Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence

Abstract

Cultural intelligence (CQ), the capability by which expatriates, managers, and others involved in cross-cultural interactions function effectively in a globalized world, was introduced in 2003 and has garnered wide attention recently. In this paper, we present a detailed and up-to-date review of 142 empirical articles in the CQ research field. We first examine the concept of CQ, including its definition, structure, measurement, and validity. We then review the vast number of empirical studies that investigate the antecedents, development, direct and indirect effects, moderating effects, and aggregated effects of CQ, as well as qualitative studies. The analysis shows several issues that likely will be relevant to the research debate in the near future. These issues include investigations of (1) whether cultural intelligence is universal or culture-specific, (2) why objective measures that assess CQ are lacking, (3) to what extent a person can develop cultural intelligence, (4) to what extent there are dark sides to cultural intelligence, and (5) the role cultural intelligence plays as a predictor of individual and group performance. Addressing these questions may help us reveal the true potential of CQ in contemporary organizations and thus, affirm that the promise of CQ is more than just hype.

Study on the Intercultural Ability Training Strategies of Translation Majors under the Internet + Concept

“…In addition to the part shown in Figure 2 above, you should pay attention to the source when learning phrases. For example, many phrases in English come from the Bible, with a strong religious culture [4] .…”

From Oppression to Violence: The Role of Oppression, Radicalism, Identity, and Cultural Intelligence in Violent Disinhibition

“…This construct represents the capacity to effectively adapt to contexts with a strong cultural component, and it could be considered a protective factor against radicalization and violent extremism (Fang et al, 2018; Trujillo and Moyano, 2018). Although it is a territory that still needs to be explored, Moyano et al (2015) found that cultural intelligence showed a negative relationship with constructs such as the meaning of life and the need for cognitive closure, which, in turn, have been proposed as factors influencing violent extremism (Klein and Kruglanski, 2013; Kruglanski et al, 2015; Trujillo et al, 2016).…”

Cultural intelligence, global mindset, and cross-cultural competencies: a systematic review using bibliometric methods

“…Empirical research shows that it reliably predicts outcomes such as global leadership (e.g., Sutton et al, 2013), negotiation performance (e.g., Imai and Gelfand, 2010), expatriation intention (e.g., Richter et al, 2019) (forthcoming), and job performance (e.g., Ang et al, 2007). Furthermore, a number of journals have published special issues on CQ (e.g., Chiu et al, 2013), and there are already several review articles on the concept (e.g., Ott and Michailova, 2018;Fang et al, 2018).…”

“…Review studies address the definition of CQ in contrast to the more traditional international business terminology (e.g., Andresen and Bergdolt, 2017;Levy et al, 2007;Johnson et al, 2006). Moreover, the authors have reviewed the literature with a focus on structuring (empirical) studies based on CQ (Fang et al, 2018;Ott and Michailova, 2018). Ott and Michailova (2018) presented an overview of studies that refer to the concept as an antecedent, moderator, or mediator in relation to different outcomes, such as leadership, performance, and effectiveness.…”

“…Their review refers to 73 conceptual and empirical publications published from 2002 to 2015 in management, international business, education, and psychology journals that fulfil certain rankings (appearance on the ABS list, rank C or above in the ABDC ranking) (Ott and Michailova, 2018). Fang et al (2018) reviewed empirical research (142 publications) on CQ, building on a keyword search in the Web of Science (WoS) database (keyword: CQ in the topic or title, excluding, among others, articles in anthropology, biology, and medicine). Fang et al (2018) also discuss different measurement scales and offer an overview of antecedents, including articles that focus on means to develop CQ, direct and indirect effects of CQ on various outcomes in quantitative studies, and qualitative research into CQ.…”