The Role of Cultural Intelligence in Marketing Adaptation ... · The Role of Cultural Intelligence in Marketing Adaptation and Export Performance Peter Magnusson, Stanford A. Westjohn,

44 Journal of International Marketing

The Role of Cultural Intelligence inMarketing Adaptation and Export PerformancePeter Magnusson, Stanford A. Westjohn, Alexey V. Semenov, Arilova A. Randrianasolo,and Srdan Zdravkovic

ABSTRACTThis study examines how export manager cultural intelligence (CQ) affects the relationship between marketing-mixadaptation and export performance. From a resource-advantage theory perspective, the authors posit that export man-agers’ motivational and metacognitive CQ are intangible but valuable resources that influence marketing strategy andexport performance. According to survey data from 153 U.S. exporting firms, export managers’ metacognitive CQpositively moderates the relationship between marketing-mix adaptations and export performance. Furthermore,export managers’ motivational CQ positively moderates the relationship between environmental differences and marketing-mix adaptations. The study adds to the theoretical understanding of the adaptation–performance relationshipand provides valuable guidelines for exporting firms in the recruitment, training, and promotion of export managers.

Keywords: marketing-mix adaptation, export performance, exporting, cultural intelligence

In its attempt to successfully enter Asian markets, Italian-based scooter manufacturer Piaggio adapted its Vespato better fit the local environment. The “Indian Vespa”

comes with a narrower floorboard to allow shorter ridersto reach the ground more easily; drum brakes havereplaced disk brakes to make it easier to change flat tires,which occur more frequently on India’s weaker road infra-structure; and a side footrest has been added to adapt toIndian women riding sidesaddle to accommodate theirfloor-length saris (Meichtry 2010).

These adaptations to the Vespa were the result of astrategic decision based on analysis and understandingof a host country environment that differs from the

home country. The success of such decisions hinges onthe international marketing manager’s sophisticatedunderstanding of local regulations, infrastructure, andcustomer preferences as well as the manager’s motiva-tion and willingness to make adaptations.

The degree of marketing adaptation in internationalmarkets and its link with export performance hasreceived considerable attention in the literature. On theone hand, marketing standardization is expected to reapbenefits from economies of scale and reduced com-plexity (Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009). On theother hand, differences in the cultural, economic, andregulatory environments may require an adapted mar-keting strategy (Cavusgil and Kirpalani 1993; Navarroet al. 2010; Sousa, Ruzo, and Losada 2010).

Empirical investigations into the relationship betweenmarketing-mix adaptations and export performance

Peter Magnusson is Assistant Professor of International Marketing, Col-lege of Business, Florida International University (e-mail: [email protected]). Stanford A. Westjohn is Assistant Professor ofMarketing and International Business, University of Toledo (e-mail: [email protected]). Alexey V. Semenov (e-mail: [email protected]) and Arilova A. Randrianasolo (e-mail: [email protected]) aredoctoral students, Department of International Business, Saint Louis Uni-versity. Srdan Zdravkovic is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College ofBusiness, Bryant University (e-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of International Marketing©2013, American Marketing AssociationVol. 21, No. 4, 2013, pp. 44–61ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 44

The Role of Cultural Intelligence 45

have yielded inconclusive findings, with some studiesreporting a positive relationship (e.g., Calantone et al.2004; Cavusgil and Kirpalani 1993; Navarro et al.2010; Sousa, Ruzo, and Losada 2010), others a negativerelationship (e.g., Chung 2009; Evans, Mavondo, andBridson 2008; Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009),and still others no relationship (e.g., Kotabe 1990;Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2007). Given the empiricalambiguity in terms of a main effect, researchers haveincreasingly applied a contingency perspective to iden-tify contextual moderating variables to further under-stand when and where adaptation or standardizationleads to greater performance (Katsikeas, Samiee, andTheodosiou 2006; Xu, Cavusgil, and White 2006).

Empirical findings suggest that firm characteristics suchas firm size, cost leadership strategy, degree of market-ing coordination and global market participation(Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009), and durationand intensity of exporting activities (Hultman, Kat-sikeas, and Robson 2011) exert moderating effects onthe adaptation–performance relationship. Schilke,Reimann, and Thomas (2009) also find that industrycharacteristics such as product homogeneity and indus-try focus moderate this relationship. Other researchershave focused on the degree of fit between the externalenvironment and the firm’s marketing strategy (Hult-man, Robson, and Katsikeas 2009; Katsikeas, Samiee,and Theodosiou 2006). Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu (1993,p. 497) summarize the contingency perspective by con-cluding that “it is difficult to make blanket statementsabout suitable standardization/adaptation strategy with-out an examination of the company background, product/industry features, and the characteristics of the exportmarket.”

The contingency perspective has provided considerableinsights, but one contingency factor that has receivedlimited attention in the literature is the skills and abili-ties of the export manager (Griffith and Hoppner 2013;Sousa, Ruzo, and Losada 2010). This is surprising,given the centrality of the export manager in marketselection and the design and execution of internationalmarketing strategy (Hultman, Robson, and Katsikeas2009; Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy 1998). Thus, thisstudy examines the influence of the export manager’smotivational and metacognitive cultural intelligence(CQ) on strategy and performance in the internationalmarket.

Cultural intelligence is a recently conceptualized (Earleyand Ang 2003) and operationalized construct (Ang et al.

2007) in the international human resources literature.Early empirical evidence suggests that it is significantlyrelated to expatriate adjustment (Wu and Ang 2011),more positive outcomes in international negotiations(Imai and Gelfand 2010), and reduced stress from inter-national travels (Ramsey et al. 2011). However, to thebest of our knowledge, no studies have examined exportmanager CQ and its effects on international marketingstrategy and export performance.

This study makes several contributions to the literature.First, it expands the theoretical foundation on contin-gency theory by incorporating export manager CQ as acontingency factor that affects the relationship betweeninternational marketing strategies and export perform-ance. This is grounded in Hunt and Morgan’s (1995)resource-advantage theory (R-A theory), which suggeststhat human resources can lead to competitive advantagesif the export manager’s skills and abilities are valuableand difficult to imitate. Second, we shift the focus frommore abstract and less managerially controllable firmcharacteristics such as firm size or environmental factorsto the more concrete characteristics of the exportmanager by examining how the export manager’s CQmoderates the relationship between marketing-mixadaptation and export performance. The findings pro-vide important guidance for managers as they strive todevelop effective international marketing strategies andoffer practical implications for firms attempting torecruit and develop effective export managers.

We proceed by discussing the theoretical underpinningsfrom R-A theory and CQ from which the studyhypotheses evolve. Then, we present the empirical set-ting and study results. Next, we discuss the findings andtheir implications for theory and practice. We concludeby noting some limitations and offering directions forfurther research.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

We develop a conceptual model that incorporates thekey variables of export performance, marketing-mixadaptation, environmental differences, and export man-agers’ motivational and metacognitive CQ. Export per-formance is the extent to which the firm achieves itsstrategic, financial, and competitive objectives for a spe-cific export venture in one market (Cavusgil and Zou1994). Marketing-mix adaptation is the means by whichthe firm implements its export strategy in response tointernal and external forces. Consistent with prior

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 45


research (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008), we viewmarketing-mix adaptation as the integration of the con-ventional four Ps of marketing (product, price, place,and promotion). We draw from Ghemawat’s (2001)CAGE framework and define environmental differencesas the combined external forces based on cultural,administrative, geographic, and economic differences.We provide clear definitions for motivational andmetacognitive CQ subsequently. We illustrate the con-ceptual framework in Figure 1.

The Export Manager as a Human ResourceAdvantage

Our focus on the export manager’s CQ is grounded inHunt and Morgan’s (1995) R-A theory, which views thefirm as a bundle of heterogeneous and imperfectlymobile resources (see also Griffith and Yalcinkaya2010). The R-A theory builds on the resource-basedview of the firm (Barney 1991), but one importantextension is its identification and categorization of sevenspecific resources; (1) financial, (2) physical, and (3) legal resources are considered tangible resources and(4) human, (5) organizational, (6) informational, and(7) relational resources are considered intangible

resources (Hunt 2000). Competitive advantage arisesfrom the development and leveraging of unique combi-nations of heterogeneous and imperfectly mobileresources (Seggie and Griffith 2008). Thus, by accumu-lating and deploying the right combination of resources,firms can gain a sustainable competitive advantage, andthe value of a given resource is gauged by its potentialto be a competitive differentiator (Hunt 2000).

Intangible human resources are especially important tofirms because they are action oriented and stimulate theuse of other resources (Magnusson, Westjohn, and Boggs2009). Yet, to a large extent, intangible resources are“embodied within the employees of the firm and areonly firm resources to the degree to which the firmaggregates the resources embodied within employees”(Griffith and Yalcinkaya 2010, p. 20). Therefore, theability of the firm to generate and sustain a competitiveadvantage is based on the skills and competences of itsmanagers (Griffith and Hoppner 2013).

This places the international marketing manager at thecenter of attention of the firm’s global operations. In aconstantly fluctuating global environment, the inter-national marketing manager must have the necessary

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

H1: +

Environmental Differences

Marketing-Mix

Export Performance

Motivational CQ

Metacognitive CQ

H2: +

Control Variables Resource advantages

Market size Foreign sales/total sales

Firm size Manager export

experience Firm export experience

Duration of export venture

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 46


skills to develop, implement, and constantly recalibratethe firm’s international marketing plan (Moeller andHarvey 2011). Griffith and Hoppner (2013) argue thatsuccessful international marketing managers need topossess the necessary soft skills to be able to makecritical adjustments to the firm’s marketing strategy inresponse to changes in the internal and external environ-ment. Griffith (2010) illustrates the complexity of theglobal environment and suggests that global marketingmanagers must be able to carefully address the influenceof the institutional environment to determine optimaldegrees of adaptation of the marketing mix.

The human resource value of the export manager is inhis or her ability to adjust and recalibrate the firm’s mar-keting strategy. Accordingly, the existence of CQ doesnot influence performance directly; rather, it is onlythrough some vehicle, such as the implementation oradjustment of the firm’s marketing strategy, that thefirm can realize the value of CQ. The role of manage-ment decision making in firm performance outcomes isfurther supported by, for example, strategic choicetheory (e.g., Child 1972; Hitt and Tyler 1991) or upperechelons theory (Hambrick and Mason 1984), whichsuggest that the success of an organization depends onthe competence of its management. We aim to extendthe export marketing literature by focusing on theeffects of the export manager’s CQ, as a characteristicthat influences decision making. This, in effect, makesthe international marketing manager a critical source ofhuman capital.

CQ

Although CQ has garnered considerable attention, pri-marily in the international human resources literature(e.g., Chen et al. 2010), it remains scarce in the inter-national marketing literature. It was initially conceptu-alized (Earley and Ang 2003) and empirically validated(Ang et al. 2007) as a four-dimensional construct con-sisting of (1) motivational, (2) behavioral, (3) cognitive,and (4) metacognitive dimensions. Ang et al. (2007, p.338) define each of the four dimensions as follows:Motivational CQ reflects “the capability to direct atten-tion and energy toward learning about and functioningin situations characterized by cultural differences.”Behavioral CQ reflects “the capability to exhibit appro-priate verbal and non-verbal actions when interactingwith people of different cultures.” Cognitive CQ entails“knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in dif-ferent cultures. This includes knowledge of the eco-nomic, legal, and social systems of different cultures.”

Finally, metacognitive CQ refers to “the mental pro-cesses that individuals use to acquire and understandcultural knowledge,” and “relevant capabilities includeplanning, monitoring, and revising mental models ofcultural norms for countries or groups of people.”

The original conceptualization viewed CQ as an aggre-gate of the four dimensions, and early empirical exami-nations focused on the aggregate CQ construct. Thefindings from these studies suggest that CQ, in aggre-gate, is positively related to more effective interculturalnegotiation (Imai and Gelfand 2010), improves densityof social networks (Fehr and Kuo 2008), and enablesmanagers in multinational corporations to set culturallysuitable goals and implement organizational innova-tions more effectively (Elenkov and Manev 2009).Other works, however, examined the four dimensionsseparately and often found differential effects. Forexample, Ang et al. (2007) find that metacognitive CQis significantly related to cultural judgment and decisionmaking, whereas motivational CQ is related to interac-tional adjustment and well-being. These findings suggestthat the different dimensions, though certainly related,are relatively independent.

This suggests both a need to consider the dimensionsindependently and a need to develop theory and empiri-cal evidence on which dimensions are critical for whichtypes of interactions (Chua, Morris, and Mor 2012).Similarly, Ang et al. (2007, p. 364) conclude that thereis a need to investigate “where specific dimensions ofCQ have special relevance to different outcomes.” Inthis vein, several studies have focused on motivationalCQ specifically. Templer, Tay, and Chandrasekar (2006)find that expatriate managers with higher motivationalCQ have better general and work adjustment in a for-eign country. Ward and Fisher (2008) also demonstratea positive relationship between motivational CQ andexpatriates’ general adjustment to a foreign environ-ment. Chen et al. (2010) find a positive relationshipbetween motivational CQ and work adjustment amongexpatriates, and this relationship is moderated by sub-sidiary support and cultural distance. Finally, Chen, Liu,and Portnoy (2012) find that real estate agents withhigher motivational CQ had more sales transactionswith clients/agents from a different culture.

Another group of studies has focused particularly onmetacognitive CQ. Chua, Morris, and Mor (2012) findthat managers with higher metacognitive CQ collabo-rate across cultures more effectively. Klafehn, Banerjee,and Chiu (2009) focus on metacognitive CQ as the

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 47


linchpin to explain managers’ success in navigating dif-ferent cultures. Metacognitive CQ is particularly impor-tant because it enhances “(a) contextualized (vs. abstract)thinking: a thinking style characterized by high degreesof sensitivity to the cultural embeddedness of humanmotivations and actions, and (b) cognitive flexibility:the discriminative use of normative schemas and behav-ioral scripts in response to the shifting cultural expecta-tions in the environment” (Klafehn, Banerjee, and Chiu2009, p. 319).

Our literature review reveals that researchers havefocused primarily on the motivational and metacognitiveCQ dimensions. We posit that these dimensions are alsoparticularly relevant in the export management processfor three reasons. First, metacognitive CQ is more thanjust knowledge (cognition) and behavior because itencapsulates the awareness of one’s understanding ofcultural differences, planning for how to use one’sknowledge before an intercultural encounter, and check-ing and recalibrating assumptions and mental mapswhen expectations and actual experiences differ (Ang etal. 2007). In effect, “individuals with high meta-cogni-tive CQ understand processes and conduct businesstransactions more effectively because they track theirprogression, identify potential cultural misunderstand-ings, and modify their behavior according to the culturalsetting” (Elenkov and Pimentel 2009, p. 297). This hasled some researchers to conclude that metacognitive CQis perhaps the most central dimension among the CQdimensions because it links cognition and behavior(Chua, Morris, and Mor 2012; Thomas et al. 2008).

Second, motivational CQ does not capture a person’sability but rather is focused on the desire to gain under-standing and knowledge of different cultures and a self-efficacy dimension (the belief in one’s ability). Thus, themotivational CQ dimension captures a conceptually dif-ferent facet through its focus on motivation rather thanactual capabilities (Chen et al. 2010). Furthermore, Chen,Liu, and Portnoy (2012, p. 94) suggest that motivationalCQ is a more fundamental dimension than cognitive andbehavioral CQ because it provides “agentic control ofaffect, cognition, and behavior that facilitate goal accom-plishment.” Whereas the four different dimensions arepositively correlated (Ang et al. 2007) and we could arguethat more motivated people are more likely to have higherabilities, this may not necessarily be so.

A third reason motivational and metacognitive CQ havereceived more attention is that, apart from theoreticalconsiderations, the operationalization of cognitive and

behavioral CQ in particular is somewhat problematic.Accepted operationalizations of cognitive and behav-ioral CQ (e.g., Ang et al. 2007) ask respondents todescribe aspects of their CQ, not to demonstrate itobjectively. More valid cognitive and behavioral assess-ments would not ask respondents about their knowl-edge and behaviors but rather require that respondentsengage in problem solving and demonstrate culturallysensitive behaviors (Ward and Fisher 2008).

Accordingly, from the preceding arguments and sup-porting literature, we posit that motivational andmetacognitive CQ are particularly relevant in the exportmanagement process and develop specific hypothesesfor each dimension. It could be argued that motivationaland metacognitive CQ are directly related to inter-national marketing strategy and export performance.However, prior research has emphasized the need for theinternational marketing manager to execute and adjustthe firm’s global strategy in response to the internal andexternal environment (Griffith 2010; Griffith andHoppner 2013). Therefore, we posit that motivationalCQ interacts with the environment to drive marketingadaptations and that metacognitive CQ interacts withmarketing adaptations to enhance performance.

Motivational CQ and Marketing Adaptations

As differences in the environment between the exporter’shome country and the host country increase, evidencesuggests that the degree of marketing adaptationincreases. For example, greater differences in the socio-cultural, technological, and marketing infrastructureenvironment lead to greater product adaptations fromSwedish exporters (Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson2011). Among U.S. exporters, legal and regulatory dif-ferences lead to increased product adaptation (Calan-tone et al. 2004). Likewise, Katsikeas, Samiee, andTheodosiou (2006) contend that differences in the legal,customer, and technological environments lead togreater marketing-mix adaptations among exporters inthe United Kingdom. Finally, Sousa and Lages (2011)find a significant, positive relationship between exportmanagers’ perceptions of differences and marketing-mixadaptations, and Evans, Mavondo, and Bridson (2008)discover that psychic distance has a positive relationshipto adaptation in retail strategy. Thus, the accumulatedevidence suggests a positive relationship between envi-ronmental differences and marketing-mix adaptation.

We suggest that motivational CQ strengthens the rela-tionship between environmental differences and market-

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 48


ing adaptations. Empirical research has largely focusedon expatriate adjustment, and growing evidence showsthat motivational CQ contributes to greater expatriateadjustment, job performance, and job completion (Chenet al. 2010). Evidence has also shown that sales per-formance with a culture other than the salesperson’sown culture increases with high motivational CQ(Chen, Liu, and Portnoy 2012) and that high motiva-tional CQ leads to more cooperative behavior in inter-cultural negotiations (Imai and Gelfand 2010).

When environmental differences increase, we posit thatexport managers will respond with increased action anda greater adaptation of the marketing mix. MotivationalCQ reflects people’s interest in and drive to adapt tonew cultural environments (Templer, Tay, and Chan-drasekar 2006). It captures both a self-efficacy belief inone’s ability to be successful in culturally diverse envi-ronments and the intrinsic interest in other cultures(Chen et al. 2010). Motivational CQ “triggers attentionand effort [and] stimulates and channels an individual’scultural knowledge and strategies into guided action”(Templer, Tay, and Chandrasekar 2006, p. 157). Thus,we expect motivational CQ to trigger the attention andinterest of export managers toward the environmentaldifferences between home and export markets.

Accordingly, we expect export managers with high lev-els of motivational CQ to respond to environmental dif-ferences with greater adaptation of the marketing mix.Adapting the marketing mix is an outlet for export man-agers with high motivational CQ to take guided actionon their intrinsic interest in other cultures and the beliefin their ability to adapt effectively to other cultures. Incontrast, we expect export managers with low motiva-tional CQ to behave in a more universalist manner.Although environmental differences may be substantial,the success of the firm’s existing domestic marketingstrategy should overcome environmental differenceswithout significant adaptation. We formalize these argu-ments in the following hypothesis:

H1: Motivational CQ positively moderates therelationship between environmental differ-ences and marketing-mix adaptations.

Metacognitive CQ and Export PerformanceRecent anecdotal evidence suggests that effective mar-keting adaptations can have a significant, positive effect.KFC’s tremendous success in China has been attributedto its willingness to radically alter its marketing strategyfrom its U.S. strategy (Bell and Shelman 2011). SAB-

Miller relies on heavily localized marketing campaignsto expand its global footprint in the beer industry(Quelch and Jocz 2012). Starbucks recently announceda change in course in its China strategy. After 14 yearsof trying to persuade the Chinese to buy into its foreigncoffee culture experience, Starbucks will now try a morelocally tailored approach (Burkitt 2012).

However, adapting to meet the needs of host countrymarkets entails an increase in costs. In his provocativearticle, Levitt (1983) famously writes that “the world’sneeds and desires have been irrevocably homogenized”(p. 93) and that “different cultural preferences, nationaltastes and standards, and business institutions are ves-tiges of the past” (p. 96). Accordingly, Levitt arguesthat global success requires global standardization. Incontrast, an adapted marketing strategy may mean sac-rificing economies of scale. Therefore, firms shouldonly undertake such an effort if they expect the benefitsto exceed the costs (Calantone et al. 2004). Thisrequires an export manager with a sophisticated under-standing and sensitivity of cultural and regulatory ele-ments to determine the appropriate amount of market-ing adaptations.

Griffith and Hoppner (2013) develop a list of ten softskills (e.g., tacit knowledge, ability to learn and unlearn,flexibility) that global marketing managers need tomake successful tactical adaptations to their firm’sglobal marketing strategy. We add metacognitive CQ asa useful skill and posit that it interacts with the firm’smarketing strategy to enhance export performance.

Managers with high metacognitive CQ have greatercapacities to be aware of others’ cultural preferencesand are able to question cultural assumptions (Ang et al.2007). Furthermore, research has described metacogni-tive CQ as “thinking about thinking, comprising theprocesses of monitoring and adjusting one’s thoughtsand strategies as one learns new skills” (Chua, Morris,and Mor 2012, p. 117). Accordingly, we expectmetacognitive CQ to enhance cross-cultural competen-cies through an increased sense of awareness that cus-tomers’ motivations and behaviors are shaped by theircultural contexts and a greater cognitive flexibility (Anget al. 2007; Chua, Morris, and Mor 2012).

Building on this logic, we expect export managers withhigh metacognitive CQ not to make more marketingadaptations necessarily but rather to better determinewhich marketing adaptations to implement and whichto refrain from implementing. Some marketing adapta-

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 49


tions may be required by the regulatory environment,implying that such types of adaptations are similaracross all firms and competitors. Although methods thatfirms use to achieve compliance may vary, the decisionto comply should not; otherwise, the firm cannot con-duct business in that market. However, many adapta-tions are discretionary and result from a keen under-standing of the specific cultural environment andcustomer needs and desires. Managers must use culturalknowledge to anticipate how a particular market mightreceive an existing marketing mix and which adapta-tions might substantively improve the marketing mix.Even if the source of an adaptation idea comes fromobserving competitor behavior, the focal firm must stillevaluate the merit of such an adaptation within the con-text of its own complete marketing mix and strategy.

Export managers with high levels of metacognitive CQare better prepared to interpret cultural manifestationsin the target market than managers with low levelsbecause metacognitive CQ enhances cultural judgmentand decision making (Ang et al. 2007). We argue thatthe metacognitive awareness, with its accompanyingcognitive flexibility, is more important than just knowl-edge about the traditional practices of another culture.Thus, managers with high metacognitive CQ should rec-ognize, evaluate, and implement adaptation ideas betterthan managers with low metacognitive CQ.

H2: Metacognitive CQ positively moderates therelationship between marketing-mix adapta-tions and export performance.

METHODSampleWe examine the hypothesized framework with a sampleof U.S. exporters that we gathered using two approaches.The first approach relied on collaboration with aregional Export Assistance Center in the United States.As part of a communication with its members, an invita-tion was issued to participate in an online survey. Thenumber of recipients of the invitation is unknown, but211 potential participants opened the e-mail invitation.From this, we gathered completed and usable responsesfrom 62 U.S. export managers (29% response rate). Thesecond method compiled a list of 1,381 e-mail addressesof export managers with the help of salesforce.com.After an initial e-mail invitation and three follow-upreminders, the survey was opened by 183 managers andgenerated 91 usable responses (50% response rate, 7%of total initial sample).

Before pooling the two samples, we examined them forsignificant differences. The analysis revealed similaritiesin terms of export intensity (foreign sales/total sales),years of export experience (19 vs. 23), and year of entryinto the export market in the current study (1999 vs.1998). However, the firm size in the sample drawn fromthe salesforce.com sample was slightly larger (35% vs.10% of firms with more than $100 million in revenues).Nonetheless, given the similarities between the two sam-ples and the lack of significant differences, we deemedthe two samples comparable and pooled them into onelarger sample for analysis.

We defined an export manager as someone who wasactively involved in the firm’s exporting activities andhad decision-making authority. The questionnaireincluded screening questions to ensure that the partici-pant met the criteria as a key informant that made deci-sions for an exporting business unit. Respondents whodid not meet these criteria were unable to complete thesurvey. Half the sample (49%) identified themselves asmanagers, and the other half held positions as vice presi-dents, chief-level officers, or owners of the firm. Half ofall firms (51%) had sales of less than $50 million, and76% had sales of less than $100 million. Foreign salesaccounted for 21%–25% of total sales, on average.

To minimize respondent bias in the choice of focalexport market, each informant was asked to randomlyrespond with reference to the largest, third-largest, orfifth-largest export market (Katsikeas, Skarmeas, andBello 2009). As a result, 40 different countries wereidentified as focal export markets, with 39% in Aus-tralasia, 29% in Latin America (South, Central, andCaribbean America and Mexico), 14% in Europe, 12%in the Middle East and Africa, and 5% in Canada. Thetwo most commonly identified markets were Brazil(13%) and China (10%).

Instrument Development

Following best practices in the international marketingliterature (e.g., Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011;Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006), we devel-oped a structured survey instrument in several stages.Initially, we carefully defined each construct’s domain.Then, using a review of the literature and field reviews,we drafted items to reflect the conceptual domain of aparticular construct. An iterative process with evalua-tion and feedback from international marketing aca-demics and export managers developed the final ques-tionnaire. Academic experts and export managers were

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 50


asked to check that the items were valid measures of theproposed constructs, that the items were meaningfuland understandable, and that they were not loaded oroffensive.

Measures

Ang et al. (2007) develop and validate scales to measuremotivational and metacognitive CQ. In line with recom-mendations from academic experts and field interviewswith export managers, we adapted these scales to reflectthe export manager context. The unit of analysis in thestudy is the export venture, which pertains to a specificproduct or line of products exported to a particular for-eign market (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Hultman, Kat-sikeas, and Robson 2011). Consistent with the literature(e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2007), export perform-ance includes economic, strategic, and competitive exportperformance. Accordingly, we adapted a five-itemexport performance construct from Sousa, Ruzo, andLosada (2010) and Zou, Taylor, and Osland (1998),which captures growth, profitability, customer satisfac-tion, competitive performance, and strategic dimensionsof export performance.

Prior research on export marketing adaptations hastypically considered the four Ps of the marketing mixand asked respondents to indicate the degree of adapta-tion of each dimension (e.g., Katsikeas, Samiee, andTheodosiou 2006; Lages, Abrantes, and Lages 2008).Consistent with Navarro et al. (2010) and guided byfield interviews of export managers, we decided toinclude one indicator for each marketing-mix element.

Ghemawat (2001) defines the four dimensions of dis-tance as cultural, administrative (political), geographic,and economic distances—known as the CAGE frame-work. We created a four-item scale to capture the exportmanager’s perception of each of these dimensions.

Guided by past export performance studies, we alsoinclude several control variables. We include firm size(total sales) to control for potential scale economies;firm resource advantages to control for physical andfinancial resource advantages degree of internationaliza-tion (foreign sales/total sales), duration of export ven-ture (years since entry), and years of overall exportingexperience to control for extra resources and capabili-ties that experienced exporting firms may have; and theexport manager’s international experience, to ensurethat the individual effects of CQ are not just individualslearning through export experience. To add robustness

to the model, we also control for the interaction effectsof the CQ dimension opposite to the hypothesized rela-tionships. That is, we control for the interactionbetween motivational CQ and marketing adaptationson export performance and for the interaction effectbetween metacognitive CQ and environmental differ-ences on marketing adaptations.

Nonresponse Bias

Following Armstrong and Overton’s (1977) recommen-dation, we assessed nonresponse bias by comparing theresponses of early and late respondents. Specifically, wetested the first and last quartiles of the sample for sig-nificant differences across means for each of the theo-retical constructs. The results of the t-tests indicated nosignificant differences between early and late respon-dents for motivational CQ (t = .72, p > .10), metacogni-tive CQ (t = .75, p > .10), environmental differences (t =1.12, p > .10), marketing adaptations (t = .61, p > .10),and export performance (t = .68, p > .10), suggestingthat nonresponse bias is not a problem in our data.

Analysis

The study tests the hypotheses by employing partialleast squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM),using the statistical tool Smart PLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende,and Will 2005). We selected PLS as the appropriatemethod for this study for four reasons.1 First, PLS issimilar to regression, but it simultaneously models thestructural paths. Furthermore, rather than assume equalweights for all indicators of a scale, the PLS algorithmallows each indicator to vary in how much it contributesto the composite score of the latent variable. Second,PLS can effectively handle relatively smaller samples (n = 153) (Hair et al. 2013). Third, PLS calculates theinteraction variables by creating all possible productsfrom the two sets of indicators. These product indica-tors are used to reflect the latent interaction variables(Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted 1996). Fourth, PLS effec-tively handles both formative and reflective constructs.Consistent with the literature (Navarro et al. 2010), weanalyzed and interpreted the PLS model in two stages.We evaluated the validity and reliability of the measure-ment models and then evaluated the hypotheses in thefull structural model.

Validity and Reliability

To evaluate the validity and reliability of each construct,we examine the factor loadings, composite reliability,

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 51


and average variance extracted (AVE), which we presentin Table 1 with all measurement items. In general, fac-tor loadings should exceed .70 to indicate that the vari-ance between the construct and its indicators is greaterthan the error (Carmines and Zeller 1979).

Reliable constructs should have a composite reliabilitythat exceeds .70 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). All con-structs in this study exceeded this threshold. We assessedconvergent validity by examining the AVE. This meas-ures the proportion of variance explained by the indica-

Table 1. Reflective Constructs: Items for Construct Measurement

Construct Loading

Motivational CQ(adapted from Ang et al. 2007; CR = .90, AVE = .75)

1. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. .88

2. I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. .81

3. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. .91

Metacognitive CQ(adapted from Ang et al. 2007; CR = .95, AVE = .86)

1. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. .95

2. I consciously apply cross-cultural knowledge when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. .89

3. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. .95

Export Performance(adapted from Sousa, Ruzo, and Losada 2010; CR = .90, AVE = .64)

1. How do you think your competitors rate your performance in this market? (1 = “unsuccessful,” and 7 = “highly successful”) .85

2. How do you think your customers rate your performance in this market? (1 = “unsuccessful,” and 7 = “highly successful”) .85

3. How profitable has this export venture been over the past five years? (–1 = “loss,” and 5 = “highly profitable”) .81

4. Please indicate the level of average annual revenue growth over the past five years. (1 = “–6% or worse,” and 8 = “>21%”) .67

5. This export venture has strengthened our strategic position. (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”) .83

Marketing-Mix Adaptation(Navarro et al. 2010; CR = .89, AVE = .66)

Please indicate the extent to which your firm has made adaptations for each element of the marketing mix:

1. Product (e.g., quality, features, packaging, brand name, labeling, service, warranty) .83

2. Price (e.g., profit margins, discounts, sales/credit terms) .83

3. Place (e.g., channel structure, outlets, type or role of intermediaries) .71

4. Promotion (e.g., message/theme, media allocation, sales promotion, sales force role, promotion budget) .86

Environmental Differences (based on Ghemawat 2001; CR = .73, AVE = .74)

Please indicate the level of differences between the U.S. market and this export market on…

1. Cultural differences (e.g., language, ethnicity, religion, social norms) .88

2. Economic differences (e.g., gross domestic product per capita, education level, infrastructure, financial resources) .89

3. Geographic differences (e.g., physical remoteness, climate, sea access) .73

4. Political differences (e.g., commonwealth ties, corruption, legal environment) .89

Notes: CR= composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 52


tors compared with the proportion due to measurementerrors. Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend that AVEshould exceed .50; all constructs in this study exceededthis threshold. Finally, discriminant validity was evidentin that all squared phi correlations were less than therespective variance extracted estimates for all pairs ofconstructs (e.g., Fornell and Larcker 1981).

We modeled the control variable, resource advantages, asa formative construct. Formative constructs should beused when indicators are defining characteristics of theconstruct, the indicators are not interchangeable, and theindicators do not covary (Jarvis, Mackenzie, and Pod-sakoff 2003). Evaluating the validity and reliability offormative constructs requires analyzing the weights andexamining potential collinearity issues (see Table 2). Allvariance inflation factors were below 2, considerablybelow the recommended threshold of 5 (Hair et al. 2013).In summary, the analysis of the measurement model sat-isfies common validity and reliability criteria, and we con-clude that the data are appropriate for further structuralanalysis. Table 3 presents the construct correlations.

Common Method Bias

Because data for both the dependent and independentvariables came from the same respondent, commonmethod bias (CMB) might be present, which could distortthe findings. Consistent with current thinking (MacKen-zie and Podsakoff 2012), we paid careful attention to thedesign of the questionnaire to minimize CMB. First,MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2012) suggest that the key tominimizing CMB bias is to ensure that the respondent isable and motivated to respond accurately without satis-ficing. The study focuses on managers responsible formaking exporting decisions for the firm, and thus we fil-tered out and eliminated potential respondents without

such responsibilities from the analysis. To enhance moti-vation, the respondents were promised a summary reportof the findings to ensure high personal relevance.

Second, we minimized survey length and scale com-plexity following input from export managers and aca-demic experts. This process minimized item vaguenessand provided clear and concise items.

Third, item order was in reverse causal order, with depend-ent variables first and the independent variables second(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Finally, given that the key contri-bution of this study is the examination of the moderatinginfluence of the export manager’s CQ, a model with multi-ple moderating effects is complicated, which rules out easyprediction by respondents of how the variables might berelated (e.g., Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011).

In addition to the procedural remedies to minimizeCMB, we conducted ex post statistical tests to examinethe potential effects of CMB. We conducted anexploratory factor analysis in SPSS, which divided theitems into their intended constructs and explained morethan 70% of the variance. In comparison, we also forceda one-factor solution, which explained less than 25% ofthe variance. Subsequently, we subjected the data toCMB bias testing in LISREL 8.80. First, we estimated asingle superordinate construct reflected by all the study’sitems (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The model fit statisticsshowed poor fit to the data (2

(230 d.f.) = 1,900.76, p <.01; normed fit index = .49; nonnormed fit index = .48;and root mean square error of approximation = .22),suggesting that CMB does not distort the results. In thesecond and more stringent approach, we controlled forthe effects of an unmeasured latent factor (Podsakoff etal. 2003). In this method, items are allowed to load ontheir theoretical constructs, as well as on a latent com-

Table 2. Formative Construct: Weight and Collinearity Test

Firm Resource Advantages (based on R-A theory; Hunt 1995)

Please indicate how your business compares with your major direct competitors in this export market in terms of … Weights Variance Inflation Factors

1. Cost leadership advantage .17 1.19

2. Financial resources advantage .48 1.14

3. Legal resources advantage .19 1.72

4. Marketing differentiation advantage .53 1.57

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 53


Tabl

e 3.

Cons

truct C

orrelatio

ns and

Discrim

inan

t Validity

Variable

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1Exp

ort pe

rfor

man

ce.6

4

2M

arke

ting

ada

ptat

ions

.18*

.66

3Env

iron

men

tal d

iffe

renc

es.1

0.2

5**

.74

4M

etac

ogni

tive

CQ

.20*

.12

.11

.86

5M

otiv

atio

nal C

Q.3

6**

.12

.19*

.53*

*.7

5

6R

esou

rce

adva

ntag

es.4

0**

.27*

*.0

6.1

6*.1

5—

7Fi

rm s

ize

.10

.05

–.01

.15

.17*

.10

—

8Fo

reig

n sa

les/

tota

l sal

es.3

5**

.08

.13

.07

.01

.12

–.19

*—

9Exp

ort m

arke

t si

ze.2

8**

.03

.03

–.05

.06

.17*

–.01

.07

—

10Yea

r of

ent

ry–.

05–.

04.0

5–.

11–.

04–.

03–.

12–.

178*

–.03

—

11Exp

ort m

anag

er e

xper

ienc

e.1

4–.

03.1

2.0

7.1

1.1

0–.

08.0

7.0

5–.

20*

—

12Fi

rm e

xpor

ting

exp

erie

nce

.06

.02

.04

.07

.12

.04

.39*

*.1

8*.0

5–.

54**

.13

—

M5.

163.

804.

935.

736.

224.

481.

975.

141.

7919

98.8

316

.31

21.5

2

SD1.

241.

491.

541.

14.9

4.9

41.

223.

00.8

11.

718.

7314

.49

*p<

.05.

**p

< .0

1.N

otes

: AV

E for

ref

lect

ive

cons

truc

ts a

re o

n th

e di

agon

al.

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 54


mon methods variance factor. We compared the signifi-cance level of the correlations between the studyvariables in models with and without the latent commonmethods factor. We observed no difference in the signifi-cance level between variables, which enhances confi-dence that CMB does not distort the results.

RESULTS

After demonstrating the validity and reliability of themeasurement model, the second stage of the two-stage

process examines whether the structural model supportsthe proposed hypotheses. Table 4 presents the results ina hierarchical manner. Model 1 includes all the controlvariables, and in Model 2, we add the hypothesizedinteraction variables. Consistent with H1, motivationalCQ positively moderates the relationship between envi-ronmental differences and marketing adaptations ( =.17, p < .05). Furthermore, metacognitive CQ positivelymoderates the relationship between marketing adapta-tions and export performance ( = .23, p < .01), in sup-port of H2. The R-square in Model 2 improves from

Table 4. PLS-SEM Results: The Moderating Effect of CQ

Model 1 Model 2

Hypothesized Relationships � t-Value t-Value

H1: Environmental differences ¥motivational CQ ¥ marketing adaptation (supported) .17* 2.05

H2: Marketing adaptation ¥ metacognitive CQ ¥ export performance (supported) .23** 3.18

Control Links

Environmental differences ¥ marketing adaptation .22** 2.90 .19* 2.58

Marketing-mix adaptation ¥ export performance .06 .81 .05 .11

Motivational CQ ¥ marketing adaptation .08 .83 .12 1.39

Motivational CQ ¥ export performance .28*** 3.57 .32*** 4.98

Metacognitive CQ ¥ marketing adaptation .09 .61 .08 .60

Metacognitive CQ ¥ export performance –.08 .90 –.06 1.25

Environmental differences ¥ metacognitive CQ ¥ marketing adaptation .11 1.55 .08 .71

Marketing adaptation ¥ motivational CQ ¥ export performance –.09 1.36 –.13* 2.20

Resource advantages ¥ marketing adaptation .25** 2.86 .23** 2.89

Market size ¥ marketing adaptation .07 .39 .06 .45

Foreign sales/total sales ¥ marketing adaptation .07 .35 .06 .33

Firm size ¥ marketing adaptation .08 .40 .07 .49

Manager export experience ¥ marketing adaptation –.10 .95 –.08 .85

Firm export experience ¥ marketing adaptation –.09 1.24 –.10 1.43

Duration of export venture ¥ marketing adaptation –.10 1.15 –.10 1.24

Resource advantages ¥ export performance .28** 3.22 .29*** 3.99

Market size ¥ export performance .19*** 3.36 .18*** 3.73

Foreign sales/total sales ¥ export performance .33*** 4.43 .31*** 5.04

Firm size ¥ export performance .11 1.32 .10 1.42

Manager export experience ¥ export performance –.12 1.26 –.13 1.76

Firm export experience ¥ export performance .08 1.44 .06 .98

Duration of export venture ¥ export performance –.07 .10 –.07 .45

*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 55


17% to 18% (f2 = .012) for marketing-mix adaptationsand improves from 41% to 45% (f2 = .072) for exportperformance. To facilitate understanding, Figure 2 illus-trates the interaction effects. Panel A of Figure 2 illus-trates the role of motivational CQ. A significant, posi-tive increase in marketing adaptations occurs asenvironmental differences increase when the exportmanager has high motivational CQ; however, no signifi-cant difference occurs in the degree of adaptation forexport managers with low motivational CQ. Similarslopes are evident in Panel B with respect to the role ofmetacognitive CQ and export performance. When theexport manager has high metacognitive CQ, an increasein marketing adaptations leads to greater export per-formance. However, when metacognitive CQ is low, theregression slope is slightly negative.

Several of the control variables are also significant. Envi-ronmental differences have a significant, positive relation-ship with the degree of marketing adaptations ( = .19, p < .05). Marketing adaptations are not significantlyrelated to export performance ( = .03, p > .10), which isconsistent with the ambiguity in the literature in terms ofa main effect and provides further evidence of the need toconsider contingency factors. Resource advantages ( =.34, p < .001), market size ( = .21, p < .001), and degreeof firm internationalization (foreign sales/total sales; =.30, p < .001) are all related to export performance.

We also controlled the direct effects of motivational andmetacognitive CQ as well as the moderating effects of theCQ dimensions when swapping their positions in themodel. With respect to direct effects, only motivationalCQ has a significant relationship to export performance ( = .32, p < .001). With respect to the alternative inter-action effects, the interaction effect between metacognitiveCQ and environmental differences on marketing adapta-tions is not significant ( = .08, p > .10), and the interactioneffect between motivational CQ and marketing adapta-tions on export performance is also not significant. How-ever, in Model 2, when we add the hypothesized inter-action with metacognitive CQ to the model, the interactiveeffect of motivational CQ is negative ( = –.13, p < .05).This finding further supports our argument that motiva-tion to adapt is not sufficient; the export manager needsmetacognitive CQ to implement valuable adaptations.

DISCUSSION

This research sheds light on the relationship betweenadaptation of the marketing mix and export perform-

Figure 2. The Moderating Effects of Export Manager CQ

A: The Moderating Effect of Motivational CQ

Low Environmental Differences

High Environmental Differences

Mar

keti

ng A

dapt

atio

n


Low Motivational CQ

High Motivational CQ

Low

High

Low Marketing Adaptation

High Marketing Adaptation

Exp

ort

Perf

orm

ance

B: The Moderating Effect of Metacognitive CQ

Low Meta-Cognitive CQ

High Meta-Cognitive CQ

Low

High

Mar

keti

ng A

dapt

atio

n


High

Low Motivational CQ



Low Motivational CQ



Mar

keti

ng A

dapt

atio

n

L

Low

lanteronmnvi EowLsencrefefffeiD

gh EiHD


lanteronmnvigh EsencrefefffeiD



Exp

ort

Perf

orm

ance

High








Exp

ort

Perf

orm

ance

Low

Low Marketing Adaptation

High Marketing

High Marketing Adaptation

Adaptation

Adaptation

Low motivational CQ

High motivational CQ

Low metacognitive CQ

High metacognitive CQ

Low EnvironmentalDifferences

High EnvironmentalDifferences

Low MarketingAdaptation

High MarketingAdaptation


jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 56


ance. The bivariate correlation between marketingadaptation and export performance is positive and sig-nificant, which suggests that firms would benefit fromgreater adaptation in international markets. However,when standard control variables (e.g., firm size, inter-national experience, resource advantages) are includedin the model, no significant main effect occurs betweenadaptation and performance. This lends support toprior arguments that suggest that firms cannot makesimple recommendations about marketing standardiza-tion or adaptation without a clear understanding of con-textual circumstances (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993).

The contingency theory perspective states that an opti-mal strategic choice for all firms under all circumstancesdoes not exist, and thus it should not be surprising thata significant main effect does not exist for a broad sam-ple of firms (Hultman, Robson, and Katsikeas 2009).Recent research has advanced understanding by identify-ing various firm, industry, and country characteristicsthat moderate the adaptation–performance relationship(e.g., Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011; Schilke,Reimann, and Thomas 2009). Yet the role of exportmanager skills has largely been absent from prior litera-ture, and thus the primary contribution of this study isthat it uncovers the moderating role of export managermetacognitive CQ in the performance of marketing-mixadaptation strategies. Thus, the findings advance theoryby strengthening the theoretical foundation on contin-gency fit. The supported hypotheses highlight the impor-tance of human resources in the firm and bring a deeperunderstanding to the inconsistencies in the adaptation–performance relationship.

The introduction of export manager CQ to the export per-formance literature is important because it is one of thefirst empirical examinations that have explicitly consid-ered the skills and abilities of the export manager. Evi-dence from this study suggests that export managers withgreater motivational CQ tend to deploy more marketing-mix adaptations, though those adaptations do not neces-sarily lead to improved performance. More importantly,the evidence suggests that when export managers withhigh metacognitive CQ make marketing-mix adapta-tions, export performance improves. In essence, highmetacognitive CQ enables export managers to devisebetter adaptations and exercise better decision makingwhen determining which adaptations to introduce.

Recall that managers with high metacognitive CQ aremore aware of others’ cultural preferences and questioncultural assumptions (Ang et al. 2007). Thus, metacog-

nitive CQ should enhance cross-cultural competenciesthrough an increased sense of awareness that customers’motivations and behaviors are shaped by their culturalcontexts and a greater cognitive flexibility (Ang et al.2007; Chua, Morris, and Mor 2012). In a broadersense, the findings lend support to the concept of inter-national marketing managers as a potential humanresource advantage by virtue of the strategic choicesthey make on behalf of the firm. In summary, inter-national marketing managers high on both motivationaland metacognitive CQ should be strong assets for thefirm because they not only recognize when adaptationsare required, and thus make more adaptations, but alsoexercise better judgment in determining how best todeploy those adaptations to address the observed envi-ronmental differences.

This empirical investigation of metacognitive CQ pro-vides support to three of Griffith and Hoppner’s (2013)ten important soft skills for global marketing managers.Among those related to metacognitive CQ are learning(i.e., the ability to integrate new knowledge), unlearning(i.e., the ability to relinquish an outdated dominantlogic), and intuition (i.e., a sense of certainty withoutknowing how that conclusion arose). We do not claimthat metacognitive CQ is the only skill that matters forsuccessful export managers but rather view this as anearly foray into a greater focus on the skills and charac-teristics of effective export managers. Thus, we echoGriffith and Hoppner’s call for researchers to focusmore effort on the global marketing manager as the unitof analysis.

Managerial Implications

The managerial implication of this research is that firmsshould strive to ensure that their export managers pos-sess or can acquire high CQ, with a particularly impor-tant role for metacognitive CQ. Metacognitive CQ is thekey CQ ingredient that enhances export performance.Thus, metacognitive CQ assessment should be a relevantcomponent of the recruitment and selection process forexport managers. To achieve this end, hiring managersshould familiarize themselves with the concept of CQand include CQ assessments as part of an overall evalua-tion process of candidates for export manager positions.To aid in this process, prior research (Ang, Van Dyne,and Koh 2006) has examined personality correlates withCQ. Of the Big Five personality dimensions, conscien-tiousness and openness to experience are significantlyrelated to metacognitive CQ, and motivational CQ ispredicted by extraversion and openness to experience.

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 57


Beyond the recruitment and selection of export man-agers with high metacognitive CQ, firms should developmetacognitive CQ in the existing staff involved inexport marketing. Earley and Mosakowski (2004) sug-gest that unlike inherent aspects of personality, CQ canalso be learned, developed, and enhanced; recent find-ings in the human resources field urge firms to provideCQ training for managers undertaking expatriateassignments (e.g., Chen, Liu, and Portnoy 2012). Thesame prescription should apply for existing and futureexport managers.

Earley and Mosakowski (2004) describe a multistepprocess for increasing managers’ CQ. This processincludes an initial assessment of strengths and weak-nesses, focused training on weaknesses and the provi-sion of organizational resources in support of suchtraining, and a careful evaluation of the effectiveness(and potential adjustment) of new skills. Earley andPeterson (2004) further emphasize the “thinking aboutthinking” aspect of metacognitive CQ. They note thateffective intercultural training should go beyond merecountry-specific information and challenge participantsto reflect and evaluate on their knowledge structures.

In summary, deploying export managers with highmetacognitive CQ is a managerially actionable itemachieved through recruitment, selection, and/or train-ing. Because metacognitive CQ plays an important rolein export management success, firms should attempt tohire managers with high metacognitive CQ and alsonurture it in their existing ranks of managers.

Limitations and Further Research Ideas

In conclusion, we note several study limitations, whichalso present opportunities for further research. First, thesample is based on U.S. exporting firms. The possibilityremains that the findings are unique to this cultural con-text, and thus the generalizability of these findings inother cultural contexts should be taken cautiously. Somestudies (e.g., Steenkamp and De Jong 2010) have foundthat Americans have a stronger national identity and aweaker global identity than people from most othercountries. Though tested at the consumer level and notnecessarily the same as CQ, this may indicate that atleast motivational CQ may be lower in the United Statesthan in other countries. Thus, further research shouldinvestigate whether the benefits of motivational andmetacognitive CQ are uniquely American phenomena.Does the relationship hold in European or Asian cul-tures, or is there something unique about the American

context that offers an important role for motivationaland metacognitive CQ?

We chose to examine a holistic export performance con-struct and an integrated marketing adaptation con-struct. Prior research has found differential effects fordifferent performance dimensions (e.g., financial, strate-gic, market) or different marketing-mix dimensions (Tanand Sousa 2013). Thus, further research could extendthis study by examining whether and how CQ has dif-ferent effects on finer-grained operationalizations.Doing so would provide a deeper theoretical under-standing of the effects of CQ and additional guidancefor firms aiming to address particular performanceshortcomings.

In summary, many new, exciting research opportunitiesremain to fully understand CQ, marketing adaptation,export performance, and the role of human resources asa valuable, rare, and inimitable resource. This study con-tributes to the literature by shifting the focus to the mod-erating role of the export manager’s skills and by exam-ining the differential effects of motivational andmetacognitive CQ. More specifically, metacognitive CQpositively moderates the relationship between adaptationand performance. This is a significant contribution to theinternational marketing literature because prior researchon whether adaptation increases performance has beeninconclusive. The current research adds export managerCQ to the discussion and confirms its significant role inthe success of international marketing strategies.

NOTES

1. We also estimated the model using ordinary leastsquares regression and covariance-based SEM. Thealternative estimation techniques produced qualita-tively identical results, enhancing the robustness ofour results.

REFERENCESAnderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural

Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and RecommendedTwo-Step Approach,” Psychological bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23.

Ang, Soon, Linn Van Dyne, and Christine Koh (2006), “Person-ality Correlates of the Four-Factor Model of Cultural Intelli-gence,” Group and Organization Management, 31 (1),100–123.

———, ———, ———, K. Yee Ng, Klaus J. Templer, CherylTay, and N. Anand Chandrasekar (2007), “Cultural Intelli-

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 58


gence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment andDecision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Perform-ance,” Management and Organization Review, 3 (3), 335–71.

Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), “EstimatingNonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 14 (August), 396–402.

Barney, Jay (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained CompetitiveAdvantage,” Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.

Bell, David E. and Mary L. Shelman (2011), “KFC’s RadicalApproach to China,” Harvard Business Review, 89 (11),137–42.

Burkitt, Laurie (2012), “Starbucks Plays to Local Chinese Tastes,”The Wall Street Journal Online, (November 26), (accessedAugust 21, 2013), [available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324784404578142931427720970.html].

Calantone, Roger J., S. Tamer Cavusgil, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, andGeon-Cheol Shin (2004), “Internationalization and theDynamics of Product Adaptation: An Empirical Investiga-tion,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (3),185–98.

Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979), Relia-bility and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Cavusgil, S. Tamer and V.H. Kirpalani (1993), “IntroducingProducts into Export Markets: Success Factors,” Journal ofBusiness Research, 27 (1), 1–15.

——— and Shaoming Zou (1994), “Marketing Strategy-Per-formance Relationship: An Investigation of the Empirical Linkin Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (Janu-ary), 1–21.

———, ———, and G.M. Naidu (1993), “Product and Promo-tion Adaptation in Export Ventures: An Empirical Investiga-tion,” Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (3),479–506.

Chen, Gilad, Bradley L. Kirkman, Kwanghyun Kim, Crystal I.C.Farh, and Subrahmaniam Tangirala (2010), “When DoesCross-Cultural Motivation Enhance Expatriate Effectiveness?A Multilevel Investigation of the Moderating Roles of Sub-sidiary Support and Cultural Distance,” Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 53 (5), 1110–30.

Chen, Xiao-Ping, Dong Liu, and Rebecca Portnoy (2012), “AMultilevel Investigation of Motivational Cultural Intelligence,Organizational Diversity Climate, and Cultural Sales: Evi-dence from US Real Estate Firms,” Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 97 (1), 93–106.

Child, John (1972), “Organizational Structure, Environment,and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice,” Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.

Chin, W. Wynne, L. Barbara Marcolin, and R. Peter Newsted(1996), “A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable ModelingApproach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from aMonte Carlo Simulation Study and Voice Mail Emotion/Adaptation Study,” in Proceedings of the 17th InternationalConference on Information Systems, (accessed August 19,2013), [available at http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/icis96.pdf].

Chua, Roy Y.J., Michael W. Morris, and Shira Mor (2012),“Collaborating Across Cultures: Cultural Metacognition andAffect-Based Trust in Creative Collaboration,” OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 118 (2), 116–31.

Chung, Henry F.L. (2009), “Structure of Marketing DecisionMaking and International Marketing Standardization Strate-gies,” European Journal of Marketing, 43 (5), 794–825.

Earley, P. Christopher and Soon Ang (2003), Cultural Intelli-gence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Palo Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.

——— and Elaine Mosakowski (2004), “Cultural Intelligence,”Harvard Business Review, 82 (10), 139–46.

——— and Randall S. Peterson (2004), “The Elusive CulturalChameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a New Approach toIntercultural Training for the Global Manager,” Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, 3 (1), 100–115.

Elenkov, Detelin S. and Ivan M. Manev (2009), “Senior Expa-triate Leadership’s Effects on Innovation and the Role of Cul-tural Intelligence,” Journal of World Business, 44 (4), 357–69.

——— and Joana R.C. Pimentel (2009), “Social Intelligence,Emotional Intelligence, and Cultural Intelligence: An Integra-tive Perspective,” in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence:Theory, Measurement, and Applications, Soon Ang and LinnVan Dyne, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 289–305.

Evans, Jody, Felix T. Mavondo, and Kerrie Bridson (2008),“Psychic Distance: Antecedents, Retail Strategy Implications,and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of International Mar-keting, 16 (2), 32–63.

Fehr, Ryan and Eric Kuo (2008), “The Impact of Cultural Intel-ligence in Multicultural Social Networks,” paper presented atthe 23d Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, San Francisco (April).

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-tural Equation Models with Observable Variables and Meas-urement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (Febru-ary), 39–50.

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 59


Ghemawat, Pankaj (2001), “Distance Still Matters,” HarvardBusiness Review, 79 (8), 137–47.

Griffith, David A. (2010), “Understanding Multi-Level Institu-tional Convergence Effects on International Market Segmentsand Global Marketing Strategy,” Journal of World Business,45 (1), 59–67.

——— and Jessica Hoppner (2013), “Global Marketing Man-agers: Improving Global Strategy Through Soft Skill Develop-ment,” International Marketing Review, 30 (1), 21–51.

——— and Goksel Yalcinkaya (2010), “Resource-AdvantageTheory,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 15–36.

Hair, Joseph F., Jr., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, andMarko Sarstedt (2013), A Primer on Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Hambrick, Donald C. and Phyllis A. Mason (1984), “UpperEchelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Man-agers,” Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 193–206.

Hitt, Michael A. and Beverly B. Tyler (1991), “Strategic Deci-sion Models: Integrating Different Perspectives,” StrategicManagement Journal, 12 (5), 327–51.

Hultman, Magnus, Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Matthew J.Robson (2011), “Export Promotion Strategy and Perform-ance: The Role of International Experience,” Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 19 (4), 17–39.

———, Matthew J. Robson, and Constantine S. Katsikeas(2009), “Export Product Strategy Fit and Performance: AnEmpirical Investigation,” Journal of International Marketing,17 (4), 1–23.

Hunt, Shelby D. (2000), A General Theory of Competition:Resources, Competences, Productivity, and EconomicGrowth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

——— and Robert M. Morgan (1995), “The ComparativeAdvantage Theory of Competition,” Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 1–15.

Imai, Lynn and Michele J. Gelfand (2010), “The Culturally Intel-ligent Negotiator: The Impact of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) onNegotiation Sequences and Outcomes,” OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 112 (2), 83–98.

Jarvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott B. Mackenzie, and Philip M. Pod-sakoff (2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators andMeasurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Con-sumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2),199–218.

Katsikeas, Constantine S., Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theo-dosiou (2006), “Strategy Fit and Performance Consequences

of International Marketing Standardization,” Strategic Man-agement Journal, 27 (9), 867–90.

———, Dionysis Skarmeas, and Daniel C. Bello (2009), “Devel-oping Successful Trust-Based International Exchange Rela-tionships,” Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1),132–55.

Klafehn, Jennifer, Preeta M. Banerjee, and Chi-Yue Chiu (2009),“Navigating Cultures: The Role of Metacognitive CulturalIntelligence,” in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory,Measurement, and Applications, Soon Ang and Linn VanDyne, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 318–31.

Kotabe, Masaaki (1990), “Corporate Product Policy and Inno-vative Behavior of European and Japanese Multinationals: AnEmpirical Investigation,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (April),19–33.

Lages, Luis Filipe, José Luís Abrantes, and Cristiana RaquelLages (2008), “The STRATADAPT Scale: A Measure of Mar-keting Strategy Adaptation to International Business Mar-kets,” International Marketing Review, 25 (5), 584–600.

———, Sandy D. Jap, and David A. Griffith (2007), “The Roleof Past Performance in Export Ventures: A Short-Term Reac-tive Approach,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 304–325.

Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Nigel F.Piercy (1998), “Identifying Managerial Influences on Export-ing: Past Research and Future Directions,” Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 6 (2), 74–102.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets,” Har-vard Business Review, 61 (3), 91–102.

Mackenzie, Scott B. and Philip M. Podsakoff (2012), “CommonMethod Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Proce-dural Remedies,” Journal of Retailing, 88 (4), 542–55.

Magnusson, Peter, Stanford A. Westjohn, and David J. Boggs(2009), “Order-of-Entry Effects for Service Firms in Develop-ing Markets: An Examination of Multinational AdvertisingAgencies,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (2), 23–41.

Meichtry, Stacy (2010), “Buon Giorno, Mumbai: Vespa WoosAsia,” The Wall Street Journal Online, (July 25), (accessedMay 21, 2013), [available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704249004575385041066695142.html].

Moeller, Mariam and Michael Harvey (2011), “Inpatriate Mar-keting Managers: Issues Associated with Staffing Global Mar-keting Positions,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (4),1–16.

Navarro, Antonio, Fernando Losada, Emilio Ruzo, and José A.Díez (2010), “Implications of Perceived Competitive Advan-tages, Adaptation of Marketing Tactics and Export Commit-

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 60


ment on Export Performance,” Journal of World Business, 45(1), 49–58.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. Mackenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, andNathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases inBehavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature andRecommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Quelch, John A. and Katherine E. Jocz (2012), All Business IsLocal. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.

Ramsey, Jase R., Jordan Nassif Leonel, Geovana Zoccal Gomes,and Plinio Rafael Reis Monteiro (2011), “Cultural Intelli-gence’s Influence on International Business Travelers’ Stress,”Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18 (1),21–37.

Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Alexander Will (2005),“SmartPLS 2.0 Beta,” [available at http://www.smartpls.de].

Schilke, Oliver, Martin Reimann, and Jacquelyn Thomas(2009), “When Does International Marketing StandardizationMatter to Firm Performance?” Journal of International Mar-keting, 17 (4), 24–46.

Seggie, Steven H. and David A. Griffith (2008), “The ResourceMatching Foundations of Competitive Advantage,” Inter-national Marketing Review, 25 (3), 262–75.

Sousa, Carlos M. and Luis Filipe Lages (2011), “The PD Scale:A Measure of Psychic Distance and Its Impact on Inter-national Marketing Strategy,” International MarketingReview, 28 (2), 201–222.

———, Emilio Ruzo, and Fernando Losada (2010), “The KeyRole of Managers’ Values in Exporting: Influence on Cus-tomer Responsiveness and Export Performance,” Journal ofInternational Marketing, 18 (2), 1–19.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Martijn G. de Jong (2010),“A Global Investigation into the Constellation of Consumer

Attitudes Toward Global and Local Products,” Journal ofMarketing, 74 (November), 18–40.

Tan, Qun and Carlos M.P. Sousa (2013), “International Mar-keting Standardization: A Meta-Analytic Estimation of ItsAntecedents and Consequences,” Management InternationalReview, [DOI:10.1007/s11575-013-0172-5].

Templer, Klaus J., Cheryl Tay, and N. Anand Chandrasekar(2006), “Motivational Cultural Intelligence, Realistic Job Pre-view, Realistic Living Conditions Preview, and Cross-CulturalAdjustment,” Group & Organization Management, 31 (1),154–73.

Thomas, David C., Günter Stahl, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, StevenPoelmans, Andre Pekerti, Martha Maznevski, Mila B.Lazarova, Efrat Elron, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Jean-Luc Cerdin,Richard Brislin, Zeynep Aycan, and Kevin Au (2008), “Cul-tural Intelligence: Domain and Assessment,” InternationalJournal of Cross-Cultural Management, 8 (2), 123–43.

Ward, Colleen and Ronald Fisher (2008), “Personality, CulturalIntelligence, and Cross-Cultural Adaptation,” in Handbookof Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applica-tions, Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe, 159–73.

Wu, Pei-Chuan and Siah Hwee Ang (2011), “The Impact ofExpatriate Supporting Practices and Cultural Intelligence onCross-Cultural Adjustment and Performance of Expatriates inSingapore,” International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, 22 (13), 2683–2702.

Xu, Shichun, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and J. Chris White (2006),“The Impact of Strategic Fit Among Strategy, Structure, andProcesses on Multinational Corporation Performance: A Mul-timethod Assessment,” Journal of International Marketing,14 (2), 1–31.

Zou, Shaoming, Charles R. Taylor, and Gregory E. Osland(1998), “The EXPERF Scale: A Cross-National GeneralizedExport Performance Measure,” Journal of International Mar-keting, 6 (3), 37–58.

jim.13.0055_jimk.17.2.001 9/11/13 1:28 PM Page 61

Documents

The Role of Cultural Intelligence in Marketing Adaptation ... · The Role of Cultural Intelligence in Marketing Adaptation and Export Performance Peter Magnusson, Stanford A. Westjohn,