Download - Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

Transcript
  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    1/23

    Emotional intelligence correlatesof the four-factor model of

    cultural intelligenceTaewon Moon

    College of Business Administration, Hongik University, Seoul, South Korea

    Abstract

    Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine relationships between emotional intelligenceand the four factor model of cultural intelligence metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ,and behavioral CQ.

    Design/methodology/approach Confirmatory factor analyses and hierarchical regression

    analyses on data from 381 students in Korea are conducted.Findings The results support discriminant validity of the four factor model of cultural intelligencescale (CQS) in relation to the emotional intelligence (EQ) construct. This study also demonstrates that theEQ factors related to social competence (social awareness and relationship management) explain CQover and beyond the EQ factors related to self-competence (self-awareness, and relationshipmanagement). Finally, the results present that specific factors of EQ are related to specific factors of CQ.

    Originality/value The findings of this study demonstrate how CQ and EQ are distinct, but relatedconstructs, which has not been conducted by prior research.

    Keywords Emotional intelligence, Intelligence, Cross-cultural management, Employees

    Paper type Research paper

    With businesses and industries progress toward rapid globalization, breakdown oftrade barriers, advancements in worldwide transportation infrastructure andtelecommunications, rapid market growth, and increasing levels of wealth indeveloping countries have enabled companies to enter a broader and more diverse setof markets (MacGillivray, 2006). Consequently, employees in organizations are nowexposed to unfamiliar cultural contexts, and culturally diverse workforces. Suchcross-cultural interaction can be challenging for individuals and their organizationssince cultural differences increase conflicts and frictions (Newman et al., 1978; Blacket al., 1991; Caligiuri, 2000; Gabel et al., 2005; Lievens et al., 2003; Takeuchi et al., 2002).The capability to interact effectively with people from different cultures is increasinglyrequired to resolve the problems that arise from complex international workingenvironments.

    Correspondingly, cross-cultural studies are increasingly in demand to resolvemisunderstandings and conflicts that arise from cultural barriers in complexinternational working environments (Adler, 1997; Gelfand et al., 2001; Kraimer et al.,2001; Lievens et al., 2003; Takeuchi et al., 2002). Responding to this need, Earley andAng (2003) developed the multifactor concept of cultural intelligence (CQ). CQ is notonly defined as an individuals capability in adjusting to a new cultural context, but

    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

    www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

    This work was supported by the Hongik University new faculty research support fund.

    JMP25,8

    876

    Received April 2008Revised August 2008March 2009Accepted March 2009

    Journal of Managerial Psychology

    Vol. 25 No. 8, 2010

    pp. 876-898

    q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    0268-3946

    DOI 10.1108/02683941011089134

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    2/23

    also his or her ability to manage people who have dissimilar cultural backgrounds andunderstanding (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley et al., 2006; Ang et al., 2006).

    CQ is based on the larger domain of individual difference that consists ofpersonality, capability, and interest, and is considered to be part of an individuals

    capability (Ackerman and Humphreys, 1990; Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley et al., 2006).CQ is similar to other types of intelligence such as general cognitive ability (IQ) andemotional intelligence (EQ), or social intelligence (SQ) since it focuses on a set ofcapabilities rather than preferred way of behaving (Ang et al., 2007). However, CQ isconceptually differentiated from these other intelligences because it concentrates onculturally relevant capabilities (Earley and Ang, 2003). This paper demonstrates howCQ is related to other individual differences, especially to emotional intelligence, butdiffers from it.

    Given the relative novelty of the construct (Ang et al., 2006), empirical research onCQ has recently been increasing. Previous studies have mainly focused on theconstruct validity of CQ in relation to other intelligence constructs, or personality, andits predictive validity over cultural judgment and decision making, task performance,and cultural adaptation (Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Templer et al., 2006), but few studieshave demonstrated the relationship between the subdimensions of EQ and the fourfacets of CQ.

    Accordingly, the primary objective of this study is to examine correlations betweenEQ and CQ. Thus, this study demonstrates differential relationships between specificdimensions of EQ and the four-factor model of CQ. Additionally, this study not onlyexamines generalizability of the CQ construct across countries, but also investigatesthe discriminant validity of CQ compared to EQ.

    Conceptualization of emotional intelligence (EQ)The concept of emotional intelligence first appeared when Salovey and Mayer (1990)

    defined the term in their paper, Emotional intelligence. According to Salovey andMayer (1990), Emotional intelligence is a kind of social intelligence that enablesindividuals to monitor the motions of others and their own emotional status, todiscriminate among these motions and to use this information to guide thinking andactions (p.187). The notion of emotional intelligence has also been rising sinceGoleman (1995) published Emotional Intelligence in 1995. Goleman (1995, p. 34) definedemotional intelligence as being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face offrustrations; to control impulses and delay gratifications; to regulate ones moods andkeep distress from swamping the ability to think; to emphasize and to hope. Goleman(1998) explained that high emotional intelligence consists of tenacity, stronginterpersonal skills and self-management, which can all influence ones ability toachieve success.

    Salovey and Mayers (1990) ability model and Golemans (1995) competence modelwere the two primary conceptualizations that laid the groundwork for emotionalintelligence and the subsequent rise in interest on the subject. First, Salovey and Mayer(1990) conceived of EI as the ability to monitor ones feelings as well as the emotions ofothers. Mayer et al. (2000) developed their most current measurement tool, theMayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT), to parallel the work beingdone in IQ theory. The MSCEIT consists of four branches: perceiving and expressingemotion, incorporating emotion in thought, understanding emotions and emotional

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    877

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    3/23

    self-control (Mayer and Salovey, 1993; Mayer and Salovey, 1995; Salovey and Mayer,1990; Mayer et al., 2000; Offerman et al., 2004).

    On the other hand, Goleman (1995, 1998) developed an EI competence model.Goleman (1995, p. 17) referred to emotional intelligence as a different way of being

    smart. Goleman (1995, 1998) conceived of EI as a deeply intertwined combination ofskills and abilities which had positive effects in terms of efficacy and performance.Goleman (1998) views EI as a series of twenty-one competencies broken down into fourclusters. Accordingly, Boyatzis and Goleman (2002) developed the emotionalcompetency inventory (ECI) that was designed to measure competency by usingobserver ratings such as 360-degree feedback. As a 360-degree tool, the ECI has beendeveloped to assess the emotional competencies of individuals and organizations(Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). It is an informant measure which provides a greaterview of how other perceive the frequency of a persons behavior, and a behavioralmeasure of the underlying dispositional characteristics. The ECI was developed frominductive studies of how people act from video tape simulations, audio taped criticalincidents at work, and direct observations to contrast effective versus ineffectiveperformers in various jobs, various organizations, and various countries. The ECIincludes the following competencies:

    . self-awareness;

    . self-management;

    . social awarenes and;

    . relationship management (Boyatzis, 1999; Boyatzis and Burckle, 1999; Boyatziset al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002).

    Generally, the instruments assessing EQ can be classified into either the abilitymeasure or the mixed measure (Mayer, 2001). The MSCEIT relies on the abilitymeasure which employs a narrow range of abilities such as emotional expression,thought facilitation, emotional understanding, and emotion management (Mayer,2001), while the ECI is based on the mixed measure (a mixture of traits, abilities,competencies and personality) focusing on intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills,adaptability, stress management, and general mood (Mayer, 2001; Brackett and Mayer,2003).

    Conceptualization of cultural intelligence (CQ)Cultural intelligence (CQ) is theoretically an extended contemporary view tocomprehending intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003). Consistent with Schmidt andHunters (2000) definition of general intelligence as the capability to grasp and reasonaccurately with concepts and succeed in problem solving, CQ is defined as the

    capability to function effectively in culturally diverse environments (Earley and Ang,2003; Earley et al., 2006; Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Ng and Earley, 2006; Templer et al.,2006). Traditionally, early study of intelligence focused mainly on the academic orcognitive factor intelligence, but there is a renewed interest on nonacademicintelligence (Sternberg, 1986). The increasing interest in nonacademic intelligence hasintroduced new kinds of intelligence that concentrate on specific content domains suchas social intelligence (Thorndike and Stein, 1937), emotional intelligence (Mayer andSalovey, 1993), and practical intelligence (Sternberg et al., 2000). CQ similarly

    JMP25,8

    878

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    4/23

    emphasizes a particular content domain, the cross-cultural environment (Earley and

    Ang, 2003). As emotional intelligence functions as a complementary factor of general

    cognitive ability (IQ) for effective performance at work and better interpersonal

    relationships in this increasingly interdependent world (Earley and Gibson, 2002),

    cultural intelligence is another complementary form of intelligence that can explainadapting effectively to culturally diverse settings (Earley and Ang, 2003).

    However, cultural intelligence is distinguished from other types of intelligence such

    as general cognitive ability (IQ), emotional intelligence (EQ), and social intelligence

    (SQ) since it focuses on intercultural settings. Due to various norms for social

    interaction from culture to culture, other types of intelligence, such as IQ, emotional

    intelligence, or social intelligence are not likely to transfer automatically into effective

    intercultural adaptation and interaction (Earley and Ang, 2003). Thus, an individual

    might rate high on IQ, EQ or SQ of his or her original culture, but that does not

    necessarily translate into success in adapting to different cultural settings.

    Although cultural intelligence is not a separate intelligence but the application of

    assorted competencies in IQ, EQ, and SQ, the construction of CQ is not simply socialintelligence or emotional intelligence with minor modifications for multiculturalism

    (Earley and Ang, 2003; Ang et al., 2007). The construct of CQ is grounded inSternbergs (1986) multiple-loci of intelligence framework. CQ is a multidimensional

    construct that encompasses the four fundamental components: meta-cognitive facet

    (CQ-strategy), cognitive facet (CQ-Knowledge), motivational facet (CQ-Motivation), and

    behavioral facet (CQ-Behavior) (Earley and Ang, 2003, Earley et al., 2006; Ang et al.,2006, 2007; Ng and Earley, 2006; Templer et al., 2006).

    The meta-cognitive facet (CQ-Strategy) refers to ones specific ability to gain

    understanding and comprehend a new culture based on a variety of factors (Earley and

    Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004). It involves planning strategy before

    cross-cultural interactions, adjusting cultural knowledge when interacting with peoplewith different cultural backgrounds, and monitoring the accuracy of cultural

    knowledge during cross-cultural encounters (Ang et al., 2007, 2006).While meta-cognitive reflects higher-order cognitive processes, the cognitive facet

    (CQ-Knowledge) is how an individual make sense of similarities and difference

    between cultures (Ang et al., 2007, 2006). It includes knowledge about the legal andeconomic systems, religious beliefs, the marriage systems, the arts and crafts, and

    language of other cultures (Ang et al, 2006; Earley and Peterson, 2004).

    The third component of cultural intelligence, the motivational facet, reflects ones

    propensity to commit to adaptive behaviors when thrust into a culturally unfamiliar

    setting (Earley and Peterson, 2004). It involves the inherent preference for interacting

    with people from different cultures, the confidence on culturally diverse interactions,and the management of stress from adjusting to unfamiliar settings (Ang et al., 2007,2006).

    The final component of cultural intelligence is the behavioral aspect. Given a

    cultural context, this refers to ones ability to act on ones desire or intent (Earley and

    Ang, 2003). It includes a sense of flexibility for behavioral responses that fit to a variety

    of culturally diverse situations, and the ability to adapt both verbal and nonverbal

    behavior when a cross-cultural interaction requires it (Ang et al., 2006).

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    879

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    5/23

    Relationships between EQ and CQMany studies attempted to prove the construct validity of CQ in relation to otherintelligence constructs, or personality, and its predictive validity over cultural

    judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, task performance, and

    cross-cultural adjustment (Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Templer et al., 2006). Ang et al.(2006) examined relationships between CQ and Big Five personality, and demonstratedthe discrimanant validity of the four dimensions of CQ (meta-cognitive CQ, cognitiveCQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ) compared to the Big Five personality factors(Ang et al., 2006). Templer et al. (2006) demonstrated that the motivational factor of CQwas positively related to cross-cultural adjustment in terms of work, general, andinteraction adjustment of global professionals. In another study, Ang et al. (2007)examined relationships between the four CQ factors and three interculturaleffectiveness outcomes, such as cultural judgment and decision making, culturaladaptation, and task performance. More specifically, they found that cultural judgmentand decision making was predicted by metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ; culturaladaptation was explained by motivational CQ and behavioral CQ; and taskperformance was predicted by metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ (Ang et al., 2007).

    Although it is very important to investigate the constructive and predictive validityof CQ, examining antecedents of CQ is also essential to understand why someindividuals are more effective in dealing with situations characterized by culturaldiversity than others. To date, few studies have conducted research on CQ regardingits antecedents. Earley and Ang (2003) posited that personality was considered anantecedent or causal factor of CQ. Correspondingly, Ang et al. (2006) demonstrated thediscriminant validity of CQ compared with personality, as well as significantassociations between personality characteristics and facets of CQ. In another study,Tarique and Takeuchi (2008) demonstrated impacts of the number and the length ofinternational non-work experience on CQ.

    In addition to examining the relationship between CQ and its antecedents, such aspersonality, and experiences living abroad, it is necessary to find other factors thatcould be related to CQ. Another factor that influences CQ would be emotionalintelligence (EQ). EQ is not a trait-like construct, such as personality characteristicsthat are consistent over time, but a state-like construct, such as CQ that are developedover time (Ang et al., 2006). According to Earley and Ang (2003), trait-like individualdifferences function as predictors or antecedents of state-like individual difference.Thus, it is difficult to say that EQ is an antecedent or causal agent of CQ, but we canstill predict a certain level of correlations between the two constructs.

    Although Ang et al. (2007) demonstrated that CQ was conceptually and empiricallydistinguished from emotional intelligence, they did not examine differentialrelationships between specific emotional intelligence dimensions and specific facets

    of CQ. To date, there are not any studies which attempt to define the relationshipbetween the elements of EQ and the four facets of CQ despite the fact that manysimilarities exist between the two constructs.

    Emotional intelligence has been considered a well-established and validated theoryin a singular cultural setting by providing numerous evidences of correlations betweenEQ and individual, group and organizational performance (Bar-On, 2000; Goleman,1995, 1998; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mayer et al., 1999), but still a developingconstruct (Jordan et al., 2002). In particular, emotional intelligence has become popular

    JMP25,8

    880

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    6/23

    and gains validity within the context of a single culture or country, but it cannot beapplied the same way to other cultures (Earley and Peterson, 2004). Although scholarsdo not deliberately limit their EQ models to a single country, they are unable toadequately apply their models in a cross-cultural context because EQ is dependent on

    familiarity with a specific context that is not necessarily applicable across cultures forthe individual (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004).

    CQ is distinctive from emotional intelligence in several ways. CQ reflects a personscapability to collect, interpret, and act on unexpected social cues to still functioneffectively while EQ does not deal directly with these issues. Rather, EQ involves onescapability to perceive, assimilate, self-regulate, understand and respond to the affectivestates of culturally-similar individuals (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson,2004). Thus, those with high levels of EQ within their own culture are not necessarilyskilled at comprehending the implications of interacting with individuals from othercultures since many of the social or emotional cues used by individuals from oneculture to determine another individuals emotional status vary by cultures (Ang et al.,2007; Earley and Ang, 2003).Unlike EQ, CQ is a culture-free construct that can beapplied to cross-cultural situations (Ang et al., 2007, Earley and Ang, 2003; Ng andEarley, 2006).

    Besides the problem of cultural specificity on EQ, EQ differs from CQ because CQconcentrates on capabilities in cross-cultural interactions, an aspect not present inemotional intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003). For example, knowing how to bow orshake hands with individuals with different cultural backgrounds does not necessarilyinvolve emotional intelligence. Acquiring knowledge of the religious beliefs, themarriage systems, and the legal and economic systems of other cultures may notdemand emotional intelligence. In addition, some facets of EQ do not interact withfactors of CQ. EQ generally encompasses factors of intrapersonal and interpersonalskills (Salovey and Pizarro, 2003; Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995; Salovey and Mayer,

    1990). For example, personal competence, such as self-awareness, andself-management is an intrapersonal procedure of EQ that will not be affected byones cultural intelligence since it deals with aspects of oneself. On the other hand,areas of social competence within EQ, such as social awareness and relationshipmanagement are interpersonal skills that may be closely related to CQ. Because socialcompetence, such as social awareness, and relationship management reflects anindividuals capability of dealing with other peoples emotions (Goleman, 1998), theseelements of EQ may be closely related to CQ which is essential for interacting withpeople with different cultural backgrounds. Thus, this study also examines whetherinterpersonal competencies of EQ (social awareness, and relationship management) aremore likely to associate with the CQ construct than intrapersonal competencies of EQ(self-awareness, and self-management).

    CQ is distinct from, yet similar to EQ. They are similar since they are all concernedwith a set of capabilities, rather than preferred ways of behaving (Earley and Ang,2003; Earley et al., 2006). CQ is somewhat related to EQ since individuals with high CQpossess a strong superiority of emotional display and management (Earley et al., 2006).Some researchers argue that CQ is founded on social intelligence as well as IQ and EQ(Thomas, 2006; Thomas and Inkson, 2004; Earley and Ang, 2003). Salovey and Pizarro(2003) defined emotional intelligence as the capability of managing emotionsaccurately and adaptively. Culturally intelligent people can manage their emotions

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    881

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    7/23

    accurately and adaptively in the face of cross-cultural interactions (Earley and Ang,2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004; Earley et al., 2006). People with high CQ are morelikely to reformulate their concept, which is essential for individuals with high EQ(Earley and Peterson, 2004). Since CQ requires individuals to understand and make

    judgments about their own thought process and those of others (Ang et al., 2007), thisshould apply to aspects of EQ, the ability to accurately read and comprehend emotionsin others. Thus, similarities exist between EQ and CQ.

    Conceptual framework and hypothesesAlthough EQ is dependent on familiarity with a specific context that is not necessarilyapplicable across cultures for the individual (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley andPeterson, 2004), EQ is also a learned capability that can contribute to cross-culturalinteractions. Since EQ is the capacity for identifying ones and others emotions, formotivating oneself, and for managing emotions effectively in oneself and others(Goleman, 1995, 1998; Boyatzis et al., 2000), this capability can have an influence when

    interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds.Specifically, the interpersonal competency of EQ dealing with others, such as socialawareness, and relationship management can be essential parts in cross-culturalinteractions. When analyzing the aspects of EQ, the ability to be aware of othersfeelings, needs, and concerns, with an emphasis on relationship building (Boyatziset al.,2000), requires some CQ skills, since emotional expression is governed by theguidelines established by cultural norms (Hochschild, 1983). Since emotionalexpression varies by culture, identifying and understanding others emotionalexpression require both emotional and cultural intelligence skills. Additionally,interpersonal aspects of EQ entail the adequate control of feeling and the effectivemanagement of others emotions (Salovey and Pizarro, 2003), which are essential forbehavioral CQ, an adjustment of verbal and non-verbal behaviors appropriately in

    various cultural contexts. Thus, a person with a high EQ rating in his or her originalculture will not necessarily be successful in adapting to different cultural settings, butmay have a higher possibility of adapting successfully to unfamiliar culturalenvironments.

    Boyatzis and Golemans (2002) Emotional Competency Inventory is used for thisstudy since it involves intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of EQ (Boyatzis et al.,2000). In order to examine H1 that interpersonal elements of EQ are more closelyrelated to CQ than intrapersonal elements of EQ, use of the ECI best suits its researchpurpose. Additionally, the ECI has a university edition (ECI-U) which targets collegestudents, and is free of charge. The first two clusters, self-awareness, andself-management involve intrapersonal capabilities, such as inner emotionalknowledge awareness, accurate self assessment, self-confidence and control of ones

    internal states, impulses, and resources (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman,2002). The second pair of clusters, social awareness, and relationship management dealwith interpersonal capabilities, such as awareness of others emotions for buildingmutual relationships, a keen appreciation of social situations, and adaptation atinducing desirable responses from others with communication skills (Boyatzis et al.,2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Since CQ is an individuals capability of adaptingeffectively to new cross-cultural situations, and of interacting wisely with people withdifferent cultural backgrounds, EQ competences dealing with others are more likely to

    JMP25,8

    882

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    8/23

    increase explained variance in the CQ construct, over and above EQ competencesdealing with self:

    H1. Interpersonal competences of EQ such as social-awareness, and relationship

    management have more explanatory power in predicting CQ thanintrapersonal competencies of EQ such as self-awareness, andself-management.

    The first competency of the ECI is self-awareness which includes emotionalself-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-confidence (Boyatzis and Goleman,2002). Emotional self-awareness is the ability to identify ones own emotions, recognizethe source of feelings, and comprehend the implications of ones own emotions(Goleman, 1998, 2001). Accurate self-assessment refers to the ability to identify onesinner strengths and limitations (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Selfconfidence is a sense of ones self-worth and capability to achieve a task (Boyatzis andGoleman, 2002).

    In thinking about self-awareness and the four facets of CQ, this study posits thatself-awareness is related to metacognitive CQ. Metacognitive CQ reflects anindividuals capability of planning, monitoring, and adjusting cultural consciousnessand awareness during cross-cultural interactions (Earley and Ang, 2003; Ang et al.,2006, 2007). Those who have high self-awareness can acquire and understand culturalknowledge more effectively; they more easily recognize how they respond to a varietyof cues in cross-cultural interactions since they have a consciousness of their internalstates, preferences, resources and intuitions, as well as a realistic assessment ofself-ability, and a well-grounded sense of self-confidence. Thus, we predict that:

    H2. Self-awareness will be positively related to metacognitive CQ.

    The second competency of the ECI, self-management includes emotional self-control,trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, optimism, achievement orientationand initiative (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Emotional self-control is the ability tokeep ones disruptive emotions and impulses under control (Goleman, 1998, 2001).Trustworthiness refers to ones continuing standards of honesty and integrity(Goleman, 2001). Conscientiousness denotes the capability of taking responsibility forpersonal performance (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Adaptability is the ability to be flexiblewhen faced with change. Optimism refers to viewing the world or situations at hand ina positive manner. Achievement orientation refers to an optimistic effort to improveperformance (Goleman, 2001). Finally, initiative is the ability to take anticipatoryactions before a problem, obstacle, or opportunity are visible (Goleman, 1998, 2001).

    In thinking about self-management and the four facets of CQ, this study posits that

    self-management is related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Motivational CQrefers to an individuals capability to direct individuals drive and interest and energytoward learning cultural differences (Earley and Ang, 2003; Ang et al., 2006, 2007).People who are high in self-management put more consistent energy and effort towardlearning about cross-cultural situations since they can deal better with stress orcultural shock from an unfamiliar culture, and manage their impulses and emotions toovercome the conflicts and misunderstandings characterized by cultural differences.Moreover, those who are high in self-management possess a high level of ability to

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    883

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    9/23

    regulate their own thoughts and perspectives, making them more likely to adjust theirbehaviors according to new cultural settings. Thus, this study predicts that:

    H3. Self-management will be positively related to motivational CQ, and

    behavioral CQ.The third competency of the ECI is social awareness which includes empathy,organizational awareness, and service orientation (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002).Empathy is about understanding and knowing other peoples feelings, needs andconcerns (Goleman, 2001). Organizational awareness is the ability to read the current ofemotions correctly, and understand political power relationships in groups (Goleman,1998, 2001). Service orientation is the ability to identify others unstated needs andconcerns while focusing ones efforts on others (Goleman, 2001).

    In thinking about social awareness and the four facets of CQ, we posit that socialawareness is related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ and behavioral CQ. Peoplewho rate high in social management tend to read other cultural groups feelings ornon-verbal cues more accurately, and have a better understanding of how to identifythe political power relationship in cross-cultural interactions. They make a greatereffort to identify others unstated needs and concerns, and deal with people of diversebackgrounds with flexibility in verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Thus, this studypredicts that:

    H4. Social awareness will be positively related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivationalCQ, and behavioral CQ.

    The last competency of the ECI is relationship management. It includes helping othersdevelop, inspirational leadership, influence, communication, catalyzing change,conflict management, fostering collaboration and teamwork (Boyatzis et al., 2000;Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Assisting others in their development involves the

    ability to read others developmental needs and foster their abilities (Goleman, 2001).Inspirational leadership refers to the ability to inspire people to collaborate together fora common goal (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Influence is the ability to persuade,convince, or impact others by managing emotions effectively in other people (Goleman,2001). Communication is the ability to listen openly, and send clear messageseffectively to others (Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002).Changing catalyst refers to being able to recognize the need for change, and takinginitiatives in response to changes (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Goleman, 2001). Conflictmanagement is the ability to deal wisely with difficult individuals or groups of people,and mitigate tense situations with diplomacy and strategy (Goleman, 2001; Boyatziset al., 2000). Building bonds refers to the ability of building and continuing close andgood relationships with a variety of people (Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis and Goleman,

    2002). Finally, Teamwork and collaboration is the ability to work cooperatively withothers to accomplish shared goals (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Goleman, 2001).

    In thinking about relationship management and the four facets of CQ, we posit thatrelationship management is related to all four facets of CQ. Relationship management,the fourth EQ competence requires the most complex and highest level of abilitiesamong the four EQ competences since it builds upon other domains of EQ, especiallyself-management and social awareness (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Thus, people who dowell in relationship management adapt better to new environments in order to induce

    JMP25,8

    884

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    10/23

    desirable responses from a culturally diverse group of people with higher-orderthought and strategies, accurate knowledge over cultures, motivation or drive forcross-cultural interactions, and effective verbal and non-verbal communication skills:

    H5. Relationship management will be positively related to meta-cognitive CQ,cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ.

    MethodSample and procedureParticipants consisted of graduate and undergraduate students enrolled at a largepublic university in Korea. In order to increase the generalizability of the CQ constructacross countries, this study only focused on the Korean participants. In other words,the entire sample was composed of the Korean citizen (100 percent), and no otherindividual country in the sample was included. Participants were asked to list the nameof the countries to which they had visited, the length of each trip, and the purpose oftheir visit. These countries included 17 different countries across North and SouthAmerica, East and South Asia, and the Middle East. The purpose of trips was dividedinto trips for holiday (75.3 percent), language schools (19.7 percent), and others (5.0percent). Participants indicated that they have spent an average length of theirinternational residence or visit of 11.91 months (SD 34:84). Participants were 38.7percent male, average 24.82 years of age (SD 6:14) with a range of 17 to 57 years old.

    Students enrolled in several business classes were told by their instructors that theycould voluntarily participate in an EQ and CQ survey in return for extra course credit.At the first class meetings, those who allowed their data to be used for researchpurposes signed informed consent forms. Students were asked to rate themselves onEQ and CQ, and to disclose demographic information including gender, age, and lengthof international experience. In order to minimize common method variance, this study

    collected data at two points during one semester. At the beginning of the semester, 390students filled out forms on demographic information, and the 20-item CQquestionnaires. At the end of the semester (12 weeks later), 381 of these studentscompleted the 63-item EQ questionnaires. Since there is only a slight differencebetween Time1 (n 390) and Time 2 (n 381), this study assumes that there is nopotential attribution bias.

    MeasuresCultural intelligence. CQ was measured using the 20 item, four-factor CulturalIntelligence Scale (CQS) developed by Ang et al. (2004). The CQS assesses four itemsfor metacognitive CQ (a 0:82), six for cognitive CQ (a 0:84), five for motivationalCQ (a 0:88), and five for behavioral CQ (a 0:87). These reliabilities are consistentwith those presented in Ang et al. (2006).

    Emotional intelligence. EQ was measured by the emotional competenceinventory-university edition (ECI-U) (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman,2002). The ECI includes four clusters composed of 21 competencies: self-awareness,self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. The ECI-U includes63 phrases illustrating peoples behaviors. In the current study, the reliabilities of thefour clusters are 0.70 for self-awareness, 0.84 for self-management, 0.79 for socialawareness, and 0.87 for relationship management.

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    885

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    11/23

    Control variables. This study included age (years), gender (0 female, 1 male),and months of cross-cultural experience as controls. The length of internationalexperience is considered to be an influential factor in CQ. Takeuchi et al. (2005)demonstrated that prior international experiences of expatriates were positively

    related to their adaptability to the host country. Additionally, since this studyemployed a student sample, age and gender may influence the amount of internationalexperiences. In general, travel overseas for purposes such as studying abroad andshort visits to foreign countries increase by age because older students have moreopportunities for international experiences than younger students. Similarly, genderdifferences may also impact the amount of international experiences. Therefore, age,gender, and length of international experience were included as control variables in theanalysis.

    ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated good fit of the data to a four-factor

    correlated model (Model A): X2

    (164 df 488:68, goodness-of-fit GFI 0:885,non-normed fit index NNFI 0:908, comparative fit index CFI 0:921, and rootmean square of approximation RMSEA 0:071. All factor loadings were significant.In order to examine relative fit of this four-factor model, this study compared thisfour-factor correlated model with alternate nested models, such as four-factororthogonal model (Model B), three-factor model (Model C), two-factor model (Models Dand E), and one-factor model (Model F).

    Table I demonstrates nested model comparisons. As shown in Table I, thehypothesized four-factor model demonstrates the best fit compared to the other fivemodels. Model A (four-factors) presented better fit than Model B (four orthogonalfactors), D X2 (6 df 408:62, p , 0.001. Model A (four-factors) also showed better fitthan the three factor model of Model C (metacognition and cognition combined v.

    behavior and motivation combined), D X2

    3df 205:42, p , 0.001. Model A alsodemonstrated better fit than two alternate two factor models of Model D(metacognition and cognition v. motivation and behavior combined): D X2 (5df 800:82, p , 0.001 and Model E (metacognition v. the other three facetscombined) D X2 5df 1043:97, p, 0.001. Lastly, Model A had better fit than ModelF (one factor model with all items loading on a single factor), D X2 6df 1237:82, p, 0.001.

    This study measured the distinctiveness of the four factors of CQ compared to thefour clusters of EQ by using CFA. CFA demonstrated acceptable fit for the eight-factormodel (Model A): X2 (751 df 1442:75, goodness-of-fit GFI 0:843, non-normed fitindex NNFI 0:896, comparative fit index CFI 0:905, and root mean square ofapproximation RMSEA 0:049. Results supported the distinctive differencebetween the four CQ factors and the four clusters of EQ. In order to examine therelative fit of this eight-factor model, this study compared this eight-factor model withalternate nested models, such as five-factor model (Model B, and Model C), andfour-factor model (Model D, Model E, Model F, and Model G).

    Nested model comparisons in Table II showed further support for thedistinctiveness of the four factors of CQ and EQ clusters. This eight-factor modeldemonstrated the best fit compared to the other alternate nested models. Model A(eight factors) presented better fit than five factors of Model B (four EQ and one overall

    JMP25,8

    886

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    12/23

    Modelcomparisontest

    Model

    X2

    df

    GFI

    NNFI

    CFI

    RMSEA

    Comparison

    D

    X2

    D

    df

    A

    20-itemfour-fac

    tormodel

    488.6

    8

    164

    0.8

    85

    0.9

    08

    0

    .921

    0.0

    71

    B

    Four-factororth

    ogonalmodel

    897.3

    0

    170

    0.7

    94

    0.8

    02

    0

    .823

    0.1

    05

    Bv.

    A

    408.6

    2*

    6

    C

    Three-factormo

    del(metacognitionandcognition

    combinedv.mo

    tivationv.

    behavior)

    694.1

    0

    167

    0.8

    42

    0.8

    54

    0

    .871

    0.9

    90

    Cv.

    A

    205.4

    2*

    3

    D

    Two-factormod

    el(metacognitionandcognition

    combinedv.mo

    tivationandbehaviorcombined)

    1289.5

    0

    169

    0.6

    79

    0.6

    90

    0

    .724

    0.1

    31

    Dv.

    A

    800.8

    2*

    5

    E

    Two-factormod

    el(metacognitionv.theotherthree

    facetscombined

    )

    1532.6

    5

    169

    0.6

    29

    0.6

    26

    0

    .667

    0.1

    44

    Ev.

    A

    1043.9

    7*

    5

    F

    One-factormodelwithallitemsloadingonasingle

    factor

    1726.5

    0

    170

    0.6

    16

    0.5

    75

    0

    .620

    0.1

    53

    Fv.

    A

    1237.8

    2*

    6

    Table I.Comparing the fit of

    alternative nested modelsfor the four-factor modelof CQ (Time1, n 390)

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    887

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    13/23

    Modelcompari

    sontest

    Model

    X2

    df

    GFI

    NNFI

    C

    FI

    RMSEA

    Comparison

    D

    X2

    D

    df

    A

    Eight-factormo

    del(fourCQ

    fourEQ)

    1442.7

    5

    751

    0.8

    43

    0.8

    96

    0.905

    0.0

    49

    B

    Five-factormod

    el(fourEQ

    oneoverallCQfactor)

    1865.8

    7

    769

    0.7

    85

    0.8

    49

    0.849

    0.0

    61

    Bv.

    A

    423.1

    2**

    18

    C

    Five-factormod

    el(fourCQ

    oneoverallEQfactor)

    2668.0

    9

    769

    0.6

    97

    0.7

    20

    0.738

    0.0

    81

    Cv.

    A

    1225.3

    4**

    18

    D

    Four-factormod

    el(metacognitionandfourEQ

    combinedv.cog

    nitionv.motivationv.

    behavior)

    2436.0

    9

    773

    0.7

    31

    0.7

    56

    0.770

    0.0

    75

    Dv.

    A

    993.3

    4**

    22

    E

    Four-factormod

    el(metacognitionv.cognitionand

    fourEQcombin

    edv.motivationv.

    behavior)

    2705.1

    9

    773

    0.6

    75

    0.7

    17

    0.773

    0.0

    81

    Ev.

    A

    1262.4

    4**

    22

    F

    Four-factormod

    el(metacognitionv.cognitionv.

    motivationand

    fourEQcombinedv.

    behavior)

    2673.1

    3

    773

    0.6

    82

    0.7

    22

    0.738

    0.0

    80

    Fv.

    A

    1230.3

    8*

    22

    G

    Four-factormod

    el(metacognitionv.cognitionv.

    motivationv.behaviorandfourEQcombined)

    2637.0

    0

    773

    0.6

    88

    0.7

    27

    0.743

    0.0

    80

    Gv.

    A

    1194.2

    5**

    22

    Table II.Comparing the fit ofalternative nested modelsfor the EQ and CQ factors(Time2, n 381)

    JMP25,8

    888

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    14/23

    CQ factors): D X2 (769 df 1865:878, p, 0.001 and Model C (four CQ factors and oneoverall EQ factors), D X2 (769 df 2668:09, p , 0.001. Likewise, Model A alsodemonstrated better fit than four alternate four factor models of Model D(metacognition and four EQ combined v. cognition v. motivation and behavior):

    DX2773 df 2436:09, p , 0.001 and Model E (metacognition v. cognition and fourEQ combined v. motivation v. behavior): D X2 (773 df 2705:19, p , 0.001, Model F(metacognition v. cognition v. motivation and four EQ combined v. behavior):DX2773 df 2673:13, p , 0.001, and Model G (metacognition v. cognition v.motivation v. behavior and four EQ combined): D X2 (773 df 2637:004, p , 0.001.

    Table III presents the descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities used in thisstudy. As Table III shows, coefficient alpha for all of the multiple-item constructsranged between 0.70 and 0.88, exceeding the 0.7 cutoff point. The indices suggestacceptable reliability for the multi-item constructs.

    In order to test the first hypotheses that EQ factors dealing with others, such associal-awareness, and relationship management have more explanatory power inpredicting CQ than EQ factors dealing with self, such as self-awareness andself-management, a hierarchical regression analysis is conducted (Table IV). In the firststep of each regression analysis, the control variables (age, gender, and months ofcross-cultural experiences) were entered. The second step added the independentvariables related to self competence (self-awareness, and self-management). The thirdstep included the independent variables related to social competence (social awareness,and relationship management). This study also conducted a series of hierarchicalregression analyses to test from the second hypothesis to the fifth hypothesis enteringcontrol variables (age, gender, and months of cross-cultural experiences) in the firststep and the four EQ factors in the second step (Table IV).

    As shown in Table IV, results support H1, demonstrating that EQ factors related tosocial competence (social awareness, and relationship management) increased

    explained variance in CQ by 6 percent, over and above age, gender, months ofcross-cultural experiences, and EQ factors related to self-competence (self-awareness,self-management). Adding EQ factors related to social competence in the third stepincreased incremental validity of CQ (D F 14:97, p , 0.001) with overall adjustedR2 0:23. Regression results also support H1.

    H2 predicted that self-awareness would be positively related to metacognitive CQ.After controlling for age, gender, and length of international experience, resultssupported H2 that self-awareness was positively related to metacognitive CQ( 0:13, p , 0.05).

    H3 predicted that self-management would be positively related to motivational CQ,and behavioral CQ. However, results demonstrated that self-management waspositively related to metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ ( 0:13,

    p , 0:05= 0:16, p, 0.05/ 0.12, p, 0.05). Unlike expectations, self-managementwas not significantly related to motivational CQ.

    Regression analyses partially supported H4 that social awareness would bepositively related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Resultsshowed that social awareness was positively related to motivational CQ, andbehavioral CQ ( 0:13, p, 0.05/ 0:28, p , 0.001), but not to meta-cognitive CQ.

    Finally, H5predicted that relationship management would be positively related toall four facets of CQ. Results showed that relationship management was positively

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    889

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    15/23

    M

    SD

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    1

    MetacognitiveCQ

    3.2

    5

    1.2

    9

    (0.8

    1)

    2

    CognitiveCQ

    3.2

    1

    1.3

    1

    0.5

    4**

    (0.84

    )

    3

    MotivationalCQ

    4.5

    0

    1.5

    4

    0.5

    3**

    0.47

    **

    (0.8

    8)

    4

    BehavioralCQ

    4.6

    5

    1.4

    8

    0.4

    2**

    0.42

    **

    0.4

    6**

    (0.8

    7)

    5

    Self-awareness

    3.4

    7

    0.8

    8

    0.3

    0**

    0.20

    **

    0.2

    8**

    0.2

    3**

    (0.7

    0)

    6

    Self-management

    3.5

    1

    0.6

    3

    0.3

    4**

    0.27

    **

    0.3

    2**

    0.3

    3**

    0.5

    6**

    (0

    .84)

    7

    Socialawareness

    3.7

    0

    0.9

    6

    0.2

    6**

    0.22

    **

    0.3

    4**

    0.4

    1**

    0.3

    9**

    0

    .52**

    (0.7

    9)

    8

    Relationshipmanage

    ment

    3.4

    5

    1.0

    0

    0.3

    3**

    0.20

    **

    0.3

    7**

    0.3

    5**

    0.4

    3**

    0

    .55**

    0.5

    8**

    (0.8

    7)

    9

    Age

    24.8

    2

    6.1

    7

    0.1

    21*

    0.07

    7

    0.0

    34

    20.0

    55

    0.0

    53

    0

    .156**

    0.1

    03*

    0.0

    54

    10

    Gender(1

    male

    2

    female)

    1.6

    1

    0.4

    8

    20.0

    76

    20.02

    2

    0.0

    84

    20.0

    37

    20.0

    31

    20

    .124*

    0.0

    08

    20.0

    08

    20.2

    60**

    11

    Experiences(cultures)

    11.9

    1

    34.8

    4

    0.1

    31*

    0.12

    7*

    0.0

    80

    0.0

    50

    0.0

    31

    0

    .094

    0.0

    74

    0.0

    26

    0.5

    80**

    20.0

    93

    Table III.Descriptive statisticscorrelations andreliabilities

    JMP25,8

    890

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    16/23

    TotalCQ

    MetacognitiveCQ

    CognitiveCQ

    MotivationalCQ

    BehavioralCQ

    Variable

    Step1

    Step2

    Step3

    Step1

    Step2

    Step1

    Step

    2

    Step1

    Step2

    Step1

    Step2

    Age

    20.0

    3

    20.0

    8

    20.0

    8

    0.0

    5

    0.0

    1

    0.0

    0

    20.0

    3

    0.0

    1

    20.0

    3

    20.1

    4*

    2

    0.1

    9***

    Gender

    20.0

    0

    0.0

    2

    0.0

    0

    20.0

    5

    20.0

    4

    20.0

    1

    0.00

    0.0

    9

    0.0

    9*

    20.0

    6

    20.0

    6

    Experiences

    0.1

    3*

    0.1

    3

    0.1

    3*

    0.0

    9

    0.0

    9

    0.1

    2*

    0.12

    *

    0.0

    8

    0.0

    8

    0.1

    2*

    0.1

    2*

    Self-awareness

    0.1

    3

    0.0

    8

    0.1

    3*

    0.05

    0.0

    8

    20.0

    0

    Self-management

    0.3

    2***

    0.1

    6**

    0.1

    3*

    0.16

    *

    0.1

    0

    0.1

    2*

    Socialawareness

    0.1

    8**

    0.0

    2

    0.09

    0.1

    3*

    0.2

    8***

    Relationshipmanagemen

    t

    0.1

    6**

    0.1

    8**

    0.02

    0.2

    0***

    0.1

    2*

    F

    1.9

    6

    17.4

    2***

    17.6

    5***

    2.9

    6*

    11.1

    7***

    2.0

    7

    5.69

    ***

    1.9

    1

    12.8

    9***

    2.1

    4

    15.1

    8***

    DF

    40.0

    7***

    14.9

    7**

    16.9

    4***

    8.29

    ***

    20.8

    3***

    24.5

    6***

    R2

    0.0

    15

    0.1

    8

    0.2

    4

    0.0

    2

    0.1

    7

    0.0

    1

    0.09

    0.0

    1

    0.0

    9

    0.0

    1

    0.2

    2

    DR

    2

    0.1

    7

    0.0

    6

    0.1

    5

    0.08

    0.1

    8

    0.2

    0

    AdjustedR

    2

    0.0

    0

    0.1

    7

    0.2

    3

    0.0

    1

    0.1

    5

    0.0

    0

    0.08

    0.0

    0

    0.1

    8

    0.0

    0

    0.2

    0

    Notes:Gender(1

    male,2

    female);Experience(monthsof

    cross-culturalexperiences);*p,

    20.0

    5;**p,

    20.0

    1;***p,

    20.0

    01

    Table IV.Hierarchical regression

    analyses (n 381)

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    891

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    17/23

    related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ ( 0:18,p , 0:01= 0:20, p , 0.001/ 0:12, p , 0.05), but not to cognitive CQ. Thus,regression analysis partially supported H5.

    The Harman factor analysis was conducted by using exploratory component

    analysis to examine whether common method variance existed. Eight factors emergedwith eigenvalues greater than 1, and the first factor accounted for 19.09 percent of thevariance. Cumulative variance of the eight factors was 42.32 percent of the totalvariance, and no one single factor accounted for more than 25 percent indicating thatcommon method bias was minimized.

    DiscussionThe primary goal of this research was to examine how CQ and EQ are distinct, butrelated constructs. Previous studies have demonstrated discriminant validity of the CQconstruct compared with the EQ construct, and mentioned the importance of bothculturally competent and emotionally sensitive leaders in todays business (Ang et al.,

    2004, 2007), but they did not show relationships between specific facets of CQ andspecific factors of EQ. Thus, this study was the first attempt to explore the differentialrelationships between the four-factor CQ constructs and the four-factor EQ constructs.

    The results of this study with 381 Korean respondents further increased thegeneralizability of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) across countries, which hadbeen supported by conducting studies only in Singapore and the United Sates.Correspondingly, this study confirmed a reliability and construct validity of the fourfactor model of CQS. In addition, CFA supported discriminant validity of the fourfactor model of CQS in relation to the EQ construct.

    The results of this study highlighted several important points. First, the findings ofthis study demonstrated strong support for the distinctiveness and the discriminantvalidity of the CQ construct compared with the EQ construct, which were consistent

    with the findings of previous studies (Ang et al., 2004, 2007). Second, analyses of thefindings suggest that the EQ factors related to social competence (social awareness andrelationship management) explained CQ over and beyond the EQ factors related toself-competence (self-awareness, and relationship management) after controlling forage, gender, and months of cross-cultural experiences. Finally, the results supportedthe predictions that specific factors of EQ were related to specific factors of CQ.

    Self-awareness was positively associated with metacognitive CQ as expected. Sincethose who have high self-awareness are capable of identifying their own and othersemotions, recognizing their strengths, and weaknesses, and tend to look for feedbackand new perspectives about themselves, it seems that self-awareness is positivelyrelated to metacognitive CQ, an individuals cultural consciousness and awarenessduring cross-cultural interactions.

    Unlike the expectations that self-management was positively related to bothmotivational CQ and behavioral CQ, self-management was associated with all threefacets of CQ except motivational CQ. This study assumes that an individual might ratehigh on the self-management scale of his or her original culture, but that does notnecessarily translate into success in committing to adapt ones behavior, and tomanage ones and others emotions in different cultural settings. The results of thisstudy also demonstrated that self-management is positively related to metacognitiveCQ. This study speculates that a positive relationship between self-management and

    JMP25,8

    892

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    18/23

    metacognitive CQ may be due to consciousness included in self-management. Thosewho are high in conscientiousness are more likely to take responsibility for personalperformance, follow through on commitments and promises, and engage in their workwith a playful, organized and purposeful approach (Ang et al., 2006; Boyatzis and

    Goleman, 2002). Thus, self-management may be related to metacognitive CQ. Inaddition, although self-management seems to have nothing to do with cognitive CQ,self-management was positively associated with cognitive CQ. This result may be dueto a positive relationship between cognitive CQ and achievement orientation as well asinitiative included in the factors of self-management. Since individuals with highachievement drive and initiative are more likely to expect obstacles to achieve a goal,and take calculated risks (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002; Goleman, 1998, 2001), they aremore intelligent, curious, anticipatory, and well-prepared for knowledge about specificaspects of other cultures.

    Results partially supported that social awareness would be positively related tometacognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. As expected, social awarenesswas positively related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ, but not to metacognitiveCQ. This study assumes that those who are high in social-awareness within their ownculture are not necessarily skilled at accurately interpreting peoples feelings ornon-verbal cues, and comprehending the implications of interacting with individualsfrom other cultures.

    Finally, the results of this study demonstrated that relationship management ispositively related to all three facets of CQ except cognitive CQ. Since cognitive CQrefers to an individuals knowledge of particular norms, customs, traditions, practices,and conventions of other cultures, relationship management within a singular culturewould not be closely related to cognitive CQ even if it requires the most complex andhighest level of abilities among the four EQ competences.

    Overall, this study provided insightful empirical evidence that a relationship exists

    between CQ and EQ. Especially, the facets of EQ related to social competence(social-awareness, and relationship management) demonstrate incremental predictivevalidity of CQ, over and above demographic characteristics (age, and gender),experiences in cross-cultural interactions (number of months spent abroad), and thefacets of EQ related to self-competence (self-awareness and self-management).Self-competence associated with EQ, such as emotional self awareness and control isrelatively stable over time, and non-specific to a certain task or circumstance comparedto social competence since self-competence deals with an individuals inner state ofbeing able to perceive and manage internal emotions. A way of understanding andcontrolling an individuals own emotions is similar regardless of where he or she ispresented. However, social competence related to EQ always depends on the capabilityof accurately and adaptively managing emotions in others, so it tends to be more

    malleable and specific to a specific situation. Thus, social competence within EQ ismore closely related to CQ, which requires the capability of adapting ones emotionalawareness and expression, and choosing what is most appropriate in cross-culturalinteractions.

    Limitations and future researchThis study also has limitations that offer crucial venues for future research. First, sincestudy samples were limited to students at a large public university in Korea,

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    893

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    19/23

    generalization of the study was limited and the chance of sampling errors could not beexcluded. Future studies should test the hypotheses with samples from differentpopulations. Second, common method bias may be a concern since both predictor andcriterion variables are from the same source in this study. Future study should be more

    concerned about common method variance. Although this study collected self-reporteddata related to CQ and EQ at two different points of time, and a Harman one-factor testwas conducted, all of the sample data comes from the same resource. While a perfectremoval of CMB seems impossible, it can be controlled and detected through carefulresearch design and instruments (Park et al., 2007; Podsakoffet al., 2003). The best wayto control CMB is to use a different measurement method for each variable, such as themultitrait-multimethod (MTMM) (Park et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector,1994). If it is impossible to gain multiple measures of the variables from multiplemethods, researchers must obtain predictor and criterion variables from differentsources (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Another way of controlling CMB is usingobjective measures that help reduce many biases that can interrupt human judgmentand distort reports (Spector, 1994). Third, another limitation to this study is thatpersonality measures were not included. Future study should explore more extendedmodels of CQ and EQ by adding personality as an antecedent variable, and jobperformance or cultural adaptation as a criterion variable and mediated variable. Forexample, future study could examine the relationships between an individuals levelsof CQ/EQ, job performance in international assignments, cultural adaptation, and alsoinvestigate the relationship among personality and the intelligence construct. Finally,the findings on incremental validity of social competence on CQ encourage futureresearch over and beyond self-competence. Future research should be devised morecarefully and delicately to examine whether social competence of EQ is more related toculture. For example, future study can develop two different versions of the EQ test,which can be applied to either a singular culture or cross-cultural context respectively.

    Then relationships between culture and two competences (self-competence and socialcompetence) will be examined by comparing two different responses from two differentversions of EQ. This kind of future study can prove whether EI does not provide anadequate explanation, or if it is as valid when applied in a cross-cultural context as CQresearchers insist.

    Implications for research and practiceResults of this study provide important theoretical and research implications. First,this research provides the first integrative study of the relationships between EQ andCQ. Some elements of EQ are closely related to facets of CQ. Especially, interpersonalcompetencies of EQ are more closely related to CQ than intrapersonal competencies of

    EQ. Results of this research contribute valuable knowledge to the field of intelligencetheory by clearly delineating differential relationships between specific dimensions ofEQ and the four-factor model of CQ. This study enables scholars to address similaritiesbetween EQ and CQ, as opposed to searching for and emphasizing differences. Second,the results of this study with 381 Korean respondents increased the generalizability ofthe Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), which had been developed by conducting studiesin Singapore and the United Sates. Also, this study confirmed a reliability andconstruct validity of the four factor model of CQS.

    JMP25,8

    894

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    20/23

    Practically, this study also has implications for cross-cultural management practice.For example, this study would help human resource professionals in their search byselecting, training and developing a more culturally competent workforce. Bydemonstrating the relationship between CQ and EQ, this study allows organizations to

    improve their staffing and performance system. They will recognize the importance ofcultural intelligence besides evaluating employees language proficiencies,international work experience, and emotional intelligence when an HR departmentin an organization recruits or selects its employees for work in cross-cultural settings.In addition, organizations could use the CQS to recruit and select their employees whowould be the best fit for expatriate assignments since previous studies and this studysupported strong psychometric characteristics of the CQS. By using CQS, those whoperform well in domestic contexts but are unlikely to succeed in cross-culturalinteractions could be screened out, which would reduce unnecessary costs stemmingfrom failure of international assignments.

    ReferencesAckerman, P.L. and Humphreys, L.G. (1990), Individual differences theory in industrial and

    organizational psychology, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,pp. 223-82.

    Adler, N.J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South Western,Cincinnati, OH.

    Ang, S., Dyne, L.V. and Koh, C. (2006), Personality correlates of the four-factor model of culturalintelligence, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 100-22.

    Ang, S., Dyne, L.V., Koh, C. and Ng, K.Y. (2004), The measurement of cultural intelligence,paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Meeting Symposium on CulturalIntelligence in the 21st Century, New Orleans, LA.

    Ang, S., Dyne, L.V., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N. (2007),Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decisionmaking, cultural adaptation and task performance, Management and Organization

    Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 335-71.

    Bar-On, R. (2000), Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the emotional quotientinventory, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (Eds), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence:Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace,Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 363-88.

    Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1991), Toward a comprehensive model ofinternational adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives, Academy of

    Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 291-317.

    Boyatzis, R. and Burckle, M. (1999), Psychometric Properties of the ECI, Hay/McBer Group,

    Boston, MA.

    Boyatzis, R.E. (1999), Developing emotional intelligence, in Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D. (Eds),The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace.

    Boyatzis, R.E. and Goleman, D. (2002), The Emotional Competency Inventory, The Hay Group,Boston, MA.

    Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K. (2000), Clustering competence in emotionalintelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI), in Bar-On, R. andParker, J.D.A. (Eds), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development,

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    895

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    21/23

    Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 343-62.

    Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003), Convergent, discriminate, and incremental validity ofcompeting measure of emotional intelligence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

    Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 1-12.Caligiuri, P.M. (2000), Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: a moderating effect

    of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-culturaladjustment, Management International Review, Vol. 40, pp. 61-80.

    Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: An Analysis of Individual Interactions acrossCultures, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

    Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (2002), Multinational Work Teams: A New Perspective, LawrenceErlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Earley, P.C. and Peterson, R.S. (2004), The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural intelligence as anew approach to intercultural training for the global manager, Academy of Management

    Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 100-15.

    Earley, P.C., Ang, S. and Tan, J. (2006), CQ: Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work, StanfordUniversity Press, Palo Alto, CA.

    Gabel, R.S., Dolan, S.L. and Cerdin, J.L. (2005), Emotional intelligence as predictor of culturaladjustment for success in global assignments, Career Development International, Vol. 10No. 5, pp. 375-95.

    Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., Holcombe, K.M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K. and Fukuno, M. (2001),Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict

    episodes in the United States and Japan, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86,pp. 1059-74.

    Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.

    Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.

    Goleman, D. (2001), Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building, in Cherniss, C. andGoleman, D. (Eds), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 13-44.

    Hochschild, A.R. (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, Universityof California Press, Los Angeles, CA.

    Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E. and Hooper, G.S. (2002), Workgroup emotionalintelligence: scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal,

    Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-214.

    Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J. and Jaworski, R.A. (2001), Sources of support and expatriateperformance: the mediating role of expatriate adjustment, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54,pp. 71-99.

    Lievens, F., Harris, M.M., Van Keer, E. and Bisqueret, C. (2003), Predicting cross-cultural

    training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensionsmeasured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview, Journal of

    Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 476-89.

    MacGillivray, A. (2006), A Brief History of Globalization: The Untold Story of Our IncredibleShrinking Planet, Carroll & Graf, New York, NY.

    Mayer, J.D. (2001), A field guide to emotional intelligence, in Ciarrochi, J., Forgas, J.P. andMayer, J.D. (Eds), Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life: A Scientific Inquiry, PsychologyPress, Philadelphia, PA.

    JMP25,8

    896

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    22/23

    Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993), The intelligence of emotional intelligence, Intelligence,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 433-42.

    Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1995), Emotional intelligence and the construction and theregulations of feelings, Applied and Preventive Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 197-208.

    Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999), Emotional intelligence meets traditionalstandards for an intelligence, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-98.

    Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (2000), Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence:the case for ability scales, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds), The Handbook of Emotional

    Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and inthe Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 320-42.

    Newman, J., Bhatt, B. and Gutteridge, T. (1978), Determinants of expatriates effectiveness:a theoretical and empirical vacuum, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 3,pp. 655-69.

    Ng, K.Y. and Earley, C.P. (2006), Culture and intelligence: old construct, new frontiers, Groupand Organization Management, Vol. 31, pp. 4-19.

    Offerman, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Seal, C. and Sass, M. (2004), The relativecontribution of emotional intelligence and cognitive ability to individual and teamperformance, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219-43.

    Park, W.W., Kim, M.S., Jeong, S.M. and Huh, K.M. (2007), Causes and remedies of commonmethod bias, Korean Academy of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 89-133.

    Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems andprospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

    Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

    Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition &Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.

    Salovey, P. and Pizarro, D. (2003), The value of emotional intelligence, in Sternberg, R.J.,Lautrey, J. and Lubart, T.I. (Eds), Models of Intelligence: International Perspectives,American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp. 263-78.

    Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (2000), Select on intelligence, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.), The BlackwellHandbook of Organizational Principles, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 3-14.

    Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of acontroversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 385-92.

    Sternberg, R.J. (1986), A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence,in Sternberg, R.J. and Detterman, D.K. (Eds), What is Intelligence? ContemporaryViewpoints on its Nature and Definition, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 3-15.

    Sternberg, R.J., Forsythe, G.B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J.A., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., Snook,

    S. and Grigorenko, E.L. (2000), Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, NY.

    Takeuchi, R., Yun, S. and Tesluk, P.E. (2002), An examination of crossover and spillover effectsof spouse and expatriate adjustment on expatriate outcomes, Journal of Applied

    Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 655-66.

    Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P., Yun, S. and Lepak, D. (2005), An integrative view of internationalexperiences: an empirical examination, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48,pp. 85-100.

    Emotionalintelligence

    correlates

    897

  • 8/3/2019 Emotional Intelligence Correlates of the Four Factor Model of Cutural Intelligence

    23/23

    Tarique, I. and Takeuchi, R. (2008), Developing cultural intelligence: the role of internationalnon-work experiences, in, in Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (Eds), Handbook of Cultural

    Intelligence, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.

    Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2006), Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic

    job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment, Group andOrganization Management,, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-73.

    Thomas, D.C. (2006), Domain and development of cultural intelligence: the importance ofmindfulness, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 78-9.

    Thomas, D.C. and Inkson, K. (2004), Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

    Thorndike, R.L. and Stein, S. (1937), An evaluation of the attempts to measure socialintelligence, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 34, pp. 275-85.

    About the authorTaewon Moon received his BA in TV and Radio Communication from The George WashingtonUniversity, Washington DC and his MBA, which concentrated on MIS, at The GeorgeWashington University, Washington DC. He later received his PhD, which focused onorganizational behavior and human resource management, at the Engineering Management andSystems Engineering Department in the School of Engineering and Applied Science of GWU. Hewas a full-time lecturer at the University of Suwon in Korea in 2006-2007 before becoming aresearch fellow at the Center for Leadership and Cultural Intelligence Center at NanyangBusiness School of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Taewon then became aresearch professor at SKK Graduate School of Business in Korea and is currently an AssistantProfessor at Hongik University. Taewon Moon can be contacted at: [email protected]/[email protected]

    JMP25,8

    898

    To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints