Cultures as Learning Laboratories: What Makes Some More Effective Than Others?

Cultural Intelligence: A Review and New Research Avenues

“…() and Mosakowski et al . () are exceptions – they collected and analyzed qualitative data to assess CQ development. In addition, a few researchers use modified versions of the CQS (MacNab ; MacNab and Worthley ; MacNab et al .…”

Role and impact of the environment on entrepreneurial learning

“…Here, the environment is essentially dealt with on two levels. Dodd and Hynes (2012), Mosakowski, Calic, and Christopher Earley (2013), Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) and Lévesque, Minniti, and Shepherd (2009) look at the environment at the macro level of the ecosystem, the region and culture. More specifically, Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) show to what point an incentive-based regional policy (notably via business start-up competitions and a policy of subsidies for entrepreneurs) encourages learning through the development of interaction and mutual aid networks between entrepreneurs and through more general access to existing resources (mentoring, finance), and thus improves survival rates for new businesses.…”

“…Lévesque, Minniti, and Shepherd (2009) show that the greater the amount of information to be learned, the more effective learning by other means becomes (participative learning), and less the environment is hostile. Finally, Mosakowski, Calic, and Christopher Earley (2013) question the relationship between the specificity of the cultural context and the effectiveness of learning about the entrepreneurial process and thus offer four characteristics that facilitate intercultural learning.…”

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

“…Experiential learning (style) and CQ (Li et al, 2013) Cultural learning in different cultural contexts with a focus on GM and CQ (Mosakowski et al, 2013) See also: Rosenblatt et al, 2013;Ng et al, 2009;Mor et al, 2013;Earley and Ang, 2003 Individuallevel outcome (7) CQ (6) CC (1) Examine the relationship between motivational CQ and cultural adjustment (Templer et al, 2006) Examine the relationship between personality and competencies (such as cultural flexibility, ethnocentrism) on expatriate effectiveness (Shaffer et al, 2006) Examine the relationship between CQ (and expatriate experiences) and cultural adjustment, effectiveness and performance (Lee and Sukoco, 2010) Examine the moderating role of CQ in the relationship between expatriate supporting practices, cultural adjustment and performance (Wu and Ang, 2011) Examine the relationship between motivational CQ and interactions (cultural sales) between people of different origins (Chen et al, 2012; see org-level outcomes) * Examine the relationship between CQ and expatriate adjustment (Malek and Budhwar, 2013) Examine the relationship between CQ and communication effectiveness and job satisfaction (Bücker et al, 2014) See also: Ang et al, 2007;MacNab et al, 2012 Group-level Outcome (4) CQ (4) Examine the relationship between CQ and negotiation sequences and outcomes (Imai and Gelfand, 2010) Examine the relationship between leader CQ and team performance outcomes (Groves and Feyerherm, 2011) Examine the relationship between cultural metacognition, trust and creative collaboration (Chua et al, 2012) Examine the relationship between metacognitive CQ, cultural perspective taking and intercultural collaboration, with a focus on deriving recommendations for training (Mor et al, 2013; see learning) * See also : Janssens and Brett, 2006 Org-level outcome (2) CQ (2) Examine the moderating role of CQ in the relationship between leadership and innovation in organisations / units (Elenkov and Manev, 2009) ...…”