Research Article: 2017 Vol: 21 Issue: 2
Geneva Day, University of Maryland University College
Cultural Intelligence, Globalization, Motivation, Cross-Cultural Interactions, Behavioral CQ, Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ.
Since the term Cultural Intelligence was first coined, the need for employees to develop this skill has only grown with the perpetual globalization of organizations. Effective cultural intelligence or "CQ" is imperative to the success of organizations whose employees have consistent interactions with people from other cultures (Ang, Van Dyne & Rockstuhl, 2015). According to Ang et al. (2015) there are four factors that represent high CQ in individuals; cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and behavioral. Each of these factors builds on one another to create a culturally intelligent individual who is more capable in interactions with individuals or groups from other cultural backgrounds. To be successful in communicating with differing cultures in an organizations external environment, employees will need to exhibit all four factors of CQ to be considered highly cultural intelligent. Salamzadeh, Salamzadeh & Markovic (2016) noted that individuals who had high levels in all four factors were prone to be more successful. When one or more factors are not met the employee may not communicate effectively with another culture, potentially causing the company a significant loss in business or reputation.
The cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and behavioral factors of CQ build on one other; therefore it is important to understand what skills are required to accomplish each factor. Much like steps on a ladder, to climb to the highest rung one must achieve one level before advancing to the other. When recent research regarding CQ was reviewed, a significant gap was found between the cognitive and motivational skill accomplishment. Research suggested that most employees knew that diverse cultures existed with differing contexts, but did not necessarily have the motivation to adapt their behaviors to meet that culture’s behavioral needs (Ang et al., 2015). Without motivation on the part of the employee, there was no incentive for them to change their behaviors and to reach the most effective CQ level an employee would need to adapt their behavior to the culture that they are interacting with.
According to Van Dyne, Ang, Ng, Rockstuhl, Tan & Koh (2012) motivational CQ is made up of three sub factors; extrinsic rewards, intrinsic value and self-efficacy to adjust. Extrinsic rewards were typically financial rewards or promotional opportunities and intrinsic rewards come from an employee deriving pleasure from the job itself. Self-efficacy to adjust was the ability for an employee to feel confident in their ability to adjust to the verbal and non-verbal contexts of distinct cultures (Van Dyne et al., 2012). An organization would be able to control extrinsic rewards and cold improve self-efficacy to adjust through CQ training and education. Unfortunately, what an organization cannot control is the intrinsic value that an employee could derive from a cross-cultural interaction.
The purpose of this paper is to understand and close the gap between cognitive CQ and motivational CQ. The research question is: How can global organizations build confidence through CQ training and use extrinsic rewards to motivate employees to adapt their behaviors in differing cultural interactions? The theories of motivation and cultural intelligence will be explored and the framework of cultural intelligence skills achievement will be explained. A rapid evidence assessment of recent and relevant articles will be performed and results gathered to explain how the gap between cognitive and motivational CQ skills can be closed and how human resource managers in human capital departments can use this information to find and develop more effective global employees.
Cultural Intelligence Theory
Earley & Mosakowski (2004) wrote that cultural intelligence picks up where emotional intelligence leaves off; it is the ability of a person to know the behaviors that are true of that specific culture. They asserted that cultural intelligence is made up of three areas, the head, heart and body. The head is the cognitive aspect of CQ; awareness and understanding that there are differences in cultures. The heart is the motivational aspect of CQ and the body is the physical (behavioral) changes a person must perform to adapt to another culture. These components must work together to build a highly cultural intelligent individual.
Earley & Mosakowski (2004) suggested six steps in cultivating cultural intelligence:
1. Examine CQ strengths and weaknesses to find a starting point for development,
2. Select training that specifically focuses on the area of weakness,
3. Training is applied,
4. Organize personal resources to support their selected training and development,
5. Immersion in the cultural setting the person wants to learn about,
6. Evaluate how the interaction went and assess if further training is needed,
The steps of cultivation outlined by Earley & Mosakowski (2004) unfortunately do not include a step that addresses motivation of the person to accomplish effective CQ. It is implied that the person wants to undergo training or even interact with people from other cultures. In fact, they suggest a way to improve low CQ is to give the person "a series of simple exercises to perform, such as finding out where to buy a newspaper or greeting someone who has arrived to be interviewed". While this may be helpful in developing confidence in the ability to adapt in that specific cultural setting, it does not address the intrinsic values and extrinsic rewards that are also a large part of motivational CQ.
Building on Earley & Mosakowski’s work Van Dyne, Ang & Livermore (2009) wanted to understand why some people are more effective at adapting to differing cultural interactions. What is it about a person's head, heart and body that allowed them to be more successful than others in the realm of CQ? Van Dyne et al. (2009) developed a four-factor model of cultural intelligence and asserted that leaders need all four of the factors to be culturally intelligent. The four factors the authors developed were cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and behavioral:
1. Cognitive-Level of understanding about culture and a culture's role in doing business across differing cultures.
2. Metacognitive-Awareness, planning and checking, the link between understanding cultural issues and being able to use that understanding to be more effective.
3. Motivational-Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, the level of a person's interest in adapting to differing cultures.
4. Behavioral-Ability to act (verbally and non-verbally) appropriately in a cross-cultural interaction, knowing when to adapt and when not to adapt, being flexible to the cultural context.
The more that a person has or can develop these CQ skills the more effective they will be at adapting properly to the cultural context of a situation.
Van Dyne, Ang, Ng, Rockstuhl, Tan & Koh (2012) further defined the four-factor model to include sub-dimensions of each of the factors. The sub-dimensions Van Dyne et al. (2012) posited are:
1. Metacognitive-Planning, awareness and checking.
2. Cognitive-Culture general knowledge, context specific knowledge.
3. Motivational-Intrinsic and extrinsic interest, self-efficacy to adjust.
4. Behavioral-Verbal and nonverbal behavior, speech acts.
These sub-dimensions can be used to test whether a person has achieved that factor of cultural intelligence. If a person had the skill of planning for a cultural interaction, awareness that a different culture existed and could check their awareness during the interaction then they would have fulfilled the metacognitive CQ skill.
CQ in Leadership
These skills become very important when employees are required to interact with people from differing cultural contexts; this is especially true for leaders in organizations. Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne & Annen (2011) wrote that cultural intelligence is a key leadership capability to manage effectively in a global organization. They hypothesized that "effective leadership depends on the ability to solve complex technical and social problems" (Rockstuhl et al., 2011). These problems are only compounded in a global organization, where the expectation is successful communication in multiple interactions with people from differing nations and cultures.
MacNab, Brislin & Worthley (2012) argued that there was a link between individual traits and learning CQ and that some individuals are inherently more open and willing to learn 4 1939-4691-21-2-108
CQ. They hypothesized that employees who are generally confident in themselves are more likely to be open to learning about CQ and maybe more successful in gaining those skills. MacNab et al. (2012) found that a combination of general self-efficacy and contact theory (having continuous contact with people of different backgrounds) positively impacted CQ development outcomes. It is this contact with diverse cultures that develops the cognitive and metacognitive CQ factors from the four-factor model. MacNab et al. (2012) also found that organizations who want to choose the most effective employees at developing CQ should look to those who already have general self-efficacy as a trait.
To conceptualize the gap between cognitive and motivational CQ, it is important to understand motivation theories of individuals. Aristotle (330 BCE/1953) wrote that motives are divided into ends and means; ends are when a person engages in behavior for no apparent reason other than what they desire to do, in other words, are intrinsic in value. Furthering Aristotle’s theory, Maslow (1943) wrote that human motivation "should stress and centre itself upon ultimate or basic goals...upon ends rather than means to these ends". He believed that intrinsic motivation is the end; the unconscious motivation that drives a human being. It is this intrinsic motivation that individuals have no control over, it is unconscious to us, which makes it more difficult for an organization to develop in an employee.
Maslow (1943) also asserted that there are five basic human needs: Physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualization. Each of these is related to one another and arranged in a hierarchy of prepotency. When one of the needs is satisfied the next higher need will come to dominate a person's motivations to achieve. This is the same context that a hierarchical CQ model can be built on, that one level must be met before moving on to the next CQ skill. Maslow (1943) however, contends that the satisfaction of basic needs are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they only tend to be. There are reversals and jumps in the hierarchy depending on the motivators an individual has to achieve them. For example, if a person values love more than safety they can be motivated to move past the need of safety to meeting the need of love. These reversals and jumps in motivation will be an important consideration when seeking to close the cognitive/motivational CQ gap.
In moving beyond basic human motivations, what motivates employees and their job attitudes? In Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman's (1959) motivational theory they posited that an employee's job attitudes are driven by two factors, motivation and hygiene factors. Herzberg et al. (1959) found that job satisfaction and positive job attitudes were affected by the motivators; work interest, achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement. The motivators that are of specific interest in this review are work interest (or intrinsic motivation) and recognition (or extrinsic motivation). Herzberg (1965) stated that "you simply can't love an engineer into creativity". The question this review asks is; can you build confidence and extrinsically reward an employee enough to love (derive intrinsic value from) a diverse cultural exchange?
Exploring the nature of intrinsic motivation Reiss (2004) wrote that "motives often affect a person's perception, cognition, emotion and behavior". He found that motives are reasons that are not necessarily cognitive; that intrinsic motivation is not directly controlled by a person. Reiss (2004) also delineates intrinsically motivated people as those who express enjoyment, interest and feel competent. This competence gives a person a feeling that their locus of control, of causality, comes from inside them. Though Reiss (2004) cautions that thinking, knowledge and exploration are not necessarily pleasurable to a person; they can cause fear and frustration. Therefore, external rewards could be a motivating factor to make the pain of learning, exploration and thinking worth it to an employee.
Communicating effectively and understanding the cultural differences between them is a key skill for managers (Salamzadeh et al., 2016). Understanding and communicating, there is no mention of the motivational CQ that should be between to enforce the change in behaviors to communicate effectively. The literature provided ways to encourage learning of cultural intelligence, but does not provide evidence of how to develop the motivational area of CQ, this link is the step that bridges the gap between cognitive and behavioral CQ. It is this gap that human resource managers need to address, when employees are not motivated to change their behaviors, the odds of success in diverse cultural interactions decrease. When the odds of success decrease, so does the potential profit of the organization.
A theory review of CQ resulted in what can best be described as a hierarchy of skills, meaning that certain skills of CQ must be obtained prior a person being motivated to meet the next level. For example, a person must have the cognitive CQ skill met before they can move on to the metacognitive CQ skill. This hierarchy of skills in CQ begins with cognitive then moves up to metacognitive, followed by motivational, then finally behavioral CQ. The concept map in Figure 1 shows this hierarchy and the sub-dimension that is attributed to each factor of CQ. The box on the left visually demonstrates the gap this paper is addressing.
To understand the gap that exists between meta-cognitive and behavioral CQ one must understand the building blocks of cultural intelligence. When analysing the key points and conclusions of seminal authors of CQ, a conceptual pattern emerges similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs but is built on skills, rather than basic human needs. The premise of prepotency is the same, one skill needing to be achieved before the other can be fulfilled; we are motivated to move up only once that skill is met. The CQ model of hierarchy begins with a basic skill; an individual must first be cognizant that culture exists and gain general and contextual knowledge of a certain culture to move forward. Once their basic skill of know is fulfilled, the individual can move on to the metacognitive CQ skill, where a person would be able to plan, be aware and check the culture around them. Once the person understands the dynamic of differing cultures, they can again move forward in their development of cultural intelligence.
In the next step of the CQ hierarchy, an individual would be motivated to have interest in the cultural differences between them. There would be inherent and tangible values to their interactions with diverse groups; this is coupled with their skills of cognitive and metacognitive CQ allowing them to feel confident in their interactions. They now care about the cultures around them and how they can bring value to themselves and others; they are motivated and move to the last step, behavioral CQ. The individual now knows cultures exist, what they are like and how they work. The individual is motivated to interact with differing cultures and can adapt their behavior to meet the diversity around them. They change their verbal and non-verbal cues by lowering or raising their voice, speaking faster or slower, using appropriate gestures and respecting social roles. They will do things that are necessary to assimilate to the culture they are interacting with and reach the highest level of CQ. Without reaching this pinnacle of the triangle the individual is not effectively using cultural intelligence.
Moon, Choi & Jung's (2012) research found that "even though expatriates with many previous international work experiences can have cultural knowledge or information (cognitive CQ), they may not have a motivation to interact with people from different cultures (motivational CQ) or to demonstrate appropriate behavior in that culture (behavioral CQ)". There are three sub-dimensions of motivational CQ that need to be addressed: Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards and self-efficacy to adjust. Intrinsic rewards are not cognitive, so employers may not be able to control intrinsic motivation in their employees. Extrinsic and self-efficacy to adjust, however, are parts of motivational CQ that an employer may have control over. This paper analyzes recent and relevant research to find if organizations can use extrinsic motivation and self-efficacy to adjust factors to influence the movement of employees from the meta-cognitive area of the hierarchy through motivation, to effectively change their behaviors.
This rapid evidence assessment is a thematic, meta-ethnographic review and is aggregative in nature, meaning the criteria for what is included in the review was predefined by the research question (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2012). Doyle (2003) stated that "like meta-analysis, metaethnography utilizes multiple empirical studies but, unlike meta-analysis, the sample is purposive rather than exhaustive because the purpose is interpretive explanation and not prediction". Being purposeful in a search for research in a thematic review means that it may not be necessary to find every study on a particular topic, this is because the findings in a large number of studies found may represent the exact same concept. What the meta-ethnographic methodology searches for is whether the research used in the review is relevant and is consistent or not with the hypothesis proposed. This review applied purpose through the themes of Cultural Intelligence, Motivation, Motivational CQ and CQ Training.
The reason that this methodology was chosen was due to the nature of the literature found in the initial search process. There was not a definitive study that explained how cognitive CQ moved to behavioral CQ though there were articles that noted motivational CQ as an integral step in the process. The aggregation method was chosen because of this limitation in direct research, so that all research reviewed could be collected and reviewed as a whole to understand the entire dynamic.
Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) is a widely accepted methodology in the medical and social sciences. The three areas of the REA process are development, processing and reporting that contain eight steps to complete. REA’s are shorter in time frame than systematic reviews, but the rigor and relevancy of the research chosen are not necessarily less stringent (Varker, Forbes, Dell, Weston, Merlin, Hodson & O’Donnell, 2015). The validity of the research reviewed was rated based on a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) system, a set of questions that should be asked as part of the critical appraisal of social research (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). The CASP system is considered relevant tool to assess the quality and validity of research reviews for the health and social sciences (National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, 2011).
Using a thematic approach three themes drove the search strings that were used primarily motivation, CQ specific motivation and CQ training. These strings were developed separately due to the dynamic nature of cultural intelligence and motivation. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors outside of motivational specific CQ were searched for because of the lack of literature found when searching for only motivational CQ factors. The UMUC Library One Search tool was used to find articles and research using Boolean search terms and limiting factors to locate only the most relevant and recent research on the topics.
Limits for subjects were used to narrow down specific topics and only scholarly peer reviewed journals in English were included. To ensure the most recent research was used only the last 5 years of research was added as a limitation, duplicates were removed and after abstracts were reviewed; 19 articles on motivation/motivational CQ and 11 articles for CQ training were left for full review. Appendix 1 shows the actual articles found before a full quality and relevance review was conducted to ensure the research should be used for the review; only articles that met a relevancy score of 2 or above were used for the analysis.
Quality and relevance were ranked based on a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) system, a set of questions that should be asked as part of the critical appraisal of social research (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). The CASP system is a tool used in systematic reviews to assess the relevance and rigor of the research used in the analysis. The CASP questions this systematic review used were:
1. How relevant is the study to the review question?
2. How much information does it contribute?
3. How trustworthy are its findings?
4. Was it conducted ethically?
Added to these questions, the type of study and limitations to the study were used to give additional rigor to the selection process. Results of the quality and relevance ranking of the articles used can be found in Appendix 2.
(Huff, 2014; Bogolivic, 2016) found that the greater the motivational CQ, the more effort an individual will make to adjust to a cultural context and that only motivational CQ is a predictor of effective cross-cultural adjustment. Motivational CQ was the largest factor of the four factor model in predicting how effective a person will be in adjusting their behavior, understanding how to drive this motivation is the key to success for an organization that interacts with other cultures. There are two forms of motivation in motivational CQ; extrinsic and intrinsic, each playing an important role in what an employee values. According to De Gieter & Hofmans (2015) satisfaction with either of these reward types will have a different impact on the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Understanding how to properly use rewards can stimulate behaviors that an organization will want the employee to exhibit, specifically in this review effective cultural adaptation.
Unfortunately, research has found that the use of extrinsic reward systems can have drawbacks. De Gieter & Hofmans (2015) found no differences in individual's satisfaction with financial, material and psychological rewards on task performance. In fact, their research showed that the higher the satisfaction a person had with financial rewards, the more likely they were to have a negative performance evaluation and poor task performance. Therefore, the more satisfied an employee was with their financial rewards, the more likely they were to not do their job well. The expectancy of extrinsic rewards can even crowd out intrinsic motivation and ultimately decrease the job satisfaction of the employee (Cho & Perry, 2012).
De Gieter & Hofmans's (2015) study did find that the higher the opportunity for a person to satisfy their psychological needs (autonomy and competence) the better their performance. The authors wrote, "The reason is that need satisfaction stimulates the internalization of behavioral motives (i.e., the transformation of extrinsic to intrinsic and personally endorsed motives)" (De Gieter & Hofmans, 2015). Meaning that while extrinsic financial motivation may be ineffective in stimulating internal motivation, having an opportunity to satisfy a psychological need may.
Kao & Chen (2016) researched the different ways that intrinsic motivation impacted the flexibility and performance of employees. Having flexibility had a positive impact on the organization’s success and those individuals that were more intrinsically motivated were found to have this type of performance flexibility. Cho & Perry (2012) found that intrinsic motivation was strengthened when there was a high level of managerial trust and goals provided to the employee had a derived purpose. Their research also found that managerial trustworthiness "crowds in intrinsic motivation for employee satisfaction" and that a high level of extrinsic rewards can actually decrease an employee's intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation in an employee can, therefore, be enhanced through managerial trust and purposeful goals, not necessarily through extrinsic rewards.
The third area of motivational CQ is the self-efficacy to adjust a person’s behavior, meaning that an employee has the confidence in their cross-cultural cognitions to adjust appropriately. Zhao, Deng & Kemp (2013) posited that perceived self-efficacy could determine how an employee thinks, feels and motivates them to behave. Presbitero (2016) found that the stronger a person believed in their capabilities, the more effort they would put into an interaction with a person from a different country. This confidence in their capabilities then led to persistence and drive to overcome the challenges that interacting with differing cultures can bring. Zhao, Deng & Kemp (2013) also linked self-efficacy to intrapersonal intelligence or self-awareness and that these together can strengthen motivational CQ and cultural adaptation. This high level of self-awareness can be found in employees who have high psychological capital.
Positive psychological capital is characterized by high self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency in an individual. Yunlu & Clapp-Smith (2014) wrote that cultural psychological capital is connected to motivational CQ and that it is a critical component of motivational CQ. This positive psychological capital can be built through training programs specifically tailored to improve hope, optimism and confidence (Yunlu & Clapp-Smith, 2014). Thus, organizations can build general self-efficacy through positive psychological capital training and build cultural self-efficacy to adjust through training and education in culture from a contextual nature.
Ng, Van Dyne & Ang (2009) found that that the more effective CQ learning was, the greater the chances that motivation and attitudes in employees were positive to cross-cultural interactions. Chen's (2015) research found the same results and further noted that when training was found to be useful the employee was more readily able to explore and experience diverse cultures, adapt to new cultural environments and work in those environments. Pre departure cultural training has been found to be instrumental in the development of CQ in employees and improving their effectiveness in adjustment to cross-cultural interactions (Moon, Choi & Jung, 2012). Their results also found that it was not necessarily the length of cross-cultural training that enhanced an individual's CQ; it was the comprehensiveness of that training.
Classroom training was only one part of cross-cultural training, immersion in that culture was found to be an integral step of the CQ training process. Rosenblatt, Worthley & MacNab (2013) found that experiential learning with direct contact with a differing culture was more effective for the development of motivational and behavioral CQ. Global work assignments that force an employee to interact with other cultures also enhanced self-efficacy (Ng, Van Dyne & Ang, 2009). While work assignments in other countries were important, Moon, Choi & Jung's (2012) research discovered that non-work immersion in the culture was even more effective at increasing an employee's cognitive and motivational CQ. They suggested that organizations should purposefully send their employees to the country they will be conducting business in for time without business purposes. This non-work time would force them to concentrate on building cultural context and ultimately provide a broader, more effective cultural adaptation. However, Varela & Gatlin-Watts (2014) found that international exposure was not enough to advance motivational and behavioral CQ, to enhance these areas the pre-travel cultural training would need to be applied in tandem with immersion.
An additional finding in the research of CQ training was that organizations should also consider selecting employees who are already considered to be extroverts for cross-cultural work roles. Varela & Gatlin-Watts (2014) suggested that "to modify pre-existing attitudes (motivational CQ) and to learn culturally appropriate behaviors (behavioral CQ), newcomers must be willing to break through comfort boundaries and engage in meaningful interactions". Sahin, Gurbuz & Koksal's (2014) research added that those employees who are already self-confident, sociable and enjoy intrapersonal interactions would be more likely to have more flexible behavior and ability to learn CQ. Their research also found evidence that individuals who had high extroversion were able to change their behavioral CQ than those who were low on extroversion.
The findings of the review suggest that there is a way to enhance motivational CQ, but not necessarily through the use of extrinsic rewards. In fact, the research revealed that the satisfaction and overuse of extrinsic rewards lowered performance and decreased intrinsic motivation in an employee. The research suggested that the proper selection of employees for cross cultural work roles, building of intrinsic motivation and enhancement in self-efficacy to adjust were ways to achieve the motivational CQ skill. Thus, the gap can be filled, just not in the way that this paper initially hypothesized.
The research suggests that for ease of CQ development an organization should choose an employee who is already an extrovert, a person who is flexible, open and enjoys interpersonal interactions. This employee's intrinsic motivation can be improved and even built through direction with purposeful goals and having a manager they feel they can trust. Positive psychological capital can also be enhanced through training to build hope, optimism and confidence; now an employee with general self-efficacy. The employee would then be ready to participate in comprehensive pre-travel cultural training, followed by non-work immersion in the culture in which they would be interacting. This builds self-efficacy to adjust and ultimately fills the sub dimensions of motivational CQ allowing the employee to be effective at adjusting their behaviors during cross-cultural interactions. A concept map of this path in Figure 2 is below:
One of the main limitations of this analysis is the inability to generalize the findings of the research found; most of the studies reviewed had limited survey groups consisting of a single company, industry or group of individuals. This lack of generalization limits the conclusions of this review from being applicable to multiple groups of people and organizations. Further research should also be conducted in the area of positive psychological capital training as well as how to discover employees who are extroverts. The impact of a trusted manager and purposeful goals should also be reviewed to find what amount of correlation there is to these and intrinsic motivation in employees. Because time in non-work immersion was suggested, research into how long an employee should spend in a non-work role in the host country should be conducted; this would help organizations understand the time and financial commitment needed for this exploration. Research found and analysed for this paper was also limited due to the methodology of rapid evidence review being employed and conclusions drawn from the data are based solely on these resources.
Motivational CQ was the largest factor of the four factor model in predicting how effective a person will be in adjusting their behavior, understanding how to drive this motivation is the key to success for an organization that interacts with other cultures. Organizations employ many different types of individuals, often those that do not possess the willingness or want to adapt to others in the organization or those that they do business with. These employees have the potential to be successful in organizations whose business thrives based on intercultural interactions.
The implication for management based on the results of this review is that motivational CQ can be developed in an employee who may not already be motivated to participate in cross-cultural interactions. It is the fulfilment of the motivational CQ factor that leads to adaption through behavioral CQ. As discussed in the introduction this effective adjustment is imperative to global organizations that depend on successful interactions in other countries they do business. Besides development of CQ in their current employee base, organizations should direct their human resource managers to locate extroverts in the organization for international work roles and develop a combination of training to instil confidence and self-efficacy to adjust in these employees.
The human capital department in global organizations should also look to develop training programs specific to enhancing positive psychological capital. This type of training would be a beneficial training tool not only for those working internationally but to all employees in the organization. Further, human capital departments should acquire or develop comprehensive, not lengthy, cultural training programs and resources for their employees to spend time in the host country on a non-work basis. This time should be used to concentrate on interactions with the local culture, not on business functions. To improve the effectiveness of employees in cross-cultural interactions global organizations should focus their efforts on hiring the right people, with matching them with the right managers and providing the right training. Employing these suggestions would not only help to build a more motivated culturally intelligent workforce, but also improve the success and bottom line of the organization.
|Appendix 1: Quality And Relevance Of Actual Article|
|Subject Limits||Motivation, employee motivation, intrinsic motivation||227925|
|English only, Scholarly Peer Reviewed||141871|
|Past 5 years||53815|
|Subject Limit||Behavior, Performance, employee attitudes||47|
|Balochl, S., Shafi, M., Mohsin, A.B. & Fatima, H. (2016). The influence of motivation on performance of public sector employees.*|
|Burkus, D. (2012). When migrating stars fail to shine: Individual performance depends largely on the organization as a whole.*|
|Cho, Y.J. & Perry, J.L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness and extrinsic reward expectancy.|
|De Gieter, S. & Hofmans, J. (2015). How reward satisfaction affects employees’ turnover intentions and performance: An individual differences approach.|
|Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality.*|
|Kao, Y. & Chen, C. (2016). Antecedents, consequences and moderators of ambidextrous behaviors among frontline employees.|
|Kong, D.T. & Ho, V.T. (2016). A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work: Examining its determinant and performance implications.*|
|Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., Walsh, A.J. & Loakes, J.L. (2015). Trait resilience fosters adaptive coping when control opportunities are high: Implications for the motivating potential of active work.*|
|Ramdani, B., Mellahi, K., Guermat, C. & Kechad, R. (2014). The efficacy of high performance work practices in the middle east: Evidence from Algerian firms.*|
|Vnouckova, L. (2016). Personality attitudes affecting employee learning and development: Prerequisites of behavior leading to learning and development.*|
|Voigt, E. & Hirst, G. (2015). High and low performers' intention to leave: Examining the relationship with motivation and commitment.*|
|CQ Motivation||(CQ or "Cultur* Intelli"), Motiva*||675|
|Subject Limits||Cultural Intelligence||172|
|English only, Scholarly Peer Reviewed||148|
|Past 5 years||9|
|Bogilovic, S. & Skerlavaj, M. (2016). Metacognitive and motivational cultural intelligence: Superpowers for creativity in a culturally diverse environment.|
|Yunlu, D.G. & Clapp-Smith, R. (2014). Metacognition, cultural psychological capital and motivational cultural intelligence.|
|Zhao, F., Deng, L. & Kemp, L.J. (2013). Interrelationships between cultural intelligence dimensions and the role of intrapersonal intelligence.|
|Presbitero, A. (2016). It's not all about language ability: Motivational cultural intelligence matters in call center performance|
|Huff, K.C., Song, P. & Gresch, E.B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality and cross-cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan.|
|Chen, M. & Lin, C. (2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence on team knowledge sharing from a socio- cognitive perspective.|
|CQ Learning||(CQ or "Cultur* Intelli"), (learn* or train* or educat*)||17410|
|Subject Limits||Cultural Intelligence||749|
|English only, Scholarly Peer Reviewed||329|
|Past 5 years||259|
|Chen, A.S. (2015). CQ at work and the impact of intercultural training: An empirical test among foreign laborers.|
|Koo Moon, H., Kwon Choi, B. & Shik Jung, J. (2012). Previous international experience, cross-cultural training and expatriates' cross-cultural adjustment: Effects of cultural intelligence and goal orientation.|
|Kotsaga, E. (2015). Cross-cultural training as critical factor of cultural intelligence in the hospitality industry.*|
|Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J.P. & Konopaske, R. (2014). The application of learning theories to improve cross- cultural training programs in MNCs.*|
|Ng, K., Van Dyne, L. & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development.*|
|Ramsey, J.R. & Lorenz, M.P. (2016). Exploring the impact of cross-cultural management education on cultural intelligence, student satisfaction and commitment.*|
|Rosenblatt, V., Worthley R. & MacNab, B. (2013). From contact to development in experiential cultural intelligence education: The mediating influence of expectancy disconfirmation.|
|Sahin, F., Gurbuz, S. & Koksal, O. (2014). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: The effects of personality and international assignment on the development of CQ.|
|Varela, O.E. & Gatlin-Watts, R. (2014). The development of the global manager: An empirical study on the role of academic international sojourns.|
|Whitaker, B.L. & Greenleaf, J.P. (2017). Using a cultural intelligence assessment to teach global leadership.*|
|Winn, B. (2013). Learning to lead with cultural intelligence (CQ): When do global leaders learn best?*|
Cho, Y.J. & Perry, J.L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness and extrinsic reward expectancy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 382-406.
De Gieter, S. & Hofmans, J. (2015). How reward satisfaction affects employees' turnover intentions and performance: An individual differences approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(2), 200-216.
Huff, K.C., Song, P. & Gresch, E.B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality and cross cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 151-157.
Moon, H., Choi, B. & Jung, J. (2012). Previous international experience, cross-cultural training and expatriates' cross-cultural adjustment: Effects of cultural intelligence and goal orientation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(3), 285-330.
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2011). Critical appraisal tools to make sense of evidence. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved 18 September, 2017, from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/87
Ng, K., Van Dyne, L. & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511-526.
Presbitero, A. (2016). It's not all about language ability: Motivational cultural intelligence matters in call centre performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(11), 1547-1562.
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840.
Rosenblatt, V., Worthley, R. & MacNab, B. (2013). From contact to development in experiential cultural intelligence education: The mediating influence of expectancy disconfirmation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 356-379.
Sahin, F., Gurbuz, S. & Koksal, O. (2014). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: The effects of personality and international assignment on the development of CQ. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 152-163.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K.Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M.L. & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295-313.
Varela, O.E. & Gatlin-Watts, R. (2014). The development of the global manager: An empirical study on the role of academic international sojourns. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 187-207.