Today's rapidly-shifting workplaces require critical attention to complex global hybrid team communication: What are the biggest communication challenges for linguistically and culturally diverse teams? Which capabilities improve outcomes? Leaders, and those advising them, must react to these digital transformation needs.
There's also an urgent "need to develop human-centric skills – the ability for leaders and teams to connect, collaborate and create together" (Van Der Veen, 2021). Intercultural communication is paramount for international/domestic and organizational/functional cultures, multiple languages and time zone dynamics to reap rewards of engaged collaboration (Goettsch, 2016).
While human-centric cultural intelligence is often overlooked, it contributes to inclusive, belonging experiences when record disengagement is aggravating workplace communication. Organizations must get "back to human" by learning together in collaborative hybrid ways across differences, since "this can't be managed by an app" (Kahn, 2021).
Top language/culture challenges for global hybrid teams are underrepresented in research. This session bridges hybrid dissonance with cultural awareness/action. The presenter's deep perspectives as educator, researcher and practitioner will prompt listeners to adopt technical and human-centric insights.
The cultural intelligence (or CQ) framework – including sociolinguistics – is the capability to relate and work effectively in complex diverse situations, mitigating biases. CQ capabilities (unlike IQ, values, personality) improve through education, training and practice (Ang, 2021; Livermore, 2021; Ng, 2022).
Per the Cultural Intelligence Center (2020), CQ predicts personal adjustment/adaptability; judgment/decision-making; negotiation effectiveness; trust/idea-sharing/innovation; leadership effectiveness; and improved productivity/cost-savings. CQ is measured in Drive (multicultural interaction interest/persistence/confidence); Knowledge (understanding culture similarities/differences); Strategy (multicultural awareness/planning); Action (intercultural work/relationship adaptation).
This study gathered CQ assessment results from university professional workshops in 2022. Participants totaled 61 at proposal submission. Preliminary research questions included: What are language/culture challenges for global hybrid team collaboration? What are individual and team CQ strengths? What are self-identified CQ improvements? Polling and discussions provided more participant variables: increased pandemic-instigated hybrid teams and cultural exposure; shifting job market opportunities; and uncovered internal critics and blind spots. Initial analysis suggests leaders prioritize their own CQ before helping teams and that CQ is an underdeveloped capability across teams (particularly Knowledge and Action). Full findings – along with shared CQ development strategies – are expected to empower organizations to target CQ to increase belonging, collaboration and outcomes in an evolving hybrid workplace.
Bibliography:
Ang, S. (2021). Cultural intelligence: Two bowls singing. Oxford University Press.
Goettsch, K. (2016). Working with global virtual teams: A case study reality check on intercultural communication best practices. Global Advances in Business Communication: Vol. 5: Iss. 1.
Kahn, T. (04 June 2021). 'Back to human': Why HR leaders want to focus on people again. McKinsey & Company.
Livermore, D., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2021). Organizational CQ: Cultural intelligence for
21st-century organizations. Elsevier.
Ng, K., Ang, S. & Rockstuhl, T. (2022). Cultural intelligence: From intelligence in context and
across cultures to intercultural contexts. Springer: New York, NY.
Van Der Veen, N. & Reid, A. (February 2021). Amplifying personal and leadership development through group coaching. Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria.
