7.6. CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND RELATED CONCEPTS

Recent work on improving interaction across culturally different individuals has introduced the concept of "cultural intelligence" (Earley and Ang, 2003). Cultural intelligence is an individual's capability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity. Just as the world includes top mathematicians, pianists, economists, philosophers, and athletes, it also includes some individuals who are unusually good at getting along with others from other cultures.

Other related concepts such as emotional and social intelligence are also becoming popular and are being used to inform management and leadership concepts and challenges. Perhaps the early roots of emotional intelligence can be traced back to Darwin's work and the emphasis he placed on the importance of adaptation for survival as an indication of emotional expression and intelligence. E. L. Thorndike, as early as 1920, used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing social relationships with other people (Thorndike, 1920). Howard Gardner began the formulation of the idea for many dimensions of intelligence. He initially identified seven dimensions and later added three more to include naturalist intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and existential intelligence (Gardner, 1983, 1999). The model introduced by Daniel Goleman focuses on emotional intelligence (EI) as a wide array of competencies and skills related to leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines four main emotional intelligence constructs (Goleman, 1998):

Many of the concepts and constructs related to social and emotional intelligence have considerable overlap. It is useful to use these ideas to better understand human behavior rather than to measure an individual's social and emotional intelligence. Unlike standard IQ tests, competencies and skills identified as a part of these tests do not have objectively correct answers. The lack of scientific substantiation has led to criticism of the use of EI as a measure of competencies and leadership skills.

Similarly, the concept of cultural intelligence should be viewed as a means of dealing with this issue objectively rather than classifying people as high or low on the cultural intelligence scale. When the cultural distance between the two cultures is large, the interaction is difficult, so that even individuals who are very high in cultural intelligence may not perform well in that situation. Interpersonal trust, for instance, is likely to be low in a high cultural distance situation.

People who are open to new experiences (imaginative, creative, adventurous), who have traveled widely, have interacted extensively with people from diverse cultures, and/or have worked extensively with people in culturally diverse groups, tend to be higher in cultural intelligence than their peers. One clue that can identify culturally intelligent people is that they speak several languages and enjoy interaction in such languages; this does not mean that many Americans who only speak English cannot be equally culturally intelligent based upon other attributes discussed here.

Empirical work summarized in Ang and Van Dyne (2008) indicates that culturally intelligent individuals usually scan the intercultural environment more broadly, sample the correct information from this environment, organize the information in optimal ways, enjoy interacting with people from diverse cultures, and behave effectively in intercultural situations. For example, they know that there are many kinds of English, and adjust so as to understand the English that is being used. They enjoy the situation even when the accent and pronunciation of the English being used is not similar to their own. They know the range of norms of proper behavior in different cultures, and the standard operating procedures for effective interaction with members of other cultures. They tend to have a global identity (feel that they are citizens of the world). They know when to ask for clarification of an event that may be interpreted in different ways. For example, they know that people may interpret situations in different ways, and they ask for clarification of which interpretation is valid at a particular moment. They accommodate to cross-cultural situations by adjusting their behavior so that it is effective in different situations.

People high in cultural intelligence have been found to perform more effectively than their peers in intercultural situations. They are better adjusted to international assignments, and work more effectively than their peers on multicultural teams. This topic is complex and a serious study of cultural intelligence requires consideration of many personality and situational factors discussed in the Ang and Van Dyne volume.

People in R&D represent different cultures for many reasons. Major research projects involve personnel from a variety of disciplines: scientists, engineers, social scientists, economists, business managers. Each of these disciplines, to some degree, represents a different culture. Major research projects, large research universities, and major research organizations in most countries, especially the United States, attract researchers from across the globe, representing different cultures. One can literally see this at any major university in the United States. Consequently, it is crucial to recognize the importance of improving interaction across culturally different individuals especially in complex R&D organizations.

The ethos of a scientific community, as described in Chapter 3, when embraced and practiced, can serve as a powerful tool in focusing more on individual accomplishments and capabilities than on an individual's social status or ethnic background. This has helped foster a higher level of collaboration among researchers of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and has generated many scientific discoveries and innovations.