The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a New Approach to Intercultural

Training for the Global Manager

Author(s): P. Christopher Earley and Randall S. Peterson
Source: Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 100-115
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214236
Accessed: 18-07-2015 14:21 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of Management
Learning & Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education,2004,Vol.3. No. 1, 100-115.

The Elusive Cultural

Chameleon: Cultural
Intelligenceas a New
Approachto Intercultural
Trainingforthe Global
Manager
P. CHRISTOPHER EARLEY
RANDALL S. PETERSON
London Business School

The global economyand shiftingpolitical tidesmake theneed forintercultural

and educationobvious.Wherehistoricallythefocusofintercultural
understanding
traininghas been on preparingan individualto workin a new culture,today's
and move
organizationsroutinelyask managers to workin multinationalenvironments
fromcountryto country.Thischallenge has createda strongdebate about how toprepare
managersforsuch challengingassignments.How oughtpeople be assessed to
understandtheirreadinessforsuch assignments?Do high intelligencequotient(IQ)
people adjust betterthanothersto new culturalchallenges? The topicofcultural
adjustmentand its assessmentremainscompellingbut incomplete.Our focushere is the
developmentand explorationof theconceptof culturalintelligence,or,CQ {Earley,2003;
Earley& Ang,2003),along withits implicationsfortrainingand educationforglobal
workassignments.Our approach suggeststhattrainingforthe global managershould
include metacognitive,
motivational,and behavioral components.The CQ approach
representsa significantbreak fromconventionalwisdomoffocusingon culturalvalues
forintercultural
education.

International
and intercultural
workhas become
thenormformostlarge companies(Adler,1997;
Dowling,Welch,& Schuler,1999;Schneider&
differenceshave
Barsoux, 1997).Intercultural
been
a
multinational
long
challengeconfronting
a
organizations(Hofstede,1991), challengethat
has been exacerbatedby the increasingprevalence of teams made up of individualsfrom
many nations (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Snow,
The core conceptsunderlyingthispaper are presentedin the
firstauthor'scollaborativeworkwithProfs.AngSoon,Joo-Seng
Tan, RoyChua, Chay-HoonLee and Klaus Templeras well as
the NanyangBusiness School CulturalIntelligenceWorking
Group.A readerinterestedin moredetail concerningintercultural trainingand assessment using a culturalintelligence
to Earleyand Ang(2003).
perspectiveis referred

Snell, Canney-Davison,& Hambrick,1996).To

makematterseven morechallenging,managers
are spendingshorter
periodsin anysinglecountry,and theyoftenare movedfromone location
to another,makingcountry-specific
knowledge
less relevant.Because theirmanagersmustoften
operateacross bordersin teamsof internationexally diverseunits,manylargeorganizations
the
need
for
who
managers
quicklyadjust
press
to multipleculturesand workwell in multinational teams.This makes the challengeof culdifficult
because conturaltrainingincreasingly
ventionalmethodsthatrelyon country-specific
knowledge often prove inadequate- methods
in
thatorientmanagersto dyadic interactions
new countriesfail to preparethemforthecom-

100

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Eailey and Peterson

101

in multinational
teamsand
as a conceptand framework
forstudying
cultural
plexityencountered
worksettings.
We
then
describe
and
discuss
itsapadaptation.
far
the
most
common
and
to
multinational
teams.
Fi(and
traditional)
apBy
plicationgenerally
national
to
cultural
and
differwe
discuss
the
future
of
and
how
the
CQ
nally,
proach breaching
knowl- construct
can be used to improve
encesis through
intercultural
inteachingcountry-specific
different
in
and
trainees
to
cultural
teractions
a
work
context.
edge
exposing
fromworkbynumerous
anthrovalues stemming
cross-cultural
and
(Bhawuk,
psychologists
pologists
A BRIEF REVIEW OF EXISTING APPROACHES TO
1998;Bhawuk& Brislin,1992;Brislin,Landis,&
INTERCULTURAL TRAINING
Brandt,1983;Hall & Hall 1990;Hofstede,1991;
Kluckhohn
& Strodtbeck,
inter1961;Mead,1934;Parsons Manyscholarshave discussedappropriate
and assessmentmethods
forintercultural
& Shils,1951).Anemphasison values orientation ventions
othersthrough
theirrelatedbeandunderstanding
training(Bhawuk& Brislin,1992;Bochner,1982;
work Brislinetal., 1983;Brislin& Yoshida,1994;Harris&
liefsand practicesunderliesmuchofcurrent
educaand management
on intercultural
Moran,1991;Mendenhallet al., 1987;Lee & Temtraining
has
become
tion.Intercultural
1980).
nearlysyn- pler,2003;Triandis,1975;Triandis& Berry,
training
values
modWe
do
not
to
an
cultural
exhaustive
review
with
profess provide
onymous understanding
we highlight
els bysuchauthorsas Hofstede,
here,rather,
Hampden-Turner, oftheliterature
keyfeain culturalassessmentand
and
turesoftheliteratures
and Strodtbeck,
Kluckhohn
and Tompenaars,
thereis a fundamental
Triandis.
However,
problem programdesignso thatwe can contrast
existing
- an
witha culturalvalues awarenessapproach
approacheswithourownCQ approach.
for
valuesis nota substitute
awarenessofcultural
interac- Assessment
moredirectknowledgeof interpersonal
tions,justas values alone are nota strongly
preA growingconsensusin thefieldofintercultural
dictivefeatureofhumanbehavior(Ajzen& Fishis thatappropriate
the
literature
Triandis,
1972).
1980;
bein,
pedagogyforanyprotraining
Although
and suitable
must
with
a
overthepast 3 deon cultureand management
thorough
begin
gram
and weakassessmentof managers'strengths
on thelink
cades has focusedalmostexclusively
betweenculturalvalues and individualaction, nesses.Methodsforindividualassessmentrange
toelabinventories,
thislinkis notparticularly
simplepaper-and-pencil
strongorclean (Trian- from
to
behavioral
assessorate
exercises,
dis,1972).
role-play
mentcenters.Lee and Templer(2003)specifically
in thefaceofnew
To addresstheselimitations
reviewofvariousintercultural
in
thestrengths
providea thorough
globalchallengesand supplement
and we drawfromtheir
a
assessment
discuss
and
we
introduce
current
procedures,
approaches,
train- workin thissection.
forintercultural
newconceptualframework
assessments are the most
thespecificcapabiliPaper-and-pencil
ingthatuniquelyidentifies
for
their
relativeease in adminiused
tiesofan individualbased on a facetedmodelof
widely
for
(1974),
culturaladaptationcalled the CulturalIntelli- stration.
example,developeda
Snyder
in
individual
differences
measure
of
&
or
2003;
Earley Ang, self-report
gence CQ approach(Earley,
and
selfbehavior
of
is
that
this
Our
2003). argument
approachprovides self-monitoringexpressive
was defined as
onexistingapproaches presentation.Self-monitoring
a significant
improvement
and self-control
self-observation
forseveralreasons:(a) itis uniquelytailoredtothe
guidedby situato
social
tional
cues
it
of
an
deficits
and
individual,
(b)
Kealey(1989)
appropriateness.
prostrengths
to be preScale
this
found
to
(SMS)
videsan integrated
Self-Monitoring
dealing
approach training
dictiveforoverseassuccess.Dodd(1998)listsa few
and
withknowledgeand learning,motivational,
assessmentsappliedto interculshortself-report
and (c) itis builtupona unibehavioralfeatures,
communication
tural
cultural
of
model
includingCardot's Selfadaptation
fyingpsychological
scale attempts
to
This
10-item
Scale.
Confidence
thanthepiecemealand country-specific
rather
apindividuals
hold
a
atwhether
the
assess
to
positive
employed.
typically
proach training
forexample,iftheyfeel
and explora- titudetowardthemselves,
Ourfocushereis thedevelopment
tionoftheconceptofCQ along withits implica- theyhave a numberof good qualitiesand are
Webeginbyreview- satisfiedwiththem,orwhether
tionsforglobalmanagement.
theyfeellikefailtimes.
These
methodstake
and
useless
at
ures
and
methods
assessment
ing brieflyexisting
as a
differences
assessments
individual
in
are
used
that
intercultural
existing
trainingprograms
for
cultural
witha critiqueoftheireffec- basis forpredicting
mostorganizations
adjustpotential
culturalintelligence mentand interaction.
tiveness.Next,we introduce

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

102

Academy of Management Learning and Education

March

we discusslater.Likewise,itis notreadilygeneralizabletoglobalmanagersmakingmorethanone
culturalencounter.
Tung(1981)has suggestedthat
on thehostcountry
briefings
purelyinformational
interare notsufficient
toincreasean individual's
overseas.
effectiveness
and
professional
personal
As Edwardde Bonoasserted,"Unlessyou know
whatyouneedis thinking"
(as citedin
everything,
howdetailedthe
Tan& Chua,2003:223).Nomatter
it is impractical
or culturalinformation,
country
and untenableto expecta managerto acquire
toit.
abouta culture
priortojourneying
everything
theemphasisis on
Inattribution-based
training,
of criticalincidentsindiffering
interpretations
encounters.
Cultureassimilavolvingintercultural
in
torsare oftenused forthistypeofintervention
are shownculturalscenarios
whichparticipants
Culturalasthesituation.
and asked to interpret
similators
have increasingly
employeda criticalincidentapproachto presentexamplesofculture
backclashes betweenindividualsfromdifferent
grounds(Cushner& Landis,1996).A typicalculexercisewouldhaveparticipants
turalassimilator
read a numberof criticalincidencecultural
theparticipants
clashes.Foreach criticalincident,
thebehaviorof
and interpret
are askedtoattribute
situations.The particithe actorsin the conflict
pantsare thenpresentedwitha numberofalternativeexplanationsand asked to selectone that
in thecriticalincibest accountsfortheconflict
dents.Cushnerand Landis(1996)used theculture
assimilatormethodto developa culture-general
assimilatorproassimilator.The culture-general
ProgramDesign
of
thedevelopment
vides a way of encouraging
Once managersare assessed and selected for global,multicultural
forthosewho
perspectives
thekeyquestionbecomeswhat
workwithpeoplefrom
training
programs,
manycultures.
cultheirtraining
A variationon a traditional,
and development.
designoptimizes
country-based
On the whole,most intercultural
trainingpro- turalassimilatorwas presentedby Bhawukand
a manager'scultural Brislin(1992;Bhawuk,1998,2001).Ratherthanfogramsemphasizeincreasing
in dealingwithothersfromdifferent cusingona particular
theiremphacompetence
targetcountry,
cultural
theircogsis is ona targetculturalvaluethatcan be shared
backgrounds
through
enhancing
nitiveawarenessand knowledgeoftheproposed acrosscountries.
Forexample,Bhawuk's(2001)inhostculture.
Brislinand Yoshida(1994),forexamdividualismculturalassimilatordrawsfromcore
ofindividreview culture
1995theory
(i.e.,Triandis',
ple, specifically
providea comprehensive
theory
oftraining
in theirevaluationofintercul- ualism-collectivism)
methods
to create criticalincidents
turaltrainingby identifying
rather
thanemphasizfiveapproachesin
thatapplyacrosscountries,
intercultural
Critical
incident.
exattributional,
training:
cognitive,
ingan observed(i.e.,atheoretic)
and behavioral.Cogincidentsare drawnfromindividualism-collectivself-awareness,
periential,
nitivetrainingtendsto focuson the transfer
of
ismtheory
andcovera widerangeofsocialbehav- the
culturalknowledgeor basic information
and moiorsbased on theself,goal prioritization,
factors.
techniquesincludeshortlectures,films,videos, tivation
and case studies.ThesecogniCulturalassimilatorsare generallyusefulbereadingmaterials,
tivetraining
methods
are useful,buttheydo have
cause theyprovidebasic culturalscriptsabout
a numberofdrawbacks.First,cognitivetraining specificculturescovering
ofsocial
a widevariety
focuseson specificknowledgeacquisitionand
and culturally
situations
appropriate
responses.If
does notaddressmetacognitive
as
an individualknowswhichculturehe or she will
competencies

An alternativeapproach assesses variables

moredirectly
tiedtoculture.
Forexample,Redden
(1975as citedin Kealey& Rubin,1983)developed
theCultureShockInventory.
meaThisself-report
sureattempts
topredict
difficulties
indealingwith
cultureshockbyassessingpeopleon a varietyof
characteristics
suchas, (a) degreeofdirectexperience withpeople fromothercountries(including
foreign
languageskills),(b) individuals'openness
tonewideas and beliefs,and (c) specificcultural
A closelyrelatedinstrument
is theInknowledge.
tercultural
Communication
(ICI).This25Inventory
itemmeasureis used to assess knowledgeand
awarenessamongemployeeson areas such as
workforce
cultureshock,languageand
diversity,
communicaaccent,bodylanguageand gestures,
tiondistortions,
culturalmisunderstandings,
customsand traditions,
and ethnocentrism
(Lee &
McCall,
Templer,2003).Morerecently,
Spreitzer,
andMahoney
tool
(1997)developeda measurement
named"Prospector"
forearlyidentification
ofinternational
executivepotential.Intercultural
potentialis assessed in Prospector
using14empirito
cally derivedscales including:(a) sensitivity
culturaldifferences,
(b) businessknowledge,(c)
courage,(d)bringsoutthebestinpeople,(e) integ(f)insightful,
(h)takesrisks;as
rity,
(g)committed,
well as severallearning-oriented
dimensionsincluding:(i) seeks feedback,(j) uses feedback,(k)
adventurous,
(1)seekslearningopportuculturally
and (n)flexibility.
nities,(m)opentocriticism,

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Earleyand Peterson

assimilatorscan be
be visiting,culture-specific
individual
effective
at
the
helping
gainintervery
ofthetargeted
culture(Cushculturalexperiences
ner & Landis, 1996).Most cultureassimilators
are limited,however,because theyare culturespecific.EvenBhawuk's(2001)values assimilator
drawbacksthatare shared
has some significant
withotherculturalassimilators.
First,cultureand
can be costlytodesignand time
valuessimulators
howforparticipants.
Moreimportant,
consuming
ever,is thatitremainsunclearhowtheknowledge
traingainedin culturalvalues-basedassimilator
similar
to
circumtransfer
theoretically
ingmight
within
the
surfacefeatures
stanceswithdissimilar
transfer
the
documented
culture,
poor
given
target
oflearningassociatedwithteachingby analogy
& Gentner,
2003).Thatis,
(Loewenstein,
Thompson,
culturalassimiwhatremainsunclearis whether
benefitsforparticilatorsprovidemetacognitive
traditional
than
do
their
more
countrypantsany
based counterparts.
Further,the focus on a
particularculturalvalue in Bhawuk's(2001)aplead globalmanagersto
proachmayinadvertently
one
overemphasize aspect of cultureover more
Forexone's fora particular
country.
significant
be
characterized
Thailand
may
ample,although
powerdistance
bya certainlevelofindividualism,
are morecentraltosocial behavior
and hierarchy
1993;Komin,1991).
(Klausner,
an emphasisis on apIn experiential
training,
and
techniquesincludingroleplied training
simulations.
and
field
visits,
Participants
plays,
in
aremoreaffectively
engagedas theyparticipate
worksamplesoftheactualtargetculture.Forexcan be putin socialsituations
ample,participants
fromotherculturesin simuwithrepresentatives
latedsocial or workevents.The downsideofthis
kindof training,
however,is thatit is typically
demandingforboththeparticipants
emotionally
and thetrainers.
Self-awarenesstraininginvolvesraising the
as well
trainees'awarenessoftheirownculture,
othercultures
thatpeoplefrom
as typicalreactions
have to them.These programsalso focuson the
Selfinthesesettings.
lossofself-esteem
potential
awareness traininghelps participantsbecome
moreaware of theirown values, attitudes,and
behaviorsusingmethodsthatcontrasttheirown
Trainersbehavein sharp
and thetargetcultures.
behavioroftheparticwiththepreferred
contrast
and explainthereaa
ipant(e.g., culture-contrast)
thetrainees'
sons fortheiractionsand highlight
As witha cultural
withtheexperience.
discomfort
are country
assimilator
approach,thesecontrasts
limitedin their
or culturespecific,and, therefore
generalizability.

103

an emphasisis on
Finally,in behaviortraining,
- traineespracticedisplaying
observablebehavior
behaviorsappropriate
forthetargetculture
across
variousscenarios.Thistrainingalso emphasizes
behaviorregulation
and monitoring
ofone's own
actionsincluding
nonverbal
displayssuchas body
and
orientation,
proxemics, social distances.Behaviortrainingis demandingof its participants
and timeconsuming,
so itis nottypically
used in
intercultural
As
we
discuss
trainingprograms.
behavior
is
critical
in
however,
shortly,
training
a
coordinated
to
culdelivering
approach training
individuals.
turallyintelligent
General Commentaryon ExistingApproaches

In theliterature
on intercultural
thatintraining,
formational
and experiential
work
bestin
training
tandemis fairlywell established(Tan & Chua,
2003).Thus,mostexistingapproachesto interculturaltraining
and educationprovidesomething
of
- thatis,a bitofthis
a cafeteriastyleofeducation
and a bitofthatinthehopethatsomething
willbe
useful.This approachis largelyconsistent
with
in
education
about
the
current
need
to
thinking
methods
to
usingmultiple
providetraining
appeal
topeoplewithdifferent
learningstyles(e.g.,Kolb,
& Mainemelis,
we believe
2001).However,
Boyatzis,
ofinterrelated
thisapproachhas createda number
problemsin dealingwiththeneedsoftheglobal
- mostlystemming
from
a lackofundermanager
framework
that
links
theparticulyingconceptual
intervention
withthestrengths
larsofthetraining
and weaknessesoftheindividualtrainee.Rather
eventsfrom
a
thandrawinga selectionoftraining
the
seexhaustive
list
of
possibilities,
seemingly
fora managershould
lectionofa training
program
be based on an individualneedsassessmentand
soundframework.
informed
bya theoretically
weaknessin curThe firstand mostimportant
that
rentapproachesis theimbeddedassumption
all individualsneeda similarexposureand trainassimilators
proingregime.Forexample,cultural
set of scenariosfortrainees
vide a programmed
regardlessoftheirpriorknowledgeofthetarget
exeror its culturalvalues. Experiential
country
cises suchas BaFa BaFa (Shirts,1973)providean
forlearningbut ignoreindividual
activeformat
in culturalexperience
and knowledge.
differences
intercultural
trainingprogramsgenerSimilarly,
interacallyassumea similarlevelofanticipated
tionin thetargetsite.Theseprograms
ignorethe
of
an
individual
demanded
uniquerequirements
and natureofinterin termsofintensity,
duration,
culturalinteraction
(Tan & Chua, 2003).Thatis,
need toconsiderthefrequency
training
programs

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

104

Academy of Management Learning and Education

ofcontact(intensity),
(duralengthofassignment
versusinformal,
tion),and typeofcontact(formal
workversusnonwork)
thatwillbe demandedofthe
individualbecause thesedimensionsbear direct
relevanceto the typeof trainingrecommended.
these characteristics
mustbe mapped
Further,
ontothespecificqualitiesoftheparticipant
in the
To do thisrequiresa way ofdiscerning
program.
theexistingstrengths
ofeach individualparticipant.

rhefirst
and mostimportant
weaknessin
current
is
the
imbedded
approaches
that
all
individuals
need a
assumption
similarexposureand training
regime.
The secondgeneralweaknessin mostcurrent
methods
approachesis thatintercultural
training
tendto focusheavilyon cognitiveor knowledgebased information
and awarenessof the target
culture.
Theproblem
withthistypeofemphasisis
thatit does notprovidethemetacognitive
skills
neededto learnin new situations
and cultures.
If
thereis a directtransference
ofscenariotothenew
intercultural
situation(i.e.,includingthesurfacelevelsimilarities),
thesemethods
are useful.However,it is oftenthecase thattheknowledgeacbroadtoencompassthe
quiredis notsignificantly
and uncertainty
faced by a
likelycomplexity
traineeoncein thenewculture.
Imaginethechallengefacedbya globalmanagerwhorunsa multinationalteam consistingof membersfromsix
countries.Team memberspossess a myriadof
characteristics
as wellas cultural
country-specific
values.Trainingspecificcognitiveknowledgefor
all six countriesis impractical
in thisinstance.
Whatis criticalis equippinga managerwithmetaskillsso thatwithtimeand experience
cognitive
he orshe can acquirenewinformation
concerning
theculturalissues in theteam.
asThird,
manyintercultural
training
programs
sumea stronglinkbetweenculturalvalues and
normsand individual
behaviorwithin
thatculture.
Thatis, ifI knowthatSingaporeis a collectivistic
thenI can predicta particular
culture,
Singaporean's actions.However,
Triandis(1972),
amongothvaluesto
ers,pointedtothetenuouslinkofcultural
actionin his framework
ofsubjectiveculture.
Values and normsrepresent
onlyone ofmanydifferentfeatures
(someculturaland social,otherspersonaland idiosyncratic)
toa person's
contributing
behavioralintentions
and action.Focusingon culturalvaluespresents
an overlysimplistic
basis for
behaviorbased in cultureand
understanding
(Brockner,
2003).
country

March

ofintercultural
current
methods
training
Finally,
These
on
prolearning.
relyheavily analogical
the
intelmake
can
that
the
trainee
assume
grams
lectualconnections
betweenthevariousteaching
and facts)
tools used (e.g.,vignettes,
role-plays,
in thenew
and thesituations
theywillencounter
culture.Recentresearchsuggests,however,that
limitedcapacityfor
mostpeople have relatively
an examplecase toa
a conceptfrom
transferring
novelsituationunlessthereis a specificdiscusinthevarious
sionofthemetacognitive
strategies
et al., 2003).Effective
teachingtools(Loewenstein
intercultural
trainingneeds to drawparticipants
intoa discussionofthebroaderthemesorconcepts
answerstolearningactivities,
behindthe"correct"
beorrisktrainees'abilitytoadaptappropriately
simiinglimitedto theverynarrowsurface-level
suchas field
Activities
laritiesofthesimulation.
visits(e.g.,1-2day triptothetargetsite)can proto generalizeby involvvide a betteropportunity
but
levelofengagement,
ingthemat a self-chosen
theseare veryexpensiveand willnotnecessarily
deepenthelearningwithout
specificguidanceand
discussion.Suchtripsmayevencreatemini"cultureshocks"thatdisruptfurther
Lacking
training.
an appropriateset-upand ongoingexperience,
fieldvisitscan also createor perpetuatestereotypesofthetargetculture.

limited
Mostpeople have relatively
for
a
capacity transferringconceptfrom
an examplecase toa novelsituation
unlessthereis a specificdiscussionof
themetacognitive
strategiesin the
variousteachingtools.
In sum,we argue forthe notionof designing
aroundtheunique
intercultural
programs
training
capabilitiesofa personto adapt to new cultural
as reflected
settings
bythethreefacetsofthetheoreticalorientation
in theCQ model.We describe
how
ofCQ belowandthenillustrate
thesefeatures
tailora program
theycan be used to individually
ofintercultural
training.
THE CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE APPROACH TO
INTERCULTURAL TRAINING

Key to all formsof trainingand educationis a

learner'scapabilityto acquire,retain,and interand experiences.
pretvarioustypesofinformation
Broadlydefined,thiscapabilityforadaptationis
reflected
orIQ (Gardner,
bya person'sintelligence
1983;Sternberg,
1985).Amidstthevariouspopular-

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Earleyand Peterson

ized versionsofworkon intelligencecome a number of importantadvances representinga significant break fromtraditionalviews. One such idea
was described by Salovey and Mayer (1990)and
discussed byGardnerin his books,FramesofMind
and MultipleIntelligences(1983,1993),as well as
numerouswritingsofRobertSternberg(e.g., 1985).
People having a high social or emotionalintelligence are thoughtto be relativelymore able to
empathize,work with, direct,and interactwith
otherpeople. High social intelligencereflectsa
actions(suchas probperson'scapacityto perform
lem solving)withand throughothers.High emotional intelligencereflectsa person's capacity to
understandand conveyhumanemotion.
From a cross-nationaland cross-culturalperspective,however,the emotionaland social intelligence approaches lack culturalcontextas they
attempttoexplain how and whypeople act as they
do (see RobertSternberg,1985,fora notableexception).There are a numberof differencesbetween
emotional and social intelligenceand our constructof cultural intelligence.Emotional intelligence capturesa varietyof attributesrelatedto a
person's abilityto read and respondto the affective states ofculturallysimilarothersand to selfregulate emotion. Take, for example, President
Kennedy'scharismaticspeech about Americanpatriotism
("Asknotwhatyourcountrycan do foryou
but what you can do foryour country. . ."). The
contentof his speech drew upon the American
ideal of the importanceof each person makinga
and his use of dramatic pauses and
difference,
emotionare ideal forinspiringAmericans.However,thispresentationstyleand contentwould not
have the emotionalappeal in dissimilarcultures.
That is, the symbolismrelatingto individual initiative and differentiation
may be alienating in
culturesforwhichpersonalidentityis tiedtogroup
context.
Emotionalintelligencepresumesa degree offawithina cultureand contextthatmaynot
miliarity
exist across manyculturesfora given individual.
Althoughresearchersdealing withemotionalintelligencedo notpurposelylimittheirmodels to a
single culture,theydo not provide an adequate
discussion of cross-culturalcontextand how the
conceptmightbe expanded to include it.
Culturalintelligencediffersfromsocial intelligence as well formanyofthereasons thatitdiffers
fromemotionalintelligence.That is, the formulations of social intelligenceare relativelyvoid of
richness.Accordingto Salovey and
multicultural
social
intelligencereflectstheability
Mayer(1990),
and
understand
to
manage people. Cantor and
Kihlstrom(1985) argued that social intelligence

105

may be an underlyingdimensionof personality.

Accordingto theirview,social problemsolving(an
inherentpart of social intelligence)is a central
personalityprocessthatunderliessocial behavior.
Theyplace the locus ofpersonalcharacteristicsin
social and personal schema thatwe storein memoryand retrievein various social situations.
Many of the schema and social or emotional
cues used by people fromone cultureto ascertain
anotherperson's emotionalstate (e.g.,empathize)
differradically fromthose used in othercultures.
A "friendly"smile for a Canadian may seem
until she encountersa Thai emstraightforward
for
whom
over 20 separate smiles provide
ployee
subtle cues forradicallydifferent
framesof mind
(Klausner,1993;Komin,1991).Thus,a personhaving highemotionalintelligencein theirnativeculture may be entirelyincapable at generalizing
across culturalsettings,given such confusingsignals. Cultural intelligence(CQ) captures this capabilityforadaptation across culturesand it reflectsa person'scapabilitytogather,interpret,
and
act upon these radicallydifferent
cues to function
across culturalsettingsorin a multiculeffectively
turalsituation(Earley& Ang,2003).
CQ differsfromsocial and emotional intelligence in otherways as well. Adaptationacross
new culturalcontextsrequiresthatnovel ways of
dealing withothersbe discovered.Existingstrategies mustbe adjusted,adapted, or reinventeddepending on the situationand culture.Thus, CQ
places a heavy emphasis on metacognition,or
"thinkingabout thinking."Likewise,the activities
requiredin new cultures,unlikeenactingbehavior
withinone's own culture,may require people to
develop and expand theirbehavioral repertoires.
That is, CQ reflectsa person'scapabilityofdevelopingentirelynovel behavior(e.g.,speech sounds,
gestures,etc.) ifrequired.
At its core, CQ consists of three fundamental
elements:metacognitionand cognition(thinking,
learning, and strategizing);motivation(efficacy
and confidence,persistence, value congruence
and affectforthe new culture);and behavior(social mimicry,and behavioral repertoire).These
facetsare illustratedin our example of the "Thai
smile" interpretedby the Canadian manager.
First,she needs to observe the various cues provided in addition to the smile gestureitself(e.g.,
otherfacial or bodilygestures,significanceofoththe source of the
ers who may be in proximity,
and
to
assemble
theminto
smile
gesture)
original
a meaningfulwhole and make sense of what is
reallyexperiencedby the Thai employee.Second,
she must have the requisite motivation(directed
to persistin the face of
effort
and self-confidence)

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

106

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

March

edge and metacognitiveexperience. Metacognitive knowledge refers to one's acquired world

knowledgethat has to do withcognitivematters
and it reflectsthreegeneral categories of knowledge (Flavell, 1987).First,it reflectsthe "person"
aspects of knowledge or the cognitionsthat we
hold about people as thinkingorganisms.There
are threetypesof personcategoriesincludinginand universal.The
traindividual,interindividual,
second type of metacognitionrefersto task variables, or thenatureoftheinformation
acquired by
an individual.A person learns thingsabout how
the type of informationencounteredinfluences
how it should be dealt with in various contexts.
Manypeople realize thatverydenselypacked and
requiresa great deal of effort
unique information
is encountered,
tocomprehend.Ifsuch information
then a person spends more timeon tryingto acFacet Training
Metacognitive-Cognitive
For example, the demands
quire the information.
The cognitivefacetrefersto information-process- placed on learningabout a new culturethatshares
littlein commonwiththat of an expatriatemaning aspects ofintelligenceand itis conceptualized
using self-concept
theory(Earley,2003).The selfis
ager are great,and the individualis likelyto reala person's mental representationof her own
ize thata greatdeal ofattentionand persistenceis
and soknowledgeand experience,social identity,
required.
cial roles. The functioning
of the self depends on
The finalaspect ofmetacognitiveknowledgereferstostrategyvariables,ortheproceduresused to
personal motivesbeing served and on the configurationoftheimmediatesocial situationand roles
achieve some desired goal. Whereas a cognitive
enacted. The self is a dynamicinterpretive
strucstrategymightbe somethingsuch as adding a set
turethatmediates most significantintrapersonal
ofnumbersto attaina total,a metacognitivestratand interpersonalprocesses. Thus, the cognitive
egy mightbe to add the numbersseveral timesto
facetofCQ can be viewed as the totalknowledge
ensure thatthe total is correct.The originaladdiand experienceconcerningculturaladaptation of
tion procedure gives a "correct"answer to the
an individualstoredin memory.Knowingoneself
problem,but the successive checks on the total
is notsufficient
forhighCQ - awareness does not
functiondifferently.
The follow-upoperationsare
guarantee flexibility.Flexibilityof self-concept intendedto reassure that the correctanswer has
and ease ofintegrating
new facetsintoitare, howbeen found.Anotherexample is thatif one is exever, associated with high CQ because underposed to very complicated reading material, a
standing new culturesmay require abandoning
strategymightbe to read the material slowly to
understandit. However,a metacognitivestrategy
pre-existingconceptualizationsof how and why
would be to skimthe materialbrieflyto decide its
people functionas theydo. Having high CQ also
means thata person is capable of reformulating difficulty
and what cognitivestrategymightbe
conceptionsofselfand othersas new information employedto masterthe materialmosteffectively.
is received. Thus, malleabilityand an ability to
This typeof metacognitionmightwell be thought
ofas a strategyoflearninghow to learn,or metareorganizeone's self-conceptare important.
A critical startingpoint fordiscussing a new
learning.
These higherlevel cognitiveprocesses are part
perspectiveon culturaladaptation is an avenue
referredto as metacognition(Flavell, 1979,1987),
of a person's metacognition,or "thinkingabout
whichrefersto thinkingabout thinking,
or knowlthinking."Thus, metacognitioncan be broken
down intotwocomplementary
elementsincluding
edge and cognitionabout cognitiveobjects.Metacognitioncan be furtherbroken down into two
metacognitiveknowledge(what and how to deal
withknowledgegained undera varietyofcircumcomplementaryelements: metacognitiveknowlstances) and metacognitiveexperience(whatand
how to incorporaterelevantexperiencesas a gen1The
ofculturalintelligencein thissectionis drawn
description
eral guide forfutureinteractions).
Metacognitionis
fromEarley (2003)and Earley and Ang (2003).The interested
a criticalaspect of CQ because much of what is
readeris referred
to these sourcesfora morein-depthdiscussion ofCQ.
requiredin a new cultureis puttingtogetherpat-

confusion,
challenge,orapparentlymixedsignals.
Third,she mustchoose, generate,and execute the
rightactions to respond appropriately.If any of
thesethreeelementsis deficient,
she is likelytobe
ineffectivein dealing with the Thai national. A
high CQ manager has capability with all three
facetsas theyact in unison. We argue here that
this CQ approach is an advance in thinkingfor
understandingmanager adjustment because it
capturesexistingapproaches emphasizingvalues
orientationand factfinding,but also moves well
beyond that by identifyinguniquely the CQ
strengthsand deficitsforan individualmanager.
We nowturntoa morein-depthdiscussionofthe
featuresof cultural intelligencedrawn fromthe
Earleyand Ang (2003)framework.1

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Earleyand Peterson

evenifone does not

ternsintoa coherent
picture,
looklike.To
knowwhatthiscoherent
picture
might
do so requiresa higherlevel of strategyabout
people,places,and events.Forthisreasonmany
failbecause theyoverculturaltraining
programs
the
emphasize specificexampleat theexpenseof
a moregeneralmeta-learning
process.
Manycompaniestraintheirglobalmanagersby
information.
This approvidingcountry-specific
limited
a
is
not
by person'sinvolveonly
proach
butit does notprementin thetraining
method,
and
for
a
pare manageradequately understanding
did
novel
situations
the
training not
mastering
With
an
effective
cover.
metastrategy,
specifically
thisproblemis overcome.
Cognitiveprocessingcapabilitiesof CQ are
new
shownin a numberof ways. Incorporating
and usingtheselfas a complexfilter
information
newculturalsettingsis as critforunderstanding
Thisis notmerely
emical as inductive
reasoning.
affecanother
cues
determining
person's
pathy
individual
tivestaterelieduponbyan empathetic
what
is exwith
or
absent
be
conflicting
may
be
emotion
may misleadingbepected.Expressed
statesthatare
emotional
cause itis theunderlying
of
a
reflective
person'sfeelings.A highCQ
truly
createa propermapping
must
inductively
person
This
ofthesocial situationto function
effectively.
of
knowlfoundation
but
broad
a
requires general
edge aboutculturesand societiessimilarto the
view
recommended
byan anthropological
training
as
economic
such
systems,relicoveringtopics
relationsocial
and
institutions,
political
gious
so
forth.
and
ships,

107

on a person'ssenseofefficacy
forsocialdiscourse
in a novelculturalsetting.
A personwhodoes not
believein personalcapabilityto understand
peonovelculturesis likelytodisengageafter
ple from
experiencing
early failures.If the motivational
facetofculturalintelligence
is weak,adaptation
does notoccur.Highlyefficacious
people do not
constant
rewards
to
in
require
persist theiractions;
notonlymayrewardsbe delayed,theymayappear in a formthatis unfamiliar.
Peoplehaving
low efficacy
are unableto maintain
expectations
commitment
to a courseofactionundersuchduress and potentialpersonalthreat.An additional
ofefficacy
benefit
is itspositiveimpacton strateand
gicthought problemsolving(Locke& Latham,
1990).Individualswhohave a strongsenseofeffiand strategic
cacy engage in a problem-solving
to
obstacles.
This is very
approach overcoming
in
intercultural
encounters
because imimportant
mediateand obviousanswerstodilemmasmaybe
absent(Wood& Bandura,1989).HighCQ people
have a strongsense ofefficacy
withregardto inso they"worksmartas well
tercultural
encounters,
as hard."
is nota fulldescription
alone,however,
Efficacy
ofthemotivational
facetofCQ. Animportant,
and
related,additionis goal setting(Earley& Lituchy,
1991;Locke& Latham,1990).Theinteractive
imporis
tanceofgoal settingand efficacy
expectations
inworkbymanyscholars(see Bandura,
illustrated
1997fora review).Humanactivitiesbytheirvery
In an innatureare goal directedand purposeful.
a challengeis todetermine
tercultural
encounter,
a different
cultural
thegoals ofotherscomingfrom
Goals specifytheconand personalbackground.
forpositiveself-evaluation
ditionalrequirement
MotivationFacet Training
(Bandura,1997).TheprocessofevaluatingthesigThe secondfacetofCQ refersto its motivational nificanceofknowledgeaboutwhatis happening
withourpersonalwell-being
generatesemotions.
aspect. Knowledgeof anothergroup'sways of
the
thatwe have somemust
One
not
sufficient.
world
is
the
with
Onlythrough recognition
dealing
that
thattheoutcome
of
to
or
to
and
touse thisknowledge
loose,
is,
be able (andmotivated)
thing gain
and
is
relevant
to
a
transaction
Cula
well-being,
goals
appropriateresponse.
produce culturally
and directs do we generatean emotionalreaction.
Thus,goal
reflects
turalintelligence
self-concept
and motivatesadaptationto new culturalsur- appraisal is necessarynotonlyforactivatinga
butalso forgenis a keyfacetoftheself
responsetowardgoal attainment,
Self-efficacy
roundings.
are
forenergizing
that
emotions
it
and
Erez
&
1993)
1997;
1986,
necessary
erating
(Bandura,
Earley,
ofone'scapabilitytoaccom- action.That is, our goals may act as cognitive
to"a judgment
refers
(Bandura, anchors,therebyguiding subsequent actions
plish a certainlevel of performance"
1986:391).Peopletendtoavoidtasksandsituations (Locke& Latham,1990).
moto ourdiscussionofself-efficacy
andefficacy
Returning
theybelieveexceedtheircapabilities,
we
&
for
tive
and
situations
of
choice
the
(Erez
1993),
Earley,
personalgrowth
promote
judgments
natureof goals and
taskswithhighlikelihoodof success and elimi- can see the interdependent
motivational
forunderstanding
natethechoiceofthosethatexceedone'scapabilaspectsof
efficacy
influences
CQ. Self-efficacy
ities.
personal
reciprocally
in
who
are
themoindividuals
so
in
berole
an
set,
CQ
high
goals
Self-efficacy
plays important
in perare
likewise
of
tivational
is based
interaction
CQ
cause successfulintercultural
high
aspects

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

108

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

sonal efficacy
and will tendto set specificand
challenginggoals forthemselvesto masterthe
cultural
whohave
quagmiretheyface.Individuals
a highmotivation
of
are
efficacious
CQ
component
withregardtointercultural
interactions.
Theseefficaciousindividuals
havea strong
sensethatthey
are able todeal withthedivergent
of
perspectives
and
others,changingand unfamiliar
situations,
and uncertainty.
as
However,
handlingcomplexity
we statedearlier,a strongsense ofefficacy
alone
is notadequateforunderstanding
CQ because a
thenatureand
person'sactionsare goal directed;
typeof goals thatpeople set forthemselvesare
criticalforunderstanding
and predicting
theoutcomesofintercultural
interactions.
A person'snormsand values are relatedto CQ
andtheyarean important
aspectoftheselfinthat
ofthesocialenvironment
theyguidewhatfeatures
thata personattendstoand whathe orshevalues
1991;Schwartz,
(Hofstede,
1994).Theroleofvalues
and norms(froma motivational
for
perspective)
CQ is thattheyguideourchoiceofactivitiesas
wellhelpdefineourevaluationofthem(Triandis,
1972).Forexample,a personhavingstronggroupbased valuesis likelytoavoidsituations
requiring
sucha personis likelyto
personalactions.Further,
evaluateindividual,
behaviornegaidiosyncratic
Thus,culturaladjustment
tively.
maybe impaired
valuesand normsiftheyare held
byone'scultural
and inflexibly.
extremely
strongly
Values and value systemsservea numberof
functions
foran individual.Values are standards
thatlead individuals
totakepositionsoverissues,
predisposethemto favorparticularideologies,
evaluateand judge
guidetheirself-presentations,
themselves
and others,
act as a basis forcomparisonsofmorality
and competence
withothers,
determinewhichideas of othersshould be challenged,and tell how to rationalizebeliefsand
actionsthatwouldotherwise
be unacceptableso
as topreserveself-image
(Rokeach,1973:13).Values servetomotivate
instrumentally
byproviding
enticement
desiredend-states
as well as
through
terminally
by representing
superordinate
goals,
and reinforce
a sense ofself.
We are nowin a positiontocombineourearlier
discussionon values withouruse ofefficacy
and
(see
goals. As researchershave demonstrated
Locke& Latham,1990fora review),
thegoals that
peoplesetare determined
bytheirefficacy
expectationsas wellas a subjective
evaluationconcerning the potentialoutcomestheyassociate with
and completion.
Thatis tosay,our
goal enactment
notonlybywhether
we think
goalsaredetermined
we can achievethembutalso bywhatwe consider
theoutcomesof such accomplishments
to be. In

March

thequestionof
everydaytasksand goal setting,
value (valence)maybe an embeddedexpectation
thatonehas withone's
contract
oftheperformance
organization.
than
are verydifferent
Intercultural
encounters
thecontext
byan employee.
typically
experienced
These encounters
challengea person'sthinking
and assumptions
abouttheirownculturebycontheirbeliefsaboutrightand wrongwitha
trasting
tosucha
different
Onereaction
potentially
system.
challengeis fortheindividualto isolatehimself
Forexample,a personlowon
from
thenewculture.
initialfrustration
motivational
CQ whoencounters
of goal attainment
(e.g.,successfulculturalenexcounter)will have increasinglowerefficacy
pectations,negative self-image,and potential
withothers.One managerwe indisengagement
terviewed
thataftermakinga cultural
commented
fauxpas he simplystoppedgoingoutin his host
and stayedin his own home.Rather
community
and
thantakinga chanceofmakingmoremistakes
he isolatedhimself.
feelinglikea culturalmisfit,
BehaviorFacet Training

tothe
refers
Thethirdfacetofculturalintelligence
behaviorsthata personengages in. The behavioralaspectofCQ suggeststhatadaptationis not
and
whatand howtodo (cognitive),
onlyknowing
to persevereand exert
havingthe wherewithal
effort
butalso havingtheresponses
(motivational)
neededfora givensituationin one's behavioral
a perrepertoire.
Lackingthesespecificbehaviors,
sonmusthave thecapabilitytoacquirethem.CQ
a person'sabilityto acquireor adapt bereflects
haviorsappropriate
fora newculture.
A person'sbehavioris also tiedto CQ in many
indirect
ways.Thereare instancesin whicha person mayknowand wishto enacta culturally
appropriatebehaviorbut cannotdo so because of
Forexample,imaginea
somedeep-setreservation.
sointoan uncomfortable
managerwhois thrust
hisnonvercial situation
and is notable tocontrol
bal communication
cues.Thistypeofresponse(or
lack ofit)can be thought
ofin behavioralterms.
Evenifa personis able to providea desiredrethatthehost
encounter,
sponsein an intercultural
may detecthesitationand react negativelyreexecutedremainsa problem.Behaviorproperly
quiresa personwillingtopersistovertime.Persisofnewskills,
tenceis necessaryfortheacquisition
these
and so is a person'saptitudeto determine
newskills.Thatis,itis notenoughtobe willingto
- a highCQ person
tryand learnnew behaviors
has an aptitudetodetermine
wherenewbehaviors
are neededand howtoexecutethemeffectively.

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Earleyand Peteison

in sois particularlyimportant
Self-presentation
cial behaviors because behaviors enacted in the
process of social interactionsare motivatedprimarilyby the need forimpressionmanagement
and self-presentation(Goffman,1967).For example,a personmayeat at a local restaurantin a host
country.His primarygoal is satisfyhungerwhile
his concernsabout self-presentation
maybe ofsecEven
he's
concern.
so,
likelyto followeatondary
so
as
to
avoid
othersin that
offending
ingetiquette
culture.By adapting his eating behaviorand etiquette,he satisfiesboth his hungeras well as a
desire to maintaina positiveself-image.
contribution
Role modelingprovidesan important
in a
tobehavioralCQ, and itis a featureintroduced
exernumberoftraining
role-play
programsthrough
cises. A personwithhighCQ is able toadapt behavior to be appropriateto any givenculturalcontext.
Adoptingthebehaviorsconsistentwitha targetcultureis an important
adjustaspect of intercultural
is notan attempt
Thismimicry
mentand interaction.
- it is engagingin acor camouflage
at subterfuge
tionsthatput people fromanothercultureat ease
A myriadofcues are providedthrough
and comfort.
and observingtheirreactionsas
others,
observing
A personhighin behavioral
with
them.
interact
you
and mimicsthesecues and behaviors
CQ integrates
(Bargh& Chartrand,1999;Chartrand& Bargh,1999).
mimickWorkon mimicry
suggeststhattheeffective
if
subeven
done
another
of
behavior,
person's
ing
with
in
increased
satisfaction
an
results
consciously,
is subtleand oftensubcontheinteraction.
Mimicry
scious (Chartrand& Bargh,1999)but it resultsin
generallypositiveeffectsin a social encounter.A
highCQ personis a talentedmimicwho uses mimicryin moderatedoses. That is, excessive mimicry
as mockingsomeone.Howmay be misinterpreted
ever,a highCQ personmodelssome ofthemannerverbaland nonverbalcues,and
ismsand posturing,
oftheotherpersonso as to createa "comso forth,
fort"zone. For example, if I am speaking witha
Mexican managerwhose social distance is closer
thanmineand I maintainmydistantposition,this
Almay make the manager feel uncomfortable.
of
his
discomthe
source
not
he
identify
though may
he willfeelapprehensiveand hesitant,and this
fort,
and interaction.
communication
willinhibiteffective
used
(and
intelligently judiciously)constiMimicry
as well as a behavtutesa typeofcognitivestrategy
ioralintervention.
Integratingthe Facets ofCulturalIntelligence
Althoughwe have presentedthese facetsofCQ as
if they were independentand not overlapping,
thereare relationshipsamong the features.Obvi-

109

and cognitionare relatedbeously,metacognition

cause the latteris an inevitableby-product
of the
former(although not a requisite for the latter).
Otherfacetsare interrelatedas well, in a similar
manneras motivationand metacognition.
For exone
benefit
of
is
ample,
high self-efficacy a positiveinfluenceon strategicthinking
(Bandura,1997).
High motivationalCQ means that a person will
engage in more strategicthinkingas well, and
this,in turn,has a positiveimpacton actual adaptation.Thus,high motivationalCQ impactsmetacognition,resultingin performanceeffectiveness
thatfurther
bolstersmotivation.
Metacognitionand cognitionare related to behavioral CQ as well, because we are notpositing
learning without awareness. Although some
unconscious elements of behavior may impact
behavioral functioning(e.g., Triandis' notion of
habits),behavioralCQ operateslargelyin theconscious domain.Thatis, themetacognitiveand cognitiveknowledgegained duringculturalencounters provides a foundationfor behaviors to be
engaged in. This may be largely observational
(role model) although metacognitivestrategies
mightbe used to informand shape a person's
behavioral repertoire.
Althoughthe facets of CQ have discriminant
validity,thereare relationshipsamong them.That
is, an intervention
targetingone ofthe facetsmay
have minimalspillovereffectsonto otherfacets.
Thus,to maximizebenefitsa trainingintervention
needs to focuson potentialoverlap and synergies
of CQ facets.
COMBINING FEATURES TO DESIGN
INTERCULTURAL TRAINING

If we map the threekey featuresof CQ onto the

trainingneeds describedbyTan and Chua (2003)of
duration,and naturewe can see a conintensity,
tentbasis forintercultural
traininginterventions.
Thisis reflectedin Figure1,and itprovidesa guide
concerninghow one mightthinkabout matching
specific training methods with a needs-based
analysis ofparticipantcapability.
Interventionstargetingthe metacognitiveand
cognitiveaspects of CQ require an emphasis on
skilldevelopmentin several areas. The threegeneral metacognitivecompetencies include planand evaluating.Planningrefers
ning,monitoring,
and
toa capabilitytogeneratecognitivestructures
level
thinkingstrategies).For
strategies (higher
not
a
trainee
example,
onlyneeds torecognizethat
male-femaleworkrelationshipsdifferacross cultures,or thata particularrelationshipholds in a
particularcountry,but she must also be able to

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

110

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

March

FIGURE 1
an
Training
Designing Intercultural
these relationgeneratestrategiesfordetermining
in
new
It
is
not
ships
settings.
enoughto knowthat
men and women kiss on the cheek in Italy when
greetingone another while they do not in the
UnitedStates- what is importantis how to determine rules for greetings and physical contact
across many culturalsettings(even withina nationalculture).This is critical,as culturallyintelligentindividualsare able touse conditionalknowledge in adjusting their cognition to different
cultures.A second metacognitivecompetencyis
monitoring,which reflectsa capacity to reason
inductivelyand deliberate,formulatehypotheses
concerningactions,and monitorinternaland externalcues. Culturallyintelligentindividuals are
able to focus attentionon culturallyinconsistent
schemas (abilityto detectculturallydiscrepantinand consequently,adjust theircogniformation),
tion to incorporate the new cultural schema
throughintelligentsense makingand reductionof
cultural dissonance. Finally, metacognitioninvolves evaluating one's surroundingsby focusing
on the abilityto learn about one's own learning.
Culturallyintelligentindividualsare able to think
criticallyand reflexivelyon theirown performance
in culturalinteractions.Pedagogical interventions

such as thegeneralculturalassimilatororculturebased assimilator (Bhawuk, 2001; Brislin et al.,

1983)attemptto enhance a person's the metacognitiveskillsbyfocusingon toolsforgeneralization.
These methods mightbe supplanted with additionaltechniquesemphasizinginductivelogic and
about thinking
reasoningas well as introspection
and learningstyles.
Cognitive aspects of CQ reflectthe specific
knowledge of contentand process concerninga
targetculturethatis acquired throughmetacognitive mechanisms.That is, cognitiveCQ captures
interthewhat,who,why,and how ofintercultural
action. This aspect of CQ is well addressed
throughcultureassimilatorsand otherknowledgebased trainingsystems.Interventions
focusingon
the acquisition of culture-specificknowledge
throughdocumentaryand experiential methods
may help people understandmoreabout a given
culture.
Thereare several generalmethodsofenhancing
the metacognitiveand cognitiveaspects of CQ
described by Tan and Chua (2003).For example,
Cognitive StructureAnalysis systematicallyand
classes of knowlefficiently
probes fordifferent
identifies
and
knowledge
edge representation

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Eailey and Peterson

structuresunderlyingselff social, and cultural

schemas. Cognitive structuresare tacit assumptionsand beliefsthatgive rise to habitual ways of
construingself,others,and theworld.The individual's personalschemas,currentconcerns,and peris prosonal goals influencethe way information
cessed and the way the individual's behavior is
organized.
Methods focusingon the motivationalfacet of
CQ are mostheavilytied to thevalues-orientation
approachoftenemployedin intercultural
training.
That is, an emphasis on culturalvalues not only
provides specific knowledge about a targetculture,butitis intendedto develop empathyas well.
to thisapproach is thatempathy
The shortcoming
and attractionto a new culturein no way imply
efficaciousnessand perseverance.That is, a person may feel highlyempatheticand positive toward a host culture,but still lack the efficacyto
deal withthe challenges she inevitablyfaces.
is a key to effectiveintercultural
Self-efficacy
Cultural
experiences need to be levertraining.
a
means
of
as
buildingand enhancingeffiaged
cacy throughproximatemasterysituations.This
implies that we ought to incrementallybuild a
trainee's confidencetowardinterculturalinteraction by guiding the trainee througha series of
successful interactionswith a new culture.One
possible way is to expose an uninitiatedperson
througha series of short,simple, and controlled
interculturalinteractionsin a classroom setting.
As the traineebuilds greaterconfidence,greater
could be added, progressively
graduatcomplexity
actual
encounter.A simple example of
to
an
ing
thisconfidence-building
approach is to instructan
individualto focus on several simple but salient
ritualsin a new country(e.g.,findingout whereto
buy a newspaper or get a cup of coffee)as initial
masteryexperiences that,in turn,build efficacy
with regard to greater challenges. Once established,efficacyprovidesthe perseveranceneeded
totacklegreaterculturalchallenges.Curiosityis a
motivationalprerequisiteforexploratory
behavior,
forculturaladjustment.Peoand thisis important
ple varyin theirdesire to experimentand observe;
curiosityreflectsa motivationalstate.
Withregardto the behavioral facetof CQ, Tan
and Chua (2003)draw fromGoffman'stheoryof
self-presentation(Goffman,1967)and focus on a
dramaturgicalapproach to the trainingof behavioral competenciesthroughthe use of role-plays,
and visual artsas methodsoftraining.
performing,
the
use of role-playsis not new as a
Although
in cross-culturaltraining,their
method
training
use of narrativeplays and theatertrainingmethods forthepurposeoftrainingculturalintelligence

111

is novel. Throughthe mediumofdrama,individuals adopt an integrative,

multisensory
approachto
the concept of learning.They are encouraged to
utilizethephysical,emotional,sensory,and cognitiveprocesses to experiencelearningand improve
self-knowledgeand metacognition,an enhanced
understandingof the feelings and motivationof
others,and to bolsterself-efficacy.
They suggest
that a dramaturgical approach helps trainees
learn the nuances of behavior and action. Certainlythisapproach fitsnicelywithworkon social
mimicryby Bargh and Chartrand(1999)that we
describedabove. Trainingprogramsemphasizing
role modeling complementsuch a drama-based
approach as well.
is anotherway of
Finally,behaviormodification
the
behavioral
enhancing
aspect ofCQ. Behaviors
thatare sanctionedin a targetcultureare identifiedand transferred
to a learner.Simulationsand
are
conducted
and reinforcement
and
role-plays
are
used
to
behavior
punishment
guide
change.
Individuals wishing to increase cultural intelligence learn to break out of old habits and to acquire a new repertoireof behaviors considered
appropriatein the targetculture.
ApplyingCQ to a MultinationalTeam
Workingon a multinationalteam providesa numberofstrongchallenges fora member.Thereare at
least threeinternal(totheteam)issues confronting
multinationalteams as they develop and build
- establishmentof goals and common
momentum
purpose, clarificationof roles played by team
members,and delineation of rules for conduct
and interaction(Earley & Gibson, 2002;Earley &
Mosakowski,2000; Maznevski, 1994;Snow, Snell,
Canney-Davison,& Hambrick,1996).
Workingin a highlydiverse team consistingof
members froma range of cultures and backgroundsmakes the problemofestablishinggoals,
roles,and rules highlyproblematicbecause ofthe
additionalcomplexityadded due to culturaldifferences. Take, for example, the issue concerning
rules forinteractionwithina multinationalteam.
How should membersinteractand discuss core
issues? Ifdisagreementsoccurhow are theyto be
resolved? Team memberswho come frommore
confrontational
culturesmay notnoticethe subtle
cues comingfromteam memberswho come from
cultureswhere face saving is importantor where
conflicttends to be expressed indirectly.
The second big issue is thedistribution
ofresources.Ifthe
team receives limitedresources,how should they
be distributed?And how mightteam membersdecide individual responsibilities?A team member

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

comingfroma strongneed-basedculturemight
well expectthatscarce resourcesare allocated
based on needrather
while
thanaccomplishment,
a fellowmember
from
an
culcoming
equity-based
turemighthave an opposingview.The unstated
due proassumptions
concerning
rightand wrong,
formembership,
and so forth
cess, expectations
aretiedtocultural
and experience.
So
background
althoughthesekindsofissuesare a goodstarting
teamswithina single
pointforbuildingtrusting
can
become
contentious
issues
culture,
they easily
in themultinational
team.
and
based on metacognition
CQ competencies
motivation
are ofparticularly
for
highimportance
the multinational
in such a
team. Functioning
team requiresthatmembersacknowledgetheir
weak overlappingknowledgeand focuson the
mostbasic commonality
tocreatea hybrid
orsynmore
ergisticculturethatgrowsoutofsomething
thandistribution
fundamental
ofrewardsand decision rules (Adler,1997;Adler& Bartholomew,
1992;Earley& Mosakowski,
2000).Thatis,all teams
mustbuildmomentum
fromtheircommonalities,
butthemultinational
teamhas a specialchallenge
insomuch
as theircommonalities
willbe harderto
Multinational
teamsneedtoresistfocusidentify.
on theirdifferences.
Eventhoughthe
inginitially
ofmultinational
teamslies in
long-term
strength
theirdiversity
and uniqueexperiencesas a team,
in a teamtoo
sharingthoseuniqueperspectives
(Wittenearlyin theprocessis riskyindividually
baum,Hubbell,& Zuckerman,
1999).Metacognitive
and identifying
stratCQ is criticalfordeveloping
be usedtodetermine
thebasis for
egiesthatmight
a hybrid
culture.
theold adage ofgoals,
Although
roles,and rulesis a reasonablestarting
pointfor
eledevelopinga hybridculture,team-specific
mentsthatmustbe uncoveredby teammembers
are likelyas well.

All teamsmustbuildmomentum
from
theircommonalities,
butthe
multinational
teamhas a special
challengeinsomuchas their
commonalities
willbe hardertoidentify.
Multinational
teambuildingalso requiresstrong
motivational
disciplinebecause manyunstated
practicesand assumptionsmay need to be set
aside and etiquette
violationsoverlooked.
A commontrapformanagers(orstudents)
participating
in a multinational
teamfroma nationally
heterois to assume that
geneouscompany(orprogram)
theyare cosmopolitan
bythevirtueoftheirchoice

March

fortrainingor past travelexperiof institution

ences.Well-traveled
managersoftenassumethey
are naturallyacceptingof culturaldifferences.
thisassumptionis testednotwhenthe
However,
calm waters,butwhenthe
teamis experiencing
Atcriticalpointsin time,such
seas are turbulent.
as impending
deadlinesornegativeperformance
are
senseoftrust
teamslackinga strong
feedback,
or
emotional
to
relationship
high
likely experience
conflict
and likelyself-destruct
(Earley& Mosakowski,2000;Simons& Peterson,2000).Once a
that
differences
groupreceivesnegativefeedback,
can becomesalient
wereonce easily overlooked
can become
and whatwerequainteccentricities
in
irritants
resulting personaldislikunacceptable
can
in press).Familiarity
&
Behfar,
(Peterson
ing
in
a
stress
at
breedcontempt,
points
especially key
reclife.
Team
members
CQ
high
having
group's
tolook
and remainmotivated
ognizethisdifficulty
what
toward
differences
individual
might
beyond
benefittheentireteam,even at criticalpressure
points.
Ourpointhereis thatsuccessformultinational
or
teamsdoes notlie withculturalvaluestraining
itrequires
broadorientations
to diversity.
Rather,
tounheldbymembers
specificCQ competencies
effecacross its membership,
covercommonality
roleallocations,and clearly
tiveand appropriate
based on thespecific
definedrulesforinteraction
and
and someindividual)
needs(i.e.,somecultural
To uncoverthesevariinterests
ofteammembers.
whoareable
ous elements
requiresteammembers
to recognizethesefeaturesin fellowteammemand to generatenew
bersas well as themselves,
are encounwaystodo so as newteammembers
forlearning(e.g.,direct
tered.The best strategy
whata Keninquiryversuspassive observation)
yan,an Indonesian,or a Germanmaydefineas
effective
leadershipmay differas muchas the
contentansweraboutthemostdesirableformof
leadershipitself(e.g.,directiveversusparticipaaddressesthese
tive).Metacognitive
CQ training
inthewaythatcognidifferent
learningstrategies
differences.
tiveCQ training
addressesthecontent
topersist
Motivational
CQ providestheconfidence
whentrying
todetermine
thebasis ofexperienced
differences.
BehavioralCQ guides appropriate
different
culwithothersfrom
waysofinteracting
tures.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

it
Giventheimportance
of intercultural
training,
remainsunfortunate
thattodatea comprehensive
framework
of culturaladaptationhas not been
forward
toguidetraining
andpedagogical
brought

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Earleyand Peterson

113

The dominantapproachused in
interventions.
oftheCQ facets)were
ingassessmentandtraining
and educationalsettingsis topro- well receivedby the participants.
bothcorporate
A full-scale
videmanagersand studentswithculture-specific analysisoftheapproachhas notbeen completed
knowledgein thecase ofa targetedassignment at eitherschool,but bothprogramswere suffilimiteddurationassignmentor
cientlysuccessfulthatthe respectiveuniversity
(country-specific,
at bothhave decidedto adopt it
educationalstudy-abroadprogram)or culture- administrators
a
discussion
of
a
more
in
thecomingyear.
features
dominated
by
broadly
general
Wehaveproposedanddiscusseda unifying
limitedset of culturalvalues. These cultureconare
often
based
on
framework
useful
for
and
conceptual
ceptual
understanding
generalbriefings
a
cultural
researchers
While
frameworks
(Hoftraining
global
manager.
pastapproaches
posed by
interventions
stede, 1991; Trompenaars& Hampden-Turner, haveoftenfocusedonlimited
relying
listsofculon empiricalobservations,
we have suggestedan
and theyconsistofidiosyncratic
1998),
alternative
theseculturalvalues
ofpedagogy.
turalvalues.Unfortunately,
approachand philosophy
into
a
values-based
Note
that
our
does
not
advocate
onespecan
approach
briefings easilydegrade
tencific
over
another
national
cultures
and
roleof
training
methodology
provide
(e.g.,
stereotyping
- it
linksto actual
unfounded,
uous,ifnotdownright
play exercisesversusdocumentary
learning)
behaviorofculturalparticipants.
providesa guideforassessinga manager'sspeto providetrainingin specific
are prob- cificcompetencies
interventions
These culture-specific
lematicfora numberofreasonsas we have out- areas. The challengefacinga global manageris
from
a culturalperspective,
and itis critlinedabove.First,
theydo notadjustforindividual daunting
tailoredtotheindividin capabilityacross the cognitive- ical toprovideinterventions
differences
decades ofworkon training
and educaual. After
and behavioraldomotivational,
metacognitive,
workassignments,
scholars
tionforinternational
mains.Second,theyfailto considerthenatureof
ofthis
successand mastery
thetargetcultureand theworkto be performed have notexperienced
and nature.Third, challenge.Perhapswitha newapproachfocusing
in termsofintensity,
duration,
humancapabilityforadjustment
theydo notprovideadequatelyforgeneralization on fundamental
orformulticultural
acrossculturalsettings
greaterprogresswillnotbe so elusive.
experi- toothers,
ences.
and develOuradvocatedapproachto training
for REFERENCES
new
direction
a
CQ
represents
opmentusing
Adler,N. J. 1997.Internationaldimensionsof organizational
and practice.Atthispreliminary
stage,a
theory
behavior(3rded.). Cincinnati,OH: SouthWestern.
School
Business
at
the
of
scholars
Nanyang
group
S. 1992.ManaginggloballycompeAdler,N. J.,& Bartholomew,
(CulturalIntelligence
WorkingGroup)in Singatentpeople. AcademyofManagementExecutive.6: 52-65.
and
States
in
the
United
with
colleagues
pore
attitudesand preAjzen,I., & Fishbein,M. 1980.Understanding
an assessmenttoolforCQ
Englandaredeveloping
social behavior.NJ:Prentice-Hall.
dicting
method.
a
findings
Early
using paper-and-pencil
Bandura,A. 1986.Social foundationsof thoughtsand action:A
suggestthata reliableand valid scale can be
social cognitivetheory.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
for
tool
this
we
are
and
assessing
using
developed,
The exercise of control.New
as theyenter Bandura,A. 1997.Self-efficacy:
at severaluniversities
MBAstudents
York:W. H. Freeman.
we hope to expand
the program.Subsequently,
T. L. 1999.The unbearableautomatictocapturethefacetsofCQ
Bargh,J.A.,& Chartrand,
thisassessmentmethod
54: 462-479.
ofbeing.AmericanPsychologist.
ity
and
work
simulations,
360-degree
samples,
using
Bhawuk,D. P. 1998.The role ofculturetheoryin cross-cultural
feedback.
studyof culturespecific,culture
training.A multimethod
thereis a pracintervention
Aswithanytraining
assimilators.Journalof
and culturetheory-based
general,
tical concernabout the cost of assessmentand
29: 630-655.
Cross-Cultural
Psychology.
WillourapproachusingCQ proveto
intervention.
Evolutionof cultureassimilators:Toward
and practical?We have imple- Bhawuk,D. P. 2001.
be cost effective
oflnterculassimilators.International
Journal
theory-based
ofourCQ idea
menteda small-scaleintroduction
turalRelations.25: 141-163.
in the enteringMBAclass at LondonBusiness Bhawuk,D. P., & Brislin,R. W. 1992.The measurementofinterSchool.The firstfull-scaleapplicationofourapculturalsensitivity
usingtheconceptsofindividualismand
at the Nanyang
collectivism.InternationalJournalof InterculturalRelaproachhas been implemented
tions.16:413-446.
BusinessSchool(Ang& Tan,personalcommunicanonin
28,
2003)
tions,Singapore,
training
Bochner,S. 1982.Culturesin contact:Studiesin cross-cultural
August
New York:Pergamon.
interaction.
MBA
the
students
pronewlyentering
Singaporean
new
60
of
a
With
Brislin,R. W., Landis,D.( & Brandt,M. E. 1983.Conceptualizasample approximately
gram.
behaviorand training.In D. D. Landis
tionsofintercultural
of
their
results
the
(includstudents,
3-dayprogram

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

114

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education
& R. W. Brislin(Eds.),Handbookof intercultural
training,
(Vol. 1: 1-35).New York:Pergamon.

March

Hofstede,G. 1991.Cultureand organizations:Softwareof the

mind.London:McGrawHill.

communication
Brislin,R. W.,& Yoshida,T. 1994.Intercultural
An introduction.
ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
training:
effects:On theneed to
Brockner,
J.In press.Unpackingcountry
operationalizethe psychologicaldeterminantsof crossnationaldifferences.
In B. M. Staw, & R. M. Kramer(Eds.),
Researchin organizationalbehavior.Greenwich,CT: JAI
Press.

Theoeffectiveness:
Kealey,D. J.1989.A studyofcross-cultural
reticalissues, practicalapplications.International
Journal
ofIntercultural
Relations,13:387-428.

Cantor,N.,& Kihlstrom,
J.F. 1985.Social intelligence:The cognitivebasis of personality,
Reviewof Personalityand Social Psychology,
6: 15-33.
T. L, & Bargh,J.A. 1999.The chameleoneffect:The
Chartrand,
linkand social interaction.
Journalof
perception-behavior
and Social Psychology,
76: 893-910.
Personality

Kolb,D. A.,Boyatzis,R. E., & Mainemelis,C. 2001.Experiential

learning theory:Previous research and new directions.
In R. J. Sternberg,& L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectiveson
thinking,learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

sensitizer.In D.
Cushner,K.,& Landis,D. 1996.The intercultural
Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
training(2nded., 185-201).ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
communication
Dodd,C. H. 1998.Dynamicsofintercultural
(5th
ed.). Boston:McGrawHill.
Dowling,P. J.,Welch,D. E., & Schuler,R. S. 1999.International
human resource management. Managing people in a
multinationalcontext(3rd ed.). Cincinnati,OH: Southwestern.
Earley, P. C. 2003. Redefininginteractionsacross cultures
and organizations: Moving forwardwith cultural intelligence.Researchin OrganizationalBehavior,24: 271299.
Earley,P. C, & Ang,S. 2003.Culturalintelligence:Ananalysisof
individualinteractions
acrosscultures.Palo Alto,CA: StanfordUniversity
Press.
Earley,P. C, & Gibson,C. B. 2002.Multinationalworkteams:A
new perspective.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
T. R. 1991.Delineatinggoal and efficacy
Earley,P. C, & Lituchy,
effects:A testofthreemodels.JournalofAppliedPsychology,76: 81-98.
Earley,P. C, & Mosakowski,E. 2000. Creating hybridteam
cultures:An empiricaltestof international
team function43: 26-49.
ing.AcademyofManagementJournal,
and work.
Erez,M., & Earley,P. C. 1993.Culture,self-identity,
New York:Oxford.
A
Flavell,J.H. 1979.Metacognitionand cognitivemonitoring:
new area of cognitiveinquiry.AmericanPsychologist34:
906-911.
Flavell,J.H. 1987.Speculationsabout the natureand developmentofmetacognition.
In F. E. Weinert,
& R.H. Kluwe(Eds.),
Metacognition,motivation,and understanding:21-29.
Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Gardner,H. 1983.Framesofmind:The theoryofmultipleintelligences.New York:Basic.
Gardner,H. 1993.Multipleintelligences:The theoryin practice.
New York:Basic Books.
E. 1967.Interactionritual:Essays in iace-to-facebeGoffman,
havior.Chicago: Aldine.
Hall,E. T.,& Hall,M.R. 1990.Understanding
culturaldifferences.
ME: Intercultural.
Yarmouth,
Harris,P. R.,& Moran,R. T. 1991.Managingculturaldifferences
(3rded.). Houston,TX:Gulf.

on Thaiculture.Bangkok,ThaiKlausner,W. J.1993.Reflections
land: The Siam Society.
F. L. 1961.Variationsin value oriKluckhohn,
F., & Strodtbeck,
entations.New York:Harperand Row.

Komin,S. 1991.Psychologyof the Thai people. Bangkok,Thailand: NationalInstituteofDevelopmentAdministration.

Lee, C. H.,& Templer,K. J.2003.CQ assessmentand measurement.In P. C. Earley& S. Ang(Eds.),Culturalintelligence:
acrosscultures:185An analysis ofindividualinteractions
Press.
208.Stanford,
CA: StanfordUniversity
Locke,E. A.,& Latham,G. P. 1990.A theoryofgoal settingand
taskperformance.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Loewenstein,J.,Thompson,L., & Gentner,D. 2003.Analogical
learningin negotiationteams:Comparingcases promotes
AcademyofManagementLearning&
learningand transfer.
Education,2(2):119-127.
PerforMaznevski,M. L. 1994.Understandingour differences:
mance in decision-making
groupswithdiversemembers.
HumanRelations,47: 531-552.
Mead, G. H. 1934.Mind,selfand society.Chicago,IL: University
ofChicago Press.
Mendenhall,M.,Dunbar,E.,& Oddou,G. 1987.ExpatriateselecA reviewand critique.
tion,training,and career-pathing:
HumanResourceManagement,26: 331-345.
Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. 1951.Towarda general theoryof
Press.
action.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
K.J.In press.Thedynamicrelationship
Peterson,R. S., & Behfar,
between performancefeedback, trust,and conflictin
groups:A longitudinalstudy.OrganizationalBehaviorand
HumanDecisionProcesses.
Redden,W. 1975.Cultureshock inventory.Fredericton,Canada: Organizational Texts Ltd. (Cited fromKealey &
Ruben 1983.)
Rokeach,M. 1973.Thenatureofhumanvalues. New York:Free
Press.
Salovey,P., & Mayer,J.D. 1990.Emotionalintelligence.Imagi9: 185-211.
nation,Cognition,and Personality,
Schneider,S. C, & Barsoux,J.L. 1997.Managingacrosscultures.
London:Prentice-Hall.
Schwartz,S. H. 1994.Arethereuniversalaspects in thestructure
and contentsofhumanvalues? JournalofSocial Issues,50:
19-45.
Shirts,R. G. 1973.BaFa BaFa. Del Mar,CA: SimulationTraining
Systems.
Simons,T. L., & Peterson,R. S. 2000.Task conflictand relationshipconflictin top managementteams: The pivotal
role of intragrouptrust.Journalof Applied Psychology,
85: 102-111.

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2004

Earleyand Peterson

Snow,C. C, Snell, S. A., Canney-Davison,S. C, & Hambrick,

D. C. 1996.Use transnationalteams to globalize yourcompany.OrganizationalDynamics,32: 20-32.
of ExpressiveBehavior.
Snyder,M. 1974.The Self-Monitoring
30:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
526-537.
Spreitzer,G. M.fMcCall, M. W., & Mahoney,J.D. 1997.Early
identification
of internationalexecutivepotential.Journal
ofAppliedPsychology,
82: 6-29.
R. J.1985.Beyond1Q: A triarchictheoryof human
Sternberg,
Press.
intelligence.New York:CambridgeUniversity
Tan, J. S., & Chua, R. Y. J. 2003. Training and developing
cultural intelligence. In P. C. Earley, & S. Ang (Eds.),
Culturalintelligence:An analysis of individual interactions across cultures: 258-303. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
UniversityPress.
Triandis,H. C. 1972.The analysis of subjectiveculture.New
York:Wiley.

115

Triandis,H. C. 1975.Culturaltraining,cognitivecomplexity,
attitudes.In R. W. Brislin,S. Bochner,&
and interpersonal
W. J.Lonner(Eds.),Crossculturalperspectiveson learning:
39-78.BeverlyHills,CA: Sage.
Triandis,H. C. 1995.Individualismand collectivism.Boulder,
CO: WestviewPress.
Triandis,H. C, & Berry,J.W. 1980.Handbookofcross-cultural
psychology(Vol.2). New York:Allyn& Bacon.
C. 1998.Ridingthewaves
F.,& Hampden-Tumer,
Trompenaars,
in global business(2nd
ofculture:Understanding
diversity
ed.). Chicago,IL: Irwin.
ofpersonnelforoverseas
Tung,R. L. 1981.Selectionand training
ofWorldBusiness,16:68-78.
ColumbiaJournal
assignments.
C. 1999.Mutual
G. M.,Hubbell,A. P.,& Zuckerman,
Wittenbaum,
enhancement:Towardan understandingof the collective
Journalof Personality
preferenceforshared information.
77: 967-978.
and Social Psychology,
Wood, R. E., & Bandura,A. 1989.Social cognitivetheoryof
organizationalmanagement.AcademyofManagementReview, 14:361-384.

P. ChristopherEarley is chair
and professoroforganizational
behavior at the London Business School. He received his
PhD in industrialand organizational psychology from the
Universityof Illinois, UrbanaChampaign.His researchinterand
ests include cross-cultural
international
aspects oforganizational behavior.RecentpublicationsincludeCulturalIntelligence:IndividualInteractions
AcrossCultures(withSoon Ang)
and Face, Harmony,
and Social
Structure:An Analysis of Behaviorin Organizations.

This content downloaded from 59.165.151.3 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:21:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Randall S. Petersonis associate

professorof organizationalbehavior at London Business
researchacSchool.His current
tivities include investigating
ofmembersafhowpersonality
and perfectsgroupinteraction
howCEO personality
formance,
affectstop managementteam
interaction and firmperformance,and the effectsof conflictin groups.ProfessorPeterson holds a PhD in social and
from
organizationalpsychology
the Universityof California,
Berkeley.