非诚勿扰王影,北斗手机好吗,中国盐场
|
1.2.2 Measurement of cultural intelligence
Ang and Earley (2003) believe that there are two ways to measure cultural intelligence: psychological measurement and non-psychological measurement.
(1) The psychological measurement method is generally implemented in the form of questionnaire. Earley and Mosakowski proposed the diagnostic method of individual cultural intelligence, and developed a diagnostic scale based on the three components of cultural intelligence, including 12 questions, each of which has 4 questions. But this classification determined by Earley and Mosakowski is more of a qualitative, empirical hypothesis without systematic analysis.
After perfecting the theoretical basis of the three-dimensional cultural intelligence proposed by them, Ang et al. (2007) proposed the four-dimensional cultural intelligence scale. This is the four-dimensional measuring tool used so far to use the most extensive cultural intelligence. The scale consists of 20 questions, which measure the four dimensions of metacognition, cognition, motivational and behavioral cultural intelligence, including 4 topics of metacognitive dimension; 6 topics of cognitive dimension; 5 topics of motivational dimension and 5 topics in behavioral dimensions. The questionnaire was scored by using the Likert scale of 7 levels. Participants reported themselves according to their actual situation.
(2) Non-psychological measurement methods include Assessment center and Clinical Assessment. The use of assessment centers to measure cultural intelligence can make use of a variety of assessment techniques, and put the interviewees into a series of simulated intercultural work situations, so that they can perform certain specified activities, so as to observe whether the interviewees are qualified for a task to be commissioned, and predict their abilities or potential. The successful measurement of cultural intelligence using clinical assessment requires not only comprehensive and reliable information, but also professional knowledge and psychological quality of the assessment experts. Therefore, due to the high complexity and technicality in the implementation of non-psychological measurement, and the high requirements for the evaluation experts, the current measurement of cultural intelligence is mainly in the form of questionnaire.
Table 1 The cultural intelligence scale (CQS)
1.2.3 Pre-variable of cultural intelligence
1.2.3.1 Personality
When Ang et al. (2006) studied the relationship between personality traits and cultural intelligence in the first time, they found that cultural intelligence is significantly different from the five personality traits, but closely related. The research shows that cultural intelligence is affected by conscientious, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion and other personality traits.
MacNab and Worthley (2012) mainly discussed the relationship between personal traits including personal attributes and experience, cultural wisdom, so that they could find factors of influencing development of cultural intelligence and suitable ways to improve cultural intelligence. MacNab and Worthley’s (2012) research examined a multicultural team of more than 370 executives and management students, MacNab and Worthley (2012) tested personal traits (ie general self-efficacy, international travel experience, management and work experience) and cultural intelligence development (meta-cognition, motivation and behavioral aspects), so as to summarize the empirical methods of cultural intelligence education. The results show that general self-efficacy is closely related to the successful development of predicting cultural intellectual ability, while international travel experience, management and work experience are relatively low in relation to cultural intelligence development, indicating that improving general self-efficacy of employees may be one of the most effective ways to improve employees’ cultural intelligence.
Traditional research suggests that open personality traits can affect an individual's cultural intelligence, which is an ability to effectively deal with people from different cultural backgrounds. Researchers such as Li, Mobley and Kelly (2016) challenged this view. Their research examined whether the relationship between the two depended on an individual's degree of agreeableness, which was an important personality trait for establishing interpersonal relationships. The data collected by Li, Mobley and Kelly (2016) from 244 international professionals showed that when agreeableness was high, open personality traits were positively related to three aspects of cultural intelligence, but when agreeableness was low, there was no significant correlation between open personality traits and the three aspects of cultural intelligence. The survey results showed that the influence of personality on cultural intelligence depended on interactive method. The assessment, selection and development of international talents should comprehensively examine individual traits, cultural intelligence and interaction methods, etc., rather than examining a single aspect.
Bernardo and Presbitero (2018) discussed the factors that influenced cultural intelligence. They suggested that cognitive flexibility was a research hypothesis that might be closely related to cultural intelligence. Through a questionnaire survey on 694 respondents, the survey results confirmed that the increase in cultural intelligence of respondents was closely related to cognitive flexibility, which was reflected in that respondents were willing to consider issues in many aspects and were willing to adopt a variety of methods to solve a problem, and they also pointed out that this cognitive flexibility was influenced by personal preferences and tendencies. The results of this study provided some new perspectives on how companies could cultivate their employees' cultural intelligence.
1.2.3.2 Experience
Moody (2007) found that the most significant predictor of CQ was openness to experience, followed by awareness of responsibility. Different from general intelligence, cultural intelligence can be improved through training, so cross-cultural communication experience and training will also affect cultural intelligence. According to the situational learning theory, Fischer (2011) argue that international exchange experience can provide individuals with social background and actual activities to learn how to manage cross-cultural differences, so individuals, who have more international exchange experience, can obtain higher cultural intelligence, and these times that communicate with people of other cultures may also affect the development of cultural intelligence.
Considering the exposure of emotional intelligence and cultural intelligence, Crowne (2013) found that compared with the cultural less exposure, more cultural exposure individuals have higher levels of cultural intelligence, at the same time as his cultural exposure (been to the number of countries) and the width of the depth of visits (a country), with their profound cultural intelligence are also rising. This finding provides a new perspective for the research on the predictive source of cultural intelligence and a reference for the study on the localization of cultural intelligence.
1.2.3.3 Education
Putranto, Gustomo and Ghazali (2015) commented that it was one of the responsibilities of business schools to enable students to face the impact of globalization and multiculturalism when entering the business world, an effective way was to improve their cultural intelligence (CQ), so that they could effectively adapt and work in a multicultural environment. They developed a teaching plan to test how to improve students' CQ. The study was done by measuring the CQ of students who took the intercultural management course at the beginning and end of the course. In this course, students receive four teaching methods to improve their CQ (lecturing, reading literature, sharing session, and field trip). Among these four teaching methods, field trip was the most effective way to learn and understand different cultures, and the lecturing played the worst role. They finally put forward suggestions on how to improve and integrate these four methods into teaching to improve students' CQ.
Nguyen, Jefferies and Rojas’ (2018) investigated the impact of studying abroad on students' cross-cultural adaptability. Through a survey of 79 people and an interview with 15 people, They found that from a vertical comparison, for students who have never traveled abroad, their cultural intelligence was significantly higher than before going abroad. Judging from a horizontal comparison, people with a background of studying abroad have higher cultural intelligence than those who did not have the same experience. It showed that studying abroad could promote the improvement of students' cultural intelligence. Its research shows that cultural intelligence can be cultivated and improved in a short time.
1.2.4 Outcome of cultural intelligence
An important outcome in the study of cultural intelligence is cultural judgment and decision making, which refers to "gathering information and making decisions when communicating between different cultures, involving the quality of decisions". Ang et al. (2007) found that the dimensions of metacognitive and cognitive CQ can significantly affect cultural judgment and decision making when studying the impact of CQ on decision making, acculturation and task performance. Another cognitive result of cultural intelligence is the perception of uncertainty about the transnational environment. Prado (2006) found that cognitive and metacognitive cultural intelligence had significant positive effects on manager's perception of uncertainty in the transnational environment, and could effectively help managers evaluate the risk of transnational tasks. |
