EXPLORING CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS IN A MULTINATIONAL,

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT GRADUATE PROGRAM

___________________________________

A Research Project

Presented to the Faculty of

The George L. Graziadio

School of Business and Management

Pepperdine University

___________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

in

Organization Development

___________________________________

by

Jack P. Schlafer

August 2012

© Jack P. Schlafer 2012

 UMI Number: 1519521

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1519521
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 UMI Number: 1519521

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1519521
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
This research project, completed by

JACK P. SCHLAFER

under the guidance of the Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to
and accepted by the faculty of The George L. Graziadio School of Business and Management in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

Date: August 2012

Faculty Committee

Committee Chair, Miriam Lacey, Ph.D.

Committee Member, Ann Feyerherm, Ph.D.

Linda Livingstone, Ph.D., Dean

The George L. Graziadio
School of Business and Management

ii
 Abstract

This exploratory study focused on the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on team

effectiveness (TE) in a multinational, organization development graduate program. This field study

included preliminary measures of both CQ and TE, an educational and focus group intervention for

enhanced CQ skills, and post-CQ and TE reassessment. The results suggest that CQ skills,

specifically Metacognitive CQ and Behavioral CQ, had a positive relationship on a team’s ability to

meet objectives and satisfy customers’ needs in cross-cultural engagements. Curiously,

Metacognitive CQ seemed to have diminished a team’s ability to deliver results in a timely manner.

Demographics such as age negatively influenced goal achievement, while past cultural

experiences enhanced execution. The longitudinal aspect of the study found that only improved

Cognitive CQ’s capability over time correlated to a positive impact on perceived satisfaction of

customers and quality of products and services delivered. The education intervention’s effect on

CQ was inconclusive.

iii
 Table of Contents

Page

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Cultural Intelligence ............................................................................................................... 2

Research Purpose ................................................................................................................. 3

Research Question ................................................................................................................ 3

Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................ 4

Importance of Research ........................................................................................................ 5

Research Setting ................................................................................................................... 6

Thesis Outline........................................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 8

Multiple Intelligences ............................................................................................................. 9

Cultural Intelligence ............................................................................................................. 10

Cultural Intelligence Research ............................................................................................ 11

Team Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 12

Team Models and Theories ................................................................................................. 14

Team Effectiveness Research ............................................................................................ 17

Team Effectiveness Defined ............................................................................................... 20

Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness ..................................................................... 21

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 23

Research Gap ..................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3: Research Methodology................................................................................................... 24

MSOD Program International Dimensionality ..................................................................... 24

Research Methodology and Design .................................................................................... 26

Sampling Methodology ........................................................................................................ 27

Definition of Variables ......................................................................................................... 28

iv
 Cultural Intelligence Scale ................................................................................................... 28

Demographic Controls ......................................................................................................... 29

Team Effectiveness Assessment ........................................................................................ 29

Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................................... 30

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 32

Chapter 4: Findings .......................................................................................................................... 33

Research Setup ................................................................................................................... 33

Demographics ..................................................................................................................... 33

Study Variables and Statistical Measures ........................................................................... 35

Results for the Entire Population ......................................................................................... 36

Summary of Results Using Overall Sample ........................................................................ 47

Results of Experimental versus Control Group ................................................................... 47

Experimental Group Findings .............................................................................................. 47

Summary of Results for Experimental Group ...................................................................... 56

Control Group Findings ....................................................................................................... 56

Summary of Results for Control Group ............................................................................... 66

3
T Student Rating Findings ................................................................................................. 66

Summary of Results ............................................................................................................ 68

Educational Intervention Qualitative Findings ..................................................................... 68

Summary of CQ and TE Study Results ............................................................................... 70

Chapter 5: Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 72

Findings ............................................................................................................................... 72

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 73

Additional Factors ................................................................................................................ 75

Study Limitations ................................................................................................................. 77

Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................................ 79

Implications for Organization Development Practitioners ................................................... 80

Implications for Global Managers ........................................................................................ 80

Last Thoughts ...................................................................................................................... 81

v
References ....................................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix A: Awareness Email to Subjects ...................................................................................... 88

Appendix B: Introductory Email to Subjects and Participant Consent ............................................. 91

Appendix C: Reminder Email to Subjects ........................................................................................ 95

Appendix D: Participant Survey Thank You Email ........................................................................... 97

Appendix E: Cultural Intelligence Scale ........................................................................................... 99

1
Appendix F: Work Team Effectiveness Survey—T ....................................................................... 104

Appendix G: Invitation to Cultural Intelligence/Work Team Effectiveness Education and Focus

Groups ............................................................................................................................................ 112

Appendix H: Focus Group Consent Form ...................................................................................... 114

Appendix I: Outline of Education Session ...................................................................................... 117

Appendix J: Thank You Email to Focus Group Participants .......................................................... 122

3
Appendix K: Work Team Effectiveness Survey—T ...................................................................... 124

vi
 List of Tables

Table Page

1. Master of Science in Organization Development Program Schedule and LocationsHHH.. 24

2. Differences in Training Between GroupsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 27

3. Study's Population DemographicsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... 34

4. Entire Population Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Descriptive StatisticsHH.. 37

5. Entire Population Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Paired t-test StatisticsHH 38
1 3
6. T /T Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness CorrelationsHHHHHHHHHHHH40

7. Entire Population Single Linear Regression TestsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 42

1
8. T Multiple Regression Tests (Entire Population)HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.. 43

9. Experimental Group Descriptive StatisticsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..49

10. Experimental Group Paired t-test StatisticsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 50

11. Experimental Group Pearson CorrelationsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. 51

12. Experimental Group Single Linear Regression TestsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... 52

13. Experimental Group Multiple Regression TestsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 54

14. Control Group Descriptive StatisticsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 57

15. Control Group Paired t-test StatisticsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.. 59

16. Control Group Pearson CorrelationsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH60

17. Control Group Single Linear Regression TestsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...HHH61

18. Control Group Multiple Regression TestsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH63

3
19. Experimental and Control Group Training and Cultural Intelligence T FrequenciesHHH.. 67

20. Experimental Group Qualitative AnalysisHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 69

vii
 List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Theoretical Framework for Study ............................................................................................. 5

2. Master of Science in Organization Development Program and Research ............................. 33

viii
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the impact of cultural intelligence

(CQ) on team effectiveness (TE) in a multinational, organization development graduate program

environment. The participants of this study were the students of the 2012 class of Pepperdine

University’s Master of Science in Organization Development (MSOD) program. It is intended that

outcomes from this study will be used to improve the MSOD program at Pepperdine University and

contribute to the growing body of research on CQ.

Globalization can be defined as “the large-scale, interactive social process in which people

increasingly interrelate, communicate, and work in an increasingly culturally diverse workplace,

both within and outside the organization” (Earley, Ang, & Tan, 2006, p. 1). According to Friedman,

while the first two “versions” of globalization focused on companies, the third phase will center on

the individual:

Globalization 3.0—the force that gives it its unique character—is the newfound power for
individuals to collaborate and compete globally. And the phenomenon that is enabling
empowering, and enjoining individuals and small groups to go global so easily and so
seamlessly is what I call the flat-world platform. (2007, p. 10)

This “flattening” of the global playing field will continue to evolve and intensify due to accelerated

growth of personal computing power, high-speed connectivity, and use of workflow software

(Friedman, 2007).

There is compelling data that would suggest that Asia will continue to be a favored offshore

location for services. In relative purchasing power, the Asia region will grow by 50% within the next

five years and will be comparable to the economies of the United States and Europe. In addition,

Asia’s gross domestic product will exceed the top seven industrial economies, or G-7, by 2030

(Singh, 2010). Per The Economist, over half of 1,000 executives polled from around the world

believe Asia represents the greatest opportunity for revenue growth, and nearly 60% believe it to

be an excellent region for utilizing services, people, and production (Economist Intelligence Unit,

2007).

With this rapid globalization comes the challenge of integrating diverse cultures which have

their own histories, traditions, norms, values, and worldviews. This diversity represents both an
 2

opportunity and a challenge for leaders and their organizations. Research suggests that diversity

can positively impact a team’s ability to creatively solve problems and develop impactful solutions;

however, there is evidence that would suggest that, to the contrary, the same diversity can impede

a team’s ability to communicate, concur on goals, and formulate common norms of behavior (Adler,

2008; Davison, 1994; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Gluesing et al., 2003; Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn,

2006; Shachaf, 2008; Staples & Zhao, 2006).

Organization development consultants and managers require cultural knowledge and skills

to ensure the organizations in which they serve can be effective in this new “globalized” business

environment. With its emphasis on training and hands-on application of organization development

knowledge and skills in the United States and abroad, the MSOD program provides a meaningful

environment to examine if improvements in CQ knowledge and skills can enhance TE in cross-

cultural scenarios.

Heretofore, the MSOD program focused on cross-cultural training for its students through

current cross-cultural literature and organization development experiences in foreign countries.

Core to the MSOD program is the notion that all organization development practitioners are “global

citizens” and need skills that transcend the culture in which they were socialized to be successful.

While providing a rich learning experience and access to online cultural tools such as culture

assimilators to assist students in culture-specific knowledge (norms, beliefs, gestures ascribed to a

single given country), there was an absence of training or tools for adaptability across multiple

cultures.

Cultural Intelligence

The intelligence quotient (IQ), commonly referred to as “g,” or the capacity for learning,

analytical reasoning, understanding facts and their meanings, along with solving problems, has

been a measure of intelligence for nearly 100 years. In more recent years, however, other forms of

“intelligences” have been postulated, such as emotional intelligence and social intelligence.

Emotional intelligence emphasizes the aptitude for emotional self-awareness and self-management

(Goleman, 2006). According to Mayer and Salovey, “Emotional intelligence is a type of social

intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ emotions, to discriminate
 3

among them, and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (1993, p. 433). Social

intelligence, however, is a broadening of the emotional intelligence model to incorporate “social

awareness and facility,” such as knowledge of social dynamics, synchronizing nonverbal

communications for successful interactions, influencing social interaction outcomes, and

demonstrating concern for other’s needs (Goleman, 2007). Per Marlowe, “Social Intelligence is the

ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of persons, including oneself, in

interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon that understanding” (1986, p. 52).

Building on the foundations of “multiple intelligences” focuses on the learnable skills that

enhance one’s adaptation and effectiveness within cross-cultural situations (Gardner, 2011, p. 9).

CQ centers on the development of a suite of skills usable in a multitude of cultural settings, rather

than the knowledge of just one culture (Janssens & Cappellen, 2008).

Introduced by Early and Ang, CQ can be defined as ‘‘a person’s capability to adapt

effectively to new cultural contexts” (2003, p. 59). CQ is developmental in nature, meaning that it is

as much a philosophy as a model of learning and iterative application relevant to culturally

challenging situations. Per Ang and Van Dyne, “CQ is malleable and can be enhanced through

experience, education, and training; CQ is a specific, state-like, individual capability within the

larger domain of individual differences” (2008, p. 8). This set of cross-cultural skills is useful in a

plethora of organization development consultant and client interactions, internationally (such as

short-term business trips or global virtual teams) and domestically (multinational teams or MNTs,

for example).

Research Purpose

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the impact of CQ on TE in

multinational, organization development graduate program environments. It is intended that

outcomes from this study will be used to improve the MSOD program at Pepperdine University.

Research Question

The question this paper addressed was as follows: Within a multinational, organization

development graduate program environment, what is the relationship between CQ and TE?
 4

Hypotheses

This study posited a relationship between CQ and TE in multinational, organization

development graduate program environments. Based on the research design, the core hypotheses

tested were as follows:

Hypothesis H0 (Null Hypothesis): There is no statistically significant relationship between

CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program environments.

Hypothesis HA (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a statistically significant relationship

between CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program environments.

In addition to the main hypothesis, a series of sub-hypotheses tested for additional

relationships between CQ dimensions and TE attributes:

Hypothesis H01 (Null Hypothesis): There is no statistically significant relationship between

Motivational CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program

environments.

Hypothesis HA1 (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a statistically significant relationship

between Motivational CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program

environments.

Hypothesis H02 (Null Hypothesis): There is no statistically significant relationship between

Behavioral CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program environments.

Hypothesis HA2 (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a statistically significant relationship

between Behavioral CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program

environments.

Hypothesis H03 (Null Hypothesis): There is no statistically significant relationship between

Cognitive CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program environments.

Hypothesis HA3 (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a statistically significant relationship

between Cognitive CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program

environments.
 5

Hypothesis H04 (Null Hypothesis): There is no statistically significant relationship between

Metacognitive CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program

environments.

Hypothesis HA4 (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a statistically significant relationship

between Metacognitive CQ and TE in multinational, organization development graduate program

environments.

Utilizing this new construct called CQ, the cross-cultural adaptability of students within the

MSOD program was assessed. Simultaneously, an evaluation of TE was performed to determine

correlations between CQ skills and TE (Gibson, Zellman-Bruhn, & Schwab, 2003). This will add to

the body of research regarding CQ in graduate programs. The theoretical framework depicting the

independent and dependent variables is provided in Figure 1.

H0, HA
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Team Effectiveness (TE)

CQ Motivation (H01, HA1) Goals

CQ Behavioral (H02 HA2) Customers

CQ Cognitive (H03 HA3) Timeliness

CQ Metacognitive (H04 HA4) Quality

Productivity

Organization Development Graduate Program Environment

Figure 1

Theoretical Framework for Study

The study involved two components: (a) developing a survey that combines the Cultural

Intelligence Scale, TE assessment, along with demographic data and (b) performing a training and

focus group intervention to determine the relationship between the survey data and the CQ skills

which impact TE.

Importance of Research

Understanding the impact of CQ on TE in multinational, organization development

graduate program environments will assist in the continued evolution of higher education to meet
 6

relevant global business requirements. Establishing a relationship between CQ skills and specific

TE attributes and identifying related CQ and organization development best practices could

potentially enhance the capacity of organization development practitioners and professionals to

manage cross-cultural team challenges more successfully. By leveraging CQ as a fundamental

development tool to elevate cross-cultural engagement in an organization development graduate

program, this study could serve as an impetus for similar CQ integration into other organization

development programs.

Research Setting

The 28 students within Pepperdine University’s 2012 MSOD class were the subjects of this

research. Students studied organization development and applied its practices in the United

States, France, Costa Rica, and China throughout their program. The work that was measured as

part of the study focused on the student’s client system intervention projects during the Costa Rica

and China class sessions. For the purpose of this study, the definition for an intervention was

adopted per Cummings and Worley as “a set of sequenced planned actions or events intended to

help an organization increase its effectiveness” (2009, p. 151). The study assessed both CQ

dimensions and TE attributes post-client system intervention project completion to determine if

there was a consequential relationship.

Thesis Outline

The purpose of this introduction was to substantiate the need to explore the impact of CQ

on work TE in an organization development graduate program environment and to present the

value this study engenders to the body of research regarding CQ. Chapter 2 reviews existing

research and relevant literature regarding CQ, TE, and the current thinking regarding the use of CQ

in graduate program environments. Chapter 3 outlines the research design; the research methods

employed, such as survey method, sampling methodology, definition of variable, focus group, and

interview protocols; and the data analysis procedures.

Focused on the quantitative and qualitative research of the hypotheses tested via the

survey and employee feedback, chapter 4 provides the analysis and results from this research.
 7

Finally, chapter 5 provides the study’s conclusions, recommendations, limitations, and suggested

areas for further research.

 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The review of relevant literature regarding CQ and TE will provide a general overview of

the following topics: multiple intelligences, CQ and related research, TE and associated research,

and CQ and work team effectiveness research.

To explore the union of CQ and work TE in multinational companies, first it is necessary to

arrive at an amenable definition of culture. In his seminal work on cultural values, Hofstede defined

culture as “a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or

category of people from others” (2010, p. 6). He further clarified the layers of culture and their

uniqueness as mental programs, from the entire human race as the least unique, biological

operating system, to the most unique, the individual. The collective level—where mental

programming is shared by a portion of people but not all—creates the differences between groups

with regard to languages, distance, perceptions, or worldviews (Hofstede, 1980). Culture manifests

itself in the form of symbols, heroes, rituals, and values according to Hofstede (2010), with national

cultural values exhibited in several dimensions:

1. Power distance, or the equitable distribution of power within an organization

2. Individualism versus collectivism, or the degree to which a society has strong or weak

ties between individuals and groups or cohesive in-groups and out-groups

3. Feminine versus masculine, or society’s orientation towards assertiveness and

toughness compared to modesty, tenderness, and quality of life

4. Uncertainty avoidance, or the level of risk aversion or comfort with ambiguous

situations

5. Long-term versus short-term orientation, or the emphasis of personal resolve and

frugality versus tradition and satisfying communal obligations

6. Indulgence versus restraint, where one compares more immediate gratification of

human desires with limiting and regulating such activities through group norms

Hofstede’s cultural values framework provides a means by which to measure cross-cultural

differences within MNTs.

 9

Multiple Intelligences

CQ had its genesis in the concept of multiple intelligences. Gardner postulated the

concept of multiple intelligences as “frames of the mind.” He argued that

the conviction that there exist at least some intelligences, that these are relatively
independent of one another, and that they can be fashioned and combined in a multiplicity
of adaptive ways by individuals and cultures, seems to me to be increasingly difficult to
deny. (2011, p. 9)

Gardner’s definition of intelligence, as the ability to “solve problems or to create products that are

valued in one or more cultural settings” (p. 43), was the impetus for Sternberg’s subsequent work

on intelligences. Sternberg and Detterman’s Triachic Model of Intelligence presumes the existence

of three different loci of intelligence: “Intelligence within the individual, intelligence within the

environment, and intelligence within the interaction between individual and the environment”

(Sternberg, 1986, p. 3). This model served as a cornerstone for the development of the CQ model.

Sternberg further theorized the existence of three types of intelligence: metacognitive, or

strategizing in order to solve problems, using cognition to change one’s metacognitive perspective

to accommodate a given situation; motivational, or the degree of motivation and its direction; and

behavioral, or what a person actually does, versus mental functioning. He further argued that

intelligence is culture bound and that “it is impossible to understand intelligence without

understanding the culture” (1986, p. 8).

Emotional intelligence and social intelligence warrant distinction from CQ. Ang and Van

Dyne argued that

EQ differs from CQ because it focuses on the general ability to perceive and manage
emotions without consideration of cultural context . . . thus, EQ is culture bound, and a
person who has high EQ in one cultural context may not be emotionally intelligent in
another culture. (2008, p. 9)

Earley and Ang added, “Cultural Intelligence is a superordinate construct to social and emotional

intelligence. It provides for a level of metacognition not adequately recognized by existing social

and emotional intelligence research” (2003, p. 257). Thus, based on the theory of multiple

intelligences and understanding intellect within a cultural context, CQ can be considered a special

form of intelligence able to explain the differences in effective functioning within a novel cultural

situation (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008).

 10

Cultural Intelligence

CQ was originally defined as ‘‘a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural

contexts” by Earley and Ang (2003, p. 59). Subsequent authors have amplified the definition of CQ,

such as Sternberg who suggested that

CQ is a matter of learning the tacit knowledge of a culture and applying a broad repertoire
of skills relevant in a given cultural setting. A culturally intelligent person understands that
the skills needed for adaptive performance differ across cultures. In a sense, then, CQ is a
practical intelligence flexibly applied across cultural settings. (2008, p. 314)

Similar definitions for CQ have been espoused by other authors, suggesting that CQ is not a

personality trait but, rather, a set of cultural adaptability skills (Ng & Earley, 2006) or a system of

knowledge and skills by which people adapt and effectively “shape” their cultural environment

(Thomas et al., 2008).

Originally designed as a three-dimensional model, Earley and Ang posited that

CQ can be thought to consist of three fundamental components: Cognitive, or a person’s

ability to develop patterns from cultural cues; motivational, or a person’s desire and
directed effort to engage others and follow through; and behavioral, or a person’s capability
to appropriately enact selected behavior in accordance with cognition and motivation.
(2003, p. 12)

Metacognitive was a sub-dimension within the cognitive dimension and was defined as “thinking

about thinking” (2003, p. 100) or the ability to adjust one’s thinking based on new information from

cross-cultural experience.

Consolidating the fragmented intercultural competency research, the original construct was

further developed into “a theoretical and parsimonious framework that comprises four capabilities”

or dimensions (Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009b, p. 514). Metacognitive was later added to the model

as “the higher-order mental capability to think about personal thought processes, anticipate cultural

preferences of others, and adjust mental models during and after intercultural experiences”

(Flaherty, 2008, p. 193). Thus, the model was further refined, composed now of four dimensions,

and its core characteristics clarified:

1. CQ Motivational, based on the expectancy-value theory of motivation, focuses on the

desire and confidence to adapt to cultural challenges

2. CQ Cognitive, highlighting knowledge of cultural systems, norms, and values

 11

3. CQ Metacognitive, also known as CQ Strategy, or the honing of strategizing,

interpreting, and modifying cultural planning and behaviors

4. CQ Behavioral, encompassing all actions including verbal and non-verbal

communications performed in a cultural setting (Ang et al., 2007).

These four dimensions were further subdivided and augmented as follows:

1. CQ Motivational involved intrinsic motivation, or the degree to which someone enjoys

culturally diverse situations; extrinsic motivation, which relates to the tangible benefits

gained from culturally diverse situations (for example, new experiences, pay raises);

and self-efficacy, or confidence during culturally challenging situations proving

paramount to success in other cultures.

2. CQ Cognitive encompassed cultural systems which address how a society satisfies its

population’s needs and cultural norms and values—perceived differences in time,

authority, and relationships.

3. CQ Metacognitive’s definition was expanded to include strategic planning, being aware

or mindful, and checking the impact of actions in a cross-cultural situation.

4. CQ Behavioral was extended to mean the ability to use the appropriate words and

phrases, verbal and non-verbal communications, facial expressions, gestures, and eye

contact, or what are referred to as speech acts (Livermore, 2010; Van Dyne, Ang, Ng,

Rockstuhl, Tan, & Koh, 2012).

It is this refined and clarified four-dimensional CQ model that is the framework by which the MSOD

students were assessed.

Cultural Intelligence Research

While CQ is a nascent construct and research is relatively new, some theorists have

suggested that CQ has a number of compelling positive impacts: the ability to differentiate cultural

patterns from the particular actions of individuals (Earley et al., 2006); enhancing the capacity to

drive organizational change (Earley & Ang, 2003); improving perceptions of executives abroad

(Mannor, 2008); and increasing confidence, intercultural engagement, and flexibility of global

leaders (Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009b, p. 521).

 12

Field research on CQ provides some confirmation of its positive impacts on a plethora of

cross-cultural scenarios. For example, there is some evidence that CQ Metacognitive and CQ

Cognitive have a positive relationship to cross-cultural judgment and decision making, cultural

adaptation, and task performance (Ang et al., 2007), while CQ Motivational and CQ Behavioral

positively related to effective interaction and mental well-being in cross-cultural settings (Van Dyne,

Ang, & Koh, 2008). In other studies, CQ had a positive influence on performance for international

assignments (Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, 2008), whereas CQ Motivational was a predictor of cross-

cultural adjustment (Templar, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006) and a key contributor to success aboard

in foreign country acclimation, cultural interaction, and work adjustment (Shrinivas, Harrison,

Shaffer, & Luk, 2005). In yet another study, CQ Motivational enhanced negotiation skills in cross-

cultural settings (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Moreover, CQ was determined to have a positive impact

on adjustment to novel environments where social assumptions, values, and traditions differed

(Oolders, Chernyshenko, & Stark, 2008). And a study on the impact of CQ on short-term business

travel found that CQ Cognitive decreases short-term business travelers’ burnout (Tay, Westman, &

Chia, 2008).

Research regarding CQ and foreign teams, while scant, showed some real promise. For

instance, Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) studied the impact of cultural diversity on interpersonal trust and

found evidence that CQ Metacognitive and CQ Cognitive can improve trust between cross-cultural

partners and lessen the negative impact of social categorization or stereotyping. Likewise, Flaherty

(2008) studied six MNTs and found a relationship between CQ Motivational (team and individual)

and team acceptance and integration times, suggesting that as CQ increased, so did the time for

members to be accepted and integrated.

Team Effectiveness

The literature regarding TE clarifies the challenges and antecedents for success, provides

MNT team models and theories of group dynamics, and offers a definition of specialized team

forms such as global virtual teams. However, in order to fortify an understanding of work TE, a

working definition of an MNT needs to be developed for this study.

 13

The literature has many terms for teams comprised of members from different countries

and cultures: global teams, global virtual teams, multicultural teams, MNTs, and so forth.

According to Earley and Gibson (2002), “a multinational team is a specific type of this more general

form of team insomuch as members must come from two or more different national or cultural

backgrounds” (2002, p. 3). Defining global teams, Maloney and Zellmer-Bruhn (2006) stated that

Global teams are teams made up of people from different parts of a multinational
organization working together to achieve a team-specific mandate that is global in its
scope. Two characteristics differentiate global teams from other types of teams: (1)
deliberate and collateral heterogeneity on multiple dimensions (demographic, nationality,
culture, gender, age, function, expertise, organizational culture, power from revenue), and
(2) a globally dispersed work environment. (2006, p. 698)

Moreover, global MNTs usually perform complicated work that impacts more than a single

organization or country using the advantages of heterogenic team composition (Janssens & Brett,

2006).

For purposes of this study, the following working definition of an MNT will be utilized: A

team in which members come from different countries and cultures; heterogenic in composition;

and having a shared purpose, goals, boundaries, and work product or service.

The challenges MNTs face are when, for example, convergent processes—those

processes necessary for a team to coalesce around a common action or direction—are hindered

because of differences in communications (Adler, 2008, pp. 102-103). These differences in the

communications can be exacerbated when team members’ internal “scripts and schemas are

incorrectly applied,” leading to misunderstandings, misperceptions, and misattributions concerning

others’ actions and behaviors (Bird & Osland, 2005, p. 117). These communication problems can

cause MNTs interpersonal conflict, lack of team trust, poor integration from process loses, and

overall lower TE (Davison, 1994; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Gluesing et al., 2003; Maloney &

Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006; Shachaf, 2008; Staples & Zhao, 2006). In fact, in one study, homogenous

groups outperformed heterogenic groups, especially in complex tasks: “in complex tasks and when

an overall assessment of performance is employed . . . homogenous groups often demonstrate

superior performance” (Thomas, 1999, p. 257).

 14

Conversely, other research suggests that MNTs, if managed well, can outperform teams

with homogeneity. Because heterogenic teams have such a rich, diverse set of worldviews and

knowledge and skills, their ability to innovate, be flexible, and perform problem solving is greatly

enhanced (Adler, 2008; Shachaf, 2008; Staples & Zhao, 2006).

Maloney and Zellmer-Bruhn (2006) suggested that if leaders deliberately design

heterogeneity (members from more than one country or culture) and commonality of profession (for

example, engineers, artists, etc.) into the composition of MNTs, “swift norms” would form, leading

to better performance (2006, p. 709). These swift norms act to quickly bond the team members

and can be reinforced over time by consistency of team member actions towards one another.

Specifically, these authors proposed that

if teams knew ahead of time to take steps such as: 1) initiate early and enthusiastic
communication with other team members; 2) delineate responding norms up front . . . ; or
3) share information on national holidays and travel schedules up front, swift norms could
be created early in the team’s life. (2006, p. 709)

Team Models and Theories

There are various theories which attempt to elucidate the complex dynamics within MNTs,

such as self-verification, social identity, self-categorization, and social loafing theories.

Self-verification theory proposes that there is a process for negotiating equilibrium between

a team member’s idiosyncratic perspectives and the team’s shared identity. Maloney and Zellmer-

Bruhn (2006) asserted that self-verification theory can create a means for both the shared and

personal views to co-exist and that the degree to which team members’ perspectives are accepted

allows the group to achieve greater integration (2006, pp. 698-703).

Social identity and self-categorization theories both suggest that team members gravitate

towards members of similar backgrounds and use these differences to define their in-group and

out-groups. When team members feel anonymous in a group, the tendency for them to withhold

their full contribution is known as social loafing theory (Earley & Gibson, 2002). These theories

attempt to explain the underlying group dynamics manifest in heterogeneous MNTs’ behavior,

increasing understanding of the potential inhibitors to work TE.

 15

The research also provides a rich variety of conceptual models and theories from which to

analyze and assess the composition, integration, and effectiveness of teams. For instance,

viewing work teams in three levels—individual, group, and process—Earley and Gibson (2002)

postulated a conceptual model for MNTs. Focus on such team elements as role identity, trust

between members, respect for others, and affective relations between team members comprised

the individual level. The group level emphasized the competition and fractionizing or subgroup

development between group members, particularly when resources were limited. The process

level is where the team is connected, centered on members’ roles, hierarchies, identity formation,

and having a shared history and social contracting in a cross-cultural setting. Regarding MNTs

within cross-cultural settings, they suggested that “from a cross-cultural perspective, the nature of

exchange becomes quite complex and ambiguous because the underlying principles governing

concepts such as distributive, procedural, and interactional justice can vary a great deal” (2002, p.

64).

The characteristic of MNTs that has significance for this study is the previously mentioned

concept of team homogeneity and heterogeneity. In her book, International Dimensions of

Organizational Behavior, Adler defined homogenous teams as “those with all members coming

from the same cultural group” (2008, p. 132). Heterogenic teams, however, possess three distinct

characteristics: “Token teams having a single member from another culture, bicultural teams

having members from two cultures, and multicultural having members from three or more cultures”

(2008, p. 132).

Earley and Mosakowski (2000) defined the heterogeneity of a team as a continuum where

teams range from high homogeneity, moderate heterogeneity, to high heterogeneity. Teams

whose composition is characteristically high in homogeneity have members who share salient

cultural attributes and worldviews, whereas teams with moderate heterogeneity are more prone to

subgroup formation because team members have fewer shared cultural attributes. High

heterogeneity teams, where members have the fewest significant cultural traits in common,

typically have the highest level of sub-team fractionation. Within this continuum of homogeneity

and heterogeneity, because of their shared cultural attributes, “a unified culture will form quickly
 16

and with relative ease when a homogenous team faces external demands such as organizational

goals for performance and innovation” (2000, p. 28). Within a team with moderate heterogeneity,

team members tend to “retreat toward preexisting subgroup identities for ego protection” (2000, p.

28), and multiple subcultures get formed.

Maloney and Zellmer-Bruhn referred to this process as “‘faultlines” or “hypothetical dividing

lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes” (2006, p. 707). With

few cultural qualities in common, teams with high heterogeneity are inclined not to create

subgroups based on commonality but, rather, “will attempt to create and establish a new shared

understanding of team member status, team processes, role expectations, communication

methods, and so forth” (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000, p. 29). When external demands confront this

type of team, it can form what is called a hybrid team culture.

This concept of a hybrid team culture in heterogenic teams is described variously in the

literature. Earley and Mosakowski (2000) defined the model of a hybrid team culture as

an emergent and simplified set of rules, norms, expectations, and roles that team members
share and “enact.” This emergent culture offers a common sense of identity that becomes
group-specific, provides a basis for team member self-valuation, and facilitates team
interaction and performance. (2000, p. 26)

They suggested that while highly heterogeneous groups may at first experience an emphasis on

individuals’ needs, a hybrid team culture can lead to a common identity (2000, p. 45).

Contrarily, Brannen and Salk (2000) suggested that “the negotiated culture that emerges

will not be a blend or hybrid culture . . . but some other outcome more like a mutation containing

parts of both parents as well as some aspects of its own idiosyncratic making” (2000, p. 460).

They offered that contextual factors, versus specific cultural behaviors, play a significant role in the

development of a shared team culture. Issues specific to an organization, organizational maturity,

the shared history, as well as the cultural attitudes of team members all have a significant impact

on team culture. Still other researchers suggest that teams that use professional commonality can

further bridge team culture difficulties (Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006).

 17

Team Effectiveness Research

Field research studying MNTs is limited but can offer some data regarding the challenges.

For instance, Bailey (2000) conducted a study in the semiconductor manufacturing industry and

found that fostering relationships between those performing work in production and the associated

technical team members can significantly improve team performance (2000, p. 368). Doolen,

Hacker, and Van Aken (2006) studied the role of organizational context on the effectiveness of

engineering work teams and determined that there was a positive relationship between resource

allocation and team performance, which in turn impacted TE (2006, p.149).

Knowing when to leverage the diversity of a team for its strengths and minimize its

potential negative effects is the sign of a productive MNT, according to Adler (2008). Taking direct

measures to equalize power among team members of different cultures can aid productivity. Some

researchers suggest that a common set of goals or expectations, clear roles and effective team

integration, along with “collective trust” and commitment are critical for MNT success (Cohen &

Gibson, 2003, pp. 8-9; Earley et al., 2006, p. 173). It has also been suggested that utilizing a

bridgehead team—a team that spends its time between cultures or one with members from both

cultures in a client country—can improve culturally diverse team performance (Krishna, Sahay, &

Watsham, 2004, pp. 64-65). Leveraging an external facilitator for team skill building; having a

common integration process and expectations regarding inter-team feedback, group exchanges,

and decision making; and boosting full involvement by all members are the key means to enhance

MNTs’ performance according to Davison (1994, pp. 85-89). “Minimizing politics” within the team

and driving for agreement on group behaviors were promoted by Elton and Vigoda (2003, p. 331).

Leadership is also noted as a significant contributor to MNT success. Schweiger, Atamer,

and Calori (2003) found that while between five and seven (hub) key people were responsible for

proper project team functioning, senior management plays a pivotal role in MNT success. Trust,

clear goals, a purpose, appropriate resources, along with senior management direction are the

elements for MNT success. Senior managers must “create an environment of constructive

negotiation and cooperation” (2003, p. 132). Leaders who are interested in foreign counties and

cultures, possess empathy, and are motivated to learn about differing norms make for the most
 18

“culturally competent [MNT] leaders” (Hajro & Pudelko, 2010, p. 186). A leader who exhibits

openness by not exporting the culture of the “main office” and fostering a more inclusive corporate

culture “facilitates the acquisition of soft skills, encompassing the generation and transfer of

knowledge” (p. 190).

While research is relatively scarce regarding TE in multinational, organization development

graduate program environments, a number of team attributes appear highly relevant in enhancing

team productivity: the importance of clear goals, possessing interpersonal or soft skills, equitable

distribution of team member power, effective integration processes, and highly effectual leadership.

Within the context of the study’s MNT, there is a specific “sub-team” form that is essential

to address—the multinational virtual team. Cohen and Gibson (2003) defined virtual teams as

geographically dispersed; depending on technology for team communications rather than face-to-

face; and characteristically transnational, global, and/or multi-organizational in nature. (2003, p. 4).

Studying teams from Europe Connect, Aerospace Alliance, and Auto Unification, Gibson

and Manuel (2003) found trust to be a common challenge between multinational virtual teams:

“The psychological dynamics that occure when multiple cultures work together make it difficult to

establish comfortable levels of risk and interdependence that facilitates trust and, subsequently,

team effectiveness.” (2003, p. 65). In multinational virtual teams, trust issues arise because of in-

group and out-group formation, subcultures, process losses, and communication difficulties.

Interestingly, they suggest that if a heterogenetic multinational virtual team perseveres and works

through these challenges, in the latter phases of team development, they can reap the benefits of

superior team performance. The authors emphasized that “collective trust is a crucial element in

virtual team functioning” (2003, p. 59). To foster trust, they suggested that team members employ

active listening, clarify normative team behavior, and instill a sense of fairness and equity between

team members (2003, p. 62). Li and Scullion (2006) broke down multinational virtual teams’

information sharing and integration process challenges into three dimensions of proximity:

physical, institutional, and cultural. Variances in geographical proximity, time zone, technological

tools, knowledge bases, contractual or legal norms, as well as culture, work, and communicating

styles create significant challenges to multinational virtual TE (2006, pp. 75-86).

 19

Field studies bear out these challenges with virtual teams. For example, in a study with

hundreds of virtual team members and leaders, DeRosa and Lepsinger (2010) found the top

challenges to be proximity (46%), time zone differences (29%), and lack of sharing information

(21%). In addition they found membership in multiple virtual teams (27%), adequate resources

(37%), and lack of interpersonal skills training (20%) as also problematic for virtual team

performance (2010, p. 6). The general success rate of virtual teams, studied by Govindarajan and

Gupta (2001) found “that only 18% considered their performance ‘highly successful’ and the

remaining 82% fell short of their intended goals. In fact, fully one-third of the teams in our sample

rated their performance as largely unsuccessful” (2001, p. 63).

Both DeRosa and Lepsinger (2010) and Staples and Zhao (2006) provided factors for

multinational virtual team success: consistent team membership, limiting team sizes, ensuring

team composition has common functions or professions, restricting participation in multiple virtual

teams, and a long-term team presence of three or more years. Moreover, DeRosa and Lepsinger

found that those “virtual teams that held an initial face-to-face meeting within the first ninety days of

the team coming together performed better than those who never met face-to-face” (2010, p. 16).

They noted that “Many high-performing teams use webinars and collaborative technologies for

brainstorming and decisions making while low-performing teams rely more heavily on email” (2010,

p. 22). DeRosa and Lepsinger further suggested six best practices for multinational virtual team

success: (a) a focus on team integration (interaction of team members); (b) building and

maintaining trust; (c) open and honest dialogue; (d) excellent conflict management; (e) continually

managing team performance levels, and (f) through technology and process, making it a “high-

touch” environment. Like other authors, they suggested that trust is fundamental to team

performance and success and asserted that “task-based trust,” or confidence between team

members based on consistent behavior, “is one of the strongest determinants of high performance

and one of the factors that differentiates top-performing teams” (2010, p. 151).
 20

Team Effectiveness Defined

In order to assess MNTs’ effectiveness, a method was derived based on both the above-

mentioned research and known models of TE.

Hackman suggested there are three dimensions to TE:

(1) Degree to which the group’s productive output (product, service, decision) meets the
standards of quantity, quality, and timeliness of the people who receive, review, and/or use
that output; (2) Degree to which the process of carrying out the work enhances the
capability of members to work together interdependently in the future; (3) Degree to which
the group experience contributes to the growth and personal well-being of team members.
(1990, pp. 6-7)

While agreeing with Hackman’s framework, for the purposes of this study, the instrument

developed by Gibson, Zellman-Bruhn, and Schwab and reported on in “Team Effectiveness in

Multinational Organizations: Evaluation Across Contexts” (2003) provides a means to measure TE

in multiple cultures. Developed over a one-year period and tested in six multinational organizations

with a wide variety of work activities, this assessment reflects the essence of Hackman’s

framework while providing greater relevance for use in a cross-cultural setting.

The five TE measures inherent in the assessment serve as the operational definition of TE

in the study: The ability for a team to meet or exceed its business and customer goals in a

productive and timely manner while ensuring high-quality products or services. The five attributes

of the TE instrument are as follows:

1. Goals: Meeting or exceeding the team’s mission or objectives

2. Customers: The degree of satisfaction from those who receive the product or service

from the team

3. Timeliness: The team’s effective use of time to meet their goals

4. Quality: The degree of consistent quality output or errors

5. Productivity: The level of efficiency in producing the output (Gibson et al., 2003).

These attributes for measuring TE are consistent between MNTs and multinational virtual teams

and can serve as a potent measure of intervention effectiveness within the organization

development program studied.

 21

Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness

The research on CQ and TE is relatively scant and does not account for the wide diversity

of activities within an organization development graduate program environment. However, the

research affirms the previously covered literature as well as expands the collective knowledge

regarding team structures and cultures.

For example, Earley and Peterson (2004) performed an exploratory study where they

theorized that

success for multinational teams . . . requires specific CQ competencies held by members

to uncover commonality across its membership, effective and appropriate role allocations,
and clearly defined rules for interaction based on the specific needs (i.e., some cultural and
some individual) and interests of team members. (2004, p. 112)

An interesting team model was postulated by Janssens and Brett (2006) called “fusion.”

Related to the “negotiated” or hybrid team cultures mentioned earlier, the fusion model provides “a

structural intervention . . . that has cultural intelligence, or the ability to transform the process of the

group, built into its principles” (2006, p. 126). Suggesting that cultural predispositions and

perceived power inequity between team members cause MNT process losses, their model

attempts to “enfranchise” low-status team members with the intention of cultivating contributions

from all team members (2006, p. 133). One of the innovative features of this team model is the use

of dialogue to foster a compatible set of team values or worldviews rather than a shared one. Per

the authors, “the best global teams find a way to agree that different members can operate under

different norms—a fusion team will allow different precepts to coexist” (2006, p. 137). Furthermore,

they introduced the concept of “creative realism,” accentuating the natural innovative and creative

capacity of heterogenic teams, while moderating via a “reality check” or validation grounded in the

current actuality (2006, p. 128). The two team integration processes which are integral to this

concept of creative realism are information extraction and decision making: The former refers to

team members’ ability to think “divergently, to search across the breadth of the organization and its

environment for unique information and then share that unique information with the group,” while

the latter focuses on convergent thinking or use of agreed-to criteria (2006, pp. 129-130). This

model takes a novel view regarding formation of subgroups within MNTs by suggesting they
 22

“preserve divergent thinking within the global team and respond best to the potentially diverse

cultural realities within which the global team’s creative strategy or policy has to succeed” (2006, p.

139). The authors further proposed that formal interventions which address power imbalance

between members and communication problems, both of which lead to process losses, can

enhance team performance (2006, p. 147).

A CQ framework aimed at the organizational or firm level, rather than the individual, was

developed by Ang and Inkpen (2008), possessing three essential components: managerial,

competitive, and structural. Leadership’s ability to challenge assumptions, reflect and change their

mental maps responsively, and act appropriately and with confidence in cross-cultural settings

represents the managerial CQ. Evaluating the cultural dimensions of offshore partnerships and

making effective decisions within cross-cultural settings is the essence of competitive CQ.

Structural CQ refers to the manner in which organizational structures hinder or ameliorate cross-

cultural engagements, be they customer and supplier interactions, norms, routines, processes, or

business practices (2008, pp. 341-349).

Exploring CQ’s ability to enhance global leaders’ capacity for growth from cross-cultural

experiences via the experimental learning theory, Ng, Van Dyne, and Ang (2009a) theorized that

these learning behaviors make for more effective leadership.

There have been additional studies conducted in the field regarding the impact of CQ on

work TE. For example, Gregory, Prifling, and Beck (2009) performed a study with a large

international bank in Germany and one of the largest Indian information technology service

providers and found a positive relationship between Cognitive CQ and adaptive cross-cultural

behaviors, along with Behavioral CQ and a negotiated culture between clients and their vendor

staff. Shokef and Erez studied Master of Business Administration students from five countries

regarding CQ’s impact on global and local identity, finding that all four CQ dimensions appeared to

correlate with global identity, demonstrating that CQ and global identity are interrelated concepts

(2008, p. 186).

In another study on CQ and project coordination in MNTs, researchers examined the

impacts of the different CQ dimensions on global collaborative work. They found that “an
 23

individual’s behavior is influenced by different cultures simultaneously, including national,

professional, organizational, and workgroup culture” (Koh, Joseph, & Ang, 2009, p. 263).

One noteworthy study of particular relevance was performed with a previous MSOD

student body and focused on the developmental nature of CQ and its relationship to temperament

(Chan, 2007). This study suggested that CQ skills do positively change over time with additional

cultural experiences.

Summary

Apparent from this epigrammatic review of CQ and work TE research, team members and

leaders who employ CQ skills will enhance their ability to contribute to the success of MNTs.

Through improving knowledge and skills, an MNT can develop greater capacity to

effectively manage its heterogeneity, thereby harvesting the benefits of innovation, flexibility, and

local market knowledge. The pathway for a global team to create a “negotiated culture,” accepting

the natural tension of multiple worldviews instead of a shared one, appears to be enhanced

through the attainment of CQ competencies.

A leader’s self-awareness and faculty to derive maximum team output given the multiplicity

of cultural differences and nuances as well as the complexity of integration process inherent in

MNTs can be impacted by CQ. Moreover, the probability of task accomplishment, cultural

assimilation, effective negotiations, and decision making by leaders abroad is increased through

the raising of CQ scores.

However, from this examination of the literature, there is a definitive gap of field research

regarding the impact of CQ on TE (interventions) within a multinational, organization development

graduate program environment.

Research Gap

While CQ has been utilized to assess many students in academic and graduate program

environments, heretofore, it has not been leveraged for its impact on TE of client system

interventions within an organization development graduate program. This study seeks to fill an

important research gap and provide some lucidity regarding the relationship of CQ capabilities and

TE in multinational graduate program environments.

 24

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter describes the research methodology utilized in this study. The core research

question this study explored was as follows: Within a multinational, organization development

graduate program environment, what is the relationship between CQ and TE? This chapter will

present the MSOD program international dimensionality, research methodology and design,

sampling methodology, definition of variables including the survey methodology, and data analysis

procedures employed in the study.

MSOD Program International Dimensionality

In advance of delineating the means and methods of measuring the study’s variables, a

description of the multicultural nature of the MSOD program is outlined. The continued exposure to

multiple cultural settings was the environment in which student client system interventions occurred

in this study.

The MSOD program design provides eight sessions over a 24-month period, of which three

sessions, or a full 38% of all class and field work, take place in non-native cultures. An outline of

the program and session format is provided in Table 1. Students developed a conceptual model of

“cultural entry” to be used during each international session; these models were incrementally

updated based on continued learning and experience in the field over the course of the program.

Table 1

Master of Science in Organization Development Program Schedule and Locations

Session Session Title Dates Location

1 Foundations of Organization Development August 26-September 3, 2010 Monterey, CA
2 The OD Practitioner as Global Citizen November 11-19, 2010 Lyon, France
3 Small Systems Diagnosis and Change February 10-18, 2011 Monterey, CA
4 International Organization Development April 28-May 6, 2011 Costa Rica
5 Strategy and Organization Design September 27-October 7, 2011 Dana Point, CA
6 Strategy and Large Scale Systems Change January 12-20, 2012 Dana Point, CA
7 Integrative Action Strategies March 20-March 30, 2012 China
8 Future Forms of Organizations June 2 - 8, 2012 Monterey, CA

As noted, the second session, entitled “The OD Practitioner as Global Citizen,” was conducted in

Lyon, France, and focused on “self as an instrument of change” in an unfamiliar cultural

environment, creating both a cultural and language challenge for student projects. Some of the
 25

subjects covered during this session were the “culture of origin and cross-cultural awareness,

dynamics of conducting research in a non-native land, and working with local experts” (Lacey,

2010). The student projects focused on analysis of local industries such as biotechnology, textiles,

and gastronomy and the attractiveness of an American-French joint venture in these areas. Having

access to local experts and being obliged to engage in the unfamiliar culture, students leveraged

their CQ skills to navigate the cultural challenges as well as meet the requirements of the project

and garner the required information. Students presented their findings and recommendations

regarding joint ventures to a panel of local academic and business leaders who judged them on the

originality and the persuasiveness of their ideas and conclusions.

In the fourth session in Alajuela, Costa Rica, the focus was on diagnosis and change

management in small client systems within an international context. Such subjects as intervention

theory and design and survey feedback were covered. Students worked within one of three client

systems—a national bank, a coffee company, and a regional humanitarian foundation (Egan,

2011). Each client system, along with the students, participated in a full-day Appreciative Inquiry

workshop to learn both the foundational elements of Appreciative Inquiry and how to apply it to the

client system. Client system relationships and team building were also developed in this workshop.

Subsequently, students entered the client systems and co-developed change management

projects based on the client assessment and needs, followed by the execution of the change

management plans in the client system environment. Once student projects were concluded, the

students and client systems reconvened and shared their experience with the MSOD student body

and faculty. This format provided for a rich academic and “experiential” experience from which new

theories and approaches to cross-cultural organization development efforts were developed and

CQ knowledge and skills were enhanced.

Students were divided into two large teams for the two-week Session Seven in China: One

team focused on comparing talent management best practices in both developed and emerging

markets, while the other studied the effect of networks and the role of the Chinese government in

sustainability. In addition, students performed client intervention projects on six different teams

across an array of organizational types and projects. For example, some teams had client
 26

engagements with multinational corporations, while others interacted with government institutions.

Client interventions were based on the subject matter, the composition and strengths of the local

teams they engaged with, and the change desired by the client. The interventions generally

involved co-development of a quantitative or qualitative survey or surveys with the indigenous client

systems based on their desired outcomes, acquiring data and co-designing methods for the

required changes, execution of said methods, and a report out of findings and further

recommendations. Moreover, these data and reports were reflected in presentations to the client

as well as formal documentation. The learning by the graduate cohort was substantial given the

depth of engagement in an environment where language and cultural differences pose significant

challenges.

Research Methodology and Design

The design of this study was an exploratory field study using assessments of CQ and TE

following organization development intervention projects to determine the impact of CQ on TE.

Specifically, measurements of CQ dimensions and TE attributes were performed after Session

Four in Alajuela, Costa Rica (April 2011), and Session Seven in Beijing, China (March 2012),

respectively, spanning a period of approximately 11 months. Teams of organization development

students performed client system intervention projects in both cultures, providing a dynamic

experiment of CQ of organization development skills in cross-cultural situations.

The MSOD cohort was randomly split into “experimental” and “control” groups to provide

the capacity to experiment with the impact of improved CQ capabilities on TE per Table 2. Both

groups received “base-level” CQ training in Costa Rica, Session Four, such as reviewing definitions

of the four CQ dimensions and a general understanding of its applicability in cross-cultural

scenarios; however, additional training and a focus group were performed with the experimental

group during Session Seven. The additional training, conducted prior to client system

interventions, consisted of a workshop which provided feedback on Cultural Intelligence Scale

results, along with brainstorming on how to improve CQ scores (Livermore, 2011). The intention

was to determine if this additional education and training would enhance CQ skills and, thereby, TE

during program interventions with client systems. Students received several emails communicating
 27

the study’s purpose and intention, risks, and benefits (Appendixes A through D), along with the

required surveys and personalized CQ scores.

Table 2

Differences in Training Between Groups

Experimental Group Control Group

Session Four Received Basic CQ Training Received Basic CQ Training
Additional CQ Refresher prior to China interventions None
Session Seven Brainstorming on using CQ to Improve TE None
CQ = Cultural Intelligence, TE = Team Effectiveness

The study’s data collection and analysis methods consisted of both quantitative and

qualitative methods. Quantitatively, two online surveys were conducted—the Cultural Intelligence

Scale (Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) and the Work Team Effectiveness survey (Gibson et al.,

2003). These surveys can be found in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. Permission was

granted to the principal researcher from the authors of the Work Team Effectiveness research.

The quantitative data analysis examined the impact of CQ on TE after the sessions in Costa Rica

and China, controlling for demographic differences. The qualitative aspects of the study revolved

around the acquisition of common themes and best practices as part of the experimental group’s

additional education and focus group. These data were gathered and categorized for use by

students during their client system interventions during Session Seven in China.

Sampling Methodology

The Graziadio School of Business and Management at Pepperdine University MSOD class

of 2012 was the subject of this study. The research sample consisted of the 28 MSOD students—

cohort nicknamed “NuPrime”—and did not include the principal investigator. The representative

sample of MSOD students provided an elegant research environment for examining CQ in

organization development graduate programs because of the nature and intention of the program

design.

The Pepperdine MSOD program, started in 1975, represents one of the oldest and most

respected programs in the country because of its multinational student body, purposeful cross-

cultural study, and “adult learning” format. Students study and apply organization development
 28

education within different cultures, providing a distinct multicultural experience which incrementally

enhances their capacity for organizational, if not global, change. Team intervention projects are

designed to leverage ever-increasing CQ and organization development skills and present a level

of ambiguity and challenge that broadens students’ cultural awareness and aptitude for

effectiveness across cultures. Thus, using this program to examine if CQ skill improvement over

time via education and multicultural experience can impact the effectiveness of team interventions

was an appropriate fit for the study’s purpose.

Definition of Variables

This exploratory study had two sets of variables: CQ dimensions and TE attributes.

Students were also asked for demographic data, and as such, the data analysis was designed to

understand their influence and control their effect on the variables. The dependent variables were

the four dimensions of CQ—CQ Motivational, CQ Cognitive, CQ Metacognitive, and CQ

Behavioral, whereas the TE attributes—Goals, Customers, Timeliness, Quality, and Productivity—

served as the independent variables.

Cultural Intelligence Scale

Originally tested with undergraduate students from around the world, Van Dyne, Ang, and

Koh (2008) developed a 20-item, four-factor measure of CQ based on the aforementioned four

dimensions and sub-dimensions and termed it the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). With

statistical support for the four factors of CQ as measured by its dimensions—Metacognitive (.77),

Cognitive CQ (.84), Motivational (.77), and Behavioral (.84),

early research results suggest that managers can apply the CQS with a high level of
confidence based on empirical evidence, that the scale measures what it is designed to
measure, and that results are stable across samples, across time, and across cultures.
(Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2009, p. 249)

Thus, this assessment was selected because of its reliability and validity across cultures and the

ability to measure CQ across work teams.

The Cultural Intelligence Scale survey was administered by a third party (the Cultural

Intelligence Center, CQC, LLC) for confidentiality and continuity of assessment format and question

type. Both the experimental and control groups completed the same Cultural Intelligence Scale
 29

survey after the May 2011 Costa Rica and March 2012 China sessions. Each student was

automatically emailed through the Cultural Intelligence Center CQC online system a personalized

CQ assessment which measured his or her CQ skills against a worldwide database of 20,000

previous participants on a normalized scale of 1 to 100. For the purposes of this study, however,

the raw student entries for the Cultural Intelligence Scale were measured using the standard Likert

scale of 1 to 7. In addition, a measure of each student’s cultural values per Hofstede’s seven

cultural values measures—power distance, individualism versus collectivism, feminine versus

masculine, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term versus short-term orientation—was sent to each

student via a PDF file in email.

Demographic Controls

As part of the initial setup of the Cultural Intelligence Scale, each student was asked a

number of questions regarding demographic data profiling. The purpose of the demographic data

served to control the impact on CQ, differentiating personal data from CQ’s influence on TE. The

demographic data gathered were as follows: sex, age, years of full-time work experience, current

job level, highest educational level, native language, number of languages spoken, country of

origin, country of citizenship, ethnicity, and prior cross-cultural experience including countries or

regions visited and lived in.

Team Effectiveness Assessment

In order to assess client system intervention TE, the principal researcher utilized a TE

instrument with high sensitivity to cultural dynamics. Per Gibson et al. (2003, p. 469), the Work

Team Effectiveness survey provides high reliability and validity ranges (using Cronbach’s alpha)

across five assessment variables: Goals (.73-.92), Customers (.81-.96), Timeliness (.62-.88),

Quality (.62-.88), and Productivity (.46-.81). These results suggest that survey scores are similar

regardless of the culture from which they were answered; moreover, the scales appear “sensitive to

variation in teams, and relatively insensitive to the source of the evaluation,” making it applicable

across cultures (2003, p. 468).

 30

Developed by leveraging six teams in the United States, France, Puerto Rico, and the

Philippines, the survey factored in Hofstede’s power distance and collectivism measurements. As

previously mentioned, power distance involves the equality and distribution of power in an

organization, while collectivism describes the strength of group integration and membership. The

core principle for the inclusion of these cultural values in the Work Team Effectiveness survey is

their impact on team effectiveness in cross-cultural situations. For example, France, Costa Rica,

and China have notably higher power distance and collectivism scores on Hofstede’s scale

compared to the United States, consequently creating an ambiguous and challenging environment

in which to perform the required client system interventions.

The TE instrument specifically focused on the team’s effectiveness with regard to “output”

and did not measure internal team processes, dynamics, integration, trust, etc. The students

assessed their TE for client system interventions post-Session Four in Costa Rica and Session

Seven in China using the Gibson et al. Work Team Effectiveness survey (2003). The principal

researcher, utilizing the TE questions and a Likert scale of 1 to 7 for continuity with the Cultural

Intelligence Scale, developed an online research survey using [Link]. Each student

answered 26 questions ranging from the team’s ability to meet or exceed goals and customer

expectations to their timeliness and productivity and quality of products and services delivered.

Because of the potential for conflict between this study and the MSOD program outcomes,

approval for the use of MSOD students for research was granted by the program director.

Data Analysis Procedures

In order to determine if CQ skills increased over the course of the MSOD program, a paired

t-test was performed on the students’ CQ scores after Sessions Four and Seven in Costa Rica and

China, respectively. The core question to be addressed in this test was whether CQ changes over

time with continued cross-culture exposure. This test was necessary to verify the assumption that

students’ CQ knowledge and skills would improve due to increased experience with other cultures

and use of organization development practices in cross-cultural situations. The student CQ data

were correlated in aggregate so as to represent the change in CQ over time for the entire cohort.
 31

To answer the core research question—W ithin a multinational, organization development

graduate program environment, what is the relationship between CQ and TE?—correlation and

regression tests were performed on the CQ dimensions and TE attributes in aggregate to

determine the exact relationship between the dependent and independent variables; hence, all four

CQ dimensions (CQ Motivational, CQ Metacognitive, CQ Cognitive, and CQ Behavioral) were

tested for correlations against all five TE attribute (Goals, Customers, Timeliness, Quality, and

Productivity). These tests were performed to determine if and which CQ dimensional scores

improved and what the impact was to TE scores.

An additional data analysis was performed on the demographic data to illuminate their

potential impact on CQ scores. The intention of this analysis was not only to determine the impact

of demographics on CQ knowledge and skills, but also to serve as a control for its influence

regarding any relationship between CQ and TE. It was assumed that prior cross-cultural

experience and exposure would enhance a student’s CQ knowledge and capacity, and this

additional test was designed to verify its influence.

As part of the educational intervention designed to enhance CQ awareness and skills, a

focus group was conducted during Session Seven in China. Through a structured set of questions,

qualitative data were gathered and “narratives and meaning” (Punch, 2005, p. 216) were derived to

provide the students with CQ and organization development best practices for use in the Session

Seven client system interventions. Communications and an outline of the education session can

be found in Appendixes G through J.

Because the cohort was divided into two self-selected teams during Session Seven in

China, it was not possible to keep the experimental and control groups separated. Thus, the
3
principal researcher designed a special “rating” question for both groups in the T timeframe (see

chapter 4 for explanation) in order to tease out any perceivable improvement in CQ (see Appendix

K). Each student was rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 7—with 1 being no CQ and 7 being

exceptional CQ—by all other students. An average overall CQ skill was assessed for all students.

The results would provide an additional quantitative measure of enhanced CQ skills and, thereby,

improved TE.
 32

Summary

Providing the MSOD program international dimensionality, research methodology and

design, sampling methodology, definition of variables including the survey methodology, and data

analysis procedures, this chapter outlined the research methodology inherent in the study. The

study’s results and analysis are provided in the subsequent chapter.

 33

Chapter 4: Findings

The results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses for this study are provided in this

chapter. The core research question posited was as follows: Within a multinational, organization

development graduate program environment, what is the relationship between CQ and TE? This

chapter outlines the participants’ demographic information, followed by a description of the relevant

statistical measures pertaining to the research question. In addition, the research design in relation

to the MSOD program elements is provided.

Research Setup

The participants of the study completed both the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) and

Work Team Effectiveness (WTE) surveys within an 11-month period as shown in Figure 2, MSOD

Program and Research Design, from one month after Session Four held in Costa Rica (May 2011),
1
referred henceforth as T , to one month after Session Seven in China (April 2012), referred to as
3 2
T . T is used for the specific education and focus group intervention conducted by the researcher

prior to client interventions at the beginning of Session Seven in China.

MSOD Sessions Costa Rica China

(April 2011) (March 2012)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T1 T2 T3
CQS & WTE Education & CQS & WTE
Surveys Focus Group Surveys
(May 2011) Intervention (April 2012)
CQS = Cultural Intelligence Scale, WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

Figure 2

Master of Science in Organization Development Program and Research

1
Of the 28 students participating in the study, a full 100% or 28 completed the surveys for T
3
and T . Thus, the participant size of N =28 was chosen. Based on the longitudinal nature of this

study, the research sought to show the effect of CQ over time.

Demographics

As depicted in Table 3, Study’s Population Demographics, the total population of 28

students was randomly separated into one of two groups: an experimental group and a control
 34

Table 3

Study's Population Demographics

% of % of % of
# of sample # of sample # of sample
DEMOGRAPHICS participants (N=28) participants (N=14) participants (N=14)

GENDER Entire Group Experimental Control

Male 9 32% 5 36% 4 29%
Female 19 68% 9 64% 10 71%

AGE 25-29 2 7% 1 7% 1 7%

30-34 7 25% 6 43% 1 7%

35-39 8 29% 2 14% 6 43%
40-44 7 25% 2 14% 5 36%
45-50 2 7% 2 14% 0 0%
50+ 2 7% 1 7% 1 7%

YEARS OF WORK
EXPERIENCE 5 4 14% 2 14% 2 14%
10 11 39% 7 50% 4 29%
15 4 14% 2 14% 2 14%
20 6 21% 1 7% 5 36%
25+ 3 11% 2 14% 1 7%

EDUCATION LEVEL High School 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%

College 19 68% 9 64% 10 71%
Master’s 8 29% 5 36% 3 21%

# OF LANGUAGES 1 15 54% 8 57% 7 50%

2 8 29% 3 21% 5 36%
3 3 11% 2 14% 1 7%
4 2 7% 1 7% 1 7%

NATIVE LANGUAGE English 24 86% 12 86% 12 86%

Spanish 2 7% 1 7% 1 7%
Indonesian 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Vietnamese 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN United States 19 68% 10 71% 9 64%

Guatemala 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Australia 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Ghana 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Indonesia 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
France 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%
Mexico 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%
Vietnam 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%
Philippines 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%
Switzerland 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%

CITIZENSHIP United States 24 86% 11 79% 13 93%

Guatemala 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Australia 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Indonesia 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
Mexico 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%

EXPERIENCE IN OTHER Very

COUNTRIES Experienced 9 32% 4 29% 5 36%
Experienced 8 29% 3 21% 5 36%
Moderate 8 29% 5 36% 3 21%
Little 3 11% 2 14% 1 7%

EXPERIENCE IN OTHER Very

CULTURES Experienced 8 29% 4 29% 4 29%
Experienced 10 36% 6 43% 4 29%
Moderate 8 29% 4 29% 4 29%
Little 2 7% 0 0% 2 14%

# COUNTRIES LIVED IN AT
LEAST 6 MOS. 1 11 39% 7 50% 4 29%
2 11 39% 4 29% 7 50%
3 4 14% 2 14% 2 14%
4 1 4% 0 0% 1 7%
5 1 4% 1 7% 0 0%
 35

group of equal sizes of 14 students. The total population was 68% women, with a slightly higher

ratio of women to men in the control group. The mean age of the population was 36.3, with the

control group slightly older than the experiential group at a mean of 37.1 versus 35.4, respectively.

The control group had almost 3 more years of work experience (15.7) than the experimental group

(12.9), with the mean for the entire population at 14.3 years. However, the experimental group was

to some extent more educated, with all members having either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree.

The number of languages spoken (mean of 1.71) was relatively equal between groups, with a full

46% of the population speaking more than one language. The predominant native language was

English, followed by Spanish, Indonesian, and Vietnamese. While national citizenship was chiefly

associated with the United States (86%), four other countries were represented in the population

(Guatemala, Australia, Indonesia, and Mexico), while the countries of origin spanned the globe

(United States, Guatemala, Australia, Ghana, Indonesia, France, Mexico, Vietnam, Philippines, and

Switzerland).

The group had some interesting data regarding experiences in foreign countries and

cultures; for example, while 71% of the control group had lived in more than one country for a

minimum of six months, only 50% of the experimental group had done the same. Moreover, 72%

of the control group was “experienced” or “very experienced” in other countries, as opposed to the

experimental groups 50% for the same. However, the experimental group measured at 72%

regarding “experienced” or “very experienced” relative to “experience in other cultures” compared

to 58% for the control group.

This review of the demographics for this population of organization development graduate

students shows the diversity of nationality, languages, and experience in other countries and

cultures. Thus, this population provided an excellent sample from which to test the impact of CQ

on TE in an international setting.

Study Variables and Statistical Measures

In order to better understand the relational and dimensional aspects of the CQ and TE data

sets, a set of statistical analyses were performed: descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations,

paired t-tests, and linear regression analysis. While this study statistically measured aggregate CQ
 36

and TE values for both the entire population as well as the experiment versus control groups, all

nine independent and dependent variables were additionally analyzed to determine relationships:

the four independent CQ variables of Meta-Cognitive CQ, Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and

Behavioral CQ in conjunction with the dependent TE variables Goals, Customers, Timeliness,

Quality, and Productivity.

The significance level set for this study was 0.05. Moreover, the designation of strength for

the relationships, as measured by the Adjusted Multiple R value, was as follows: less than or equal

to 0.20 is characterized as very weak, greater than 0.20 and less than or equal to 0.40 is weak,

greater than 0.40 and less than or equal to 0.60 is moderate, greater than 0.60 and less than or

equal to 0.80 is strong, and greater than 0.80 is very strong.

The next section provides the statistical outcomes regarding both CQ and TE variables.

The entire population will be addressed first, followed by a comparative analysis of the

experimental and control groups.

Results for the Entire Population

To initiate an understanding of the impact of CQ on TE, an analysis of the change of CQ

and TE over time was developed. The findings were interesting as the aggregate mean for CQ
1 3 1
modestly improved, while the TE decreased slightly between T and T (CQ, T M = 110.29, SD =
3 1 3
13.63; T M = 114.75, SD = 16.92,
= 4.46 or +3.9%; TE, T M = 140.82, SD = 10.29; T =

139.25, SD = 14.23,
= -1.57 or -1.1%). These statistics are depicted in Table 4, Entire

Population Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Descriptive Statistics. The descriptive

statistics would suggest that, overall, there was a small increase in CQ while TE decreased
1 3
between the T to T time periods.
1 3
To glean a better understanding of the change over time from T and T , a paired t-test

was performed with the results in Table 5, Entire Population Cultural Intelligence and Team
1 3
Effectiveness Paired t-test Statistics. The changes between T and T for CQ variables were as

follows: Metacognitive CQ,
= .61, SD = 3.67, t(27) = -0.88, p >.05; Cognitive CQ,
= 2.93,
 37

Table 4

Entire Population Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Descriptive Statistics

CQ T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics

Std.
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
MetacognitiveT1 28 11.00 17.00 28.00 23.57 3.18 10.11 -0.46 0.44 -0.45 0.86
CognitiveT1 28 28.00 10.00 38.00 25.93 6.88 47.33 -0.70 0.44 0.45 0.86
MotivationalT1 28 17.00 18.00 35.00 30.68 3.85 14.82 -1.41 0.44 2.85 0.86
BehavioralT1 28 16.00 19.00 35.00 30.11 4.29 18.40 -1.12 0.44 1.27 0.86
MetacognitiveT3 28 14.00 14.00 28.00 24.18 3.67 13.49 -0.86 0.44 0.57 0.86
CognitiveT3 28 32.00 10.00 42.00 28.86 7.95 63.16 -0.64 0.44 -0.23 0.86
MotivationalT3 28 15.00 20.00 35.00 31.32 3.91 15.26 -1.35 0.44 1.54 0.86
BehavioralT3 28 21.00 14.00 35.00 30.39 4.71 22.17 -1.68 0.44 4.21 0.86
Valid N (listwise) 28
WTE T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
GoalsT1 28 9.00 26.00 35.00 32.18 3.04 9.26 -0.39 0.44 -1.35 0.86
CustomersT1 28 11.00 24.00 35.00 31.64 3.14 9.87 -0.84 0.44 0.23 0.86
TimelinessT1 28 10.00 25.00 35.00 29.46 2.13 4.55 0.23 0.44 0.73 0.86
QualityT1 28 14.00 18.00 32.00 25.36 3.03 9.20 -0.26 0.44 0.24 0.86
ProductivityT1 28 12.00 15.00 27.00 22.18 2.40 5.78 -0.73 0.44 1.83 0.86
GoalsT3 28 16.00 19.00 35.00 31.36 4.41 19.42 -1.38 0.44 1.92 0.86
CustomersT3 28 18.00 17.00 35.00 29.29 5.30 28.06 -0.76 0.44 -0.27 0.86
TimelinessT3 28 14.00 25.00 39.00 31.07 3.57 12.74 0.55 0.44 -0.23 0.86
QualityT3 28 15.00 16.00 31.00 25.46 3.67 13.44 -0.92 0.44 0.66 0.86
ProductivityT3 28 12.00 16.00 28.00 22.07 2.91 8.44 -0.06 0.44 0.26 0.86
Valid N (listwise) 28
CQ and WTE Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
CQT1 28 60.00 70.00 130.00 110.29 13.63 185.84 -1.05 0.44 1.44 0.86
WTET1 28 37.00 117.00 154.00 140.82 10.29 105.86 -0.70 0.44 -0.04 0.86
CQT3 28 70.00 70.00 140.00 114.75 16.92 286.19 -0.85 0.44 0.22 0.86
WTET3 28 55.00 100.00 155.00 139.25 14.23 202.42 -1.27 0.44 1.80 0.86
Valid N (listwise) 28
N = 28; CQ = Cultural Intelligence; WTE = Work Team Effectiveness
 38

Table 5

Entire Population Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Paired t-test Statistics

ENTIRE GROUP CQ T1/T3 Paired t-test Statistics

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 MetacognitiveT1–MetacognitiveT3 -0.61 3.67 0.69 -2.03 0.81 -0.88 27 0.39
Pair 2 CognitiveT1–CognitiveT3 -2.93 5.50 1.04 -5.06 -0.79 -2.82 27 0.01*
Pair 3 MotivationalT1–MotivationalT3 -0.64 2.64 0.50 -1.67 0.38 -1.29 27 0.21
Pair 4 BehavioralT1–BehavioralT3 -0.29 4.77 0.90 -2.13 1.56 -0.32 27 0.75
ENTIRE GROUP WTE T1/T3 Paired t-test Statistics
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 GoalsT1–GoalsT3 0.82 5.52 1.04 -1.32 2.96 0.79 27 0.44
Pair 2 CustomersT1–CustomersT3 2.36 6.27 1.18 -0.07 4.79 1.99 27 0.06
Pair 3 TimelinessT1–TimelinessT3 -1.61 3.64 0.69 -3.02 -0.19 -2.33 27 0.03*
Pair 4 QualityT1–QualityT3 -0.11 4.18 0.79 -1.73 1.51 -0.14 27 0.89
Pair 5 ProductivityT1–ProductivityT3 0.11 3.97 0.75 -1.43 1.64 0.14 27 0.89
ENTIRE GROUP CQ AND WTE T1/T3 Paired t-test Statistics
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 CQT1–CQT3 -4.46 12.28 2.32 -9.23 0.30 -1.92 27 0.065
Pair 2 WTET1–WTET3 1.57 18.13 3.43 -5.46 8.60 0.46 27 0.650
N = 28; CQ = Cultural Intelligence; WTE = Work Team Effectiveness
 39

SD = 5.50, t(27) = -2.82, p <.05; Motivational CQ,
= 0.64, SD = 2.64, t(27) = -1.29, p >.05;

Behavioral CQ,
= 0.29, SD = 4.77, t(27) = -0.32, p >.05. Thus, only Cognitive CQ, with nearly

a three-point improvement, met the acceptable p <.05 significance level.

In comparison, the TE variables results for the paired t-tests were as follows: Goals, M =

-0.82, SD = 5.52, t(27) = +0.79, p >.05; Customers, M = -2.36, SD = 6.27, t(27) = -1.99, p >.05;

Timeliness, M = 1.61, SD = 3.64, t(27) = 2.33, p <.05; Quality, M = 0.11, SD = 4.18, t(27) = 0.14,

p >.05; Productivity, M = -0.11, SD = 3.97, t(27) = -0.14, p >.05. Timeliness was the only variable

with significance, registering a modest 1.61 gain.

The aggregate paired t-test CQ and TE values were both outside the acceptable range

and deemed insignificant (CQ, M = 4.46, SD = 12.28, t(27) = -1.92, p >.05; TE, M = -1.57, SD =

18.13, t(27) = 0.46, p >.05).

To further determine the relationship of CQ to TE, the Pearson product-moment

1 3
correlation coefficient was utilized for analyzing the relationship between CQ and TE at T and T

time periods. An increase in CQ skills could be a contributing factor in improving TE and could be

manifested in the correlations’ results.

1
The T Pearson correlations found a positive relationship between Metacognitive CQ

skills and Goals (r = .471, N = 28, p < .01, two-tailed), with 22% of the variation explained.

Metacognitive CQ and Customer (r = .396, N = 28, p < .05, two-tailed) had a positive correlation

explaining 16% of the variation. Similarly, having a positive relationship, Behavioral CQ and

Goals (r = .526, N = 28, p < .01, two-tailed) explained 28% of the model. Explaining a full 41% of

the variance, Behavioral CQ and Customers (r = .641, N = 28, p < .001, two-tailed) demonstrated

a moderate relationship. With 28% of the model explained, Behavioral CQ and Quality also had a

moderate relationship (r = .529, p < .01, two-tailed).

However, no relationship of significance was determined between aggregate and

3
individual CQ and TE variables in the T timeframe. Moreover, CQ and TE aggregate correlation
1
values had no significant relationship per the results: T (r = .368, N = 28, p > .05, two-tailed),
3
and T (r = -.041, p > .05, two-tailed). Thus, the results of the Pearson’s correlation, found in
 40

Table 6

T1/T3 Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Correlations

Pearson CQ and WTE T1/T3 Correlations

T1 Correlations T3 Correlations
Goals Customers Timeliness Quality Productivity Goals Customers Timeliness Quality Productivity
Metacognitive CQ Pearson Correlation .471* .396* .200 .155 .025 -.212 -.166 -.272 -.152 -.314
Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .037 .308 .432 .900 .278 .397 .161 .439 .104

Cognitive CQ Pearson Correlation .101 .093 -.035 .076 -.053 .054 .195 -.037 .226 -.182
Sig. (2-tailed) .607 .638 .858 .701 .789 .783 .321 .850 .247 .353

Motivational CQ Pearson Correlation .337 .321 .001 .169 .158 -.065 -.012 .020 .064 -.097
Sig. (2-tailed) .079 .096 .997 .391 .421 .742 .953 .921 .746 .624
** ** **
Behavioral CQ Pearson Correlation .526 .641 -.087 .529 .278 -.007 -.051 -.063 -.043 -.089
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 .661 .004 .152 .972 .798 .748 .827 .653

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N = 28; CQ = Cultural Intelligence; WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

Pearson CQ and WTE T1/T3 Correlations

WTET1 WTET3
CQ Pearson Correlation .368 -.041
Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .835

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

 41

1 3
Table 6, T and T Cultural Intelligence and Team Effectiveness Correlations, were positive in the
1 3
T timeframe and inconsequential for the T test.

These findings suggest there was a relationship between enhancing CQ skills, such as

Metacognitive CQ and Behavioral CQ, and TE, specifically concerning Goals, Customers, and
1
Quality, in the T timeframe.
1
To ascertain the effect of CQ variables on TE in the T period, linear regression tests

were performed on the data. Selection of regression tests was based on the significance of the

correlation findings, with Metacognitive CQ and Behavioral CQ compared to Goals, Customers,

1
and Quality for the T test period.

The results of the single linear regression test are depicted in Table 7, Entire Population

Single Linear Regression Tests. No regression tests were done on the aggregate CQ and TE
1 3
data for T and T since the Pearson correlation found an absence of a significant relationship

(p > .05).
1
The results of the T regressions, ordered based on the magnitude of influence and

significance, using the enter method, are as follows: Behavioral CQ and Customer (F(1,26)

=18.11, p < .001, Adjusted R square = 0.39), Behavioral CQ and Quality (F(1,26) = 10.12, p <

.001, Adjusted R square = 0.25), Behavioral CQ and Goals (F(1,26) = 9.96, p < .001, Adjusted R

square = 0.25), Metacognitive CQ and Goals (F(1,26) = 7.43, p < .05, Adjusted R square = 0.19),

and Metacognitive CQ and Customers (F(1,26) = 4.83, p < .05, Adjusted R square = 0.12).

Evident from these tests, Behavioral CQ accounted for positive changes in Customer

(39%), Quality (25%), and Goals (25%), while Metacognitive CQ mildly influenced a positive

variation in Goals (19%) and Customers (12%), thus further suggesting a significant relationship.

Multiple linear regressions were performed on the same data set, controlling for

demographic modifiers (for example, prior cross-cultural exposure) such as age, years of work

experience, experience level, and years in other countries. Since many of the students had prior

experience in other countries and cultures, differentiating the effect of demographics from CQ

variables was critical.

 42

Table 7

Entire Population Single Linear Regression Tests

T1 Metacognitive CQ and Goals

Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .471a 0.22 0.19 2.74 0.22 7.43 1 26 0.01* 2.34
a. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT1
b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N =28
T1 Metacognitive CQ and Customers
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .396a 0.16 0.12 2.94 0.16 4.83 1 26 0.04* 2.31
a. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
N = 28
T1 Behavioral CQ and Goals
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .526a 0.28 0.25 2.64 0.28 9.96 1 26 0.00* 2.07
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N = 28
T1 Behavioral CQ and Customers
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .641a 0.41 0.39 2.46 0.41 18.11 1 26 0.00* 1.79
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
N =28
T1 Behavioral CQ and Quality
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .529a 0.28 0.25 2.62 0.28 10.12 1 26 0.00* 2.45
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
N = 28; CQ = Cultural Intelligence

1
The results of the set of multiple regressions can be found in Table 8, T Multiple

Regression Tests (Entire Population). Ordered based on magnitude of influence and

1
significance, using the stepwise method, multiple regression tests for the T timeframe were

performed on the data.

 43

Table 8

T1 Multiple Regression Tests (Entire Population)

T1 Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence and Goals

Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .418a 0.17 0.14 2.82 0.17 5.51 1 26 0.03
2 .680b 0.46 0.42 2.32 0.29 13.33 1 25 0.00 2.63
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, MetacognitiveT1
c. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 43.72 1 43.72 5.51 .027b
Residual 206.39 26 7.94
Total 250.11 27
2 Regression 115.50 2 57.75 10.72 .000c
Residual 134.61 25 5.38
Total 250.11 27
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), Age, MetacognitiveT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 38.75 2.85 13.60 0.00 32.89 44.60
Age -0.18 0.08 -0.42 -2.35 0.03 -0.34 -0.02 1.00 1.00
2 (Constant) 27.74 3.82 7.26 0.00 19.86 35.61
Age -0.21 0.06 -0.49 -3.34 0.00 -0.35 -0.08 0.98 1.02
MetacognitiveT1 0.52 0.14 0.54 3.65 0.00 0.23 0.81 0.98 1.02
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N = 28
T1 Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence and Customers
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .396a 0.16 0.12 2.94 0.16 4.83 1 26 0.04 2.31
a. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 41.74 1 41.74 4.83 .037b
Residual 224.69 26 8.64
Total 266.43 27
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 22.42 4.23 5.30 0.00 13.73 31.12
 44

MetacognitiveT1 0.39 0.18 0.40 2.20 0.04 0.03 0.76 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
N = 28
T1 Behavioral CQ and Goals
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .418a 0.17 0.14 2.82 0.17 5.51 1 26 0.03
2 .661b 0.44 0.39 2.37 0.26 11.62 1 25 0.00 2.15
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, BehavioralT1
c. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 43.72 1 43.72 5.51 .027b
Residual 206.39 26 7.94
Total 250.11 27
2 Regression 109.22 2 54.61 9.69 .001c
Residual 140.89 25 5.64
Total 250.11 27
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), Age, BehavioralT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 38.75 2.85 13.60 0.00 32.89 44.60
Age -0.18 0.08 -0.42 -2.35 0.03 -0.34 -0.02 1.00 1.00
2 (Constant) 27.52 4.07 6.75 0.00 19.13 35.92
Age -0.17 0.07 -0.40 -2.66 0.01 -0.31 -0.04 1.00 1.00
BehavioralT1 0.36 0.11 0.51 3.41 0.00 0.14 0.58 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N = 28
T1 Behavioral Cultural Intelligence and Customers
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .641a 0.41 0.39 2.46 0.41 18.11 1 26 0.00 1.79
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 109.37 1 109.37 18.11 .000b
Residual 157.06 26 6.04
Total 266.43 27
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 17.51 3.35 5.22 0.00 10.62 24.41
BehavioralT1 0.47 0.11 0.64 4.26 0.00 0.24 0.70 1.00 1.00
 45

a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1

N = 28
T1 Behavioral CQ and Quality
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .529a .280 .252 2.62259 .280 10.119 1 26 .004 2.450
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 69.601 1 69.601 10.119 .004b
Residual 178.827 26 6.878
Total 248.429 27
a. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 14.087 3.577 3.938 .001 6.733 21.440
BehavioralT1 .374 .118 .529 3.181 .004 .132 .616 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
N = 28
 46

A significant model was found between Metacognitive CQ and Goals (Adjusted R square

= .419, F(2,25) = 10.7, p < .0005). Age and Metacognitive CQ were significant predictors in this

model (years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not

significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Metacognitive CQ 0.51 0.14 0.54*
Age -0.21 .064 -0.49*
*p < 0005

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Goals (Adjusted R square =

.392, F(2,25) = 9.70, p < .005). Behavioral CQ was a significant predictor in this model (age,

years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not significant

predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Behavioral CQ 0.36 0.11 0.51*
*p < 005

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Customers (Adjusted R

square = .388, F(1,26) = 18.1, p < .0005). Behavioral CQ was a significant predictor in this model

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Quality (Adjusted R square =

.252, F(1,26) = 10.1, p < .005). Behavioral CQ was a significant predictor in this model (age,

years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not significant

predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Behavioral CQ 0.37 0.12 0.53*
*p < 005

A significant model was found between Metacognitive CQ and Customers (Adjusted R

square = .124, F (2,25) = 4.82, p < .05). Metacognitive CQ was a significant predictor in this

model (age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not

significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Metacognitive CQ 0.39 0.18 0.40*
*p < 005
 47

Summary of Results Using Overall Sample

The multiple regression tests imply that, as previous research suggests, there was a

relationship between CQ and TE attributes in cross-cultural settings. Metacognitive CQ had a

moderate, positive predictor of Goals (42% and less so for Customers (12%). Behavioral CQ had

a weak, positive influence on Goals (39%) and Customers (39%) and a weak, positive influence

on Quality (25%). Age, the only demographic to impact TE, had a weak, negative effect on goal

accomplishment (14%).

With regard to the entire population of the study, there appeared to be some evidence of

a positive relationship between Metacognitive CQ and students’ ability to accomplish their team

goals (28%). Moreover, Behavioral CQ seems to have contributed to goal completion (39%) and

effective engagement with customers (39%). The data on age suggested that an increase in age

may correlate to a slight decrease in achieving goals.

Results of Experimental versus Control Group

To determine if there was a quantifiable difference between the experimental and control

group results, statistical analysis was performed with the findings below.
2
The intention of the educational intervention and focus groups at the T time period with

the experimental group was to determine if additional CQ training would influence CQ scores and,

thereby, enhance TE. Reviewing participants’ individual CQ results and brainstorming means by

which they could ameliorate their scores for each CQ dimension was the purpose of the CQ

education. Coalescing around a set of best practices for effective cross-cultural engagements

was an additional objective for the intervention. Theoretically, this supplementary training would

manifest itself in markedly higher CQ scores and team performance.

Experimental Group Findings

1 3
An analysis of the change in CQ and TE scores between T and T using comparative

means for the experimental group was performed. The resultant table of frequency statistics can

be found in Table 9, Experimental Group Descriptive Statistics.

 48

1 3
Aggregate CQ and TE scores increased from T and T for the experimental group (CQ,
1 3 1
T M = 108.93, SD = 16.16; T M = 114.14, SD = 18.73,
= 5.21 or 4.6%; TE, T M = 141.00,
3
SD = 9.63; T = 142.50, SD = 15.35,
= 1.50 or 1.1%).

Table 10, Experimental Group Paired t-test Statistics, provides a measurement of the
1 3
means between CQ and TE variables in the T and T timeframes. Paired t-tests results for the

experimental group’s aggregate CQ and TE scores had modest increases but were not

significant. Cognitive CQ (M = 3.43, SD = 5.32, t(13) = -2.41, p <.05) and Timeliness (M = 2.21,

SD = 3.47, t(13) = -2.39, p <.05) represented the only variables that moderately changed within

the p <.05 significance level. The balance of CQ and TE variables did not meet the significance

level.

The T1 Pearson correlations, depicted in Table 11, Experimental Group Pearson

Correlations, found a moderate, positive relationship between Metacognitive CQ skills and Goals

(r = .580, N = 14, p < .05, two-tailed), with 34% of the difference explained, Motivational CQ and

Goals (r = .598, N = 14, p < .05, two- tailed), explaining 36% of the variation. Behavioral CQ and

Goals (r = .568, N = 14, p < .05, two-tailed), with a moderate, positive influence, explained 32% of

the variance. Explaining 59% of the change in Customers (r = .765, N = 14, p < .005, two-tailed),

Behavioral CQ had a strong positive correlation. There were no correlations of significance in the
3
T time period for either aggregate or individual CQ and TE variables. To ascertain casual effect,

single linear regression tests were performed on the experimental team data and are depicted in

Table 12, Experimental Group Single Linear Regression Tests. No regression tests were done
1 3
on the aggregate CQ and TE data for T and T since the Pearson correlation found an absence

of a significant relationship (p > .05).

 49

Table 9

Experimental Group Descriptive Statistics

EXPERIMENTAL CQ T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
MetacognitiveT1 14 11.00 17.00 28.00 23.36 3.54 12.55 -0.55 0.60 -0.68 1.15
CognitiveT1 14 25.00 13.00 38.00 26.36 6.57 43.17 -0.45 0.60 0.46 1.15
MotivationalT1 14 17.00 18.00 35.00 29.86 4.49 20.13 -1.42 0.60 2.82 1.15
BehavioralT1 14 16.00 19.00 35.00 29.36 4.77 22.71 -1.23 0.60 1.28 1.15
MetacognitiveT3 14 14.00 14.00 28.00 23.50 3.61 13.04 -1.37 0.60 2.94 1.15
CognitiveT3 14 26.00 16.00 42.00 29.79 7.42 55.10 -0.45 0.60 -0.51 1.15
MotivationalT3 14 15.00 20.00 35.00 31.36 4.05 16.40 -1.88 0.60 4.16 1.15
BehavioralT3 14 10.00 25.00 35.00 31.29 3.60 12.99 -0.58 0.60 -0.84 1.15
Valid N (listwise) 14
EXPERIMENTAL WTE T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
GoalsT1 14 9.00 26.00 35.00 31.86 3.06 9.36 -0.26 0.60 -1.14 1.15
CustomersT1 14 10.00 25.00 35.00 31.57 2.77 7.65 -0.78 0.60 1.08 1.15
TimelinessT1 14 9.00 26.00 35.00 29.71 2.46 6.07 0.35 0.60 0.31 1.15
QualityT1 14 11.00 18.00 29.00 25.21 2.97 8.80 -1.25 0.60 1.47 1.15
ProductivityT1 14 8.00 19.00 27.00 22.64 2.27 5.17 0.24 0.60 -0.48 1.15
GoalsT3 14 15.00 20.00 35.00 32.36 4.48 20.09 -1.92 0.60 3.66 1.15
CustomersT3 14 18.00 17.00 35.00 30.07 5.55 30.84 -1.17 0.60 0.79 1.15
TimelinessT3 14 10.00 29.00 39.00 31.93 3.27 10.69 1.28 0.60 0.72 1.15
QualityT3 14 12.00 18.00 30.00 26.07 2.97 8.84 -1.41 0.60 3.49 1.15
ProductivityT3 14 11.00 16.00 27.00 22.07 3.29 10.84 -0.53 0.60 0.14 1.15
Valid N (listwise) 14
EXPERIMENTAL CQ AND WTE AGGREGATE T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
CQT1 14 60.00 70.00 130.00 108.93 16.16 260.99 -1.20 0.60 1.33 1.15
WTET1 14 34.00 120.00 154.00 141.00 9.63 92.77 -0.55 0.60 0.15 1.15
CQT3 14 70.00 70.00 140.00 114.14 18.73 350.90 -0.96 0.60 1.00 1.15
WTET3 14 55.00 100.00 155.00 142.50 15.35 235.50 -1.84 0.60 3.83 1.15
N = 14 14

N = 14; CQ = Cultural Intelligence; WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

 50

Table 10

Experimental Group Paired t-test Statistics

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CQ T1/T3 PAIRED t-TESTS

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 MetacognitiveT1–MetacognitiveT3 -0.14 3.37 0.90 -2.09 1.80 -0.16 13 0.88
Pair 2 CognitiveT1–CognitiveT3 -3.43 5.32 1.42 -6.50 -0.36 -2.41 13 0.03*
Pair 3 MotivationalT1–MotivationalT3 -1.50 2.93 0.78 -3.19 0.19 -1.92 13 0.08
Pair 4 BehavioralT1–BehavioralT3 -1.93 6.06 1.62 -5.43 1.57 -1.19 13 0.25
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP WTE T1/T3 PAIRED T-TESTS
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 GoalsT1–GoalsT3 -0.50 6.12 1.64 -4.04 3.04 -0.31 13 0.77
Pair 2 CustomersT1–CustomersT3 1.50 7.40 1.98 -2.77 5.77 0.76 13 0.46
Pair 3 TimelinessT1–TimelinessT3 -2.21 3.47 0.93 -4.22 -0.21 -2.39 13 0.03*
Pair 4 QualityT1–QualityT3 -0.86 4.50 1.20 -3.46 1.74 -0.71 13 0.49
Pair 5 ProductivityT1–ProductivityT3 0.57 4.24 1.13 -1.88 3.02 0.50 13 0.62
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CQ AND WTE T1/T3 PAIRED T-TESTS
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 CQT1–CQT3 -5.21 12.83 3.43 -12.62 2.19 -1.52 13 0.152
Pair 2 WTET1–WTET3 -1.50 20.56 5.50 -13.37 10.37 -0.27 13 0.789

N = 14; CQ = Cultural Intelligence; WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

 51

Table 11

Experimental Group Pearson Correlations

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP T1/T3 CORRELATION

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP WORK TEAM EFFECTIVENESS T1 EXPERIMENTAL GROUP WORK TEAM EFFECTIVENESS T3
CORRELATION CORRELATION
Goals Customers Timeliness Quality Productivity Goals Customers Timeliness Quality Productivity
Metacognitive Pearson Correlation .580* .511 .215 .161 .103 -.273 -.363 .186 -.426 -.476
Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .062 .460 .584 .726 .345 .203 .525 .129 .086

Cognitive Pearson Correlation .324 .191 .159 -.249 -.248 -.069 -.201 .345 -.397 -.462
Sig. (2-tailed) .258 .513 .587 .391 .392 .814 .491 .227 .160 .096

Motivational Pearson Correlation .598* .441 .184 -.055 .010 .039 -.141 .380 -.251 -.192
Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .114 .529 .851 .974 .895 .630 .180 .386 .510

Behavioral Pearson Correlation .568* .765** -.082 .370 .361 -.388 -.305 -.122 -.067 .069
Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .001 .779 .193 .205 .171 .289 .677 .821 .813

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N = 14
 52

Table 12

Experimental Group Single Linear Regression Tests

T1 Metacognitive CQ and Goals

Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .580 0.34 0.28 2.59 0.34 6.08 1 12 0.03* 2.15

a. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT1

b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N = 14
T1 Motivational CQ and Goals
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .598 0.36 0.30 2.55 0.36 6.68 1 12 0.02* 2.50

a. Predictors: (Constant), MotivationalT1

b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N =14
T1 Behavioral CQ and Goals
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .568 0.32 0.27 2.62 0.32 5.72 1 12 0.03* 1.86

a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1

b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
N = 14
T1 Behavioral CQ and Customers
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .765 0.59 0.55 1.85 0.59 16.98 1 12 0.00* 1.26

a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1

b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
N = 14
CQ = Cultural Intelligence
 53

1
The results of the T regressions, ordered based on the magnitude of influence and

significance, using the enter method, are as follows: Behavioral CQ and Customers (F(1,12)

=16.98, p < .001, Adjusted R square = 0.55); Motivational CQ and Goals (F(1,12) = 6.68, p < .05,

Adjusted R square = 0.30); Metacognitive CQ and Goals (F(1,12) = 6.08, p <.05, Adjusted R

square = 0.28); and Behavioral CQ and Goals (F(1,12) = 5.72, p < .05, Adjusted R square =

0.27).

These results suggest that the positive variance in Goals was influenced by Motivational

CQ (30%), Metacognitive CQ, (28%), and Behavioral CQ (27%), while Behavioral CQ positively

impacted Customers by a full 55%.

Controlling for demographic variables, multiple linear regressions were performed on the

data, with the results in Table 13, Experimental Group Multiple Regression Tests. Ordered based

on magnitude of influence and significance, using the stepwise method, the results of the multiple

regression are below.

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Customers (Adjusted R

square = .551, F (1,12) = 17.0, p < .0005). Behavioral CQ was a significant predictor in this

model (age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not

significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Behavioral CQ 0.44 0.11 0.77*
*p < 0005

A significant model was found between Metacognitive CQ and Goals (Adjusted R square

= .291, F (1,12) = 6.33, p < .05). Experience level was a significant predictor in this model

(Metacognitive CQ, age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries

were not significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Exp Level 0.44 0.11 0.59*
*p < 0.05
 54

Table 13

Experimental Group Multiple Regression Tests

T1 Metacognitive CQ and Goals

Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .588a 0.35 0.29 2.58 0.35 6.33 1 12 0.03 1.79
a. Predictors: (Constant), ExpLevel
b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 42.02 1 42.02 6.33 .027b
Residual 79.69 12 6.64
Total 121.71 13
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), ExpLevel
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 27.46 1.88 14.63 0.00 23.38 31.55
ExpLevel 1.66 0.66 0.59 2.52 0.03 0.22 3.10 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
T1 Motivational CQ and Goals
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .588a 0.35 0.29 2.58 0.35 6.33 1 12 0.03 1.79
a. Predictors: (Constant), ExpLevel
b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 42.02 1 42.02 6.33 .027b
Residual 79.69 12 6.64
Total 121.71 13
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), ExpLevel
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 27.46 1.88 14.63 0.00 23.38 31.55
ExpLevel 1.66 0.66 0.59 2.52 0.03 0.22 3.10 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
T1 Behavioral CQ and Goals
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .588a 0.35 0.29 2.58 0.35 6.33 1 12 0.03 1.79
a. Predictors: (Constant), ExpLevel
 55

b. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 42.02 1 42.02 6.33 .027b
Residual 79.69 12 6.64
Total 121.71 13
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), ExpLevel
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 27.46 1.88 14.63 0.00 23.38 31.55
ExpLevel 1.66 0.66 0.59 2.52 0.03 0.22 3.10 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: GoalsT1
T1 Behavioral CQ and Customers
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .765a 0.59 0.55 1.85 0.59 16.98 1 12 0.00 1.26
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 58.26 1 58.26 16.98 .001b
Residual 41.17 12 3.43
Total 99.43 13
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 18.53 3.20 5.78 0.00 11.55 25.51
BehavioralT1 0.44 0.11 0.77 4.12 0.00 0.21 0.68 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
CQ = Cultural Intelligence
 56

A significant model was found between Motivational CQ and Goals (Adjusted R square =

.291, F (1,12) = 6.33, p < .05). Experience level was a significant predictor in this model

(Motivational CQ, age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries

were not significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Exp Level 0.44 0.11 0.59*
*p < 0.05

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Goals (Adjusted R square =

.291, F (1,12) = 6.33, p < .05). Experience level was a significant predictor in this model

(Behavioral CQ, age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries

were not significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Exp Level 0.44 0.11 0.59*
*p < 0.05

Summary of Results for Experimental Group

With a moderate, positive influence on Customers (55%), Behavioral CQ was the singular

CQ variable within the significance level. Experience level, or the student’s self-reported level of

experience in other cultures, seemed to be the single positive predictor of Goals (29%), versus

Metacognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ.

1
In sum, the experimental group results would suggest that, in the T timeframe,

Behavioral CQ influenced the students’ ability to engage with customers; however, the students’

experience in other cultures also seemed to have a mild impact on goal accomplishment.

Control Group Findings

1 3
The comparative means test of CQ and TE scores between T and T for the control

group and the relevant frequency statistics can be found in Table 14, Control Group Descriptive
1 3. 1
Statistics. The control group’s CQ increased while TE decreased from T and T (CQ, T M =
3 1
111.64, SD = 11.00; T M = 115.36, SD = 15.58,
= 3.71 or 3.2%; TE, T M = 140.64, SD =
3
11.27; T = 136.00, SD = 12.73,
= -4.64 or -3.41%).
 57

Table 14

Control Group Descriptive Statistics

CONTROL CQ T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
MetacognitiveT1 14 10.00 18.00 28.00 23.79 2.89 8.34 -0.24 0.60 -0.12 1.15
CognitiveT1 14 27.00 10.00 37.00 25.50 7.40 54.73 -0.91 0.60 0.79 1.15
MotivationalT1 14 9.00 26.00 35.00 31.50 3.03 9.19 -0.73 0.60 -1.02 1.15
BehavioralT1 14 13.00 22.00 35.00 30.86 3.78 14.29 -0.80 0.60 0.76 1.15
MetacognitiveT3 14 10.00 18.00 28.00 24.86 3.74 13.98 -0.65 0.60 -1.25 1.15
CognitiveT3 14 29.00 10.00 39.00 27.93 8.62 74.23 -0.75 0.60 -0.14 1.15
MotivationalT3 14 12.00 23.00 35.00 31.29 3.91 15.30 -0.95 0.60 -0.07 1.15
BehavioralT3 14 21.00 14.00 35.00 29.50 5.60 31.35 -1.77 0.60 3.93 1.15
Valid N (listwise) 14
CONTROL WTE T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
GoalsT1 14 8.00 27.00 35.00 32.50 3.11 9.65 -0.58 0.60 -1.49 1.15
CustomersT1 14 11.00 24.00 35.00 31.71 3.58 12.84 -0.95 0.60 0.09 1.15
TimelinessT1 14 7.00 25.00 32.00 29.21 1.81 3.26 -0.46 0.60 1.38 1.15
QualityT1 14 11.00 21.00 32.00 25.50 3.20 10.27 0.48 0.60 -0.48 1.15
ProductivityT1 14 10.00 15.00 25.00 21.71 2.52 6.37 -1.46 0.60 3.01 1.15
GoalsT3 14 16.00 19.00 35.00 30.36 4.25 18.09 -1.29 0.60 3.11 1.15
CustomersT3 14 16.00 19.00 35.00 28.50 5.11 26.12 -0.51 0.60 -0.52 1.15
TimelinessT3 14 12.00 25.00 37.00 30.21 3.77 14.18 0.41 0.60 -1.14 1.15
QualityT3 14 15.00 16.00 31.00 24.86 4.28 18.29 -0.57 0.60 -0.17 1.15
ProductivityT3 14 9.00 19.00 28.00 22.07 2.59 6.69 0.90 0.60 0.98 1.15
Valid N (listwise) 14
CONTROL CQ AND WTE AGGREGATE T1/T3 Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
CQT1 14 35.00 92.00 127.00 111.64 11.00 121.02 -0.22 0.60 -0.79 1.15
WTET1 14 37.00 117.00 154.00 140.64 11.27 127.02 -0.85 0.60 0.09 1.15
CQT3 14 46.00 90.00 136.00 115.36 15.58 242.71 -0.72 0.60 -1.00 1.15
WTET3 14 51.00 103.00 154.00 136.00 12.73 162.15 -1.17 0.60 2.58 1.15
N = 14 14

N = 14; CQ = Cultural Intelligence; WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

 58

The control group paired t-test results, as depicted in Table 15, Control Group Paired t-

test Statistics, had a singular variable that increased and was within the significance level:

Customers (M = -3.21, SD = 5.03, t(13) = 2.39, p <.05). The remaining CQ and TE variables,

while demonstrating moderate increases and decreases in t values, failed to reach the

significance level (p >.05). The aggregate CQ and TE scores were both outside the acceptable

range and deemed insignificant.

1
The T Pearson correlations for the control group, provided in Table 16, Control Group

Pearson Correlations, show a positive relationship between Behavioral CQ skills and Customers

(r = .571, N = 14, p < .05, two-tailed), with 33% of the variation explained; moreover, the

relationship between Behavioral CQ and Quality was strongly positive (r = .730, N = 14, p < .05,

two-tailed), accounting for 53% of the model.

3
Results of the correlation tests in the T timeframe found a moderate, positive

relationship between Cognitive CQ and Customers (r = .539, N = 14, p < .05, two-tailed) as well

as Quality (r = .576, N = 14, p < .05, two-tailed), accounting for 29% and 33% of the variance,

respectively. The only negative correlation in the study occurred between Metacognitive CQ and
3
Timeliness in the T timeframe (r = -.593, N = 14, p < .05, two-tailed), with 35% of the variance
1 3
explained. There were no correlations with significance in the T or T time periods for either

aggregate CQ or TE variables.

Single linear regression tests were performed on the control group variables to determine

any influential effects. Table 17, Control Group Single Linear Regression Tests, captured the
1
results. The regression results for the T time period, delineated based on magnitude of influence

and significance, using the enter method, are as follows: Behavioral CQ and Quality (F (1,12) =

13.72, p < .001, Adjusted R square = 0.49), Behavioral CQ and Customers (F(1,12) = 5.79, p <
3
.05, Adjusted R square = 0.27). In the T timeframe, both Metacognitive CQ and Timeliness

(F(1,12) = 6.51, p < .05, Adjusted R square = 0.30) and Cognitive CQ and Quality (F(1, 12) =

5.96, p < .05, Adjusted R square = 0.28) had significant impact on the variance. The variance for

Cognitive CQ and Customers was on the boundary of the study’s significance level Timeliness

(F(1, 12) = 4.91, p = .05, Adjusted R square = 0.23).

 59

Table 15

Control Group Paired t-test Statistics

CONTROL GROUP CQ T1/T3 PAIRED t-TESTS

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 MetacognitiveT1–MetacognitiveT3 -1.07 4.01 1.07 -3.39 1.24 -1.00 13 0.34
Pair 2 CognitiveT1–CognitiveT3 -2.43 5.84 1.56 -5.80 0.94 -1.56 13 0.14
Pair 3 MotivationalT1–MotivationalT3 0.21 2.08 0.56 -0.99 1.42 0.39 13 0.71
Pair 4 BehavioralT1–BehavioralT3 1.36 7.66 2.05 -3.07 5.78 0.66 13 0.52
CONTROL GROUP WTE T1/T3 PAIRED t-TESTS
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 GoalsT1–GoalsT3 2.14 4.69 1.25 -0.56 4.85 1.71 13 0.11
Pair 2 CustomersT1–CustomersT3 3.21 5.03 1.34 0.31 6.12 2.39 13 0.03*
Pair 3 TimelinessT1–TimelinessT3 -1.00 3.84 1.03 -3.22 1.22 -0.97 13 0.35
Pair 4 QualityT1–QualityT3 0.64 3.84 1.03 -1.57 2.86 0.63 13 0.54
Pair 5 ProductivityT1–ProductivityT3 -0.36 3.77 1.01 -2.54 1.82 -0.35 13 0.73
CONTROL GROUP CQ AND WTE T1/T3 PAIRED t-TESTS
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 CQT1–CQT3 -3.71 12.14 3.24 -10.72 3.29 -1.15 13 0.273
Pair 2 WTET1–WTET3 4.64 15.48 4.14 -4.30 13.58 1.12 13 0.282

N = 14, CQ = Cultural Intelligence, WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

 60

Table 16

Control Group Pearson Correlations

CONTROL GROUP T1/T3 CORRELATION

CONTROL GROUP WTE T1 CORRELATION CONTROL GROUP WTE T3 CORRELATION

Goals Customers Timeliness Quality Productivity Goals Customers Timeliness Quality Productivity
Metacognitive Pearson Correlation .339 .306 .201 .146 -.030 -.079 .089 -.593* .076 -.134
Sig. (2-tailed) .236 .287 .490 .620 .918 .789 .763 .025 .797 .648

Cognitive Pearson Correlation -.079 .029 -.291 .349 .078 .116 .539* -.379 .576* .114
Sig. (2-tailed) .789 .922 .313 .222 .790 .692 .047 .182 .031 .698

Motivational Pearson Correlation -.061 .227 -.288 .471 .492 -.187 .131 -.307 .292 .028
Sig. (2-tailed) .835 .436 .318 .089 .074 .522 .656 .285 .310 .924

Behavioral Pearson Correlation .465 .571* -.040 .730** .294 -.134 -.168 .301 -.042 .268
Sig. (2-tailed) .094 .033 .891 .003 .308 .648 .566 .296 .887 .354

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N = 14; CQ = Cultural Intelligence, WTE = Work Team Effectiveness

CONTROL GROUP CQ & WTE CORRELATION

WTET1 WTET3
CQ Pearson Correlation .374 .168
Sig. (2-tailed) .187 .565

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

 61

Table 17

Control Group Single Linear Regression Tests

T1 Behavioral CQ and Customers

Std. Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .571 0.33 0.27 3.06 0.33 5.79 1 12 0.03 1.94
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
T1 Behavioral CQ and Quality
Std. Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .730 0.53 0.49 2.28 0.53 13.72 1 12 0.00 2.11
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
T3 Cognitive CQ and Customer
Std. Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .539 0.29 0.23 4.48 0.29 4.91 1 12 0.05 2.46
a. Predictors: (Constant), CognitiveT3
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT3
T3 Metacognitive CQ and Timeliness
Std. Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .593 0.35 0.30 3.16 0.35 6.51 1 12 0.03 2.27
a. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT3
b. Dependent Variable: TimelinessT3
T3 Cognitive CQ and Quality
Std. Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .576 0.33 0.28 3.64 0.33 5.96 1 12 0.03 1.93
a. Predictors: (Constant), CognitiveT3
b. Dependent Variable: QualityT3
CQ = Cultural Intelligence
 62

These results suggest that there was a moderate influence between Behavioral CQ and
1
Quality (49%) and a weak relationship between Behavioral CQ and Customers (27%) in the T

timeframe. While Metacognitive CQ and Timeliness (30%) demonstrated a correlation, Cognitive

CQ in relation to Quality (28%) and Customers (23%) was weak.

Multiple linear regressions were performed on the data, controlling for demographic
1
modifiers, with the results as shown in Table 18, Control Group Multiple Regression Tests. T

multiple regression results, ordered based on the magnitude of influence and significance, using

the stepwise method, are found below.

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Quality (Adjusted R square =

.495, F (1,12) = 13.7, p < .005). Behavioral CQ was a significant predictor in this model (age,

years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not significant

predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Behavioral CQ 0.62 0.17 0.73*
*p < 0.005

A significant model was found between Behavioral CQ and Customers (Adjusted R

square = .270, F (1,12) = 5.80, p < .05). Behavioral CQ was a significant predictor in this model

(age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not significant

predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Behavioral CQ 0.54 0.23 0.57*
*p < 0.05
 63

Table 18

Control Group Multiple Regression Tests

T1 Behavioral CQ and Customers

Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .571a 0.33 0.27 3.06 0.33 5.79 1 12 0.03 1.94
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 54.31 1 54.31 5.79 .033b
Residual 112.55 12 9.38
Total 166.86 13
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 15.03 6.98 2.15 0.05 -0.19 30.24
BehavioralT1 0.54 0.22 0.57 2.41 0.03 0.05 1.03 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT1
T1 Behavioral CQ and Quality
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .730a 0.53 0.49 2.28 0.53 13.72 1 12 0.00 2.11
a. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
b. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 71.21 1 71.21 13.72 .003b
Residual 62.29 12 5.19
Total 133.50 13
a. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
b. Predictors: (Constant), BehavioralT1
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 6.39 5.19 1.23 0.24 -4.93 17.71
BehavioralT1 0.62 0.17 0.73 3.70 0.00 0.25 0.98 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: QualityT1
T3 Cognitive CQ and Customer
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
 64

1 .539a 0.29 0.23 4.48 0.29 4.91 1 12 0.05 2.46

a. Predictors: (Constant), CognitiveT3
b. Dependent Variable: CustomersT3
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 98.63 1 98.63 4.91 .047b
Residual 240.87 12 20.07
Total 339.50 13
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT3
b. Predictors: (Constant), CognitiveT3
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 19.57 4.20 4.66 0.00 10.41 28.73
CognitiveT3 0.32 0.14 0.54 2.22 0.05 0.01 0.63 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: CustomersT3
T3 Metacognitive CQ and Timeliness
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .593a 0.35 0.30 3.16 0.35 6.51 1 12 0.03 2.27
a. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT3
b. Dependent Variable: TimelinessT3
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 64.87 1 64.87 6.51 .025b
Residual 119.49 12 9.96
Total 184.36 13
a. Dependent Variable: TimelinessT3
b. Predictors: (Constant), MetacognitiveT3
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 45.07 5.88 7.66 0.00 32.26 57.88
MetacognitiveT3 -0.60 0.23 -0.59 -2.55 0.03 -1.11 -0.09 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: TimelinessT3
T3 Cognitive CQ and Quality
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
R R Std. Error of Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .576a 0.33 0.28 3.64 0.33 5.96 1 12 0.03 1.93
a. Predictors: (Constant), CognitiveT3
b. Dependent Variable: QualityT3
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 78.86 1 78.86 5.96 .031b
Residual 158.85 12 13.24
Total 237.71 13
a. Dependent Variable: QualityT3
 65

b. Predictors: (Constant), CognitiveT3

Coefficientsa
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 16.87 3.41 4.94 0.00 9.44 24.31
CognitiveT3 0.29 0.12 0.58 2.44 0.03 0.03 0.54 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: QualityT3

3
T multiple regression results, ordered based on the magnitude of influence and significance,

using the stepwise method, are provided below.

A significant model was found between Metacognitive CQ and Timeliness (Adjusted R

square = .0.30, F (1,12) = 6.52, p < .05). Metacognitive CQ was a significant predictor in this

model (age, years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not

significant predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Metacognitive CQ -0.60 0.23 -0.59*
*p < 0.05

A significant model was found between Cognitive CQ and Quality (Adjusted R square =

.0.276, F (1,12) = 5.96, p < .05). Cognitive CQ was a significant predictor in this model (age,

years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not significant

predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Cognitive CQ 0.29 0.12 0.58*
*p < 0.05
A significant model was found between Cognitive CQ and Customers (Adjusted R square

= .0.231, F (1,12) = 4.91, p < .05). Cognitive CQ was a significant predictor in this model (age,

years of work experience, experience level, and years in other countries were not significant

predictors):

Variable B SE B β
Cognitive CQ 0.32 0.14 0.54*
*p < 0.05
 66

Summary of Results for Control Group

1
Within the T timeframe, the Behavioral CQ variable was a moderate, positive predictor of

both Quality (50%) and Customers (27%). Metacognitive CQ appeared to have a weak, negative
3
impact on Timeliness in the T time period (-30%). Cognitive CQ was a weak predictor of both

Quality (28%) and Customers (23%).

1
The control group findings suggest that in the T timeframe, Behavioral CQ positively

influenced the students’ quality of work (49%) and potentially their interaction with customers

(27%). A curious finding was that Metacognitive CQ may have decreased (-30%) the students’
3
timely accomplishment of tasks in the T timeframe. Moreover, Cognitive CQ may have mildly

enhanced the quality of students’ products or services delivered (28%) and perhaps the

effectiveness of engagement with customers (23%).

3
T Student Rating Findings
2
In order to ascertain the effectiveness of the CQ focus group intervention at T (prior to

client interventions during Session Seven in China), an additional rating question was added to
3
the end of the Work Team Effectiveness survey T . Each student was asked to rate all other

students in the cohort for CQ skills on a 1 to 7 Likert scale. The intent was to determine if the

experimental group, which received the additional training, was perceived as having higher CQ
3
skills than the control group in the T time period. Frequency and correlation statistics were

performed on the experimental and control group mean student ratings and aggregate CQ scores
3
in the T time periods as shown in Table 19, Experimental and Control Group Training and
3
Cultural Intelligence T Frequencies below.

Supporting a positive causal effect of the educational intervention was a slightly more

favorable mean CQ rating for the experimental group (M = 5.34, SD = 0.67) as compared to the

control team (M = 5.05, SD = 0.69) representing a
= 0.29 or 5.5%. Furthermore, all CQ

1 3
variables for the experimental group increased from T to T (Metacognitive CQ, M = 1.50, 4.8%;

Cognitive CQ, M = 3.43, 11.5%; Motivational CQ, M = 1.50, 4.8%; and Behavioral CQ, M = 1.93,

6.2%).
 67

Table 19

Experimental and Control Group Training and Cultural Intelligence T3 Frequencies

Experimental Group Rating Frequencies

Std.
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Std. Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Error
AvgScore 14 2.22 4.32 6.54 5.34 0.67 0.45 0.42 0.60 -0.38 1.15
CQT3 14 70.00 70.00 140.00 114.14 18.73 350.90 -0.96 0.60 1.00 1.15
Valid N 14
(listwise)
Control Group Rating Frequencies
Std.
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Std. Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Error
AvgScore 14 2.39 4.00 6.39 5.05 0.69 0.48 0.23 0.60 -0.71 1.15
CQT3 14 46.00 90.00 136.00 115.36 15.58 242.71 -0.72 0.60 -1.00 1.15
Valid N 14
(listwise)

N=14; CQ = Cultural Intelligence

Experimental and Control Group Rating Correlations

Experimental Group Rating Correlations

CQT3
AvgScore Pearson Correlation .020
Sig. (2-tailed) .946

Control Grp Rating Correlations

CQT3
AvgScore Pearson Correlation .045
Sig. (2-tailed) .878
 68

A paired t-test and correlations of the average experimental and control group student

ratings were performed with results outside of the acceptable p > .05 range. Moreover, there

were gaps in the responses to the student rating question (i.e., of 392 entries possible, or 14 x 28,

the experimental group had 10 (3%) missing responses, while the control group had 116 (30%)

responses).

Summary of Results

The intent of the rating question posed to the students was to determine if the training

positively impacted CQ and, thereby, TE variables. Although the experimental group did improve
1 3
in CQ scores from T to T , based on these findings, it would be reasonable to conclude that the

impact of the educational intervention on the experimental group was likely positive but

inconclusive.

Educational Intervention Qualitative Findings

As part of the research design, the educational training was segmented into the following

focus areas: (a) a CQ overview of the four dimensions and their sub-dimensions, (b) a discussion

regarding the meaning of the CQ and cultural values scores, and (c) a focus group where

brainstorming and group discussion were utilized to improve CQ skills and, therefore,

effectiveness of client improvement projects.

The data of the focus group and brainstorming exercise were captured and processed

using qualitative analysis to ascertain themes and common practices for improving CQ. The

results of this analysis can be found in Table 20, Experimental Group Qualitative Analysis.

The format for the brainstorming exercise was groupings of three to four students,

sharing best practices and suggestions for the following set of questions:

1. What one CQ skill will you target for improvements in the future, and what will you do

to improve it?

2. As an informal leader, what specifically can you do to help your team to be

successful in the client intervention? (This question was modified from the original

study design due to the nature of the intervention and time constraints.)
 69

Table 20

Experimental Group Qualitative Analysis

Question 1. What one CQ skill will you target for improvements in the future, and what will you do to improve it?
CQ Drive CQ Knowledge CQ Strategy CQ Action
Improving ability to
Enhancing enjoyment and read non-verbal Observing and inquiry
confidence in cross-cultural communications and to check assumptions Modifying speech and
Common Themes engagements reflective capabilities and modify plans adapting to the moment
Deriving enjoyment from Improving knowledge of Adapting to cultural Modifying my manner of
culturally diverse situations languages and non- situations after having communication based on
verbal behavior checked the observation and feelings
assumptions
I am going to concentrate on Increase understanding Take in as much data as Pay attention in the
keeping my motivation levels. I of how culture shapes possible through moment, adapt and go
have become somewhat thinking and behavior. observation and inquiry. with it
complacent with slowing down Use reflective I will strive to
Responses on international travel over the capabilities to stay continuously monitor and
last two years and would be mindful of past (prep) adjust my plan and
happy increasing my research when working action and strategy
confidence levels with cross- with clients according to the ongoing
cultural engagements analysis I am conducting
Self-efficacy -> exhibit more Inquire, ask more Improve CQ action
belief in success questions regarding speech
Improve knowledge Improve CQ action
regarding interpersonal regarding speech
# 3 5 2 4
% 21.43% 35.71% 14.29% 28.57%
Question 2 (Modified) As an informal leader, what specifically can you do to help your team to be successful in the client
intervention?
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
Planning for
assignments and
Being calm, confident, and cross-cultural Being calm and Stepping out and
observant; asking questions situations before confident—stepping modeling behavior;
and checking assumptions; project; limiting out; regrouping as a regrouping as the team
Common Themes being flexible and adapting assumptions team as needed needed
Remind people to Step out—take a
work/look at facts—limit moment to regroup away Ask to take a break and
Be aware, observant assumptions from client regroup as a team
Softly support team Step in and model
Call it out members Stay calm and confident behavior
Let's go back to
Suggest alternatives to relationships, then Inform the team member
Not freak out (stay calm) team redirect of your observation
Designate team
members to specific Gauging the temperature
tasks to help others with of the discussion, having
Responses Help others not freak out cultural police Intervene an awareness
Understanding before
Ask questions (share the project to ensure people
problem) don't become frustrated Name indirectly
Say "I'm sorry"
Be curious, no judgments
Consider cultural values
Seek professional assistance
Be confident
Plan and track
Be flexible and adapt
CQ = Cultural Intelligence
 70

The participants decided independently to focus on CQ dimensions as follows: CQ Drive,

21.43%; CQ Knowledge, 35.71%; CQ Strategy, 14.29%; and CQ Action, 28.57%. Common

themes that emerged from the CQ skills improvement question were enhancing enjoyment and

confidence in cross-cultural engagements, improving the ability to read non-verbal

communications, using observation and inquiry to check assumptions and modify plans, and

modifying speech as needed in the moment.

The results of the informal leadership question were complementary, with the addition of

regrouping as a team to assess the situation and stepping out to model desired cross-cultural

behavior for others.

Summary of CQ and TE Study Results

The quantitative and qualitative analysis of this exploratory study, including the
1 3
demographics of the students, the T and T Cultural Intelligence Scale and Work Team

Effectiveness survey values and measures, and the focus group CQ intervention results, were

presented in this chapter.

The findings of the study suggest that the aggregate CQ and TE variables did not

demonstrate a strong relationship to the TE variables in any of the statistical tests; however, the
1
influence of both Metacognitive CQ and Behavioral CQ on Goals and Customers in the T

timeframe was significant. Furthermore, Behavioral CQ had a significant effect on Quality,

1
particularly with the control group in the T timeframe. Cognitive CQ, although tempered,

improved over time and contributed to positive changes in Quality and Customers. Motivational

CQ did not seem to impact any of the TE variables in the study. Interestingly, Metacognitive CQ
3
seemed to impede students’ ability to achieve timely results for the control group in the T time

period. Both age and experience level had weak effects on students’ ability to complete goals.

Based on these findings: The Hypothesis H0 (Null Hypothesis) is rejected, and

Hypothesis HA (Alternative Hypothesis) is accepted. There is a statistically significant relationship

between CQ and TE the case of a multinational, organization development graduate program

environment. This would suggest that CQ plays a role in the effectiveness of teams in projects

executed in cross-cultural environments.

 71

This study tested additional sub-hypotheses to determine the exact nature of CQ’s impact

on TE. Consequently, because of these findings: Hypothesis H01 (Null Hypothesis) is accepted,

and Hypothesis HA1 (Alternative Hypothesis) is rejected. There is not a statistically significant

relationship between Motivational CQ and TE in the case of a multinational, organization

development graduate program environment. This finding may imply that intrinsic and extrinsic

rewards, along with confidence, have little impact on the effectiveness of teams in this context.

Hypothesis H02 (Null Hypothesis) is rejected, and Hypothesis HA2 (Alternative Hypothesis)

is accepted. There is a statistically significant relationship between Behavioral CQ and TE in the

case of a multinational, organization development graduate program environment. The students’

actions and verbal and non-verbal communications clearly influenced their ability to get results.

Hypothesis H03 (Null Hypothesis) is rejected, and Hypothesis HA3 (Alternative Hypothesis)

is accepted. There is a statistically significant relationship between Cognitive CQ and TE in the

case of a multinational, organization development graduate program environment. Familiarity

with cultural systems, norms, worldviews, and business practices appears to have impacted the

students’ outcomes.

Hypothesis H04 (Null Hypothesis) is rejected, and Hypothesis HA4 (Alternative Hypothesis)

is accepted: There is a statistically significant relationship between Metacognitive CQ and TE in

the case of a multinational, organization development graduate program environment. The ability

to strategize, plan, and re-plan for cross-cultural engagement based on new information seems to

have affected the TE attributes in this study.

 72

Chapter 5: Conclusions

This exploratory study posited the question: Within a multinational, organization

development graduate program environment, what is the relationship between CQ and TE? In

this final chapter, a summarization and discussion of the findings is provided, conclusions are

drawn from the results, and suggestions for further research are presented. The study’s

limitations and implications for organization development practitioners as well as managers and

leaders are additionally covered.

Identifying CQ capabilities and best practices that amplify a person’s cross-cultural

efficacy is essential in a “flattened” world. The globalization experienced in the past decade has

changed in a critical way: It is speeding up. Friedman suggests that “there is something about

the flattening of the world that is going to be qualitatively different from the great changes of

previous eras: The speed and breadth with which it is taking hold” (2007, p. 49).

While there have been studies to tease out the effects of CQ on individual cultural

adaptation and effectiveness, this study’s intent was to extend this research, providing a means

for additional exploration of the nature of CQ’s effect on TE.

Findings

The salient findings from the study are illuminated below.

1. CQ Increased overall for both the cohort and the experimental group and marginally

for the control group.

1 3
The findings were that CQ increased between T and T for the cohort and

both the experimental and control groups. The entire cohort realized improvement in

every CQ variable over this same time period. The experimental group demonstrated

improvements in all CQ variables, whereas the control group manifested

improvement in both Cognitive CQ and Metacognitive CQ, decreasing in Motivational

CQ and Behavioral CQ. Moreover, the experimental group registered a higher CQ

3
rating via the T student rating question than did the control group.

2. TE mostly declined for the cohort and control group and slightly advanced for the

experimental group.
 73

TE means scores in aggregate declined for the cohort and control group and
1 3
increased in the experimental group between T and T timeframes. The study

finding regarding TE variables was that the cohort decreased in Goals, Customers,

and Productivity but enhanced their Timeliness and Quality values. The experimental

group TE values improved for Goals, Timeliness, and Quality during this timeframe,

while Customers and Productivity both declined. Goals, Customers, and Quality

declined in the same time period, while Timeliness and Productivity advanced for the

control group.
1
3. CQ impact on TE was significant in the T timeframe, with Cognitive CQ and

Metacognitive CQ having the only influence longitudinally.

1
For the entire cohort in the T timeframe, the finding was that Metacognitive

CQ and Behavioral CQ positively influenced Goals, whereas Metacognitive CQ and

Behavioral CQ enhanced Customers. In addition, Behavioral CQ positively impacted

Quality during the same time period. An increase in age also seemed to degrade

Goals.
1
There were only two significant T results for the experimental group: a

moderate positive relationship between Behavioral CQ and Customers and a mild

positive influence of experience level in other cultures and Goals.

1
During the T time period, the control group had a positive relationship

between Behavioral CQ and Customers; Quality had an even stronger positive

dependency on Behavioral CQ. In addition, the only positive longitudinal finding

1 3
between the T and T timeframes was a mean increase in Cognitive CQ, which

correlated to an improvement in Quality and Customers. While the mean score for

Metacognitive CQ increased during the same timeframe, it correlated to a drop in

Timeliness.

Conclusions

Based on the findings, several conclusions regarding the impact of CQ on TE within the

context of an international, organization development program can be drawn:

 74

1. Metacognitive CQ and Behavioral CQ skills were associated with perceived goal

achievement and effective customer engagement.

The discovery that strategic planning and adaptive thinking would heighten

the capability of a team to meet or exceed its goals and satisfy its customers would

seem to support previous research regarding cultural adaptation (Ang et al., 2007)

and adjustment to novel environments (Oolders et al., 2008). Perceived satisfaction

of customers and accomplishment of team goals was positively influenced by the

ability of students to exhibit the appropriate behavior in a cross-cultural setting.

Effective interactions (Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) in cross-cultural settings have

previously been linked to Behavioral CQ skills.

2. Enhancing Cognitive CQ skills over time improved perceived customer satisfaction

and quality of team deliverables.

1 3
Only the control group had correlations in both the T and T timeframes,

where Cognitive CQ skills had a positive impact on the customer satisfaction and
3
quality of team output at the T time period. The latter finding supports previous

research in effective decision making and adaptation (Ang et al., 2007) along with

improved social perceptions (Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). While Customers and Quality

decreased for the Control group over time, it is assumed that the decline was

somewhat mitigated by the positive correlation to Cognitive CQ.

3. Increased Metacognitive CQ capability decreased the timeliness of task performance.

The most curious finding in this study was a negative relationship between

Metacognitive CQ and the effective use of time to reach goals for the control group at
3
T . The notion that strategic planning and adaptation could impede the timely

execution of tasks is novel in CQ research. This may suggest that there are

limitations to the positive impact of CQ on TE in specific situations. In essence, the

enhanced task performance and decision making Metacognitive CQ offers (Ang et

al., 2007) may be at the expense of meeting timely commitments. The characteristic

suspension of judgment, planning, and adapting attributable to Metacognitive CQ

 75

skills might have to be weighed against setting reasonable project deadlines in a

cross-cultural setting (Triandis, 2006; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2009).

4. Prior cultural experience and age influenced the achievement of team goals.

While the experimental group findings were consistent with the entire

population and prior research, earlier cultural experience levels and their effects on

the CQ skills of students seemed to have been a significant contributor to goal

achievement. This increase of CQ over time due to continual cultural exposure

coincides with past research regarding the developmental nature of the construct

(Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). However, the notion that an increase in age might

negatively correlate to task accomplishment was also new in CQ research.

5. Additional training may have enhanced CQ skills.

While the study did not find definitive proof of a correlation, the common
2
themes derived from the CQ educational intervention at T with the experimental
3
group may have led to CQ skill improvement at T . With substantial increases in
1 3
Motivational CQ, Behavioral CQ, and Cognitive CQ between T and T , it would be

reasonable to assume that, aside from prior cultural experiences, the intervention

contributed to the experimental group’s increase in CQ skills. The themes identified

in the focus group—focusing on improving non-verbal communications and reflective

capabilities (Cognitive CQ), modifying communications (Behavioral CQ), and

checking assumptions to modify plans (Metacognitive CQ)—likely enhanced some

growth in CQ skills.

Additional Factors
1 3
Given the delta in scores and results from T to T , it would also be reasonable to suggest

that there was a difference in the student cultural experience in Session Four in Costa Rica as

opposed to Session Seven in China. For example, the level of academic and experiential

challenge in China, hypothetically, may have disproportionately impacted the study’s TE results.

The research design, which measured students’ CQ and TE after Costa Rica and China versus

prior to their first international session in France, also could have influenced the potential results.
 76

Comparative differences in demographics between groups also may have been a factor in the

outcomes. Prior experience in other cultures may have additionally contributed to achievement of

goals and satisfaction of customers. Thus, several factors may have impacted the study’s

results:

1. Perceived differences in experience between Costa Rica and China

The MSOD program is designed to be progressively developmental. The

students’ aptitude and capability, both academically and experientially, are

continually assessed with an expectation of increased results. By Session Eight,

considered the capstone project of the program, students must demonstrate mastery

of the organization development subject field as well as its application in cross-

cultural settings.

These expectations were made apparent in two challenging student projects

in China versus one in Costa Rica. For example, prior to the China projects, students

were asked to do substantial research in one or two areas which would be applied in

country: talent management differences between the United States and China and

assessing the network for sustainability. Students leveraged this research to perform

field studies and report out on their findings. In addition, as a second project, six

local Chinese companies or government agencies were assisted by students in a

variety of organization development challenges.

In contrast, training and application of Appreciative Inquiry for three

organizations was the focus in Costa Rica: a humanitarian foundation, a coffee

company, and a national bank. These organizations joined the students in

Appreciative Inquiry training for one day, subsequently leveraging Appreciative

Inquiry for an organizational change dictated by the clients. Thus, the faculty

expectations of students were substantially higher in regard to increased organization

development knowledge and capability during the China session as opposed to the

earlier session in Costa Rica. For example, students’ command of the academic
 77

material and ability to effectively perform client interventions within a cross-cultural

context was more significantly tested and assessed during the China session.

2. Demographic Differences

Every attempt was made to ensure that demographic modifiers in this

study—specifically, age, years of work experience, and experience in other countries

and cultures—were accounted for in the analysis. That notwithstanding, it would be

important to highlight some critical demographic parameters which might have

influenced the outcomes.

The experimental group was younger and had less work experience, slightly

higher education, less experience in other countries, but, curiously, more experience

in other cultures. It would be reasonable to hypothesize that the experimental

group’s demographics of age, higher education, and, in particular, time in other

cultures contributed to their increase in CQ and TE. In contrast, the control group’s

age and longer work experience may have created assumptions and biases which

influenced less of an increase in CQ and a decrease in TE.

3. Prior cross-cultural exposure in theory played a role in the study’s outcomes

The majority of the students had prior experience (moderate to very

experienced) in both other countries and cultures. In addition, students had the
1
cultural experience in France via Session Two prior to T , and one third of the cohort

participated in a pre-trip to China prior to Session Eight. These data were evident in
1
the experimental group’s T results relative to the impact of experience level on goal

accomplishment.

Study Limitations

The study’s limitations are as follows:

1. Generalizability

While the entire cohort or sample size of 28 students participated in this

study, the results cannot be generalized without further research.

 78

2. Sample Size and Gender

The population was very small and predominately women with an average

overall age of 36 years old.

3. Origins and Language

The percentage of students whose country of origin and citizenship were

American was 68% and 86%, respectively. However, nearly half of the students

spoke more than one language. Thus, while this was a compelling sample for the

purpose of the study, the degree to which this population reflects the composition of

other international graduate programs in organization development limits the findings

of the study.

4. Prior Cultural Exposure

In addition, per the findings, 60% of the students had prior experience in

other countries and cultures, with almost 61% having lived in another country for at

least six months. Moreover, beyond the cultural exposure gained through the

program, many students participated in additional foreign travel during the program,

most notably, a pre-trip before Session Seven in China. This pre-trip was

experienced by approximately a third of the students, as mentioned, and was

designed to provide a rich cultural introduction to China through historical site visits

and cultural experiences. It is realistic to assume, and the findings suggest, that

these prior and ancillary cultural experiences influenced students’ CQ capabilities.

5. Study Timing

The study began after Session Four in Costa Rica. This was due to a

change in the study’s targeted population. It would have been preferable to have

students’ CQ and TE assessment data prior to Session Two in France to eliminate

the impact of prior cultural experiences. Thus, these additional cultural experiences

might have been stronger modifiers to the outcome of the study than if the study had

been started earlier.

 79

6. Group Commingling

As noted in the findings as well, an additional limitation to the study was an

inability to separate the experimental and control groups’ intervention activities; these

groups were intermixed during all client interventions. Thus, while accommodating
3
for this intermixing of students using the rating question methodology at T previously

discussed, students’ ability to learn and adapt through observing other students’

actions and behaviors could have been a factor. For example, it can be assumed

that if students observed successful behaviors in a cross-cultural intervention, they

might have been apt to copy them to enhance their own results.

Recommendations for Further Research

The results of this study suggest several areas for further research:

1. CQ and MNTs

This study provided a unique window into the impact of CQ on teams. Field

research concerning CQ has largely focused on individuals and the effects of

enhanced CQ skills on individual performance. Positive evidence of improved

professional and personal results for leaders and individual contributors who have

ameliorated their CQ capabilities is ample. From increased confidence, adaptability,

decision making, task performance, and negotiation skills to improved awareness of

biases, the CQ research heretofore has not adequately explored how teams can

leverage enhanced CQ skills for improved MNT performance.

2. CQ and Team Dynamics

Teams are becoming a fundamental means of accomplishing organizational

objectives. The earlier hierarchical organization models are transforming into

decentralized, team-based organizational models. CQ research centered on the

effectiveness of MNTs in a plethora of cross-cultural engagement scenarios would be

beneficial and timely. For example, studying team dynamics could shed light on the

effects of CQ on team heterogeneity and the development of “swift norms.” The

nature of a “negotiated or hybrid team culture” (Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006,

 80

p. 709) and whether improved CQ skills could expedite its formation would be

interesting. The notion that heterogenic teams have the potential to create more

creative solutions using CQ capabilities seems highly relevant.

Implications for Organization Development Practitioners

Organization development as a practice endeavors to make positive changes in

organizations through the cogent use of behavioral sciences. Creating the frameworks and

methodology in order that organizations and their teams can build new organizational capabilities

to better compete in the global economy is a collective goal of organization development

practitioners.

To that end, understanding and effecting positive change in today’s business

environment requires a global perspective and capacity to easily traverse cultural boundaries.

Driving change often means factoring in multiple cultural worldviews, even if the predominant

culture (e.g., headquarters) is in one country or region of the world.

Assessing and developing these malleable CQ skills to increase cross-cultural

adaptability and efficacy would seem an attractive proposition for organization development

practitioners the world over. Assessment and diagnostics of organizational health are essential

organization development skills, and CQ offers another lens from which to create positive

change. Knowing the degree of prior cultural exposure and CQ skill level of teams within

organizations, in particular, Metacognitive CQ, Behavioral CQ, and Cognitive CQ per this study,

could be useful in addressing MNT or virtual team challenges with goal achievement and

customer satisfaction. Moreover, care should be exercised when enhancing Metacognitive CQ

capacity as it might unintentionally hamper timely delivery of team deliverables.

Implications for Global Managers

The rate of change and expectations of leaders to be adept at leading employees from all

corners of the globe has become the norm. As a consequence, actively using and modeling the

CQ capabilities and creating a lingua franca for cross-cultural interactions would boost a leader’s

global effectiveness. Arming leaders with data regarding their organization’s cross-cultural
 81

adaptability and developing those CQ skills as a competitive advantage would set some leaders

apart.

Last Thoughts

With the advent of globalization, the world has become highly connected and

interdependent. Virtually everything in professional and personal life now is interdependent within

the global economy. As Friedman wrote,

Every young American today would be wise to think of him or herself as competing
against every young Chinese, Indian and Brazilian. In Globalization 3.0, individuals have
to think globally to thrive, or at least survive. These changes require not only a new level
of technical skills, but also a certain mental flexibility, self-motivation, and psychological
mobility. (2007, p. 278)

The capability of individuals and teams to work effectively in global environments—be it

in proximity or virtually—seems linked to Friedman’s “psychological mobility.” CQ, as a construct

designed for measuring effective cross-cultural engagements, seems well suited for these new

realities. Although a new model, with further research and validation, CQ could become a

ubiquitous leadership and team development tool to promulgate effective cultural adaptability

throughout an organization.
 82

References
 83

References
th
Adler, N. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior (5 ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Southwestern College Publishing.

Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: A
framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences Institute, 39(3), 337-
358.

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition,
distinctiveness and nomological network cultural intelligence. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne
(Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 3-
15). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007,
November). 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.

Bailey, D. E. (2000). Modeling work group effectiveness in high-technology manufacturing

environments. IIE Transactions (32), 361-368.

Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2005). Making sense of intercultural collaboration. International Studies
of Management and Organizations, 35(4), 115-132.

Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture in
a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53(4), 451-487.

Chan, I. K. (2007). Exploring cultural intelligence: A look at the construct—Its development

nature, and potential determinants. Unpublished master’s research project. Pepperdine
University, Malibu, CA.

Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. B. (2003). In the beginning: Introduction and framework. In C. B.
Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team
effectiveness (pp. 1-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development & change (9th ed).
Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.

Davison, S. C. (1994). Creating a high performance international team. Journal of Management

Development, 13(2), 81-90.

DeRosa, D. M., & Lepsinger, R. (2010). Virtual teams success: A practical guide for working and
leading from a distance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Doolen, T. L., Hacker, M. E., & Van Aken, E. (2006). Managing organizational context for
engineering team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 12(5/6), 138-154.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J. (2006). CQ: Developing cultural intelligence at work. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
 84

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. Hillside, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
transnational team functioning, Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26-49.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a
new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3(1), 100-115.

Economist Intelligence Unit. (2007). CEO briefing: Corporate priorities for 2007 and beyond. In
The Economist, pp. 1-25.

Egan, T. (2011, April). International Organization Development. Syllabus presented at

Pepperdine University, Master of Science in Organization Development, Course 602b,
Alajuela, Costa Rica.

Elton, E., & Vigoda, E. (2003). Influence and political processes in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson
& S. G. Cohen, (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team
effectiveness (pp. 317-334). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Flaherty, J. E. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and
integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 192-205). Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharp.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-first century (1st rev. and
expanded ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books

Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. A. (2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication
processes in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work:
Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 59-86). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Gibson, C. B., Zellman-Bruhn, M. E., & Schwab, D. P. (2003). Team effectiveness in multinational
organizations: Evaluation across contexts, Group & Organization Management, 28, 444-
474.

Gluesing, J. C., Alcordo, T. C., Baba, M. L., Britt, D., Wagner, K. H., McKether, W., Monplasir, L.,
Ratner, H. H., & Riopelle, K. (2003). The development of global virtual teams. In C. B.
Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team
effectiveness (pp. 353-380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam
Dell.

Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence: The revolutionary new science of human relationships.
New York: Bantam Dell.
 85

Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A. K. (2001, Summer). Building an effective global business team.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 63-71.

Gregory, R., Prifling, M., & Beck, R. (2009). The role of cultural intelligence for the emergence of
negotiated culture in IT offshore outsourcing projects. Information Technology and
People, 22(3), 223-241.

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective
teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hajro, A., & Pudelko, M. (2010). An analysis of core competencies of successful multinational
team leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(2), 175-194.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hofstede, G. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.

Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of CQ on
negotiation sequences and outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 112, 83-98.

Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of
collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 124-153.

Janssens, M., & Cappellen, T. (2008). Conceptualizing cultural intelligence: The case of global
managers. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement and applications (pp. 356-371). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Kim, K., Kirkman, B., & Chen, G. (2008). Cultural intelligence and international assignment
effectiveness: A conceptual model and preliminary findings. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne
(Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 71-
90). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Koh, C., Joseph, D., & Ang, S. (2009, February 20-21). Cultural intelligence and collaborative
work: Intercultural competencies in global technology work teams. International
Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration (IWIC), Palo Alto, CA.

Krishna, B. S., Sahay, S., & Watsham, G. (2004). Managing cross-cultural issues in global
software outsourcing. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 62-66.

Lacey, M. (2010, November). OD practitioner as a global citizen. Syllabus presented at

Pepperdine University, Master of Science in Organization Development, Course 601b,
Lyon, France.

Li, S., & Scullion, H. (2006). Bridging the distance: Managing cross-border knowledge holders,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1), 71-92.

Livermore, D. (2010). Leading with cultural intelligence: The new secret to success. New York:
AMACOM.

Livermore, D. (2011). The Cultural intelligence difference: Master the one skill you can’t do
without in today’s global economy. New York: AMACOM.
 86

Maloney, M. M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2006). Building bridges, windows and cultures: Mediating
mechanism between team heterogeneity and performance in global teams. Management
International Review, 46(6), 697-720.

Mannor, M. J. (2008). Top executives and global leadership: At the intersection of cultural
intelligence and strategic leadership theory. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook
on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 91-106). Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharp.

Marlowe, H. A. (1986). Social intelligence: Evidence of multidimensionality and construct

independence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 52-58.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence, Intelligence, 17(4),
433-442.

Ng, K., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture + Intelligence, Group & Organization Management, 31(1),
4-19.

Ng, K., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009a). Developing global leaders: The role of international
experience and cultural intelligence. Advances in Global Leadership, 5, 225-250.

Ng, K., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009b). Summer 2001 from experience to experimental learning:
Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leadership development, Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511-526.

Oolders, T., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2008). Cultural intelligence as a mediator of
relationships between openness to experience and adaptive performance. In S. Ang & L.
Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and
applications (pp. 145-158). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in
multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 206-220). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Schweiger, D. M., Atamer, T., & Calori, R. (2003). Transnational project teams and networks:
Making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World Business,
38(2),127-140.

Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology impacts on
global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information and Management, 45(2),131-142.

Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008) Cultural intelligence and global identify in multicultural teams. In S.
Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and
applications (pp. 177-191). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Shrinivas, P. B., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based
models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 257-281.

Singh, A. (2010, June). Asia leading the way: Asia is moving into a leadership role in the world
economy, Finance & Development, 47(2), 4-7.
 87

Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-
face teams, Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389-406.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence. In R. J.

Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints of its
nature and definition (pp. 3-15). Norwood, NJ: Abbex.

Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Successful intelligence as a framework for understanding cultural

adaptation. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement and applications (pp. 306-317). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Tay, C., Westman, M., & Chia, A. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of cultural intelligence
among short-term business travelers. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 126-144). Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharp.

Templar, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic
job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment, Group and
Organization Management, 31(1), 154-173.

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 243-263.

Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., Poelmans, S.,
Brislin, R., Pekerti, A., Aycan, Z., Maznevski, M., Au, K., & Lazarova, M. B. (2008).
Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 8(2), 123-143.

Triandis, H. S. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations, Group & Organization Management.

31(1), 20-26.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural
intelligence scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 16-38). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. K. S. (2009). Cultural intelligence: Measurement and scale
development. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural
competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations (pp. 233-254).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of
the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and
measurement of cultural intelligence, Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4),
295-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00429.x.
 88

Appendix A: Awareness Email to Subjects

 89

Introducing the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness (CQ/TE) Study!

Heretofore, there has not been a measure of cultural intelligence and work team effectiveness for
the Pepperdine MSOD program. Moreover, as the demands for OD become more global, we do
not have an effective measure of the impact cultural adaptability has on work team effectiveness
or interventions.

I am a student pursuing a Master of Science in Organization Development at Pepperdine

University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, who is in the process of recruiting
individuals to be a part of my study entitled, “Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness
Study”.

Purpose of this Study: This is an exploratory study of the impact of Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
on team effectiveness in international, organizational development graduate program
environments. The participants will be the thirty students of the Pepperdine Master of Science in
Organization Development program. It is intended that outcomes from this study will be used to
improve the MSOD program.

Study Outline: The CQ/TE project has the following elements:

1 3
1. Survey: A voluntary T & T (Before and after) survey for assessing CQ and work team
effectiveness (interventions) in an international graduate program environment.
2. Education/Training and Focus Groups: Education/Training on CQ scores and cultural
values, and voluntary focus groups will be conducted to improve CQ and team
effectiveness.
3. Data Analysis and Recommendations: Once the quantitative and qualitative data are
analyzed, recommendations for improvements in cross-group effectiveness will be
communicated to students and faculty.

Do you have Cultural Intelligence (CQ)?

• Do you know what motivates you in cross-cultural situations?

• Are you aware of the norms and cultural systems operating in the cultures you work in?
• How does awareness of our own cultural assumptions impact our ability to be effective in
situations involving multiple cultures?
• What behaviors produce positive outcomes when differences in norms, traditions, and
worldviews are present?

Cultural Intelligence: What is Cultural Intelligence (CQ)? CQ is a set of adaptability skills that
enhance our ability to be successful in cross-cultural situations. Through a survey called the
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), we can assess your CQ capabilities and orientation for cultural
values against a global database of over 20K participants.

For more information see Cultural Intelligence (CQ): [Link]

Confidentiality and Risk: The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) assessment will be
administered through the Cultural Intelligence Center (CQC), while the Work Team Effectiveness
(WTE) survey will be provided by the researcher through Qualtrics. Participant names/emails will
be used to provide them with their respective CQ reports. The personal standing and program
status of students in the MSOD program will not be affected whether or not they choose to
participate in this study—participation is confidential and completely voluntary. Anyone can drop
out at any time without consequence. All data analysis and reporting will be done on aggregate
data, and survey answers and focus group data will not be shared with anyone. The data will be
kept in a secure manner, per privacy standards, and destroyed after 2 years. If the findings of
 90

this study are presented to a professional audience or published, no personally identifying

information will be released—only aggregate.

What will you get for your participation? By participating in the CQ/TE survey, you will receive
a personalized report regarding your cultural intelligence scores and cultural values. In addition,
each student who submits a completed survey will received training in improving their CQ skills.

Questions: If you should have any questions about this study, please send email to
“XXXXXXX@[Link]” or contact Jack Schlafer at Home: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Cell: XXX-
XXX-XXXX

Thank you,

Jack Schlafer
Master of Science in Organization Development Candidate
Pepperdine University
 91

Appendix B: Introductory Email to Subjects and Participant Consent

 92

Welcome to the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness (CQ/TE) Study!

Heretofore, there has not been a measure of cultural intelligence and work team effectiveness for
the Pepperdine MSOD program. Moreover, as the demands for OD become more global, we do
not have an effective measure of the impact cultural adaptability has on work team effectiveness
or interventions.

I am a student pursuing a Master of Science in Organization Development at Pepperdine

University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, who is in the process of recruiting
individuals to be a part of my study entitled, “Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness
Study.”

=========================================================================
=======
> Your Consent: By completing these surveys, you are acknowledging that you have read
and understand what your study participation entails and are consenting to the study.

1. Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS): Please follow the link to participate in the CQS survey
<LINK>
2. Work Team Effectiveness (WTE): Please follow the link to participate in the WTE survey
<LINK>

=========================================================================
=======
Background Information:

Purpose of this Study: This is an exploratory study of the impact of Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
on team effectiveness in international, organization development graduate program
environments. The participants will be the 30 students of the Pepperdine Master of Science in
Organization Development program. It is intended that outcomes from this study will be used to
improve the MSOD program.

Study Outline: The CQ/TE study has the following elements:

1 st st
1. Survey T (July 1 through July 31 , 2011): A voluntary survey for assessing CQ
(Cultural Intelligence Center’s Scale Assessment—CQS) and team effectiveness
(Gibson’s multicultural team effectiveness survey) will be given to MSOD students after
session four (Costa Rica). This initial survey will measure CQ and perceptions of team
effectiveness as it relates to client system interventions during session four and serve as
1
our baseline dataset. Post-survey T , all students will receive a personalized CQS report
which highlights score across the four dimensions and associated sub-dimensions, along
with cultural values.
2
2. T Interventions: Education and Focus Groups: A couple of targeted interventions
1 3
will be performed between survey T and T on a group of randomly selected “continuing
participants” (versus a control group).
o Education and Training (September 2011, Session Five—California): The
researcher will provide education and training regarding the meaning behind the
scores and values and how they may impact cross-cultural engagements.
o Focus Groups (March, 2012, Session Seven—China): Prior to client system
engagement in China, focus groups will be formed for ninety minutes to
brainstorm on ways to enhance team effectiveness in cross-cultural situations
using CQ skills.
3 st th
3. Survey T (April 1 though April 30 , 2012): The follow-up survey will measure CQ
and team effectiveness per client system interventions during the MSOD session seven
 93

in China of the “continuing participants,” providing comparative data to assess our

educational and focus group interventions against the control group.
4. Education and Training (June 2012, Session Eight—California): The researcher will
provide education and training regarding the meaning behind the scores and values and
how they may impact cross-cultural engagements with the control group.
5. Data Analysis and Recommendations: Once the quantitative and qualitative data is
analyzed, recommendations for improvements in cross-group effectiveness will be
communicated to students and faculty.
6. Costs: All costs will be covered by the researcher.

Cultural Intelligence: What is Cultural Intelligence (CQ)? CQ is a set of adaptability skills that
enhance our ability to be successful in cross-cultural situations. Through a survey called the
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), we can assess your CQ capabilities.

For more information, see Cultural Intelligence (CQ): [Link]

Benefits:
1. Each student will receive a personalized assessment of his or her current CQ skill and
cultural values.
2. This provides a unique dataset for cultural adaptability and team effectiveness regarding
the Pepperdine MSOD program client system interventions.

Risks Involved:
Although minimal, the risks for this project are as follows:
1. The release of student’s personal CQ and cultural values scores. However, if the student’s
survey data were made public, they would not be at risk for criminal or civil liability, nor would
it harm their financial position, employability, or reputation.
2. An increased awareness of student’s level of CQ capability and team effectiveness which
should have no adverse effect.

Confidentiality and Privacy:

The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) assessment will be administered through the Cultural
Intelligence Center (CQC), while the Work Team Effectiveness survey will be provided by the
researcher through Qualtrics. Participant names/emails will be used to provide them with their
respective CQ reports. The personal standing and program status of students in the MSOD
program will not be affected whether or not they choose to participate in this study—participation
is confidential and completely voluntary. Anyone can drop out at any time without consequence.
All data analysis and reporting will be done on aggregate data and survey answers and focus
group data will not be shared with anyone. The data will be kept in a secure manner, per privacy
standards, and destroyed after 2 years. If the findings of this study are presented to a
professional audience or published, no personally identifying information will be released—only
aggregate.

Survey Instructions: The first part of the survey on Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is considered a
“Self-Report” survey. The degree to which your self-assessment reflects your current capability,
the more likely the study’s finding will improve cross-group effectiveness. Therefore, we
encourage you to be self-critical regarding your survey answers.

The balance of the survey questions focus on your current work team effectiveness (or
interventions). All questions follow a 1-7 scale with 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree.
Please select the answer that best describes your situation.

Questions: If you should have any questions about this study, please send email to
“XXXXXXX@[Link]” or contact Jack Schlafer at Home: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Cell: XXX-
XXX-XXXX
 94

Thank you,

Jack Schlafer
Master of Science in Organization Development Candidate
Pepperdine University
 95

Appendix C: Reminder Email to Subjects

 96

Reminder of the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness (CQ/TE) Study!

This email is a friendly reminder of the “Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness
(CQ/TE)” study we are conducting. The purpose of this exploratory study is to measure the
impact of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on team effectiveness in international, organizational
development graduate program environments to improve the MSOD program.

Please follow the links below to participate in the CQ/TE study:

> Your Consent: By completing these surveys, you are acknowledging that you have read
and understand what your study participation entails and are consenting to the study.

1. Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS): Please follow the link to participate in the CQS survey
<LINK>
2. Work Team Effectiveness (WTE): Please follow the link to participate in the WTE survey
<LINK>

Questions: If you should have any questions about this study, please send email to
“XXXXXXX@[Link]” or contact Jack Schlafer at Home: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Cell: XXX-
XXX-XXXX

Thank you,

Jack Schlafer
Master of Science in Organization Development Candidate
Pepperdine University
 97

Appendix D: Participant Survey Thank You Email

 98

Thank you for participating in the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Team Effectiveness
(CQ/TE) Survey!

We appreciate your assistance in developing another means to improve CQ and team

effectiveness in the MSOD program.

CQ Personal Report: You will be receiving a personal Cultural Intelligence (CQ) assessment in
email from our survey provider. This report will provide your current CQ capability score, along
with measuring your cultural values. You can find information regarding CQ and cultural values
at the following links:

Cultural Intelligence (CQ): [Link]

Cultural Values: [Link]

Questions: If you should have any questions about this study, please send email to
“XXXXXXX@[Link]” or contact Jack Schlafer at Home: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Cell: XXX-
XXX-XXXX

Thank you,

Jack Schlafer
Master of Science in Organization Development Candidate
Pepperdine University
 99

Appendix E: Cultural Intelligence Scale

Note. From “Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and
Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance,” by S. Ang, L. Van Dyne, C. Koh, K.
Ng, K. J. Templer, C. Tay, & N. A. Chandrasekar, November 2007, Management and
Organization Review, 3(3), p. 366.
 100

Instructions: Select the response that best describes your capabilities.

Select the answer that BEST describes you AS YOU REALLY ARE (1 = strongly disagree; 7 =
strongly agree)

CQ Metacognitive:

MC1—I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different
cultural backgrounds.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MC2—I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to
me.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MC3—I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MC4—I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different
cultures.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)
 101

CQ Cognitive:

COG1—I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

COG2—I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

COG3—I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

COG4—I know the marriage systems of other cultures.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

COG5— know the arts and crafts of other cultures.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

COG6—know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviors in other cultures.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)
 102

CQ Motivational:

MOT1—I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MOT2—I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MOT3—I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MOT4—I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

MOT5—I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)
 103

CQ Behavioral:

BEH1—I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction
requires it.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

BEH2—I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

BEH3—I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

BEH4—I change my non-verbal behavior when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)

BEH5—I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.

Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly Agree (7)
 104

1
Appendix F: Work Team Effectiveness Survey—T

Note. Work Team Effectiveness Survey from “Team Effectiveness in

Multinational Organizations: Evaluation Across Contexts,” by C. B. Gibson, M. E.
Zellman-Bruhn, & D. P. Schwab, 2003, Group & Organization Management, 28, p. 469.
Reproduced with permission.
 105

Intro Survey Instructions: This is the second part of the Cultural Intelligence and Team
Effectiveness survey focused on Team Effectiveness (TE) during MSOD program sessions.
Please reflect on the "intervention" teams you were involved in during SESSION FOUR in Costa
Rica. Please answer the questions accordingly. All questions follow a scale from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Please select the answer that best describes your experience.

TG1 This team fulfilled its mission

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TG2 This team accomplished its objectives

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TG3 This team meet the requirements set for it

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TG4 This team achieved its goals

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 106

TG5 This team served the purpose it is intended to serve

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC1 This team's customers were satisfied

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC2 This team's customers were happy with the team's performance

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC3 This team was responsive to its customers

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 107

TC4 This team fulfilled the needs of its customers

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC5 This team responded to external demands

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT1 This team met its deadline

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT2 This team wasted time

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 108

TT3 This team provided deliverables (e. g., products or services) on time

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT4 This team was slow

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT5 This team adhered to its schedule

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT6 This team finished its work in a reasonable amount of time

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 109

TQ1 This team had a low error rate

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ2 This team did high-quality work

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ3 This team consistently provided high-quality output

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ4 This team was consistently error free

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 110

TQ5 This team needed to improve the quality of its work

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP1 This team used too many resources

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP2 This team was productive

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP3 This team was wasteful

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 111

TP4 Inputs used by this team were appropriate for the outputs achieved

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP5 This team was efficient

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 112

Appendix G: Invitation to Cultural Intelligence/Work Team Effectiveness Education and

Focus Groups
 113

Thank you for participating in the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Work Team Effectiveness
Survey!

We appreciate your assistance in developing a means to improve CQ and team effectiveness in

the MSOD program.

You have been randomly selected to participate in a CQ/TE focus group. It is essential that we
receive additional information from you, the survey participants, on how to improve CQ skills and
team effectiveness (interventions).

The Purpose: If you choose to volunteer, you will be invited to participate in CQ education and
skills improvement focus groups. The education will be centered on interrupting your Cultural
Intelligence Scale (CQS) results, offered as part of session 5 in Dana Point, CA. The focus
groups, provided as part of session 7 in China, will target the development of CQ best practice as
it relates to international OD interventions. The education will take approximately one hour, while
the focus groups will last ninety minutes.

To volunteer for the CQ/TE focus group, please send an email to XXXXXXX@[Link] with
the email title, “

If you should have any questions about this study, please send email to
“XXXXXXX@[Link]” or contact Jack Schlafer at Home: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Cell: XXX-
XXX-XXXX

Thank you,

Jack Schlafer
Master of Science in Organization Development Candidate
Pepperdine University
 114

Appendix H: Focus Group Consent Form

 115

INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Participant: _______________________________________

Principal Investigator: Jack Schlafer, MSOD Candidate, Pepperdine University

Title of Project: This is an exploratory study of the impact of Cultural

Intelligence (CQ) on team effectiveness in international,
organization development graduate program
environments.

I, _______________________________________, agree to participate in the research study

being conducted by Jack Schlafer under the direction of Dr. Miriam Lacey.

You are being asked to participate in a research study regarding the impact of Cultural
Intelligence (CQ) on team effectiveness in international, organization development graduate
program environments. Please read this form and ask any questions that you may have before
agreeing to participate in the research.

Background Information:

Cultural Intelligence and Work Team Effectiveness (CQ/TE) Study Purpose: As a reminder,
this study is for a research study as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s thesis.
The purpose of this study is to collect information regarding the impact of Cultural Intelligence
(CQ) on work team effectiveness in graduate program environments.

While the survey provided a wealth of information regarding the potential relationships between
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and work team effectiveness in a graduate program environment, it is
essential to test our acting hypothesis through this focus groups with survey participants.

We are requesting your participation in a focus group (of up to fifteen people) regarding
some of the aspects of this study.

Procedures:

Focus Groups: The focus group, with up to fifteen members, will involve a series of questions
and brainstorming activities designed to illuminate the underlying causes for team effectiveness
(interventions) problems and potential solutions for improving them. The total time allotted for
focus groups is approximately ninety minutes.

Benefits You will be assisting in a study which can improve our work team effectiveness
globally.

Confidentiality and Risk: The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) assessment will be
administered through the Cultural Intelligence Center (CQC), while the Work Team Effectiveness
survey will be provided by the researcher through Qualtrics. Participant names/emails will be
used to provide them with their respective CQ reports. The personal standing and program
status of students in the MSOD program will not be affected whether or not they choose to
participate in this study—participation is confidential and completely voluntary. Anyone can drop
out at any time without consequence. All data analysis and reporting will be done on aggregate
data and survey answers and focus group data will not be shared with anyone. The data will be
kept in a secure manner, per privacy standards, and destroyed after two years. If the findings of
 116

this study are presented to a professional audience or published, no personally identifying

information will be released—only aggregate.

I understand that the investigator is willing to answer any questions I may have, and that I can
contact Dr. Miriam Lacey at XXX-XXX-XXXX or XXXXXX@[Link] if I have questions or
concerns about this research. If I have any questions about my rights as a research participant, I
understand that I can contact Jean Kang, chairperson of the GPS IRB, Pepperdine University,
phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX and [Link]@[Link]. I understand that my participation is
voluntary and that I may refuse to participate and/or withdraw my consent and discontinue
participation in the project or activity at any time without penalty. I understand that I may choose
not to participate in this research.

I have read and received a copy of this INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES and understand it to my satisfaction. I hereby consent to participate in
the research described.

Audiotape Consent (please check)

 Yes, I consent to be audio taped during this focus group. I understand
that during the course of this focus group I can and may change my mind
and ask that the recorder be turned off at any time.
 No, I do not wish to have this focus group taped.

Participant Signature: ____________________________________ Date:

_______________________

Print Name: ________________________________________________

 117

Appendix I: Outline of Education Session

 118

During sessions five (in California) and session eight (in China), an educational workshop will be
provided to the “continuing participants” and the control group, respectively. The outline for these
workshops is provided below. Participants who have taken the CQS assessment will receive a
personalized CQ score and cultural values report from the Cultural Intelligence Center (CQC).

The intended purpose of the workshop is twofold: 1) Educating each participant regarding their
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) scores and cultural values and 2) identifying ways to increase CQ
scores in order to improve cross-cultural engagements.

Three (3) segment training:

1) Cultural Intelligence Overview
2) Discuss the meaning of the CQ scores and cultural values scores
3) Discuss how to improve CQ skills and brainstorm approaches to improving
interventions.

Cultural Intelligence Overview

1) CQ definition (briefly)
a. The capability to function effectively across various cultural contexts (national,
ethnic, organizational, generational, etc.
2) CQ defining points (briefly)
a. Form of Intelligence, Applies to ANY cultural context, Consists of four
capabilities, Malleable, Evidence-Based
3) CQ four dimensions (focus area)
a. CQ Drive (Motivation)
i. Intrinsic motivation is the degree to which someone enjoys culturally
diverse situations.
ii. Extrinsic motivation relates to the tangible benefits you gain from
culturally diverse situations (e.g., new experience, pay raise).
iii. Possessing self-efficacy or confidence during culturally challenging
situations is paramount to success in other cultures)
b. CQ Knowledge (Cognitive)
i. Knowledge of cultural systems addresses how a society meet people’s
needs (e.g., political, societal, family systems)
ii. Cultural norms and values knowledge (differences in the perception of
time, authority, and relationships are examples)
iii. Socio-linguistics, leadership style, business practices
c. CQ Strategy (Metacognitive)
i. Having self-awareness or mindfulness of others during engagements
ii. Strategically planning for cultural engagements; dealing effectively with
confusion and ambiguity
iii. Continual checking or monitoring our plans and actions for their impact
on others and adjusting on the fly
d. CQ Action (Behavior)
i. Nonverbal, verbal—Use of acceptable words and phrases; using both
verbal and non-verbal communications correctly
ii. The ability to choose the appropriate action in a cultural situation
iii. Proper exercise of facial expressions, gestures, and eye contact (speech
acts)

CQ/CV Scores Overview

a. CQ Scores—Review the context for scores (use attached slides from CQ
certification example)
i. Scores per CQ attribute (motivation, cognitive, metacognitive, and
strategy)
 119

ii. Measured against a current total database of 20K worldwide participants.

iii. What is high/low in range
1. High are areas of competency
2. Low scores are possible areas of development.
b. Review Cultural Values
i. Hofstede (use website - [Link] )
ii. Review definition of cultural values
1. Power distance, or the equitable distribution of power within an
organization;
2. individualism versus collectivism, or the degree to which a society
has strong or weak ties between individuals and groups or cohesive
in-groups and out-groups;
3. feminine versus masculine, or society’s orientation towards
assertiveness and toughness compared to modesty, tenderness, and
quality of life;
4. uncertainty avoidance, or the level of risk aversion or comfort with
ambiguous situations;
5. long-term versus short-term orientation, or the emphasis of personal
resolve and frugality versus respect for tradition’, and safeguarding
of “face”; and
6. indulgence versus restraint, where one compares more immediate
gratification of human desires with limiting and regulating such
activities through group norms

Review Strategies for CQ Improvements and brainstorm ways to improve them

a. Review “Strategies to improve your CQ” (The Cultural Intelligence Difference,
David Livermore).
i. Improving CQ Motivation:
1. Face your biases, connect with existing interests, visualize
success, reward yourself, recharge your batteries, maintain
control, travel
ii. Improving CQ Cognitive:
1. Study other cultures, improve global awareness, go to the
movies, read a novel, explore your cultural identity, study a new
language, seek diverse perspectives, recruit a CQ coach
iii. Improving Metacognitive
1. Notice, don’t respond, think widely, focus deeply, journal, plan
social interactions, manage expectations, reframe a situation,
test for accuracy, ask better questions
iv. Improving CQ Behavior
1. Develop a repertoire of social skills, be an actor, use basic
vocabulary, try new social sounds, slow down, join a multicultural
team

Focus Group Guide and Questions

Welcome each participant, remind them of the purpose of the study and that we will be taking
notes of the focus group as well as recording. After the focus group consent form is signed, we
will acquire some demographics data, remind them of the confidentiality and privacy standards
we will adhere to via this study, and read them the “Context for Focus Group Questions, Focus
Group Phases, and Team Exercise Formats” sections below.

Confirmation of Demographics: We will briefly confirm the demographic data we have

regarding the subject: Name, age, years of experience, and time in other cultures.
 120

Confidentiality and Risk: The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) assessment will be
administered through the Cultural Intelligence Center CQC), while the Work Team Effectiveness
survey will be provided by the researcher through Qualtrics. Participant names/emails will be
used to provide them with their respective CQ reports. The personal standing and program
status of students in the MSOD program will not be affected whether or not they choose to
participate in this study—participation is confidential and completely voluntary. Anyone can drop
out at any time without consequence. All data analysis and reporting will be done on aggregate
data and survey answers and focus group data will not be shared with anyone. The data will be
kept in a secure manner, per privacy standards, and destroyed after two years. If the findings of
this study are presented to a professional audience or published, no personally identifying
information will be released—only aggregate.

Context for Focus Group Questions: All of the answers to these questions should be within
the context of your graduate program environment during client system interventions. When
pondering these questions, place yourself within your team environment and, specifically,
situations in which cultural differences are present. Cultural differences can be between teams,
organizations, or countries. Examples of these teams are: cross-cultural project teams and
intervention teams.

Focus Group Phases: The focus groups will follow two phases: (1) Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
Workshop regarding the survey participants' CQ and cultural values reports; (2) Groups of 3-5
people will work through semi-structured questions to identify opportunities to ameliorate both CQ
and work team effectiveness.

Team Exercise Format: In groups of 3-5 people, small teams will discuss the following
structured questions, one at a time, 10-15 minutes for each question, using a flip chart as they
brainstorm answers. The team will be asked to build a consensus around the top three answers
that best reflect the team’s overall answers

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Defined: CQ is defined as a repertoire of capabilities that allows a

person to be successful in cross-cultural situations
Work team Effectiveness Defined: The five work team effectiveness measures inherent in the
assessment need to be operationally defined:
• Goals: Meeting or exceeding the team’s mission or objectives
• Customers: The degree of satisfaction from those who receive the product or service of
the team
• Timeliness: The team’s effective use of time to meet their goals
• Quality: The degree of consistent quality output or errors
• Productivity: The level of efficiency in producing the output

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Workshop: The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) participant reports
will be reviewed together with the researcher providing education/training regarding what the
scores mean and how to interpret them. The researcher is a CQ Certified Facilitator.

Focus Group Team Setup and Questions: When you are involved in work team interventions
via the MSOD program involving members from cultures other than your own (e g., cross-cultural
teams, intervention teams, etc.): Brainstorm as teams on how to improve CQ skills for
interventions:
1. Exercise: Break into teams of 3-4 people for 10-15 minutes and develop a list of ways to
improve CQ for cross-cultural interventions (report out).
a. What one CQ skill will you target for improvements in the future and what will you
do to improve it?
b. What specifically can your team do to prepare and ensure they are successful in
a cross-cultural situation?
i. List all ideas and prioritize into top three and why.
 121

c. What CQ skills (Motivation, Metacognitive, Cognitive, Behaviors) will your team

focus on during the intervention to improve work effectiveness in cross-cultural
settings?
i. List them and describe what the team will gain from them

Semi-Structured Questions:
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) impact on Work Team Effectiveness (WTE): Additional questions
may be added based on the survey data analysis and the discovery of sub-hypothesis
relationships (e.g., CQ motivational has a positive relationships to work team goals).
 122

Appendix J: Thank You Email to Focus Group Participants

 123

Thank you for participating in the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Team Effectiveness Focus
Groups!

We appreciate your assistance in developing a means to improve CQ and team effectiveness in

the MSOD program.

If you should have any questions about this study, please send email to
“XXXXXXX@[Link]” or contact Jack Schlafer at Home: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Cell: XXX-
XXX-XXXX

Thank you,

Jack Schlafer
Master of Science in Organization Development Candidate
Pepperdine University
 124

3
Appendix K: Work Team Effectiveness Survey—T

Note. Work Team Effectiveness Survey from “Team Effectiveness in

Multinational Organizations: Evaluation Across Contexts,” by C. B. Gibson, M. E.
Zellman-Bruhn, & D. P. Schwab, 2003, Group & Organization Management, 28, p. 469.
Reproduced with permission.
 125

Intro Survey Instructions: This is the second part of the Cultural Intelligence and Team
Effectiveness survey focused on Team Effectiveness (TE) during MSOD program sessions.
Please reflect on the "intervention" teams you were involved in during SESSION SEVEN in
China. Please answer the questions accordingly. All questions follow a scale from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Please select the answer that best describes your experience.
Q1 Did you participate in a focus group in China?

Yes (1)

No (2)

TG1 This team fulfilled its mission

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TG2 This team accomplished its objectives

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TG3 This team meet the requirements set for it

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TG4 This team achieved its goals

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 126

TG5 This team served the purpose it is intended to serve

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC1 This team's customers were satisfied

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC2 This team's customers were happy with the team's performance

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC3 This team was responsive to its customers

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TC4 This team fulfilled the needs of its customers

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 127

TC5 This team responded to external demands

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT1 This team met its deadline

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT2 This team wasted time

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT3 This team provided deliverables (e.g., products or services) on time

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT4 This team was slow

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 128

TT5 This team adhered to its schedule

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TT6 This team finished its work in a reasonable amount of time

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ1 This team had a low error rate

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ2 This team did high-quality work

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ3 This team consistently provided high-quality output

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)
 129

TQ4 This team was consistently error free

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TQ5 This team needed to improve the quality of its work

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP1 This team used too many resources

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP2 This team was productive

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

TP3 This team was wasteful

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)