Content uploaded by Jeevan Jyoti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeevan Jyoti on May 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Examining the impact of Cultural Intelligence on Knowledge Sharing: Role of Moderating
and Mediating Variables
Dr. Jeevan Jyoti
(Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, University of Jammu)
E-mail:jyotigupta64@rediffmail.com, Mob. 0-9469170900
Dr. Vijay Pereira
(Associate Professor, University of Wollongong, Dubai Campus)
Sumeet Kour (Corresponding Author)
(Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Commerce, University of Jammu)
E-mail: sumeetask@gmail.com, Mob. 0-9596864295
Abstract
Purpose- Globalisation of world has brought lot of challenges for individuals and organisations
in the form of cultural diversity management. In this context, cultural intelligence is a tool, which
can increase an individual’s ability to interact with people outside his/her culture. The purpose of
the study is to analyse the moderating role played by work experience between cultural
intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment relationship. Further, the mediating role played by
cross-cultural adjustment between cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing relationship.
Data for the study has been collected from the 530 bank managers working in nationalised banks
operating in Delhi (North India). In order to establish normality of the data 18 respondents have
been deleted by inspecting boxplots. Therefore, the effective sample came to 512.Data collected
has been validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and hypotheses have been tested
through structural equation modeling (SEM). The study reveals that work experience moderates
between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment. The findings further reveal that
cross-cultural adjustment mediate between cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing
relationship. The study is cross sectional in nature. Further, the role of only one moderating
variable i.e. work experience has been explored between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural
adjustment relationship. The study contributes towards cultural intelligence theory. CQ serves as
an important selection tool. Culturally intelligent managers are able to give their best
performance and these people can be sent for foreign/overseas assignments as they are able to
interact effectively with people belonging to different cultural backgrounds.
Keywords- Cultural intelligence, Cross-cultural adjustment, Knowledge sharing and Work
experience.
1
Introduction
Globalisation has made the business a challenging proposition. The global workplaces require
managers, who are sensitive to different cultures as they have to interact with people from
different culturesand analyse new cultures. New global skills are must for an effective leader.
Cultural intelligence (CQ) is a tool, which increases an individual’s ability to interact with people
outside their culture. It refers to the set of skills and traits that allow one to effectively interact
with novel cultural settings (MacNab, Brislin&Worthley, 2012). Culturally intelligent managers
can detect, assimilate reason and act on cultural cues appropriately in situations characterised by
cultural diversity. Lower level of CQ leads to unnecessary conflicts,stereotyping and unhealthy
relationships. More and more organisations are expressing the need for managerswho quickly
adjust to multiple cultures and work well in multinational teams(Early & Peterson 2004, p. 100).
CQ isemerging concept with limited research on this. So, the purpose of the study is to generalise
the concept of CQ in Indian context (Tsang & Kwan 1999) due to its diverse cultures. Further,
we will also evaluate its effect on knowledge sharing via CCA and the role played by work
experience in between CQ and knowledge sharing relationship.
India is a culturally diverse country, which needs managers, who can efficiently manage the
diverse workforce. Most of the studies conducted on CQ have focused on the concept (Earley&
Peterson, 2004; Ng &Earley, 2006; Triandis, 2006; Turner &Trompenars, 2006; Kumar, Rose
&Subramaniam, 2008;Thomas, Elron, Stahl, Ekelund, Ravlin, Cerdin, Poelmans, Brislin,
Pekerti, Aycan, Maznevski, Kevin&Lazarova, 2008; Crown, 2009; Van Dyne, Ang& Livermore,
2010; Blasco, Feldt&Jakobsen, 2012). Review of literature revealed that CQ significantly
influences cross-cultural adjustment (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay&Chandrasekar,
2007; Kumar et al., 2008; Lee, 2010; Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Ramalu, Rose, Kumar,&Uli, 2010;
Ramalu, Wei & Rose, 2011; Huff, 2013; Malek&Budhwar, 2013; Huff, Song &Gresch, 2014;
Lee &Kartika, 2014) and most of them are conducted in MNC’s and focused primarily on
expatriates’ cultural intelligence. There arefew studies about cultural intelligence of Indian
managers(Jyoti & Kour, 2015; Jyoti, Kour & Bhau, 2015), who have to deal with the diverse
cultural workforce and few studies have been conducted on the relationship between CCA on
knowledge sharing (Lee &Kartika, 2014), which necessitates research in this area in India. Lee
and Kartika (2014) have revealed that CCA significantly predicts knowledge sharing. They
2
concluded that expatriates who adjust well to the host environment become an important part of
knowledge transfer from parent company to subsidiary company and enhance the organisational
performance.Therefore, the present study will examine the impact of cultural intelligence on
cross-cultural adjustment and further the impact of cross-cultural adjustment on knowledge
sharing. Further, various empirical researches have revealed the positive impact of work
experience on CQ(Crowne, 2008; Moon, 2010; Moon, Choi & Jung, 2012; Lee &Kartika, 2014)
and CCA (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2012; Huff et al., 2014; Lee &Kartika, 2014). In contrast,
researchers have also revealed that tenure/experience has an insignificant impact on CQ (Lee,
2010; MacNab&Worthley, 2012; Gupta et al., 2013). Lee and Sukoco (2010) have revealed the
moderating role of experience in between CQ and CCA relationship.So there is lack of consensus
regarding this relationship.Therefore, to clearly understand the relationship of work experience
with CQ and CCA the present study will examine the role played by work experience between
CQ and CCA.
Therefore, the present study will try to cover all the possible gaps. So, the purpose of the study is
to analyse the mediating role played by CCA between cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing
relationship. Further, the role of work experience between CQ and CCA shall also be explored.
Objectives of the Study
1. To examine the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-cultural adjustment (CCA).
2. To examine the effect of CCA on knowledge sharing.
3. To examine the mediating role played by CCAbetween CQ and knowledge sharing.
4. To examine the moderating role played by work experience between CQ and CCA.
Review of Literature and Hypotheses Development
Cultural Intelligence, Experience and Cross-cultural Adjustment
Experience is a time component (Goodman, Lawrence, Ancona&Tushman, 2001). In this
research it refers to the direct observation or participation in culturally related events or the state
of being affected by such observation or participation (Takeuchi & Chen, 2013). The experience
can be conceptualised as one that has occurred in the past, is currently occurring (Goodman et
al., 2001). Researchers have revealed that the impact of CQ on cross-cultural adjustment is
boosted if the previous cross cultural experience is positive (Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun &Lepak,
2005; Lee & Sukoco, 2010). In this context, expatriates who have more experience of working
3
outside their home state are more likely to develop comprehensive cognitive schemata (Lee and
Sukoco, 2010). As a result expatriates with higher CQ as well as more international experience
adapt and perform more effectively in the host country (Lee & Sukoco, 2010). Cross-cultural
experience increases the confidence and exposure to effectively interact with people outside their
culture which helps them to adapt to their host region (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer
&Luk, 2005 cited in Moon et al., 2012). Previous international experience provides an individual
with the means of predicting what a foreign assignment involves, increases the probability of
realistic expectations, reduces uncertainty and thereby easing the adjustment (Black, Gregersen&
Mendenhall, 1992). Experience of working outside their home region helps culturally intelligent
expatriates to learn appropriate work behaviors and to learn how to interact with local coworkers
(Lee, 2010), which help them to adapt to host region. When the culturally intelligent expatriates
have more work experience, they tend to adapt more easily during their out of home state
assignments. But some of the studies have revealed an insignificant effect of cross-cultural
experience on CCA (Hechanova, Beehr& Christiansen, 2003; Puck, Kittler & Wright,2008;
Shaffer, Harrison& Gilley, 1999 cited in Moon et al., 2012). So there is lack of consensus
regarding this relationship. Therefore, to clearly understand the role of previous work experience
in the relationship between CQ and CCA relationship, the present study will examine the
integrative model wherein positive work experience moderates the impact of CQ on
CCA.Therefore, previous work experience strengthens the relationship between CQ and CCA.
Hypothesis 1: Work experience moderates the relationship between cultural intelligence and
cross-cultural adjustment.
Cultural Intelligence, Cross-cultural Adjustment and Knowledge Sharing
Earley and Ang (2003) introduced the concept of cultural intelligence (CQ). It refers to an
individual’s capability to function effectively in situations characterised by cultural diversity
(Ang& Van Dyne 2008; Earley&Ang 2003). Those with higher CQ have the ability to encounter
confusing situations, think deeply about what is happening (or not happening) and make
appropriate adjustments to how they understand, relate and lead in the context of these different
cultures. It is adaptable state that can be developed over time. CQ is a multi-dimensional concept
comprising meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural dimensions (Ang et al.
2007). This phenomenon is positively affects cross-cultural adjustment (CCA). CCA is the
4
degree of psychological comfort an individual has in the host culture (Black & Stephens, 1989;
Gregersen& Black, 1990). Cross-cultural studies, researchers have found the positive
relationship between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment (Ramalu et. al., 2010;
Ramalu et al., 2011; Lee & Sukoco, 2010). Cultural intelligence (CQ) has a direct effect on the
cross-cultural adjustment as it helps the individuals to adjust more easily to the host environment
(Earley&Ang, 2003). Meta-cognitive and motivational dimensions of CQ were found to be
positively related to all the three dimensions of CCA i.e. general adjustment, work adjustment
and interaction adjustment (Ramalu et al., 2010) as it facilitates the cultural learning process and
generate intrinsic interest in other cultures respectively. Further, behavioural CQ is positively
related to CCA as it has the capability to vary behaviours, which help to adjust in an unfamiliar
environment (Kumar et al., 2008; Ramalu et al., 2011). The culturally intelligent individuals have
flexible behaviour, which help them to adjust in cross-cultural setting. Cognitive CQ is the
knowledge component of CQ which positively relates to all the dimensions of CCA(Kumar et
al., 2008; Ramalu et al., 2011). Individuals high in cultural intelligence are better able to adjust
themselves in the host culture environment.
Expatriate adjustment refers to the process through which an expatriate comes to feel
psychologically comfortable with a new environment and culture and harmonises with it (Huang,
Chi& Lawler, 2005). CCA is multi-dimensional concept comprising general adjustment,
interaction adjustment and work adjustment. It is a temporal and primary outcome in an
expatriate assignment that would influence the development of secondary or more distal
expatriate adjustment such as strain (Hechanova et al., 2003), job satisfaction (Takeuchi et al.,
2002),organisational commitment (Nauman, 1993; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998), performance
(Shay &Baack, 2006; Kim & Slocum, 2008), and turnover intentions (Hechanova et al., 2003).
This phenomenon positively affects knowledge sharing (Lee &Kartika, 2014). Knowledge is a
critical asset for organisations (Nonaka, 1994).Knowledge sharing refers to exchanging
experience, events, thought or understanding of anything (in general) with an expectation to gain
more insights and understanding about something for temporary curiosity (Sohail&Daud, 2009).
Cultural diversity within the workplace could impact knowledge sharing processes. Studies have
revealed that culture plays an important role in knowledge sharing processes (De Long, 1997;
Gold, Malhotra&Segars, 2001; Kayworth&Leidner, 2003). Culture has been seen as a barrier in
knowledge sharing process (De Long & Fahey, 2000; McDermott & O'Dell, 2001). Culture is
5
nothing but the set of characteristics of a particular group of people from the perspective of
language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts (Jyoti & Kour, 2015). Knowledge
sharing is influenced by the prevailing culture (Peng, Denis& Yi,2008). Therefore, when the
expatriate adjust themselves to the cultural difference they are able to share their knowledge to
the host nationals in a better manner.Lee and Kartika (2014) revealed that expatriate adjustment
has a positive influence on expatriate’s knowledge transfer. Expatriates are the source of
knowledge transfers from parent company to the foreign subsidiary or from the host county
knowledge to back to the parent company (Lee &Kartika, 2014, p. 5486). Expatriate who adjust
themselves in the new environment are more likely to complete their assignment and develop an
understanding about business challenges, and it became an important part of the knowledge
transfer from parent company to the subsidiary or from the host country back to the parent
company (Lee &Kartika, 2014, p. 5490). Expatriate who adjust themselves in the host region
have high knowledge, greater ability to communicate and share knowledge with colleagues (Paik
&Shon, 2004). Expatriates are the home region assignee that holds key positions in host regions
and transfers or share their knowledge with colleagues at work place (Harzing, 2001). Well-
adjusted expatriate do not have difficulty in creating and sharing knowledge as they interact
effectively with host nationals and interaction is core in contributing and developing new
knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Managers who adjust themselves in host region are able to share
new and innovative ideas, which in turn helps organisation to increase its performance. Well-
adjusted managers act as source of knowledge transfer from home region to host region (Lee
&Kartika, 2014). The manager who is well adjust and is prepare to face the challenge of new
culture and unfamiliar concepts will not hesitate to share and implement new idea at the
workplace. Therefore, it can be concluded from above discussion that cross-cultural adjustment
significantly affects knowledge sharing.
Cultural intelligence (CQ) has a direct effect on the CCA as it helps the individuals to adapt more
easily to the host environment (Earley&Ang, 2003). Indian managers have to deal with people
from different cultural background and make various adjustments as each region (western, eastern,
northern and southern) of India have different values, languages and belief system (Banerjee,
2013). Further, expatriate is an important part of the knowledge transfer from parent
company’s knowledge to the foreign subsidiary or from host country knowledge to be transferred
back to the parent company (Gong, 2003). When a culturally intelligent managers adjust
6
themselves in host region environment he/she can easily share their knowledge at the host region
and can systematically introduce the new ideas. Culturally intelligent managers who adjust
themselves with the general, interaction and work environment of the host region they can easily
share their knowledge with others as they can effectively communicate with locals and colleagues.
When expatriate adopt out of home state assignment he/she have to make various kinds of
adjustment related to general environment (food, clothing, housing facilities, cost of living, etc.),
working environment (responsibilities, supervision, working norms, etc.) and have to make
interactions with the local nationals and colleagues and when expatriate adjust themselves in host
region environment he/she is in a better position to share their ideas, views and knowledge.
Therefore, to conclude managers who are culturally intelligent adjust themselves in cross-cultural
settings are in the better position to share their knowledge.
Hypothesis 2: Cross-cultural adjustment mediates the relationship between cultural intelligence
and knowledge sharing.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Research Methodology
In order to make the study objective following steps have been taken:
Data collection
The population for the study consisted of 530 bank managers working in nationalised banks
operating in Delhi (North India). They have been contacted on the basis of random sampling
(chit method). There are 2539 nationalised banks operating in Delhi out of which 10% have been
selected with the help of random number table. From each selected bank two managers (on the
basis of hierarchy) have been contacted personally for data generation. All branch managers and
immediate junior managers have been contacted for data collection but in some banks there were
7
Cultural Intelligence
Work Experience
Knowledge Sharing
Cross-cultural Adjustment
Control Variables
Gender
Age
only one manager in that case one extra branch has been contacted. Therefore, total 265 banks
have been contacted. Structured questionnaire was used as a research tool for collecting the data.
In order to establish normality of the data 18 respondents have been deleted by inspecting
boxplots (Hair et al., 2010). The retained data exhibited normal distributed (skewness = .066;
Kurtosis = -.101) are within the range. Therefore, the effective sample came to 512.
The sample included 286 (56%) male and majority of the managers (88%) are married. About 29%
managers are in the age group 35-40 years followed by 31-34 years (17%). Majority of managers
(43%) have 6-10 years of experience of working outside their home state. About 55% of managers
can speak 4-5 languages. Majority of managers have 6-10 years of total work experience (24%).
Measures
Five point Likert scale was used for the sake of uniformity in measuring the variables
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Cultural Intelligence: CQ has been measured with the help of 20-items, four factor model of
cultural intelligence scale (CQS) developed and validated by Ang et al. (2007). The inventory
includes four items for meta-cognitive CQ, six for cognitive CQ, five for motivational CQ and
five for behavioral CQ. Sample items include “I am aware of the cultural knowledge I use when
interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds,” and “I adjust my cultural
knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me.”
Cross-cultural Adjustment: It has been measured with the help of 14-items (Black and Porter,
1991). The scale included seven items of general adjustment, four items of interaction items and
three items of work adjustment. Sample items include “Adjust myself to interact with host
people on day to day basis in state I am posted other than home” and “Adjust myself to the
performance standards and expectations at work in state I am posted other than home”.
Knowledge Sharing: KS has been measured with the help of 10-items (Ramayah, Yeap&
Ignatius, 2014). Sample items include “I express ideas and thoughts in meetings” and “I propose
problem-solving suggestions in team meetings”
Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Exploratory factor analysis has been conducted to identify the dimensions of different scales used
in the present study. Principle component analysis withvarimax rotation has been used. The test of
8
appropriateness of a factor analysis has been verified through KMO measure of sampling
adequacy, where values greater than 0.50 areacceptable (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson &Tatham,
2010), which indicated its relevance for further analysis. The statement with factor loading less
than 0.50 have been deleted (Hair et al., 2010).The KS scale consisted of 10 items that got reduced
to 5 items and converged under one factor. Similarly, cultural intelligence scale initially consisted
of 20 items that got reduced to 14 items and converged under four factors (viz., meta-cognitive,
cognitive, motivational and behavioural). Lastly, the CCA scale consisted of 14 items, which has
been reduced to 10 items and converged under the three factors (viz., general adjustment,
interaction adjustment and work adjustment). The KMO value of all the constructs is above 0.78
and total variance explained for all the constructs is above eighty percent (Hair et al., 2010).
Detailed results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor M SD FL C E.V V.E. (%) KMO Cronbach
Alpha
Cultural Intelligence 4.11 0.71 85.483 0.887 0.934
Meta-cognitive
MOG1
MOG2
MOG3
4.16
4.09
4.19
4.27
0.82
0.87
0.90
0.91
0.774
0.807
0.764
0.812
0.806
0.781
3.547 25.337 0.871
Cognitive
COG3
COG4
COG5
4.01
4.05
3.97
3.91
1.00
1.11
1.15
1.17
0.870
0.867
0.805
0.887
0.864
0.737
3.515 25.107 0.894
Motivation
MOT1
MOT2
MOT3
MOT5
4.11
4.14
4.07
4.14
4.11
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.93
0.930
0.928
0.914
0.745
0.956
0.953
0.911
0.730
2.573 18.380 0.955
Behavioural
BEH1
BEH2
BEH3
BEH4
4.17
4.19
4.18
4.19
4.10
0.82
0.85
0.88
0.85
0.92
0.890
0.829
0.889
0.824
0.947
0.838
0.947
0.797
2.332 16.660 0.954
Cross-cultural Adjustment 4.14 0.69 75.033 0.923 0.919
General Adjustment
GA1
GA2
GA5
GA6
4.15
4.24
4.33
3.93
4.10
0.72
0.82
0.78
1.10
0.94
0.843
0.829
0.844
0.695
0.772
0.754
0.790
0.659
3.586 35.858 0.786
Interaction Adjustment
IA1
IA2
IA4
4.07
4.04
4.18
4.21
0.85
1.12
0.83
0.82
0.891
0.651
0.694
0.889
0.752
0.664
2.144 21.441 0.759
9
Work Adjustment
WA1
WA2
WA3
4.21
4.26
4.17
4.21
0.70
0.80
0.81
0.75
0.688
0.566
0.677
0.679
0.726
0.809
1.773 17.733 0.879
Knowledge Sharing 4.24 0.65 3.175 63.491 0.780 0.850
KS1
KS2
KS5
KS6
KS9
4.26
4.35
4.11
4.20
4.30
0.70
0.77
0.98
0.88
0.75
0.855
0.778
0.780
0.800
0.768
0.730
0.606
0.609
0.640
0.590
Key: M= Mean, SD= Standard Deviation, FL= Factor Loading, C= Communality, E.V= Eigen Value,
V.E=Variance Explained and KMO= Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Before using the inferential analysis, we assessed the validity and reliability of the constructs
with the help of CFA. Two stage procedureshave been used to test the theoretical framework
(Anderson &Gerbing 1988). In the first phase measurement models have been tested to assess
the convergent and discriminant validity. In the second stage structural equation modeling (SEM)
has been used for hypotheses testing.
Second order factor models have been designed for all the scales as multiple factors emerged
after EFA. Fit indices of all the second order models are within the prescribed limit as all the
values of the absolute goodness of fit (GFI and AGFI), incremental fit (NFI and CFI) and
badness of fit (RMR and RMSEA) were within the prescribed limit (Table 2). Convergent
validity has been established as all the standardised estimates are greater than 0.5 and the
variance explained by each construct is also greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010, Table 2).
Further, to check the internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability has been
used as it is the indicator of the reliability of the construct (Hair et al., 2010). In the present study
alpha values for all constructs are greater than 0.70 (Table 2) andcomposite reliability for all
constructs is above 0.80(Table 2). Thus, the Cronbach’s alphaand composite constructreliability
indicate that the scales are reliable. Further, discriminant validity has also been proved as average
variance extracted for all the scales is higher than the squared correlation (Fornell&Larcker,
1981, Table 3).
Table 2: Reliability and Validity Analysis and Fit Indices
10
Scales
Standardised
Regression
Weight
Average
Variance
Extracted
Composite
Reliability
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Fit Indices
Cultural Intelligence 0.93 0.98 0.93 χ2/df = 3.387
RMR = 0.052
GFI = 0.937
NFI = 0.976
AGFI = 0.910
CFI = 0.983
RMSEA = 0.068
Meta-cognitive CQ
Cognitive CQ
Motivational CQ
Behavioural CQ
0.87
0.67
0.60
0.77
0.96
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.87
0.89
0.95
0.95
Cross-cultural Adjustment 0.97 0.99 0.91 χ2/df = 4.950
RMR = 0.030
GFI = 0.948
NFI = 0.952
AGFI = 0.907
CFI = 0.962
RMSEA = 0.088
General Adjustment
Interaction Adjustment
Work Adjustment
0.98
0.91
0.98
0.93
0.93
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.78
0.76
0.88
Knowledge Sharing 0.94 0.98 0.85 χ2/df = 2.202
RMR = 0.023
GFI = 0.948
NFI = 0.994
AGFI = 0.903
CFI = 0. 0.928
RMSEA = 0.073
KS1
KS2
KS5
KS6
KS9
0.94
0.80
0.53
0.58
0.61
Table 3: Discriminant Validity and Correlation Analysis
Constructs Cross-cultural Adjustment Knowledge Sharing Cultural Intelligence
Cross-cultural Adjustment 0.97
Knowledge Sharing (0.11)
0.34**
0.94
Cultural Intelligence (0.73)
0.86**
(0.10)
0.32**
0.93
Note: Values on the diagonal axis represents the average variance extracted. Values below the diagonal axis are
correlation and values in the parentheses represent the squared correlation. **p< 0.01
Common Method Bias
The data has been collected from single source, which can inflate the relationship, so common
method bias have been examined through common latent factor method (Podsakoff,MacKenzie,
Lee&Podsakoff, 2003). The results revealed that there is no item, whose difference is greater
than 0.20 (Gaskin, 2012). The chi-square difference test further confirmed that the two models,
i.e. with common latent factor and without common latent factor model are different (Δχ2>
270.336, p< 0.001). Therefore, common method bias is not the problem in this study.
11
Examining the impact of Cultural Intelligence on Knowledge Sharing: Role of Moderating
and Mediating Variables
Moderation
SEM has been used to check various relations hypothesised (Byrne, 2010). In this study, we have
work experience (metric) as moderating variables. In order to check the moderation of work
experience interaction effect has been used (Little, Card, Bovaird, Preacher,& Crandall,2007, p.
223).
In order to model moderating effect of experience (metric) product indicator approach has been
used (Chin, Marcolin&Newsted,1996 and 2003). There are four manifest variables of CQ (meta-
cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural) and experience is metric and observed
variable, which resulted into four latent interaction variables (Mog*Exp, Cog*Exp, Mot*Exp and
Beh*Exp). Further, to test the moderating effect of experience, all the conditions described by
Baron and Kenny (1986) have been first satisfied. These are: 1) the moderator should not directly
relate with dependent variable. 2) The moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction is
significant. 3) Another property of the moderator variable is that, unlike the mediator-
predictor relation (where the predictor is causally antecedent to the mediator), moderators
and predictors are at the same level in regard to their role as causal variables, antecedent or
exogenous to certain criterion effects. That is, moderator variables always functions as
independent variable. The results revealed that work experience has insignificant impact on
cross-cultural adjustment (SRW = 0.02, p> 0.05) and the interaction of CQ and work experience
is significantly predicting cross-cultural adjustment (SRW= 0. 21 p<0.01, Table 4). Therefore, we
can conclude that work experience moderates between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment
relationship. Hence, hypothesis 1 stands accepted.
Table 4. Structural Equation Modeling Results for Moderation
Model I Model II Model III
CQ → CCA .88*** .88*** .85***
Work experience → CCA .02 (ns) .19***
Work experience*CQ → CCA (Hypothesis 12) .21***
R2.77 .77 .80
Covariance
CQ & Work experience
Work experience & CQ * Work experience
Work experience * CQ & CQ
.11* .12*
.56***
.11*
12
***p<0.001
**p<0.01
Mediation
To check the various mediations in the study we followed the recommendation of Preacher and
Hayes (2004). They recommended that in order to check the mediation effect significance of
indirect effect should be analysed. Therefore, we followed estimation of the indirect effect, with
the Sobel test as well as with a bootstrap approach to obtain confidence intervals (CIs).
The results revealed significant impact of cultural intelligence on cross-cultural
adjustment (SRWa = 0.88, p< 0.001, Figure ) and CCA on knowledge sharing (KS) relationship
(SRWb = 0.20, p<0.001, Figure ). Further, the value of Sobel statistic is significant for the
indirect effect of cultural intelligence on knowledge sharing through CCA (Sobel statistic =
2.851, p< 0.01). In addition, bootstrapping resultsalso yielded significant indirect effect of
cultural intelligence on knowledge sharing throughCCA (0.18, p< 0.01, Table 5). The upper and
lower bound values did not contain zero at 95% confidence interval (Table 5). Further, the model
yielded moderate fit (χ2/df = 6.527, RMR = 0.030, GFI = 0.924, AGFI = 0.856, NFI = 0.941, CFI
= 0.950, RMSEA = 0.104). Moreover, presence and absence of control variables did not bring
any change in the hypothesised relationships, so these have not been considered during
evaluation (Arnold, Turner&Barling,2007).Hence, hypothesis 2 got accepted.
Table 5: Bootstrapping results for Mediation Analysis
Hypothesis Independent→Mediato
r
Mediator→Dependen
t
Indirect effect LL95% / UL 95%
CQ → CCA → KS 0.88*** 0.20*** 0.18** 0.053/0.464
Note: ***p< 0.001, **p<0.01; N = 1000 Bootstrapping resamples; LL BCA and UL BCA= Lower level and Upper
level of the bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval.
Key: CQ= Cultural intelligence, CCA = Cross-cultural adjustment, KS = Knowledge sharing,
Test of Moderated Mediation
Further, we tested the integrated model whereby the strength of the relationship between CQ on
knowledge sharing through CCA is conditional on the value of a moderators i.e. previous work
experience.The moderated mediation is demonstrated when the indirect effect of CQ on
knowledge sharing in presence of moderating variable is significant. The moderated-mediation
effect of the interaction of CQ and experience through CCA on knowledge sharing for both the
groups is significant as the indirect relations are significant (Table 6).
13
Table 6: Bootstrapped conditional indirect effect of cultural intelligence on knowledge
sharing through cross-cultural adjustment at value of experience (Moderator)
Moderator Level Conditional Indirect effect Boot SE Boot
LL 95%
Boot
UL 95%
Experience High
Low
.510***
.200*
.070
.394
.388
.050
.651
.350
Note: ***p< 0.001; N = 5000 Bootstrapping resamples; LL BCA and UL BCA= Lower level andUpper level of
the bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval.
Discussion
The study highlights, the importance of CQ in enhancing knowledge sharing. The study has
explored three issues: i) the moderating role played by previous work experience in between CQ
and cross-cultural adjustment (CCA) relationship, ii) mediating role played by CCA in between
CQ and knowledge relationship, iii) and, moderated mediation of previous work experience and
CCA between CQ and knowledge sharing relationship.
The study revealed that CQ is positively affects CCA i.e. managers, who are culturally intelligent
have a better level of CCA. The results are consistent with the previous research (Ramalu et al.,
2010; Jyoti & Kour, 2015; Ramalu et al.,2011, Jyoti, Kour & Bhau, 2015). Culturally intelligent
managers are able to adjust better with people belonging to different culture. They can handle
effectively the cultural shocks and stresses. Indian managers have to make various adjustment
relating to different languages, as India is a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic country and also have
to make various adaptations regarding food, clothing, shoppingconditions, etc. (Jyoti & Kour,
2015). CQ helps managers to adapt themselves with culturally different situations. Managers,
who have the ability to cope with various types of stress associated with cross-cultural
interactions, are able to adjust better in a new cultural environment.
The relationship between CQ and CCA gets strengthened when managers have experience of
working outside their home state. When the managers’ have experience of working outside their
home region, the positive effect of CQ on CCA gets boosted. Culturally intelligent managers
having the experience of working outside their home region are able to adapt themselves in
cross-cultural environment in a better way. They have knowledge from earlier experience about
the culture prevailing in host region. This experience boosts confidence to interact in their cross-
cultural situations. Experienced managers have the knowledge about the host region
14
environment, which includes culture, language, religion, values, belief, etc., which magnifies the
effect of CQ on CCA. Experienced managers recollect their previous cross-cultural encounters
with people from different cultures, which helps them in achieving understanding about host
region and adapt themselves in that environment. They have more opportunities to interact and
communicate with people of host region and have requisite skills, knowledge that helps them to
adapt in aculturally different region (Moon et al., 2012). More experience of working outside
their home region does not mean that expatriates have higher levels of CCA, unless they also
have higher CQ (Lee & Sukoco, 2010, p. 978). Therefore, work experience act as a moderator or
catalyst between the CQ and cross-cultural adjustment and the result is consistent with the
previous findings (Takeuchi et al., 2005; Lee, 2010; Lee & Sukoco, 2010). Culturally intelligent
managers who have previous work experience of working in regions other than their home adapt
themselves to culturally diverse settings. Thus, the higher the experience, the stronger will be the
relationship between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment.
The results revealed that CCA mediates between CQ and knowledge sharing relationship.
The results indicated that CQ significantly influences CCA (Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Ramalu et al.,
2010, 2011; Jyoti & Kour, 2015; Jyoti, Kour & Bhau, 2015), which in turn affects knowledge
sharing (Lee &Kartika, 2014). High level of CQ increases CCA, which in turn leads to
knowledge sharing among the managers. The results revealed that culturally intelligent managers
have better level of cultural adjustment. Managers with greater CQ are better able to adjust with
people belonging to diverse culture as they are flexible and they can handle effectively the
cultural shocks and stresses (Jyoti & Kour, 2015). Culturally intelligent managers adjust
themselves in cross-cultural environment, which in turn helps to express and share their ideas
and thoughts with employees working in the organisation. Culturally intelligent managers spend
more time in personal interactions (discussion over lunch, through telephone etc.) and
professional conversation with others managers and employees working with them as they can
adjust to speak with local people and colleagues. They become an important source of
knowledge sharing from home region to host region. Well-adjusted managers complete their out
of home state assignments successfully as they have an understanding of the host region
environment, which helps them to easily share the knowledge with employees working in host
region. Well-adjusted managers regularly update themselves with banking rules and regulations
and exchange the same with the employees working with them in host region. Culturally
15
intelligent managers are motivated and confident to communicate in unfamiliar environment,
which help them to adjust themselves in culturally diverse settings. It results in sharing of more
knowledge among employees working in the bank. Managers, who adjust themselves in diverse
culture have better understanding of host region, which helps them to easily disseminate their
knowledge. Further, results revealed that all the dimensions of cross-cultural adjustment i.e.,
general adjustment, interaction adjustment and work adjustment mediate between cultural
intelligence and knowledge sharing relationship. Culturally intelligent managers are able to
adjust themselves with the general conditions (food, living conditions, housing conditions,
entertainment facilities, health facilities, cost of living, etc.), working conditions (job
responsibilities, performance standards, supervisory responsibilities, etc.) and can adjust
themselves to socialise with host region nationals, which helps them to share their ideas and
experiences in out of home state assignments. Therefore, it can be concluded that CCA mediates
between CQ and knowledge sharing relationship.
Further, it has been found that CCA mediates the relationship between the interaction of CQ and
work experience on knowledge sharing. Culturally intelligent managers with experience more
easily adjust themselves in culturally different situations, which enhance their knowledge sharing
capability in the hostregion. This study shows that culturally intelligent managers easily adjust
themselves in cross-cultural situations if they have previously worked under the same settings or
settings similar to that in which they are posted with their co-workers or local people, which
helps them to share knowledge in host region environment.
To conclude, the study has empirically developed a model that explains the impact of CQ
on knowledge sharing through cross-cultural adjustment and the role played by language
proficiency and work experience. The result revealed that CCA mediates the combined effect of
CQ and work experience on knowledge sharing.
Implications
Theoretical Implications
The study cements theoretical development of CQ concept by Earley and Ang (2003), within a
country context. This study enhances the knowledge about CQ as an effective intercultural
competency construct by providing a relationship between CQ and knowledge sharing. It adds to
CQ – CCA literature by evaluating the role of work experience in between this relationship.
16
Further, it confirmed the reliability and construct validity of CQ, CCA and knowledge sharing
within diverse cultural country like India, which increased the generalisability of the scales. The
study has also evaluated the moderated-mediation of variables (CCA and previous work
experience) in CQ and knowledge sharing relationship which adds to the CQ literature.
Practical Implications
The theory presented here will be of interest to organisations because CQ serves as an important
selection tool. Culturally intelligent managers are able to give their best performance and these
people can be sent for foreign/overseas assignments as they are able to interact effectively with
people belonging to different culture backgrounds. Organisations should use the CQS to recruit
and select their employees who would be the best fit for out of home state assignments. By using
CQS, those who perform well in domestic contexts but are likely to be unsuccessful in cross-
cultural interactions could be screened out, which would reduce unnecessary costs stemming
from failure of international/out of state assignments. Developing culturally intelligent managers
will help organisations to have sustainable competitive advantage. Therefore, organisations can
use CQ as criteria for evaluation and service compensation. Organisations can improve
organisational commitment by encouraging teamwork and by providing job security to the
managers, who are posted outside home state.
The CCA scale is a good example of an instrument that may be used to measure the
ability of an expatriate to effectively adjust to new cultural environments. Organisations can
develop training programs, which enhances the manager’s ability to adjust in cross-cultural
settings. In training programs the managers should be made familiar with the basic knowledge
about the country and company’s culture, which is important to develop interpersonal skills.
These programs will prepare managers to deal with unfamiliar cross-cultural situations. Further,
training programs could include a module on motivationaland interactional component of CCA
(Earley&Peterson, 2004).
Organisations should motivate their managers to share the knowledge at workplace as if
things are properly shared, managers become aware about what is expected out of them and they
can thus create a road map keeping in mind the availability of resources, its pros and cons and try
to achieve better results for the organisation as well as clients and themselves. Organisations
should formulating teams and work should be assigned to them as it promote culture of sharing
and improvesresponse time towards the clients making the delivery of the services on time
17
without any delays.Absence of such a sharing culture results into lack of employees taking
interest in management’s objective and they feel isolated, thinking themselves to be an
unimportant part, which results into resistance to new ideas. Organisation should adopt a variety
of mechanisms like Knowledge Management and preserve the knowledge which can be later
used by other employees even when one moves out and this practice would develop a legacy for
the organisation. Further, organisation can reward employees to encourage knowledge sharing. It
is suggested, that to encourage knowledge sharing, an ideas database should be created and that
employees should be paid for their contributions. Rewards should be announced for outstanding
sharing employee and department. Organisation can use intranet - an exclusive service that acts
as a social platform, information hub and employee communication portal. This allows
employees to seek and share information about common problems, minimising the need for
managers to step in.
Limitations and Future research
The paper has certain limitations, which can be overcome in the future. Firstly, the study is cross
sectional in nature; in future longitudinal study can be conducted. Secondly, more outcomes of
CQ can be taken into consideration in the future for better understanding of the concept. Further,
the role of other variables like language proficiency, compensation, type of expatriation, etc. can
also be explored between CQ and CCA.
Reference
Anderson, J. &Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Some methods for re-specifying measurement models to
obtain uni-dimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 453-460.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C. &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 3(3), 335-371.
Ang, S. & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), (2008).Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement
and applications. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
18
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N. &Barling, J. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological
well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology,12(3), 193-203.
Banerjee, A. (2013). What’s Indian Culture? A dive into domestic diversity”, available at:
http://davidlivermore.com/2013/08/16/whats-indian-culture-a-dive-into-domestic-diversity/.
(Accessed on 20 April 2012).
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
socialPsychological research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,51(6), 1173-1182.
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A.&Luk, D.M. (2005). Input-based and time
based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 259-281.
Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B.& Mendenhall, M.E. (1992).Global assignments: Successfully
expatriating and repatriating international managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Black, J.S. & Porter, L.W. (1991). Managerial behavior and job performance: A successful
manager in Los Angeles may not be successful in Hong Kong.Journal of International Business
Studies, 22(1), 99-114.
Blasco, M., Feldt, L.E.&Jakobsen, M. (2012). If only cultural chameleons could fly too: A
critical discussion of the concept of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 12(2), 229-245.
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nded). New York: Routledge.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. &Newsted, P.N. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a montecarlo simulation study
and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. &Newsted, P.R. (1996). A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a montecarlo simulation study
and voicemail emotion/adoption study. In: 17th International Conference on Information
Systems, Cleveland: OH. Available at:
http://wojtek.zozlak.org/ZlozoneModeleSkalowaniaLiiniowego/ChinEtAl_1996_A%20PLS
%20Latent%20Variable%20Modeling%20Approach%20for%20Measuring%20Interaction
%20Effects%20Results%20from%20MC%20Simulation%20Study.pdf (accessed 21 January
2014).
Crowne, K.A. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51(5), 391-399.
19
Crowne, K.A. (2009). The relationships among social intelligence, emotional intelligence and
cultural intelligence. Organisation and Management Journal, 6(3), 148-163.
De Long, D. W. (1997). Building the Knowledge-Based Organisation: How Culture drives
knowledge behaviors. Boston: Center for Business Innovation, Ernst & Young LLP.
De Long, D. W.& Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.
Earley, P.C. & 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 3(1), 100-115.
Fornell, C. &Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gaskin, J. (2012). Group differences. Retrieved from Stats Tools Package Available at:
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com (accessed 20 August 2014).
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., &Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
Gong, Y. (2003). Toward a dynamic process model of staffing composition and subsidiary
outcomes in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management, 29(2), 259-280.
Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., Ancona, D.G.&Tushman, M.L. (2001). Introduction. Academy
of Management Review 26, 507–511.
Gregersen, H.B. & Black, J.S. (1990). A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention in
international assignments.Group Organization Studies, 15(4), 461-485. DOI:
10.1177/105960119001500409.
Gupta, B., Singh, D., Jandhyala, K.& Bhatt, S. (2013). Self-monitoring, cultural training and
prior international work experience as predictors of cultural intelligence- A study of Indian
expatriates. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 4(1), 56-71.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. &Tatham, R.L. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis (7thed). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Harzing, A.W. (2001a). An analysis of the functions of international transfer of managers in
MNCs. Employee Relations, 23, 581–598.
Hechanova, R., Beehr, T.A.& Christiansen, N.D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of
employees’ adjustment to overseas assignments: A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology
52, 213-236.
20
Huang, T., Chi, S. & Lawler, J.J. (2005). The relationship between expatriates’ personality traits
and their adjustment to international assignments. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16(9), 1656-1670.
Huff, K.C. (2013). Language, cultural intelligence and expatriate success. Management Research
Review, 36(6), 596-612.
Huff, K.C., Song, P., &Gresch, E.B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality and cross-cultural
adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
38(1), 151-157.
Jyoti, J.& Kour, S. (2015).Assessing the cultural intelligence and task performance: mediating
role of cultural adjustment. Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal, 22(2),
236-258.
Jyoti, J., Kour, S. & Bhau, S. (2015). Assessing the impact of cultural intelligence on job
performance: Role of cross-cultural adaptability. Journal of IMS Group, 12(1), 23-33.
Kayworth, T.&Leidner, D. (2003). Organizational Culture as a Knowledge Resource. In C. W.
Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management (Vol. 1: Knowledge Matters, pp. 235-
252). Berlin: Springer.
Kim, K. & Slocum, J.W. (2008). Individual differences and expatriate assignment effectiveness:
The case of U.S.-based Korean expatriates. Journal of World Business, 43(1), 109-126.
Kumar, N., Rose, R.C., and Subramaniam (2008). The effects of personality and cultural
intelligence on international assignment effectiveness: A review. Journal of Social Science, 4(4),
320-328.
Lee, L.Y. (2010).Multiple intelligence and the success of expatriation: The roles of contingency
variables. African Journal of Business Management 4(17), 3793-3804.
Lee, L.Y.&Kartika, N. (2014). The influence of individual, family and social capital factors on
expatriate adjustment and performance: The moderating effect of psychology contract and
organizational support. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 5483-5494.
Lee, L.Y.& Sukoco, B.M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance:
The moderating effects of international experience. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 21(7), 963-981.
Little, T.D., Card, N.A., Bovaird, J.A., Preacher, K.J. & Crandall, C.S. (2007). Structural
equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,pp. 207-230,available at: https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.quantpsy.org%2Fpubs
21
%2Flittle_card_bovaird_preacher_crandall_2007.pdf&ei=v8LMU9eyIMu7uASLu4HQBA&usg
=AFQjCNHVlQi7-tf6VXa07ZZPcyEDubZxZw. (accessed 21 May 2014).
MacNab, B.R.&Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural
intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 36, 62-71.
MacNab, B., Brislin, R. &Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence development:
context and individual attributes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23,
1320-1341.
Malek, M.A.&Budhwar, P. (2013). Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate adjustment
and performance in Malaysis. Journal of World Business, 48(2), 222-231.
McDermott, R.& O'Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. The
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.
Moon, H.K., Choi, B.K. & Jung, J.S. (2012). Previous international experience, cross-cultural
training and expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment: Effects of cultural intelligence and goal
orientation. Human Resource Quarterly, 23(3), 285-330.
Moon, T. (2010). Emotional intelligence correlates of the four factor model of cultural
intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 876-898.
Naumann, E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment among
expatriate managers.Group Organization Management, 18(2), 153–187.
Ng, K.Y. &Earley, P.C. (2006). Culture and intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers.Group
Organization Management, 31(1), 4-19.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science,5(1), 14-37.
Paik, Y. &Shon, J. D. (2004). Expatriate managers and MNC’s ability to control international
subsidiaries: The case of Japanese MNCs.Journal of World Business, 39, 61-71.
Peltokorpi, V. & Froese, F.J. (2012). The impact of expatriate personality traits on cross-cultural
adjustment: A study with expatriates in Japan. International Business Review, 21(4), 734-746.
Peng, M.W., Denis, Y.L. W. & Yi, J. (2008). An institution-based view of international business
strategy: A focus on emerging economies.Journal of International Business Studies 39, 920-936.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. &Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirecteffects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-
731.
22
Puck, J., Kittler, M.& Wright, C. (2008). Does it really work? Re-assessing the impact of
predeparture cross-cultural training on expat adjustment. International Journal of Human
Resource Management 19(12), 2182-2197.
Ramalu, S., Rose, R.C., Kumar, N.&Uli, J. (2010). Doing business in global arena: An
examination of the relationship between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment.
Asian Academy of Management Journal, 15(1), 79-97.
Ramalu, S., Rose, R.C., Kumar, N., &Uli, J. (2012). Cultural intelligence and expatriate
performance in global assignment: The mediating role of adjustment. International Journal of
Business and Society, 13(1), 19-32.
Ramalu, S.S., Wei, C.C. & Rose, Dr. R. (2011). The effect of cultural intelligence on cross-
cultural adjustment and job performance amongst expatriates in Malaysia. International Journal
of Business and Social Science, 2(9), 59-71.
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J.A.L. &Ignatius, J. (2014).Assessing knowledge sharing among academics:
A validation of the knowledge sharing behavior scale (KSBS). Evaluation Review, 38(2), 160-
187.
Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A.& Gilley, K.M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and difference
in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 557-
581.
Shaffer, M.A. & Harrison, D.A. (1998). Expatriates' psychological withdrawal from international
assignments: Work, non-work, and family influences. PersonnelPsychology, 51(1), 87-118.
Shay, J.P. &Baack, S. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationships between and degree
of expatriate adjustment and multiple measures of performance. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 6(3), 275-294.
Sohail, M. S. &Daud, S. (2009). Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions:
perspectives from Malaysia. VINE: the Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems, 39(2), 125-142.
Takeuchi, R.& Chen, J. (2013). The impact of international experience for expatriates’ cross
cultural adjustment: A theoretical review and critique. Organization Psychology Review, 3(3),
248-290.
Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P.E., Yun, S.&Lepak, D.P. (2005). An integrative view of international
experience. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 85-100.
Takeuchi, R., Yun S. &Tesluk, P.E. (2002). An examination of crossover and spillover effects of
spousal and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate outcomes.Journal of Applied
Psychology,87(4), 655-666.
23
Thomas, D.C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B.Z. Ravlin, E.C., Cerdin, J.L., Poelmans, S.,
Brislin, R., Pekerti, A., Aycan, Z., Maznevski, M., Kevin, A. &Lazarova, M.B. (2008). Cultural
intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
8(2), 123-143.
Triandis, H.C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations.Group Organization Management,
3(1), 20-26.
Tsang, E.W.K. & Kwan, K.M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organisational
science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 759-780.
Turner, C.H. &Trompenenaars (2006). Cultural Intelligence: Is Such a Capacity Credible? Group
Organization Management, 3(1), 56-63.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S.& Livermore, D. (2010). Cultural Intelligence: A pathway for leading in a
rapidly globalized world. In K.Hannum, B.B. McFeeters and L. Booysen (eds.), Leading across
differences, San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 131-138.
24
