International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The

mediating role of cultural intelligence
Hubert Korzilius a,,1 , Joost J.L.E. Bcker a,1 , Sophie Beerlage b
a
Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, the Netherlands
b
Deloitte Nederland, Gustav Mahlerlaan 2970, 1081 LA Amsterdam, the Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Innovative work behavior is a key organizational competence. Informed by a framework
Received 7 September 2016 for describing the role of cultural competences as an antecedent for international business
Received in revised form performance this study seeks to explicate the connection between individual multicultur-
21 November 2016
alism and innovative work behaviors, with cultural intelligence as a mediating variable.
Accepted 21 November 2016
The empirical tests, using a culturally diverse sample of 157 employees of a large, inter-
national, Dutch-based stafng agency, reveal that cultural intelligence fully mediates the
Keyword:
effect of multiculturalism on innovative work behaviors. The mediation appears robust to
Multiculturalism
various individual and departmental characteristics. These outcomes have implications for
Cultural intelligence
Innovative work behavior the selection and development of employees in innovative organizations and for innovation
Mediation model and international business research.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Innovation is an important driver for organizations that seek to compete globally, and in particular, Employee innovative
behavior (e.g., developing, adopting, and implementing new ideas for product and work methods) is an important asset that
enables an organization to succeed in a dynamic business environment (Yuan & Woodman, 2010; p. 323). Managerial
capabilities and organizing principles contribute to innovation (Volberda & Van Den Bosch, 2004), and although various
antecedents of individual innovative behavior have been studied, precise evidence about how individual and contextual
antecedents inuence such behavior remains inconclusive (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). For example, innovative work behavior
(IWB) might stem from a diverse workforce, which can create exibility, help detect problems, and stimulate problem-
solving creativity (De Waal, 2012; stergaard, Timmermans, & Kristinsson, 2011). Diversity reects the degree to which
people within a group differ (Jackson, 1992; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), on any attribute, though most research
focuses on differences in gender, age, tenure, educational background, functional background (Van Dijk, Van Engen, & Van
Knippenberg, 2012; Williams & OReilly, 1998), or cultural background, including race, ethnicity, and nationality (Stahl,
Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010).
In addition, cultural backgrounds usually are studied at the group (e.g., team, rm) level. With this study, we instead
consider cultural background from an individual perspective and focus on people acculturated within two or more cultures,
such that they have a bicultural (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005; Furusawa & Brewster, 2015) or multicultural (Nguyen &

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: h.korzilius@fm.ru.nl (H. Korzilius), j.bucker@fm.ru.nl (J.J.L.E. Bcker), sbeerlage@deloitte.nl (S. Beerlage).
1
The rst two authors equally contributed to the manuscript.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.11.001
0147-1767/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
14 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

Benet-Martnez, 2010) identity. Increased global mobility and cross-cultural interactions allow more people to develop such
multicultural identities, and we propose that the cognitive strengths possessed by this emerging demographic change may
constitute a key benet of multiculturalism in contexts that seek greater innovation and creativity. That is, multicultural
experience enhances creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinski, & Chiu, 2008); we study the relationship between multiculturalism
and IWB specically. By clarifying this relationship, we can better illuminate the mechanisms by which positive outcomes
linked to multiculturalism may arise (Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009, p. 106).
People who maintain two or more cultural orientations can engage in cultural frame switching (Hong, 2010; Hong, Morris,
Chiu, & Benet-Martnez, 2000), shifting across different, culturally based, interpretative lenses in response to various cultural
cues (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005). Among the many denitions of multicultural people, we adopt a broad denition
from Nguyen and Benet-Martnez (2010, p. 89); based on Berry, 2003; Hong et al., 2000; Nguyen & Benet-Martnez, 2007;
Padilla, 2006).
Those who are mixed-race and mixed-ethnic, those who have lived in more than one country (such as expatriates,
international students, immigrants, refugees, and sojourners), those reared with at least one other culture in addition to the
dominant mainstream culture (such as children of immigrants or colonized people), and those in inter-cultural relationships
may all be considered multicultural. [. . .] More specically, multiculturalism can be dened as the experience of having been
exposed to and having internalized two or more cultures.
We further posit that cross-cultural competencies are vital in international business, as a means to ensure effective
communication across countries (Ting-Toomey, 2012). Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud (2006) describe a framework of
cross-cultural competencies that includes cultural intelligence (CQ) and its cognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimen-
sions (see also Bcker, Furrer, Poutsma, & Buyens, 2014). Cultural intelligence refers to a persons ability to adapt to other
cultural environments (Brislin, Worthley, & Macnab, 2006; Earley & Ang, 2003). Traditionally, CQ has been measured at an
individual level, such as in expatriate management research that presents it as an antecedent of cultural adjustment and,
arguably, a source of better expatriate performance (Van Driel & Gabrenya, 2013). As an extension of intelligence studies,
CQ is related to but distinct from emotional intelligence (Moon, 2010). Accordingly, we integrate empirical research on IWB,
multiculturalism, and CQ to develop our conceptual model and related hypotheses. Although biculturalism appears as a rel-
evant inuence in psychology literature (Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005), we nd few empirical studies in international
business literature (Furusawa & Brewster, 2015).

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1. Innovative work behavior

Innovation is a necessary component for organizational performance (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005).
Cummings and OConnell (1978, p. 33) consider innovation as a subset of organizational change in which new products,
technologies, or structures are introduced to improve organizational effectiveness. Innovation traditionally has focused
on products; services seemingly could not be innovative (Elche & Gonzlez, 2008), because they were assumed to be non-
productive activities. Today though, they are recognized as an important part of any economic system, and service rms
require qualied, innovative professionals (Elche & Gonzlez, 2008). The special features of services, including their intangi-
bility, short duration, and heterogeneity, also imply that they require a distinct innovation process, relative to that applied by
manufacturing rms. Furthermore, the ability to innovate products and processes continuously is crucial and resides mainly
with an organizations employees (Jimnez-Jimnez & Sanz-Valle, 2008), who constitute organizational learning capability.
That is, individual actions dene the continuous innovation and improvement associated with the term innovative work
behavior (Janssen, 2000; Van de Ven, 1986).
Janssen (2000, p. 288) denes IWB as the intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a
work role, group or organization, in order to benet role performance, the group, or the organization, which includes
rethinking and changing the underlying principles of organizational work. Innovative work behavior thus is a dynamic,
context-bound construct, reecting the sum of physical and cognitive work activities carried out by employees in their work
context, either solitarily or in a social setting, in order to accomplish a set of tasks that are required to achieve the goal of
innovation development (Messmann & Mulder, 2012; p. 45). Scholars have identied various benets of IWB (Bunce & West,
1996; Janssen, 2000; Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004), particularly in that innovative employees may enjoy more job
satisfaction, achieve better performance in the workplace, develop better relationships with other colleagues, experience less
stress, enjoy more personal growth (West & Anderson, 1996), and produce positive conict (Janssen et al., 2004). In addition
to individual benets, innovation can exert valuable inuences on the effectiveness and long-term survival of organizations
(Amabile et al., 2005; Ancona & Caldwell, 1987; Mumford, 2000; Woodman, Sawyer, & Grifn, 1993). In this sense, innovation
represents an overall organizational learning orientation, in which success is dened less by specic innovation projects and
more by a general goal to produce innovative capabilities (Siguaw, Simpson, & Enz, 2006). Organizational innovativeness then
is key to competitive advantages and strategic renewal (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Overall, it appears crucial for organizations to
encourage and stimulate innovation among their employees, by creating a climate that fosters and cultivates such innovation
(Ernst, 2002).
 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324 15

2.2. Multiculturalism

Demographic shifts in the labor force, increasing movement of labor across national borders, and growing attention to
issues involved in managing multinational employees all reinforce calls for diversity management. Employee diversity is both
increasingly appreciated and potentially emerging as a panacea for improved work performance. Integrating ndings from
various literature, Crisp and Turner (2011, p. 242) provocatively assert that the experience of stereotypically challenging
diversity yields benets that extend beyond greater tolerance and more positive intergroup attitudes to enhanced self-
efcacy and buffering of self-esteem, creativity and innovation in problem-solving, and tendencies to question illegitimate
authority and promote social change. On a personal level, bi- or multiculturalism might be associated with feelings of
pride, uniqueness, and a rich sense of community and history, but it also could risk identity confusion, dual expectations,
and value clashes (Haritatos & Benet-Martnez, 2003). Just as a culturally diverse workforce may hamper communication
effectiveness by preventing a shared platform or a common approach (Stahl et al., 2010; p. 693), bi- or multicultural
individuals might struggle to balance their different cultural identities and develop appropriate communication styles. Yet
efforts to manage such diverse cultural identities and their effects on cognitive functioning have received little research
attention (Benet-Martnez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002).
Multicultural people who have been raised, lived, or worked in bicultural or multicultural environments may show more
resourcefulness and originality than monocultural people, because they have internalized more than one set of cultural
schemas and seem to move uidly between them (Saad, Damian, Benet-Martinez, Moons, & Robins, 2012). A cultural schema
is a socially constructed, cognitive system that represents knowledge about the values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral
assumptions of a culture, as well as the relations among these attributes (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Multicultural individuals
also seem to possess greater empathy (Brannen, Garcia, & Thomas, 2009), exibility (Chiu & Hong, 2005), and ability to
integrate ideas in potentially novel or creative ways (Leung et al., 2008). In this context though, it is important to distinguish
between cultural identication and cultural knowledge: A person can have knowledge of another culture without identifying
with it. For example, international students, expatriate workers, and even tourists may be able to acquire knowledge about
different cultures and apply that knowledge to guide their behavior, without ever actively identifying with that culture
(Furusawa & Brewster, 2015).
According to Brannen and Thomas (2010, p. 13), organizations need to create environments in which bicultural people
can thrive, in the form of organizational cultures in which the cultural diversity that exists within individuals is recognized
in the same way we have come to treat the cultural diversity between individuals as a valuable asset. Moreover, people must
be motivated and able to question stereotypical images of diverse categories to resolve possible discrepancies, which should
result in improved cognitive abilities that may enhance a broad range of competencies. Being able to integrate cultural
different identities also has more positive outcomes than other acculturation strategies and is inuenced by the dominant
cultural environment (Berry, 1997).

2.3. Cultural intelligence (CQ)

Behavioral competency, or CQ, makes people more effective in working across cultures; CQ refers to the ability to function
in another culture or a culturally diverse setting and facilitate understanding, adaptation, communication, and coordination
in those settings (Adair, Hideg, & Spence, 2013). We accordingly predict that CQ inuences the relationship between mul-
ticulturalism and innovation. That is, the simple existence of multiculturalism, due to having been raised in more than one
culture, does not guarantee effective innovative behavior. A multicultural person also needs the competencies required to
bridge various internalized cultures.
Furthermore, CQ is a multifaceted construct, including cultural metacognition, cultural knowledge (cognition), motivation
to adapt to cross-cultural settings, and behavioral repertoire (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). Metacognitive CQ refers to the
processes individuals use to generate and comprehend cultural knowledge (Ang et al., 2006) and may stimulate reection
on knowledge (see Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003; Egan, 2005; Thomas et al., 2008). Cognitive CQ reects knowledge of
the norms, practices and conventions in different cultures acquired from education and personal experiences (Ang et al.,
2007; p. 338)). Motivational CQ is the drive to put effort in adapting and adjusting to various cultural settings (Earley &
Ang, 2003) and can be related to an attitude towards creativity (see Zhou, 1998). Behavioral CQ is the capability to exhibit
appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures (Ang et al., 2006; p. 101)).
In a review of cross-cultural competence tests, Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) identify the CQ scale as a promising
measurement instrument for assessing these constructs, with incremental validity beyond demographic variables (gender,
age, language) and personality characteristics. Moreover, CQ possesses nomological and predictive validity, as demonstrated
in multiple empirical studies that include it as a predictor, outcome or moderator variable. Studies using CQ as an outcome
have linked it to risk orientation and the need for control (Engle & Nehrt, 2012), self-efcacy (MacNab & Worthley, 2012),
international experience (Engle & Crowne, 2014), cross-border leadership effectiveness (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne,
& Annen, 2011), and training (Bcker & Korzilius, 2015), for example. Studies that consider CQ as a predictor instead have
linked it to cross-cultural adjustment (Huff, Song, & Gresch, 2014; Imai & Gelfand, 2010) and expatriate performance (Rose,
Ramula, Uli, & Kumar, 2010). Presbitero (2016) shows a moderator role of CQ in (reverse) culture shock in international
students adaptation. These studies shed light on the conditions that stimulate the development of CQ and its (nuancing of
the) effect on performance outcomes. However, this study explicitly treats CQ as part of the explanation mechanism and
16 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

thus as a mediating variable linking multiculturalism and IWB. In their systematic review Ott and Michailova (2016) show
that studies treating CQ as mediator are still scarce.
Elenkov and Manev (2009) assert that expatriates need CQ to be able to integrate knowledge from staff members from
different cultures into their innovative behavior. Using similar reasoning at an intrapersonal level, we posit that people with
a bicultural or multicultural background need cultural competencies, such as CQ, to be able to balance and integrate the
knowledge and ideas from their two or more internalized, different cultures. Leung and Chiu (2010) show that emotion
regulation, part of CQ, helps people to cope with possible anxiety and uncertainty triggered by integrating multiple cultures.
As Tadmor et al. (2009) state, balance and integration are needed when dealing with integrative complexity, to reconcile
the different cultural perspectives into an integrated cultural mindset. We therefore assume that CQ represents abilities to
reconcile different cultural perspectives and present it as a mediator in the relationship between multiculturalism and IWB
(see Fig. 1).

2.4. Hypotheses

Multicultural people likely show more creative thought processes, because Conditions that bring to the fore positive
past experiences related to having multiple social identities might increase identity integration and facilitate creative perfor-
mance (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008, p. 1182). Multiculturals have the capacity to exibly react to important cultural
cues that are relevant for the situation (Leung & Chiu, 2010). These authors nd that multicultural experiences relate to
better creative performance, though Tadmor, Galinsky, and Maddux (2012) caution that not all exposures to multicultural
experiences lead to greater creativity but instead depend on how people approach their experiences (see also Hennessy &
Amabile, 2010). Following Tadmor et al. (2009, p. 106), we expect that multiculturals have more integrative complexity,
reecting the degree to which people accept the reasonableness of clashing cultural perspectives on how to live and, conse-
quently, the degree to which they are motivated to develop cognitive schemas that integrate these competing worldviews.
The ability to identify simultaneously with multiple cultures and the resulting capacity for complex thinking may be key for
translating foreign experiences into tangible benets in terms of bolstering creative ability and professional skill sets that
enhance innovative work behavior (Tadmor et al., 2012). Therefore, we predict
H1:Multiculturalism has a positive inuence on innovative work behavior.
By combining various studies related to multicultural people (e.g., Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005; Tadmor & Tetlock,
2006) with empirical research into CQ, we also reason that people who perceive themselves as multicultural develop CQ more
easily. Simply confronting two or more different cultures likely constitutes an experience that can trigger the development
of CQ. As a result, we formulate
H2: Multiculturalism has a positive inuence on cultural intelligence.
Elenkov and Manev (2009) conclude that expatriates need CQ to be able to integrate knowledge from staff members
across different cultures in the form of innovative behavior. They predict that culturally intelligent behavior by leaders
supports the establishment of innovation goals among followers. Similarly, multicultural people likely need CQ to balance
and integrate knowledge and ideas from two or more different cultures that they have internalized before they can leverage
that information as innovative behavior. Accordingly, we posit
H3: Cultural intelligence has a positive inuence on innovative work behavior.
Although multicultural employees have strong potential for developing creativity, due to their unique skills that are par-
ticularly well-suited to the global workplace, we also acknowledge that organizations may need to put the right conditions
in place rst, before they can reap the benets of their multicultural workforce (Fitzsimmons, 2013; p. 545). Specically, CQ
may help multicultural employees make effective use of their multicultural background and help them develop innovative
outcomes. We therefore hypothesize
H4: Cultural intelligence mediates the inuence of multiculturalism on innovative work behavior; bicultural or multicul-
tural employees, compared with monocultural ones, have more cultural intelligence, which leads to more innovative work
behavior.
 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324 17

Table 1
Sample characteristics (N = 157).

Characteristic Number Percentage

Gender
Male 81 51.6
Female 76 48.4
Age (years)
1824 2 1.3
2529 10 6.4
3034 17 10.8
3539 32 20.4
4049 65 41.4
50 31 19.7
Educational level
Secondary school 2 1.3
Intermediate vocational 5 3.2
Higher vocational 26 16.6
University (BA) 26 16.6
University (MA and PhD) 98 62.4
Organizational tenure (years)
<5 50 31.8
5 57 68.2
Country of birth
Netherlands 96 61.1
Belgium 16 10.2
United Kingdom 8 5.1
France 7 4.5
Germany 7 4.5
United States 5 3.2
Spain 3 1.9
Other 15 9.6
Country of residence
Netherlands 118 75.2
Else 39 24.8
Lived abroad > 3 years
Yes 44 28.0
No 113 72.0
Daily interaction frequency working with foreign contacts
Sometimes 22 14.0
Often 68 43.3
All the time 67 42.7

3. Method

3.1. Sample

In the headquarters of an international, Dutch-based stafng agency, we obtained responses from 157 of the 200 total
employees, for a response rate of 79% (varying across departments, from 39% to 100%). These employees worked in 15
different departments, each of which contained anywhere from 4 to 36 employees. Table 1 details the sample characteristics.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Multiculturalism
Following Nguyen and Benet-Martnez (2010), we measured multiculturalism with one question, How would you label
yourself in terms of your cultural background? that had three response categories: monocultural, bicultural, or multicul-
tural. In response, 42.0% rated themselves monocultural, 12.7% bicultural, and 45.2% multicultural. Noting the relatively
low frequency of bicultural employees, we combined this category with the multicultural category. This resulted in the
dichotomous variable multiculturalism with values 0 = no; 1 = yes.

3.2.2. Cultural intelligence

To measure CQ, we used the 20-item Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) from Ang et al. (2006). It consists of four subscales:
metacognitive CQ (4 items, e.g., I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people of different
cultural backgrounds), cognitive CQ (6 items, e.g., I know the arts and crafts of other cultures), motivational CQ (5 items,
e.g., I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me), and behavioral CQ (5 items, e.g., I vary the rate of my speaking
when a cross-cultural situation requires it). The 7-point Likert scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
In addition, we added 4 items to the metacognitive CQ measure (e.g., If I meet with a business partner in another culture,
I always try to include the persons background and environment to nd out about his/her motives); previous research
18 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

has shown that the original items from the CQS were insufcient (Bcker et al., 2014). For this scale, the Cronbachs alpha
values were as follows: metacognition (8 items) 0.89 (rst four items 0.83, newly added items 0.79; correlation of two sets
r(155) = 0.78, p < 0.001), cognition 0.84, motivation 0.74, behavior 0.84, and total CQ 0.94. The correlations of the total CQ
and its subdimensions were all 0.80 or higher, so for parsimony, we chose to focus on the total CQ scale.

3.2.3. Innovative work behavior

We used De Jong and Den Hartogs (2010) 10-item instrument to measure IWB in knowledge-intensive service companies.
The 7-point Likert scale (never to all the time) referred to items such as In your job, how often do you make important
organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas?; Cronbachs alpha = 0.93. We also added six items from De Jong
and Den Hartogs (2010) innovative output scale, such as In your job, how often do you make suggestions to improve current
products or services?; Cronbachs alpha = 0.84. The two scales correlated strongly (r(151) = 0.87, p < 0.001), and they loaded
on a single factor in the factor analysis, so we combined them into a 16-item scale; Cronbachs alpha = 0.95.

3.2.4. Control variables

In addition to individual-level variables, such as gender, age, level of education, and interaction frequency with foreign
contacts, we used control variables at the organizational and departmental level. We assessed employees perceptions of
innovation in their organization with two questions related to the degree of innovativeness at company and department
levels. The measures of employees assessments of the degree of diversity were similar. For both constructs, we used 10-
point Likert scales (low to high). An example item read How innovative is your organization in terms of continuous
improvement and renewal? The Cronbachs alphas of the two constructs were both 0.74.
Following Crotty and Brett (2012), we controlled for the possible effects of the cultural diversity of each department by
computing the ratio of the number of employees per department in terms of their country of birth (range 0.110.69), country
of residence (range 0.100.60), and having lived in other countries for more than three years (range 0.000.44). For all scales
and subscales, we calculated mean scores.2

3.3. Procedure

To collect the data, we used an online questionnaire that requested self-ratings, after assuring the respondents of the
anonymity and condentiality of their responses. The items appeared in random order in the questionnaire. The IWB scale
was originally developed for supervisor ratings but in this study provided an employee self-rating instrument. Although using
only self-ratings creates some risk of common method variance and social desirability biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003), their use avoids the risk of biased supervisor ratings that vary across different raters and offer less suitability
for measuring employees innovative activities (Janssen, 2000). To minimize common method bias, the questionnaire design
included Likert scales with different scale ranges and answer categories. Although relatively few respondents participated,
we checked for common method bias statistically by using a factor analysis without rotation that included all the Likert
items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This administration of Harmans single-factor test revealed eight factors that explained 66.7%
of the total variance, and the rst factor explained 33.2%. Therefore, common method bias does not appear to be a major
concern.

3.4. Statistical analyses

For the statistical analysis, we used IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 22). Because we collected data at two levels (individual
employees and departments), they are hierarchical by nature. With an intraclass correlation, we controlled for the proportion
of the total variance attributable to the department and whether the CQ and IWB variables needed to be analyzed with
a multilevel analysis (Field, 2013). In addition, we checked whether multiculturalism and the department were related
(chi-square test).
As descriptive statistics, we calculated means, standard deviations, and correlational analyses. We computed Pearson r
for continuous variables, Spearman rs for categorical variables, and point-based bi-serial correlations rpb for the dichotomous
variables. To test H1H3, we performed regression analyses, then conducted mediation analyses to test H4 through a series
of regressions in the Process module by Hayes (2013). With the same module, we determined the effect of the covariates.
With curve estimation in SPSS and structural equation modeling (AMOS, Version 21), we also tested alternative models.
The effect sizes (f2 ) revealed the regression analysis outcomes (small effect = 0.02, medium effect = 0.15, high effect = 0.35;
Cohen, 1992); the indirect mediation effect was summarized in the 2 values (small effect = 0.01, medium effect = 0.09, large
effect = 0.25; Field, 2013).

2
The sample did not meet the minimum criteria (i.e., number of respondents is more than ve times the number of items; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum,
& Strahan, 1999), so we did not perform exploratory or conrmatory factor analyses to assess construct validity.
 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324 19

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of model and control variables (N = 157).

Model and control variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Multiculturalism 0.58 0.50

2 Cultural intelligence (CQ) 5.41 0.63 0.39**
3 Innovative work behavior (IWB) 4.64 1.00 0.21** 0.43**
4 Gender (1 = female) 0.48 0.11 0.03 0.18*
5 Age 4.54 1.19 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.18*
6 Education 5.36 0.96 0.13 0.06 0.21** 0.16* 0.21**
7 Interaction frequency with foreign contacts 3.29 0.70 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02
8 Corporate innovation 6.78 1.27 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.20* 0.03
9 Corporate diversity 6.91 1.70 0.01 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.24** 0.05 0.41**
10 Departmental country of birth ratio 0.34 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.24** 0.19* 0.24** 0.04 0.24** 0.02
11Departmental country of residence ratio 0.21 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.27** 0.16* 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.31**
12 Departmental living abroad experience ratio 0.28 0.10 0.12 0.23** 0.11 0.10 0.19* 0.15 0.11 0.19* 0.06 0.35** 0.09

Notes: This table contains Pearson correlations. Variables 1 and 4 are dummy variables, for which we display point-based bi-serial correlations. Variables
5, 6, and 7 have six, seven, and three categories, respectively; we provide Spearman correlations for them. Variables 2 and 3 are 7-point scales; Variables 8
and 9 are 10-point scales; and Variables 1012 are ratios that range from 0 to 1.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Fig. 2. Hypothesis test of the mediating effect.

4. Results

4.1. Controlling for data hierarchy

The intraclass correlations revealed no effect of the department on the CQ or IWB variables (ricc = 0.08, p = 0.32; 0.06,
p = 0.46, respectively). Individual cultural diversity did not appear related to the department (2 (14, n = 157) = 12.2, p = 0.59).
We thus concluded that the variables were independent, with no hierarchical or multilevel effect of department membership.
Nevertheless, there may have been some separate effects of departmental diversity, so we checked for them.

4.2. Descriptive results

Table 2 contains the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all model and control variables. The individual
cultural diversity and CQ variables seemed skewed toward higher values. The corporate innovation and corporate diversity
control variables also were skewed in the direction of higher scores. The correlations across the three model variables were
all positive and signicant. In addition, IWB related to the departmental country of residence ratio (i.e., relative amount of
departmental employees living in different countries). Finally, CQ correlated positively with the departmental living abroad
experience ratio (i.e., relative amount of employees who had lived abroad for three years or more).

4.3. Hypotheses testing

We conrmed H1, in which we predicted a positive inuence of multiculturalism on innovative work behavior, though
with a small effect size (b = 0.41, SE = 0.16, = 0.21, p < 0.05, adjusted R2 = 0.04). Multiculturalism also positively inuenced
CQ, in support of H2, with a medium size (b = 0.50, SE = 0.10, = 0.39, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.15). The test of H3, regarding the
positive effect of CQ on IWB, also showed a medium to large effect (b = 0.67, SE = 0.11, = 0.43, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.18).
In H4 we predicted a mediating effect of CQ on the inuence of multiculturalism on IWB, such that bi- or multicultural
employees should have more CQ than monocultural ones, leading to more IWB. The mediational analysis afrmed the
signicant, positive, indirect effect of multiculturalism on IWB (Fig. 2), indicating a medium to large effect (2 = 0.16, 95%
condence interval [CI] [0.10, 0.23]). The direct effect of multiculturalism on IWB was not signicant, so the results suggest
full mediation.
In addition, we explored the extent to which the four subscales of CQ separately t the mediation hypothesis. We found
signicant, positive, indirect effects for metacognition (b = 0.24, 95% CI [0.12, 0.41], 2 = 0.12), cognition (b = 0.16, 95% CI [0.06,
20 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

Table 3
Effects of control variables.

Control variables Model Variables

Cultural intelligence Innovative work behavior

b p b p

Gender (1 = female) 0.02 0.85 0.34 0.019*

Age 0.05 0.23 0.04 0.56
Education 0.02 0.75 0.21 0.005**
Interaction frequency with foreign contacts 0.44 < 0.001*** 0.05 0.67
Corporate innovation 0.02 0.68 0.06 0.33
Corporate diversity 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.58
Departmental country of birth ratio 0.19 0.49 0.61 0.15
Departmental country of residence ratio 0.42 0.26 1.94 < 0.001***
Departmental living abroad experience ratio 1.22 0.01* 0.14 0.85

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

0.31], 2 = 0.07), motivation (b = 0.25, 95% CI [0.12, 0.43], 2 = 0.12), and behavior (b = 0.23, 95% CI [0.09, 0.41], 2 = 0.11). The
direct effects in these analyses were not signicant. Thus, the full mediation effect is manifested through CQ in total, as well
as through its separate subdimensions, despite the somewhat smaller effect of the cognition subscale.
To test the robustness of the mediation model, we ran series of alternative models. A curve estimation with quadratic,
cubic, and growth models did not produce better t than the linear models (statistics available on request). A moderation
model in SPSS Process showed that the moderating effect of CQ was not statistically signicant (b = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33,
0.61], SE = 0.24, t = 0.59, p = 0.56). A mediation model that reversed the order of CQ and IWB revealed signicant direct and
indirect effects, though the t was worse than in the model test of H4 (direct effect, b = 0.41, p < 0.001; indirect effect, b = 0.10,
95% CI [0.03, 0.19]; 2 = 0.08, 95% CI [0.02, 0.15]). The test of the indirect model in AMOS (Version 22.0) corroborated the
full mediation model (2 (1) = 0.31, p = 0.58, normed t index = 0.99, conrmatory t index = 1.00, root mean square error
of approximation = 0.00). Specifying a feedback effect from IBW to CQ offered no signicant results (b = 0.09, SE = 0.15,
= 0.12, p = 0.60). Therefore, alternative models (moderating, feedback effects, and variable order) did not improve the t
to the data. Instead, the strongest evidence suggests a full mediation model.
Finally, we tested the effects of the control variables in a series of models. The fully mediated model remained stable,
and the indirect effect of multiculturalism on IWB through CQ persisted in all cases (we limited these analyses to the total
IQ scale). However, some control variables had an effect on the CQ or IWB model variables (see Table 3).
As Table 3 shows, two control variablesinteraction frequency with foreign contacts and the departmental living abroad
experience ratiohad an inuence on the CQ mediating variable. Furthermore, gender, education, and the departmental
country of residence ratio affected the IWB dependent variable. Yet the full mediation model remained signicant even
under the inuence of these control variables. That is, the full mediation model appeared robust.

5. Discussion and conclusion

5.1. Discussion

This study was informed by Johnson et al.s (2006) explanation of cross-cultural competences in an international business
environment, with a vital role for CQ. The predictors of cross-cultural competence include personal attributes (e.g., values),
personal skills (e.g., aptitude), and cultural knowledge (e.g., factual knowledge); a lack of cross-cultural competence in
turn explains international business failures, after accounting for the internal and external environment. We show that
for multicultural individuals, cultural intelligence also positively inuences performance, in the sense of innovative work
behavior. Our contribution is to provide empirical evidence for key aspects of this framework in an international stafng
agency, not just for groups but for multicultural individuals too. We focus on multiculturalism as a personal attribute,
such that people internalize different cultural schemas that can enhance their cognitive complexity (Fiske & Taylor, 1984;
Nguyen & Benet-Martnez, 2010; Padilla, 2006). We also include CQ as multidimensional mediator, representing cross-
cultural competence and the processes needed to adapt to new cultural encounters across cognition (allowing to effectively
adapt), motivation (drive to adapt), and behavior (engagement and learning to adapt) (Johnson et al., 2006). In line with
Ang et al. (2006), we recognize the importance and extend the measure of metacognitive CQ (adaptation process). In this
study, CQ fully mediated the relationship between multiculturalism and innovative work behavior. Thus, it appears that
CQ enables people to reconcile their different cultural schemas and integrate multiple cultural identities, functioning as a
catalyst in this process.
Metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral aspects are especially important; reection, drive, and engagement appear
essential for enhancing the cognitive complexity of bi- and multicultural people. Johnson et al. (2006) include cognitive
complexity in their concept of cross-cultural competence, such that a lack of cross-cultural competence predicts international
business failures. We instead take a more positive perspective and focus on performance, measured in terms of IWB, rather
 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324 21

than failure as a dependent variable. We consider cross-cultural competence as a requirement for promoting IWB, among
multicultural individuals.
Innovative work behavior is an important concept in management studies. As a key behavioral concept, it forms a bridge
to a competitive advantage. Competitive advantage is critical in modern contexts of intense global competition and persis-
tent economic downturns. Although various studies test the effects of some of these antecedents separately, few studies
address the interactive process linking antecedents to innovation (see stergaard et al., 2011). Moreover, innovation only is
important to the extent that organizations understand employees contributions to it (Zhou & Shalley, 2003) and can manage
it. This study, relating multiculturalism and CQ to IWB, contributes to further insights into the role of the antecedents. For
example, individuals creativity is shown to be related to innovation (Amabile et al., 2005; Carson et al., 2003; Zhou, 1998).
Therefore, it would be interesting to test the inuence of creativity within our model as Zhou (1998) shows that motivation
stimulates an open orientation toward creative ideas or outputs. This notion comes close to the concept of motivational CQ,
which also requires an open attitude. According to Maddux and Galinsky (2009), experience living abroad stimulates individ-
uals to nd creative solutions. In this sense, the behavioral CQ dimension may give individuals a greater repertoire of verbal
and nonverbal capabilities that enable effective communication across their own cultural identities. In addition, regular
confrontation with multicultural experiences may lead to cognitive complexity (cognitive CQ) and stimulate deeper under-
standing of the contradictions in multicultural experiences (metacognitive CQ; see Leung & Chiu, 2010). In summary, further
research disentangling the relationships between creativity, multiculturalism, CQ and its subdimensions, and innovation of
employees working in internationally operating rms would be welcome.

5.2. Managerial implications

Innovation can encourage competitive advantages, but enhanced innovation among business and service organizations
requires innovative behavior of employees and management. Despite some sparse evidence that multicultural diversity
exerts a positive inuence on innovative climates in organizations (Bantel & Jackson, 1989), rms still need a clearer under-
standing of the conditions that foster cultural diversity and remove barriers to the emergence of innovative climates. To
what extent are employees capable of leveraging their multicultural background and using their multiculturalism syner-
gistically? It demands appropriate employee and managerial competencies; as we have showed, CQ is a notable mediator
of the relationship between multiculturalism and IWB. Accordingly, we propose that rms recruitment and development
strategies should consider the multiculturalism and CQ of employees. Incorporating such measures can enhance the effec-
tiveness of talent management and employee selection. In addition, the company can strategically prevent a single-country
bias in its operations and decision making by avoiding a situation in which it only appoints monocultural employees in
overseas afliates. Otherwise, they risk using the methods and techniques of the home country as a blueprint, without
consideration or critical reection on the cultures of subsidiaries abroad (see Johnson et al., 2006). However, the mere pres-
ence of multicultural individuals in the rm is not enough. Ensuring that multicultural employees also receive CQ training
may help them acquire integrative complexity, as is necessary for IWB. Especially in a service organization, the role of CQ
for multicultural employees innovative capabilities has extra impact, because it benets both their own and their clients
organizations. In this sense, human resource developments can help rms overcome their global competitors (Egan, 2005).
Because the development of CQ among professionals and managers can trigger IWB, especially among more multicultural
members of the rm, organizations should actively stimulate their CQ. De Waal (2012) asserts that his study reveals what
rms need to do to be successful, but calls for more studies of how to achieve this success. We have sought to answer this
question by looking into the mechanisms responsible for transforming peoples multicultural backgrounds into innovative
work behavior.

5.3. Limitations

In the online questionnaire, we asked for employees country of birth, country of living, experience living abroad, and then
their multiculturalism. The latter, a self-reported measure, offered only three response options (monocultural, bicultural, or
multicultural). The order of these items may have biased the answers if employees regarded culture and country as similar
(see also Crotty & Brett, 2012). There are many ways to dene cultural group membership, and nationality may not fully
reect a persons cultural orientation. Nevertheless, this study used nation-state boundaries to dene bi- or multicultural
identities, for two reasons. First, nations have distinguishable economic, social, and political institutions whose ideologies
reect the cultural norms, beliefs, and values of their citizens (Brett, 2007). Second, national boundaries frequently are used
to dene cultural differences (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Hofstede, 2001). We included
country of origin, country of residence, and having lived abroad as control variables (in ratio scores) to assess the effect
of employees national background on the relationships in the mediation model. But because the response rates varied
for each department, their effects might have been biased; the calculation of each ratio depended on the number of valid
answers. Further explanations of IWB thus might take team characteristics more closely into account. The limited sample size
represented another limitation. The number of respondents per item was low, and we could not perform structural equation
modeling to test the hypotheses, nor could we test the theoretically predicted factor structure, though the scale reliabilities
were sufcient. The Process module in SPSS (Hayes, 2013), including bootstrapping, provided an adequate alternative, yet
all the respondents still were employees of a single company.
22 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

Further research should consider the inuence of teamwork attitudes on individual creative behavior too; the relationship
between individual and team-level CQ may be relevant in this respect. Studies of the role of creativity as a reinforcing or
suppressor variable on the mediating effect of CQ in the relation between multiculturalism and IWB also may advance
knowledge pertaining to these important mechanisms. A nal limitation relates to establishing the effects of other cultural
content concepts on the relationships in our model, in particular cultural distance (Shenkar, 2012). Cultural distance is
important as it may be easier for foreign employees to integrate if the cultural distance is small rather than large (e.g.,
German vs. Chinese employees working for a Dutch rm). When cultural distance is small, multicultural individuals may
nd it easier to integrate their cultures because there are fewer inconsistencies to reconcile (Fitzsimmons, 2013, p. 532; Van
De Vijver & Phalet, 2004). However, cultural distance is a complex concept that is, for example, not symmetric (reconciling the
host and home culture for a Dutch employee working in China may be different from that of a Chinese employee working in
the Netherlands) nor stable (as cultures may change over time) (Shenkar, 2012). Therefore, in future research we encourage
to study the effects of cultural distance in all its qualities on the relationships of our mediation model.

5.4. General conclusion

Total CQ, along with its subdimensions, fully mediates the effect of multiculturalism on IWB. Organizations thus must
recognize and understand their employees innovative contributions. The mere presence of individuals with a bi- or multicul-
tural identity is no guarantee of innovative behavior. Once they have recruited these multicultural employees, organizations
instead need to stimulate the development of CQ to benet from their multicultural background and transform it into
innovative behavior.

References

Adair, W. L., Hideg, I., & Spence, J. R. (2013). The culturally intelligent team: The impact of team cultural intelligence and cultural heterogeneity on team
shared values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 941962.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367403.
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1987). Management issues facing new product teams in high technology companies. In D. Lewin, D. Lipsky, & D. Sokel (Eds.),
Advances in industrial and labor relations (4) (pp. 191221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1),
100123.
Ang, S., van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and
decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335371.
Bcker, J. J. L. E., & Korzilius, H. (2015). Developing cultural intelligence: Assessing the effect of the Ecotonos cultural simulation game for international
business students. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15), 19952014.
Bcker, J. J. L. E., Furrer, O., Poutsma, E., & Buyens, D. (2014). The impact of cultural intelligence on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and
anxiety for Chinese host-country managers working for foreign multinationals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(14), 120.
Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic
Management Journal, 10, 107124 [Summer Special Issue].
Benet-Martnez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychological antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4),
10151050.
Benet-Martnez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus
compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492516.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 534.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marn (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory,
measurement, and applied research (pp. 1737). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Brannen, M. Y., Garcia, D., & Thomas, D. C. (2009). Biculturals as natural bridges for intercultural communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the
international workshop on intercultural collaboration (pp. 207210). 10.1145/1499224.1499257. [Accessed 19 May 2016]
Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. (2010). Bicultural individuals in organizations: Implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, 10(1), 516.
Brett, J. M. (2007). Negotiating globally (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural Intelligence. Understanding behaviors that serve peoples goals. Group & Organization Management,
31(1), 4055.
Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1996). Stress management and innovation interventions at work. Human Relations, 49(2), 209232.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning
individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499506.
Cheng, C.-Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19(11),
11781184.
Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (2005). Cultural competence: Dynamic processes. In A. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.
489505). New York: Guilford.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155159.
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 242266.
Crotty, S. K., & Brett, J. M. (2012). Fusing creativity: Cultural metacognition and teamwork in multicultural teams. Negotiation and Conict Management
Research, 5(2), 210234.
Cummings, L. L., & OConnell, M. J. (1978). Organizational innovation: A model and needed research. Journal of Business Research, 6(1), 3350.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 2336.
De Waal, A. (2012). Characteristics of high performance organizations. Journal of Management Research, 4(4), 3971.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the inuence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management
Review, 23(3), 601620.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. A. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 43(1), 2649.
 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324 23

Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors inuencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 7(2), 160181.
Elche, D. M., & Gonzlez, A. (2008). Inuence of innovation on performance: Analysis of Spanish service rms. The Service Industries Journal, 28(10),
14831499.
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leaderships effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business,
44(4), 357369.
Engle, R. L., & Crowne, K. A. (2014). The impact of international experience on cultural intelligence: An application of contact theory in a structured
short-term programme. Human Resource Development International, 17(1), 3046.
Engle, R. L., & Nehrt, C. (2012). Antecedents of cultural intelligence: The role of risk, control, and openness in France and the United States. Journal of
Management Policy and Practice, 13(5), 3547.
Ernst, H. (2002). Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 140.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.
Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272299.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Fiske, S. E., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fitzsimmons, S. R. (2013). Multicultural employees: A framework for understanding how they contribute to organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 38(4), 525549.
Furusawa, M., & Brewster, C. (2015). The bi-cultural option for global talent management: The Japanese/Brazilian Nikkeijin example. Journal of World
Business, 50(1), 133143.
Haritatos, J., & Benet-Martnez, V. (2003). On being bicultural: A content analysis of identity narratives. Unpublished manuscript. Riverside: University of
California.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hennessy, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569598.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hong, Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martnez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American
Psychologist, 55(7), 709720.
Hong, H.-J. (2010). Bicultural competence and its impact on team effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1), 93120.
Huff, K. C., Song, P., & Gresch, E. B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality: And cross-cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 151157.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 8398.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse workforce. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A.
Simpson (Eds.), Group processes and productivity (pp. 136180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 129145.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73(3), 287302.
Jimnez-Jimnez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2008). Could HRM support organizational innovation? The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
19(7), 12081221.
Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: Toward a denition and a model. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(4), 525543.
Leung, A. K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(56), 723741.
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist,
63(3), 169181.
MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-efcacy.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 6271.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 10471061.
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6),
849873.
Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound
construct. Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 4359.
Moon, T. (2010). Organizational cultural intelligence: Dynamic capability perspective. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 456493.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313351.
Nguyen, A. M. D., & Benet-Martnez, V. (2007). Biculturalism unpacked: Components, individual differences, measurement, and outcomes. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 101114.
Nguyen, A. M. D., & Benet-Martnez, V. (2010). Multicultural identity: What it is and why it matters. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural
diversity (pp. 87114). Oxford, England: SPSSI-Blackwell.
Ott, D. L., & Michailova, S. (2016). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research avenues. International Journal of Management Reviews [Accessed 20
November 2016].
stergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation.
Research Policy, 40(3), 500509.
Padilla, A. M. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(4), 467497.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.
Presbitero, A. (2016). Culture shock and reverse culture shock: The moderating role of cultural intelligence in international students adaptation.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 53(1), 2838.
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural
intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825840.
Rose, R. C., Ramalu, S. S., Uli, J., & Kumar, N. (2010). Expatriate performance in international assignments: The role of cultural intelligence as dynamic
intercultural competency. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(8), 7685.
Saad, C. S., Damian, R. I., Benet-Martinez, V., Moons, W. G., & Robins, R. W. (2012). Multiculturalism and creativity: Effects of cultural context, bicultural
identity, and ideational uency. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 369375.
Shenkar, O. (2012). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of
International Business Studies, 43(1), 111.
Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of innovation research.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 556574.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on
multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690709.
24 H. Korzilius et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 56 (2017) 1324

Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturalism a model of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(2), 173190.
Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1), 105139.
Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living abroad: Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of
creative and professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 520542.
Thomas, D. C., et al. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 8(2), 123143.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.
Van Dijk, H., Van Engen, M. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between
demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 3853.
Van Driel, M., & Gabrenya, W. K., Jr. (2013). Organizational cross-cultural competence: Approaches to measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
44(6), 874899.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515541.
Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590607.
Volberda, H., & Van Den Bosch, F. A. J. (2004). Rethinking the Dutch innovation agenda: Management and organization matter most (No.
ERS-2004-009-STR). ERIM Report Series Research in Management.
Van De Vijver, F. J., & Phalet, K. (2004). Assessment in multicultural groups: The role of acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(2),
215236.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680693.
Williams, K. Y., & OReilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior,
20, 77140.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Grifn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293321.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(2), 323342.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The inuence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic
motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107128.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio, & G. R. Ferris (Eds.),
Research in personnel and human resource management (22) (pp. 165217). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261276.