LEAD FPX 5210 Assessment 2 Building Global Leadership

Student Name

Capella University

LEAD-FPX5210 Leading Global and Diverse Cultures

Prof. Name:

Date

Building Global Leadership

Introduction

Since the concept of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) was introduced, the importance of developing this skill among employees has increased alongside the continuous globalization of organizations. Effective CQ is crucial for the success of organizations where employees regularly interact with people from various cultures (Ang, Van Dyne, & Rockstuhl, 2015). Individuals with high levels of CQ are more likely to succeed in any environment, particularly in business settings. In today’s business world, globalization and advancing technologies continue to transform how people interact and conduct business.

Employees with lower CQ often struggle to adapt and participate effectively in new cultural environments, even if they are star performers in their current country. In contrast, individuals with higher CQ often naturally bridge cultural divides and succeed by building strong synergies. CQ is assessed through four components: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral. The CQ framework involves four key processes: acquire, build, contemplate, and do. To reach the highest level of CQ, individuals must progress through each level sequentially.

Four Components

Metacognitive CQ refers to cultural consciousness and the awareness an individual has when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds. Cognitive CQ involves the understanding of specific knowledge that one can acquire to better comprehend a new culture, based on cues provided. Motivational CQ is a person’s intrinsic motivation and commitment to overcoming challenges, even in the face of roadblocks and failures. Behavioral CQ is an individual’s ability to act in accordance with their desired actions in a new cultural context. These four components must work together for a person to observe, understand, respond to, and implement appropriate actions in cross-cultural interactions.

Cultural Intelligence

Global organizations require exceptional leaders who can effectively solve and overcome complex technical and social challenges. These challenges are magnified in global organizations, where successful communication in diverse cultural interactions is essential (Day, 2017). Leaders in diverse and challenging cultural environments are typically highly aware of their surroundings and capable of functioning above the norm in these settings. In cross-border contexts, leaders must navigate contrasting economic, political, and cultural practices effectively (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011).

Leadership on a global scale is challenging, even for individuals who excel in their home country. Cross-border leaders must adopt a multicultural perspective rather than focusing solely on their home country’s viewpoint. With greater diversity in workforce demographics and the integration of business organizations into the global economy, it is crucial for individuals to work and interact regularly with people from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds (Ang, Linn, & Koh, 2006). When applied correctly, CQ, using the four-factor model, can predict a person or leader’s success in a culturally diverse setting.

Two Models

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model originally included four values: low power distance, individualism, masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance, and short-term orientation. These dimensions were developed through a study conducted by IBM in 1970, which involved 56 different countries. The study used a scale of 1-100 for each dimension, determining that higher scores indicated more questions regarding a dimension within that culture. People working in international business may be surprised by the behavioral differences in various cultures (Mulder, 2009). Culture often leads to disagreements rather than alliances.

The second model, MBI (Map, Bridge, Integrate), focuses on effectively managing cultural differences between employees, potentially leveraging these differences to add value. Unlike Hofstede’s model, which emphasizes understanding power inequalities, interpersonal skills, and collectivism, the MBI model highlights the value of cultural differences. Both models are valuable for developing global teams and resolving conflicts in diverse organizations. The MBI model defines the leader’s responsibilities, such as mapping, bridging, and integrating differences, to foster open-mindedness and bridge cultural gaps. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions reveal the extent to which power inequality is accepted within organizations, as well as the psychological effects of hierarchy (Vodi & Meri, 2005).

Some scholars have conceptualized leadership behaviors as predictors of employee perceptions of organizational climate (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Liao & Chuang, 2007). Organizational climate, or corporate climate, is better understood in the business world through these predictors, which help develop global teams by analyzing the psychological impact of work environments on employee well-being. This enhances leaders’ CQ by helping them understand job-specific roles and workload aspects in culturally diverse environments. Utilizing these two models in the workplace can facilitate knowledge transfer and interpersonal connections between individuals from different cultures. A multicultural workforce can bring innovation, creativity, and diverse perspectives to solve complex problems with simple solutions.

A third model, the DAE (Describe, Analyze, Evaluate) model, focuses on communication and the foundation of intercultural relations. The DAE model encourages individuals to challenge the norms of their thinking processes concerning CQ. It fosters relations based on thoughtfulness, sensitivity, and an exploratory atmosphere suitable for discussing complex intercultural issues. This model promotes heightened awareness of presented information and encourages individuals to view situations differently, allowing them to see beyond their usual perspectives.

Leading in a Cross-Cultural Environment

Leading in a complex, cross-cultural environment presents challenges for both leaders and followers. Individuals in any role must adjust personally not only to the environment but also to distinct cultural differences. Leadership in such environments requires leaders to be multifaceted in all aspects of their roles. For instance, a leader must adapt to a multicultural perspective while balancing global demands. Leaders must engage with multiple cultures simultaneously rather than focusing on one culture exclusively.

To succeed in a cross-cultural environment, leaders must adjust their behavior, as actions effective in one situation may not work or may be ineffective in others. Some argue that culture and leadership are like two sides of the same coin. Leaders must recognize that cultural differences are critical for effective leadership. Just as emotional intelligence involves a leader’s ability to work effectively by understanding emotions, cultural intelligence involves a leader’s ability to function effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds (Van Dyne, Ang, & Livermore, 2010).

Application and Cultural Framework

The application of cultural frameworks lies in addressing the social distance inherent in global organizations. When teams work in the same physical setting, social distance is typically low. However, when teams consist of individuals from different cultures and social backgrounds, they must work together to build trust, foster positive interactions, and create strong teamwork. For leaders, thinking globally involves blending attitudes and behaviors to work synergistically as a team toward a common vision.

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions offer a unique perspective on leadership functions in a global environment. Hofstede defines power distance in leadership as centralized, where employees are directed on what to do. Individualism is described as an autonomous structure where employees have the freedom to work independently. Masculinity is defined by gender-specific roles, with men seen as assertive and decisive, while women are viewed as more intuitive. Uncertainty avoidance varies, with high uncertainty indicating a structured environment and low uncertainty reflecting anxiety and discomfort dominated by culture. Finally, long-term orientation refers to a group’s future-oriented perspective.

Analyzing Hofstede’s dimensions helps understand the cultural framework in which potential application and process tools for global organizations can be utilized. These tools demonstrate how common goals, personal commitment, and knowledge can be effective in culturally diverse global environments. Global organizations are not only trans-border but also cross-cultural, where connections are defined by a concern for global issues and the experiences associated with addressing these issues. Another process tool is understanding the difference between being business-savvy and organizationally savvy. A business-savvy leader focuses on profit, while an organizationally savvy leader understands the overall cost structure, company competitiveness, employee talent, and management structure.

Conclusion

The understanding of CQ within a global organization is crucial for identifying and nurturing successful leaders. The utilization of Hofstede’s dimensions and the MBI frameworks highlights a leader’s ability to adapt to cultural differences and adjust to the behaviors required in new environments. The different areas of CQ help determine leaders’ capabilities to relate and perform effectively across various cultures. Cross-cultural leadership is complex and challenging in the modern era, requiring leaders to demonstrate competence comparable to traditional leadership while also being effective in face-to-face interactions.

Global companies with cultural diversity must emphasize the importance of cultural intelligence in selecting effective leaders, rather than randomly choosing candidates. Successful leaders with high CQ can foster an entrepreneurial culture that promotes diversity, satisfaction, and talent retention. A global organization focused on CQ and cross-cultural leadership will prioritize three main areas for their leaders: education (curiosity enhances learning), information (cross-cultural knowledge), and prevention (internal and external communication) (Morocco World News, 2017).

References

Ang, S., Linn, V. D., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100-123.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Rockstuhl, T. (2015). Cultural intelligence: Origins, conceptualization, evolution, and methodological diversity. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology: Vol. 5. Handbook of advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 273-323). Oxford University Press.

Day, G. (2017). From thought to action: How global organizations move employees past cognitive cultural intelligence to win the heart of CQ. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 21(2), 1-15,12A.

Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1006–1019.

Morocco World News. (2017, March 20). What are the advantages of cultural intelligence in business? Retrieved September 19, 2018,

from https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2017/03/211308/what-are-the-advantages-of-cultural-intelligence-in-business/

Mulder, P. (2009). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/cultural-dimensions-theory-geert-hofstede/

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Livermore, D. (2010). Cultural intelligence: A pathway for leading in a rapidly globalizing world. In K. M. Hannum, B. McFeeters, & L. Booysen (Eds.), Leadership across differences: Cases and perspectives (pp. 131-138). Pfeiffer.