550 words essay - 4 sources total - use the 2 articles attached and the other 2 from internet
allisky
multilevel_cultural_intelligence.pdf
A Multilevel Investigation of Motivational Cultural Intelligence, Organizational Diversity Climate, and Cultural Sales:
Evidence From U.S. Real Estate Firms
Xiao-Ping Chen University of Washington
Dong Liu Georgia Institute of Technology
Rebecca Portnoy Washington State University
Adopting a multilevel theoretical framework, the authors examined how motivational cultural intelli- gence influences individual cultural sales—the number of housing transactions occurring between people of different cultural origins. Data from 305 real estate agents employed at 26 real estate firms in the United States demonstrated that an individual’s motivational cultural intelligence is positively related to his or her cultural sales. This positive relationship is enhanced by the firm’s motivational cultural intelligence and diversity climate. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical implications of their findings in a workplace context that involves cross-cultural interpersonal interactions.
Keywords: motivational cultural intelligence, diversity climate, cultural sales, multilevel
Globalization has many effects, but one of the most important is the dramatic increase in the opportunity and need to interact with people who are culturally different from ourselves. (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2009, Preface)
Diversity is not a fad. It’s not an idea of the month. It’s central and it’s linked very directly to the business strategy. That is the case in great times and in more challenging times. (Eric Foss, Chairman and CEO of the Pepsi Bottling Group, 2009, as cited in Holstein, 2009, p. B2).
In the past three decades, the United States has witnessed a large increase in its immigrant population. The foreign-born population in the United States has risen from 9.4 million to nearly 38 million since 1970, accounting for 12.5% of the entire U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). This rise has contributed to the diversification of the workforce. Today more than half of the U.S. workforce consists of racial minorities, ethnic minorities, immi- grants, and women (Toosi, 2008). There is some evidence that this workforce diversity results in positive organizational outcomes. For example, studies have shown that workforce diversity has
helped companies generate higher earnings, net profits, and CEO salaries, and enables companies to better meet their customers’ needs (e.g., Hartenian & Gudmunson, 2000; Herring, 2009; Mc- Cormick & Kinloch, 1986). Studies have also shown that the more racially diverse a firm’s top management team, the higher the firm’s return on investment and return on assets (Erhardt, Werbel, & Shrader, 2003). More firms today are striving to enact policies, procedures, and training initiatives designed to manage and lever- age their diverse employees (Holstein, 2009; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009).
However, diversity in the workforce does not automatically ensure positive outcomes (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Numerous studies have demonstrated the negative effects of demographic, psychographic, or cultural diversity on individuals, work teams, and organizations (e.g., Feldman, Sam, McDonald, & Bechtel, 1980; Shaw, 1983; Tsui, Egen, & O’Reilly, 1992). The most common negative consequences, at the individual and team levels, include misperception, miscommunication, increased tension, con- flict, mistrust, process loss, and lower psychological commitment (e.g., Adler & Gundersen, 2008; R. R. Thomas, 1991; Tsui et al., 1992). At the organizational level, Sacco and Schmitt (2005) found a negative relationship between racial diversity and organizational profits.
Although the research results do not provide clear evidence to support the simple assertion that diversity is inevitably good or bad for business, there seems to be a consensus that what really matters is whether organizations can foster the conditions that leverage the benefits of diversity or, at least, lessen its possible negative effects (e.g., Ely & Thomas, 2001; Richard, 2000; Shore et al., 2009). This standpoint has been increasingly supported by empirical evidence. For instance, Kochan and colleagues (2003) studied four large firms and demonstrated that organizational context is crucial in determining the impact of diversity on organizational perfor-
This article was published Online First August 1, 2011. Xiao-Ping Chen, Department of Management and Organization, Michael
G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington; Dong Liu, College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology; Rebecca Port- noy, Department of Management and Operations, Washington State Uni- versity.
An early version of this article was featured as a “Top Poster” at the 2009 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Xiao- Ping Chen, Department of Management and Organization, Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195- 3226. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 97, No. 1, 93–106 0021-9010/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024697
93
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
mance. More recently, organizational diversity climate has been demonstrated to be a crucial contextual catalyst that brings out the benefits of diversity. More specifically, when commitment to diver- sity is ingrained in the corporate core value system, firms create a prodiversity climate in which employees share the perception that their firm has adopted fair employee policies and socially integrates all personnel (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2009). An organization with a prodiversity climate tends to treat diversity as an asset and proac- tively leverages its benefits in developing their employees and the organization itself. As a result, these organizations achieve high sales growth (McKay et al., 2009) and great customer satisfaction (McKay, Avery, Liao, & Morris, 2011). The dramatic increase of residents from different cultural profiles in the United States should result in not only a more diverse workforce but also a culturally diverse customer base. Thus, one purpose of this study was to answer the question of how a firm’s diversity climate influences employee interactions with culturally diverse customers to achieve superior intercultural task performance.
Motivational cultural intelligence (CQ), a construct recently stemming from the stream of CQ research, may also prove critical in the context of cross-cultural employee– customer interactions. Following Sternberg and Wagner’s (1986) framework of intelli- gence, Earley and Ang (2003) conceptualized CQ as a multidi- mensional construct comprising metacognitive, cognitive, behav- ioral, and motivational dimensions with specific relevance to functioning in culturally diverse settings. Although metacognitive and cognitive CQ reflect mental and cognitive capacity in acquir- ing cultural knowledge, and behavioral CQ reflects the capability to exhibit culturally appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions, motivational CQ refers to individuals’ mental capacity to direct and sustain energy toward learning about and functioning in situ- ations characterized by cultural differences (Ang et al., 2007).
In this article, we argue that, compared with other CQ dimen- sions, motivational CQ is a better predictor of employee cross- cultural task performance for two reasons. First, motivational CQ provides “agentic control of affect, cognition, and behavior that facilitate goal accomplishment” (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997, p. 39). In other words, it is more fundamental than cognitive and behavioral CQ, which are likely to result from motivational CQ. As emphasized by Templer, Tay, and Chandrasekar (2006), “in- depth examination of motivational CQ, as one specific aspect of CQ, has the potential to advance our understanding of CQ and serves as a model of future research on CQ” (p. 155). Second, the few studies in which the effects of CQ on cross-cultural adjustment and task performance have been examined demonstrated that mo-
tivational CQ is a significant predictor across various settings and tasks, whereas other dimensions of CQ did not show consistent results (Ang et al., 2007; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, & Tangirala, 2010). Hence, another purpose of this study was to further establish the relation- ship between motivational CQ and employee intercultural task performance.
According to trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), the functioning of an individual disposition is activated by certain social contextual cues. On the basis of our earlier discussion about organizational diversity climate, we expect it to serve as one such contextual cue in strengthening the moti- vational CQ–intercultural performance relationship. Another con- textual cue that could activate the function of individual motiva- tional CQ is firm motivational CQ. Even though motivational CQ has been conceptualized and examined as an individual- indifference variable in the organizational literature (Chen et al., 2010), recent theoretical research has suggested that CQ may also emerge at the firm level and influence an employee’s cross- cultural attitudes and behaviors (Ang & Inkpen, 2008). Accord- ingly, we reason that as firm-level contextual cues, both firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate may moderate the relationship between employees’ motivational CQ and their inter- cultural task performance.
To summarize, in the present article, we adopt a multilevel ap- proach (e.g., Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Ma- thieu, 2007; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994) and take an integrative view of individual motivational CQ, firm motivational CQ, and firm diversity climate to investigate their roles in promoting employee cultural sales (i.e., the number of housing transactions occurring between people of different cultural origins). We develop our theory by establishing employees’ motivational CQ as a primary determinant of employee cultural sales. We then discuss the moderating role of firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate in strengthening the individual-level relationship between motivational CQ and cultural sales. On the basis of the theoretical arguments, we derive individual and cross-level hypotheses. We test our theoretical model using a sample of U.S. real estate agents and firms, as they are at the forefront of dealing with a culturally diversified workforce and customer base. In today’s U.S. housing market, “minorities and immigrants are the fastest growing home buying segment and are having a significant impact on the marketing of real estate” (PR Newswire, 2010). The real estate context thus provides a desirable setting to test our hypoth- eses. The theoretical model is presented in Figure 1, and explained in the following sections.
Firm Motivational Cultural Intelligence
Firm Diversity Climate
Individual Cultural Sales
Individual Motivational Cultural
Intelligence
Firm Level
Individual Level
H1+
H2 H3
Figure 1. Theoretical model. H1, H2, and H3 � Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, and Hypothesis 3.
94 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Theoretical Overview and Hypotheses
The Main Effect of Motivational CQ on Cultural Sales
Given the dramatic increase in the immigrant population in the United States, realtors in U. S. real estate firms are facing greater numbers of culturally diverse customers (PR Newswire, 2010). Cultural sales have become a crucial index for assessing a realtor’s intercultural task performance. Cultural sales are the number of housing transactions between people of different cultural heritages. In the United States, a real estate transaction typically involves four different parties: the seller, the seller’s agent or representative, the buyer, and the buyer’s agent or representative. A cultural sale occurs if any one of these four parties has a different cultural background from the other three. For example, the seller or buyer could be from a different cultural heritage from his or her repre- senting agent, or the agents representing the buyer and the seller, respectively, have different cultural heritages from each other. On the basis of this definition, housing transaction deals made be- tween a Hispanic realtor representing his or her Russian immigrant client and a seller and his or her agent of any cultural origin, or deals made between a Chinese realtor representing her Chinese client and an Indian agent and seller would be considered cultural sales. Nevertheless, deals made between Korean realtors represent- ing a Korean buyer and seller would not be considered cultural sales. We posit that an employee’s motivational CQ contributes positively to his or her cultural sales.
As discussed in Ang et al. (2007) and Chen et al. (2010), motivational CQ captures both cross-cultural self-efficacy (i.e., belief in the ability to be effective in culturally diverse environ- ments) and cross-cultural intrinsic motivation (i.e., intrinsic inter- est in other cultures). Individuals with high motivational CQ tend to “direct attention and energy toward cross-cultural situations based on intrinsic interest and confidence in their cross-cultural effectiveness” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 338), and they are likely to achieve superior intercultural task performance (Earley & Ang, 2003; Ng et al., 2009). We elaborate on two reasons why motiva- tional CQ would help a realtor to achieve high cultural sales. First, motivational CQ enhances employees’ cultural adjustment. Sec- ond, individuals high in motivational CQ are effective negotiators in cross-cultural transactions.
The first reason derives from research demonstrating motiva- tional CQ as a significant predictor of cultural adjustment. People with high motivational CQ have an intrinsic interest in other cultures (Ang et al., 2007). As suggested by the research on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008), these individuals tend to initiate intense efforts and persist in their efforts in approaching foreign clients and diligently adjusting their attitudes and behav- iors to make intercultural encounters smooth and successful. More- over, people with high motivational CQ expect themselves to be able to handle culturally diverse situations (Ang et al., 2007). The self-efficacy literature indicates that when people believe in their capability to succeed in challenging situations, they will be pro- active in obtaining relevant information and marshaling useful resources to develop effective coping strategies (Bandura, 2002). As a result, those with high motivational CQ will be more capable of understanding their cross-cultural counterparts’ cultural back- grounds, identifying a common ground on which to establish
personal connections, and tapping into necessary resources to overcome barriers.
Empirical evidence on the positive effects of motivational CQ on cross-cultural adjustment and ultimately on performance has been accumulating. Using a sample of global professionals, Tem- pler and colleagues (2006) demonstrated that after controlling for gender, age, and time in the host country, as well as prior inter- national assignment, motivational CQ has been found to be posi- tively related to cross-cultural adjustment. Ang and her colleagues (2007) documented that international managers with higher moti- vational CQ reported greater cultural adjustment. More recently, Chen et al. (2010) surveyed 556 expatriates in 31 foreign subsid- iaries and reported that expatriates’ motivational CQ (cross- cultural motivation in their terms) contributed to their work ad- justment, which led to superior job performance in an international assignment. Considering these arguments and empirical evidence, motivational CQ resulting from the combination of intrinsic inter- est and self-efficacy beliefs should be conducive to cultural ad- justment, a crucial determinant of superior performance in cross- cultural settings (Chen et al., 2010).
Second, individuals high in motivational CQ are effective ne- gotiators in cross-cultural transactions. Individuals with higher motivational CQ have stronger intercultural communication mo- tives that enable them to overcome the barriers of negotiating across cultures (Templer et al., 2006). Imai and Gelfand (2010) revealed that CQ predicted effectiveness in intercultural negotia- tion. Specifically, individuals with higher CQ had higher cooper- ative motives and were able to devote more effort to understanding their culturally unfamiliar counterparts. By applying these findings to the real estate context in which a great deal of negotiation is needed to complete a cross-cultural transaction, we can expect those agents who have high motivational CQ to show greater interest and belief in learning and observing their foreign clients’ communication styles, negotiation tactics, and criteria in evaluat- ing what constitutes a good or bad deal. This intrinsic cross- cultural interest, coupled with the belief that they are capable of minimizing the communication gap between their clients and the real estate agents on the other side may result in successful intercultural housing transactions.
These theoretical rationales and empirical support clarify how motivational CQ serves as a prerequisite for knowing when, how, and how much to adapt one’s behavior to, and negotiate with, culturally diverse customers. Employees with higher motivational CQ will likely be more successful in making adjustments, under- standing cultural similarities and differences, and negotiating with culturally diverse individuals. They are thus more effective at navigating cultural sales. We propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: An employee’s motivational CQ is positively related to his or her cultural sales.
An Integrative Multilevel Model of Firm Motivational CQ, Firm Diversity Climate, Individual Motivational CQ, and Cultural Sales
Although previous CQ studies have suggested that individual motivational CQ is likely to stimulate positive behavioral out- comes in cross-cultural settings (Chen et al., 2010; Templer et al., 2006), the delineation of the organizational boundary conditions
95CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIVERSITY CLIMATE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
for the relationship between CQ and outcomes has received insuf- ficient attention. Organizational scholars have stressed the impor- tance of adopting an interactional view, considering the interplay between contextual factors and individual characteristics in unveil- ing the role of individual characteristics in the organizational context (e.g., Cantor, Mischel, & Schwartz, 1982; Shoda, Lee, Tiernan, & Mischel, 2002). We expand this view in our study and maintain that the effect of individual motivational CQ on cultural sales will be contingent on two critical firm contextual factors: firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate.
Firm motivational CQ. A sizable body of literature has cautioned that either a micro or a macro theoretical perspective alone yields an incomplete understanding of the organizational phenomena (e.g., Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hitt et al., 2007; House, Roussau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein et al., 1994). Researchers are compelled to go beyond simple one-level models and examine how organizational phenomena at one level may be extrapolated to other levels (Klein et al., 1994; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In the field of CQ, although researchers have called for elevating the individual-level CQ construct to the collective level (Ang & Ink- pen, 2008), empirical research on firm-level CQ is still scarce. In this study, we directly address this gap by conceptualizing the emergence of firm motivational CQ and then exploring its mod- erating effect on the individual motivational CQ– cultural sales relationship.
In line with the multilevel research on motivation (Chen & Kanfer, 2006) and CQ (Ang & Inkpen, 2008), firm motivational CQ can be defined as the firm’s capacity to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning effectively in cross- cultural situations. Global firms (e.g., General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, McDonald’s) that have spent an extensive amount of time, effort, and resources on understanding and succeeding in the local cultures in which they operate are viewed as possessing high firm motivational CQ. By adopting the systems theory of work motivation (Chen & Kanfer, 2006), we present two processes through which firm motivational CQ is likely to emerge.
One is the top-down process through which firm-level inputs shape firm motivational CQ. These inputs include the vision/ mission of the organization and its core values and beliefs, which are closely related to its leadership styles and organizational cul- ture, and form firm motivational CQ by providing employees with informational, attitudinal, and behavioral cues regarding motiva- tional CQ. For example, firms with a global mindset are likely to encourage employees to pay attention to intercultural issues and direct efforts and resources to creating a learning environment in which employees are motivated to interact with people of different cultural heritages. Such interactions present great learning oppor- tunities for the firm to accumulate knowledge on how to thrive in a variety of cultures.
In addition to this top-down process, there is a bottom-up process through which individual-level inputs that stem from em- ployees’ own motivational CQ can give rise to firm motivational CQ. Employees’ mutual interactions within a firm can be either horizontal (peer–peer exchange) or vertical (leader–member ex- change). Horizontal interactions include peer information/idea ex- changes, resource sharing, and attitude assimilation. These inter- actions could lead to communal learning on ways to channel resources and support serving customers whose cultural back- grounds are distinct from those of the employees. It is conceivable
that employees’ motivational CQ is likely to strengthen each other’s interests and confidence in interacting with people from different cultures. A collective knowledge base of motivational CQ may subsequently emerge.
Vertical interaction often includes employees’ seeking advice, making suggestions, and asking for resources and support from organizational leadership. In this case, employees’ motivational CQ is likely to stimulate the leadership’s interest in intercultural business opportunities and its willingness to allocate resources to support culture-related learning and business initiatives (e.g., lan- guage translation services, frequent cultural training sessions, and on-spot cross-cultural consulting). As a result, firm motivational CQ can be cultivated. These top-down and bottom-up processes can unfold simultaneously, overlapping, intertwining, and jointly contributing to the emergence of firm motivational CQ emergence over time.
Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) systems theory of work motivation posits that individual- (e.g., dispositions) and context-oriented (e.g., organizational characteristics) inputs jointly engender an organizational member’s motivational outcomes. Furthermore, trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) stresses that the functioning of an individual disposition (e.g., motivational CQ) is strengthened when organizational context is receptive to that dis- position. We therefore contend that firm motivational CQ as a salient organizational contextual characteristic will enhance the relationship between employee motivational CQ and cultural sales. Specifically, in the presence of high firm motivational CQ, em- ployees will be exposed to contextual cues indicating that their firms are interested in cross-cultural business opportunities and strive for developing a collective knowledge base and allocating resources for employees to effectively deal with complex cultural problems. As a result, employees will sense that activating their individual motivational CQ is in alignment with the requirements of their work environment characterized by high motivational CQ. As suggested by trait activation theory and research (Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Tett & Guterman, 2000), in this situation, they will be more likely to tap into their individual motivational CQ, adapting their attitudes and behaviors to make foreign customers feel respected and comfortable in the process of cross-cultural transactions. As a result, the positive relationship between indi- vidual motivational CQ and cultural sales will be enhanced.
In contrast, firms with low motivational CQ send signals to employees that their firm is low on the capacity to direct attention and energy toward engaging in cross-cultural businesses and help- ing employees solve culture-related problems. Then, if employees attempt to accommodate foreign customers and promote cultural sales, they are likely to receive little support and resources from their firms. In other words, activating one’s motivational CQ is against the contextual cues signaled in a work environment low in motivational CQ. According to the trait activation literature (Tett & Burnett, 2003), employees will be less inclined to activate their motivational CQ in such a work environment. Consequently, cul- tural sales will less likely be increased with individual motiva- tional CQ. We therefore propose the following:
Hypothesis 2: Firm motivational CQ will moderate the pos- itive relationship between individual motivational CQ and cultural sales such that the relationship will be stronger when firm motivational CQ is higher.
96 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Firm diversity climate. Firm diversity climate— employees’ shared perceptions about the extent to which their firm values diversity by utilizing fair practices and socially integrating all personnel (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2008)—may offer additional contextual cues for individual motivational CQ manifestation. Diversity climate theory and research point out that employees’ treatment of external diverse customers depends on how well they are treated internally by their organization (McKay et al., 2011; Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998). Diversity climate may trigger a process of social contagion (Bowen, Gilliland, & Folger, 1999), through which employees’ shared sense of the firm’s inter- nal diversity management spills over to their view about attending to customers of diverse cultural origins. Empirical studies have generated support for this social contagion process stemming from diversity climate. For instance, McKay and his colleagues (2011) have documented that a prodiversity climate prompted employees to satisfy their customers better.
In light of these diversity climate studies and trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), we posit that diversity climate creates a work context that facilitates the functioning of individual motivational CQ. Specifically, in the presence of a prodiversity firm climate, organizational members, regardless of their cultural heritages, are treated with respect and dignity, and have equal access to opportunities for career advancement (McKay et al., 2008). Operating in a work environment that favors diversity, employees may be induced to turn on their own individual moti- vational CQ and, subsequently, increase cultural sales. They pro- actively approach culturally diverse customers and carefully adjust to the needs of cross-cultural interactions. As a result, employees’ motivational CQ will be more likely to contribute to cultural sales when their company strongly advocates a prodiversity climate.
Conversely, in the absence of a prodiversity firm climate, em- ployees believe that their firms do not value diversity and pay little attention to effectively developing employees of diverse cultural backgrounds (Mor Barak et al., 1998). On the basis of empirical evidence that diversity climate stimulates a social contagion pro- cess (Bowen et al., 1999; McKay et al., 2011), such beliefs may translate into employees’ attitudes toward culturally diverse cus- tomers. In other words, employees will be demotivated to ap- proach and serve culturally diverse customers. The positive rela- tionship between individual motivational CQ and cultural sales will therefore be weakened. Taking together the above arguments, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3: Firm diversity climate will moderate the pos- itive relationship between individual motivational CQ and cultural sales such that the relationship will be stronger in the presence of a more pro-diversity firm climate.
Method
Sample and data collection. Participants included 526 real estate sales agents from 26 real estate firms in a northwestern state in the United States. A rigorous process was undertaken to validate and finalize the survey instruments. First, 15 people in different positions of a realtor association were asked to review the survey and provide feedback. Second, after revising the instruments based on their feedback, the updated survey was administered to 10 additional members for further suggestions on the content and
wording. Upon further refinement based on their suggestions, data collection was completed on job sites or online.
Part of the data was collected from the target firms’ leadership meetings or membership conferences using a paper version of the survey. In the case of the online survey, an e-mail invitation with a link to the Web survey was sent to sales agents by managers at each of the firms. On both occasions, participants were assured that this survey was for research purposes only and that their responses would remain completely confidential. To encourage participation, every respondent was entered into a drawing to win one of two $50 Amazon gift certificates. Data regarding the real estate firms’ total sales and cultural sales in the past 2 years was also collected, as well as firm size and agent demographics data from the firms’ archives.
From the questionnaire sent to individual real estate agents, data regarding their demographics (i.e., age, gender, tenure, ethnicity, number of languages spoken) and the measures of the independent variables (i.e., motivational CQ and organizational diversity cli- mate) were collected. Real estate firms’ total sales (i.e., the total number of sales transactions) and cultural sales (the number of transactions involving clients/agents from cultures that differed from real estate agents’ own) from the 2-year period prior to our data collection were also collected, as well as firm size from the surveyed firms’ archives. To do a data validity check, employees were also asked to self-report their own total and cultural sales in the past 2 years. The correlation between the data collected from the surveyed firms’ archives and employees themselves was cal- culated and found to be consistent (individual total sales, r � .96; individual cultural sales, r � .93).
Overall, our final sample consisted of 305 out of 526 real estate agents employed at 26 real estate firms, yielding a response rate of 58% at the individual level and 100% at the firm level. Their average age was 52.68 years (SD � 10.56), and their average tenure was 11.20 years (SD � 8.74). Among them, 194 were female (63.60 % of the sample), and 82 could speak more than two languages (26.9 % of the sample).
Measures. Individual motivational CQ. This variable was measured
with a four-item scale adapted from Ang et al.’s (2007) five-item motivational CQ scale. One item (MOT5) was evaluated to be inappropriate by the pilot-surveyed 15 employees and therefore was dropped from our survey. Two sample items were “I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures” and “I am confi- dent that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me.” All items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Individual-level Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .85.
Firm motivational CQ. Individual assessments of firm moti- vational CQ were averaged on the basis of Ang et al.’s (2007) five-item motivational CQ within each firm to create a firm mo- tivational CQ score (Chan, 1998). Two sample items are “Agents in my firm enjoy interacting with people from different cultures” and “My firm shows confidence that it can socialize with locals in an unfamiliar culture.” The aggregation statistics, ICC(1) � .30, ICC(2) � .73, mean rwg(j) � .83 and, F(25, 279) � 2.31, p � .001, were consistent with prior multilevel studies and justified our aggregation across individual agents (Bliese, 2000; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996, 1998; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010). ICC(1) estimates the proportion of the total variance of
97CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIVERSITY CLIMATE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
a measure that is explained by unit membership; ICC(2) measures the degree to which the unit means within a sample are reliable and thus useful measures of unit properties (Bliese, 2000). Rwg as- sesses how high the within-unit agreement on a given measure is (James et al., 1984). The F value indicates whether between-unit differences in the mean levels of the unit-level scores are signifi- cant (Bliese, 2000). Individual-level Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .83.
Firm diversity climate.1 In accordance with the referent-shift model logic (Chan, 1998) and the 15 items from Roberson (2006), a firm diversity climate score was created by averaging all sur- veyed agents’ evaluations on firm diversity within a firm. Two representative items are “Diversity is a part of relevant education and training activities in the organization” and “Organizational members have equal access to leadership opportunities.” Rober- son’s original scale included 21 items for organizational inclusive- ness, six of which were not included in our survey due to their low factor loadings and/or inappropriateness for the target sample according to the feedback from the pilot-surveyed realtors. ICC(1) � .28, ICC(2) � .73, and the average of the within-firm agreement measure of rwg(j) � .82 and, F(25, 279) � 2.25, p � .001, were within the acceptable range of values summarized in the literature (e.g., Bliese, 2000), and comparable to previous multi- level research (e.g., Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996, 1998; Liao et al., 2010). Individual-level Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .93.
Cultural sales. Cultural sales were operationalized as the number of sales transactions, involving clients/agents from cultures who differed from an employee’s own culture. The average number of cultural sales was 7.53, with a range from 0 to 28.
Control variables. Both firm-level and individual-level vari- ables were included as controls. Firm-level control variables in- clude firm size, age diversity, gender diversity, and ethnicity diversity, which may have contextual influence on an employee’s performance in cultural sales. Age diversity, gender diversity, and ethnicity diversity were calculated using Blau’s index of diversity (1 � �Pi
2), where p is the proportion of firm members in the kth category (Blau, 1977; Harrison & Klein, 2007).
At the individual level, an employee’s age, gender (male � 0; female � 1), number of languages spoken, tenure with the firm (years), and ethnicity (Caucasians � 1; otherwise � 0) were controlled for. Okpara (2010) reported that age and gender were significant predictors of sociocultural and psychological adjust- ment when people operate in a cross-cultural environment. Language proficiency has been shown to affect individual ad- justment and performance in intercultural encounters (Takeu- chi, Tesluk, Yun, & Lepak, 2005). A number of studies indicate that tenure facilitates job performance, because experience is demonstrated to relate positively to job performance (e.g., McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988; Schmidt, Hunter, Outer- bridge, & Goff, 1988). Ethnicity has also been recommended to be included as a control variable in cross-cultural research due to their potential influence on individual attitudes and behaviors (Gomez-Mejia, 1984). Because an employee’s overall compe- tence in his or her job is also likely to contribute to cultural sales, an employee’s total sales, including both cultural and noncultural sales, were controlled for.
Analyses and Results
Preliminary analyses. Descriptive statistics. Means, correlations, and measurement
reliabilities for all study variables at individual and firm levels are presented in Table 1. The reliabilities of organizational diversity climate and cultural intelligence exceeded .80. In general, the correlations among measures were as expected. Yet, given the nested structure of our data, caution should be exercised when interpreting these correlations, and the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results below are more accurate estimates of the hypothe- sized relationships.
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Our data are nested within firms rather than independent, so the fundamental indepen- dence assumption underlying CFA is violated. The violation of the independence assumption may not only bias parameter estimates and standard errors but also influence the statistical power (e.g., Bliese & Hanges, 2004). Hence, it is necessary to conduct a multilevel CFA to take into account the nonindependence nature of nested data. Additionally, the nature of a variable can differ across levels of analysis (Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), so multilevel CFA is crucial for ensuring that a variable measured at the individual level but aggregated to the firm level exhibits desired psychometric properties at both individual and firm levels simultaneously (Mehta & Neale, 2005). We thus conducted multilevel CFA using Mplus 6.0 with maximum like- lihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2010). The multilevel CFA with uniform factor structures at individual and firm levels (Rabe-Hesketh, Skrondal, & Pickles, 2004) revealed that the two- factor model of firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate fit the data well, �2(38, Nfirm � 26; Nindividual � 305) � 379.12, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) � .03, com- parative fit index (CFI) � .99, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR)[between] � .05, SRMR(within) � .03, Tucker- Lewis index (TLI) � .98. In addition, all factor loadings in between-firm (mean factor loading �.89) and within-firm (mean factor loading � .82) measurement models were significant. We
1 To provide additional evidence for the validity of our measures, we followed Hinkin (1998) and conducted a construct convergent and discrim- inant validity test of our measures. We invited three organizational schol- ars, who are experts on organizational climate and cross-cultural manage- ment, to first read the definitions of diversity climate and motivational CQ. Then, they were asked to sort items from our 15-item measure of diversity climate, McKay et al.’s (2008) four-item measure of diversity climate, and our four-item measure of motivational CQ into diversity climate, motiva- tional CQ, and other additional categories that they deem appropriate according to a match between items and category meanings. Their agree- ment was very high (Fleiss’s, 1981, Kappa � .98). They resolved their very few disagreements through a detailed, careful discussion. Finally, they sorted the 15 items from Roberson (2006) and the four items from McKay et al. into the category of diversity climate and four items from Ang et al. (2007) into the category of motivational CQ. They did not sort items into any additional categories. Therefore, this construct validity test supports the convergent and discriminant validity of our measure of diversity climate. We also ran an exploratory factor analysis with the principal- components extraction method of our 15-item measure of diversity climate and found that the 15 items significantly loaded onto one factor (eigen- value � 4.38, average factor loading � .78, explaining 60.93% of the total variance).
98 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
also found that the multilevel two-factor model fit the data better than a one-factor model formed by constraining two factors to be the same at both individual and firm levels, �2(40, Nfirm � 26; Nindividual � 305) � 878.93, RMSEA � .12, CFI � .80, SRMR-
(between) � .12, SRMR(within) � .10, TLI � .80; �� 2 (�2, Nfirm �
26; Nindividual � 305) � 499.81, p � .001. Hypotheses testing. Given the nested nature of our data (i.e.,
real estate agents were nested within firms), we used HLM with HLM 6.06 to test our hypotheses. HLM allows researchers to examine relationships across different levels by simultaneously estimating both within-firm and between-firm variances of the study variables (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004). We tested Hypothesis 1 using a grand-mean center technique, whereas we examined the cross-level interactive effects proposed by Hypotheses 2 and 3 using a group-mean centering technique to separate the cross-level from the between-firm interaction and avoid detecting a spurious cross-level interactive effect (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). To more clearly test for these cross-level inter- actions, we controlled for the firm-level mean of individual moti- vational CQ at Level 2. When significant cross-level variance is identified in the dependent variable, HLM is deemed an appropri- ate technique for modeling multilevel relationships (Raudenbush et al., 2004). If little or no variance in the dependent variable exists between firms, the assumptions of ordinary least squares regres- sion are not violated, then there is no need to apply HLM for testing cross-level relationships (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000). Therefore, to justify HLM as the appropriate analytic tech- nique for our nested data, we first ran a null model with no predictors, but cultural sales as the dependent variable. This anal- ysis yielded a significant variance of cultural sales residing across firms, �2(21, Nfirm � 26; Nindividual � 305) � 163.91, p � .001; ICC(1) � .39, indicating 39% of variance existing across firms. As a result, we proceeded to test the hypotheses using HLM.
The main effect of individual motivational CQ on cultural sales. Hypothesis 1 states that an employee’s motivational CQ is positively related to his or her cultural sales. The HLM results shown in Model 2 of Table 2 provide support for this hypothesis. Individual motivational CQ was significantly and positively related to individual cultural sales (� � .28, p � .01), after controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, number of languages spoken, tenure, and total sales.
The moderating effect of firm motivational CQ. Hypothesis 2 suggests that firm motivational CQ augments the positive rela- tionship between an employee’s motivational CQ and cultural sales. As indicated by Model 4 of Table 2, the interaction between individual motivational CQ and firm motivational CQ was posi- tively related to individual cultural sales (� � .22, p � .05). Following Aiken and West (1991), we plotted this significant moderating effect and conducted simple slope tests. Figure 2 illustrates that in the presence of high firm motivational CQ (1 SD above the mean), individual motivational CQ was positively re- lated to individual cultural sales (� � .39, p � .01), whereas when firm motivational CQ was low (1 SD below the mean), the rela- tionship became nonsignificant (� � .05, ns). These results pro- vide strong support for Hypothesis 2.
The moderating effect of firm diversity climate. Hypothesis 3 predicts that firm diversity climate accentuates the positive association between an employee’s motivational CQ and cultural sales. The HLM results in Model 4 of Table 2 show that the interaction between individual motivational CQ and firm diversityT
ab le
1 D
es cr
ip ti
ve S ta
ti st
ic s,
R el
ia b il
it ie
s, a n d
In te
rc o rr
el a ti
o n s
A m
o n g
M ea
su re
sa
V ar
ia bl
e M
S D
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15
1. A
ge 52
.6 8
10 .5
6 —
2. G
en de
r 0.
63 0.
48 �
.1 2�
— 3.
E th
ni ci
ty 0.
67 0.
15 .0
4 .0
1 —
4. N
um be
r of
la ng
ua ge
s sp
ok en
1. 38
0. 86
� .0
2 .0
2 .0
7 —
5. T
en ur
e 11
.2 0
8. 74
.5 1�
� �
.0 2
.1 2�
.1 0
— 6.
In di
vi du
al to
ta l
sa le
s 39
.5 9
27 .1
1 .1
2� �
.0 3
.0 0
� .0
1 .1
9� �
— 7.
In di
vi du
al m
ot iv
at io
na l
C Q
5. 82
1. 03
.0 2
.1 2�
.1 1
.0 8
.0 4
.0 0
(. 85
) 8.
In di
vi du
al cu
lt ur
al sa
le s
7. 53
2. 22
.1 0
.1 2�
� .1
0 .1
3� .0
4 .5
0� �
.2 1�
� —
9. F
ir m
si ze
20 .1
5 7.
03 .0
2 .0
8 �
.1 4�
.0 2
.0 0
.0 2
.0 1
.1 2�
— 10
. A
ge di
ve rs
it y
0. 63
0. 29
.0 3
.0 4
.0 1
.0 0
� .0
2 �
.0 3
.0 7
.0 4
.1 2�
— 11
. G
en de
r di
ve rs
it y
0. 51
0. 19
.0 1
.0 0
.0 1
.0 5
� .0
3 .0
4 .0
5 .0
7 .1
1 .1
3� —
12 .
E th
ni ci
ty di
ve rs
it y
0. 47
0. 21
.0 0
.0 4
.0 3
.0 7
.0 2
.0 1
.1 0
.0 8
.1 4�
.0 6
.0 8
— 13
. F
ir m
m ea
n of
in di
vi du
al m
ot iv
at io
na l
C Q
5. 63
1. 25
.0 2
.0 0
.0 7
.0 1
.0 4
.0 3
.2 2�
� .1
1 .0
0 �
.0 1
� .0
2 .0
5 —
14 .
F ir
m di
ve rs
it y
cl im
at e
5. 10
0. 53
.0 6
.0 1
.1 0
.0 4
.0 8
.0 2
.1 2�
.0 7
� .3
2� �
.0 7
.0 7
.1 2�
.1 2�
(. 93
) 15
. F
ir m
m ot
iv at
io na
l C
Q 5.
13 0.
51 .0
2 .0
3 .0
5 .0
1 .1
1 .1
0 .3
3� �
.1 3�
.0 1
.0 2
.0 2
.1 0
.2 3�
� .2
0� �
(. 83
)
N o te
. C
Q �
cu lt
ur al
in te
ll ig
en ce
. R
el ia
bi li
ti es
of th
e m
ea su
re s
ar e
bo ld
fa ce
d an
d no
te d
in th
e di
ag on
al s.
a V
ar ia
bl es
1– 8
ar e
at th
e in
di vi
du al
le ve
l; va
ri ab
le s
9 –1
4 ar
e at
th e
fi rm
le ve
l. n
� 30
5 at
th e
in di
vi du
al le
ve l;
n �
26 at
th e
fi rm
le ve
l. �
p �
.0 5.
� �
p �
.0 1.
99CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIVERSITY CLIMATE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
climate was positively related to individual cultural sales (� � .17, p � .05). As depicted in Figure 3, the simple slope tests results (Aiken & West, 1991) suggest that when firm diversity climate was high (1 SD above the mean), individual motivational CQ was positively related to individual cultural sales (� � .35, p � .01), but when firm diversity climate was low (1 SD below the mean), the relationship became nonsignificant (� � .09, ns). These results provide strong support for Hypothesis 3.
Supplementary analyses. By extension, the theorizing and findings of Hypotheses 2 and 3 suggest that firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate, which capture two distinct organiza- tional contextual factors, may jointly moderate the relationship between individual motivational CQ and cultural sales. That is, in the presence of high levels of firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate, employees are expected to be exposed to the strongest contextual cues, which help activate the positive effect of an employee’s motivational CQ on his or her cultural sales. In order to more completely examine our theoretical model (see Figure 1), we also investigated the three-way interactive effect of firm motivational CQ, firm diversity climate, and individual mo- tivational CQ on individual cultural sales. The HLM result shown in Model 5 of Table 2 lends support to this three-way interaction
(� � .12, p � .05). Figure 4 indicates that individual motivational CQ was most strongly related to individual cultural sales (� � .34, p � .01) when both firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate were high. However, individual motivational CQ was not significantly related to individual cultural sales (� � .03, ns), when firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate were both low.
In addition, we conducted auxiliary analyses to test whether our model might also be supported with individual total sales (a noncultural sales measure of employee performance) as the out- come variable. The analyses revealed that individual motivational CQ was not significantly related to individual total sales (� � .02, ns). In addition, the two-way interactive effect of individual mo- tivational CQ and firm motivational CQ (� � .08, ns); the two-way interactive effect of individual motivational CQ and firm diversity climate (� � �.02, ns); and the three-way interactive effect of individual motivational CQ, firm motivational CQ, and firm di- versity climate on individual total sales were all insignificant (� � .05, ns). As such, these findings suggest that motivational CQ is a significant predictor of cultural sales, rather than of any sales, which provide further evidence of the validity of our model in conceptualizing multilevel interactive effects of culturally relevant organizational and individual factors on cultural sales.
Table 2 Results of HLM Analyses Predicting Individual Employees’ Cultural Sales a
Variable
Individual cultural sales
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
1 Intercept 7.01�� (1.81) 6.14�� (1.65) 5.70�� (1.37) 5.71�� (1.40) 5.73�� (1.42)
2 Level 1 variables
Age .08 (.11) .06 (.12) .05 (.15) .04 (.14) .05 (.15) Gender .09� (.04) .06 (.15) .03 (.10) .02 (.09) .01 (.10) Ethnicity �.07 (.12) �.07 (.14) �.04 (.11) �.05 (.10) �.03 (.12) Number of languages .11�� (.03) .09� (.04) .10� (.05) .07 (.05) .05 (.06) Tenure .00 (.04) .05 (.06) �.02 (.06) �.03 (.07) �.04 (.07) Total sales .33�� (.07) .24�� (.08) .19� (.08) .20� (.09) .16� (.07) Individual motivational CQ .28�� (.06) .22�� (.04) .23�� (.06) .21�� (.07)
4 Level 2 variables
Firm size .02 (.03) .04 (.04) .04 (.06) Age diversity .02 (.04) .02 (.03) .01 (.03) Gender diversity .05 (.04) .03 (.05) .02 (.02) Ethnicity diversity .02 (.08) .04 (.05) .05 (.06) Firm diversity climate .06 (.04) .05 (.05) .07 (.08) Firm mean of individual motivational CQ .08 (.04) .06 (.04) .05 (.04) Firm motivational CQ .12� (.05) .11� (.04) .07 (.05)
5 Level 2 interaction variables .
Firm Diversity Climate � Firm Motivational CQ .05 (.04) .04 (.07) 6
Cross-level interaction variables Individual Motivational CQ � Firm Motivational CQ .22� (.10) .19� (.07) Individual Motivational CQ � Firm Diversity Climate .17� (.07) .14� (.05) Individual Motivational CQ � Firm Motivational CQ � Firm Diversity Climate .12� (.05)
R2b .15 .29 .34 .39 .42
Note. HLM � hierarchical linear modeling; CQ � cultural intelligence. Parenthetical values indicate standard errors. a n � 305 at the individual level; n � 26 at the firm level. b We calculate R2 according to proportional change of Level 1 and Level 2 error variance because of predictors added in the models of Table 2 (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). � p � .05. �� p � .01.
100 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Discussion
Drawing on the literatures on cultural intelligence and diversity climate, we examined how the individual- and firm-level factors could jointly improve individual encounters with culturally diverse customers. The multilevel data we collected from 26 U.S. real estate firms yielded considerable support for our theoretical model, lending empirical evidence to the complex interplay of employee motivational CQ, firm motivational CQ, and firm diversity cli- mate, in relation to cultural sales. Specifically, we found that individual motivational CQ had a significant positive relationship with individual cultural sales, and this positive relationship was enhanced by both firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate, respectively and jointly. We are encouraged by these findings as they provide important insights into how motivational CQ operates at different levels, what role firm diversity climate plays, what future studies might be explored, and what practices organizations
might adopt to take full advantage of the benefits of cultural diversity in the workplace.
Implications for theory. This study makes theoretical con- tributions to the CQ literature. First, our findings add an im- portant piece of empirical evidence to demonstrate the predic- tive power of motivational CQ for employee cross-cultural effectiveness. Expatriates’ motivational CQ has been found to contribute to expatriates’ job performance during an interna- tional assignment (Chen et al., 2010). We further demonstrated that real estate agents’ motivational CQ is positively associated with their performance across multiple encounters with custom- ers from a variety of cultural origins, above and beyond such factors as age, gender, number of languages spoken, tenure, ethnicity, and total sales. This study extends previous research and speaks to the generalizability of the motivational CQ– intercultural task performance relationship.
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
8.10
Low Individual Motivational CQ
High Indivdiual Motivational CQ
Individual Cultural Sales
Low Firm Motivational CQ
High Firm Motivational CQ
Figure 2. The two-way interactive effect of individual motivational CQ and firm motivational climate on individual cultural sales. CQ � cultural intelligence.
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
8.10
Low Individual Motivational CQ
High Indivdiual Motivational CQ
Individual Cultural Sales
Low Firm Diversity Climate
High Firm Diversity Climate
Figure 3. The two-way interactive effect of individual motivational CQ and firm diversity climate on individual cultural sales. CQ � cultural intelligence.
101CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIVERSITY CLIMATE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Second, our findings extend past empirical studies on CQ, which only examined the functioning of CQ at the individual level, to higher levels of analyses. Recently, much theoretical attention has been directed toward the importance of firm CQ (Ang & Inkpen, 2008). Gelfand, Imai, and Fehr (2008) suggested that a promising area of future CQ research is to explore the multilevel terrain in which CQ processes operate. To the best of our knowl- edge, this study is the first empirical endeavor to address this issue. Not only do we verify that firm motivational CQ and individual motivational CQ exert independent effects on individual cultural sales, but we also unveil the contingent effect of firm motivational CQ on the individual motivational CQ– cultural sales link (see Models 3 and 4 in Table 2). Taken as a whole, these findings extend the focus of present CQ research from the individual level to the multilevel and enriches our understanding of how motiva- tional CQ functions at different levels.
This research also makes a meaningful contribution to the organizational climate literature. Despite the increased theoretical and empirical attention to diversity climate (e.g., Avery, McKay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, 2007; McKay et al., 2008), more rigorous scholarly attention should be directed toward the diversity climate- performance linkage (McKay et al., 2011). Expanding on the literature on diversity climate, we theorized and tested in this research whether and how firm diversity climate has ramifications for individual intercultural performance in terms of organizational boundary spanning (i.e., cross-cultural interactions between em- ployees and customers at organizational boundaries). Drawing on social contagion research (Bowen et al., 1999), we contend that employees’ shared view of their firm’s internal diversity manage- ment (i.e., diversity climate) may affect their attitude to attending to external customers of diverse cultural profiles, thereby strength- ening the relationship between individual motivational CQ and cultural sales. The results pertaining to the significant moderating effect of firm diversity climate confirm our argument. Accord- ingly, to expand diversity climate theory and research, future studies in which the multilevel contingent effects of diversity climate are examined in relation to other individual outcomes (e.g.,
turnover, creativity, citizenship behavior) in different work set- tings are warranted.
In addition, this research strengthens trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000) by applying it in cross-cultural settings. Prior studies testing trait activation theory were conducted in culturally homogeneous contexts (e.g., Tett & Guterman, 2000). Integrating the research on CQ and diversity climate, we verified firm moti- vational CQ and firm diversity climate as two salient contextual variables that could activate and enhance the effect of individual motivational CQ on cultural sales. Our findings thus enlarge the scope where the theory might apply and suggest that future cross- cultural inquiries may follow suit in exploring relevant organiza- tional contextual factors that may activate the effects of an array of individual differences (beyond personality traits) on intercultural outcomes (e.g., intercultural negotiation, cultural adjustment and performance).
Finally, this study adds to research on CQ and organizational climate by demonstrating their cross-level moderating effect. Most of the CQ research has centered on considering the single-level relationships between CQ and individual outcomes such as cultural judgment and cross-cultural negotiation effectiveness (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Our multilevel interactionist model paints a more comprehensive picture of the boundary con- ditions for the functioning of individual motivational CQ. Our findings of two-way interactions show that the positive relation- ship between individual motivational CQ and cultural sales was augmented by firm motivational CQ or firm diversity climate. Furthermore, the results of the three-way interaction suggest that individual motivational CQ exerted the lowest positive influence on one’s cultural sales in the absence of firm motivational CQ and a prodiversity climate. Nevertheless, the influence became the strongest in the presence of firm motivational CQ and a prodiver- sity climate. These findings indicate how critical it is to understand the independent and joint roles of multiple contextual factors in promoting or attenuating the functioning of individual motiva- tional CQ. Our theorizing and empirical analysis approach might be conducive to the development of a more fine-grained multilevel
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
Low Individual Motivational CQ
High Individual Motivational CQ
Individual Cultural Sales
Low Firm Motivational CQ and Low Firm Diversity Climate
Low Firm Motivational CQ and High Firm Diversity Climate
High Firm Motivational CQ and Low Firm Diversity Climate
High Firm Motivational CQ and High Firm Diversity Climate
Figure 4. The three-way interactive effect of individual motivational CQ, firm motivational CQ, and firm diversity climate on individual cultural sales. CQ � cultural intelligence.
102 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
interactionist theoretical framework of CQ traversing multiple organizational levels.
Limitations and future research. As the first study to es- tablish the multilevel relationship between motivational CQ and cultural sales, this study has several limitations that warrant future research. First, informed by Sutton and Staw’s (1995) caveat that the pressure to operationalize mediators could prevent researchers from developing explicit and detailed arguments for a proposed relationship, in this study, we concentrated on clearly theorizing the hypothesized relationships rather than examining their poten- tial underlying processes. For example, we did not theorize and test any mediation mechanisms between employee motivational CQ and cultural sales. Future scholars should explore the under- lying conduits through which motivational CQ affects cultural sales.
Second, we did not address the precursors of firm diversity climate and individual motivational CQ. A valuable extension would be to investigate their potential antecedents. For instance, a top management team with a global orientation and geocentric orientation is likely to develop a prodiversity climate (Taylor, Levy, Boyacigiller, & Beechler, 2008). Top management teams that possess the mindset required to understand the complex global environment and uphold the view of providing fair career oppor- tunities to employees regardless of their nationality (geocentric orientation) are more likely to adopt and facilitate prodiversity strategies. Meanwhile, a person’s motivational CQ may be af- fected by the amount of international experience and interaction with people of different cultures (Takeuchi et al., 2005). Research suggests that personality traits such as openness to new experience (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006) and organizational contexts such as perceived organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) may facilitate the development of individual motivational CQ.
Another weakness is related to our measure of firm motivational CQ. In accordance with the theorizing of firm motivational CQ, we asked employees within a firm to evaluate their firm’s capacity in channeling attention and energy toward successfully learning about and dealing with intercultural issues. The aggregation sta- tistics and detected effects regarding firm motivational CQ provide evidence of its measurement validity. Yet, we recognize that measuring a collective characteristic is not as simple as changing the referent irrespective of the content of the construct. It is sometimes difficult for employees to know what other members are thinking about their firm, or to conceive that a firm can act like a person to show confidence in cross-cultural transactions. To better capture the essence of firm motivational CQ and develop a more valid measure of it, future research should take measures to alleviate the concerns discussed above. For instance, scholars can include more objective measurement items, such as the extent to which firms provide cross-cultural training programs and re- sources (e.g., language translation/interpreter services), and imple- ment global HR practices, and the like.
The cross-sectional design of this study limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding temporal or causal relationships among the variables of our interest. Including expatriates’ job performance in the previous year as a control variable, Chen and his colleagues (2010) demonstrated that expatriates’ motivational CQ (termed as cross-cultural motivation in their research) was positively related to their job performance in the current year in an
international assignment. Yet, there still exists the possibility that one’s achievement of cultural sales, which actually involves mul- tiple intercultural encounters, may reciprocally influence subse- quent motivational CQ. To generate stronger causal inferences, future studies should use a longitudinal design that controls for previous individual cultural sales when testing the multilevel hy- potheses. In addition, the sample size of Level 2 units (i.e., firms) in this study is small (n � 26), which may result in insufficient statistical power for testing our model using HLM (Raudenbush et al., 2004). It is worth mentioning that we made deliberate efforts to rule out alternative explanations. At the individual level, we controlled for an agent’s age, gender, number of languages spoken, tenure, ethnicity, and total sales. At the firm level, firm size, agents’ age diversity, gender diversity, and ethnic diversity in a firm were controlled. In addition, the potential for common source bias was mitigated for our dependent variable— cultural sales, which was an objective measure (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Finally, this study explored motivational CQ and diversity cli- mate from the perspectives of U.S.-based firms and employees. Future research should test our theoretical model in other cultural contexts, because Easterners might interpret and master cross- cultural management knowledge and skills in ways different from Westerners (Shapiro, Ozanne, & Saatcioglu, 2008). Future studies might also take into account the perspective of customers/clients by examining the ways they perceive and react to firms and agents with high or low motivational CQ. Customers’ verbal feedback and behavioral cues might significantly influence agents’ forma- tion and development of motivational CQ.
Practical implications. At the beginning of the present arti- cle, we described the increasing cultural diversity in both the U.S. workforce and its customer base. The findings of this study thus have important implications for organizations to leverage cultural diversity and achieve outstanding outcomes.
First, it is important for organizations to support the conditions that facilitate and accelerate the development of motivational CQ. Many scholars have argued that employees can be trained to improve their CQ (e.g., Earley, Ang, & Tan, 2006; Earley & Peterson, 2004). Given the positive role of motivational CQ in achieving intercultural effectiveness, we suggest that organizations allocate resources to implement such training interventions. This sort of training will help employees understand the meanings of different cultural cues and know how to react to new situations in diverse cultural environments. With intercultural contact becoming the norm in the world of work (Earley & Ang, 2003), it is worth incorporating motivational CQ into a firm’s core competence through more investment in cross-cultural training programs.
Second, our finding also shows support for developing an or- ganizational climate in favor of diversity that may increase a firm’s chance of success in intercultural businesses. In recent years, not only have scholars made the point that effective diversity manage- ment strategies can result in positive work outcomes (Kravitz, 2008), but practitioners have also become more aware of the importance of having a diverse leadership team and a diverse body of employees across different economic situations. Eric Foss, Chairman and CEO of the Pepsi Bottling Group, recently pointed out the folowing:
103CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIVERSITY CLIMATE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Building diversity in a tough economy is even more important. . . . In the United States, the multicultural consumer today is over a third of the population, and 80 percent of the population growth. So making sure we have a diverse board and a diverse workforce helps us understand the needs of the marketplace (Holstein, 2009, p. B2).
Furthermore, recent scholarship has contended that simply in- corporating more minority people into the workforce does not automatically result in positive work outcomes (Adler & Gunder- sen, 2008). Aligning with this stream of research, we found ample evidence in this study that after controlling for demographic di- versity variables, a firm’s diversity climate, employees’ shared perceptions about the extent to which their firm values diversity made a significant difference with respect to cross-cultural effec- tiveness (i.e., cultural sales). Accordingly, the ideas introduced in this article should not only raise managerial awareness of diversity management in companies but also help them understand that to leverage the strengths and potential of their diverse workforce, they need to go beyond recruiting diverse employees to cultivate an organization-wide diversity climate (e.g., implementing the prodiversity initiatives and strategies outlined in Kravitz, 2008).
Conclusion
Although a plethora of practitioner literature has envisaged the importance of CQ and diversity climate in multicultural business activities, this study is among the first in organizational research to conceptualize and corroborate how these factors independently or jointly facilitate cross-cultural effectiveness. In particular, our re- sults indicate that firm motivational CQ and diversity climate can accentuate the positive influence of individual motivational CQ on cultural sales. Of course, whether or not the interplay of individual and firm motivational CQ and firm diversity climate is the sine qua non of other cross-cultural effectiveness outcomes remains an open, yet intriguing, question. We believe our study offers needed conceptual and empirical advancement for the literatures on CQ and organizational climate and should inspire researchers to con- duct more in-depth investigations to reveal the organizational and individual mechanisms underlying multilevel phenomena in inter- cultural work settings.
References
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of orga- nizational behavior.Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: A framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences, 39, 337–358. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00195.x
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, S. K. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100 –123.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335– 371. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D., & Tonidandel, S. (2007). Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity
cues, and absenteeism. Personnel Psychology, 60, 875–902. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00094.x
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51, 269 –290. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 48, 257–281. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928400
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though it is inde- pendent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400 – 417. doi:10.1177/ 1094428104268542
Bowen, D. E., Gilliland, S. W., & Folger, R. (1999). HRM and service fairness: How being fair with employees spills over to customers. Organizational Dynamics, 27, 7–23. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(99) 90018-9
Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. C. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45–77. doi:10.1016/ 0010-0285(82)90004-4
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod- els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.83.2.234
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375– 409. doi: 10.1177/1094428105280056
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., Farh, C. I. C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1110 –1130. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533217
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A mac- rotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psy- chology, 49, 182–185. doi:10.1037/a0012801
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interac- tions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J. S. (2006). CQ: Developing cultural intelligence at work. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 100 –115. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436826
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229 –273. doi:10.2307/2667087
Erhardt, M. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance, 11, 102–111. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00011
Feldman, J. M., Sam, I. A., McDonald, W. F., & Bechtel, G. G. (1980). Work outcome preference and evaluation: A study of three ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11, 444 – 468. doi: 10.1177/0022022180114004
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
104 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Gelfand, M. J., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2008). Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence: The road ahead. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applica- tions (pp. 375–387). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1984). Effect of occupation on task related, contex- tual, and job involvement orientation: A cross-cultural perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 706 –720. doi:10.2307/255874
Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait-activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Personnel Psychology, 55, 137–163. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2002.tb00106.x
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199 –1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007 .26586096
Hartenian, L. S., & Gudmundson, D. E. (2000). Cultural diversity in small business: Implications for firm performance. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 5, 209 –219.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74, 208 –224. doi: 10.1177/000312240907400203
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104 –121.
Hitt, M., Beamish, P., Jackson, S., & Mathieu, J. (2007). Building theo- retical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in man- agement. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166219
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierar- chical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623– 641. doi:10.1177/014920639702300602
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 49, 307–339. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01802.x
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1998). The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretations: Implications for learning from negative events. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 644 – 657. doi:10.2307/256962
Holstein, W. J. (2009, February 14). Diversity is even more important in hard times. The New York Times, p. B2.
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organi- zational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequence and out- comes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 83–98. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organiza- tional Behavior, 19, 1–56.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., Jehn, K. E., . . . Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business perfor-
mance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, 3–21. doi:10.1002/hrm.10061
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Beyond selection- the role of affirmative action. Personnel Psychology, 61, 173–193. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00110.x
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 53, 1090 –1109. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533207
McCormick, A. E., & Kinloch, G. C. (1986). Interracial contact in the customer-clerk situation. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 551–553. doi:10.1080/00224545.1986.9713624
McDaniel, M. A., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). Job experience correlates of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 327– 330. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.327
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Liao, H., & Morris, M. A. (2011). Does diversity climate lead to customer satisfaction? It depends on the service climate and business unit demography. Organization Science, 22, 788 – 803.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences in employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 349 –374. doi:10.1111/ j.1744-6570.2008.00116.x
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity climate from subordinates’ and managers’ perspec- tives and their role in store unit sales performance. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 62, 767–791. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01157.x
Mehta, P. D., & Neale, M. C. (2005). People are variables too: Multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 10, 259 –284. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.3.259
Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differ- ences in employee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82–104. doi:10.1177/0021886398341006
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experi- ential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management of Management Learning and Education, 8, 511–526. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785470
Okpara, J. O. (2010). Personal characteristics as predictors of expatriate managers cross-cultural adjustment in Nigeria. African Journal of Busi- ness & Economic Research, 5, 113–133.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
PR Newswire. (2010). Real estate industry adapting to increasing cultural diversity. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/real-estate-industry- adapting-to-increasing-cultural-diversity-71840057.html
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). Generalized multi- level structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 69, 167–190. doi: 10.1007/BF02295939
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T., Jr. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 –714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm per-
105CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIVERSITY CLIMATE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
formance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164 –177. doi:10.2307/1556374
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31, 212–236.
Sacco, J. M., & Schmitt, N. (2005). A dynamic multilevel model of demographic diversity and misfit effects. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 90, 203–231. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.203
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Outerbridge, A. N., & Goff, S. (1988). Joint relation of experience and ability with job performance: Test of three hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 46 –57. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.73.1.46
Shapiro, J. M., Ozanne, J. L., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). An interpretive examination of the development of cultural sensitivity in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 71– 87. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400327
Shaw, M. E. (1983). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Shoda, Y., Lee Tiernan, S., & Mischel, W. (2002). Personality as a dynamical system: Emergence of stability and distinctiveness from intra- and interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Re- view, 6, 316 –325. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0604_06
Shore, L., Chung-Herrera, B., Dean, M., Ehrhart, K., Jung, D., Randel, A., & Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review, 19, 117– 133. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.10.004
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage Pub- lications.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, R., & Staw, B. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science of Quarterly, 40, 371–384. doi:10.2307/2393788
Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2005). An integrative view of international experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 85–100. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993143
Taylor, S., Levy, O., Boyacigiller, N., & Beechler, S. (2008). Employee commitment in MNCs: Impacts of organizational culture, HRM and top management orientations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 501–527.
Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group and Organization Man- agement, 31, 154 –173. doi:10.1177/1059601105275293
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500 –517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397– 423. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2009). Cultural intelligence: Living and working globally. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Thomas, R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender. New York, NY: Amacom. Toosi, M. (2008). Employment outlook: 2004 –14. Labor force projections
to 2014: retiring boomers. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/ 2005/11/art3full.pdf
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549 –579. doi:10.2307/2393472
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). 2008 American community survey: Selected social characteristics in the United States. Retrieved from www.census .gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Received December 15, 2009 Revision received May 31, 2011
Accepted June 6, 2011 �
106 CHEN, LIU, AND PORTNOY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
