The review of existing studies on CQ identifies the current status of what has been done so far and what can be further investigated. For instance the previous research on CQ has been focused on investigating the origin of CQ (Crowne 2008), the role of CQ in developing the capabilities of Global leaders (Janssen’s &
Cappellen 2008), importance of CQ in leadership effectiveness (Rocksthul, Seiler, Ang, Dyne & Annen 2011) the role of CQ in international business ventures, such as offshoring (Ang & Inkpen 2008), the relation between the CQ with Big Five personality (Ang, Dyne & Koh 2006) and the development of firm level capabilities (Triandis 2006) etc. Likewise, previous studies on CQ have been concentrated on key areas such as the differentiating CQ with other measures of intelligence such as EQ, outcomes of CQ, and applicability of CQ as an individual and firm level capability etc. The detailed discussion about the previous literature will be discussed in detail in the forthcoming literature review section.
The existing studies on CQ has been largely focused on a just few broad areas.
From an in-depth review of CQ literatures the key research gap identified is that there has been little research undertaken in determining the experiences of individuals, and leaders in particular, with different levels of CQ capabilities and in the context of a single country environment. This is essential to know, because CQ of a person is assessed by using very generic measures. Furthermore, cross-cultural behaviour capability are not characteristics that an individual is born with. Each of us develops cross-cultural abilities over time and with experience.
An individual may develop better cross-cultural abilities in one country and cultural context than another due to a number of reasons. These could be personal interests, personality, cultural distance, earlier experience, personal ties, etc. Having said that, it is important to understand whether CQ can be really a generic theory assessed with generic measurements or whether it is contextual and more valid in one situation or for one personality type than for another.
In addition, there appears little or no empirical study that has investigated how the business leaders or individuals from individualistic cultures utilize CQ capabilities in the context of a collectivistic cultural environment and vice versa.
Furthermore, previous studies have not explored how business leaders and different members of organizations utilize their CQ capabilities (such as motivational CQ, cognitive CQ, metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ) in a very culturally pluralistic environment (Earley & Ang 2003). Finally, the existing empirical studies on CQ are based on the 20 item CQ generic scale. This does not allow revealing contextually of the CQ theory and provides only rounded means.
Therefore, CQ research needs an in-depth qualitative study that could challenge CQ theory with the possibility of revealing new factors between CQ capabilities and actual individual performance.
The CQ theory claims that individuals with high level of CQ capabilities have higher level of intercultural interactions in any culturally diverse situation (Ng, Dyne & Ang 2009:245). Furthermore, according to Earley & Ang (2003), Thomas (2006); Ng & Earley (2006); Ng, Dyne & Ang (2009:514) CQ capability allows the individual to understand a wide range of cultures. In a sense, CQ theory claims that individuals who score high on four capabilities (motivational, cognitive, metacognitive and behavioral) can perform better in any intercultural situation (Ng & Earley 2006; Ng, Dyne & Ang 2009). Furthermore, CQ theory also positions itself as a culture free construct which can be applied in any cultural situation (Dyne, Ang & Nielsen 2007:345). In this context, this study is dedicated to investigate the rationale behind the claim that individuals with high CQ have better intercultural interaction. In a sense do the leaders with high CQ really perform better and in what ways they recognize the cultural differences
intercultural situation?. Likewise, does CQ capabilities are applicable in culturally pluralistic environment such as India. Besides, it is also equally important how the individuals with different CQ capabilities view the challenges and evaluate them between his or her own country with the foreign country.
There are several valid reasons why this study has chosen Finnish leadership in India. First, India and Finland are totally contrasting cultures. Second, Finnish organizational structure is based on horizontal or flat structure whereas Indian organizations are based on hierarchy. Third, Finnish society is based on individualism and Indian society is based on collectivism (Hofstede et al. 2010).
Fourth, Finnish leadership style is based on autonomy and Indian leadership is based on paternalism. Moreover, there are many differences between Finland and India in terms of languages, religion, political structure, economic development, educational level, infrastructure and traditions. Therefore, the cultural distance between both the countries reflect the divergence in terms of values, attitudes, and behavior that affects the people and organizations (from Finland and India) acting and interacting in a cross-cultural space (Drogendijk &
Zander 2010: 206). Apart from the above mentioned reasons, it is also worthwhile to discuss the significance of cultural capabilities for Finnish business leaders in an Indian environment. Leading Business in India is a complex phenomenon due to significant cultural, regional, linguistic, and religious variations across the country. The various aspects of Indian culture such as national, religious, and regional cultures have strong influence in the day to day life of people and also in the business environment. Therefore, in order to function effectively in an Indian environment Finnish business leader’s require cultural sensitivity as the influence of culture is highly commanding in India.
The leadership style in India or Indian leadership style have evolved as distinctive style from the western style and it has helped Indian companies to stimulate extraordinary business growth even though challenging business environment conditions prevail (Capelli et al. 2010: 22). Additionally, leading business in India greatly differs from the western leadership style such in systems and in control. Hence, leadership in a strong culture like India is inherently tied up with cultural intelligence. Managing personnel, recruiting talents, formulating the right strategy, understanding the customers, adapting suitable leadership style and communicating respect are the most consistent reasons that cultural intelligence is crucial for Finnish business leaders in an Indian environment (Livermore 2010:18). Moreover, in the culturally pluralistic Indian business environment, CQ is the essential capability for effective leadership (Earley & Ang 2003). In a culturally pluralistic culture like India it is very important for the
Finnish business leaders to possess CQ capabilities in order to deal with ambiguity when leading Indian business operations.
Therefore, from an in-depth review of existing literatures, it was found that there is little or no empirical research undertaken in investigating the applicability or utilization of the CQ model by business leaders in a single country environment.
Also, there appeared little or no research conducted to investigate to what extent and in what way CQ facilitates business leaders in a single country environment using the qualitative method. Several other research gaps were identified during the review of literature on CQ, these will be explained in the forthcoming section.