The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1460-1060.htm

EJIM
24,4 Cultural intelligence and
innovative work behavior:
the role of work engagement and
1082 interpersonal trust
Received 6 January 2020 Bilal Afsar
Revised 23 March 2020
28 April 2020 Department of Management Sciences, Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan
Accepted 18 May 2020
Basheer M. Al-Ghazali
Department of Business Administration, Dammam Community College,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Sadia Cheema
QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia, and
Farheen Javed
Murdoch Business School, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Because of the rapidly changing environment and fleeting market opportunities, employee’s
innovative work behavior is increasingly assuming a pivotal role in enhancing organizational effectiveness and
competitive advantage. The success of organizations is largely depended on their employees’ ability to innovate.
The role of cultural intelligence to enhance innovative work behavior is yet to be explored in the innovation
research. The purpose of this study is to examine how cultural intelligence enhances employees’ innovative work
behavior through work engagement and interpersonal trust.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is a cross-sectional design which utilizes data from 381
participants from multinational corporations in Saudi Arabia.
Findings – The results indicate that cultural intelligence can significantly affect employee’s innovative work
behavior. It further reveals that both work engagement and interpersonal trust partially mediate the effect of
cultural intelligence on innovative work behavior.
Originality/value – This study adds to the literature on intelligence by examining an underexplored type of
intelligence (i.e. cultural intelligence) in relation to employee’s innovative work behavior. It reveals work
engagement and interpersonal trust as the psychological mechanisms that can link cultural intelligence to
innovative work behaviors.
Keywords Cultural intelligence, Interpersonal trust, Work engagement, Creativity, Innovative work behavior,
Cross-cultural interaction, Intercultural adaptability, Intelligence
Paper type Research paper

European Journal of Innovation
Management
Vol. 24 No. 4, 2021
pp. 1082-1109
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
DOI 10.1108/EJIM-01-2020-0008
1. Introduction
Innovations are essential for organizations to sustain an advantage in highly competitive
environments. Innovation helps organizations to achieve competitive advantage and
organizational success. To enhance innovation, organizations need to motivate employees
to engage into innovative work behaviors (Afsar et al., 2014). Innovative work behavior refers
to the initiation, development, realization and implementation of a novel idea that can
improve a product, service, process, and work method (Yuan and Woodman, 2010). Although
there has been a lot of studies that tried to examine the antecedents of employee’s innovative
work behavior (e.g. Yuan and Woodman, 2010), the inconclusiveness of the individual and
contextual antecedents calls for future research (Afsar et al., 2015). Innovative work
behaviors are complex in nature as it is not easy to generate ideas that are practical, novel,
proactive, realistic, and feasible. Moreover, uncertainty, risk and resistance from the Cultural
organizational members further add to the complexity of the innovative processes (De Jong intelligence
and Den Hartog, 2010). Nowadays, organizations have diversified workforce and teams
usually comprise of people with different nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, backgrounds, and
and innovative
religions. work behavior
Ng et al. (2012) argued that diverse workforce can create flexibility in ideas and stimulate
idea generation due to divergent thinking and multiple and unique inputs. The workforce
nowadays is culturally diverse, especially in multinational corporations. In order to 1083
diminish the problems caused by cultural diversity in the workplace, employees must be
open to interacting with colleagues who are from different cultures, and they must have the
ability to build interconnections with people who are different from them. Du Chatenier
(2009) reports that an individuals’ competence is important for employees to successfully
engage in innovative activities. One of the most important individual competence is to
understand cultural differences and possess requisite cultural intelligence. Such
differences make employees cognize and behave differently, thereby resulting in
misunderstandings and interaction problems (Pothukuchi et al., 2002). Lacking cultural
intelligence might result in knowledge hiding and conflicts (Bogilovi
c et al., 2017), making
innovation more challenging. Therefore, employees need cultural intelligence to address
diverse organizational cultures and to interact effectively with other organizational
members. The question that has not been addressed so far is does cultural intelligence
affect innovative work behaviors of employees and what intervening mechanisms can
further explain the link between cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior. This
study is going to examine the role of cultural intelligence in enhancing innovative work
behavior through work engagement and interpersonal trust.
CQ refers to an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally
diverse situations and settings (Van Dyne et al., 2012). CQ helps individuals to adapt
effectively to foreign environments and work with members of other nationalities and
cultures through a repertoire of cognitive, behavioral and motivational abilities. People who
are used to their own culture find it difficult to switch norms or beliefs rapidly to
accommodate other cultures. A culture is a very strong bond. People tend to feel more
comfortable in a similar culture to their own because unfamiliar signs or symbols can cause
anxiety. Just like other intelligences (e.g. cognitive, emotional or social) that are associated
with the ability to accomplish tasks, CQ is reported as another key predictor of attitudinal or
work outcomes. However, because the significance of CQ has been emphasized in the global
context, most scholars have studied situations where people have relocated to unfamiliar
cultural environments for work or study (e.g. international entrepreneurs, expatriate
managers and international students) (B€ ucker et al., 2014; Huff et al., 2014; Lough, 2011;
MacNab and Worthley, 2012). Multinational organizations need a better understanding of the
possible role of their employees’ CQ in organizational success. The amount of cultural
diversity in multinational firms is more as compared to local or national firms. However,
individual innovation in multinational work settings has largely been ignored in literature.
Moreover, little research has been conducted on the relationship between employees’ CQ and
their work attitude or behavior (Ott and Michailova, 2018). To fill this gap, we explored the
effect of employees’ CQ on critical job-related behavioral outcome, that is innovative work
behavior.
Furthermore, the understanding of the direct and indirect effects of CQ on workplace
outcomes may not be comprehensive enough, without assessing the roles of work
engagement and interpersonal trust. Innovative work behaviors are complicated in nature
due to uncertainty and risk associated with them (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010), therefore,
the relationship between CQ and innovative work behavior might not be straight forward.
Therefore, we selected work engagement and interpersonal trust as mediating mechanisms in
EJIM explaining the effect of CQ on innovative work behavior. Work engagement refers to a work
24,4 situation where employees find work meaningful, and it is a positive, fulfilling work-related
state that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
According to Conservation of Resource (COR) theory, people invest in personal resources to
avoid loss and maximize gain. Since cultural intelligence, a subtype of personal resource,
have been found to elicit positive attitudes and performance (Ramalu and Subramaniam,
2019), it is also likely to elicit work engagement. Engaged employees, in turn, are more likely
1084 to have a strong intention to share their work-related knowledge and to put significant effort
into innovative work behavior for their organizations (Kim and Park, 2017). Built on the
philosophies of affective events theory (AET) (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996), we argue that
interpersonal trust, as a result of CQ, could also act as a mediator between CQ and innovative
work behavior. In particular, we argue that employees with a high level of CQ are more likely
to trust their colleagues (Rockstuhl and Ng, 2015). Consequently, higher levels of
interpersonal trust should lead to higher levels of innovative work behavior (Lee, 2008).
Thus, we empirically test a set of theoretically derived differential hypotheses regarding
work engagement and interpersonal trust as mediators between CQ and innovative work
behavior.
The novel contributions of this study to the literature are threefold. First, this study
offers new insights into the antecedents of innovative work behavior. It introduces CQ
as a new factor that shapes employee’s innovative work behavior as well as reveals
relevant mechanisms underlying the relationship between CQ and innovative work
behavior. Innovative work behaviors in multicultural settings, cross-cultural teams and
multinational companies, require employees to possess greater degree of CQ (Korzilius
et al., 2017). Second, we examine the mediation mechanism of work engagement
underlying the relationship between CQ and innovative work behavior. The results will
inform counseling and management practices to enhance innovative work behavior of
employees by emphasizing on cultural intelligence and work engagement. Third, we
extend the current literature by investigating the mediating effect of interpersonal trust
on the relationship between CQ and innovative work behavior. This extension creates a
finer-grained picture regarding the conditions and the processes that enhances
innovative work behavior among employees. Figure 1 presents the hypothesized
model of this study.

H4

Work Engagement

H2 H3

Innovative Work
Cultural Intelligence Behavior
H1

H5 H6
Interpersonal Trust
Figure 1.
The
hypothesized model
H7
2. Literature review and hypotheses development Cultural
2.1 Cultural intelligence intelligence
Research on human intelligence has traditionally focused on the academic or cognitive
element of intelligence (Lin et al., 2012). Van Dyne et al. (2012) suggest that according to
and innovative
multiple intelligence theory, people have nonacademic intelligences, which may be useful to work behavior
explain individual thoughts and social interactions. Several nonacademic kinds of
intelligences have been identified in various content domains, including emotional, social
and practical intelligences (Lin et al., 2012). Management researchers have been keenly 1085
interested in individuals’ resources because of their strong tie to positive organizational
outcomes such as job performance and organizational commitment (e.g. Albrecht, 2012;
Crawford et al., 2010). Resources can be external or internal; a person’s intelligence is his or
her most valuable internal resources (Diener and Fujita, 1995). A notable role of many
different types of intelligences, including cognitive, social and emotional intelligences, has
been well-documented (Cote and Miners, 2006; Lin et al., 2012). In general, these intelligences
are conducive to the achievement of individual and/or organizational goals in the workplace
(e.g. Cote and Miners, 2006; Kim and Agrusa, 2011). Similarly, CQ may serve as an important
antecedent of work-related outcomes particularly in the multinational work environment.
CQ originates from the need to understand effectiveness in an intercultural social context
(Earley and Ang, 2003). CQ is a person’s “capability for successful adaptation to new cultural
settings, that is, for unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context” (Earley and Ang,
2003, p. 9). High CQ refers to a person’s ability to generate new interpretations and behavior in
a culture where his/her learned cues and behaviors do not fit. CQ helps individuals to
accomplish understanding, and address misunderstandings effectively (Presbitero, 2016).
There are different conceptualizations of CQ. According to Earley and Ang (2003), CQ
comprises of three components (cognitive, motivational, and behavioral). In order to achieve
high CQ, an individual must possess all components simultaneously but how these
components interact with each other was not specified. Moreover, metacognitive and
cognitive components were described jointly in Earley and Ang (2003) conceptualization of
CQ. Later on, Ang et al. (2007) proposed that CQ has four components (metacognitive,
cognitive, motivational and behavioral). Metacognitive CQ refers to an individual’s conscious
cultural awareness and a general know-how of different cultures (Lee et al., 2018). In cross-
cultural interactions, metacognitive CQ helps individuals to adapt to unfamiliar cultural
values, norms, and beliefs and makes them proactive and flexible to learn quickly about the
new cultures without being bounded by their own previous cultural knowledge (Malek and
Budhwar, 2013). Cognitive CQ is “knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different
cultures that has been acquired from educational and personal experiences” (Ang et al., 2007).
Cognitive CQ specifies an individual’s solid knowledge of cultural similarities and
differences. Motivational CQ refers to an individual’s interest in learning about new
situations and cultures and enjoyment in interacting with diverse people. Behavioral CQ
represents an individual’s ability to take appropriate verbal or non-verbal actions when
interacting with people from different cultures (Ott and Michailova, 2018).

2.2 Cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior

Innovative work behavior refers to “the intentionally conducted initiation and application of
new ideas, processes, and procedures within working roles, groups, and organizations” (West
and Farr, 1990, p. 9). It includes idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization.
Individual innovation begins with generating a novel, practical, and useful idea, after which
the idea is promoted to obtain support and sponsorship. Building coalitions is an important
stage of the process of innovation as it helps people find supporters that provide the resources
and capabilities essential to idea promotion. Finally, the idea is represented by a model or
prototype that can be applied in the daily work activities of individuals or those of entire units
EJIM of an organization (Janssen, 2000). CQ is concentrated over the adaptation capacity of the
24,4 individual behavior to the needs and requests of the relationships that occur in situations
characterized by cultural diversity. Prior empirical studies report that expatriates’ CQ
increases their intercultural effectiveness, including cultural judgment and cultural
adaptation, and task performance (Ang et al., 2007; Le et al., 2018). Korzilius et al. (2017)
found that CQ mediates the effect of multiculturalism on individual innovation. Elenkov and
Manev (2009) assert that CQ integrates knowledge from different cultures and translates into
1086 creative behaviors. CQ is critical in decreasing stress, anxiety and uncertainty triggered by
integrating multiple cultures. Ramsey et al. (2011) found that business travelers who are high
in CQ believe in their adaptive ability and the usefulness of their cultural knowledge; this
belief creates a positive influence over their business in different cultural destinations. A few
researchers have found certain CQ sub-dimensions as predictors of different job outcomes.
Ang et al. (2007) demonstrate metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ as predictors of task
performance for foreign professionals. Peng et al. (2015) show that motivational CQ can
increase self-reported cultural well-being as well as peer perceptions of suitability for
overseas work for business study abroad programs.
Motivational CQ is also shown as a predictor of expatriates’ cultural effectiveness (Ott and
Michailova, 2018) and task and contextual performance (Lee and Sukoco, 2010). Although
which dimensions of CQ are more salient may not be conclusively known, its impact on
attitudinal or behavioral outcomes seems undeniable in multicultural work settings.
However, it is plausible to expect all sub-dimensions of CQ to affect innovative work behavior
because CQ is likely to become a personal resource when employees interact with culturally
diverse coworkers. CQ helps employees to be alert to cultural differences and to use their
cultural knowledge to behave appropriately and generate and implement ideas through
better communication and social support. CQ creates the premises to achieve effective
interpersonal and collaborative relationships, between people that come from different
cultural environments. A high level of CQ allows the adaptation and the modelling of one’s
behavior keeping in view the cultural background of the other people (Korzilius et al., 2017).
CQ reproduces the mental capacity to gain and understand knowledge and information
concerning other cultures, mirroring the way in which a person enlightens his/her own
multicultural experience. CQ expresses personal level of knowledge concerning norms,
practices and traditions from other cultures and contributes to the understanding of the
differences and the likenesses between own culture and other cultures (Afsar et al., 2019). It
reflects the interest manifested by a person, concerning the comprehension of specific
features of other cultures as well as personal degree of adaptability to specific verbal and non-
verbal behavioral elements, form other cultures.
CQ makes individuals conscious of other cultures’ knowledge and cultural differences,
which provides them with new approaches to new ideas, opinions, concepts and scripts (Ang
et al., 2007), to expand creative potential in order to innovate. CQ also helps to boost one’s
confidence to interact with people from different cultural backgrounds, which is conducive to
establish high-quality relationships with peers, supervisors and experts. Hence, individuals
learn about new perspectives and create better ideas (Brislin et al., 2006). When employees are
highly culturally intelligent, it is more likely they will decrease the social categorization
process (Rockstuhl and Ng, 2008). In turn, the social exchange between culturally diverse
colleagues will be enhanced, triggering individual creativity (Bogilovi
c et al., 2017).
Innovative behavior is not merely the outcome of personal isolated thinking but the
products of social interaction as well (Perry-Smith and Shalley, 2003). Having frequent
communication and interaction with others gives a broader view due to more diverse
information (Chen et al., 2008). It inspires employees to share knowledge, gain common
understanding and integrate convergent as well as divergent thinking to propose novel and
useful ideas (Madjar, 2005). CQ makes individuals to better understand how others think and
behave (Gregory et al., 2009) which is important in building harmonious interpersonal Cultural
relationships. Innovative behaviors need social support in order to implement the new idea intelligence
and CQ ensures effective support system from others (Huang, 2009).
CQ helps individuals to have greater degree of intercultural openness. Individuals with
and innovative
high level of intercultural openness are motivated to learn quickly, impart their knowledge, work behavior
and are more proactive/dynamic (Elenkov and Manev, 2009). CQ is needed to integrate
knowledge from others and convert this knowledge to use by engaging into innovative work
behaviors (Korzilius et al., 2017). They found that employees working in cross-cultural teams 1087
need CQ to balance and integrate knowledge and ideas from two or more different cultures
that they have internalized before they can leverage that information as innovative behavior.
Because innovative work behavior also involves implementation and realization of an idea,
the resistance from employees due to uncertainty and risk is definite. The success of an
innovative idea depends on strong social support from other members of the organization
(Afsar et al., 2014). Addressing the concerns of others, convincing them to implement the idea,
and resolving their uncertainties, require strong interpersonal relationships and detailed
know-how of others’ norms, values and cultures. CQ helps individuals to gather social
support due to its emphasis on interpersonal relationships.
Individuals with high CQ are more conscious of cultural differences and they possess good
mastery of other cultures’ knowledge, which provides them with new approaches to new
ideas, solutions, concepts and scripts (Fischer, 2011). They are in a better position to analyze
the possibilities and their perspectives are more thorough, detailed, and creative.
Additionally, it is easy for an individual with CQ to convince others about the
implementation of the idea due to better understanding of their concerns, doubts and
uncertainties through effective interpersonal relationships that they develop with others
(Malek and Budhwar, 2013). Cultural knowledge and consciousness makes individuals
confident because of strong interpersonal relationships, and they interact openly and
collaboratively with experts from other cultures. The feeling of self-efficacy and a belief that
trying out new and novel things would not create conflicts due to high-quality relationships
and better understanding of others’ cultures engender innovative endeavors among
employees (Fischer, 2011). Experts from other cultures are important members of the
organization and because of their own genuine input and involvement in the generation of the
idea, they convince and motivate others as well about the worth of the idea. They create an
impression that the innovative idea would serve the collective as well as individual purposes.
CQ establishes high-quality relationships and facilitates better interactions with peers as
well. One way to create a novel idea is to have divergent views and perspectives. High CQ
ensures learning the unique ideas, approaches and perspectives of peers. A better
understanding of cultural differences and complementing each other’s values, beliefs,
ideas, cultures and perspectives would mean more holistic information while creating a new
idea. Because innovative work behaviors involve implementation phase as well, individuals
with CQ understand better what ideas or perspectives are going to be supported by peers
from different cultures and what specific approaches would meet resistance during
implementation. Cultural knowledge helps to keep in place those ideas that are congruent
with the ideas of others so that resistance, fear and uncertainty are at minimal (Brislin et al.,
2006). CQ also reflects mental consciousness and awareness during intercultural interactions.
Ang et al. (2007) explained that CQ helps individuals to plan their behavior before interacting
with culturally diverse colleges. Innovations usually need time to take effect and unlike
creativity, they undergo through different phases before being commercialized.
Due to time consuming process of innovations, external threats (e.g. economic, political,
technological, social and competitors) as well internal threats (e.g. anxiety, resistance,
uncertainty, risk and resource allocation) make innovations even more complex and
contingent upon unforeseen circumstances (Afsar et al., 2015). Therefore, the creator of the
EJIM idea should be flexible and adaptive to situations and accordingly keep on changing the
24,4 course of action through alternative routes to reach the ultimate goal of implementing the
innovation. CQ is the ability of a person to make mental adjustments quickly and to shift
expectations according to the circumstances (Fischer, 2011). When an individual with high
CQ makes actual cross-cultural interactions, he/she adjusts his/her assumptions and
expectations (Şahin et al., 2014). Cross-cultural interactions and communication with people
from other cultures helps to assimilate and disseminate knowledge, thereby, increasing the
1088 knowledge sharing, and due to accumulation of knowledge, better and more frequent creation
of ideas occur. Previous literature supports the relationship between CQ and creativity. For
example, Crotty and Brett (2012) conducted a survey on 246 employees working in 37
multicultural teams, and found that CQ increased creativity. Similar results were found in
other studies as well (e.g. Bogilovi
c et al., 2017; Hu et al., 2017; Leung et al., 2008). CQ
stimulates individuals to feel greater intrinsic motivation (Ang et al., 2007), enjoyment (Ng
et al., 2012), and confidence (Ott and Michailova, 2018), all of which are relevant to innovative
work behaviors. When cross-cultural interactions are challenging, CQ is likely to overcome
obstacles, setbacks or failures due to cultural misunderstandings (Bogilovi
c et al., 2017). On
the basis of above discussion, the study proposes:
H1. Cultural intelligence is positively related to individual innovative work behavior.

2.3 Mediating effect of work engagement

Work engagement refers to “a fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2006, p. 702). In this context, vigour is
defined as having high levels of energy and mental resilience, that is, a willingness to invest
effort in one’s job and to persist at work-related tasks. Dedication is characterized by having a
strong involvement in one’s job and job-related enthusiasm, challenge, pride and inspiration.
Finally, absorption involves being happily engrossed in one’s work and focus on tasks to
perform, to the extent that time passes quickly and one has difficulty detaching oneself from
one’s work. Work engagement is the opposite of burnout, it is a persistent and pervasive
affective–motivational state of work-related well-being that is not focused on any particular
object, event, individual or behaviour (Gonz
alez-Rom
a et al., 2006). Employees high on CQ
have successful interactions with their others, and consequently collect more culturally
diverse resources from these successful interactions. Thus it motivates them to exert more
effort and energy at work, making CQ a personal resource that facilitates work engagement
(Ramalu and Subramaniam, 2019). Scholars and practitioners have recognized the need to
explore the potential role of work engagement, as it may lead employees to take initiative,
manage high geographic dispersion, and cope more effectively with the complexities of
boundary-crossing activities (Lauring and Selmer, 2015; Selmer and Lauring, 2016). Drawing
from the job demands-resources (JD-R) model, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) argued that job
resources and personal resources, independently or combined, predict work engagement. CQ
is one such personal resource that might enhance employee’s work engagement. The
outcomes of work engagement include employee positive behaviors such as discretionary and
non-obligatory behaviors, creativity, and innovation. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose
that work engagement would act as a mediator between CQ and innovative work behavior.
Organizations need engaged employees who are energetic, dedicated, and absorbed in
their work. Work engagement is associated with increased individual as well as group
performance. A great deal of the extant literature has emphasized the mediating role that
work engagement plays in the relationships between antecedents and consequences in
organizational settings (Christian et al., 2011; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008; Yalabik et al.,
2013). According to JD-R model, the antecedents of work engagement can be grouped into
personal and job resources (Bakker et al., 2007). More specifically, personal resources are
believed to associate positively with mental resilience and high levels of energy because Cultural
positive self-evaluations make individuals confident that they can impact their working intelligence
environments successfully. Within Conservation of Resource theory, personal resources are
defined as positive self-evaluations that are linked to resiliency and affect individuals’
and innovative
perceived ability to successfully control and impact their environment (Wright and Hobfoll, work behavior
2004). Judge et al. (2004), in their review, concluded that such positive self-evaluation predicts
various desirable individual outcomes such as performance, commitment, life satisfaction,
citizenship behaviors, job satisfaction, goal-setting, ambition and motivation. According to 1089
Bakker and Demerouti (2008), there are different personal resources that have been found to
relate with work engagement such as resilience, optimism, self-esteem, self-efficacy and an
active coping style.
CQ capability can be considered as a form of personal resource and has some relevance
when associated with work engagement. Unlike other forms of intelligences and cultural
competencies, CQ works in unison, and draws on the advantages of all four dimensions
(metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral) in describing the intercultural
capabilities domain (Ott and Michailova, 2018). CQ prevents the loss of other resources
relevant to cultural interactions through the repeated display of a broad repertoire of verbal
and nonverbal behaviors (Ng et al., 2012). Like job resources, personal resources may initiate a
motivational process that leads to employee work engagement by fulfilling basic
psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence (Christian et al., 2011;
Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). When an individual has greater degree of personal resources
in the form of cross-cultural awareness and intercultural capability, he/she is likely to
experience resilience, self-regard, vigor and dedication; this subsequently spills over into a
positive work attitude. The challenges of cultural barriers, uncertainties and
misunderstandings demand an individual to possess high intercultural capability and CQ
to overcome these challenges (Şahin et al., 2014). Therefore, it is likely that dealing effectively
with stresses and challenges would enable individual to develop positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind. CQ stimulates high level of intrinsic motivation and energy to engage in
cross-cultural interactions and resolve issues and problems because of different cultures. CQ
also helps individuals to have greater involvement in one’s work and experience a sense of
significance, enthusiasm and challenge and being fully focused and happily engrossed in
one’s work in a cross-cultural setting. Tay et al. (2008) found a negative relationship between
CQ and burnout. As work engagement is the opposite of burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2002), we
expect CQ to positively affect employee’s work engagement.
When work engagement is high among employees, they start to take initiatives and try to
exploit untapped opportunities to make organizations successful (Crawford et al., 2010).
Moreover, such employees because of their high levels of energy, enthusiasm, dedication and
involvement in work, go beyond their call of duty by engaging in discretionary,
non-obligatory, and citizenship behaviors (Şahin et al., 2014). Work engagement gives
individuals motivation to accept challenging situations without losing focus and dedication.
As innovative work behaviors are challenging due to the amount of effort needed to actually
implement an innovative idea, the energy level, mental resilience, focus, enjoyment,
involvement and an internal drive to create an impact, would help individuals to engage in
innovative endeavors. Work engagement increases the willingness of employees to share
their work-related knowledge with other organizational members and/or actively suggest
new ideas for their organization (Kim and Park, 2017), and transform the new ideas into
successful applications (i.e. innovative work behavior). Thus, employees who show
engagement in their work are more likely to display innovative work behavior by
suggesting and implementing ideas that could bring improvement in existing processes and
create new and untapped opportunities. CQ is the ability to be effective in intercultural
contexts; thus it may be a pivotal personal resource in the multicultural work environment.
EJIM Given the significant effect of personal resources on work engagement, CQ is likely to exert a
24,4 significant influence on work engagement. Those who live in unfamiliar cultural
environments (e.g. expatriates) may have to rely on CQ to identify cultural differences and
develop strategies to generate positive work outcomes. Without such a personal ability, they
may struggle to engage in their work and accomplish their goals, thus feel stressed, inhibiting
their abilities to generate and implement new ideas. Extrapolating from the above, we
propose the following hypotheses:
1090
H2. CQ is positively associated with work engagement.
H3. Work engagement is positively associated with innovative work behavior.
H4. Work engagement mediates the effect of CQ on innovative work behavior.

2.4 Mediating role of interpersonal trust

Trust refers to willingness to become vulnerable to the other party whose actions are beyond
control of the trustor (Jiang et al., 2015). Trust is a key success element for most professional,
business and stakeholder relationships. Trust is willingness to rely on the competence of
other party, and a belief that the other party would not exploit weaknesses for their own
advantage (Johnson and Grayson, 2005). Interpersonal trust is “the extent to which a person is
confident in, and willing to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another”
(Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002, p. 43). This study explores two kinds of interpersonal trust:
affective and cognitive trust. Affective trust is the confidence one places in a team member
based on one’s feelings of caring and concern illustrated by that co-worker (McAllister, 1995).
Cognitive trust is based on one’s willingness to rely on a team member’s expertise and
reliability. In social units, such as work teams, both affective and cognitive trust increase the
ability of team members to work together. Working together implies greater co-operation and
information sharing which are expected in turn, to lead to greater levels of innovative work
behaviors (Afsar et al., 2015). In today’s business environment, where ambiguity, uncertainty
and interdependency are high, trust is likely to increase the ability of team members to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party and to confide in teams to share information and
greater cooperation. When the trust within the team is high, team members are more likely to
coordinate and to communicate effectively (Afsar et al., 2015). In cross-cultural interactions, a
better connection and collaborative relationship is established as a consequence of trust
(Johnson and Cullen, 2017). Trusting each other is crucial for effective exchanges and without
it, the constant and chronic jeopardy in individual and team outcomes is evident.
As a core relational construct, trust is often conceptualized in terms of one’s perceived risk
of vulnerability within a connection (Rousseau et al., 1998). Thus, trust is conceptualized as
“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party” (Mayer et al., 1995,
p. 712) and an expression of confidence by a party that his or her vulnerability will not be
exploited and that he or she will not be harmed by the behaviors or actions of the other party
(Jones and George, 1998). The literature on workplace relationships distinguishes
affect-based trust—feelings of socio-emotional bond with the other—and cognition-based
trust—judgments of the other’s reliability and competence (McAllister, 1995). Affect-based
trust involves feelings of emotional closeness and security with the other person, whereas
cognition-based trust refers to expectations of the other party’s task-related competence and
reliability. CQ enables individuals to understand and respect partners’ cultures, values and
norms and treat them as in-group members rather than out-group members. Negative
reactions, pessimism, and misunderstandings that might result due to social categorization
processes decrease when individual develop better understanding of cultural backgrounds of
their partners (Trong Luu and Rowley, 2016). CQ also helps in strengthening the quality of
cross-cultural interactions and dampening the differences on the basis of ethnicities,
languages, cultures, religions and other factors. Hence, out-group classification on cultural Cultural
grounds weakens, promoting interpersonal trust between the focal member and the partner. intelligence
Because of cultural awareness, individuals with great CQ do not make inaccurate and
superficial judgments during intercultural interactions and respect salient ethnic differences
and innovative
(Ang et al., 2007). They adjust their mental models and adapt to cross-cultural situations work behavior
effectively thus gaining a deeper and better understanding of partners from diverse cultural
backgrounds (Afsar et al., 2015). This mental compatibility and adjustment would counter the
negative effects of social categorization, thereby, increasing interpersonal trust. 1091
When CQ is low, individuals face psychological strain during cross-cultural interactions
because of lack of understanding and mental adjustment to different cultures, and they are
less likely to develop affective bonds with people of other cultures, thereby, decreasing
interpersonal trust. High interpersonal trust creates an environment of confidence, freedom
and belonging; all suspected to be highly conducive to enhance innovativeness of an
individual. Informal knowledge is shared among peers as a result of interpersonal trust that
improves social relationships and teamwork (Alsharo et al., 2017). Innovative behaviors
involve risk, uncertainty and vulnerability (Afsar et al., 2019), and these elements are
embedded in interpersonal trust as well (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust creates the openness and
sincerity in interpersonal relationship which creates a collaborative atmosphere, controlling
the risk, uncertainty, and vulnerability (Lei et al., 2019). Indeed, the high level of trust among
individual will create a collaborative climate to strengthen the exploitation of knowledge and
experimentation, which are the core values and real conditions for innovation (Alsharo et al.,
2017; Donate and Guadamillas, 2015). Interpersonal trust increase emotional space needed for
creativity (Bidault and Castello, 2009). On the contrary, distrust and cynicism between team
members restricts emotional space and decreases creativity among team members. Given
that disclosing new ideas makes one vulnerable to the other, especially in cross-cultural
teams, therefore trusting each other is essential for innovation. When two individuals trust
each other, they are more willing to share information or knowledge with the other party
(Twyman et al., 2008). In case of lower affect-based trust, one is less likely to perceive the other
as having one’s interests and welfare at heart and thus less willing to share new ideas with
him or her and engage in innovative work behaviors.
Trust is likely to enable more learning at and through work because people feel they have
the support and encouragement of their partners to take risks and try new things. Holtz (2013)
argued that trust increases psychological safety, and in a psychologically safe environment,
employees are less likely to experience negative emotions associated with failure. Employees
who are psychologically unsafe would be less willing to take risks lest mistakes go against
them or be held against them in terms of the rewards, promotions or treatment they receive
from management. Therefore, they are less likely to be engaged in innovative work
behaviors. When individuals do not have trust (both affect and cognition based), they tend to
either shut down or use up valuable cognitive assets while trying to make sense of the
environment or how they should respond. Thus, mistrustful environments inhibit openness
and generativity and can drain cognitive resources necessary for learning at and through
work (Afsar et al., 2015). Trust can enhance feelings of efficacy and capability at work
(Rockstuhl and Ng, 2015), thus allowing individuals (and groups) to engage in more proactive
and risk taking behaviors (Mayer et al., 1995) which can facilitate learning at and through
work (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003), and enhance their innovative work behaviors.
CQ denotes adaptation to local culture (B€ ucker et al., 2014) or harmonizing and merging
global values and local values, as well as values of the mother company and values of its local
individuals, for increased understanding, interaction and trust. With trustworthy
relationships, CQ enables local employees to engage in strategic and tactical formulation
and implementation processes, and engaging in innovative work behaviors. As innovative
work behavior is considered risky (Afsar et al., 2014) and beyond explicitly mentioned job
EJIM obligations by many employees, therefore managers need to provide an inner environment of
24,4 trust and autonomy to support these innovative behavioral traits (Garg and Dhar, 2017).
Interpersonal trust facilitates an open-minded atmosphere in which employees confidently
suggest new ideas (Bidault and Castello, 2009). Afsar et al. (2015) found that employees due to
lack of interpersonal trust stagnate proposing positive changes in the organizations because
they fear resistance and social isolation from their peers. Trust motivates employees to
collaborate and support each other’s ideas through reciprocity and knowledge sharing
1092 (Janssen, 2000). Several researchers have surmised that employee innovative work behavior
is envisaged when good interpersonal relations along with high-quality team member
exchange relationships exist among peers (Janssen, 2000). Besides, trust seems to induce
environments that are more open, supportive, tolerant, less hostile, and less competitive (Garg
and Dhar, 2017). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.
H5. CQ is positively associated with interpersonal trust.
H6. Interpersonal trust is positively associated with innovative work behavior.
H7. Interpersonal trust mediates the effect of CQ on innovative work behavior.

3. Methods
The data were collected from full-time employees engaged in multinational organizations
operating in the pharmaceutical, IT, electronics, banking, hospitality and automobile
manufacturing industry in different regions of Saudi Arabia. Such a diversity is indispensable
for testing research hypotheses which are posited to be applicable across different
organizational contexts. Moreover, a mixed industry approach may increase the
generalizability of the research model (Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2008). This study selected
those employees who had experienced culturally diverse interactions and worked in cross-
cultural teams for more than a year as the “qualifying” respondents. We collected data on an
individual level, controlling the group and team work units the employees were part of. We
contacted over 100 firms, and 46 managers allowed us for data collection. Almost 20 firms from
each of the six industries (pharmaceutical, IT, electronics, banking, hospitality and automobile
manufacturing) were contacted. Out of these firms, the HR executives of 46 firms granted us
permission to collect data (10 from IT, eight from electronics, banking and hospitality, seven
from automobile manufacturing and five from pharmaceutical). Research assistants visited
each firm and explained the purpose of the study to the employees. The participation was
voluntary and research assistants were responsible to distribute and collect surveys by
visiting each location personally. Once participants completed their survey, research
assistants collected the survey on site. The respondents were also told to drop the filled
surveys at their respective offices and research assistants later on collected those envelopes.
The surveys were distributed in two different waves, and enough time was given to the
respondent to fill out the survey and return it to the research teams. In the first wave (from
March 2019 to April 2019), they answered the questions regarding cultural intelligence, work
engagement and their demographics. After two months, in the second wave (from May 2019
to June 2019), they rated their interpersonal trust and innovative work behavior. Surveys in
both waves were coded to validate that the responses could be matched. Each employee who
showed consent to participate was given a unique identifier. The contact addresses of the
respondents were maintained by research assistants and they were responsible to contact
them after two months. Respondents were assured that all of the responses would remain
anonymous and only used in research. Of 900 surveys distributed (200 each in IT, banking
and hospitality, 100 each in electronics, automobile manufacturing and pharmaceutical
firms), 433 were collected in the first wave (response rate: 48.1%). In the second wave, we
contacted the same 433 respondents who participated in the first wave of data collection.
We were able to get responses from 397 employees in the second wave. After the removal of Cultural
poorly answered questionnaires (the same ratings throughout the survey or questionnaires intelligence
with many missing answers), 381 valid surveys (91 from IT, 82 from electronics, 72 from
banking, 63 from hospitality, 41 from automobile manufacturing, and 32 from
and innovative
pharmaceutical) were used for data analyses. Among 381 participants, 59% were men work behavior
(n 5 225), 67.2% had bachelor degree (n 5 256), 43.6% were in a non-managerial position
(n 5 166) and average age was 32.9 years old. A total of 124 of the respondents were middle
level managers (32.5%), and 91 were top managers (23.9%). The industry experience varied 1093
substantially, ranging from one year to 37 years with a mean of 7.3 years. Regarding
nationality, 18% of the respondents were from Saudi Arabia, 15% from Egypt, 14% from
Yemen, 12% from Pakistan, 10% from Bangladesh, 8% from Indonesia, 7% from India, 5%
from Turkey, 4% from Sri Lanka, 3% from Sri Lanka and 4% from other countries (China,
Jordan, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom and USA). HR classified jobs according to the
frequency of cross-cultural interactions with professionals from other branches of the firm
resulting in three interaction categories: constant engagement in cross-cultural interactions
(48.1% of the participants), frequent cross-cultural interactions (26.7%) and occasional cross-
cultural interactions (25.2%).

3.1 Measures
3.1.1 Cultural intelligence. CQ was measured by 20-item scale developed by Ang et al. (2007).
This scale encompasses (1) metacognitive CQ (4 items; e.g. “I am conscious of the cultural
knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions”), (2) cognitive CQ (6 items; e.g. “I know the
legal and economic systems of other cultures”), (3) motivational CQ (5 items; e.g. “I am
confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me”) and (4)
behavioral CQ (5 items; e.g. “I change my verbal behavior (e.g. accent, facial expression,
tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it”). It has been long recognized that CQ is
multi-faceted. To date, the conceptualization of CQ proposed by Ang et al. (2007) appears to
be among the most popular in the literature. They validated the CQ scale by providing
evidence that “CQ is conceptually and empirically distinct from other individual
differences” including emotional intelligence and personality (Ang et al., 2007, p. 363);
and tested the relationships between different facets of CQ and specific outcomes indicating
intercultural effectiveness. Although different tools were developed afterwards but
Thomas et al. (2015) found that the complexity of other measurement tools “limited their
acceptance and utility” (Thomas et al., 2015, p. 5). Still, the most widely accepted measure of
CQ is the one proposed by Ang et al. (2007) as mentioned by various studies (Fischer, 2011;
Varela and Gatlin-Watts, 2014; Ott and Michailova, 2018). Overall CQ score was calculated
through the weighted scores based on the number of items in each of the factors. The
Cronbach’s alpha for CQ was 0.87.
3.1.2 Work engagement. This construct was measured with a 17-item scale developed by
Schaufeli et al. (2006). The instrument comprises six vigor items such as, “In my work, I feel I
have plenty of energy”; five dedication items, like, “My work is challenging”; and six
absorption items such as, “Time flies when I am working”. Because the three subscales were
highly interrelated, we followed numerous researchers’ recommendation to compute an
overall work engagement score for further analyses (Albrecht, 2012; Christian et al., 2011;
Yalabik et al., 2013). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.91.
3.1.3 Interpersonal trust. To measure interpersonal trust McAllister’s (1995) scale was
used. This 11-item scale measures affective as well as cognitive dimensions of trust.
Affective-based trust was measured through five items that captured the extent to which
participants were willing to make themselves vulnerable to their interacting parties through
disclosing personal information. For cognition-based trust (six items), participants indicated
the extent to which they could rely on the other party to (a) complete a task that other party
EJIM has agreed to do and (b) have the knowledge and competence for getting tasks done. The
24,4 Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.84.
3.1.4 Innovative work behavior. This study assessed innovative work behavior with a 10-
item scale developed by De Jong and Den Hartog (2010). Employees were asked to give their
opinions about innovative work behavior. Sample item includes: “I pay attention to issues
that are not part of my daily work”. Cronbach’s α for innovative work behavior was 0.87.
Items of all constructs in this study were rated on a seven-point Likert scale.
1094 3.1.5 Control variables. To avoid potential confounding effects, we controlled for gender
(0 5 female, 1 5 male), frequency of cross-cultural interaction (1 5 constant, 2 5 frequent,
3 5 occasional) and work modality (1 5 expatriate, 2 5 local), as these variables have been
associated with CQ and with intercultural interaction (Ang et al., 2007; Hu et al., 2017;
Korzilius et al., 2017). We also included age, education (1 5 below graduation, 2 5 graduation,
3 5 post-graduation, 4 5 above post-graduation), organizational tenure (1 5 1–3 years,
2 5 3–6 years, 3 5 6–10 years, 4 5 more than 10 years) and level of position (1 5 upper,
2 5 middle, 3 5 lower) since these variables have been associated with employee’s work
outcomes in intercultural environments (Vlajci
c et al., 2019).
3.2 Data analyses
The data were analyzed in three steps. First, the normality, correlation and collinearity of the
variables were examined. The lower thresholds of absolute kurtosis, absolute skewness and
variance inflation factor (VIF) were set at 7, 2 and 5 respectively. All variables passed these
tests. Second, the reliability and validity of the variables were checked to verify the
robustness and suitability of the questionnaire. Third, the structural model was set up
according to theoretical hypotheses and tested with the technique of structural equation
modeling (SEM). SEM was adopted to assess both direct and indirect effects rather than
regression as indirect effects could not be evaluated with regression because of measurement
error. The fit of the model and effects of the relationships between CQ, work engagement,
interpersonal trust and innovative work behavior were explored with SPSS AMOS
version 22.0.

3.3 Reliability and validity analyses

Table 1 presents factor loadings of all items, composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha
(CA), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared variance (MSV), and average
shared variance (ASV) of all constructs. Specifically, all items’ loadings were above 0.7, the CR
of each construct ranged from 0.882 to 0.934 and was above 0.7, the Cronbach’s α ranged from
0.843 to 0.912 and was over 0.7, and AVE for each construct ranged from 0.612 to 0.733 and
was over 0.5. These results presented that the measures have good convergent validity. We
further tested the discriminant validity of the measurement. Discriminant validity refers to
the extent that a latent variable differs from other latent variables, which may be measured
by comparing the variable’s square root of AVE with its biggest correlation coefficient. A
preferable discriminant validity is acknowledged when the former is bigger than the later.
Discriminant validity assessment has become a generally accepted prerequisite to analyze
relationships between latent variables. All the ASV and MSV values were found to be less
than their respective AVE values confirming the discriminant validity of the constructs.
Thus, the construct validity was established for all the study constructs. In addition, the VIF
values ranged from 2.75 to 5.83 (below 10), indicating the absence of multicollinearity.
To examine the fit of the four-factor model (cultural intelligence, work engagement,
interpersonal trust and innovative work behavior), we performed confirmatory factor
analysis. The four-factor model tested on overall sample showed superior fit to the data when
compared to the three-factor model where interpersonal trust and work engagement were
loaded on a single factor and the two-factor model where interpersonal trust, work
 Factor
Latent variables and sources Measure items AVE CR CA MSV ASV loadings

Cultural intelligence (Ang et al., 0.73 0.88 0.87 0.27 0.39

2007)
I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people 0.648
with different cultural backgrounds
I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is 0.685
unfamiliar to me
I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural 0.796
interactions
I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from 0.891
different cultures
I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures 0.726
I know the rules (e.g. vocabulary, grammar) of other languages 0.748
I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures 0.774
I know the marriage systems of other cultures 0.738
I know the arts and crafts of other cultures 0.629
I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other cultures 0.893
I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures 0.794
I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to 0.755
me
I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to 0.699
me
I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me 0.831
I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a 0.705
different culture
I change my verbal behavior (e.g. accent, tone) when a cross-cultural 0.778
interaction requires it
I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations 0.639
I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it 0.732
I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it 0.726
I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it 0.794

(continued )
work behavior
intelligence
Cultural

1095

Reliabilities and factor

and innovative

Table 1.

loadings of constructs
 24,4
EJIM

1096

Table 1.
Factor
Latent variables and sources Measure items AVE CR CA MSV ASV loadings

Work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 0.76 0.93 0.91 0.34 0.43

2002)
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 0.683
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 0.919
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work 0.842
I can continue working for very long periods at a time 0.696
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally 0.639
At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well 0.726
I am enthusiastic about my job 0.875
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose 0.722
My job inspires me 0.686
To me, my job is challenging 0.699
I am proud of the work that I do 0.767
Time flies when I am working 0.845
When I am working, I forget everything else around me 0.749
I feel happy when I am working intensely 0.825
I am immersed in my work 0.922
I get carried away when I am working 0.765
It is difficult to detach myself from my job 0.876
Interpersonal trust (McAllister, 0.61 0.86 0.84 0.22 0.28
1995)
We have a sharing relationship. We can freely share my ideas, feelings, and 0.699
hopes
I can talk freely to my team members about difficulties I am having at work 0.804
and know that they will want to listen
If I shared my problems with my team members, I know they would respond 0.759
constructively and caringly
I would feel a sense of loss if one of my team member was transferred and we 0.812
could no longer work together

(continued )
 Factor
Latent variables and sources Measure items AVE CR CA MSV ASV loadings

I would have to say that I have made considerable emotional investments 0.932
with other team members in my working relationship
My team members approach their jobs with professionalism and dedication 0.916
Given my team member’s track records, I see no reason to doubt his/her 0.898
competence and preparation for the job
I can rely on other party not to make my job more difficult by careless work 0.885
Most people, even those who are not close friends of the other party, trust and 0.785
respect him/her as a coworker
Other work associates of mine who must interact with this individual 0.738
consider him/her to be trustworthy
If people knew more about other party and his/her background, they would 0.774
be more concerned and monitor his/her performance more closely?
Innovative work behavior (De Jong 0.64 0.89 0.87 0.39 0.46
and Den Hartog, 2010)
I pay attention to issues that are not part of my daily work 0.867
I wonder how things can be improved 0.731
I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments 0.794
I generate original solutions for problems 0.723
I find new approaches to execute tasks 0.599
I make organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas 0.685
I attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea 0.797
I systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices 0.896
I contribute to the implementation of new ideas 0.846
I put effort in the development of new things 0.928
Note(s): AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; CA, Cronbach’s α; MSV, maximum shared variance; ASV, average shared variance
work behavior
intelligence
Cultural

1097
and innovative

Table 1.
EJIM engagement, and innovative work behavior were loaded on a single factor, and the one-factor
24,4 model where all the items were loaded on a single factor (see Table 2). Table 3 presents the
means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among the study variables. As can be
seen, significant positive correlations were found between the predictor, mediator and
outcome variable, thereby, providing preliminary support for the study hypotheses. The
highest correlation was found between CQ and innovative work behavior (r 5 0.61, p < 0.001).
1098 3.4 Common method variance
In the study, data for all variables were obtained from a single source, i.e. employees. Thus,
employee innovative work behavior is likely to get influenced by the common method bias.
Harman’s single factor test was carried out to know the intensity of common method bias
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Common method variance exists when one factor explains more
than 50% of variance in the study variables. An unrotated factor analysis extracted four
distinct factors that accounted for 74.9% of the total variance. The largest factor explained
37.4% of the variance. Thus, CMV did not appear to be a problem in this analysis.
3.5 Hypothesis testing
To test the hypotheses, the study used a structural equation modeling approach. Results
(Table 4) concluded a significant positive effect of CQ on innovative work behavior (β 5 0.472;
t 5 5.964; p < 0.001), supporting H1. Moreover, the effects of CQ on work engagement
(β 5 0.518; t 5 5.249; p < 0.01) and interpersonal trust (β 5 0.196; t 5 2.747; p < 0.05) were
positive and significant, supporting H2 and H5, respectively. Similarly, results of Table 4
showed that there is a significant relationship between work engagement and innovative
work behaviour (β 5 0.252; t 5 4.672; p < 0.001), supporting H3. Lastly, interpersonal trust is
positively related to innovative work behaviour (β 5 0.173; t 5 2.934; p < 0.01), supporting
H6. The path estimates are shown in Figure 2. To test the mediating effects, the study used
bootstrapping tests with a bootstrap sample of 5,000 through Amos 21.0. The study followed
the procedure outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2008) with two separate mediation analyses.
Results from Table 4 show that work engagement significantly mediated the relationship
between cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior (β 5 0.144, p < 0.05, 95%
bias-corrected confidence intervals [95% CI] ranged from 0.036 to 0.139). Interpersonal trust
also mediated the relationship between cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior
(β 5 0.079, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.005, 0.086]). Based on discussions by Zhao et al. (2010) on the
types of mediation, the study concluded that both work engagement and interpersonal trust
partially mediated the relationship between cultural intelligence and innovative work
behavior. Accordingly, H4 and H7 were supported.

4. Discussion
The key purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of CQ on innovative work behavior
and to examine the mediating effects of work engagement and interpersonal trust. Given the
critical role of individual innovation at workplace, there continues to be a need among
executives and scholars alike for a better understanding of the factors that stimulate
innovative work behaviors (Afsar et al., 2014). Sine organizations nowadays have diverse
workforce where people from different cultures, ethnicities, values, languages and norms

Model χ 2/df CFI NFI TLI RMSEA

Table 2.
Confirmatory factor Four-factor model 1.473 0.967 0.948 0.959 0.057
analysis to establish Three-factor model 2.739 0.879 0.786 0.857 0.076
the distinctiveness of Two-factor model 4.739 0.629 0.564 0.589 0.174
the constructs One-factor model 7.832 0.517 0.436 0.501 0.297
Variables M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Gender 0.418(0.496) 1
2 Age 32.9(6.74) 0.03 1
3 Organizational tenure 3.03(0.62) 0.04 0.53** 1
4 Education 2.17(0.39) 0.07 0.25* 0.06 1
5 Position 1.85(0.29) 0.06 0.18* 0.39** 1
6 Cross-cultural interaction 1.55(0.42) 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.03 1
7 Langue 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.02 1
8 Cultural intelligence 5.68(0.31) 0.16* 0.29* 0.17* 0.22** 0.27** 0.58* 0.22* 1
9 Work engagement 5.04(0.48) 0.03 0.09 0.12** 0.02 0.04 0.16* 0.05 0.48*** 1
10 Interpersonal trust 5.28(0.33) 0.06 0.19* 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.02 0.39** 0.17 1
11 Innovative work behavior 5.84(0.63) 0.07 0.21* 0.11* 0.19*** 0.03 0.22** 0.04 0.61*** 0.36** 0.45** 1
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
work behavior
intelligence
Cultural

1099
and innovative

Table 3.
Descriptive statistics
and correlations
EJIM Hypothesis Relationships Standardized beta SE t-value Outcome
24,4
H1 CQ→IWB 0.539*** 0.076 5.964 Supported
H2 CQ→WE 0.518** 0.048 5.249 Supported
H3 WE→IWB 0.252*** 0.035 4.672 Supported
H5 CQ→T 0.196* 0.068 2.747 Supported
H6 T→IWB 0.173** 0.024 2.934 Supported
1100
Indirect Direct
Mediating effects Coefficient Degree of mediation

H4 CQ→WE→IWB 0.144* 0.539*** Partial mediation

Table 4. H7 CQ→T→IWB 0.079** Partial mediation
Estimates from the Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; CQ for cultural intelligence; IWB for innovative work behavior; WE
structural model for work engagement; T for interpersonal trust

R2 = 0.52

Work
Engagement

0.518** 0.252*** R2 = 0.69

0.539***
Cultural Innovative
Intelligence Work Behavior

0.196* 0.173**

Interpersonal
Trust R2 = 0.43

Figure 2.
Estimated model
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

interact with each other to achieve organizational goals. To ensure that people innovate
continuously in such multinational work settings, the role of cultural intelligence in
enhancing innovative work behaviors might be of interest. This study describes the
significant role of cultural intelligence in forming the employees’ attitudes (work engagement
and trust) and behaviours (innovative work behavior). This study shows that CQ has positive
association with employee’s innovative work behaviour. Previously, research studies have
tried to examine the effect of CQ on individual creativity (e.g. Bogilovi
c et al., 2017), but no
study has been found that link CQ with innovative work behaviors. Vlajci
c et al. (2019) found
that there was a positive relationship between cultural intelligence and knowledge transfer.
Having more knowledge might make employees more creative. But the direct link between
CQ and innovative work behavior was not explored. Korzilius et al. (2017) found that
multiculturalism positively affected innovative work behavior of employees and this
relationship was mediated by employee’s cultural intelligence. Bogilovi
c et al. (2017) found
that cultural intelligence moderated the relationship between knowledge hiding and
creativity at an individual level. Although the effect of emotional and cognitive intelligence on
innovativeness was empirically tested in some studies (Goyal and Akhilesh, 2007; Zhang
et al., 2015), the effect of one of the most important intelligence in multicultural contexts
(cultural intelligence) on innovative work behaviors has seldom received attention.
 This study found that for multicultural individuals, cultural intelligence positively Cultural
influenced contextual performance, in the sense of innovative work behavior. According to intelligence
Maddux and Galinsky (2009), experience living abroad stimulates individuals to find creative
solutions. The current study confirms that CQ does play an important role in enhancing
and innovative
innovative work behavior among employees. CQ gives individuals a greater repertoire of work behavior
verbal and nonverbal capabilities that enable effective communication across their own
cultural identities and stimulates deeper understanding of the contradictions in multicultural
experiences (Leung and Chiu, 2010). Although scholars have identified that creativity can be 1101
developed through multicultural exposure (Crotty and Brett, 2012; Leung et al., 2008), limited
research has explored how innovative work behavior can be developed through cultural
intelligence. Our research contributes in addressing this gap and responding to the calls of
Bogilovi
c et al. (2017), Zhang et al. (2015), and Vlajci
c et al. (2019) in which culturally intelligent
employees may prove themselves to be more creative in multicultural settings. Thus, this
study answered repeated calls for more in-depth research on the relationship between
creativity and cultural diversity (Vlajci
c et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2015) by providing empirical
evidence that CQ indeed stimulates innovative work behaviors.
Although there are studies on the effect of CQ on employee behaviors such as job
performance (Barakat et al., 2015), job satisfaction (B€ ucker et al., 2014), task performance (Ang
et al., 2007), life satisfaction (Le et al., 2018) and voice behaviors (Afsar et al., 2019), but
specifically, research lacks understanding of the effect of CQ on individual non-routine
performance, that is innovative work behavior. Furthermore, our research is in line with Hu
et al. (2017) as it show that individuals with high cultural intelligence are not only more
effective in intercultural creative collaborations, but also directly related to their individual
creativity. This study identifies CQ as an important resource in multinational contexts. To the
best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine CQ, work engagement, interpersonal
trust, and innovative work behavior together within a multinational organization. Although
numerous studies have investigated the role of CQ in multicultural interactions, most
research has focused on short-term business travelers or international assignees, neglecting
to examine the effect of this resource on employees who face cultural diversity without
necessarily being relocated to another setting (Tay et al., 2008).
This study found that work engagement mediated the effect of CQ on innovative work
behavior. This implies that employees with high CQ who demonstrate higher degree of work
engagement are relatively more inclined to display innovative work behaviors. Ramalu and
Subramaniam (2019) found a positive link between CQ and work engagement and suggested
that work engagement might be an important intervening mechanism through which
employees display higher contextual performance and positive behaviors. While studies
have examined the effect of CQ on several psychological and performance outcomes such as
decision making (Ang et al., 2007), voice behaviors (Afsar et al., 2019) and task performance
(Jyoti and Kour, 2015), little research has been conducted on the mediating mechanisms. The
results support previous findings that CQ can facilitate employee motivation, enhancing their
involvement and overall well-being (Crotty and Brett, 2012; Ramalu and Subramaniam, 2019).
These findings provide evidence that CQ may facilitate work engagement for employees of
multinational organizations, and in turn, work engagement leads to higher innovative
activities by the employees. This can be articulated in line with the social exchange theory
that states norm of reciprocity.
Culturally intelligent employees exhibit positive behaviour of innovative work behavior in
order to reciprocate the work engagement attained at workplace. This study confirmed that
interpersonal trust mediated the relationship between cultural intelligence and innovative
work behavior. It indicated that trustworthiness was more likely to help others by engaging
in innovative behaviors. Because of complex nature of innovative work behaviors, the
relationship between CQ and innovative work behavior is further explained by trust in other
EJIM parties. As innovation is risky and uncertain, and it needs social support and approval,
24,4 trustworthiness is essential mediating mechanism through which CQ can enhance innovative
work behavior. Our findings are in line with Rockstuhl and Ng (2015) proposition, in which
they suggested that individual’s cultural adaptation was positively related to communication
quality and trust.

4.1 Practical implications

1102 The conceptual model developed in this study has important implications for organizations.
In order to innovate in multinational organizations, management must consider cultural
intelligence as an important factor to engender innovative work behaviors among employees.
Although high individual cultural intelligence does not emerge automatically, individuals
can improve and develop their cultural intelligence. Individuals should act culturally
intelligently on the basis of knowledge of, interest in, and care for, others’ nationalities,
cultures or values. Employees should self-train or undergo training to deeply understand
other cultures. Furthermore, this training of CQ in the HR strategy should be aligned with the
MNC’s vision to be a global player as well as its mission to address the interests of all
stakeholders. This denotes that CQ training is meant not merely to augment intercultural
relationships (Peng et al., 2015) between expatriate managers and local personnel, but also to
align expatriate managers’ actions with the interests of local stakeholders including local
employees. CQ training should help employees to acquire knowledge in intercultural
communications, be mindful to cultural difference as well as learn how to behave and perform
in various cultures, adding to the repertoire of cross-cultural communication adequacies (Ott
and Michailova, 2018). Cultural awareness training, didactic training, and experiential
exercises can be beneficial to raise CQ level among employees.
Despite some sparse evidence that multicultural diversity exerts a positive influence on
innovative climates in organizations, firms still need a clearer understanding of the
conditions that foster cultural diversity and remove barriers to the emergence of innovative
climates. Work engagement is also an essential state with relevant organizational
consequences, and firms must find a way to create and then sustain the level of energy
and passion that people bring to work. An effective working environment where employees
can express their suggestions, share excellent experiences, identify mistakes, share
knowledge and discuss work-based problems with their leaders is likely to exhibit a
higher level of innovative work behavior (Afsar et al., 2015). Firms should create a fair and
trustworthy work environment. Fair treatment of employees not only engenders
interpersonal trust, but also directly influences employee innovative behaviors. The
organizations may also cultivate trust by creating empathy and effective communication
channels for employees.

4.2 Limitations and future research

Before analyzing possible directions for future research, it is important to put attention
toward the limitations related to this research. First, cross-sectional data was used; thus, it’s
difficult to analyze the causal relation between variables. One example is whether innovative
work behavior can increase the cultural intelligence of an employee. This limitation means
that the arrows that suggested association among the variables should not be interpreted as
causal relations, but as associations that might suggest certain ordering that should be
confirmed in future longitudinal research. The fact that the alternative model showed a poor
fit to the data suggests that this causal ordering is less likely. Second, the quantitative data
that was used in this research can reveal the relationship between different variables, but
cannot explain why such an association exists. Moreover, qualitative data can be used in
future studies to find out such a relationship. Subsequently, the mixed method (qualitative
and quantitative data) can bring a broader examination of employees’ cultural intelligence
and innovative work behavior. Third, data were collected from diverse multinational Cultural
organizations operating in Saudi Arabia. Thus, future research should be conducted in other intelligence
countries with a greater sample size to generalize the results. Fourth, this study relied on self-
reports and therefore may be subject to social desirability bias. Yet, while we attempted to
and innovative
alleviate those concerns through triangulation, future studies could include supervisor rating work behavior
of innovative work behaviors or attempt to replicate the model using experiments. Fifth, CQ
was treated as one variable in this study. Future studies could examine the impact of the CQ
components (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral) on innovative work 1103
behavior. Finally, although we controlled for key variables, we did not measure cognitive
ability, emotional intelligence or the big five personality traits. These variables have been
shown to interact with CQ to affect employee behaviors (Afsar et al., 2019). In future research,
different variables that may have a leading influence on the relationship between CQ and
innovative work behavior may be included as potential mediators.
4.3 Conclusion
Innovative work behaviors are critical for organizational success. An individual’s
competence to understand cultural preferences, values, norms, beliefs, languages, and
differences of other members of the organization is important in todays’ culturally diverse
workplaces. This study examined the role of cultural intelligence on innovative work
behavior of employees in Saudi context. The results show that employees who are high in
cultural intelligence would engage more frequently in innovative work behaviors. Moreover,
work engagement levels and interpersonal trust would mediate the effect of cultural
intelligence on innovative work behavior.

References
Afsar, B., Badir, F.Y. and Saeed, B. (2014), “Transformational leadership and innovative work
behaviour”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 8, pp. 1270-1300.
Afsar, B., Badir, Y. and Khan, M.M. (2015), “Person–job fit, person–organization fit and innovative
work behavior: the mediating role of innovation trust”, The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 105-116.
Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., Shah, S.I. and Wajid, A. (2019), “The mediating role of transformational
leadership in the relationship between cultural intelligence and employee voice behavior: a case
of hotel employees”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 69, pp. 66-75.
Albrecht, S.L. (2012), “The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on employee well-
being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: test of a model”, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 840-853.
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D. and Ramirez, R. (2017), “Virtual team effectiveness: the role of knowledge
sharing and trust”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 479-490.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2007),
“Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making,
cultural adaptation and task performance”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 335-371.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-288.
Barakat, L.L., Lorenz, M.P., Ramsey, J.R. and Cretoiu, S.L. (2015), “Global managers: an analysis of the
impact of cultural intelligence on job satisfaction and performance”, International Journal of
Emerging Markets, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 781-800.
EJIM Bidault, F. and Castello, A. (2009), “Trust and creativity: understanding the role of trust in creativity-
oriented joint developments”, R&D Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 259-270.
24,4  
Bogilovi
c, S., Cerne, M. and Skerlavaj, M. (2017), “Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 710-723.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R. and Macnab, B. (2006), “Cultural intelligence: understanding behaviors that
serve people’s goals”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 40-55.
1104
Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2003), “Management team learning orientation and business unit
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 552-567.
ucker, J.J., Furrer, O., Poutsma, E. and Buyens, D. (2014), “The impact of cultural intelligence on
B€
communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and anxiety for Chinese host country managers
working for foreign multinationals”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 25 No. 14, pp. 2068-2087.
Chen, M.H., Chang, Y.C. and Hung, S.C. (2008), “Social capital and creativity in R&D project teams”,
R&D Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136.
Cote, S. and Miners, C.T. (2006), “Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-849.
Crotty, S.K. and Brett, J.M. (2012), “Fusing creativity: cultural metacognition and teamwork in
multicultural teams”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 210-234.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behaviour”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
Diener, E. and Fujita, F. (1995), “Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being: a nomothetic
and idiographic approach”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 5,
pp. 926-937.
Donate, M.J. and Guadamillas, F. (2015), “An empirical study on the relationships between knowledge
management, knowledge-oriented human resource practices and innovation”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 134-148.
Du Chatenier, E. (2009), Open Innovation Competence: Towards a Competence Profile for Inter-
organizational Collaboration in Innovation Teams, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures, Stanford
University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Elenkov, D.S. and Manev, I.M. (2009), “Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on innovation and the role
of cultural intelligence”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 357-369.
Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, M. (2008), “Supply chain integration and performance: a review of the
evidence”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 130-154.
Fischer, R. (2011), “Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural
intelligence”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 767-775.
Garg, S. and Dhar, R. (2017), “Employee service innovative behavior: the roles of leader-member
exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 242-258.
Gonz
alez-Rom
a, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lloret, S. (2006), “Burnout and work
engagement: independent factors or opposite poles?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68
No. 1, pp. 165-174.
Goyal, A. and Akhilesh, K.B. (2007), “Interplay among innovativeness, cognitive intelligence, Cultural
emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams”, Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 7/8, pp. 206-226. intelligence
Gregory, R., Prifling, M. and Beck, R. (2009), “The role of cultural intelligence for the emergence of
and innovative
negotiated culture in IT offshore outsourcing projects”, Information Technology and People, work behavior
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 223-241.
Holtz, B.C. (2013), “Trust primacy: a model of the reciprocal relations between trust and perceived
justice”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1891-1923. 1105
Hu, S., Gu, J., Liu, H. and Huang, Q. (2017), “The moderating role of social media usage in the
relationship among multicultural experiences, cultural intelligence, and individual creativity”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 265-281.
Huang, C.C. (2009), “Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: an empirical study
of technology R&D teams in Taiwan”, Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 786-797.
Huff, K.C., Song, P. and Gresch, E.B. (2014), “Cultural intelligence, personality, and cross-cultural
adjustment: a study of expatriates in Japan”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
Vol. 38, pp. 151-157.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302.
Jiang, X., Jiang, F., Cai, X. and Liu, H. (2015), “How does trust affect alliance performance? The
mediating role of resource sharing”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 45, pp. 128-138.
Johnson, J.L. and Cullen, J.B. (2017), “Trust in cross-cultural relationships”, The Blackwell Handbook of
Cross-Cultural Management, pp. 335-360.
Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005), “Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 500-507.
Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 531-546.
Judge, T.A., Colbert, A.E. and Ilies, R. (2004), “Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and
test of theoretical propositions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 542-558.
Jyoti, J. and Kour, S. (2015), “Assessing the cultural intelligence and task performance equation:
mediating role of cultural adjustment”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 236-258.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002), “Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams”, The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3-4, pp. 187-213.
Kim, H.J. and Agrusa, J. (2011), “Hospitality service employees’ coping styles: the role of emotional
intelligence, two basic personality traits, and socio-demographic factors”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 588-598.
Kim, W. and Park, J. (2017), “Examining structural relationships between work engagement,
organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for
sustainable organizations”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 205-219.
ucker, J.J. and Beerlage, S. (2017), “Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: the
Korzilius, H., B€
mediating role of cultural intelligence”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 56,
pp. 13-24.
Lauring, J. and Selmer, J. (2015), “Job engagement and work outcomes in a cognitively demanding
context: the case of expatriate academics”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 629-647.
Le, H., Jiang, Z. and Nielsen, I. (2018), “Cognitive cultural intelligence and life satisfaction of migrant
workers: the roles of career engagement and social injustice”, Social Indicators Research,
Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 237-257.
Lee, S.H. (2008), “The effect of employee trust and commitment on innovative behavior in the public
sector: an empirical study”, International Review of Public Administration, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
EJIM Lee, L.Y. and Sukoco, B.M. (2010), “The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance: the
moderating effects of international experience”, The International Journal of Human Resource
24,4 Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 963-981.
Lei, H., Nguyen, T.T. and Le, P.B. (2019), “How knowledge sharing connects interpersonal trust and
innovation capability”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 276-298.
Leung, A.K.Y. and Chiu, C.Y. (2010), “Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity”,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 41 Nos 5-6, pp. 723-741.
1106
Leung, A.K.Y., Maddux, W.W., Galinsky, A.D. and Chiu, C.Y. (2008), “Multicultural experience
enhances creativity: the when and how”, American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 169-184.
Lin, Y.C., Chen, A.S.Y. and 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, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 541-552.
Lough, B.J. (2011), “International volunteers’ perceptions of intercultural competence”, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 452-464.
MacNab, B.R. and Worthley, R. (2012), “Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural intelligence
development: the relevance of self-efficacy”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Maddux, W.W. and Galinsky, A.D. (2009), “Cultural borders and mental barriers: the relationship between
living abroad and creativity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 1047-1062.
Madjar, N. (2005), “The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’ creativity”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 182-206.
Malek, M.A. and Budhwar, P. (2013), “Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate adjustment and
performance in Malaysia”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 222-231.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
Ng, K.Y., Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Ryan, A.M. (2012), “Cultural intelligence: a review, reflections, and
recommendations for future research”, Conducting Multinational Research: Applying
Organizational Psychology in the Workplace, pp. 29-58.
Ott, D.L. and Michailova, S. (2018), “Cultural intelligence: a review and new research avenues”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 99-119.
Peng, A.C., Van Dyne, L. and 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, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 572-596.
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social
network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Pothukuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C.C. and Park, S.H. (2002), “National and organizational
culture differences and international joint venture performance”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 243-265.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Presbitero, A. (2016), “Culture shock and reverse culture shock: the moderating role of cultural
intelligence in international students’ adaptation”, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, Vol. 53, pp. 28-38.
Ramalu, S.S. and Subramaniam, C. (2019), “Cultural intelligence and work engagement of expatriate Cultural
academics: the role of psychological needs satisfaction”, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-26. intelligence
Ramsey, J.R., Nassif Leonel, J., Zoccal Gomes, G. and Rafael Reis Monteiro, P. (2011), “Cultural
and innovative
intelligence’s influence on international business travelers’ stress”, Cross Cultural Management: work behavior
An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Rockstuhl, T. and Ng, K.Y. (2008), “The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in
multicultural teams”, in Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (Eds), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: 1107
Theory, Measurement, and Applications, M. E. Sharpe, New York, pp. 206-220.
Rockstuhl, T. and Ng, K.Y. (2015), “The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in
multicultural teams”, in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence, Routledge, pp. 224-238.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-
discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Şahin, F., Gurbuz, S. and K€oksal, O. (2014), “Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: the effects of
personality and international assignment on the development of CQ”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Vol. 39, pp. 152-163.
Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator
between job resources and proactive behaviour”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 116-131.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martinez, I.M., Pinto, A.M., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “Burnout and
engagement in university students: a cross-national study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 464-481.
Selmer, J. and Lauring, J. (2016), “Work engagement and intercultural adjustment”, International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Tay, C., Westman, M. and Chia, A. (2008), “Antecedents and consequences of cultural intelligence
among short-term business travellers”, in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory,
Measurement, and Applications, pp. 126-144.
Thomas, D.C., Liao, Y., Aycan, Z., Cerdin, J.L., Pekerti, A.A., Ravlin, E.C., . . . and Moeller, M. (2015),
“Cultural intelligence: a theory-based, short form measure”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1099-1118.
Trong Luu, T. and Rowley, C. (2016), “The relationship between cultural intelligence and i-deals: trust
as a mediator and HR localization as a moderator”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 908-931.
Twyman, M., Harvey, N. and Harries, C. (2008), “Trust in motives, trust in competence: separate
factors determining the effectiveness of risk communication”, Judgment and Decision Making,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 111-126.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K.Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M.L. and 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, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 295-313.
Varela, O.E. and Gatlin-Watts, R. (2014), “The development of the global manager: an empirical study
on the role of academic international sojourns”, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-207.
Vlajci
c, D., Caputo, A., Marzi, G. and Dabi
c, M. (2019), “Expatriates managers’ cultural intelligence as
promoter of knowledge transfer in multinational companies”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 94, pp. 367-377.
EJIM Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, Research in Organization
24,4 Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 1-74.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1990), “Innovation at work”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (Eds), Innovation
and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley, Chichester, United
Kingdom, pp. 3-13.
Wright, T.A. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2004), “Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: an
1108 examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout”, Journal of Business
and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 34-48.
Yalabik, Z.Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J.A. and Rayton, B.A. (2013), “Work engagement as a mediator
between employee attitudes and outcomes”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2799-2823.
Yuan, F. and Woodman, R.W. (2010), “Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance
and image outcome expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 323-342.
Zhang, S.J., Chen, Y.Q. and Sun, H. (2015), “Emotional intelligence, conflict management styles, and
innovation performance: an empirical study of Chinese employees”, International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 450-478.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. Jr and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.

Further reading
Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. and Bhargava, S. (2012), “Linking LMX, innovative work
behaviour and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement”, Career
Development International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 208-230.
Dincer, H., Gencer, G., Orhan, N. and Sahinbas, K. (2011), “The significance of emotional intelligence on
the innovative work behavior of managers as strategic decision-makers”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 909-919.
Eldor, L. (2017), “Looking on the bright side: the positive role of organisational politics in the
relationship between employee engagement and performance at work”, Applied Psychology,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 233-259.
Groves, K.S. and Feyerherm, A.E. (2011), “Leader cultural intelligence in context: testing the
moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 535-566.
Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J.M. and Lai, L. (2016), “A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust:
individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1271-1292.
Lobo, A.L. and Dolke, A.M. (2008), “Interpersonal trust and organizational learning capability”, in
Conference Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge,
Learning, and Capabilities, Bentley College, Waltham.
Messmann, G. and Mulder, R.H. (2012), “Development of a measurement instrument for innovative
work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Orth, M. and Volmer, J. (2017), “Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on
innovative behaviour: the cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 601-612.
Park, Y.K., Song, J.H., Yoon, S.W. and Kim, J. (2014), “Learning organization and innovative behavior:
the mediating effect of work engagement”, European Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 75-94.
Rezvani, A., Khosravi, P. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2018), “Examining the interdependencies among Cultural
emotional intelligence, trust, and performance in infrastructure projects: a multilevel study”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1034-1046. intelligence
Wu, J., Chiclana, F., Fujita, H. and Herrera-Viedma, E. (2017), “A visual interaction consensus model
and innovative
for social network group decision making with trust propagation”, Knowledge-Based Systems, work behavior
Vol. 122, pp. 39-50.
Zhang, X. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee
creativity: interaction effects and a mediating mechanism”, Organizational Behavior and 1109
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 150-164.

Corresponding author
Bilal Afsar can be contacted at: afsarbilalait@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com