Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67, No. 4, 2011, pp.

825--840

Beyond General Intelligence (IQ) and Emotional

Intelligence (EQ): The Role of Cultural Intelligence
(CQ) on Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness
in a Globalized World
Thomas Rockstuhl∗
Nanyang Technological University

Stefan Seiler
Swiss Military Academy at ETH Zurich

Soon Ang
Nanyang Technological University

Linn Van Dyne

Michigan State University

Hubert Annen
Swiss Military Academy at ETH Zurich

Emphasizing the importance of cross-border effectiveness in the contemporary

globalized world, we propose that cultural intelligence—the leadership capabil-
ity to manage effectively in culturally diverse settings—is a critical leadership
competency for those with cross-border responsibilities. We tested this hypothesis
with multisource data, including multiple intelligences, in a sample of 126 Swiss
military officers with both domestic and cross-border leadership responsibilities.
Results supported our predictions: (1) general intelligence predicted both domes-
tic and cross-border leadership effectiveness; (2) emotional intelligence was a
stronger predictor of domestic leadership effectiveness, and (3) cultural intelli-
gence was a stronger predictor of cross-border leadership effectiveness. Overall,

∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Thomas Rockstuhl, Block S3, 01C-108
Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798
[e-mail: [email protected]].
825
⃝
C 2011 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
826 Rockstuhl et al.

results show the value of cultural intelligence as a critical leadership competency

in today’s globalized world.

Globalization is a reality in the 21st century workplace. As a consequence,

leaders must function effectively in cross-border situations as well as in domestic
contexts. Leaders working in cross-border contexts must cope effectively with
contrasting economic, political, and cultural practices. As a result, careful selec-
tion, grooming, and development of leaders who can operate effectively in our
globalized environment is a pressing need for contemporary organizations (Avolio,
Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009).
To date, research on leadership effectiveness has been dominantly domestic in
focus, and does not necessarily generalize to global leaders (Gregersen, Morrison,
& Black, 1998; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Hence, there
is a critical need for research that extends our understanding of how differences in
context (domestic vs. cross-border) require different leadership capabilities (Johns,
2006). As we build our arguments, we emphasize the importance of matching
leadership capabilities to the specific context.
Global leaders, like all leaders, are responsible for performing their job re-
sponsibilities and accomplishing their individual goals. Accordingly, general ef-
fectiveness, defined as the effectiveness of observable actions that managers take
to accomplish their goals (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993), is im-
portant for global leaders. We use the term “general” in describing this type of
effectiveness because it makes no reference to culture or cultural diversity. Thus,
it applies to all leader jobs.
Going beyond general effectiveness, it is crucial to recognize the unique
responsibilities that leaders have when their jobs are international in scope and
involve cross-border responsibilities (Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997). Lead-
ership in cross-border contexts requires leaders to (1) adopt a multicultural per-
spective rather than a country-specific perspective; (2) balance local and global
demands which can be contradictory; and (3) work with multiple cultures si-
multaneously rather than working with one dominant culture (Bartlett & Goshal,
1992). Thus, we define cross-border effectiveness as the effectiveness of ob-
servable actions that managers take to accomplish their goals in situations char-
acterized by cross-border cultural diversity. This aspect of global leaders’ ef-
fectiveness explicitly recognizes and emphasizes the unique challenges of het-
erogeneous national, institutional, and cultural contexts (Shin, Morgeson, &
Campion, 2007).
Effective leadership depends on the ability to solve complex technical and
social problems (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). Given
important differences in domestic and cross-border contexts, it is unlikely that
leadership effectiveness is the same in domestic contexts as in cross-border con-
texts. In this article, we aim to shed light on these differences by focusing on
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 827

ways that leadership competencies are similar and different in their relevance to
different contexts (domestic vs. cross-border).

Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness

When leaders work in cross-border contexts, the social problems of leadership

are especially complex because cultural background influences prototypes and
schemas about appropriate leadership behaviors. For example, expectations about
preferred leadership styles (House et al., 2004), managerial behaviors (Shin et al.,
2007), and the nature of relationships (Yeung & Ready, 1995) are all influenced
by culture. Thus, effective cross-border leadership requires the ability to function
in culturally diverse contexts.
Although general intelligence (Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004) as well as emo-
tional intelligence (Caruso, Meyer, & Salovey, 2002) have been linked to lead-
ership effectiveness in domestic contexts, neither deals explicitly with the ability
to function in cross-border contexts. To address the unique aspects of culturally
diverse settings, Earley and Ang (2003) drew on Sternberg and Detterman’s (1986)
multidimensional perspective on intelligence to develop a conceptual model of cul-
tural intelligence (CQ). Ang and colleagues (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al.,
2007) defined CQ as an individual’s capability to function effectively in situations
characterized by cultural diversity. They conceptualized CQ as a multidimen-
sional concept comprising metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral
dimensions.
Metacognitive CQ is an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness dur-
ing intercultural interactions. It involves higher level cognitive strategies—such
as developing heuristics and guidelines for social interaction in novel cultural
settings—based on deep-level information processing. Those with high metacog-
nitive CQ are consciously aware of the cultural preferences and norms of different
societies prior and during interactions. They question cultural assumptions and
adjust their mental models about intercultural experiences (Triandis, 2006).
Whereas metacognitive CQ focuses on higher order cognitive processes, cog-
nitive CQ is knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures
acquired from education and personal experience. This includes knowledge of
cultural universals as well as knowledge of cultural differences. Those with high
cognitive CQ have sophisticated mental maps of culture, cultural environments,
and how the self is embedded in cultural contexts. These knowledge structures
provide them with a starting point for anticipating and understanding cultural
systems that shape and influence patterns of social interaction within a culture.
Motivational CQ is the capability to direct attention and energy toward learn-
ing about and operating in culturally diverse situations. Kanfer and Heggestad
(1997, p. 39) argued that motivational capacities “provide agentic control of af-
fect, cognition, and behavior that facilitate goal accomplishment.” Expectations
828 Rockstuhl et al.

and the value associated with successfully accomplishing a task (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002) influence the direction and magnitude of energy channeled to-
ward that task. Those with high motivational CQ direct attention and energy toward
cross-cultural situations based on their intrinsic interest in cultures (Deci & Ryan,
1985) and confidence in intercultural effectiveness (Bandura, 2002).
Finally, behavioral CQ is the capability to exhibit culturally appropriate verbal
and nonverbal actions when interacting with people from other cultures. Behav-
ioral CQ also includes judicious use of speech acts—using culturally appropriate
words and phrases in communication. Those with high behavioral CQ demonstrate
flexibility in their intercultural interactions and adapt their behaviors to put others
at ease and facilitate effective interactions.
Rooted in differential biological bases (Rockstuhl, Hong, Ng, Ang, & Chiu,
2011), metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ represent qual-
itatively different facets of overall CQ—the capability to function and manage
effectively in culturally diverse settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al.,
2007). Accordingly, the four facets are distinct capabilities that together form a
higher level overall CQ construct.
Offermann and Phan (2002) offered three theoretical reasons for why leaders
with high CQ capabilities are better able to manage the culturally diverse ex-
pectations of their followers in cross-border contexts (Avolio et al., 2009). First,
awareness during intercultural interactions allows leaders to understand the impact
of their own culture and background. It gives them insights into how their own
values may bias their assumptions about behaviors in the workplace. It enhances
awareness of the expectations they hold for themselves and others in leader –
follower relationships. Second, high CQ causes leaders to pause and verify the
accuracy of their cultural assumptions, consider their knowledge of other cul-
tures, and hypothesize about possible values, biases, and expectations that may
apply to intercultural interactions. Third, leaders with high CQ combine their
rich understanding of self and others with motivation and behavioral flexibility in
ways that allow them to adapt their leadership behaviors appropriately to specific
cross-cultural situations.
In addition to managing diverse expectations as a function of cultural dif-
ferences, leaders in cross-border contexts also need to effectively manage the
exclusionary reactions that can be evoked by cross-cultural contact (Torelli, Chiu,
Tam, Au, & Keh, 2011). Social categorization theory (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987)
theorizes that exclusionary reactions to culturally diverse others are initially driven
by perceptions of dissimilarity and viewing others as members of the out-group.
Research demonstrates, however, that those with high CQ are more likely to de-
velop trusting relationships with culturally diverse others and less likely to engage
in exclusionary reactions (Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). Consistent with our earlier
emphasis on matching capabilities to the context, their results also demonstrated
that CQ did not influence trust when partners were culturally homogeneous.
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 829

An increasing amount of research demonstrates the importance of CQ for

performance effectiveness in cross-border contexts (for reviews, see Ang, Van
Dyne, & Tan, 2011; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, in press). This includes expatriate per-
formance in international assignments (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, & Tangirala,
2010), successful intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010), leadership
potential (Kim & Van Dyne, 2011), and leadership effectiveness in culturally
diverse work groups (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011).
To summarize, theory and research support the notion that leaders with high
CQ should be more effective at managing expectations of culturally diverse others
and minimizing exclusionary reactions that can occur in cross-border contexts.
Thus, we hypothesize that general intelligence will predict leadership effectiveness
in domestic contexts and in cross-border contexts; emotional intelligence will be
a stronger predictor of leadership effectiveness in domestic contexts; and cultural
intelligence will be a stronger predictor of leadership effectiveness in cross-border
contexts.

Method

We tested our hypotheses with field data from 126 military leaders and their
peers studying at the Swiss Military Academy at ETH Zurich. CQ has special
relevance to leadership in military settings because armed forces throughout the
world are increasingly involved in international assignments (Ang & Ng, 2007).
We obtained data from professional officers in a 3-year training program that
focused on developing domestic and cross-border leadership capabilities. Thus,
the sample allows comparison of leadership effectiveness across contexts. During
the program officers completed domestic assignments (e.g., physical education,
group projects, and general military and leadership military training) as well
and cross-border assignments (e.g., international support operations for the UN in
former Yugoslavia and international civil-military collaboration training with U.S.,
EU, and Croatian armed forces). Military contexts represent high-stakes settings
where leadership effectiveness has broad implications for countries, regions, and
in some cases, the world. Poor-quality leadership can exacerbate tensions and
heighten conflict between groups. In addition, it is essential that military leaders
overcome initial exclusionary reactions that can be triggered when interacting
with people from different cultures in high-stress situations. As a result, gaining
a better understanding of general and cross-border leadership effectiveness in this
setting should have important practical implications.
All 126 participants (95% response rate) were male Caucasians with average
previous leadership experience of 6.44 years (SD = 4.79). On average, they had
lived in 1.45 different countries (SD = .91). They had been studying and working
together on a daily basis for at least 7 months prior to the study.
830 Rockstuhl et al.

Procedure

Two peers in the program, selected based on cultural diversity, provided rat-
ings of general and cross-border leadership effectiveness, such that those with
French, Italian, or Rhaeto-Romansh background were rated by peers who had a
German background and vice versa. We designed the data collection using peers for
the assessment of leadership effectiveness for four reasons. First, all participants
had extensive previous leadership experience in the military and were knowl-
edgeable observers in these contexts. Second, military mission goals were clearly
specified, and thus peers could readily observe both domestic and cross-border
effectiveness in terms of mission completion. Third, participants worked closely
together and had numerous opportunities to observe peers’ leadership effective-
ness across general and cross-border contexts. Finally, Viswesvaran, Schmidt,
and Ones (2002) showed in their meta-analysis of convergence between peer and
supervisory ratings that leadership is one job performance dimension for which
ratings from these two sources are interchangeable.
Participants provided data on cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, and
demographic background. In addition, we obtained archival data on general mental
ability and personality. This multisource approach is a strength of the design.

Measures

Peers assessed general leadership effectiveness and cross-border leadership

effectiveness with six items each (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Ex-
isting leadership effectiveness measures (e.g., Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008; Offermann,
Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal, & Sass, 2004) do not distinguish explicitly between
general and cross-border effectiveness. Thus, we reviewed the literature on general
leadership effectiveness, developed six general leadership items, and then wrote
parallel items that focused specifically on leadership effectiveness in culturally
diverse contexts.
Independent ratings by three subject matter experts (1 = not at all repre-
sentative, 2 = somewhat, 3 = highly representative) provided face validity for the
items (intraclass correlation = .83). Exploratory factor analysis (pilot sample #1:
n = 95) showed two distinct factors (74.49% explained variance), and confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) (pilot sample #2: n = 189) demonstrated acceptable fit:
! 2 (53df ) = 94.69, p < .05, RMSEA = .066. In the substantive sample, interrater
agreement (r WG(J) = .71–1.00) supported aggregation of peer ratings for general
(" = .91) and cross-border leadership effectiveness (" = .93).
We assessed CQ with the previously validated 20-item CQS (Cultural Intel-
ligence Scale: Ang et al., 2007), which is highly reliable and generalizable across
samples and cultures (Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008). Sample items include:
I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 831

different cultures; and I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural inter-

action requires it (" = .89). CFA analysis of a second-order model demonstrated
good fit to the data: ! 2 (40df ) = 58.13, p < .05, RMSEA = .061), so we averaged
the four factors to create our measure of overall CQ. We assessed EQ with 19
items (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006) and obtained archival
data on general mental ability (the SHL Critical Reasoning Test Battery, 1996) and
Big-Five personality (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006). These controls
are important because prior research shows CQ is related to EQ (Moon, 2010),
general mental ability (Ang et al., 2007), and personality (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh,
2006). We also controlled for previous leadership experience (number of years of
full-time job experience with the Swiss Military), international experience (num-
ber of countries participants had lived in), and age because prior research shows
relationships with leadership effectiveness.

Results

CFA analysis supported the discriminant validity of the 10 constructs

(! 2 (186df ) = 255.12, p < .05, RMSEA = .046) and the proposed 10-factor model
provided a better fit than plausible alternative models. Table 1 presents descriptive
statistics and correlations. Table 2 summarizes hierarchical regression and relative
weight analyses (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004).
As predicted, IQ was positively related to general leadership effectiveness
(# = .23, p < .05) and cross-border leadership effectiveness (# = .18, p < .05),
even after controlling for age, leadership experience, international experience,
Big-Five personality, EQ, and CQ. Thus, general mental ability had implications
for both aspects of leadership effectiveness.
In addition and consistent with our predictions, EQ was positively related to
general leadership effectiveness (# = .27, p < .05) but not to cross-border leader-
ship effectiveness (# = −.07, n.s.), after controlling for age, leadership experience,
international experience, Big-Five personality, IQ, and CQ. Relative weight analy-
sis demonstrated that EQ predicted 25.7% of the variance in general leadership ef-
fectiveness but only 3.5% of the variance in cross-border leadership effectiveness.
Thus, EQ has special relevance to leadership effectiveness in domestic contexts
but not to leadership effectiveness in cross-border contexts.
Finally, CQ was positively related to cross-border leadership effectiveness
(# = .24, p < .05) but not to general leadership effectiveness (# = −.11, n.s.), after
accounting for the controls. Relative weight analysis showed that CQ predicted
24.7% of the variance in cross-border leadership effectiveness and only 4.7% of
the variance in general leadership effectiveness. Thus, results demonstrate the
unique importance of CQ to cross-border leadership effectiveness.
Results also show that previous international experience predicted both
general (# = .30, p < .01) and cross-border leadership effectiveness (# = .35,
 832

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. General leadership 5.13 0.66 (.91)

effectivenessa
2. Cross-border leadership 4.41 0.70 .56∗∗ (.93)
effectivenessa
3. General intelligenceb 22.06 5.69 .23∗∗ .14 –
4. Emotional intelligencec 4.82 0.62 .26∗∗ .15 .23∗∗ (.76)
5. Cultural intelligencec 5.01 0.71 .17 .33∗∗ .15 .62∗∗ (.89)
6. Agreeableness 4.38 0.64 .01 .04 .00 .11 .06 (.62)
7. Conscientiousness 4.77 0.56 −.06 .02 .02 −.05 −.08 .02 (.77)
8. Emotional stability 4.53 0.63 .01 .01 .13 .16 −.06 .29∗∗ .18∗ (.66)
9. Extraversion 4.52 0.61 .07 .09 .10 .17 .15 .20∗ .06 .18∗ (.77)
10. Openness to experience 4.08 0.65 .06 .14 −.06 .09 .20∗ .02 .09 −.03 .37∗∗ (.80)
11. Age (in years) 29.07 3.96 −.08 .11 −.21∗ .02 .09 .14 −.13 .03 −.19∗ .10 –
12. Leadership experience 6.44 4.79 −.13 −.04 −.28∗∗ −.03 .01 .10 .15 .04 −.10 .12 .55∗∗ –
(in years)
13. Prior international 1.45 0.91 .23∗∗ .38∗∗ −.20∗ .01 .25∗∗ .09 −.02 −.21∗ .00 .09 .11 .06
experience

a
Note. N = 126.
Observer report.
b
Performance based.
c
Self-report.
∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01.
Rockstuhl et al.
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 833

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Results (N = 126)

General leadership Cross-border leadership

effectiveness effectiveness
Step 1 Step 2 RW Step 1 Step 2 RW

Age (in years) −.06 −.05 2.3% .17 .16 5.6%

Leadership experience (in years) −.11 −.04 4.0% −.16 −.11 2.4%
Prior international experience .25∗∗ .30∗∗ 32.9% .38∗∗∗ .35∗∗∗ 48.1%
Agreeableness −.02 −.03 0.3% −.04 −.04 0.2%
Conscientiousness −.07 −.06 1.8% .02 .02 0.1%
Emotional stability .07 .01 0.7% .07 .07 0.9%
Extraversion .03 .00 0.7% .07 .03 1.3%
Openness to experience .05 .06 1.4% .08 .06 3.6%
General intelligence .23∗ 25.5% .18∗ 9.5%
Emotional intelligence .27∗ 25.7% −.07 3.5%
Cultural intelligence −.11 4.7% .24∗ 24.7%
F 1.32 2.39∗∗ 3.24∗∗ 3.61∗∗∗
(8,117) (11,114) (8,117) (11,114)
!F 1.32 4.89∗∗ 3.24∗∗ 3.94∗∗
(8,117) (3,114) (8,117) (3,114)
R2 .08 .19 .18 .26
!R2 .08 .11 .18 .08
Adjusted R2 .02 .11 .13 .19

Note. RW = relative weights in percentage of R2 explained.

∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗ p < .001.

p < .001). Surprisingly, previous leadership experience did not predict general
leadership effectiveness (# = −.04, n.s.) or cross-border leadership effectiveness
(# = −.11, n.s.) in our study. While this result is inconsistent with earlier research
that has demonstrated experience can be an important predictor of leadership suc-
cess (Fiedler, 2002), it is also consistent with recent theoretical arguments that
experience may not necessarily translate into effectiveness (Ng, Van Dyne, &
Ang, 2009).

Discussion

This study responds to a recent call for research on the unique aspects of
global leadership and the competencies that predict global leadership effective-
ness (Avolio et al., 2009). As hypothesized, results of our rigorous multisource
research design show differences in predictors of general leadership effectiveness
compared to cross-border leadership effectiveness. Cross-border leaders must
work simultaneously with systems, processes, and people from multiple cultures.
834 Rockstuhl et al.

Thus, cultural intelligence—the capability of functioning effectively in multicul-

tural contexts (Earley & Ang, 2003)—is a critical competency of effective global
leaders.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings have important theoretical implications. First, as Chiu, Gries,

Torelli, and Cheng (2011) point out, the outcomes of globalization are uncertain.
Some academics predict a multicultural global village and others expect clashes
between civilizations. As the articles in this issue attest, contextual and psycholog-
ical factors influence the extent to which intercultural contact activates exclusion-
ary or integrative reactions. For example, Morris, Mor, and Mok (2011) highlight
the adaptive value and creative benefits of developing a cosmopolitan identity.
Our findings complement this perspective by emphasizing the importance of cul-
tural intelligence for leadership effectiveness—especially in high-stakes global
encounters, such as cross-border military assignments. In addition, our study of-
fers another perspective because we emphasize the value of theory and research
on the competencies of global leaders that help them perform in global contexts,
rather than focusing on psychological reactions to globalization. Focusing on
competencies suggests exciting opportunities for future research on the dynamic
interaction between globalization and global leaders.
A second set of theoretical implications is based on the context-specific rela-
tionships demonstrated in this study. Specifically, results suggest that EQ and CQ
are complementary because EQ predicted general but not cross-border leadership
while CQ predicted cross-border but not general leadership effectiveness. This
contrasting pattern reinforces the assertion that domestic leader skillsets do not
necessarily generalize to global leader skillsets (Avolio et al., 2009; Caligiuri,
2006). Hence, EQ and CQ are related but distinct forms of social intelligence
(Moon, 2010), and each has context-specific relevance to different aspects of global
leadership effectiveness. Thus, researchers should match types of intelligences to
specifics of the situation to maximize predictive validity of effectiveness.

Practical Implications

Our findings also have practical implications for the selection and develop-
ment of global leaders. First, the significant relationship between general intelli-
gence and both forms of leader effectiveness reinforces the utility of intelligence
as a selection tool for identifying leadership potential. In addition, the incre-
mental validity of emotional and cultural intelligence as predictors of leadership
effectiveness, over and above previous experience, personality, and general intel-
ligence, confirms predictions that social intelligences also contribute to leadership
effectiveness (Riggio, 2002). Accordingly, managers should consider multiple
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 835

forms of intelligence when assessing leadership potential, especially when work

roles include responsibility for coordinating complex social interactions.
Given the differential predictive validity of EQ and CQ relative to the two
types of leadership effectiveness in our study, applying the notion of context sim-
ilarity and matching types of intelligence with the leadership context should help
organizations enhance their understanding of what predicts global leader effec-
tiveness. This finding should also help organizations understand why leaders who
are effective in domestic contexts may not be effective in cross-border contexts.
These insights should help organizations tailor leadership development opportuni-
ties to the competency requirements of the situation. When leaders work primarily
in domestic settings, organizations should place more emphasis on developing
within-culture capabilities, such as EQ. In contrast, when leaders work exten-
sively in international or cross-border settings, organizations should emphasize
development of cross-cultural capabilities, such as CQ (Ng, Tan, & Ang, 2011).

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the strength of our multisource design and support for our predictions,
this study has limitations that should help guide future research. First, our cross-
sectional design prevents inferences about the causal direction of relationships.
Thus, we recommend longitudinal field research that assesses capabilities and
leadership effectiveness at multiple points in time.
Second, our study was conducted in a military context and all participants
were male. Thus, we recommend caution in generalizing our findings to other
settings until research can assess whether relationships can be replicated in other
contexts. To address this need, we recommend future research on different types of
intelligences and different aspects of leadership effectiveness in other vocational
settings and different cultures (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007).
Third, given that this is the first research, to our knowledge, that proposes
and tests an integrated model of three types of intelligence and global leader-
ship effectiveness, the model is necessarily incomplete. We did not consider the
indirect effects of mediators or moderators. We recommend future research that
“opens the black-box” by focusing on mediating mechanisms that link capa-
bilities with global leader effectiveness. For example, Bass (2002) argued that
multiple intelligences are a core element of transformational leadership. Previ-
ous research has demonstrated that emotional intelligence in domestic contexts
(Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005) and cultural intelligence in culturally diverse
contexts (Elenkov & Manev, 2009) predict transformational leadership behavior.
Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided meta-analytic evidence that transformational
leadership behaviors predict leadership effectiveness. Thus, it is plausible that
transformational leadership mediates the relationships of emotional and cultural
intelligence with leadership effectiveness. Leader-member exchange (LMX) is
836 Rockstuhl et al.

another plausible mediator. For example, Riggio (2002) suggested that social and
emotional intelligences most likely enhance the quality of leader –follower rela-
tionships, which then influence effective leadership. In sum, we recommend future
research on mediators that link multiple intelligences with leadership effectiveness.
We also recommend future research on situational factors that moderate the
relationships between multiple intelligences and leadership effectiveness. Judge
et al.’s (2004) meta-analysis, for example, demonstrated that situational stressors
influence relationships between general intelligence and leadership effectiveness.
Thus, it is possible that situational stressors function as an important boundary
condition that qualifies the relationships demonstrated in our study. Given that
EQ (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008) and CQ (Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008) are
influenced by prior experiences, it is possible that EQ and CQ are especially
important in high-stress situations. Alternatively, it is possible that global identity
(Shokef & Erez, 2008) functions as a boundary condition that changes the nature
of the relationships between leader competencies and leader effectiveness. In sum,
we recommend field and experimental research on the extent to which situational
stressors moderate the relationships demonstrated in our research.

Conclusion

In sum, this research begins to add to limited understanding of predictors of

global leadership effectiveness and how the nomological networks of leadership
effectiveness differ in different contexts. Most important, results demonstrate
the critical importance of CQ in predicting leadership effectiveness in cross-
border contexts. We recommend future research on IQ, EQ, and CQ as well as
other intelligences in predicting different types of leadership effectiveness in both
domestic and cross-cultural contexts.

References

Ang, S., & Ng, K. Y. (2007). Cultural and network intelligences: The twin pillars in leadership
development for the 21st century era of global business and institutional networks. In K. Y.
Chan, S. Singh, R. Ramaya, & K. H. Lim (Eds.), Spirit and system: Leadership development
for a third generation SAF [Monograph] (pp. 46 – 52). Pointer: Journal of the Singapore Armed
Forces.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness,
and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3 – 15). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intel-
ligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100 – 123. doi:10.1177/1059601105275267
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C. K. S., 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,
335 – 371. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 837

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. L. (2011). Cultural intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman
(Eds.), Cambridge handbook on intelligence (pp. 582 – 602). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Avolio, J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, re-
search, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421 – 449. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 51, 269 – 290. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1992). What is a global manager? Harvard Business Review (September-
October), 124 – 132. doi:10.1225/R0308F
Bass, B. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In
R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp.
105 – 118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abili-
ties to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional
intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780 – 795. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.91.4.780
Caligiuri, P. M. (2006). Performance measurement in a cross-national context. In W. Bennett,
C. E. Lance, & D. J. Woehr (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and
future challenges (pp. 227 – 244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In
N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35 – 70). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership.
In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership
(pp. 55 – 74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., Farh, C. I. C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When does cross-cultural
motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the moderating roles
of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1110 –
1130.
Chiu, C. Y., Gries, P., Torelli, C. J., & Cheng, S. Y. Y. (2011). Toward a social psychology of
globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 663 – 676. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01721.x
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Donnellan, M. F., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales:
Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment,
18, 192 – 203. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. In S. T. Fiske, D. L.
Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 109 – 132). Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on innova-
tion and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44, 357 – 369.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.001
Fiedler, F. E. (2002). The curious role of cognitive resources in leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy,
& F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 91 – 104). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review
of Psychology, 58, 479 – 514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559
Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier.
Sloan Management Review, 40, 21 – 32. doi:10.1225/SMR039
Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating
effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization
Management, 36, 535 – 566. doi:10.1177/1059601111415664
838 Rockstuhl et al.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Palo Alto, CA: Sage.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intel-
ligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 112, 83 – 98. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 386 – 408.
Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance in-
dices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238 – 257.
doi:10.1177/1094428104266510
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative re-
view and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542 – 552.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic
test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755 – 768. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.89.5.755
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to
work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1 – 56.
Kim, Y. J., & Van Dyne, L. (2011). Cultural intelligence and international leadership potential: The
importance of contact for members of the majority. Applied Psychology: An International
Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00468.x
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 13.1 – 13.30. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646
Moon, T. (2010). Emotional intelligence correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 876 – 898. doi:10.1108/02683941011089134
Morris, M. W., Mor, S., & Mok, A. (2011). From bicultural to global identity: Implications for
responses to mixed-culture situations and cultural differences. Journal of Social Issues, 67,
760 – 773.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership
skills for a changing world. Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11 –
35. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated medi-
ation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 733 – 743. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.733
Ng, K. Y., Tan, M. L., & Ang, S. (2011). Culture capital and cosmopolitan human capital: The
impact of global mindset and organizational routines on developing cultural intelligence and
international experiences in organizations. In A. Burton & J. C. Spender (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of human capital (pp. 96 – 119). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199532162.003.0004
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (in press). Cultural intelligence: A review, reflections, and
recommendations for future research. In A. M. Ryan, F. T. L. Leong, & F. Oswald (Eds.),
Conducting multinational research projects in organizational psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural
intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8, 511 – 526.
Offermann, L. R., Bailey, J. R., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Seal, C., & Sass, M. (2004). The relative
contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and team performance.
Human Performance, 17, 219 – 243.
Offermann, L. R., & Phan, L. U. (2002). Culturally intelligent leadership for a diverse world. In
R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership
(pp. 187 – 214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Riggio, R. E. (2002). Multiple intelligence and leadership: An overview. In R. E. Riggio,
S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 1 – 6).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness 839

Rockstuhl, T., Hong, Y. Y., Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Chiu, C. Y. (2011). The culturally intelligent brain:
From detecting to bridging cultural differences. Neuroleadership Journal, 3, 22 – 36.
Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in
multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 206 – 220). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion
recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 845 – 858.
Shin, S. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2007). What you do depends on where you are: Un-
derstanding how domestic and expatriate work requirements depend upon the cultural context.
Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 64 – 83. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400247
SHL. (1996). Critical reasoning test battery: Technical manual. Thames Ditton, UK: Saville and
Holdsworth Ltd. Occupational Psychologists.
Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence and global identity in multicultural teams. In
S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and
applications (pp. 177 – 191). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of interna-
tional executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6 – 29. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.82.1.6
Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its
nature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Developing cultural intelligence: The roles of international nonwork
experiences. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement, and applications (pp. 56 – 70). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Torelli, C. J., Chiu, C. Y., Tam, K. P., Au, K. C., & Keh, H. T. (2011). Psychological reactions to
foreign cultures in globalized economy: Effects of simultaneous activation of cultures. Journal
of Social Issues, 67, 716 – 742.
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group and Organization Management,
31, 20 – 26. doi:10.1177/1059601105275253
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural
intelligence scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement, and applications (pp. 16 – 38). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2002). The moderating influence of job performance
dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job performance: Unconfounding
construct-level convergence and rating difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 345 – 354.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.345
Yeung, A., & Ready, D. (1995). Developing leadership capabilities of global corporations:
A comparative study in eight nations. Human Resource Management, 34, 529 – 547.
doi:10.1002/hrm.3930340405

THOMAS ROCKSTUHL is a PhD candidate and a research associate at the

Center for Innovation Research in Cultural Intelligence + Leadership (CIRCQL)
at Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His
research interests include measurement of cultural intelligence and leadership in
multicultural teams.

STEFAN SEILER received a PhD from University of Fribourg, CH. He is

the Department Head of Leadership and Communication Studies at the Swiss
840 Rockstuhl et al.

Military Academy at ETH Zurich. His research interests are intercultural leader-
ship, leadership development, moral decision making, and leadership ethics.

SOON ANG received a PhD from Minnesota. She is Goh Tjoei Kok Chaired
Professor in Management and Executive Director, Center for Innovation Research
in Cultural Intelligence + Leadership (CIRCQL) at Nanyang Business School,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She specializes in cultural intelli-
gence, global leadership, and outsourcing.

LINN VAN DYNE received a PhD from University of Minnesota. She is Professor
at Michigan State University. She has two major research programs: proactive
employee behaviors involving initiative and cultural intelligence.

HUBERT ANNEN received a PhD from University of Zurich, CH. He is the

Department Head of Military Psychology and Military Pedagogics at the Swiss
Military Academy at ETH Zurich. His main research interests are in management
assessment, motivation, and stress.