence: strategic models for a Globalized economy. Journal

of Global Management Research, 4 (20) 27-32.

Menon, S., Narayanan, L. (2009) Cultural intelligence: an empirical examination of strategic models Journal of Global Management Research, 5 (2) 37-44

Narayanan, l. & Menon, S. (1999). Stress in the workplace: a comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63-73

Shaffer, M., & Miller, G. (2008). Cultural intelligence: A key success factor for expatriates.

In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 107-125). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The Cultural Intelligence Scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of culturalintelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16-38). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.