Intercultural competence (often called cultural intelligence) may be defined as specific abilities, types of behavior, and practices that allow individuals to interact effectively and meaningfully in a socio-cultural environment. The very concept of cultural competence (CQ) is a multi-component term, but when evaluating the diversity of its manifestations, intercultural sensitivity may be considered one of its main elements.
The problem of the social perception of one another’s emotional states manifests itself in different contexts, and the task of interpreting them correctly is achieved by applying the provisions of CQ. As evidence of specific hypotheses and statements, the ideas of individual authors of academic works on this topic will be considered, and relevant conclusions will be given regarding the objectivity and relevance of these assumptions. Intercultural competence is an important aspect of human coexistence and contains various subtopics that address the issues of interaction in the context of cultural diversity.
CQ as a Capacity
Summary
When considering CQ as a capacity, one can note that it contains many concepts and approaches that form an integral picture of the concept. In particular, Ang et al. (2007) test the relationships among the four main dimensions of this phenomenon and note the practical importance of applying their findings. The authors argue that by analyzing the effects of CQ, it is possible to improve the issues of social adaptation, collective decision-making, and task performance (Ang et al., 2007).
Earley and Mosakowski (2016), in turn, focus on the narrower implication of cultural intelligence and consider its role in the context of management in the business sector. According to the authors’ findings, many profiles determine the characteristic abilities to use this concept in practice, and the ways of increasing personal CQ traits are described sequentially (Earley & Mosakowski, 2016). Stahl and Brannen (2013) consider even a narrower field of utilizing cultural intelligence and focus on describing this concept as a special theoretical framework for leadership work. The key findings are as follows: studying cross-cultural differences contributes to effective synergy, helps optimize managerial work, and stimulates innovative sustainable development.
Critical Thinking
The positions of all the authors are based on justifications, which enhances credibility. Nevertheless, for instance, the work by Stahl and Brannen (2013) deserves a closer look since the results are a consequence of subjective perception obtained during the conversation with the respondent. At the same time, this participant of the study gives numerous examples from his career, which allows talking about his practical experience.
The main merit of the work by Ang et al. (2007) is a consistent proof or refutation of all proposed hypotheses through empirical analysis, which allows obtaining data from primary sources. This approach is reasonable because, in addition to CQ, the authors touch upon many variables and seek to find correlations among them (Ang et al., 2007). As a result, despite the potential limitations of such a research method due to too a narrow sample, valuable findings are obtained. Unlike the previous authors, Earley and Mosakowski (2016) focus on the narrow topic of the manifestation of CQ in management. This decision makes it possible to describe a significant number of the available implications of this concept and compose unique self-assessment schemes, which is one of the research strengths.
The Developmental Continuum of Cultural Sensitivity
Summary
The ability and desire to perceive the world’s beauty, value culture, and respect the background of other people form the basis of self-development in the framework of the cultural sensitivity concept. The topic of the constant development of this concept is relevant in modern conditions since business principles of interaction among people often prevail over social ones. Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003) examine the theory of cultural sensitivity in detail and discuss which factors contribute to measuring landmarks that advance this concept in the world. The authors argue that they have been able to find a set of measures that determine incentives for the development of cultural sensitivity and prove their assumptions empirically (Hammer et al., 2003).
The study by Earley, Murnieks, and Mosakowski (2007) is more extensive and affects not only the considered phenomenon but also other factors that shape global consciousness regarding cultural interaction. The authors of the study cite sensitivity as the ability to inspire others and highlight developmental paths that could promote mutual respect and understanding (Earley et al., 2007). These aspects form a fair society with a focus on the preservation of human achievements.
Critical Thinking
Both cited sources provide reasonable data, and they can be classified as trustworthy due to detailed assessments and analyses. The study by Hammer et al. (2003) is more relevant in the context of this topic since the authors focus on the concept of cultural sensitivity exclusively and consider this term as the basis of their research. Earley et al. (2007), in turn, touch on this phenomenon as part of a larger study and mention it about other cultural competencies, which makes their work less suitable for a comprehensive evaluation. In addition, the authors provide insufficient justification for this particular concept, although it is an essential component of the general theory of CQ (Earley et al., 2007).
The study by Hammer et al. (2003) also has some limitations, for instance, an increased emphasis on the description of orientations rather than a developing continuum of cultural sensitivity. Nevertheless, the claimed topic is disclosed comprehensively, and various implications are touched upon, which is an important aspect of the work done in the context of this topic.
Key Components of CQ
Summary
The key components of CQ are addressed in many academic papers due to the importance of listing them in the context of analyzing this topic. Ang et al. (2017) argue that four basic elements form the concept of cultural intelligence – “metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural” (p. 335). Afterward, this multi-component aspect is discussed regarding the relationships of individual elements with one another, and conclusions are made concerning the impact of these connections on specific skills. Earley et al. (2007) also mention four of the aforementioned aspects of CQ, but they focus on the manifestations of these elements within people’s global minds. In addition, the authors note that these components may be used when discussing not only social but also political or economic issues of human interaction (Earley et al., 2007).
According to Earley and Mosakowski (2016), there are three key elements of CQ – emotional-motivational, physical, and cognitive. This conclusion is supplemented by reasoning on how exactly cultural intelligence is formed in a person and what motives he or she is guided by to choose a specific component.
Critical Thinking
Although many authors address the topic of the main components of CQ and their manifestations in human decisions, some arguments may be considered controversial or insufficiently disclosed. For instance, when analyzing the article by Earley and Mosakowski (2016), one can note that the researchers identify only three elements of the concept, which, however, contradicts the findings of other authors and is a biased conclusion.
Ang et al. (2017) describe the four components in detail and provide arguments in support of such a classification, which is the main advantage of their work. In addition, correlation characteristics are considered in this study, which increases its practical significance and contributes to a more convenient interpretation of the results obtained. Earley et al. (2007) also address the components of CQ in the framework of cross-cultural relationships, and their reasoning on the interdependences of these elements coincides with that by Ang et al. (2017). Thus, a thorough disclosure of this topic depends not only on how correctly specific components are presented but also on whether they are compared in the context of the impact on human cultural competence.
Conclusion
CQ is a significant and integral component of a civilized society in which attention is paid to the cultural diversity of people, and respect for generally accepted values is maintained. This concept may be viewed as a capacity that contains additional subsections and elements correlating with one another. The concept of cultural sensitivity needs to be analyzed in the context of CQ since the abilities to show interest and empathy are flexible skills that develop in parallel with society. The components of cultural intelligence determine the causes and nature of specific human actions and decisions and serve as factors explaining cross-cultural relationships.
References
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371. Web.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Cultural intelligence. In Harvard Business Review, J. Brett, Y. L. Doz, E. Meyer, & H. B. Gregersen (Eds.), HBR’s 10 must reads on managing across cultures (with featured article “Cultural intelligence” by P. Christopher Earley and Elaine Mosakowski) (pp. 1-16). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Earley, P. C., Murnieks, C., & Mosakowski, E. (2007). Cultural intelligence and the global mindset. In The global mindset (pp. 75-103). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421-443. Web.
Stahl, G. K., & Brannen, M. Y. (2013). Building cross-cultural leadership competence: An interview with Carlos Ghosn. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 494-502. Web.