With data from 33 nations, we illustrate the differences between cultures that are tight (have many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior) versus loose (have weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behavior). Tightness-looseness is part of a complex, loosely integrated multilevel system that comprises distal ecological and historical threats (e.g., high population density, resource scarcity, a history of territorial conflict, and disease and environmental threats), broad versus narrow socialization in societal institutions (e.g., autocracy, media regulations), the strength of everyday recurring situations, and micro-level psychological affordances (e.g., prevention self-guides, high regulatory strength, need for structure). This research advances knowledge that can foster cross-cultural understanding in a world of increasing global interdependence and has implications for modeling cultural change.

We enhance the theoretical precision of cultural intelligence (CQ: capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings) by developing and testing a model that posits differential relationships between the four CQ dimensions (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural) and three intercultural effectiveness outcomes (cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance in culturally diverse settings). Before testing the model, we describe development and cross‐validation (N = 1,360) of the multidimensional cultural intelligence scale (CQS) across samples, time and country. We then describe three substantive studies (N = 794) in field and educational development settings across two national contexts, the USA and Singapore. The results demonstrate a consistent pattern of relationships where metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ predicted cultural judgment and decision making; motivational CQ and behavioural CQ predicted cultural adaptation; and metacognitive CQ and behavioural CQ predicted task performance. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our model and findings.

 Employees often have ideas, information, and opinions for constructive ways to improve work and work organizations. Sometimes these employees exercise voice and express their ideas, information, and opinions; and other times they engage in silence and withhold their ideas, information, and opinions. On the surface, expressing and withholding behaviours might appear to be polar opposites because silence implies not speaking while voice implies speaking up on important issues and problems in organizations. Challenging this simplistic notion, this paper presents a conceptual framework suggesting that employee silence and voice are best conceptualized as separate, multidimensional constructs. Based on employee motives, we differentiate three types of silence (Acquiescent Silence, Defensive Silence, and ProSocial Silence) and three parallel types of voice (Acquiescent Voice, Defensive Voice, and ProSocial Voice) where withholding important information is not simply the absence of voice. Building on this conceptual framework, we further propose that silence and voice have differential consequences to employees in work organizations. Based on fundamental differences in the overt behavioural cues provided by silence and voice, we present a series of propositions predicting that silence is more ambiguous than voice, observers are more likely to misattribute employee motives for silence than for voice, and misattributions for motives behind silence will lead to more incongruent consequences (both positive and negative) for employees (than for voice). We conclude by discussing implications for future research and for managers.

We examine relationships between Big Five personality and the four-factor model of cultural intelligence (CQ)—metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Hierarchical regression analyses conducted on data from 338 business undergraduates—after controlling for age, gender, and years of experience in interacting with people from other cultures—show significant links between (a) conscientiousness and metacognitive CQ; (b) agreeableness and emotional stability with behavioral CQ; (c) extra version with cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ; and (d) openness with all four factors of CQ. The intriguing finding of this study is that openness was the only Big Five that was significantly related to all four aspects of CQ. This differs from prior research on openness that found few significant relationships. Our results show that openness to experience is a crucial personality characteristic that is related to a person’s capability to function effectively in diverse cultural settings (CQ).

Although international assignments are recognized as important mechanisms for developing global leaders in organizations, existing research has focused primarily on leaders' performance during international assignments, rather than on the developmental outcomes gained from such assignments. We integrate research on experiential learning and cultural intelligence to propose a process model that focuses on how leaders translate their international work assignment experiences into learning outcomes critical for global leadership development. Our model positions cultural intelligence as a moderator that enhances the likelihood that individuals on international assignments will actively engage in the four stages of experiential learning (experience, reflect, conceptualize, experiment), which in turn leads to global leadership self-efficacy, ethnorelative attitudes toward other cultures, accurate mental models of leadership across cultures, and flexibility of leadership styles. Our model has major implications for the selection and training of individuals, as well as organizational practices related to international job assignments from a developmental perspective.