ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME, KEY ACTION 2

CAPACITY BUILDING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Furthering International Relations Capacities and Intercultural Engagement to

Nurture Campus Diversity and to Support Internationalisation at Home
(FRIENDS)

Unit 17: Effective strategies for working in multicultural business environments

Part 3

Dr. Nedka Dimitrova

TRANSCRIPT

Overall, cultural differences between the West and the East can make or break negotiation
and developing intercultural competence has become a must not only in the globalising
business world but also for ordinary people in their daily life, work, and travel.
The Process Model of Intercultural Competence proposed by Deardorff has made a
noteworthy contribution to the evaluation of learners’ self-awareness and openness. A
greater focus on ICC would highlight Byram’s model of five saviors, namely knowledge,
attitudes, education, and skills to understand and learn.
Encouraging young people to develop their communicative and intercultural competence
can enhance the individual intercultural attitudes, defined by Byram as curiosity, tolerance
to otherness and understanding of ethnocentric views, gaining knowledge of other cultural
groups’ practices and ways of interaction, empathy, and sensitivity in unfamiliar cultural
context, ability to function in intercultural communicative situations and critical evaluation
of own and other cultures.
A challenging environment in which learners can communicate openly and establish
connections and relationships, according to Byram will allow for developing cultural
awareness and specific patterns of communicative behavior.
It is needed to make a difference between intercultural competence and intercultural
communicative competence. In Byram’s view, the “ability to interact in their own language
with the people from another country and culture,” is characteristic of intercultural
competence while communicative competence relates to the “ability to interact with people

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views
only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein. 1
from another country and culture in a foreign language” and building relationships as a
result of ICC would require effective interaction and understanding of cultural differences.
Managing successfully cultural differences in multicultural work or education environment
requires intercultural competence associated with cultural sensitivity, awareness, and skills
to avoid discrimination and communication clash with people from different backgrounds.
Chen and Starosta referred to cultural sensitivity as an emotional dimension, seen in the
ability to understand and appreciate the differences arising from diversity of origins.
Cultural awareness as a cognitive dimension, should be interpreted as the understanding of
the impact of culture on the individual behavior and style of thinking and communicating.
Finally, the behavioral dimensions are related to the skills applied in successful interaction
with culturally diverse participants.
Eventually, Chen and Starosta elicited five dimensions of cultural sensitivity which deserves
attention:
o Engagement in the process of interaction
o Confidence in intercultural interaction
o Attentiveness during the interaction process
o Enjoyment of interaction
o Respect to otherness

There exist various developmental models of intercultural competence.

A commonly used model is the one suggested by Milton Bennett organised in six stages of
developing sensitivity to cultural differences. His main claim is based on the idea that
intercultural competence is built through individual cultural experiences.
In each of the six stages, a specific cognitive function is activated bringing forth a certain type
of behavior and attitudes.
The first stage is defined as "ethnocentrism" indicating that own culture is perceived as
central and most important, while the sixth stage of "ethnorelativism" means that own
culture is interpreted in comparison to others. The ethnocentric stages are described as
Denial of cultural differences, Defense against the differences, and the Minimization of
differences and searching for similarities.
The ethnorelative stages move to Acceptance of cultural differences, Adaptation to them, and
Integration of differences into communication. Moving along the stages depends on the
individual need and motivation of someone who wants to become a better communicator
outside their own social context. Once the need is realised, dealing with cultural differences
is approached through the generation of more complex perceptual structures.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views
only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein. 2
Almost everyone has heard the term IQ or has done an IQ test measuring cognitive
intelligence. Fewer of us know about the EQ and how emotional intelligence is measured.
Very few may be aware of CQ – a term used to define people’s capability of functioning
effectively in multicultural environment.
CQ as a new type of intelligence relates to the concept of social, emotional and practical
intelligence, focusing on the interaction in intercultural context and is driven by the intense
process of globalisation. Ang and Dyne define CQ as “Specific form of intelligence focused on
an individual’s ability to grasp and reason correctly in situations characterized by cultural
diversity”.
Similarly to IQ and EQ, cultural intelligence has an important role in work environment and
personal relationship. Due to cultural differences in norms and values, our IQ and EQ cannot
transform into CQ, which is needed to adjust effectively to multicultural settings.
Dimensionalising CQ were based on four factors by Earley and Ang in 2003, namely
metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural.
The Metacognitive CQ is expressed in one’s constant questioning and reflection on their own
cultural assumptions in the process of interaction, in order to develop and apply new
knowledge and rules in unfamiliar situations. Deciding on the appropriate time to speak up
and make a suggestion or to ask a question, the adequate level of formality and many more,
would require a deeper processed thinking, conscious observation, noticing and
understanding of various aspects of the particular cross-cultural encounter.
The Cognitive CQ as a result of our educational and personal experiences in culturally
different settings, seems associated with the previously acquired individual knowledge of
practices and norms regulating other societies. Gaining cultural knowledge, according to Ang
and Dyne includes knowledge of self and knowledge of cultural differences and universals.
Drawing back to Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, we can see cultural universality in
satisfying basic needs, such as gathering and processing food, economic trade, interaction
with family members, bringing up children, religious practices, gestures and other
universally fundamental activities. Based on these, societies around the world have
organised their own culturally specific systems of economy, politics, education, law,
language and communication, religion and even systems of supernatural beliefs. Knowledge
and understanding of the effect of all those cultural factors on human thought and behaviour
would require a higher cognitive CQ reflected in an appreciation of cultural differences and
a higher level ability to recognise and manage cultural variations.
Being able to concentrate our attention and energy to understand and learn about a
culturally different environment would channel the mental process into a decision making
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views
only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein. 3
task which involves people’s perceptions and expectations for successful accomplishment
with the associated value of this accomplishment. These result in an intrinsic drive to
maintain attention and energy towards a successfully performed interaction in cross-
cultural encounters.
A higher motivational CQ would lead to a willingness for initiating intercultural
communication and expressing own views and opinions about a particular situation. For
example, a motivated student from Egypt or Brazil, with higher proficiency in the English
language and culture would be more inclined to speak up during class discussions in
university.
A capability to demonstrate adequate verbal and non-verbal behavior, as well as knowledge
and ability to produce specific speech, acts in intercultural communication can facilitate the
exchange of information and allow for minimised misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Lack of behavioral CQ may be understood as an aggressive and forceful approach in the
negotiation of meaning, causing reluctance to socialise and offense. In the westernised
education environment, Asian students might feel uncomfortable as a result of direct eye
contact, informal style of communication in the classroom, use of first names to address
teachers or more practical approach to studies and an insufficient amount of theoretical
information provided in class.
In a culturally different context, people need to adapt their behavior in a flexible way, relying
on their own cultural knowledge and the information they gather from the immediate
environment.
To raise our level of cultural intelligence we should first assess our capabilities in terms of
the already outlined CQ factors. The motivational CQ (Drive) factor would indicate our
confidence in intercultural interactions, directly associated with leadership. The cognitive
CQ (Knowledge) factor can measure our general knowledge of cultural differences and the
ability to predict their impact on communication.
The metacognitive CQ (Strategy) factor measures the ability to make sense and decisions
about own experience in relation to the effective planning of own actions in a multicultural
context.
The behavioral CQ (Action) factor can be used to measure the predictability of one’s
capability to adjust their behavior in a flexible way to culturally unfamiliar settings.
The first academically validated CQ test, available at https://culturalq.com/products-
services/assessments/, is based on the Cultural Intelligence scale, developed by Ang and
Dyne measuring the four CQ capabilities and is broadly used in business and higher
education. Its three versions provide an exciting opportunity to assess our overall cultural
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views
only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein. 4
intelligence along the four dimensions followed by a personalised report suggesting
particular strategies for developing our cultural understanding.
Benefits from CQ Research in the field indicates a higher level of business performance and
effectiveness among people with higher CQ, as well as greater job satisfaction. 92% of the
businesses using CQ self-assessment reported revenue increase and more successful
international expansion.
The following example sentences from the cultural intelligence scale illustrate the process of
measuring the CQ dimensions, using a 7-point Likert scale through strongly disagree to
strongly agree.
o I adjust my understanding of a culture while I interact with people from that culture.
o I truly enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.
o I modify the way I disagree with others to fit the cultural setting.
o I can describe the ways that leadership styles differ across cultural settings.

You may choose to do some free CQ self-assessment tests on the following websites:
https://commonpurpose.org/knowledge-hub-archive/all-articles/what-is-cultural-
intelligence/cq-test/; https://www.chatterbox.io/free-cq-test

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views
only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein. 5