If only cultural chameleons could fly too

Abstract

The article offers a critique of the concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) from a semiotic perspective. It addresses three assumptions that underpin the CQ concept: that CQ exists, that conflict and misunderstandings are antithetical to CQ and that metacognition involves a cultural dimension. The analysis focuses in particular on the dimension of cultural metacognition which has recently been claimed to be the CQ concept's main contribution compared to earlier concepts such as cross-cultural or intercultural competence, a claim which is found to be overstated. The article uses the example of CQ training to illustrate the need for greater attention to context and motivation when CQ is deployed for business purposes, as well as to the role of experience in cultural learning processes. At a broader level, the article urges caution in assuming that all human attributes can be trained for business purposes, especially through short-term interventions.

The influence of psychological factors for leader’s efficiency in global IT companies

“…A leader's verbal fluency, confidence, and independence have links to successful leadership. The components that were determined from the literature review and assessed as an IT global leader's core traits are awareness, extraversion (Magnusson et al, 2013), openness to experience, (Blasco, Feldt, & Jakobsen, 2012;Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013;Magnusson et al, 2013), anxiety level (Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013), emotional resilience, critical analysis, vision and imagination, intuitiveness, interpersonal sensitivity (Galvin et al, 2014), empathy (Post, 2015), independence (Zander et al, 2012), and conscientiousness (Kim & McLean, 2015) (Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013;Galvin et al, 2014). Their development is significant for a leader's effectiveness.…”

“…Subjective well-being (Eisenberg et al, 2013), attitudes, and job satisfaction remain essential elements for the global leader (Eom, 2015). Moreover, effective global leadership requires a global mindset (Blasco et al, 2012;Javidan, Bullough, & Dibble, 2016;Kim & McLean, 2015) and cosmopolitan view (Blasco et al, 2012). Other frequently mentioned self-concepts are self-awareness (Galvin et al, 2014), self-efficacy (Javidan et al, 2016;Quisenberry & Burrell, 2012), level of self-monitoring (Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013), self-leadership, and self-confidence (Eisenberg et al, 2013;Zander et al, 2012;Segawa, 2015).…”

“…Intercultural competency knowledge and skills are the most frequently assessed in global leadership studies. Cultural intelligence is analysed through motivational cultural intelligence and metacognitive cultural intelligence (Blasco et al, 2012;Eisenberg et al, 2013;Magnusson et al, 2014;Magnusson et al, 2013). Motivational cultural intelligence is particularly relevant in IT teams.…”

“…Global and local leaders' differences. Excellent global and local leaders are goal orientated (Eom, 2015;Seijts et al, 2015), able to engage employees (Blasco et al, 2012;Seijts et al, 2015;Zander et al, 2012), and can increase team loyalty and trust (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014;Seijts et al, 2015;Liborius, 2014;Quisenberry & Burrell, 2012). Despite existing similarities, local and global leaders differ in the significance of social intelligence (IQ, EQ, and CQ).…”

Culture Shock: A Review of the Literature for Practitioners

“…Research demonstrates that CQ is consistent predictor of performance in multicultural settings. Cultural intelligence research has been cited and peer reviewed in more than seventy academic journals (Blasco, Feldt, & Jakobsen, 2012;Gelfand et al, 2008;Soon et al, 2007;Thomas et al, 2012Thomas et al, , 2015.…”