Behavioural CI has a direct as well a moderating effect on Dedication. This partially confirms hypotheses 1 and 3 (only for the behavioural component of CI).
A higher degree of Cultural Similarity is associated with higher Vigour, Dedication, and Absorption. This confirms hypothesis 2. Of the control variables, older employees have higher scores on Vigour, Dedication, and Absorption. Higher job levels are associated with higher
Vigour and Dedication. Employees with more years abroad are more dedicated, the degree of Absorption differs between the counties of employment, and a greater number of nationalities in the team or department goes together with higher Vigour.
The interaction effect of cultural similarity with the behavioural capability of the leader on the dedication of the employee is shown in Figure 2. The effect of behavioural intelligence is stronger in the case of low cultural similarity between the leader and employee.
When the leader is perceived as culturally similar, the employee is already more dedicated, than when the leader is perceived as culturally dissimilar. Therefore, the behavioural intelligence of the leader has most effect when the leader is perceived to be dissimilar to the employee.
Discussion
This study examined the influence of four dimensions of Cultural intelligence of the leader on engagement of employees. In addition the moderating effect of Cultural Similarity on this relationship was examined. Hypothesis 1, which implied that higher Cultural Intelligence of the leader would be associated with higher engagement among employees was only confirmed for the influence of Behavioural CI on Dedication.
Hypothesis 2, implying that Cultural Similarity of the leader and employee would increase engagement of employees was confirmed. Hypothesis 3 stated that Cultural Similarity
Implications
This study contributes to the literature in exploring the influence of cultural intelligence of the leader. A higher perceived cultural intelligence of the leader is associated with higher engagement of the employee. The behavioural component of cultural intelligence appeared to be the most critical one.
The effects have been found in large sample (n=815) of employees in a multi country setting. The concept of perceived Cultural Similarity was introduced, which provides information on perceptions of cultural dimensions on the individual level.
January 2012 | Management Today 65
would moderate the Cultural Intelligence – Engagement relationship. This was only confirmed for the moderating effect of Behavioural CI and Cultural Similarity on Dedication. It appeared that the behavioural capability was the most important sub dimension of cultural intelligence influencing engagement of employees. It reflects the manager’s perceived capability in exhibiting appropriate speech acts, and is therefore the most visible part of the cultural intelligence construct. This most probably makes it a critical component in forming an employees’ opinion towards the leader. This can also explain the significant interaction effect of cultural similarity and behavioural capability on the dedication of the employee. It is easier to determine whether the behavioural component of a leader is ‘culturally correct’ because it can be determined during interactions with the leader. Whether a leader is behaving ‘culturally correct’ is of higher importance when employee and leader are culturally dissimilar.
The direct influence of Cultural Similarity of Engagement was stronger than the direct influence of Cultural Intelligence. This suggests that it would be worthwhile to examine alternative models of relationships between variables, for example assuming that Cultural Intelligence would have a moderating effect on the relationship between Cultural Similarity and Engagement.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114