Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to establish under which conditions researchers should use the constructs cultural intelligence (CQ) and global mindset (GM). The authors further seek to understand the process through which these constructs emerge to a higher level and link unit-level knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) capital to pertinent firm-level outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach: This paper is a conceptual study with a multilevel model.
Findings: This paper differentiates two similar lines of research occurring concordantly on the CQ and GM constructs. Next, the authors develop a multilevel model to better understand the process through which CQ and GM emerge at higher levels and their underlying mechanisms. Finally, this paper adds meaning to the firm-level KSAs by linking firm-level KSAs capital to pertinent firm-level outcomes.
Research limitations/implications: The conclusion implies that researchers should use CQ when the context is focused on interpersonal outcomes and GM when focused on strategic outcomes. The multilevel model is a useful tool for scholars to select which rubric to use in future studies that have international managers as the subjects. The authors argue that if the scholar is interested in an individual’s ability to craft policy and implement strategy, then GM may be more parsimonious than CQ. On the other hand, if the focus is on leadership, human resources or any other relationship dependent outcome, then CQ will provide a more robust measure.
Practical implications: For practitioners, this study provides a useful tool for managers to improve individual-level commitment by selecting and training individuals high in CQ. On the other hand, if the desired outcome is firm-level sales or performance, the focus should be on targeting individuals high in GM.
Originality/value: This is the first theoretical paper to examine how CQ and GM emerge to the firm level and describe when to use each measure.
Design/methodology/approach: This paper is a conceptual study with a multilevel model.
Findings: This paper differentiates two similar lines of research occurring concordantly on the CQ and GM constructs. Next, the authors develop a multilevel model to better understand the process through which CQ and GM emerge at higher levels and their underlying mechanisms. Finally, this paper adds meaning to the firm-level KSAs by linking firm-level KSAs capital to pertinent firm-level outcomes.
Research limitations/implications: The conclusion implies that researchers should use CQ when the context is focused on interpersonal outcomes and GM when focused on strategic outcomes. The multilevel model is a useful tool for scholars to select which rubric to use in future studies that have international managers as the subjects. The authors argue that if the scholar is interested in an individual’s ability to craft policy and implement strategy, then GM may be more parsimonious than CQ. On the other hand, if the focus is on leadership, human resources or any other relationship dependent outcome, then CQ will provide a more robust measure.
Practical implications: For practitioners, this study provides a useful tool for managers to improve individual-level commitment by selecting and training individuals high in CQ. On the other hand, if the desired outcome is firm-level sales or performance, the focus should be on targeting individuals high in GM.
Originality/value: This is the first theoretical paper to examine how CQ and GM emerge to the firm level and describe when to use each measure.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Multinational Business Review |
| Vol/bind | 24 |
| Udgave nummer | 2 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 106-122 |
| Antal sider | 17 |
| ISSN | 1525-383X |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2016 |
Emneord
- Organizational commitment
- Cultural intelligence
- Multilevel
- Firm performance
- Global mindset