Cultural Intelligence,

Intercultural Training

and

New Competencies.

By

Loredana Orhei and Joop Vinke

Romania, Timisoara/ the Netherlands

December 2009

Introduction...........................................................................................3

Chapter 1. Some examples of Cultural intelligence...................................5

1.1 The Four-Factor Model.................................................................6

1.2. The four step cycle of CQ............................................................7

Chapter 2. The Theoretical Foundations of Training Courses in Intercultural communication – J. Bolten...................................................8

The Life-World Model......................................................................11

Chapter 3: Defining a new competency – intercultural adaptability..........14

Chapter 4: Proposals on how to achieve results in teaching cultural adaptability in a new approach.............................................................16

Literature............................................................................................18

Introduction

The last years the literature is filling with researches and theories on “globalization”. Many studies on cultural impacts are being conducted to help the society and business toward a better approach in working, living or expanding in a new country, culture or society.

Known authors like Geert Hofstede, Nancy Alder, Edward T. Hall, Andre Laurent, Jean Claude Usunier, William Ouchi, Gareth Morgan, Rosalie Tung, Harry Triandis, Charles Hampden-Turner, Frons Trompenaars, e.o., created new “management schools” based on their own made cultural “structures”. At the same time, other authors went deeper into the physiology and psychology of human behaviour to point out that intelligence is more than what we know as the intelligence and emotional coefficients: ( known as IQ or EQ) .

Adapting to other cultures is seen by many authors in this field as a capacity, a skill that is nowadays needed. Some authors referred to this as cultural intelligence.

The aim of this paper is to look and challenge the existing literature on this topic of so called “cultural intelligence” as part of a theoretical approach to address how this “ability” or special “skill” is being taught and/ or trained in higher education as part of training and developing for new managers, who can “think globally and act locally”.

In the construction of the argumentation, the two authors make use of and refer to the work of Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, David Livermore and especially Jürgen Bolten. Beside that the authors make also use of their personal experience as management teachers/ trainers in higher education and business.

The main idea and perception of the authors behind this paper is that cross-cultural teaching as done nowadays in business bachelor and master studies is not one that encourages the adaptability of the future managers into a globalized world.

Based on a critical view on this topic as given by Professor Jürgen Bolten of the University of Jena, the two authors will present what, in their opinion, would be a better and more sustainable way to address this topic in the teaching style and form.

This approach is also based on the introduction by the authors of a new competency that new managers according to the authors need in business today: “intercultural adaptability”.

This newly formulated competency seems on the first look quite similar to what other authors on the topic of “cultural intelligence” have addressed in their

work. The adding part that the authors want to show is the specification that it is based on a new more practical and less theoretical approach.

In order to make clear what the concept and relevance behind the new competency and the approach is, the authors have included in this paper several sections. In chapter 1 we will give the reader some theoretical formulation of cultural intelligence as existing so far based on the research of several known authors of this subject. In Chapter 2 we will explain the approach of teaching intercultural topics as presented by Professor J. Bolten. In chapter 3 we will try to define the competency “intercultural adaptability” and in the last chapter we will give proposals on how to achieve results in teaching this new competency in a newly formulated approach.

Chapter 1. Some examples of Cultural intelligence

“Cultural intelligence” is a known as an approach of the concept of culture in which is explained as something that “refers to people’s way of life that is socially learned, shared, and transmitted from generation to generation”.

In this approach the choice is to think of culture as a “tool kit” or as a “design” for living. If we look inside that kit, we can find tangible creations such as favourite books, clothing, computer etc. Other creations are more intangible or abstract, such as personal values, religious beliefs, and ideas about how people should act in different situations.

Given this as inclusiveness of the term culture, this can lead to the conclusion that differences and similarities among cultures refer to any number of things. People might share a common history, family background, political viewpoint or religion. They might also differ in terms of where they grew up, their age, social class, education, or exposure to cultures other than their own. There is clearly an infinite variety of ways in which we and others might be culturally alike and dissimilar.

In 2004 Christopher Earley and Elaine Mosakowsk described in the October Issue of Harvard Business Review the term “cultural intelligence” (also called cultural quotient or CQ). They started this theory within management and organisational psychology, explaining that understanding the impact of an individual's cultural background on their behaviour is essential for effective business.

Measuring the ability of an individual to engage successfully in any environment or social setting with test to measure the CQ has becoming more important in the business. Cultural intelligence gives strategies to improve cultural perception in order to separate special behaviours driven by culture from those specific to an individual. In that way suggesting that allowing knowledge and appreciation of the difference to guide responses results in better business practice.

The basic behind CQ is explained through dividing three meanings:

cognitive means: the head (learning about your own and other cultures, and cultural diversity)

physical means: the body (using senses and adapting movements and body language to blend in)

motivational means: the emotions (gaining rewards and strength from acceptance and success)

CQ explains that this can measured on a scale, similar to that used to measure an individual's intelligence quotient. People with a higher result on CQ are regarded as better able to successfully adapt in to any environment, using more effective business practices, than those with a lower result on CQ. Some other explanations within the subject of intercultural intelligence are given by by Soon Ang and Linn van Dynne.

1.1 The Four-Factor Model In their article, “Conceptualization of cultural intelligence – Definition,

Distinctiveness and Nomo logical Network”, Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne, define cultural intelligence as “the individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in cultural diverse settings”1. The authors describe cultural intelligence (CQ) as a multidimensional construction. They base their definition on an earlier work done by Sternberg and Detterman (1996). This construction is seen by them as composed of four factors as follows: meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural intelligence.

Divided in the four factors, each of them represents the following

a) Meta-cognitive CQ intelligence refers to the individual’s awareness during cross-cultural interactions, which can be explained in individual questions related to own cultural assumptions and the reflections during interactions and adjustments of cultural knowledge when interacting with individuals from other cultures. The meta-cognitive factor is composed of relevant capabilities like planning, monitoring and revising mental models of cultural norms for countries or groups of people. Individuals with high meta-cognitive cultural intelligence are aware of cultural preferences and norms of different societies prior or during interactions.

b) Cognitive CQ intelligence reflects the knowledge of norms, practices, conventions in different cultures, which have been acquired from experience or education. This part of the cultural intelligence involves knowledge of customs and typical behaviour in different societies, a high level of cognitive cultural intelligence reflects itself in better interaction with people from other cultures.

c) Motivational CQ intelligence refers to the capability to direct attention and energy towards learning about culture differences. Motivation is a critical component of CQ because it triggers to put effort in interacting efficiently with new cultures.

d) Behavioural CQ intelligence is the last component of the four factor model, which refers to the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions in interactions with people from different cultures.

1 Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications Edited by: Soon ANG; Linn Van Dyne, 2009, ME Sharpe

1.2. The four step cycle of CQDavid Livermore presents in his book, "Leading with cultural

intelligence"2, the components of CQ as a four step cycle with the following components:

a) CQ Drive: is the level of interest, confidence and energy to adapt cross-culturally, the ability to be personally engaged and persevere throughout cross-cultural challenges.

b) CQ Knowledge: is the level of understanding cross-cultural issues and differences based on awareness of how cultures vary from one another.

c) CQ Strategy: involves strategizing and making sense of culturally diverse experiences, the ability to draw upon ones cultural understanding to solve culturally complex problems.

d) CQ Action: changing verbal and nonverbal actions appropriately when interacting cross-culturally, the ability to know when to adapt to another culture and, just as important, when not to do so.

Chapter 2. The Theoretical Foundations of Training Courses in Intercultural

communication – J. BoltenIn his article in the “European Journal of Education” in 1993, the German Professor Jürgen Bolten describes the “Practice of Acting ‘Globally’”

He explains that we already for a long time recognize that the world is developing into a technologically bound ‘global village’. The theory about how to approach this 2 Leading with Cultural Intelligence, The New Secret to Success, David Livermore, Ph.D, 2009, AMACOM.

was and is very hypothetical. Today it has more relevance than ever. However, the emphasis has changed: questions relating to the technological feasibility of the ‘global village’ are increasingly being complemented by questions relating to the impact of such a development. The focus is nowadays no longer on how the ‘global village’ can be achieved. It is there.

Our present world shows technological developments where drastically temporal and spatial distances are decreased, it is clear that a corresponding ‘global’ competence for people is needed.

Within multinational organizations this is reflected clearly in the increasing demand in the recruitment policy of personnel and HR departments. They are looking for the ‘global player’ who can ‘think globally’ as a “one-world-manager’ despite national and cultural differences. This type of manager has universal executive competence and therefore can be deployed all over the world.

This approach is typical for the business approach of “solving the problems”. Bolten explains that the meaning of the word ‘global’ by no means is clearly defined. On the one hand it can mean a world orientation which is unified and therefore less differentiated like presented in the style of marketing strategies as those of McDonalds or Benetton and on the other hand it can be used to express the achievement of overall business synergies at the same time as cultural differentiation: ‘think global, act local’.

Both points of view are based on different perceptions and explanations of future social, political and economic developments. It suggests on the one hand that the ever-increasing worldwide concentration of economic power will lead to a succes-sive convergence of company cultures and in the end also to a convergence of everyday culture.

If this would happen, this ‘convergence theory’ (Levitt, 1983) would lead the way to a unified global culture as well as to worldwide use of one language: English.

On the other hand, opponents of this theory expect ethno cultural to prove resistant against the process of international convergence.

The ‘divergence theory’ can be seen as a plea for the protection of cultural and language diversity within the process of internationalization.

Both theories can be seen with scepticism. The doubts can be found in the experience made with the artificial language “Esperanto” as well as in countless failed attempts to make international contacts, especially in the area of business and trade.

As analyses of the causes are still rare. Those that are available point out that the reasons for failures in ‘global’ trade are to be found not so much in the area of

verbal communication, but in that of cultural understanding and in the ability to empathize within intercultural contexts (Müller, 1991).

Or as T. Fujisawa, co-founder of the Honda Motor Corporation so clearly pointed it: ‘Japanese management and American management are 95% the same, and differ in all important aspects’ (Adler et al., 1986, p. 295).”

Bolten explains in a very interesting way the difference between intercultural and intra-cultural approaches. According to him the concept of culture can be explained in a perspective of: “intercultural versus intra-cultural communication”.

The border between this intercultural and intra cultural is depending on the definition of culture. Approaches to research are very divergent and have led to many different models of the process of intercultural communication.

The deficiency in research into intercultural communication is due to the fact that the different and factually incompatible definitions are used for the concept of culture. Looking at random sample of publications from 1990 illustrates this: ‘culture’ is linked in one case to ‘nation’ (Mead, 1990) in another to ‘society’ (Knapp & Knapp-Potthoff, 1990), and in a third to ‘social unit’ (Kiechl, 1990).

In those many cases where definitions are not given (this occurs frequently) or limits to the definition are not considered, communication between specialists can become a vague mass of words.

Bolten explains that the more differentiated the concept of culture is, the less clear is the border. He goes deeper into the subject by explaining another approach to culture that he calls “The Contrastive versus the Interactive Approach”

At the basic of this interesting comparative approach is an attempt to describe and relate cultural group specific ways of thinking and communicating. This can be verbal aspects like conditions required for the appearance of, and ways of realising, speech acts, discourse conventions etc. However, it can also deal with differences in communicative style and in para-lingual, non-verbal and non-lingual aspects.

Although comparative and contrastive research can give some important information about what differences, for example, an Italian businessman can expect when he goes into a German bar, this knowledge is of marginal use when analyzing the given intercultural interaction.

It gives a static image of ‘the other’ and an insight into how members of another cultural group behave within their own group. The fact that this behaviour, which is present within one group, can change when contacts are made outside the group or when intercultural contacts are made, is not considered. This is due to the interdependence of ‘self-image’, ‘image of the other’ and ‘meta-image’ (judgment of others’ opinion of oneself).

For example: the British often assume that Germans always shake hands; however, Germans know that the British usually do nor do this. The course of events during a meeting of the two is therefore unpredictable. Thus, knowledge of behavioural traits of a foreign culture alone does not help much in the dynamic situation of an intercultural meeting, as this can be affected by expectations about the differences which will be encountered.

The divergence between the contrastive and interactive approach becomes clear in the practice of intercultural training: There are programmes which work with a culture specific approach and describe the foreign culture as foreign; other trainings are more based on intercultural sensitising training courses, which direct more towards creating empathy for the contact situations.

Both models are of little use when taken to extremes (Bolten, 1991, p. 42), as in the first case stereotypes and prejudices become easily manifested, and in the second case intercultural situations are excluded

The Life-World ModelIf we, according to Bolten understand intercultural communication from an interactive perspective as “interpersonal, communicative action between differently uncultivated individuals”, then it becomes more clear that both before mentioned models must be combined.

It is necessary to analyze the own and the others possible expectations and consequences for an action which takes place. The first part can be achieved through a reflection of:

The own enculturation process, and

Enculturation is the process by which a person learns the requirements of the culture by which he or she is surrounded, and acquires values and behaviours that are appropriate or necessary in that culture.

The others (and in this sense intra-cultural) enculturation3 process.

Through the documentation and simulation of examples of interactions.

Important in this context is a sensitizing, non-specific cultural training in which the ability to empathize in such intercultural situations is extended.

The implications of a culture specific sensitising approach can be observed in the ‘life-world model’ as originally formulated by A. Schütz and T. Luckmann and which J. Habermas later modified and integrated into his communication theory (Habermas, 1981, vol. 2, pp. 194 ff.). The model represent a concept in which ‘life-world’ is understood to mean “the everyday, self reproducing area of one’s life”.

In reality the areas of course overlap and in this respect the next shown Figure showing intercultural process is over-simplified. However it shows to what extent intercultural interaction, as a unique, never again repeatable, event, must be regarded as a constant negotiation with the momentarily present ‘interculture’ and therefore must be understood as a ‘game’ (Bolten, 1992)

The start in this figure is a formal analysis of the structures in the life-world model. It is based on three structural components - culture, society and personality:

3 Grusec, Joan E.; Hastings, Paul D. "Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research", 2007, Guilford Press; ISBN 1593853327, 9781593853327; at page 547.

Habermans explains them as followed: “For me Culture is the store of knowledge which supplies participants in communication with interpretations when they are communicating about something in a specific ‘world’. Society is for me the legitimate order by which participants in communication regulate their membership to social groups, thereby ensuring certain solidarity. Personality I understand to mean the competences which enable a subject to speak and act and therefore enable him to take part in the processes of communication and understanding, thereby confirming his identity... The interactions, which are tied up in a web of everyday communicative practice, form the medium by which culture, society and individual are reproduced “(Habermas, 1981, vol. 2, p. 209).

We can assume that different social groups have different stores of knowledge. It therefore seems appropriate that we speak of communicative interaction between different life-worlds. This could for example, refer to contacts between French and Russians. It could, however, also by definition refer to intra-cultural interaction between Saxons and Rhinelanders.

The given figure is meant to illustrate the interaction process as such. It explains that interculturality can be understood as a process or event which results from a contact between two or more people, which is specific to culture and the individual and is therefore unique. The ‘game’ between the life-worlds (Bolten, 1991, 1992).

With this help, the culture-specific part of an intercultural training can prepare students to approach the real situation between ‘self’ and the ‘other’.

A good analysis of actual critical incidents would serve as a medium for this.

At the same time a sensitising effect could be achieved in relation to the possible series of events during intercultural interaction which is not attainable through a fact oriented regional studies programme.

Chapter 3: Defining a new competency – intercultural adaptabilityAfter explaining the different approaches of CQ and the theory behind the intercultural training method approach of Jürgen Bolten the authors want to express with all authors the need of a new competence for managers.

We call this new competence is named “Cultural adaptability”

This competence is defined by us as:

“The sensitivity related with the awareness to recognize, understand, and work effectively across cultural differences.”

We understand that this definition is not a fully covering explanation of the concepts behind the valued words that are used in it. It is more used to explain the important elements as mentioned by Bolten, and the other authors in the before explained approaches.

We use it as a “work-definition” for the teaching and training of students in an intercultural training within Arnhem Business School, HAN University for applied Science in the Netherlands and is related with a new didactical approach called “gyroscopic management”4 .

The authors have recently written articles about this specific approach. The most recent one in their article “Another look at leadership in organizations, a new approach in defining leadership”5.

Without giving a further explanation of this approach, which can be found in several articles, this approach in which the self-realization and individual self learning is stimulated. We are making use of the Management simulation game as developed by Jürgen Bolten showing a very interactive and simulated situation in which the participants get fully into the intercultural setting. The fact that the groups consists mostly of international students from several cultures stimulates this extra.

This combination of the didactical approach and the use of Bolten’s theory seems to have a very positive effect on students and participants. The explanation for this can, according to the authors, partly be found in a conclusion that the researcher Barmeyer wrote after his research on “Learning styles and their impact on cross-

4 http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%20wetenschappelijke%20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf

5 November 2009, To be published

cultural training: An international comparison in France, Germany and Quebec”6 in 2004.

Barmeyer concluded: “Knowing more about learning styles, trainers may orient their training methods according to the aspirations and learning preferences of the participants, who can differ, for example, in gender or culture, as was shown in this article. An analysis of the participants’ learning styles at the beginning of a training session may be very useful and can make a real improvement in the outcome of the training.

Nevertheless, as the literature and practice show, the exploration of learning styles and their use in cultural trainings has just begun.”

6 http://www.phil.uni-passau.de/fileadmin/group_upload/54/Zeitungsartikel_pdf/47.LeaningStylesBarmeyer.pdf

Chapter 4: Proposals on how to achieve results in teaching cultural adaptability in a new approach.

As mentioned, both authors have experienced this approach in different settings and dare to conclude in this paper that the elements and theory for a good training as mentioned before in this paper are all useful as long as the trainer and participant are both aware of the needed learning style.

Most trainings are based on developing and improving skills. Looking at the basics of the CQ approach there is also a clear approach to measure the level of cultural awareness on given criteria.

The difference between measuring skills of a participant and perceiving the showing of a competence like Cultural adaptability is, according to the authors a very important issue in this. If skills are defined as “abilities” to do, it is important to realise that these abilities can be available, but still not used.

Practise is needed to combine the knowledge with the skills and integrated it with the most important part... the “I “, meaning myself. In this case “my culture”.

This part is very related with the awareness and sensitivity part. Training this part is important and also very risky and biased. Sensitivity trainings are often criticized. They are often defined as forms of training that claims to make people more aware of their own prejudices, and more sensitive to others. According to its critics, it involves the use of psychological techniques with groups and is often identical to “brainwashing” tactics. Critics believe these techniques are unethical.

Based on this assumption trainers tend to become uncertain and cover this by making the training more measurable and less vague... In this way trying to go around the before mentioned critical part of giving the impression of training the sensitivity and in that way “brainwashing” the participants.

Of course this is a critical and discussable point and is related with the intention and perception of trainer and participants. Several times both authors experienced that this given point and situation leads to a so called: “safe” approach of the trainer to stick to the measurable parts and leaving the more intangible and vague parts out of the training.

This results into a more theoretical and scientific approach on the one side that explain everything in research approaches and cases and in that way building up a huge amount of cases, studies and figures. On the other hand it tends to go into directions of trainings and teaching methods that stick to training of pure skills in the form of “tricks, tips and tools”

Both sides are visible and probably will be recognizable for the reader of this paper.

The authors believe that, to gain the competence of “Cultural adaptability” needs the involvement of sensitivity in relation with the awareness and that is necessary for (young) managers to approach the fast developing globalization.

Using the theory and practice as given by Jürgen Bolten and relating that with the didactical approach as mentioned in “Gyroscopic management” it is possible to find a way for teachers and trainers to deal with this.

A very important part in this is of course the ethical behaviour and approach of both, the trainer and the participant. Ethical behaviour is related with ‘me” and “I”. This is explained by the authors as “being responsible for own ethical approach”.

Both authors would therefore like to conclude this article by repeating what is earlier stated in an article by Frank Vonk, Toine Sterk and Joop Vinke. Senior lecturers of Arnhem Business School in 20067:

“That this special way of training does not always take place in a safe environment, is probably obvious. If we want to prepare our students as well as possible for their future professional career, we do that best when we create the situations and atmosphere that reflects this professional field.

This of course is not a safe environment, especially from the point of view of business students. To re-create this business environment, with its perils, culturally and personally, especially when there are forced (ethical) decisions at stake, we do things the students do not expect.

But we do get their “gyroscopes” to start. And our experience is that we do make them understand that imbalance in itself is not a bad thing, that change can be a positive process, and that constantly finding new balances, in relationship with all the other gyroscopes around us, can be an exhilarating experience!”

Timisoara/ Arnhem

December 2009

Loredana Orhei / Joop Vinke

7 http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%20wetenschappelijke%20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf

Literature

Adler, N.J. , Doktor, R. & Redding, G.S. (1986) From the Atlantic to the Pacific Century. Cross-cultural Management Reviewed, in: J. G. Hunt & J. D. Blair (Eds) Yearly Review of Management of the Journal of Management 12 (1986).

Bolten, J. (1991) Wirtschaftsdeutsch. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven, in: B. Müller-Jacquier (Ed.) Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation (Munich).

Bolten, J. (1992) Interkulturelles Verhandlungstraining, in: Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 1992.

Form, W. (1979) Comparative industrial sociology and the convergence hypothesis, in: Annual Review of Sociology 1979.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (1984) Communicating with strangers (New York).

Grossberg, L. et al. (Eds): Cultural Studies (London/New York).

Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Frankfurt).

Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1985) Verborgene Signale. Über den Umgang mit Japanern (Hamburg).

Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture's Consequences (Beverly Hills).

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. London: Sage.

Kale, D.W. (1991) Ethics in intercultural communication, in: L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds) Intercultural communication. A reader (Belmont).

Kolb, A., Kolb D.A. (2003). Bibliography on experiential learning theory. www.learningfromexperience. com/research , 30.3.2004.

Levitt, R. (1983) The globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, 83 (3).

Mead, R. (1990) Cross-Cultural Management Communication (Chichester/New York).

Sarbaugh, L. (1979) Intercultural communication (New York).

Sterk, T, Vinke, J., Vonk,F. (2006)“Motivation: culture and ethics”, Available at http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%20wetenschappelijke%20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf

Vinke, J, Vonk,FJ. (2008; HRQM and colliding gyroscopes, and alternative way of looking at value creation in organizations.” Available at http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Publicaties%20HAN/Joop%20Vinke%20-%20Frank%20Vonk.pdf

Vinke. J ; “don’t try to motivate people, just try to reward their motives”, Master thesis SHRM, 2001; available by author.

Orhei, L., Vinke, J. (2009) “”Another look at leadership in organization” to be publiced.