Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 1 Being culturally intelligent What does the word ‘intelligence’ mean to you? In Western culture, intelligence is often associated with doing well at tests (e.g. mathematics, vocabulary). But there are other forms of intelligence too. The concept of ‘cultural intelligence’ (CQ) was first articulated by Christopher Earley and Soon Ang in 2003. Some definitions of CQ are presented on the right side of the page. While each is different, a key feature of CQ is that it is not culture-bound. Rather, it involves a generic set of capabilities that can be transferred across cultural borders. This gives it particular potency for globally-mobile managers. Cultural intelligence is a contested idea. Some people argue that the concept is so vague & all-encompassing that it is impossible to identify, measure or achieve (e.g. Blasco et al. 2012). Also, cultural intelligence assumes that cross-cultural encounters are always better when there are no ‘problems’ or misunderstandings. Yet these are often the trigger for innovation & insight, as well as personal growth & learning. Despite these reservations, researchers are making progress in clarifying the building blocks of CQ (see next page). Empirical research is starting to show direct links between high CQ & outcomes like managerial effectiveness, cultural adjustment & business unit & team performance (Ott & Michailova 2016). What is the difference between CQ & other forms of intelligence, like social intelligence (e.g. Cantor & Kihlstrom 1987) or emotional intelligence (e.g. Goleman 1996)? For instance, does high CQ require high EQ? This is a vexed question. There have been studies showing a correlation between EQ and CQ. However others argue that SQ & EQ are not culture-free. From this perspective, high SQ or EQ require you to fully embody the habits & scripts of a particular culture, and these may not transfer well across cultures. The sorts of skills & understanding needed to be socially adept will differ greatly between, say, urban Spain & rural Honduras, despite a shared language. ‘The ability to interpret someone’s unfamiliar & ambiguous gestures like a colleague or compatriot of the person would, even to mirror them’ (Earley & Mosakowski 2004). ‘the ability to behave appropriately in cross-cultural settings’ (Blasco, Egholm Feldt & Jakobsen 2012) ‘the ability to see your own culture as an outsider does, and to see other cultures as an insider does’ ‘the capability to deal effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds’ (Thomas & Inkson 2003) ‘the ability to do what adults in different cultures consider to be ‘smart’ behaviours’ (Brislin, Worthley & MacNab 2006). Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 2 The building blocks of CQ In recent years authors & researchers have begun unpacking the various competencies, attitudes & knowledge that you need to be culturally intelligent. The list is long, changing quickly & diverse. Terminology & operational definitions vary, and different models include (and exclude) particular components. Therefore understanding the concept can be as confusing as understanding a different culture! With that caveat, one way to view CQ is to see it as comprising three (sometimes four1) interrelated components: 1. Cognitive CQ (‘head’) = possessing knowledge & cognitive capability. 2. Behavioural CQ (‘body’) = enacting culturally appropriate behaviours. 3. Emotional CQ (‘heart’) = willingness & motivation to interact across cultures. 1. Cognitive CQ (= ‘head’) 1. Culture-specific knowledge: Understanding a baseline of relevant information about your culture & others that you engage with. The type of information probably depends on the purpose & context of your interactions, but might include dominant cultural values, societal taboos, current ‘hot’ social & political issues, and important business & social practices. 2. Culture-general knowledge: Understanding first principles of ‘culture’, like the relationship between values & behaviours, how culture manifests, and the role & impact of stereotyping. 3. Mindfulness: Being actively aware of what is happening during cross-cultural encounters & having your cultural ‘radar’ on at all times. This requires the ability to turn off your ‘cultural cruise control’ (Thomas & Inkson 2003). Antenna up, bug eyes open! 4. Frameswitching: Also known as ‘cognitive empathy’ or ‘active perspective taking’, this refers to the ability to experience the world from different (cultural) perspectives. That is, to really put yourself in the shoes (& mind & heart) of others. Doing so helps us understand what someone thinks, feels or believes. 5. Cognitive complexity: Being able to recognise shades of grey & nuance (not just black & white) in situations & individuals. Related to this is attributional complexity, which involves accurately recognising complex explanations for people’s behaviour (e.g. separating dispositional & situational factors affecting behaviour). 6. Meta-cognitive capabilities1: Creating coherent mental pictures from disparate & sometimes conflicting experiences. It requires the use of inductive & analogical reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves relating observations & experiences to underlying cultural features (i.e. linking practice to theory). Analogical reasoning is being able to see similarities & connections between apparently unrelated events or behaviours. These capabilities help you put the pieces of the cultural jigsaw together. 1 Meta-cognitive CQ is sometimes identified as a separate 4th component of CQ. Body Head Heart Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 3 2. Behavioural CQ (= ‘body’) 1. Behavioural flexibility: Being able to adjust behaviours to suit the context when required. In short, you can’t just learn cultural scripts. Why not? (a) You cannot know everything, and (b) people may not conform with expectations. Instead, you must be flexible enough to adapt to suit unexpected or unplanned for situations. 2. Behavioural variety: Possessing competence in a repertoire of culturally-appropriate behaviours. For instance, rather than knowing just one way to communicate an idea, make a decision or motivate team members, effective cross-cultural operatives are comfortable doing these in a range of different ways. You wouldn’t hire a plumber with just one tool, would you? 3. Self-presentation awareness: Being conscious of one’s own behaviour, and its influence on the situation and on others. A lack of self-awareness in cross-cultural situations has been called cultural autism. For good examples of cultural autism observe interactions between tourists & locals in Kuta, Bali, any day of the week. 4. Learning strategies: This involves having a structured approach for acquiring culturally-appropriate behaviours. While being able to mimic the behaviour of locals is useful, imitation needs to be culturally-informed, not blind to context. By way of example, inappropriate use of Australian terms like ‘no worries’ or ‘g’day mate’ can mark someone as an outsider rather than insider. 3. Emotional CQ (= ‘heart’) 1. Self-confidence & self-efficacy: Being confident in one’s ability to adapt & cope, and having clear judgment about one’s ability to perform. Self- confidence comes from past experiences & skills. The more frequently you have productive cross-cultural experiences, and the more you develop your knowledge & skills, the more confident you become. 2. Resilience & persistence: Being willing to interact across cultures, even after making mistakes or having unpleasant cross-cultural experiences. Why is this important? Cross-cultural interactions are difficult. You will have set backs. You’ll make mistakes, sometimes in embarrassing situations. In the early stages you’ll fail more often than you succeed. At these times, it is easy to give up, blame the other culture & revert to mixing with people ‘like you’. This type of response is the antithesis of cultural intelligence. 3. Values & goals: Possessing values & goals that guide & motivate cross- cultural interaction. People with high emotional CQ are curious about other cultures, are interested in the ideas & beliefs of different people, and embrace this cosmopolitan mindset as an important part of their self-identity. The term ‘global mindset’ is often used by researchers to talk about capabilities & dispositions that are similar to cultural intelligence (see, for example, the Global Mindset Institute). The main components of global mindset, as it is currently defined, are very similar to most definitions of CQ, albeit with slightly different terminology. It may be an interesting activity for you to compare & contrast the way that global mindset & cultural intelligence are defined in the academic literature. Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 4 Developing CQ There’s a growing body of research into whether (& how) people can learn cultural intelligence. A range of formal training programs that claim to help people develop CQ are available. In fact, ‘teaching’ global mindset & CQ is now an industry in itself. This subject, 21717, is designed on principles derived from research into CQ learning & development. In truth, formal training can only take you so far. It can provide a foundation, start to loosen your enculturated scripts & perhaps spark your motivation in CQ. It may even help you see cultural intelligence as an important part of your self-identity. However, the process of becoming culturally intelligent is on-going. It involves constant re-appraisal & refinement. Because of this, informal learning that occurs outside the classroom is critical to your ongoing CQ journey. Dialectic logic One way to understand how people develop cultural awareness is the dialectic logic process. In its simplest form, this is a process that tries to explain cognitive change through experiencing something inconsistent with our initial expectation. It involves three stages: • Thesis: Having an existing set of assumptions or beliefs (stereotypes) based on accumulated experiences & knowledge (e.g. all purple people are arrogant); • Antithesis: Receiving contradictory information by experiencing something that challenges the thesis (this purple person is actually being quite humble); and • Synthesis: Developing a revised view (synthesis) that incorporates the new information received (some purple people are arrogant, some are not). Dialectic logic suggests that people can shift deeply engrained beliefs by examining & identifying possible opposite phenomenon. It involves the self- awareness to be conscious of one’s initial stereotypes & scripts (thesis), having the mindfulness to be aware of paradoxical situations that contradict the thesis (antithesis), and having the metacognitive capabilities to incorporate the new information with existing schemas (synthesis). It involves viewing your current assumptions & stereotypes as hypotheses only, not unquestionable truths. At its most disruptive it requires a constant state of cognitive flux. During the antithesis stage people can experience disconfirmed expectancy, a phenomenon common during inter-cultural interaction & foreign work assignments. An example is provided below. Mick grew up in a small town where everyone said “hi” to each other and made eye contact when passing down the small main street. When he moved to a big city, Mick found that people did not return his greetings& they avoided eye contact with him. This made Mick feel uncomfortable & a little resentful. Why would they be so rude to him? Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 5 Most people have a typical reaction pattern to disconfirmed expectancy yet tend to not be aware of these patterns. This may involve experiencing cognitive dissonance, a form of psychological discomfort or stress that comes from the imbalance caused by holding one view but experiencing something else. The classic research of cognitive dissonance was Leon Festinger’s study of a doomsday cult in the 1950s; it is one of the most famous & entertaining ‘natural experiments’ in social psychology history. The key point – even when presented with unambiguous evidence that our beliefs are false, it can be very difficult to unhinge them. Participant observation One research (and learning) method used by cultural anthropologists is participant observation. It is the process of learning about a culture by participating in day-to-day life in the society. The aim is to gain a true insider’s perspective on the customs & behaviours of the culture, while simultaneously observing these in an objective & scientific way. Maintaining this objectivity & detachment is not easy. One risk is ‘field blindness’, which means that you become so embedded in the culture you are studying that you are unable to maintain scientific detachment. Pre-class reflection (readings): 1. This week’s readings contain a section from the book Black Like Me, which was written in 1959. The book contains extracts from the diary of the author, John Howard Griffin, a white American journalist who spent several months disguised as a black man (he uses the term ‘negro’ in the book). Griffin took special drugs – pigmentation capsules - to change the colour of his skin. The book reports his experiences travelling through the southern states of the USA during a time of racial segregation. His experience is, in fact, an extreme form of participant observation. The extract from November 8 captures the moment when he leaves his hotel room for the first time as a ‘black’ man in New Orleans. a. On page 21 Griffin describes a situation on a bus where he experiences a ‘subtle tug-of-war’. Explain what occurs on the bus using theories from 21717. b. What other concepts or ideas from 21717 do you see evidence of in the extract? 2. Based on the components summarised in these Briefing Notes, identify someone that you believe possesses high levels of CQ? What is it about their behaviour or attitudes that make you believe that they are culturally intelligent? 3. Which component of CQ do you think is (a) most important for international managers in your industry, and (b) most difficult to develop? Justify your answers. 4. The metaphor ‘cultural chameleon’ is frequently used to refer to people who are culturally intelligent. Explain this metaphor & relate it to the components of CQ described above. 5. Think of a time when you have experienced: a. Disconfirmed expectancy (What happened? How did you feel?) b. Cognitive dissonance (What happened? Why?)