Though Triandis article fails to identify tools for measuring CQ, it is vital to highlight the main challenges in developing a tool for measuring CQ. Ang and Dyne (2008) argue that it is difficult to develop a tool for measuring CQ since very little information has been availed about the concept and its implications in organizations. Further, Murphy (2011) asserts that to adequately measure CQ, it is vital to incorporate interpersonal, relational and behavioral aspects which might prove difficult to access using a specific tool. Ang and Dyne (2008) also argue that in order to get an accurate measurement of CQ, it is vital to consider other forms of individual intelligence such as IQ thus making it difficult to develop a tool that is comprehensive. In addition, the National Research Council (2008) argues that developing a tool for measuring cultural intelligence can be challenging due to existing ‘cultural gaps’ and their implications on cultural learning (p.108).
Ward et al. (2009) argue that CQ is not an efficient tool for measuring cultural adaptation because it does not illustrate any distinctive difference from emotional intelligence. In addition, Ward et al. (2009) report that their study indicated that CQ was not able to explain the variance in culture adaptation with reference to difference in culture, academic status, psychology and personality. Ward et al. (2009) critic CQ as a tool by asserting that its culture general nature deprives the tool the ability to tap into the facets of CQ. Further, in terms of conceptualization, Earley and Ang (2003) concept of CQ was based on the assumption that CQ was different from Emotional intelligence since emotional intelligence is not linked to cultural adaptations. Ward et al. (2009) argue that this notion is practical theoretically. However, it does not hold empirically since there was no significant variation between measuring for cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence.
CQ is a self reporting instrument that has raised a number of concerns with scholars in their pursuit to measure CQ. Ward et al. (2009) report that research on CQ has indicated that performance –based tools are advantageous over self reporting instruments because they are more synchronized, predictive thus improving on the validity of CQ studies. Further, self reporting tools are not able to ascertain cultural adaptation differences due to personality, social factors and intelligence aspects that are well demonstrated in performance based tools. Ward et al (2009) also argue that since Earley and Ang assumption of CQ was based on demonstrating intelligence, then, it is only logical to test one’s cultural intelligence based on their performance.
To illustrate this notion, when using a self reporting instrument to explain adaptations to various cultures, it is possible to base your explanations on hearsay thus compromising on the validity of information gathered. For purposes of making proper judgment it is vital to subject individuals to experiments. This way, you will be in a position to assess their performance. For example assessing ones adaptability to the organizational culture using self reporting could go wrong in the sense that the individual understudy could give false information that could continue to compromise on the productivity of the organization. On the other hand, when assessing cultural adaptation using performance instruments, the manager will be in a position to gauge adaptability and the implications of the same on productivity.
In my own opinion, cultural intelligence can only be tested effectively if it is differentiated from emotional intelligence. This would encompass testing cultural adaptation and its impacts (Berry & Ward 2006). In terms of the methods used to test for culture adaptation, I concur with Ward et al (2009) who recommended that a performance based instrument be used. This is attributed to the fact that a performance based instrument tests the implications of adapting to organizational culture. Further, I think it is important for CQ studies to explain the variances due to personality, social cultural backgrounds and general intelligence and their effect on the ability of an individual to adapt to a foreign culture.
For purposes of understanding culture management in an organization, I recommend that my manager reads Triandis article because it highlights different components of CQ. This will help my manager to better understand the concept of CQ. Another reason for my recommendation is the fact that Triandis article expounds on tools for enhancing CQ in an organization. This include suspending judgment, accessing the situation, comprehensive training, choosing organizations that are compatible with our personalities and embracing diverse organizational practices. All this are important attributes that can help a manager to better manage cultural diversity in an organization.
However, it is vital to note that both articles are valid because they are up to date with the emerging concepts of cultural intellectual as an aspect of managing culture in an organization. This is supported by Livermore (2009) who argues that CQ is a new concept in strategic management through culture management in organizations. The validity of Ward et al. article has been enhanced because the article is based on empirical studies that were centered on evaluating CQ and its relevance as a tool for studying cultural adaptation. For instance, the first study used the 20-item CQ measure to assess adaptability to culture. Therefore, the article was based on primary information supported by secondary information therefore more convincing.
On the other hand, Triandis article was a report of the various components of CQ and how to enhance it. This was very informative but it was not as convincing as Wards et al. article. The fact that Wards et al. article was based on actual studies demonstrates its ability to provide evidence for advanced inferences thus making it more valid than Triandis report. This is because; according to McNeill and Chapman (2005) empirical studies provide readers with evidential data and information thus improving on the internal validity of the information conveyed. Generally, both articles were enlightening, coherent and culture management oriented.
In conclusion, information gathered from both articles is crucial to a manager. Both articles have highlighted on CQ and its importance in cross cultural management in organizations. Therefore, managers who intend to keep up with emerging concepts in cross culture management will find these articles imperative. Managers can utilize Triandis essentials for a culture intelligent individual to enhance culture adaptation. For instance, managers can incorporate culture training in their training schedules or seminars in order to enlighten their employees of the need to understand other cultures and how to adapt to such cultures. This would improve the level of culture adaptation especially for new employees. Through structured training, managers can also enlighten their workforce on the need to suspend judgment as a tool for improving interrelations in an organization. Managers can also use Triandis article to emphasize on the need to understand and embrace organizational culture.
Wards et al. article can be vital for managers who are in search of a CQ measurement tool. This is because the article highlights some of the concerns with reference to self reporting tools. This will be vital towards ensuring effective measurement of CQ among the workforce. It will also be paramount in assessing the extent of cross culture management in the organization and proposing possible changes in cultural adaptation training. All this will enforce the strategic goals of the organization (Peterson, 2004).