You are on page 1of 23

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.

htm

JMP 25,8

Emotional intelligence correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence


Taewon Moon
College of Business Administration, Hongik University, Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine relationships between emotional intelligence and the four factor model of cultural intelligence metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Design/methodology/approach Conrmatory factor analyses and hierarchical regression analyses on data from 381 students in Korea are conducted. Findings The results support discriminant validity of the four factor model of cultural intelligence scale (CQS) in relation to the emotional intelligence (EQ) construct. This study also demonstrates that the EQ factors related to social competence (social awareness and relationship management) explain CQ over and beyond the EQ factors related to self-competence (self-awareness, and relationship management). Finally, the results present that specic factors of EQ are related to specic factors of CQ. Originality/value The ndings of this study demonstrate how CQ and EQ are distinct, but related constructs, which has not been conducted by prior research. Keywords Emotional intelligence, Intelligence, Cross-cultural management, Employees Paper type Research paper

876
Received April 2008 Revised August 2008 March 2009 Accepted March 2009

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 25 No. 8, 2010 pp. 876-898 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941011089134

With businesses and industries progress toward rapid globalization, breakdown of trade barriers, advancements in worldwide transportation infrastructure and telecommunications, rapid market growth, and increasing levels of wealth in developing countries have enabled companies to enter a broader and more diverse set of markets (MacGillivray, 2006). Consequently, employees in organizations are now exposed to unfamiliar cultural contexts, and culturally diverse workforces. Such cross-cultural interaction can be challenging for individuals and their organizations since cultural differences increase conicts and frictions (Newman et al., 1978; Black et al., 1991; Caligiuri, 2000; Gabel et al., 2005; Lievens et al., 2003; Takeuchi et al., 2002). The capability to interact effectively with people from different cultures is increasingly required to resolve the problems that arise from complex international working environments. Correspondingly, cross-cultural studies are increasingly in demand to resolve misunderstandings and conicts that arise from cultural barriers in complex international working environments (Adler, 1997; Gelfand et al., 2001; Kraimer et al., 2001; Lievens et al., 2003; Takeuchi et al., 2002). Responding to this need, Earley and Ang (2003) developed the multifactor concept of cultural intelligence (CQ). CQ is not only dened as an individuals capability in adjusting to a new cultural context, but
This work was supported by the Hongik University new faculty research support fund.

also his or her ability to manage people who have dissimilar cultural backgrounds and understanding (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley et al., 2006; Ang et al., 2006). CQ is based on the larger domain of individual difference that consists of personality, capability, and interest, and is considered to be part of an individuals capability (Ackerman and Humphreys, 1990; Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley et al., 2006). CQ is similar to other types of intelligence such as general cognitive ability (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ), or social intelligence (SQ) since it focuses on a set of capabilities rather than preferred way of behaving (Ang et al., 2007). However, CQ is conceptually differentiated from these other intelligences because it concentrates on culturally relevant capabilities (Earley and Ang, 2003). This paper demonstrates how CQ is related to other individual differences, especially to emotional intelligence, but differs from it. Given the relative novelty of the construct (Ang et al., 2006), empirical research on CQ has recently been increasing. Previous studies have mainly focused on the construct validity of CQ in relation to other intelligence constructs, or personality, and its predictive validity over cultural judgment and decision making, task performance, and cultural adaptation (Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Templer et al., 2006), but few studies have demonstrated the relationship between the subdimensions of EQ and the four facets of CQ. Accordingly, the primary objective of this study is to examine correlations between EQ and CQ. Thus, this study demonstrates differential relationships between specic dimensions of EQ and the four-factor model of CQ. Additionally, this study not only examines generalizability of the CQ construct across countries, but also investigates the discriminant validity of CQ compared to EQ. Conceptualization of emotional intelligence (EQ) The concept of emotional intelligence rst appeared when Salovey and Mayer (1990) dened the term in their paper, Emotional intelligence. According to Salovey and Mayer (1990), Emotional intelligence is a kind of social intelligence that enables individuals to monitor the motions of others and their own emotional status, to discriminate among these motions and to use this information to guide thinking and actions (p.187). The notion of emotional intelligence has also been rising since Goleman (1995) published Emotional Intelligence in 1995. Goleman (1995, p. 34) dened emotional intelligence as being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to control impulses and delay gratications; to regulate ones moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to emphasize and to hope. Goleman (1998) explained that high emotional intelligence consists of tenacity, strong interpersonal skills and self-management, which can all inuence ones ability to achieve success. Salovey and Mayers (1990) ability model and Golemans (1995) competence model were the two primary conceptualizations that laid the groundwork for emotional intelligence and the subsequent rise in interest on the subject. First, Salovey and Mayer (1990) conceived of EI as the ability to monitor ones feelings as well as the emotions of others. Mayer et al. (2000) developed their most current measurement tool, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT), to parallel the work being done in IQ theory. The MSCEIT consists of four branches: perceiving and expressing emotion, incorporating emotion in thought, understanding emotions and emotional

Emotional intelligence correlates 877

JMP 25,8

878

self-control (Mayer and Salovey, 1993; Mayer and Salovey, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mayer et al., 2000; Offerman et al., 2004). On the other hand, Goleman (1995, 1998) developed an EI competence model. Goleman (1995, p. 17) referred to emotional intelligence as a different way of being smart. Goleman (1995, 1998) conceived of EI as a deeply intertwined combination of skills and abilities which had positive effects in terms of efcacy and performance. Goleman (1998) views EI as a series of twenty-one competencies broken down into four clusters. Accordingly, Boyatzis and Goleman (2002) developed the emotional competency inventory (ECI) that was designed to measure competency by using observer ratings such as 360-degree feedback. As a 360-degree tool, the ECI has been developed to assess the emotional competencies of individuals and organizations (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). It is an informant measure which provides a greater view of how other perceive the frequency of a persons behavior, and a behavioral measure of the underlying dispositional characteristics. The ECI was developed from inductive studies of how people act from video tape simulations, audio taped critical incidents at work, and direct observations to contrast effective versus ineffective performers in various jobs, various organizations, and various countries. The ECI includes the following competencies: . self-awareness; . self-management; . social awarenes and; . relationship management (Boyatzis, 1999; Boyatzis and Burckle, 1999; Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Generally, the instruments assessing EQ can be classied into either the ability measure or the mixed measure (Mayer, 2001). The MSCEIT relies on the ability measure which employs a narrow range of abilities such as emotional expression, thought facilitation, emotional understanding, and emotion management (Mayer, 2001), while the ECI is based on the mixed measure (a mixture of traits, abilities, competencies and personality) focusing on intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general mood (Mayer, 2001; Brackett and Mayer, 2003). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence (CQ) Cultural intelligence (CQ) is theoretically an extended contemporary view to comprehending intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003). Consistent with Schmidt and Hunters (2000) denition of general intelligence as the capability to grasp and reason accurately with concepts and succeed in problem solving, CQ is dened as the capability to function effectively in culturally diverse environments (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley et al., 2006; Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Ng and Earley, 2006; Templer et al., 2006). Traditionally, early study of intelligence focused mainly on the academic or cognitive factor intelligence, but there is a renewed interest on nonacademic intelligence (Sternberg, 1986). The increasing interest in nonacademic intelligence has introduced new kinds of intelligence that concentrate on specic content domains such as social intelligence (Thorndike and Stein, 1937), emotional intelligence (Mayer and Salovey, 1993), and practical intelligence (Sternberg et al., 2000). CQ similarly

emphasizes a particular content domain, the cross-cultural environment (Earley and Ang, 2003). As emotional intelligence functions as a complementary factor of general cognitive ability (IQ) for effective performance at work and better interpersonal relationships in this increasingly interdependent world (Earley and Gibson, 2002), cultural intelligence is another complementary form of intelligence that can explain adapting effectively to culturally diverse settings (Earley and Ang, 2003). However, cultural intelligence is distinguished from other types of intelligence such as general cognitive ability (IQ), emotional intelligence (EQ), and social intelligence (SQ) since it focuses on intercultural settings. Due to various norms for social interaction from culture to culture, other types of intelligence, such as IQ, emotional intelligence, or social intelligence are not likely to transfer automatically into effective intercultural adaptation and interaction (Earley and Ang, 2003). Thus, an individual might rate high on IQ, EQ or SQ of his or her original culture, but that does not necessarily translate into success in adapting to different cultural settings. Although cultural intelligence is not a separate intelligence but the application of assorted competencies in IQ, EQ, and SQ, the construction of CQ is not simply social intelligence or emotional intelligence with minor modications for multiculturalism (Earley and Ang, 2003; Ang et al., 2007). The construct of CQ is grounded in Sternbergs (1986) multiple-loci of intelligence framework. CQ is a multidimensional construct that encompasses the four fundamental components: meta-cognitive facet (CQ-strategy), cognitive facet (CQ-Knowledge), motivational facet (CQ-Motivation), and behavioral facet (CQ-Behavior) (Earley and Ang, 2003, Earley et al., 2006; Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Ng and Earley, 2006; Templer et al., 2006). The meta-cognitive facet (CQ-Strategy) refers to ones specic ability to gain understanding and comprehend a new culture based on a variety of factors (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004). It involves planning strategy before cross-cultural interactions, adjusting cultural knowledge when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds, and monitoring the accuracy of cultural knowledge during cross-cultural encounters (Ang et al., 2007, 2006). While meta-cognitive reects higher-order cognitive processes, the cognitive facet (CQ-Knowledge) is how an individual make sense of similarities and difference between cultures (Ang et al., 2007, 2006). It includes knowledge about the legal and economic systems, religious beliefs, the marriage systems, the arts and crafts, and language of other cultures (Ang et al, 2006; Earley and Peterson, 2004). The third component of cultural intelligence, the motivational facet, reects ones propensity to commit to adaptive behaviors when thrust into a culturally unfamiliar setting (Earley and Peterson, 2004). It involves the inherent preference for interacting with people from different cultures, the condence on culturally diverse interactions, and the management of stress from adjusting to unfamiliar settings (Ang et al., 2007, 2006). The nal component of cultural intelligence is the behavioral aspect. Given a cultural context, this refers to ones ability to act on ones desire or intent (Earley and Ang, 2003). It includes a sense of exibility for behavioral responses that t to a variety of culturally diverse situations, and the ability to adapt both verbal and nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural interaction requires it (Ang et al., 2006).

Emotional intelligence correlates 879

JMP 25,8

880

Relationships between EQ and CQ Many studies attempted to prove the construct validity of CQ in relation to other intelligence constructs, or personality, and its predictive validity over cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, task performance, and cross-cultural adjustment (Ang et al., 2006, 2007; Templer et al., 2006). Ang et al. (2006) examined relationships between CQ and Big Five personality, and demonstrated the discrimanant validity of the four dimensions of CQ (meta-cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ) compared to the Big Five personality factors (Ang et al., 2006). Templer et al. (2006) demonstrated that the motivational factor of CQ was positively related to cross-cultural adjustment in terms of work, general, and interaction adjustment of global professionals. In another study, Ang et al. (2007) examined relationships between the four CQ factors and three intercultural effectiveness outcomes, such as cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. More specically, they found that cultural judgment and decision making was predicted by metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ; cultural adaptation was explained by motivational CQ and behavioral CQ; and task performance was predicted by metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ (Ang et al., 2007). Although it is very important to investigate the constructive and predictive validity of CQ, examining antecedents of CQ is also essential to understand why some individuals are more effective in dealing with situations characterized by cultural diversity than others. To date, few studies have conducted research on CQ regarding its antecedents. Earley and Ang (2003) posited that personality was considered an antecedent or causal factor of CQ. Correspondingly, Ang et al. (2006) demonstrated the discriminant validity of CQ compared with personality, as well as signicant associations between personality characteristics and facets of CQ. In another study, Tarique and Takeuchi (2008) demonstrated impacts of the number and the length of international non-work experience on CQ. In addition to examining the relationship between CQ and its antecedents, such as personality, and experiences living abroad, it is necessary to nd other factors that could be related to CQ. Another factor that inuences CQ would be emotional intelligence (EQ). EQ is not a trait-like construct, such as personality characteristics that are consistent over time, but a state-like construct, such as CQ that are developed over time (Ang et al., 2006). According to Earley and Ang (2003), trait-like individual differences function as predictors or antecedents of state-like individual difference. Thus, it is difcult to say that EQ is an antecedent or causal agent of CQ, but we can still predict a certain level of correlations between the two constructs. Although Ang et al. (2007) demonstrated that CQ was conceptually and empirically distinguished from emotional intelligence, they did not examine differential relationships between specic emotional intelligence dimensions and specic facets of CQ. To date, there are not any studies which attempt to dene the relationship between the elements of EQ and the four facets of CQ despite the fact that many similarities exist between the two constructs. Emotional intelligence has been considered a well-established and validated theory in a singular cultural setting by providing numerous evidences of correlations between EQ and individual, group and organizational performance (Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995, 1998; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mayer et al., 1999), but still a developing construct ( Jordan et al., 2002). In particular, emotional intelligence has become popular

and gains validity within the context of a single culture or country, but it cannot be applied the same way to other cultures (Earley and Peterson, 2004). Although scholars do not deliberately limit their EQ models to a single country, they are unable to adequately apply their models in a cross-cultural context because EQ is dependent on familiarity with a specic context that is not necessarily applicable across cultures for the individual (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004). CQ is distinctive from emotional intelligence in several ways. CQ reects a persons capability to collect, interpret, and act on unexpected social cues to still function effectively while EQ does not deal directly with these issues. Rather, EQ involves ones capability to perceive, assimilate, self-regulate, understand and respond to the affective states of culturally-similar individuals (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004). Thus, those with high levels of EQ within their own culture are not necessarily skilled at comprehending the implications of interacting with individuals from other cultures since many of the social or emotional cues used by individuals from one culture to determine another individuals emotional status vary by cultures (Ang et al., 2007; Earley and Ang, 2003).Unlike EQ, CQ is a culture-free construct that can be applied to cross-cultural situations (Ang et al., 2007, Earley and Ang, 2003; Ng and Earley, 2006). Besides the problem of cultural specicity on EQ, EQ differs from CQ because CQ concentrates on capabilities in cross-cultural interactions, an aspect not present in emotional intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003). For example, knowing how to bow or shake hands with individuals with different cultural backgrounds does not necessarily involve emotional intelligence. Acquiring knowledge of the religious beliefs, the marriage systems, and the legal and economic systems of other cultures may not demand emotional intelligence. In addition, some facets of EQ do not interact with factors of CQ. EQ generally encompasses factors of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills (Salovey and Pizarro, 2003; Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990). For example, personal competence, such as self-awareness, and self-management is an intrapersonal procedure of EQ that will not be affected by ones cultural intelligence since it deals with aspects of oneself. On the other hand, areas of social competence within EQ, such as social awareness and relationship management are interpersonal skills that may be closely related to CQ. Because social competence, such as social awareness, and relationship management reects an individuals capability of dealing with other peoples emotions (Goleman, 1998), these elements of EQ may be closely related to CQ which is essential for interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. Thus, this study also examines whether interpersonal competencies of EQ (social awareness, and relationship management) are more likely to associate with the CQ construct than intrapersonal competencies of EQ (self-awareness, and self-management). CQ is distinct from, yet similar to EQ. They are similar since they are all concerned with a set of capabilities, rather than preferred ways of behaving (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley et al., 2006). CQ is somewhat related to EQ since individuals with high CQ possess a strong superiority of emotional display and management (Earley et al., 2006). Some researchers argue that CQ is founded on social intelligence as well as IQ and EQ (Thomas, 2006; Thomas and Inkson, 2004; Earley and Ang, 2003). Salovey and Pizarro (2003) dened emotional intelligence as the capability of managing emotions accurately and adaptively. Culturally intelligent people can manage their emotions

Emotional intelligence correlates 881

JMP 25,8

882

accurately and adaptively in the face of cross-cultural interactions (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004; Earley et al., 2006). People with high CQ are more likely to reformulate their concept, which is essential for individuals with high EQ (Earley and Peterson, 2004). Since CQ requires individuals to understand and make judgments about their own thought process and those of others (Ang et al., 2007), this should apply to aspects of EQ, the ability to accurately read and comprehend emotions in others. Thus, similarities exist between EQ and CQ. Conceptual framework and hypotheses Although EQ is dependent on familiarity with a specic context that is not necessarily applicable across cultures for the individual (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, 2004), EQ is also a learned capability that can contribute to cross-cultural interactions. Since EQ is the capacity for identifying ones and others emotions, for motivating oneself, and for managing emotions effectively in oneself and others (Goleman, 1995, 1998; Boyatzis et al., 2000), this capability can have an inuence when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds. Specically, the interpersonal competency of EQ dealing with others, such as social awareness, and relationship management can be essential parts in cross-cultural interactions. When analyzing the aspects of EQ, the ability to be aware of others feelings, needs, and concerns, with an emphasis on relationship building (Boyatziset al., 2000), requires some CQ skills, since emotional expression is governed by the guidelines established by cultural norms (Hochschild, 1983). Since emotional expression varies by culture, identifying and understanding others emotional expression require both emotional and cultural intelligence skills. Additionally, interpersonal aspects of EQ entail the adequate control of feeling and the effective management of others emotions (Salovey and Pizarro, 2003), which are essential for behavioral CQ, an adjustment of verbal and non-verbal behaviors appropriately in various cultural contexts. Thus, a person with a high EQ rating in his or her original culture will not necessarily be successful in adapting to different cultural settings, but may have a higher possibility of adapting successfully to unfamiliar cultural environments. Boyatzis and Golemans (2002) Emotional Competency Inventory is used for this study since it involves intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of EQ (Boyatzis et al., 2000). In order to examine H1 that interpersonal elements of EQ are more closely related to CQ than intrapersonal elements of EQ, use of the ECI best suits its research purpose. Additionally, the ECI has a university edition (ECI-U) which targets college students, and is free of charge. The rst two clusters, self-awareness, and self-management involve intrapersonal capabilities, such as inner emotional knowledge awareness, accurate self assessment, self-condence and control of ones internal states, impulses, and resources (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). The second pair of clusters, social awareness, and relationship management deal with interpersonal capabilities, such as awareness of others emotions for building mutual relationships, a keen appreciation of social situations, and adaptation at inducing desirable responses from others with communication skills (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Since CQ is an individuals capability of adapting effectively to new cross-cultural situations, and of interacting wisely with people with different cultural backgrounds, EQ competences dealing with others are more likely to

increase explained variance in the CQ construct, over and above EQ competences dealing with self: H1. Interpersonal competences of EQ such as social-awareness, and relationship management have more explanatory power in predicting CQ than intrapersonal competencies of EQ such as self-awareness, and self-management. The rst competency of the ECI is self-awareness which includes emotional self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-condence (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Emotional self-awareness is the ability to identify ones own emotions, recognize the source of feelings, and comprehend the implications of ones own emotions (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Accurate self-assessment refers to the ability to identify ones inner strengths and limitations (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Self condence is a sense of ones self-worth and capability to achieve a task (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). In thinking about self-awareness and the four facets of CQ, this study posits that self-awareness is related to metacognitive CQ. Metacognitive CQ reects an individuals capability of planning, monitoring, and adjusting cultural consciousness and awareness during cross-cultural interactions (Earley and Ang, 2003; Ang et al., 2006, 2007). Those who have high self-awareness can acquire and understand cultural knowledge more effectively; they more easily recognize how they respond to a variety of cues in cross-cultural interactions since they have a consciousness of their internal states, preferences, resources and intuitions, as well as a realistic assessment of self-ability, and a well-grounded sense of self-condence. Thus, we predict that: H2. Self-awareness will be positively related to metacognitive CQ. The second competency of the ECI, self-management includes emotional self-control, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, optimism, achievement orientation and initiative (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Emotional self-control is the ability to keep ones disruptive emotions and impulses under control (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Trustworthiness refers to ones continuing standards of honesty and integrity (Goleman, 2001). Conscientiousness denotes the capability of taking responsibility for personal performance (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Adaptability is the ability to be exible when faced with change. Optimism refers to viewing the world or situations at hand in a positive manner. Achievement orientation refers to an optimistic effort to improve performance (Goleman, 2001). Finally, initiative is the ability to take anticipatory actions before a problem, obstacle, or opportunity are visible (Goleman, 1998, 2001). In thinking about self-management and the four facets of CQ, this study posits that self-management is related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Motivational CQ refers to an individuals capability to direct individuals drive and interest and energy toward learning cultural differences (Earley and Ang, 2003; Ang et al., 2006, 2007). People who are high in self-management put more consistent energy and effort toward learning about cross-cultural situations since they can deal better with stress or cultural shock from an unfamiliar culture, and manage their impulses and emotions to overcome the conicts and misunderstandings characterized by cultural differences. Moreover, those who are high in self-management possess a high level of ability to

Emotional intelligence correlates 883

JMP 25,8

regulate their own thoughts and perspectives, making them more likely to adjust their behaviors according to new cultural settings. Thus, this study predicts that: H3. Self-management will be positively related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ.

884

The third competency of the ECI is social awareness which includes empathy, organizational awareness, and service orientation (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Empathy is about understanding and knowing other peoples feelings, needs and concerns (Goleman, 2001). Organizational awareness is the ability to read the current of emotions correctly, and understand political power relationships in groups (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Service orientation is the ability to identify others unstated needs and concerns while focusing ones efforts on others (Goleman, 2001). In thinking about social awareness and the four facets of CQ, we posit that social awareness is related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ and behavioral CQ. People who rate high in social management tend to read other cultural groups feelings or non-verbal cues more accurately, and have a better understanding of how to identify the political power relationship in cross-cultural interactions. They make a greater effort to identify others unstated needs and concerns, and deal with people of diverse backgrounds with exibility in verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Thus, this study predicts that: H4. Social awareness will be positively related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. The last competency of the ECI is relationship management. It includes helping others develop, inspirational leadership, inuence, communication, catalyzing change, conict management, fostering collaboration and teamwork (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Assisting others in their development involves the ability to read others developmental needs and foster their abilities (Goleman, 2001). Inspirational leadership refers to the ability to inspire people to collaborate together for a common goal (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Inuence is the ability to persuade, convince, or impact others by managing emotions effectively in other people (Goleman, 2001). Communication is the ability to listen openly, and send clear messages effectively to others (Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Changing catalyst refers to being able to recognize the need for change, and taking initiatives in response to changes (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Goleman, 2001). Conict management is the ability to deal wisely with difcult individuals or groups of people, and mitigate tense situations with diplomacy and strategy (Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis et al., 2000). Building bonds refers to the ability of building and continuing close and good relationships with a variety of people (Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Finally, Teamwork and collaboration is the ability to work cooperatively with others to accomplish shared goals (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Goleman, 2001). In thinking about relationship management and the four facets of CQ, we posit that relationship management is related to all four facets of CQ. Relationship management, the fourth EQ competence requires the most complex and highest level of abilities among the four EQ competences since it builds upon other domains of EQ, especially self-management and social awareness (Goleman, 1998, 2001). Thus, people who do well in relationship management adapt better to new environments in order to induce

desirable responses from a culturally diverse group of people with higher-order thought and strategies, accurate knowledge over cultures, motivation or drive for cross-cultural interactions, and effective verbal and non-verbal communication skills: H5. Relationship management will be positively related to meta-cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Method Sample and procedure Participants consisted of graduate and undergraduate students enrolled at a large public university in Korea. In order to increase the generalizability of the CQ construct across countries, this study only focused on the Korean participants. In other words, the entire sample was composed of the Korean citizen (100 percent), and no other individual country in the sample was included. Participants were asked to list the name of the countries to which they had visited, the length of each trip, and the purpose of their visit. These countries included 17 different countries across North and South America, East and South Asia, and the Middle East. The purpose of trips was divided into trips for holiday (75.3 percent), language schools (19.7 percent), and others (5.0 percent). Participants indicated that they have spent an average length of their international residence or visit of 11.91 months (SD 34:84). Participants were 38.7 percent male, average 24.82 years of age (SD 6:14) with a range of 17 to 57 years old. Students enrolled in several business classes were told by their instructors that they could voluntarily participate in an EQ and CQ survey in return for extra course credit. At the rst class meetings, those who allowed their data to be used for research purposes signed informed consent forms. Students were asked to rate themselves on EQ and CQ, and to disclose demographic information including gender, age, and length of international experience. In order to minimize common method variance, this study collected data at two points during one semester. At the beginning of the semester, 390 students lled out forms on demographic information, and the 20-item CQ questionnaires. At the end of the semester (12 weeks later), 381 of these students completed the 63-item EQ questionnaires. Since there is only a slight difference between Time1 (n 390) and Time 2 (n 381), this study assumes that there is no potential attribution bias. Measures Cultural intelligence. CQ was measured using the 20 item, four-factor Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) developed by Ang et al. (2004). The CQS assesses four items for metacognitive CQ (a 0:82), six for cognitive CQ (a 0:84), ve for motivational CQ (a 0:88), and ve for behavioral CQ (a 0:87). These reliabilities are consistent with those presented in Ang et al. (2006). Emotional intelligence. EQ was measured by the emotional competence inventory-university edition (ECI-U) (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). The ECI includes four clusters composed of 21 competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. The ECI-U includes 63 phrases illustrating peoples behaviors. In the current study, the reliabilities of the four clusters are 0.70 for self-awareness, 0.84 for self-management, 0.79 for social awareness, and 0.87 for relationship management.

Emotional intelligence correlates 885

JMP 25,8

886

Control variables. This study included age (years), gender (0 female, 1 male), and months of cross-cultural experience as controls. The length of international experience is considered to be an inuential factor in CQ. Takeuchi et al. (2005) demonstrated that prior international experiences of expatriates were positively related to their adaptability to the host country. Additionally, since this study employed a student sample, age and gender may inuence the amount of international experiences. In general, travel overseas for purposes such as studying abroad and short visits to foreign countries increase by age because older students have more opportunities for international experiences than younger students. Similarly, gender differences may also impact the amount of international experiences. Therefore, age, gender, and length of international experience were included as control variables in the analysis. Results Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated good t of the data to a four-factor correlated model (Model A): X2 (164 df 488:68, goodness-of-t GFI 0:885, non-normed t index NNFI 0:908, comparative t index CFI 0:921, and root mean square of approximation RMSEA 0:071. All factor loadings were signicant. In order to examine relative t of this four-factor model, this study compared this four-factor correlated model with alternate nested models, such as four-factor orthogonal model (Model B), three-factor model (Model C), two-factor model (Models D and E), and one-factor model (Model F). Table I demonstrates nested model comparisons. As shown in Table I, the hypothesized four-factor model demonstrates the best t compared to the other ve models. Model A (four-factors) presented better t than Model B (four orthogonal factors), D X2 (6 df 408:62, p , 0.001. Model A (four-factors) also showed better t than the three factor model of Model C (metacognition and cognition combined v. behavior and motivation combined), D X2 3df 205:42, p , 0.001. Model A also demonstrated better t than two alternate two factor models of Model D (metacognition and cognition v. motivation and behavior combined): D X2 (5 df 800:82, p , 0.001 and Model E (metacognition v. the other three facets combined) D X2 5df 1043:97, p , 0.001. Lastly, Model A had better t than Model F (one factor model with all items loading on a single factor), D X2 6df 1237:82, p , 0.001. This study measured the distinctiveness of the four factors of CQ compared to the four clusters of EQ by using CFA. CFA demonstrated acceptable t for the eight-factor model (Model A): X2 (751 df 1442:75, goodness-of-t GFI 0:843, non-normed t index NNFI 0:896, comparative t index CFI 0:905, and root mean square of approximation RMSEA 0:049. Results supported the distinctive difference between the four CQ factors and the four clusters of EQ. In order to examine the relative t of this eight-factor model, this study compared this eight-factor model with alternate nested models, such as ve-factor model (Model B, and Model C), and four-factor model (Model D, Model E, Model F, and Model G). Nested model comparisons in Table II showed further support for the distinctiveness of the four factors of CQ and EQ clusters. This eight-factor model demonstrated the best t compared to the other alternate nested models. Model A (eight factors) presented better t than ve factors of Model B (four EQ and one overall

Model df 164 170 167 169 169 170 0.616 0.575 0.620 0.629 0.626 0.667 0.679 0.690 0.724 0.131 E v. A 1532.65 1726.50 0.144 F v. A 0.153 0.842 0.854 0.871 0.990 D v. A 1289.50 0.885 0.794 0.908 0.802 0.921 0.823 0.071 0.105 B v. A C v. A GFI NNFI CFI RMSEA 488.68 897.30 694.10

X2

Model comparison test Comparison D X2 D df 408.62 * 205.42 * 800.82 * 1043.97 * 1237.82 * 6 3 5 5 6

A B C

20-item four-factor model Four-factor orthogonal model Three-factor model (metacognition and cognition combined v. motivation v. behavior) Two-factor model (metacognition and cognition combined v. motivation and behavior combined) Two-factor model (metacognition v. the other three facets combined) One-factor model with all items loading on a single factor

Emotional intelligence correlates 887

Table I. Comparing the t of alternative nested models for the four-factor model of CQ (Time1, n 390)

JMP 25,8

888

Model df 751 769 769 773 773 773 773 0.675 0.682 0.688 0.731 0.756 0.717 0.722 0.727 0.843 0.785 0.697 0.896 0.849 0.720 0.905 0.849 0.738 0.770 0.773 0.738 0.743 GFI NNFI CFI 1442.75 1865.87 2668.09 2436.09 2705.19 2673.13 2637.00

Table II. Comparing the t of alternative nested models for the EQ and CQ factors (Time2, n 381) X2 RMSEA 0.049 0.061 0.081 0.075 0.081 0.080 0.080 Model comparison test Comparison D X2 D df B v. A C v. A D v. A E v. A F v. A G v. A 423.12 * * 1225.34 * * 993.34 * * 1262.44 * * 1230.38 * 1194.25 * * 18 18 22 22 22 22

A B C D

Eight-factor model (four CQ four EQ) Five-factor model (four EQ one overall CQ factor) Five-factor model (four CQ one overall EQ factor) Four-factor model (metacognition and four EQ combined v. cognition v. motivation v. behavior) Four-factor model (metacognition v. cognition and four EQ combined v. motivation v. behavior) Four-factor model (metacognition v. cognition v. motivation and four EQ combined v. behavior) Four-factor model (metacognition v. cognition v. motivation v. behavior and four EQ combined)

CQ factors): D X2 (769 df 1865:878, p , 0.001 and Model C (four CQ factors and one overall EQ factors), D X2 (769 df 2668:09, p , 0.001. Likewise, Model A also demonstrated better t than four alternate four factor models of Model D (metacognition and four EQ combined v. cognition v. motivation and behavior): DX2 773 df 2436:09, p , 0.001 and Model E (metacognition v. cognition and four EQ combined v. motivation v. behavior): D X2 (773 df 2705:19, p , 0.001, Model F (metacognition v. cognition v. motivation and four EQ combined v. behavior): DX2 773 df 2673:13, p , 0.001, and Model G (metacognition v. cognition v. motivation v. behavior and four EQ combined): D X2 (773 df 2637:004, p , 0.001. Table III presents the descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities used in this study. As Table III shows, coefcient alpha for all of the multiple-item constructs ranged between 0.70 and 0.88, exceeding the 0.7 cutoff point. The indices suggest acceptable reliability for the multi-item constructs. In order to test the rst hypotheses that EQ factors dealing with others, such as social-awareness, and relationship management have more explanatory power in predicting CQ than EQ factors dealing with self, such as self-awareness and self-management, a hierarchical regression analysis is conducted (Table IV). In the rst step of each regression analysis, the control variables (age, gender, and months of cross-cultural experiences) were entered. The second step added the independent variables related to self competence (self-awareness, and self-management). The third step included the independent variables related to social competence (social awareness, and relationship management). This study also conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses to test from the second hypothesis to the fth hypothesis entering control variables (age, gender, and months of cross-cultural experiences) in the rst step and the four EQ factors in the second step (Table IV). As shown in Table IV, results support H1, demonstrating that EQ factors related to social competence (social awareness, and relationship management) increased explained variance in CQ by 6 percent, over and above age, gender, months of cross-cultural experiences, and EQ factors related to self-competence (self-awareness, self-management). Adding EQ factors related to social competence in the third step increased incremental validity of CQ (D F 14:97, p , 0.001) with overall adjusted R 2 0:23. Regression results also support H1. H2 predicted that self-awareness would be positively related to metacognitive CQ. After controlling for age, gender, and length of international experience, results supported H2 that self-awareness was positively related to metacognitive CQ ( 0:13, p , 0.05). H3 predicted that self-management would be positively related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. However, results demonstrated that self-management was positively related to metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ ( 0:13, p , 0:05= 0:16, p , 0.05/ 0.12, p , 0.05). Unlike expectations, self-management was not signicantly related to motivational CQ. Regression analyses partially supported H4 that social awareness would be positively related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. Results showed that social awareness was positively related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ ( 0:13, p , 0.05/ 0:28, p , 0.001), but not to meta-cognitive CQ. Finally, H5 predicted that relationship management would be positively related to all four facets of CQ. Results showed that relationship management was positively

Emotional intelligence correlates 889

JMP 25,8

890

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.080 0.050 0.031

Metacognitive CQ 3.25 1.29 (0.81) Cognitive CQ 3.21 1.31 0.54 * * (0.84) Motivational CQ 4.50 1.54 0.53 * * 0.47 * * Behavioral CQ 4.65 1.48 0.42 * * 0.42 * * Self-awareness 3.47 0.88 0.30 * * 0.20 * * Self-management 3.51 0.63 0.34 * * 0.27 * * Social awareness 3.70 0.96 0.26 * * 0.22 * * Relationship management 3.45 1.00 0.33 * * 0.20 * * Age 24.82 6.17 0.121 * 0.077 Gender (1 male 1.61 0.48 20.076 20.022 2 female) 0.127 * 11 Experiences (cultures) 11.91 34.84 0.131 *

Table III. Descriptive statistics correlations and reliabilities M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (0.88) 0.46 * * (0.87) 0.28 * * 0.23 * * (0.70) 0.32 * * 0.33 * * 0.56 * * (0.84) 0.34 * * 0.41 * * 0.39 * * 0.52 * * 0.37 * * 0.35 * * 0.43 * * 0.55 * * 0.034 20.055 0.053 0.156 * * 0.084 20.037 20.031 20.124 * 0.094 (0.79) 0.58 * * (0.87) 0.103 * 0.054 0.008 20.008 20.260 * * 0.074 0.026 0.580 * * 20.093

Variable 20.03 20.00 0.13 * 2 0.08 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.32 * * * 2.96 * 2.07 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.15 1.91 0.01 0.00 0.05 20.05 0.09 0.00 20.01 0.12 * 0.01 0.09 0.08

Step 1

Total CQ Step 2 Step 3

Metacognitive CQ Step 1 Step 2

Cognitive CQ Step 1 Step 2

Motivational CQ Step 1 Step 2

Behavioral CQ Step 1 Step 2 20.14 * 20.06 0.12 *

1.96 0.015 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.23

Age Gender Experiences Self-awareness Self-management Social awareness Relationship management F DF R2 DR 2 17.42 * * * 40.07 * * * 0.18 20.08 0.00 0.13 * 0.08 0.16 * * 0.18 * * 0.16 * * 17.65 * * * 14.97 * * 0.24 0.18 0.18 20.03 0.00 0.12 * 0.05 0.16 * 0.09 0.02 5.69 * * * 8.29 * * * 0.09

0.01 20.04 0.09 0.13 * 0.13 * 0.02 0.18 * * 11.17 * * * 16.94 * * * 0.17

2 0.03 0.09 * 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.13 * 0.20 * * * 12.89 * * * 20.83 * * * 0.09

2.14 0.01 0.00

2 0.19 * * * 2 0.06 0.12 * 2 0.00 0.12 * 0.28 * * * 0.12 * 15.18 * * * 24.56 * * * 0.22 0.20 0.20

Adjusted R 2

Notes: Gender (1 male, 2 female); Experience (months of cross-cultural experiences); *p , 2 0.05; * *p , 20.01; * * *p , 20.001

Emotional intelligence correlates 891

Table IV. Hierarchical regression analyses (n 381)

JMP 25,8

892

related to meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ ( 0:18, p , 0:01= 0:20, p , 0.001/ 0:12, p , 0.05), but not to cognitive CQ. Thus, regression analysis partially supported H5. The Harman factor analysis was conducted by using exploratory component analysis to examine whether common method variance existed. Eight factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1, and the rst factor accounted for 19.09 percent of the variance. Cumulative variance of the eight factors was 42.32 percent of the total variance, and no one single factor accounted for more than 25 percent indicating that common method bias was minimized. Discussion The primary goal of this research was to examine how CQ and EQ are distinct, but related constructs. Previous studies have demonstrated discriminant validity of the CQ construct compared with the EQ construct, and mentioned the importance of both culturally competent and emotionally sensitive leaders in todays business (Ang et al., 2004, 2007), but they did not show relationships between specic facets of CQ and specic factors of EQ. Thus, this study was the rst attempt to explore the differential relationships between the four-factor CQ constructs and the four-factor EQ constructs. The results of this study with 381 Korean respondents further increased the generalizability of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) across countries, which had been supported by conducting studies only in Singapore and the United Sates. Correspondingly, this study conrmed a reliability and construct validity of the four factor model of CQS. In addition, CFA supported discriminant validity of the four factor model of CQS in relation to the EQ construct. The results of this study highlighted several important points. First, the ndings of this study demonstrated strong support for the distinctiveness and the discriminant validity of the CQ construct compared with the EQ construct, which were consistent with the ndings of previous studies (Ang et al., 2004, 2007). Second, analyses of the ndings suggest that the EQ factors related to social competence (social awareness and relationship management) explained CQ over and beyond the EQ factors related to self-competence (self-awareness, and relationship management) after controlling for age, gender, and months of cross-cultural experiences. Finally, the results supported the predictions that specic factors of EQ were related to specic factors of CQ. Self-awareness was positively associated with metacognitive CQ as expected. Since those who have high self-awareness are capable of identifying their own and others emotions, recognizing their strengths, and weaknesses, and tend to look for feedback and new perspectives about themselves, it seems that self-awareness is positively related to metacognitive CQ, an individuals cultural consciousness and awareness during cross-cultural interactions. Unlike the expectations that self-management was positively related to both motivational CQ and behavioral CQ, self-management was associated with all three facets of CQ except motivational CQ. This study assumes that an individual might rate high on the self-management scale of his or her original culture, but that does not necessarily translate into success in committing to adapt ones behavior, and to manage ones and others emotions in different cultural settings. The results of this study also demonstrated that self-management is positively related to metacognitive CQ. This study speculates that a positive relationship between self-management and

metacognitive CQ may be due to consciousness included in self-management. Those who are high in conscientiousness are more likely to take responsibility for personal performance, follow through on commitments and promises, and engage in their work with a playful, organized and purposeful approach (Ang et al., 2006; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002). Thus, self-management may be related to metacognitive CQ. In addition, although self-management seems to have nothing to do with cognitive CQ, self-management was positively associated with cognitive CQ. This result may be due to a positive relationship between cognitive CQ and achievement orientation as well as initiative included in the factors of self-management. Since individuals with high achievement drive and initiative are more likely to expect obstacles to achieve a goal, and take calculated risks (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2002; Goleman, 1998, 2001), they are more intelligent, curious, anticipatory, and well-prepared for knowledge about specic aspects of other cultures. Results partially supported that social awareness would be positively related to metacognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ. As expected, social awareness was positively related to motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ, but not to metacognitive CQ. This study assumes that those who are high in social-awareness within their own culture are not necessarily skilled at accurately interpreting peoples feelings or non-verbal cues, and comprehending the implications of interacting with individuals from other cultures. Finally, the results of this study demonstrated that relationship management is positively related to all three facets of CQ except cognitive CQ. Since cognitive CQ refers to an individuals knowledge of particular norms, customs, traditions, practices, and conventions of other cultures, relationship management within a singular culture would not be closely related to cognitive CQ even if it requires the most complex and highest level of abilities among the four EQ competences. Overall, this study provided insightful empirical evidence that a relationship exists between CQ and EQ. Especially, the facets of EQ related to social competence (social-awareness, and relationship management) demonstrate incremental predictive validity of CQ, over and above demographic characteristics (age, and gender), experiences in cross-cultural interactions (number of months spent abroad), and the facets of EQ related to self-competence (self-awareness and self-management). Self-competence associated with EQ, such as emotional self awareness and control is relatively stable over time, and non-specic to a certain task or circumstance compared to social competence since self-competence deals with an individuals inner state of being able to perceive and manage internal emotions. A way of understanding and controlling an individuals own emotions is similar regardless of where he or she is presented. However, social competence related to EQ always depends on the capability of accurately and adaptively managing emotions in others, so it tends to be more malleable and specic to a specic situation. Thus, social competence within EQ is more closely related to CQ, which requires the capability of adapting ones emotional awareness and expression, and choosing what is most appropriate in cross-cultural interactions. Limitations and future research This study also has limitations that offer crucial venues for future research. First, since study samples were limited to students at a large public university in Korea,

Emotional intelligence correlates 893

JMP 25,8

894

generalization of the study was limited and the chance of sampling errors could not be excluded. Future studies should test the hypotheses with samples from different populations. Second, common method bias may be a concern since both predictor and criterion variables are from the same source in this study. Future study should be more concerned about common method variance. Although this study collected self-reported data related to CQ and EQ at two different points of time, and a Harman one-factor test was conducted, all of the sample data comes from the same resource. While a perfect removal of CMB seems impossible, it can be controlled and detected through careful research design and instruments (Park et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The best way to control CMB is to use a different measurement method for each variable, such as the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) (Park et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 1994). If it is impossible to gain multiple measures of the variables from multiple methods, researchers must obtain predictor and criterion variables from different sources (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Another way of controlling CMB is using objective measures that help reduce many biases that can interrupt human judgment and distort reports (Spector, 1994). Third, another limitation to this study is that personality measures were not included. Future study should explore more extended models of CQ and EQ by adding personality as an antecedent variable, and job performance or cultural adaptation as a criterion variable and mediated variable. For example, future study could examine the relationships between an individuals levels of CQ/EQ, job performance in international assignments, cultural adaptation, and also investigate the relationship among personality and the intelligence construct. Finally, the ndings on incremental validity of social competence on CQ encourage future research over and beyond self-competence. Future research should be devised more carefully and delicately to examine whether social competence of EQ is more related to culture. For example, future study can develop two different versions of the EQ test, which can be applied to either a singular culture or cross-cultural context respectively. Then relationships between culture and two competences (self-competence and social competence) will be examined by comparing two different responses from two different versions of EQ. This kind of future study can prove whether EI does not provide an adequate explanation, or if it is as valid when applied in a cross-cultural context as CQ researchers insist. Implications for research and practice Results of this study provide important theoretical and research implications. First, this research provides the rst integrative study of the relationships between EQ and CQ. Some elements of EQ are closely related to facets of CQ. Especially, interpersonal competencies of EQ are more closely related to CQ than intrapersonal competencies of EQ. Results of this research contribute valuable knowledge to the eld of intelligence theory by clearly delineating differential relationships between specic dimensions of EQ and the four-factor model of CQ. This study enables scholars to address similarities between EQ and CQ, as opposed to searching for and emphasizing differences. Second, the results of this study with 381 Korean respondents increased the generalizability of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), which had been developed by conducting studies in Singapore and the United Sates. Also, this study conrmed a reliability and construct validity of the four factor model of CQS.

Practically, this study also has implications for cross-cultural management practice. For example, this study would help human resource professionals in their search by selecting, training and developing a more culturally competent workforce. By demonstrating the relationship between CQ and EQ, this study allows organizations to improve their stafng and performance system. They will recognize the importance of cultural intelligence besides evaluating employees language prociencies, international work experience, and emotional intelligence when an HR department in an organization recruits or selects its employees for work in cross-cultural settings. In addition, organizations could use the CQS to recruit and select their employees who would be the best t for expatriate assignments since previous studies and this study supported strong psychometric characteristics of the CQS. By using CQS, those who perform well in domestic contexts but are unlikely to succeed in cross-cultural interactions could be screened out, which would reduce unnecessary costs stemming from failure of international assignments.
References Ackerman, P.L. and Humphreys, L.G. (1990), Individual differences theory in industrial and organizational psychology, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 223-82. Adler, N.J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South Western, Cincinnati, OH. Ang, S., Dyne, L.V. and Koh, C. (2006), Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 100-22. Ang, S., Dyne, L.V., Koh, C. and Ng, K.Y. (2004), The measurement of cultural intelligence, paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Meeting Symposium on Cultural Intelligence in the 21st Century, New Orleans, LA. Ang, S., Dyne, L.V., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N. (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. 335-71. Bar-On, R. (2000), Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the emotional quotient inventory, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (Eds), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 363-88. Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1991), Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 291-317. Boyatzis, R. and Burckle, M. (1999), Psychometric Properties of the ECI, Hay/McBer Group, Boston, MA. Boyatzis, R.E. (1999), Developing emotional intelligence, in Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D. (Eds), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. Boyatzis, R.E. and Goleman, D. (2002), The Emotional Competency Inventory, The Hay Group, Boston, MA. Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K. (2000), Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI), in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (Eds), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development,

Emotional intelligence correlates 895

JMP 25,8

896

Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 343-62. Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003), Convergent, discriminate, and incremental validity of competing measure of emotional intelligence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 1-12. Caligiuri, P.M. (2000), Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: a moderating effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural adjustment, Management International Review, Vol. 40, pp. 61-80. Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: An Analysis of Individual Interactions across Cultures, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (2002), Multinational Work Teams: A New Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Earley, P.C. and Peterson, R.S. (2004), The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 100-15. Earley, P.C., Ang, S. and Tan, J. (2006), CQ: Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. Gabel, R.S., Dolan, S.L. and Cerdin, J.L. (2005), Emotional intelligence as predictor of cultural adjustment for success in global assignments, Career Development International, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 375-95. Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., Holcombe, K.M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K. and Fukuno, M. (2001), Cultural inuences on cognitive representations of conict: Interpretations of conict episodes in the United States and Japan, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 1059-74. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY. Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY. Goleman, D. (2001), Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building, in Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D. (Eds), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 13-44. Hochschild, A.R. (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA. Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E. and Hooper, G.S. (2002), Workgroup emotional intelligence: scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-214. Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J. and Jaworski, R.A. (2001), Sources of support and expatriate performance: the mediating role of expatriate adjustment, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 71-99. Lievens, F., Harris, M.M., Van Keer, E. and Bisqueret, C. (2003), Predicting cross-cultural training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 476-89. MacGillivray, A. (2006), A Brief History of Globalization: The Untold Story of Our Incredible Shrinking Planet, Carroll & Graf, New York, NY. Mayer, J.D. (2001), A eld guide to emotional intelligence, in Ciarrochi, J., Forgas, J.P. and Mayer, J.D. (Eds), Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life: A Scientic Inquiry, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993), The intelligence of emotional intelligence, Intelligence, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 433-42. Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1995), Emotional intelligence and the construction and the regulations of feelings, Applied and Preventive Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 197-208. Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999), Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-98. Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (2000), Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: the case for ability scales, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 320-42. Newman, J., Bhatt, B. and Gutteridge, T. (1978), Determinants of expatriates effectiveness: a theoretical and empirical vacuum, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 655-69. Ng, K.Y. and Earley, C.P. (2006), Culture and intelligence: old construct, new frontiers, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31, pp. 4-19. Offerman, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Seal, C. and Sass, M. (2004), The relative contribution of emotional intelligence and cognitive ability to individual and team performance, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219-43. Park, W.W., Kim, M.S., Jeong, S.M. and Huh, K.M. (2007), Causes and remedies of common method bias, Korean Academy of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 89-133. Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition & Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211. Salovey, P. and Pizarro, D. (2003), The value of emotional intelligence, in Sternberg, R.J., Lautrey, J. and Lubart, T.I. (Eds), Models of Intelligence: International Perspectives, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp. 263-78. Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (2000), Select on intelligence, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Principles, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 3-14. Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 385-92. Sternberg, R.J. (1986), A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence, in Sternberg, R.J. and Detterman, D.K. (Eds), What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on its Nature and Denition, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 3-15. Sternberg, R.J., Forsythe, G.B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J.A., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., Snook, S. and Grigorenko, E.L. (2000), Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Takeuchi, R., Yun, S. and Tesluk, P.E. (2002), An examination of crossover and spillover effects of spouse and expatriate adjustment on expatriate outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 655-66. Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P., Yun, S. and Lepak, D. (2005), An integrative view of international experiences: an empirical examination, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 85-100.

Emotional intelligence correlates 897

JMP 25,8

898

Tarique, I. and Takeuchi, R. (2008), Developing cultural intelligence: the role of international non-work experiences, in, in Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (Eds), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY. Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2006), Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment, Group and Organization Management,, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-73. Thomas, D.C. (2006), Domain and development of cultural intelligence: the importance of mindfulness, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 78-9. Thomas, D.C. and Inkson, K. (2004), Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Thorndike, R.L. and Stein, S. (1937), An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 34, pp. 275-85. About the author Taewon Moon received his BA in TV and Radio Communication from The George Washington University, Washington DC and his MBA, which concentrated on MIS, at The George Washington University, Washington DC. He later received his PhD, which focused on organizational behavior and human resource management, at the Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Department in the School of Engineering and Applied Science of GWU. He was a full-time lecturer at the University of Suwon in Korea in 2006-2007 before becoming a research fellow at the Center for Leadership and Cultural Intelligence Center at Nanyang Business School of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Taewon then became a research professor at SKK Graduate School of Business in Korea and is currently an Assistant Professor at Hongik University. Taewon Moon can be contacted at: twmoon@hongik. ac.kr/ipsul@hotmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints