Cross-Cultural Strategies for Leaders to Improve Organizational Performance.

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

Nonprofit organizations address a global, national, or local social problem. They

need the ability to lead diverse work teams across global borders (Nodoushani et al.,

2019). The leaders often have a passion for being a part of the larger vision and mission

of the organization, and they have the responsibility of mobilizing these employed staff

and volunteers, often from different countries and continents (Giorgi et al., 2017; Qi et

al., 2018). These leaders need essential strategies to create highly effective cross-cultural

teams. The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study is to explore the strategies that

nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency for improving organizations’

performance.

Background of the Problem

With the rapid pace of technology, nonprofits are operating more globally than

ever before, so leaders face navigating the complexities of multicultural teams and need

to develop cultural competency. Many nonprofit organizations work internationally and

have work teams composed of members representing diverse racial, cultural, ethnic, and

national identities (Shavkun & Dybchinska, 2018). Leading cross-culturally has unique

challenges. Eighty-six percent of leaders agree that they need to be more effective

interculturally but only 7% consider themselves effective (Goryunova, 2020). The

number of nonprofit organizations using multicultural teams to accomplish goals requires

that these team members and leaders have skill sets and strategies that will allow them to

be effective with cross-cultural competency. These metastrategies could include

sensemaking, problem-solving, negotiating, and conflict resolution. These strategies are

metacognitive strategies which is a sub element of cultural intelligence.

Unique work teams present unique challenges. Individuals can experience

confusion when working in a team that has different cultural norms, historical contexts,

and ways of working, problem solving and resolving conflict and these differences cause

confusion. These dynamics, combined with issues related to language and

communication, create barriers to effectiveness for reasons that will be explored in the

following sections (Charleston et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Plessis, 2012)

Nonprofit leaders need to find ways to navigate these unique challenges and

develop cultural competency to be more effective (Paiuc, 2021). Current research

identifies strategies that nonprofit leaders need to develop cross-cultural competency to

improve organizational performance (Gomez & Taylor, 2018; Groves et al., 2015;

Überbacher et al., 2015). This study explored the need for leaders to be effective in

utilizing metacognitive strategies to develop cross-cultural competency and improve

organizational performance.

Problem Statement

United States nonprofits struggle to collaborate in global workplaces when

working with multicultural teams, which disrupts organizational effectiveness (Ahmad &

Saidalavi, 2019, p. 1). In a study concerning the effectiveness of global managers, 48% of

the participants revealed that they were sometimes ineffective in achieving the

organizational objectives due to factors including cross-cultural competency (Tuffour &

Matey, 2019, p. 81). The general business problem is that some nonprofit leaders do not

achieve their organizations’ mission because of failure to catalyze organizational

collaboration. The specific business problem is that some nonprofit leaders lack strategies

to develop cross-cultural competency for improving organizations’ performance.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

that nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency for improving

organizations’ performance. The targeted population consisted of United States and

Mexican nonprofit leaders who use strategies to develop cross-cultural competency. The

contributions to social change from this study may be that nonprofits will become more

effective in collaborating cross-culturally and leveraging relationships with strategies for

the achievement of goals and for achieving their organizations’ missions for benefiting

communities’ needy citizens.

Nature of the Study

I used the qualitative method for this research study and not the quantitative

method or the mixed method. Barrett and Twycross (2018) expressed that a qualitative

interview is a method used to collect rich, descriptive, data and analyze phenomenon. The

qualitative method was suitable for this study because the purpose of the study was to

explore themes and strategies leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency. The

quantitative method was not used to examine, and measure collected data using statistical

analysis (Byiers et al., 2021; Cox & Nachman, 2020). The quantitative method would not

have been suitable for this study as I did not collect data to analyze using statistical

analysis, test a theory, hypothesis, or relationships between variables, but sought to verify

strategies and identify principal themes. Sahin and Öztürk (2019) posited that a mixed

method is helpful when neither the quantitative nor qualitative approach is sufficient to

answer the problem and so both methods are combined. The mixed method would not

have been appropriate for this study as I am not utilizing both data and perceptions to

effectively answer research questions that quantitative or qualitative would not answer

sufficiently, as a mono-method.

I considered four qualitative designs: (a) the case study, (b) the phenomenological

study, (c) the ethnography study, and (d) the narrative study. The research design for this

study was a case study. The multiple case study was chosen to explore why and how

these leaders use strategies and what strategies they use. Phenomenological researchers

explore the participants’ feelings and meanings from experiencing the phenomena

(Rajhans et al., 2021). The phenomenological design would not be appropriate for my

research as I did not intend to explore participants’ feelings related to experiencing

phenomena. Using an ethnographic design allows the researcher to explore the culture of

groups and their behaviors based on that culture (Hartmann et al., 2020). The

ethnographic design was not appropriate for this study because I was not studying one

isolated culture and observing participants in that culture but rather the complexities of

working cross-culturally with more than one culture and exploring strategies used to

develop cross-cultural competency. The narrative design was not appropriate for my

study because the purpose of this study was to explore the strategies nonprofit leaders

use. I was not exploring the personal stories of the participants. Narrative inquiry assists

the researcher in interpreting personal stories of the participants to analyze the lived

experience of the participants through their own lens, through their stories (Macqueen &

Patterson, 2021). The narrative design was not appropriate for this study. Gillan et al.

(2021) explained that narrative inquiry is about a person’s experience. I was not

analyzing the experience of the participants. I looked for strategies to emerge that

participants use. I therefore used a multiple case study design for this study to explore the

strategies utilized by participants to develop cross-cultural competency for improving

organizations’ performance.

Qualitative Research Question

What strategies do nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency to

improve organizational performance?

Interview Questions

1. Why do you use strategies to navigate these cross-cultural complexities and

leverage relationships?

2. How have you developed strategies to navigate cross-cultural complexities

and leverage relationships?

3. What strategies do you use to navigate cross-cultural complexities to improve

your organization’s performance?

4. What strategies do you use to leverage cross-cultural relationships?

5. How does collaboration and leveraging cross-cultural relationships benefit the

overall goals of your organization?

6. What, if any, team-centric strategies do you use to negotiate, behave, or act

differently in settings with diverse teams?

7. What strategies do you use to resolve conflicts and problems with groups of

different cultural backgrounds?

8. What additional information would you like to share on your strategies for

navigating cross-cultural complexities to improve performance that we have

not already discussed?

Conceptual Framework

I used the cultural competency (CQ) conceptual framework for my study. Earley

and Ang (2003) originally coined the term “cultural competency” as CQ. They initially

created this theory to help business leaders be more effective in intercultural settings.

Later, Ang et al. (2007) designed instruments to measure the levels of CQ, such as the

20-item Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). CQ develops leaders to become more

effective with performance and organizational outcomes when working with culturally

diverse teams (Giorgi et al., 2017; Groves et al., 2015).

There are four distinct factors in the CQ framework (Earley & Ang, 2003) and the

cultural intelligence factors are as follows:

• Metacognition is the ability to understand cultural settings, to negotiate

and problem-solve, and adjust one’s own assumptions.

• Cognition is the knowing of national or cultural traditions and practices of

other cultures.

• Motivation is when one has the desire to learn about people who are

different from themselves and to have the desire to participate in

unfamiliar settings.

• Behavior is the factor that one develops to adapt in different ways in

different intercultural settings.

Cultural competency research has shown effective and impactful differences in

multicultural settings. Earley and Ang (2007) posited that leaders who worked in

multicultural settings were effective in navigating diverse work team complexities with

the use of cultural intelligence. Leaders have the potential to be more effective when they

behave adaptively (behavioral CQ), in their global environment and are motivated

(motivational CQ) to understand more about their organizations’ culturally diverse work

team environment. However, leaders must also have the skillset and ability to develop

competency of metacognition and cognition to be highly effective in developing cross-

cultural competency. The development of cultural competency, and metacognition,

assists leaders in using strategies to manage conflict in cross-cultural settings, make sense

of cultural contexts, and solve problems within the team since diverse work teams

experience contextual differences that cultural adaptation alone does not navigate

(Groves et al., 2015).

As applied to this study, the CQ conceptual framework could help to facilitate and

identify strategies to develop cross-cultural competency. In my literature review, I

researched and analyzed what strategies nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural

competency to improve organizational performance. Giorgi et al. (2017) discussed how

critical cultural competency is in successfully mobilizing groups of people towards

common goals. The study was focused on the role of cultural competence in mobilizing

social change, it highlights the problem when teams come together and there is not

enough time or money to help them all find common interests, or understandings of each

other. Their research highlights metacognitive skills and the effectiveness of this skill in

these groups to reach organizational goals and performance (Giorgi et al., 2017).

Operational Definitions

Cultural intelligence and cross-cultural competency: Cultural intelligence is an

alternative term to cultural competency and is an intelligence that allows for an individual

to be far more successful in interacting and working in cross-cultural teams and contexts

by understanding the why and how of intercultural interactions (Earley, 2002). While

cultural intelligence is a skill set team members and leaders can develop, cultural

competency includes utilizing that intelligence effectively in intercultural settings

(Charleston et al., 2018).

International bridge: The international bridge is located in Progreso, Texas and

goes over the Rio Grande River connecting into a small village called Nuevo Progreso,

Mexico and is only one of many to reach the northern regional cities in Mexico.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions

In this study, I made a few assumptions in the research. Hufford (1996) purported

that research assumptions are believed to be true without a way to provide evidence or an

argument. The first assumption was that the participants who were interviewed would

have the knowledge and experience that is necessary to answer the research questions

that I was asking. My research questions revolve around nonprofit leaders who work

cross-culturally and use strategies to develop cross-cultural competency to be more

effective and improve performance. With the participants that were targeted to

participate, this was a reasonable assumption.

The second assumption was that the participants would take the time to

adequately answer each of the research questions. The natural setting of the interviews

and finding a time that was convenient for them was a reasonable assumption that they

would take their time and think through each question asked. The final assumption was

that I had chosen a research method and design that would allow me to gather rich,

descriptive, information that I needed and to reach data saturation.

Limitations

Limitations in research are situations or a weakness of the study that are out of the

control of the researcher (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). These researchers posited that

limitations are a weakness in the study that are beyond the control of the researcher and

are present in all research. One limitation of the study was the method of the study.

Trafimow (2014) explained that quantitative researchers argue the validity of the findings

in a qualitative study without statistical data; the fact that there was no null hypothesis to

eliminate was one of the concerns. However, the method and design of the qualitative

study did allow for a rich and thick detailed description of the phenomenon of these

leaders where the quantitative method and design would not have been. It was important

to explore strategies nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency and

improve performance required open ended questions and an opportunity for participants

to share their experiences with the phenomenon.

The second limitation was the fact these qualitative interview questions were

asking the participants to share their answers and strategies. Each research participant has

their own subjective lens, rather than objective, with which they see the phenomenon in

and answer the questions based on their own judgements (Trafimow, 2014). The

researcher cannot control the complexities that each participant identifies and the

potential subjective nature of these answers. A quantitative study may have been able to

measure how many strategies a leader used or how often the same types of complexities

were identified. However, the qualitative method allowed the participants to share their

perspectives, which illuminated themes (strategies) that they each use. The study also

sought data saturation. To ensure that I was not hearing any new information provided

external validity and strategies that are generalizable over other nonprofit or for-profit

businesses (Yin, 2018).

Delimitations

In this study, I explored strategies that nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-

cultural competency. Theofanidis and Fountouki (2018) claimed that delimitations are in

the control of the researcher. The first delimitation was the fact that I conducted the

research on a border region of the United States and Mexico. However, this did not

impact my study as the theory and its constructs pertain to nonprofit leaders who work

cross-culturally, and this pertains to many organizations located in different geographical

areas. The interpretations of the findings allowed for generalizability across other

nonprofit organizations. The other delimitation of the study was that I chose to focus on

board level leaders who hold far more responsibility for the organization’s performance

in the community and to gain their perspective on their effectiveness.

Significance of the Study

The world in the 21st century has become more globalized than ever (Ahmad &

Saidalavi, 2019). Strategically, competition requires organizations to work globally, and

with diverse teams, to be innovative and create competitive advantage (Ghulam et al.,

2017). The findings from the study are significant to business practice as global business

leaders are required to leverage relationships across borders and to become more

effective at navigating the complexities of these intercultural settings for improving

performance (Liu et al., 2018). The ability to be effective is critical as they must navigate

diverse cultures other than their own and cooperate and collaborate in cultures that are

dimensionally and contextually, opposites (Chen et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Plessis,

2012). The implications for positive social change are that this study’s findings may help

leaders navigate the complexities effectively, and functionally operate interculturally

(Giorgi et al., 2017). If nonprofit organizations improve their performance and catalyze

organizational collaboration, they can become more effective at achieving their missions.

Organizations achieving their missions directly impacts the populations of people across

the world that they are serving. The bottom line for organizations is directly impacting,

enhancing, and changing lives.

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

Literature Review Opening Narrative

The first section of the literature review will discuss why leaders need strategies

to lead cross-cultural teams. The section discusses how this applies to the business

problem of this study that some nonprofit leaders do not achieve their organizations’

mission because of failure to catalyze organizational collaboration. The section also

discusses why it is so important in the 21st century. The second section will discuss the

conceptual framework of cultural intelligence, cooperation, and competition theory and

why I chose cultural intelligence theory over others. The third section will explore why

there are unique challenges in the dynamics of these kinds of teams and why they

struggle to be effective. The fourth section will explain the definitions of each meta-

strategy of metacognition and how each strategy is related to the business problem. In

conclusion, the literature review will discuss how this is related to my study.

The review of literature on this subject began with researching the conceptual

theory of cultural intelligence. Following the review of the conceptual theory, I explored

research studies that were related to why intercultural teams are unique and effective

strategies that can be used in intercultural teams. I then began to search studies that

specifically conducted research on one element of cultural intelligence, which is

metacognition because I believe that metacognition plays a larger role in the success of

the leader.

My literature review includes peer-reviewed research studies that were found in

several databases and search engines including peer-reviewed articles, blogs,

dissertations, and business articles. The following databases, below, were used to search

keywords and terms to find closely related research on the subject: Google scholar, the

Walden University Thoreau database, SAGE Journals, Emerald Management, Emerald

Insight, ABI/INFORM Collection, Business Source Complete, and Science Direct. A

total of 93% peer-reviewed articles were reviewed of which 70% were published in the

last 5 years. I utilized a set of keywords for searching for articles that are keywords in my

theory along with all the elements and sub elements of CQ factors.

Application to the Applied Business Problem

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

that nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency for improving the

organizations’ performance. In the following literature review, I provide critical analysis

and synthesis of the available literature and themes on cultural intelligence, cultural

competency, intercultural team complexities, and the connected strategies used to

effectively navigate the complexities of these intercultural teams.

Leaders Need Strategies to Lead Cross-Cultural Teams

Global Diversity. In the 21st century, organizational life has become far more

diverse as teams work together, locally, and globally (Charleston et al., 2018;

VanDierendonck et al., 2017). United States companies are hiring talent from around the

globe and often have diverse work teams collaborating in another country or working

together virtually (Nancy Chen et al., 2018). As business continues to compete globally,

there is an ever-increasing need for a leader to develop cultural competency to retain

good talent and be effective in navigating the complexities of these teams (Ahmad &

Saidalavi, 2019; Solomon & Steyn, 2017). It is critical these leaders learn to

“communicate, negotiate, and collaborate, across cultures” (Mor et al., 2013, p. 453)

Innovation and creativity are what drive industry disruption and help to identify

unique value of the business (Ahmetoglu et al., 2018; Bonsu & Twum-Danso, 2018;

Latusek & Vlaar, 2018). To create this type of environment, teams need to be made up of

different dimensions of diversity in terms of culture, age, gender, ethnicity and more

(Goldberg et al., 2019). Organizations need to hire for innovation and creativity for

competitive advantage, but they must also know how to lead these teams and retain good

talent (Alon et al., 2018; Nodoushani et al., 2019).

To nurture diversity and retain talent, a leader must know how to create an

organizational culture that is inclusive (Alexandra, 2021; Bernstein et al., 2020). Part of

cultural competency is understanding how to create an inclusive workforce so that all

team members feel a part of the local and global aspects of the organization. Due to the

complexities of these teams though, leaders need effective strategies to navigate the

challenges that are inherent in a diverse work team.

Leader Effectiveness to Accomplish Mission. A leader’s main task is to be able

to lead their teams in a way that achieves the organizational goals, or the desired

outcomes of the organization. A leader must have the skillset to mobilize their teams

(Shavkun & Dybchinska, 2018). In for profit and nonprofit enterprises, the challenge to

mobilize people is the same. For profit leaders need to mobilize teams to achieve

innovation and competitive advantage (Bilal et al., 2020). Nonprofit teams need to be

mobilized to compete for limited resources in terms of volunteers, resources, and

contributions (Weblog, 2020).

Many leaders fail because the cultural value and worldview of each participant

may become a barrier to effectively working together and accomplishing their

organizational goals (Giorgi et al., 2017). The aspects of different cultures and norms that

make a diverse team, innovative and creative, can also dismantle the team’s ability to

function. Each team member has a unique worldview and cultural lens that influences

decision-making and problem-solving, and a leader must learn how to navigate these

dynamics, effectively.

In the nonprofit world, with limited resources, a leader attempts to meet

organizational goals which are often tied to a larger social change movement. Nonprofit

leaders often solve problems that others in the world have, working to meet the needs of a

particular group. When organizations solve these kinds of problems, it is a social

movement. Organizations that work to solve local and global issues, need the capacity to

work together and propel their teams into action (Giorgi et al., 2017). To propel them into

action, a leader needs tools and strategies to effectively manage the challenging dynamics

of these teams: diverse work team complexities. Before the discussion on these unique

challenges of diverse work teams, and a definition of metacognitive strategies, we will

evaluate cultural intelligence theory and the importance of using this conceptual

framework for the business problem in this study.

Cultural Intelligence as a Theory

Cultural competency is a skill set that enables someone, through actions, to

operate more effectively in cross-cultural interactions. When applied to business settings,

the theory of cultural intelligence can impact effectiveness in intercultural settings

(Thomas et al., 2015). The four elements of cultural intelligence are motivational,

behavioral, cognitive, and metacognitive. Cultural intelligence was introduced by Earley

(Earley & Mosakowski, 2004) as a means to operating more successfully cross-culturally.

Earley coined the abbreviation CQ to represent cultural intelligence and therefore CQ is

referenced throughout the study as an abbreviation for the term. The skillset of cultural

intelligence assists an individual in becoming more culturally competent to function

effectively in and with other cultures. The more culturally competent an individual is, the

greater their ability to navigate complexities while working in diverse team groups and

getting them to work together. Early and Ang (Soon et al., 2007) gave the acronym CQ to

cultural intelligence, or cultural competency (Levy-Leboyer, 2004; Li, 2020). In the

following section, CQ as a theory will be discussed and the four components of CQ will

be explained. I will first discuss motivational and behavioral elements of CQ. After the

motivational and behavioral components, the next section will discuss cognitive and

metacognitive components. Metacognitive is the last element to be discussed and will be

the primary focus of the literature review in this study. Building on foundational research,

and covering research gaps, this study looked to emphasize the critical importance of

metacognition. Metacognition is a higher-level ability that has the most effectiveness in

surmounting diverse work team complexities. Earley (2002) posited that the most

effective individuals will utilize meta-strategies, derived from fueling metacognition.

Motivational CQ. One element of the CQ theory is the motivational component

of cultural intelligence (Gooden et al., 2017; Schreuders-van den Bergh & Du Plessis,

2016). A person must be motivated to learn about other cultures and to attempt to

understand other cultures. Without motivation, or drive, actions and behaviors will not

occur. The level of motivational CQ will also determine the success of an individual

navigating the complexities and uncertainties of these interactions, as an individual may

need to practice and think through outcomes in advance (Schreuders-van den Bergh &

Du Plessis, 2016). Motivation allows for a team member to keep adapting as they work

through opposing value systems, behaviors, and unclear cultural contexts and norms.

Behavioral CQ. A second element of the CQ theory is the behavioral component

of cultural intelligence. If an individual does not have the ability to adapt to their

unknown and unfamiliar settings, they may act inappropriately in other cultural contexts

(Liu et al., 2018). An individual must learn to behave differently in different cultural

contexts and sometimes modify their behavior to match others around them. Gooden et

al. (2017) found that there are interdependencies in the CQ elements. There is a direct

impact on behavior by the other elements. The study, by Gooden, determined that

components of CQ had a direct impact on the behavior of the participants. This means

that it is very important to help individuals and teams hone their CQ skills in the areas of

motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive because there is a greater statistical

probability that they will then act and behave in ways that are culturally intelligent. The

ramifications for organizations are that teams will interact more successfully which turns

into economic value for a firm. Teams performing at high levels, cooperating, and

utilizing less time, perform in ways that equal bottom dollar profits for business or

attainment of people and resources for nonprofits.

In terms of conflict, in behavioral CQ, team members behave several different

ways towards other team members. Individuals may behave with smoothness, avoidance,

compromise, force, or collaboration and these behaviors will determine if conflict

amongst the team creates conflict that is constructive or destructive (Ahmad & Saidalavi,

2019). Constructive conflict creates creativity and innovation but destructive will break

down team performance.

Chen et al. (2018) posited that behavioral strategies determine the probability of

mutually beneficial outcomes among parties involved. These strategies send signals to the

other team members about the probability of the relationship being cooperative and

mutually benefiting the goals of the organization as well as individual benefits. If

behavior signals a low probability of a mutually beneficial out come, teams begin to

hoard information and knowledge, stop communicating and become highly ineffective.

Cognitive CQ. The third element of cultural intelligence, or cultural competency,

is cognition. Cognition is the awareness of a culture, or the traditions of the main culture

(Bernardo & Presbitero, 2018). As an example, an individual team member may

understand that power distance in Mexico may be high, as some of the society is class

based. They may also be aware that most Mexican nationals do not wear shorts, greet

each other with a kiss on the cheek, and will ask how you are doing before moving into

questions and conversation. Groves et al. (2015) posited that cognition is related much

closer to metacognition and the decision making, or critical thinking, process.

However, cultural knowledge alone does not provide all the strategies when

individuals behave differently, communicate differently, solve conflict differently and the

cultural context changes (Liu et al., 2018). Cognitive ability, alone, does not allow a team

member to make sense of the situation, negotiate and problem solve, and adapt

differently through the complexities. Multiple researchers argue that metacognition is

required (Goryunova, 2020; Leung et al., 2013; Mor et al., 2013).

Metacognitive CQ. The fourth element of cultural competency (CQ), and the

fundamental focus of this research study, is Metacognition. It is the focus of this study

because it is asserted to have the most profound impact, and an antecedent, on navigating

the complexities of intercultural settings (Li, 2020). Sieck et al. (2013) and Mor et al.

(2013) posited that it is intentional thinking about your very own thinking.

Li (2020) defined metacognition as critically thinking about what you know once

you have gathered the cultural, or cognitive, knowledge. There is an involvement with

one’s self-regulatory processes and being able to be intentional in strategic application

and think out strategies in advance. Metacognition skill allows an individual to check

their own assumptions and biases and make sense of an intercultural setting that is

different than what they anticipated (Lorenz et al., 2018).

Van Dyne et al. (2012) argued it is the skillset that enables individuals to plan, be

aware, and check their own assumptions. It is the ability to understand cognitively what

one believes and what another person believes and to then test out in application to

determine what will work best. Groves et al. (2015) agreed with Van Dyne and posited

that metacognition is the ability to assess your own assumptions and biases, during the

interaction, and adjust these assumptions while navigating the unfamiliar cultural context.

Solomon and Steyn (2017) explained the differences in metacognition from other

components. Metacognition, cognition, and motivation are all mental capabilities that are

honed; skills that are learned to use and exercise. The behavioral component is actual,

intentional, action that individuals take to behave appropriately or adapt in environments.

Charleston (2017), whose research was based on observed behaviors vs. self-

reported surveys, argued that just knowing, having cognition, is not enough. Individuals

also need to understand the how-to, what to specifically do, what actions to put in place,

and what thinking must occur, during the interaction. There are higher-level cognitive

aspects needed to have the skillset to work through these real-time complexities which

agrees with Van Dyne et al. (2012).

Bernardo and Presbitero (2018) argued as well that there are components that

must be learned or acquired first, before the individual could engage the other

components or elements of cultural intelligence. This is metacognition. Metacognitive,

higher-level thinking must take place before an individual can be motivated to learn

about another culture or adapt and behave in a way that is culturally appropriate, in

intercultural interactions. It allows individuals and leaders to help train appropriately. The

researcher’s work found that it is not enough to simply believe that one could become

competent interculturally by simply reading about a country or culture and attempting to

assimilate or mimic behaviors in that culture, which was the foundation of early research

on CQ. Cultures around the world need to build relationships to build trust and to be

effective (Solomon & Steyn, 2017). This is done by using metacognitive skills and being

authentic in this process. Bernardo and Presbitero supported this research study as it

emphasized the need for meta strategies, or a higher-level thinking.

Another component of metacognition is that it helps an individual learn a second

language. Alon et al. (2018) conducted a five-country study and found that the most

successful team members, in cross-cultural groups, were those that had immersion into

other countries and learned a second language; to better understand and connect. Alon et

al. and Haukås et al. (2018) agreed that these were the experiences and skills someone

needed and were the antecedent to higher-level cultural competency. The researchers

asserted that metacognition assists in learning a second language and mastering it.

Goryunova (2020) additionally explained this component well and how it works.

The researcher explained that once an individual has the cognitive knowledge, of

language, culture and history, they must be able to then test out what will work and what

will not work. If they are unable to be meta-cognitively aware of their own beliefs, and

biases or assumptions, they will be unable to test it out in application in that situation. In

confusion, and then growth of distrust, they will shut down and create barriers to

intercultural collaboration.

Metacognition is the antecedent to having more culturally competency. Higher

levels of CQ are acquired through using metacognition to learn languages, adapt

communication, change one’s own thinking and more. Metacognition creates or fuels the

mental capabilities to formulate strategies that help navigate complexities of intercultural

interactions and effectively collaborate (Lorenz et al., 2018). These strategies allow for

teams to function well together and perform to meet organizational goals. Leaders need to

look for talent that embodies a high-level of CQ, using metacognition. However, not all

talent will have these skills and the leader can put meta strategies in place to coach their

teams and create an organizational environment that helps nurture their success. This

study discusses meta strategies that a leader can employ to mitigate negative aspects of

intercultural complexities on their teams and utilize the diversity to innovate and create

for competitive advantage. The strategies that are the focus of this study are:

sensemaking, conflict management, negotiation, and problem solving. These are

necessary strategies to function effectively.

Because it was found to be so profoundly impactful on diverse work team

success, the study discusses the theory of Cooperation and Competition used in

conjunction with Cultural Intelligence as a meta strategy for effectiveness. I will explain

why diverse work teams have unique challenges and what those specific challenges are. I

will explain how and why metacognitive strategies are effective relative to the business

problem.

Cooperation and Competition Theory and CQ Theory

For the purposes of this study, the idea of utilizing the cooperation and

competition theory to aid CQ theory, was explored (Kelley et al., 1970; Liu et al., 2018;

Matsumoto & Hwang, 2015). There is a phenomenon occurring in multicultural teams.

When they are working together, and as they approach their work differently, the

dynamics in the team become complex. These dynamics are unique to intercultural teams

because they are attempting to work together while having very different worldviews,

cultural norms, and style preferences. The uniqueness of these dynamics leads to an

individual needing higher-level metacognitive mental ability. The higher-level skill sets

allow leaders and individuals to operate more effectively and use these differences for the

best creative and innovative output. The meta strategies that are needed to do this require

metacognitive thinking. One additional strategy that makes all the rest more powerful, is

the cooperation and competition theory by Deutsch in 1949. Using this theory as a

partner with metacognition, makes it more impactful and more powerful; it fuels it in a

synergistic way.

Deutsch derived a theory in 1949 called the theory of cooperation and competition

(Kelley et al., 1970; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2015). The premise of the theory is its impact

on diverse work teams. As teams work through the dynamics of their team, when they

misunderstand each other, it immediately breeds distrust and knowledge sharing begins to

slow down and stop. The theory asserts that teams will either be competitive with one

another or cooperative with one another. Deutsch proclaimed that there is power in

setting the tone that all individuals will have a mutually beneficial outcome. When

individuals, from diverse backgrounds, come to a team they usually do so with a win-lose

thought process which becomes competitive. However, cooperation and competition

theory is not about a win-win scenario. It is about laying the foundation, and setting a

cultural tone, that the environment will be cooperative and there will be fair and equitable

outcomes for everyone involved. It does not mean that every individual gets exactly what

they thought they would get in a win-win scenario. It means that all parties are willing to

concede some outcomes for the overall best outcome for everyone. It is powerful when

teams simply believe there will be cooperation in the group and equitable outcomes

(Chen et al., 2018). There tends to then be a spirit of cooperation which lends itself to

culturally sensitive outcomes (Liu et al., 2018). Next, I will discuss other theories that I

determined were not the best theory for this study.

Other Cultural Theories

In this section, I will discuss why I did not choose alternative theories to provide

effective strategies to leaders of diverse work teams. First, when evaluating the

cooperation and competition theory as a single conceptual framework for the business

problem, I found the theory was not a good choice (Leigh Anne et al., 2018). The theory

needs the leader or team member to use higher-level thinking to observe what is

happening amongst the team members and create culture that sets the tone for mutually

beneficial outcomes. The leader needs the skills to set the tone that everyone’s interest,

opinions, and ideas will be taken into consideration. Without metacognition coming first,

a leader may not have the skill to create this kind of environment and culture of the team.

Secondly, I decided not to use Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions. His

“cultural dimensions theories” (Rojo et al., 2020, p. 681) explain behavior in the

workplace and how countries and cultures fall somewhere on a continuum from left to

right. One of the dimensions is power distance. This is discussed at length in the

upcoming section. As an example, Mexico is a high-power distance country and there is a

hierarchy from leadership to team members. The United States is a low-power distance

country and there are closer relationships between leader and team members. The

dimensions do a thorough job explaining behavior and helps in cognitive knowledge

about the generalities of a country. However, team members will not always act, behave,

or speak in ways that a team member might expect them too based on Hofstede’s

dimensions. Sometimes there are regional behavioral differences or personality

differences. The theory does not help the leader or team member make sense of the

interaction when the person does not behave in the way they expect them to, therefore I

did not choose to use these theories (Beeler & Lecomte, 2017).

Lastly, I considered another theory with similarities to Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions. The theory was cultural dimensions developed by Trompenaars (Tocar,

2019). Tocar described these cultural dimensions to understand what values a culture

may have and then in what ways an individual may work and behave. This model kept

two of the Hofstede dimensions and then they developed others on their own, however

these dimensions still have similarities with Hofstede’s in terms of masculine and

feminine and individualism versus collectivism. While these dimensions are critical to

any detailed review of culture it does not always predict an outcome. People still act or

speak differently and may resolve problems and work differently than expected. In

Trompenaars’s theory, the researcher still used terms such as cultural competency but

there is still a component of mental abilities that are missing for effectiveness. Barker

(2020) and Barker and Gower (2010) detailed the foundation of the model with the 4 Rs.

The 4 Rs are respect, recognition, reconciliation, and realization. The idea is that an

individual needs to evaluate and recognize what kind of a situation they may be in. The

second R is about recognition and that means to recognize there are two parties in the

intercultural interaction, both with individual and legitimate needs. The 3rd R is about

reconciliation. When diverse team members work together, they need the ability to

manage and resolve conflict. The 4th R is about realization. Barker explained that the

idea behind this is that there is some mutually beneficial outcome for all. The 4 R’s all

require metacognition to be able to respect, recognize, realize, and reconcile. Therefore,

there is still a need for higher-level thinking that could problem solve, negotiate, and

resolve conflict when the intercultural setting was unknown and unfamiliar. Below, I will

begin to discuss the diverse work team complexities. I will then discuss the meta

strategies related to the business problem. I will begin to now explain how metacognition,

and the value behind these skills, is related to the business problem and effective

strategies to navigate these complexities.

Intercultural Teams Have Unique Challenges

Diverse Work Team Complexities. Diverse work teams have inherent

challenges and complexities that are unique to work teams operating with multicultural

team members, and studies have called for different responses to this issue. Charleston et

al. (2018) and Plessis (2012) all conducted research on intercultural dynamics and the

paradox of diverse work teams. Individuals communicate, negotiate, make decisions, and

manage conflict differently based on their own cultural norms and values as well as

environment. Gudykunst (1994) laid an earlier understanding, that the solutions are to

simply adapt to the opposing norms as most intra and intercultural communications are

the same. Byram (1997) disagreed with this conceptual framework and posited that the

challenges are more complex than simply adapting. Hou (2017) coined the term

intercultural difficulty management and defined what is dynamic about these interactions

and how can they be addressed.

Leaders struggle because of the lack of strategies to contend with the dichotomies

on these teams; intercultural teams often have polar opposite cultures and values. It is

essential for the leader to understand these team dynamics and how to navigate them

effectively (Hou, 2017). Harnessing the power of these teams for effectiveness allows

this synergy to grow instead of allowing the complexities to erode at the team’s

effectiveness. In the following sections, the dynamics of communication, negotiation,

conflict management, and cultural norms as mode of operation will be discussed.

Communication. Chen et al. (2018) and Liu et al. (2018) explored the differences

in intra-cultural and intercultural communication. When individuals are operating from

the same cultural contexts, they are communicating intraculturally and there is more

communication. They mostly understand the language, meaning of words, and historical

contexts, so the communication makes more sense to them. Hou (2017) explained that

intercultural communication is much more difficult. Individuals will find that the

language may be different, the meaning of words may be different, and the historical-

cultural contexts may be lost on them (Charleston et al., 2018). The group then

communicates less and has difficulty with high performance as knowledge and

information sharing slows down (Liu et al., 2018).

Hou (2017) explained that in earlier research, Gudykunst (1994) discussed how

people adjusted their communication style when interacting cross-culturally or addressed

only the need to adapt their communication style. Hou argued that the act of just adapting

to a foreign environment was too simplistic. The previous theoretical and methodological

frameworks failed to explain the dynamics of these interactions. Hou argued that to

adapt, there must be an understanding of the basic identity needs of the other individual

in terms of security, identity, and vulnerability (Hou, 2017). If a leader can understand

identity and context then they will be able to adapt their communication style to specific

communication behaviors (Bauman & Shcherbina, 2018). Charleston (2014) explained

that additional, and specific, communication behaviors that allow for success, were

empathy and slowing down and using clear questions. Charleston also explained the need

to be aware of non-verbal cues such as tone and body language.

The other risk, in the simplified version of just adapting one’s own behavior, is

that people operate with assumptions on the way they believe an individual will

communicate. Liu et al. (2018) and Chen et al. (2018) argued that it is important to

understand the norms individuals use to communicate and make decisions from because

they may not operate in the way one individual team member thinks they should. Team

members operate from cultural norms and what norms team members use will impact the

teams and their ability to communicate (Adam & Harika, 2017). Cultural norms as a

mode of operation will be discussed below.

Teams that can effectively, and mutually, adapt and create synergy in cross-

cultural communication have a higher success rate in interactions. Teams that perform

effectively also have shown to have a higher skillset level of intercultural communication

competency, which will be discussed further in cultural competency theory (Adam &

Harika, 2017; Janete et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018).

Negotiation. Cross-cultural conversations and interactions, as team members, are

negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). These negotiations, and interactions, require that

leaders have higher-level CQ skills; they need negotiation and problem-solving skills.

Groves et al. (2015) study contributed to the claim that leaders fail in these settings due to

lack of skill, and the lack of awareness of cultural context. He also explained that leaders

fail in these negotiations as they have a lack of skill to adapt their behavior to these

behavioral cues (Kavirathne & Fernando, 2021).

Imai and Gelfand (2010) argued that the majority of research on negotiation

effectiveness, cross-culturally, compares and contrasts behaviors (Gelfand et al., 2008;

Gelfand & Realo, 1999). Their research study examined the relationship between CQ and

negotiation effectiveness by applying CQ in a different way. The researchers posited that

cooperative outcomes for both parties, are essential for effectiveness and that achieving

these outcomes requires higher level CQ strategies (Groves et al., 2015). In the following

sections, I examine negotiation relative to the business problem and how CQ theory

manages this component.

Conflict Resolution. Organizational leaders must have the ability to manage

conflict inherent to the multicultural teams they lead (Liu et al., 2018). It requires the

ability to understand why the conflict is happening in the first place, and then the ability

to mitigate negative aspects of this conflict and use it in a positive way. Conflict can be

positive in terms of disruption and coming up with new ideas (Chen et al., 2018).

However, the negative aspects of it must be harnessed and reversed. Leaders often

underestimate the inevitability of conflict among the team members. Conflict occurs

because of communication style differences, different means of conflict resolution,

having different historical and contextual lenses, as well as operating from a different

place in terms of cultural norms and values (Plessis, 2012; Schreuders-van den Bergh &

Du Plessis, 2016).

One reason there is conflict in these teams is that each individual communicates

differently, especially across cultural lines. Due to differences in communication styles,

this kind of conflict results in constructive or destructive conflict (Ahmad & Saidalavi,

2019). There are language barriers, different meaning of words, and communication

styles such as indirect and direct communication (Adam & Harika, 2017). When

communication is ineffective, there is often an inability to build relationships and trust

and truly understand the conveyed meaning. When teams do not understand the meaning,

they begin to distrust their intercultural team members and performance slows down

(Latusek & Vlaar, 2018).

There is a difference in culture and mode of conflict resolution preferences, and

this results in conflict (Chen et al., 2018; Gomez & Taylor, 2018). Individuals, based on

their cultural lens, will prefer to resolve conflict itself differently. As an example, if one

is in an individualistic society, they may face conflict head on with a direct confrontation.

This approach could seem offensive, if an individual is from a collectivist society and

they operate from the mode of avoidance, and saving face, when it comes to conflict.

There are also different cultural contexts that team members are operating from.

Plessis (2012) argued that these cultural context differences create a paradox within the

team that is a complex dichotomy. Two opposing cultural contexts exist within the group,

at the same time, and if not managed the teams do not thrive, but rather just survive. It

creates tension because individuals are operating from different cultural and historical

contexts that may be tied directly to differing values. Charleston et al. (2018) posited that

this type of research, on in-depth contextual issues, is limited, and the reason it is

important to expand the research.

Lastly, conflict will occur when team members are from different types of

societies such as being from an individualistic society versus. a collectivist society

(Plessis, 2012). Team members from individualistic societies may be more ethnocentric,

be out for individual recognition and be more confrontational (Chen et al., 2018).

Individuals from collectivist societies may avoid conflict as they desire collective

outcomes and goals. With differing goals, there is inevitable conflict among the group.

Cultural Norms as Mode of Operation are Different. When individuals operate

from the perspective of different value lenses, and cultural norms, there is the potential

for misunderstandings and conflict on work teams. Cultural surprises occur then when

someone acts out of what another considers their cultural norm. Teams become

ineffective when they are placed on teams with different cultural norms and legacy

because they are often unable to understand it; they cannot make sense of it (Leung &

Morris, 2015; Sieck et al., 2013). A leader must have the ability to navigate this

complexity by making an accurate judgement of values of team members and mitigating

negative aspects (Mor et al., 2013; Mor et al., 2019). Cultural norms, beliefs and values

directly impact conflict resolution strategy (Gomez & Taylor, 2018).

Goals Differ and Values Differ. If individual goals are different from group

goals there will be conflict (Ghulam et al., 2017). This is true for members from the same

culture. Individuals’ beliefs and attitude in the group are influenced by their individual

values and display themselves in team member behaviors and interactions with other

team members. To understand constructive conflict and resolution, relative to goals, it is

important to understand the values of the individual members of the team (Klein et al.,

2011; Mor et al., 2019). Team members often express frustration with differing values

and goals in teams. If this is not handled properly it can be destructive and disrupt the

teams’ organizational performance.

When goals and values differ between team members it is important to create a

specific culture and strategy. Gil et al. (2019) research found team performance more

effective with collectivist influence which impacted effective team performance. A

specific strategy would be to have the management team express collectivist

organizational goals, then the team will respond in a more collectivist way rather than

letting their individual goals drive the outcomes. Also, if values are perceived to be

different there will be conflict (Ghulam et al., 2017). A leader has an opportunity to

resolve this through specific organizational culture creation, which will be discussed in

the next sections. (Gomez & Taylor, 2018). This strategy is a powerful tool for a leader

as they use this to reduce conflict, create a cooperative culture, and reach goals.

Metastrategies of Metacognition and Cultural Competency

In the following section I will discuss definitions and a working understanding of

each meta-strategy and then lastly explore the CQ theory relative to the business problem

of the study.

Sensemaking. One of the first meta strategies of metacognitive ability is

sensemaking. Sensemaking allows individuals to work through sensemaking when

individuals do not behave the way we believe they should behave based on cultural

dimensions developed by Hofstede (Jackson, 2020; Überbacher et al., 2015). Sieck et al.

(2013) and Li (2020) posited that one must have metacognitive skills to utilize sense

making processing to understand the underlying intentions of the other cultural team

members. People often find themselves in cross-cultural contexts that do not behave or

play out in a way they expect, based on their cognitive knowledge, and they become

confused. So, they must make sense of what is happening and change their very mental

models, biases and assumptions, during the intercultural transaction. Metacognition helps

them to shift their own expectations. They can then adjust their own beliefs and mental

models to test out, in application, what would be most effective.

Conflict Management. A second strategy of metacognition is the ability to

manage, and mitigate, conflict. In the United States, there are many individuals that are

placed together on diverse work teams to accomplish a work task of some sort. When

these teams begin to work together, they begin to experience differences with how each

prefers to communicate, negotiate, resolve conflict, make decisions, problem solve, and

perform tasks. In addition, they come to the team with different goals and values. It is

inevitable, and should be expected, that there will be conflict. Individuals that are

culturally competent have the ability to make sense of the complex dynamic and work

through this conflict. Leaders must learn to navigate and manage this conflict and find

ways to help their team bridge the gap and reduce barriers, they are unable to see or

understand. In the section, below, this study will look closer at conflict management

relative to the business problem and how CQ manages this dynamic.

Negotiation. The third strategy of metacognition is the ability to negotiate, and in

different ways. The theory of cross-cultural competency, for years, examined the impact

that cultural knowledge had on cross-cultural effectiveness (Groves et al., 2015). The

research available discussed the idea of having knowledge about the culture the

individual was interacting in and having potentially the motivation and drive to behave

differently and adapt. In terms of using metacognition, research started to show up in

recent years examining relationships between actual performance and effectiveness;

Their findings were that this took metacognition. Groves et al. (2015) discussed the early

work of Ahn and Ettner (2013), and Chua et al. (2012). Research on CQ theory began to

evolve and change to explore and examine impacts of CQ on problem solving in

communication and negotiations.

Organizations across the world, nonprofit and for-profit, end up in situations

where they must negotiate a deal or negotiate in the relationship in the complex situation,

they are in. In organizations, when there are multiple team members working together,

with diverse backgrounds, there is a need to understand how to negotiate but also to

understand that different cultures hold different negotiation preferences or styles. In the

prior section, we discussed the fact that cultural differences bring differences in the way

people communicate when they are from different cultures. There is a style preference.

The same is true for negotiation; there is a style preference in how they problem solve

and negotiate with others around them.

Negotiations may occur between members from different cultural teams or on the

same one. In cultural competency, using meta strategies as a skillset, with metacognition,

becomes an antecedent to successfully navigating negotiations. Groves et al. (2015)

explained that although metacognition was beginning to show up in more research,

studies were limited on cultural competency, in terms of metacognition, and its impact on

negotiation. So, they conducted a study to fill the gaps that examined the relationship

between effective skillset in negotiating cross-culturally and found that CQ has a direct

impact. In the section, below, this study will look closer at negotiation relative to the

business problem and how CQ manages this dynamic.

Problem Solving. The fourth strategy of metacognition is the mental skillset to

problem-solve. Team members lack awareness and understanding of cultural contexts

and the why behind why their team members work and act differently than them. The

leader and the teams need higher-level cognitive thinking to develop problem solving

skills. (Groves et al., 2015). Problem solving skills help them navigate complexities that

need to be figured out and understood. Below, is a section that will look closer at problem

solving relative to the business problem and how CQ manages this strategy.

Additional Cognitive Aspects and Order. Bernardo and Presbitero (2018)

explored additional cognitive aspects of effective functioning in culturally diverse

contexts and the role that metacognition plays in using these cognitive aspects. The

authors posited that individuals, to be effective, must be able to see themselves in the

context of many other cultures and not see their culture as the only central reality.

Leaders who want to develop cultural competency have to leave ethnocentrism and begin

to appreciate the differences in each culture’s reality; they become more comfortable with

ambiguity and understanding that their way is not the only way (Swartz et al., 2020).

Those who tend to be very ethnocentric rarely develop the higher-level metacognitive

thinking that is required. (Brycz et al., 2015; Goryunova, 2020).

It is important to understand the most effective order of the CQ components.

Bernardo and Presbitero (2018) conducted a quantitative study that examined the

variables of cultural competency. The main, statistically different, findings were that in

cultural competency there are components that need to be achieved one before the other.

Bernardo and Presbitero and Li (2020) argued that metacognitive thinking must happen

before motivational or behavioral can take place. Gooden et al. (2017), Li, Sieck et al.

(2013), and Van Dyne et al. (2012) all argued that team members are unable to be

motivated to understand and learn about the setting, and adapt and behave differently,

unless they have higher-level cognitive thinking such as metacognition. There is an

impact on and interdependence between the components and a hierarchical level.

Cognition also comes after metacognition as it is not enough to just know about

cultures, about norms, or language. It is not enough to simply believe that one could

become culturally competent with reading about a culture and attempting to assimilate by

mimicking behaviors that appear to be culturally appropriate (Bernardo & Presbitero,

2018). Cultures around the world need to build relationships to build trust and to be

effective. This happens not by just having knowledge but through transformational

thinking that occurs in metacognition.

In leading diverse teams, one must be able to cognitively make sense of their

setting, manage conflict, negotiate, problem solve through complexities, and cooperate to

be effective in performance and meeting organizational goals. Navigating these

complexities takes the use of this metacognitive component and using the meta-strategies.

In the following section, we will look at the business problem in relation to CQ theory.

Each meta strategy will be discussed and how it helps solve and mitigate the business

problem. In the field, with data collection, participants were interviewed to understand

what strategies they use to develop cross-cultural competency to be effective in cross-

cultural navigation and to meet organizational outcomes and improve performance.

The Business Problem in Relation to Meta-Strategies of Metacognition

Sense Making. It is important in intercultural settings that leaders and team

members can use metacognition to make sense of the intercultural dynamics that lead to

natural complexities. Often, team members will begin to work with other team members

and they each believe they know how the other person may act or behave (Sieck et al.,

2013). When each of the individuals act differently than the other expects, they each

become confused and begin to stop trusting the other and begin to stop sharing critical

information. Leaders, and team members, need the ability to make sense of the current

situation they are in and navigate the complexity differently. Cultural intelligence

strategies, metacognitive specifically, help individuals make sense of the current

interactions they are in and begin to cognitively understand these differences and help

their teams see through a different lens (Beeler & Lecomte, 2017).

Conflict Management. Business leaders face the complexities of leading

intercultural teams. The organizations need diversity, but they have a challenge of using

strategies to manage conflict among diverse team members. To have highly effective

diverse teams, a leader must be able to manage conflict within the group. (Zheng et al.,

2015). Managing conflict may appear arduous but with conflict resolution strategies

(Gomez & Taylor, 2018), a leader can use conflict for creativity and mitigate destructive

aspects of diverse work teams and fuel productive aspects. Metacognitive strategies, in

Cultural Intelligence theory, helps to mitigate conflict and use it to allow the team to

flourish. Metacognition also helps a leader be aware of the idea that different cultures

prefer different resolution to conflict and help their teams become aware. In the following

section, we will examine different cultural resolution styles, overt and covert elements of

culture, transcultural conflict, and how collectivism and individualism dimensions create

conflict management strategies.

Collectivists and individualistic societies prefer a different method of conflict

resolution. An individual from an individualistic society may prefer to use direct

confrontation to resolve the issue, negotiate it, or redirect it (Mor et al., 2019).

Individuals that come from collectivist societies will care greatly about saving face both

for themselves and the other individual. Saving face may mean they avoid the issues all

together or ignore the issue to keep harmony and peace in the relationship. Preserving the

relationship means more to them. A leader needs the capacity to assess and educate

members, through training, on how team members would resolve conflict, differently.

Gomez and Taylor (2018) conducted research on the different personality types and how

conflict is addressed even within those style preferences. As the United States is

individualistic, it would be important to help train team members on why other cultures

would ignore issues, avoid them, and desire to preserve the relationship. It allows them to

become aware that they are not being ignored, the other party is trying to keep harmony

(Gomez & Taylor, 2018). Understanding that belief breaks down barriers.

Plessis (2012) argued that a leader must understand overt and covert elements of

culture, values of the cultures, and identity of individuals in these cultures. He argued that

the specific awareness allows a leader to identify organizational conflict and then apply

techniques and strategies that bring about new solutions for managing the conflict.

(Plessis, 2012).

Klein et al. (2011) posited that diversity of team members, in organizations, are

the topic of research studies but rarely are the researchers addressing team diversity and

examining the relationship between team diversity and team conflict and the effect this

has on team performance. The authors conducted a longitudinal study that reflected the

positive impact a leader can have on reducing team conflict when they focus the team on

the task vs. people. When leaders focus on task identification and role responsibilities, it

suppresses acting in an individualistic way and transforms team behavior to collective

behavior.

Transcultural conflict is conflict that arises when an individual operates from one

culture and interacts with someone from another culture. Inevitably, there are

misunderstandings that lead to conflict. As mentioned above, focusing the team on task

vs. relationship redirects and manages the problems. Task focus is the best solution to

keep the team performing (Ghulam et al., 2017). Relationship focuses, on the other hand,

(Plessis, 2012) focuses the team on each other and therefore they are unable to return to

the task at hand; the conflict becomes a barrier to performance. If the relationships break

down, the teams begin to hoard information and restrict important information to the

team. So, focusing on the task is an important stabilizer of other differences.

The Role of Collectivism and Individualism. Brycz et al. (2015) conducted a

quantitative study and issued a Metacognitive Self Scale questionnaire to 985

participants. The participants were from Poland, the United States, Spain, England,

Vietnam, Japan, and India. The researchers hypothesized that individuals from

collectivist societies, vs. individualistic, had a higher level of metacognition and were

able to examine their self-bias. This was more difficult for a participant from an

individualist society. Brycz posited that this was impacted by culture and so there are

differences of levels of metacognition depending on the society the individual is from.

There is a cultural impact on the accuracy of judging one’s own self-biases. When

interacting cross-culturally, it is important to be aware of this and adjust for one’s

behavior. Those from collectivist societies are better at this self-evaluation. If someone is

from an individualistic society, it is good to be aware of this for self-evaluation and to

learn how to self-examine a more accurate way. Leaders could help train and coach their

team members to create awareness and business application.

The research, discussed above, can be applied to the business environment and

nonprofit work. The business environment can be educated and made aware, that as

business executives from the United States, they may not be as adept at self-analysis to

interpret their own behaviors and change them accordingly. Being able to learn and build

this skill of self-analysis is important for diverse work teams. Team members from

individualistic societies need to understand that diverse workers from collectivist

societies may self-criticize and understanding this phenomenon is important. In contrast,

the U.S. workers or teams from individualistic societies may tend to praise themselves; it

is important to understand and utilize this knowledge in productive ways.

A Mix of Cultural Values and Common Ground. When diverse work teams

hold opposing values and identity, it can cause conflict in the interpersonal relationships

of the team members. As discussed above, Klein et al. (2011) sought to use leadership to

moderate conflict by focusing on the team task. Chen et al. (2018) conducted research

that found the importance of finding common organizational cultural values, based on

collectivism, and common ground; the strategy manages and reduces conflict. Chen et al.

argued that effective conflict management, across cross-cultural teams, starts with a mix

of cultural values finding common ground in resolving issues with a cooperative

approach. The authors posited that individualistic cultural values, in a group, promotes

low-quality interpersonal relationships. Collectivist cultural values promote higher

interpersonal relationships. Mixing Eastern collectivism with Western low power

distance was found by Chen et al. to promote higher quality interpersonal relationships on

teams.

Liu et al. (2018) explained that finding common ground and having a shared

cultural value, creates a culture of trust, support, and empowerment; the environment is

collectivist in nature. Teams can build relationships in this kind of environment, and it

creates much better communication (Plessis, 2012). A common culture setting also

addresses the physical and mental needs of the team. Chen et al., (2018) also posited that

intentional cultural values drives the beliefs among the team members, that it is a

collaborative environment and profoundly impacts cooperation amongst team members,

which is in direct agreement with Deutsch’s theory (Appelbaum et al., 2022; Kelley et al.,

1970). In this setting, where collectivist values dominate the culture, individuals will

operate from a framework that they expect cooperation, collaboration, and to work

interdependently with each other. The cooperative belief drives the environment, and the

environment drives the belief (Chen et al., 2018; Ghulam et al., 2017; Kelley et al., 1970;

Liu et al., 2018; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2015). Creating a cultural environment, around

Eastern collectivism, is critical.

How to Build Eastern Collectivism with Western Low Power Distance. Chen

et al. (2018) disclosed that the literature on culture falls short when it comes to examining

the relationship between the variables of individualistic and collectivist cultural

dimensions. Chen posited that there are research gaps in terms of high and low power

distance, and how power dimensions impact organizational culture. The disclosure shows

an opportunity to point out their current study and the attempt to bridge that gap in

current research literature. Chen’s research examined low and high-power distance

comparatively with American and Chinese work teams as well as individual and

collective mindsets to examine how these values impact and affect their problem

resolution success and success of conflict management. The researchers examined

conflict resolution on an organizational level rather than an individual level. The authors

disclosed a possible lack of understanding with the effect of these dimensions on cultural

conflict and reveals potential research. The beneficial outcome was identifying issues and

problems and creating solutions to resolution by creating an Eastern value collectivism

and a Western low power distance.

Power Distance Low and High. Hofstede and Inglehart have years of research

on the dimensions and orientations of culture and are still conducting research amongst

several countries (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). Their work expounded greatly on the

cultural aspects of collectivism vs individualism. They also expounded on differences

between high power distance vs low power distance. Power distance of the leader is a

dynamic that will influence the culture of the organization and team performance,

especially with group task interdependence, such as diverse work teams (Anand et al.,

2018). High power distance, of a leader to follower, contributes to impersonality of

communication and the relationship (Chen et al., 2018). It produces a low cooperative

relationship (Ghulam et al., 2017). The higher the power distance the less desire team

members will have in terms of sharing ideas and sharing opposing ideas. Low power

distance contributes to personalness of communication and the relationship. It produces a

highly cooperative relationship and creates an environment where team members are

open to sharing opposing ideas for creativity.

Chen et al. (2018) and Liu et al. (2018) argued that a team culture must be a blend

of Eastern collectivism and Western low-power distance. Using this blend plays a role in

the level of cooperation, vs. competition, that team members will have. Ghulam et al.

(2017) argued that most individuals will prefer the power distance they are used to, but

the research findings of Chen and Liu presented a much more cooperative setting. They

even argued that this setting impacts expectations and perceptions of team members and

it impacts how they interact.

Ghulam et al. (2017) agreed that collectivist organizational values impact and

influence cooperative goal outcomes when paired with low power distance. Collectivism

is what will determine whether individuals pursue their own individual goals or their

collective goals in the team environment. These values will be emphasized over

individual values. Research has been limited in the past, researching values in isolation.

Ghulam et al.’s (2017) research examined the interdependent relationship between values

and multiple dimensions and the influence it had on team dynamics (Ghulam et al.,

2017).

Negotiation. In the following section, negotiation will be discussed and how

metacognition strategies also impact how individuals negotiate and how metacognition

impacts the success of negotiation. The following section will discuss the work of Gomez

and Taylor (2018), Olsen (2013), and the work of Saul Alinsky (Giorgi et al., 2017). In

this study, the focus is on collaboration between American and Mexican nationals.

Mexican history is rich in revolution and an uninvolved legal and economic systems to

help people. People, in Mexico, have learned to rely on other people. Their network is

very important, and it is how they collaborate and accomplish goals. The same holds true

for many countries. It leads to cooperation vs. competition. These individuals, and their

teams, have learned to collaborate and negotiate and do so to accomplish their

organizational goals.

Gomez and Taylor (2018) research found the unexpected. Mexican nationals were

more prone to using the negotiation tactics over U.S. participants, which enhances

intercultural collaboration (Beeler & Lecomte, 2017). Mexicans did not fall heavily on

preference to ignore the situation, which is contrasting the exact opposite findings by

Olsen (2013). The caveat in the research by Gomez and Taylor is that in these kinds of

negotiations, participants expected more of a collaboration for a mutually beneficial

outcome. Secondly the northern region of Mexico has far more influence from the United

States and individuals closer to the United States behave in ways that are closer to an

individualistic society vs. a collectivist society which could be why Olsen had different

research findings.

Giorgi et al. (2017) conducted a literature review that centrally focused on the

work of Saul Alinsky and mobilizing people across cultures. The researchers ultimately

constructed a model that defined underlying antecedents to the model: resources,

interests, networks, and opportunities. The model identified how important cultural

competency and cultural brokerage, negotiation, plays a role in impacting social change

through the mobilization of groups of people who do not share the same cultures but have

the same collective goals. Individuals and groups utilize cultural competency to

appreciate the value and meaning of other cultures. They utilize cultural brokerage to

navigate and negotiate through these differences. Finally, they use identities, practices,

and frameworks with which people view the world and make sense of it to propel or

promote mobilization of these groups of people. The underlying theoretical framework is

the use of cultural intelligence, the use of cultural competence. What is enlightening

about the work of Salinsky is that culture is actually not seen just as a barrier but also as a

toolkit, a catalyst, a grab bag with which to skillfully mobilize change among people with

different cultural repertoires. The toolkit is utilized successfully by those who can

skillfully navigate it and use cultural competence and cultural negotiation to do so.

The literature review of Giorgi et al. (2017), was not comprised solely of articles

on Saul Alinsky’s work, or cultural intelligence. It had a great deal of information, data

and research that illuminated how important identity theory is in this model. It

illuminated identify theory, group decision making processes, and communication

differences cross-culturally. It also included important aspects of this model that are

driven by political opportunities, shared interests, networks, and resources.

The study by these researchers had the magnitude to significantly impact my

doctoral study (Giorgi et al., 2017; Gomez & Taylor, 2018). My study is about

understanding strategies that are successful in helping cross-cultural teams collaborate

effectively to accomplish their organizational goals and so many components resonated

with their findings. The conceptual framework being used is the cultural intelligence

framework. However, my study took the four components of CQ and drilled down to

specific activities in each that are mobilized to create success. As an example, the work

of Saul Alinsky and the two-step model created by Giorgi et al, takes a complex concept

and breaks it down into steps that organizations can take to change how they operate and

successfully collaborate across borders, which is using cultural competency in unison

with cultural brokerage which is essentially negotiation. The implications are the profit or

loss of a business, for corporations. The implications for nonprofits are endless.

Successful execution of these concepts has the power to dramatically impact social

change and improve lives across the globe.

Problem Solving. Another business problem, in intercultural settings, is the

inability for teams to problem solve. As team members work together to accomplish

tasks, or design and innovate, they must be able to navigate problem solving as a team,

especially since individuals from different cultural contexts, or even societal class

contexts, solve work problems differently. Research that was conducted by Mor et al.

(2013) was critical research in helping leaders understand that they can successfully train

these adaptive skills to their teams.

As evidence, Mor et al. (2013) conducted five different studies which included

laboratory experiments and quasi-field settings. The studies were utilized to prove or

disprove the hypotheses. The main study was to evaluate the relationship between

metacognition and intercultural performance of a team. Earlier researchers have spent

years examining the dimensions of cultural competency and how it impacts performance

in intercultural settings (House, 2002). However, there is much more limited research in

terms of examining the relationship and role of metacognition in navigating the

complexities of intercultural teams. Mor et al. played a critical role in helping leaders

train individuals on how to problem solve by perspective taking prior to and during

intercultural settings to gain more cooperation and positive outcomes.

The studies Mor et al. (2013) conducted, were designed to manipulate the

participants to examine if the leader manipulation impacted the outcome. Participants

with lower metacognition were trained and directed to reflect on the perspective of the

other team member and reflect on what cultural context they are using for problems

solving and if they are acting with cooperation or competition. They encouraged them to

see a more cooperative perspective. The manipulation did give the participants better

outcomes interculturally.

In 1991, there was actual research conducted on metacognition and problem

solving by Cox et al. (1991). The groups they researched contained all Americans but

with a mix of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The groups were Anglo American,

Hispanic American, Asian American, Black American, and Chinese American. The study

focused on cultural competence and the core component of metacognition for problem

solving. The main idea of the study was to see if the participants would change their

behaviors and outcomes based on feedback from the researchers, similar to the

manipulation conducted by Mor et al. (2013). The feedback would be an intervention

prior to the study explaining that the other participants in the study, the other party,

would be cooperative with them. So, the researchers interjected the idea that they could

expect cooperation from the other side while working through complexities. The

participants conducted themselves with a cooperative approach when they expected that

the other party would be cooperative. When there was no feedback, the participants

behaved in a competitive way, and they were unable to break down barriers.

This research, above, contributes to the idea that having CQ is critical, having

metacognition is critical and in more depth, a collectivist, cooperative, approach while

coming into problem solving will create more cooperative outcomes. These findings are

crucial in explaining the phenomenon with Americans, who come from an individualist

society. They use a competitive lens (Leigh Anne et al., 2018; Matsumoto & Hwang,

2015). This is a great training tool to help for-profit and nonprofit groups to teach and

train their employees or volunteers to be more effective and then because of this,

accomplish their missional goals.

Not all team members on a diverse workforce will innately understand how to be

successful on cross-cultural teams, or in intercultural settings (Adler & Aycan, 2018).

There are many complexities of these kinds of dynamics in groups and among people.

Strategies are needed to navigate problem solving. This kind of research, above, can be

applied in many settings. The research showed that it is possible for a leader to train and

guide individuals that do not have high level metacognitive skills. Leaders can hold

training courses, set organizational culture, set beliefs, and help their teams be more

effective, therefore meeting organizational goals and missions.

Cooperation and Competition Theory and CQ Theory

United States nonprofits struggle to collaborate in global workplaces when

working with multicultural teams, which disrupts organizational effectiveness (Ahmad &

Saidalavi, 2019, p. 1). In a study concerning the effectiveness of global managers, 48% of

the participants revealed that they were sometimes ineffective in achieving the

organizational objectives due to factors including cross-cultural competency (Tuffour &

Matey, 2019, p. 81). The general business problem is that some nonprofit leaders do not

achieve their organizations’ mission because of failure to catalyze organizational

collaboration. The specific business problem is that some nonprofit leaders lack strategies

to develop cross-cultural competency for improving organizations’ performance.

As a researcher, I am positing that it is essential to pair cooperation and

competition theory with the CQ theory of metacognition to successfully navigate these

complexities and develop cross-cultural competency; the findings that corroborate this

outcome will come later in Section 3. Cooperation and competition theory takes

metacognition to understand the role it plays in laying the foundation for meta strategies

to be highly effective (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2015). It is not a precursor to

metacognition. I am suggesting that if paired together, it fuels and creates the synergy of

utilizing these strategies to help teams be more effective and accomplish their goals. In

sensemaking, conflict management, problem-solving, and negotiating, the nonprofit

leader must look through a lens that can identify strategies to navigate them with a

fundamental belief that everyone on the team truly desires to be cooperative. Team

members are not uncooperative because they have ill intentions. They are uncooperative

because they are unable to effectively navigate the challenging dynamics on these teams.

They get confused, they misunderstand, and they do not honestly know how to solve the

issues. So, they begin to hoard knowledge, distrust others on the team, and create

barriers. When a leader lays a collectivist and cooperative culture in place, as a means to

an end, the same is true about cooperation and implanting this idea into the minds of the

individuals in the group and synergize the very collectivist organizational culture. Let’s

take a moment to understand cooperation and competition theory in more depth and how

to guide and train diverse work teams in for profit organizations or nonprofit

organizations.

Cooperation and competition theory was originally coined by Deutsch, as

discussed in the prior section (Kelley et al., 1970) in 1949. Now, it is still being used in

cross-cultural research but being used frequently in connection with cultural competency.

Liu et al. (2018) conducted an integrative literature review to discuss the state of the field

of research with intercultural dynamics, and to propose additional future research to add

to the body of knowledge. The importance of understanding team dynamics of groups,

how they operate and how inter or intra cultural complexities add to this dynamic

(Plessis, 2012). The researchers illuminated the theory of cooperation and competition at

that time (Liu et al., 2018). The cooperation and competition theory contrasts the leader’s

actions and that either a group of people have a belief that there will be mutual

consideration for everyone, and this will produce a cooperative culture, or they will

believe it is a win-lose situation and the environment and dynamics will be one of

competition. The authors posited that there are specific strategies to create that culture of

cooperation and collaboration by understanding the dynamics of a team and again, those

are to continually market and sell the notion that everyone at the table is going to be

cooperative. Again, this is in conjunction with the leader creating a collectivist

organizational culture built on the foundation of CQ theory.

As the literature review reveals, there are many complex dynamics of diverse

work teams. To be successful and effective in accomplishing organizational outcomes

and improving performance, a leader must use strategies to develop cross-cultural

competency. Not only is the leader someone that needs to hone this skill, but also

individual team members. In the following section, I will discuss how this relates to this

study.

How It Relates to My Study

The literature review relates to this study in several ways. Outlining the

definitions and concepts that comprise the theory of cultural competency allows the

researcher to apply this theory to formulate a solution to a business problem. Since the

theory of cultural competency provides strategies for business leaders who lead across

cultural boundaries and manage diverse work teams, it can help leaders navigate these

complexities more effectively and allows organizations to successfully accomplish their

objectives and improve performance.

Transition

In the first section of this study, I discussed the business problem and laid out the

foundation for the type of study with method and design. I also discussed the significance

of this study to business applications. I then followed with a complete literature review

that explained the conceptual framework of cultural competency and the value it has in

solving cross-cultural team problems. In the next section, section two, I will discuss the

research project, including the role of the researcher, the participants, the population and

sampling, data collection, data organization, data analysis and the reliability and validity

of the study. Section 3 will cover the study after data collection and analysis, the findings,

conclusions and will discuss the application to professional practice and opportunities for

change. I will begin with section two and introduce the purpose of this study.

Section 2: The Project

In Section 2, I will first explain the purpose of the study. I will then explore the

role of the researcher in this study, the interview protocol I used in the interviews, and a

description of the participants. I will cover the research design and method as well as the

population involved and how I conducted sampling. Next, I will determine the ethics and

possible impacts of this study. The final section will cover the data collection instruments

that I employed, the data collection techniques, data organization, and data analysis

procedures. Finally, I will review how reliability and validity will be ensured.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study is to explore the strategies that

nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency for improving organizations’

performance. The targeted population consists of United States and Mexican nonprofit

leaders who use strategies to develop cross-cultural competency. The contributions to

social change from this study may be that nonprofits will become more effective in

collaborating cross-culturally and leveraging relationships with strategies for the

achievement of goals and for achieving their organizations’ missions for benefiting

communities’ needy citizens.

Role of the Researcher

As a researcher, I have an active role in data collection, understanding and

mitigating my own bias and proactively reflecting on the protocol and ethics of the semi-

structured in-depth interviews. The role of the researcher is to actively engage in the

participants’ interviews, collect data, and record observations (McGrath et al. (2019). I

served in the role of the researcher, participated in the interviews with the participants

and collected the data by recording the interviews and my observations. Fetters and

Rubinstein (2019) explained that an additional element of data collection is to identify

and collect documents relevant to the study. I collected documents from the participants

to validate observations and provide evidence of effectiveness or success in the

community. I used the audio transcriptions software Trint (https://trint.com) to transcribe

the interviews so that I could analyze and interpret the data using a matrix for patterns

and themes. Shelton and Flint (2020) posited that transcription is the standard method of

data collection for qualitative research and the method facilitates reliability in data

analysis. Next, I will discuss any relationship I had with the topic or the participants or

the research area.

As a researcher, I have experience in this border region area, having conducted

qualitative research for my thesis when I was working on a master’s degree. I conducted

qualitative research in 2013, trying to locate agricultural families in the Southern regions

of Mexico impacted negatively by NAFTA and migrating to the Northern regions and

border towns with maquilas.

The study ended with seven participants. Three participants were from American

organizations and four from Mexican organizations. This regional border area in Mexico

and the United States has over thirty nonprofit organizations in operation serving the

needy citizens. I have only heard of one potential American participant for one year in a

collectively served community. We have never collaborated. So, I do not have a

relationship with them. I have known of one Mexican organization that operates in this

region for the last 9 years, but I do not know the people working in the organizations. I do

not have a relationship with the organizations or volunteers, and I have never been a part

of collaborating with them in the community. I will discuss any bias that may impact the

study and how to mitigate bias to preserve the rigor of the research in the next sections

(Johnson, 2020).

In the history of the United States, at times there was questionable behavior by

some researchers who fell short of ethical standards for how to treat human subjects

while conducting research. My role as a researcher is to protect study participants. One

way to do this is to review the ethical principles of The Belmont Report: Ethical

Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (National

Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research, 1979). The Belmont Report guided my research (Beauchamp, 2020). I was

respectful of my participants by getting their informed consent before starting data

collection. Moriña (2020) argued that ethical practices must be adhered to during

research that involves subjects. I ensured beneficence by assessing my questions and

determining whether the benefits outweighed the risks of certain questions.

I mitigated bias by holding the interviews with a native Spanish translator to

ensure that participants received the interview questions in their native language and the

questions were understood in the context of their original language. After the translation

was completed, I asked participants to review the transcripts in Spanish to make sure I

had effectively and adequately represented their words in the findings. To mitigate my

bias, I did not interpret the meaning through a biased lens (Galdas, 2017), such as what it

meant from my perspective. Although Galdas (2017) declared it is difficult to remove all

bias, measures must be put in place to express the meaning of the participant.

I conducted semistructured in-depth interviews to allow for open-ended questions

and to avoid simple yes or no research questions. The interview process allowed

participants to share as much as they would like and for me to gauge body language and

gestures. Also, interviews are superior to surveys, providing in-depth answers and human

connection.

Participants

Specific eligibility criteria had to be met to participate in this research study.

Creating eligibility criteria creates quality in the research (Groves et al., 2015). The target

population was a group of participants currently leading cross-cultural, nonprofit, groups.

These groups are located on the southern border of the United States and the northern

border regions of Mexico. The other criteria were that they were in a leadership role in an

organization, sitting on the board of directors. Participants needed to be organizational

leaders and decision makers consistently interacting and collaborating within these

organizations. Additionally, the participants needed to be engaged in programs serving

needy citizens in the community and actively partnering with local governmental

systems.

The strategy I used to gain access to participants was to contact groups currently

operating in the Rio Grande Valley region of the United States within 40 miles of the

United States Mexico border, an area that includes five major cities. I am familiar with

this regional area, and it is safer to access the border of Mexico for field interviews in the

Rio Grande Valley vs. volatile cities like Reynosa, Laredo, or Ciudad Juarez with cartel

activity. These larger cities have high percentages of incidents with fighting, kidnappings,

and killings. The Rio Grande Valley area, from the coast to inland about 50 miles, has a

large population of at least 30 nonprofit organizations that work interculturally between

the United States and Mexico. Sargeant (2012) posited that a study could be more

generalized across a larger population with a larger sampling size, but this qualitative

study will bring rich, descriptive context with a smaller sample size but in-depth

interviews.

To gain participation, I sought to establish a good working relationship with

participants to explain what I am researching and why. I attempted recruitment of several

organizations and asked them for consent to participate and explained the importance of

the study, the significance to all businesses, nonprofits, and these communities most

impacted and needy. My strategy was to help them understand why this is so important

and the impact that they could make by participating in the study. I emailed participants

to invite them on a phone call with me to learn more. Those who agreed to be interviewed

were invited to a Zoom call to participate.

For purposes of this study, it was important that leadership characteristics criteria

be determined to ensure alignment with the research questions of the study. Ellis (2020)

explained that there are certain characteristics that can be measured to assure participants

will align well with the study and the research questions. The leadership characteristics

and qualities needed in this study population will be defined as follows: currently leading

nonprofit, cross-cultural groups because of their passion to serve communities in need,

sitting on the board of directors of the organizations and act as decision makers, and

actively participating in their current political framework to gain improvements for the

communities. Exemplifying some of these characteristics showed indicators that they

may be using strategies to develop cross-cultural competency to improve performance.

To seek a high probability that these individuals were already effective interculturally, I

gathered documents from the community that highlight current programs and their

community impact. Those measures allowed for better research findings to show that

their strategies are improving their community effectiveness and performance.

Research Method and Design

Research Method

I used the qualitative method for my research study to interview participants,

listen to their experiences, and observe their behaviors in a natural setting (Barrett, 2018).

This enabled me to make meaning of how and why some nonprofits are far more

effective and successful than others in navigating cross-cultural complexities and

leveraging relationships for collaboration. The method also allowed me to capture the

strategies they use.

The justification for use of the qualitative method results from a need to explore

how and why some organizations are more effective at leading cross-culturally than

others and determine what strategies they utilize to develop cross-cultural competency.

The qualitative method allows for a deeper understanding of the strategies and skills used

by the study group. The qualitative research method allowed for keyword themes, of

strategies to begin to show up while evaluating and analyzing the data (Chrastina, 2018;

Scharp & Sanders, 2019). The quantitative method would not have been appropriate for

this study as it measures collected data from the study (Byiers et al., 2021; Cox &

Nachman, 2020). The quantitative method would be more appropriate if I chose to

measure the number of volunteers or contribution dollars, on average, a nonprofit

receives per year in a broad population or sample geographic area. My research method

sought to explore lived experiences of the participants and gain a deeper understanding of

their strategies that make them more effective in cross-cultural teams using open-ended

questions in the interview (McGrath et al., 2019). The quantitative method does not

explore issues using open-ended questions or make meaning out of the strategies,

behaviors, and experiences of the participants.

Research Design

The research design for this study was a multiple case study instead of a single-

case study. While Beeler and Lecomte (2017) chose a single-case study for rich data and

depth, Yin (2018) declared that a multiple case study could help study the breadth across

two cases as well as compare and contrast data. The case study helped to determine how

and why some nonprofit leaders are more effective than others by understanding the

strategies they use to develop CQ. The how described behaviors or skillsets within the

CQ constructs or four-factors that allowed for effectiveness, and the why fleshed out

variances of each CQ construct and the importance of each (Rockstuhl & Van Dyne,

2018). I focused on the idea that one factor of CQ may be far more effective than another,

which was metacognition. I also chose the multiple case study to evaluate successful

strategies from the perspective of the Mexican national organizations, which come from a

collectivist society and the U.S. American organizations whose perspectives come from

an individualistic society. Chen et al. (2018) explained that collectivism is a powerful

tool. I decided on this specific design to determine what strategies they used to develop

cultural competency to improve organizational performance.

The phenomenological research design would not be the right design choice for

this study. The design would not set the correct framework to explore the participants’

feelings and perceptions of their collaboration experiences (Chrastina, 2018; Yin, 2018).

The ethnography design was not appropriate for this study, as the research would explore

the culture of groups and their behaviors based on that culture as well as take a long time

to collect data (Hartmann et al., 2020). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to

explore the lived experiences of case study participants using in-depth interviews with

open-ended questions. The intent of the research is to explore how leaders develop cross-

cultural competency to leverage relationships and achieve organizational outcomes.

In qualitative research studies, data saturation justifies the number of participants

Gill (2020). Once repeating themes occur, saturation is reached. Though Guest et al.

(2020) argued that it is more challenging to determine saturation in qualitative studies. To

reach data saturation, I needed to hear the same answers or strategies from multiple

participants (Buckley, 2022). Gill argued that quality data results in a need to sample

fewer people. I only initially had four participants, and although I believed they would

have quality information to share, I used Guest et al.’s formula to measure if I had

reasonably met data saturation. The formula provided a calculation of interviews

compared to new information in each interview. If my interviews produced a calculation

of less than 5%, then I would not need to conduct more interviews to reach saturation

(Guest et al., 2020). I did not initially meet data saturation though. I had the opportunity

to call additional participants from the Mexican nonprofit organizations and the

American nonprofit organizations. I added one additional participant to interview from

each country until I had reached more than 5% with Guest et al.’s data saturation

calculation. I ended at seven total participants upon data saturation.

Population and Sampling

In this study, I used the purposive sampling method. I chose this sampling method

because it would allow me to interview participants who may understand the

phenomenon that I am exploring. Gill (2020) defended the use of the purposive sampling

method and explained it will allow the researcher to interview participants who

understand the explored phenomenon. This study is based on what strategies nonprofit

leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency to improve performance. I interviewed

leaders in the organizations who understand the complexities of cross-cultural groups and

utilize cultural competency strategies to develop CQ and improve organizational

performance. Their lived experience and response identified the lens that they look

through (Brinkmann, 2016).

The number of participants in my research study was seven: Four participants

from Mexican organizations and three participants from U.S. organizations. One-on-one

and in-depth interviews allowed for depth and breadth in the interview answers (Gill,

2020). In my qualitative research, I was able to select fewer participants than in a

quantitative study because the study of the phenomenon requires an in-depth exploration.

DeJonckheere and Vaughn (2019) highlighted the benefit from these in-depth interviews

and the ability to capture the participant’s viewpoint. The method allowed me to spend

more time with them and allow them to fully answer a question without concern of time.

Spending more time with participants was helpful with the Mexican-national leaders, as

an answer to a question is often given in the form of a story to give historical context, so

the interview process may take longer, and it did. The translator also relayed interpreted

answers in stories.

I choose four leaders from the Mexican organizations to participate and three

from the American organizations. I sought out prospective participants that appeared to

effectively be working cross-culturally. Gill (2020) posited that effective leaders may

display behaviors that focus on cooperation and mutually beneficial outcomes for the

organizations and the people. Although I am not involved in the American and Mexican

organizations, they appeared to be highly effective in leading intercultural groups, as they

appeared to conduct many impactful events and programs in the community.

I worked to mitigate bias by holding the interviews with a native Spanish

translator to ensure that participants’ responses were understood in the context of their

original language. After the findings were completed, I asked that the participants review

the transcripts in Spanish to make sure I had effectively and adequately represented their

responses. To mitigate bias, it is important that a researcher not interpret the meaning of

responses through a biased lens (Galdas, 2017). I worked to not interpret the meaning of

the participant responses through my lens and what I think it might have meant in my

perspective. Although Galdas (2017) declared it is difficult to remove all bias, measures

must be put in place to express the meaning of the participant.

The setting for the interviews were over Zoom. The settings for all participants

were in their natural settings. My goal for the Mexican nationals’ participants was to

meet with a fluent and native speaker of Spanish as a translator. I did not need a U.S.

translator, as I come from similar U.S. regions as these participants, and we spoke the

same language with much of the same historical context (Brinkmann, 2016).

Ethical Research

In this study, I conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with participants.

The interviews included a set of predetermined open-ended questions that were asked of

each participant, as outlined earlier. I asked participants to sign an informed consent form

that adheres to IRB guidelines before conducting interviews. The consent form outlined

the purpose of the study, the steps of the study, how long it would take, and gave a

sample of research questions. The consent form explained the voluntary nature of the

study, the risks, and benefits of being in the study, and any payment they would receive.

Each U.S. participant leads in a nonprofit organization, so they received a $50 Target gift

card to use towards supplies for their organizations. The Mexican participants received

$50 cash, or payment in their organizational website, to use towards supplies for their

organizations. Nonprofit leaders may be unpaid volunteers, and their time is valuable.

The organizations have a difficult time funding operational expenses, so the gift is a

thank you for taking time to participate.

In the consent form, I outlined the steps I would take to protect their privacy. The

form explained what would happen with the information they provide and what

confidentiality measures pertain to the identity of the participants. Ahern (2012) noted

that the Institutional Review Board requires research studies to collect informed consent

forms from participants. Although I do not see any inherent risks to the participants in

these semistructured interviews, I did discuss risks and benefits as a part of informed

consent.

If any participants would have liked to withdraw before, during, or after the

interviews, I did provide written instructions in the Informed Consent form as to how to

withdraw. We also discussed this at the beginning of the interviews. The consent form

was in English and in Spanish and provided clear instructions to tell the researcher if they

have changed their mind and would not like to participate. I explained, if we were in the

middle of the interviews and they decided to stop participating, they could do so by

verbal request. In such case, the interview would end, and no information gathered would

be used in the study or disclosed. Lederer (2019) exclaimed that trust between the

researcher and participants is critical to research with human subjects. Participants were

given an opportunity to read what I have summarized as the interview findings. They had

an opportunity to ensure that the meaning conveyed, through translation, is correct from

their perspective and context. Erhard et al. (2021) posited that it is important to

understand the correct meaning in cross-language interviews. If participants decided to

stop participating while reviewing the interview findings, they could inform the

researcher and their findings would not be used in the final study.

The participants of this study were ethically protected by adhering to procedures.

During interviews, only the interviewer, participant, and translator were in the Zoom. The

hired professional translator was from the United States and was not familiar with the

participants or the organizations with which they were interpreting for. Their names are

not disclosed in the study or in documents gathered while conducting the interviews.

Each participant was given a pseudonym, which was used on documents instead of the

participant’s name. The labels are PU1, PU2, PU3, PM1, PM2, PM3 and PM4. The data

was placed on a password-protected jump drive. The jump drive was stored in a safe and

will be there for 5 years following the study. The safe is at the home of the researcher and

in a place where no one else will have access to the data. I placed a password on the

documents to open them from the jump drive. Once interviews were completed, I

translated the data from Spanish to English and then drafted the findings after analysis.

Each participant had an opportunity to provide feedback on the accuracy of the findings,

from their perspective.

The study was approved by Walden University IRB, the IRB provided me with an

approval number 06-22-22-1020945 to place in the consent form and explain when it

expires. After the study is fully completed, the final discussion and findings will be

shared with the participants. As discussed, I will comply with The Belmont Report

guidelines and make sure that all human subjects and participants are treated with respect,

and that I protect them before, during, and after the study.

Data Collection Instruments

As the researcher, I was the primary research instrument using semistructured in-

depth interviews to explore the strategies of the participants. Mahat-Shamir et al. (2021)

posited that semistructured in-depth interviews are an instrument that explores

individuals’ lived perspectives. The semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted

over Zoom and on Zoom I was able to make observations and have a better-quality

interview.

In the semistructured in-depth interviews findings, I used: (a) member checking,

(b) observational notes, and (c) archived community documents for reliability and

validity. Liao and Hitchcock (2018) claimed that using several strategies, and a formal

process, creates credibility and reliability for a research study. Ensuring that I have data

triangulation will provide a more rigorous study.

I had developed an interview protocol that guided the interview process (see

Appendix A). Braaten et al. (2020) explained that a protocol for the interview helps

create consistency and a high-quality interview. I used open-ended interview questions,

and I used a script for the interviews to ensure data standardization. Yeong et al. (2018)

posited that a researcher should take into consideration the interview protocol if

interviewing in multiple languages. The researchers claimed that the interview protocol

should include feedback and alignment with research questions but also an inquiry-based

dialogue. I had reviewed my questions to ensure I was beginning with simple questions

and moving into more strategic questions for a high-quality interview (see Appendix A)

while attempting to keep it more conversational than academic. I also include the

informed consent document, which included a sample of research questions I would ask,

the protocol to withdraw from participation, and a reminder of confidentiality.

In the interview process, I used a translator whose native language is the Northern

region of Mexico. The dialect is different in the Northern region from the Southern

region of Mexico. As the primary research instrument, I asked the interview questions in

English. The translator interpreted in Spanish and repeated the question. The translator

ensured that the interview questions were translated accurately, considering the regional

context.

I used Trint while we were talking, which recorded the interviews verbatim in

Spanish and then created a translation in a word document in English. Trint recorded

while I asked questions in English, while the translator spoke in Spanish to the

participants, and while participants answered in Spanish, and while the translator

explained the answers to me in English. I transcribed the interviews, took notes, and

made field observations while we were talking. McGrath et al. (2019) and Rutakumwa et

al. (2020) argued that verbatim audio recording was not the best instrument for the

qualitative interview, however, verbatim translation is meant as an aid, which may

provide insights that may not have all been translated by the translator. With time to go

back and read the responses, I discovered more themes and details that the interpreter left

out as well as specific key words. Using two languages in an interview can introduce

stress, so I also used Trint to ensure capturing all the data if I was momentarily distracted

and wanted the most comprehensive outcome after the interviews.

Data Collection Technique

In my study, the first data collection technique was the semistructured, in-depth

interviews. Fritz and Vandermause (2018) found that an interview is an essential tool for

collecting rich data. I used an interview vs. a focus group so that the research questions

were answered by one individual as their interpretation of strategies they utilize. The

interview process offers flexibility, and the questions are open-ended rather than guided.

Moser and Korstjens (2018) explained that focus groups have pre-determined questions

and the moderator guides participants to interact with each other. For this study, I would

not glean the strategies that each leader uses or hear their observations from their

perspectives, if I had used a focus group. I was also not conducting a pilot study.

The second and third data collection techniques was audio recording of the

interviews and field notes for documentation. I collected data during the interviews by

using a professional translator to repeat my research questions in Spanish and translate

the participants’ responses into English. The audio recording recorded the interviews in

their entirety and transcribed the interviews verbatim. Four of my participants were not

fluent in English, and I am not fluent in Spanish, so it was critical to provide translation

for the accuracy and rigor of the data collected. The field notes were included with the

translation by the interpreter and used in the analysis stage to compare to the verbatim

translation. Field notes could document the context of what participants are saying and

how they are behaving (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018). The field notes were used to

document the direct observations discussed below and any themes or reflections that

emerge during the interview process.

The accuracy of the translation ensures that the contextual meaning of the Spanish

speaking participants’ answers is conveyed in the translation process. Using cross-check

techniques will provide rigor and validity in the data collection process. Chiumento et al.

(2018) argued that for rigor of the data, it is important to use techniques of cross-

checking the interpretations of the interviews. I will discuss techniques that will be

employed to ensure reliability in the data analysis section.

Ehrenbrusthoff et al. (2018) ensured the validity of translation by using a few

different measurements. One was to make sure that the terms and words were translated

with similar meanings, determining if the answers consider cultural contexts, lingual

contexts, and social-economic backgrounds. All participants received a copy of the

study’s findings in their native Spanish language to provide me feedback on the

summarized findings and if this was the correct and intended meaning of the answers.

The fourth and fifth data collection techniques were direct observations and

archival records. Cypress (2018) posited that observations are one of the vital

components of data collection in qualitative research to make note of nonverbal cues and

body language. Observations allowed me to observe non-verbal cues, behaviors, and

reactions to research questions. Cypress explained that observations are a way for the

research to use our senses for the purpose of scientific research. I documented

observations in my field notes and any thoughts on themes during the interview process. I

collected archival records, from community events, from participants and scanned the

records to the jump drive that will securely house the documentation for 5 years. Archival

records could include any organizational documents the participants have and any public

files (Yin, 2018). I then give the records back to the participants. The archival records

were collected to highlight programs in the community and used as evidence in the study.

Data Organization Technique

In the semistructured, in-depth interviews, I used the Trint software application on

my iPhone 11 to record the interviews during the data collection process. During the

interviews, I used OneNote to look at my script, take field notes, document observations,

make notes from the translator, and record mental notes of themes arising in the interview

process and nonverbal cues. Field notes are crucial during the interview process for a

rigorous study (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018). The participants had archived records

from the community, showing programs and outreach events as a data source. I organized

all records by scanning them and placing them on the secure jump drive. All physical

documents were then be shredded or returned.

A qualitative study should have several sources of data as evidence, for rigor and

for triangulation (Smith, 2018). I scanned these documents and returned the originals to

the participants at the end of the interviews. The scanned documents were used during

data analysis. Once the interviews were transcribed, I used Atlas.ti for mind mapping and

thematic analysis as a tool to analyze data, as well as a matrix for codes. Mind mapping

can be an effective technique in qualitative interviews, as it is a way to quickly organize

information into codes and themes with a large volume of data being collected (Vindrola-

Padros & Johnson, 2020). Mapping into themes must be done correctly to develop a

rigorous analysis (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). I placed the interview transcriptions, One

Note script and notes, and scanned documents, on a password-protected jump drive. I

stored the jump drive in a safe and it will stay there for 5 years following the study, and I

will shred all physical documents.

Data Analysis

No single strategy has been agreed upon as the standard for qualitative studies, so

selecting a strategy is the first step of data analysis. Yin (2018) described four strategies

for qualitative data analysis that provides direction to a researcher through their analysis

of the data. These four strategies are: (a) relying on theoretical propositions, (b) working

with the data from the ground up, (c) developing a case description and (d) examining

rival explanations. The strategy utilized for this study was to work with the data from the

ground up and to allow codes and themes, to begin to emerge as the data was analyzed, to

examine and investigate these themes and to ultimately reach data saturation.

In my qualitative multiple case study research, I used data triangulation for the

analysis to establish validity and to add richness to the findings in the study. Using

several data sources to analyze data is crucial for rigor and triangulation of a qualitative

study (Smith, 2018; Yasir et al., 2019; Yin, 2018). In sound triangulation, multiple

sources point to the findings in the study. I collected data from five different sources:

interviews, audio recordings transcriptions, field notes, direct observations, and archived

records.

In the following Section 3, when findings are presented, I utilized Yin's (2011)

framework to provide a sequential process for the data analysis. The five steps of this

sequence are compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding.

Within this sequential process, I will conduct thematic analysis. Castleberry and Nolen

(2018) posited that thematic analysis is a methodology that assists the researcher to

identify themes or patterns from the data. I will use these two techniques in combination

for stronger findings.

First, to compile all the data, I will gather the field notes to later compare my

translation to the verbatim transcription of the interviews. I will line my notes up with the

verbatim transcriptions, so my notes are parallel with the transcriptions. Compiling data

assists the researcher in getting familiar with the data and making sense of it (Castleberry

& Nolen, 2018). I will gather the scanned community archived records, and my direct

observations.

Secondly, I will disassemble the data. Disassembling the data is separating parts

to place the data in clearly defined groups (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). I will initially

build a matrix grid to code and (see Appendix C) and to layout, in vertical columns, all

the different factors of cultural intelligence theory. I will break down factors of CQ into

motivational, behavioral, cognition, and metacognition. Vertically, under each factor of

CQ, I will use key elements, and sub-elements, of each factor in additional table rows.

The participants will be listed with their coding of PU1, PU2, PU3, PM1, PM2, PM3,

PM4, horizontally. I will then first review all the data sources and consider sentences and

phrases that are connected to the CQ factors, checking the appropriate boxes on the grid

to get a higher-level picture of potential connections from the themes that begin to

emerge and the connection to CQ theory, Next steps of disassembly will include using

ATLAS.ti to analyze the data on a more comprehensive level. The software can input

audio and text documents and produce codes and themes from all the sources. Yin (2018)

argued that software is useful, but it is the researcher that conducts the interpretive and

reflective thought on this data. So, as a researcher, I will use the software results in my

reassembling and analysis phase as a tool but not as an exhaustive analysis.

The third step, in my data analysis, will be reassembling, which involves creating

themes by working with the codes and categories developed previously. Castleberry and

Nolen (2018) posited that these codes and themes will begin to reflect meaningful data

that will show patterns that connect to the research question; they begin to reveal a larger

picture. I will be conducting thematic analysis, comparing the data from my

transcriptions to the verbatim transcriptions, and will look for codes and patterns that

begin to emerge and match previously predicted strategic themes, such as: (a)

negotiation, (b) problem solving, (c) mutually beneficial outcomes, (d) to avoid conflict

and keep peace, (e) resolve conflict, (f) save face, (g) the best outcome for the most

people, (h) cooperation, (i) better understand a culture, (j) learn about another culture, (k)

be curious about a culture, and more. In the matrix, I will match patterns that emerged in

the data and was previously predicted. I will note any new themes that emerge and

determine if these are connected to CQ theory. A thematic approach to data analysis can

produce reliability and trustworthiness in the qualitative research study because it

provides a sound process (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018; Kiger & Varpio, 2020).

Theme categorization, or pattern matching, could allow for visibility into

strategies that these leaders utilize in intercultural settings that are directly connected to

CQ theory, and particularly to metacognitive strategies. Thematic categorization (coding)

and analysis could identify the theory behind these strategies that connect with cultural

intelligence theory and metacognition. It could highlight if there are significant sub

elements discussed more often than others. Categorization, in qualitative research, allows

the researcher to code data into larger themes and identify potential theory being used

(Grodal et al., 2021). These connections to theory would allow also for generalization of

the study.

The fourth step in the data analysis phase will be interpreting the data.

Interpretation should not just be a final stage of analysis but rather a process that is

ongoing through the five stages of analysis (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). Findings and

interpretation of the study should be of high quality and rigor. Yin posited that this

means, the interpretation should be equitable or fair, complete, authentic and true to the

best ability of the researcher and add contribution to research. I will be utilizing member-

checking with the participants, as stated earlier, which Castleberry and Nolen (2018)

notes is especially important for solo researchers, as it is a test of the validity of the

findings. I will summarize my findings and ask the participants to confirm if I have

conveyed the right meaning in analysis.

The final step in data analysis is concluding. A study should begin with a research

question and the study should produce results that answer this question (Castleberry &

Nolen, 2018). By answering the research question, of what strategies nonprofit leasers

use to develop cross-cultural competency to improve organizational performance, there

should be conclusions that show how a business would apply the learnings from the

research study. The findings, correlated to the construct of cross-cultural competency,

will provide evidence of the ability to generalize the findings. The final stages should

include reliability and validity of the study and will be discussed in the next section.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity provide credibility in a qualitative research study. Cypress

(2017) argued that reliability and validity are not just a process after the data is collected;

It is a process instilled throughout the structure of the study to ensure rigor. The next

section of this paper will detail reliability and validity by using principles and guidelines

for dependability, credibility, transferability, confirmability, and data saturation.

Reliability

Dependability

I created reliability and dependability by explaining the research methodology and

framework and documenting the stages and processes I used throughout the study. I will

document the stages of how I chose participants and how I collected data, organized it,

analyzed, and interpreted it and how I produced the case study findings.

Tying the research questions to the findings will ensure that the study could be

conducted by another researcher and their findings would more than likely be consistent

with my findings. Ensuring the process and the findings of the study can be replicated

will enhance reliability ( Collingridge & Gantt, 2019; Rose & Johnson, 2020). I used

archived records and will use thematic analysis for enhancing reliability. For additional

dependability, I sent the transcripts to the interviewees for their review. The interviewees

had an opportunity to provide feedback to me.

I chose the research methodology and framework as the best fit for the inquiry. I

am conducting research on the border of Mexico to interview organizational leaders that

work cross-culturally and are effective at organizational performance. A qualitative case

study is the best fit for interviews of the leaders and to have them answer research

questions to determine strategies they may use to be more effective interculturally. A

qualitative research case study will create the most trustworthy findings of the

phenomenon. Semistructured in-depth interviews will give me the best insights into

participants’ lived experiences, their strategies, and to make connections to the cultural

intelligence theory.

Validity

In this qualitative case study, I used four principles while collecting data to ensure

the validity of the data collected. I used Yin’s (2018) four-principal model to achieve this

as Yin argued this provides construct validity. The first principle is that I used multiple

sources of the evidence I collected, which provides data triangulation. I asked several

subjects to participate in the study and ended up with seven. I then gained their

permission to participate in the interviews and collect the data. I did record the interviews

but also used external documents from the community and made field observations

during the interviews. The second principle I used was to create two separate case-study

databases. The first database, on the jump-drive, will store the raw interview data. The

second database, on the jump-drive, will store my interpretations of the data collected. I

achieved this by keeping two separate files on the jump drive that I will securely store for

5 years. The third principle is that I would maintain a chain of evidence by connecting the

research questions with the findings of the study. The fourth and final principle is that I

would act with care when gathering evidence from a social media source. I did not end up

using social media as a data source. Validity in the construct of my research will create a

sound and logical study (Rose & Johnson, 2020).

Credibility

In this study, I created credibility and trustworthiness by using triangulation,

transferability, dependability as discussed above, and conformability (Stahl & King,

2020). Stahl & King argued that trustworthiness is critical to sound and rigorous

qualitative research rather than just telling a narrative story. Due diligence adds

credibility to the research.

This qualitative research study will connect the research questions to the theory

and the findings of the case study to create trustworthiness and credibility. The validity,

in qualitative research, can be obtained not by statistics but by the structure of the data

collection through data analysis of findings to create a logical and sound study deemed

valid using set principles and objective guidelines (Cypress, 2017; Yin, 2018). I

described each of the study’s procedural steps, recruiting participants, data collection,

organization, will describe analysis, findings, and conclusions in the below section. I

conducted member-checking with each participant and had them review the final study’s

findings and provide feedback, if needed. Stahl and King (2020) posited that member

checking creates credibility through trustworthiness of the process and researcher as well

as the ability to show how a study finding, contextually, could be used in other settings,

and it creates transferability.

The type of triangulation I used for credibility was data triangulation. I ensured

triangulation and credibility by using several sources of data and having participants

review how data was translated along with the translated data itself, after the interview

process (Stahl & King, 2020). The study participants were asked to determine if the

transcription is what they meant in context. I asked if we interpreted the information the

way it was meant to be interpreted. Since the participants and I work in two languages,

the transcription must be correct in the right context.

Transferability

At the end of the case-study research findings, for purposes of transferability, I

will discuss how readers of this study could apply the findings, in their experiences,

across many nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Many organizations today collaborate

cross-culturally, and the findings could impact how they operate. The findings of the case

study will discuss in what ways could this be used for future research as well as analytical

generalizations that could be made due to the findings of this study. Daniel (2019)

posited that analytical generalizations of the study could be applied to other experiences

or settings leaders are in. For this study to result in social change in communities and

have an impact on the effectiveness and performance of organizations, it must be credible

and transferable.

Confirmability

Quantitative research is more objective using statistics and numbers, a more

quantifiable measurement. Qualitative research tends to be more subjective with narrative

inquiries. For confirmability, I remained as objective as possible throughout data

collection, analysis and findings and used feedback, if necessary, for objectivity. Stahl

and King (2020) argued that conformability is about not creating a reality in the findings

but working towards actual reality in findings. I also utilize Atlas.ti for a second data

analytical tool. I used Atlas.ti to compare audio and test documents to reflect patterns and

themes. Using a third-party software evaluation adds to the objectivity of the findings.

Data Saturation

Data saturation is important to the overall reliability and validity of a research

study, but it is often difficult to determine how many participants or interviews are

enough to illuminate themes in leadership strategies within these cross-cultural teams.

Guest et al. (2020) explained that data saturation could be vague and encouraged a

methodology of thematic analysis for data saturation.

Transition and Summary

Section 2 elements were inclusive of several fundamental components of the

study. First, I discussed the purpose of the study, with a deeper understanding of my role

as a researcher and who the participants were. I discussed the research method, design,

and study population. After discussing ethical considerations and the potential impact on

the study, I explained how I prepared for data collection, collect data, and interpret and

analyze the findings while ensuring reliability and validity. In Section 3, I will present the

findings from the study, implications, and impact on social change, and make

recommendations for future research. I will conclude with my final reflections.

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore strategies that

nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency to improve organizational

performance. First, I would like to explain the number of participants, their country of

origin, and how many interviews were conducted to reach data saturation. Second, I

would like to expound on the type of work each participant does, if they function as an

individual organization or a group of organizations, types of services the organizations

provide and their education levels. Third, I will discuss the reliability and transferability

of the findings. Fourth, I would like to explain the change I made in data compilation.

Finally, I will layout the data analysis and thematic analysis.

Presentation of the Findings

Data Saturation

In the beginning, I held two interviews with two Mexican leaders and two

interviews with two American leaders. Using the Guest et al. (2020) formula for data

saturation, I had not yet met saturation; the percentage of new information was over 5%.

(see Table A1). I procured two more Mexican leaders to interview and one more

American leader. At this point, I had met data saturation with less than 5% of new

information in the interviews. All precautions were taken in reference to the Criteria for

IRB approval of research noted as 45 CFR § 46.111.

Table A1

Data Saturation

Interview Number

New Themes

New Themes in Run

% of Change Over Base

Saturation points at < 5%

Note. This table was reprinted and created and is not in the public domain (Guest et al.,

2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research.

PLoS ONE, 15(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076

Overview of Participants

The leaders who participated in this research were all collaborating cross-

culturally with other countries and were in the northern border regions of Mexico or the

southern border regions of the United States. Three leaders operate in humanitarian

organizations, two in educational organizations, one in governmental and political

organizations, and one in religious and social services. Additionally, some of these

leaders also work in providing shelter, food, and legal aide. Five of the leaders, out of

seven, work with more than one other country and as many as seven different countries of

origin. Most of the leaders worked in collaborative groups or associations that network

with each other rather than operating as a solo organization that is not networking. All

leaders had a bachelor’s degree, three had a master’s degree and one a doctoral degree. I

have met the transferability requirement by taking precautions relative to 45 CRF 46.102.

Types of Service Organizations

There were many types of services provided within these organizations. Services

covered serving populations of indigenous people of the region, migrants of the regions

and both adults and children. The services are offered to vulnerable indigenous and

migrant families providing food, shelter and healthcare, vulnerable populations in poverty

providing food and shelter, migrants in need of social assistance, legal assistance, asylum

aide, and education. Some of these organizations even search the local dumps and streets

in this region for vulnerable children.

Reliability and Transferability of Findings

As a researcher, I created reliability and dependability by explaining my research

method and documenting the stages of my processes throughout the study. I then tied the

research questions to the findings ensuring that the process could be replicated to enhance

reliability (Collingridge & Gantt, 2019; Rose & Johnson, 2020). For validity and data

triangulation, I used multiple sources of data, created a secure location for this data, and

maintained a chain of evidence. I also took care while gathering the evidence. Lastly, I

created credibility and transferability with the data triangulation, connecting the research

questions to the conceptual theory, list out how this study could be applied to the

findings, and discuss ways in which analytical generalizations could be used in future

research.

Data Analysis and Compilation

First, I compiled all the data. I gathered the field notes from the semistructured

interviews and compared them to my translation and the verbatim transcription of the

interviews. I then lined my notes up with the verbatim transcriptions, so my notes were

parallel with the transcriptions. Compiling data assists the researcher in getting familiar

with the data and making sense of it (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). I gathered the scanned

community archived records, and my direct observations.

Second, I disassembled the data. Disassembling the data is separating parts in

order to place the data in clearly defined groups (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). I initially

built a matrix grid to code and (see Appendix C) and to layout, in vertical columns, all

the different factors of cultural intelligence theory. I broke down factors of CQ into

motivational, behavioral, cognition, and metacognition. Vertically, under each factor of

CQ, I was going to use key elements, and sub-elements, of each factor in additional table

rows. The participants were listed with their coding of PU1, PU2, PU3, PM1, PM2, PM3,

and PM4, horizontally. I was going to review all the data sources and consider sentences

and phrases that are connected to the CQ factors, checking the appropriate boxes on the

grid to get a higher-level picture of potential connections from the themes that begin to

emerge and the connection to CQ theory.

What I chose to do, instead, was to create an additional matrix grid with the

research questions listed vertically and then participants responses horizontally for each

question. What it ultimately ended up allowing me to do was to better determine data

saturation and each new piece of information that showed up in each interview. It also

allowed me to better see patterns and themes across participants. Then, I placed the

strategies in the first matrix grid that lines up strategies and themes with the conceptual

framework of cultural intelligence theory.

The next step I took was to disassemble data by using ATLAS.ti to analyze the

data on a more comprehensive level. The software can input audio and text documents

and connects codes and themes from all the sources. It also created quotations from the

interviews. Yin (2018) argued that software is useful, but it is the researcher that conducts

the interpretive and reflective thought on this data. So, as a researcher, I used the software

results in my reassembling and analysis phase as a tool but not as an exhaustive analysis.

It is meant to complement the themes identified in matrix grids one and two and they will

be jointly presented in the findings of this study.

Third, I reassembled the data using my grids and software analysis to match

patterns. I used these as a tool in the analysis phase of reassembling. Using the tools, I

was able to identify codes and ultimately themes. Nolan (2018) posited that these codes

and themes begin to reflect meaningful data that will show patterns that connect to the

research question. Using Atlas.ai, during the thematic analysis, I was able to compare

data and begin to see the patterns emerging and matching previously predicted strategic

themes such as: (a) negotiation (collective and collaborative groups), (b) problem-solving

(collective strategy development), (c) avoiding conflict (tasks and goal focus), (d)

mutually beneficial outcomes (valuing all cultures and using collectivism as well as

cooperation), (e) better understand culture, learn about culture, be curious about culture

(recognition, acknowledgment and value of distinct cultures).

Last, I interpreted and concluded the data. In the following section, I will present

the findings of the research and the semistructured interviews. By going through this data

analysis process, I can show how the answers to the research questions show how a

business could apply the learnings from the study.

Themes

The overarching research question for this study was “What strategies do

nonprofit leaders use to develop cross-cultural competency to improve organizational

performance?” I conducted semistructured interviews via Zoom to explore the strategies

these leaders use to be highly effective.

The pattern matching and thematic analysis exposed five themes that leaders

utilize to develop cross-cultural competency and to improve their organizational

performance and effectiveness of their teams in collaboration. The five themes were: (a)

effective leaders create groups and collaborate as a group of organizations or

associations; (b) effective leaders determine goals and strategies together as a team; (c)

effective leaders keep the focus on organizational goals; (d) effective leaders set a

collectivist vs. individualistic tone in the team culture; (e) effective leaders recognize,

acknowledge, and value distinct cultures and each culture’s needs. I will identify the

themes, describe in what ways findings confirm, disconfirm, or extend knowledge in the

discipline by comparing the findings with other peer-reviewed studies from the literature

review and then tie the findings to the conceptual framework.

Table A2

Themes and Subthemes Table

Theme

Subthemes

Theme 1: Collective

Alliance Strategy

• Collaborations

• The ability to negotiate

• Working across multiple cultures

requires strategies

• The ability to acquire more

resources through networking

Theme 2: Co-Decision

Making Strategy

• Communication and

Listening

• Empathy and Respect

• The ability to use communication

and listening to support collective

goal setting.

• The ability to use empathy and

respect to support collective goal

setting.

Theme 3: Cooperative

Goal Focus Strategy

• Conflict Management

• Task or goal focus

• Conflict management

Theme 4: Collectivist

Culture Strategy

• Training

• Cognition

• Cooperation and

Competition

• Training

Theme 5: Cultural

Inclusion Strategy

• Cultural Inclusion

• No subthemes

Theme 1: Collective Alliance Strategy

The first theme that became apparent, across most all leaders was the creation of

groups, or groups of organizations, that network together and collaborate; a collective

alliance strategy. From all interviews, 71% of participants agreed on the need to network

and ban together to solve multiple problems in society and to share resources amongst

multiple organizations. Five out of seven leaders agreed that networking was vital and

valued. These groups are created and act as a group of organizations or an association

with all of the groups as members. Some of the leaders even developed committees with

a member from each group on the committee to make larger decisions for all of the

groups. PM1 described the creation of these groups:

We started with social services, with basic needs, and since one place cannot help

with all needs, that’s when we started the task of creating this network of

associations, to reach more places, more people, and from that was formed the

migrant committee, as we call it, which was specifically created to help migrants

with national associations and international associations.

Giorgi et al. (2017) that focused on the work of Saul Alinsky (Alinsky, 1989) and

mobilizing people across cultures, mirrors the strategies that these leaders discussed in

this larger networking and collaboration. The research explored how organizations

mobilizing together, as a group, creates networks for solutions, opportunities, and

resources.

The implications, from understanding how networking works, for positive social

change are that leaders navigate the complexities effectively, and functionally operate

interculturally to collaborate and network (Giorgi et al., 2017). If nonprofit organizations

then improve their performance and catalyze organizational collaboration, they can

become more effective at achieving their missions. Organizations achieving their

missions directly impacts the populations of people across the world that they are serving.

The bottom line for organizations is directly impacting, enhancing, and changing lives.

PM3 agreed, almost verbatim, with PM1 that developing associations and networks is

highly important and a part of why they are so effective: “What has functioned as a

strategy for the last 4 years, a bit before the pandemic and during the pandemic, is

organizing ourselves with the associations together.” PU2 also discussed this strategy and

PM3 continued, “Our city is one of the most well-run border cities because of these

coalitions – these collaborations.” These cooperations are about partnerships and

networking.”

Collaborations

A few subthemes were identified that assist these leaders in effective networking

and collaborations. Several participants mentioned these subthemes when discussing the

association of organizations. The first subtheme is negotiation as in collaborations. Cross-

cultural conversations and interactions, as team members, are negotiations (Imai &

Gelfand, 2010). Negotiations may occur between members from different cultural teams

or on the same one. The participants identified negotiation as a skillset that was vital and

important but talked about it in the form of collaboration and compromise. PM2 stated:

“Over the years, churches, groups, and individuals, that give us help, the majority have

cooperation with us.” PM4 stated:

We work hand in hand with representatives of socially or culturally disadvantaged

populations that we have, so that they can give us a little more help in

understanding their needs and interests. As well as leaders of different

organizations with similar objectives, to obtain feedback and use that to facilitate

making decisions.

PU2 explained that collaboration and cooperation work by stating: “We continue to come

into the problem until we have a solution and involve others until the problem is solved.

We always involve everyone in the decision making when it comes to

resolving…problems.” These negotiations, and interactions, require that leaders have

higher-level cultural competency skills; they need negotiation and problem-solving skills.

As discussed earlier, Giorgi et al. (2017) conducted a literature review that

centrally focused on the work of Saul Alinsky and mobilizing people across cultures. The

researchers ultimately constructed a model that defined underlying antecedents to the

model: resources, interests, networks, and opportunities. The model identified how

important cultural competency and cultural brokerage, negotiation, plays a role in

impacting social change through the mobilization of groups of people who do not share

the same cultures but have the same collective goals. Individuals and groups utilize

cultural competency to appreciate the value and meaning of other cultures. They utilize

cultural brokerage to navigate and negotiate through these differences. Gomez and Taylor

(2018) found the unexpected. Mexican participants were more prone to using the

negotiation tactics over U.S. participants, which enhances intercultural collaboration

(Beeler & Lecomte, 2017).

In cultural competency, using meta strategies as a skillset, with metacognition,

becomes an antecedent to successfully navigating negotiations. Groves et al. (2015)

explained that although metacognition was beginning to show up in more research,

studies were limited on cultural competency and its impact on negotiation. So, they

conducted a study to fill the gaps that examined the relationship between effective skillset

in negotiating cross-culturally and found that CQ has a direct impact on the effectiveness

of negotiation. These metastrategies are in metacognition of cultural intelligence theory.

Negotiations for these leaders reveal themselves as mediation and compromise and

negotiation actually enhances collaboration. PM1 stated that: “In this case, as we work

with the United States associations and the Mexican ones, there always has to be a

mediator, for when there is a discrepancy or a difference of opinion that arises.” PU2

explained that: “The director, the leader, is the one that probably behaves, negotiates, or

acts differently.”

The second subtheme is the idea that working across multiple cultures requires

strategies and collaboration. PM1 stated: “The importance of using strategies to

encompass all of the situations of immigrations is the fact that there are many different

cultures from many different countries. So, we have to have a specific strategy.” PU2

explained that each of the organizations in these groups need to benefit: “Not only is it

beneficial for one NGO, it has to be beneficial for all. It is not appropriate if only one

[organization] is thriving and others are barely surviving.” PU2 continued, “It has to be

beneficial for all organizations in those communities in other communities. And so, we

don't give food to just one place. We give food to many places. We don't just give

educational dollars to one NGO; we give it too multiple….” So, the idea that they have

adopted is a very collectivist idea that all of these organizations are going to end up

benefiting. PM3 agreed that collaboration helps their organization. PM4 stated: “It helps

to continue preparing ourselves, working to obtain our goals and commitments. We have

to organize our ideas and put them into action, so they don’t just stay intentions.

Interculturalism is the reality we are living in, in our city.” The ability to be effective is

critical as they must navigate diverse cultures other than their own and cooperate and

collaborate in cultures that are dimensionally and contextually, opposites (Chen et al.,

2018; Liu et al., 2018; Plessis, 2012). If nonprofit organizations improve their

performance and catalyze organizational collaboration, they can become more effective

at achieving their missions.

The observations were interesting across all four Mexican national interviews.

PM1, PM2, PM3, and PM4, all growing up in a collectivist society, used terminology in

one form or another that they actually studied and researched the cultures they were

working with as a way to better collaborate with each other; to be more effective through

respect and cultural sensitivity. PM1 stated, “We study their culture so as not to offend

and help them…on their journey or path to the border.” PM4 stated, “Studying the needs

of the population, there must be total coordination between the organizations….”

The third subtheme was the ability to acquire more resources through networking.

It increases the ability to meet the goals of the organization in procuring resources from

donors and that the mission is achieved by effectively serving the needy citizens and

solving societal problems. PU2 explained that they collaborate with the Americans and

Mexicans. The Americans provide the monetary or financial resources, and the Mexicans

and migrants provide the labor resources: “They just provide the resources and the

Mexican national NGPOs determine how they will use these resources in the best way.”

These leaders gain resources but empower the local nationals, they give them autonomy

and control and do not expect to gain control because they provide resources. PM4

attested to how entities can provide each other with resources as well: “Studying the

needs of the population, there must be total coordination between the organizations that

participate in providing [help], between civil society, government associations, and the

social and cultural environment.”

Giorgi et al. (2017), illuminated the idea that in these collaborations, this very

model provides opportunities, networks and resources. Gooden (2017) determined that

components of CQ had a direct impact on the behavior of the participants. Helping

individuals and teams hone their CQ skills in the areas of motivational, cognitive, and

metacognitive skills is an effective way to benefit organizations in achieving their

missions because it increases the likelihood that they will then act and behave in ways

that are culturally intelligent. The ramifications for organizations are that teams will

interact more successfully which turns into economic value for an organization. Teams

performing at high levels, cooperating, and utilizing less time, perform in ways that equal

bottom dollar profits for business or attainment of people and resources for nonprofits.

These leaders are exemplifying the use of strategies that allow them to gain more

resources for society, but it is a meta strategy they are using by collaborating and

cooperating, through negotiation, in order to achieve these resources.

Connections Between the Theme and the Conceptual Framework

In cultural competency, using meta strategies as a skillset of metacognition

becomes an antecedent to successfully navigating negotiations; it was described as

cultural brokerage – or negotiating across cultures. Negotiations for these leaders reveal

themselves as mediation between alliances, compromise between people and

organizations and the art of negotiation. There are behavioral aspects to changing their

behavior in these environments as well as motivational. Leaders make a choice to contain

emotion and mediate and compromise. The significance of metacognition is that it lays

the foundation necessary for leaders to behave differently, contain emotion, and

intellectually work through a mutually beneficial outcome. Metacognitive process is

fueling the ability for these leaders to do that and are far more effective by using it.

Connections with the Literature Review

As a summary of the above theme’s connections to the literature review, although

not exhaustive, I will list a few of the connections that point directly to metacognition.

Imai and Gelfand (2010) posited that cross cultural conversations and the interactions

between people are a negotiation in and of themselves. They also highlighted the need to

use metacognition as a strategy to effectively negotiate. Most of the Americans did not

discuss negotiating as often as the Mexicans. The findings align with what Gomez and

Taylor (2018) found; Mexicans use negotiation as a strategy for more often than

Americans. Lastly, Groves et al. (2015) showcased that cultural competency, specifically

metacognition, has a direct impact on a leader’s ability to effectively negotiate which

aligns with the effectiveness of these leaders to create these networks of strategic

alliances.

Theme 2: Codecision Making Strategy

An organization should understand their goals in terms of mission and vision but

also the strategies they will use and how they will develop them. PM1, PM2, PM3, PU1,

and PU2 all expounded on the idea that organizations need goals and strategies, but they

must determine what the goals will be and what the strategies will be, together as a team.

PM1 stated,

The importance to use strategies to encompass all of the situations of the

immigration, is the fact that there are many different cultures from many different

countries. So, we have to have a specific strategy. We have to emphasize that

there are many cultures, including religions, that can be very distinct compared to

Mexican. So then, we have to elaborate these strategies as a team, including

American associations and Mexican ones, efficiently to implement our strategy.

PM2 comparatively explained that the reasons why an organization will serve society and

in what ways they will serve them must be formed together:

Organizing as a group, one American group and another Mexican one, planning

and structuring the jobs that we had, to help vulnerable people that are affected by

poverty. And working together, both Americans and Mexicans we move forward,

forming the reasons and ways in which to serve.

Additionally, PU2’s strategies to determine goals and strategies together was by

asking several questions. Rather than making assumptions, they ask each other: How can

we help each other? What do you need as a group and how can we help? When goals and

values differ between team members it is important to create a specific culture and

strategy. One of those strategies is to goal set together and set strategy together.

The number of nonprofit organizations using multicultural teams to accomplish

goals requires that these team members and leaders have skill sets and strategies that will

allow them to be effective with cross-cultural competency. When goals and values differ

between team members it is important to create a specific culture and strategy. What

PM1, PM2, PM3, PU1, and PU2 are describing is similar to the work of Chen et al.

(2018). Chen et al. posited that behavioral strategies determine the probability of

mutually beneficial outcomes among parties involved. These strategies send signals to the

other team members about the probability of the relationship being cooperative and

mutually benefiting the goals of the organization as well as individual benefits. If

behavior signals a low probability of a mutually beneficial outcome, teams begin to hoard

information and knowledge, stop communicating and become highly ineffective.

These leaders use behavioral strategies that sends a sign of cooperation and

cooperative outcomes, mutually beneficial outcomes, as each organization gets to be a

part of the larger goal and strategy setting. Teams are more apt to be cooperative when

they have helped design the outcomes and the way they serve the community. Similarly,

Gil et al. (2019) found team performance more effective with collectivist influence which

impacted effective team performance. A specific strategy would be to have the

management team express collectivist organizational goals, then the team will respond in

a more collectivist way rather than letting their individual goals drive the outcomes as

they built through codecision making.

There were two sub themes that stood out in the interviews as these leaders

discussed their strategy of team goal and strategy development. The first was their ability

to use communication and listening to support collective goal setting. The second was

their ability to use empathy and respect to support collective goal setting.

Communication and Listening

Metacognition is the antecedent to having more cultural competency.

Metacognition is closely connecting communication and listening because it includes

learning language and adapting communication styles that are part of acquiring higher

levels of CQ. Metacognition creates or fuels the mental capabilities to formulate

strategies that help navigate complexities of intercultural interactions and effectively

collaborate (Lorenz et al., 2018). These strategies allow for teams to function well

together and perform to meet organizational goals.

PU2 explained the importance of good communication: “and their able to trust

each other because they have built a relationship and its highly important because the

ineffective teams are ones not communicating; they are not listening to each other.” PU2

also stated: “Listen more than you talk and get feedback in both directions.” PU1

provided more depth by stating, “…that is why you have two ears and only one mouth.

You have to be able to listen.” This leader’s answers are in direct agreement with

Charleston’s (2014) who emphasized the need to communicate, slow communication, and

ask clarifying questions.

Empathy and Respect

There was still something different about these leaders’ answers. They were

exuding and discussing how important this collectivist approach to strategize and goal set

is. However, they also emphasized the deep need to communicate well, listen and also

have respect and empathy in these communications. PM4 eloquently and factually stated

that:

We govern ourselves depending on the needs of the group, as each group has their

own principal needs that need to be attended, so we adapt to them, always

characterizing ourselves governing ourselves on the principle of horizontality.

Which means that no culture is more than another, interacting in the most

respectful and empathetic way possible.

She also stated, “with cultural respect, cultural tolerance, and dialogue, we recognize

diversity as a medium of mutual enrichment, and empathetic communication is very

important.” PU3 was in agreement as PU3 discussed the idea that, “…you have to be

respectful of, you know, what their culture is like.”

PM4 was the one leader that specifically used words such as intercultural context,

empathetic listening, respect, how we govern ourselves (actions and behavior), how we

prepare ourselves (reflection and practice). The research by Mor et al. (2013) played a

critical role in helping leaders train individuals on how to problem solve by perspective

taking prior to and during intercultural settings to gain more cooperation and positive

outcomes. This is exactly what PM4 is discussing and illuminating in terms of an

effective strategy. PM4 was using the actual language of the CQ and specifically the

motivational factor, identifying meta-strategies from the conceptual framework.

Metacognition is the ability to understand cultural settings, to negotiate and problem-

solve, and adjust one’s own assumptions. PM4 is combining this reflection and practice

with gaining knowledge and assessing it which is a meta-cognitive skill.

Li (2020) defined metacognition as critically thinking about what you know once

you have gathered the cultural, or cognitive, knowledge. There is an involvement with

one’s self-regulatory processes and being able to be intentional in strategic application

and think out strategies in advance. Metacognition skill allows an individual to check

their own assumptions and biases and make sense of an intercultural setting that is

different than what they anticipated (Lorenz et al., 2018). PM1, PM3, and PM4 are

preparing, practicing, reflecting, checking their own assumptions and although PM1,

PM2, PM3, PU2 and PU1 do not use these specific words, they are explaining these very

actions, behaviors, and mental strategies.

Connections Between the Theme and the Conceptual Framework

The behavioral and motivational aspects of CQ are what drives the actions of

someone and how motivated they are to behave in a different way, such as learning a new

language, or adapt their communication style. These leaders are utilizing the behavioral

and motivational components of CQ by changing their own behavior to communicate

differently, empathetically and respectfully (Henderson et al., (2018). However,

behavioral and motivational CQ require levels of cognition and metacognition to take

action and behave differently. Metacognition is about critical thinking about what you

know once you have gathered the knowledge. There is an involvement with one’s self-

regulatory processes and being able to be intentional in strategic application, such as

communication and listening, and think out strategies in advance. Metacognition skill

allows an individual to check their own assumptions and biases and make sense of an

intercultural setting that is different than what they anticipated. These leaders are also

using metacognition by preparing, practicing, reflecting, and checking their own

assumptions.

Connections with the Literature Review

As a summary to the above theme connections to the literature review, several

research studies defined metacognition as critically thinking about one’s own thinking,

100

preparing for cultural encounters, practicing developing the skill and reflecting on what

worked and what did not, which is what the findings showed as leaders prepare, practice,

reflect and check their own assumptions (Li, 2020; Lorenz et al., 2018). The research by

Mor et al. (2013) highlighted training individuals to reflect, prepare, and practice which is

also parallel with the findings. Almost verbatim, these leaders discussed listening

empathetically and respectfully which mirrors Charleston’s (2014) research and the need

to communicate, intentionally slow down communication and ask clarifying questions so

they are not making assumptions. Lastly, the work of Lorenz (2018) posited that

metacognition is what creates or fuels the mental capabilities to formulate strategies that

help navigate complexities in these multicultural teams and that is exactly what these

leaders are discussing. As stated above, almost verbatim, PM1 specifically spoke about

the need to have strategies because of these complexities with diverse teams which is the

practice of metacognitive skills.

Theme 3: Cooperative Goal Focus Strategy

Multicultural teams are unique and complex due to individuals having differing

values and culture. Much of the literature that was reviewed, above, mentioned focusing

groups on collective goals rather than on individual relationships. Following, I will

contrast the peer-reviewed literature on goal focus or task focus to being effective in

organizational performance.

Klein et al. (2011) posited that diversity of team members, in organizations, are

the topic of research studies but rarely are the researchers addressing team diversity and

examining the relationship between team diversity and team conflict and the effect this

101

has on team performance. The authors conducted a longitudinal study that reflected the

positive impact a leader can have on reducing team conflict when they focus the team on

the task versus people. Not one leader, in this study, mentioned people focus. When

leaders focus on task identification and role responsibilities, it suppresses acting in an

individualistic way and transforms team behavior to collective behavior. PM1, PM2,

PM3, and PM4’s leadership takes this very approach of focusing on what they have in

common together in the organization. PM4 stated:

Studying the needs of the population, there must be total coordination between the

organizations that participate in providing help, between civil society, government

associations and the social and cultural environment that surrounds us. This

includes interaction between each part and finding what we have in common to

work together.

PM3 corroborated the same strategy. PM3 stated, “Every group has a job, one job, each

group. What matters is that the needs make everyone work together.” PM1, PM4 and

PM3 are utilizing the motivational factor of CQ by being motivated to learn about other

cultures and attempt to understand them. However, they are also using meta-cognitive

strategies to make sense of what they have learned. Next, I will expound on how task

focus, and goal focus, plays a role in these effective leaders’ strategies.

Task focus is the best solution to keep the team performing (Ghulam et al., 2017).

Relationship focuses, on the other hand, (Plessis, 2012) focuses the team on each other

and therefore they are unable to return to the task at hand; the conflict becomes a barrier

to performance. If the relationships break down, the teams begin to hoard information

102

and restrict important information to the team. So, focusing on the task is an important

stabilizer of other differences. In nonprofit organizations the tasks and roles and

responsibilities revolve around the larger goals of the organization and keeps teams

focused on what they have in common.

Avoid or Address Conflict

One subtheme that arose while discussing task focus and focusing on the goals as

common ground, was the management of conflict. What was interesting is the division of

how these leaders handle conflict, although they are each still effective in meeting goals,

managing conflict, and performing organizationally. The division of how they each

handle conflict will be discussed in connection to peer-reviewed literature.

In terms of conflict, in behavioral CQ, team members behave several different

ways towards other team members. Individuals may behave with smoothness, avoidance,

compromise, force, or collaboration and these behaviors will determine if conflict

amongst the team creates conflict that is constructive or destructive (Ahmad & Saidalavi,

2019). Constructive conflict creates creativity and innovation but destructive will break

down team performance.

To understand constructive conflict and resolution, relative to goals, it is

important to understand the values of the individual members of the team (Klein et al.,

2011; Mor et al., 2019). Team members often express frustration with differing values

and goals in teams. If this is not handled properly it can be destructive and disrupt the

teams’ organizational performance. PM2 was diligent in explaining that she evaluates the

values and goals in terms of alignment with the organization as she considers them for

103

volunteering: “Yes, [making sure they align with goals] but not always with the same

ideas.” PM2’s method of conflict resolution was avoidance to preserve the relationship.

PM2 did not acknowledge that there was conflict and went so far as to say there was none

because they all have the same goal to help others but PM2 went through the actions of

vetting out volunteers in advance to make sure they would be better aligned with the

organization. PM2 stated: “No, [ there is no conflict] because we have the focus of

helping people in need.” PM2’s approach is in direct agreement with the research of both

Plessis (2012) and Chen et al., (2018). It is a more of a cooperative and collectivist act.

PM3 was a leader that also handles conflict with an avoidance style, saving face

and preserving the relationship. PM3 stated, “In reality, in 30 years of working, I have

had two unwelcome situations. I am president of medical tourism and I have already 12

years in that area. My work lets me avoid conflicts and try to resolve situations.”

PM1 took a different approach to conflict as well as PU3. Both leaders used

mediation or voting as a means to find resolve and to compromise. PM1stated, “In this

case, as we work with United States associations and Mexican ones, there always has to

be a mediator, for when there is a discrepancy or a difference of opinion that arises.

Obviously, there is a mediator, that he has the last word. Because we always, always,

always, are right (said jokingly).”

PU2 is a leader that works across the United States and Mexico, but they

collectively collaborate with seven to eight different countries. PU2’s approach to

conflict was to not expend any energy on this as it seemed to be a waste of time. PU2

104

stated: “Why would we want to waste any energy on fighting because we have people to

serve here. Our focus should be, you know, how are we going to help people?”

Teams, across the globe, that work cross-culturally or on intercultural teams, are

unique and have complex dynamics because of the mix of differing values, goals, culture,

ethnicity and more. Leading diverse teams requires a leader to utilize strategies to be

effective in mobilizing these teams’ and maximizing organizational performance. The

findings of this study on leaders’ focus on the goals of the organization, or task focus, and

how they manage conflict is closely connected to the conceptual framework of cultural

intelligence.

Organizational leaders must have the ability to manage conflict inherent to the

multicultural teams they lead (Liu et al., 2018). It requires the ability to understand why

the conflict is happening in the first place, and then the ability to mitigate negative

aspects of this conflict and use it in a positive way. Conflict can be positive in terms of

disruption and coming up with new ideas (Nancy Chen et al., 2018). However, the

negative aspects of it must be harnessed and reversed. Leaders often underestimate the

inevitability of conflict among the team members. Conflict occurs because of

communication style differences, different means of conflict resolution, having different

historical and contextual lenses, as well as operating from a different place in terms of

cultural norms and values (Plessis, 2012; Schreuders-van den Bergh & Du Plessis, 2016).

One reason there is conflict in these teams is that each individual communicates

differently, especially across cultural lines. Due to differences in communication styles,

this kind of conflict results in constructive or destructive conflict (Ahmad & Saidalavi,

105

2019). There are language barriers, different meaning of words, and communication

styles such as indirect and direct communication (Adam & Harika, 2017). When

communication is ineffective, there is often an inability to build relationships and trust

and truly understand the conveyed meaning. When teams do not understand the meaning,

they begin to distrust their intercultural team members and performance slows down

(Latusek & Vlaar, 2018).

These leaders, although using two very different conflict resolution styles are all

very effective leaders. A second strategy of metacognition is the ability to manage, and

mitigate, conflict. Individuals that are culturally competent could make sense of the

complex dynamic and work through this conflict with and for their team. These leaders

have learned to navigate and manage this conflict and find ways to help their team bridge

the gap and reduce barriers, they are unable to see or understand. Half of the leaders use

avoidance and aligning their volunteers as much as keeping the focus on the overall goal

they have of serving needy citizens. The other half of the leaders use negotiation,

mediation, compromise, and a fair and equitable way to resolve conflict with mutually

beneficial outcomes or agreed upon outcomes.

Connections Between the Theme and the Conceptual Framework

The higher levels of metacognition include sensemaking, conflict resolution,

negotiation, and decision-making. Meta strategies of metacognition requires that a leader

has the skillset to make sense of their environment and what is happening in these

settings and then to create a strategy towards conflict resolution in the group.

Metacognitive skills also allow a leader to intentionally formulate strategies and then find

106

ways to strategically apply them. These skills also give leaders the ability to intentionally

set belief systems in the culture of the organization and contain emotion as a means to

resolve conflict. All of these leaders, as described above, are utilizing these higher-level

meta strategies of CQ to set belief systems, make sense of their settings and navigate

conflict resolution and problem solving, effectively.

Connections with the Literature Review

As a summary to the above connections of the findings to the literature review,

Klein et al. (2011) studied how goal focus to mitigate conflict can be used for

constructive means vs. destructive means. Their work showcased how this meta strategy

had a direct impact on changing team behavior. The same conclusive findings were in the

work of Ghulam et al. (2017) and Plessis (2011) as their study illuminated the need to be

cooperative and collaborative with diverse team dynamics. The findings of the study

show that leaders who are more effective are using cooperation and collaboration as a

strategy. Next, I will discuss another intentional and strategic application of setting a

collectivist culture in the organization.

Theme 4: Collectivist Culture Strategy

Much of the research in the literature review, revolving around Liu et al.’s (2018)

research and Chen et al.’s (2018), involves the idea of creating and cultivating an

organizational culture that has a tone of collectivism. The researchers work evolved

around the leader setting the tone and beliefs of the team members that all team members

would benefit, mutually. Chen et al.’s work prompted leaders to utilize Eastern

collectivism in their organizations. This type of environment promotes inclusion of all

107

members, sets a belief that all will benefit, sets a cooperative tone and expectation that

the team will always reach a cooperative approach with each other. This type of culture

creation lays the very foundation for a high-performing and effective team.

The leaders in this study, exude and exemplify the very type of leader Chen et al.

(2018) is discussing. Five out of seven leaders mentioned strategies around cooperative

or beneficial outcomes a well as studying cultures and being respectful to develop

inclusion. PU2 explained that they continue to work on a problem until it is resolved.

Their organizational members continue to come back, and problem solve until it is

resolved [any organizational issue]. They come to the table assuming that there is going

to be a solution; they come to the table knowing there will be a solution. PU2 also stated:

“There is a great deal of respect. There has to be respect, dialogue, authenticity, and

transparency.” PU2 went on to discuss the value this environment and culture adds to

members: “Many of them have, you know, educated backgrounds, they have degrees.

They just tend to flee their country for one reason or another. But they have skills they

are bringing to the table. They have master’s degrees, teaching degrees, and so this gives

them a feeling that they are contributing, and this gives them their self-respect and their

dignity back and they are making a contribution to the organization.” PM3 stated, “…we

make decisions together. Everything is together.”

Brycz et al. (2015) conducted a quantitative study and issued a Metacognitive Self

Scale questionnaire to 985 participants. The participants were from Poland, the United

States, Spain, England, Vietnam, Japan, and India. The researchers hypothesized that

individuals from collectivist societies, vs. individualistic, had a higher level of

108

metacognition and were able to examine their self-bias. This was more difficult for a

participant from an individualist society. Brycz posited that this was impacted by culture

and so there are differences of levels of metacognition depending on the society the

individual is from. The same findings came from Van der Plas et al. (2022). There is a

cultural impact on the accuracy of judging one’s own self-biases. PU2 stated, “…most

people will come to the table with an answer of exactly what they feel they need but often

times, if we are not asking the question, we make assumptions, and we start helping in

ways that are not helping.” When interacting cross-culturally, it is important to be aware

of this and adjust for one’s behavior. Those from collectivist societies are better at this

self-evaluation of their own assumptions. If someone is from an individualistic society, it

is good to be aware of this for self-evaluation and to learn how to self-examine in a more

accurate way. Leaders could help train and coach their team members to create awareness

and business application. One additional strategy that PU2 implements, for self-

evaluation, is to ask for feedback: “…get feedback in both directions….”

One additional insight from this interview with PU2 is that you can ask for

feedback, but you have to build relationships so that you can ask for feedback,

objectively and, “understand each other’s intentions even when they don’t make sense.”

PU2 was specifically using the metacognitive strategy of sensemaking in these scenarios.

Cultural intelligence strategies, metacognitive specifically, help individuals make sense

of the current interactions they are in and begin to cognitively understand these

differences and help their teams see through a different lens (Beeler & Lecomte, 2017).

109

What I found, in the semistructured interviews, was similar. As a collectivist

society, the Mexican nationals identified far more collective terms and strategies. The

United States nationals identified fewer. The Mexican national participants discussed

collective strategies, or collective outcomes, respecting other cultures, incorporating

associations, and making collective decisions, there did not appear to be an understanding

that they are behaving in any way that would be different from the U.S. However, they

identified far more collective terms than the U.S. nationals coming from an

individualistic society.

Other examples of a collectivist spirit were when PM1 stated:

Similarly, even though they are migrant people, they bring different distinct

cultures to the country that they are traveling to or wanting to eventually end up

in, and we have to also rescue, in a certain way, their cultures so that they will

have a good stay. It’s like helping them remember where they are coming from,

so that they do not lose their roots. And the culture, whether it be Mexican,

Haitian, Puerto Rican, Salvadorean, United States, continues being part of their

essence.

PM1’s response is in direct agreement with the research and work of Schwartz et al.

(2020) and the ability to use meta strategies that value cultural differences and not using

ethnocentrism believing in only one cultures ways. PM4 explained a collectivist spirit

through inclusiveness:

Studying the needs, we always look to work hand in hand with a spokesman or

leader of these types of communities. With migrants, for example, I can tell you

110

that Cubans have more interest in health with health topics. For example, Haitians

are a little more concerned with diet. Each group has its own needs. And we try to

adapt to them.

Adaptation is a motivational and behavioral component of CQ. Not only are these

leaders motivated to adapt but they must change their behavior to do so. Mangla (2021)

posited recently that people who have a higher level of CQ can actually and intentionally

change their own behavior. However, it still takes cognitive skills of knowing what they

are adapting to and why as well as metacognitive skills of making sense of the adaptation.

The development of cultural competency, and metacognition, assists leaders in using

strategies to manage conflict in cross-cultural settings, make sense of cultural contexts,

and solve problems within the team since diverse work teams experience contextual

differences that cultural adaptation alone does not navigate (Groves et al., 2015).

Gomez and Taylor (2018) research reached an unexpected conclusion. Mexican

nationals were more prone to using the negotiation tactics over U.S. participants, which

enhances intercultural collaboration (Beeler & Lecomte, 2017). Mexicans did not fall

heavily on preference to ignore the situation, which is contrasting the exact opposite

findings by Olsen (2013). The caveat in the research by Gomez and Taylor (2018) is that

in these kinds of negotiations, participants expected more of a collaboration for a

mutually beneficial outcome. PM1, PM2, PM3, PM3, and PU2 all expected collaborative

and cooperative outcomes. PM4 stated, “It helps us to continue preparing ourselves,

working together to obtain our goals, and that our commitments are oriented in the best

way to achieve inter-cultural society advances.”

111

Training

One subtheme that came out of this collectivist approach was the studying,

training, and coaching that these leaders had or display. PU2 discussed, “learning the

language…” to be able to act or behave differently. PU2’s supervisor gives her direct

feedback and coaches her in what might be culturally appropriate or inappropriate. This

training component is parallel to the research and findings of Headley (2021), Kumar

(2021) and Mor et al. (2013) in that these skills can be adapted by staff through training.

PU2 also stated, “[My supervisor] he is Latino himself. He’s Latino American but he

understands the Latin culture. He understands, you know, the traditions, historical

context, language, and nuances and because of that he gives us direct feedback.”

PM1 took the approach of taking a census and using surveys as a means of

training and studying the culture and desires of the groups. PM1 was asked how were

these strategies developed? PM1 stated: “There has been, how would you say, a census

for the immigrants, and based on that, they decide how many, based on each country,

approximately as there is not an exact figure, are from each country on our border.

Then, based on that, it can be identified how many there are from each country,

and we see what they consume the most in their countries so that they do not have a

gastrointestinal sickness, see what their uses and customs are, so we can also see where

we should employ them during their stay, for those who want to be employees.” The

leader is intentionally studying and learning about each culture. PM1 stated, “We study

their culture so as not to offend and help them foment these ideas on their journey or path

to the border.” PM4 stated, “I learned it from leaders and the formation we have with the

112

associations, also courses, workshops for social support.” PU3 stated, “Well, basically,

[our leader] is our cross-cultural instrument in working between the US and Mexico.”

These leaders who discussed training and coaching all had partners, leaders, or

collaborators that could give them feedback, guide them and teach them cultural nuances

and appropriateness, as well as help them study cultures for better knowledge and

understanding. Training, coaching, studying, learning, gaining knowledge are all

cognitive and metacognitive strategies for sense making, problem solving, negotiating

and resolving conflict.

Cognition

The third element of cultural intelligence, or cultural competency, cognition.

Cognition is the awareness of a culture, or the traditions of the main culture ((Bernardo &

Presbitero, 2018). Groves et al. (2015) posited that cognition is related much closer to

metacognition and the decision making, or critical thinking, process. However, cultural

knowledge alone does not provide all the strategies when individuals behave differently,

communicate differently, solve conflict differently and the cultural context changes (Liu

et al., 2018). Cognitive ability, alone, does not allow a team member to make sense of the

situation, negotiate and problem solve, and adapt differently through the complexities.

Multiple researchers argue that metacognition is required (Goryunova, 2020; Leung et al.,

2013; Mor et al., 2013). These leaders in the semistructured interviews are using

cognitive and higher-level meta strategies of metacognition. Let me give you some

examples.

113