This chapter reviewed the literature regarding cultural intelligence (CQ), cross-cultural adjustment, psychological capital (PsyCap), and perceived supervisor support (PSS). Also, the research hypotheses were proposed based on theories and researches.
Cultural Intelligence
The concept of CQ, one predictor to explain intercultural effectiveness, was different from general intelligence (IQ) and it was first proposed in the book of Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures. CQ was defined as “an individual’s capability to adapt effectively to situations of cultural diversity” (Earley
& Ang, 2003, p.3). Individuals with high cultural intelligence were able to interact with people from different cultures successfully since they can interpret the message and make correct judgments in cultural diversity settings. Further, they were able to come up with new solutions to novel tasks (Earley & Ang, 2003; Lee & Templer, 2003). Earley and Ang (2003) presented that CQ was viewed as a multifactor structure which consists of mental ability (cognitive CQ and meta-cognitive CQ), motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ.
Cognitive CQ was referred to the knowledge and experience about norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures which were stored in individual’s memory and was concern about the information processes of intelligence (Earley &
Ang, 2003; Earley & Perterson, 2004). Meta-cognitive CQ was an understanding process as individuals having interacting with people in different cultures. Individuals with a high meta-cognitive CQ had ‘cognitive strategies’ in the mind (Ang & Inkpen, 2008) and had better ability to put one specific culture pattern together into a coherent picture even when they did not fully understand the situation (Earley, 2002).
10
Motivational CQ was the mental capacity to direct attention and energy towards intercultural experiences and to be motivated to learn more about cultural differences (Ang et al., 2007). Imai and Gelfand (2010) also pointed out that motivational CQ put emphasis on the intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in adapting new cultures.
Motivational CQ was regarded as a critical factor that leads to cultural adaptation; in other words, if individuals lack of motivational CQ, the adaptation never occurred (Earley & Perterson, 2004). Earley (2002) pointed out that the cultural adaptation not only had cognition of knowing what and how to do, but also had motivation to persist in performing proper response in cultural diversity situations. Behavioral CQ was the ability to express verbal and non-verbal action appropriately in intercultural situations.
Individuals with a high behavioral CQ tend to have a comfortable and effective intercultural exchange under cultural diversity situation since they can quickly adapt to another’s gesture and message (Earley & Perterson, 2004).
Cross-cultural Adjustment
Cross-cultural adjustment was the degree of psychological comfort individuals feel when living and working in a foreign culture (Black & Stephens, 1989). Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) identified four important dimensions for individuals to utilize during their adaptation process. The first dimension was self-oriented. Individuals’
high in self-confidence will reach high level of psychological comfort during the adaptation process by involving in similar activities they had before in the home country, acquiring necessary skill to accomplish the assignments, and coping with stress successfully. The second one was others-oriented. Individuals who are willing to communicate and develop relationships with the host nationals had greater abilities to build a social network in the new environment to advance the adjustment. Third, perceptual dimension referred to the understanding of the host nationals’ behaviors.
Individuals who had better understanding of the host nationals were able to predict the
11
host nationals’ behaviors and reduce the uncertainty. Forth, cultural-toughness dimension referred to the gap between the host country and the home country. The bigger the gap was, the more difficult individuals adapt to the new culture.
Black and Stephens (1989) proposed three facets of cross-cultural adjustment which had been widely adopted by many other studies related to cross-cultural context.
First, general adjustment referred to the overall daily adaptation to living, housing condition, food, climate, and health facilitates. Second, interaction adjustmentwas identified as the most difficult facet to be achieved referred to achieving successful and comfortable interaction with host nationals in both work and non-work situations (Balck et al., 1999). Third, work adjustment referred to the adaptation to new work role, job task and work environment.
CQ and Cross-cultural Adjustment
Earley and Ang (2003) indicated that individuals with high cultural intelligence have greater motivation to understand new cultures and are able to interact with people from different cultures successfully. Recent studies also indicated the positive relationship between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment; briefly, the results implied that higher CQ leads to higher level of cross-cultural adjustment (Ang et al., 2004; Ang et al., 2007; Lin el al., 2012; Ramalu et al., 2012; Ramalu et al., 2010;
Templer et al., 2006). Ramalu et al. (2012) empirically examined the relationships among CQ, cross-cultural adjustment, and performance with the sample of Malaysia expatriates. The result showed that cross-culture plays as a mediator between CQ and performance, which indicates the causal relationship between CQ and adjustment.
When individuals were awarded the cultural knowledge and had confidence to socialize with locals, they had better ability to cope with stress associated with uncertainty and ambiguity in new cultural environment, hence resulting in a better adjustment. Lin et al. (2012) conducted a study among 295 international students in
12
Taiwan to test the moderating effect of emotional intelligence between CQ and adjustment in a cross-cultural context. The result showed that CQ positively related to cross-cultural adjustment. Specifically, individual who had higher meta-cognitive CQ can adjust to a culture diverse environment by processing the cultural related cognitive effectively. Based on the previous studies, this study hypothesized a positive relationship between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment; specifically, individuals with high CQ adapt to the new culture setting better than those with lower CQ.
Hypothesis 1. Cultural intelligence has a positive effect on cross-cultural adjustment.
CQ and General Adjustment
General adjustment involved factors such as living, housing, food and health facilitates that affect individual’s daily life adaptation. Individuals with high CQ tend to sense and understand the political, economic, and social systems similarities and differences across cultures; therefore, they had better capability for successful adaptation to new and unfamiliar cultural settings (Ang et al., 2007; Brislin, Worthley,
& MacNab, 2006; Earley &Ang, 2003). Ramalu, Chuah, and Rose (2011) conducted a study among 339 expatriates working in Malaysia through online and e-mail surveys in order to confirm the effects of CQ on cross-cultural adjustment and job performance; the result showed that meta-cognitive CQ and motivational CQ were positively associated with general adjustment. Ang et al. (2007) found the similar result among technology consulting professionals in Singapore. The result showed that individuals with high motivational CQ and behavioral CQ performed higher level of general adjustment; in other words, individuals with high intrinsic interest in other cultures and had the capacity to perform appropriately in a cultural diversity situation was predicted to have higher general adjustment. Templer et al. (2006) noted that motivational CQ was regarded as a critical component that affected individual’s daily
13
live adjustment since they were more open to experience and try new thing. Based on the previous researches, this study assumed that individuals with high CQ predict higher level of general adjustment.
H 1-1. Cultural intelligence has a positive effect on general adjustment.
CQ and Interaction Adjustment
Interaction adjustment represented the degree of individual’s comfort to socialize with local people both in work and non-work situations. Individuals with high CQ enjoyed and had confidence on interacting with people from different or unfamiliar cultures. Ang et al. (2007) conducted a study among 593 undergraduate students in mid-western U.S.A and Singapore aimed to exam the relationship between CQ and cultural adaptation. The result showed that motivational CQ and behavioral CQ predicted interaction adjustment. Ramalu et al. (2011) also indicated that individuals with high meta-cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, and motivational CQ performed higher level of interaction adjustment. Overall speaking, individuals who have higher CQ are more willing to make use of the cultural knowledge and change their verbal and non-verbal behavior in order to build friendly relationship with people from different cultures than those with lower CQ. Hence, this study proposed that CQ has a positive effect on interaction adjustment.
H 1-2. Cultural intelligence has a positive effect on interaction adjustment.
CQ and Work Adjustment
Job factors such as role novelty, role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload inhabited in individual’s work adjustment (Black, 1988). Individuals who perform high work adjustment usually involved the adaptation to new job tasks, work roles, responsibilities, and the new work environment in a cultural diversity environment.
Rose, Ramaly, Uli, and Kumar (2010) noted that “since expectations for performing
14
role prescribed behaviors often differ across cultures, CQ will facilitate individuals to perform in their job because of its more context or situation-specific nature characterized by cultural diversity” (p.79). Researchers indicated that individuals with high CQ were able to deal with cultural diversity by their efficacious belief of adaptive capabilities; furthermore, they were more open to new situation and tend to persist in adapting to both work and non-work situations in cultural diversity environment (Ang et al., 2004). Many other empirical researchers also found that there was a positive relationship between CQ and work adjustment, implying that the higher level of CQ predicted the greater level of work adjustment (Ang et al., 2007;
Ramalu et al., 2010, 2011; Templer et al., 2006). Ang et al. (2007) conducted a study among 103 foreign professionals worked for an information technology consulting firm in Singapore through online survey. The results showed that motivational CQ and behavioral CQ predicted work adjustment. Ramalu et al. (2010, 2011) indicated that the four dimensions of CQ positively associated with work adjustment. Templer et al.
(2006) also pointed out that motivational CQ was positively associated with work adjustment. Based on the theoretical and empirical literatures, this study proposed that there was a positive relationship between CQ and work adjustment. Individuals with high CQ usually sense the culture differences and take appropriate actions to meet the expectations across cultures. Hence, this study proposed that CQ has a positive effect on work adjustment.
H 1-3. Cultural intelligence has a positive effect on work adjustment.
Psychological Capital
Luthans (2008a) defined positive organization behavior (POB) as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today's workplace” (p.59). PsyCap was derived from the POB
15
foundation and criteria (Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans et al., 2004) and was first proposed by Luthans et al. (2004). It addressed the importance of ‘who you are’
beyond the concept of economic capital (what you have), human capital (what you know), and social (who you know). PsyCap was defined as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development” (Luthans et al., 2007b, p.542). Briefly, PsyCap reflects the condition of individual’s positive emotional status during the process of development and it helps individuals to recognize their role as well as sustains positive perception of well-being. PsyCap is characterized by four features which include hope, resilience, optimism, and efficacy.
Hope drew form the work of positive psychology and was defined as “a positive motivational state that was based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-oriented energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991, p.287). Luthans and Youssef (2004) defined resilience as “the capacity to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, failure, or even positive but seemingly overwhelming changes” (p.152). Resilience was composed with three components, including a firm acceptance of reality, a deep belief, and the ability to adapt to significant change. With the three components, individuals are encouraged to face the difficulties and hold firm belief that they can deal with any difficulties in any situations. In short, people with high resilience capacity can not only bound back from the difficulties but also perform better and find meaningful value during the life process (Luthans & Youssef, 2004).
Optimism was another feature that is applied in the positive psychology movement. Seligman (1998) drew the definition of optimism from attribution theory in terms of one’s explanatory style of good and bad events. The two critical dimensions that to do with time and apace are permanence and pervasiveness.
Specifically, the optimisms interpreted bad events as being temporary, while the
16
pessimisms interpreted bad events as being permanent. Self-efficacy (or confidence) was defined as “one’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998, p. 66).
People with high self-efficacy are willing to put more efforts on tasks and are likely to take challenging goals. Furthermore they usually persist to the end no matter how many obstacles they meet during the process of accomplishment (Luthans & Youssef, 2004).
CQ and PsyCap
Meta-cognitive CQ component associated with thinking about rational and related strategies (Earley & Peterson, 2004). MacNab and Worthley (2012) noted that within this component individuals reflect their own cultural background, stereotypes of thinking on the other culture. In other words, meta-cognitive CQ influenced individual’s perspective of thinking. Optimism referred to the style that individual explains positive or negative events. Individuals who were more optimistic tent to interpret good events as personal, and permanent, whereas negative events as external, temporary, and situation-specific (Seligman, 1998). Hope was composed with two components which were “will-power” (agency) and “way-power” (pathway). Agency provided the determination to achieve goals, whereas pathway promoted individuals’
creation to come up with alternative paths to replace the obstacles occurred in their process of pursuing goals (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Owing to meta-cognitive CQ had been constructed by the original culture or international experience, meta-cognitive CQ affected on individual’s perspective of thinking. There was a great possibility that when individuals try to explain events happened around them or intend to come up with new pathway to pursue a certain goal, people will be either constrained or liberate by distinguishing the culture style. Therefore, meta-cognitive
17
CQ influences individual’s creative thinking as well as psychological status.
Motivational CQ component referred to perseverance and appropriate goal setting in the culture setting (Earley & Peterson, 2004). Resilience involved maintaining positive adjustment and bouncing back when individuals meet both positive and negative overwhelming changes. People with high resilience were recognized to hold staunch acceptance of reality and believe life as meaningful (Luthans et al., 2004). Motivation had been regarded as an important intrinsic energy to overcome obstacles and perform successfully. The component of perseverance in motivation affected individual’s willingness to maintain positive belief while facing setbacks. Hence, motivational CQ facilitated the positive energy to help individuals recover from difficulties. Applying to the cross-cultural setting, individuals with high motivational CQ have greater chances to bounce back when they face setback during the adaptation process or meet difficulties to communicate with the locals, because they have been set their goals to deeply involved in the host nation. On the other hand, self-efficacy, the other features of PsyCap, had been recognized to play an important role in CQ (Earley & Peterson, 2004; NacNab & Worthley, 2012). Earley and Peterson (2004) stated that people high in CQ had a strong sense of efficacy; on the contrary, people low in motivational CQ feel frustrated when encountering initial frustration of goal attainment and then decreasing efficacy as well as constructing negative self-images.
Based on the above literatures, both meta-cognitive CQ and motivational CQ had many theoretical and empirical studies to support the relationship between CQ and the four features of PsyCap (optimism, hope, resilience, and self-efficacy), this study proposes that CQ has a positive effect on PsyCap. Specifically, individuals with high CQ perform higher level of PsyCap in the cross-cultural setting than those low in CQ.
18
Hypothesis 2. Cultural intelligence has a positive effect on psychological capital.
PsyCap and Cross-cultural Adjustment
Luthans et al. (2004) first proposed the concept of PsyCap that go beyond human capital and social capital. PsyCap could be trained and invested to develop competitive advantages (Luthans et al., 2010). There were growing studies shown that PsyCap was significantly related to desired employee behaviors, attitudes (e.g., satisfaction and commitment), and performance (Luthans et al., 2007b); however, very few researches applied PsyCap under cross-cultural settings or even discussed the relationship between PsyCap and adjustment. In spite of this, Avey et al. (2008) conducted a study among 131 adults working in the US and found that employee with high PsyCap were easier to adjust the change of the organization. Avey et al. (2008) suggested that it was the employees’ responsibilities to adapt and behave in ways with new organization strategies and regulations. Under the circumstance of change, employee knew how to adjust to the new paths and strategies to meet the redefined goals of the organization. First of all, employee tended to keep the confidence (efficacy) to adapt to the organizational change as well as the resilience to recover from the setback occurred during the change process. Further, they had motivation and determination (hope) to come up with new pathways to encounter obstacles.
Finally, they were positive (optimistic) to the attribution when things happened beyond expectations. These characteristic would be helpful for employees to survive in a new organization. In short, individuals who had the ability to utilize the characteristics of PsyCap advances the organization change process since they tend to adapt to the new organization easier than those who hold low level of PsyCap. Based on the study, individual with high PsyCap showed little resistance to unfamiliarity environment and tended to adapt to the new setting. Similarly, individuals with high level of PsyCap were supposed to experience higher level of psychological comfort
19
when living and working in a foreign culture.
Hypothesis 3. Psychological capital has a positive effect on cross-cultural adjustment.
Psychological Capital and General Adjustment
General adjustment referred to the degree of individuals’ psychological comfort to adjust to the overall daily life such as living conditions, transportation system, food, shopping, weather, and entertainment. Individuals took pleasures from the activities that happened in the daily life and satisfied with the life tend to perform high level of general adjustment. Avey, Reichard, Luthans, and Mhatre (2011) conducted a meta-analysis study by reviewing 51 researchers about PsyCap in order to clarify the relationship between PsyCap, desirable and undesirable attitude. The result showed that PsyCap was positively related to psychological well-being, while negatively related to stress and anxiety. In addition, Tripathi (2011) examined the relationship among PsyCap, life satisfaction, and well-being. The samples were 37 male employees working in the insurance sector from Raebareli. The result showed that well-being was positively correlated with PsyCap; particularly, self-efficacy and resilience were found as significant predictors of well-being, which help individuals to adjust to stressful life events better.
H 3-1. Psychological capital has a positive effect on general adjustment.
Psychological Capital and Interaction Adjustment
Interaction adjustment referred to the degree of individual’s comfort when socialize and communicate with host country nationals. Peltokorpi and Froese (2012) conducted an empirical study among 181 expatriates in Japan and found that individual’s personality trait was positively related to interaction adjustment. The result indicated that individuals who were more interest in the local people and took flexible views of right and wrong were more likely to adjust to work and non-work
20
overseas assignments. In other words, individuals who are comfortable when interacting with locals usually hold strong willpower (hope) to interact with locals and tend to value positive events more contributive than negative one (optimism). In addition, self-efficacy, one of the features of Psycap, was viewed as an important
overseas assignments. In other words, individuals who are comfortable when interacting with locals usually hold strong willpower (hope) to interact with locals and tend to value positive events more contributive than negative one (optimism). In addition, self-efficacy, one of the features of Psycap, was viewed as an important