literature review文献综述:Organizational Cultural Intelligence a(4)

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, Crowne’s (2008) study produced some opinions about the impact of cultural exposure on CQ. The results of the survey indicated that certain types of exposure to other cultures (such as foreign education and foreign employment) and the extent of exposure to these experiences can enhance cultural intelligence. These findings are critical for multinational companies because managers need to hire, promote, and train employees in a cross-cultural environment. Cultural intelligence has become a key skill for global business leaders, and as in the future, there will be more employees with different cultural backgrounds working together, CQ seems to be becoming more and more important for leaders.

1.3.4 Outcome of organizational culture intelligence

Outcome of organizational culture intelligence is mainly concerned with the influence of cultural intelligence on personal psychology, cognition and other factors. It also involves the influences of organizational culture intelligence on organize information communication and sharing, organizational behavior, organizational decision-making, organizational innovation, and organizational cross-cultural management, and so on.

Outcome of organizational culture IQ are mainly concerned with the influence of cultural IQ on personal psychology, cognition and other factors. It also involves organizational culture IQ to organize information communication and sharing, organizational behavior, organizational decision-making, organizational innovation, and organizational cross-cultural management. And so on.

Chua and Morns (2009) proposed that the cultural intelligence of executives indirectly affects the frequency of idea sharing in intercultural relationships by increasing emotional trust, but it has no influence on the idea sharing behavior in intercultural relationships. Chen and Lin (2013) evaluated the effect of cultural intelligence on team knowledge sharing from the perspective of social cognition, and found that knowledge sharing was directly influenced by metacognitive, cognitive and motivational cultural intelligence. At the same time, it was also indirectly influenced by metacognitive and behavioral cultural intelligence under the intermediary of team perception efficiency. Other more direct behavioral outcomes of cultural intelligence include cross-cultural negotiation and conflict resolution. Imai and Gelfand (2010) found that negotiators with high cultural intelligence were able to integrate more information and establish friendly cooperative relations in cross-cultural negotiations, which in turn had a positive impact on the common interests of both parties. Ramirez(2010) proposed that cultural intelligence can effectively predict the strategies and ability of individuals to resolve conflicts.

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.

Crowne (2008) studied the influence of cultural intelligence on the negotiating parties in cross-border negotiations. Negotiators with higher cultural intelligence show more information integration behavior and cooperative relationship management behavior, concept sharing behavior, and high cultural intelligence negotiators can better convince the opponent to accept their own point of view and ultimately lead to the successful conclusion of the negotiation.

Elenkov and Manev (2009) examined whether forward-looking transformational leadership of senior foreign managers could influence the rate of innovation adoption of the organizations or units they led and explored the role that cultural intelligence played in it. Elenkov and Manev (2009) studied 153 senior foreign managers and 695 subordinates from all 27 countries in the European Union and found that visionary transformational leadership of high-level expatriates had a direct impact on the rate of innovation adoption. Cultural intelligence regulated the impact of advanced foreign leaders on organizational innovation. The study showed that foreign managers with high cultural intelligence have a good understanding of local culture, have higher cross-cultural leadership, and they were often better able to lead cross-cultural organizations to innovate and change. 

Frías-Jamilena et al. (2018) are scholars from Department of Marketing and Market Research at the University of Granada, they pointed out that achieving destination attraction and competitiveness is a major priority for tourism destination managers. They must implement new strategies that are different from their competitors’, but the success of these strategies depends on whether visitors can like and understand the local culture, and whether the services and products offered by travel companies can meet the needs of tourists. In this context, they found that cultural intelligence is very important for tourism. They conducted a questionnaire survey on 503 British tourists visiting Spain. The survey found that the passengers’ previous travel experience would affect the cultural intelligence of the tourists, and the cultural intelligence of the tourists would affect their understanding and love of the local culture; their travel experience in turn affected the satisfaction of visitors. He further proposed that cultural intelligence has great application value for tourism, because tourism workers with high cultural intelligence can more accurately predict the behavior of tourists, can better communicate with tourists to provide quality services, and thus improve tourists’ satisfaction.

Caputo, Ayoko and Amoo (2018) studied the positive role of cultural intelligence in cross-cultural management from the perspective of resolving cultural conflicts. He conducted a questionnaire survey on 403 employees and found that managers and employees with high cultural intelligence helped to avoid escaping problems from intercultural communication., forcing others to accept their own views, and using radical ways to solve problems and other problems, and thus played a role in regulating the interpersonal relationship between the parties in the process of intercultural communication, avoiding the occurrence of cultural conflicts, and ultimately improving the organization’s overall performance and satisfaction. The study provided new empirical evidence for the important role of cultural intelligence in managing conflicts, suggesting that cross-cultural organizations can use cultural intelligence to improve work efficiency and performance.

Young, Haffejee, Corsun (2017) analyzed that with the increase of refugees and immigrants in various countries, ethnocentrism seemed to be rising in various countries, which brought challenges to cross-cultural management and also provided opportunities for the application of cultural intelligence in cross-cultural management. They designed an experiment in which whites, wealthy, and college students guided refugees with different backgrounds to resettle in the United States, and used multiple regression analysis methods to investigate the data and analyze the relationship between cultural intelligence and ethnocentrism. The results showed that the improvement of cultural intelligence has a positive effect on relieving cultural conflicts and reducing the inappropriate speech and behavior of ethnocentrists. Their results indicated that cultural intelligence has a positive effect on mitigating conflicts between cultures. In addition, it should be noted that the intensity of cultural conflicts in refugee management is usually higher than that in a commercial field, so although the research is aimed at the field of sociology, the results should be equally adapted to the research in a commercial field.

1.4 Market-based CQ 

1.4.1 Definition of market-based CQ 

Driel and Gabrenya (2013) defined market-based CQ as an organization’s capacity of functioning and managing in an effective manner across different markets based on its knowledge, as well as implementing actions on the basis of market specificities. Referring to Driel and Gabrenya’s (2013) literatures, Franco (2016) summarized market-based CQ as two components, namely, cross-cultural knowledge and cross-cultural actions. Cross-cultural knowledge is defined as an antecedent / a resource of cross-cultural actions. 

Cross-cultural actions are defined as marketing dynamic capabilities which change a company’s resource of creating and delivering superior customer value to deal with market changes” (Fang and Zou, 2009).  

According to relevant researches, Franco (2016) divided cross-cultural knowledge into three parts. First part is general knowledge. General knowledge refers to knowledge and awareness of cultural differences (Hofstede, 2001). It is important because it is the base used to get knowledge of other types to prepare for learning, culture-general approaches are used for preparing for learning of how to learn, provide broader experience, as well as ease the movement of culturing specific knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Second part is specific knowledge, specific knowledge includes: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, as well as attributional knowledge (Bird et al., 1993). Factual knowledge refers to clarifies aspects of a country’s politics, economy, history, institutions, as well as social conditions. Conceptual knowledge is to understand how particular country views and values central concerns: individual rights, appropriate forms of group membership, behavior, as well as its associated obligations, and obligations to a state. Attributional knowledge refers to an increased awareness of contextually appropriate behavior (Bird et al., 1993). Culture, language, society, economy and politics are reflected in knowledge (Inkpen and Beamish, 1997). Third part is market knowledge, the last subcomponent add compared to the literatures is market knowledge. Market knowledge refers to knowledge relates to market information on competitors, suppliers, customers, distributors and so on, as well as internal knowledge, such as management (Kohlbacher, 2007).