Encyclopedia
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Cultural intelligence (CQ) has a positive effect on employees’ voice behavior through self-efficacy. Further, CQ has a positive effect on job satisfaction through a sequential mediation of self-efficacy and voice.
- voice
- self-efficacy
- cultural intelligence
1. Introduction
Employee voice, which is an informal way of transferring and disseminating knowledge within the organization, can be essential because of the unpredictable and fast-moving nature of hospitality service [1]. Real-time progress is informed, and beneficial ideas are revealed through communication. This helps management to stay conscious of how service promises are carried out and how workflow is improved [2]. Cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to an individual’s capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings, and this construct has four sub-facets—metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ [3][4]. According to person-environment fit theory, the fit between individuals’ capability and job requirements facilitates individuals’ desired actions in organizations [5]. Hospitality employees frequently work with customers and colleagues from various cultural backgrounds, and ongoing communication is a must for the smooth operation of the company. It is feasible for CQ to facilitate employee voice and further job satisfaction because employees high in CQ are confident in this work environment.
The aim of this entry is to deepen the understanding of the relationships between CQ and hospitality work outcomes, specifically employee voice and satisfaction. Moreover, this study explores not only direct but also indirect effects through self-efficacy—the mechanism triggering the links between CQ and the outcomes—using a sample of restaurant workers in the United States. In summary, the purposes of this study are threefold: (1) to examine the role of CQ in two outcomes, voice and job satisfaction (CQ → voice; CQ → satisfaction); (2) to explore self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism between CQ and employee voice (CQ → self-efficacy → voice); and (3) to explore the effect of CQ on job satisfaction through a sequential mediation of self-efficacy and voice (CQ → self-efficacy → voice → job satisfaction). The proposed research model is shown in Figure 1. This study contributes to the CQ and voice literature and provides managerial implications for hospitality practitioners to encourage their employees to speak up in an ever-changing global environment.
Figure 1. Proposed research model. Notes: MetaCQ, meta-cognitive CQ; CogCQ, cognitive CQ; MotiCQ, motivational CQ; BehCQ, behavioral CQ.
2. Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in Hospitality Industry
To achieve the research objectives, a quantitative approach was adopted. Data was collected through surveys administered to employees working for restaurants in three cities (Los Angeles, Honolulu, and Seattle) in the western United States. The survey included extant measures from prior research to assess employees' CQ, voice, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Demographic information and job characteristics of respondents were also collected in the survey.
The hypotheses were tested with partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Unlike covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) that aims to minimize the difference between the estimated theoretical covariance matrix and the observed sample, PLS-SEM focuses on maximizing explained variance in dependent variables, thereby increasing the predictability of the model [6]. In addition, PLS-SEM is desired for this study because: (1) the sample size is relatively small and (2) the data show a non-normal distribution, which is typical of most social science studies [6].
CQ appears to be a salient predictor of hospitality employees’ voice and job satisfaction. Mediation tests confirmed that CQ has a significant, positive indirect effect on job satisfaction via voice and a significant, positive indirect effect on voice via self-efficacy. The sequential mediation effect of CQ on job satisfaction through self-efficacy and then voice was also significant. In summary, CQ improves self-efficacy, which leads to a greater chance to voice and ultimately increases job satisfaction.
Based on demands-abilities fit, this study demonstrates that domestic contact employees’ CQ helps to express work-related opinions and makes employees feel happier about their jobs in a diverse work environment. This desirable function of CQ works directly, as well as indirectly, through improved employees’ self-efficacy. The results of this study contribute to the voice literature. The findings of this study add to the body of person-environment fit theory by conceptualizing CQ as a critical ability that contacts employees should possess to be successful voicers in domestic work environments such as hospitality. This relationship occurs through increased self-efficacy.
This study has several practical implications for hospitality operators. The practitioners should strive to increase the organizational level of CQ because hospitality employees often encounter customers from other cultures and countries and work with multicultural or diverse co-workers. The organization may acquire CQ by recruiting employees with high levels of CQ. It will be wise for hospitality practitioners to provide regular cultural training to their contact employees to enhance their CQ. Some alternative options are available to improve employees’ cultural awareness and knowledge at minimal cost. For example, the organization can celebrate the major holidays of other countries (e.g., Lunar New Year, common to many Asian countries) through socials, or invite employees to collaborate with colleagues from other cultures on short-term group assignments or projects.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Given that this study was conducted in casual or fine dining restaurants, it is recommended to validate the findings in other hospitality or service sectors. It will also be interesting to conduct comparative studies to reveal which intelligence plays a more substantial role in voice behavior (e.g., IQ vs. EQ vs. CQ) in a variety of hospitality or service sectors. IQ may serve as basic intelligence for all types of work performance, including voice behavior, whereas CQ or EQ may be required for career success in certain job environments such as hospitality. In addition, it is plausible to examine interactions between different kinds of intelligence. Cote et al. argue that EQ compensates for IQ [7]. They reveal that employees with low IQ are able to perform their tasks if they are emotionally intelligent. The scholars predict similar results among employees with high CQ, especially in a multicultural work environment. CQ and IQ become compensatory; in other words, CQ becomes a stronger determinant of job performance as IQ decreases.
Employee voice can be promotive or prohibitive [8]. Promotive voice offers suggestions to improve work practices; prohibitive voice is intended to prevent harmful events from occurring. Researchers may want to examine the relationships between CQ and these two types of voice. It is predicted that a CQ that is more receptive to a new culture encourages promotive voice rather than prohibitive, possibly stimulating innovative thoughts, which is critical in an increasingly volatile economic climate we experience.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15118851
References
- George, R. Characteristics of Tourism and Hospitality Marketing. In Marketing Tourism and Hospitality; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,Germany, 2021; pp. 33–61.
- Morrison, E.W. Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 373–412.
- Ang, S.; Van Dyne, L.; Koh, C.; Ng, K.Y.; Templer, K.J.; Tay, C.; Chandrasekar, N.A. Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2007, 3, 335–371.
- Earley, P.C.; Ang, S. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2003.
- Muchinsky, P.M.; Monahan, C.J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 1987, 31, 268–277
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123.
- Côté, S.; Miners, C.T.; Moon, S. Emotional intelligence and wise emotion regulation in the workplace. In Individual and Organizational Perspectives on Emotion Management and Display; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2006.
- Liang, J.; Farh, C.I.C.; Farh, J.-L. Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 71–92.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
