Given that the concept of CQ has only recently gained exposure as a viable tool in the attempt to navigate the mines of intercultural activities, it is necessary to provide the background and the journey that it has taken. This essay serves to provide an initial, empirical investigation of how experiences of those who have been involved in international, cross-cultural initiatives could be integrated into a construct that includes the research that has been done in other pedagogical parallels.

The concept of CQ was first introduced to the social sciences and management disciplines by P. Christopher Earley and Soon Ang in 2003. The emergence of CQ was in response to a blind spot within the exuberance over the global recognition that our world had become “flat,” and that seemingly cultural diversities and differences had been mitigated by the need for collaboration to achieve the bottom line of corporate profit. Much to the dismay of many within these companies, entrenched cultural differences were not “flattening out,” and it portended that tensions, conflicts, and misunderstanding would trump all well-intentioned efforts to optimize the forces of convergence in a flat world.

In 2004, the first symposium on CQ was organized at the Academy of Management annual meeting (Ang & Van Dynne, 2008). In 2006, the journal Group and Organization Management devoted an entire, special issue to CQ. In the same year, the first Global Conference on Cultural Intelligence was organized with experts in international management, cross-cultural psychology, cross-cultural management, social psychology, and applied linguistics. The CQ research that resulted from the GCCI has been presented to numerous organizations, including the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2005); American Psychological Association (2005); International Conference in Information Systems (2005); International Academy of Intercultural Relations Conference in Taiwan (2004); the 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology in Athens, Greece (2006); the Shanghai Conference on Cultural Intelligence in China (2006); the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2007; and the International Military Testing Association (IMTA) in 2007.

However, these activities had their antecedents. Much research had been done in an effort to understand the nuances of intelligence as a factor in effective performance of expatriates within culture as well as within different cultures.

Intelligence has been the subject of research among sociologists and anthropologists, who for many decades insisted that intelligence, can only be researched as a function of one’s culture and society. That is to say, a person is intelligent when he or she is skillful in maneuvering competently within the environment in which he or she resides. Two symposia in 1921 and 1986 were devoted exclusively to the development of a consensus on a workable definition of intelligence. In recent years, Cultural Intelligence (CQ) has chosen to adopt the framework developed by Sternberg (1986). This framework classifies contemporary views of intelligence as a characteristic of the individual, the context, and the interaction of the individual and the context. Rather than exploring a person’s intelligence quotient fundamentally within her own culture, CQ refers to her capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts, and therefore, represents a form of situated intelligence, where intelligently adaptive behaviors are culturally bound to the values and beliefs of a selected society or culture.

The 75-Year Gap
The aforementioned symposia are significant in the background to CQ because of the conclusions reached during these deliberations. The 1921 symposium brought together fourteen prominent researchers in educational psychology on intelligence. Definitions of intelligence offered were wide ranging:

1. The ability to learn and adapt adequately in relatively new situations.
2. A sensory capacity for perceptual recognition, quickness, and range of flexibilities.
3. Knowledge or cognitive processes such as sensation, perception, association, memory, imagination, and judgment.
4. The involvement of non-cognitive attributes such as perseverance.

In 1986, Sternberg and Detterman brought together twenty contemporary researchers. In a radical departure from the first symposium, Sternberg developed a broad conceptual framework on intelligence to embrace and capture the various viewpoints held. To Sternberg, intelligence must be theorized and measured as an intra-individual attribute, operating within a particular context or environment other than one’s own culture.

It was argued that, at the mental level, intelligence resides in the cognitive or motivational realm. At the cognition level, intelligence is defined through meta-cognitive processes. Motivational theorists focused on the argument that it is not sufficient to concentrate on the cognitive ability of the individual, but attention must be given to the underlying motivation. Meanwhile, the behavioral theorists focused on domains or contexts, in which intelligent behaviors are observed.

Moving beyond the individual focus, some researchers conceptualized intelligence at the contextual level of the environment. Intelligence is therefore seen, not as residing within the individual, but as a function of one’s culture and society. Individuals, some say, do not operate or exist in a vacuum; therefore, people may be differently intelligent in different contexts, depending on the demands of these various environments. Sternberg and Berg (1986) concluded that in spite of the various strands of definitions discussed, there were six attributes of intelligence that could be agreed upon:

1. At a biological level, an intelligent person must have control and regulation over elementary sensory organs, including perception, sensation, and attention.
2. At the mental-functioning level, intelligence represents higher-level components of cognitive functioning, such as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making.
3. Intelligence must embrace meta-cognitive and executive processes. One must exercise the ability to know how to know.
4. An intelligent person must possess some form of crystallized, formal, learned declarative and experiential knowledge in a particular context.
5. Intelligence must be defined in some form of overt forms of behavior, either verbal or non-verbal.
6. The content of behavior is culturally bound and is an attribute of an individual operating within the culture of an environment that defines what intelligent behavior is.

Motivation and its Importance
Most of the work on intelligence has heretofore centered on the cognitive aspects. Some, however, would argue that without motivation the other aspects of intelligence could not be activated. Only three of the 24 researchers from the 1986 convocation advanced the importance of motivation (Baron, Snow, and Zigler). These researchers posited that there is a close relation between interests and intelligence. Interests determine motivation, which in turn determines the amount of time expended in the pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge to bridge the gap with a new culture.

CQ and the Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)
The role and significance of Experience Learning Theory (ELT) cannot be overlooked in the development of CQ, as it is advanced as a critical tool in cross-cultural ministry. In studies about the experiences of workers in global assignments, much emphasis has been placed on a performance perspective that cites the reality that these persons adjusted to their assignments and environments (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005). Little, however, had been done to address the development objectives. More succinctly, no conceptual models demonstrated how these persons learned to adjust, and what types of individuals were best suited to maximize the learning curve. As a result, it became necessary to shift the focus from a performance success observation to a critical inquiry into the skills that were necessary for individuals to learn how to become effective in a different cultural environment. The model that offered a path to this investigation was that of David Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory-- work influenced by prominent organizational scholars like John Dewey (1938), Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget.

The ELT structure seemed best suited to this learning process for three reasons (Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009). First, unlike the accent on the behavioral and cognitive outcomes of learning, ELT sought to unearth the intervening mechanism that transformed assignment experiences into learning outcomes. Second, ELT approached learning in a holistic fashion that integrated thinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving as important components in the learning experience. And third, ELT places emphasis on a continuous learning dynamic that seeks to mitigate the uncertainties and complexities of new cultural environments.

From this trilogy, Kolb concluded that learning is comprised of a four-stage learning cycle further subdivided into two fundamental processes: one is grasping the experience, and the other is transforming the experience. In essence, Kolb’s four-stage, ELT model prescribes a process of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. According to this line of reasoning (Kolb & Kolb), grasping without an intentional follow- through (transforming) is inadequate. Therefore, events (concrete experience) form the basis for descriptive processing (reflective observation), which are followed by conceptual interpretations (abstract conceptualization), concluding with action (active experimentation).

This format is consistent with other reputable theses (Kayes et al., 2005). Consequently, unlike previously fragmented research on intercultural intelligence, Earley and Ang (2003) proposed a theoretical and economical framework that comprises four capabilities:

1. Metacognitive CQ is the capability to use consciousness and awareness during intercultural interactions. Those who possess high metacognitive CQ demonstrate an ability to plan, monitor, revise, and adjust encroaching mental models (Nelson, 1996).
2. Cognitive CQ focuses on norms, practices, and conventions within varying cultures, including knowledge of economic, legal, and social systems of different cultures. As a consequence, persons with high cognitive CQ are more likely to make accurate interpretations of cultural interactions (Triandis, 1995).
3. Motivational CQ is the capability to direct attention and energy toward learning the nuances of different cultures. Such persons appreciate the importance of intrinsic value and self-efficacy, being confident of their ability to function effectively in varying cultures.
4. Behavioral CQ exhibits appropriate verbal and non-verbal actions based on the studied cultural values of a specific setting (Hall, 1959). Persons with high behavioral CQ display situationally appropriate behavior through appropriate words, tones, gestures, and facial expressions (Gudykunst, Ting-Tooney, & Chua, 1988).

The Nexus Between CQ and ELT
In an extensive work alluded to earlier (Ng, Dyne, and Ang), a new model of cooperation emerged that linked ELT with CQ, highlighting a correlative link between the aptitudes exhibited by successful international expatriates and their leadership styles. This link is important to the continued research in CQ, because it proposes that through the four phases of CQ, individuals could enhance the likelihood of success by the engagement of the four stages of experiential learning: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

Concrete Experience (CE) – Individuals can be decisively affected by intercultural interactions, depending on the level of interest and motivation that such experiences evoke. If there is much interest generated in the midst of these interactions (Yamazaki and Kayes, 2004), the degree of involvement is enriched, and the quality of the relationship will yield predictable outcomes. These experiences in the midst of another culture require people to display flexibility and adaptability, since the norms of appropriate behavior must be continuously assessed and interpreted. From this observation, it could be proposed that Motivational CQ and Behavioral CQ enhance the likelihood that individuals will seek and enjoy concrete cross-cultural experiences.

Reflective Observation (RO) – Information processing is an invaluable asset for those working cross-culturally. A plethora of mistakes is made by those who do not possess the tools to interpret the social behaviors and assumptions of another’s culture, and therefore lack the awareness and significance of cues that might be important to that culture. Persons with high metacognitive CQ can navigate these waters with apt consideration of the multiple perspectives that could be applicable. From this observation, it could be proposed that Cognitive CQ and Metacognitive CQ enhance the likelihood that individuals will reflect on their cross-cultural experiences.

Abstract Conceptualization (AC) – Research in cognitive psychology has informed us that when the knowledge gathered about another culture is properly organized and interpreted, the insights and reflections made have a greater possibility of being correct (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982). The emphasis in this modality is much more scientific (thinking) as opposed to an intuitive (feeling) approach (Kolb, 1984). From this observation, it could be proposed that Cognitive CQ and Motivational CQ enhance the likelihood that individuals will detect patterns and develop conceptual generalizations of cross-cultural experiences.

Active Experimentation (AE) – All four facets of CQ contribute to the influencing of the environment and affect the cross-cultural experimentation. Cognitive and Metacognitive CQ enhancement enables individuals to examine ideas and suppositions; Motivational CQ, given that self-efficacy is gained through knowledge of the culture, enables the individual to persist in the midst of cultural discomfort. Through appropriate Behavioral CQ, a person can implement both verbal and non-verbal actions, even when there is minimal language skill. From this observation, it could be proposed that all components of CQ enhance the likelihood that individuals will implement and test their conceptual generalizations in cross-cultural situations.

Enhancement of CQ through ELT in Cross-cultural Practice
Considering the fast-paced nature of missions, its future will increasingly depend on the on the job training (OJT) that experiences bring to bear on the success or failure of the mission. As has been documented, CQ is a multidimensional approach that is best enhanced through the four dimensions of ELT. However, Kolb’s contribution (1984) to the science of learning would be incomplete without his extended application of these experiential factors to what has become known as Kolb’s learning styles or abilities – feeling, thinking, reflecting, and acting.

Experiential learning is a holistic process that combines learning abilities with the four dimensions of CE, RO, AC, and AE. Concrete Experience (feeling) abilities require the individual to deal with immediate human situations in a subjective manner, and emphasize the ability to employ feeling, intuitive understanding in the present reality, and sensitivity toward other people’s emotions and values. Individuals strong in CE abilities excel at relating to people with an open mind, value interpersonal relations, and perform well in unstructured and ambiguous situations.

Conversely, AC (thinking) abilities—the dialectic opposite of CE—engage the use of logic, ideas, and concepts. Abstract Conceptualization abilities require thinking, analyzing, and building general theories. Individuals with strong AC abilities are good at making systematic plans, manipulating abstract symbols, and using quantitative analysis. Meticulousness, the rigidity of analyzing ideas, the scientific approach, and the quality of a neat theoretical model are valuable to individuals with an AC point of reference.

Reflective Observation (reflecting) abilities require understanding the meaning of thoughts and situations by cautiously watching and listening. Reflective Observation emphasizes the use of reflective understanding to discover the rationale behind the way things are. Persons strong in RO excel at imagining the meaning of situations and ideas, seeing things from different perspectives, and appreciating different opinions. They value persistence, fairness, and considered, thoughtful conclusion.

In contrast, the AE (acting) abilities emphasize actively influencing people and affecting situations. Active Experimentation focuses on practical applications and matter-of-fact focus on what works. Those with AE abilities are willing to take risks, to get things done, and to take responsibility for accomplishing objectives. Individuals with strong AE style are good at taking actions to influence their external environment and like to see results.

Associated Learning Styles and Definitions
To understand why different persons react differently in varying cultural contexts, it may be important to delve into Kolb’s analysis of preferred learning styles. A combination of two learning abilities constitutes an associated learning style (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Fry, 1975). Learning style denotes an individual’s predilection for using two sets of learning abilities over another. The diverging learning style prefers CE and RO, while the converging learning style prefers AC and AE; the assimilating learning style prefers AC and RO; whereas, the accommodating learning style prefers CE and AE.

It is important to note that a learning style results from the interplay between the person and the environment. Thus, while learning style arises primarily from individual characteristics, style is also shaped by social, cultural, and environmental forces.

Knowing a person's (and your own) learning style enables learning to be orientated according to the preferred method. That said, everyone responds to and needs the stimulus of all types of learning styles to one extent or another - it's a matter of using emphasis that fits best with the given situation and a person's learning style preferences.

Here are brief descriptions of the four Kolb’s associated learning styles:
Diverging (feeling and watching - CE/RO) – This group is able to view situations from different perspectives. They are sensitive. They would rather watch than do, tending to gather information and use imagination to solve problems. They are best at viewing concrete situations from several different viewpoints. Kolb called this style “Diverging,” because these people perform better in situations that require idea-generation, for example, brainstorming. People with a Diverging learning style have broad cultural interests and like to gather information. They are interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, and tend to be strong in the arts. People with the Diverging style prefer to work in groups, to listen with an open mind, and to receive personal feedback.

Assimilating (watching and thinking - AC/RO) – This group’s learning preference is for a concise, logical approach. Ideas and concepts are more important than people. They require good, clear explanation rather than practical opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it into a clear, logical format. People with an Assimilating learning style are less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. People with this style are more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.

Converging (doing and thinking - AC/AE) - Persons with a Converging learning style can solve problems and will use their learning to find solutions to practical issues. They prefer technical tasks and are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects. People with a Converging learning style are best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. They can solve problems and make decisions by finding solutions to questions and problems. People with a Converging learning style are more attracted to technical tasks and problems than social or interpersonal issues. People with a Converging style like to experiment with new ideas, to simulate, and to work with practical applications.

Accommodating (doing and feeling - CE/AE) - The Accommodating learning style is ”hands-on” and relies on intuition rather than logic. This group would use other people's analysis and prefer to take a practical, experiential approach. They are attracted to new challenges and experiences and to carrying out plans. They commonly act on intuition rather than logical analysis. Persons with an Accommodating learning style will tend to rely on others for information, rather than carry out their own analysis. This learning style is prevalent and useful in roles requiring action and initiative. People with an Accommodating learning style prefer to work in teams to complete tasks. They set targets and actively work in the field, trying different ways to achieve an objective.

As with any behavioral model, this is a guide, and not a strict set of rules. Nevertheless, most people clearly exhibit strong preferences for a given learning style. The ability to use or “switch between” different styles is not one that we should assume comes easily or naturally to many people. This is important to note, because it contributes to the manner in which people respond to different stimuli cross-culturally.

Basically, people who have a clear learning style preference, for whatever reason, will tend to learn more effectively, if learning is orientated according to their preference. For instance, people who prefer the Assimilating learning style will not be comfortable being thrown in at the deep end without notes and instructions. People who prefer to use an Accommodating learning style are likely to become frustrated, if they are forced to read lots of instructions and rules and are unable to get hands-on experience as soon as possible.

Conclusion
Cultural Intelligence is more than merely a lens through which one can view the challenges posed by attempting to be successful in commerce, business, missions, and interpersonal cultural interactions. It is a research-based, interdisciplinary meta-model that provides the necessary handles for understanding why some persons adapt easily when placed in different cultures, and why others do not. The academic journey into the significance of Kolb’s approach to Experiential Learning Theory should anchor us to the notion that CQ is an evolving exercise in learning from the experiences in particular situations. The four dimensions of CQ are not designed to be a linear exercise. However, each plays a pivotal role in enhancing one’s competency in the interaction within cultures. Agility and flexibility will only serve the situation well after deep reflection upon the cues generated from the experience, and the sooner one can analyze what’s going on, and why, the more successful he or she will be in advancing mission accomplishment.