Individual's cultural intelligence : investigating the interaction effects of individualism-collectivism dimension and cultural intelligence in influencing individual''s perception of team effectiveness : a study of mul

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

Amsterdam Business School

Bachelor Economics and Business Specialization: Business Administration

Individual’s Cultural Intelligence: Investigating the Interaction

Effects of Individualism-Collectivism Dimension and Cultural

Intelligence in influencing Individual’s Perception of Team

Effectiveness

A Study of Multicultural Students’ Experience in Teams at the University of Amsterdam

BSc Thesis by

Muhammad Vandi Averroes 11008148

Supervisor: Pauline Vromans Amsterdam,27th June 2017

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Muhammad Vandi Averroes who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

T

ABLE OF

T

ABLES

TABLE 1–STUDENTS' NATIONALITIES ... 22

TABLE 2–MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CORRELATIONS COEFFICIENTS ON THE STUDY VARIABLES 1 ... 31

TABLE 3–MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CORRELATIONS COEFFICIENTS ON THE STUDY VARIABLES 2 ... 32

TABLE 4–REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE CONTROL, MAIN, AND INTERACTION EFFECTS 1 ... 35

TABLE 5–REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE CONTROL, MAIN, AND INTERACTION EFFECTS 2 ... 36

(5)

Abstract

Some students have been struggling to perform well in a multicultural environment when they are assigned to work in a group. To explain how students can perform more effectively in a culturally diverse group, I draw on cultural intelligence theory and the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension. Particularly, this quantitative research focuses on understanding the relationship between individual’s cultural intelligence and the perception of multicultural team effectiveness by examining the interacting role of the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension and cultural intelligence. I hypothesize that the higher a student’s cultural intelligence, the higher the perception of team effectiveness. I also hypothesize that having collectivistic traits (collectivism cultural dimension) makes the relationship effect between individualism-collectivism dimension and the perception of team effectiveness stronger positively. Lastly, I hypothesize that there will be an interaction effect between cultural intelligence and collectivism dimension that influence the perception of team effectiveness. This study examines this relationship through self-reported survey data among 103 students in different majors from the faculty of economics and business at the University of Amsterdam. The first two hypotheses were supported as predicted, while the third hypothesis was rejected. The results suggest that individual’s cultural intelligence and a collectivistic trait individually contribute to a higher perception of multicultural team effectiveness. However, a highly culturally intelligent student who has a collective trait does not necessarily contribute to a higher perception of team effectiveness than a highly culturally intelligent student who has an individualistic trait. Additional elaboration is explored, and the implications of the findings are discussed with practical suggestions for higher education institutions.

(6)

Introduction

Henry Ford once said “coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success” (as cited in Forbes, 2013, p.1). This inspiring quote about the importance of engaging in a team is a reminder of the transformation of our way of life resulting from globalization, that is, adapting to working with people from various cultural backgrounds (Salo-Lee, 2006). Not only workers in organizations are increasingly multicultural, but also the student population in higher education institutions has become more diverse. However, an increase in diversity has positive as well as negative outcomes on students’ performance, particularly when it comes to group work assignments. On the one hand, working in a multicultural team may improve students’ multicultural relations (McCain, 1996) and interpersonal, social and team skills (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). On the other hand, conflicts may arise from multicultural teams that involve ineffective communication and disagreement between members in the approach to completing tasks, which negatively impact on the students’ ability to succeed (Forman & Katsky, 1986). Team members that do not contribute equally to the team, in the form of free-riding and social loafing, can also affect the cohesiveness of the team (Ashraf, 2004).

Moreover, it is profoundly important for the students to manage the team processes because of the desire to pass courses and achieve high grades, which calls for effective collaboration among the students in the team. This raises a question as to how higher education institutions, such as universities, can facilitate the adaptation of students to multicultural work teams to prepare them for the business world. After all, future employers look for the candidates who can work effectively with others to find solutions to problems by active and cooperative learning (Hernandez, 2002). Therefore, students must acknowledge the underlying needs they must possess to perform effectively in multicultural teams.

(7)

Teamwork and cooperation are generally critical skills in the working environment (Tarricone & Luca, 2002), but simply creating teams of students will not result in higher achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). A study by Salo-Lee (2006) explains the most valuable element that heterogeneous teams need is intercultural competence, which is defined as having knowledge, skills, and consciousness about other cultures. Similarly, cultural intelligence (CQ) is crucial in managing highly culturally diverse teams (Van Dyne, Ang & Koh, 2008). Cultural intelligence (CQ) provides a framework of the capability of an individual to perform in different cultural contexts (Earley & Ang, 2003). Research has shown contradictory findings on the relationship between team cultural diversity and team performance (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). A group of researchers found a significant positive correlation between cultural diversity and team performance (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), while others found a negative correlation (Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). Furthermore, previous studies have addressed the effects of leader cultural intelligence in influencing team effectiveness (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). Livermore (2010) found that leader’s cultural intelligence capabilities contribute to the effectiveness of the leadership and the performance of culturally diverse teams. In a similar study, Groves and Feyerherm (2011) supported the finding by examining the relationship between leader cultural intelligence and team performance and discovered that leaders with higher cultural intelligence reinforced multicultural team performance. In contrast, the present study argues that every member of the team must have a high cultural intelligence to have a successful team in the higher education institutions settings. It was common in students’ team that there was no formal leader to lead the team as an individual is usually volunteering to become the leader or was chosen by other members based on the belief that he/she was capable of managing others. Also, past studies on cultural intelligence and diverse team performance mostly focus on group work, which is administered in organizational environment settings that aimed at the business world focus

(8)

(Popov, Brinkman, Biemans, Mulder, Kuznetsov, & Noroozi, 2012). This study puts more emphasis on investigating approaches that students can use to enhance skills in operating within a team.

Cultural intelligence has the potential to aid students to alleviate the adverse effect of multicultural teams, such as diverse cultural thinking and a high number of cultural conflicts that inhibit the performance of a team (Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2006) by establishing group cohesiveness (Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). Nevertheless, cultural intelligence alone is insufficient to understand how to create an effectively multicultural student team and to maintain cohesiveness within the group. Difficulties with interacting within a student team could also potentially arise from differences on the individualist and collectivist construct (Triandis, 1995). Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2006) argued the need to have an adaptation in all cultures, and it cannot be concluded that either individualistic or collectivistic is more intelligent than the other. Hence, Hofstede (1980) provides an individualism-collectivism cultural dimension that can be utilized to attain an understanding of the students’ preference of the ideal means of working. A collectivistic nature has frequently been described as establishing more weight on the group work overall, instead of a personal agenda, which implies stronger team unity (Triandis, 1995). Therefore, individual’s individualism-collectivism cultural dimension has a potential to act as a catalyst in obtaining team effectiveness. A culturally intelligent student knows a proper way to communicate and cooperate with other students from other cultures, and if he/she also has a collectivistic trait, he/she will feel connected to other members and have a sense of commitment toward a shared goal, which was one of the element of team effectiveness (Ohl & Cates, 2006).

This study provides evidence to prove what characteristics students must have to collaborate in multicultural teams, as well as giving recommendations for higher education institutions in assessing and developing these characteristics in students. It extends on the

(9)

relationship between cultural intelligence and team effectiveness by concentrating on individual team members and points out that the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension may affect the outcome of that relationship. Thus, the research question is: What is the effect of individualism-collectivism cultural dimension and individual’s cultural intelligence in influencing the perception of team effectiveness in culturally diverse students teams?

To answer the research question, the paper employs a quantitative research method and is organized as follows: first, it explains the existing literature on cultural intelligence, individualism-collectivism cultural dimension, and team effectiveness. Second, the paper reports the methodology to conduct the research, followed by the results of the data which are discussed extensively. In the end, the paper presents the conclusion, limitations, and possibilities for future research.

(10)

Theoretical Framework

Team Effectiveness

A team is defined as individuals, students in particular in this study, who share responsibilities to achieve certain outcomes (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). An individual student must be ready to cooperate with others because the curricula in higher education institutions require students to work in a team to gain more experience in response to the significance attached to group experience by future employers (Hernandez, 2002). Hence, students having knowledge and experience in effectively cooperating in a multicultural team in higher education institutions have an advantage in the future work environment.

In the higher education environment, two variables that represent students’ team effectiveness are task performance and goal achievement (Deeter-Schemelz, Kennedy, & Ramsey, 2002). Task performance is a variable that reflects the external valuations of the output, such as a class project completed by the team (Hackman, 1987). Goal achievement is a variable that reflects the internal valuation of team effectiveness, such as a group’s clear goal (Hackman, 1987). Hackman (1987) proposed a measure that can be applied to identify task performance of the students’ team, which is current team effectiveness and future team effectiveness. Current team effectiveness includes present performance that is based on instructor ratings of productivity, while future team effectiveness includes team competency to keep on working as a group for some time. The measure can be applied to assess how a multicultural team performs in the short run and the long run.

There has been a considerable literature that includes team performance as one of the variables in the study because of the perception that a team can provide a valuable outcome for the organization (Goodman, 1986). Researchers posit that our culture is transforming to be more dependent so that students must learn to work well with other people by knowing the differences in personalities and task approaches (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). It is, therefore,

(11)

crucial to study student team effectiveness to develop a better learning experience for the students (Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, & Ramsey, 2002). A prior study has shown that an individual who has a positive attitude toward a culturally diverse team is more likely to perform more effectively in a multicultural team (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

Furthermore, a multicultural workforce may potentially contribute to a competitive advantage if it can be managed and controlled properly (Ledwith & Seymour, 2001). A study supporting this found that culturally diverse teams surpass the homogeneous teams in the long run, but not in the short run (Watson et al., 1993). Flaherty (2008) adds that the team members’ acceptance and integration in multicultural teams are positively related to cultural intelligence. People with high cultural intelligence can adjust their intercultural interactions so that they automatically behave accordingly, thus minimizing any potential intercultural misunderstanding and enhancing positive connections with others (Thomas & Inkson, 2005). From these findings, one potential way to encourage the effectiveness of multicultural teams is having team members with sufficiently high cultural intelligence.

Individual’s Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

Earley and Ang (2003) define cultural intelligence as one’s capability to perform in a culturally diverse context. Cultural intelligence further relates to the competency in managing multicultural people (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). Cultural intelligence is based on a multidimensional conceptualization which involves adaptation in many situations (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). It is argued that cultural intelligence stands apart from other types of intelligence, that is emotional intelligence (EQ) and cognitive intelligence (IQ) because cultural intelligence addresses the context and synergy characterized by cultural diversity (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2007).

(12)

Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2008) specified cultural intelligence into three loci of individual intelligence—mental (metacognition and cognition), motivational, and behavioral. Firstly, metacognitive cultural intelligence is about cultural consciousness and awareness when interacting with people from various cultural backgrounds (Van Dyne et al., 2008, p.17). This form of cultural intelligence relates to the ability of students to observe situations actively, having critical as well as culturally bound thinking to increase the understanding of different cultural encounters. Cognitive cultural intelligence is about cultural knowledge that includes norms and procedures in diverse cultural settings (Van Dyne et al., 2008, p.17). It enables students to determine cultural similarities and differences of team members to make a decision in cross-cultural situations. Behavioral cultural intelligence is about the capability to demonstrate adapted verbal and non-verbal actions to interact with people from diverse backgrounds (Van Dyne et al., 2008, p.17). It shows the students’ behavioral characteristics during social interactions. Lastly, motivational cultural intelligence is about the capability to draw energy into cultural differences (Van Dyne et al., 2008, p.17). It focuses on the students’ belief to succeed and their intrinsic motivation in doing certain tasks.

Motivational cultural intelligence is viewed to be a critical component of the cultural intelligence because of its link with cognition (Leung, Ang, & Tan, 2014). However, a recent study suggested that the motivational facet as a domain is detached from cultural intelligence because motivation affects behavior differently depending upon interdependent or independent self-concepts within individuals (Thomas, Elron, Stahl, Brislin, Pekerti, Aycan, Ekelund, Ravlin, Cerdin, Poelmans, Au, Lazarova, & Maznevski, 2008). Thomas et al., (2008) further discussed the specification differences between motivation and the motivational facet of cultural intelligence might be problematic as people with high cultural intelligence could have low motivation.

(13)

Cultural intelligence facilitates the performance of a team by creating a sense of optimism, identification, and adequacy within a team, as well as give support to manage the diversity of the workforce (Earley, Ang, & Tan, 2006). Ang et al., (2007) found motivational cultural intelligence has a stronger relationship with psychological outcomes such as cultural adaptation, while metacognitive and behavioral cultural intelligence have a stronger relationship with performance outcomes and significantly predict task performance. Earley and Gardner (2005) found similar findings and discovered that a high level of metacognitive and cognitive cultural intelligence promotes better task performance, while high motivational cultural intelligence is related to supporting other team members to cope with multicultural context problems. A high level of behavioral cultural intelligence is identified with the capability to demonstrate appropriate verbal and nonverbal response in diverse cultural settings (Earley & Ang, 2003).

A team with high cultural intelligence has more tendency to monitor the interaction and communication among team member, which allows them to mutually interact and improve team performance (Earley & Gardner, 2005). Furthermore, a high level of cultural intelligence corresponds with the need for achievement and the need to get along with other team members (Hogan & Shelton, 1998), so that students who are culturally intelligent can be perceived as more effective in doing their tasks, and can establish group harmony. The combination of all four sub-sets of cultural intelligence help students to act accordingly in a multicultural environment and commit to the work. Therefore, it results in hypothesis 1 (H1) below: Hypothesis 1 [H1]: Individual cultural intelligence (CQ) has a positive influence on a student’s perception of team effectiveness.

(14)

Individualism-Collectivism Dimension

Cultural intelligence allows culturally diverse teams to engage in effective operations by equipping them with the capabilities to manage the problem in multicultural situations (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008); however, there has been little studies of the relationship between cultural intelligence and team members’ interaction and communication within the multicultural team. The individualism-collectivism cultural dimension gives the idea how a cultural trait may influence team members’ relationship (Triandis, 1995). In general, while individualists have a self-concept that is egocentric and independent, collectivistic have a self-concept which is more likely to be socio-centric and highly interdependent (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002, p.287). Thus, the difference in individualist/collectivist people’s self-concept can have repercussions on team effectiveness.

The individualism-collectivism dimension is one of the dimensions in Hofstede’s (1980) five cultural dimensions, which includes power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and the newest dimension, which is long-term orientation. Individualism-collectivism is the degree to which a person is integrated into a group (Hofstede, 1980). On the one hand, individualists are people who regard themselves as independent of bigger collectives, and they are expected to look after themselves (Triandis, 1995). For this reason, students who are individualists are publicly seen as lone rangers because they are more likely to work alone (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985). On the other hand, collectivists are people who regard themselves as parts of a bigger collective and believe that they have to protect one another (Triandis, 1995). Students who have collectivistic cultures often work in groups; hence they may be seen as lacking personal initiatives.

Triandis (1994) asserts that in collectivistic cultures, people have more of a tendency to avoid conflict because it affects the cohesiveness of the group and has a negative influence on the relationship between members. Earley (1989) further explains that collectivistic people

(15)

firmly uphold the idea that the importance of individual contributions is to attain the goal of the group. It implies that collectivistic group members are constantly endeavoringfor the group accomplishment and, they will not tolerate bad behavior, such as free-riding and social loafing. Individualistic people, however, have the opposite point of view regarding group work and they have more of a tendency to uphold their own interest above the group interest (Earley, 1989). When the students’ team predominantly consists of students with an individualistic orientation, they will characterize themselves to be autonomous, unique, and driven by values that only benefit themselves (Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002).

Collectivists value the welfare of the group rather than personal welfare and prioritize the interest of the group (Hofstede, 1980). A study by Kim, Park, & Suzuki (1990) found that people in South Korea, which is highly collectivistic, ignore the performance differences of the individual, and focus on team performance instead. Based on this, collectivists put more faith in cooperating with other team members instead of competing and sticking with the group purpose and avoid any personal agenda. It is supported that collectivists have a strong prominence on social goals, and an inclination to maintain harmony among team members (Hofstede, 1980). Wagner (1995) further supported the earlier findings, from the observation of 492 college students, it was discovered that college students who described themselves as individualist were deemed less cooperative by their colleagues than were the students who described themselves as collectivists. Other research studied Israeli managers, U.S. managers, and Chinese managers and found that managers who perceive themselves as individualists tend to perform better in individualized tasks than on shared tasks, while managers who regard themselves as collectivists can carry out the work better in shared assignments rather than individualized assignments (Earley, 1993). Theoretically, as tasks will be shared when working in a team, a group of people who can operate better in shared assignments will create a more effective team.

(16)

A study has shown that a higher degree of individualism is proven to be associated with a higher level of entrepreneurial behavior (Morris, Davis, & Allen, 1994), and preferences for equitable and personalized rewards (Tower, Kelly, & Richards, 1997). These associations were related to how individualists’ willingness to put in extra efforts to accomplish individual goals (Triandis, 1990). On the contrary, a higher degree of collectivism is associated with prior success working in teams (Eby & Dobbins, 1997) and stronger commitment to work in a team (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). Additionally, other studies also show that member collectivism strengthens the individuals’ performance working in teams (Miles, 2000; Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, 2006). A clear distinction between how collectivists and individualists’ perceive teams leads to hypothesis 2 (H2) below:

Hypothesis 2 [H2]: Individualism-Collectivism dimension influences the perception of team effectiveness. An individual with a collectivistic trait has a higher level of perceived team effectiveness.

Interaction between Individualism-Collectivism Dimension and Cultural Intelligence To work effectively in a culturally diverse team, students must be able to utilize intercultural competence (Malek & Budhwar, 2013), so that they can overcome many challenges that are hampering the team which includes culturally different styles of decision-making and problem-solving, styles of conflict management, styles of complying with teacher’s guidelines and ways of interacting (Popov et al., 2012). Students’ application of cultural intelligence may be able to alleviate the challenges that are related to culture (Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2006), but it is insufficient to resolve cross-cutting challenges, such as free-riding, general group conflicts, and individual’s low level ofmotivation. These cross-cutting challenges are not associated with cultural capabilities of an individual, but they are more likely to be associated with an individual’s personality traits regarding performing in a group.

(17)

Individualism-collectivism cultural dimension defines the attitude of an individualistic and a collectivistic individual towards groups (Triandis, 1995). Moreover, an effective cross-cultural interaction may also be related to another factor other than cultural intelligence such as cultural value orientation, which helps to shape people’s behavior by affecting preferences for particular modes of behavior (Thomas et al., 2008). Hence, examining both cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism cultural dimension is vital to making an effective team.

Van Dyne, Ang, Ng, Rockstuhl, Tan, and Koh (2012) described sub-dimensions from all four subsets of cultural intelligence and emphasized that three sub-dimensions from the metacognitive cultural intelligence had a relationship with the cultural assumptions. The three metacognitive sub-dimensions include planning, awareness, and checking; all of which occurred sequentially with planning at the beginning of the order. Van Dyne et al., (2012) reported that people with a high metacognitive CQ would have been more skeptical about their own cultural assumptions and the cultural assumptions of other cultures. They further explained that an individualistic individual who has a high metacognitive cultural intelligence would know that collectivistic individuals have preferences to discuss the options together before a group decision was made. Similarly, a collectivistic individual who has a high metacognitive cultural intelligence understood that people who have individualistic cultural values would opt for the direct and quick answer for the group decision making; minimalizing or eliminating the caucus altogether (Van Dyne et al., 2012). Based on this view, a culturally high intelligent individual would be able to understand the need of the team better regardless of the person had individualistic or collectivistic cultural values.

Moreover, there was an assumption that if individuals have a more team orientation in mind, their productivity increases compared to the individuals who have a tendency to be an individual orientation (Cummings, 1981). As mentioned by Triandis (1995), individuals who

(18)

are team-oriented can be considered as part of collectivism traits; while individuals who are individual-oriented can be categorized as part of individualism traits. Since team collectivistic orientation was related to high team cooperativeness (Wagner, 1995), an individual with collectivistic cultural values were thought to be more suitable working in a team. The collectivistic way of behaving in a team may be an essential element in the success of working in a team because the performance of a team depends on the performance of all its members, while each member affects one another (Karau & Williams, 1993).

Therefore, it is assumed that multicultural teams that consist of members with collectivistic traits will further strengthen the relationship between individual’s cultural intelligence and perception of team effectiveness, resulting in hypothesis 3 (H3) below:

Hypothesis 3 [H3]: The Individualism-Collectivism cultural dimension interacts with individual’s cultural intelligence in influencing the perception of team effectiveness. Collectivistic individual increases the positive relationship between individual’s cultural intelligence and perceived team effectiveness.

Figure 1 below shows the conceptual model of all three hypotheses. Cultural

intelligence and individualism-collectivism dimension act as independent variables, in which each has the main effect towards influencing the dependent variable that is a perception of team effectiveness. Interaction effect of the two independent variables is assumed to exist in Figure 1 (as shown in H3 in the model). In summary, it is predicted that individual’s cultural intelligence will have a positive relationship with the perception of team effectiveness (H1). Individualism-collectivism is also predicted to influence the perception of team effectiveness, with a collectivism dimension positively affecting it (H2). Lastly, it is predicted that there is a positive interaction effect between collectivism dimension and cultural intelligence in

(19)

Figure 1 - Conceptual Model Individual’s Individualism-Collectivism Dimension Individual’s Cultural Intelligence (CQ) The Perception of Team Effectiveness by An Individual Independent Variable 1 Dependent Variable Independent Variable 2 H1 H2 H3

(20)

Methodology

Design

Quantitative survey research was conducted in a university environment, primarily because the focus of the study was about student teams and individual students’ cultural intelligence (CQ). A quantitative method was chosen because the research focus was examining the relationship between variables, specifically the relationships between cultural intelligence, the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension, and perception of team effectiveness. The method was also useful in confirming the hypotheses presented by the researcher. A deductive approach was employed to test the existing theories of the study variables.

All bachelor students in the faculty of economics and business at the University of Amsterdam, Dutch students as well as international students, were targeted as subjects of this study. The faculty of economics and business at the University of Amsterdam has both English track and Dutch track programs. At the time of the study, there was a total of 3,191 bachelor students in the faculty of economics and business, 46% of which were male and 53% were female (UvA, 2016). The amount includes 2,643 Dutch students, 632 students from EEA countries, and 530 students from other countries (UvA, 2016)

The research made use of convenience sampling technique because the economics and business students’ population at the University of Amsterdam was too large, and it was nearly impossible to get access to the entire population of the bachelor students. By using convenience sampling, the subjects of the research were chosen because of the proximity and straightforward access to the researcher, producing a fast response (Dörnyei, 2007). The survey was delivered via an online questionnaire Qualtrics to each of the volunteering participants. Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2012) explained that samples that were used for convenience often meet purposive sample selection criteria that were relevant to the research aim.

(21)

Participants

A total of 131 students participated in the survey; however, 3 of the participants did not consider themselves UvA students and were presumably exchange students. Another 13 students did not fill in more than half of the questionnaire and were deleted from the sample. Therefore, the data of this study was collected from 115 students of which 58 (50.43%) were males and 57 (49.57%) females. The students were from diverse majors, namely business administration, economics and finance, as well as finance and organizations, but all were from the faculty of economics and business at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Students’ age varied between 19 and 26 years old with an average age of 22.787 (SD = 1.42157). Students were mostly in their third year of their study, 52 students (50.49%), while 36 were in their second year (34.95%), and 9 in their fourth year (8.74%), and 6 in their first year (N = 6, 5.82%). The students came from 37 nationalities, as mentioned in Table 1.

(22)

Table 1

Students’ Nationalities

Country N Percentage Cumulative percentage

The Netherlands 21 18.26 18.26 Indonesia 15 13.04 31.30 Germany 6 5.22 36.52 China 6 5.22 41.74 South Korea 5 4.35 46.09 Albania 4 3.48 49.57 Italy 4 3.48 53.05 UK 4 3.48 56.53 Argentina 3 2.61 59.14 Greece 3 2.61 61.75 Russia 3 2.61 64.36 Poland 3 2.61 66.97 Thailand 3 2.61 69.58 Australia 2 1.74 71.32 Belgium 2 1.74 73.06 Brazil 2 1.74 74.80 Kazakhstan 2 1.74 76.54 Romania 2 1.74 78.28 United States 2 1.74 80.02 Afghanistan 1 0.87 80.89 Armenia 1 0.87 81.76 Bulgaria 1 0.87 82.63 Canada 1 0.87 83.50 Colombia 1 0.87 84.37 Denmark 1 0.87 85.24 Ecuador 1 0.87 86.11 Finland 1 0.87 86.98 France 1 0.87 87.85 Hong Kong 1 0.87 88.72 Hungary 1 0.87 89.59 India 1 0.87 90.46 Lithuania 1 0.87 91.33 Luxembourg 1 0.87 92.20 Monaco 1 0.87 93.07 Norway 1 0.87 93.94 Portugal 1 0.87 94.81 Singapore 1 0.87 95.68 Spain 1 0.87 96.55 Sweden 1 0.87 97.42 Tunisia 1 0.87 98.29 Ukraine 1 0.87 99.16 Vietnam 1 0.87 100 Total 115

(23)

Procedure

A pilot study was conducted and delivered to 5 students from the faculty of economics and business of the University of Amsterdam to test the final version of the survey before posting the survey to the entire sample. It was done to evaluate the content of the survey and to receive feedback and suggestions regarding any potential issues that could arise during the actual survey period. The pilot study contained evaluative questions about the length of the survey, wording difficulties, and typographical error about the entire questionnaires. After the pilot study, typographical errors were corrected, and all the scales were standardized to a Likert scale of 1 to 7. The result from the pilot study also revealed that one of the respondents did the survey within 3 minutes of time, from which I implied that he/she did not even read all the questions in the survey as the other four pilot survey respondents answered in approximately 8 to 10 minutes. A discrepancy in the time of survey completion gave an impression that there was a possibility that some of the respondents would not fill the survey sincerely that might have an adverse effect on the final analysis which I had to put into consideration.

The link containing a survey questionnaire was sent to 150 students in the faculty of economics and business at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) ranging from the first year to the fourth-year students. Students’ email addresses were obtained from the UvA online learning platform Blackboard; all of which were the students’ university e-mail address, not their personal e-mail address. In addition, the survey questionnaire was sent to the lecturer of the bachelor thesis seminar business administration class to post it on the class online page on Blackboard, so that other students who were taking a course could complete the survey. I also personally asked all students in one of my courses to fill in the questionnaire. The survey was intended for students in the faculty of economics and business of the University of Amsterdam only to keep the representativeness of the population. The questionnaire immediately ended for students who were not UvA students or from other faculties in UvA. All of the volunteering

(24)

participants were assured their response would be kept confidential and anonymous. Participants were told that the result of the research would be made available for those who were interested. The collection of data was acquired in a 16-day period.

Measurement Instruments

All of the variables were measured at an individual level and, they were self-reported by the student. The cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism cultural dimension were based on how students feel about themselves, while perceived team effectiveness was based on the student’s experience working in a multicultural team in the past. The following measurement instruments were used:

Cultural Intelligence (20 items; ! = .835). Cultural intelligence (CQ) was assessed by means of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) designed to measure four sub-sets of cultural intelligence; metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, and Ng, 2004). Ang et al., (2004) define cultural intelligence as the capability of an individual to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings. The CQS assessed four items for metacognitive CQ (e.g., “I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural background”; ! = .715), six items for cognitive CQ (e.g., “I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviors in other cultures”, ! = .670), five items for motivational CQ (e.g., “I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me”, ! = .634), and five items for behavioral CQ (e.g., “I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it”, ! = .732). All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). A higher score indicated a higher cultural intelligence of an individual.

Individualism-collectivism cultural dimension (16 items; ! = .730). The individualism-collectivism cultural dimension was assessed by means of the Culture Orientation Scale

(25)

designed to measure four dimensions of collectivism and individualism; vertical collectivism (VC), vertical individualism (VI), horizontal collectivism (HC), and horizontal individualism (HI) (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Triandis and Gelfand (1998) defined individualism as independency from the in-groups, and collectivism as interdependency within the in-groups (Triandis, 1995). For the current study purposes, I combine horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism into a single collectivism dimension, while horizontal individualism and vertical individualism were incorporated into a single individualism dimension. The culture orientation scale assessed eight items for collectivism dimension (e.g., “The well-being of my team members is important to me.”, ! = .734), and eight items for individualism dimension (e.g., “I enjoy being unique and different from other around me,” ! = .659). The individualism dimension was reserve coded so that all questions measured the level of a collective trait of an individual. Items were assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). A higher score indicated an individual has more tendency to have a collectivistic nature, while a lower score indicated that an individual is more individualistic.

Perceived team effectiveness (7 items; ! = .739). Team effectiveness was assessed by means of the team excellence questionnaire designed to measure the performance of the team (Lafasto and Larson, 1987). Lafasto and Larson (1987) define team effectiveness as a team culture with characteristics such as a result-driven structure, a clear elevating goal, competent team members, unified commitment, standards of excellence, collaborative climate, and external support and recognition. Team effectiveness questionnaire consisted of only seven questions because of the removal of team leader questions from the original questionnaire as this study concentrates on individual members of the team only. An example item is “There is a clearly defined need – a goal to be achieved or a purpose to be served – that justifies the existence of our team.” (+). All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). A higher score indicated a higher team

(26)

effectiveness perceived by an individual. To assess the individual’s perception of team effectiveness, respondents were told that they had to think of a time they worked in a multicultural team in the University.

Control variables. I controlled for gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (in years), and years of study in the University to eliminate their potential effects on cultural intelligence and collectivism dimension.

Analyses

Firstly, the data was checked for all the assumptions of multiple regression such as the amount of the sample size, multicollinearity, outliers, normality, and homoscedasticity.

Assumptions. The number of sample size has met the requirement of an appropriate sample size by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001, p.117). They proposed that a good amount of a sample size took into account the number of independent variables in the analysis, by calculating with the formula: N > 50 + 8m. The current study had two independent variables, which meant the study needed to a sample of at least 76 participants. Furthermore, all primary variables such as cultural intelligence, individualism-collectivism cultural dimension, and perception of team effectiveness were checked for any outliers. Two outliers were found in the perception of team effectiveness variable and were deleted from the data. Overall, the data met all the assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity.

Correlation among Variables. All of the study variables, control variables (gender, age, and year of study), the independent variable one (cultural intelligence and its subsets), independent variable two (individualism-collectivism dimension), and the dependent variable (perception of team effectiveness) were entered into the correlation analysis. In order to counteract the possibility of multicollinearity among the independent variables, mean-centered of independent variables were created. Centered-variables were created by subtracting the

(27)

mean of each independent variable and multiple the residual to make a centered product term. Then, the analysis to find the correlation among variables repeated using centered independent variables and interaction of the centered overall cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism cultural dimension.

Conducting hierarchical multiple regression. Hierarchical multiple regression was performed by entering the study variables in 3 steps or blocks in a predetermined order. In the first block, age, gender, and year of study were put into the analysis to statistically control the effect of these variables. In the second block, the independent variables of cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism were entered into the analysis. It examined whether the two variables independently predict the dependent variable, which was the perception of team effectiveness. In the third block, the interaction variable of cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism was entered into the equation. It examined whether the combination of the independent variables and the interaction variable had an influence on the perception of team effectiveness.

(28)

Results

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Table 2 and Table 3 presented the means, standard deviations, and correlations coefficients between the main variables. The relationship between all variables was explored using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. First of all, each of the variables was checked to ensure there was no violation of the assumptions such as normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. The difference between Table 2 and Table 3 was that in Table 2, the cultural intelligence included all four of its dimensions, while in Table 3, the cultural intelligence did not include motivational dimension. The reason to test the cultural intelligence without motivational dimension was the motivational dimension had a low Cronbach’s alpha, and it was found from the analysis that internal consistency of the cultural intelligence would increase if the motivational dimension were excluded from the analysis.

As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, there was a weak, negative correlation between control variables gender and age [r=-.205, n=115, p<.05], with the females in the sample being younger of age. There was a moderate, positive correlation between control variables gender and year of study [r=.343, n=115, p<.01], with the females associated with the higher year of study. Nevertheless, there was no correlation between gender and cultural intelligence [r=.93, n=115, ns]; while in Table 3, there was also no correlation between gender and cultural intelligence without motivation (CQ2) [r=.101, n=115, ns]. Gender and all subsets of cultural intelligence [r=-.059 to r=177, n=115, ns]; gender and the collectivism dimension [r=-.096, n=115, ns]; and gender and perception of team effectiveness [r=-.26, n=115, ns] were not correlated. There was no correlation between gender and cultural intelligence without motivation (CQ2) [r=.101, n=115, ns].

As shown in Table 2, there was no correlation between age and cultural intelligence [r=-.065 n=115, ns]; age and all subsets of cultural intelligence [r=-.146 to r=.068, n=115, ns];

(29)

age and the collectivism dimension [r=.32, n=115, ns]; and age and perception of team effectiveness [r=.152, n=115, ns]. There was no correlation between year of study and cultural intelligence [r=.021, n=115, ns]; year of study and all subsets of cultural intelligence [r=-108 to r=.84, n=115, ns]; year of study and team effectiveness [r=-.003, n=115, ns]. However, there was a weak, negative correlation between year of study and the collectivism dimension [r=-.231, n=115, p<.05], with a higher year of a study associated with a lower collectivism dimension. There was no correlation between year of study and cultural intelligence without motivation (CQ2) [r=-.004, n=115, ns].

As expected, the cultural intelligence and its subscales were strongly correlated [r=.450 to r=.832, n=115, p<.01]. The cultural intelligence subscales were correlated with one another [r=.204 to r=.666, n=115, p<.05], except motivational CQ and behavioral CQ showed no correlation [r=.060, n=115, ns]. The overall cultural intelligence (CQ) showed no correlation with the collectivism dimension [r=-.52, n=115, ns]. However, overall cultural intelligence exhibited a weak, positive correlation with team effectiveness [r=.253, n=115, p<.05], with a higher cultural intelligence associated with a higher team effectiveness. Lastly, the collectivism dimension showed a moderate, positive relationship with team effectiveness [r=.317, n=115, p<.01], with higher collectivism dimension associated with higher team effectiveness.

In Table 3, The overall cultural intelligence without motivational (CQ2) exhibited no correlation with the collectivism dimension [r=-.065, n=115, ns]. However, CQ2 exhibited a weak, positive correlation with the perception of team effectiveness [r=.212, n=115, p<.05], with a higher cultural intelligence associated with a higher team effectiveness.

In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the cultural intelligence with all four dimensions was .835. The result was consistent with the previous study by Ang et al., (2004), which they reported a good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .88. However, a motivational dimension in the current study had a Cronbach’s alpha of .634

(30)

for the five items in the variable, which was inconsistent with the Ang et al., (2004) study, in which they had a Cronbach’s alpha of .76 for the five items in the variable.

(31)

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Coefficients of Study Variables (Cronbach's Alpha on Diagonal)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 1. Gender .4918 .50199 2. Age 22.787 1.42157 -.205* 3. Year of study 2.64 .717 .061 .343** 4. Cultural intelligence (CQ) 4.8892 .57298 .93 -.065 .021 (.835) 5. Metacognitive CQ 5.0978 .79105 .177 -.146 .034 .808** (.715) 6. Cognitive CQ 4.5870 .72866 -.059 .027 .076 .832** .545** (.670) 7. Motivational CQ 5.5239 .65859 .004 .068 .084 .450** .204* .212* (.634) 8. Behavioral CQ 4.4496 .91329 .165 -.141 -.108 .829** .666** .603** .060 (.732) 9. Collectivism dimension 4.1648 .45972 -.096 .021 -.231* -.52 .025 -.065 .027 -.104 (.730)

10. Perception of team effectiveness 5.6056 .60346 -.026 .152 -.003 .253** .207* .185* .208* .162 .317** (.739)

(32)

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Coefficients of Study Variables (Cronbach's Alphas on Diagonal)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Gender .4918 .50199 2. Age 22.787 1.42157 -.205* 3. Year of study 2.64 .717 .061 .343** 4. Cultural intelligence (CQ2) 4.6777 .69446 .101 -.094 -.004 (.852) 5. Metacognitive CQ 5.0978 .79105 .177 -.146 .034 .825** (.715) 6. Cognitive CQ 4.5870 .72866 -.059 .027 .076 .849** .545** (.670) 7. Behavioral CQ 4.4496 .91329 .165 -.141 -.108 .895** .666** .603** (.732) 8. Collectivism dimension 4.1648 .45972 -.096 .021 -.231* -.065 .025 -.065 -.104 (.730)

9. Perception of team effectiveness 5.6056 .60346 -.026 .152 -.003 .212* .207* .185* .162 .317** (.739)

(33)

Regression Results

Table 4, 5, and 6 show three different regression analysis. In all three tables, Model 1 was the control variables (i.e., age, gender, and year of study); Model 2 was added with independent variables (i.e., cultural intelligence and collectivism dimension); Model 3 was added with interaction variable on the top of variables entered in the first and second model.

Firstly, a positive effect of individual’s cultural intelligence on perceived team effectiveness was predicted. Model 3 in Table 4 shows that individual’s cultural intelligence significantly affects perceived team effectiveness in a positive way (β = .277, t(115) = 3.200, p < .05) when controlling for gender, age, and year of study; thus, the data support the first hypothesis. The data pointed out that for every increase in cultural intelligence, the perception of team effectiveness would also be increased by .277. This indicates that a student with high cultural intelligence has a higher perception of team effectiveness than a student with a lower cultural intelligence.

The second hypothesis predicted a positive effect of the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension on perceived team effectiveness. Model 3 in Table 4 also shows that collectivisms significantly affects perceived team effectiveness positively (β = .303, t(115) = 3.323, p < .05) when controlling for gender, age, and year of study; thus, the data support the second hypothesis. An individual with a collectivistic trait promotes a higher level of perceived team effectiveness. The data pointed out that for every increase in collectivism dimension, the perception of team effectiveness would also be increased by .303. This indicates that a student with a collectivistic trait has a higher perceived team effectiveness than a student with an individualistic trait. Cultural intelligence and collectivism dimension explained the additional 17.3 percent of the variance when controlled for the effect of gender, age, and year of study (R2 = 20 percent, F(5,107) = 5.361, p < .01).

(34)

Lastly, it was predicted that an individual’s cultural intelligence and collectivism dimension would have a positive interaction effect on perceived team effectiveness. Unexpectedly, Model 3 in Table 2 shows an insignificant interaction effect, contradicting the hypothesized moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between individual cultural intelligence and perceived team effectiveness (β = .131, t(115) = 1.471, ns). Thus, the data did not support the third hypothesis. Interaction variable did not explain the additional 1.6 percent of the variance when controlled for the effect of the control variable and independent variables as it was insignificant (R2 = 21.6 percent, F(6,106) = 4.877, ns).

Table 5 shows the cultural intelligence without motivational dimension. Thomas (2006) mentioned that cultural intelligence would have been more applicable if the motivational dimension was not a part of cultural intelligence, as a highly culturally intelligent individual do not necessarily have a high motivation (e.g., in terms of motivation towards behaving to other people from other culture). The current study also shows that the motivational dimension Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was relatively low compared to the other dimensions. The result of the Model 2 in Table 5 shows that cultural intelligence without motivational dimension (CQ2) and collectivism dimension explained the additional 15.7 percent of the variance (R2 = 18.4 percent, F(5,107) = 4.812, p < .01), which is less than if motivational dimension included. Furthermore, Model 3 in Table 6 regresses four dimensions of cultural intelligence separately to determine whether any of the dimension statistically affect the team effectiveness. It is done to check if any of the dimension has more effect than the other. Unfortunately, none of the dimensions make a unique contribution to the model as they are statistically insignificant.

(35)

Table 4

Regression results of the control (Model 1), main (Model 2), and interaction effects (Model 3) of Cultural Intelligence and Collectivism dimension on Perception of Team Effectiveness

Self-reported perception of team effectiveness

Model 3

Variable Model 1 β Model 2 β β 95% CI

Constant 4.064** 3.994** 3.968** [2.249, 5.649] Gender 0.015 0.013 0.015 [-0.194, 0.231] Age 0.177 0.162 0.166 [-0.008, 0.152] Year of study -0.065 0.017 0.029 [-0.140, 0.180] Cultural Intelligence (CQ) 0.280** 0.277** [0.160, 0.635] Collectivism dimension 0.332** 0.303** [0.111, 0.473] Cultural intelligence x 0.131 [-0.143, 0.965] collectivism dimension R² .027 .200 .216 F 1.002 5.361** 4.877** ∆R² .173 .016 ∆F 11.607 2.164

(36)

Table 5

Regression results of the control (Model 1), main (Model 2), and interaction effects (Model 3) of Cultural Intelligence and Collectivism dimension on Perception of Team Effectiveness

Model 3

Constant 4.064** 3.994** 3.968** [2.246, 5.691] Gender 0.015 0.014 0.014 [-0.198, 0.233] Age 0.177 0.165 0.166 [-0.011, 0.151] Year of study -0.065 0.017 0.029 [-0.138, 0.187] Cultural Intelligence (CQ2) 0.248** 0.250** [0.066, 0.369] Collectivism dimension 0.335** 0.310** [0.165, 0.648] Cultural intelligence x 0.108 [-0.193, 0.775] collectivism dimension R² .027 .184 .206 F 1.002 4.812** 3.899** ∆R² .157 .023 ∆F 10.270 1.504

(37)

Table 6

Regression results of the control (Model 1), main (Model 2), and interaction (Model 3) of Cultural Intelligence Subsets and Collectivism Dimension on Perception of Team Effectiveness

Model 3

Constant 4.064** 2.424** 2.336** [0.308, 4.364] Gender 0.015 0.005 -.001 [-0.224, 0.222] Age 0.177 0.160 0.170 [-0.010, 0.154] Year of study -0.065 0.012 0.031 [-0.142, 0.194] Metacognitive CQ 0.077 0.084 [-0.128, 0.256] Cognitive CQ 0.050 0.013 [-0.189, 0.210] Motivational CQ 0.153 0.149 [-0.029, 0.301] Behavioral CQ 0.128 0.159 [-0.073, 0.284] Collectivism dimension 0.327** 0.298** [0.146, 0.636] Cultural intelligence x 0.142 [-0.130, 1.019] collectivism dimension R² .027 .206 .223 F 1.002 3.364** 3.291** ∆R² .179 .018 ∆F 4.679 2.354

(38)

Discussion

The study examined the interacting role of individual cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism in predicting perceived team effectiveness. Particularly, I tested whether the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension interacts with individual’s cultural intelligence in influencing perceived team effectiveness in culturally diverse students teams.

Overall, the results were as expected. The hypothesis that stated that the cultural intelligence of a student has a positive effect on his or her perception of a multicultural team effectiveness was accepted. The second hypothesis that stated that a student with more collective traits (collectivism cultural dimension) has a positive effect on his or her perception of a multicultural team effectiveness was also accepted. Unexpectedly, the hypothesis 3 that stated that individualism-collectivism cultural dimension interacts with individual’s cultural intelligence to influence the perception of team effectiveness was rejected.

It was not expected that the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension would strengthen the relationship between individual’s cultural intelligence and his or her perception of team effectiveness. However, it was not surprising knowing that the data showed that cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism cultural dimension were not correlated. This finding was in line with the study by James (2007) about the relationship between cultural values of individualism-collectivism and cultural intelligence of counselor trainees. In his study findings, he found that individualism-collectivism was not part of cultural intelligence, and a person need not have to deliberately adjust their individualism-collectivism values to establish a more culturally intelligent behavior. Therefore, this supported the data that individually, both independent variables were able to predict the independent variables, but the result from the interaction between the two independent variables did not exceed beyond if individual independent variables had predicted it.

(39)

Cultural Intelligence, Collectivism Dimension and Perception of Team Performance To work effectively in a multicultural team requires each student member to be able to manage differences in their background and treat different approaches by each member respectfully (Maznevski & DiStefano, 2000). Past research has found that multicultural teams have a tendency to be more innovative, creative, and effective in understanding different needs compared to teams with mono-cultural teams (Francesco & Gold, 1998). Nevertheless, other research has found that a multicultural team can suffer from lack of team cohesion (Wright & Drewery, 2006) and there is a higher chance of team failure (Thomas & Inkson, 2004). Hence, for a multicultural team to achieve their maximum potential, every member needs to have an ability to adapt to cultural differences. Likewise, the result of the current study shows that individual cultural intelligence is positively correlated with the perception of team performance. The result is consistent with the study by Moon (2013), in which he found that cultural intelligence of an individual has a tendency to exhibit a higher team performance over time and CQ also decreases the adverse effect of a multicultural team.

The collectivism dimension also shows a positive relationship with perception of team performance. This is consistent with the result found by Wagner (1995) about university undergraduate teams, whereby he discovered that collectivism is related to team cooperation, which indirectly increases team performance. Triandis (1995) also argued that collectivistic individuals have a more positive view about working in groups than individualistic individuals. Based on Triandis’ (1995) findings, Van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) further found that a positive attitude toward a culturally diverse team results in a better performance in a team. Thus, it implies that collectivistic individuals increase the performance of the team.

However, the collectivism dimension did not interact with cultural intelligence in influencing the perception of team effectiveness. There are several possible explanations for

(40)

this. First, culturally intelligent students understand that there will be cultural differences among students in a multicultural team, and they will apply this knowledge to create a more effective interaction with other culturally diverse students (Earley & Ang, 2003). Students with high cultural intelligence are able to minimize distinctions among members as distinctions may hinder information sharing, teamwork, and cooperation (Earley & Ang, 2003). Moreover, a culturally high intelligent student will also be able to get along with students from other cultures better than a student with low cultural intelligence. This, in turn, will lead to a reduction in social loafing in the groups. As Flaherty (2008) found, teams who have the opportunity to socialize will form a friendship which results in stronger team cohesion. Team cohesion is found to be related to the performance of a team by the elimination of social loafing in the team (Karau & Williams, 1997). Furthermore, if students work in a cohesive team, there will be less concern about individualistic gains and students will work hard because they value the group and its members (Karau & Williams, 1997). Therefore, a culturally high intelligent student creates a group environment with a higher socialization process among members which increases the motivation of other members (as well as team cohesion) that lead to the higher performance of a team.

Second, it is possible that significant interaction effect of collectivism dimension did not emerge in this data sample because, in the case of higher education settings, cultural intelligence alone is ample to have a good team performance. As mentioned earlier, a culturally high intelligent student is able to make a good interaction with other team members from other cultures (e.g., interaction in the process of working). Since most of the university work is accomplished by groups of students who collaborate on assignments and they will receive the same grade for each assignment they have together, students will assign the work to each member to focus on. As Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993) found that there was a link between preferences of working in teams and workload sharing within the team. Thus,

(41)

university students may actually prefer to work in a group because they can share the work with others. Moreover, the Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau & Williams, 1993) may also play a part in how teamwork at university works. The Collective Effort Model pointed that individuals are willing to give their best potential on a collective task to the extent that they believe the outcomes are influenced by their efforts; which the outcome is valued personally for them. In this case, the outcome is getting a good score or at least a passing grade that is really important for the student to graduate from the university. Therefore, even though the collectivism dimension has a positive effect in influencing the perception of team effectiveness, it is most likely that a high cultural intelligence alone is enough in creating a strong team performance in the case of the university students’ group. This is due to the nature of the students’ team and the effect of cultural intelligence that may affect the team cohesion, which is similar to the collectivism dimension that is also affecting the team cohesion.

Recommendations to Higher Education Institutions

By having an effective multicultural team, students may enhance their ability to solve the problems and may increase their productivity. Higher education institutions can indirectly aid students to increase their performance in a team. Based on the results of the current study, it is found that students’ cultural intelligence can improve the perception of team effectiveness. It indicates that the higher the cultural intelligence, the stronger the perception of team effectiveness. Therefore, higher education institutions should find a way to develop the cultural intelligence of the students. It is expected that higher education institutions should go beyond the cultural integration within the course as cultural intelligence development requires the experience of interacting with culturally different others (Bok, 2006). From the current results, I suggest ways for higher education institutions to develop the cultural intelligence of the students in order to create a more effective multicultural team:

(42)

Internationalization on campus. To increase the cultural intelligence of an individual, the best way to do it is through experiential learning such as a university’s curriculum and co-curricular activities. Deardorff (2013) suggested the term “internationalizing,” which is to bring forward the intercultural and international element to students’ educational experiences. Higher education institutions should ensure there is an integration of intercultural competence in the course work. Students who are taking a language course can increase their cognitive cultural intelligence ability through language and cultural learning. Unfortunately, in the University of Amsterdam in particular, the language course that is part of the university curriculum is limited to only students from the faculty of humanities, while other students from other faculties are not eligible to participate in the language course. Although the University provides language courses outside the curriculum, students have to pay to take part in the course which shuns away the enthusiastic students that do not have extra money to pay the course tuition. Moreover, exchange program provided by higher education institutions often includes intercultural learning as students have more exposure through meeting with different students from many nationalities (Vande Berg & Paige, 2009). Because of the importance of the exchange program to the development of the students, higher education institutions should reassess their partnership with other higher education institutions, such as more partnership and increase in quota of the students, to provide students more opportunity to improve their cultural intelligence.

Bok (2006, p. 248) mentions the way a student learns from other student is not by taking classes, but by having discussions, mealtime conversations, and group activities on campus. Higher education institutions, especially in the University of Amsterdam, have provided a wide range of student associations that students can choose from such as sports, cultural, religious, and creative arts (UvA, 2017). It may be deemed necessary for the higher education institutions to promote more of students’ association activities to the students on top of achieving high

(43)

academic performance. Therefore, when higher education institutions have provided the medium for the development, it is up to the students to use this opportunity to increase their cultural intelligence. The major takeaway students can get as a member of a student association is its contribution to the education and cultural development from the frequent interactions with other members.

Limitations

Several limitations exist in this research. First, the data about the perception of team effectiveness were self-reported by the student and may suffer from a response bias. Future research can overcome this limitation by focusing more on at least two students who worked together on a team in the past to determine their perception of team effectiveness. The addition of colleague-reported data would increase the validity of whether individual cultural intelligence and individualism-collectivism cultural dimension affect the perception of team effectiveness. Second, the research was about gaining knowledge of the perception of team effectiveness instead of the actual team effectiveness. Their perception and the reality may differ. In reality, other factors may also affect the team effectiveness, such as situational factors, individual factors, and the difference in how people in a team handle a conflict. Future research can overcome this problem by administering the research in on-going groups of multicultural students and observing their performance over time to see whether responses of participants are different at a distinct point in time.

Third, there could be a sampling bias in the result of this research. Based on Hofstede (1983) study on cultural relativity of organizational practice, the number of collectivist countries in the sample was 29, with countries such as Indonesia, China, South Korea, Argentina, Russia, and Poland being collectivistic. Even though the result came from students from 38 different nationalities, the number of the students from each nationality was not equal.

Individual's cultural intelligence : investigating the interaction effects of individualism-collectivism dimension and cultural intelligence in influencing individual''s perception of team effectiveness : a study of mul

Individual’s Cultural Intelligence: Investigating the Interaction

Effects of Individualism-Collectivism Dimension and Cultural

Intelligence in influencing Individual’s Perception of Team

Effectiveness

Statement of Originality

Table of Contents

T

T