THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE (CQ) ON FACULTY
LEADERSHIP
by
Althia Ellis
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL
December 2017
Copyright by Althia Ellis 2017
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I extend sincere appreciation and gratitude to my dear husband, children, parents, and in-laws, as well as friends and colleagues who encouraged and supported me along this amazing journey.
I owe deepest gratitude to my advisor and committee chairperson, Dr. Valerie
Bryan, who has been an exceptional mentor throughout this challenging, yet rewarding dissertation process. Her thoughtful recommendations, excellent guidance, and genuine interest in my work have been encouraging.
I am most grateful for my committee members, Dr. Dianne A. Wright and Dr.
Michael DeDonno for their wisdom and guidance throughout this learning experience.
Dr. Wright has been an outstanding mentor from the start of my academic journey; she continues to be a significant source of motivation. I am very appreciative of Dr.
DeDonno’s expert guidance; the analysis phase of my study became much more manageable and meaningful as a result of his help and support.
These special individuals helped to make this dissertation possible.
iv ABSTRACT
Author: Althia Ellis
Title: The Influence of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Faculty Leadership
Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Valerie Bryan
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
Year: 2017
The study was born out of a deep concern that there have been missed opportunities to apply cultural intelligence to enrich leadership, instruction, and learning.
In particular, direct interaction and observation of students from multicultural backgrounds have revealed the value in adjusting one’s mindset to creating a more inclusive learning environment. The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership. The problem addressed was the growing need for faculty to expand their cultural intelligence to enable them to demonstrate exemplary leadership in 21st century classrooms.
The study measured the cultural intelligence of faculty using the Cultural
Intelligence Scale (CQS). Faculty members’ leadership was measured using the
Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self). This quantitative study used associational and survey methods to predict scores and explain associations among
v variables.
Overall, behavioral CQ and cognitive CQ had a greater influence on the following leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, and Challenge the Process.
For the private university, behavioral CQ had a greater influence on the following leadership practices: Model the Way and Inspiring a Shared Vision. The public university did not show preference for any of the five leadership practices. For the state college, cognitive CQ had a greater influence on all leadership practices, except for
Model the Way.
The results of this study confirmed that cultural intelligence significantly influenced leadership practices of faculty members. These findings provide important information for faculty development programs, curriculum development, and hiring practices. An urgent requirement for advancing teaching and learning in today’s higher education classrooms is a keen understanding of the underlying values, beliefs, and perceptions of students. These qualities affect students’ understanding and how they express themselves in the classroom.
The decision to give instructional leaders leadership training in cultural intelligence is highly recommended. While faculty members showed preference for certain leadership practices, their preferences might be incorporated to develop a blended leadership style that may be more suitable for today’s diverse academic community. The association found between cultural intelligence and leadership practices confirms the value of faculty development in cultural intelligence.
vi DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Robert and Norma, who instilled in me the power of perseverance, faith, and integrity, and encouraged me to start this journey.
You wholeheartedly believed in my ability to achieve my goal. I also dedicate this work to my wonderful husband, Rohan, for his unconditional love, unwavering patience, and support throughout this amazing learning process; and to my children, Tariq and Oriana, who have been a constant source of inspiration. My brother, Nicholas, remains a devoted supporter of my academic endeavors.
THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE (CQ) ON FACULTY
LEADERSHIP
LIST OF TABLES ...... xvii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Statement of the Problem ...... 5
Purpose of the Study ...... 8
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 8
Significance of Study ...... 10
Conceptual Framework ...... 11
Definition of Terms...... 13
Delimitations ...... 14
Limitations ...... 15
Chapter Summary ...... 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 18
Cultural Intelligence...... 18
Leadership in Higher Education ...... 23
Culture and Leadership ...... 29 viii Globalization ...... 31
Diversity in Higher Education ...... 35
Intercultural Competence ...... 38
Chapter Summary ...... 40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 41
Research Design...... 41
Survey Sample ...... 42
Sample Size ...... 44
Instrumentation ...... 44
Validity and Reliability of Test Instruments ...... 46
Procedure ...... 49
Public University ...... 49
Private University...... 50
State College...... 50
Analysis...... 52
Chapter Summary ...... 53
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY ...... 55
Description of Study Participants ...... 55
Research Questions ...... 57
Description of Study Variables ...... 59
ix Findings...... 62
RQ1: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership? ...... 62
Overall...... 62
Assumptions ...... 62
Analysis...... 62
Group 1: Private University ...... 63
Assumptions ...... 63
Analysis...... 63
Group 2: Public University ...... 64
Assumptions ...... 64
Analysis...... 65
Group 3: State College ...... 65
Assumptions ...... 65
Analysis...... 66
RQ2: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in modeling
the way? ...... 67
Overall...... 67
Assumptions ...... 67
Analysis...... 67
Group 1: Private University ...... 68
x Assumptions ...... 68
Analysis...... 68
Group 2: Public University ...... 69
Assumptions ...... 69
Analysis...... 70
Group 3: State College ...... 70
Assumptions ...... 70
Analysis...... 71
RQ2a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty
leadership in modeling the way? ...... 71
Assumptions ...... 71
Analysis...... 72
Post Hoc ...... 73
RQ3: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in inspiring
a shared vision? ...... 73
Overall...... 73
Assumptions ...... 73
Analysis...... 73
Group 1: Private University ...... 74
Assumptions ...... 74
xi Analysis...... 75
Group 2: Public University ...... 75
Assumptions ...... 75
Analysis...... 76
Group 3: State College ...... 76
Assumptions ...... 76
Analysis...... 77
RQ3a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty
leadership in inspiring a shared vision? ...... 78
Assumptions ...... 78
Analysis...... 79
Post Hoc ...... 80
RQ4. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in challenging
the process? ...... 80
Overall...... 80
Assumptions ...... 80
Analysis...... 80
Group 1: Private University ...... 81
Assumptions ...... 81
Analysis...... 82
xii Group 2: Public University ...... 82
Assumptions ...... 82
Analysis...... 83
Group 3: State College ...... 83
Assumptions ...... 83
Analysis...... 84
RQ4a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty
leadership in challenging the process? ...... 85
Assumptions ...... 85
Analysis...... 85
Post Hoc ...... 86
RQ5: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in enabling
others to act? ...... 86
Overall...... 86
Assumptions ...... 86
Analysis...... 87
Group 1: Private University ...... 87
Assumptions ...... 87
Analysis...... 88
Group 2: Public University ...... 89
xiii Assumptions ...... 89
Analysis...... 89
Group 3: State College ...... 90
Assumptions ...... 90
Analysis...... 91
RQ5a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty
leadership in enabling others to act? ...... 91
Assumptions ...... 91
Analysis...... 92
RQ6: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in encouraging
the heart? ...... 93
Overall...... 93
Assumptions ...... 93
Analysis...... 93
Group 1: Private University ...... 94
Assumptions ...... 94
Analysis...... 94
Group 2: Public University ...... 95
Assumptions ...... 95
Analysis...... 96
xiv Group 3: State College ...... 96
Assumptions ...... 96
Analysis...... 97
RQ6a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty
leadership in encouraging the heart? ...... 98
Assumptions ...... 98
Analysis...... 98
Post Hoc ...... 99
Summary ...... 99
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 101
Discussion of Findings ...... 101
Hypothesis 1...... 101
Hypothesis 2...... 103
Hypothesis 3...... 105
Hypothesis 4...... 107
Hypothesis 5...... 109
Hypothesis 6...... 110
Implications...... 112
Limitations ...... 117
Recommendations for Future Research ...... 117
xv Summary ...... 120
APPENDICES ...... 121
Appendix A. Studies Related to CQ of Faculty/Administrators Using the CQS ...... 122
Appendix B. Studies Related to Leadership of Faculty/Administrators Using
the LPI ...... 123
Appendix C. Request for Permission to use the CQS ...... 125
Appendix D. Permission to use the CQS ...... 126
Appendix E. Request for Permission to use the LPI-Self ...... 128
Appendix F. Permission to use the LPI-Self ...... 129
Appendix G. Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) ...... 131
Appendix H. The Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) ...... 133
Appendix I. Regression Charts ...... 136
REFERENCES ...... 208
xvi LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Core Elements of Intercultural Competence ...... 39
Table 2. Sample Statements for the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) ...... 48
Table 3. Sample Statements for the Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) ...... 48
Table 4. Demographic Characteristics, by Institution ...... 57
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables, Overall ...... 59
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables, by Institution ...... 61
Table 7. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Overall ...... 63
Table 8. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Group 1 ...... 64
Table 9. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Group 2 ...... 65
Table 10. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Group 3 ...... 66
Table 11. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Overall...... 68
Table 12. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Group 1 ...... 69
Table 13. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Group 2 ...... 70
Table 14. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Group 3 ...... 71
Table 15. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Overall ...... 74
Table 16. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Group 1 ...... 75
Table 17. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Group 2 ...... 76
Table 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Group 3 ...... 78
Table 19. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Overall ...... 81
Table 20. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Group 1...... 82
xvii Table 21. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Group 2...... 83
Table 22. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Group 3...... 84
Table 23. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Overall ...... 87
Table 24. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Group 1 ...... 88
Table 25. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Group 2 ...... 90
Table 26. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Group 3 ...... 91
Table 27. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Overall ...... 94
Table 28. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Group 1 ...... 95
Table 29. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Group 2 ...... 96
Table 30. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Group 3 ...... 97
xviii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ...... 13
Figure 2. Cultural Intelligence Capabilities ...... 20
Figure 3. The Leadership Practices Inventory ...... 25
Figure 4. Faculty Composition – 2014 Reporting Period ...... 43
Figure 5. Boxplot for Behavioral Cultural Intelligence ...... 72
Figure 6. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Inspire a Shared Vision ...... 79
Figure 7. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Challenge the Process ...... 85
Figure 8. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Enable Others to Act ...... 92
Figure 9. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Encourage the Heart ...... 98
xix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In today’s culturally and ethnically diverse environment, people are confronted with change that is far different than in years past and the complex elements of cultural interaction make it even more difficult to operationalize (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Studies have consistently shown that the exercise of cultural intelligence in today’s organizations is critical (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Brislin, Worthley, & MacNab, 2006;
Earley & Ang, 2003; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009; Thomas, 2006; Van Dyne, Ang, &
Koh, 2009; Van Dyne, Ang, & Livermore, 2010). Ang and Van Dyne (2008) contended that it takes cultural intelligence and leadership with a global perspective to perform effectively in a culturally diverse workplace.
Cultural intelligence (Cultural Quotient) is a person’s ability to adapt and function effectively in various cultural environments (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2007;
Brislin et al., 2006; Earley & Ang, 2003). Earley and Ang (2003) developed the theory of cultural intelligence to determine the mindset, behavior, and motivation best suited in interacting effectively with individuals from dissimilar cultures.
This study examined cultural intelligence’s four dimensions outlined in the
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS): (1) Motivational, (2) Cognitive, (3) Metacognitive, and (4) Behavioral. The Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1999;
Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Kouzes & Posner, 2010; Kouzes,
Posner, & DeKrey, 2013) measured leadership or one’s capacity to apply leadership in guiding others toward achieving extraordinary success. Five core leadership practices are
1 highlighted in this inventory; they are (1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3)
Challenge the Process, (4) Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. These practices emerged from a series of studies conducted by Kouzes and Posner (2010) that focused on personal best leadership experiences. Through their research, they determined that ordinary individuals who help others achieve success share common patterns of behavior. The conclusion was that leadership is about practice and not personality, and the practices are available to any person who accepts the challenge of leadership.
In an era that is characterized by the changing demographics of student populations and the challenges of a global society on the educational process, the exercise of cultural intelligence and global leadership in the learning environment is essential
(Chun & Evans, 2009; Ting-Toomey, 1999). “As the rate of change increases, the willingness and ability to keep developing become central to career success for individuals and to economic success for organizations” (Kotter, 2012, p. 178). The
American Association of University Professors (2000) affirmed that “attention to multicultural learning extends the meaning of personal, social, and moral growth and improves the capacity of colleges and universities to achieve their missions” (p. 5).
Collard (2007) purported that leaders who function in diverse environments will, undoubtedly, benefit from knowledge of cultural frameworks of ethnic groups. These frameworks provide the basis for understanding and intercultural communication. The leader’s own self-concept is important. Livermore (2010) posited that within their own cultures, people typically know what is happening around them owing largely to their subconscious thinking, which enables learning and understanding of what they see and
2 experience. The same cues may carry a totally different connotation during interactions with individuals from dissimilar cultures. An individual’s head, heart, and body must, therefore, work synergistically to adapt successfully in diversity situations (Ballenger &
Ninness, 2013; Gay, 2012; Jandt, 2004; Milhouse, 1996; Thomas, 2006).
The understanding that cultures are fluid, adaptive, and complex, multi-layered systems that are subject to change, also deserves consideration (Bennett, 2013).
Ballenger and Ninness (2013), Gay (2012), Jandt (2004), and Milhouse (1996) observed that the cultural diversity of the learning environment influences educational practices at all levels in a multicultural society; therefore, educators must be adept at intercultural communication. Nonetheless, engaging a single communication strategy is no longer effective in a multicultural setting as cultural diversity impacts such factors as learning and thinking habits, communication styles and patterns, academic expectations, classroom conduct, and stereotypes. Consequently, teaching and learning do not exist without communication and culture; communication needs culture to exist, and culture is inextricably linked to communication (Ting-Toomey, 1999; Samovar, Porter, &
McDaniel, 2012).
Jackson (2014) encouraged individuals to learn more about themselves their values, beliefs, styles of communication, and attitudes toward others who seem different, and to examine their assumptions and preconceived notions about how the rest of the world thinks. Individuals who embrace the future and aspire to grow, to adjust to change, and to develop leadership skills are usually empowered by a feeling that they are doing what is right for their good and for the good of the organization. This purposeful desire sustains them through difficult times (Kotter, 2012).
3 Additionally, the American Association of University Professors (2000) advised that “different populations can offer valuable and unique perspectives, both within and across communities” (p. 10). G. H. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) viewed culture as an individual’s mental software—a set of mental programs. One’s social environments and life experiences directly impact this way of processing information; yet, one has the ability to modify his or her mental programs.
Anvari, Irum, Ashfaq, and Atiyaye (2014) articulated that the effectiveness and success of faculty rest squarely on their ability to adapt to different cultural situations. It is imperative, therefore, that educators articulate a vision of teaching and learning in a multi-cultural society.
Moreover, Ting-Toomey (1999) demonstrated the achievement of effective communication through a readiness on the part of individuals to adjust their frames of reference as they learn varying cultural perspectives and explore new ways of arriving at decisions and solving problems. By examining their own cultural training and their experiences with other cultures (Barrett, 2012), and by watching for signals of cultural differences, and modifying communication, educators can gain mastery in communicating across cultures. No one is expected to understand all the communication nuances from multiple cultures in today’s global environment; yet, it is imperative to communicate respect for the customs, habits, and values of other individuals.
Leadership is described as a relationship between individuals who desire to lead and those who choose to follow. Whether the relationship is one-to-one or one-to-many, the key for leaders to emerge, grow, and excel in a challenging global society is to understand the dynamics of this relationship (Kouzes & Posner, 2010; Northouse, 2009).
4 A closer look at this dynamic leadership process revealed five core practices in which leaders engage when they perform at their personal best. These practices are not exclusive to a few select leaders; any leader who accepts the leadership challenge can avail herself or himself of these Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership® as espoused by
Kouzes and Posner (2010). The Kouzes and Posner model enables leaders to accomplish these extraordinary things:
1. Model the Way – Exemplify the behavior expected of others.
2. Inspire a Shared Vision – Inspire others to participate in a common vision.
3. Challenge the Process – Look for opportunities to innovate, develop, and
progress while enabling others to do the same.
4. Enable Others to Act – Foster collaboration and build trust while strengthening
the ability of others to become leaders.
5. Encourage the Heart – Show appreciation for the contributions of others and
cultivate community (Kouzes & Posner, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
The general problem examined in this study was the increasing need for faculty to expand their cultural intelligence in order to demonstrate exemplary leadership in 21st century classrooms. Faculty members often lack leadership skills and practices compatible with cultural intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008), which might compromise their leadership in culturally diverse learning environments. Culture plays a crucial role in the relationship between faculty and students (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner,
2007); therefore, cultural intelligence might prove valuable in the leadership development of faculty at institutions of higher learning.
5 In 2014-2015, the composition of the student population at the institutions in this study was as follows:
Public university - 37,297 students: 46 percent White, 24 percent Hispanic, 19
percent Black or African American, and 11 percent Other (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2014c, 2014d)
Private university - 24,148 students: 33 percent White, 25 percent Hispanic, 22
Percent Black of African American, and 20 percent Other (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2014e, 2014f)
State college - 44,119 students: 34 percent Hispanic, 33 percent Black or African
American, 21 percent White, and 12 percent Other (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2014a, 2014b).
South Florida continues to see an increase in the diversity of its population. The region is considered the eighth largest metropolitan area in the United States (Miami
Herald, International Edition, 2016). The Miami Herald, International Edition stated that
“of the 500,000 new residents who moved to the Miami, Broward, Palm Beach metro area over the last five years, about 65 percent (335,000) came from other countries…”
(para. 15) and speak 128 languages. The Greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance (n.d.) also referred to the area as the “mega region of the future” (para. 7) owing to its emergent global setting.
Broward County, the location of the three study sites, is the largest of the three counties with a population of 1,799,061. Residents come from more than 71 countries representing 15 different nationalities. The population is 41.4% White, 26.58% Black
Non-Hispanic, 26.4% Hispanic or Latino, and 5.6% Other Races (Broward.org, 2015).
6 The American Association of University Professors (2000) affirmed that racial and cultural diversity provides educational benefits for all students and that “today, hundreds of colleges and universities recognize the educational value of diversity and view student and faculty diversity as an essential resource for optimizing teaching and learning” (p. 1). While many higher education institutions remain committed to diversity in their hiring practices, there is still a gap between the number of students and the number of faculty (Oldfield, 2007). Besides, hiring a diverse instructional staff does not ensure that they possess the requisite cultural and leadership skills to serve multicultural students. Since cultural intelligence influences a leader’s ability to adapt in multicultural settings, it is reasonable that cultural intelligence should be a criterion in the selection of faculty. This will serve as a more advanced strategy for evaluating an applicant’s cultural competency.
As globalization brings more students from various backgrounds to college campuses, the ability of faculty to demonstrate exemplary leadership in the multicultural academic community is essential (Urnaut, 2014). In today’s multicultural environments, as leaders, faculty can experience more success in instruction and learning “if they are culturally flexible and can easily adapt to new situations and ways of doing things” (Daft,
2011, p. 347).
Eken, Özturgut, and Craven (2014) articulated that globalization deeply challenges academic leaders to understand diverse cultures where they intend to make a difference. The authors contended that for faculty members, being culturally competent is not a preferred skill; it is a required skill within the academic environment if they are to maximize their performance and the performance of their students. Cultural intelligence,
7 therefore, is seen as one of the broad ranges of competencies that may help faculty engage exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner, 2010) in multicultural learning environments (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Mosakowski,
2004).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the influence of cultural intelligence (CQ) on faculty leadership at one public university, which is part of the State of Florida University System comprising 12 universities; one private university, which is part of the Private Colleges and Universities of Florida comprising 22 private colleges and universities; and one state college, which is part of the Florida College System comprising 28 colleges.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The questions addressed in this study were:
1. What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership?
H01: High cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership.
Ha1: High cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership.
2. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in modeling the way?
H02: High cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in modeling
the way.
Ha2: High cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in modeling the
way.
3. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in inspiring a shared
vision?
8 H03: High cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in inspiring a
shared vision.
Ha3: High cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in inspiring a
shared vision.
4. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in challenging the
process?
H04: High cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in challenging
the process.
Ha4: High cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in challenging the
process.
5. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in enabling others to
act?
H05: High cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in enabling
others to act.
Ha5: High cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in enabling others
to act.
6. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in encouraging the
heart?
H06: High cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in
encouraging the heart.
Ha6: High cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in encouraging
the heart.
9 Significance of Study
In today’s global environment, leadership represents a multicultural challenge.
This reality is placing great demands on organizations to develop new strategies for competing in a global arena and leading a diverse workforce to remain relevant and effective (Dolan & Kawamura, 2015; Livermore, 2010; Museus & Smith, 2016).
Colleges and universities are no different. Students who are enrolling in college today are much more diverse (Museus & Smith, 2016). This change is becoming a challenge for institutions of higher learning to raise the bar on learning and success among multicultural student populations. When the learning environment is right, individuals can achieve success from these challenging opportunities (Dhaliwal, 2010).
Bucher (2008) opined that in the education domain today, leadership that values cultural intelligence as part of the vision has a better chance at success. By incorporating cultural intelligence in their vision, instructors may find meeting students’ best interests through policy development and development of appropriate curriculum and well- structured andragogical principles (Knowles, 1980; Wang, 2006) attainable. Equally,
Kouzes and Posner (2003) purported that leaders can mobilize others to aspire toward accomplishing extraordinary things. Through their leadership, faculty members can positively influence the engagement, commitment, and satisfaction of their student bodies. Faculty members can transform values into actions, visions into possibilities, barriers into innovative ideas, and failures into rewards.
Regardless of one’s function in the academic community: faculty, dean, program director, or advisor, the important thing is applying leadership to help guide others toward accomplishing the extraordinary; something they never thought was possible.
10 This study is important since few studies address cultural intelligence in education settings (Dhaliwal, 2010; Tang, Yin, & Min, 2011). For this study, it was predicted that there would be a significant and positive association between cultural intelligence and faculty leadership as measured by the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership® (Kouzes
& Posner, 2003).
Conceptual Framework
Earley and Ang (2003) developed the concept of cultural intelligence, which they defined as “an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings” (Ng et al., 2009, p. 32). This definition is consistent with the definition of general intelligence (IQ) offered by Schmidt and Hunter (1998): “the ability to grasp and reason correctly with abstractions [concepts] and solve problems” (p. 3). Earley and
Ang (2003) examined the essential underpinnings of cultural intelligence and its connections to other intelligence framework. The increasing curiosity about real-world intelligence has produced several types of intelligence, which examines specific areas of content, such as practical intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2006), social intelligence
(Zautra, Zautra, Gallardo, & Velasco, 2015), and emotional intelligence (Abdollahi &
Abu Talib, 2016).
Development of an overarching theory of intercultural interaction, based on the concept of intelligence, guided Earley and Ang (2003) in the formulation and assertion of a more integrative conceptualization of intelligence itself. The research on cultural intelligence examined specifically the intercultural settings domain, which had not been studied in prior research even in the face of globalization. The elemental facets of cultural intelligence that were explored included: cognition, the capability to create
11 patterns from cultural cues; metacognition: the thought processes used in learning and understanding cultural knowledge; motivation, the desire and ability to interact with others; and behavior, the ability to conform to cognition and motivation. As cultural intelligence continues to play an increasingly significant role in people’s daily lives, so will interest in conducting more empirical studies and practical applications of cultural intelligence increase (Gooden, Creque, & Chin-Loy, 2017; MacNab & Worthley, 2012;
Ng et al., 2009; Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008; Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006;
Thomas et al., 2008).
The construct of cultural intelligence described by Ang and Van Dyne (2008) and
Earley and Ang (2003) served as the basis for the conceptual framework of this study as shown in Figure 1. The independent variable was cultural intelligence, which is categorized into four factors: Motivational CQ (Drive), Cognitive CQ (Knowledge),
Metacognitive CQ (Strategy), and Behavioral CQ (Action) (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008;
Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). The dependent variable was faculty leadership, measured by the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership®: Model the Way,
Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the
Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). Ang et al. (2007), Earley and Ang (2003), and Earley and Mosakowski (2004) recognized special intelligence capabilities, which distinguish individuals with high cultural intelligence from those with other levels of cultural intelligence by how well they perform in cultural situations.
12
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Source: Adapted from Ang and Van Dyne, 2008.
Definition of Terms
The definition of terms provides contextual information that enables greater understanding of the terminology used in this study. The list of terms includes:
Cross-cultural Leadership - The effort to understand and accept other people’s habits, values, beliefs and practices, when assuming the privileges of a leader (Gay, 2012;
Hudea, 2014). For this study, cross-cultural leadership involves the recognition of faculty members to adjust to a multicultural academic community.
Cultural Intelligence or Cultural Quotient (CQ) - A person’s ability to apply reasoning and observation skills to function appropriately in culturally diverse situations (Ang &
Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003). The researcher used CQ to represent either term throughout the study.
Diversity - The various types of communities characterized by culture, race, ethnicity, or sexual identity (Adalberto & Martinez, 2002). For this study, diversity focuses on the unique attributes of faculty, students, and other individuals in the learning environment.
Faculty Leadership - A collaborative relationship among faculty, students, and others in
13 the academic community that promotes teaching and learning; adapts to change; embraces lifelong learning; and values individual and institutional vision (Hoff, 1999;
McCall, 2006).
Globalization - The economic and academic trends that characterize the 21st century
(Altbach & Knight, 2007; Chun & Evans, 2009); the movement toward interconnectedness among individuals from various national, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.
Intercultural Competence - The ability to develop specific skills, knowledge, and attitudes that lead to communication that is effective and appropriate when used in intercultural interactions.
Internationalization - The policies and practices that are adopted by academic institutions, and individuals in some cases, in functioning in the global academic environment (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Internationalization signals the effort by colleges and universities to adapt their policies based on changes in the external environment to remain relevant and to increase their competitiveness in the academic market.
Leadership - An influence relationship among leaders and followers whose purpose is to create real changes and outcomes that are reflective of their shared purposes (Daft, 2011;
Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2010). For this study, leadership points to the ability and commitment of leaders in the academic community to mentor and guide diverse individuals toward achieving extraordinary success.
Delimitations
The investigator identified three delimitations of this research. First, the study
14 focused on cultural intelligence (CQ) and faculty leadership at three higher education institutions in Florida. In a global economy, cultural intelligence is relevant to leadership as a response to the rapidly changing student demographic on college campuses. Second, the study was limited to full-time and adjunct faculty of any age, gender, race, or degree type, who teach in online and face-to-face environments at the three institutions. All research participants were selected randomly and were adult volunteers. To ensure compliance with ethical expectations, it was important that prospective participants volunteered willingly to be participants. Third, the workplace of the three institutions used in this study is characterized by cultural diversity. Diversity in education and the projected trends in the diversity of the region’s population suggested that the institutions are culturally diverse.
Limitations
The investigator identified several limitations of this research. The population for this research study was selected from faculty at three educational institutions in South
Florida through stratified sampling. Data was collected from faculty who voluntarily participated in the study. The quantitative study used stratified sampling; subsequently, each faculty group was represented in the final sample. Cultural intelligence, a construct that is relatively new, has practitioners and scholars still trying to develop a better understanding of the construct. Both instruments used in this study: the Cultural
Intelligence Scale (CQS) (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008) and the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI-Self) (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) use a self-report method. Since there is no way to verify the data collected, the researcher had to take survey participants at their word. Additionally, this study surveyed only participants at three institutions of higher
15 learning in South Florida, which limits the generalizability of the results. Subsequent research should attempt to assess cultural intelligence and faculty leadership from a broader sample of colleges and universities.
The investigator also encountered uncontrolled variance in the cultures of the institutions from which faculty members were selected. Additionally, the governing style at each institution varies: one public institution led by a 13-member Board of Trustees confirmed by the State Senate, one private university led by a Board of Trustees, and one state college led by a District Board of Trustees appointed by the State Governor. There was an expectation that the responses of participants would be subject to biases and assumptions.
Chapter Summary
Cultural intelligence is one’s ability to adapt effectively in diverse environments
(Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003). As the student populations on college and university campuses become increasingly diverse, the need increases for faculty to expand their cultural intelligence to enable them to demonstrate exemplary leadership in the classroom. This study examined the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership using the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership® (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).
Chapter 1 addresses important considerations related to the background of cultural intelligence and leadership practices, as well as discusses the problem statement, purpose, and significance of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature on cultural intelligence and presents the historical development of this construct. The chapter includes also, reviews of the literature on the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership®.
Chapter 3 includes the methodology and description of the instruments that were used in
16 this research. The chapter includes a description of the research setting, sample, research questions, and a description of data analysis procedures. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. The chapter includes descriptive statistics and inferential statistics results from the hypotheses testing. Chapter 5 addresses conclusions, discussion of research results, implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research.
17 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership in one public university, one private university, and one state college in
Florida. Chapter 2 describes the various theories of cultural intelligence to demonstrate how the construct of cultural intelligence (CQ) developed. The literature reviewed is organized in six different topics: development of cultural intelligence, leadership in higher education, culture and leadership, globalization, diversity in higher education, and intercultural competence. Each of these topics presents cultural intelligence in the academic context. The chapter ends with a conclusion and summary.
Cultural Intelligence
Van Dyne et al. (2010) defined cultural intelligence as “an important individual capability that is consistent with contemporary conceptualizations of intelligence: the ability to adapt and adjust to the environment” (p. 235). The difference between cultural intelligence and other types of intelligence, such as IQ and EQ, is that its primary focus is on settings and interactions characterized by culturally diverse situations.
Empirical research by Ang and Van Dyne (2008) demonstrated that cultural intelligence can increase as a result of several factors: knowing the local language, working in cross-cultural settings, and living in multicultural environments. The research focused on the job performance of corporate managers and human resource employees who worked in culturally diverse environments. The emphasis on the capabilities of each employee to mitigate social barriers and bring about solutions was clear. The content of
18 cultural intelligence was thoroughly examined and revealed a rich literature on cross- cultural experiences. The 20-item inventory that the research produced can be applied across cultures.
Thomas (2006) defined cultural intelligence in a manner that introduced the concept of mindfulness as a pivotal component linking knowledge with behavioral capability. This definition goes beyond previous ones in the sense that it grounds the conceptualization in the cognitive domain and differentiates cultural intelligence as an ability to exercise skilled behavior. A developmental stage model of cultural intelligence is presented. Mindfulness is described as an increased awareness and attention to current experience; an exclusive metacognitive process that explores multiple perspectives and creates new thought processes. Mindfulness bridges knowledge and behavior that satisfy the situation. The author implored culturally intelligent people to do more than just learn about other cultures; he demanded performance.
It is for this reason that Livermore (2010) and the Cultural Intelligence Center
(2016) stipulated a powerful, four-step model, shown in Figure 2, for an individual to become more astute at managing cross-culturally. Included are drive: increasing motivation for and confidence in interacting with individuals from other cultures; knowledge: understanding the importance of variations in values, norms, religion, and languages; strategy: planning in advance of unfamiliar cultural settings, but maintaining flexibility when actual experience differs from expectations; and action: adapting behavior to each situation.
19
Figure 2. Cultural Intelligence Capabilities
Source: Adapted from Cultural Intelligence Center, 2016.
Research, case studies, and statistics on the benefits of improving one’s cultural intelligence will help individuals succeed in any business environment; whether locally, nationally, or internationally. By determining which of the four dimensions of cultural intelligence can deliver the best outcomes, leaders position themselves to meet the pressing demands of leadership (Livermore, 2010).
Cultural intelligence predicts cultural judgment and decision making, adjustment, and readiness to work and interact effectively with people from multicultural backgrounds. Individuals with high CQ drive are driven to learn and adapt to new intercultural contexts. Their ability to adapt influences their performance in diverse situations (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Anvari et al., 2014; Earley, Ang, & Tan, 2006;
Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008; Templer et al., 2006; Urnaut, 2014).
Individuals with high CQ knowledge possess a deep and rich understanding of culture and its effects on the way people process information. They know how cultures impact behavior and they display a wealth of information about cultures and how cultures are similar and different (Ang et al., 2006; Earley et al., 2006; Keung & Rockinson-
20 Szapkiw, 2013).
Individuals with high CQ strategy are aware of intercultural interactions before they happen and after they happen. They anticipate what might occur during an interaction and adjust their own assumptions and expectations during the experience. By reflecting on their experiences, they recalibrate their way of thinking while improving their strategies for communicating effectively (Ang et al., 2006; Dhaliwal, 2010; Earley et al., 2006).
Individuals with high CQ action transform their CQ drive, CQ knowledge, and
CQ strategy competencies into action. Their extensive knowledge of verbal and nonverbal communication skills drive their response to a particular context and their decision to adapt or not to adapt (Ahn & Ettner, 2013; Ang et al., 2006; Dhaliwal, 2010;
Earley et al., 2006). Fellows, Goedde, and Schwichtenberg (2014) asserted that people’s cultural intelligence is not fixed; they can increase their cultural intelligence by developing goals and strategies that are simple, yet purposeful.
In one study, the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) characterized by four facets: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral was used to investigate the role of cultural intelligence in MBA curricula. Two hundred and nineteen MBA students were recruited from three universities in the United States: one in the Northwest region and two in the Mid-west region. The CQS was transformed into an online survey, which collected students’ responses. Along with the 20-item scale instrument, a demographic component and an open-ended question were used to develop a better understanding of students’ responses. The CQS used a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 7 represented “strongly agree.” To test the students’
21 cultural intelligence, researchers calculated the mean responses for each of the 20 items on the CQS. Researchers also calculated mean responses of each demographic segment.
The study found that students developed a clear understanding of the significance of cultural intelligence in a business world that is increasingly globalized and that they are desirous of interacting with people from other cultures. The most essential attributes found to increase one’s cultural intelligence included international work experience, learning an additional language besides English, and/or studying in a foreign country and earning an undergraduate degree (Ahn & Ettner, 2013).
In contrast, another study examined the relationships between Big Five personality and cultural intelligence. For cultural intelligence, the 20-item, four-factor: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral, Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) was used. For personality, the Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI) (Mount, Barrick,
& Stewart, 1998) was used to evaluate the five-factor model of personality. Three hundred and thirty eight business undergraduates at a large public university in Singapore participated in the study. Researchers tested their predictions by collecting data at two points in time: at Time 1, 465 students provided CQ data; six weeks later at Time 2, 338 of this group of students did the personality inventory and provided demographic data.
Of the Big Five, openness was the only factor that significantly related to all four factors of CQ. The researchers confirmed that this result is different from earlier research on openness in which few significant relationships were found. The results indicated that openness to experience is an essential personality characteristic that impacts one’s ability to function effectively in diverse cultural environments (Ang et al., 2006; Urnaut, 2014).
The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) used in this study is suitable for faculty as
22 it measured four critical skills that are crucial to faculty members’ ability to excel in a global and diverse workplace (Ang et al., 2007). A list of studies on cultural intelligence related to faculty is shown in Appendix A.
Leadership in Higher Education
Today’s changing higher education environment demands critical skills and attributes of its leaders. Hoff (1999) assessed these requisite skills and attributes using roles and relationships, structures, culture and values, visions, and strategic planning, and determined that leaders and managers in colleges and universities must exercise ability and flexibility to excel in this changing environment. Empowerment of all members of the academic community will strengthen the culture, amplify shared values, and constantly galvanize the need to achieve the vision. Educational leaders and managers must ensure a solid foundation on which graduates—leaders of tomorrow—can build their lives; they must endeavor to accomplish the mission of teaching, research, and service. Educational leaders and managers who exhibit skills and values to achieve their goals are pursued vigorously by higher education institutions. They are the ones who climb their way to the center of the webs of inclusion at colleges and universities.
Kouzes and Posner (2010) defined leadership as a relationship between individuals who desire to lead and those who decide to follow. In these changing times, if leaders are to emerge and excel, they must master the dynamics of this relationship.
They must acquire the skills to influence others to action and toward a shared vision.
Self-confidence plays a key role in one’s leadership and is characterized by the skills, preconceptions, and weaknesses that a person possesses. Self-confidence emerges as individuals build on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses; and while formal
23 training and education are helpful, many leadership skills are learned in the classroom. In addition to training, leaders learn from other people and from experiences, and they learn from their mistakes. Furthermore, leaders succeed in their development when they are active participants in change. Essentially, the development of one’s leadership is the development of oneself.
The selection of the Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) was appropriate for use in this study for two primary reasons: (1) the scale is comprehensive in design and (2) its sound psychometric properties are suitable for conducting cross- cultural research (Tang et al., 2011). The Leadership Challenge® is “highly regarded by academics and practitioners alike for its 30 years of rigorous testing and the scrutiny of intense research. It is “used by educators around the world to liberate the leader in anyone, at any level in their development …” (The Leadership Challenge, 2016, para. 1).
A table of research studies that used the LPI-Self is shown in Appendix B.
Kouzes and Posner (2010) contended that individuals who engage in the Five
Practices of Exemplary Leadership®, Figure 3, are more motivated and effective than those who do not. Thus, engaging in the Five Practices might be motivation for faculty members who desire to get extraordinary things done in the learning environment.
24
Figure 3. The Leadership Practices Inventory
Source: Adapted from Kouzes and Posner, 2002.
Shared leadership and aligning of people to a vision is critical; it creates a path to a leadership-centered culture (Kouzes & Posner, 2010). The role of shared values and vision in the development of learning communities is also notable (Gordon, 2004; Jessup‐
Anger, 2015). One study by Huffman (2003) examined professional learning communities, well established and less established ones, to identify the role shared values and vision played in their development. The principal reason for creating a vision pointed to the school’s ability to support students. While most schools lacked well developed learning communities, seven schools demonstrated mature professional learning communities. Individual analysis of the five dimensions led to the discovery and development of an organizational framework to better understand the evolution of shared values and vision (Pisapia, 2010; Zambo & Isai, 2013). It is the greatest influence a school leader can have on student learning resulting from the vision established for the institutions and the associated goals to achieve that vision (Huffman, 2003).
25 The faculty learning community is a unique type of communities of practice
(CoP) (Cox, 2013). Amey (2006) affirmed that, in communities of practice, leaders create a learning environment that promotes cultural awareness and an acceptance of diversity in thinking and learning. As interdisciplinary collaborators and facilitators in the learning community, leaders work to create knowledge, embrace cultural change, and constantly seek ways to enhance the student experience.
Faculty learning communities are especially valuable to new faculty owing to the strong support network they create. Such collaborative collegial teams of faculty allow its members to engage in work that will help them deliver teaching and learning at a higher standard. They are committed to improving instruction aimed at accommodating a multicultural student population through group discussion, reflection, goal setting, and other means. Faculty learning communities are an innovative solution for guiding new and seasoned faculty in effectively dealing with growing demands brought about by the demographic shifts in student populations and insufficient resources to aid development.
In many cases, these communities mentor and support new and junior faculty in learning and understanding the maze of higher education, including such critical areas of focus as retention, tenure, and promotion in the academy (Ward & Selvester, 2012). A commitment to enhancing the value of service and nurturing new educators and leaders will fuel change in the academic community (Kelsch & Hawthorne, 2014).
Another study investigated the experience of forty junior tenure-track faculty in campus citizenship and leadership development. Faculty members were in their second and third years of service. They were asked a number of questions about various topics, including pre-hiring experiences with campus governance, perceptions of their
26 professional duties outside of teaching and research, awareness of challenges in the higher education community, concerns about the direction in which higher education is headed, and their understanding of the requisite resources to help address these issues. In almost every interview, faculty members revealed how limited they felt their knowledge was of higher education outside of their discipline. Strategies included role play and faculty learning communities (Jessup‐Anger, 2015; Natkin & Kolbe, 2016). Both strategies had been effective in reaching faculty even in the pre-tenure years. Through the use of learning communities, faculty gained an opportunity to engage in planning new strategies that they felt might create change in the attitudes of new faculty and in campus culture (Kelsch & Hawthorne, 2014).
In today’s academia, leadership must take into consideration the needs and demands of various stakeholders, and include such individuals in the change process.
Rowley and Sherman (2003) strongly advised against allowing any one stakeholder to delegate the responsibility for creating change to one leader. One way of fueling change is offered by Kotter (2012) who posited that leadership demands participation of key stakeholders to help promote change initiatives. Two case studies demonstrated that the changes that colleges and universities require to excel in today’s environment stand a better chance of succeeding if decision‐makers, in exercising leadership, embrace innovation and input from all relevant stakeholders.
Heiftez’s adaptive leadership model (Heifetz, Kania, & Kramer, 2004; Heifetz &
Linsky, 2002; Rowley & Sherman, 2003) was applied to each case study, which emphasized some of the difficulties today’s academic institutions face. This model of leadership allows a type of leading that supports long-term sustainability and works well
27 in the competitive higher education arena. It mobilizes individuals to address vexing issues and engage in adaptive work that will bring about change and progress. In the first case, an urban four‐year college faced a fiscal crisis that resulted from its move to a more suburban location. Enrollment did not increase as expected, placing the institution in great debt. The result was a reorganization of the Board of Directors and replacement of the President of the college.
In the second case, an east coast university attempted to rebuild its master’s level graduate program that had seen a 20 percent drop in enrollment in a five-year period.
The chair of an academic department used elements of the adaptive leadership process to bring about change in this major academic program, which was once ranked nationally as one of the top 15 programs. A new chair was hired to lead the declining program and decide its fate. The new chair insisted on having representation of each stakeholder group in the discussions aimed at bringing about change. After three months of interviewing, addressing concerns, and attempting to transform core behaviors and the culture of the department, a change for the better became more and more apparent within the department. The chair took various steps that would lead to change in the department that proved sustainable and long term. The findings demonstrated that leadership requires more than functioning in a position; it demands participation of key stakeholders to help promote change initiatives. While the adaptive leadership process (Randall &
Coakley, 2007) as employed in this study was not intended to be the sole strategy for solving significant organizational challenges, it can prove essential in today’s academic environment. The adaptive leadership process can provide guidelines whereby leaders can learn when and how to address the increased demand for accountability,
28 competitiveness, and financial viability. Additionally, leaders learn to successfully develop and sustain changes in the relations between the institution and its stakeholders
(Randall & Coakley, 2007).
Culture and Leadership
Colbert (2010) declared that “Culture is integral to the learning process. It is the organization and way of life within the community of students and teachers and directs the way they communicate, interact, and approach teaching and learning” (p. 1). Colbert
(2010) and Hudea (2014) advised that cultural leadership reflects the leader’s capacity to accept others for who they are; to accept the cultures they represent, to be open minded and flexible in making decisions and acting upon such decisions in the classroom and outside of the classroom. Furthermore, Hoppes and Holley (2014) affirmed that “for trust to develop within a college or university, individuals are challenged to foster an environment where shared interactions and engagement occur over time” (p. 213).
Walker and Shuangye (2007) provided yet another perspective by proposing that leadership in intercultural institutions needed authentic understanding and related action to achieve effectiveness. These values, the authors contended, can only be achieved through a dedication to ongoing leadership development. After briefly introducing the metaphor of authentic leadership, and outlining the influence of culture on school leadership and the context of intercultural schools, Walker and Shuangye (2007) offered several learning avenues whereby leaders can consciously change their frames of reference and manage problems and solutions based on intercultural school contexts.
These approaches include, but are not limited to, learning beyond prescribed leadership training, simultaneously trusting and mistrusting experience, learning through student
29 learning, learning through curiosity, and learning by looking past culture. Authentic intercultural leadership is a key theme that clearly reflects the values, beliefs, and behavioral uniqueness of the students, teachers, and others in the learning community.
Therefore, authentic leadership and learning can be seen as a united pair.
In a twenty-year study of 115 Harvard Business School graduates, researchers looked for reasons most were achieving success in their careers notwithstanding the challenging economic climate during the time they graduated. Competitive capacity and lifelong learning were the two factors found to give individuals an edge. This competitive drive fueled lifelong learning, which led to increased skills and knowledge development, particularly leadership skills. The outcome was an extraordinary ability to function in a global economy that is rapidly changing and increasingly challenging
(Kotter, 2012).
It stands to reason, that one can pursue excellence through the process of education. Ferrari (2002) espoused personal aspiration and institutional norms that can potentially influence the pursuit of excellence in individuals; this may also apply to social institutions. Subsequently, this approach obligates members of society to contemplate the kinds of ideals toward which they want to aspire and the kind of world they wish to create and maintain. The goal is not to define the ideal person or society, owing to various possible ideas that are equally deserving of consideration; instead, the responses shared require customizing specific circumstances in different situations in which ideals appear to compete. The clarion call for cultural leadership is therefore, relevant to academia.
30 Globalization
Fellows et al. (2014) declared the influence of phenomena, such as globalization, technological advancement, and internationalization individually and collectively on contemporary business organizations. From the adaptation of elements of identity, transformational leadership, and organizational communication in higher education institutions, emerged the human make-up of organizations and their fundamental complexities. The three-part mission of universities: creation of knowledge, student learning, and the social charter demands equal attention. The use of cultural intelligence is to engage universities, business organizations, and students in achieving cultural competence development while remaining true to the missions of their organizational business, academic, and social charters. Metaphorically, each individual is seen as having the essential tool: curiosity, to optimize the performance of the ‘machine’ in the
21st century.
Similarly, Schein (2010) purported that one common theme that overshadowed such phenomena as the predictions of globalization, the information age, knowledge- based organizations, and the relaxing of organizational boundaries, is that the world is rapidly changing in unpredictable ways. It is becoming increasingly complex, more fast- paced, and culturally diverse. Subsequently, organizations and those who play lead and support roles must become lifelong learners (Jarvis, Griffin, & Holford, 1998; Sutherland
& Crowther, 2008).
This approach summons careful consideration of such issues as creating a culture that supports lifelong learning and flexibility, the direction in which today’s leaders ought to be promoting change in cultural perspectives, and the competencies and characteristics
31 that leaders would require to perceive change and to implement appropriate solutions.
Several dimensions that are relevant to learning are analyzed and include commitment to learning to learn, commitment to cultural diversity, and commitment to systemic thinking. Since cultural values vary, leaders must be able to identify and systematically reinforce behavior while keeping in mind the values of other individuals (Schein, 2010).
While working internationally is advantageous in developing global leaders in businesses and organizations, Ng et al. (2009) contended that the focus has primarily been on the individual’s performance as he or she engages in the international work, rather than on the developmental gains from such experiences. By combining cultural intelligence and experiential learning, leaders can turn their experiences into learning outcomes that are critical to their leadership development on a global scale. Potentially, the impact of the study extended to the selection and training of leaders and practices that affect international assignments through a developmental lens.
Educational institutions in the 21st century require educators who are capable of preparing students with the skills and competencies to function effectively in a globalized economy (Drucker, 2008; King, Gulick, & Avery, 2010; Lehto, Cai, Fu, & Chen, 2014).
Educators must be resilient and adaptive in their collaborative efforts to improve the culture of the academic community (Gordon, 2004). They must develop their skills through lifelong learning, which is relevant in a rapidly changing world (Kotter, 2012).
Northouse (2009) contends that individuals who have the capacity to make adjustments that are culturally appropriate are the ones who will succeed in environments, such as academic cultures, characterized by diversity in this globalized era.
Boggs and Irwin (2007) focused on issues that community college leaders
32 routinely contend with as they prepare graduates who are globally ready to successfully work and compete in a changing world. A brief questionnaire was sent to community college leaders who were described as committed, dedicated, and well informed about international education. The questionnaire addressed the importance of international education; international education elements of their campuses; extreme challenges faced in implementing these elements; and the strategies they employed in dealing with these challenges and enhancing international education. The results of the questionnaires showed that increasingly, community college leaders are realizing that global awareness is crucial in preparing students to be competent and ready to work successfully in a changing world (Brown, 2004; Chen, 2014; Ng et al., 2009).
Community colleges serve as the access point for higher education; they must assume a leadership role in educating large segments of their communities by providing information and raising awareness of other cultures, practices, and languages (Nahavandi,
2015; Samovar et al., 2012). To support a more global perspective, community colleges are expanding their curricula to include global elements, such as study abroad programs for students, and faculty and staff exchanges. Additionally, the need for dedicated funds to hire faculty and staff that endorse and support the value of integrating global ideas into the mission and goals of their institutions must be underscored. Furthermore, when students from other cultures interact with American students, their interaction creates richer class discussions; promotes cross-cultural interactions; and increases inclusiveness among students, faculty, staff, and the local community (Deardorff, 2006; Hudea, 2014;
Jandt, 2004; Milhouse, 1996).
For instance, in their study, Chang, Longman, and Franco (2014) explored the
33 meaning of personal and professional mentoring to academic and administrative leaders of color who worked in faith-based higher education, and the impact of mentoring experiences on their leadership development. There were 14 participants from 12 different higher education institutions. They held institutional roles, such as dean, program director/assistant director, and department chair, and their ages ranged from upper 20s to lower 60s. Data were collected from responses to monthly writing prompts and related online discussion, monthly virtual focus groups, and document collection.
Participants responded to two writing prompts about their mentoring experiences by submitting monthly self-reflective and self-analytic entries. Virtual focus groups were recorded and lasted 60 to 90 minutes per session each month. Documents were collected as supplementary data.
Researchers indicated that a wide spread of respondents used these relationships primarily for psychosocial support. Three male participants had more actively sought out mentoring relationships to expand their career skills and professional network.
Researchers contended that personal and institutional factors led to participants’ limited access to professional mentoring. They implored institutional leaders and individuals themselves to access information and promote relationships that provided mentoring from which the broader constituencies within academe can benefit. Through formal and informal mentoring techniques, institutions should affirm and support their emerging leaders of color. One surprising outcome of the collaborative autoethnography process was the professional mentoring opportunities it opened up for participants (Adams,
Holman Jones, & Ellis, 2015; Chang et al., 2014; Hansman, 2014).
A Delphi study (Hyatt & Williams, 2011) explored 21st century competencies
34 that doctoral faculty in leadership programs at colleges and universities in the U.S. will need in the next ten years. An expert panel of ten doctoral faculty who taught in a leadership program at regionally accredited institutions for at least one year, participated in three rounds of interviews. Round one produced questions that were used in subsequent rounds. In these last two rounds, participants rated identified items which are necessary in addressing inevitable change. The three rounds consisted of face-to-face and telephone interviews.
Globalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Chun & Evans, 2009; Eken et al., 2014;
Fellows et al., 2014; Schein, 2010) and new technologies are two pervasive themes that came out of the study. The ability to view issues from different perspectives, to interact with diverse groups, and to accept and value others are competencies that relate to globalization. The rise in globalization obligates individuals in leadership education positions to prepare leaders of the future to function effectively in a multicultural, globally connected environment. The incorporation of new technologies was found to be critical in supporting various instructional techniques, research methods and tools, and to enhance service and collaboration. The use of a variety of delivery modes in the learning environment enhanced the learning experience and enabled quick access to large amounts of information (Hyatt & Williams, 2011).
Diversity in Higher Education
Adalberto and Martinez (2002) examined the type of leadership practices that can be utilized in higher education to respond to diversity. The discussion focused on the association between two frameworks: leadership and diversity. A contrast between the two frameworks revealed that the decision to change or transition the institutional or
35 organizational culture is the determining factor whereby higher education responds to diversity. Diversity fuels change in our society; it demands new perceptions of diverse communities. Higher education, therefore, must be passionate in its response to diversity to motivate individuals in changing the way they characterize inclusion. To do otherwise would perpetuate the exclusion of diverse groups (Chun & Evans, 2009).
Bennett (2013), Brown (2004), Earley and Ang (2003), Livermore (2010), and Ng et al. (2009) addressed the concern about diversity in higher education, and contended that a change in faculty and student population make-up must reflect the institution’s commitment to diversity; it can no longer be a secondary priority. The instruments used in this study included the Faculty Assessment of Campus Climate Survey and the
Undergraduate Student Assessment of Campus Climate (Henry, Fowler, & West, 2011;
Strayhorn, 2013).
The survey polled opinions on department and classroom culture, relations among faculty and student, views on discrimination, actions related to diversity, and campus services. There was keen focus on the perceptions of minority groups. The study found that prejudice and discrimination were attributed to misconceptions and not personality traits, impacting negatively on every student. This misconception can only be mitigated by education. Faculty must share this knowledge through instruction in the classroom and by the manner in which they relate to each student. Successful interaction with students from multicultural backgrounds requires a change in thinking that can only come from training faculty on cultural diversity, integrating multicultural elements in the curriculum, and developing policies and hiring practices that take into account the needs of a diverse student body (Livermore, 2010; Samovar et al., 2012).
36 A qualitative study by Fujii (2014) investigated ethnic/racial diversity in the search process for community college faculty. Participants included 12 administrators and faculty members from three community colleges in Diamond Visa Community
College District (DVCCD) in the southwestern region of the United States. Ten of the participants were full-time, tenure-track faculty. From 2006 to 2009, these participants served on faculty search committees. A brief eight-item demographic survey and a face- to-face interview provided the means for data collection. Each participant completed a survey followed by a 30-45 minute interview. A semi structured interview protocol was used. Interviews were conducted in two parts: in 2008, the initial pilot study was done; the remainder was completed in 2010.
Two important themes emerged from the analysis of the participants’ interviews as it relates to ethnic/racial diversity in recruiting faculty: communication of the value of diversity and its role at the institution, as well as the chair and administration’s role. It was concluded that the responses to diversity of all administrators and faculty who participated in the study were genuine; they wanted to have practices that were intentionally inclusive of others. Nonetheless, there were variations in the manner in which diversity was communicated and the commitment of the leadership (Fujii, 2014).
The researcher applied the framework of critical race theory (CRT) (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2013; Lynn & Dixson, 2013) to explain the variations.
In essence, this sociological theory evaluates practices and policy through the interconnection of culture. The implication is that, not only should the value of diversity on college campus not have to be communicated during hiring; it should be communicated on the campus year round. Institutions must communicate messages
37 about the relevance of diversity in a way that is concise and consistent (King et al., 2010;
Lumby & Coleman, 2007). Furthermore, individuals in senior leadership roles ought to advocate exercising diversity and make individuals account for inclusiveness practices.
Intercultural Competence
Deardorff (2006) described intercultural competence as “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes” (p. 249). These elements are complemented by the values an individual holds due to his or her membership in more than one social group; and values which are present as a result of belonging to a given society. This means that people will make a greater attempt to interact with those from other cultures if they develop certain competencies. The fundamental basis of intercultural competence lies in the attitudes of the intercultural speaker and moderator (Barrett, 2012; Bennett,
2013).
Notwithstanding, the great number of models of intercultural competence, there is marked consensus among researchers and intercultural professionals regarding the elements that define intercultural competence (Byram, Nichols, & Stevens, 2001). In a study by Deardorff (2006), data were collected from intercultural competence scholars and university international administrators regarding the make-up of intercultural competence. The study found that over 80 percent of the respondents agreed on 22 of the core elements of intercultural competence. There was significant agreement also on the definition of intercultural competence. The elements that form the core of intercultural competence and that the scholars most strongly supported appear in Table 1.
38 Table 1
Core Elements of Intercultural Competence
Component Description Curiosity and openness about other cultures; respect for other cultures; willingness to suspend judgement about other cultures and belief about one’s own culture; willingness to tolerate Intercultural ambiguity, value cultural diversity, and learn about other cultures Attitudes Cultural self-awareness; cultural-specific knowledge primarily about the functioning of social groups and social identities; cultural knowledge, in general, concerning the processes of Knowledge cultural, societal, and individual interaction Interacting with individuals from dissimilar cultures; listening to individuals from dissimilar cultures; adapting to other cultural environments; interpreting cultures and relating cultures to one another; managing communication breakdown; empathy; evaluating cultural perspectives, practices and products critically, Skills including a person’s own culture Communicating and behaving appropriately during intercultural encounters; exhibiting cultural flexibility; maintaining an orientation to take action to enhance the common good, especially through the decrease prejudice, discrimination, and Behavior conflict Source: Adapted from “Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a
Student Outcome of Internationalization” by D. K. Deardorff (2006). Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266.
Barrett (2012) admitted that the relationship between the four components deserves further research; nonetheless, intercultural competence is a skill that faculty members should exercise daily in their practice. The purpose of teaching is not to attempt to change the values of the learner; instead, it is to make them explicit in responding to others. There is an elemental values position that all teaching should encourage: a position that “acknowledges respect for human dignity and equality of human rights as the democratic basis for social interaction” (Byram et al., 2001, p. 7). In the learning environment, therefore, the role of the instructor is to develop skills,
39 attitudes, and an appreciation for values.
Equally important, is gaining knowledge about a specific culture or country, or different cultural groups within one’s own country (Bennett, 2013; Deardorff, 2009;
Olson & Kroeger, 2001). Bennett (2015) and Savicki (2008) advised that whether it is collaborating, negotiating, developing significant relationships, training, or resolving conflicts, the attendant responsibility is to learn to interact well. In their role as educators, faculty members can use their experience and skilled imagination to add to their practice an intercultural dimension that is innovative and that builds on their teaching (Byram et al., 2001; Ellis, 2015).
Chapter Summary
For faculty members in today’s colleges and universities, cultural intelligence and leadership with a global outlook are required to perform effectively in culturally diverse learning environments. Cultural intelligence is one competence that could potentially provide insight into faculty leadership in multicultural learning environments. Every faculty member has the capacity to apply leadership in guiding others toward achieving extraordinary success. By gaining knowledge of the cultural frameworks of various ethnic groups, educators will understand the basis for intercultural interaction and leadership (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Collard, 2007).
Moreover, when leaders perform at their best, it is likely that they are applying the dynamic leadership process characterized by the Five Practices of Exemplary
Leadership® espoused by Kouzes and Posner (2010). Any leader can engage in these practices. The chapter following will describe the methodology that will be used in conducting this study.
40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership. Chapter 3 provides information about the design for this quantitative research study and its appropriateness, a profile of the population and sample, assurances of confidentiality, the geographic location, and informed consent. The two instruments used to collect data are described. A rationale for the selection of the research methodology, the appropriateness of the design, and reasons for choosing a quantitative method over a qualitative method are discussed. The discussion highlights ways in which the research design achieved the study goals and was the best choice for this research.
Research Design
This quantitative study used associational and survey methods. The associational design not only predicted scores, but provided explanations on the association among variables (Creswell, 2012; Rissler, 2013). The quantitative method helped ensure anonymity, confidentiality, and an unbiased interpretation of the views and attitudes of participants (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).
In this study, the independent variables and dependent variables were known and defined, and the assumption was that the association between the cultural intelligence factors and the five leadership practices could be analyzed by the use of data that is quantifiable. It was anticipated that a high level of the predictor variable, cultural intelligence, would positively influence an outcome: exemplary faculty leadership.
While a linear regression might predict the criterion variables, leadership practices, the
41 researcher engaged a multiple regression, which provided a more robust formula
(Creswell, 2012).
Qualitative research would not be appropriate for this study due to the large sample size needed to ensure appropriate statistical power. Fewer participants are generally selected for qualitative studies owing to the analysis, which tends to require lengthy interviews. If the problem that was studied had to do with understanding a central phenomenon, then a qualitative research design might have been acceptable
(Creswell, 2012). Furthermore, the manner in which data is presented is different for the two research designs. In a qualitative research study, presentation of the study conclusions would include the thoughts and biases of the investigator (Cooper &
Schindler, 2003). In a quantitative research design, the conclusions are derived from statistical analyses, which reduce the degree of the thoughts and biases of the investigator.
Survey Sample
The target population for this research study was faculty members employed at one public university, one private university, and one state college. The three institutions are four year, degree granting institutions accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). They are located in South
Florida.
The public university is a Carnegie classified, high research institution that employed 1,268 full-time and part-time faculty during the reporting period. Student enrollment was 30,297 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014c, 2014d). The private university is a high research institution that employed 1,723 full-time and part-
42 time faculty during the reporting period. Student enrollment was 24,148 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014e, 2014f). The state college employed 1,748 full-time and part-time faculty during the reporting period. Student enrollment was 44,119 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2014a, 2014b). Figure 4 shows that the total faculty for the three institutions was 4,739.
Forty two percent of the faculty worked a full-time schedule, while the remaining
58 percent worked as adjunct faculty. The criteria for inclusion were full-time and adjunct faculty of any age, gender, race, or degree type who taught in online and face-to- face environments at each institution.
Figure 4. Faculty Composition – 2014 Reporting Period
Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics, 2014b, 2014d, 2014f.
For this study, stratified sampling was employed to divide the population based on the type of educational institution. Stratification may generate a smaller error of estimation than would be generated by a simple random sample of similar size.
Stratification also ensured that each subgroup was represented in the sample in proportion to that of the population composition. First, the researcher divided the study population
43 by institution: public university, private university, and state college. Second, the researcher sampled within each group so that individuals were proportionately represented in the total population (Creswell, 2012; Lemm, 2010).
Sample Size
The sample size for this study was calculated using a G*Power analysis using multiple linear regression. A power analysis identified the appropriate sample size for group comparisons by taking into account the power desired in the proposed study, the effect size, and the level of statistical significance (alpha). The power was established to reject the null hypothesis, and was set at .95 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009).
The effect size was the next important factor. The effect size measured the strength of the association between the independent variable and the dependent variable in the analysis, and was based on expectations derived from earlier research. Generally, the effect size of the study can be categorized as small, medium, or large. The effect size for this study was set at .1 or small effect (Creswell, 2012).
Typically, the level of significance is set at an alpha equal to a 5% level of significance. For this study, a 5% statistical level of significance was selected (Creswell,
2012). Using this method ensured that every person in the population had an equal chance of being selected. Additionally, this technique allowed generalizations from the sample to the population (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2011). A sample size with a power of
95%, an effect size of .1, and a level of significance equal to 5%, required a sample size of 110 participants.
Instrumentation
Two web-based instruments were used to collect participant data. A short
44 demographic questionnaire was used to collect demographic data. The researcher requested and received permission to use the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)
(Appendices C-D) and the Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) (Appendices E-
F). The CQS (Appendix G) was developed by Van Dyne (2005). Each item on the CQS describes one’s capability to be culturally intelligent in any of the four dimensions (Ang et al., 2006). The instrument has 20 statements or questions and uses a Likert-type scale with values ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). In addition, the
CQS (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008) has four dimensions which include:
Motivational CQ (Drive) - increasing motivation for and confidence in interacting with individuals from other cultures
Cognitive CQ (Knowledge) - understanding the importance of variations in values, norms, religion, and languages
Metacognitive CQ (Strategy) - planning in advance of unfamiliar cultural settings, but maintaining flexibility when actual experience differs from expectations
Behavioral CQ (Action) - adapting behavior to each situation
Participants read each statement and chose the response that best described their capabilities. To obtain a total score, individuals answered questions from each of the dimensions. A higher score on any of the dimensions signaled a higher level of cultural intelligence. A separate score was derived for each factor of cultural intelligence by adding the item scores and dividing by the number of factors in each dimension. The minimum score an individual could receive for each item was one (1). The maximum score a person could receive for each item was seven (7) (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley
& Mosakowski, 2004).
45 The Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) (Appendix H) was developed by Kouzes and Posner (2002). The instrument has 30 items and uses a 10-point Likert scale with values that range from 1 (Almost Never) to 10 (Almost Always). The instrument has five practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the
Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart with six behavioral statements associated with each practice (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Scores from the five practices were combined to produce an overall score. The maximum score an individual could receive for each practice was 60. The minimum score a person could receive for each practice was six.
Seven demographic questions were added to develop a demographic profile of participants. Demographic data were kept confidential and included:
1. Age (on last birthday)
2. Race
3. Gender
4. Academic Degree type (post-doctoral, doctoral, specialist, master’s)
5. Method(s) of instructional delivery (face-to-face, online, blended/hybrid)
6. Type of institution where currently teach
7. Number of years employed as faculty
Validity and Reliability of Test Instruments
The Cultural Intelligence Scale provides a reliable and valid measure of a person’s capacity to function effectively in culturally diverse environments. Research on cultural intelligence has been peer reviewed and published across a wide range of disciplines and in over seventy academic journals. The CQS was developed to test and
46 validate Earley and Ang’s (2003) conceptualization of cultural intelligence; a construct, which is based upon Sternberg’s multiple loci of intelligences (Sternberg & Grigorenko,
2006). The development and validation of the scale conformed to rigorous construct development procedures, including multiple development samples and cross validation samples over several years. The CQS’s internal reliability is strong as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha. Reliabilities for the four factors range from .70 to .84 (Ang et al.,
2006; Earley & Ang, 2003). Stability across samples, time, cultural contexts, and rating sources made the factor structure an excellent one (Earley & Ang, 2003).
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI-Self) was developed through a triangulation of qualitative and quantitative research methods and studies. The LPI assessment is based on solid research that spans over a twenty-five year period. In-depth interviews and written case studies from best practices of managers and non-managers across various organizations, disciplines, and demographic characteristics generated the conceptual framework, which consists of the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership®.
The LPI’s internal reliability is strong as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Reliabilities for the five leadership practices range from .75 to .87 (Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Tang et al.,
2011). Additionally, test and retest reliability of the LPI is high. A five-factor structure for the LPI was produced by a factor analysis, employing principal component analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Sample Statements. There are 20 items on the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Ang et al., 2006; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Collard, 2007; Dhaliwal, 2010; Earley & Ang, 2003;
Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). Sample statements of each dimension are shown in Table
2.
47 Table 2
Sample Statements for the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)
CQ Factors Statements I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when Metacognitive CQ Item interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other Cognitive CQ Item cultures. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. Motivational CQ Item I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross- Behavioral CQ Item cultural situations. Source: Adapted from “Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement and
Applications,” by S. Ang & L. Van Dyne, 2008. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
There are 30 items on the Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) (Kouzes
& Posner, 2010). Sample statements of each dimension are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Sample Statements for the Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self)
Leadership Practices Statements 1. I set a personal example of what I expect of others Model the Way 2. I follow through on the promises and commitments that I make 1. I talk about future trends that will influence how Inspire a Shared Vision our work gets done 2. I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future 1. I seek out challenging opportunities that test my Challenge the Process own skills and abilities 2. I ask “What can we learn?” when things do not go as expected 1. I treat others with dignity and respect Enable Others to Act 2. I actively listen to diverse points of view 1. I make it a point to let people know about my Encourage the Heart confidence in their abilities 2. I find ways to celebrate accomplishments Source: Adapted from “The Leadership Challenge,” by J. M. Kouzes & B. Z. Posner,
2003, (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 48 Procedure
The primary recruitment tool for this study was email. Emails were sent to the faculty in each of the three institutions: one public university, one private university, and one state college in South Florida inviting them to participate in the online questionnaires. To ensure a high response rate, clear and concise directions were provided to participants. The consent paragraphs were incorporated in the online survey and provided potential respondents with information about the purpose of the proposed study and the significance of their participation. Participation in the study was voluntary.
Participants gave consent to participate in the study by reading the consent paragraphs.
Participants were provided with a contact telephone number, an email address, and a work address for the researcher. To recruit participants, the researcher sought permission from the Institutional Review Board of each research site: one public university, one private university, and one state college.
Public University. For the public university, the researcher sought permission through an online application to the institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Upon
IRB approval and in advance of the survey distribution date, the researcher submitted online an Authorization to Conduct Survey Research request to the institution’s Office of
Institutional Effectiveness and Analysis (IEA). Subsequently, the researcher added the
CQS, LPI, and demographic questionnaires to the online survey software, Qualtrics, available from the institution’s website (Florida Atlantic University, 2016). Qualtrics allows use of advanced data collection and analysis solutions.
With assistance from the IEA, as required by the researcher’s home institution, the researcher sent an email to faculty inviting them to participate. The email provided a
49 link to the Qualtrics platform where potential study participants viewed the consent paragraphs and, upon agreement, completed the questionnaires. Two reminders were sent to faculty members to complete the survey. The survey results were downloaded into an SPSS file for statistical analysis.
Private University. The investigator sought permission to proceed with the survey from the private university through an online application to the institution’s
Survey Research Committee. Upon approval by the Survey Research Committee, the request was sent to the IRB for final approval. The investigator then coordinated with the institution’s Survey Research Committee to email faculty members the letter of introduction and a link to the questionnaires with the consent paragraphs in Qualtrics.
The survey results were downloaded into an SPSS file for statistical analysis.
State College. The researcher submitted a letter of support, as required by the institution, along with the IRB approval letter from the researcher’s institution, the letter of introduction, the consent paragraphs, and the questionnaires to the state college’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chairperson for approval. This privilege is granted by the state college to employees who are attending an external post-secondary institution.
Upon approval, the researcher coordinated with IRB staff to email faculty members the letter of introduction, and a link to the questionnaires with the consent paragraphs in
Qualtrics. The survey results were downloaded into an SPSS file for statistical analysis.
The online survey included the CQS and LPI-Self questionnaires—both of which are established, validated survey questionnaires— and demographic questions.
Participants were able to take as much time as they needed to answer the questions. They had the option to return to questions in each questionnaire or log out of the questionnaire
50 and return at a later time to complete it. Responses to the CQS, LPI, and demographic questionnaires were submitted anonymously and collected using the Qualtrics Survey
Research Suite. Participants received a reusable link to the questionnaires to prohibit the tracking of identifying information.
The timeline for data collection included dissemination of the survey and collection of the responses, as well as reminders to ensure collection of sufficient data to complete the study. Following IRB approval, the questionnaires were made available to participants between April and June 2017. The researcher only used fully completed questionnaires in the final data calculations. Incomplete questionnaires were discarded.
Following the deadline for collecting survey data, data analysis occurred through the fall of 2017. Survey data will be archived on the Qualtrics secure server for at least three years.
The consent paragraphs incorporated in the survey provided potential respondents with information about the purpose of the proposed study and the significance of their participation. Every effort was made to protect the privacy and confidentiality of each participant. Individuals who agreed to participate in the study acknowledged their understanding of the purpose of the study, that they would be treated ethically, and that they would be able to withdraw from the study at any time. To do this, individuals clicked on a link in the email received to access the consent paragraphs and questionnaires on the Qualtrics platform. Participants who completed the questionnaires were able to download a copy of their survey report.
At the close of the survey, the data were downloaded from the Qualtrics website into the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) software (Florida Atlantic
51 University, 2017) file for statistical analysis.
Analysis
In this study design, the researcher used two types of statistical treatments: descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics: mean, median, standard deviation, were used to show the distribution of the two sets of variables in the study and to determine if there were general trends in the data (Creswell, 2012).
Quantitative data were collected from two questionnaires and a demographic survey. The independent variables were Van Dyne’s (2005) four cultural intelligence factors: cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational. The dependent variables were the five leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the
Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
The researcher used multiple regression techniques to make accurate predictions about the strength and association between the two sets of variables (Creswell, 2012).
Specifically, inferential statistics were used to determine significant differences between the groups. A multiple regression was used to examine the association between the four factors of the independent variable (motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ) and the five factors of the dependent variable (Model the Way,
Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the
Heart). Following the analysis of each hypothesis, the researcher conducted a multiple regression combining all the variables that were associated with the five exemplary leadership practices.
Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the difference within the following groups: leadership practices and the private university, leadership
52 practices and the public institution, and leadership practices and the state college; cultural intelligence factors (motivational, cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral) and the private university, cultural intelligence factors and the public institution, and cultural intelligence factors and the state college. Following the ANOVAs, post hoc analyses were conducted to determine which group means were different.
The data collected from each questionnaire were downloaded to SPSS to carry out the descriptive analysis, multiple regression, analyses of variance, and post hoc tests, as well as interpret and report the results from the tests. The researcher introduced each research question with adequate details to distinguish between the independent variable and the dependent variable.
Multiple regression analysis involves a broad set of calculations, which made
SPSS (Field, 2009) the best choice for performing statistical tests. The results of this study are reported using summarizing tables, descriptive statistics charts, and detailed explanations of the statistical data.
Chapter Summary
The research used associational and survey methods to answer the research questions and justify the research. The study examined the influence of Van Dyne’s
(2005) cultural intelligence on faculty leadership as measured by Kouzes and Posner’s
(2002) Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership®. The population for the study was faculty at three educational institutions in South Florida: one public university, one private university, and one state college. Described were the statistical treatments used, the method for recruiting participants, informed consent, as well as a review of the data collection and data analysis procedures.
53 Chapters 4 will discuss the results of the study and Chapter 5 will discuss conclusions, discussions, and recommendations.
54 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership. The general population for the study was faculty at one public university, one private university, and one state college in South Florida. The sample population comprised 30 faculty members at one public university, which is part of the
State of Florida University System comprising 12 universities; 40 faculty members at one private university, which is part of the Private Colleges and Universities of Florida comprising 22 private colleges and universities; and 40 faculty members at one state college, which is part of the Florida College System comprising 28 colleges. The
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) and the Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self) were used to collect data on cultural intelligence and leadership practices, respectively.
Chapter 4 contains the results of the assumptions and statistical analyses. The sample demographics, description of the study variables, research questions, tests for assumptions, data analysis procedures, findings, and the test for each hypothesis are discussed. At the end of the chapter, there is a summary of the conclusions from the analyses.
Description of Study Participants
The sample for this study comprised 110 faculty members. A description of the study participants appears in Table 4. Most of the participants were between the ages of
45 and 54 (30) followed by those between the ages of 35 and 44 (27), 25 between the ages of 55 and 64, 18 over 64, and 10 between the ages of 25 and 34. Most of the
55 participants were White Americans (56%), followed by Hispanic Americans (16%),
African Americans (12%), Other (12%), and Asian Americans (4%). There were 43 male and 67 female participants.
Thirty percent of participants held master’s degrees, 5% held professional degrees, 54% held doctoral degrees, and 11% held postdoctoral degrees. Participants’ method of instructional delivery included face-to-face, 64%; online, 9%; and blended/hybrid, 27%. Forty participants teach at the private university, 30 participants teach at the public institution, and 40 participants teach at the state college. Most participants have been employed 1-5 years (33%), followed by 5-10 years (20%), more than 20 years (20%), 10-15 years (16%), and 15-20 years (13%).
56 Table 4
Demographic Characteristics, by Institution
Institution Type Age Race Gender All 25-34 10 African American 13 Male 43 35-44 27 Asian American 5 Female 67 45-54 30 Hispanic American 17 55-64 25 White American 62 Over 64 18 Other 13 Private 25-34 2 African American 1 Male 16 35-44 8 Asian American 2 Female 24 45-54 10 Hispanic American 9 55-64 10 White American 23 Over 64 10 Other 5 Public 25-34 5 African American 1 Male 11 35-44 8 Hispanic American 2 Female 19 45-54 8 White American 26 55-64 7 Other 1 Over 64 2 State College 25-34 3 African American 11 Male 16 35-44 11 Asian American 3 Female 24 45-54 12 Hispanic American 6 55-64 8 White American 13 Over 64 6 Other 7
Research Questions
Results from the study were obtained by selecting a quantitative association methodology. This methodology was deemed appropriate since the intention of the researcher was to study the influence cultural intelligence has on faculty leadership based on select leadership practices. The general population for the study was faculty at one private university, one public university, and one state college in South Florida.
Six primary research questions and five secondary research questions were formulated for this study. The primary research questions focused on the influence of
57 cultural intelligence on the five leadership practices overall and the influence of cultural intelligence on each of the five leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared
Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Other to Act, and Encourage the Heart. The secondary research questions focused on the difference between the three institutions in the five leadership practices. The primary and secondary research questions were:
1. What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership?
2. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in modeling the way?
a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions on faculty
leadership in modeling the way?
3. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in inspiring a shared
vision?
a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions on faculty
leadership in inspiring a shared vision?
4. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in challenging the
process?
a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions on faculty
leadership in challenging the process?
5. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in enabling others to
act?
a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions on faculty
leadership in enabling others to act
6. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in encouraging the
heart?
58 a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions on faculty
leadership in encouraging the heart?
Description of Study Variables
The overall mean and standard deviation for cultural intelligence are M = 106.05,
SD = 14.32. For the leadership practices, the overall mean and standard deviation are M
= 259.78, SD = 29.03. Overall, faculty members scored highest in motivational CQ (M =
30.25) and lowest in metacognitive CQ (M = 23.41). Overall, faculty members scored highest in the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, (M = 54.59) and lowest in the leadership practice, Challenge the Process (M = 49.26). Table 5 contains a description of the study variables, including the means and standard deviations of the independent variables and the dependent variables.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables, Overall
Variables N M SD Motivational Cultural Intelligence 110 30.25 3.595 Cognitive Cultural Intelligence 110 25.04 5.971 Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence 110 23.41 3.906 Behavioral Cultural Intelligence 110 27.36 5.403 Model the Way 110 52.74 6.366 Inspire a Shared Vision 110 50.17 8.148 Challenge the Process 110 49.26 7.515 Enable Others to Act 110 54.59 5.125 Encourage the Heart 110 53.02 7.342
Mean scores from the findings suggested that overall, faculty members have a preference for different leadership practices. There were significant differences between the groups. Faculty members in Group 1: Private university, scored highest in motivational CQ (M = 30.33) and lowest in metacognitive CQ (M = 23.30). Faculty 59 members scored highest in the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, (M = 55.10) and lowest in the leadership practice, Challenge the Process (M = 51.13). Faculty members in Group 2: Public university, scored highest in motivational CQ (M = 29.77) and lowest in metacognitive CQ (M = 23.37). Faculty members scored highest in the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, (M = 52.83) and lowest in the leadership practices, Inspire a Shared Vision and Challenge the Process (M = 46.40). Faculty members in Group 3:
State College, scored highest in motivational CQ (M = 30.53) and lowest in metacognitive CQ (M = 23.55). Faculty members scored highest in the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, (M = 55.40) and lowest in the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process (M = 49.55), as shown in Table 6. The ranking order of means showed Enable Others to Act and Challenge the Process as the most and least preferred leadership practice, respectively.
60 Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables, by Institution
Variables Institution N M SD Motivational Cultural Intelligence Private 40 30.33 4.022 Public 30 29.77 3.137
State College 40 30.53 3.515
Cognitive Cultural Intelligence Private 40 25.25 6.138 Public 30 25.57 5.679
State College 40 24.43 6.110
Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence Private 40 23.30 4.530 Public 30 23.37 3.9.52
State College 40 23.55 3.234
Behavioral Cultural Intelligence Private 40 27.50 5.383 Public 30 27.10 5.326
State College 40 27.43 5.606
Model the Way Private 40 54.23 5.456 Public 30 48.80 8.066
State College 40 54.20 4.328
Inspire a Shared Vision Private 40 52.95 6.206 Public 30 46.40 9.648
State College 40 50.23 7.678
Challenge the Process Private 40 51.13 5.761 Public 30 46.40 9.220
State College 40 49.55 7.175
Enable Others to Act Private 40 55.10 5.555 Public 30 52.83 4.735
State College 40 55.40 4.749
Encourage the Heart Private 40 54.13 6.722 Public 30 49.73 9.232 State College 40 54.38 5.536
The assumptions, results, and discussion of the regression analyses are presented next. The assumptions, analyses, and discussion provide appropriate information so that the research questions and the hypotheses of the study can be accepted or rejected.
61 Findings
RQ1: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership?
Overall
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, and Barrett (2011) confirmed that assumptions help determine when it is reasonable to conduct a specific statistical test. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.141. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There was one studentized deleted residual greater than ±3 standard deviations (-3.288), two leverage values greater than 0.2 (.23159 and .24123), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict leadership practices from cultural intelligence. The predictor variables were motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ. The criterion variables were the leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practices, F(4, 105) = 4.819, p < .05, adj. R2 = .12. No cultural intelligence factor added statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression
62 coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 7; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 7
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI - Overall
Variable B SEB β Leadership Practices 172.278 22.669 Motivational CQ 1.174 0.958 0.145 Cognitive CQ 0.797 0.497 0.164 Metacognitive CQ 0.140 1.003 0.019 Behavioral CQ 1.051 0.594 0.195 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 1: Private University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.325. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There was one studentized deleted residual greater than ±3 standard deviations (3.265), four leverage values greater than 0.2 (.58657, .46347, .27357, .25706), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict leadership practices from cultural intelligence. The predictor variables were motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ. The criterion variables were the leadership
63 practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practices, F(4, 35) = 5.163, p < .05, adj. R2 = .30. Behavioral CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 8; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 8
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Group 1
Variable B SEB β Leadership practices 186.266 25.037 Motivational CQ -.013 1.131 -.002 Cognitive CQ .422 .604 .108 Metacognitive CQ .683 1.234 .129 Behavioral CQ 2.003 .949 .449* Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 2: Public University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.176. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, seven leverage values greater than 0.2 (.29594, .27472, .27391, .25088, .24603, .22585, .21071), and
64 values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict leadership practices from cultural intelligence. The predictor variables were motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ. The criterion variables were the leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict leadership practices, F(4, 25) = .456, p > .05, adj. R2 = -.08. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 9; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 9
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Group 2
Variable B SEB β Leadership practices 173.204 67.682 Motivational CQ .707 2.747 .064 Cognitive CQ .220 1.234 .036 Metacognitive CQ 1.152 2.770 .130 Behavioral CQ .642 1.763 .098 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 3: State College
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
65 Watson statistic of 1.907. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, six leverage values greater than 0.2 (.41111, .26156, .24280, .24254, .22697, .21140), and values for
Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q
Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict leadership practices from cultural intelligence. The predictor variables were motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ. The criterion variables were the leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practices, F(4, 35) = 4.208, p < .05, adj. R2 = .25. Cognitive cultural intelligence added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 10; charts are shown in Appendix
I.
Table 10
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, LPI – Group 3
Variable B SEB β Leadership practices 225.295 34.456 Motivational CQ .305 1.353 .043 Cognitive CQ 2.665 .798 .660* Metacognitive CQ -2.506 1.470 -.328 Behavioral CQ .842 .644 .191 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
66 RQ2: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in modeling the way?
Overall
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 1.967. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations (-3.199, -3.811, -
3.085), two leverage values greater than 0.2 (.23159, .24123), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict leadership practice,
Model the Way, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variables were motivational cultural intelligence, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ. The criterion variable was the leadership practice, Model the Way. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice, Model the Way, F(4, 105) =
3.801, p < .05, adj. R2 = .09. Behavioral CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 11; charts are shown in Appendix I.
67 Table 11
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Overall
Variable B SEB β Model the Way 36.433 5.054 Motivational CQ .269 .214 .152 Cognitive CQ .077 .111 .072 Metacognitive CQ -.141 .224 -.087 Behavioral CQ .349 .132 .297* Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 1: Private University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 1.972. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, four leverage value greater than 0.2(.58657, .46347, .27357, .25706), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Model the Way, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Model the Way. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
68 Model the Way, F(4, 35) = 2.687, p < .05, adj. R2 = .15. Behavioral CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 12; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 12
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Group 1
Variable B SEB β Model the Way 38.895 6.275 Motivational CQ .200 .284 .147 Cognitive CQ .061 .152 .069 Metacognitive CQ -.293 .309 -.243 Behavioral CQ .529 .238 .521* Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 2: Public University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.152. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, seven leverage values greater than 0.2 (.29594, .27472, .27391, .25088, .24603, .22585, .21071), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
69 Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Model the Way, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Model the Way. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Model the Way, F(4, 25) = .856, p > .05, adj. R2 = -.02. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 13; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 13
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Group 2
Variable B SEB β Model the Way 27.823 15.197 Motivational CQ .208 .617 .081 Cognitive CQ .194 .277 .137 Metacognitive CQ -.048 .622 -.024 Behavioral CQ .404 .396 .266 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 3: State College
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.125. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There
70 were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, six leverage values greater than 0.2 (.41111, .26156, .24280, .24254, .22697, .21140), and values for
Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q
Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Model the Way, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Model the Way. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Model the Way, F(4, 35) = 1.122, p > .05, adj. R2 = .01. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 14; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 14
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Model – Group 3
Variable B SEB β Model the Way 45.745 6.923 Motivational CQ .059 .272 .048 Cognitive CQ .148 .160 .209 Metacognitive CQ -.116 .295 -.087 Behavioral CQ .210 .129 .272 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
RQ2a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in modeling the way?
Assumptions. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated.
There were three outliers, as assessed by Boxplot, as shown in Figure 5. The outliers were included in the analysis since the result would not be materially affected. Data were
71 not normally distributed for any group, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p > .05). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .010).
Figure 5. Boxplot for Behavioral Cultural Intelligence
Analysis. A Welch ANOVA was conducted to determine if the leadership practice, Model the Way, of faculty was different for faculty at the different institutions.
Participants were classified into three groups: (1) private university (n = 40), (2) public university (n = 30), and (3) state college (n = 40). The criterion variable was the leadership practice, Model the Way. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
The score for the leadership practice, Model the Way, decreased from the private university (n = 40, 54.2 ± 6), to the public university (n = 30, 48.8 ± 8); the score increased from the public university to the state college (n = 40, 54.2 ± 4), in that order.
The leadership practice, Model the Way, was statistically significantly different for faculty at the different institutions, Welch’s F(2, 61.445) = 5.894, p = .005.
72 Post Hoc. Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed that the increase in the leadership practice, Model the Way, from the public university to the private university
(5.4, 95% CI [1.30, 9.55]) was statistically significant (p = .007); as well as the increase from the private university to the public university (-5.4, 95% CI [-8.84, -2.01]), p = .001; and the increase from the public university to state college (5.4, 95% CI [1.99, 8.81], p =
.001). The group means were statistically significantly different (p < .05) and, therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
RQ3: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision?
Overall
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.095. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations (-3.333; -3.123; -
3.323), two leverage values greater than 0.2 (.23159; .24123), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was run to predict the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural
73 intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision.
The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Inspire a Shared Vision, F(4, 105) = 6.132, p < .05, adj. R2 = .16. Cognitive CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 15; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 15
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Overall
Variable B SEB β Inspire a Shared Vision 24.813 6.231 Motivational CQ .246 .263 .108 Cognitive CQ .328 .137 .240* Metacognitive CQ .082 .276 .039 Behavioral CQ .285 .163 .189 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 1: Private University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.510. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, four leverage values greater than 0.2 (.58657, .46347, .27357, .25706), and values for Cook’s distance
74 above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Inspire a Shared Vision, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision.
The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Inspire a Shared Vision, F(4, 35) = 4.693, p < .05, adj. R2 = .28. Cognitive CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 16; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 16
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Group 1
Variable B SEB β Inspire a Shared Vision 32.737 6.583 Motivational CQ -.036 .297 -.023 Cognitive CQ .286 .159 .282* Metacognitive CQ 278 .325 .203 Behavioral CQ .277 .250 .240 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 2: Public University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.060. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no
75 evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, seven leverage values greater than 0.2 (.29594, .27472, .27391, .25088, .24603, .22585, .21071), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Inspire a Shared Vision, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision.
The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, F(4, 25) = 1.210, p > .05, adj. R2 = .03. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 17; charts are shown in
Appendix I.
Table 17
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Group 2
Variable B SEB β Inspire a Shared Vision 18.047 17.740 Motivational CQ .201 .720 .065 Cognitive CQ .132 .323 .078 Metacognitive CQ .853 .726 .349 Behavioral CQ -.034 .462 -.019 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 3: State College
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the
76 selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.134. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, six leverage values greater than 0.2 (.41111, .26156, .24280, .24254, .22697, .21140), and values for
Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q
Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Inspire a Shared Vision, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision.
The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Inspire a Shared Vision, F(4, 35) = 5.537, p < .05, adj. R2 = .32. Cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 18; charts are shown in Appendix I.
77 Table 18
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Inspire – Group 3
Variable B SEB β Inspire a Shared Vision 37.670 10.210 Motivational CQ .029 .401 .013 Cognitive CQ .897 .237 .713* Metacognitive CQ -.906 .436 -.382* Behavioral CQ .405 .191 .296* Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
RQ3a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision?
Assumptions. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated.
There were three outliers, as assessed by inspection of a Boxplot, as shown in Figure 6.
The outliers were included in the analysis since the result would not be materially affected. Data were not normally distributed for any group, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p > .05). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as assessed by
Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .034).
78
Figure 6. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Inspire a Shared Vision
Analysis. A Welch ANOVA was conducted to determine if the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, of faculty was different for faculty at the different institutions. Participants were classified into three groups: (1) private university (n = 40),
(2) public university (n = 30), and (3) state college (n = 40). The criterion variable was the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
The score for the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, decreased from the private university (n = 40, 52.9 ± 6), to the public university (n = 30, 46.4 ± 10); the score increased from the public university to the state college (n = 40, 50.2 ± 8), in that order.
The leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, was statistically significantly different for faculty at the different institutions, Welch’s F(2, 63.435) = 5.531, p = .006.
79 Post Hoc. Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed that the increase in the leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, from the public university to the private university (6.6, 95% CI [1.67, 11.43]) was statistically significant (p = .002); as well as the increase from the private university to the public university (-6.5, 95% CI [-11.43,
-1.67]), p = .002. The group means were statistically significantly different (p < .05) and, therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
RQ4. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in challenging the process?
Overall
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.276. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations (-3.172), two leverage values greater than 0.2 (.23159, .24123), and values for Cook’s distance above
1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Challenge the Process.
80 The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process, F(4, 105) = 2.923, p < .05, adj. R2 = .07. Cognitive CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 19; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 19
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Overall
Variable B SEB β Challenge the Process 33.295 6.055 Motivational CQ .121 .256 .058 Cognitive CQ .264 .133 .210* Metacognitive CQ .057 .268 .030 Behavioral CQ .159 .159 .114 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 1: Private University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.129. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, four leverage values greater than 0.2 (.58657, .46347, .27357, .25706), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
81 Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Challenge the Process.
The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process, F(4, 35) = 3.785, p < .05, adj. R2 = .22. No cultural intelligence factor added statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 20; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 20
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Group 1
Variable B SEB β Challenge the Process 35.962 6.329 Motivational CQ -.172 .286 -.120 Cognitive CQ .237 .153 .252 Metacognitive CQ .240 .312 .189 Behavioral CQ .321 .240 .300 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 2: Public University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.148. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There
82 were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, seven leverage values greater than 0.2 (.29594, .27472, .27391, .25088, .24603, .22585, .21071), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Challenge the Process.
The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Challenge the Process, F(4, 25) = .337, p > .05, adj. R2 = -.10. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 21; charts are shown in
Appendix I.
Table 21
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Group 2
Variable B SEB β Challenge the Process 30.457 18.042 Motivational CQ .135 .732 .046 Cognitive CQ .095 .329 .058 Metacognitive CQ .423 .738 .181 Behavioral CQ -.013 .470 -.008 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 3: State College
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was
83 linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.125. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, six leverage values greater than 0.2 (.41111, .26156, .24280, .24254, .22697, .21140), and values for
Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q
Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Challenge the Process, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Challenge the Process. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Challenge the Process, F(4, 35) = 2.333, p > .05, adj. R2 = .12. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 22; charts are shown in
Appendix I.
Table 22
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Challenge – Group 3
Variable B SEB β Challenge the Process 48.082 10.833 Motivational CQ -.049 .425 .024 Cognitive CQ .692 .251 .589* Metacognitive CQ -.760 .462 -.343 Behavioral CQ .145 .202 .113 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
84 SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
RQ4a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in challenging the process?
Assumptions. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated.
There were two outliers, as assessed by inspection of a Boxplot as shown in Figure 7.
The outliers were included since the result would not be materially affected. Data were not normally distributed for any group, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p > .05). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .021).
Figure 7. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Challenge the Process
Analysis. A Welch ANOVA was conducted to determine if the leadership practice, Challenge the Process, of faculty was different for faculty at the different institutions. Participants were classified into three groups: (1) private university (n = 40),
85 (2) public university (n = 30), and (3) state college (n = 40). The criterion variable was the leadership practice, Challenge the Process. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
The score for the leadership practice, Challenge the Process, decreased from the private university (n = 40, 51.1 ± 6), to the public university (n = 30, 46.4 ± 9); the score increased from the public university to the state college (n = 40, 49.6 ± 7, in that order, but the differences between these institutions were not statistically significant, Welch’s
F(2, 63.091) = 3.081, p = .053.
Post Hoc. Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed that the increase in the leadership practice, Challenge the Process, from the public university to the private university (4.7, 95% CI [.09, 9.36]) was statistically significant (p = .045); as well as the increase from the private university to the public university (-4.7, 95% CI [-9.36, -.09]), p
= .045. The group means were statistically significantly different (p < .05) and, therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
RQ5: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in enabling others to act?
Overall
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.218. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection
86 of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There was one studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations (-4.946), two leverage values greater than 0.2 (.23159, .24123), and values for Cook’s distance above
1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, F(4, 105) = 2.566, p < .05, adj. R2 = .05. No cultural intelligence factor added statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 23; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 23
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Overall
Variable B SEB β Enable Others to Act 43.084 4.155 Motivational CQ .252 .176 .176 Cognitive CQ .144 .091 .167 Metacognitive CQ -.149 .184 -.113 Behavioral CQ .138 .109 .146 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 1: Private University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was
87 linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.208. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There was one studentized deleted residual greater than ±3 standard deviations (-4.272), four leverage value greater than 0.2 (.58657, .46347, .27357, .25706), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, F(4, 35) = 3.180, p < .05, adj. R2 = .18. Behavioral CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 24; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 24
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Group 1
Variable B SEB β Enable Others to Act 41.287 6.256 Motivational CQ -.036 .283 -.026 Cognitive CQ -.026 .151 -.028 Metacognitive CQ .020 .308 .016 Behavioral CQ .549 .237 .532* Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
88 Group 2: Public University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.038. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, seven leverage values greater than 0.2 (.29594, .27472, .27391, .25088, .24603, .22585, .21071), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, F(4, 25) = .353, p > .05, adj. R2 = -.10. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 25; charts are shown in
Appendix I.
89
Table 25
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Group 2
Variable B SEB β Enable Others to Act 59.983 9.254 Motivational CQ -.087 .376 -.057 Cognitive CQ .004 .169 .004 Metacognitive CQ -.290 .379 -.242 Behavioral CQ .078 .241 .087 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 3: State College
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 1.681. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, six leverage values greater than 0.2 (.41111, .26156, .24280, .24254, .22697, .21140), and values for
Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q
Plot.
90 Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, F(4, 35) = 4.187, p < .05, adj. R2 = .25. Cognitive CQ added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 26; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 26
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Enable – Group 3
Variable B SEB β Enable Others to Act 48.048 6.637 Motivational CQ .243 .261 .180 Cognitive CQ .469 .154 .604* Metacognitive CQ -.536 .283 -.365 Behavioral CQ .039 .124 .046 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
RQ5a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in enabling others to act?
Assumptions. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated.
There were four outliers, two extreme, as assessed by boxplot, as shown in Figure 8. The outliers were included in the analysis since the result would not be materially affected.
Data were not normally distributed for only the public university (p >.446), as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p > .05). There was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by
Levene’s test of equality of variances (p = .872).
91
Figure 8. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Enable Others to Act
Analysis. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, of faculty was different for faculty at the different institutions. Participants were classified into three groups: (1) private university (n = 40),
(2) public university (n = 30), and (3) state college (n = 40). The criterion variable was the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
The score for the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, decreased from the private university (n = 40, 55.1 ± 6), to the public university (n = 30, 52.8 ± 5); the score increased from the public university to the state college (n = 40, 55.4 ± 5), in that order, but the differences between these institutions were not statistically significant, F(2, 107)
= 2.529, p = .084. The group means were not statistically significantly different (p > .05) and, therefore, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and we cannot accept the alternative
92 hypothesis.
RQ6: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in encouraging the heart?
Overall
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.166. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There was one studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations (-3.075), two leverage values greater than 0.2 (.23159, .24123), and values for Cook’s distance above
1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Encourage the Heart, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
Encourage the Heart, F(4, 105) = 2.943, p < .05, adj. R2 = .07. No cultural intelligence factor added statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 27; charts are shown in Appendix I.
93 Table 27
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Overall
Variable B SEB β Encourage the Heart 34.655 5.914 Motivational CQ .288 .250 .141 Cognitive CQ -.017 .130 -.013 Metacognitive CQ .292 .260 .155 Behavioral CQ .119 .155 .088 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 1: Private University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.583. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, four leverage values greater than 0.2 (.58657, .46347, .27357, .25706), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Encourage the Heart, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice,
94 Encourage the Heart, F(4, 35) = 2.731, p < .05, adj. R2 = .15. No cultural intelligence factor added statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 28; charts are shown in Appendix I.
Table 28
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Group 1
Variable B SEB β Encourage the Heart 37.385 7.717 Motivational CQ .031 .349 .019 Cognitive CQ -.136 .186 -.124 Metacognitive CQ .438 .380 .295 Behavioral CQ .328 .293 .263 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 2: Public University
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.038. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, seven leverage values greater than 0.2 (.29594, .27472, .27391, .25088, .24603, .22585, .21071), and values for Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q Plot.
95 Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Encourage the Heart, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart, F(4, 25) = .410, p > .05, adj. R2 = -.09. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 29; charts are shown in
Appendix I.
Table 29
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Group 2
Variable B SEB β Encourage the Heart 36.894 17.968 Motivational CQ .249 .729 .085 Cognitive CQ -.205 .328 -.126 Metacognitive CQ .214 .735 .092 Behavioral CQ .208 .468 .120 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
Group 3: State College
Assumptions. Prior to conducting any analysis, it is appropriate to conduct assumptions to make sure that the data to be analyzed can actually be analyzed using the selected tests. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated. There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 2.145. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. There was no
96 evidence of multicollinearity, as assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. There were no studentized deleted residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, six leverage values greater than 0.2 (.41111, .26156, .24280, .24254, .22697, .21140), and values for
Cook’s distance above 1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by Q-Q
Plot.
Analysis. A multiple regression was conducted to predict the leadership practice,
Encourage the Heart, from cultural intelligence. The predictor variable was cultural intelligence; the criterion variable was the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart. The multiple regression model did not statistically significantly predict the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart, F(4, 35) = 2.345, p > .05, adj. R2 = .12. Cultural intelligence did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p > .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 30; charts are shown in Appendix
I.
Table 30
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis, Encourage – Group 3
Variable B SEB β Encourage the Heart 45.749 8.354 Motivational CQ .022 .328 .014 Cognitive CQ .459 .194 .507* Metacognitive CQ -.188 .356 -.110 Behavioral CQ .043 .156 .043 Note: CQ = Cultural Intelligence; * p < .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;
SEB = standardized error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient
97 RQ6a. Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in encouraging the heart?
Assumptions. To begin the analysis, a set of assumptions was validated.
There were outliers, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot, as shown in Figure 9. The outliers were included in the analysis since the result would not be materially affected.
Data were not normally distributed for any group, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p >
.05). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .018).
Figure 9. Boxplot for Leadership Practice, Encourage the Heart
Analysis. A Welch ANOVA was conducted to determine if the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart, of faculty was different for faculty at the different institutions. Participants were classified into three groups: (1) private university (n = 40),
(2) public university (n = 30), and (3) state college (n = 40). The criterion variable was
98 the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart. Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation.
The score for the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart, decreased from the private university (n = 40, 54.1 ± 7), to the public university (n = 30, 49.7 ± 9); the score increased from the private university and the public university to the state college (n = 40,
54.4 ± 6, in that order, but the differences between these institutions were not statistically significant, Welch’s F(2, 62.655) = 3.109, p = .052.
Post Hoc. Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed that the increase in the leadership practice, Encourage the Heart, from the state college to the public university
(-4.6, 95% CI [-9.25, -.04], p = .048); as well as the increase from the public university to the State College (4.6, 95% CI [0.04, 9.25]), p = .048. The group means were statistically significantly different (p < .05) and, therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
Summary
The research questions in this study were used to determine whether Van Dyne’s
(2005) four factors of cultural intelligence: motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ predicted the leadership practices of faculty at three higher educational institutions, as well as whether there is a significant difference between the three institutions in the leadership practices of faculty. Leadership practices comprised Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable
Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Regression analyses were conducted to identify which of the independent variables significantly influenced the dependent variables. Analyses of Variance were
99 conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between the three institutions in the leadership practices of faculty. Standard multiple regression analyses showed that there was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses for the six primary research questions.
Post Hoc analyses using the Games-Howell test helped to compare all possible combinations of group differences when the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated. Group means were statistically different for all leadership practices, except for leadership practice, Enable Others to Act.
100 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership. Chapter 5 focuses on the findings, implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research. A summary ends the current research.
Discussion of Findings
The chapter starts with a restatement of the study hypotheses and comparisons of the results to display similarities and differences between the topics reviewed in the literature. Highlights of the implications of each of the hypotheses follow this section.
The implications demonstrate the relevance of the findings of this study and underscore the type of associations between cultural intelligence and leadership practices.
The discussion focuses on interpreting each hypothesis found to be significant.
The explanation of individual results arising from the hypotheses is compared to the literature reviewed. H01, which looks at the overall influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership, is discussed. Next, H02, H03, H04, H05, and H06 individually focused on the influence of cultural intelligence on the faculty leadership practices: Model the
Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and
Encourage the Heart, in that order.
Hypothesis 1
The null hypothesis (H01) is high cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership. The alternative hypothesis (Ha1) is high cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership. H01 and Ha1 were based on RQ1: What is the influence of cultural
101 intelligence on faculty leadership? Cultural intelligence was based on four factors: motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ in the Cultural
Intelligence Scale (CQS). Leadership practices were based on Kouzes and Posner’s
(2010) five leadership practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the
Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. Overall, the multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practices. The null hypothesis was rejected, except in the case of the public institution.
The findings showed that, collectively, the cultural intelligence factors were associated with the five leadership practices, with faculty members at the private university and the state college showing a preference for behavioral CQ with an adjusted
R2 of 12%, a small effect size according to Cohen (1992), and cognitive CQ with an adjusted R2 of 30%, a medium effect size. Culturally intelligent leaders are motivated to learn and adapt to new intercultural situations; this ability to adapt influences their behavior in diverse contexts (Ang & Inkpen, 2008; Earley et al., 2006; Ng et al., 2009).
When faculty members learn to effectively and respectfully interact with people from dissimilar cultures, the path created could lead to professional and personal fulfillment (Livermore, 2010). Not only are leaders with high cultural intelligence aware of intercultural interactions before they occur, they are aware of them during and after the interaction. A rich and deep grasp of culture and its influence on people’s response to information characterizes culturally intelligent leadership. They learn to transform their cultural intelligence knowledge, drive, and strategy into action.
One advantage of cultural intelligence is that it creates an opportunity for leaders to refresh the general perspective they apply to a host of cultural interactions. This
102 capability, characterized by the dimensions of cultural intelligence, empowers faculty to meet the varying demands of leading in the academic domain in the twenty first century.
Individuals with high motivational CQ reflect the drive to learn and adapt to new and diverse cultural situations. Individuals with high cognitive CQ have a rich, well- organized understanding of culture and how it shapes behavior. Gohar (2014) argued that teachers with high motivational CQ will likely persist in their practice, and as a result, improve their performance as educators.
Individuals with high metacognitive CQ plan ahead of intercultural interactions; they check their assumptions and expectations during interactions, and take time to later reflect on their experiences. Individuals with high behavioral CQ put into practice all cultural intelligence factors; they apply strong verbal and nonverbal behaviors in certain contexts, and they know when to adapt (Cultural Intelligence Center, 2016).
As seen in the literature reviewed, exemplary leadership practices draw upon cultural intelligence skills needed in today’s world. In their studies of personal-best leadership experiences, Kouzes and Posner (2010) defined leadership as a relationship between individuals who want to lead and those who agree to follow. They posited that leadership is not about personality; rather, it is about people’s behavior—skills and abilities that are obvious. Regardless of gender, culture, age, and other variables, when leaders are at their personal best, they exhibit common patterns of behavior (Kouzes &
Posner, 2008). “You don’t just owe it to yourself to become the best leader you can possibly be. You have a responsibility to others as well” (Kouzes & Posner, 2014, p. xv).
Hypothesis 2
The null hypothesis (H02) is high cultural intelligence will not influence faculty
103 leadership in modeling the way. The alternative hypothesis (Ha2) is high cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in modeling the way. H02 and Ha2 were based on RQ2: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership in modeling the way? and RQ2a: Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in modeling the way? Overall, the multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practice, Model the Way. Games-Howell
Post Hoc test confirmed the group means were statistically significantly different. The null hypothesis was rejected.
The finding that overall and in the private university, behavioral CQ is a predictor of leadership in modeling the way was supported. The adjusted R2 for the overall model was 9% and 15% for the private university, a small effect size according to Cohen
(1992). Faculty at the public university did not show a preference for this leadership practice. When leaders Model the Way, they establish principles by which people should be treated and goals pursued. They set examples for others to follow. This is consistent with a finding in Schein’s (2010) study on culture and leadership: since cultural values differ, leaders must find a way to identify and thoroughly reinforce behavior while being mindful of the values of other individuals.
Through their research, Kouzes and Posner (2008) also determined that ordinary individuals who helped others achieve success share common patterns of behavior. The conclusion was that leadership is about practice and not personality, and the practices are available to any person who accepts the challenge of leadership. Subsequently, the effectiveness and success of leaders rest squarely on their ability to adapt to different cultural situations (Anvari et al., 2014).
104 Hypothesis 3
The null hypothesis (H03) is high cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision. The alternative hypothesis (Ha3) is high cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision. H03 and Ha3 were based on RQ3: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision? and RQ3a: Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision? Overall, the multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practice, Inspire a Shared
Vision. Games-Howell Post Hoc test confirmed the group means were statistically significantly different. The null hypothesis was rejected.
The finding that cognitive CQ is associated with leadership in inspiring a shared vision, overall and in the private university and the state college, was moderately supported. Overall, the adjusted R2 was 16% and 28% for the private university, a small effect size according to Cohen (1992). The adjusted R2 for the state college was 32%, a medium effect size. Faculty at the public university did not show a preference for this leadership practice. Kouzes and Posner’s (2010) research on leadership practices showed that leaders are confident in their passion for making a difference. They create a vision that excites others about what could be. Shared leadership and aligning of people to a vision is critical; it creates a path to a leadership-centered culture.
The role of shared values and vision in the development of learning communities was confirmed by Gordon (2004) and Jessup‐Anger (2015). As interdisciplinary collaborators and facilitators in the learning community, leaders work to create knowledge, embrace cultural change, and constantly seek ways to enhance the student
105 experience (Amey, 2006). As acknowledged in the literature review, individuals with high cultural intelligence knowledge exhibit a rich and deep grasp of culture and ways in which it affects how people think and behave. They display a wealth of information about how similar cultures are and how different cultures are (Ang et al., 2006; Earley et al., 2006; Keung & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2013). Moreover, Huffman’s (2003) study of professional learning communities found that the greatest influence a school leader can have on student learning resulted from the vision established for the institutions and the associated goals to achieve that vision.
This means that the challenge of leadership never relents; even in uncertain and turbulent times, leaders must constantly energize and mobilize others. They are charged with inspiring people to do things differently and step fearlessly into a future that is distant, yet fascinating. Leaders learn from others and from their experiences, and they succeed in their development when they become change agents (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).
The findings of Hoff (1999) indicated that in this global community, leaders must master the dynamics of this symbiotic relationship to be able to do extraordinary things; they must gain the skills to influence others to action and toward a shared vision. In the higher education environment, empowerment of all members will reinforce the culture, increase shared values, and always galvanize the need to achieve the vision. All members of the academic community are challenged to participate in shaping the institutional culture and defining values that will enhance attainment of established goals while keeping with the vision.
Interestingly, metacognitive and behavioral CQ were highly associated with leadership practice, Inspire a Shared Vision, at the state college only. The adjusted R2
106 was 32%, a medium effect size according to Cohen (1992). Metacognitive CQ helps individuals understand their intercultural experiences and help them examine their own thought process and the thought processes of others. These findings were consistent with
Collard’s (2007) study, which suggested that leaders who serve in diverse environments will, indeed, benefit from knowledge of cultural frameworks of ethnic groups, frameworks that provide the basis for understanding and for intercultural interactions.
The self-concept of the leader is duly important.
Hypothesis 4
The null hypothesis (H01) is high cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in challenging the process. The alternative hypothesis (Ha1) is high cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in challenging the process. H01 and Ha1 were based on RQ4: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership in challenging the process? and RQ4a: Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in challenging the process? The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted the leadership practice, Challenge the Process,
F(4, 105) = 2.923, p < .05, adj. R2 = .07. Overall, the multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practice, challenge the process. Games-
Howell Post Hoc test confirmed the group means were statistically significantly different.
The null hypothesis was rejected.
The idea that cognitive CQ is associated with leadership in challenging the process, overall and in the state college, was supported. Overall, the adjusted R2 was 7%, which is less than a small effect size, and 12% for the state college, a small effect size according to Cohen (1992). Faculty at the public university and the private university did
107 not show a preference for this leadership practice. The literature review showed that in their study of the cultural intelligence of leaders and organizational commitment, Anvari et al. (2014) found that the effectiveness and success of faculty rested squarely on their ability to adapt to different cultural situations. Kouzes and Posner (2010) posited that
“leaders are pioneers—people who are willing to step out into the unknown. They search for opportunities to innovate, grow, and improve” (p. 77). Furthermore, G. H. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) affirmed that one’s social environments and life experiences directly influence people’s way of consuming information; nonetheless, they can change this mindset at any point. It is imperative, therefore, Anvari et al. (2014) confirmed, that educators articulate a vision of teaching and learning in a multi-cultural society.
Similarly, culture plays a central role in the learning process; it is the means by which the community of students and teachers communicate, interact, and approach teaching and learning (Colbert, 2010). In his research on education managers and teachers, Dhaliwal (2010) found that a lack of cross-cultural and intercultural skills affects quality of teaching and that educators would benefit from professional development in the areas of leadership and cultural intelligence. Exploring cross-cultural differences and cultivating a desire to share and work collaboratively can result in the development of basic procedures for the workplace.
In their study of the competencies that doctoral faculty in leadership programs in the U.S. would need in the 21st century, Hyatt and Williams (2011) found that globalization obligates individuals in positions of leadership in academia to prepare leaders of the future to perform effectively in a multicultural and globally connected world. In their role as educational leaders, faculty can use their knowledge, experience,
108 and expert imagination to add to their practice an intercultural element that is innovative and that builds on their teaching (Byram et al., 2001; Ellis, 2015).
Hypothesis 5
The null hypothesis (H05) is high cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in enabling others to act. The alternative hypothesis (Ha5) is high cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in enabling others to act. H05 and Ha5 were based on RQ5: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership in enabling others to act? and RQ5a: Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in enabling others to act? Overall, the multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practice, Enable Others to
Act. Games-Howell Post Hoc test confirmed the group means were not statistically significantly different. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
The finding that behavioral CQ was associated with the leadership practice,
Enable Others to Act, was supported only in the private university; cognitive CQ is associated with the leadership practice, Enable Others to Act, in the state college only.
The adjusted R2 was 5% for the private university, which is less than a small effect size.
The adjusted R2 was 25% for the state college, a small effect size according to Cohen
(1992). Faculty at the public university did not show a preference for this leadership practice. Individuals with high behavioral CQ know when to adapt and when not to adapt; they apply a broad repertoire of verbal and non-verbal behaviors, and manner of communication to suit specific situations (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2007;
Earley & Ang, 2003).
Leaders also have the responsibility of building and maintaining an environment
109 of trust and one that encourages communication. One fundamental factor in the success of any organization is trust; not just trust in the leader, but among all stakeholders (Hoff,
1999). Leaders encourage collaboration and teamwork; they endeavor to maintain an atmosphere of trust and to make each individual feel capable and empowered (Kouzes &
Posner, 2010). This ability to be adaptable, to exercise verbal and non-verbal behaviors appropriately, and to know how to communicate directly or indirectly, increases one’s credibility (Cultural Intelligence Center, 2016). Gay (2012) suggested that there is no teaching and learning without communication and culture.
One pervasive theme that resulted from a Delphi study (Hyatt & Williams, 2011) was globalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Chun & Evans, 2009; Eken et al., 2014;
Fellows et al., 2014). Competencies that relate to globalization include one’s ability to examine issues from different perspectives, to communicate with various groups, and to value others. Thus, globalization obligates education leaders to prepare leaders of the future for successful performance in a multicultural, interconnected environment.
Hypothesis 6
The null hypothesis (H06) is high cultural intelligence will not influence faculty leadership in encouraging the heart. The alternative hypothesis (Ha6) is high cultural intelligence will influence faculty leadership in encouraging the heart. H06 and Ha6 were based on RQ6: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership in encouraging the heart? and RQ6a: Is there a significant difference between the institutions in faculty leadership in encouraging the heart? Overall, the multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted leadership practice, Encourage the
Heart. Games-Howell Post Hoc test confirmed the group means were statistically
110 significantly different. The null hypothesis is rejected.
The finding that only cognitive CQ is associated with the leadership practice,
Encourage the Heart, and only in the state college was surprising. The adjusted R2 was
12% for the state college, a small effect size according to Cohen 1992). Faculty members at the private university and the public university did not show a preference for leadership practice, Encourage the Heart. Leaders with high cognitive CQ know what it takes to manage people and relationship (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2009).
Kouzes and Posner (2010) contended that leaders have a responsibility to express appreciation for the contribution of others and to create a culture of recognition and celebration.
The present results support the conclusion that encouraging the heart has a place in educational settings. Innovative solutions, such as faculty learning communities, help guide new and seasoned faculty in effectively managing increasing challenges, such as demographic shifts in student populations. These learning communities provide mentoring and support to new and junior faculty as they navigate and learn the maze of higher education (Ward & Selvester, 2012). This nurturing of new educators and leaders is bound to fuel change in the academic community (Kelsch & Hawthorne, 2014).
These findings are consistent with a study by Hoff (1999) that identified the value in empowering others to engage in actions they have come to learn is right, and then to recognize and reward exemplary performance. The ideal leader knows how to find and leverage diverse thinking, questioning, and problem-solving. Individuals with this mindset exhibit differences in their unique capacities and unique limitations. The result is a stronger culture and a greater appreciation for shared values.
111 Implications
The general problem examined in this study was the increasing need for faculty to expand their cultural intelligence to enable them to demonstrate exemplary leadership in
21st century classrooms. The specific problem was that faculty members often lack leadership skills and practices compatible with cultural intelligence, which might compromise their leadership in culturally diverse learning environments (Ang & Van
Dyne, 2008). Culture plays a crucial role in the relationship between faculty and students
(Merriam et al., 2007); therefore, the expectation of faculty at institutions of higher learning is that they demonstrate cultural intelligence in their leadership.
Overall, behavioral CQ and cognitive CQ had a greater influence on leadership practices, Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, and Challenge the Process. For the private university, behavioral CQ had a greater influence on leadership practices, Model the Way and Inspire a Shared Vision. The public university did not show preference for any of the five leadership practices. For the state college, cognitive CQ had a greater influence on all leadership practices, except Model the Way. The findings of this study provided information to confirm that cultural intelligence significantly influenced leadership practices of faculty members. The discoveries may provide critical information for faculty development training programs, curriculum development, hiring practices, and creating an academic community that is culturally engaging.
By establishing which of the four cultural intelligence factors (motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, or behavioral CQ) best predicts the leadership of faculty, this study has added to the knowledge on exemplary faculty leadership. It answers the challenge of examining the specific dimensions of cultural intelligence that
112 might have relevance to different outcomes. Few studies address cultural intelligence in education settings, which makes this study important (Dhaliwal, 2010; Tang et al., 2011).
The rich diversity of the geographic area in which the study was conducted made the topic selection appropriate. These outcomes are consistent with the literature that shows cultural competency is a critical factor in effective leadership (Keung & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2013; Northouse, 2009; Tang et al., 2011).
Ting-Toomey and Chung (2005) argued that of all the factors of cultural intelligence, knowledge is the most dynamic as it influences the other factors of cultural intelligence. Individuals with a broad repertoire of verbal and nonverbal behavioral capabilities also adjust easier in culturally diverse situations. According to Ang and Van
Dyne (2008), “Because behavioral expressions are especially salient in cross-cultural encounters, the behavioral component of CQ may be the most critical factor that observers use to assess other’s CQ” (p. 7). Furthermore, Van Dyne’s (2016) study of cultural intelligence concluded that higher CQ-Behavior will result in higher performance and interactional adjustment.
The findings of cultural intelligence (motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ) predicting leadership practices (Model the Way,
Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the
Heart), as well as the significant difference between the three institutions in the leadership practices of faculty, excluding, Enable Others to Act, underscore the significance of cultural intelligence in exemplary leadership. Moreover, they highlighted the value of faculty members in higher education who develop cultural intelligence
(Keung & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2013; Tang et al., 2011).
113 Walker and Shuangye (2007) proposed the need for authentic understanding and related action in leadership in intercultural institutions. This is necessary to achieve effectiveness and can be accomplished through ongoing leadership development.
Educational institutions should incorporate cultural intelligence training into new faculty orientations, adjunct or part-time faculty training, and certificate programs in higher education. Research by Ang and Van Dyne (2008) showed that individuals can increase their cultural intelligence in a number of ways: knowing the local language, working in cross-cultural settings, and living in multicultural environments. These types of experiences are predictors of CQ, therefore, activities, such as traveling abroad, speaking one or more languages, and engaging in academic training, reinforces the need for cultural intelligence training for higher education faculty, administrators, and staff.
Chun and Evans (2009) and Ting-Toomey (1999) reminded us that applying cultural intelligence and global leadership in education is essential, especially in today’s world, which is characterized by the changing demographics of college students and the challenges in the educational process brought on by a global society. It is essential that cultural intelligence training is integrated into higher education, and in particular, the educational leadership curriculum (Smith, Shrestha, & Evans, 2010).
Higher education leadership programs can incorporate cultural intelligence into existing coursework. The essential underpinnings of the cultural intelligence framework
(Earley & Ang, 2003) provide an empirical foundation to support current theoretical approaches used in higher education. Additionally, the application of CQ factors to the study of higher education leadership can provide faculty and future leaders with the requisite competencies to succeed in the rapidly changing higher education domain.
114 The significance of cognitive and behavioral CQ in leadership requires faculty to have the “ability to interact with ‘others’, to accept other perspectives and perceptions of the world, to mediate between different perspectives, to be conscious of their evaluations of difference” (Byram et al., 2001, p. 5). The association between cultural intelligence and leadership practices, therefore, confirms the need for knowledge development and personal growth. According to Schein (2010) embracing lifelong learning and flexibility are characteristics of exemplary leadership and in a learning culture, individuals “must hold the shared assumption that learning is a good thing worth investing in and that learning to learn is itself a skill to be mastered” (p. 366). In a world that is changing rapidly, the leader must have vision and be able to impose it and enact change as the circumstances dictate. This type of leader must be persistent and patient while still being flexible, resourceful, and open to change (Healey & Jenkins, 2000).
Furthermore, Ballenger and Ninness (2013), Gay (2012), Jandt (2004), and
Milhouse (1996) posited that the cultural diversity of the learning environment undoubtedly impacts educational practices at every level in a society characterized by diversity. Faculty members who are not knowledgeable about students’ cultural backgrounds potentially place the faculty-student interaction in jeopardy. Such a result might hinder the development of programs designed to help students (Bensimon, 2007).
With the expansion of higher education and the ever-increasing emphasis on access, retention rates, lifelong learning, and diversity, it behooves faculty to remain self- motivated and to motivate others toward change through the use of effective instructional and learning strategies (Healey & Jenkins, 2000). Amey (2006) and Cox (2013) affirmed that in communities of practice (CoP), leaders create a learning environment of cultural
115 awareness and acceptance of diversity in thinking and learning; they relentlessly seek ways to enhance the student experience.
The findings of this study are consistent with Thomas’s (2006) perception and definition of cultural intelligence in a way that presents the concept of mindfulness as a pivotal component, which links knowledge with behavioral capacity. This definition goes a step further by grounding the conceptualization in the cognitive domain and distinguishes cultural intelligence as one’s ability to exercise skilled behavior. Described as an increased awareness and attention to current experience, mindfulness explores diverse perspectives and creates new thought patterns; it bridges knowledge and behavior that satisfy the situation.
When teachers are aware of their biases and accept multicultural qualities, they can readily recognize the creative ways in which students express themselves. To advance teaching and learning in the college classroom requires an understanding of the underlying values, beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions of students, which affect their understanding of what they hear and read, as well as how they express themselves in the classroom. When teachers recognize these different qualities, classroom instruction can be designed to connect content to students’ backgrounds (Thomas, 2006). In the words of Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), faculty members must strive to acquire the requisite competencies and expertise that will help them achieve the demands of teaching, scholarship, and service.
In light of the increasing diversity of students on college campuses and the need to promote student success, higher education institutions must continue their efforts to hire diverse faculty, staff, and administrators (Oldfield, 2007). Since cultural intelligence
116 influences a leader’s ability to adapt in multicultural settings, it is reasonable that cultural intelligence should be a criterion in the selection of faculty. This will serve as a more advanced strategy for evaluating an applicant’s cultural competency. A modified version of the CQS developed by Ang and Van Dyne (2008) for higher education environments can potentially serve as a valuable tool to assess the baseline CQ levels of faculty.
Specifically, this assessment can generate feedback on the motivational, cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral CQ of faculty.
Limitations
The quantitative design of this study might contribute to the limitation of the findings. The quantitative methodology allowed the researcher to collect data conveniently from a culturally rich geographic area; however, it did limit the investigator to making numerical interpretations of the findings. As an example, the self-administered questionnaire did not allow for follow up questions that the researcher may have of respondents to further assess their selections on the survey instruments. Subsequently, the researcher could not make a qualitative assessment of the data collected.
Recommendations for Future Research
A sample size of 110 respondents from three selected higher education institutions was used in this study. A stratified sampling methodology was employed to select participants based on type of educational institution. Overall, the results show a statistically significant difference in cultural intelligence predicting exemplary leadership practices of faculty members. An examination of the scores among institutions showed a statistically significant difference in cultural intelligence predicting leadership practices except leadership practice, Enable Others to Act.
117 In this study, the LPI-self assessment was used to examine leadership. This assessment only shed light on the perspectives of educational leaders on exemplary practices. Use of the LPI 360 Online (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) to conduct similar research in the future would allow data to be collected from other individuals selected by the faculty: colleagues, supervisors, and others. This information might provide diverse insights into exemplary leadership practices of higher education faculty.
The higher education institutions used in this study are located in the same geographic area: South Florida. Replication of the research design in higher education institutions located in different regions of the state might increase diversity of information on exemplary leadership practices of higher education faculty. A qualitative study that uses interview methods to investigate the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership might provide new insights into leadership in higher education. If a leadership practice is determined to be associated with high scores in cultural intelligence, it makes reasonable sense to recommend the integration of such a leadership practice in the education environment. Moreover, in their decision making, higher education leaders can make the development of leadership practices among faculty a high priority.
The decision to give instructional leaders leadership training in cultural intelligence is highly recommended. While faculty in this study demonstrated preference for certain leadership practices, their preferences might be incorporated to develop a blended leadership style that may be more suitable for today’s diverse college campus. It is incumbent upon twenty-first century faculty members to demonstrate leadership that reflects the cognitive, behavioral, and motivational proficiencies to make multicultural
118 evaluations. These evaluations have the potential to help faculty use creative and scientific knowledge to support intercultural interactions.
In light of the findings in this study, future research should build on this line of research by examining students’ perception of the cultural intelligence level of faculty members. As studies in cultural intelligence in higher education increase, qualitative research that examines how faculty members with high CQ interact with multicultural students might be insightful.
Cultural intelligence is central to global leadership (Van Dyne et al., 2010); therefore, the visionary actions of faculty will help to strengthen alliances with the different stakeholders in the academic community. As educational leaders participate in initiatives to create new and innovative policies to enhance such areas as the learning environment for students, they will anticipate new challenges and greater achievements while promoting academic excellence (Hoff, 1999). In Florida, the Florida Excellence in
Higher Education Act of 2017 established the World Class Faculty and Scholar Program to fund and support university efforts to recruit and retain exemplary faculty and research scholars as funded in the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The Florida Legislature allocated $121 million to the program; a significant fiscal commitment (The Florida
Senate, 2017). According to Hearn, McLendon, and Lacy (2013), programs like these
“have been characterized as the state economic-development investment that “keeps on giving” by stimulating both university development and regional knowledge economies”
(p. 602). While funding for the World Class Faculty and Scholar Program is not permanent, this program can potentially have significant internal impacts on public higher education institutions in the state.
119 Hunt and Tierney (2006) concluded that the American higher education system is more central to the success of the American economy and democracy in the 21st century than it was 100 years ago, and that the competition in the global community to develop human talent is increasing rapidly. In meeting such demands, “colleges and universities—administrators, faculty, and trustees—can do something much more practical to bring about economic and social change; they can lead” (p. 4).
Summary
In summary, the importance of cultural intelligence is evident as it relates to faculty leadership in today’s higher education domain. A greater understanding of the specific variables that influence faculty leadership may facilitate a demonstration of exemplary leadership in the multicultural academic community (Urnaut, 2014) and lead to exceptional leadership in the academy. A more culturally flexible faculty can easily adapt to new multicultural learning environments and be more successful in instruction and learning (Daft, 2011). As a final point, the American Association of University
Professors (2000) stated that the benefit to “personal, social, and moral growth” as a result of attention to multicultural interaction and learning helps “improve the capacity of colleges and universities to achieve their missions” (p. 5).
120 APPENDICES
121 Appendix A. Studies Related to CQ of Faculty/Administrators Using the CQS
TITLE RESEARCHER
Comparing Higher Education Practices and Cultural Kennedy Musamali & Barbara N. Martin
Competences in Kenya and the United States 2016
The Impact of Cultural Intelligence Levels on Community Angela K. Hoppe Nagao
College Faculty Conflict Management Preferences: A 2015
Quantitative Study
Education for Successful Intercultural Communication and Anita Goltnik Urnaut
Cultural Intelligence March 2014
Teaching Across Cultures: Building Pedagogical Chinwe H. Ikpeze
Relationships in Diverse Contexts.
Experiences in Postsecondary Education that May Lead to Solange A. Lopes-Murphy
Cultural Intelligence: Exploring and Proposing Practices 2014
What Every Community College Leader Needs to Know: George R. Boggs and Judith Irwin
Building Leadership for International Education. 2007
What Factors of Cultural Intelligence Predict Emerson K. Keung
Transformational Leadership: A Study of International 2011
School Leaders
122 Appendix B. Studies Related to Leadership of Faculty/Administrators Using the LPI
TITLE RESEARCHER
The Influence of Leadership Practices on Faculty Job Clifford C. Afam
Satisfaction in Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program University of North Carolina at Charlotte
May 2012
Apiradee Amnuckmanee
Demographic Influences on the Leadership Practices of Nova Southeastern University
Chief Faculty Officers During the Period of Reform April 2002
Leadership Practices, Job Satisfaction and Leadership Shelah Mackin Brown
Activities of Trained Reading Recovery Teachers University of Bridgeport (Connecticut)
October 1996
The Effects of Leadership Skills Instruction on Leadership David Schmiesing
Practices Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio)
Fall 2001
Exploring Leadership in Distance Education, the Blueprint George Timmons for Success: A Study of Self-Reported Leadership Bowling Green State University
Practices and Institutional Characteristics May 2002
Leadership Practices in Higher Education in Mongolia Adiya Tsend
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
April 2000
A Study of the Classroom Organization, Teachers’ Use of Christina B. Coons
Power, and Students’ Perceptions of Leadership Ohio University
November 1995
Relationships Between Sex Role Orientation, Carrie L. Dunson
Interpersonal Relations Orientation, Leadership Style University of Missouri-Kansas City
Practices, and Fear of Success in University Faculty December 1992
123 Leadership Practices Used by Online Instructors in Higher Tammy Webb Ledbetter
Education University of Phoenix
May 2003
A Profile of Faculty Leadership Behavior at one South Federico Solis, Jr.
Texas Community College Texas A&M University (Kingsville and
Corpus Christi)
May 2011
Effective Leadership Practices of Undergraduate Teaching Jonathan C. Spence
Professors University of Missouri-Columbia
December 2005
Latina University Professors, Insights into the Journeys of Sandra Jeannette Vasquez-Guignard
Those who Strive to Leadership Within Academia Pepperdine University
November 2010
124 Appendix C. Request for Permission to use the CQS
From: Althia Ellis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Request for Permission to use CQS
Hello Dr. Van Dyne,
My name is Althia Ellis and I am a doctoral student at Florida Atlantic University, engaged in research for the purpose of satisfying a course requirement in the Doctor of Education Leadership (Adult and Community Education) degree program.
I would like permission to use the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) in my research study: Influence of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Faculty Leadership.
The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of cultural intelligence (CQ) on faculty leadership.
The general problem to be examined is the increasing need for faculty to expand their cultural intelligence to enable them to lead effectively in 21st century educational institutions. The faculty members I intend to study are employed at one public university, one private university, and one state college in South Florida. The study will use a survey design to collect data. Study participants will be invited via email to complete a survey inclusive of two surveys and a demographic questionnaire.
With your permission, I will use this instrument only for my research study and will not sell or use it for compensation of any kind.
Thank you for providing this valuable resource. I look forward to receiving a favorable response.
Respectfully,
Althia
Althia Ellis, M.P.A. Ph.D. Candidate, Educational Leadership Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL [email protected]
125 Appendix D. Permission to use the CQS
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Linn Van Dyne
Hello Althia,
Thank you for your interest in using CQ in your academic research. You have my permission to use our copyrighted CQ surveys in your research aimed at publication in scholarly journals.
There are three easy ways you can do this.
1) We offer on-line assessments that provide personal feedback reports to participants. This provides them with an incentive to participate in your research because the reports allow people to compare their CQ scores with the world-wide norms and also gives them feedback on the CQ sub-dimensions. The feedback reports also include questions to guide interpretation of results and creation of personal development plans. The highly discounted cost for academic researchers is $12-$18 per participant depending on the type of program. Alternatively, you can set up a program using the E-CQS where participants pay personally by individual credit card before accessing the assessment. We can provide you with an xls file with individual participant responses to the 37 items in the E-CQS that you can use in your research (cost = $150). Keyla (copied on this email can give you more information on these programs if you are interested).
2) You can create your own survey using the 20 items in the CQS (contact me for a copy of the scale). If you do this, be sure to include the following copyright information on all electronic and paper copies of the survey:
© Cultural Intelligence Center 2005. Used by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center. Note. Use of this scale granted to academic researchers for research purposes only. For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to [email protected]
3) You can create your own survey using the 37 E-CQS items (contact me for a copy of the scale). If you do this, be sure to include the following copyright information on all electronic and paper copies of the survey.
© Cultural Intelligence Center 2014. Used by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center. Note. Use of this scale granted to academic researchers for research purposes only. For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to [email protected]
Please remember these are copyrighted scales and I am making them available to you ONLY for scholarly research aimed at publication in academic journals. Should you
126 decide you want to use the scale for consulting or program evaluation in the future, please contact me to make the necessary arrangements.
In addition, please remember that you should use 1-7 Likert scales responses in research and research papers/presentations because the world-wide norms and the 1-100 scores are proprietary.
We wish you the best with your research. Please share your results with us so that we can learn from you
Sincerely,
Linn
127 Appendix E. Request for Permission to use the LPI-Self
Hello,
My name is Althia Ellis and I am a doctoral student at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, FL, engaged in research for the purpose of satisfying a course requirement in the Doctor of Education Leadership degree program.
I would like your permission to use the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI-Self) in my research study: Influence of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Faculty Leadership.
The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of cultural intelligence (CQ) on faculty leadership at one public university, one private university, and one state college in South Florida.
With your permission, I will use this instrument only for my research study and will not sell or use it for compensation of any kind.
Thank you for providing this valuable resource. I look forward to receiving a favorable response.
Respectfully,
Althia
Althia Ellis, M.P.A. Ph.D. Candidate, Educational Leadership [email protected]
128 Appendix F. Permission to use the LPI-Self
July 12, 2016
Althia Ellis
Dear Ms. Ellis:
Thank you for your request to use the LPI®: Leadership Practices Inventory® in your dissertation. This letter grants you permission to use either the print or electronic LPI [Self/Observer/Self and Observer] instrument[s] in your research. You may reproduce the instrument in printed form at no charge beyond the discounted one-time cost of purchasing a single copy; however, you may not distribute any photocopies except for specific research purposes. If you prefer to use the electronic distribution of the LPI you will need to separately contact Joshua Carter ([email protected]) directly for further details regarding product access and payment. Please be sure to review the product information resources before reaching out with pricing questions.
Permission to use either the written or electronic versions is contingent upon the following:
(1) The LPI may be used only for research purposes and may not be sold or used in conjunction with any compensated activities; (2) Copyright in the LPI, and all derivative works based on the LPI, is retained by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. The following copyright statement must be included on all reproduced copies of the instrument(s); “Copyright © 2013 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission”; (3) One (1) electronic copy of your dissertation and one (1) copy of all papers, reports, articles, and the like which make use of the LPI data must be sent promptly to my attention at the address below; and, (4) We have the right to include the results of your research in publication, promotion, distribution and sale of the LPI and all related products.
Permission is limited to the rights granted in this letter and does not include the right to grant others permission to reproduce the instrument(s) except for versions made by nonprofit organizations for visually or physically handicapped persons. No additions or changes may be made without our prior written consent. You understand that your use of the LPI shall in no way place the LPI in the public domain or in any way compromise our copyright in the LPI. This license is nontransferable. We reserve the right to revoke this
129 permission at any time, effective upon written notice to you, in the event we conclude, in our reasonable judgment, that your use of the LPI is compromising our proprietary rights in the LPI.
Best wishes for every success with your research project.
Cordially,
Ellen Peterson Permissions Editor [email protected]
One Montgomery, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594 U.S. T +1 415 433 1740 F +1 415 433 0499 www.wiley.com
130 Appendix G. Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)
Read each statement and select the response that best describes your capabilities. Select the answer that BEST describes you AS YOU REALLY ARE (1=strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree).
CQ Factors = Motivational CQ (CQ Drive), Cognitive CQ (CQ Knowledge),
Metacognitive CQ (CQ Strategy), Behavioral CQ (CQ Action)
CQ Factor Questionnaire Items
CQ-Strategy: MC1 I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MC2 I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MC3 I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MC4 I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CQ-Knowledge: COG1 I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COG2 I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COG3 I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COG4 I know the marriage systems of other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COG5 I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COG6 I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviors in other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CQ-Motivation: MOT1 I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOT2 I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOT3 I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOT4 I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOT5 I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
131 CQ Behavior:
BEH1 I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEH2 I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEH3 I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEH4 I change my non-verbal behavior when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEH5 I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
© Cultural Intelligence Center, 2005. Used by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center.
Note. Use of this scale granted to academic researchers for research purposes only.
For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to [email protected]
132 Appendix H. The Leadership Practices Inventory Self (LPI-Self)
Rate how frequently you engage in each of the important behaviors associated with The
Five Practices. The response scale is:
RESPONSE 1-Almost Never 3-Seldom 5-Occasionally 7-Fairly Often 9-Very Frequently
SCALE 2-Rarely 4-Once in a While 6-Sometimes 8-Usually 10-Almost Always
Model the Way
1. I set a personal example of what I expect of others.
2. I follow through on the promises and commitments that I make.
3. I spend time and energy making certain that the people I work with adhere to the
principles and standards we have agreed on.
4. I ask for feedback on how my actions affect other people’s performance.
5. I build consensus around a common set of values for running our organization.
6. I am clear about my philosophy of leadership.
Inspire a Shared Vision
1. I talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets done.
2. I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future.
3. I describe a compelling image of what our future could be like.
4. I show others how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting in a
common vision.
5. I paint the “big picture” of what we aspire to accomplish.
6. I speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of our
work.
133 Challenge the Process
1. I seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and abilities.
2. I make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and establish
measurable milestones for the projects and programs that we work on.
3. I challenge people to try out new and innovative ways to do their work.
4. I experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of failure.
5. I ask “What can we learn?” when things don’t go as expected.
6. I search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for innovative ways to
improve what we do.
Enable Others to Act
1. I treat others with dignity and respect.
2. I give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their work.
3. I actively listen to diverse points of view.
4. I develop cooperative relationships among the people I work with.
5. I support the decisions that people make on their own.
6. I ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing
themselves.
Encourage the Heart
1. I make it a point to let people know about my confidence in their abilities.
2. I give the members of the team lots of appreciation and support for their
contributions.
3. I praise people for a job well done.
4. I find ways to celebrate accomplishments.
134 5. I publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to shared values.
6. I make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the
success of our projects.
Copyright © 2013 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
135 Appendix I. Regression Charts
RQ1: What is the influence of cultural intelligence on faculty leadership?
Leadership Practices (Overall)
136
137
138 Group 1: Private University
Leadership Practices (Overall)
139
140
141 Group 2: Public University
Leadership Practices (Overall)
142
143
144 Group 3: State College
Leadership Practices (Overall)
145
146
147 RQ2: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in modeling the way?
Leadership Practice, Model the Way (Overall)
148
149
150 Group 1: Private University
Leadership Practice, Model the Way
151
152
153 Group 2: Public University
Leadership Practice, Model the Way
154
155
156 Group 3: State College
Leadership Practice, Model the Way
157
158
159 RQ3: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in inspiring a shared vision?
Leadership Practice, Inspire a Shared Vision (Overall)
160
161
162 Group 1: Private University
Leadership Practice, Inspire a Shared Vision
163
164
165 Group 2: Public University
Leadership Practice, Inspire a Shared Vision
166
167
168 Group 3: State College
Leadership Practice, Inspire a Shared Vision
169
170
171 RQ4. Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in challenging the process?
Leadership Practice, Challenge the Process (Overall)
172
173
174 Group 1: Private University
Leadership Practice, Challenge the Process
175
176
177 Group 2: Public University
Leadership Practice, Challenge the Process
178
179
180 Group 3: State College
Leadership Practice, Challenge the Process
181
182
183 RQ5: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in enabling others to act?
Leadership Practice, Enable Others to Act (Overall)
184
185
186 Group 1: Private University
Leadership Practice, Enable Others to Act
187
188
189 Group 2: Public University
Leadership Practice, Enable Others to Act
190
191
192 Group 3: State College
Leadership Practice, Enable Others to Act
193
194
195 RQ6: Does high cultural intelligence influence faculty leadership in encouraging the heart?
Leadership Practices, Encourage the Heart (Overall)
196
197
198 Group 1: Private University
Leadership Practice, Encourage the Heart
199
200
201 Group 2: Public University
Leadership Practice, Encourage the Heart
202
203
204 Group 3: State College
Leadership Practice, Encourage the Heart
205
206
207 REFERENCES
Abdollahi, A., & Abu Talib, M. (2016). Self-esteem, body-esteem, emotional
intelligence, and social anxiety in a college sample: The moderating role of
weight. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 21(2), 221-225.
doi:10.1080/13548506.2015.1017825
Adalberto, Jr., A., & Martinez, R. (2002). Leadership practices and diversity in higher
education: Transitional and transformational frameworks. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 8(3), 53.
Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S. L., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ahn, M. J., & Ettner, L. (2013). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in MBA curricula.
Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 7(1), 4-16.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education:
Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4),
290-305. doi:10.1177/1028315307303542
American Association of University Professors. (2000). Does diversity make a
difference? A research report. Washington, DC.
Amey, M. J. (2006). Leadership in higher education. Change, 38 (6)55-58.
Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success:
A framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences, 39(3),
337-358.
208 Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement and applications. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. S. K. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor
model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31 (1), 100-
123. doi:10.1177/1059601105275267
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N.
A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural
judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance.
Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371. doi:10.1111/j.1740-
8784.2007.00082.x
Anvari, R., Irum, S., Ashfaq, M., & Atiyaye, D. M. (2014). The impact of leader’s
cultural intelligence on organizational commitment. Asian Social Science, 10(17),
45-51.
Ballenger, J. W., & Ninness, S. (2013). Increasing one’s cultural proficiency. National
Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 10(1), 1-5.
Barrett, M. (2012). Intercultural competence. EWC Statement Series, 2, p. 23-27. Oslo
NO: European Wergeland Centre.
Bennett, J. (Ed.) (2015). The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence (Vols. 1-
2). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781483346267
Bennett, M. (2013). Intercultural communication. In C. Cortés (Ed.), Multicultural
America: A multimedia encyclopedia. (pp. 1197-1202). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452276274.n459
209 Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in
the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-
469.
Boggs, G. R., & Irwin, J. (2007). What every community college leader needs to know:
Building leadership for international education. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2007(138), 25-30. doi:10.1002/cc.278
Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding
behaviors that serve people’s goals. Group & Organization Management, 31(1),
40-55. doi:10.1177/1059601105275262
Broward.org. (2015). 30 quick facts. Retrieved from
http://www.broward.org/Planning/Demographics/Pages/30-Quick-Facts.aspx
Brown, L. I. (2004). Diversity: The challenge for higher education. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 7(1), 21-34. doi:10.1080/1361332042000187289
Bucher, R. D. (2008). Building cultural intelligence (CQ): Nine megaskills. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (2001). Developing intercultural competence in
practice. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters.
Chang, H., Longman, K. A., & Franco, M. A. (2014). Leadership development through
mentoring in higher education: A collaborative autoethnography of leaders of
color. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(4), 373-389.
doi:10.1080/13611267.2014.945734
210 Chen, D. (2014). Achieving diversity in higher education: Faculty leaders’ perceptions
of culturally responsive leadership (Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. (3622847)
Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2009). Special issue: Bridging the diversity divide - globalization
and reciprocal empowerment in higher education. ASHE Higher Education
Report, 35(1), 1.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Colbert, P. J. (2010). Developing a culturally responsive classroom collaborative of
faculty, students, and institution. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(11),
15-24.
Collard, J. (2007). Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts. Journal
of Educational Administration, 45(6), 740-755.
doi:10.1108/09578230710829919
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cox, M. D. (2013). The impact of communities of practice in support of early-career
academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 18-30.
doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.599600
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Cultural Intelligence Center. (2016). What is CQ? Retrieved from
https://culturalq.com/what-is-cq/
211 Daft, R. L. (2011). The leadership experience (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western,
Cengage Learning.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10, 241-266.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2013). Critical race theory: The cutting edge (3rd ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Dhaliwal, B. K. (2010). A study of the relationship between leadership styles and
cultural intelligence among school leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I: Social Sciences, ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: Social Sciences. (856339852)
Dolan, S. L., & Kawamura, K. M. (2015). Cross cultural competence: A field guide
for developing global leaders and managers. Bradford, GB: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.ezproxy.fau.edu
Drucker, P. F. (2008). Management (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across
cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J. (2006). CQ: Developing cultural intelligence at work.
Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
212 Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Toward culture intelligence: Turning cultural
differences into a workplace advantage. Academy of Management Executive,
18(3), 151-157. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.28561784
Eken, I., Özturgut, O., & Craven, A. E. (2014). Leadership styles and cultural
intelligence. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(3), 154-165.
Ellis, A. (2015). Cultural intelligence and experiential learning powering faculty
intercultural leadership development. In V. C. X. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of
research on learning outcomes and opportunities in the digital age (pp. 354-375).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch016
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses
using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior
Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
Fellows, K. L., Goedde, S. D., & Schwichtenberg, E. J. (2014). What’s your CQ? A
thought leadership exploration of cultural intelligence in contemporary
institutions of higher learning. Romanian Journal of Communication & Public
Relations, 16(2), 13-34.
Ferrari, M. (2002). The pursuit of excellence through education. Mahwah, N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Florida Atlantic University. (2016). Request authorization to conduct survey
research: Qualtrics. Retrieved from
https://helpdesk.fau.edu/TDClient/Requests/ServiceDet?ID=12105
213 Florida Atlantic University (2017). Virtual apps: Software anywhere, anytime.
Retrieved from http://www.virtualapps.fau.edu
The Florida Senate. (2017). CS/CS/SB 374 - Postsecondary education. Retrieved from
https://flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2017/html/1641
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in
education (9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Fujii, S. J. (2014). Diversity, communication, and leadership in the community college
faculty search process. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
38(10), 903-916. doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.725387
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Gay, G. (2012). Culture and communication in the classroom. In L. A. Samovar, R. E.
Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (13th
ed.) (pp. 381-399). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Gohar, Y. (2014). Cultural intelligence of expatriate teachers in a multi-cultural
education setting. Retrieved from http://dar.aucegypt.edu/handle/10526/3932
Gooden, D. J., Creque, C. A., & Chin-Loy, C. (2017). The impact of metacognitive,
cognitive and motivational cultural intelligence on behavioral cultural
intelligence. The International Business & Economics Research Journal
(Online), 16(3), 223. doi:10.19030/iber.v16i3.10006
Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering
learning communities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
214 Greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance, Broward County. (n.d.). Top reasons to relocate or
expand in Greater Fort Lauderdale/Broward County. Retrieved from
http://www.gflalliance.org/information-center/top-reasons-to-relocate-or-expand-
in-greater-fort-lauderdale-broward-county/#.WFlm8lz-Dnc
Hansman, C. A. (2014). Mentoring in graduate education: Curriculum for transformative
learning. In V. C. X. Wang (Ed.), Andragogical and Pedagogical Methods for
Curriculum and Program Development (pp. 101-117). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5872-1.ch006
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application
in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185-195.
doi:10.1080/00221340008978967
Hearn, J. C., McLendon, M. K., & Lacy, T. A. (2013). State-funded “eminent scholars”
programs: University faculty recruitment as an emerging policy instrument. The
Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 601-639.
Heifetz, R. A., Kania, J. V., & Kramer, M. R. (2004). Leading boldly. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 2(3), 20‐32.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). A survival guide for leaders. Harvard Business
Review, 80(6), 65‐73.
Henry, W. J., Fowler, S. R., & West, N. M. (2011). Campus climate: An assessment of
students’ perceptions in a college of education. Urban Education, 46(4), 689-718.
doi:10.1177/0042085911399791
Hoff, K. S. (1999). Leaders and managers: Essential skills required within higher
education. Higher Education, 38(3), 311-331. doi:10.1023/A:1003783111097
215 Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hoppes, C. R., & Holley, K. A. (2014). Organizational trust in times of challenge: The
impact on faculty and administrators. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 201-
216. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9275-y
Hudea, O. S. (2014). Cross-cultural leadership. Manager, 19(1), 45-52.
Huffman, J. (2003). The role of shared values and vision in creating professional
learning communities. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 21-34.
doi:10.1177/019263650308763703
Hunt, Jr., J. B., & Tierney, T. J. (2006). American higher education: How does it
measure up for the 21st century? Retrieved from
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/hunt_tierney/Hunt_Tierney.pdf
Hyatt, L., & Williams, P. E. (2011). 21st century competencies for doctoral leadership
faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 53-66.
doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9157-5
Jackson, J. (2014). Introducing language and intercultural communication. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Jandt, F. E. (2004). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a
global community (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jarvis, P., Griffin, C., & Holford, J. (1998). International perspectives on lifelong
learning. New York, NY: Kogan Page.
Jessup‐Anger, J. E. (2015). Theoretical foundations of learning communities. New
Directions for Student Services, 2015(149), 17-27. doi:10.1002/ss.20114
216 Kelsch, A., & Hawthorne, J. (2014). Preparing new faculty for leadership:
Understanding and addressing needs. To Improve the Academy, 33(1), 57-73.
doi:10.1002/tia2.20006
Keung, E., & J. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2013). The relationship between
transformational leadership and cultural intelligence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 51(6), 836-854. doi:10.1108/JEA-04-2012-0049
King, E. B., Gulick, L. M. V., & Avery, D. R. (2010). The divide between diversity
training and diversity education: Integrating best practices. Journal of
Management Education, 34(6), 891-906. doi:10.1177/1052562909348767
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to
andragogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge Books.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to
rewarding and recognizing others (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (June, 2002). The leadership practices inventory: Theory
and evidence behind the five practices of exemplary leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/Research-section-Our-Authors-Research-
Detail/the-leadership-practices-inventory-theory-and-evidence-behind-the-five-
practices-of-exemplary-leaders.aspx
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The student leadership challenge: Five practices
for exemplary leaders (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
217 Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The leadership challenge: How to make
extraordinary things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2014). Student leadership challenge: The five
practices for becoming an exemplary leader (2nd. Ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=572467
Kouzes, J. M., Posner, B. Z., & DeKrey, S. J. (2013). Making extraordinary things
happen in Asia: Applying the five practices of exemplary leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The Leadership Challenge. (2016). What is a leadership educator? Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/educators.aspx
Lehto, X. Y., Cai, L. A., Fu, X., & Chen, Y. (2014). Intercultural interactions outside the
classroom: Narratives on a US campus. Journal of College Student Development,
55(8), 837-853. doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0083
Lemm, K. (2010). Stratified sampling. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research
design (pp. 1452-1454). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
doi:10.4135/9781412961288.n445
Livermore, D. (2010). Leading with cultural intelligence: The new secret to success.
New York, NY: AMACOM.
Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: Challenging theory and
practice in education. London, UK: Sage.
Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (2013). Handbook of critical race theory in education. New
York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203155721
218 MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of
cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 62-71.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.12.001
McCall, M. B. (2006). Leadership and faculty development. Community College
Journal, 76(4), 3.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood:
A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miami Herald, International Edition. (2016, September 14). Miami’s cultural diversity
boosting local economy. Retrieved from https://miamire.com/docs/default-
source/international-articles-and-advertisements/intl-article-2016-09-14-miami-
herald.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Milhouse, V. H. (1996). Intercultural communication education and training goals,
content, and methods. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(1), 69-
95. doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(95)00042-9
Morgan, G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G., & Barrett, K. (2011). IBM SPSS for introductory
statistics: Use and interpretation (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality
and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human
Performance, 11(2-3), 145-165. doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029
Museus, S. D., & Smith, E. J. (2016). The culturally engaging campus environments
model and survey: A report on new tools for assessing campus environments and
219 diverse college student outcomes. Retrieved from
https://www.naspa.org/rpi/reports/cece-project
Nahavandi, A. (2015). The art and science of leadership (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a). Broward College: Enrollment by
gender, student level, and full- and part-time status: Fall 2014 [Data set].
Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/institutionprofile.aspx?unitId=acaeadb2abb4
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014b). Broward College: Number of full-and
part-time staff and graduate assistants, by primary occupational category: Fall
2014 [Data set]. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionProfile.aspx?unitId=acaeadb2abb4
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014c). Florida Atlantic University:
Enrollment by gender, student level, and full- and part-time status: Fall 2014
[Data set]. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/institutionprofile.aspx?unitId=acaeaeb1b1b4
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014d). Florida Atlantic University: Number
of full-and part-time staff and graduate assistants, by primary occupational
category: Fall 2014 [Data set]. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/institutionprofile.aspx?unitId=acaeaeb1b1b4
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014e). Nova Southeastern University:
Enrollment by gender, student level, and full- and part-time status: Fall 2014
220 [Data set]. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/institutionprofile.aspx?unitId=acaeb1adacb0
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014f). Nova Southeastern University:
Number of full-and part-time staff and graduate assistants, by primary
occupational category: Fall 2014 [Data set]. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionProfile.aspx?unitId=acaeb1adacb0
Natkin, L., & Kolbe, T. (2016). Enhancing sustainability curricula through faculty
learning communities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 17(4), 540-558. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-02-2015-0024
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning:
Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development.
Academy of Management and Learning & Education, 8(4), 511-526.
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Oldfield, K. (2007). Expanding economic democracy in American higher education: A
two-step approach to hiring more teachers from poverty- and working-class
backgrounds. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 217-
230. doi:10.1080/13600800701351785
Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116-137.
Pisapia, J. (2010). The strategic leader: New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
221 Randall, L. M., & Coakley, L. A. (2007). Applying adaptive leadership to successful
change initiatives in academia. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 28(4), 325-335. doi:10.1108/01437730710752201
Rissler, M. L. (2013). Statistics translated: A step-by-step guide to analyzing and
interpreting data. The American Statistician, 67(3), 185.
Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2003). The special challenges of academic leadership.
Management Decision, 41(10), 1058‐1063.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2012). Intercultural communication:
A reader (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Savicki, V. (2008). Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory,
research, and application in international education (1st ed.). Sterling, VA:
Stylus Pub.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Smith, W. I., Shrestha, N.R., & Evans, C. L. (2010). 360° approach to assessing cross-
cultural intelligence: Use of film. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3, 1-9.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2006). Cultural intelligence and successful
intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 27-39.
doi:10.1177/1059601105275255
222 Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Measuring race and gender differences in undergraduate
students’ perceptions of campus climate and intentions to leave college: An
analysis in black and white. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
50(2), 115-132. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2013-0010
Sutherland, P., & Crowther, J. (2008). Lifelong learning: Concepts and contexts. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Tang, H., Yin, M., & Min, J. (2011). A comparative study of educational leadership in
Taiwan and the USA. African Journal of Business Management, 5(1), 30-38.
Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Developing cultural intelligence. In S. Ang & L.
Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 56–70). New York, NY:
Sharpe.
Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural
intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-
cultural adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 154-173.
doi:10.1177/1059601105275293
Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance
of mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 78-99.
doi:10.1177/1059601105275266
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J., & Lazarova,
M. B. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123-143.
doi:10.1177/1470595808091787
223 Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2005). Understanding intercultural communication.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Urnaut, A. G. (2014). Education for successful intercultural communication and cultural
intelligence. Journal of Economic and Social Development, 1(1), 63-73.
Van Dyne, L. (2005). Cultural intelligence: Globalization, self-awareness, and
awareness of others. Center for Creative Leadership. Retrieved from
http://linnvandyne.com/othpres.html
Van Dyne, L. (2016). Results for specific factors of cultural intelligence (CQ).
Retrieved from http://linnvandyne.com/specfactor.html
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. K. S. (2009). Cultural intelligence: Measurement and
scale development. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.). Contemporary leadership and
intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within
organizations (pp. 233-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Livermore, D. (2010). Cultural intelligence: A pathway for
leading in a rapidly globalizing world. In K. M. Hannum, B. McFeeters, & L.
Booysen (Eds.), Leading across differences: Cases and perspectives (pp. 131-
138). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers:
Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
doi:10.1177/0022487102053001003
224 Walker, A., & Shuangye, C. (2007). Leader authenticity in intercultural school contexts.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 185-204.
doi:10.1177/1741143207075388
Wang, V. C. X. (2006). Essential elements for andragogical styles and methods: How to
create andragogical modes in adult education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Ward, H. C., & Selvester, P. M. (2012). Faculty learning communities: Improving
teaching in higher education. Educational Studies, 38(1), 111-121.
doi:10.1080/03055698.2011.567029
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2013). The chief diversity officer: Strategy,
structure, and change management. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Zambo, D., & Isai, S. (2013). Action research and the educational doctorate: New
promises and visions. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8(1), 97-
112. doi:10.1177/1942775112464960
Zautra, E. K., Zautra, A. J., Gallardo, C. E., & Velasco, L. (2015). Can we learn to treat
one another better? A test of a social intelligence curriculum. PloS One, 10(6),
e0128638. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128638
225