Journal A NEW TRAINING PROGRAM IN DEVELOPING CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE CAN ALSO IMPROVE INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR AND RESILIENCE

The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 100303
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The International Journal of

Management Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme
A new training program in developing cultural intelligence can also

T
improve innovative work behavior and resilience: A longitudinal
pilot study of graduate students and professional employees
Ana Azevedoa,∗, Mary Jo Shaneb
a
Athabasca University, Faculty of Business, #201-13220 St. Albert Trail, Edmonton, AB T5L 4W1, Canada
b
California Lutheran University, School of Management, 60 West Olsen Road #3550, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91360, United States
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: The ever-increasing globalization and workforce diversity in today's business environment pre-
Cultural intelligence training sent ongoing challenges for organizational leaders and employees who wish to function effec-
Cross-cultural education tively in cross-cultural settings. Reliance on knowledge of cultural values frameworks alone has
Resilience been insufficient to adequately equip workers to operate in global and/or culturally-diverse
Innovative work behavior
contexts. This paper introduces a new cultural intelligence training program that combines the
knowledge or cognitive aspect with meta-cognitive, motivational and behavioral aspects. It fol-
lows a pedagogical approach that balances traditional and experiential methods, and includes a
number of unique elements, such as mindfulness and authentic leadership topics. A longitudinal
pilot study was designed to test the effectiveness of this new training program with two groups of
participants: MBA students from a university in California, United States, and Human Resource
professionals from an energy company in Saskatchewan, Canada. Results from the pretest-
posttest data analysis confirmed that while participants' cultural intelligence capabilities sig-
nificantly increased after the training program, it also revealed significant improvements in
participants' innovative work behavior for both groups, and resilience was significantly increased
for the MBA students. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
1. Introduction
The increasing globalization of businesses, coupled with growing workforce diversity, requires that workers become culturally
adept in order to effectively operate in different work settings (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2018; Peng, Van Dyne, & Oh, 2015; Ramsey &
Lorenz, 2016). Yet, in spite of the widely recognized need for cross-cultural competence in organizational leaders and employees, the
evidence suggests that limited progress has been made in terms of preparing them to work in global and/or culturally diverse contexts
(Barrera, 2010; Bartel-Radic & Giannelloni, 2017; Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010; Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006;
Mendenhall et al., 2017). This gap in cross-cultural competence can be partially explained by the methods used in existing inter-
cultural training programs that focus on providing a mixture of country-specific knowledge with an understanding of cultural-values
frameworks (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Molinsky, 2013). An awareness of differences in cultural values offers an insufficient foun-
dation for intercultural training given that the link between national cultural values and individual behavior is not very strong (Earley
& Peterson, 2004; Egan & Bendick, 2008; Triandis, 1972).
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ana.azevedo@fb.athabascau.ca (A. Azevedo), mjshane@callutheran.edu (M.J. Shane).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.05.004
Received 17 September 2018; Received in revised form 1 May 2019; Accepted 26 May 2019
1472-8117/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Azevedo and M.J. Shane The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 100303
Training in cultural intelligence provides a more integrated approach to the development of cross-cultural capability (Earley,
2002; Livermore, 2011, 2015, 2016). Research in cultural intelligence (CQ), herein defined as the “capability of an individual to
effectively function in situations characterized by cultural diversity” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2015, p. 3), shows that it is possible to
develop this capability by providing training that addresses four primary CQ dimensions: Cognitive (CQ Knowledge), metacognitive
(CQ Strategy), motivational (CQ Drive) and behavioral (CQ Action) (Livermore, 2015; MacNab, 2012; Wang, Heppner, Wang, & Zhu,
2015). While the cognitive dimension of cultural intelligence (cognitive CQ) incorporates the knowledge aspect (e.g., an under-
standing of differences in terms of cultural values and norms), the other three dimensions address additional components that are
important for the development of cross-cultural competence, such as awareness and monitoring of cognitive processes (metacognitive
CQ), motivation and confidence to persist in cross-cultural interactions (motivational CQ), and the ability to use a repertoire of
different verbal and non-verbal behaviors, depending on the situation (behavioral CQ) (Ang, Rockstuhl, & Tan, 2015; Van Dyne et al.,
2012). Recent comprehensive reviews of this research reveal that a number of empirical studies have demonstrated a significant link
between cultural intelligence and key individual outcomes, such as cultural adjustment, cross-cultural judgment and decision-
making, cross-cultural negotiation, idea sharing across cultures, leadership effectiveness and job performance (Ang, Van Dyne, & Tan,
2011; Leung, Ang, & Tan, 2014; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2012; Ott & Michailova, 2018). Furthermore, recent empirical studies
confirmed that cultural intelligence is a malleable competence that can be developed through appropriate intercultural training
within classroom settings (Eisenberg et al., 2013; MacNab, 2012; Ramsey & Lorenz, 2016). Nonetheless, empirical research that
addresses the effectiveness of cultural intelligence training in the classroom is still in its early stages and additional studies are
needed, especially by means of longitudinal designs (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Wang et al., 2015).
In light of the growing importance of cultural intelligence within global, culturally-diverse and/or turbulent work environments,
as well as the need for additional empirical studies that examine the effectiveness of cultural intelligence training programs, this
paper has two primary aims. The first is to contribute to the existing cross-cultural literature and practice by introducing a new
training program that further investigates CQ training's direct effects on CQ capabilities as well as on two previously unexamined
outcome variables: Innovative work behavior and resilience. The design of this CQ-focused training program is a balanced approach
to cross-cultural training combining traditional and experiential methods rather than relying more heavily on a single approach
which other training courses discussed in the literature tend to do. It also includes a number of unique components, especially the use
of mindfulness practice, further underscoring the importance of mindfulness and self-reflection in strengthening CQ development.
The second aim is to discuss critical findings from a longitudinal pilot study that examined the effects of this new training program
on two groups of participants in two different contexts: a university setting with a multicultural group of students enrolled in an MBA
program in California, United States, and an organizational setting with Human Resource (HR) professionals working for an energy
company in Saskatchewan, Canada. Interestingly, we did not find any other CQ studies that addressed HR professionals given the
critical role they play in promoting talent development in the workplace. As Goh (2012) has suggested, we need to foster cultural
intelligence among individuals who are responsible for developing others.
This paper is organized as follows. In the Background section, we begin with a literature review to examine the concept of cultural
intelligence and discuss key findings from previous empirical studies. In the Method section, we introduce the design and im-
plementation of the training program and further explain the two survey instruments that were used in the pilot study. In the Results
section, we present the main findings and interpretations of our pilot study, according to a quantitative data analysis of before-and-
after survey responses. In the final Discussion section, we conclude this paper with key recommendations for future research and
practice.
2. Background
2.1. Cultural intelligence (CQ)
2.1.1. History, definition

For decades, researchers from a variety of disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, management, education) have tried to de-
termine why certain individuals can more effortlessly and effectively adjust to global or culturally-diverse situations as compared to
others. This resulted in a wide variety of theoretical frameworks and measurement instruments which created a lack of cohesion in
the theoretical foundation (Gelfand, Imai, & Fehr, 2015; Leung et al., 2014). Cultural intelligence (CQ) was created within this rich
academic history in response to the need for greater conceptual clarity (Ang et al., 2015). Cultural intelligence (CQ) was first
introduced by Earley and Ang (2003) to describe the capability of an individual to effectively function in culturally-diverse situations.
These researchers drew upon a growing consensus that the study of intelligence had to advance beyond an investigation of cognitive
abilities to include other dimensions (e.g., metacognitive, motivational and behavioral), as well as expand into other contexts or
content domains (e.g., social, emotional, and practical intelligence) (Sternberg et al., 2000), with cultural intelligence focusing on an
individual's ability in the specific domain of intercultural or culturally-diverse settings (Lin, Chen, & Song, 2012; Ng et al., 2012).
Earley and Ang (2003) proposed cultural intelligence as a multidimensional construct based on Sternberg and Detterman's (1986)
framework where intelligence is described as mental capabilities which reside within the “head” and behavioral capabilities that
include outward manifestations or overt actions. The four CQ capabilities are further described as follows: Cognitive CQ addresses
mental capabilities and is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge regarding cultural norms, values and practices. This
knowledge includes a macro understanding of societal systems (e.g., economic, political, cultural), as well as a context-specific
understanding (e.g., cultural differences regarding leadership styles or negotiation strategies).
Metacognitive CQ addresses the mental, higher-order cognitive processes that individuals need to acquire in order to understand
2
and make use of cultural knowledge. Key aspects of metacognitive CQ include being able to plan for cross-cultural interactions, being
aware and able to monitor and control thought processes during these interactions, and an ability to check and revise cultural
assumptions both during and after cross-cultural encounters. According to Livermore (2015), metacognitive CQ is “… the lynchpin
between understanding cultural issues and actually being able to use our understanding to be more effective” (p.30) in intercultural
situations.
Motivational CQ includes both intrinsic (e.g., experiencing joy in intercultural encounters) and extrinsic interest (e.g., identifying
tangible benefits in intercultural situations), as well as confidence in one's ability to succeed in cross-cultural situations (Livermore,
2011). This motivational aspect of cultural intelligence is important because it provides the drive that is needed to initiate and sustain
individual effort when adjusting to the novel situations typically presented in cross-cultural settings (Ng et al., 2012).
Lastly, behavioral CQ addresses an individual's capability to use a broad and flexible repertoire of different verbal and non-verbal
behaviors during cross-cultural interactions. Key aspects of behavioral CQ include speech acts (e.g., the specific words or phrases used
when disagreeing with someone from a different culture), verbal actions (e.g., changing the use of pause and silence in different
cultural settings), and non-verbal actions (e.g., changing hand gestures or head movements to fit the cultural context). Behavioral CQ
is important because it reflects the extent to which individuals are actually able to behave appropriately in cross-cultural situations
(Livermore, 2011; Whitaker & Greenleaf, 2017; Wang et al., 2015).
2.1.2. Nomological network

While a comprehensive review of the empirical research using the cultural intelligence construct is beyond the scope of this paper,
we would like to highlight two important points. First, a number of empirical studies have confirmed that cultural intelligence is
clearly distinct from other related constructs, although it may share some similarities. For example, CQ has low correlations with
social and emotional intelligence, as well as cognitive ability (Ang et al., 2015; Ang et al., 2007). Cultural intelligence is also distinct
from personality traits (e.g., Big Five personality traits), intercultural traits (e.g., tolerance for ambiguity, cultural empathy), and
other cultural competence models (Leung et al., 2014; Sharma & Hussain, 2017).
Second, research in cultural intelligence has shown that the role of cultural intelligence can be described within a broader
nomological network which includes antecedents to CQ, outcomes of CQ, and CQ as mediator and moderator (Ang et al., 2015; Ng
et al., 2012; Ott & Michailova, 2018). The antecedents to CQ include Big Five personality traits such as openness to experience,
extraversion and conscientiousness (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006); intercultural traits such as flexibility/openness, emotional resi-
lience, perceptual acuity and personal autonomy (Ang et al., 2007; Imai & Gelfand, 2010); international experiences, including work-
related experiences such as business trips and expatriate assignments, as well as non-work-related experiences, such as trips for personal
or educational purposes (e.g., study abroad experiences) (Crowne, 2013; Harrison & Brower, 2011; Lokkesmoe, Kuchinke, &
Ardichvili, 2016; Moon, Choi, & Jung, 2012; Shannon & Begley, 2015). Outcomes of CQ include cognitive outcomes, such as cultural
judgment and decision-making (Ang et al., 2007); affective outcomes, such as cultural adjustment, including psychological and so-
ciocultural adjustment (Chao, Takeuchi, & Farh, 2017; Guomundsdottir, 2015; Wang et al., 2015), team member cohesion and
acceptance in multicultural teams (Flaherty, 2015); and behavioral outcomes, such as task performance in culturally-diverse work
contexts and cross-border leadership effectiveness (Malek & Budhwar, 2013; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011).
CQ as a mediator includes the mediating role of cultural intelligence in the relationship between multiculturalism and innovative
work behavior (Korzilius, Bucker, & Beerlage, 2017), and motivational CQ mediating the relationship of both core self-evaluation and
ethnocentrism to the affective evaluation of study abroad experiences (Barbuto, Beenen, & Tran, 2015). Examples of CQ as a
moderator would be the use of CQ in strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational in-
novation (Elenkov & Manev, 2009), and using CQ for increased career adaptability and expatriate career intentions (Presbitero &
Quita, 2017).
The empirical research regarding antecedents of CQ is of particular importance for the present study because it examines specific
factors that contribute to cultural intelligence development. Given that personality factors are relatively stable over time (Ang et al.,
2006; Huff, Song, & Gresch, 2014), there are primarily two factors that can enhance CQ capabilities: International experiences and
cross-cultural training or education (Ott & Michailova, 2018). Regarding international experiences, the key influential variables
include: Reasons for spending time abroad, the length of stay and the number of countries visited (Tarique & Takeuchi, 2015). A
recent review of studies by Tharapos, O'Connell, Dellaportas, and Basioudis (2019) disclosed that there are mixed findings regarding
how international experiences impact CQ development. In the next section, we will review findings from key empirical studies that
examined the relationship between cross-cultural training and education and CQ development, which is the focus of this present
study.
2.2. Current study rationale for CQ education and training
2.2.1. Key studies

Over the last two decades, the demand for cross-cultural management education has grown considerably in light of increasing
globalization, workforce diversity and mobility, as well as the spread of international work assignments (Ramsey & Lorenz, 2016).
While business schools responded to this need by significantly expanding their course offerings in cross-cultural management and
international business, very few empirical studies examined how these courses actually contributed to students’ development of key
capabilities, such as cultural intelligence (Joy & Poonamallee, 2013; Eisenberg et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015). Yet, it is often
recognized that the process of developing effective cross-cultural competence in organizational leaders and employees should start in
the classroom, given the difficulties organizations face in motivating and adequately preparing employees for global work
3
Table 1
Cross-cultural training: Modes of delivery and pedagogical approaches.
Mode of delivery Approach focused on traditional Approach focused on experiential Approach mixed traditional and
methods methods experiential methods
Stand-alone course or training Eisenberg et al. (2013) MacNab (2012) a Ramsey and Lorenz (2016)
program Wood and St. Peters (2014)
Training embedded within a course Erez et al. (2013) Fischer (2011)
Bücker and Korzilius (2015)
a
Note: Study also focused on the development of CQ capabilities.
environments (Ang et al., 2006; Mendenhall, Arnardottir, Oddou, & Burke, 2013; Whitaker & Greenleaf, 2017).
CQ research has only recently started to examine how cultural intelligence can be taught in the classroom (e.g., Rockstuhl et al.,
2011). This section will review key empirical studies that include a cross-cultural training component and its impact on CQ devel-
opment. To help synthesize this discussion, we differentiate between CQ training that was embedded within a course (i.e., inter-
national business) and CQ training that was provided as a stand-alone course, and whether the pedagogical approach that was used
focused on traditional methods (i.e., lecture-based), experiential methods or a combination of both (see Table 1). As McCrea and Yin
(2012) suggested, different cross-cultural training methods can impact CQ development differently (e.g., experiential approaches
such as international study tours may promote higher levels of motivational and behavioral CQ, as compared to lecture-based
training).
It is noteworthy that all of the studies reviewed in this section employed a pretest-posttest design in order to assess the effects of
the cross-cultural training intervention. In addition, they used the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) to assess CQ capabilities. This 20-
item, four-factor self-report measure introduced by Ang. et al.(2007) has been shown to have both factor structure validity and cross-
cultural measurement equivalence (Ang et al., 2015; Leung et al., 2014; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2015). In reviewing and comparing
the psychometric properties of ten different cross-cultural competence measures, Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) concluded that the
CQS has strong construct and ecological validity.
In the earliest study that we identified, Fischer (2011) tested the effects of a four-week intercultural training intervention in-
volving undergraduate students at a New Zealand university; this study found no direct effects from this training on CQ (see Table 1).
As the author suggested, these findings could be partially explained by students’ difficulties in understanding and effectively engaging
in the two experiential exercises (i.e., a simulation game and a behavioral modification exercise). MacNab (2012), on the other hand,
studied graduate students at one Australian and one American university and showed that their meta-cognitive, motivational and
behavioral CQ were significantly improved following an eight-week course (see Table 1). This course was the only one we found that
specifically focused on CQ capabilities.
Eisenberg et al. (2013) expanded on this research by conducting two separate studies, one with undergraduates in Austria, and
another with graduate students at 15 different European universities. Results showed that for both groups, undergraduate and
graduate, CQ improved even after a short cross-cultural management course (CCM) (see Table 1). In the first study, there was a
significant increase in undergraduate students' cognitive and meta-cognitive CQ; in the second study, graduate students’ cognitive,
meta-cognitive and motivational CQ also significantly improved, compared to no improvements for members of a control group.
As described in Table 1, Erez et al. (2013) examined the effects of a cross-cultural training intervention that included a four-week
virtual team project with graduate students located in different countries. Study results showed a significant increase in overall CQ,
which remained steady over a period of six months. Specific improvements in CQ capabilities were not reported.
Wood and St. Peters (2014) examined the impact of a short-term cross-cultural study tour on MBA students enrolled at an
American university. The study revealed that three out of the four CQ capabilities (cognitive, metacognitive and motivational CQ)
were significantly enhanced after participation in the study tour. Similarly, Bücker and Korzilius (2015) showed significant im-
provements in CQ capabilities (metacognitive, motivational and behavioral CQ) for graduate students at French and Dutch uni-
versities following a training intervention that employed a simulation game. Both of these studies are presented in Table 1.
Ramsey and Lorenz (2016) extended the work of Eisenberg et al. (2013), by examining MBA students' CQ development within a
cross-cultural management (CCM) course and investigating whether CQ was positively related to key student outcomes (see Table 1).
This study provided additional supporting evidence that students' CQ could be improved with the help of a CCM course as significant
improvements were made in students' overall CQ capabilities, while the control group did not show any significant improvements in
their overall CQ. Although information on the specific changes associated with each of the four dimensions was not provided, the
authors did show that students’ CQ was positively related with student satisfaction and commitment to the CCM course.
Taken together, these studies confirm that cultural intelligence is a malleable competence that can be developed through appro-
priate intercultural training in classroom settings. This empirical work adds to the existing literature that examined the effects of
international experience on cultural intelligence (e.g., Ang et al., 2011; Raver & Van Dyne, 2017), by suggesting alternative ways to
promote CQ development. The cross-cultural training interventions reviewed in this section did not include any international ex-
periences, with the exception of Wood and St. Peters (2014) study abroad tour.
2.2.2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

In the current pilot study, we built upon the empirical findings discussed above and extend them by developing and testing a new
training program that combines traditional (lecture-based) and experiential methods. In doing so, we address the call for more
4
empirical research regarding the development of CQ within classroom settings (Ott & Michailova, 2018; Ramsey & Lorenz, 2016).
The design of this new training program incorporated a number of unique components. First, having conducted a thorough search
of the literature, it is our conclusion that our work represents the first use of the knowledge and practice of mindfulness within the
context of a cultural intelligence training program. The concept of mindfulness, herein defined as an “enhanced attention to and
awareness of current experience or present reality,” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p. 822), has been theoretically linked to cultural in-
telligence in a model developed by Thomas and colleagues (Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2008; Thomas & Inkson, 2009). In this
model, mindfulness is perceived as the critical component that allows individuals to translate cultural knowledge into effective cross-
cultural skills or competencies. As these authors explain, paying attention and being aware of both self and others are important
requirements for understanding subtle cues in cross-cultural situations, for recognizing one's assumptions, perceptions, feelings and
attitudes (as well as those of others), and for being able to adjust one's behavioral response to fit the specific situation or context
(Thomas & Inkson, 2009; Tuleja, 2014).
Second, the program aimed to strike a balance between “knowing, doing and reflecting,” via a combination of content-based
knowledge and experiential exercises which are critical for the development of CQ and other types of competencies (Azevedo,
Apfelthaler, & Hurst, 2012; Hackett, 2001; Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Kolb, Kolb, Passarelli, & Sharma, 2014; Ramsey & Lorenz,
2016). Based on our review of empirical studies involving CQ training programs, Ramsey and Lorenz (2016) was the only study that
attempted to combine both traditional and experiential methods within a stand-alone course. Similar to Ramsey and Lorenz (2016),
we also combined traditional and experiential approaches within a stand-alone training intervention and incorporated elements of
“knowing” (e.g., knowledge of each of the four capabilities and how they can be developed) and “reflecting” (e.g., individual self-
reflection exercises and group discussions). However, we went further than these authors by adding a number of experiential ac-
tivities to be performed both inside and outside the classroom in order to reinforce the “doing” aspect (e.g., journaling, mindfulness
exercises, experimenting with intercultural situations, and participating in a team project). In addition, similar to MacNab (2012), the
content of our training program was created to specifically focus on the development of CQ capabilities.
Third, our program was designed to be flexible enough to be applied to different contexts. Specifically, we created a compre-
hensive version to be implemented as a full MBA course, and a condensed version to be implemented as a two-day workshop within a
corporate setting (for additional details, please see section 3.1). We aimed to create a program with enough flexibility so that different
types of organizations could tie CQ training to already existing cross-cultural learning and development initiatives.
Consistent with previous cross-cultural studies that showed a significant relationship between training interventions and CQ
development, we expect that our training program will directly and positively impact each of the four CQ capabilities. Therefore, we
hypothesize that:
H1. The new training program will significantly improve participants' four CQ capabilities.
Aside from extending the existing literature in cultural intelligence training, our pilot study also intended to examine whether
changes in cultural intelligence capabilities were accompanied by changes in two individual outcome variables: Innovative work
behavior, defined as a multistage process that includes “a broad set of behaviors related to the generation of ideas, creating support for
them, and helping their implementation” (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010, p. 23), and resilience, defined as “the ability to bounce back
or recover from stress, to adapt to stressful circumstances, to not become ill despite significant adversity, and to function above the
norm in spite of stress or adversity” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 194). Considering the growing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and
ambiguity (i.e., VUCA) in global work environments, we wanted to consider the potential association between CQ and increasingly
relevant individual skills such as resilience and innovation (Tuleja, 2017).
As this study was exploratory in nature and sample sizes were small, we built on existing research evidence that suggests that
cultural intelligence capabilities may be linked to higher creativity and higher innovation (e.g., Elenkov & Manev, 2009; Yunlu,
Clapp-Smith, & Shaffer, 2017). Drawing on creative cognition theory, as well as on previous empirical studies suggesting that in-
dividuals exposed to multicultural ideas tend to be more creative than individuals that are not (Leung & Chiu, 2010; Leung, Maddux,
Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008), Yunlu et al. (2017) empirically tested the effects of CQ on creativity and found that metacognitive, cognitive
and motivational CQ were significant predictors of creativity among a sample of expatriates. In addition, Elenkov and Manev (2009)
examined the leadership behaviors of senior expatriates from 27 countries and the innovation outcomes of their organizational units.
Results from their study showed that cultural intelligence positively moderated the relationship between their visionary-transfor-
mational leadership behaviors and the rate of organizational innovative adoption in such a way that senior expatriates with higher
levels of CQ were more successful in motivating followers and promoting organizational innovation (Elenkov & Manev, 2009).
Therefore, on the basis of previous studies that linked CQ to creativity and innovation, we hypothesize that:
H2. The new training program will significantly increase participants' individual innovative work behavior.
In terms of resilience, Tay, Westman, and Chia (2015) tested the effects of CQ capabilities on the emotional exhaustion component
of burnout (Maslach, 1982, 1993). Analyzing questionnaire data collected from short-term business travelers from Singapore, Israel
and Brazil, they discovered that three out of the four CQ capabilities (i.e., metacognitive, motivational and behavioral CQ) sig-
nificantly contributed to lower levels of burnout. This relationship was mediated by schedule autonomy. Similarly, Kodwani (2012),
in a study of managerial employees from India working on international assignments, employed a burnout approach to engagement
wherein engagement is described as the “… positive antithesis of burnout” (p. 9). Study results confirmed that cultural intelligence
capabilities (i.e., motivational, cognitive and behavioral) significantly predicted expatriate engagement.
In light of the above findings, and considering the inclusion of mindfulness and self-reflection in our training program, we wanted
to examine whether individual resilience scores would increase after the introduction of the training program. There are a number of
5
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework: The effects of the training program on CQ capabilities and individual outcome variables. The two solid lines indicate
the direct effects examined in this study. The dotted line indicates an expected relationship which was not tested.
studies on mindfulness and its relationship to resilience, including empirical investigations using mindfulness-based interventions
aimed at “capacity building” or resilience (for a good summary, see Kent & Davis, 2010) and at reducing stress and burnout (Brendel,
Hankerson, Byun, & Cunningham, 2016; Davis & Hayes, 2011). The important role of self-reflection on resilience has also been
underscored by Jackson, Firtko, and Edenborough (2007) who, for example, after reviewing the existing literature on personal
resilience and its value as a strategy for coping with workplace adversity, recommended self-reflection (e.g., writing in a journal) as
one of the key strategies for promoting resilience among nurses. Breen (2017), drawing on the educational literature, also suggested
that self-reflection is one of the most important tools for promoting resilience and the development of leadership capacity. Taken
together, these studies provide a good basis for our expectation that individuals could exhibit higher levels of resilience after par-
ticipating in our training program. Therefore, on the basis of previous studies that linked CQ to burnout, as well as additional research
that examined the impact of mindfulness and self-reflection practices on resilience, we hypothesize that:
H3. The new training program will significantly increase participants' resilience.
Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual framework and related hypotheses. The framework describes the direct effect of the training
program on the four CQ capabilities and the individual outcome variables. In addition, we expect an indirect effect of the training
intervention on both individual innovative behavior and resilience via CQ. In other words, similar to Moon et al. (2012), who showed
that CQ mediated the effect of pre-departure cross-cultural training on Korean expatriates’ adjustment, we suggest that CQ cap-
abilities are mediating (or explaining) the relationship between the cross-cultural training and the individual outcome variables.
3. Method
3.1. Pilot study: overview and purpose
The cultural intelligence training program discussed in this paper was developed within the context of a pilot study that was
implemented between July 2016 and December of 2017. The primary goal was to design and test a new CQ training program with
two different groups: Students enrolled in an MBA program at a small, private university in Southern California, and HR professionals
working in an energy company in Saskatchewan. Regarding the first group, considering the existing empirical evidence that describes
the significant academic and social challenges international students face integrating into a new culture (e.g., Andrade, 2006; Arthur,
2017; Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015), we expected a high demand for a graduate-level course that focused on the development of cross-
cultural skills. In fact, while this course was advertised to all MBA students at this California university, as we expected, almost all of
the students who registered were international or foreign-born (the exception being a domestic student, born and raised in Southern
California). The countries these students are from included: China, India, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand,
Vietnam and the United States.
Concerning the second group, we also identified the need for capacity building among HR professionals given the continuing
organizational demands for global leadership development, as well as the growing HR challenges associated with a global and
increasingly “borderless” workplace including increased employee diversity, mobility and flexibility (Cumberland, Herd, Alagaraja, &
Kerrick, 2016; Stone & Deadrick, 2015; Tsui & Schamberger, 2017). Consequently, the first author of this paper reached out to a small
number of HR professionals working for Canadian organizations that had demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity by winning
diversity awards (e.g., “Canada's Best Diversity Employers”). The list of Canadian organizations contacted was based on a convenient
sample of companies, which were recommended to the primary researcher by members of her own professional network in Western
Canada. After an agreement to participate in the pilot study was reached with the organization in Saskatchewan, all HR employees
working for that organization were invited to attend a two-day training workshop. Regarding the selection of this Canadian company,
we note that aside from being included in the list of 100 “best diversity employers” in Canada for a number of years, some of the
company's diversity objectives matched very well with the goals of our training program.
6
Considering the novelty of the training program, which included unique elements in terms of content (e.g., mindfulness and
authentic leadership topics), and pedagogical approach (i.e., balancing the ‘knowing-doing-reflecting’ that is central to the experi-
ential learning cycle), the researchers agreed that a small-scale pilot study provided an appropriate exploratory investigation to assess
the likelihood of success of this new educational intervention in increasing cultural intelligence capabilities before embarking on a
full-scale empirical study (Kolb & Kolb, 2009, pp. 42–68; van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2011). As van Teijlingen and Hundley (2011)
explained, a pilot study provides an ideal, small-scale research designed to assess the effectiveness of new approaches or research
instruments; in addition, it can help identify potential problems that may affect future studies. For additional details on the two study
measures, i.e., the cultural intelligence and training program questionnaires, please see section 3.2.
The pilot study included a one-group pretest-posttest design, wherein all participants from both groups were expected to receive the
same “treatment” or intervention (i.e., the training program), and be assessed on key variables of interest before and after the
intervention (Cranmer, 2017). According to Cranmer (2017), this type of design is commonly used in empirical research aimed at
assessing the effectiveness of educational programs in different disciplines (e.g., social sciences, STEM disciplines), since it is easy to
implement, practical (especially when creating a control group is not feasible), and more rigorous than the one-group posttest design
as it provides a baseline for participant performance. A diagram in Appendix A illustrates the main steps carried out in the research
process.
3.2. Phase one: ethics proposal, literature review and selection of measures
Following the approval of research ethics proposals (a separate proposal being a specific requirement of the American university
where the MBA student research took place), and a review of the literature, the researchers selected two survey measures for use in
the pilot study. The first was a proprietary cultural intelligence survey administered directly through the Cultural Intelligence Center
that included the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale (E-CQS). This 37-item scale expands upon the Cultural Intelligence Scale
(CQS) originally developed by Ang et al. (2007), which has been carefully tested over the years as part of an extensive validation
process demonstrating its generalizability across multiple groups including students, executives, expatriates, and organizational
leaders, and which involved participants from nearly one hundred countries (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013; Van Dyne et al., 2015; Van
Dyne, Ang, & Tan, 2017).
The E-CQS survey looks at 11 sub-dimensions of cultural intelligence: Planning, awareness and checking (as part of Meta-cog-
nitive CQ); culture general knowledge and context-specific knowledge (as part of Cognitive CQ); intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation and self-efficacy to adjust (as part of Motivational CQ); verbal behavior, non-verbal behavior, and speech acts (as part of
Behavioral CQ). Specific examples of items used to assess each of these sub-dimensions are presented in Appendix B. Survey responses
for the E-CQS items are designed in a Likert-scale format ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree.
In a study by Van Dyne et al. (2012), these researchers discussed findings from the second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) that supported the convergent and discriminant validity of the sub-dimensions within each of the four cultural intelligence
capabilities (see also Sharma & Hussain, 2017) used in the E-CQS survey.
The E-CQS assessment tool has been used by other researchers, including Whitaker and Greenleaf (2017), as it provides com-
parisons to others within a large, global dataset. In a recent review of CQ conceptualization and measurement, Van Dyne et al. (2017)
suggested that E-CQS is particularly useful for research studies that address specific CQ capabilities (e.g., Mor, Morris, & Joh, 2013),
such as this pilot study.
As part of the E-CQS, the first survey for this present pilot study also featured an assessment of key cultural values dimensions
such as individualism versus collection, low versus high power distance, low versus high uncertainty avoidance, cooperation versus
competition, short term versus long term orientation, low versus high context, and being versus doing (Livermore, 2013).
In addition to the cultural intelligence survey just mentioned, the researchers developed a separate training program survey to
collect additional pretest and posttest data which included specific variables of interest, such as demographic information about the
respondents (e.g., age, gender, nationality, current job title and company industry), as well as innovative work behavior and resi-
lience. The innovative work behavior scale is a 6-item, one-dimensional scale originally developed by Scott and Bruce (1994) to
assess individual's multi-stage process of idea generation, coalition building, promotion of ideas, and implementation. We chose this
scale because it encompasses critical aspects of the innovation process and explains key antecedents of individual innovative behavior
at work (Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg, 2006; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) described this scale as a
“seminal measure” of innovative work behavior (IWB), a construct which has been mostly operationalized as a one-dimensional
construct in the academic literature (p.25). When initially tested, this scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability
(alpha = 0.85). In our study, we adapted the scale instructions slightly to provide a self-report measure. Specific examples of scale
items included in our training program survey are presented in Appendix B. Survey responses were again constructed in a Likert-scale
format, in this case ranging from 1 = not at all, to 5 = to an exceptional degree.
Finally, the resilience scale used in our pilot study is a 10-item reduced version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC
10), which was developed by Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) on the basis of the original 25-item Connor-Davidson Scale (CD-RISC
25; Connor & Davidson, 2003). The CD-RISC scales have been used in a variety of contexts, including clinical, university, community
and professional settings (Gucciardi, Jackson, Coulter, & Mallett, 2011; Scali et al., 2012; Singh & Yu, 2010). Aside from their broad
applicability, the resilience scales are well suited for examining key factors associated with an individual's positive response to cross-
cultural adaptation (i.e., ability to bounce back from a variety of challenges such as change, pressure, painful feelings) (Campbell-Sills
& Stein, 2007). The reduced version demonstrated good psychometric properties such as internal consistency, as well as convergent,
discriminant and construct validity (Campbell-Sills, Forde, & Stein, 2009; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). Examples of scale items are
7
included in Appendix B. Survey responses were again created in a Likert-scale format ranging from 1 = not true at all, to 5 = true
nearly all the time.
3.3. Phase two: training program development and implementation
The content for the first, comprehensive version of the training program for the MBA students, was developed between the fall
and winter of 2016. Lesson plans detailing the topics included in this two-weekend intensive training program with online com-
ponents are provided in Appendices C and D. As outlined in these appendices, the first weekend included student introductions, as
well as time to share information regarding the research study. The researchers also discussed the expectations for the course and
each of the course assignments: an individual foreign film assignment that focused on the four CQ capabilities; an individual weekly
journal where students recorded their experiences, insights and key learnings based on the self-study activities; a team challenge project
that included an interview with a manager currently experiencing a cross-cultural challenge in his/her workplace and a team pre-
sentation to be delivered to the rest of the class. Finally, students were also asked to submit an individual, integrative, self-reflection
essay at the end of the term.
Most of the training program content for the first weekend included cultural intelligence topics (e.g., the business case for CQ, the
four CQ capabilities), mindfulness, authentic leadership and information about unconscious biases. Authentic leadership, a multi-
factor leadership construct composed of self-awareness (i.e., being aware of one's inner thoughts, feelings and aspirations, as well as
strengths and weaknesses), balanced or unbiased processing (i.e., objectively analyzing all information before making decisions),
relational transparency (i.e., exhibiting open and transparent relationships with others) and internalized moral perspective (i.e.,
matching one's behavior with one's own moral standards and values) (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016; Černe, Dimovski,
Maric, Penger, & Skerlavaj, 2014; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011), was addressed in our training program because, according to
Vogelgesang Lester, Clapp-Smith, and Palmer (2009), authentic leadership may assist individuals in finding a balance in the tension
between their own deeply held values and those of another culture. We expected that it could support individuals in their CQ
development as it is important to know when to adapt and when not to adapt in cross-cultural situations. Also, considering the
growing research on the topic of implicit or unconscious biases (i.e., attitudes or stereotypes that unconsciously impact our decisions
and actions; see for example Banaji & Greenwald, 2013), we incorporated training content that supports the significance of receiving
culturally-diverse feedback from others and of developing open/transparent relationships - two important aspects of authentic lea-
dership development (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) that may also affect CQ.
During the second weekend session (see Appendix D), students had an opportunity to discuss what happened during the inter-
vening four weeks of online Blackboard discussions and self-study. The self-study activities included a series of individual experiential
exercises for each of the four CQ capabilities and were designed so that students could concentrate on one CQ capability per week,
thus allowing them to have sufficient time to practice and experiment with these capabilities. Students also received their CQ pre-
survey reports from the Cultural Intelligence Center containing their individual scores for each of the four capabilities plus an
individual development plan. The researchers used classroom time to discuss the aggregated scores for the pretest cultural intelligence
surveys for the class. Additional topics addressed during the first day of weekend two included the importance of cultural intelligence
for career development, as well as for individual and organizational innovation. The second day of weekend two was primarily
reserved for team presentations and posttest surveys.
After the completion of the MBA course, the primary researcher made some minor adjustments to the training program so that a
condensed version could be implemented at the Canadian company as a two full-day, workshop. As can be seen in Appendix E, the
content for the first full-day session with HR professionals in Saskatchewan closely matched the first full-day of weekend one at the
American university (see Appendix C). Similarly, the second full-day of the company workshop was comparable to the content
introduced the second day of weekend one for the MBA course (i.e., authentic leadership, the multi-cultural team project). However,
considering the condensed timetable offered by the company, the researchers decided to send all of the information about the study
and the survey links for the two pretest and posttest surveys via e-mail shortly before the beginning of the workshop and shortly after
its conclusion (the length of time between pretest and posttest data collection remained close to 6 weeks, as described in Appendix A).
We also kept all of the self-study and journaling activities as part of the workshop training program, but excluded all of the as-
signments the graduate students were asked to complete. We further eliminated a few in-classroom activities (e.g., the jeopardy-style
game) and the discussion linking CQ to innovation and career development. Nonetheless, the core experiential activities related to CQ
development were preserved, including the in-classroom exercises and the self-study activities. The two-day company workshop was
conducted by the primary researcher.
To conclude, both the comprehensive and condensed training program versions incorporated key topics and self-study activities
related to cultural intelligence development. The researchers also sought to preserve the balance of “knowing-doing-reflecting” in
both versions by using a blend of lectures, experiential individual and group exercises, and self-study activities. Furthermore, the two
training program versions were implemented within approximately the same timeframe of two months, considering the preparations
for data collection, gathering of participant feedback etc.
3.4. Program participants
A summary of the study pilot samples’ composition and size is presented in Table 2. As expected, the MBA students were young,
with approximately 86% (18 out of 21 students) selecting one of the three age categories between 21 and 35 years (the most frequent
age category being between 26 and 30 years old - i.e., mode = 3). Also, this graduate student sample was fairly balanced with respect
8
Table 2
Pilot study samples: Composition and size.
Pilot study sample Age Gender Pretest sample size Posttest sample size
MBA Students Mode = 3 (between 26 and 30 years old) 57% female n = 21 n = 21a
43% male
HR professionals Mode = 8 (between 51 and 55 years old) 79% female n = 39 n = 36**
21% male
a
All 21 MBA students participated in the two posttest surveys; **36 HR professionals participated in the CQ survey; 23 HR professionals also
participated in the second training program survey.
to gender, with a slight majority of students identifying themselves as female (57%). Almost all of the students (21 out of the 22
students enrolled) agreed to participate in the study and each of them completed the two pretest and two posttest surveys (i.e., the CQ
survey and the training program survey).
The HR professionals were notably older, with 59% (23 out of 39 professionals), describing themselves as belonging to one of the
three survey age categories between 46 and 60 years of age (the most frequent age category being between 51 and 55 years old - i.e.,
mode = 8). Regarding gender, this group was predominantly female (79%), which was not surprising given the higher concentration
of women in the HR profession in North America, as compared to men (Burjek & Rafter, 2017; Candido, 2017). Nearly all of the HR
employees who attended the workshop (39 out of 41), agreed to participate in the study and complete the two pretest surveys. There
was a slight decrease in the number of participants who completed the CQ posttest survey (only 36 out of 39 pretest respondents). An
even smaller number of employees participated in the posttest training program survey (i.e., 23 out of 39 pretest respondents). We
suspect that the different levels of completion for these two surveys was because the CQ posttest survey provided an individual
feedback report which allowed participants to learn exactly how much their own individual CQ scores for each of the four capabilities
had improved after the training. On the other hand, the expected feedback from the training program survey was not as specific in
terms of individual achievement.
4. Results
4.1. Data analysis: cultural intelligence capabilities
4.1.1. MBA students

In order to identify the appropriate statistical test for investigating differences between the pretest and posttest cultural in-
telligence scores for each of the four CQ capabilities, the researchers reviewed the normality plots and normality test results provided
in IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0 and concluded that the difference between the paired variables (i.e., the difference
between the pretest and posttest scores which were calculated for motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ and behavioral
CQ), was not normally distributed in half of the cases. Specifically, the difference variable for two out of four CQ capabilities was
significant in at least one of the normality tests - i.e., the difference between the pretest and posttest scores for cognitive CQ was
significant in the Shapiro-Wilk test (alpha = 0.029) and for metacognitive CQ, this difference was also significant in the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test (alpha = 0.003) and very close to significant in the Shapiro-Wilk test (alpha = 0.056).
Considering that some of the CQ data was not normally distributed, the researchers decided to use a non-parametric test for paired
data, i.e., the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The Wilcoxon test is considered the equivalent to the paired samples t-test for normally
distributed data. The test compares the median values for the pretest and the posttest data to see whether there are any significant
differences between the medians at these two different points in time. The Wilcoxon W test statistic is generated by calculating the
before-and-after differences in scores for each person (for additional details, please see Israel, 2008). When the number of observa-
tions/pairs (i.e., n x (n+1)/2) is greater than 20, it is also possible to calculate a standardized z-test statistic, which is an approximation
for the Wilcoxon W test statistic (Marshall & Marquier, n. d.).
As can be seen in Table 3, all of the z-scores for the graduate student data were statistically significant, with p-values ranging from
0.000 to 0.005. We also included the effect sizes; according to Cohen (1988), three out of the four effect sizes could be considered
large (large effect = 0.5 or higher) and one could be considered moderate (moderate effect = 0.3 or higher, but less than 0.5).
In sum, the MBA students' CQ posttest medians - the CQ median values for each of the four CQ capabilities after the training
Table 3
MBA students: Pretest-posttest differences in cultural intelligence capabilities.
Variables (7-point scales) Median Median Z-score P-valuea Total sample (n1+n2) Effect size (r)
Pretest Posttest
Motivational CQ 5.67 6.22 −3.402 0.001 40 0.54

Metacognitive CQ 5.67 6.56 −3.198 0.001 40 0.51
Cognitive CQ 4.60 5.85 −3.922 0.000 40 0.62
Behavioral CQ 5.56 6.39 −2.802 0.005 40 0.44
a
All p-values are statistically significant (i.e., below 0.05).
9
Table 4
HR professionals: Pretest-posttest differences in cultural intelligence capabilities.
Variables (7-point scales) Median Median Z-score P-valuea Total sample (n1+n2) Effect size (r)
Pretest Posttest
Motivational CQ 5.28 5.61 −2.355 0.019 70 0.28

Metacognitive CQ 4.89 5.22 −4.091 0.000 64 0.51
Cognitive CQ 3.20 3.80 −3.191 0.001 72 0.38
Behavioral CQ 4.28 5.28 −4.311 0.000 68 0.52
a
program - were significantly higher as compared to their CQ medians for each of the four CQ capabilities before the training was
introduced (see Table 3). To quantify the size of these pretest-posttest differences we calculated the effect sizes and concluded that
these differences could be considered ‘large’ for three CQ capabilities (motivational CQ, metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ) and
‘moderate’ for one CQ capability (behavioral CQ). These findings confirmed our expectation that the training program would sig-
nificantly contribute to the development of cultural intelligence among MBA students, as stated in Hypothesis 1.
4.1.2. HR professionals
The analysis of the HR professionals survey data also began by examining whether the pretest-posttest difference in CQ survey
scores was normally distributed. Specifically, we investigated normality plots and tests provided in the IBM SPSS Statistics for
Windows, Version 24.0, in order to determine whether the difference between the pretest and posttest scores for each of the four CQ
capabilities (motivational CQ, metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ and behavioral CQ) was normally distributed. Normality tests con-
firmed that two of these difference variables was not normally distributed. In the case of metacognitive CQ, the Shapiro-Wilk test was
significant (alpha = 0.001) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was close to significant (alpha = 0.061). In the case of behavioral CQ,
the Shapiro-Wilk test was significant (alpha = 0.013). Consequently, we decided to use the same non-parametric test for paired data,
i.e., the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Also, by using the same test, it became easier to compare findings across the two groups of
respondents.
Results from the data analysis of CQ pretest-posttest comparison of median values for this sample are presented in Table 4. As can
be seen in this table, all the z-scores were statistically significant, with p-values ranging from 0.000 to 0.019. According to Cohen
(1988), the effect sizes could be considered large for two CQ capabilities. The effect sizes for metacognitive and behavioral CQ were
large (i.e., higher than 0.5), moderate for one capability (the effect size for cognitive CQ was higher than 0.3, but less than 0.5), and
small for one capability (the effect size for motivational CQ was slightly lower than 0.3).
To conclude, similar to the findings from the graduate student sample, the medians for each of the four CQ capabilities after the
training program for the HR professionals were significantly higher as compared to the medians before the training program (see
Table 4). The effect sizes for these pretest-posttest differences further indicated that these differences were large for two of the four
CQ capabilities (metacognitive and behavioral CQ), moderate for one capability (cognitive CQ) and small for one CQ capability
(motivational CQ). These findings provided additional support for our expectation, as per hypothesis 1, that the training program
would significantly contribute to the development of cultural intelligence, this time with a completely different sample of working
professionals. While the effect sizes for the HR sample were not as high as those of the graduate student sample, this was consistent
with our expectations, given that the HR professionals did not have the same amount of “exposure” to the training material (e.g., the
two-day workshop was shorter in duration and there were no individual or group assignments to provide additional opportunities to
apply what they had learned or for self-reflection).
4.2. Data analysis: resilience and Innovative work behavior
4.2.1. MBA students

Aside from analyzing changes in cultural intelligence capabilities between the pretest and posttest, the researchers also wanted to
investigate whether there were changes in individuals' resilience and innovative work behavior scores during this time period, as
stated in hypotheses 2 and 3. Unfortunately, due to a technical issue when setting up of the training program survey in the online
survey platform, we were unable to match the respondents' IDs from the pretest with those of the posttest. Therefore, the data analysis
for the resilience and innovative work behavior variables was conducted with a non-parametric statistical test that is equivalent to the
independent samples t-test, i.e., a pretest-posttest statistical comparison for non-paired data. A paired samples statistical test is in
principle more powerful in terms of identifying significant differences for correlated samples (Keren, 2014), which means that, in
practical terms, it is actually harder to detect differences between the pretest and posttest data with an independent samples’ sta-
tistical test that is used for samples that are assumed to be correlated (given that the same participants are measured twice). As a
consequence, on the positive side, we expected that the data analysis performed for these two variables would produce conservative
results.
We started the data analysis by examining the normality plots and tests in IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0 for the
resilience and individual innovative work behavior (IWB) variables. Results from the normality tests indicated that resilience scores
for the posttest data were not normality distributed (alpha = 0.012 for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; alpha = 0.021 for the Shapiro-
Wilk test). In the case of the innovative work behavior scores, the posttest data also had one normality test very close to statistical
10
Table 5
MBA students: Pretest-posttest differences in resilience and innovative work behavior.
Variables (5-point scales) Median Median Z-score > P-valuea Total sample Effect size (r)
Pretest Posttest (n1+n2)
Resilience 3.90 4.40 −2.289 0.022 42 0.35

Innovative work behavior 3.83 4.33 −1.972 0.049 42 0.30
a
significance (alpha = 0.055 for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Considering that some of the training program survey data was not
normally distributed, the authors chose a non-parametric test for non-paired data, i.e., the Mann-Whitney test. As in the case of the
Wilcoxon signed-ranks, the Mann-Whitney test examines differences in the median values for the pretest and posttest data (for ad-
ditional details, see Israel, 2008). For larger samples, when the total number of observations (i.e., n x (n+1)/2) is greater than 20, it is
also possible to use a standardized z-test statistic as an approximation (the Mann-Whitney U test statistic becomes approximately
normally distributed) (Shier, 2004).
Prior to the statistical analysis, the researchers checked one of the key assumptions of the Mann-Whitney test, that the pretest and
posttest data have similar shape (Zimmerman, 2004). As expected, the results from the homogeneity of variance test for non-para-
metric data (i.e., Levene's statistic based on the median, with adjusted degrees of freedom) for resilience and innovative work
behavior were not statistically significant, so we concluded that this assumption was not violated (Mann-Whitney U test in SPSS, n.
d.). Results from the Mann-Whitney test for the MBA student sample are presented in Table 5. As can be seen in this table, the z-scores
for the pretest-posttest comparison of median values were statistically significant, with p-values of 0.022 and 0.049 for resilience and
innovative work behavior, respectively. We also included the effect sizes which were considered to be moderate (r = 0.3 or higher,
but less than 0.5) for the two pretest-posttest differences (Cohen, 1988).
In sum, the MBA students' posttest median values for resilience and innovative work behavior were significantly higher as
compared to the pretest median values for these same variables (see Table 5). Also, according to the effect size calculations, these
pretest-posttest differences were evaluated as ‘moderate’. These findings confirmed our expectation that the training program would
positively impact key individual outcome variables (as per hypotheses 2 and 3). Even though we were unable to test whether the
training program positively affected these changes via the increase in CQ capabilities (i.e., the mediation effect) due to our small
samples, these findings seem promising. Additional research will be needed to further investigate whether increases in cultural
intelligence can help explain changes in resilience and innovative work behavior associated with the training intervention. While the
link between CQ and these individual outcome variables has been suggested in the literature (Elenkov & Manev, 2009; Tay et al.,
2015), the role of CQ as a mediator between the cross-cultural training and these specific variables has not yet been tested.
4.2.2. HR professionals
We began the data analysis for the HR professionals’ sample by investigating the normality plots and tests in IBM SPSS Statistics
for Windows, Version 24.0. Regarding the innovative work behavior variable, the normality tests showed that the posttest data was
not normally distributed (alpha = 0.04 for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; alpha = 0.05 for the Shapiro-Wilk test). The resilience
variable on the other hand only had one test for the pretest data close to significance (alpha = 0.091), so it appeared to satisfy the
normality assumption. To ensure comparability within (i.e., results from the two variables within this sample) and across the two
samples (i.e., results for the MBA students and HR professionals), we used the Mann-Whitney test for both the innovative work
behavior and resilience variables. However, we did conduct an additional data analysis step for the resilience variable – i.e., we also
performed an independent samples t-test in order to see if the results would be different, as compared to the Mann-Whitney test.
The results from the Mann-Whitney test are presented in Table 6. The z-score for the variable innovative work behavior was
statistically significant (p-value = 0.021), thus indicating that the posttest median was significantly higher than the pretest median
for the HR professionals' sample. However, for the resilience variable, the posttest median for this group was not significantly higher
than the pretest median (i.e., the z-score was not statistically significant; p-value = 0.157). In order to quantify the pretest-posttest
differences associated with the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, we also included the effect sizes for both variables in Table 6. The
effect size for the pretest-posttest difference in innovative work behavior could be considered small, but it was actually close to the
‘moderate’ minimum threshold (i.e., r = 0.3). The effect size associated with the pretest-posttest difference in resilience was small.
Finally, as previously mentioned, the researchers conducted additional data analysis for the resilience variable. The results from the
independent samples t-test for this variable also revealed a non-significant difference between the HR professionals' pretest and
Table 6
HR professionals: Pretest-posttest differences in resilience and innovative work behavior.
Variables (5-point scales) Median Median Z-score P-value Total sample Effect size (r)
Pretest Posttest (n1+n2)
Resilience 3.90 4.10 −1.417 0.157 62 0.18

Innovative work behavior 3.17 3.83 −2.307 0.021a 62 0.29
a
p-value is statistically significant (i.e., below 0.05).
11
posttest means.
To conclude, the HR professionals' posttest median values for resilience and innovative work behavior were higher than their
pretest median values, but only the innovative work behavior median was significantly improved after the training program.
Consistent with hypothesis 2, the training program directly contributed to the significant increases in innovative work behavior
among this sample of HR professionals. On the other hand, hypothesis 3 was not confirmed for this group of participants. While we
can speculate whether the lack of significant improvements in resilience could be attributed to HR professionals’ spending less time
engaged in self-reflection due the lack of individual and group assignments, additional research will be needed to shed light on this
issue. Nonetheless, the researchers view these findings as encouraging since they confirmed our expectation that the cultural in-
telligence training program could potentially impact the development of key individual skills such as resilience and innovative work
behavior. Similar to our previous discussion for MBA students, we were unable to test whether CQ mediated the relationship between
the training intervention and each of the individual outcome variables due to small sample sizes.
5. Discussion
This research is in response to earlier calls to examine what to incorporate into training programs that would influence cultural
intelligence capabilities and cross-cultural competencies (Earley & Peterson, 2004; McCrea & Yin, 2012; Ott & Michailova, 2018;
Raver & Van Dyne, 2017). Given the ever-increasing need for cross-culturally competent leaders and employees in today's global
work environment, this pilot study examined the effectiveness of a new training program in cultural intelligence for both graduate
students and organization employees that included traditional (lecture-based), and experiential components such as mindfulness
practice, self-reflection, and team projects, in order to strike a balance between “knowing, doing and reflecting.”
Furthermore, we examined whether changes in CQ capabilities would also be accompanied by changes in innovative work
behavior and resilience. While other topics could have been examined, the researchers felt that in today's volatile, uncertain, complex
and ambiguous (VUCA) global work environment, there is a greater need for both resilience and innovative thinking, and wished to
use this pilot study to empirically uncover any connection between CQ development and increases in individual resilience and
innovative work behavior.
Findings of this study indicated that for the MBA students, individual CQ posttest median values for all four CQ capabilities were
significantly higher compared to their CQ pretest median values. The differences for three of the CQ capabilities (motivational,
cognitive and metacognitive) could in fact be described as large. These findings confirmed that student participation in a training
program that included lectures, individual assignments and self-reflection papers, as well as group projects, exercises and discussions
both onsite and online could significantly lead to an increase in CQ capabilities. In terms of the HR professionals who were exposed to
a similar training program with only slight variations (the exclusion of homework assignments, for instance), once again individual
CQ medians for all of the four CQ capabilities were significantly higher after the training, as compared to medians before exposure to
the training program. For these participants, two of the four CQ capabilities were substantially large (metacognitive CQ and beha-
vioral CQ) and one was moderate (cognitive CQ). While there was a change in terms of motivational CQ as well, for this group it was
small. Although both groups did show improvement in terms of CQ capabilities overall, the student's gains were higher as they were
subject to a longer period of exposure to the material and they had more time to practice and apply what they learned through the use
of individual and team assignments. These findings are consistent with earlier research which also used a variety of training methods
to improve levels of cultural intelligence (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2013; MacNab, 2012; Ramsey & Lorenz, 2016) and reconfirms the
understanding that cultural intelligence is a malleable competence that can be developed through appropriate intercultural training
and education. Another conjecture on our part for the difference in the overall level of improvement between the students and HR
professionals could be the greater amount of cultural diversity in the MBA course. As the students were placed into culturally mixed
groups by the researchers rather than self-selecting their own groups, students were forced to learn how to work with individuals who
were different from themselves by applying what they were learning in class. Other studies (Ang et al., 2011; Erez et al., 2013;
MacNab, 2012) also suggested that experience working with members in culturally diverse groups increases levels of cultural in-
telligence.
In addition, while our pilot study failed to determine whether there were direct changes (i.e., from matched or paired compar-
isons) in an individual's innovative work behavior and resilience scores between the pre and post-test program surveys due to
problems setting up the training program survey online, the results showed that for both groups, the posttest medians for innovative
work behavior were significantly higher than the pretest medians; this difference between pre and post-test medians for resilience
was also significantly higher for the graduate students.
This pilot study contributes to earlier studies in terms of training and education in CQ in a number of ways. First, it expands the
empirical evidence on CQ training by examining its direct effect on two previously unexamined outcome variables: Innovative work
behavior and resilience. Second, it tested the effects of this type of cross-cultural training in two different contexts. Although we
identified in our literature review a number of cross-cultural studies involving graduate students (e.g., Erez et al., 2013; Ramsey &
Lorenz, 2016; Wood & St. Peters, 2014), we did not find any studies addressing HR employees. Nonetheless, we believe that efforts to
promote CQ development among HR professionals should receive greater attention in the future, given their important role in
promoting talent development within their organizations. Third, this pilot also incorporated mindfulness practice and self-reflection
into a training program in CQ, components which we suspect may partially explain the higher posttest median values in resilience
based on earlier research by Jackson et al. (2007) and Kent and Davis (2010). Mindfulness practice was formerly linked only
theoretically to cultural intelligence by Thomas and colleagues (Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2008; Thomas & Inkson, 2009), but
was an integral part of this training program.
12
Regarding this study's implications to practice, the empirical evidence that it provided in support of the training program's
effectiveness underscores the value of a pedagogical approach that is both balanced, by mixing traditional and experiential methods,
and primarily focused on CQ capabilities. The mixture of lectures and experiential activities allowed for an appropriate balance
between the “knowing, doing and reflecting”, which is critical for competence development (Azevedo et al., 2012; Ramsey & Lorenz,
2016). In addition, whilst being focused on CQ development, our program provides an outline of a variety of techniques and methods
that can be integrated into an academic course or corporate training program, and begins to examine how to adjust that content so
that different types of organizations can incorporate it into already existing cross-cultural and diversity initiatives with positive
results.
This pilot study has its limitations. First, its intent was to be an exploratory study only with small sample sizes and no control
groups. This was done purposely in order to test not only the use of a variety of teaching and training methods that could be employed
in a program, but to also determine the order in which these methods, topics and techniques could be arranged in such a program.
However, as Cranmer (2017) explained, the one-group pretest-posttest design does not fully control for threats to internal validity,
such as for example history and maturation effects (i.e., events, experiences or natural changes that may affect individual scores in key
variables between pretest and posttest), the so-called ‘Hawthorne effect’ (i.e., the possibility that participants' awareness of being part
of the study may have an impact on their behavior), and instrument-related issues such as reactivity (i.e., the possibility that par-
ticipation in the pretest may affect participants' performance in the posttest).
The researchers attempted to minimize these threats to internal validity in three ways. First, by surveying participants shortly
before and shortly after the training program to reduce the likelihood of history and maturation effects. Second, by informing
participants of the goals of the study at the very beginning of the training program so as to avoid the possibility of a ‘Hawthorne
effect, and third, by not distributing the specific answers from either one of the questionnaires in order to keep instrument reactivity
to a minimum. In addition, as Trochim and Land (1982) suggested, the elimination of possible alternative explanations for the
expected relationships, in this case between the training program intervention and the changes in CQ capabilities and the individual
outcome variables, can be achieved by expanding the study design. In our study pilot, we chose to expand the design by adding a group
of HR professionals who were, on average, more mature and experienced (Trochim, Donnelly, & Arora, 2016). Given the exploratory
nature of this research, the authors of this paper viewed the above steps taken to minimize the threats to internal validity as
appropriate (Cranmer, 2017; Wang & Morgan, 2012). Nonetheless, additional research will be needed in the future to confirm this
pilot study's main findings.
Another study limitation relates to its exclusive reliance on self-report measures, which are subject to different types of biases,
including social desirability bias or the tendency to respond in a socially desirable or acceptable way and response bias or the tendency
to respond to all questions in a certain way (Demetriou, Ozer, & Essau, 2015). While we were unable to address this limitation in the
present study, future research may incorporate surveys collected from other sources. For example, observer-CQ surveys could be
collected from peers and/or supervisors, or a future study might employ different types of assessments, such as performance-based
assessments like the intercultural situational judgment test (iSJT) developed by Ang, Rockstuhl, & Ng, 2014.
We do envision making a few minor adjustments to the sequence and content of the training program before embarking on
additional research. First, we believe that mindfulness practice and self-reflection are both important components to this program and
we would therefore make more use of mindfulness practice for the entire duration of the self-study activities. Second, if and when the
condensed version is implemented in an organizational setting, we would include at least one individual assignment (preferably the
self-reflection report), one online discussion and also the team challenge project using a real issue that the group, department or
organization is currently facing. These adjustments would help address the only unexpected findings from our pilot study, namely,
that individual resilience did not significantly increase for the HR employees. In this case, we speculate whether this result was a
function of HR employees’ lack of exposure to mindfulness practice and other key training activities that required in-depth self-
reflection.
In conclusion, as this was intended to be a preliminary study of how to develop and implement a new CQ training program, given
our promising results, we believe that future research employing larger samples and control groups can further examine the effectiveness
of this training program within similar academic and corporate settings by testing both its direct effects on CQ capabilities and on the
two individual outcome variables, as well as its indirect effects via the CQ capabilities (i.e., the mediating role of CQ). In addition,
future research can help explain why the training program has impacted the development of CQ capabilities differently for the two
groups of participants. In examining the effect sizes reported in Tables 3 and 4, we can see that MBA students' biggest gains were for
cognitive CQ and motivational CQ, while HR employees’ most improved capabilities were behavioral and metacognitive CQ. Con-
sidering the significant age difference between the two groups of participants, we can speculate whether age played a factor in these
findings (e.g., older participants being more capable of linking knowledge to practice), or whether alternatively, these differences
could be explained by the higher percentage of females in the sample of HR professionals. In a recent study of accounting profes-
sionals, Tharapos, O'Connell, Dellaportas, and Basioudis (2019) showed that age had a significant positive effect on all CQ cap-
abilities, while gender had a significant positive effect, but only on behavioral CQ. Additional research will be needed to shed light on
these potential explanations for our study findings.
Future research may also, for example, investigate the potential contribution of the training program to the development of CQ
capabilities among different groups of graduate students (e.g., non-business students), as well as among different types of working
professionals. Future research may further monitor students and/or employees’ progress over a longer period of time (e.g., six months
13
to one year) in order to check whether the expected improvements in CQ capabilities associated with the training still hold or become
stronger, as participants continue to use and refine their cross-cultural capabilities. Finally, although we only included one small
online teaching component in this pilot study, the two discussion boards, future research can investigate the effectiveness of a fully
online training program solution which may be particularly relevant for geographically-dispersed students and/or remote employees
that are required to work collaboratively in virtual teams.
Declarations of interest
None.
Appendices
Appendix A. Diagram of Research Process
The following diagram illustrates the main steps regarding the design and implementation of the pilot study. The entire research
process took approximately 18 months. The data collection and program delivery steps (i.e., steps 3–7) were implemented twice (with
each of the two groups) and each time they lasted approximately 6 weeks.
14
Appendix B. Study Measures
The following table provides examples of scale items for the main study measures:
Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale (E-CQS), Innovative Work Behavior and Resilience.
Scale Name Examples of Items
E-CQS (37-items) Metacognitive CQ:

Planning - “I develop action plans before interacting with people from a different culture.”
Awareness - “I pay attention to how cultural aspects of the situation influence what is happening in that situation.”
Checking - “I double-check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge during intercultural interactions.”
Cognitive CQ:
Culture General Knowledge - “I can describe the different cultural value frameworks that explain behaviors around the world.”
Context-Specific Knowledge - “I can describe the ways that leadership styles differ across cultural settings.”
Motivational CQ:
Intrinsic Motivation - “I truly enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.”
Extrinsic Motivation - “Given a choice, I value the tangible benefits (pay, promotion, perks) of an intercultural rather than a domestic
role.”
Self-Efficacy to Adjust - “I am confident that I can persist in coping with living conditions in different cultures.”
Behavioral CQ:
Verbal Behavior - “I change my use of pause and silence to suit different cultural situations.”
Non-Verbal Behavior - “I modify how close or far apart I stand when interacting with people from different cultures.”
Speech Acts - “I modify the way I disagree with others to fit the cultural setting.”
Innovative [Please rate yourself on the extent to which you …]
Work Behavior (6 items) “search out new technologies, processes, techniques and/or product ideas.”
“promote and champion ideas to others.”
“develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of ideas.”
Resilience (10-items) “I am able to adapt when changes occur.”
“I can deal with whatever comes my way.”
“I tend to bounce back after illness, injury or hardships.”
“Having to cope with stress can make me stronger.”
Appendix C. Lesson Plan Outline for Weekend 1 – Comprehensive Training program version (MBA Students)
The following is an outline of the lesson plan used for the Advanced Seminar in International Management taught to MBA students
at a university in Southern California. This outline incorporates information for the onsite class sessions.
Friday Evening Onsite (6:00pm - 9:00pm).
Time Activity Description
6:00–7:00 Introductions and course overview Instructor and student introductions/overview of the course.
7:00–7:30 Introduction of CQ CQ defined, growing relevance of CQ in management and training, rationale for developing CQ.
7:30–7:45 Break
7:45–8:50 Ice Breaker Exercise Jeopardy game style exercise to test student's knowledge of culture and cultural frameworks.
8:50–9:00 Wrap Up Wrap up and what to expect on Saturday.
Saturday One Onsite (9:00am - 5:00pm).
9:00–10:15 Research Study/Pre-CQ survey Additional details provided about the research study, consent forms, Q&A, students take pre-CQ
survey online.
10:15–10:30 Break
10:30–11:00 Assignments Overview and explanation of film assignment and students journal.
11:00–11:30 Cultural Intelligence (CQ) More detailed explanation of the four CQ capabilities, individual exercises.
11:30–12:30 Business Case for CQ CQ versus other intercultural approaches, key benefits to managers and organizations, linking CQ to
talent management and innovation.
12:30–1:30 Lunch
1:30–3:00 Team Formation/Improving CQ: Teams are formed. Motivational and Cognitive CQ discussed, individual and team exercises/group
Motivational CQ and Cognitive CQ discussions.
3:00–3:15 Break
3:15–4:45 Improving CQ: Metacognitive CQ, Metacognitive and Behavioral CQ are described/explained. Metacognitive CQ and the connection to
Mindfulness and Behavioral CQ mindfulness. Individual and team exercises/group discussions.
4:45–5:00 Wrap Up Wrap up and what to expect on Sunday.
15
Sunday One Onsite (9:00am - 5:00pm).
9:00–10:30 Authentic Leadership (AL) AL defined, 4 dimensions of AL, connection to self-awareness and CQ, vision and values, exercises.
10:30–10:45 Break
10:45–12:15 Authentic Leadership (con- Balanced processing, unconscious biases, in-class exercises.
tinued)
12:15–1:15 Lunch
1:15–3:00 Authentic Leadership (con- AL and relational transparency, seeking diverse perspectives, in-class exercises. Explanation of self-study activities
tinued) and additional assignment.
3:00–4:45 Team Challenge Project Team project described/teams start project.
4:45–5:00 Wrap Up Wrap up/explanation about the first online session.
Appendix D. Lesson Plan Outline for Weekend 2 – Comprehensive Training program version (MBA Students)
The following is an outline of the lesson plan used for the Advanced Seminar in International Management taught to MBA students
at a university in Southern California. This outline incorporates information for both the onsite class sessions, as well as the virtual
sessions which took place on Blackboard between the first and second weekends.
Blackboard (1) 3-Day Online Session (Wednesday through Friday).
Dates Activity Description
3 Days Interview protocol for team pro- Teams work on their interview protocol and further develop their plan for the team project with guidance from the
ject instructors.
Blackboard (2) 5-Day Online Session (Monday through Friday).
Dates Activity Description
5 Days Unfamiliar cultural en- Students place themselves into unfamiliar/safe cultural situations and discuss online: how they used CQ, what they did
counters well/areas of improvement.
Saturday Two (9:00am – 5:00pm).
9:00–9:15 Weekend Two Overview Overview of weekend two.

9:15–10:30 Debriefing Sessions In teams, students share the individual work they have done since the first onsite class. Group exercise.
10:30–10:45 Break
10:45–12:15 Feedback on Surveys and Amalgamated results from the pre-CQ survey presented. Developmental plans moving forward discussed.
Development Plans Individual and group exercises.
12:15–1:15 Lunch
1:15–2:45 CQ and Innovation CQ, the Entrepreneurial/Creative/Innovative self.
4-A Model of the entrepreneurial-self. Individual and group exercises.
2:45–3:00 Break
3:00–4:45 CQ and multicultural teamwork Discussion and group exercises.
4:45–5:00 Wrap Up Wrap up/what to expect on Sunday.
Sunday Two (9:00 MA – 5:00pm).
9:30–10:45 Team Presentations Team presentations.

10:45–11:00 Break
11:00–12:15 Team Presentations Team presentations.
12:15–1:15 Lunch
1:15–2:15 Post-CQ Surveys Students take post-CQ survey online.
2:15–3:00 Focus Group One Focus group conducted with group one.
3:00–3:15 Break
3:15–4:00 Focus Group Two Focus group conducted with group two.
4:00–4:30 Q&A and Wrap Up Q&A/wrap up/class dismissed.
16
Appendix E. Agenda for Workshops 1 and 2 – Condensed Training program version (HR Professionals)
The following is an outline of the agenda used for the two-day workshop conducted with HR professionals at a company in
Saskatchewan. This outline incorporates information for the onsite workshop sessions.
Workshop Day One Onsite (8:30am – 4:30pm).
Time Topic
8:30–9:00am Workshop Day One Overview and Part I: Introduction (Slides 2–10)
9:00–10:00am Part II: The business case for CQ (Slides 11–27)
10:00–10:15am Break
10:15am-11:45pm Part III: Improving your Motivational and Cognitive CQ (Slides 28–37)
11:45pm-12:45pm Lunch Break
12:45pm-2:15pm Part IV: Improving your Metacognitive and Behavioral CQ (Slides 38–48)
2:15pm-2:30pm Break
2:30pm-4:00pm Part V: Feedback on CQ Surveys and Developmental Plans (Slides 49–54)
4:00pm-4:30pm Concluding Comments and Q&A (Slides 55–56)
Workshop Day Two Onsite (8:30am – 4:30pm).
Time Topic
8:30–8:45am Workshop Day Two Overview and Introduction (Slides 1–5)

8:45–9:45am Part I: De-briefing Session (Slides 6–8)
9:45–10:00am Break
10:00am-11:30am Part II: Improving AL – Self-Awareness and Internalized Moral Perspective (Slides 9–20)
11:30am-12:00pm Re-visiting questions – Workshop 1 (Slide 21)
12:00pm-12:30pm Lunch Break
12:30pm-2:00pm Part III: Improving AL –Balanced Processing and Relational Transparency (Slides 22–34)
2:00pm-2:15pm Break
2:15pm-3:45pm Part IV: Team Project (Slide 35)
3:45pm-4:15pm Part V: Next steps for the company (Slide 36)
4:15pm-4:30pm Concluding Comments and Q&A (Slides 37–38)
References
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240906065589.
Ang, S., Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2014). Performance-based cultural intelligence (CQ): Development and validation of an intercultural situational judgment test (iSJT).
Center for Leadership and Cultural Intelligence.
Ang, S., Rockstuhl, T., & Tan, M. L. (2015). Cultural intelligence and competencies. International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 433–439. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25050-2.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.).
Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). (2nd ed.). New York: ME Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor model of CQ. Group & Organization Management, 31, 100–123. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1059601105275267.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. L. (2011). Cultural intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.). Cambridge handbook on intelligence (pp. 582–602). New
York: Cambridge Press.
Arthur, N. (2017). Supporting international students through strengthening their social resources. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 887–894. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075079.2017.1293876.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.
Azevedo, A., Apfelthaler, G., & Hurst, D. (2012). Competency development in business graduates: An industry-driven approach for examining the alignment of
undergraduate business education with industry requirements. International Journal of Management in Education, 10(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.
2012.02.002.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: The Random House Publishing Group.
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The
Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006.
Barbuto, J. E., Jr., Beenen, G., & Tran, H. (2015). The role of core self-evaluation, ethnocentrism, and cultural intelligence in study abroad success. International Journal
of Management in Education, 13(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.07.004.
Barrera, J. C. (2010). An examination of cross cultural competence in international business: The case of the subsidiaries. International Business & Economics Research
Journal, 9(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v9i1.507.
Bartel-Radic, A., & Giannelloni, J. L. (2017). A renewed perspective on the measurement of cross-cultural competence: An approach through personality traits and
cross-cultural knowledge. European Management Journal, 35(5), 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.003.
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M. J., & Oddou, G. (2010). Defining the content domain of intercultural competence for global leaders. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 25(8), 810–828. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089107.
Breen, J. M. (2017). Leadership resilience in a VUCA world. In R. Elkington, M. Van Der Steege, J. Glick-Smith, & J. M. Breen (Eds.). Visionary leadership in a turbulent
17
world: Thriving in the new VUCA context (pp. 39–56). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Brendel, W., Hankerson, S., Byun, S., & Cunningham, B. (2016). Cultivating leadership Dharma: Measuring the impact of regular mindfulness practice on creativity,
resilience, tolerance for ambiguity, anxiety and stress. The Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 1056–1078. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0127.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(4), 822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
Bücker, J. J., & Korzilius, H. (2015). Developing cultural intelligence: Assessing the effect of the ecotonos cultural simulation game for international business students.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15), 1995–2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1041759.
Burjek, A., & Rafter, M. V. (2017). The awesome influence of women in HR. Workforce. January 10 . Retrieved from https://www.workforce.com/2017/01/10/awesome-
influence-women-hr/.
Campbell-Sills, L., Forde, D. R., & Stein, M. B. (2009). Demographic and childhood environmental predictors of resilience in a community sample. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 43(12), 1007–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.013.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of
resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271.
Candido, J. (2017, July 11). Where are all the men in human resources? Globe and mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/
leadership-lab/where-are-all-the-men-in-hr/article35586114/.
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01437720610652853.
Černe, M., Dimovski, V., Marič, M., Penger, S., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership:
Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees' job satisfaction. Australian Journal of Management, 39(3), 453–471. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0312896213503665.
Chao, M. M., Takeuchi, R., & Farh, J. (2017). Enhancing cultural intelligence: The role of implicit culture beliefs and adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), https://
doi.org/10.1111/peps.12142.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82.
https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.
Cranmer, G. A. (2017). One-group pretest-posttest design. In M. Alen (Ed.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1126–1131). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Crowne, K. A. (2013). Cultural exposure, emotional intelligence, and cultural intelligence: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13,
5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595812452633.
Cumberland, D. M., Herd, A., Alagaraja, M., & Kerrick, S. A. (2016). Assessment and development of global leadership competencies in the workplace: A review of
literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645883.
Davis, D. M., & Hayes, J. A. (2011). What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy, 48(2), 198. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0022062.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8691.2010.00547.x.
Demetriou, C., Ozer, B. U., & Essau, C. A. (2015). Self-report questionnaires. The encyclopedia of clinical psychology, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625392.
wbecp507.
Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24,
271–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24008-3.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. California: 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. The
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436826.
Egan, M. L., & Bendick, M. (2008). Combining multicultural management and diversity into one course on cultural competence. The Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 7(3), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251675.
Eisenberg, J., Lee, H. J., Bruck, F., Brenner, B., Claes, M. T., Mironski, J., et al. (2013). Can business schools make students culturally competent? Effects of cross-
cultural management courses on cultural intelligence. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(4), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.
0022.
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership's effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44(4),
357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.001.
Erez, M., Lisak, A., Harush, R., Glikson, E., Nouri, R., & Shokef, E. (2013). Going global: Developing management students' cultural intelligence and global identity in
culturally diverse virtual teams. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 330–355. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0200.
Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6),
767–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.08.005.
Flaherty, J. E. (2015). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.).
Gelfand, M. J., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2015). Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence: The road ahead. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 375–387). (2nd ed.). New York: ME Sharpe.
Goh, M. (2012). Teaching with cultural intelligence: Developing multiculturally educated and globally engaged citizens. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(4),
395–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.738679.
Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Coulter, T. J., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement
invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.005.
Guomundsdottir, S. (2015). Nordic expatriates in the US: The relationship between cultural intelligence and adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
47, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.05.001.
Hackett, S. (2001). Educating for competency and reflective practice: Fostering a conjoint approach in education and training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(3),
103–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620110388406.
Harrison, J. K., & Brower, H. H. (2011). The impact of cultural intelligence and psychological hardiness on homesickness among study abroad students. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21, 41–62.
Huff, K. C., Song, P., & Gresch, E. B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality, and cross-cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 38, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.005.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001.
Israel, D. (2008). Data analysis in business research: A step-by-step non-parametric approach. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: A literature review.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04412.x.
Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205.
Joy, S., & Poonamallee, L. (2013). Cross-cultural teaching in globalized management classrooms: Time to move from functionalist to postcolonial approaches? The
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0205.
Kent, M., & Davis, M. C. (2010). The emergence of capacity-building programs and models of resilience. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.). Handbook of
18
adult resilience (pp. 427–449). New York: Guilford Press.

Keren, G. (2014). Between-or within-subjects design: A methodological dilemma. A Handbook for Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences, 1, 257–272.
Kodwani, A. D. (2012). Beyond emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border assignments. World Review of Business Research, 2(4),
86–102.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook of
management learning, education and developmenthttps://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3.
Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A., Passarelli, A., & Sharma, G. (2014). On becoming an experiential educator: The educator role profile. Simulation & Gaming, 45(2), 204–234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114534383.
Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 56, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.11.001.
Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489–519. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229.
Leung, A. K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(5–6), 723–741. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022022110361707.
Leung, A. K. Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3),
169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.3.169.
Lin, Y. C., Chen, A. S. Y., & Song, Y. C. (2012). Does your intelligence help to survive in a foreign jungle? The effects of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence
on cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.001.
Livermore, D. (2011). The Cultural intelligence difference: Master the one skill you can't do without in today's global economy. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Livermore, D. (2013). Expand your borders: Discover 10 cultural intelligence clusters. East Lansing, Michigan: Cultural Intelligence Center.
Livermore, D. (2015). Leading with cultural intelligence: The real secret to success (2nd ed.). New York, NY: AMACOM.
Livermore, D. (2016). Driven by difference: How great companies fuel innovation through diversity. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Lokkesmoe, K. J., Kuchinke, P., & Ardichvili, A. (2016). Developing cross-cultural awareness through foreign immersion programs: Implications of university study
abroad research for global competency development. European Journal of Training and Development, 40(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-07-2014-0048.
MacNab, B. R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of Management Education, 36(1), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1052562911412587.
Malek, M. A., & Budhwar, P. (2013). Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate adjustment and performance in Malaysia. Journal Of World Business, 48(2),
222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.006.
Mann-Whitney U test in SPSS (n.d.) Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/premium-sample/mwut/mann-whitney-test-in-spss-12.php.
Marshall, E., & Marquier, B.. Wilcoxon Signed-rank test in SPSS (Non-parametric equivalent to paired t-test). (1982). Retrieved from https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_
fs/1.714573!/file/stcp-marshall-WilcoxonS.pdf (n.d.).
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.). Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and
research (pp. 19–32). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 849–873. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492891.
McCrea, E. A., & Yin, J. Z. (2012). Developing cultural intelligence: An undergraduate course assessment framework. Organization Management Journal, 9(2), 104–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2012.687992.
McFarlin, D., & Sweeney, P. (2018). International organization behavior: Transcending borders and cultures (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mendenhall, M. E., Arnardottir, A. A., Oddou, G. R., & Burke, L. A. (2013). Developing cross-cultural competencies in management education via cognitive-behavior
therapy. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0237.
Mendenhall, M. E.,, Osland, J.,, Bird, A.,, Oddou, G. R.,, Stevens, M. J.,, & Maznevski, M., (Eds.). (2017). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development(2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Molinsky, A. (2013). Global dexterity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Moon, H. K., Choi, B. K., & Jung, J. S. (2012). Previous international experience, cross-cultural training, and expatriates' cross-cultural adjustment: Effects of cultural
intelligence and goal orientation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(3), 285–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21131.
Mor, S., Morris, M. W., & Joh, J. (2013). Identifying and training adaptive cross-cultural management skills: The crucial role of cultural metacognition. The Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0202.
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2012). Cultural intelligence: A review, reflections, and recommendations for future research. In A. M. Ryan, F. T. L. Leong, & F.
Oswald (Eds.). Conducting multinational research projects in organizational psychology (pp. 29–58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ott, D. L., & Michailova, S. (2018). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research avenues. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 99–119. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ijmr.12118.
Peng, A. C., Van Dyne, L., & Oh, K. (2015). The influence of motivational cultural intelligence on cultural effectiveness based on study abroad: The moderating role of
participant's cultural identity. Journal of Management Education, 39(5), 572–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914555717.
Presbitero, A., & Quita, C. (2017). Expatriate career intentions: Links to career adaptability and cultural intelligence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 118–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.001.
Ramsey, J. R., & Lorenz, M. P. (2016). Exploring the impact of cross-cultural management education on cultural intelligence, student satisfaction, and commitment.
The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0124.
Raver, J. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2017). Developing cultural intelligence. In K. Brown (Ed.). The cambridge Handbook of workplace Training and employee development
(cambridge handbooks in psychology (pp. 407–440). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091067.020.
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.
Scali, J., Gandubert, C., Ritchie, K., Soulier, M., Ancelin, M.-L., & Chaudieu, I. (2012). Measuring resilience in adult women using the 10-Items Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Role of trauma exposure and anxiety disorders. PLoS One, 7(6), e39879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039879.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,
37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701.
Shannon, L. M., & Begley, T. M. (2015). Antecedents of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 41–55). (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Sharpe.
Sharma, N., & Hussain, D. (2017). Current status and future directions for cultural intelligence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46(1), 96–110. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2016.1264444.
Shier, R. (2004). Statistics 2.3: The mann-whitney test. [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mannwhitney.pdf.
Singh, K., & Yu, X. N. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1),
23–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09764224.2010.11885442.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International
19
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.

Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlung, J., Horvarth, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., et al. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Stone, D. L., & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2),
139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.003.
Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2015). Developing cultural intelligence: The roles of international nonwork experiences. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 56–70). (2nd ed.). New York: ME Sharpe.
Tay, C., Westman, M., & Chia, A. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of cultural intelligence among short-term business travelers. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.).
Tharapos, M., O'Connell, B. T., Dellaportas, S., & Basioudis, I. (2019). Are accounting academics culturally intelligent? An empirical investigation. The British
Accounting Review, 51(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2018.08.002.
Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 78–99.
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., ... Maznevski, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence domain and assessment. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808091787.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. C. (2009). Cultural intelligence: Living and working globally. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. Oxford, England: Wiley-Interscience.
Trochim, W. M. K., Donnelly, J. P., & Arora, K. (2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Trochim, W. M. K., & Land, D. A. (1982). Designing designs for research. Researcher, 1, 1–6.
Tsui, A., & Schamberger, K. (2017). What are the skills that HR professionals will need in the future (i.e. 5-10 years)? Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.
edu/student/171.
Tuleja, E. A. (2014). Developing cultural intelligence for global leadership through mindfulness. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 25(1), 5–24. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08975930.2014.881275.
Tuleja, E. A. (2017). Cultural intelligence in a VUCA world. In R. Elkington, M. Van Der Steege, J. Glick-Smith, & J. M. Breen (Eds.). Visionary leadership in a turbulent
world: Thriving in the new VUCA context (pp. 195–226). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2015). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural intelligence scale. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16–38). (2nd ed.). New York: ME Sharpe.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the
conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.
00429.x.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2017). Cultural intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Presshttps://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/97801998467400115.
Van Teijlingen, E. R., & Hundley, V. (2011). Pilot study. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp.
824–826). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Vogelgesang Lester, G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palmer, N. (2009). The role of Authentic Leadership and cultural intelligence in cross-cultural contexts: An objectivist
perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102.
Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., Wang, L., & Zhu, F. (2015). Cultural intelligence trajectories in new international students: Implications for the development of cross-
cultural competence. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000027.
Wang, J., & Morgan, G. A. (2012). Pre-experimental designs. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.). Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1082–1086). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Whitaker, B. L., & Greenleaf, J. P. (2017). Using a cultural intelligence assessment to teach global leadership. Journal of Leadership Education, 2017 doi: 1012806/V16/
l1/A1.
Wood, E. D., & St Peters, H. Y. (2014). Short-term cross-cultural study tours: Impact on cultural intelligence. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25(4), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.796315.
Wu, H. P., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student's challenge and adjustment to college. Educational Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2015/202753 2015.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995.
Yunlu, D. G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Shaffer, M. (2017). Understanding the role of cultural intelligence in individual creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 236–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1360070.
Zimmerman, D. W. (2004). Inflation of type I error rates by unequal variances associated with parametric, nonparametric, and rank-transformation tests. Psicológica:
International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 103–133.
< au id="1/" > Ana Azevedo is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Business at Athabasca University, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Prior to her relocation to
Canada, Dr. Azevedo taught at Florida International University (during her doctoral studies), the University of Texas in El Paso, Florida A&M University and the
University of Applied Sciences FH Joanneum (in Austria). Dr. Azevedo's research interests include management education, cross-cultural management, diversity and
entrepreneurship. Ana is passionate about promoting skills development in management education and about nurturing adaptive capacity and entrepreneurial
thinking in working professionals, business leaders and entrepreneurs.
< au id="2/" > Mary Jo Shane is the Director of International Student Success and an Assistant Professor in the School of Management at California Lutheran
University. Her responsibilities include creating and implementing projects and programs to increase international student success within graduate programs, as well
as overseeing and supporting the academic advisors who work with this student population. Mary Jo's background includes years of experience as a corporate trainer
and organization development consultant focusing primarily on diversity and organization change. Her research interests are centered on cross-cultural issues within
organization and academic settings.
20

Journal A NEW TRAINING PROGRAM IN DEVELOPING CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE CAN ALSO IMPROVE INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR AND RESILIENCE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal A NEW TRAINING PROGRAM IN DEVELOPING CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE CAN ALSO IMPROVE INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR AND RESILIENCE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 100303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of

A new training program in developing cultural intelligence can also

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

2.1. Cultural intelligence (CQ)

2.1.1. History, definition

2.1.2. Nomological network

2.2. Current study rationale for CQ education and training

2.2.1. Key studies

2.2.2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

3.1. Pilot study: overview and purpose

3.3. Phase two: training program development and implementation

3.4. Program participants

4.1. Data analysis: cultural intelligence capabilities

4.1.1. MBA students

Motivational CQ 5.67 6.22 −3.402 0.001 40 0.54

Motivational CQ 5.28 5.61 −2.355 0.019 70 0.28

4.2. Data analysis: resilience and Innovative work behavior

4.2.1. MBA students

Resilience 3.90 4.40 −2.289 0.022 42 0.35

Resilience 3.90 4.10 −1.417 0.157 62 0.18

Appendix A. Diagram of Research Process

Appendix B. Study Measures

Scale Name Examples of Items

E-CQS (37-items) Metacognitive CQ:

Time Activity Description

Saturday One Onsite (9:00am - 5:00pm).

Time Activity Description

Sunday One Onsite (9:00am - 5:00pm).

Time Activity Description

Dates Activity Description

Blackboard (2) 5-Day Online Session (Monday through Friday).

Dates Activity Description

Saturday Two (9:00am – 5:00pm).

Time Activity Description

9:00–9:15 Weekend Two Overview Overview of weekend two.

Sunday Two (9:00 MA – 5:00pm).

Time Activity Description

9:30–10:45 Team Presentations Team presentations.

Workshop Day Two Onsite (8:30am – 4:30pm).

8:30–8:45am Workshop Day Two Overview and Introduction (Slides 1–5)

adult resilience (pp. 427–449). New York: Guilford Press.

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.

You might also like