The concept of intelligence (I or IQ), also called general mental ability, g-factor or even general cognitive ability, is a concept that has been tried to be understood for many years. In 1944, David Wechsler defined intelligence as follows: “intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 3). This is one of the most commonly used definitions because it is the one that looks at intelligence as broadly as possible (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). A recent definition of intelligence could be “an individual’s ability to learn accurately and quickly a task, a subject or a skill, under optimal instructional conditions. Less time and greater accuracy indicate greater general mental capacity” (Salgado, Moscoso, & Lado, 2006, p. 113).

Considering Spearman’s unifactorial model, or “g”, a person is more intelligent the greater the amount of his “g” factor or general factor of intelligence (Woyciekoski & Hutz, 2009). To Spearman, the most important and essential measure to measure intelligence is the “g” factor, which is defined by the ability to have an abstract thought and by the aptitude of thinking (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992). It is important to highlight that intelligence by itself is a vast set of abilities. On the other hand, as models of intelligence they look to explain the causes and relationships existing between the diverse mental abilities, representing a more restricted field than intelligence. All mental abilities are considered as intelligence; however, they may or may not be related to each other. As an example, Emotional Intelligence is referred to as one of the existing types of intelligence, but it is not necessarily related to other types of intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

The first proposed definition of SI appeared in 1920 and understood it as “the ability to understand men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (E. L. Thorndike, 1920, p. 227). Later, in a research developed by the same author together with S. Stein, they suggested that SI was “the ability to understand and manage people” (Thorndike & Stein, 1937, p. 275). In a more simplistic way, SI is then the ability of a person, namely the leader, in an organisational context, to be able to understand their own states of mind, motives and behaviours, as well as those of those around them in order to act in the best way, based on the information they have available. The fact that the concept includes the ability to understand and manage their own behaviours and attitudes, through their intellectual or social skills, leads to an extension to their own understanding (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

However, literature is never a sea of roses for whatever the theme is, and as such there is also a more negative connotation associated with the concept. As stated by several authors, there is a manipulative connotation in SI because it is understood that the ability to perceive others may lead to a person being able to change other people’s answers voluntarily, but for the sake of their own interests (Bureau of Personnel Administration, 1930). Moreover, it is believed that the manipulative character is also due to the omission of the emotions of the one’s own and the other elements Dienstbier, 1984; Hoffman, 1984).

The fact is that this is a construct where the barriers between it and other types of intelligence are easily transposed being difficult to disassociate it, for example, from mechanical and abstract intelligence. For these and other reasons, for some years the definition and research on the subject were somewhat stagnant (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). However, in the eighties, Gardner based on Thorndike’s studies formalised the theory of multiple intelligences consisting of seven types of intelligence, one of which was SI. Each type of intelligence consisted of two dimensions: the interpersonal and the intrapersonal. The interpersonal related to the ability to understand the feelings and desires of others and to act on the basis of this information, and the intrapersonal that involves the aptitude to understand itself and to be able to carry out a self-evaluation (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Rego, Cabral-Cardoso, Cunha, M., & Cunha, R., 2007).

For many years, attention was given exclusively to reason and the emotions of the human being were ignored. However, the relationship between emotions, personal or family life and work is increasingly perceived. This trio is constituted by complex interpersonal relationships that overflow easily from the extraorganisational to the intraorganisational environment and vice versa (Rego et al., 2007). Duck (1993) was able to explain this phenomenon in an exemplary way saying that

For decades, managers and workers have been told to check their feelings at the door. And that’s a big mistake. It’s one thing to say that behavior is more accessible to managers than feelings are; it’s another thing altogether to say that feelings have no place at work. (…) Companies that want their workers to contribute with their heads and hearts have to accept that emotions are essential to the new management style. The old management paradigm said that at work people are only permitted to feel emotions that are easily controllable, emotions that can be categorized as “positive.” The new management paradigm says that managing people is managing feelings. The issue isn’t whether or not people have “negative” emotions; it’s how they deal with them. (Duck, 1993, p. 113)

It should be noted that the literature on this subject is relatively recent, referring the first studies published to 1993 with Stephen Fineman’s book Emotion in Organisations, to 1998 with Goleman writing the well-known book Working with Emotional Intelligence and only in 2001 was launched the journal Emotion (Rego et al., 2007). However, there is already a recognition that reason and emotion are not antagonistic concepts, on contrary, they complement each other. As referred by the first authors to give a definition of EI, emotions can serve as a source of information to the others. To these authors the information provided by the emotions can be adaptive and the relationship between emotion and thought is not necessarily antagonistic (Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995).

Before going to the exploration of the concept, it is important to distinguish emotions from humours. On the one hand, emotions are motivational forces that manifest before something or someone. They are feelings much more intense than humours and usually do not manifest for long periods of time (only few minutes). Emotions arise in response to internal or external situations and usually appear when someone says they are happy, sad or angry. On the other hand, humours usually occur less intensely but for longer periods of time (hours). In addition, there is no event, situation or specific person to cause any humour; usually, the individual cannot explain the why of his good or bad humour. It should be noted that emotions can become humours when the individual can not identify what has caused such emotion and humours can generate more emotional responses in relation to a situation or person (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Robbins & Judge, 2013).

It was in the 1990s that the first authors appeared to formalise the concept of EI. For Salovey and Mayer, EI is a sub-dimension of SI (concept initially defined by Thorndike) and can be defined as “the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 190). In other words, it involves “the competence to perceive and express emotions, to understand and use them, and to manage them in oneself and in others” (Rego et al., 2007, p. 134). According to the same authors, EI comprises four competences. The first is the ability to perceive, express and evaluate emotions; the second is the ability to accelerate cognitive activities through the range and appearance of feelings; the third comprises the ability to analyse and evaluate the emotional messages transmitted, as well as to use this emotional knowledge and, finally, the ability to manage emotions in order to improve and develop one’s own and others’ intellectual and emotional well-being (Rego et al., 2007).

EI brings new contributions to the literature at various levels. Using EI makes the intelligence dimension a broader field where it is possible to find issues related not only to reasoning and thinking but also to people’s feelings and emotions (Woyciekoski & Hutz, 2009). It is believed that the reconciliation of reason and emotion is a competitive advantage especially in an organisational context because it allows intelligent reasoning about emotions and at the same time uses emotions to help reason. In this way, “the emotion makes the thought more intelligent, and the intelligence allows to think and to use in a more accurate way the emotions” (Rego et al., 2007, p. 134).

It is easy to understand why there are authors who consider EI as a sub-dimension of SI. It should be noted that human beings are made up of many social needs and that the absence of realising these needs can lead to a restriction in the ability of humans to adapt to the social context. Individuals need social skills; however, they also need emotional skills so that their behaviour and adaptation to society is facilitated (Sternberg, 1997). Communication with other individuals and socialisation is facilitated by the use of emotions intelligently as they provide information about people’s intentions and conceptions (Lopes et al., 2004).

However, with the release of Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence, the concept gained wider scope and a new definition where terms relating to the individual’s personality were denoted. EI thus becomes the ability to recognise and manage our emotions and those of others, in order to make our thinking smarter (Goleman, 1999)—namely a subset related to the perception of humours and emotions, known as Theory of Mind (ToM) (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985). ToM is a “mechanism which underlies a crucial aspect of social skills, namely being able to conceive of mental states: that is, knowing that other people know, want, feel, or believe things” (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985, p. 38). Still following Goleman’s research, it can be said that concepts such as empathy, social dexterity, impulse control, persistence, self-awareness, self-motivation and enthusiasm are characteristic of EI (Goleman, 1998).

The use of EI in an organisational context generates results for the individual, for the group and even for the organisation. Individuals who develop their EI can express and perceive their own emotions as well as those of others by using them to perform in the best possible way and to promote the best behaviours in others as well as in oneself (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The success or failure of social relationships between individuals is due in large part to the use of EI. In addition, it is believed that it is not enough to have a good IQ (coefficient of intelligence) but especially a good use of EI and that it is responsible for the improvements identified in the leaders’ performance (Goleman, 1998). Leaders with emotional competencies tend to be more effective at achieving organisational goals and usually have more committed, more satisfied with work and professionally accomplished followers (Rego et al., 2015).

A relationship of dependence between IQ and EI was observed. There is a considerable variation in the individuals’ performance when IQ and EI are used together than when only IQ is applied. IQ is necessary, and even requires a minimum level for a difference in performance when applied to EI. However, the effects of EI use only occur in the presence of IQ (Rego et al., 2007).

Some results related to the groups were also identified. Groups where behaviours activated by EI are identified tend to have high performances, associated to the fact that they understand the emotions and humours of each individual belonging to the group. Individuals in an emotionally intelligent group are self-aware, seek feedback on their actions and when the functioning of the group is being breached there is a confrontation where brainstorming is allowed to exchange ideas (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).

Also for the organisational culture and for the organisation itself are improvements in results. A culture that is bathed by emotionally intelligent individuals has as characteristic to promote the identification of the members with the values of the organisation, that results in a greater commitment and motivation on the part of the same ones. In the same way, EI promotes organisational effectiveness and facilitates the balance of organisational culture, that is, the alignment between the interests of the organisation and those of each individual belonging to it (Ugoani, 2015).

It is important to explain the relationship between the triad—CQ, SI and EI. There are points of contact between this triad, however, it should be noted that they are different concepts. As mentioned earlier, SI is the ability of an individual to understand the others’ attitudes and behaviours as well as his/her own in order to create relationships with the people around them (Thorndike & Stein, 1937; Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1985). By its turn, EI is the ability to recognise and manage our emotions and those of others, in order to make our thinking smarter (Goleman, 1999). It is said that a combination of SI and EI generates more effective individuals; however, this only occurs in their own cultures. This is the main characteristic that differentiates these types of intelligence; an “alien” who only has social and emotional skills cannot be effective in a new culture. But if he/she also has CQ he/she can improve his/her skills in an environment full of transculturality. Both SI and EI are loaded with culture, for example, the ability to respond appropriately to other individuals, or the ability to generate empathy in the other through the emotions are culturally influenced (Brislin, Worthley, & Macnab, 2006).

Earley and Mosakowski (2004) found that CQ begins where EI ends. According to Witzel, Rohde, and Brushart (2005) a person with a high EI can be completely unable to understand, in different cultural contexts, different signs and movements. An emotionally intelligent individual understands each person as a different being with different behaviours and emotions. It promotes empathy among individuals and attempts to manage behaviours in order to achieve consensus among all, while a culturally intelligent individual manages to generate behaviours that all people identify with, even if they are not universal (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). However, it turns out that both types of intelligence share something, such as the “propensity to suspend judgment—to think before acting” (Goleman, 1998, p. 90).

In this way, CQ is considered a higher level of SI by allowing an individual to be socially effective, but in different cultural environments (Brislin et al., 2006), as well as an extension or enhancement of EI (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004).

One of the main difficulties individuals encounter when changing their country or even their organisation is to adapt to their culture. Organisations are spaces rich in diversity where there are not only different people as different departments and where we can find subcultures within the organisational culture. A new employee usually takes the early days trying to adapt to the new reality. Some take some time, however, others have a natural ability to understand gestures, attitudes and behaviours to which they are not accustomed. This capacity is called Cultural Intelligence (CQ) (Rego & Cunha, 2009).

CQ is a “multidimensional construct targeted at situations involving cross-cultural interactions arising from differences in race, ethnicity and nationality” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 336). In other words, “cultural intelligence (also known as “CQ”) refers to an individual capacity, allowing one to more effectively interact with a variety of cultural settings, thus representing an advancement that can help to better situate individuals for a variety of inter-cultural interactions” (MacNab & Worthley, 2012, p. 62). A culturally intelligent individual is able to easily adapt to a new cultural context, is able to understand interactions and behaviours typical of other cultures, has a capacity to adapt his own behaviours according to the context, effectively perceives gestures and intercultural behaviours as if they were the same who exist in their own culture and have the ability to act and behave as if they are all familiar (Brewster, Houldsworth, Sparrow, & Vernon, 2016). One of the main difficulties when a person faces a different culture is to perceive what is, and what is not acceptable to them. This difficulty is easily overcome by an individual who possesses CQ, as through the observation of the behaviours, reactions and attitudes of other people, this individual draws his elations and adapts to the context (Rego & Cunha, 2009).

Triandis’ suspension judgements (2006) and the acceptance of Brislin confusion (2006) are two fundamental characteristics of CQ that differentiate it from social and Emotional Intelligence. Suspension of judgements is related to an individual’s ability to delay making judgements about something or someone from another culture until they have the information they feel is sufficient to proceed with that judgement. Individuals are very different from each other, especially when the cultural context changes and as such, it is necessary to gain a great amount of information about them so that the judgement made does not end up being skewed. A culturally intelligent individual looks not only at the evidence provided by culture but also at the idiosyncrasies of each person that are as or more important than the culture in which he is inserted (Triandis, 2006). After analysing the individual characteristics of the people, it is also important to take into account the situation where the interaction took place, since it also provides important information to make a correct judgement (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).

Associated with the ability to not make immediate judgements, the culturally intelligent individual must also accept the confusion and the fact that there may be misunderstandings between people because they do not know everything. It is expected for this individual the existence of disagreements by the cultural differences existing between the people. So, the same opts to adopt the “zen” mode thus reducing the feelings of stress and mistrust in the interaction. The acceptance of confusion is thus defined as the “willingness to accept not knowing (…) that will then allow the sojourner to better evaluate the situation leading to eventual, and more accurate, understanding” (Brislin et al., 2006, p. 49).

It should be noted that although many of the competencies of CQ depend on the characteristics of each individual, it is always possible to improve them. It is enough that for this the person has the will to learn, is motivated and wants to adapt to the new context (Rego & Cunha, 2009). However, it involves an extra effort to train its head, body and heart (Earley & Ang, 2003), as well as learn to suspend jugdments and accept confusion in order to promote desired behaviours and eliminate those that generate conflicting situations (Paige & Martin, 1996). Positive attitudes, experience and practice in multicultural contexts are other characteristics that positively influence the learning of CQ (Brislin et al., 2006).

The three sources of CQ are the head (cognitive), the body (physical) and the heart (emotional/motivational). The cognitive dimension is the one that is usually most evident when a new employee joins the organisation or the new arrival of one person to another country. Individuals with high levels in the cognitive component can find the differences and similarities between different cultures (Brislin et al., 2006). Usually to these individuals are offered learning strategies in the form of habits, values, taboos and customs of the new culture that aim to sensitise them to the particularities of that culture (Rego & Cunha, 2009).

But this awareness does not guarantee that the individual acts as expected and therefore it is also necessary to promote the actions necessary to show that there is already an adaptation to the context. These actions can be expressed, for example, by acquiring the ways and habits of the people of that culture who, in turn, promote greater openness and confidence of the native people towards the foreigner. To these actions correspond the dimension of the physical body of CQ (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). High levels in this component allow the person to adapt and adopt expressions, gestures and words from another culture due to their huge repertoire of behaviours (Gudykunst, Matsumoto, Ting-Toomey, & Heyman, 1996).

Last but not least, the dimension of the heart. This dimension emphasises the fact that the individual has many obstacles in his/her way to adapt and he/she has two solutions: either he/she discourages and gives up in making more efforts to adapt because he/she does not find the results that he/she wants; or he/she uses these obstacles to increase his/her motivation and to overcome them more effectively increasing his/her confidence, becoming independent of the results that may arise (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). The heart directs the individual’s attention to his/her self-efficacy in a multicultural context (Bandura, 2001).

Recently, a new dimension has been added to the construct called cognition. Cognition, or metacognitive dimension, provides information about individuals’ knowledge about different cultures (Brewster et al., 2016), as well as the processes they use to obtain and understand this knowledge (Ang et al., 2007). This component allows the individual to know other cultures and adjust his/her behaviours before, during and after contact with other people (Brislin et al., 2006).

It should be noted that an individual does not have to have the three dimensions on the same level. There may be one that stands out but that compensates for the lower level of the other dimensions (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). It is concluded that individuals with high CQ, and consequently high values in their sources, are better able to communicate with other cultures, showing more efficacy and success in outbound trips, as well as a better capacity to deal with change (Brewster et al., 2016).

As explained above, the level assigned to each dimension does not have to be the same. As such, there are seven possible combinations depending on these levels, giving origin to the profiles of CQ. Among them are the provincial, the analyst, the natural, the ambassador, the mimic, the naive and the chameleon (Rego & Cunha, 2009). It should be noted that these types of profiles are used to characterise managers or leaders when they are in another culture and that only three dimensions are used to characterise the CQ profiles because the fourth one (cognition) is still recent in the literature, not existing in studies that prove its influence on the profiles.

It is understood as provincial the individuals who have low levels in the three dimensions. The provincial is very effective when the cultural picture belongs to him/her, but shows many gaps when he/she is in another culture because he/she is not able to understand and act appropriately with people of other cultures. In a different cultural framework, he/she cannot build trust in other people and ends up generating conflicts and mistrust in others.

The analyst, also known as the “cognitive animal” (Rego & Cunha, 2009), is the one who easily perceives that he/she is in another environment and that analyses the specific characteristics of this culture to then formulate learning strategies for newcomers. The analyst is more flexible allowing to change the strategy when he/she finds resistance to the existent one at a given time. In this way, instead of forcing individuals to fulfill a certain strategy to achieve the objectives, he/she adapts it to achieve the same objective differently (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Rego & Cunha, 2009).

Named natural or intuitive, this profile is known to have individual who depend on their intuition to define the strategies they will use through the capture of signals existing in the environment. However, there is an inherent problem to this profile. Intuitives tend to fail when there is a very ambiguous environment because they are not prepared to create new learning strategies to interact with the natives, leading to disorientation on the part of the individual with a natural profile.

Known for having political characteristics is the ambassador. This type of profile is the most frequent of all profiles and has as main characteristic the trust of the individual. Although being a profile in which the knowledge of the surroundings and the culture is not great, it excels to have a lot of confidence when adapting, which gives it evident characteristics of emotional and Cultural Intelligence. Most of the knowledge of these individuals comes from the observation of other cases that have succeeded in similar situations; however, despite their confidence, they also have the humility to know that they have a lot of ignorance about the characteristics of the new culture where it is inserted (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Rego & Cunha, 2009).

Named by mimic, and as the name implies, it is the one that tries to adopt a style of interaction and speech similar to that of the culture where it is inserted. Being able to behave in a similar way to the native people makes communication and trust easier. This profile is also characterised by the excessive control of their behaviours and actions and the rapid capture of the signals given by the environment, providing a natural adjustment to the individual of this profile.

Naive or “motivated animal” (Rego & Cunha, 2009) is the name of another type of profile characterised by an enormous desire to become a part of the new culture. However, it has difficulty in constantly making an effort to change its behaviour and to understand other cultures, which makes adjustment difficult.

And, last but not the least, the chameleon. If at the beginning of this section, the provincial was known with low levels in the three components of CQ, the chameleon is exactly the opposite. This type of profile is the rarest of all existing and usually defines individuals who characterise themselves as “citizens of the world” (Rego & Cunha, 2009). These individuals can easily be confused with a native of the culture by their ability to see both internally and externally, which gives them very good managerial qualities. They are known for achieving high results and for adapting their behaviours and attitudes according to the cultural framework in which they are (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Rego & Cunha, 2009).

According to the aforementioned study by Earley and Mosakowski (2004), a manager can have characteristics of several profiles at the same time, forming a hybrid. He also suggests that the most common hybrid is the one that combines the analyst and the ambassador.

In recent years, there has been an increase in researches related to CQ. In a study by Ang and his co-authors conducted in 2007, we sought to understand the relation between the four competences of CQ, namely metacognitive, cognitive, behavioural and emotional and cultural adaptation, cultural decision-making and judgement, and the performance of tasks in multicultural contexts. These three results correspond, respectively, to affective, cognitive and behavioural effectiveness. The relationship between the variables was empirically proven, and the influence of CQ (as a set of dimensions) on the different results was notorious. It was also possible to note that there are some practical implications “especially for selecting, training and developing a culturally intelligent workforce” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 365).

In more recent studies, it was also possible to observe the existence of a relationship between CQ and leadership. For Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Dyne, and Annen (2011), the effectiveness of a leadership that occurs across borders is improved with greater level of CQ of the leader. This high degree of CQ enables the leader to demonstrate greater performance when in multicultural teams than in uniform teams. Consequently, multicultural teams also demonstrate a higher performance than uniform teams (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). Similarly, when it comes to negotiations, it is also found that the performance of highly culturally minded and interest-oriented negotiators was superior to negotiators with low levels of CQ (Groves, Feyerherm, & Gu, 2014).

In 2017, new contributions brought, again, the four dimensions of CQ to the researches. In the article by Dogra and Dixit (2017), it was possible to find a positive and statistically strong relationship between the variables CQ and innovation. It was concluded that high levels of CQ generated better performing teams and had a strong potential to explain why there are individuals who learn and perform better in the international context than others. There is also another article that, in a way, confirms the results achieved by these authors. When CQ and an individual’s ability to adapt to multicultural contexts are highlighted, there is a strong and positive relationship between the variables. In this way, the “cross-cultural adaptability” (Jyoti & Kour, 2017, p. 308) of individuals was found to be considerably better when individuals were considered culturally intelligent (Jyoti & Kour, 2017).

The same authors continued their research and published another article of great relevance to this work. Among the obtained results, the influence of EI on CQ is highlighted because emotionally intelligent individuals can understand their own emotions as well as those of others, which contributes to also perceive them in another cultural context. There is also a positive relationship between Social and Cultural Intelligence as socially intelligent individuals have a very accurate sensitivity to difficult situations which makes them more effective in multicultural environments. Another result that the authors came up with was that “cross-cultural adaptability” (Jyoti & Sumeet, 2017, p. 781) actually mediates the relationship between CQ and worker performance, which strengthens previous research (Jyoti & Sumeet, 2017).