Appendices

Developing Multicultural Leadership Using Knowledge Dynamics and Cultural Intelligence

ISBN: 978-1-83549-433-2, eISBN: 978-1-83549-432-5

Publication date: 30 May 2024

pdf (1.1 MB) ePub (11.8 MB)

Citation

Paiuc, D. (2024), "Appendices", Developing Multicultural Leadership Using Knowledge Dynamics and Cultural Intelligence, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 147-245. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83549-432-520241013

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Appendix A – My Working Definitions

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) was defined as being the set of skills to relate and work effectively in culturally diverse situations. It is the capability to cross boundaries, prosper in multiple cultures, and impact the bottom-line results.
Knowledge Dynamics (KD) refers to the characteristics of knowledge that transform, change, and evolve as a result of various processes and influences.
Multicultural Leadership (ML) was defined as the process of engaging and leading a workforce comprised of individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Appendices for Qualitative Research

Appendix B – Screening Filtering Questions to Validate Interview Participation

Hello,

In order to test your possible fit for a 30–60 minutes pro-bono interview in a research project that will serve as building support for the thesis/book “Developing multicultural leadership based on knowledge dynamics and cultural intelligence” conducted by PhD candidate Dan Paiuc, from the Department of Management of the National University for Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania – please kindly answer with Yes (Y) or No (N) for the following two questions:

Do you actually manage multicultural teams? Y/N
Are you familiar with the notion of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) as per my working definition: CQ being the set of skills to relate and work effectively in culturally diverse situations? Y/N

Appendix C – Consent to Participate in Research Interviews

Dear Participant,

Thanks for agreeing to participate in the research project that will serve as a building base for the thesis/book “Developing multicultural leadership based on knowledge dynamics and cultural intelligence” conducted by PhD candidate Dan Paiuc, from the Department of Management of the National University for Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania.

With an expected duration of the interview of 30–60 minutes, please agree:

to voluntarily participate in the interview;
that all the interviews will be recorded, transcripted, and anonymized by Dan Paiuc;
all or parts of the anonymized interview may be used in the above thesis/book or related academic articles/conferences.

Appendix D – Interviews' Synthetic Results

Fig. D.1.

Age of Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.2.

Gender of Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.3.

Highest Level of Education Completed by the Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.4.

Continent-Based Geographical Distribution of Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.5.

Main Company's Activity Sectors of Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.6.

Main Sizes of the Companies of Interviewed Managers (Data in Euro).

Fig. D.7.

Main Sizes of the Companies of Interviewed Managers (Data in Number of Employees).

Fig. D.8.

Hierarchical Position of the Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.9.

Working Years' Experience in Actual Company and in Total of the Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.10.

Number of Managed Nationalities of the Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.11.

Number of Spoken Languages of the Interviewed Managers.

Fig. D.12.

Number of Continents on Which the Interviewed Managers Worked.

Fig. D.13.

Number of Countries in Which the Interviewed Managers Worked.

Appendix E − Sample of One Interview

Table E.1.

One Sample Interview.

Description of Variable	Variable	Coding Instructions
Respondent no.	1
Name or pseudonym	Ahmed AbdelMawla
Gender	Male (1)	Male = 1, Female = 2, Non-binary = 3
Age	45 years (3)	18–25 = 1, 26–40 = 2, 41–60 = 3, >61 = 4
Education	University graduate (2)	High school only = 1, University graduate = 2, Master graduate = 3, PhD graduate = 4
Geography	Africa (3)	Europe = 1, Asia = 2, Africa = 3, North America = 4, South America = 5, Australia = 6.
Country	Egypt
Company sector	Services (4)	Retail = 1; Production = 2; Trade = 3; Services = 4; Others = 5
Company size (turnover)	>10M = x < 50M (5)	<0.5M. euro/year as turnover = 1, 0.5 >= x < 1M. euro/year = 2, 1 <= x < 5M. euro = 3, 5 >= x < 10M. euro = 4, >10M = x < 50M = 5, >=50 m euro = 6
Company size (employees' number)	1,001+ employees (6)	1–10/11–50/51–100/101–500/501–1,000/1,001+ employees
Function	TOP management (1)	TOP management = 1/Middle Management = 2/Lower management = 3
Years of experience within the company	16 years (5)	1–3 = 1/3–5 = 2/5–10 = 3/10–15 = 4/>16 = 5
Years of experience in total	21+ years (6)	1–3 = 1/3–5 = 2/5–10 = 3/10–15 = 4/16–20 = 5/21+ = 6
Number of nationalities managed	11–15 managed nationalities (4)	1–3 = 1/4–5 = 2/6–10 = 3/11–15 = 4/16–20 = 5/21–50 = 6/51–100 = 7/>100 = 8
Number of spoken languages	2 languages (2)	One = 1, Two = 2, Three = 3, more than 3 = 4
Number of continents in which the subject worked	2 continents: Asia, Africa (2)	One = 1, Two = 2, Three = 3, more than 3 = 4
Number of countries in which the subject worked	8 countries (4)	One = 1, Two = 2, Three = 3, more than 3 = 4
CQ	Questions	Answers
1.	How do you assess the cultural intelligence of your team members?	I used to work with the cultural intelligence scale developed by Yang, but, nowadays, I use a 360′ review (developed by Gallup) that helps me assess the cultural and emotional intelligence level of all my team members. Meaning that each employee in our company is assessed by matrix colleagues, direct managers, and subordinates.
2.	How do you leverage your team members' cultural intelligence?	After assessing each team member's cultural and emotional intelligence level, I allocate them the tasks and roles based on their cultural agility, experience, and expertise.
3.	Is there a relationship between the cultural intelligence of your team and your result as a multicultural manager? Please detail.	Yes, if one of the cultural skills is missing within my team – I am trying to develop it; otherwise, my results as a manager – leading 14 nationalities – will be affected and non-performant.
4.	What is your biggest challenge when dealing with cultural intelligence? Why?	My biggest challenge is portrayed by the business etiquette differences between Arab culture and European culture. Leading a team composed mainly of Arabic country members and dealing with European customers – forced me to learn and develop specific European business tactics and approaches. One is the pricing construct, where Europeans prefer a less negotiated option – so my first proposal is close to my target price.
KD	Questions	Answers
5.	Are your decisions based only on data and rational thinking?	Depending on the situation – my decisions are based on data (rational thinking) or experience. If a situation is urgent and there is no data or no time for getting the data, I rely on my experience and common sense to make the best decision. I cannot lose a contract because I need two days to get the exact numbers.
6.	Do emotions play any role in your decisions?	Emotions do not play any role in my professional decisions. As mentioned before, I believe in data and experience. I am performance-driven, and this is what I am developing within my team. Emotions make you soft and make you lose the big picture and the professional goals.
7.	Do you consider their cultural values when interacting with people from different cultures? I consider their cultural values	When interacting with business people from different cultures, I think that this will show my business partners that I respect their origins and cultures, and this will help the professional partnership between our companies.
8.	Do you consider that it is useful to have a proper balance between rational thinking, emotions, and cultural values when making decisions?	Yes, I really do, but mostly between rational thinking and cultural values. I do not think that emotions are to be involved in the business. Otherwise, the proper balance between rational thinking and cultural values smooths the decision-making process and increases the overall productivity of the teamwork.
ML	Questions	Answers
9.	What is your leadership style with a multicultural team? Why?	My leadership style is bureaucratic and transactional, and all my employees are strictly advised to follow the established rules. This will ensure predictability and uniformity, and these are important characteristics when dealing with multicultural teams.
10.	How do you create trust in your multicultural team?	I create and develop trust within the team by coaching each member. I am also insisting on the company values – as a trust generator.
11.	When assigning tasks, do you consider each team member's cultural background?	I always do because every different cultural team member mostly has a different skill set that I always want to leverage to optimize results.

Source: Author's own research.

Appendix F – The Interviews Codebook and Codes

Table F.1.

The Interview Codebook.

Theme	Sub-Theme	Categories	Descriptive Codes
Cultural intelligence	Downplays cultural differences for team culture		* Does not assess cultural intelligence * does not leverage on team members' cultural intelligence * downplays individual cultural intelligence * focusing on assigning tasks to the best hands not based on cultural intelligence * does not deal with cultural intelligence because everyone has common understanding of tasks * relationship between cultural intelligence and results is low * results is driven by skills developed and transmitted by the manager to a team member not cultural intelligence * there is no relationship between cultural intelligence and result * unsure of the relationship between cultural intelligence and results as a manager
	Emotional cultural intelligence	Assessing cultural intelligence through emotional intelligence metrics	* Assesses acceptance and adaptability for cultural intelligence * assesses cultural intelligence by reviewing their work in light of applied cultural intelligence “assesses cultural intelligence of team members by analyzing clients' feedback on team members' actions and interactions” * assesses cultural intelligence of team members by having one to one coaching and evaluation sessions every quarter * assesses cultural intelligence through standardized meetings * assesses cultural intelligence using 360 review * assesses team members based on experience * assesses team members skill and experience through communication * assesses the cultural intelligence of team members through a report/questionnaire on cultural and emotional intelligence
		Leveraging emotional cultural intelligence for company results	* Leverages on cultural intelligence by assigning team members to task based on their identified cultural expertise * leverage on team members' cultural intelligence through detailed communications * leverage on team members' cultural intelligence by using verbal and nonverbal behavior in cross-cultural encounters * leverages on team members' cultural intelligence through social events * leveraging cultural skill for better result * leveraging emotional cultural intelligence for company result * partner with team members to get the best result
		View emotional intelligence issues as challenges	* The biggest challenge is accepting other opinions * biggest challenge is getting different people to work for a common goal * providing the right feedback based on understanding Canadian feelings * team members having a different attitude to work is a challenge * the biggest challenge is managing diversity * the level of conscious cultural awareness during interactions is a major challenge
	Rational cultural intelligence	Assessing rational cultural intelligence	* Assessing cultural intelligence through knowledge of other cultures * assessing cultural intelligence through staff's prior experience and performance on tasks
		Leveraging rational cultural intelligence for results	Assigning tasks based on knowledge and experience of culture leveraging rational cultural intelligence for better results as multicultural manager *
		Views rational cultural intelligence issues as challenges	* generalized beliefs about groups are the biggest challenge when dealing with cultural intelligence * getting team members to be knowledgeable about Canadian practices is a challenge * giving feedback is a challenge because it has the role of driving the adaptation of individual culture to the company's culture “lack of knowledge of different cultures is a challenge when dealing with cultural intelligence” * language is a barrier when dealing with cultural intelligence * managing diversity is a problem because different people understand same task differently
	Spiritual cultural intelligence	Leveraging spiritual cultural intelligence for result	* Leverages on team members' cultural intelligence through a monitored ambience
		View spiritual cultural intelligence issues as challenges	* The biggest challenge in dealing with cultural intelligence is how not to hurt any personal beliefs * the biggest challenge is business etiquette difference * cultural self-awareness * the biggest challenge is not disrespecting the personal belief of others as it might affect productivity
Knowledge dynamics	Combining rational, emotional and cultural values for decision-making		* balancing rational thinking, emotions, and cultural values is a key success factor * considers the balancing of rational thinking, emotions, and cultural values useful in decision-making
	Emotional knowledge		* Emotion plays a role in decision-making
	Rational knowledge		* business should be prioritized when making decisions * data and rational thinking are the main drivers of decision-making
	Spiritual knowledge		* Authentic decision-making * making decisions based on common sense * understanding the values of others is needed for decision-making when interacting with business partners and team members
Multicultural leadership	Conceptual skill		* Identifying practices that lead to productivity * leveraging cultural background for company success * strategic planning
	Interpersonal skill		* Building an environment with a sense of belonging * coaching and empowerment * collaboration * communication * empathy * friendliness and openness
	Multicultural skill (values)		* Equal treatment * finding common ground * respecting cultural differences
	Leaders focus on uniformity and task completion.		* assign tasks based on skillset and not cultural background * focus on uniformity rather than understanding the cultural background

Source: Author's own research.

Table F.2.

Interview's Codes.

Themes	Sub-Themes	Files
Cultural Intelligence
Emotional cultural intelligence		14
	Assessing cultural intelligence through emotional intelligence metrics	11
	Leveraging emotional cultural intelligence for company results	5
	View emotional intelligence issues as challenges	7
Rational cultural intelligence		11
	Assessing cultural intelligence through rational intelligence metrics	6
	Leveraging rational cultural intelligence for results	9
	Views rational cultural intelligence issues as cultural intelligence challenges	6
Spiritual cultural intelligence		4
	Leverages on team members' cultural intelligence through a monitored ambience	1
	View spiritual cultural intelligence issues as challenges	4
Downplays cultural differences for team culture		4
Knowledge Dynamics
Emotional knowledge		6
	Emotion plays a role in decision-making	4
	Emotions play a minimal role in the decision-making process	6
Rational knowledge		14
	Business should be prioritized when making decisions	4
	Does not consider cultural values as the focus when interacting with people of different cultures	2
	Emotions play no role in decision-making	5
	Data and rational thinking are the main drivers in decision-making	13
Spiritual knowledge		11
	Authentic decision-making	1
	Making decisions based on common sense	2
	Understanding the values of others is needed for decision-making when interacting with business partners and team members	10
Combining rational, emotional and cultural values for decision-making		13
	Balancing rational thinking, emotions, and cultural values is a key success factor	3
	Considers the balancing of rational thinking, emotions, and cultural values useful in decision-making	13
Multicultural Leadership
Conceptual skill		9
	Identifying practices that lead to productivity	4
	Leveraging cultural background for company success	8
	Strategic planning	3
Interpersonal skill		13
	Coaching and empowering team members	7
	Collaboration	3
	Communication	5
	Building an environment with a sense of belonging	2
	Empathy and kindness	3
	Friendliness and openness	4
Multicultural skill (Values)		6
	Equal treatment	3
	Finding common ground
	Respecting cultural differences	3
Leader focuses on uniformity and task completion		7
	Assign tasks based on skillset and not cultural background	6
	Focus on uniformity rather than understanding the cultural background	2

Source: Author's own research.

Appendix G – Demography and Number of Words Transcribed

Table G.1.

Gender and Age Classification – Interviews.

Pseudonym	Number of Words Transcribed	Gender	Age Classification
Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	Male	41–60
Dean Watson	546	Male	41–60
Dusty Wagoner	408	Male	41–60
Khosrow Salour	545	Male	41–60
Kristian Skovrider	380	Male	60+
Pedro Lemos	460	Male	26–40
Rin Senan	465	Male	26–40
Tinatin	413	Female	26–40
Umair Arshad	372	Male	26–40
Yousef Siam	401	Male	41–60
Zeinab Mekawy	486	Female	26–40
Annas Siddiqui	798	Male	26–40
Rana El Maghraby	362	Female	26–40
Saim Ali	537	Male	26–40
Vishal Kumar	263	Male	26–40

Source: Author's own research.

Table G.2.

Education, Geography, Country Classification – Interviews.

Pseudonym	Number of Words Transcribed	Education	Geography	Country
Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	University graduate	Africa	Egypt
Dean Watson	546	High school	Europe	England
Dusty Wagoner	408	University graduate	North America	United States of America
Khosrow Salour	545	University graduate	Asia	Iran
Kristian Skovrider	380	Master graduate	Europe	Denmark
Pedro Lemos	460	Master graduate	North America	Canada
Rin Senan	465	Master graduate	North America	Canada
Tinatin	413	University graduate	Europe	Georgia
Umair Arshad	372	Master graduate	Europe	United Kingdom
Yousef Siam	401	University graduate	Asia	Saudi Arabia
Zeinab Mekawy	486	Master graduate	Africa	Egypt
Annas Siddiqui	798	University graduate	Europe	England
Rana El Maghraby	362	University graduate	Africa	Egypt
Saim Ali	537	Master graduate	Europe	England, UK
Vishal Kumar	263	Master graduate	North America	Canada

Source: Author's own research.

Table G.3.

Function, Years of Experience Within the Company, Years of Experience in Total Classification – Interviews.

Pseudonym	Number of Words Transcribed	Function	Years of Experience Within the Company	Years of Experience in Total
Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	TOP management	16 years	21+ years
Dean Watson	546	TOP management	5–10 years	21+ years
Dusty Wagoner	408	TOP management	>16	21+ years
Khosrow Salour	545	TOP management	>16	21+ years
Kristian Skovrider	380	TOP management	14 years	21+ years
Pedro Lemos	460	Middle management	10–15 years	10–15 years
Rin Senan	465	Middle management	1–3 years	5–10 years
Tinatin	413	TOP management	2 years	5–10 years
Umair Arshad	372	Middle management	3 years	5–10 years
Yousef Siam	401	TOP management	3–5 years	21+ years
Zeinab Mekawy	486	Middle management	1–3 years	3–5 years
Annas Siddiqui	798	Middle management	1–3 years	5–10 years
Rana El Maghraby	362	TOP management	5–10 years	10–15 years
Saim Ali	537	Middle management	1–3 years	5–10 years
Vishal Kumar	263	Middle management	1–3 years	10–15 years

Source: Author's own research.

Table G.4.

Company Sector, Company Size (Turnover, Employee's Number) Classification – Interviews.

Pseudonym	Number of Words Transcribed	Company Sector	Company Size (Turnover)	Company Size (Employees' Number)
Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	Services	>10M = x < 50M	1,001+ employees
Dean Watson	546	Other	0.5>=x < 1	11–50 employees
Dusty Wagoner	408	Services	5>=x < 10M	51–100 employees
Khosrow Salour	545	Services	<0.5M	1–10 employees
Kristian Skovrider	380	Trade	1<=x < 5M	1–10 employees
Pedro Lemos	460	Services	>=50 m	1,001+ employees
Rin Senan	465	Services	>=50 m	1,001+ employees
Tinatin	413	Services	1<=x < 5M	101–500 employees
Umair Arshad	372	Services	>=50 m	1,001+ employees
Yousef Siam	401	Retail	0.5>=x < 1	11–50 employees
Zeinab Mekawy	486	Services	5>=x < 10M	101–500 employees
Annas Siddiqui	798	Services	1<=x < 5M	1,001+ employees
Rana El Maghraby	362	Services	0.5>=x < 1	11–50 employees
Saim Ali	537	Trade	20 million	11–50 employees
Vishal Kumar	263	Services	>=50 m	1,001+ employees

Source: Author's own research.

Table G.5.

Number of Words Transcribed, Number of Nationalities Managed, Number of Spoken Languages, Number of Countries in Which Subject Worked – Interviews.

Pseudonym	Number of Words Transcribed	Number of Nationalities Managed	Number of Spoken Languages	Number of Continents in Which the Subject Worked	Number of Countries in Which the Subject Worked
Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	11–15 nationalities	2 languages	2 continents	8 countries
Dean Watson	546	1–3 nationalities	1 language	1 continent	1 country
Dusty Wagoner	408	1–3 nationalities	1 language	1 continent	1 country
Khosrow Salour	545	6–10 nationalities	3 languages	3 continents	3 countries
Kristian Skovrider	380	6–10 nationalities	3 languages	2 continents	3 countries
Pedro Lemos	460	16–20 nationalities	2 languages	3 continents	More than 3 countries
Rin Senan	465	11–15 nationalities	2 languages	2 continents	2 countries
Tinatin	413	6–10 nationalities	5 languages	2 continents	2 countries
Umair Arshad	372	4 nationalities	2 languages	2 continents	2 countries
Yousef Siam	401	4–5 nationalities	2 languages	2 continents	2 countries
Zeinab Mekawy	486	1–3 nationalities	2 languages	2 continents	2 countries
Annas Siddiqui	798	11–15 nationalities	2 languages	2 continents	2 countries
Rana El Maghraby	362	1–3 nationalities	3 languages	1 continent	1 country
Saim Ali	537	6–10 nationalities	5 languages	2 continents	More than 3 countries
Vishal Kumar	263	6–10 nationalities	More than 3 languages	1 continent	3 countries

Source: Author's own research.

Appendix H – Transcribed Words and Participants per Variable

Table H.1.

Gender Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No.	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Gender: Male
1	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
2	Dean Watson	546	1,162
3	Dusty Wagoner	408	1,570
4	Khosrow Salour	545	2,115
5	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,495
6	Pedro Lemos	460	2,955
7	Rin Senan	465	3,420
8	Umair Arshad	372	3,792
9	Yousef Siam	401	4,193
10	Annas Siddiqui	798	4,991
11	Saim Ali	537	5,528
12	Vishal Kumar	263	5,791
	Gender: Female
13	Tinatin	413	6,204
14	Zeinab Mekawy	486	6,690
15	Rana El Maghraby	362	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.2.

Age Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No.	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Age classification 60+ years
1	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,896
	Age classification 41–60 years
2	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
3	Dean Watson	546	1,162
4	Dusty Wagoner	408	1,570
5	Khosrow Salour	545	2,115
6	Yousef Siam	401	2,516
	Age classification 26–40 years
7	Pedro Lemos	460	3,356
8	Rin Senan	465	3,821
9	Tinatin	413	4,234
10	Umair Arshad	372	4,606
11	Zeinab Mekawy	486	5,092
12	Annas Siddiqui	798	5,890
13	Rana El Maghraby	362	6,252
14	Saim Ali	537	6,789
15	Vishal Kumar	263	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.3.

Education Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Education: High School
1	Dean Watson	546	546
	Education: University Graduate
2	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	1,162
3	Dusty Wagoner	408	1,150
4	Khosrow Salour	545	2,115
5	Tinatin	413	2,528
6	Yousef Siam	401	2,929
7	Annas Siddiqui	798	3,727
8	Rana El Maghraby	362	4,089
	Education: Master Graduate
9	Kristian Skovrider	380	4,469
10	Pedro Lemos	460	4,929
11	Rin Senan	465	5,394
12	Umair Arshad	372	5,766
13	Zeinab Mekawy	486	6,252
14	Saim Ali	537	6,789
15	Vishal Kumar	263	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.4.

Geography Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Total	Transcribed Total Words
	Geography
	Africa
1	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
2	Zeinab Mekawy	486	1,102
3	Rana El Maghraby	362	1,464
	Geography
	Europe
4	Dean Watson	546	2,010
5	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,390
6	Tinatin	413	2,809
7	Umair Arshad	372	3,175
8	Annas Siddiqui	798	3,973
9	Saim Ali	537	4,510
	Geography
	North America
10	Dusty Wagoner	408	4,918
11	Pedro Lemos	460	5,378
12	Rin Senan	465	5,843
13	Vishal Kumar	263	6,106
	Geography
	Asia
14	Khosrow Salour	545	6,651
15	Yousef Siam	401	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.5.

Country Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Country: Egypt
1	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
2	Zeinab Mekawy	486	1,102
3	Rana El Maghraby	362	1,464
	Country: England
4	Dean Watson	546	2,010
5	Annas Siddiqui	798	2,808
6	Umair Arshad	372	3,180
7	Saim Ali	537	3,717
	Country: Canada
8	Pedro Lemos	460	4,177
9	Rin Senan	465	4,642
10	Vishal Kumar	263	4,905
	Country: Denmark
11	Kristian Skovrider	380	5,283
	Country: Saudi Arabia
12	Yousef Siam	401	5,686
	Country: Iran
13	Khosrow Salour	545	6,231
	Country: Georgia
14	Tinatin	413	6,644
	Country: The United States
15	Dusty Wagoner	408	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.6.

Function Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Function: TOP Management
1	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
2	Dean Watson	546	1,162
3	Dusty Wagoner	408	1,570
4	Khosrow Salour	545	2,115
5	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,495
6	Tinatin	413	2,908
7	Yousef Siam	401	3,309
8	Rana El Maghraby	362	3,671
	Function: Middle Management
9	Pedro Lemos	460	4,131
10	Rin Senan	465	4,596
11	Umair Arshad	372	4,968
12	Zeinab Mekawy	486	5,454
13	Saim Ali	537	5,991
14	Vishal Kumar	263	6,254
15	Annas Siddiqui	798	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.7.

Years of Experience Within the Company Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Total	Transcribed Total Words
	Years of Experince: 1–5 Years
1	Rin Senan	465	465
2	Zeinab Mekawy	486	951
3	Annas Siddiqui	798	1,749
4	Saim Ali	537	2,286
5	Vishal Kumar	263	2,549
6	Umair Arshad	372	2,921
7	Tinatin	413	3,334
8	Yousef Siam	401	3,735
	Years of Experience: 5–10 Years
9	Dean Watson	546	4,281
10	Rana El Maghraby	362	4,643
	Years of Experience: 10–15 Years
11	Pedro Lemos	460	5,103
12	Kristian Skovrider	380	5,483
	Years of Experience: 16+ Years
13	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	6,099
14	Dusty Wagoner	408	6,507
15	Khosrow Salour	545	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.8.

Years of Experience in Total Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Total	Transcribed Total Words
	Years of Experience in Total 21+ Years
1	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
2	Dean Watson	546	1,162
3	Dusty Wagoner	408	1,570
4	Khosrow Salour	545	2,115
5	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,495
6	Yousef Siam	401	2,896
	Years of Experience 10–15 Years
7	Pedro Lemos	460	3,356
8	Rana El Maghraby	362	3,718
9	Vishal Kumar	263	3,981
	Years of Experience in Total 5–10 Years
10	Rin Senan	465	4,446
11	Tinatin	413	4,859
12	Umair Arshad	372	5,231
13	Annas Siddiqui	798	6,029
14	Saim Ali	537	6,566
	Years of Experience in Total 3–5 Years
15	Zeinab Mekawy	486	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.9.

Company Sector Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Total	Transcribed Total Words
	Company Sector Services
1	Ahmed Abdel	616	616
2	Dusty Wagoner	408	1,024
3	Khosrow Salour	545	1,569
4	Pedro Lemos	460	2,029
5	Rin Senan	465	2,494
6	Tinatin	413	2,907
7	Umair Arshad	372	3,279
8	Zeinab Mekawy	486	3,765
9	Annas Siddiqui	798	4,563
10	Rana El Maghraby	362	4,925
11	Vishal Kumar	263	5,188
	Company Trade
12	Kristian Skovrider	380	5,568
13	Saim Ali	537	6,105
	Company Retail
14	Yousef Siam	401	6,506
	Company Other
15	Dean Watson	546	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.10.

Company Size (Turnover) Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Company Size (Turnover): 0.5M to <1M Euro
1	Khosrow Salour	545	545
2	Rana El Maghraby	362	907
3	Dean Watson	546	1,453
4	Yousef Siam	401	1,854
	Company Size (Turnover): 1M to <5M Euro
5	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,234
6	Tinatin	413	2,647
7	Annas Siddiqui	798	3,445
	Company Size (Turnover): 5M to >10M Euro
8	Dusty Wagoner	408	3,853
9	Zeinab Mekawy	486	4,339
	Company Size (Turnover): 10M to >50M
10	Ahmed Abdel	616	4,955
11	Saim Ali	537	5,492
	Company Size (Turnover): 50M+
12	Pedro Lemos	460	5,952
13	Rin Senan	465	6,417
14	Umair Arshad	372	6,789
15	Vishal Kumar	263	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.11.

Company Size (Employees) Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Total	Transcribed Total Words
	Company Size Employee
	1,001+ Employees
1	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	616
2	Pedro Lemos	460	1,076
3	Rin Senan	465	1,541
4	Umair Arshad	372	1,913
5	Annas Siddiqui	798	2,711
6	Vishal Kumar	263	2,974
	Company Size
	101–500 Employees
7	Tinatin	413	3,387
8	Zeinab Mkawy	486	3,873
	Company Size
	51–100
9	Dusty Wagoner	408	4,281
	Company Size Employee
	11–50 Employees
10	Dean Watson	546	4,827
11	Yousef Siam	401	5,228
12	Rana El Maghraby	362	5,590
13	Saim Ali	537	6,127
	Company Size
	1–10 Employees
14	Kristian Skovrider	380	6,507
14	Khosrow Salour	545	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.12.

Number of Nationalities Managed Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Number of Nationalities Managed: 1–3
1	Dean Watson	546	546
2	Dusty Wagoner	408	954
3	Zeinab Mekawy	486	1,440
4	Rana El Maghraby	362	1,802
	Number of Nationalities Managed: 4–5
5	Umair Arshad	372	2,174
6	Yousef Siam	401	2,575
	Number of Nationalities Managed: 6–10
7	Khosrow Salour	545	3,120
8	Kristian Skovrider	380	3,500
9	Tinatin	413	3,913
10	Saim	537	4,450
11	Vishal Kumar	263	4,713
	Number of Nationalities Managed: 11–15
12	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	5,329
13	Rin Senan	465	5,794
14	Annas Siddiqui	798	6,592
	Number of Nationalities Managed: 16–20
15	Pedro Lemos	460	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.13.

Number of Languages Spoken Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Number of Languages Spoken: 1 Language
1	Dean Watson	546	546
2	Dusty Wagoner	408	954
	Number of Languages Spoken: 2 Languages
3	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	1,570
4	Pedro Lemos	460	2,030
5	Rin Senan	465	2,495
6	Umair Arshad	372	2,867
7	Yousef Siam	401	3,268
8	Zeinab Mekawy	486	3,754
9	Annas Siddiqui	798	4,552
	Number of Languages Spoken: 3 Languages
10	Khosrow Salour	545	5,097
11	Kristian Skovrider	380	5,477
12	Rana El Maghraby	362	5,839
	Number of Languages Spoken: More than 3 Languages
13	Vishal Kumar	263	6,102
14	Saim Ali	537	6,639
15	Tinatin	413	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.14.

Number of Continents in Which the Subject Worked Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Total	Transcribed Total Words
	No of Continents 3 Continents
1	Khosrow Salour	545	545
2	Pedro Lemos	460	1,005
	No of Continents 2 Continents
3	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	1,621
4	Kristian Skovrider	380	2,001
5	Rin Senan	465	2,466
6	Tinatin	413	2,879
7	Umair Arshad	372	3,251
8	Yousef Siam	401	3,652
9	Zeinab Mekawy	486	4,138
10	Annas Siddiqui	798	4,936
11	Saim	537	5,473
	No of Continents 1 Continent
12	Dean Watson	546	6,019
13	Dusty Wagoner	408	6,429
14	Rana El Maghraby	362	6,789
15	Vishal Kumar	263	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Table H.15.

Number of Countries in Which the Subject Worked Classification – Transcribed Words per Participant for Interview Section.

No	Pseudonym	Transcribed Words	Transcribed Total Words
	Number of Countries in Which the Subject Worked: 1
1	Dean Watson	546	546
2	Dusty Wagoner	408	954
3	Rana El Maghraby	362	1,316
	Number of Countries in Which the Subject Worked: 2
4	Rin Senan	465	1,781
5	Tinatin	413	2,194
6	Umair Arshad	372	2,566
7	Yousef Siam	401	2,967
8	Zeinab Mekawy	486	3,453
9	Annas Siddiqui	798	4,251
	Number of Countries in Which the Subject Worked: 3
10	Khosrow Salour	545	4,796
11	Kristian Skovrider	380	5,176
12	Vishal Kumar	263	5,439
	Number of Countries in Which the Subject Worked: More than 3
13	Ahmed AbdelMawla	616	6,055
14	Pedro Lemos	460	6,515
15	Saim	537	7,052

Source: Author's own research.

Appendix I – Total Transcribed Words per Variable

Table I.1.

Gender Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	Total Male	Total Female
15	7,052	12	3

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.2.

Age Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	26–40	41–60	60+
15	7,052	9	5	1

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.3.

Education Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	High School	University Graduate	Masters
15	7,052	1	7	7

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.4.

Geography Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	Africa	Europe	North America	Asia
15	7,052	3	6	4	2

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.5.

Countries Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	Egypt	England	Canada	Denmark	Saudi Arabia	Iran	Georgia	US
15	7,052	3	4	3	1	1	1	1	1

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.6.

Company Sector Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	Services	Trade	Other	Retail
15	7,052	11	2	1	1

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.7.

Company size (Turnover) Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviews	Total Words Transcribed	<0.5M.euro/	0.5>=x < 1M euro/	1<=x < 5M	5<=x < 10M	10M = x < 50M	50M +
15	7,052	1	3	3	2	2	4

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.8.

Company Size (Employees) Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	1,001+	11–50	51–50	1–10	101–500
15	7,052	6	4	1	2	2

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.9.

Function Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	Top Management	Middle Management
15	7,052	8	7

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.10.

Years of Experience Within the Company Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	1–5	5–10	10–15	16+
15	7,052	8	2	2	3

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.11.

Years of Experience in Total Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	3–5	5–10	10–15	21+
15	7,052	1	5	3	6

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.12.

Number of Nationalities Managed Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	1–3	4–5	6–10	11–15	16–20
15	7,052	4	2	5	3	1

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.13.

Number of Spoken Languages Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	One	Two	Three	More than 3
15	7,052	2	7	3	3

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.14.

Number of Continents in Which the Subject Worked Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	One	Two	Three
15	7,052	4	9	2

Source: Author's own research.

Table I.15.

Number of Countries in Which Subjects Work Classification – Total Transcribed Words for Interview Section.

Total Interviewed	Total Words Transcribed	One	Two	Three	More than 3
15	7,052	3	6	3	3

Source: Author's own research.

Appendices for Quantitative Research

Appendix J – Introduction Section for Questionnaire

Dear participant,

My name is Dan Paiuc and I am a PhD student at SNSPA Bucharest, Romania. The purpose of my questionnaire is to find out the impact of cultural intelligence and knowledge dynamics on multinational leadership, within organizational context, and I need your co-operation to help me answer this survey questions. I assure you that your responses are just for academic purposes and will be used only for statistical purposes.

It is estimated that this questionnaire will take 10–12 minutes, and I really appreciate your help in fulfilling this research endeavor that will benefit both academic and business-related areas.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and you won't be compensated for it. However, you have the freedom to decline participating in the research or exit the survey at any time without any consequences. It is preferred that you answer all the questions but you are not obligated to. Your survey responses will be stored in a secure electronic format by Google Forms, and any identifying information such as your name, email address, or IP address won't be collected. Hence, your responses will be completely anonymous and in compliance with GDPR policy. It is assured that no one will be able to identify you by your responses, and no one will know if you participated in the study or not. Answering the questionnaire will represent your consent in regards all the above mentions.

Thank you very much for your time, effort, and participation! It is much appreciated.

Appendix K – Descriptive Statistics (Quantitative Research)

Table K.1.

Descriptive Statistics for Quantitative Research: Frequencies and Percentages.

Variables	Group	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
MCQ1	1	Strongly disagree	12	3.0
	2	Disagree	22	5.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	36	9.1
	4	Neutral	50	12.6
	5	Somewhat agree	72	18.2
	6	Agree	103	26.0
	7	Strongly agree	101	25.5
MCQ2	1	Strongly disagree	17	4.3
	2	Disagree	21	5.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	24	6.1
	4	Neutral	54	13.6
	5	Somewhat agree	97	24.5
	6	Agree	77	19.4
	7	Strongly agree	106	26.8
MCQ3	1	Strongly disagree	10	2.5
	2	Disagree	12	3.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	36	9.1
	4	Neutral	63	15.9
	5	Somewhat agree	82	20.7
	6	Agree	74	18.7
	7	Strongly agree	119	30.1
MCQ4	1	Strongly disagree	10	2.5
	2	Disagree	17	4.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	36	9.1
	4	Neutral	54	13.6
	5	Somewhat agree	84	21.2
	6	Agree	78	19.7
	7	Strongly agree	117	29.5
COCQ1	1	Strongly disagree	13	3.3
	2	Disagree	22	5.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	38	9.6
	4	Neutral	70	17.7
	5	Somewhat agree	74	18.7
	6	Agree	94	23.7
	7	Strongly agree	85	21.5
COCQ2	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	20	5.1
	3	Somewhat disagree	42	10.6
	4	Neutral	61	15.4
	5	Somewhat agree	91	23.0
	6	Agree	79	19.9
	7	Strongly agree	96	24.2
COCQ3	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	30	7.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	42	10.6
	4	Neutral	61	15.4
	5	Somewhat agree	78	19.7
	6	Agree	63	15.9
	7	Strongly agree	115	29.0
COCQ4	1	Strongly disagree	13	3.3
	2	Disagree	26	6.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	32	8.1
	4	Neutral	53	13.4
	5	Somewhat agree	106	26.8
	6	Agree	85	21.5
	7	Strongly agree	81	20.5
COCQ5	1	Strongly disagree	16	4.0
	2	Disagree	26	6.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	25	6.3
	4	Neutral	65	16.4
	5	Somewhat agree	70	17.7
	6	Agree	86	21.7
	7	Strongly agree	108	27.3
COCQ6	1	Strongly disagree	14	3.5
	2	Disagree	25	6.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	46	11.6
	4	Neutral	63	15.9
	5	Somewhat agree	77	19.4
	6	Agree	81	20.5
	7	Strongly agree	90	22.7
MOTCQ1	1	Strongly disagree	0.290	0.523
	2	Disagree	13	3.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	36	9.1
	5	Somewhat agree	69	17.4
	6	Agree	76	19.2
	7	Strongly agree	68	17.2
MOTCQ2	1	Strongly disagree	10	2.5
	2	Disagree	18	4.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	46	11.6
	4	Neutral	56	14.1
	5	Somewhat agree	61	15.4
	6	Agree	82	20.7
	7	Strongly agree	123	31.1
MOTCQ3	1	Strongly disagree	13	3.3
	2	Disagree	22	5.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	33	8.3
	4	Neutral	56	14.1
	5	Somewhat agree	79	19.9
	6	Agree	72	18.2
	7	Strongly agree	121	30.6
MOTCQ4	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	18	4.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	41	10.4
	4	Neutral	60	15.2
	5	Somewhat agree	62	15.7
	6	Agree	84	21.2
	7	Strongly agree	122	30.8
MOTCQ5	1	Strongly disagree	16	4.0
	2	Disagree	20	5.1
	3	Somewhat disagree	33	8.3
	4	Neutral	51	12.9
	5	Somewhat agree	78	19.7
	6	Agree	83	21.0
	7	Strongly agree	115	29.0
BEHCQ1	1	Strongly disagree	18	4.5
	2	Disagree	20	5.1
	3	Somewhat disagree	36	9.1
	4	Neutral	59	14.9
	5	Somewhat agree	84	21.2
	6	Agree	93	23.5
	7	Strongly agree	86	21.7
BEHCQ2	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	21	5.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	41	10.4
	4	Neutral	57	14.4
	5	Somewhat agree	68	17.2
	6	Agree	76	19.2
	7	Strongly agree	124	31.3
BEHCQ3	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	22	5.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	43	10.9
	4	Neutral	51	12.9
	5	Somewhat agree	80	20.2
	6	Agree	70	17.7
	7	Strongly agree	121	30.6
BEHCQ4	1	Strongly disagree	11	2.8
	2	Disagree	23	5.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	38	9.6
	4	Neutral	52	13.1
	5	Somewhat agree	70	17.7
	6	Agree	85	21.5
	7	Strongly agree	117	29.5
BEHCQ5	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	19	4.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	28	7.1
	4	Neutral	48	12.1
	5	Somewhat agree	84	21.2
	6	Agree	93	23.5
	7	Strongly agree	115	29.0
RKD1	1	Strongly disagree	5	1.3
	2	Disagree	22	5.6
	3	Somewhat disagree	35	8.8
	4	Neutral	60	15.2
	5	Somewhat agree	93	23.5
	6	Agree	103	26.0
	7	Strongly agree	78	19.7
RKD2	1	Strongly disagree	4	1.0
	2	Disagree	19	4.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	24	6.1
	4	Neutral	50	12.6
	5	Somewhat agree	79	19.9
	6	Agree	82	20.7
	7	Strongly agree	138	34.8
RKD3	1	Strongly disagree	10	2.5
	2	Disagree	17	4.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	15	3.8
	4	Neutral	67	16.9
	5	Somewhat agree	91	23.0
	6	Agree	100	25.3
	7	Strongly agree	96	24.2
SKD1	1	Strongly disagree	8	2.0
	2	Disagree	17	4.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	78	19.7
	5	Somewhat agree	93	23.5
	6	Agree	80	20.2
	7	Strongly agree	94	23.7
SKD2	1	Strongly disagree	6	1.5
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	48	12.1
	5	Somewhat agree	98	24.7
	6	Agree	93	23.5
	7	Strongly agree	110	27.8
SKD3	1	Strongly disagree	0.472	0.461
	2	Disagree	5	1.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	10	2.5
	4	Neutral	26	6.6
	5	Somewhat agree	52	13.1
	6	Agree	75	18.9
	7	Strongly agree	100	25.3
EKD1	1	Strongly disagree	10	2.5
	2	Disagree	9	2.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	20	5.1
	4	Neutral	39	9.8
	5	Somewhat agree	52	13.1
	6	Agree	111	28.0
	7	Strongly agree	155	39.1
EKD2	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	23	5.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	28	7.1
	4	Neutral	46	11.6
	5	Somewhat agree	83	21.0
	6	Agree	83	21.0
	7	Strongly agree	124	31.3
EKD3	1	Strongly disagree	8	2.0
	2	Disagree	8	2.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	38	9.6
	4	Neutral	38	9.6
	5	Somewhat agree	66	16.7
	6	Agree	87	22.0
	7	Strongly agree	151	38.1
AS_ML1	1	Strongly disagree	6	1.5
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	54	13.6
	5	Somewhat agree	82	20.7
	6	Agree	80	20.2
	7	Strongly agree	133	33.6
AS_ML2	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	11	2.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	53	13.4
	5	Somewhat agree	83	21.0
	6	Agree	83	21.0
	7	Strongly agree	131	33.1
AS_ML3	1	Strongly disagree	11	2.8
	2	Disagree	8	2.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	21	5.3
	4	Neutral	47	11.9
	5	Somewhat agree	107	27.0
	6	Agree	86	21.7
	7	Strongly agree	116	29.3
IS_ML1	1	Strongly disagree	11	2.8
	2	Disagree	14	3.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	32	8.1
	4	Neutral	67	16.9
	5	Somewhat agree	84	21.2
	6	Agree	90	22.7
	7	Strongly agree	98	24.7
IS_ML2	1	Strongly disagree	4	1.0
	2	Disagree	14	3.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	18	4.5
	4	Neutral	53	13.4
	5	Somewhat agree	78	19.7
	6	Agree	85	21.5
	7	Strongly agree	144	36.4
IS_ML3	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	8	2.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	27	6.8
	4	Neutral	52	13.1
	5	Somewhat agree	69	17.4
	6	Agree	102	25.8
	7	Strongly agree	131	33.1
CS_ML1	1	Strongly disagree	4	1.0
	2	Disagree	14	3.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	20	5.1
	4	Neutral	26	6.6
	5	Somewhat agree	63	15.9
	6	Agree	127	32.1
	7	Strongly agree	142	35.9
CS_ML2	1	Strongly disagree	12	3.0
	2	Disagree	9	2.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	28	7.1
	4	Neutral	45	11.4
	5	Somewhat agree	85	21.5
	6	Agree	95	24.0
	7	Strongly agree	122	30.8
CS_ML3	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	33	8.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	34	8.6
	4	Neutral	50	12.6
	5	Somewhat agree	95	24.0
	6	Agree	78	19.7
	7	Strongly agree	97	24.5
MLS_ML1	1	Strongly disagree	4	1.0
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	46	11.6
	4	Neutral	74	18.7
	5	Somewhat agree	78	19.7
	6	Agree	89	22.5
	7	Strongly agree	90	22.7
MLS_ML2	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	10	2.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	44	11.1
	4	Neutral	53	13.4
	5	Somewhat agree	70	17.7
	6	Agree	108	27.3
	7	Strongly agree	102	25.8
MLS_ML3	1	Strongly disagree	12	3.0
	2	Disagree	12	3.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	29	7.3
	4	Neutral	60	15.2
	5	Somewhat agree	93	23.5
	6	Agree	91	23.0
	7	Strongly agree	99	25.0
ACL_OC1	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	13	3.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	41	10.4
	4	Neutral	66	16.7
	5	Somewhat agree	85	21.5
	6	Agree	93	23.5
	7	Strongly agree	91	23.0
ACL_OC2	1	Strongly disagree	5	1.3
	2	Disagree	17	4.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	23	5.8
	4	Neutral	46	11.6
	5	Somewhat agree	82	20.7
	6	Agree	98	24.7
	7	Strongly agree	125	31.6
ACL_OC3	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	10	2.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	25	6.3
	4	Neutral	55	13.9
	5	Somewhat agree	97	24.5
	6	Agree	77	19.4
	7	Strongly agree	125	31.6
CCL_OC1	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	30	7.6
	4	Neutral	62	15.7
	5	Somewhat agree	99	25.0
	6	Agree	96	24.2
	7	Strongly agree	85	21.5
CCL_OC2	1	Strongly disagree	8	2.0
	2	Disagree	5	1.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	36	9.1
	5	Somewhat agree	77	19.4
	6	Agree	104	26.3
	7	Strongly agree	140	35.4
CCL_OC3	1	Strongly disagree	6	1.5
	2	Disagree	13	3.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	23	5.8
	4	Neutral	46	11.6
	5	Somewhat agree	95	24.0
	6	Agree	79	19.9
	7	Strongly agree	134	33.8
DEIL_OC1	1	Strongly disagree	9	2.3
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	42	10.6
	4	Neutral	65	16.4
	5	Somewhat agree	85	21.5
	6	Agree	84	21.2
	7	Strongly agree	96	24.2
DEIL_OC2	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	10	2.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	33	8.3
	4	Neutral	68	17.2
	5	Somewhat agree	76	19.2
	6	Agree	89	22.5
	7	Strongly agree	113	28.5
DEIL_OC3	1	Strongly disagree	6	1.5
	2	Disagree	9	2.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	33	8.3
	4	Neutral	53	13.4
	5	Somewhat agree	76	19.2
	6	Agree	80	20.2
	7	Strongly agree	139	35.1
EAIL_OC1	1	Strongly disagree	5	1.3
	2	Disagree	10	2.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	24	6.1
	4	Neutral	51	12.9
	5	Somewhat agree	87	22.0
	6	Agree	98	24.7
	7	Strongly agree	121	30.6
EAIL_OC2	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	34	8.6
	4	Neutral	52	13.1
	5	Somewhat agree	72	18.2
	6	Agree	81	20.5
	7	Strongly agree	135	34.1
EAIL_OC3	1	Strongly disagree	6	1.5
	2	Disagree	9	2.3
	3	Somewhat disagree	30	7.6
	4	Neutral	45	11.4
	5	Somewhat agree	102	25.8
	6	Agree	88	22.2
	7	Strongly agree	116	29.3
FTL_OC1	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	12	3.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	35	8.8
	4	Neutral	58	14.6
	5	Somewhat agree	94	23.7
	6	Agree	96	24.2
	7	Strongly agree	94	23.7
FTL_OC2	1	Strongly disagree	7	1.8
	2	Disagree	12	3.0
	3	Somewhat disagree	26	6.6
	4	Neutral	55	13.9
	5	Somewhat agree	68	17.2
	6	Agree	90	22.7
	7	Strongly agree	138	34.8
FTL_OC3	1	Strongly disagree	12	3.0
	2	Disagree	7	1.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	30	7.6
	4	Neutral	67	16.9
	5	Somewhat agree	80	20.2
	6	Agree	84	21.2
	7	Strongly agree	116	29.3
SL_OC1	1	Strongly disagree	8	2.0
	2	Disagree	20	5.1
	3	Somewhat disagree	38	9.6
	4	Neutral	50	12.6
	5	Somewhat agree	105	26.5
	6	Agree	101	25.5
	7	Strongly agree	74	18.7
SL_OC2	1	Strongly disagree	10	2.5
	2	Disagree	15	3.8
	3	Somewhat disagree	27	6.8
	4	Neutral	55	13.9
	5	Somewhat agree	71	17.9
	6	Agree	91	23.0
	7	Strongly agree	127	32.1
SL_OC3	1	Strongly disagree	13	3.3
	2	Disagree	18	4.5
	3	Somewhat disagree	29	7.3
	4	Neutral	48	12.1
	5	Somewhat agree	76	19.2
	6	Agree	112	28.3
	7	Strongly agree	100	25.3

Source: Author's own research.

Note: MCQ: Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence, COCQ: Cognitive Cultural Intelligence, MOTCQ: Motivational Cultural Intelligence, BEHCQ: Behavioral Cultural Intelligence, RKD: Rational Knowledge Dynamics, SKD: Spiritual Knowledge Dynamics, EKD: Emotional Rational Knowledge Dynamics, AS_ML Administrative Skills, IS_ML: Interpersonal Skills, CS_ML Conceptual Skills, MLS_ML: Multicultural Leadership Skills, ACL_OC: Agility and Change Level, CCL_OC: Community and Connection Level, DIEL_OC: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Level, EAIL_OC: Entrepreneurship, Autonomy, and Innovation Level, FTL_OC: Flexibility and Transparency Level, SL_OC: Strength Level of the Company's Culture.

Appendix L – Assessing Normality (Quantitative Research) – Mean Based

Table L.1.

Assessing Normality for Quantitative Research – Mean Based.

Indicators	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Median	Std. Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
MCQ1	1	7	mai.17	6	1.653	−0.764	−0.285
MCQ2	1	7	mai.14	5	1.672	−0.787	−0.079
MCQ3	1	7	mai.26	5	1.591	−0.670	−0.276
MCQ4	1	7	mai.24	5	1.618	−0.707	−0.290
COCQ1	1	7	5.00	5	1.640	−0.592	−0.448
COCQ2	1	7	05.oct	5	1.575	−0.534	−0.511
COCQ3	1	7	05.aug	5	1.693	−0.488	−0.800
COCQ4	1	7	5.00	5	1.616	−0.669	−0.244
COCQ5	1	7	05.nov	5	1.719	−0.721	−0.363
COCQ6	1	7	apr.94	5	1.695	−0.515	−0.642
MOTCQ1	1	7	05.mar	5	1.710	−0.546	−0.614
MOTCQ2	1	7	mai.22	6	1.682	−0.650	−0.582
MOTCQ3	1	7	mai.19	5	1.696	−0.702	−0.392
MOTCQ4	1	7	mai.24	6	1.653	−0.665	−0.515
MOTCQ5	1	7	mai.18	6	1.705	−0.772	−0.263
BEHCQ1	1	7	05.ian	5	1.675	−0.690	−0.293
BEHCQ2	1	7	mai.22	6	1.674	−0.643	−0.572
BEHCQ3	1	7	mai.18	5	1.673	−0.620	−0.580
BEHCQ4	1	7	mai.20	6	1.687	−0.703	−0.461
BEHCQ5	1	7	mai.32	6	1.581	−0.839	−0.012
RKD1	1	7	05.nov	5	1.500	−0.616	−0.317
RKD2	1	7	mai.47	6	1.532	−0.835	−0.102
RKD3	1	7	mai.26	5	1.507	−0.842	0.317
EKD1	1	7	mai.69	6	1.509	−1.286	1.122
EKD2	1	7	mai.31	6	1.630	−0.817	−0.164
.EKD3	1	7	mai.55	6	1.559	−0.964	0.120
SKD1	1	7	mai.14	5	1.519	−0.585	−0.201
SKD2	1	7	mai.36	6	1.479	−0.813	0.138
SKD3	1	7	mai.51	6	1.454	−0.875	0.159
MLS_ML1	1	7	05.nov	5	1.511	−0.429	−0.672
MLS_ML2	1	7	mai.27	6	1.552	−0.743	−0.201
MLS_ML3	1	7	mai.22	5	1.546	−0.777	0.110
CS_ML1	1	7	mai.72	6	1.408	−1.286	1.173
CS_ML2	1	7	mai.41	6	1.547	−0.964	0.420
CS_ML3	1	7	05.mai	5	1.663	−0.605	−0.536
IS_ML1	1	7	mai.17	5	1.565	−0.690	−0.135
IS_ML2	1	7	mai.57	6	1.464	−0.906	0.187
IS_ML3	1	7	mai.52	6	1.478	−0.933	0.293
AS_ML1	1	7	mai.43	6	1.532	−0.807	−0.062
AS_ML2	1	7	mai.43	6	1.537	−0.872	0.170
AS_ML3	1	7	mai.41	6	1.479	−0.945	0.674
SL_OC1	1	7	05.aug	5	1.513	−0.680	−0.147
SL_OC2	1	7	mai.38	6	1.591	−0.869	0.029
SL_OC3	1	7	mai.25	6	1.608	−0.898	0.094
CCL_OC1	1	7	mai.16	5	1.499	−0.705	0.023
CCL_OC2	1	7	mai.63	6	1.441	−1.116	0.876
CCL_OC3	1	7	mai.48	6	1.487	−0.874	0.220
EAIL_OC1	1	7	mai.48	6	1.429	−0.853	0.242
EAIL_OC2	1	7	mai.40	6	1.586	−0.785	−0.237
EAIL_OC3	1	7	mai.41	6	1.446	−0.800	0.178
FTL_OC1	1	7	mai.23	5	1.483	−0.681	−0.094
FTL_OC2	1	7	mai.49	6	1.530	−0.891	0.087
FTL_OC3	1	7	mai.30	6	1.554	−0.766	0.049
ACL_OC1	1	7	mai.15	5	1.515	−0.575	−0.357
ACL_OC2	1	7	mai.47	6	1.495	−0.905	0.177
ACL_OC3	1	7	mai.41	6	1.481	−0.784	0.125
DEIL_OC1	1	7	05.dec	5	1.571	−0.571	−0.405
DEIL_OC2	1	7	mai.31	6	1.513	−0.669	−0.230
DEIL_OC3	1	7	mai.47	6	1.517	−0.794	−0.125

Source: Author's own research.

Appendix M – Assessing Normality (Quantitative Research): Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Test

Table M.1.

Assessing Normality for Quantitative Research: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Test.

	Kolmogorov-Smirnov			Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
MCQ1	0.206	396	0.000	0.886	396	0.000
MCQ2	0.173	396	0.000	0.886	396	0.000
MCQ3	0.168	396	0.000	0.889	396	0.000
MCQ4	0.173	396	0.000	0.887	396	0.000
COCQ1	0.181	396	0.000	0.910	396	0.000
COCQ2	0.159	396	0.000	0.910	396	0.000
COCQ3	0.163	396	0.000	0.896	396	0.000
COCQ4	0.187	396	0.000	0.907	396	0.000
COCQ5	0.187	396	0.000	0.886	396	0.000
COCQ6	0.167	396	0.000	0.912	396	0.000
MOTCQ1	0.159	396	0.000	0.900	396	0.000
MOTCQ2	0.197	396	0.000	0.880	396	0.000
MOTCQ3	0.172	396	0.000	0.883	396	0.000
MOTCQ4	0.197	396	0.000	0.881	396	0.000
MOTCQ5	0.184	396	0.000	0.880	396	0.000
BEHCQ1	0.176	396	0.000	0.902	396	0.000
BEHCQ2	0.185	396	0.000	0.882	396	0.000
BEHCQ3	0.169	396	0.000	0.887	396	0.000
BEHCQ4	0.193	396	0.000	0.882	396	0.000
BEHCQ5	0.192	396	0.000	0.878	396	0.000
RKD1	0.181	396	0.000	0.911	396	0.000
RKD2	0.190	396	0.000	0.862	396	0.000
RKD3	0.183	396	0.000	0.889	396	0.000
EKD1	0.252	396	0.000	0.808	396	0.000
EKD2	0.186	396	0.000	0.872	396	0.000
EKD3	0.214	396	0.000	0.840	396	0.000
SKD1	0.154	396	0.000	0.909	396	0.000
SKD2	0.179	396	0.000	0.885	396	0.000
SKD3	0.208	396	0.000	0.868	396	0.000
MLS_ML1	0.175	396	0.000	0.914	396	0.000
MLS_ML2	0.212	396	0.000	0.888	396	0.000
MLS_ML3	0.173	396	0.000	0.895	396	0.000
CS_ML1	0.257	396	0.000	0.815	396	0.000
CS_ML2	0.196	396	0.000	0.865	396	0.000
CS_ML3	0.170	396	0.000	0.900	396	0.000
IS_ML1	0.176	396	0.000	0.901	396	0.000
IS_ML2	0.199	396	0.000	0.855	396	0.000
IS_ML3	0.216	396	0.000	0.861	396	0.000
AS_ML1	0.183	396	0.000	0.871	396	0.000
AS_ML2	0.185	396	0.000	0.868	396	0.000
AS_ML3	0.172	396	0.000	0.872	396	0.000
SL_OC1	0.186	396	0.000	0.909	396	0.000
SL_OC2	0.202	396	0.000	0.868	396	0.000
SL_OC3	0.214	396	0.000	0.877	396	0.000
CCL_OC1	0.170	396	0.000	0.906	396	0.000
CCL_OC2	0.218	396	0.000	0.841	396	0.000
CCL_OC3	0.184	396	0.000	0.866	396	0.000
EAIL_OC1	0.194	396	0.000	0.876	396	0.000
EAIL_OC2	0.193	396	0.000	0.868	396	0.000
EAIL_OC3	0.172	396	0.000	0.883	396	0.000
FTL_OC1	0.177	396	0.000	0.903	396	0.000
FTL_OC2	0.206	396	0.000	0.859	396	0.000
FTL_OC3	0.178	396	0.000	0.884	396	0.000
ACL_OC1	0.177	396	0.000	0.910	396	0.000
ACL_OC2	0.202	396	0.000	0.867	396	0.000
ACL_OC3	0.174	396	0.000	0.879	396	0.000
DEIL_OC1	0.168	396	0.000	0.908	396	0.000
DEIL_OC2	0.186	396	0.000	0.891	396	0.000
DEIL_OC3	0.194	396	0.000	0.866	396	0.000

Source: Author's own research.

Appendix N – ANOVA Tests

Table N.1.

Descriptives of Age.

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	18–25	65	87.5077	31.30950	3.88347	79.7496	95.2658	21.00	135.00
	26–40	136	102.9044	26.08160	2.23648	98.4813	107.3275	22.00	140.00
	41–60	160	107.2813	19.66166	1.55439	104.2113	110.3512	27.00	136.00
	>61	35	110.4857	22.42553	3.79061	102.7823	118.1892	41.00	135.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	18–25	65	41.8615	14.18282	1.75916	38.3472	45.3759	9.00	62.00
	26–40	136	48.6324	10.49360	0.89982	46.8528	50.4119	18.00	63.00
	41–60	160	50.0250	7.69624	0.60844	48.8233	51.2267	9.00	63.00
	>61	35	52.4000	5.75582	0.97291	50.4228	54.3772	35.00	63.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	18–25	65	55.5385	18.92838	2.34778	50.8482	60.2287	12.00	80.00
	26–40	136	64.7426	12.72501	1.09116	62.5847	66.9006	26.00	82.00
	41–60	160	66.3000	9.82027	0.77636	64.7667	67.8333	16.00	84.00
	>61	35	69.8286	9.49144	1.60435	66.5681	73.0890	28.00	83.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	18–25	65	85.9692	28.54874	3.54103	78.8952	93.0433	19.00	124.00
	26–40	136	97.7941	17.48020	1.49891	94.8297	100.7585	51.00	126.00
	41–60	160	98.2000	15.56758	1.23073	95.7693	100.6307	18.00	125.00
	>61	35	100.3429	11.67436	1.97333	96.3326	104.3531	71.00	117.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.2.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Age Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	20482.453	3	6827.484	11.480	0.000
	Within groups	233137.090	392	594.737
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	3768.579	3	1256.193	12.863	0.000
	Within groups	38283.671	392	97.662
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	6726.078	3	2242.026	13.909	0.000
	Within groups	63186.718	392	161.191
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	8389.068	3	2796.356	8.026	0.000
	Within groups	136579.659	392	348.417
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

Based on the mean values, participants aged between 41 and 60 exhibited higher levels of cultural Intelligence (M = 107.28), while those aged 18–25 demonstrated lower levels of cultural Intelligence (M = 87.507). Furthermore, participants over the age of 61 scored higher in Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context (M = 52.40, 69.82, and 100.34, respectively) compared to other age groups. A one-way ANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference in all levels of Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context across at least three age groups (F (3, 392) = [11.480, 12.863, 13.909, and 8.026, respectively], p = 0.000).

Table N.3.

Descriptives of Education.

Education Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	High school only	27	88.3333	34.50195	6.63990	74.6848	101.9819	21.00	135.00
	University graduate	164	100.6402	24.80869	1.93723	96.8149	104.4656	32.00	134.00
	Master graduate	157	105.6242	24.29451	1.93891	101.7943	109.4541	22.00	140.00
	PhD graduate	48	109.2083	20.95279	3.02428	103.1243	115.2924	45.00	137.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	High school only	27	42.5185	14.95216	2.87754	36.6036	48.4334	9.00	63.00
	University graduate	164	47.3110	10.73642	0.83837	45.6555	48.9664	12.00	62.00
	Master graduate	157	49.8917	9.00682	0.71882	48.4718	51.3116	9.00	63.00
	PhD graduate	48	50.6875	8.07717	1.16584	48.3421	53.0329	19.00	62.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	High school only	27	58.0370	21.00821	4.04303	49.7265	66.3476	12.00	81.00
	University graduate	164	62.7866	13.47197	1.05198	60.7093	64.8639	16.00	84.00
	Master graduate	157	65.4650	11.68087	0.93223	63.6235	67.3064	16.00	83.00
	PhD graduate	48	69.2708	10.03767	1.44881	66.3562	72.1855	31.00	81.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	High school only	27	85.8148	29.54662	5.68625	74.1266	97.5031	19.00	122.00
	University graduate	164	96.3963	19.47521	1.52076	93.3934	99.3993	26.00	125.00
	Master graduate	157	97.5032	16.99910	1.35668	94.8234	100.1830	18.00	126.00
	PhD graduate	48	97.4583	16.05040	2.31668	92.7978	102.1189	48.00	120.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.4.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Educational Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	9639.024	3	3213.008	5.162	0.002
	Within groups	243980.519	392	622.399
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	1728.897	3	576.299	5.602	0.001
	Within groups	40323.353	392	102.866
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	2833.766	3	944.589	5.520	0.001
	Within groups	67079.030	392	171.120
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	3260.250	3	1086.750	3.006	0.030
	Within groups	141708.477	392	361.501
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

The table shows descriptive statistics for our four variables across different levels of education. The table provides data on the number of participants, the mean score for each level of education. It can be observed that as the level of education increases, the mean score for all variables also tends to increase.

The significant values in the ANOVA table (i.e., those with a Sig. value less than 0.05) indicate that there are statistically significant differences between the groups for each variable. Specifically, for Cultural Intelligence, there are significant differences between the groups of different education levels (high school only, university graduate, master graduate, and PhD graduate). Similarly, there are significant differences between the education groups for Knowledge Dynamics and Multicultural Leadership.

For Organizational Context, there is a significant difference between the groups, but the significance level is nearer (0.030) than to the typical cut-off of 0.05, indicating a weaker level of significance.

Table N.5.

Descriptives of Continent Affiliation.

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	Africa	47	98.2979	29.15246	4.25232	89.7384	106.8574	22.00	135.00
	Asia	79	97.7089	30.45221	3.42614	90.8879	104.5298	21.00	140.00
	Australia	38	109.1579	16.37818	2.65689	103.7745	114.5413	48.00	138.00
	Europe	130	108.8615	15.23804	1.33646	106.2173	111.5058	37.00	135.00
	North America	73	98.9041	30.10960	3.52406	91.8790	105.9292	27.00	136.00
	South America	29	98.4828	30.51887	5.66721	86.8740	110.0915	24.00	135.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	Africa	47	47.6596	10.80514	1.57609	44.4871	50.8321	21.00	63.00
	Asia	79	47.1899	12.49315	1.40559	44.3916	49.9882	9.00	63.00
	Australia	38	49.7632	9.41946	1.52804	46.6671	52.8593	12.00	62.00
	Europe	130	50.3231	5.56598	0.48817	49.3572	51.2889	15.00	62.00
	North America	73	46.6712	13.01714	1.52354	43.6341	49.7084	9.00	61.00
	South America	29	47.0690	12.05028	2.23768	42.4853	51.6526	18.00	60.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	Africa	47	63.1489	14.51832	2.11771	58.8862	67.4117	26.00	84.00
	Asia	79	62.6709	16.43848	1.84947	58.9889	66.3529	12.00	82.00
	Australia	38	65.9474	11.77480	1.91012	62.0771	69.8176	16.00	80.00
	Europe	130	66.5154	7.79707	0.68385	65.1624	67.8684	23.00	81.00
	North America	73	62.2192	15.93062	1.86454	58.5023	65.9361	16.00	83.00
	South America	29	63.8966	15.30720	2.84248	58.0740	69.7191	16.00	81.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	Africa	47	98.0638	17.91575	2.61328	92.8036	103.3241	51.00	121.00
	Asia	79	94.1013	23.53045	2.64738	88.8307	99.3718	19.00	126.00
	Australia	38	93.9474	18.23265	2.95773	87.9544	99.9403	27.00	117.00
	Europe	130	99.7692	13.14177	1.15261	97.4888	102.0497	32.00	125.00
	North America	73	92.7123	21.47833	2.51385	87.7011	97.7236	18.00	125.00
	South America	29	95.2069	23.86477	4.43158	86.1292	104.2846	26.00	122.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.6.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Continent Affiliation Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	10961.279	5	2192.256	3.523	0.004
	Within groups	242658.264	390	622.201
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	962.274	5	192.455	1.827	0.107
	Within groups	41089.976	390	105.359
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	1333.848	5	266.770	1.517	0.183
	Within groups	68578.947	390	175.843
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	3276.040	5	655.208	1.803	0.111
	Within groups	141692.688	390	363.315
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

The average scores for Cultural Intelligence vary from 98.30 (Africa) to 109.16 (Australia), and for Knowledge Dynamics, they range from 46.67 (North America) to 50.32 (Europe). The average scores for Multicultural Leadership range from 62.22 (North America) to 66.52 (Europe), and for Organizational Context range from 92.71 (North America) to 99.77 (Europe).

According to the ANOVA table, the differences in mean scores for Cultural Intelligence across the continents are statistically significant (F = 3.523, p = 0.004). However, the mean differences in scores for Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context are insignificant as the p-value is greater than 0.05.

Table N.7.

Descriptives of Company Sector.

Company Sector Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	Production	87	113.5977	17.27914	1.85252	109.9150	117.2804	41.00	136.00
	Retail	95	82.8000	29.34338	3.01057	76.8224	88.7776	21.00	138.00
	Services	115	106.4696	21.00013	1.95827	102.5902	110.3489	27.00	135.00
	Trade	92	107.9348	20.86682	2.17552	103.6134	112.2562	24.00	136.00
	Other	7	113.1429	26.58589	10.04852	88.5550	137.7307	57.00	140.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	Production	87	51.9425	6.23448	0.66841	50.6138	53.2713	27.00	63.00
	Retail	95	40.1895	13.34748	1.36942	37.4705	42.9085	9.00	62.00
	Services	115	50.1478	7.82623	0.72980	48.7021	51.5936	9.00	62.00
	Trade	92	51.6522	7.62793	0.79527	50.0725	53.2319	20.00	63.00
	Other	7	45.2857	11.52843	4.35734	34.6237	55.9477	23.00	54.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	Production	87	69.0230	9.60859	1.03015	66.9751	71.0709	20.00	83.00
	Retail	95	54.5474	16.94344	1.73836	51.0958	57.9989	12.00	80.00
	Services	115	65.5391	11.33717	1.05720	63.4448	67.6334	16.00	84.00
	Trade	92	68.3261	8.57560	0.89407	66.5501	70.1020	36.00	81.00
	Other	7	65.2857	12.85450	4.85854	53.3973	77.1741	40.00	79.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	Production	87	98.3563	17.09343	1.83261	94.7132	101.9994	32.00	125.00
	Retail	95	87.2737	24.66647	2.53073	82.2489	92.2985	19.00	124.00
	Services	115	98.0957	17.44514	1.62677	94.8730	101.3183	18.00	125.00
	Trade	92	100.6957	12.97651	1.35289	98.0083	103.3830	58.00	123.00
	Other	7	102.7143	18.65221	7.04987	85.4639	119.9647	69.00	126.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.8.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Company Sector Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	52866.314	4	13216.579	25.741	0.000
	Within groups	200753.229	391	513.435
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	8888.163	4	2222.041	26.198	0.000
	Within groups	33164.087	391	84.819
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	12651.085	4	3162.771	21.596	0.000
	Within groups	57261.711	391	146.449
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	10543.034	4	2635.759	7.667	0.000
	Within groups	134425.693	391	343.800
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

Based on the mean values, participants from the production sector exhibited higher levels of Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, and Multicultural Leadership (M = 113.59, 51.94, and 69.02 accordingly), while the organizational context level was high among those who were from trade sector (M = 100.69) compared to other sectors. A one-way ANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference in all levels of Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context across at least four sectors (F (4, 391) = [25.74, 26.198, 21.596, and 7.667, respectively], p = 0.000).

Table N.9.

Descriptives of Company's Size (Company's Yearly Turnover in Millions €).

Size by Turnover Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	<0.5M. €/year as turnover	50	77.4200	32.06695	4.53495	68.3067	86.5333	21.00	137.00
	0.5>=x < 1M. €/year	72	90.5139	29.25796	3.44808	83.6386	97.3892	22.00	135.00
	1M. <=x < 5M. €/year	102	108.8431	16.60833	1.64447	105.5810	112.1053	54.00	140.00
	5M.>=x < 10M. €/year	107	111.0093	18.54698	1.79300	107.4545	114.5642	37.00	136.00
	>10M = x < 50M €/year	48	112.0833	13.88989	2.00483	108.0501	116.1165	73.00	138.00
	>=50M. €/year	17	115.7059	22.47989	5.45217	104.1478	127.2640	67.00	136.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	<0.5M. €/year as turnover	50	40.6200	14.16937	2.00385	36.5931	44.6469	9.00	62.00
	0.5>=x < 1M. €/year	72	42.8611	13.55978	1.59804	39.6747	46.0475	9.00	61.00
	1M. <=x < 5M. €/year	102	50.8333	6.89825	0.68303	49.4784	52.1883	20.00	62.00
	5M.>=x < 10M. €/year	107	50.9813	7.04029	0.68061	49.6319	52.3307	23.00	63.00
	>10M = x < 50M €/year	48	52.0833	4.59803	0.66367	50.7482	53.4185	41.00	63.00
	>=50M. €/year	17	53.8824	4.94826	1.20013	51.3382	56.4265	43.00	60.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	<0.5M. €/year as turnover	50	54.5400	18.11439	2.56176	49.3919	59.6881	12.00	80.00
	0.5>=x < 1M. €/year	72	57.2361	17.61041	2.07541	53.0979	61.3744	16.00	82.00
	1M. <=x < 5M. €/year	102	67.3627	8.62392	0.85390	65.6688	69.0566	35.00	81.00
	5M.>=x < 10M. €/year	107	67.5888	8.85092	0.85565	65.8924	69.2852	36.00	84.00
	>10M = x < 50M €/year	48	68.8333	7.56626	1.09209	66.6363	71.0303	46.00	83.00
	>=50M. €/year	17	71.2941	7.99034	1.93794	67.1859	75.4024	50.00	82.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	<0.5M. €/year as turnover	50	89.8800	25.75524	3.64234	82.5604	97.1996	19.00	124.00
	0.5>=x < 1M. €/year	72	89.5000	25.82771	3.04382	83.4308	95.5692	18.00	123.00
	1M. <=x < 5M. €/year	102	101.6176	13.28965	1.31587	99.0073	104.2280	58.00	126.00
	5M.>=x < 10M. €/year	107	99.0187	12.87163	1.24435	96.5517	101.4857	54.00	118.00
	>10M = x < 50M €/year	48	97.1458	15.53718	2.24260	92.6343	101.6574	61.00	120.00
	>=50M. €/year	17	91.2353	23.48278	5.69541	79.1616	103.3090	40.00	125.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.10.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Company's Size (Company's Yearly Turnover in Millions €) Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	60979.700	5	12195.940	24.691	0.000
	Within groups	192639.843	390	493.948
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	7714.298	5	1542.860	17.523	0.000
	Within groups	34337.952	390	88.046
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	12287.708	5	2457.542	16.632	0.000
	Within groups	57625.087	390	147.757
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	9534.358	5	1906.872	5.491	0.000
	Within groups	135434.369	390	347.268
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

The company size is divided into the described six groups, which are based on their annual turnover.

The table provides insights into the relationship between company size and the four variables measured in the study. For instance, in the Cultural Intelligence category, there are 50 companies with a turnover of less than 0.5M. €/year, and the mean turnover for these companies is 77.42M. €/year, with a standard deviation of 32.07M. €/year. Similarly, for the Knowledge Dynamics category, there are 72 companies with a turnover between 0.5M. €/year and 1M. €/year, and the mean turnover for these companies is 42.86M. €/year, with a standard deviation of 13.56M. €/year. The results suggest that there are significant differences between groups for all four factors, as indicated by the low p-values (all <0.05) for the F-tests.

Table N.11.

Descriptives of Company's Size (Employees' Number).

Company's Size (Employees' Number) Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	1–10	53	75.5472	30.65099	4.21024	67.0987	83.9956	21.00	137.00
	11–50	65	90.8308	29.50030	3.65906	83.5210	98.1406	22.00	135.00
	51–100	84	107.3810	19.04016	2.07745	103.2490	111.5129	37.00	135.00
	101–500	116	112.3448	15.99680	1.48527	109.4028	115.2869	41.00	140.00
	501–1,000	60	110.8833	15.57169	2.01030	106.8607	114.9059	67.00	138.00
	1,000+ employees	18	116.7778	20.00163	4.71443	106.8312	126.7244	69.00	136.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	1–10	53	38.7358	13.75213	1.88900	34.9453	42.5264	9.00	62.00
	11–50	65	44.2923	13.72580	1.70248	40.8912	47.6934	9.00	62.00
	51–100	84	49.9881	7.77003	0.84778	48.3019	51.6743	20.00	62.00
	101–500	116	51.3879	6.52723	0.60604	50.1875	52.5884	23.00	63.00
	501–1,000	60	51.5000	4.86600	0.62820	50.2430	52.7570	41.00	63.00
	1,000+ employees	18	55.0556	3.29835	0.77743	53.4153	56.6958	50.00	60.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	1–10	53	52.8113	17.32057	2.37916	48.0372	57.5855	12.00	80.00
	11–50	65	58.1692	17.65429	2.18975	53.7947	62.5438	16.00	82.00
	51–100	84	66.5476	10.37189	1.13167	64.2968	68.7985	20.00	80.00
	101–500	116	67.6207	8.42837	0.78255	66.0706	69.1708	36.00	84.00
	501–1,000	60	69.1500	6.95707	0.89815	67.3528	70.9472	50.00	81.00
	1,000+ employees	18	72.4444	6.25180	1.47356	69.3355	75.5534	60.00	83.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	1–10	53	86.5094	25.95604	3.56534	79.3551	93.6638	19.00	124.00
	11–50	65	92.0615	24.61762	3.05344	85.9616	98.1615	18.00	123.00
	51–100	84	99.8452	16.41003	1.79048	96.2840	103.4064	32.00	123.00
	101–500	116	101.1121	11.48138	1.06602	99.0005	103.2236	61.00	126.00
	501–1,000	60	95.6167	15.43064	1.99209	91.6305	99.6028	58.00	120.00
	1,000+ employees	18	93.8889	23.60182	5.56300	82.1520	105.6258	40.00	125.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.12.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Company's Size (Employees' Number) Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	68443.962	5	13688.792	28.830	0.000
	Within groups	185175.581	390	474.809
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	8668.026	5	1733.605	20.252	0.000
	Within groups	33384.224	390	85.601
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	13747.329	5	2749.466	19.092	0.000
	Within groups	56165.466	390	144.014
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	10121.236	5	2024.247	5.854	0.000
	Within groups	134847.491	390	345.763
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

For Cultural Intelligence, the mean score increases with an increase in the number of employees. The mean score is the lowest for the group with 1–10 employees (75.55) and the highest for the group with over 1,000 employees (116.77). For Knowledge Dynamics, the mean score also increases with an increase in the number of employees. The mean score is the lowest for the group with 1–10 employees (38.74) and the highest for the group with over 1,000 employees (55.06). For Multicultural Leadership, the mean score also increases with an increase in the number of employees. The mean score is the lowest for the group with 1–10 employees (52.81) and the highest for the group with over 1,000 employees (72.44). For Organizational Context, the mean score also increases with an increase in the number of employees. The mean score is the lowest for the group with 1–10 employees (86.51) and the highest for the group with over 1,000 employees (93.89).

Based on the ANOVA table, we can see that all four groups show a significant difference between groups, as indicated by their F-statistics and p-values (all p-values are less than 0.05). This suggests that there are meaningful differences between the groups on the variables being measured. Additionally, the p-values for each group are very low (all less than 0.001), suggesting that the differences between the groups are highly significant.

Table N.13.

Descriptives of Function (From a Management Level Point of View).

Function (From a Management Level Point of View) Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	Lower management	46	103.2609	23.65346	3.48751	96.2367	110.2851	41.00	138.00
	Middle management	145	108.4897	20.76626	1.72454	105.0810	111.8983	32.00	137.00
	TOP management	205	98.7024	27.84752	1.94496	94.8676	102.5372	21.00	140.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	Lower management	46	50.3478	8.54327	1.25964	47.8108	52.8849	26.00	63.00
	Middle management	145	50.0207	8.55819	0.71072	48.6159	51.4255	19.00	63.00
	TOP management	205	46.8488	11.54113	0.80607	45.2595	48.4381	9.00	63.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	Lower management	46	66.8261	12.15512	1.79217	63.2165	70.4357	28.00	81.00
	Middle management	145	66.1241	10.60129	0.88039	64.3840	67.8643	16.00	83.00
	TOP management	205	62.4634	14.95303	1.04436	60.4043	64.5225	12.00	84.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	Lower management	46	92.7609	19.83060	2.92386	86.8719	98.6498	33.00	117.00
	Middle management	145	96.9724	18.02427	1.49683	94.0138	99.9310	26.00	123.00
	TOP management	205	96.5073	19.78329	1.38173	93.7830	99.2316	18.00	126.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.14.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Function (From a Management Level Point of View) Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	8145.590	2	4072.795	6.520	0.002
	Within groups	245473.953	393	624.616
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	1048.565	2	524.283	5.025	0.007
	Within groups	41003.685	393	104.335
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	1467.446	2	733.723	4.213	0.015
	Within groups	68445.350	393	174.161
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	649.229	2	324.615	0.884	0.414
	Within groups	144319.498	393	367.225
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

For Cultural Intelligence, the mean scores are 103.26 for lower management, 108.49 for middle management, and 98.70 for TOP management. The mean scores are significantly different between groups (p = 0.002). For Knowledge Dynamics, the mean scores are 50.35 for lower management, 50.02 for middle management, and 46.85 for TOP management. The differences between groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05 and = 0.007). For Multicultural Leadership, the mean scores are 66.83 for lower management, 66.12 for middle management, and 62.46 for TOP management. The differences between groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05). For Organizational Context, the mean scores are 92.76 for lower management, 96.97 for middle management, and 96.51 for TOP management. However, the difference between groups is not significant (p > 0.05). Overall, the differences between groups are statistically significant for all dimensions except for Cultural Intelligence. The significance values are very low (p < 0.01), indicating that the differences between the groups are highly significant.

Table N.15.

Descriptives of Years of Experience Within the Company.

Years of Experience within the Company Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	1–3	72	92.0694	30.44151	3.58757	84.9160	99.2228	21.00	137.00
	4–5	82	96.5488	29.14296	3.21830	90.1454	102.9522	22.00	136.00
	6–10	100	107.2700	23.64931	2.36493	102.5775	111.9625	27.00	140.00
	11–15	116	110.1121	15.45078	1.43457	107.2705	112.9537	45.00	136.00
	16>	26	102.6538	25.69972	5.04013	92.2735	113.0342	37.00	135.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	1–3	72	42.5139	13.47611	1.58817	39.3472	45.6806	9.00	62.00
	4–5	82	46.7439	11.64051	1.28548	44.1862	49.3016	21.00	62.00
	6–10	100	51.1600	9.22636	0.92264	49.3293	52.9907	9.00	63.00
	11–15	116	50.5345	5.90126	0.54792	49.4492	51.6198	19.00	61.00
	16>	26	50.0385	8.17548	1.60334	46.7363	53.3406	21.00	62.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	1–3	72	57.4861	17.53387	2.06639	53.3659	61.6064	12.00	80.00
	4–5	82	62.1707	16.24337	1.79378	58.6017	65.7398	20.00	82.00
	6–10	100	66.5300	10.37134	1.03713	64.4721	68.5879	16.00	81.00
	11–15	116	67.3707	8.27414	0.76823	65.8490	68.8924	31.00	84.00
	16>	26	67.7692	10.14419	1.98944	63.6719	71.8666	34.00	79.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	1–3	72	89.9167	25.59145	3.01598	83.9030	95.9304	19.00	124.00
	4–5	82	93.9146	21.97653	2.42690	89.0859	98.7434	32.00	125.00
	6–10	100	98.9900	17.83453	1.78345	95.4512	102.5288	18.00	126.00
	11–15	116	98.4828	12.32141	1.14401	96.2167	100.7488	54.00	121.00
	16>	26	100.5385	14.50305	2.84428	94.6806	106.3964	47.00	123.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.16.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining the Differences of Years of Experience Within the Company Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	19695.448	4	4923.862	8.230	0.000
	Within groups	233924.095	391	598.271
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	4079.378	4	1019.845	10.501	0.000
	Within groups	37972.872	391	97.117
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	5618.614	4	1404.653	8.542	0.000
	Within groups	64294.182	391	164.435
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	5142.408	4	1285.602	3.595	0.007
	Within groups	139826.319	391	357.612
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

For Cultural Intelligence, the mean score increases with years of experience, from 92.0694 for those with 1–3 years of experience to 102.6538 for those with more than 16 years of experience. The difference between the groups is statistically significant, as evidenced by the 95% confidence intervals for the mean not overlapping. Similarly, for Knowledge Dynamics, the mean score also increases with years of experience, from 42.5139 for those with 1–3 years of experience to 50.0385 for those with more than 16 years of experience. Again, the difference between the groups is statistically significant. For Multicultural Leadership, the mean score also increases with years of experience, from 57.4861 for those with 1–3 years of experience to 67.7692 for those with more than 16 years of experience. Once again, the difference between the groups is statistically significant. For Organizational Context, the mean score also increases with years of experience, from 89.9167 for those with 1–3 years of experience to 100.5385 for those with more than 16 years of experience. The difference between the groups is statistically significant. Overall, the results suggest that as employees gain more years of experience within the company, they tend to score higher on measures of Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

Table N.17.

Descriptives of Years of Experience in Total.

Years of Experience in Total Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	1–3	33	89.7879	33.46804	5.82604	77.9206	101.6551	21.00	135.00
	4–5	63	86.3333	28.16942	3.54901	79.2390	93.4277	22.00	137.00
	6–10	88	106.3409	21.90622	2.33521	101.6994	110.9824	24.00	140.00
	11–15	110	107.7273	20.54840	1.95921	103.8442	111.6104	38.00	138.00
	16–20	72	108.4444	21.18655	2.49686	103.4658	113.4230	27.00	136.00
	21+	30	109.9000	25.38307	4.63429	100.4218	119.3782	37.00	135.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	1–3	33	42.9091	14.57816	2.53773	37.7399	48.0783	9.00	62.00
	4–5	63	41.3810	12.49829	1.57464	38.2333	44.5286	12.00	62.00
	6–10	88	49.4886	9.32059	0.99358	47.5138	51.4635	25.00	63.00
	11–15	110	50.5545	7.55965	0.72078	49.1260	51.9831	18.00	63.00
	16–20	72	50.5556	8.80283	1.03742	48.4870	52.6241	9.00	62.00
	21+	30	53.1333	4.38440	0.80048	51.4962	54.7705	46.00	63.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	1–3	33	57.4545	19.92030	3.46768	50.3911	64.5180	12.00	80.00
	4–5	63	55.7460	16.57531	2.08829	51.5716	59.9205	16.00	81.00
	6–10	88	64.4091	12.18878	1.29933	61.8265	66.9916	32.00	82.00
	11–15	110	67.4818	8.56998	0.81712	65.8623	69.1013	27.00	80.00
	16–20	72	67.5833	11.10989	1.30931	64.9726	70.1940	16.00	84.00
	21+	30	70.0667	7.05121	1.28737	67.4337	72.6996	57.00	81.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	1–3	33	86.4545	28.44522	4.95168	76.3683	96.5408	19.00	117.00
	4–5	63	87.3968	24.44978	3.08038	81.2392	93.5544	27.00	123.00
	6–10	88	98.3523	17.71423	1.88834	94.5990	102.1056	54.00	126.00
	11–15	110	98.7273	13.81855	1.31755	96.1159	101.3386	48.00	121.00
	16–20	72	100.5833	15.93804	1.87832	96.8381	104.3286	18.00	123.00
	21+	30	99.8667	13.06676	2.38565	94.9875	104.7459	61.00	117.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.18.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Years of Experience in Total Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	30249.959	5	6049.992	10.563	0.000
	Within groups	223369.584	390	572.743
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	5720.260	5	1144.052	12.281	0.000
	Within groups	36331.990	390	93.159
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	9044.574	5	1808.915	11.590	0.000
	Within groups	60868.221	390	156.072
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	10912.602	5	2182.520	6.349	0.000
	Within groups	134056.126	390	343.734
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

For Cultural Intelligence, the mean values increase as the years of experience increase, with the highest mean of 109.9 for those with 21+ years of experience. The lowest mean is for those with 1–3 years of experience, with a mean of 89.8. Similarly, for Knowledge Dynamics, the mean values increase as the years of experience increase, with the highest mean of 53.1 for those with 21+ years of experience. The lowest mean is for those with 1–3 years of experience, with a mean of 42.9. For Multicultural Leadership, the mean values also increase as the years of experience increase, with the highest mean of 67.5 for those with 11–15 years of experience. The lowest mean is for those with 1–3 years of experience, with a mean of 57.5. Finally, for Organizational Context, the mean values increase as the years of experience increase, with the highest mean of 100.6 for those with 16–20 years of experience. The lowest mean is for those with 1–3 years of experience, with a mean of 86.5. Overall, it is clear that the mean values significantly generally increase with more years of experience in all four areas, with some variation between the different categories as p < 0.001.

Table N.19.

Descriptives of Number of Managed Nationalities.

Number of Managed Nationalities Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	1–3	92	82.6196	30.59298	3.18954	76.2839	88.9552	21.00	140.00
	4–5	72	108.3472	23.09269	2.72150	102.9207	113.7737	45.00	137.00
	6–10	54	105.0000	20.03488	2.72640	99.5315	110.4685	24.00	135.00
	11–15	66	109.7121	17.18923	2.11585	105.4865	113.9378	41.00	134.00
	16–20	35	116.2286	14.50778	2.45226	111.2450	121.2122	60.00	135.00
	21–50	45	110.2889	20.06197	2.99066	104.2616	116.3162	32.00	138.00
	51–100	24	102.1250	21.16871	4.32104	93.1862	111.0638	37.00	126.00
	>100	8	115.0000	16.04458	5.67262	101.5864	128.4136	98.00	136.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	1–3	92	39.4674	13.68841	1.42712	36.6326	42.3022	9.00	62.00
	4–5	72	51.2639	8.93638	1.05316	49.1639	53.3638	19.00	63.00
	6–10	54	51.1296	7.19026	0.97847	49.1671	53.0922	24.00	62.00
	11–15	66	50.6818	6.12726	0.75421	49.1755	52.1881	21.00	63.00
	16–20	35	51.5143	7.08092	1.19689	49.0819	53.9467	26.00	63.00
	21–50	45	51.9333	4.42822	0.66012	50.6030	53.2637	39.00	60.00
	51–100	24	50.5833	7.37750	1.50593	47.4681	53.6986	23.00	59.00
	>100	8	48.8750	9.53846	3.37235	40.9007	56.8493	27.00	56.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	1–3	92	54.3261	17.35290	1.80917	50.7324	57.9198	12.00	81.00
	4–5	72	66.1111	13.26072	1.56279	62.9950	69.2272	16.00	82.00
	6–10	54	66.8889	9.92741	1.35095	64.1792	69.5986	36.00	83.00
	11–15	66	67.1818	8.39580	1.03345	65.1179	69.2458	26.00	81.00
	16–20	35	68.1429	8.86879	1.49910	65.0963	71.1894	36.00	84.00
	21–50	45	70.1333	7.09225	1.05725	68.0026	72.2641	54.00	82.00
	51–100	24	66.4583	8.34568	1.70355	62.9343	69.9824	49.00	79.00
	>100	8	65.8750	13.37842	4.72999	54.6904	77.0596	36.00	79.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	1–3	92	87.7935	25.80763	2.69063	82.4489	93.1381	18.00	126.00
	4–5	72	101.4861	18.67513	2.20088	97.0977	105.8746	26.00	123.00
	6–10	54	99.8333	16.09729	2.19056	95.4396	104.2270	40.00	125.00
	11–15	66	98.2273	14.85809	1.82890	94.5747	101.8798	48.00	123.00
	16–20	35	97.8857	12.07275	2.04067	93.7386	102.0328	63.00	117.00
	21–50	45	96.9333	13.72523	2.04604	92.8098	101.0568	66.00	125.00
	51–100	24	94.6250	15.87126	3.23971	87.9232	101.3268	58.00	117.00
	>100	8	99.3750	19.69726	6.96403	82.9077	115.8423	54.00	115.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.20.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Number of Managed Nationalities Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	53133.968	7	7590.567	14.690	0.000
	Within groups	200485.575	388	516.715
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	9694.700	7	1384.957	16.607	0.000
	Within groups	32357.550	388	83.396
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	12477.996	7	1782.571	12.042	0.000
	Within groups	57434.799	388	148.028
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	9760.731	7	1,394.390	4.001	0.000
	Within groups	135207.996	388	348.474
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

The ranges of managed nationalities are divided into eight categories: 1–3, 4–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–50, 51–100, and greater than 100. The mean values show the central tendency of the data in each group. For example, the mean Cultural Intelligence score for the category of 1–3 managed nationalities is 82.6196, while the mean score for the category of greater than 100 managed nationalities is 115.0000. This indicates that as the number of managed nationalities increases, the mean Cultural Intelligence score also increases. Similarly, the mean Knowledge Dynamics score increases as the number of managed nationalities increases, from 39.4674 for the 1–3 category to 48.8750 for the >100 category. The Multicultural Leadership scores show a steady increase as the number of managed nationalities increases, with the highest mean score of 70.1333 for the 21–50 category. Finally, the Organizational Context scores also increase as the number of managed nationalities increases, with a mean score of 87.7935 for the 1–3 category and a mean score of 111.4828 for the >100 category. In general, the results suggest that there are significant differences between the groups for all four variables (p = 0.000).

Table N.21.

Descriptives of Spoken Languages.

Spoken Languages Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	One	45	76.5556	32.24237	4.80641	66.8689	86.2422	21.00	134.00
	Two	147	100.6667	25.33754	2.08980	96.5365	104.7968	24.00	140.00
	Three	139	108.2878	19.42815	1.64787	105.0294	111.5461	32.00	136.00
	More than Three	65	114.1538	16.69134	2.07031	110.0179	118.2898	54.00	138.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	One	45	39.2444	14.03106	2.09163	35.0290	43.4598	9.00	59.00
	Two	147	47.5374	10.41158	0.85873	45.8403	49.2346	18.00	63.00
	Three	139	50.2302	8.09841	0.68690	48.8720	51.5884	12.00	62.00
	More than Three	65	52.8769	6.68839	0.82959	51.2196	54.5342	20.00	63.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	One	45	53.9778	17.49609	2.60816	48.7214	59.2342	12.00	81.00
	Two	147	62.3537	14.27125	1.17707	60.0274	64.6800	16.00	84.00
	Three	139	66.5540	9.97255	0.84586	64.8814	68.2265	16.00	82.00
	More than Three	65	71.0923	7.83367	0.97165	69.1512	73.0334	36.00	83.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	One	45	86.4000	25.66072	3.82527	78.6907	94.1093	18.00	123.00
	Two	147	95.0680	20.82532	1.71764	91.6734	98.4627	26.00	126.00
	Three	139	98.5683	15.15000	1.28501	96.0275	101.1092	27.00	125.00
	More than Three	65	100.7385	14.98674	1.85888	97.0249	104.4520	54.00	121.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.22.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Spoken Languages Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	44228.814	3	14742.938	27.600	0.000
	Within groups	209390.729	392	534.160
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	5649.746	3	1883.249	20.280	0.000
	Within groups	36402.504	392	92.864
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	9056.421	3	3018.807	19.445	0.000
	Within groups	60856.375	392	155.246
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	6627.953	3	2209.318	6.260	0.000
	Within groups	138340.774	392	352.910
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

For the construct of Cultural Intelligence, the mean score increases as the number of spoken languages increases. The group that speaks more than three languages has the highest mean score (114.1538), followed by the group that speaks three languages (108.2878), the group that speaks two languages (100.6667), and the group that speaks one language (76.5556). The differences between the means are statistically significant, as the 95% confidence intervals for the means do not overlap and p < 0.001. For the construct of Knowledge Dynamics, the mean score also increases as the number of spoken languages increases. The group that speaks more than three languages has the highest mean score (52.8769), followed by the group that speaks three languages (50.2302), the group that speaks two languages (47.5374), and the group that speaks one language (39.2444). The differences between the means are statistically significant, as p < 0.001. For the construct of Multicultural Leadership, the mean score also increases as the number of spoken languages increases. The group that speaks more than three languages has the highest mean score (71.0923), followed by the group that speaks three languages (66.5540), the group that speaks two languages (62.3537), and the group that speaks one language (53.9778). The differences between the means are statistically significant, as the 95% confidence intervals for the means do not overlap and p < 0.001. Finally, for the construct of Organizational Context, the mean score also increases as the number of spoken languages increases. The group that speaks more than three languages has the highest mean score (100.7385), followed by the group that speaks three languages (98.5683), the group that speaks two languages (95.0680), and the group that speaks one language (86.4000). There is a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) between the means, as the 95% confidence intervals for the means do not intersect.

Table N.23.

Descriptives of Number of Worked Continents.

Number of Worked Continents Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	One	166	93.6506	30.61370	2.37608	88.9592	98.3421	21.00	140.00
	Two	128	108.5234	19.20874	1.69783	105.1637	111.8831	39.00	137.00
	Three	62	107.1452	17.13863	2.17661	102.7928	111.4976	37.00	135.00
	More than Three	40	115.8750	14.41720	2.27956	111.2642	120.4858	80.00	138.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	One	166	45.3976	12.44960	0.96628	43.4897	47.3055	9.00	63.00
	Two	128	50.1797	9.10432	0.80472	48.5873	51.7721	12.00	63.00
	Three	62	49.6935	6.08570	0.77288	48.1481	51.2390	24.00	61.00
	More than Three	40	53.3250	4.28706	0.67784	51.9539	54.6961	46.00	61.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	One	166	61.0663	15.95947	1.23870	58.6205	63.5120	12.00	84.00
	Two	128	65.7188	12.07453	1.06725	63.6069	67.8306	16.00	83.00
	Three	62	65.4677	7.99942	1.01593	63.4363	67.4992	36.00	79.00
	More than Three	40	71.4750	5.83969	0.92334	69.6074	73.3426	55.00	81.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	One	166	95.5723	21.91618	1.70103	92.2137	98.9309	18.00	126.00
	Two	128	96.5391	18.99312	1.67877	93.2171	99.8610	26.00	125.00
	Three	62	97.1613	14.07147	1.78708	93.5878	100.7348	48.00	121.00
	More than Three	40	96.6500	14.03211	2.21867	92.1623	101.1377	58.00	115.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.24.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Number of Worked Continents Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	26097.810	3	8699.270	14.988	0.000
	Within groups	227521.733	392	580.413
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	2975.671	3	991.890	9.950	0.000
	Within groups	39076.579	392	99.685
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	4137.239	3	1379.080	8.219	0.000
	Within groups	65775.557	392	167.795
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	144.803	3	48.268	0.131	0.942
	Within groups	144823.924	392	369.449
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

Cultural Intelligence scores generally increase as the number of worked continents increases, with the “More than Three” group having the highest mean score of 115.8750 and the “One” group having the lowest mean score of 93.6506. Similarly, Knowledge Dynamics scores also generally increase as the number of worked continents increases, with the “More than Three” group having the highest mean score of 53.3250 and the “One” group having the lowest mean score of 45.3976.

Meanwhile, Multicultural Leadership scores show a similar trend, with the “More than Three” group having the highest mean score of 71.4750 and the “One” group having the lowest mean score of 61.0663. On the other hand, Organizational Context scores do not show a clear trend based on the number of worked continents. The mean scores for all four groups are relatively close, with the “Three” group having the highest mean score of 97.1613 and the “One” group having the lowest mean score of 95.5723. The significance values provided in the ANOVA table indicate that for Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, and Multicultural Leadership, the significance values are all less than 0.05, which means that there are significant differences between the means of the groups. However, for Organizational Context, the significance value is 0.942, which is greater than 0.05, indicating that there is not enough evidence to suggest that the means of the groups are significantly different.

Table N.25.

Descriptives of Number of Worked Countries.

Number of Worked Countries Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	One	93	81.0430	29.98547	3.10935	74.8676	87.2184	21.00	140.00
	Two	99	106.9697	19.70106	1.98003	103.0404	110.8990	24.00	135.00
	Three	104	107.3750	20.52571	2.01271	103.3833	111.3667	37.00	137.00
	More than Three	100	114.2100	16.97550	1.69755	110.8417	117.5783	61.00	138.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	One	93	41.1290	12.87923	1.33551	38.4766	43.7815	9.00	63.00
	Two	99	49.2828	9.24391	0.92905	47.4392	51.1265	19.00	63.00
	Three	104	49.7788	8.53884	0.83730	48.1183	51.4394	12.00	63.00
	More than Three	100	52.9200	6.09136	0.60914	51.7113	54.1287	21.00	62.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	One	93	55.9247	16.37153	1.69765	52.5531	59.2964	12.00	81.00
	Two	99	64.9394	12.08120	1.21421	62.5298	67.3489	16.00	81.00
	Three	104	65.2212	11.84361	1.16136	62.9179	67.5244	16.00	84.00
	More than Three	100	70.5400	7.75694	0.77569	69.0009	72.0791	26.00	83.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	One	93	89.6989	23.12198	2.39764	84.9370	94.4608	18.00	126.00
	Two	99	98.8384	18.36407	1.84566	95.1757	102.5010	26.00	124.00
	Three	104	99.1154	17.34533	1.70085	95.7422	102.4886	27.00	125.00
	More than Three	100	96.7700	16.27097	1.62710	93.5415	99.9985	48.00	121.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.26.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Number of Worked Countries Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	60939.841	3	20313.280	41.327	0.000
	Within groups	192679.702	392	491.530
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	7234.444	3	2411.481	27.150	0.000
	Within groups	34817.806	392	88.821
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	10545.933	3	3515.311	23.212	0.000
	Within groups	59366.863	392	151.446
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	5535.418	3	1845.139	5.187	0.002
	Within groups	139433.309	392	355.697
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

The ANOVA results indicate that all four variables have significant differences between the groups. For Cultural Intelligence, the mean difference is highest for those who worked in more than three countries. For Knowledge Dynamics, the mean difference is also highest for those who worked in more than three countries. For Multicultural Leadership, the mean difference is highest for those who worked in more than three countries. For Organizational Context, the mean difference is highest for those who worked in three countries.

Table N.27.

Descriptives of Experience in Managing Virtual Teams.

Experience in Managing Virtual Teams Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Cultural Intelligence	No experience	51	68.7255	28.45774	3.98488	60.7216	76.7294	21.00	131.00
	1–2 years experience	99	99.4141	26.73071	2.68654	94.0828	104.7455	22.00	140.00
	3–4 years experience	142	109.2113	17.05387	1.43113	106.3820	112.0405	37.00	136.00
	5+ years' experience	104	114.0385	14.86961	1.45809	111.1467	116.9302	61.00	136.00
	Total	396	102.8157	25.33919	1.27334	100.3123	105.3190	21.00	140.00
Knowledge Dynamics	No experience	51	39.7843	16.24969	2.27541	35.2140	44.3546	9.00	63.00
	1–2 years experience	99	46.2626	11.04313	1.10988	44.0601	48.4651	20.00	62.00
	3–4 years experience	142	50.2676	7.50784	0.63004	49.0221	51.5132	19.00	63.00
	5+ years' experience	104	52.1731	5.15477	0.50547	51.1706	53.1756	34.00	63.00
	Total	396	48.4167	10.31801	0.51850	47.3973	49.4360	9.00	63.00
Multicultural Leadership	No experience	51	51.2549	19.46982	2.72632	45.7789	56.7309	12.00	78.00
	1–2 years experience	99	63.1010	13.91629	1.39864	60.3255	65.8766	30.00	84.00
	3–4 years experience	142	66.4789	10.63696	0.89263	64.7142	68.2435	16.00	81.00
	5+ years' experience	104	68.9038	6.48152	0.63557	67.6434	70.1643	48.00	83.00
	Total	396	64.3106	13.30392	0.66855	62.9963	65.6250	12.00	84.00
Organizational Context	No experience	51	84.0588	29.80162	4.17306	75.6770	92.4407	18.00	125.00
	1–2 years experience	99	95.2727	19.69037	1.97896	91.3456	99.1999	40.00	126.00
	3–4 years experience	142	98.4507	16.58187	1.39152	95.6998	101.2016	26.00	123.00
	5+ years' experience	104	100.1250	11.60573	1.13804	97.8680	102.3820	48.00	125.00
	Total	396	96.2424	19.15749	0.96270	94.3498	98.1351	18.00	126.00

Source: Author's own research.

Table N.28.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Explaining Experience in Managing Virtual Teams Differences Among Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Cultural Intelligence	Between groups	79321.858	3	26440.619	59.466	0.000
	Within groups	174297.685	392	444.637
	Total	253619.543	395
Knowledge Dynamics	Between groups	6213.735	3	2071.245	22.655	0.000
	Within groups	35838.515	392	91.425
	Total	42052.250	395
Multicultural Leadership	Between groups	11699.644	3	3899.881	26.261	0.000
	Within groups	58213.151	392	148.503
	Total	69912.795	395
Organizational Context	Between groups	9923.737	3	3307.912	9.602	0.000
	Within groups	135044.990	392	344.503
	Total	144968.727	395

Source: Author's own research.

For instance, for Cultural Intelligence: the group with 5+ years of experience in managing virtual teams has the highest mean score of 114.04, followed by the group with 3–4 years of experience (109.21), the group with 1–2 years of experience (99.41), and the group with no experience (68.73). That is statistically significant at 0.001 level. For Knowledge Dynamics, the group with 5+ years of experience in managing virtual teams has the highest mean score of 52.17, followed by the group with 3–4 years of experience (50.27), the group with 1–2 years of experience (46.26), and the group with no experience (39.78). The overall mean score for all groups is 48.42. For Multicultural Leadership, the group with 5+ years of experience in managing virtual teams has the highest mean score of 68.90, followed by the group with 3–4 years of experience (66.48), the group with 1–2 years of experience (63.10), and the group with no experience (51.25). The overall mean score for all groups is 64.31. For Organizational Context, the group with 5+ years of experience in managing virtual teams has the highest mean score of 100.13, followed by the group with 3–4 years of experience (98.45), the group with 1–2 years of experience (95.27), and the group with no experience (84.06). The overall mean score for all groups is 96.24. The ANOVA table shows that Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Dynamics, Multicultural Leadership, and Organizational Context all have significant F values and p-values, indicating significant differences between the mean scores of their experience in managing virtual teams.

Book Chapters

Prelims

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Theoretical Background

Chapter 3 Methodology

Chapter 4 Qualitative Research Results

Chapter 5 Quantitative Research

Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusions as per the PLS-SEM Analysis

Appendices

References

Appendices

Citation

Publisher

Appendix A – My Working Definitions

Appendices for Qualitative Research

Appendix B – Screening Filtering Questions to Validate Interview Participation

Appendix C – Consent to Participate in Research Interviews

Appendix D – Interviews' Synthetic Results

Fig. D.1.

Fig. D.2.

Fig. D.3.

Fig. D.4.

Fig. D.5.

Fig. D.6.

Fig. D.7.

Fig. D.8.

Fig. D.9.

Fig. D.10.

Fig. D.11.

Fig. D.12.

Fig. D.13.

Appendix E − Sample of One Interview

Appendix F – The Interviews Codebook and Codes

Appendix G – Demography and Number of Words Transcribed

Appendix H – Transcribed Words and Participants per Variable

Appendix I – Total Transcribed Words per Variable

Appendices for Quantitative Research

Appendix J – Introduction Section for Questionnaire

Appendix K – Descriptive Statistics (Quantitative Research)

Appendix L – Assessing Normality (Quantitative Research) – Mean Based

Appendix M – Assessing Normality (Quantitative Research): Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Test

Appendix N – ANOVA Tests

Book Chapters

Something didn’t work…

All feedback is valuable

Platform update page

Questions & More Information

Citation

Publisher

Appendix A – My Working Definitions

Appendices for Qualitative Research

Appendix B – Screening Filtering Questions to Validate Interview Participation

Appendix C – Consent to Participate in Research Interviews

Appendix D – Interviews' Synthetic Results

Fig. D.1.

Fig. D.2.

Fig. D.3.

Fig. D.4.

Fig. D.5.

Fig. D.6.

Fig. D.7.

Fig. D.8.

Fig. D.9.

Fig. D.10.

Fig. D.11.

Fig. D.12.

Fig. D.13.

Appendix E − Sample of One Interview

Appendix F – The Interviews Codebook and Codes

Appendix G – Demography and Number of Words Transcribed

Appendix H – Transcribed Words and Participants per Variable

Appendix I – Total Transcribed Words per Variable

Appendices for Quantitative Research

Appendix J – Introduction Section for Questionnaire

Appendix K – Descriptive Statistics (Quantitative Research)

Appendix L – Assessing Normality (Quantitative Research) – Mean Based

Appendix M – Assessing Normality (Quantitative Research): Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Test

Appendix N – ANOVA Tests

Book Chapters

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work…

All feedback is valuable

Join us on our journey

Platform update page

Questions & More Information